The trinity is a crazy doctrine. It is sometimes hard to grasp the concept that our God is three in one. Not one with three parts. Not three with a common theme. But three in one, at the same time.
Recently through a sermon by Tim Keller my eyes were opened to how this characteristic of God bears a heavy weight on how we live.
God created us in his own image. Our character should reflect God’s because at our very nature that is how we were created to be. In the sermon he highlights how because God is a triune God he has been in relationships since the beginning of time. At the same time being one with the other members of the trinity they are also interacting and glorifying each other. We are created to be like Them/Him so we are created to be in deep, meaningful, other centered relationships.
Tasks and Anxiety:
Open your eyes and look at the people around you. They are task driven. Now look at your self, you are task driven.
Think about anxiety. It seems anxiety is always surrounding an unfinished task list or the completion of something we need to do. But Christ has done it all. No task need be done anymore for us to gain anything. Christ has restored our nature as it was intended to be. Because we no longer have the need to complete a task to establish our significance we are freed to return to a life oriented around relationships, relationship with God and relationships with other people. Task still need to be completed but they don’t hold the weight that creates anxiety any longer and they should be performed in the context of relationships. We were not created that way, we are meant to be relationships people. Because that is our creator’s character.
Desire to be in community:
Think about people who are sad. Think about how they are alone. Cubical job, living alone or with a roommate that they don’t engage with. Think about how we are encouraged as we grow up to appear in control in school and in the workplace. Now think about what people feel. They feel a desire to know people and be known by people. Often times people with jobs and lives that don’t have them engaging with people look to find this is other places. Facebook. Fantasy football. Going to the same restaurant every Tuesday for wing night. Sure they love playing Farmville, sure football is fun to watch and follow closely, and of course 35 cents wings is something to come together around. But these things are empty. Football season breeds temporal and shallow friendships and spicy wings don’t satisfy your heart. The problem is in these space filling relationships the context does not encourage or allow us to be open and known more fully. We continue to try to appear in control, appear knowledgeable so people respect us, we try to cover who we really are. The context of the Gospel is you can and should be open. @JDGreear this past Sunday commented on how many tv shows (the brady bunch), many families, and many churches are full of people being fake. They are covering up who they really are because they think if people really knew them that they would not accept them. And that is probably true. But… the Gospel allows us to bear ourselves completely; ugly, mean people who are still loved and changed by our relationships.
The reason it hurts so much to feel alone. The reason it feels so right to be laughing while playing catchphrase in a group of close friends is because that is who we were created to be. These feelings are a glimpse into the world in which God created us to live. With sin in our lives, just like Adam and Eve we attempt to cover ourselves and not have people see our nakedness. But Christ has clothed us in his righteousness. He has taken this glimpse of happiness and fulfilled it. People, this longing you have to be known by others in community is your desire to live as you were created to live. The fear you have of fully doing this is your attempt to cover what you know is true, you are sinful. Christ has made it so we don’t have to cover who we are in front of others. Christ restores us to our created nature. In relationships, fully known, and fully loved. Only through him can community be fulfilling.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Friday, April 8, 2011
Some Rambling Thoughts on Luke 4
And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and said to him, "To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours." And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.'" Luke 4:5-8.
Some reflections that God gave me while meditating on this passage over the past few days:
I was thinking about the phrase "all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time." Glenn, feel free to jump in here, but to me this sounds like the "in a moment of time" phrase may refer to the future. I'm not sure Satan knows the future. Perhaps for the sake of argument, since he is a part of the spiritual realm (whole other topic), he can see somewhat into the future. Thus, perhaps what Satan is showing Christ here is the Roman empire, the Ottomans, the numerous Chinese dynasties, Indian dynasties, the Soviets, Napoleon, even modern America.
Christ came to earth so that His name would be renown among all people and all creation. Thus, from the initial appearance of Satan's offer, Christ would do this simply by taking Satan up on his offer. This raises some huge practical issues. What would it be like for Satan to have give Jesus glory and honor among all of these kingdoms of all time? What if all ruler's loved Jesus? What if Christianity was mandated by all governments and rulers? From one angle, it's a very tempting prospect. What then happens to the church? What happens then to the crucifixion? Would the Jews of the day still hate Christ and demand He be put to death?
If Christ had said yes, he may have succeeded in making his name known throughout history (of course we know He has still accomplished this) - BUT it would not have come through the regeneration and rebirth and repentence of souls. People would know and honor Christ but would they love Him?
You see, there is a reason that Satan is called the Great Deceiver. (Here's the point that God made real to me yesterday that got me pumped and inspired me to write this to you). Forget for a moment that you know that Christ is already the ruler and already has the authority and glory that Satan is trying to promise him. Satan tells Christ he is going to "give" Jesus "all this authority and their glory." But what's the cost? Worshipping Satan. Thus, to agree to this, is to become a puppet. Is Christ really in authority over these kingdoms and does he really receive their glory? How could he if Christ was worshipping Satan? Christ would then be acting as a funnel for glory to Satan. Then how long is it before people realize, "hey we're worshipping Christ, but He's worshipping Satan, so maybe we should just worship Satan instead."
Thus a less painful, seemingly easy short-cut ends up ultimately undercutting Christ and His ultimate purpose.
Now, of course, we all know this is wild, crazy speculation. After all, Christ didn't do this and wouldn't do this and thus it is a completely moot point. But I do think it has relevance for how Satan tempts us. We are tempted to take easier, less painful, short cuts because they may get us to the ends that we desire - ends that may be truly Biblical.
I remember once asking my mom when I was a kid, "If I could be a movie star, I could give lots of money away and push for good causes and tell people about Jesus. However, I might have to say cuss words in movies or kiss a woman who I wasn't married to, etc. But wouldn't God think that was okay since ultimately, I was doing good things for Him?" Though I don't remember her exact words, she said "No" and then explained why that wasn't really what God wanted us to do. That he would rather have us be poor and honor Him, than to dishonor him by getting rich.
Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:
"Take heed to yourselves, lest your example contradict your doctrine, and lest you lay such stumbling blocks before the blind, as may be the occasion of their ruin; lest you unsay with your lives, what you say with your tongues; and be the greatest hinderers of the success of your own labors." - Richard Baxter (English Puritan)
Take courage brothers. The road is long and narrow and difficult. God will challenge you and refine you and allow you to be tempted, but stay true to Him and His word in your ends and in the means you choose to seek those ends.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
The more I get saved, the more they get lost.
When I feel true joy, security, happiness, and community and then I encounter someone who does not have that. I want that for them. I want them to have Christ.
It's a perspective issue.
If our lives aren't different than non-Christians then we don't see the reason for them to follow Jesus. Because we don't feel its effect on us. At the same time, they don't see the difference either, and they in turn don't see the reason to follow.
Work out your faith and follow Christ.
It's a perspective issue.
If our lives aren't different than non-Christians then we don't see the reason for them to follow Jesus. Because we don't feel its effect on us. At the same time, they don't see the difference either, and they in turn don't see the reason to follow.
Work out your faith and follow Christ.
Driving Mrs. Karen
Another analogy to think about.
Remember when you were young and your parents let you sit in their lap and drive the car down the road. Who was driving the car / who was really in control / who was responsible for the car? What if this taught children that they were independent enough to drive a car on their own. It would be disastrous!
When we begin to think that we are in control, and our skills are the main source of our doing good works, breathing, making money, or sharing Christ; that is when we could "go get in the car and drive it ourselves". That is dangerous.
We are not driving. So make sure you pray and ask God to keep the car on the road in all things. Acknowledging that he is really in control makes driving so much safer.
Remember when you were young and your parents let you sit in their lap and drive the car down the road. Who was driving the car / who was really in control / who was responsible for the car? What if this taught children that they were independent enough to drive a car on their own. It would be disastrous!
When we begin to think that we are in control, and our skills are the main source of our doing good works, breathing, making money, or sharing Christ; that is when we could "go get in the car and drive it ourselves". That is dangerous.
We are not driving. So make sure you pray and ask God to keep the car on the road in all things. Acknowledging that he is really in control makes driving so much safer.
Friday, March 11, 2011
The Treasure Principle
Quotes and thoughts from "The Treasure Principle".
Like Christ
"Gaze upon Christ long enough and you'll become more of a giver. Give long enough, and you'll become more like Christ."
Good point.
Gain
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain with he cannot lose."
"Giving doesn't strip me of vested interests; rather, it shifts my vested interests from earth to heaven - from self to God."
What we do is for gain. One gain can be for ourselves. A better gain is when that gain is in God's Kingdom and for Him and not me.
Pursuit of gain is not sinful. The gain must be for God's Kingdom.
Owner and Money Manager.
It is all God's. When we use our/his money it should be used in light of it being his that he has granted to us to use for him.
Practical Principles for thought
Don't buy anything you won't loan. If you are going to be too protective of something so much that you won't let someone else use it this is a problem. Comes back to thinking that it is yours. Not that it is yours on loan from God.
Don't buy anything that you would be upset if someone you had given money to used that money for. Don't buy a bedroom suit that if you gave someone else some money and they bought that bedroom set you would be made for their extravagant use of the money.
Kristen was great when she pointed out to me that if we did this we would have forgotten that we are doing the exact same thing with God. He has given us money and we would be using it to make extravagant and unnecessary purchases. I really like this principle.
Like Christ
"Gaze upon Christ long enough and you'll become more of a giver. Give long enough, and you'll become more like Christ."
Good point.
Gain
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain with he cannot lose."
"Giving doesn't strip me of vested interests; rather, it shifts my vested interests from earth to heaven - from self to God."
What we do is for gain. One gain can be for ourselves. A better gain is when that gain is in God's Kingdom and for Him and not me.
Pursuit of gain is not sinful. The gain must be for God's Kingdom.
Owner and Money Manager.
It is all God's. When we use our/his money it should be used in light of it being his that he has granted to us to use for him.
Practical Principles for thought
Don't buy anything you won't loan. If you are going to be too protective of something so much that you won't let someone else use it this is a problem. Comes back to thinking that it is yours. Not that it is yours on loan from God.
Don't buy anything that you would be upset if someone you had given money to used that money for. Don't buy a bedroom suit that if you gave someone else some money and they bought that bedroom set you would be made for their extravagant use of the money.
Kristen was great when she pointed out to me that if we did this we would have forgotten that we are doing the exact same thing with God. He has given us money and we would be using it to make extravagant and unnecessary purchases. I really like this principle.
Solid
Danny Franks was sharing at our most recent men's group meeting about the pharisees and followers of Jesus. They both studied Jesus, followed him, asked him questions.
The difference was the pharisees were trying to take Jesus and put them in their mold of religion. They wanted to take what Jesus was saying and call it good or bad. If it fit their ideals and rules then they would except him. Of course it didn't fit. So they labored to oppose him. The disciples did the same things; studied, followed him, asked question. And the disciples even had some bad ideas about Jesus. They wanted him to be a military ruler, to conquer this world, and make them great.
The difference in the two is that the pharisees were trying understand Jesus and change him so they could put him in his appropriate place in their lives to make their lives better, put him in a box or throw him out of their box. The disciples wanted to be understood and changed by him.
This made me think about how much weight we currently place on people being "solid". I'm not saying that this is bad. Having strong, good, solid theology is not bad. It is good to understand and know God more. But that is not being a Christian. Rather than measuring a person's "Christian-ness" by their theology and understanding shouldn't we measure that by their willingness to follow Christ and be changed by him.
Being a Christian is not about how much correct knowledge you have it is about your posture before the Cross.
I am very guilty of this. When I read books, study scripture, go to church, listen to sermons, I am trying to learn so that I know and can be seen as one who understands. Rather than this, I should do these things with a heart desiring to be more like Jesus.
We should grow in knowledge of him, but let us support those who follow him and are changed by him, not just if they can quote piper.
(addendum; talked with a friend last night about this and he commented that when he says solid that he is referencing the person following Christ and not their theology. solid is not a bad word, I just hope we don't become pharisees in that we feel superior as Christians because of what we know. We all have some bad theology in there somewhere, Jesus asks that we follow and pursue him.)
The difference was the pharisees were trying to take Jesus and put them in their mold of religion. They wanted to take what Jesus was saying and call it good or bad. If it fit their ideals and rules then they would except him. Of course it didn't fit. So they labored to oppose him. The disciples did the same things; studied, followed him, asked question. And the disciples even had some bad ideas about Jesus. They wanted him to be a military ruler, to conquer this world, and make them great.
The difference in the two is that the pharisees were trying understand Jesus and change him so they could put him in his appropriate place in their lives to make their lives better, put him in a box or throw him out of their box. The disciples wanted to be understood and changed by him.
This made me think about how much weight we currently place on people being "solid". I'm not saying that this is bad. Having strong, good, solid theology is not bad. It is good to understand and know God more. But that is not being a Christian. Rather than measuring a person's "Christian-ness" by their theology and understanding shouldn't we measure that by their willingness to follow Christ and be changed by him.
Being a Christian is not about how much correct knowledge you have it is about your posture before the Cross.
I am very guilty of this. When I read books, study scripture, go to church, listen to sermons, I am trying to learn so that I know and can be seen as one who understands. Rather than this, I should do these things with a heart desiring to be more like Jesus.
We should grow in knowledge of him, but let us support those who follow him and are changed by him, not just if they can quote piper.
(addendum; talked with a friend last night about this and he commented that when he says solid that he is referencing the person following Christ and not their theology. solid is not a bad word, I just hope we don't become pharisees in that we feel superior as Christians because of what we know. We all have some bad theology in there somewhere, Jesus asks that we follow and pursue him.)
Thursday, March 10, 2011
The wall or the lifeguard?
Had this pt say to me yesterday.
About pool therapy.
She was very scared to be in the water.
"You and the wall were my savior."
Sweet right.
She was saying that the wall and I made it more comfortable for her to be in the water. She felt safe and secure with the wall and with me there.
But wrong.
I was her savior. The wall wouldn't move to go get her. If she got detached from the wall she would have no hope but her self. She would die (she can't swim)
But me. I would dive in and go to her and get her.
This is the difference in a savior that is really no savior at all. An idol that we think is our security and life line that really will abandon us if we loose it, or disappoint it.
But Jesus is not that kind of savior. Jesus came into our existence (the pool in the analogy) and can, will, and did pull us out.
Men, Jesus is your savior because he came to get you. wow.
About pool therapy.
She was very scared to be in the water.
"You and the wall were my savior."
Sweet right.
She was saying that the wall and I made it more comfortable for her to be in the water. She felt safe and secure with the wall and with me there.
But wrong.
I was her savior. The wall wouldn't move to go get her. If she got detached from the wall she would have no hope but her self. She would die (she can't swim)
But me. I would dive in and go to her and get her.
This is the difference in a savior that is really no savior at all. An idol that we think is our security and life line that really will abandon us if we loose it, or disappoint it.
But Jesus is not that kind of savior. Jesus came into our existence (the pool in the analogy) and can, will, and did pull us out.
Men, Jesus is your savior because he came to get you. wow.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Teaching Christ to our wives.
I have been thinking a lot lately about how we demonstrate Christ to our wives.
My thoughts came out of my own mistake last night. I don't think Kristen even saw it as a mistake but I was truly convicted. Probably partially because I have been called out by others throughout my life as being a person who gets ingrained and focused on work, my computer, tv, a book, or my phone. Kristen got home after me yesterday and I was working on the Carolina 365 video which I am very excited about. I was in the office, she came upstairs, changed clothes, went back down stairs and was ready to go the Thirdcamp and I never looked up. When I realized what I had done I got my stuff together ran downstairs and embraced her and kissed her and told her I loved her.
Was my original reaction the reaction that Christ will have when his bride returns home???
Let me put this in order of my current thoughts.
Ephesians 5:25 says we are to love our wives just as Christ loved the church and give himself up for her.
We very often use this verse to explain how our interactions with our spouces are to be teaching others about Christ and his love for us. But what we miss in that application to each other is that our interactions with our wives is also teaching OUR WIVES about Christ love for them.
In Luke 15:20 we see the parable of the lost son(s). When the son returns home we see the father run to his son and embrace him, give him a ring, a robe, some sandals, , kill the fatted calf and they celebrated. But yesterday I did not act this way towards Kristen.
Men, love your wives and Christ loves the church. I challenge you all, when your wife gets home/comes in a room; look up at her, look her in the face, kiss her, tell her the place she holds in your heart. I believe when we do this for them their love for us will grow out of a response of their loved heart.
We are not only teaching others about Christ by our interactions with our wives we are also teaching ourselves and our wives the gospel with our daily interactions.
Be more like Christ.
Take heart, he has overcome the world.
My thoughts came out of my own mistake last night. I don't think Kristen even saw it as a mistake but I was truly convicted. Probably partially because I have been called out by others throughout my life as being a person who gets ingrained and focused on work, my computer, tv, a book, or my phone. Kristen got home after me yesterday and I was working on the Carolina 365 video which I am very excited about. I was in the office, she came upstairs, changed clothes, went back down stairs and was ready to go the Thirdcamp and I never looked up. When I realized what I had done I got my stuff together ran downstairs and embraced her and kissed her and told her I loved her.
Was my original reaction the reaction that Christ will have when his bride returns home???
Let me put this in order of my current thoughts.
Ephesians 5:25 says we are to love our wives just as Christ loved the church and give himself up for her.
We very often use this verse to explain how our interactions with our spouces are to be teaching others about Christ and his love for us. But what we miss in that application to each other is that our interactions with our wives is also teaching OUR WIVES about Christ love for them.
In Luke 15:20 we see the parable of the lost son(s). When the son returns home we see the father run to his son and embrace him, give him a ring, a robe, some sandals, , kill the fatted calf and they celebrated. But yesterday I did not act this way towards Kristen.
Men, love your wives and Christ loves the church. I challenge you all, when your wife gets home/comes in a room; look up at her, look her in the face, kiss her, tell her the place she holds in your heart. I believe when we do this for them their love for us will grow out of a response of their loved heart.
We are not only teaching others about Christ by our interactions with our wives we are also teaching ourselves and our wives the gospel with our daily interactions.
Be more like Christ.
Take heart, he has overcome the world.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Cynicism and Jesus
A Praying Life: Part 2: Leaning to Trust Again.
The three chapters in Part two of A Praying Life were really good. He does a good job of explaining our cynical culture, where it comes from and how we leave cynicism (Jesus)
The cynic says everything is out of control, nothing will change.
“In our culture cynicism is a light hearted attempt to make since of life in a world gone mad” (81, Miller).
Our lives begins with a desire to be happy, to see good in the world. As children we see good in cookie monster, good in mailmen and police officers, and parents who love us and love each other. Without a worldview of God and a fallen world we develop what Miller calls “naïve optimism”. We think the world is good because people make it good. We have faith in ourselves.
As we all believe (because of our worldview) people will always disappoint. People cannot fill the void left by the original desire to find joy and goodness in the world. This is what leads to cynicism, we discover that other people are not as great as we thought and that the world is a lot meaner than we expected. Again, the cynic says everything is out of control, nothing will change. Joy and goodness are not the mantras of this world, sadness and evil are. When we are hit with this inevitable realization and disappointment we are cynical towards other people and have faith in ourselves.
This position in life creates a dual self. Public self, and private self. Deep down we realize that we do wrong as well and that we are a part of the problem but we are unwilling to admit that. We put our perfect public self forward to fake out everyone we encounter to thinking that we have this life under control. We are trying to hold on to naïve optimism and show everyone that we are the hope for the world because we are perfect. In our time of denial we are putting faith in ourselves.
This essentially places us living a separated private life without any real community and without anyone knowing who we truly are. This is a painful world to be in. We live in pretend land where our lives are falsely full of joy and goodness while we are missing reality that this world (as it is fallen) is without hope and is full of evil and sadness. Empty, alone, apart from reality, all because we want joy and goodness in this world, that itself is not good. So, how is that going for you? Putting faith in your self.
The media does this. Notice how the news always reports stories and “this shouldn’t have happened in this world”. I can’t believe that this happened in this world where joy and goodness is supposed to be king.
I do this. I live a public and private life so that people don’t see who I really am with a dark heart. I want to be the hope for the world so I show my perfect public self and refuse to live in reality with my community. I hate putting faith in myself, it is not joy, it is not good.
The problem with finding joy and goodness in this world is we refuse to admit that we are what makes it sad and evil. The problem is not admitting that this world is sad and evit the problem is we don’t want to admit we are the problem. We don’t want to claim this.. The first step is to claim our wrongs and admit that we need someone to pull us out of this sad world, to pull us out of cynicism, we need someone to be perfect for us. We need someone to be able to put hope in, we need realistic optimism. We don’t find this by putting faith in ourselves.
Put your faith in Christ. The one who was perfect. Jesus is the hope of the world. He is supposed to be king. What Jesus teaches is that this world is fallen but he has come to restore it.
Be encouraged, there is hope.
John 16: 22 So with you: now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy.
John 16: 27…the Father himself loves you because you have love me and have believed that I came from God.
John 16: 33 I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world!!!!! (exclamation marks added)
The three chapters in Part two of A Praying Life were really good. He does a good job of explaining our cynical culture, where it comes from and how we leave cynicism (Jesus)
The cynic says everything is out of control, nothing will change.
“In our culture cynicism is a light hearted attempt to make since of life in a world gone mad” (81, Miller).
Our lives begins with a desire to be happy, to see good in the world. As children we see good in cookie monster, good in mailmen and police officers, and parents who love us and love each other. Without a worldview of God and a fallen world we develop what Miller calls “naïve optimism”. We think the world is good because people make it good. We have faith in ourselves.
As we all believe (because of our worldview) people will always disappoint. People cannot fill the void left by the original desire to find joy and goodness in the world. This is what leads to cynicism, we discover that other people are not as great as we thought and that the world is a lot meaner than we expected. Again, the cynic says everything is out of control, nothing will change. Joy and goodness are not the mantras of this world, sadness and evil are. When we are hit with this inevitable realization and disappointment we are cynical towards other people and have faith in ourselves.
This position in life creates a dual self. Public self, and private self. Deep down we realize that we do wrong as well and that we are a part of the problem but we are unwilling to admit that. We put our perfect public self forward to fake out everyone we encounter to thinking that we have this life under control. We are trying to hold on to naïve optimism and show everyone that we are the hope for the world because we are perfect. In our time of denial we are putting faith in ourselves.
This essentially places us living a separated private life without any real community and without anyone knowing who we truly are. This is a painful world to be in. We live in pretend land where our lives are falsely full of joy and goodness while we are missing reality that this world (as it is fallen) is without hope and is full of evil and sadness. Empty, alone, apart from reality, all because we want joy and goodness in this world, that itself is not good. So, how is that going for you? Putting faith in your self.
The media does this. Notice how the news always reports stories and “this shouldn’t have happened in this world”. I can’t believe that this happened in this world where joy and goodness is supposed to be king.
I do this. I live a public and private life so that people don’t see who I really am with a dark heart. I want to be the hope for the world so I show my perfect public self and refuse to live in reality with my community. I hate putting faith in myself, it is not joy, it is not good.
The problem with finding joy and goodness in this world is we refuse to admit that we are what makes it sad and evil. The problem is not admitting that this world is sad and evit the problem is we don’t want to admit we are the problem. We don’t want to claim this.. The first step is to claim our wrongs and admit that we need someone to pull us out of this sad world, to pull us out of cynicism, we need someone to be perfect for us. We need someone to be able to put hope in, we need realistic optimism. We don’t find this by putting faith in ourselves.
Put your faith in Christ. The one who was perfect. Jesus is the hope of the world. He is supposed to be king. What Jesus teaches is that this world is fallen but he has come to restore it.
Be encouraged, there is hope.
John 16: 22 So with you: now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy.
John 16: 27…the Father himself loves you because you have love me and have believed that I came from God.
John 16: 33 I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world!!!!! (exclamation marks added)
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Better Prayer through the Gospel
Just re-read A Praying Life by Paul Miller
This is what I have come away with. When we pray we should pray as children of God. He is our father who desires to answer our request. We should ask with confidence that he will listen. We pray this way by realizing that without God we can do nothing. We believe this in theology and theory but we do not LIVE this way.
examples. 1. We don't pray for our daily bread. Because we don't have to worry about what we will eat tomorrow we don't have to pray for it. We have it under control so we do not needs God's assist with it. (at least this is how we live, we may answer the question differently). 2. In the same way with family or with work or with any problem we encounter, if we know the solution to the problem then we do not have to pray about it. If we know the solution, then all we have to do is that, the solution. We don't need God's help, the requirement for success is evident. Ironically our solution often makes it more complex.
It seems our theology that we need God for everything and our prayer lives are in a disconnect, (mine is) I depend on myself for so many things, work, finances, relationships, change, growth. Prayer bends our hearts towards our father and confesses regularly that we can do nothing without him.
This "childlike" type prayer really creates in us a "learned helplessness". We must remind our selves through our need for prayer that we need Christ for everything. This is what I gained from the book the second (okay first and a half) time through. Prayer is demonstrating the Gospel to ourselves over and over. Prayer succeeds not through our being good at it, it succeeds as we realize we need God and we lean on him for help.
"Jesus isn't just the savior of my soul. He's also the savior of my prayers. Asking in Jesus' name isn't another thing i have to get right so my prayers are perfect. It is one more gift of God because my prayers are so imperfect."
Anyone catching a theme with this whole Jesus thing? We are weak, Jesus is strong. When we understand we are weak, Jesus makes us strong. Repeat.
See the beauty in there? That is what Jesus did. He made him self weak first so that we can follow him and he can raise us both up with him (cue turney quoting Philippians 2)
The only reason that is possible, the gospel is possible and prayer is possible is because Jesus is infinite enough as God to receive our prayers and to change us and also personal enough to care about us.
Praise God for difficult circumstances and suffering because they make us aware of our weaknesses, or dependency on God and drive us to him through prayer.
Cling to the Gospel. It will drive us to prayer.
This is what I have come away with. When we pray we should pray as children of God. He is our father who desires to answer our request. We should ask with confidence that he will listen. We pray this way by realizing that without God we can do nothing. We believe this in theology and theory but we do not LIVE this way.
examples. 1. We don't pray for our daily bread. Because we don't have to worry about what we will eat tomorrow we don't have to pray for it. We have it under control so we do not needs God's assist with it. (at least this is how we live, we may answer the question differently). 2. In the same way with family or with work or with any problem we encounter, if we know the solution to the problem then we do not have to pray about it. If we know the solution, then all we have to do is that, the solution. We don't need God's help, the requirement for success is evident. Ironically our solution often makes it more complex.
It seems our theology that we need God for everything and our prayer lives are in a disconnect, (mine is) I depend on myself for so many things, work, finances, relationships, change, growth. Prayer bends our hearts towards our father and confesses regularly that we can do nothing without him.
This "childlike" type prayer really creates in us a "learned helplessness". We must remind our selves through our need for prayer that we need Christ for everything. This is what I gained from the book the second (okay first and a half) time through. Prayer is demonstrating the Gospel to ourselves over and over. Prayer succeeds not through our being good at it, it succeeds as we realize we need God and we lean on him for help.
"Jesus isn't just the savior of my soul. He's also the savior of my prayers. Asking in Jesus' name isn't another thing i have to get right so my prayers are perfect. It is one more gift of God because my prayers are so imperfect."
Anyone catching a theme with this whole Jesus thing? We are weak, Jesus is strong. When we understand we are weak, Jesus makes us strong. Repeat.
See the beauty in there? That is what Jesus did. He made him self weak first so that we can follow him and he can raise us both up with him (cue turney quoting Philippians 2)
The only reason that is possible, the gospel is possible and prayer is possible is because Jesus is infinite enough as God to receive our prayers and to change us and also personal enough to care about us.
Praise God for difficult circumstances and suffering because they make us aware of our weaknesses, or dependency on God and drive us to him through prayer.
Cling to the Gospel. It will drive us to prayer.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Pray submitting to God's Will
So after my question about "may your will be done" the next chapter speaks to this idea of submitting to God's Will.
"To pray effectually you must pray in submission to the will of God... Do no confuse submission in prayer with a general confidence that God will do what is right. It is proper to have this confidence that God will do right in all things. But this is a different thing from submission. What i mean by submission in prayer is acquiescence in the revealed will of God. To submit to any command of God is to obey it. Submission to some supposed or possible, but secret, decree of God is not submission...."
Paraphrased: The fervency and importunity of our prayers make a difference. We always end our prayers by submitting to God's will while sometimes we do not pray earnestly for what we desire, but simply turn it all over for God to take care of while we try to be satisfied with the results.
Having confidence in God's willingness to do what is right is good.
Submitting (and obeying) God through what actually happens is also good.
I guess we have to pray with confidence but understand that sometimes we don't understand how God's will reconciles with what we don't desire.
Best example is praying for healing. Please God heal this person. It would be good, you have the power, they love you and will do good for you. That is not against God's will. But it may not be in God's will. We don't know the specifics of the situation.
Tough.
"To pray effectually you must pray in submission to the will of God... Do no confuse submission in prayer with a general confidence that God will do what is right. It is proper to have this confidence that God will do right in all things. But this is a different thing from submission. What i mean by submission in prayer is acquiescence in the revealed will of God. To submit to any command of God is to obey it. Submission to some supposed or possible, but secret, decree of God is not submission...."
Paraphrased: The fervency and importunity of our prayers make a difference. We always end our prayers by submitting to God's will while sometimes we do not pray earnestly for what we desire, but simply turn it all over for God to take care of while we try to be satisfied with the results.
Having confidence in God's willingness to do what is right is good.
Submitting (and obeying) God through what actually happens is also good.
I guess we have to pray with confidence but understand that sometimes we don't understand how God's will reconciles with what we don't desire.
Best example is praying for healing. Please God heal this person. It would be good, you have the power, they love you and will do good for you. That is not against God's will. But it may not be in God's will. We don't know the specifics of the situation.
Tough.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Pray for the Will of God
My summary:
The will of God is expressed to us in three ways.
1. Scripture
2. God's providence through a revelation to those with the gift of spiritual discernment
3. The Holy Spirit
We need to base our prayers through scripture. What we know God's will is through what he tells us in the word. We need to shape our prayers around that. Sometimes it is weird for me to tag on at the end "if it is your will". Should we know more what his will is in order to more confidently ask for what we know he wants to happen?
"Where there is no particular revelation, and Providence leaves it dark, and we know not what to pray for as we ought, we are expressly told that "the spirit helps us in our weakness," and "the Spirit himself intercedes for us and groans that words cannot express" (Romans 8:26). It is just as plain here as if it were revealed by a voice from heaven that the Spirit of God helps the people of God to pray according to the will of God when they themseles know not what they ought to pray for... ...When neither the Word nor Providence enables them to decide, let them be "filled with the Spirit," as God commands them to be. He says, "Be filled with the Spirit" (Ephesians 5:18). And He will lead their minds to those things God is willing to grant."
I don't know how this last part works. Any help?
The will of God is expressed to us in three ways.
1. Scripture
2. God's providence through a revelation to those with the gift of spiritual discernment
3. The Holy Spirit
We need to base our prayers through scripture. What we know God's will is through what he tells us in the word. We need to shape our prayers around that. Sometimes it is weird for me to tag on at the end "if it is your will". Should we know more what his will is in order to more confidently ask for what we know he wants to happen?
"Where there is no particular revelation, and Providence leaves it dark, and we know not what to pray for as we ought, we are expressly told that "the spirit helps us in our weakness," and "the Spirit himself intercedes for us and groans that words cannot express" (Romans 8:26). It is just as plain here as if it were revealed by a voice from heaven that the Spirit of God helps the people of God to pray according to the will of God when they themseles know not what they ought to pray for... ...When neither the Word nor Providence enables them to decide, let them be "filled with the Spirit," as God commands them to be. He says, "Be filled with the Spirit" (Ephesians 5:18). And He will lead their minds to those things God is willing to grant."
I don't know how this last part works. Any help?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Pray for something definite
Many people go away into a room alone to pray, simply because "they must say their prayers." The time has come for their daily habit of going off by themselves for prayer - whether in the morning or at noon or whatever time of day it may be. But instead of having anything particular to say, any definite object before their mind, they fall down on their knees and pray for whatever floats thought their imagination at the time, and when they are done they can hardly tell you a word of what they have said. This is not effectual prayer. What would we think of someone who would try to move a legislature, saying, "now it is winter, and the legislature is in session, and it is time to send up petitions," and would go up to the legislature and petition at random without any definite objective? Do you think such petitions would move the legislature?
Monday, March 15, 2010
Truth and Prayer
Truth, by itself will never produce the effect without the Spirit of God, and the Spirit is given in answer to prayer. Sometimes it happens that those who are the most engaged in employing truth are not the most engaged in prayer. This is always unfortunate. For unless they have a spirit of prayer (or unless someone else has), the truth, by itself, will do nothing but harden men in impenitence. Probably in the Day of Judgment it will be found that nothing is ever done by the truth, used ever so zealously, unless there is a spirit of prayer somewhere in connection with the presentation of the truth.
Others err in the reverse direction.l Not that they lay too much stress on prayer, but they overlook the fact that prayer might be offered forever, by itself, and nothing would be done. Sinners are not converted only by the direct contact of the Holy Spirit, but by the truth employed as a means. To expect the conversion of sinners by prayer alone, without the employment of truth, is to tempt God.
May our mission to grow our prayers be equally met with the desire and willingness to share truth.
Thoughts?
Others err in the reverse direction.l Not that they lay too much stress on prayer, but they overlook the fact that prayer might be offered forever, by itself, and nothing would be done. Sinners are not converted only by the direct contact of the Holy Spirit, but by the truth employed as a means. To expect the conversion of sinners by prayer alone, without the employment of truth, is to tempt God.
May our mission to grow our prayers be equally met with the desire and willingness to share truth.
Thoughts?
Monday, February 15, 2010
The Cross as a Jewel
So I brought this up a few weeks ago without much time for discussion. However, what follows is my thoughts on why the jewel analogy of the gospel should supplant the pizza analogy in the third camp catechism.
Thus sayeth the Driscoll:
"...the cross is a multi-faceted jewel. Throughout church history much ink has been spilled as various theologians and Christian traditions have debated the effects of Jesus' death...we are essentially arguing for all of the perspectives that are nourished by biblical roots in
an effort to teach the totality of what Scripture says without obscuring any faithful view of the cross. One theologian has called the cross the great jewel of the Christian faith, and like every great jewel it has many precious facets that are each worthy of examining for their brilliance and beauty. Therefore, you will be well served to see each side of this jewel shining together for the glory of God in complimentary and not contradictory fashion. Most poor teaching about the cross results from someone's denying one of these facets, ignoring one of these facets, or overemphasizing one of these facets...Such narrow and reactionary theology has tragically caused the beauty of the cross to become obscured by the various warring teams that have risen up to argue for their systematic theology rather than bowing down in humble worship of the crucified Jesus."
an effort to teach the totality of what Scripture says without obscuring any faithful view of the cross. One theologian has called the cross the great jewel of the Christian faith, and like every great jewel it has many precious facets that are each worthy of examining for their brilliance and beauty. Therefore, you will be well served to see each side of this jewel shining together for the glory of God in complimentary and not contradictory fashion. Most poor teaching about the cross results from someone's denying one of these facets, ignoring one of these facets, or overemphasizing one of these facets...Such narrow and reactionary theology has tragically caused the beauty of the cross to become obscured by the various warring teams that have risen up to argue for their systematic theology rather than bowing down in humble worship of the crucified Jesus."~Mark Driscoll, Death by Love, pg. 10.
I think this explanation of the gospel/cross is a more accurate and useful analogy for how we should view the gospel in light of evangelism. Here are two specific points as to why.
1. The nature of the gospel. The pizza analogy suggests a disjointed or changing nature of the gospel. A Turney deep dish meat lovers pizza is a fundamentally different thing than a thin crust veggie lovers pizza. Further, various toppings that people put on pizza would definitely conflict if combined onto a single pie - black olive, bbq sauce and anchovies?? Gross! In contrast, the jewel analogy maintains that all aspects or facets of the gospel are ever present, of equal importance, and of complimentary use to one another.
2. Perspective v. Preference. The pizza analogy is essentially a conversation about preference, which is essentially a man-driven discussion. It runs the danger of overlooking or downplaying other "toppings" and it has subtle similarity to the concept of buffet theology. On the other hand, the jewel analogy is essentially a conversation about perspective. My life circumstances and the resulting opinions will render me in a distinct position in relation to the jewel. Thus, when I first perceive the jewel, I will perceive its beauty through a specific facet. As I grow in Christ, I grow to understand and appreciate other facets due a) increasing knowledge of the word, b) life's inevitable changes that change my position in relation to the jewel and thus how the gospel comforts, sustains and sanctifies me, and c) through the experiences of other believers whose experiences of the jewel also serve to teach me.
What are your thoughts.
What are your thoughts.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Amin Maalouf - In the Name of Identity
I just read a book by Amin Maalouf called "In the Name of Identity: Violence and the Need to Belong." Maalouf says that identity is constructed via a series of allegiances or associations with others, forming groups. (e.g. American, white, male, Southern Baptist, UNC Alumnae, Durham Residents, etc.) Often, society demands that you reduce your identity to a single allegiance, e.g. race, nationality, religion, etc. This depends on the historical context, but when that identity relationship that you have is persecuted, you tend to either resist violently, or to hide that aspect of your identity and do harm to yourself. Think Muslim terrorists and homosexuals in America, respectively. As a result, the compartmentalized notions of identity can be shown to have influence in everything from Apartheid to genocide, with all of its ugliness.
I have been pondering this, wondering what it means for our primary identities to be found in Christ. Does this truth reject Maalouf's claim, in that we are all one in Christ Jesus? Or is our oneness a unity that accepts diversity, such that, though there is no male and female, Jew and Greek, slave and free (Gal. 3:8), the Jew is embraced in his Jewness and the female in her femininity? What would that look like played out in the way that we understand the Church and the world? Do we allow for diversity within the Church, or are we conforming to a cookie-cutter model of Church, which could arguably result in either violent resistance or sublimation and hiding of identity such that true unity is prevented and undermined?
It has definitely been food for thought.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Upon Further Review. . .
I finished reading Jesus for President a couple weeks ago, but I've been meaning to write my final opinion on the book. I put down the book with mixed feelings - on one hand I really felt inspired and affirmed in some of the things that I believe, but on the other I felt guilty about not being "set apart" enough and buying into what America is selling me. I wanted to take time to really consider this conviction because Claiborne's ideas about the life of a follower of Christ are really radical to the average American Christian, and I didn't want to dismiss these ideas simply because they are new and scary and pretty much mean I'm currently a total failure. Upon further review, however, I feel pretty secure in saying that, while the ideas and lifestyles presented in Jesus for President are virtuous and make sense in light of our calling to be "not of the world", they are not for everyone and I am not living in sin if I don't ride a bike everywhere, grow my own food, and live with twenty other people.
There are a lot of good points made in the book that have helped to really consider the ramifications of my actions. What are my actions saying when I buy cheap stuff made by foreign workers that live and work in awful conditions so I can save a couple cents? How can I support war and the military when we are called to be peacemakers and supposed to be loving our neighbors? If I believe that God created the world and called us to be stewards of it, why don't I care more about sustaining it and making more eco-conscious decisions? It's these little aspects of my life that I was really challenged about, and makes me reconsider my motivations behind the decisions that I make.
One of the things I didn't really care for was the over-emphasis on the soft, hippie, lovey-dovey portrayal of Jesus. I feel like much of the recent Christian movement, led by guys like Piper and Driscoll, has been about portraying Christ as a powerful and sovereign dude that is not to be messed with. This re-emasculation of Jesus has been, in my opinion, long-overdue and a more accurate description of the nature of Christ, and so it was a little weird for them to dwell on the softer portrayal - it seemed a little out of touch, or something like that. Claiborne took a very passive and monastic approach to dealing with people and culture. As I said I think it works for some and in some situations but not for all.
I think that's all I'm going to write for now. I would definitely recommend that everyone read it and consider it. I think it leads to really good and creative discussion about what our lives should look like.
I haven't been very tenacious about reading recently, but I did recently purchase a collection of short stories by Flannery O'Connor called " A Good Man is Hard to Find" and I've been slowly working my way through that. If you've never read anything by her, you owe it to yourself to. Especially the story that the collection is named after, it is amazing.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Power of Acquaintance
So remember those connectors I was talking about? Those people who do an amazing job of networking with tons of people. The trick is not that these people have some special gift to have 1,000 best friends that they know and love. Connectors remember names and characteristics about people. They really do care for and want to know these people, but they don’t know them like best friends. It is impossible to know so many people as best friends
The interesting point made in the book was that it is these “acquaintances” and not good friends that give you power. It is having a large network of acquaintances in good standing that will get you a job. He even presented research to prove his point. In surveys it was amazing to me to see how most people get their job, not through submitting a resume cold, but through a personal contact. Even on top of that the percentages showed in astounding fashion that those personal contacts usually did not come from good friends but from acquaintances. This makes some statistical sense. You have many many more acquaintances that would consider mentioning your name during an interview and hiring process and only a few “good friends”. However that doesn’t change the fact that having many acquaintances can be beneficial.
Malcolm says that the close you are to the connector, the more acquaintances you have, and so the more power you have to do things and make things happen.
Food for thought.
The interesting point made in the book was that it is these “acquaintances” and not good friends that give you power. It is having a large network of acquaintances in good standing that will get you a job. He even presented research to prove his point. In surveys it was amazing to me to see how most people get their job, not through submitting a resume cold, but through a personal contact. Even on top of that the percentages showed in astounding fashion that those personal contacts usually did not come from good friends but from acquaintances. This makes some statistical sense. You have many many more acquaintances that would consider mentioning your name during an interview and hiring process and only a few “good friends”. However that doesn’t change the fact that having many acquaintances can be beneficial.
Malcolm says that the close you are to the connector, the more acquaintances you have, and so the more power you have to do things and make things happen.
Food for thought.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
The Tipping Point
So my most recent book read was The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. It says #1 National Bestseller so it must be good. I picked up this book because it seemed to have a Discourse and Jargon feel to it. It is a theory about how little things can make a big difference. The theory discusses how trends, fashions, ideas, disease, and behavior usually gradually change wax and wane but in certain situations they reach a tipping point where the trend or idea becomes an epidemic and swings into exponential change. See the D and J? A theory that applies to many different areas of life… candy bars, and people.
The basic layout of the book is his discussion and proof of the inner workings of the 3 things that play a role in causing an epidemic. The Law of the Few, The Stickiness Factor, and The Power of Context.
The Law of the Few points out 3 categories on individuals that can be instrumental in creating an epidemic.
1. The Connector is a person that has a large network of people at his disposal. These people are fascinatingly proficient at developing acquaintances and so know many people. They also have the gift of connecting these people together. This person often is someone who has his feet in many circles and so can create a network that includes more than one “circle” of people. At a university this person may be in many different organizations, in the “real world” this person may have had a few different careers or multiple careers at one time. It is this person that allows word of mouth communication to explode. Malcolm’s theory is that word of mouth epidemics don’t occur from you telling 4 people and each of those 4 people telling 4 more themselves. This does develop growth, and rapid growth at that but he points out that if you tell 4 people that those 4 people will have more difficulty finding others to share the new information with. Especially at the next level the number of people in your “circle” that don’t have the information is declining and the information must make the leap from one “circle” to the next. A connector, with his characteristic involvement in many circles allows this explosion of information travel by involving many of his circles at one time. In order to create an epidemic you might need a connector or something that serves as one.
2. The Maven is another person that is needed to create an epidemic according to the author. “The word Maven comes from the Yiddish, and it means one who accumulates knowledge”. This is the second of the individuals Malcolm mentions. I think it should be the first. It is less exciting but maybe more instrumental in the beginning stages of a word of mouth epidemic. A Maven is a wealth of knowledge and an amazing teacher. A Maven is an information specialists ready and willing to share his knowledge with anyone who will listen. An epidemic needs this person to weed out the bad new products. An epidemic needs this person to qualify if the product is indeed what it is being hyped up to be. This is the person who knows movies, sees movies early, and wants to help you avoid wasting your money on a bad one. He also will eagerly take you to the best theater and help you find the best seat in that theater (because he knows this much about theaters) to watch the movie because he is that passionate about it. He also is usually correct. This person is essential to ensuring that only good information, good products, and good trends make it into word of mouth information that is going to be shared by connectors. Without mavens connectors and the rest of us would go around yelling wildly about anything and everything we heard. With mavens we are able to appropriately sift through and find the products and ideas that are worth their weight/wait.
3. The Salesman is the last of these crucial individuals that are mentioned. These are the people that can convince you that they have found something even better than sliced bread when all they have to show you is sliced bread. I don’t know if that makes since. This is the most main stream of the individuals to explain. You know those people who make everything sound like the best thing ever!!! They are often outspoken, friendly, personable, and sometimes lawyers.
The second section of the book lost a little steam for me. I was loving all this stuff about people and the characteristics and what made them essential to creating epidemics with information. The Stickiness Factor pretty much means the product actually has to be good. If a Maven tells you its good and you rightly believe him, and Connector tells all his friends, and an amazing Salesman convinces you to visit a restaurant and you go. The food and service still has to be good in order to secure your second visit. Your personal experience with a trend, product, or any information makes the final call. If the Law of the Few fall into line and the product doesn’t “stick” the tipping point will not be reached. Here he spends a looong time discussing the process by which Sesame Street and Blues Clues developed their programs in a way that would “stick”. The children would pay attention, the children would learn, and their parents would let them watch.
The final law of epidemics as described by Malcolm Gladwell is the Power of Context. The environment has to be right to reach a tipping point. The people have to be ready for a green restaurant in order for a green restaurant to work. The spread of STDs in northern urban areas in slower and more controlled during the winter because people don’t go out. The interesting issue here is that the author takes this another step. He suggest that action is a result of environment more that of personal character. Not sure I am completely in agreement with that but he does make a good point that environmental context does change how messages are shared and what effect they have.
The second half of the Power of Context discusses how the power of groups of people can be used to encourage the spread of an idea. In groups people are more passionate, they are able to make good decisions and then develop many positive conversations about the topic which turns them into focused and determined people. Look at third camp. In a small group of people ideas are taken form one person to a trusting group and very quickly turned into a passionate idea that those group members use in their lives and share with others. Taking a message, idea, or trend to the next level sometimes involves taking that idea to small groups of people and allowing the idea to percolate and emerge stronger than ever.
That is a short concise summary of the book. The fascinating things of the book came from the additional research, stories, and theories he used to highlight each of these main points and therefore his tipping point theory overall. That is what kept me reading. Hopefully that makes you interested in future posts as well.
The basic layout of the book is his discussion and proof of the inner workings of the 3 things that play a role in causing an epidemic. The Law of the Few, The Stickiness Factor, and The Power of Context.
The Law of the Few points out 3 categories on individuals that can be instrumental in creating an epidemic.
1. The Connector is a person that has a large network of people at his disposal. These people are fascinatingly proficient at developing acquaintances and so know many people. They also have the gift of connecting these people together. This person often is someone who has his feet in many circles and so can create a network that includes more than one “circle” of people. At a university this person may be in many different organizations, in the “real world” this person may have had a few different careers or multiple careers at one time. It is this person that allows word of mouth communication to explode. Malcolm’s theory is that word of mouth epidemics don’t occur from you telling 4 people and each of those 4 people telling 4 more themselves. This does develop growth, and rapid growth at that but he points out that if you tell 4 people that those 4 people will have more difficulty finding others to share the new information with. Especially at the next level the number of people in your “circle” that don’t have the information is declining and the information must make the leap from one “circle” to the next. A connector, with his characteristic involvement in many circles allows this explosion of information travel by involving many of his circles at one time. In order to create an epidemic you might need a connector or something that serves as one.
2. The Maven is another person that is needed to create an epidemic according to the author. “The word Maven comes from the Yiddish, and it means one who accumulates knowledge”. This is the second of the individuals Malcolm mentions. I think it should be the first. It is less exciting but maybe more instrumental in the beginning stages of a word of mouth epidemic. A Maven is a wealth of knowledge and an amazing teacher. A Maven is an information specialists ready and willing to share his knowledge with anyone who will listen. An epidemic needs this person to weed out the bad new products. An epidemic needs this person to qualify if the product is indeed what it is being hyped up to be. This is the person who knows movies, sees movies early, and wants to help you avoid wasting your money on a bad one. He also will eagerly take you to the best theater and help you find the best seat in that theater (because he knows this much about theaters) to watch the movie because he is that passionate about it. He also is usually correct. This person is essential to ensuring that only good information, good products, and good trends make it into word of mouth information that is going to be shared by connectors. Without mavens connectors and the rest of us would go around yelling wildly about anything and everything we heard. With mavens we are able to appropriately sift through and find the products and ideas that are worth their weight/wait.
3. The Salesman is the last of these crucial individuals that are mentioned. These are the people that can convince you that they have found something even better than sliced bread when all they have to show you is sliced bread. I don’t know if that makes since. This is the most main stream of the individuals to explain. You know those people who make everything sound like the best thing ever!!! They are often outspoken, friendly, personable, and sometimes lawyers.
The second section of the book lost a little steam for me. I was loving all this stuff about people and the characteristics and what made them essential to creating epidemics with information. The Stickiness Factor pretty much means the product actually has to be good. If a Maven tells you its good and you rightly believe him, and Connector tells all his friends, and an amazing Salesman convinces you to visit a restaurant and you go. The food and service still has to be good in order to secure your second visit. Your personal experience with a trend, product, or any information makes the final call. If the Law of the Few fall into line and the product doesn’t “stick” the tipping point will not be reached. Here he spends a looong time discussing the process by which Sesame Street and Blues Clues developed their programs in a way that would “stick”. The children would pay attention, the children would learn, and their parents would let them watch.
The final law of epidemics as described by Malcolm Gladwell is the Power of Context. The environment has to be right to reach a tipping point. The people have to be ready for a green restaurant in order for a green restaurant to work. The spread of STDs in northern urban areas in slower and more controlled during the winter because people don’t go out. The interesting issue here is that the author takes this another step. He suggest that action is a result of environment more that of personal character. Not sure I am completely in agreement with that but he does make a good point that environmental context does change how messages are shared and what effect they have.
The second half of the Power of Context discusses how the power of groups of people can be used to encourage the spread of an idea. In groups people are more passionate, they are able to make good decisions and then develop many positive conversations about the topic which turns them into focused and determined people. Look at third camp. In a small group of people ideas are taken form one person to a trusting group and very quickly turned into a passionate idea that those group members use in their lives and share with others. Taking a message, idea, or trend to the next level sometimes involves taking that idea to small groups of people and allowing the idea to percolate and emerge stronger than ever.
That is a short concise summary of the book. The fascinating things of the book came from the additional research, stories, and theories he used to highlight each of these main points and therefore his tipping point theory overall. That is what kept me reading. Hopefully that makes you interested in future posts as well.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Some Greek
Ok, so Clayton had asked me to tell you guys about the stuff on the trinity and incarnation I'd been thinking about last time we met, but I forgot. I have about 30 minutes before I leave for work, which wasn't enough time to stay for service, so I figured I would spend the time writing something productive.
The greek word used by the church fathers to describe the community found among the divine persons in the trinity was perichoresis (which in English can be roughly translated as interpenetration). Perichoresis exists in two forms - economic and ontological. Ontological perichoresis describes how the three persons of the trinity are made of the exact same substance and share the same being. The economic trinity refers to the fact that in everything that the persons of the trinity do, they act together. For example, consider creation. The Bible says Jesus created the world (John 1:1-3 “all things came into being through Him”, Colossians 1:16), it says the Father created the world (Genesis 1:1 “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”, Isaiah 42:5), and it says the Holy Spirit created the world (Job 33:4 “the Spirit of God has made me”, Genesis 1:2). In all things the trinity acts together.
The greek word used by the church fathers to describe the church is koinonia (which in English is something between community and communion). The church is the gathering of believers that share everything in common (Acts 4:23), that have the unity that Jesus and the Father share (John 17), and that are joined into one body (1 Corinthians 12, among other examples).
What I have only recently discovered that I find amazing is that two words are used by the church fathers to describe the union of the divine and human nature in Christ: koinonia and perichoresis. In other words, in Christ there is an interpenetration and communion of divine and human. What this means is that in Christ human community (koinonia) and divine community (perichoresis) are united and come together. Throughout the NT there are examples where believers are said to be "in Christ" and "Christ in me." Because we are in Christ, we can now partake of the redeemed human nature and share in the community and unity of God. I am still struggling to understand the exact balance between economic and ontological perichoresis through what the church fathers call the communication of attributes - clearly we don't become God, but in Christ a new human nature spreads to all of humanity, one that allows for fellowship with God (Romans 5).
So what's the point? 1) We tend to think of salvation in terms of forgiveness, but restoration to fellowship, communion, and unity with God are equally important components. 2) We tend to think of the gospel as the passion narrative, but in the NT angels announce the gospel of the birth of the messiah to shepherds. We need to rethink and reclaim the full extent of the gospel: incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. FInally, 3) we need to recognize that we can share communion and interpenetration with God, feeling His real presence in our daily existence, and his real communication and interaction with the boy of believers. This should dramatically change our daily religious consciousness.
Ok, so that's a bit of greek and patristics for you. I'm discovering a lot of this by reading Martin Chemnitz's The Two Natures of Christ. It's dense, but you could read it for more information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)