Scars of Life

Have you ever wondered what heaven will be like? Most Christians have. I remember as a kid fooling around with concepts of white light everywhere, getting my wings (all dogs go to heaven?), walking streets of gold and feasting on the jellybelly forest. Poor kid.

In all seriousness, the details about the afterlife, heaven, paradise or whatever you'd like to call it, have been the subject of discussion, debate and (sadly) division throughout the history of the church. When reflecting on the specifics of the resurrection, many look at verses such as 1 Cor. 15:23 and 1 Pet. 4:13 for a general encouragement about our sharing in God's glory upon our resurrection. But what does that mean? To what degree are we "raised" like Jesus was raised? Specifically, will we also bear the scars of our lives? or even worse, will we bear the scars of our deaths? It seems clear in the gospel accounts that Jesus did. Just ask Thomas.

Salvation as Deification

Deification is kind of a big word that, even as a "churched" Christian, you may not have heard of if you grew up in America like me. In the Eastern Orthodox tradition (arguably the oldest version of Christianity still functioning), it is a very much alive concept of salvation and it is one that I personally ascribe to.

You see, in this tradition, salvation is not merely a legal transaction to correct the faults of humanity (or one pair of humans, if you're into that whole hereditary guilt thing); instead, it is intrinsically concerned with two issues that are the result of the fall of humanity:

1.  The distortion of the Image of God in creation

and

2. The illness known as sin

Well that isn't totally disagreeable to our western ears. Let us press in by contrasting with the focus of our western, Augustinian understanding of salvation and the fall in which salvation is meant to:

1. Satisfy God's wrath towards sin

and 

2.  Cleans us from the filth known as sin

Now we're starting to see some differences. I should also mention here that I am generalizing a bit for the sake of the scope of this blog. On both sides of the issue, the beliefs and development of the above, abbreviated conclusions are thorough, extensive and not nearly as simple as I'm presenting them here. 

So what's the big deal? Different Christians disagree on some minute points, that's par for the course in Christianity. Well, I would like to point out why I generally lean towards the East for this answer. In the first place, I think that it is more consistent with Scripture to understand divine salvation as a cure and restoration rather than as a payment and shower. We are sick with sin and it has caused us to have a distorted spiritual countenance; we are spiritual lepers who no longer look like the intended, good creature that God breathed life into. We did not choose this illness but we do self-inoculate on a regular basis. We keep ourselves sick and thus keep our image flawed. Sin is not merely some dirt that we are born with nor the breaking of some unsatisfiable list of laws; thus, salvation isn't payment to God (or Satan?) nor is it a bath (though we baptize, it's not to wash our spirits like some think). No. 

Salvation is the miraculous healing of our illness, the correcting of our spirit into the likeness of God and the opportunity to quit self-inoculating our souls with more sin.

Now, to be sure, some take these ideas to varying degrees and get some odd beliefs, but our salvation - our participation in the glory of God upon our resurrection - is intrinsically and irrefutably (from a Scriptural basis) a deification of the human creature, that is a joining in divinity. This, however, does not place humanity higher than the rest of creation, but instead places humanity as the way in which God will restore his divine image to all of creation. Christ's assumption of humanity placed the rest of the human race as the intermediary for creation to become all that it was intended to be.

Back to the scars

I may have taken a while to get back to the odd question of our resurrected bodies, but I felt it necessary for you to understand where I'm coming from in order for you to understand what I mean when I say 

It doesn't really matter

I had a feeling that answer would not come across well, so I didn't want to lead with that, but under a deification-centered theology of salvation, it doesn't matter what our bodies are like. Instead, we are to be concerned with the restoration of creation and our own intended form as well as true freedom from the illness of sin. 

Perhaps Jesus bore his scars specifically for the purpose of convincing Thomas of the reality of the resurrection (after all, they are only mentioned once in the gospel accounts where we might expect there to be a greater emphasis placed on them before political officials or crowds). Perhaps Jesus scars were metaphorical and have gotten placed as a literary device to emphasize his true humanity. Perhaps we truly will bear the scars of our lives and deaths. At any rate, apophatic that I am, I contend that it is something we cannot know with any certainty on this side of the resurrection (not that we should necessarily seek certainty). Furthermore, it is not the point; whether you agree with my (and the Eastern Orthodox) views on salvation or not, I believe we can agree that if it were truly important, Jesus would have said something. True to form, however, Jesus continues to point us to the immediate world around us and promise us just enough to have hope for our reunion, restoration and cure.

grace and peace,

C.M.

For a couple of different views, check out Scarytino's blog and The "Almost" Heretic, they should have some good thoughts. ;)

Who is Your God?

I have found on my short journey through life that, while I believe there is properly only one true God, there are many versions of him (see, I said him...) in people's individual understandings. By typing that sentence, I have already disclosed that I refer to God as a male, though of course there is no gender associated with the supreme one. I'll go further and admit that the idea of God being a Father is also part of my picture of God, but this is not so helpful for other people.

My purpose in raising this issue here is to simply "shake up the dust", if you will. I want to issue a challenging question to all who may read this. The question is this:

Who is Your God?

Now, you may be wondering why I would ask something so basic and ambiguous to Christians (as that is my audience). My purpose is to spur you on to press in a little and find out if the picture of God that you have in mind actually looks like Christ; more poignantly, does the image of God in your mind look like Jesus of Nazareth, being tortured by Romans for no obvious reason? If not, I hope that you will consider the possibility that you may have a less-than-accurate picture of who God is and, thus, what he is like.

Why is this important?

  I feel I should explain why I think that it is important to evaluate and, periodically in life, re-evaluate our picture of God. For those that believe in God (any God really), it is found that the picture that they have of God will always dictate their actions to one degree or another. The most obvious manifestations of this effect is in worship. So, for example, if my picture of God is the "buddy God" which is often resultant of over-emphasizing the Abrahamic claim to be a "friend of God", then one might be less inclined to view our relationship to God with reverence and humility; after all, if God is my pal, then I can drop the formalities.

Another example might be the EMS or Butler God. This is when people only turn to the divine when things go wrong in their lives. A loved one is sick, the bills aren't getting paid, a new boat sounds nice...then and only then do they call upon God. The Bible is full of examples of Israel doing this; they would start to live like every other people group around them but when things went wrong, they would call upon God for help. The big issue here is that it becomes an abusive relationship where we want all of the benefits of the relationship without any of the sacrifice.

The final lacking picture of God that I want to point out is what some who conducted a study on youth between 2003 and 2005 termed "Moralistic, Therapeutic Deism". If we break this term down we see a picture of God that I'm afraid we find all-too familiar. This picture of God is moralistic in the sense that all that we derive from this picture is concerned with our morals; specifically if we're behaving in such a way that it deems appropriate. It is therapeutic in the sense that it makes us feel good and is always concerned that we live comfortable lives and is thus there to get us out of tough spots and comfort us. Finally, it is Deistic in the sense that it assumes that God is more or less uninvolved unless he necessarily must be. I don't have to go on much further to point out that this is not the passionate, paradigm-breaking, challenging and personable God that Jesus shows us by calling us to the cross of Christianity. 

Concluding Thoughts

In all fairness, there is usually some room for each of the ideas we have about God in small amounts; that is, it's ok to seek help from God, he does love us; it is ok to see him as our friend to the extent that we can confide in him and discover companionship in that relationship. Also, it is true that God does care about our righteousness and wants good things for us. Where things go wrong is when we try and take any one facet of God and build our whole image of him on that small revelation which leads us to a picture that looks different than Christ on Calvary.

 

We must always keep the centrality of Jesus' sacrifice for us in our hearts. To hold another picture leads us to a misconstrued relationship which will have rippling effects in our lives and the lives of those that follow us. So, spend some time reflecting on how you understand God; if it is anything other than Jesus, I encourage you to press yourself to discover why and perhaps search out clarity in this matter. Your picture of God will dictate your relationships, your worship and your life so we must ensure that it is a picture of as much clarity as possible. 

Peace,

C.M.

"When Christians realize that we have an intrinsically Jesus-looking God, what follows next is a deep-seated longing for an intrinsically Jesus-looking Church. This alone has the power to yield and intrinsically Jesus-looking world and that can only be a good thing."

Eastern Orthodox Tradition

Hello all! Again, here is a short history-related post so as to expand your horizons, so to speak. This post is about Eastern Orthodoxy. For those of us in the west who have little to no experience with it, let this be a primer. I've included several sources so that you can find some other people who are more qualified than I to give you information about our Eastern Christian family.

 The Eastern Orthodox Tradition

While it may be easiest for American Christians to look back at history and reflect with the assumption in mind that events surrounding and following the Protestant Reformation were the bulk of what was relevant between the 1500’s and modern times, it must be remembered that the Church is much larger than many Western minds acknowledge. In the East – particularly Russia – there were many exciting things happening. Men like Alexis Khomyakov and St. Innocent of Alaska were leaving their mark on how the Eastern Orthodox Church understood Christian worship and community. The Church in the East was contributing to the larger Christian tradition which may have greater implications in the next stage of Christian development here in the 21^st century.

Evolutions in the Orthodox Tradition

            The contributions and figures from the Eastern Orthodox tradition which are examined here all come after the fall of Constantinople and focus on Russian Orthodoxy as this was the major source of Orthodox theology for most of the period leading up to modernity. The first man of note is St. Innocent of Alaska (1797-1879) who was commissioned by the Academy of Kazan to increase missionary presence there.[1] Specifically, this married priest was sent to the Aleut people and was so enthralled with their way of life that he strove to learn the language and translate the Bible into Unagan which was the primary Aleutian dialect. In 1838 he lost his wife and after taking the vows of a monk was made Bishop of a rather large area which included the Aleutian Islands, the Kamchatka Peninsula and more. Eventually he became the head of the Moscow Synod in 1868.[2]

            The many achievements of St. Innocent, while impressive in themselves, must be seen as part of a larger movement towards a simple and grounded faith. This movement was largely catalyzed by the publication of a book entitled Philokalia, translated as “the love of beauty”. This text was essentially a compilation of Eastern mystical texts that helped bring ascetic life back into vivacity in the Orthodox tradition. In order to get a quick look at how this movement developed, one can merely observe the growth from 452 functioning Orthodox monasteries in 1812 to 1045 monasteries in 1914.[3] This movement was also heavily founded on the Hesychist tradition which, as defended by St. Gregory Palamas in the 14^th century, is founded on a mystical notion of returning to oneself with the understanding that the Spirit of God is indwelling in the person. This largely gave theological worth back to the carnal parts of a human and made practical ministry vital to Christian living and thus Orthodox Christianity.[4]

            Along those same lines, Eastern Orthodox theology became more clearly articulated in contrast to the rival Protestant and Catholic explanations. The uniqueness of Orthodoxy is in the primary understanding that ecclesial function should begin with the Eucharist – that is, worship – and the ascetic tradition. The former of these two foundational points included traditional liturgy and the latter contained the elevation of the lay-theologian.[5] Along with the lay-theologians who were responsible for many road-side chapels which were constructed in this period, there was also an influx in ascetic spiritual leaders known as Startsi which translates as “old man”. Rarely receiving a formal education or ordination, these confessor-counselor-wise men were theologically on par with Catholicism’s ordained theologians.[6] These spiritual leaders in combination with the Hesychist influence and missions work such as that accomplished by St. Innocent all gave Eastern Orthodoxy a large measure of substantiality and longevity in practical Christian living.

A Balanced Theology

            The second man to be mentioned  is Alexis Khomyakov (1804-1860) who, as a Slavophile under Tsar Nicholas I strove alongside his companion Ivan Kireyevsky to establish Eastern Orthodox as the middle ground between Protestant and Roman Catholic extremes.[7] Part of this effort was motivated by Nicholas’ views of Russian Orthodoxy as a defense against “westernizing”. Khomyakov’s basic thesis, then, was that Orthodoxy already held within its theology the freedom which many turned to Protestantism for as well as the unity in the church which Roman Catholicism was known for.[8] This both/and position essentially set the stage for later developments in ecumenical theology which was more than a cheap truce among traditions and more than a mere defining of lines which are not to be crossed.[9] Instead, the work of Khomyakov and company was to reread history in light of the many different perspectives of Christianity and to try and renew Orthodoxy as valuable to the rest of the Christian tradition.

Concluding Thoughts

            The Eastern Orthodox tradition is often overlooked by westerners and, in light of all that has been written here, it seems that this should not be so. The church today is in the middle of evolving into whatever it will be next and as we progress in a world that is incredibly secular, it may be advantageous to look to how the Russian Orthodox tradition maintained its distinctness in the midst of a changing world. With a commitment to traditional worship and personal piety, the Orthodox Church has largely succeeded in being a good representation of Christian community in the spiritual heritage of Christianity. The next generation of leaders in the 21^st century would do well to give this tradition its well-deserved attention for the sake of the future Church.

References

Ferguson, Everett, John D. Woodbridge, and Frank A. James. "The Russian Empire and the Russian Orthodox Church." In Church History: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context, 663-64.

González, Justo L. From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century. Nashville: Abingdon Pr., 1987.

Hart, David Bentley. The Story of Christianity: An Illustrated History of 2000 Years of the Christian Faith. London: Quercus, 2007.

Janz, Denis, Richard A. Horsley, Virginia Burrus, Derek Krueger, Daniel Ethan Bornstein, Peter Matheson, Amanda Porterfield, and Mary Farrell Bednarowski. "Orthodoxy Under Communism." In A People's History of Christianity, 132-36.

Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004.

Meyendorff, John. St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974.

Zizioulas, Jean, and Douglas H. Knight. Lectures in Christian Dogmatics. London: T & T Clark, 2008.

---

[1] Ferguson, Everett, John D. Woodbridge, and Frank A. James. "The Russian Empire and the Russian Orthodox Church." In Church History: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context, 663-64.

[2] Hart, David Bentley. The Story of Christianity: An Illustrated History of 2000 Years of the Christian Faith. London: Quercus, 2007. 219-220.

[3] Ferguson, Everett, John D. Woodbridge, and Frank A. James. "The Russian Empire and the Russian Orthodox Church." In Church History: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context, 663-64.

[4] Meyendorff, John. St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974.106-108.

[5] Zizioulas, Jean, and Douglas H. Knight. Lectures in Christian Dogmatics. London: T & T Clark, 2008. 120-126.

[6] Janz, Denis, Richard A. Horsley, Virginia Burrus, Derek Krueger, Daniel Ethan Bornstein, Peter Matheson, Amanda Porterfield, and Mary Farrell Bednarowski. "Orthodoxy Under Communism." In A People's History of Christianity, 132-36.

[7] Ferguson, Everett, John D. Woodbridge, and Frank A. James. "The Russian Empire and the Russian Orthodox Church." In Church History: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context, 663-64.

[8] González, Justo L. From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century. Nashville: Abingdon Pr., 1987. 424-425.

[9] Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004. 7-9.

Let There Be

There was a man named Nicodemus, a Jewish religious leader who was a Pharisee. After dark one evening, he came to speak with Jesus. "Rabbi," he said, "we all know that God has sent you to teach us. Your miraculous signs are evidence that God is with you." Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God...I assure you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit. Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives birth to spiritual life."
          - John 3, NLT

This conversation is one of a few places in Scripture that give us the concept of salvation being a rebirth of sorts - a recreation. What Jesus is telling Nicodemus here is that our spirits must be made new again if we are to see God's Kingdom here on earth. The theme of God making his people new again, though, is a thread throughout the Christian cannon. In fact, salvation is best understood, I believe, in terms of the grander scheme of creation. Specifically, we are created "ex nihilo" or "out of nothing" and so to this "nothingness" we have the propensity to return without the sustenance or sustaining power of God. So you and I, right now, are being held together by God's will that we do so. This is why, at death, we would face eternal separation from God; that is, our ultimate return to our base "nothing" state. Incredibly, our Creator longs for us to be with him and so salvation is essentially accepting his will to keep us with him forever and totally forsake our "nothingness".

It's important to remember, however, that we are in process. You and I are not able to achieve this higher state on our own. This is one of the reasons for Christ's coming, that you and I can become what we were intended to become: God's perfect creation. So, when we find ourselves in darkness and reverting to nothing, remember the words that called us from that nothing.

This idea was rattling in my head the other day when I was listening to this song. It is a song about creation and it's opening line says "darkness hovering, grasping everything it seems...". It then goes on to describe primordial earth: void and chaotic. Through a series of calls from afar, the song masterfully builds to the revelation of God's command "let there be light".

Application:
 
In our lives, we periodically find ourselves in dark times. Life can tend to feel - spiritually, emotionally and sometimes physically - like that chaotic mess that was before creation. With Christ as our base for faith and his love as our motivator for new life, day in and day out, we can sing "let there be light" and see his love illuminate our lives once more.

This is a short blog and there could be much more said about the connection between the Genesis poem of creation and our daily martyrdom to our chaotic and dark falleness. Still, I hope that in these few lines, you remember to think of your mornings as a new birth - every morning - and when life gets a little "primordial", I hope that you remember to sing "let there be light".

peace,
C.M.

Resurrection Sunday!

Christ is risen from the dead, trampling over death by death.

Come awake, come awake, come and rise up from the grave.

Here we are, Resurrection Sunday! Today is a day when we can all breath a sigh of relief and whisper a prayer of gratitude. It has been a weekend riddled with drama; from the death of God to the quiet despair that comes with the tomb, we have once more walked our hearts through the path of Christ.

However!

The story does not stop there; we are not followers of a God that can be kept in a building, a book or a tomb. We are the adopted children of the One who breathed movement into atoms and first erected the cell walls of life on this planet. The incarnation, ministry, death, burial and resurrection of our God is now our family heritage.

I went through a phase in my spiritual development where I seriously doubted if I wanted to be a Christian any more. After all, I said to my older brother, "if we are Christians, then our spiritual heritage is one of butchers and pirates (and not the cool kind)". The fundamental flaw in my assertion was that I had forgotten that our primary heritage is that of martyrdom and love.

This is the relevance of the resurrection

That by the awakening of Jesus on Sunday morning, we may join in God's victory over death. The gospel or good news is not that God beat death - of course he beat death - the good news is that God wants to freely share that victory with us; he wants us to be one with him. 

Adam of old was deceived:

Wanting to be God he failed to be God.

God becomes man,

so that He may make Adam god.

- "Doxastikon at the Praises," Feast of the Annunciation.

By our baptism, we are joined in the process of deification, the union of man and God. Make no mistake, the creature will never be the Creator, but now we are joined in that creative energy which is the foundation to all life and all nature: grace. The truth of the events of the resurrection is that it necessarily elicits a response and only one is appropriate. We devote our lives to taking the same course as our savior and brother, Jesus. Our lives are now intrinsically oriented toward martyrdom; we take up our cross - our sin and sickness - and carry them towards the death of the corrupt us so that the resuscitation of the new us can thrive.

Today, let not a moment more go by before you acknowledge the new essence in your being, the deep connection we now have with the divine. Rejoice indeed and come awake.

peace,

C.M.

Music in Church: a repost

So, a while back I wrote this blog post and it seemed to be well-read, so I thought I'd re-post it in my new address so it would be more accessible...I might do that from time to time as I look through old stuff...

Today I have a topic to think about and you all get front seats to this thought storm; here goes:

As one who was brought up in church, I got involved with worship music somewhere around 8th grade. Since then I have been a part of music teams as they transitioned from "traditional" (whatever that means) music to more "contemporary" (again, that's pretty non-descriptive) music. I've also had the incredible experience of playing a role in re-building a worship music program from the studs. Along with all of that, I've studied for a worship music minor (that I decided to drop my senior year of my undergrad college experience) and have studied theology, philosophy and church history intensely for going on 4 years now.

I preface this post with some of my credentials in order to say that I have probably spent more time thinking about how we as western, American, Evangelical, Protestant, mostly modern Christians worship today than your average Christian.

Qualifying statement: This does NOT in any way make me a better Christian, person, etc. but it does make me more likely to have made some observations that others may not have come across.

While there are several different aspects to our worship which I could comment on, I  don't intend this blog to be an all inclusive thought project, so let me establish some parameters:

1. I want to begin by delineating between what I'll call a "private worship life" and a "corporate worship life". There are many nuances here, but I'm going to use these broad categories in order to remain focused.
2. I have no intention on attacking any practice currently in place. Over against any hard teaching, I only want to flesh out some of my recent observations and reflections, so please try and take this for what its worth and if you don't like it, ignore it.
3. While there are many many ways that Christians have worshiped throughout the life of the Church and stretching back into our Jewish heritage, I will only be speaking of things that are relevant to my western context because that is where I have personal experience. Also, this lets me off the hook for having to do research just to write this blog.

ok, I think that's most of it, pressing on...

Today, I want to assess how we choose which songs to play at church. Now, while I think that there are many issues with how we do church (everything from over-emphasizing Sunday worship to marginalizing congregation participation and beyond, but that's a bit outside the established parameters), I think that if we accept the generally established music utilization in our Sunday gatherings, we ought to give due diligence with what kind of music is played.

Before getting too far in to what songs we choose, I think that it would be good to put some preliminaries out there about our Sunday worship:

1. I think that it is most correct to approach Sunday for what it is; specifically, it is a corporate worship gathering. This means that, against our current culture of hyper-individualism (no citation, sorry), we should spend this time coming close to each other. We often fail on this point and it is evidenced in many ways, some of which are how we tend to sit only with our family and often not right next to anyone else if we can avoid it. By way of example, I remember getting a bizarre look when I sat next to a guy who was not a family member and I didn't leave a space in between us... man-law violated, I know. But we should not shy away from this nearness; we are part of the body of Christ and no hand would try and shy away from its fingers.
2. Closely related to the above, this is specifically NOT individual worship time. My interior life is maintained daily so, I should not feel the need to hijack this time to selfishly serve my lacking spiritual life. We are gathered for each other as much as we are gathered for ourselves...perhaps more. There are many implications of this that I encourage all to think about, but there you have it.
3. As much as our culture has made this a "show" in which only a few men (rarely women) are highlighted an given the stage, we are all to engage which is not the same as saying "we are all to sing along". No, instead, we should feel that the service would not quite be the same if we were gone; that kind of impact. Maybe this happens behind the scenes like in giving the preacher/teacher or band leader feed back, but however it occurs, we ought to feel some ownership of this time.

So, with those preliminaries out there, we turn our attention to the music itself. I think that there are many things to be conscious of, not only as music leaders but also as elders, leaders, worshipers and members of the body who are being asked to sing the words on the screen week in and week out. The qualifiers that I'll list below for songs are not meant to be all-inclusive and they certainly are my opinions, but I think that they transcend music style preferences and volume of music etc. So, to be more pointed, my opinions here have little to do with what kind of music is being played or how its played, but they are focused on the content of the songs. Lets begin:

1. Our music should be theologically sound. While you may be tempted to say "duh", we often don't put songs through the ringer. I think far too often we gauge the value of a song based on the feeling we personally get or the response of the crowd without very much thought given to the truth or context of our words. Without pointing to specific songs (because I do care about offending people and their song preferences), some problems that come to mind are like using the word "lord" without acknowledging that this isn't simply an interchangeable name for "God" or "Jesus", but is instead a title that reflects a relationship that may or may not be real for everyone in the congregation. Another issue may be in using metaphors with no explanation. This is one that happens with hymns often (i.e. what's an Ebenezer? Does everyone in your congregation know that? Is it a good metaphor for our current context?). We ought to be theologically thoughtful.
2. Our music should be corporate in voice. Again, we're discussing corporate worship settings, so I believe we should more or less stay away from songs that are heavy with "I", "me", "my life", etc. to the exclusion of more corporate language like "your church", "the bride", "the kingdom", etc. When we fail to avoid those songs, what happens is that we perpetuate the selfish, hyper-individualization that our culture pushes that prizes our individual comfort over community. This is starkly anti-Christian. Now, I should say that those songs often elicit worship because we connect to them more easily and, as a song writer, I have myself written songs like that, so I think there is value in them. I only want to say that their proper place is in our private lives, not in a larger communal setting. Sadly, this may mean re-vamping most churches musical libraries; but I think it's worth it.
3. Our music should teach. I feel like it is more or less irrefutable that music teaches. This is why everyone was mad at Eminem when I was kid. Ironically, he said in a song "music can alter moods and talk to you..." and here, I have to agree. Music is so much easier to remember than oral, written or rote-memorized teachings. With that in mind, I think that we ought to be careful what kind of things our songs teach. Not just theology, but in building a picture of God, we ought to take care. I believe that our mental picture of God's character is probably the single most important part of our worldview and as such, we ought to be careful what kind of mental picture we are painting. Are we perpetuating the butler God? Are we perpetuating the tamed and cuddly Jesus? Are perpetuating the angry, warrior God? The cosmic vending machine? a deist or heretical picture? I know this can seem like a slippery slope, but we ought to seriously ask these questions of the music that we're asking people to sing.

Those are just three things that I think about when thinking about songs we sing in church. I hope that discussion opens up in the comments section or through different social media venues. Most of all, I hope that this lands in front of church leaders. When I began to first think of myself as a Christian leader, I was terrified for several reasons (among which was not feeling qualified). Since then, I have more confidently come to terms with that role, but the one thing that has not left me was the urgency of the office; that is, the seriousness and eternal implications of what I may teach people. After all, who wants to go swimming with cement shoes...or a mill-stone around the neck...At any rate, I fear that the consequences could be dire if we mislead people with the music we put in their mouths. God will move regardless of our foolishness, but we should still honor the call we've answered.

I'm sorry if I offended. Truly, my goal with this entire blog is simply to better the church and provide space for me to work out my own beliefs and in that context, I thank you for following along. I would only ask, if you were offended, that you ask yourself why. Furthermore, feel free to open it to discussion; often we learn best together.

Peace,
C.M.

The Hardest Thing Ever

I want to share a couple of passages of Scripture in which two of my favorite mystics, when taken in concert, issue one of the hardest challenges to mankind and it is one that most Christians (myself included) gloss over. My prayer is that you read these in their entirety and accept the challenge.

"You're familiar with the old written law, 'Love your friend,' and it's unwritten companion, 'Hate your enemy.' I'm challenging that. I'm telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. he gives his best -- the sun to warm and the rain to nourish -- to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty. If all you do is love the lovable, do you expect a bonus? Anybody can do that. If you simply say hello to those who greet you, do you expect a medal? Any run-of-the-mill sinner does that. In a word, what I'm saying is Grow up. You're Kingdom subjects. Now live like it. Live out your God-created identity. Live generously and graciously toward others, the way God lives toward you."
                          - Jesus, Matt. 5, msg.

Pow. Right between the eyes. Here Jesus points out that we aren't even acting as our true selves when we don't love indiscriminately. As if that command doesn't hit hard enough, lets look at our other mystic who clarifies some.

"But now I want to lay out a far better way for you. If I speak with human eloquence and angelic ecstasy but don't love, I'm nothing but the creaking of a rusty gate...If I give everything I own to the poor and even go to the stake to be burned as a martyr, but I don't love, I've gotten nowhere. So, no matter what I say, what I believe, and what I do, I'm bankrupt without love. Love never gives up. Love cares more for others than for self. Love doesn't want what it doesn't have. Love doesn't strut, doesn't have a swelled head, doesn't force itself on others, isn't always 'me first,' doesn't fly off the handle, doesn't keep score of the sins of others, doesn't revel when others grovel, takes pleasure in the flowering of truth, puts up with anything, trusts God always, always looks for the best, never looks back but keeps going to the end. Love never dies...When I was an infant at my mother's breast, I gurgled and cooed like any infant. When I grew up, I left those infant ways for good. We don't yet see things clearly. We're squinting in a fog, peering through a mist. But it won't be long before the weather clears and the sun shines bright! we'll see it all then, see it all as clearly as God sees us...But for right now, until that completeness, we have three things to do to lead us toward that consummation: trust steadily in God, hope unswervingly, love extravagantly. and the best of the three is love."
                        - Paul the Apostle, 1 Cor. 12&13, msg.

Now, if you're a Christian, I'm sure you've heard both of these passages at one time or another. My purpose in laying them side by side like this is to point out two things.

First, is the blatant command: love your enemies; to supplement that command is the clarification: this is what love is. Most people have heard this Pauline verse used in marriage ceremonies so often that we assume it is talking exclusively about romantic relationships. You might also have heard it applied to the church, as in "this is how God feels about you and the church" which is true as well. Few, however, apply this thorough definition of love to our enemies. Go back and read it with someone you can't stand in mind; it's a much tougher read.

Second, both Jesus and Paul seem to have some idea that maturity is directly connected to how we love. Jesus says that we should "grow up" and love our enemies; Paul says that when he was a baby, he acted like one, but when he grew up, he loved correctly. We should regard our love as a gauge of our maturity. One of my favorite authors, Donald Miller once wrote that "reality is like a fine wine, it just won't appeal to the immature." I think that God's reality is love and that is the finest of wines which we should strive for.

Meditate:

There are many lessons we can draw from these passages of Scripture and more still when we examine them side-by-side. These are simply two of my thoughts. What are yours?

peace,
C.M.