Archive for the ‘Blogging’ Category

Poverty Colored Glasses

April 30, 2019

An essay which recognizes the narrative being pushed in certain segments of our culture and society isn’t just divergent, it completely ignores reality.  It has to, otherwise certain economic and political aspirations can’t possibly succeed.

There’s a good reason for that, but we’re in danger of being lulled into a false depiction of reality.

Domain Name Change

April 29, 2019

For the second, and hopefully last time in 13 years, the domain name/web address for this blog will be updated.  Technically, it’s reverting to the original name that I had to forego when I migrated to WordPress a few years ago.  Actually, nearly five years ago, which is hard to believe.

So if you’ve been used to reaching this site through livingapologetics.wordpress.com, please make note of the domain name that may be replacing it (or may be working alongside it) living-apologetics.org.

The changes should take place sometime in the next few days if all goes well.  Thanks for your patience and perseverance!

 

 

Movin’ On Up

April 22, 2019

Perhaps not exactly to a deluxe apartment in the  sky, but an improvement all the same.

I’ve bit  the bullet (paid) to upgrade my blog site from free to a paid plan through WordPress.  The annoying advertisements are now gone.  I intended to do this much sooner but, well, life and money and what have you.  Look for some tweaks and changes to roll out as I explore the options I have available now as a paid user of the site – including possibly a change back to my original domain name (livingapologetics.org) instead of the WordPress name.

All in good time, but at least it’s the first step.  Perhaps a step up?

Who to Promote

September 20, 2017

I was raised with solid middle-class, middle-America values.  Children should be seen rather than heard.  Or maybe it was heard rather than seen.  Frankly, the preference was probably that we were neither seen nor heard.  In any event, the idea of self-promotion of any kind has always been anathema to me.  It isn’t that I don’t crave recognition.  I do.  But perhaps as a means of controlling that monster inside of me I’ve tried to avoid the spotlight as much as one can do from the front of a classroom or the front of a church.

I dreamed of being a writer but have abandoned that in a post-literate age where anybody can get published inexpensively.  Some of the folks that follow this blog seem to do so out of a concept of mutual self-promotion that eludes me.  I hope for fame, but expect that I won’t have to be the one telling people how awesome I am in order for that to happen.  It will just, someday, but broadly recognized and I won’t have to push for that recognition.

Is that too hard to ask?

My job is not to promote myself –  my job is to promote Christ, to make him known to as many people in as many different facets as He gives me time and opportunity.  But in order to put his name out there, it can be easy to be put mine out as well.  Given time and a bit of temptation, the desire for my name to be glorified can quickly eclipse the desire that his name be glorified.  On the flip side, excessive self-deprecation and equally result in his name not being shared as broadly as possible.  I’m wondering how to put out his Word without necessitating the inclination most people have (not entirely incorrectly) to want to know more about the messenger.

I’m being asked more and more to share my preaching and teaching with expanding audiences, particularly via the Internet as well as more localized outlets such as pre-recorded and live radio options.  It’s something I’ve been hesitant to do  because crafting a message for an audience unfamiliar with me, my congregation, my theology, etc. is a lot more complicated than just videoing a sermon and putting it online.  In a day where it’s customary to take things out of context, I want to think carefully about what I say before facing criticism either from those who don’t share my belief, or those who think they share my belief to a greater/stronger/more accurate extent than I do.

It’s also a lot of work, and being basically lazy, the idea of taking on additional work is unattractive.

But more and more I’m being led to see that this bears investigating further.  I went to lunch today with a gentleman who had the main intent of convincing me to think more seriously about radio and podcasting and other means of speaking to a larger audience.  Of course my ego loves this, and I have to try and put that down while still hearing what is being said and considering it as objectively as possible.  We have such Good News to share with a world that is so incredibly hungry for good news.  If we need to be reconsidering and reevaluating how we do Church in a rapidly changing culture, I can’t simply say that I’m not willing to consider other avenues for sharing the Gospel and helping people to understand it better.  Prayers are appreciated!

Wet Bar Wednesday – Expanding

August 10, 2016

Well, sort of.

I’ve been invited to become part of a blogging team of pastors and other sundry folks over at The Jagged Word.  While I’d love to say that the invitation was occasioned by my deep theological observations and my skill in finding Gospel themes in current events, it turns out that they like my drinks.  Which is good, because I can’t stand the way they’re dressed in that photo.  No worries, I won’t be emulating that *any* time soon.

Seriously.  I’ll be bartending for a second time for some of them in a month at our annual pastor’s conference.  Others have enjoyed them on other social occasions.  So every Friday I’ll be contributing a cocktail recipe to their web site.  I’ll try to sneak in some theology here and there, but really that’s a stretch I don’t think is too reasonable to make, generally speaking.  I’ll be revisiting many of the drinks I’ve posted about here over the years.  I’ll continue to post new drinks here as I enjoy them, but now there’s another place you can catch my recipes (as well as some very insightful and theologically rich articles by smart people).

My first post there should appear this Friday.

Enjoy!

Anticipating Change?

July 21, 2014

An old friend sent me the link to this blog post.  He’s not a church-going person, so it’s interesting that it caught his eye enough to send to me.  A few thoughts on each of the author’s points.

1.  Live, simultaneous viewing has been waning for decades.  With the proliferation of cable networks as well as VCRs (remember those?) over 30 years ago, people haven’t been watching the same things at the same times.  Our cultural attention has been shattered for a long time.  Granted, the Internet has accelerated this to an almost unimaginable level, bolstered by the ability to constantly surround ourselves with only exactly what we like or agree with at all times.  

The author then draws two conclusions, or questions.  He implies that Sunday worship is no longer an adequate offering of “content” for generations accustomed to having everything on their schedule.  Secondly, he stresses the importance of relationship.  

Firstly, if we continue to view worship (whenever and however it occurs) as content, we’re missing the point.  It is’t about content, although content is part of what happens.  It’s about relationship.  But it’s not the relationship that the author is emphasizing – human-to-human interaction.  It’s first and foremost about the relationship between God and his people.  Not you.  Not me.  But his people.  Which we are a part of.  Worship is inherently a communal action, something that stresses that my personal preferences and ideas are secondary to the shared beliefs of the community.

For people used to church, once a week worship isn’t an issue.  They ought to have this pattern well-established (although I maintain that this is the easiest faith behavior to be disrupted, and once disrupted, it can be the hardest faith behavior to re-establish).  For people not used to church, once a week worship isn’t an issue either.  They likely have no idea what to expect.  Either they’re looking to understand better and will accommodate themselves to this – like we’re conditioned (more or less) to turn our cell phones off during a plane flight.  During this period of transition, accommodation, transformation, is the time when the proper reasons for worship need to be communicated.  Relationship, yes.  But not relationship as we’ve grown to define it – me-centered, but rather Christ-centered.  

If we treat worship as content, our main focus will be production (something we control) rather than transformation (something that stubbornly remains firmly and exclusively the job of the Holy Spirit).  The point of church is not to “gather a crowd”.  The point of worship is transformation and renewal through the continued outpouring of the Holy Spirit through the Word of God and the Sacraments He has entrusted to his Church.  It’s a paradigm shift all right – but not the one that most church ‘experts’ are pushing.

2.  Yes, continued shifts from communal to individual.  However unlike the author, I would argue that this is a strength of the Church, not a liability.  In an era where nobody needs to be connected to anyone live, in-person, Church stands as a very visible and anachronistic organism calling us back to community.  This is our strength, not a liability.  The content is best received in this context.  

This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t seek to augment the material that we give to parishioners, making it available online and in a variety of formats.  But we need to understand that this is always secondary to our purpose.  Our main purpose is not to present the Church, but to be the Church.  That doesn’t require a crowd, it just requires two or three gathered in the name of Christ.  A crowd is only necessary if what you’re really trying to do (for whatever reasons, good or misguided) is to begin or continue a specific ministry model that demands crowd economics.

In terms of calling people to something greater, this is dead-on.  But it isn’t “mission-driven”.  It is first and foremost a matter of repentance and forgiveness, confession and absolution.  It is oriented around transformation.  Mission is something we control.  Transformation is something the Holy Spirit controls.  Transformation will, inevitably, lead to mission in one form or another.  But it isn’t necessarily something as neatly organized as a mission trip.

3.  Again, beyond my earlier caveats about the role of content, this is fine.  But this also requires a level of discernment.  Not every congregation may be equipped to produce quality content.  A congregation needs to clearly understand what they are equipped to provide and why they are providing it.  This can be helpful for members, but remember that what goes online has a habit of showing up in unexpected places and ways.  I have a colleague who posted some of his Bible studies on YouTube.  He got into a theological discussion with a Roman Catholic in South America.  It was a fantastic opportunity for the body of Christ to act in a beautiful way.  But I’m not sure that his YouTube videos have resulted in dozens of new members.  To avoid frustration and irritation (particularly as budget resources are allocated), there must be very frank and deliberate discussion and consensus about why this content is being created, how it is being provided, and what the goals are.  

4.  I agree with this completely, though I think it needs to be focused further.  Don’t just tell a story.  Tell the story, and that fundamentally is not a story about us or me, but about God.  The story is essentially disruptive in that it short-circuits the dominant cultural story that is being told (at least in America), which is that everything is about my story.  Christianity posits that my story, insofar as it even exists, only has meaning (and possibility) within the story of God.  

I recently attended a great preaching seminar focused on story-telling in the form of narrative preaching.  Telling the story is important because it is not a story being told anywhere else in our culture.  The Church is the only one telling her story now, the story of God’s creative, redemptive, and sanctifying work.  Don’t assume your congregation knows the stories.  Don’t assume that they know how the stories function to link their personal stories into God’s meta-narrative.

5.  Money shouldn’t be an issue.  Money is an issue when a group of people insist on a particular model of ministry that requires economic resources.  This isn’t bad or wrong.  But look at the New Testament – the major exhortations regarding money come in regards to charitable giving to alleviate the suffering of Christians and Jews in other places in the midst of crisis and great need.  But this is rarely the focus of our congregational emphases on finances.  Missions are usually tacked on at the end, in the category of if-we-have-enough-left-over (regardless of whether this is a budgeted line item or not.  When funds are tight, watch how quickly missions get cut before staff salaries or facility maintenance line-items).  

People//members/congregations are not paying for something they use.  At least they shouldn’t be.  People are responding to the grace and gifts of God by offering back for his use part of what He has given them.  I’ve met with parishioners who had pastors decades ago liken tithing to paying membership dues.  This is faulty (regardless of how well-intentioned) information.  Giving in the Church is always first and foremost a response to the goodness of God.  

Failure to understand this properly will lead to financial issues (it’s one reason that financial issues might arise – certainly not the only reason!).  This doesn’t exempt “Mission-centered, mission-focused” churches either, unfortunately.  Why?  Because there are so many ways and places for people to direct their financial resources now.  Many of these are excellent.  The advent of micro-funding and crowd-funding has made it possible to raise money quickly and across a broad spectrum of givers, fueled by the ability to communicate the need and message quickly and inexpensively.

If Christians are conditioned to view tithing primarily as a means of directing their personal resources to worthy causes that they believe in, we’re missing the point.  Giving money to a needy family on the other side of the street or the other side of the world is not the same thing as tithing, according to Scripture.  Both are important and Biblical, mind you, but they are not interchangeable.  

Yes, the world is changing quickly.  The Church can and should adapt to a certain level.  But we also need to recognize that the Church is fundamentally different from culture.  Culture is transient, shifting, ebbing and flowing.  The Church is the Rock, the very Body of Christ in the world.  This should determine how the Church discusses change.  When we begin discussing change in terms of content and finances, we’ve missed the more fundamental issues that need to be not simply discussed, but affirmed and lived.  It’s a lot easier to talk about content than it is to talk about transformation.  Then again, being the Church has rarely been an easy thing.  

 

 

 

Opening Up

July 8, 2014

Here’s a great post from my friend Sarah.  It hits on a variety of issues that it’s good to remember many (if not most or all) people deal with at one level or another.

Perception.  Sarah posits the question as to whether or not she (and the rest of us) tailor our online social media personas to highlight our best moments and minimize our normal moments.   Facebook seems to show that we do, and blogging isn’t much different.  If you only know me from my online presence, you know a fair amount about me, but you don’t know the whole enchilada, as it were.  Relationship – that buzzword of the digital age – is about more than one-way broadcasting of our noblest thoughts, our cherished victories.  Relationship is about getting to know us on our off days. Keeping up with someone on Facebook isn’t the same as relationship.  It’s more akin to digital voyeurism and exhibitionism.  There are great dangers in mistaking the thrills of peeking in on people’s lives or revealing snippets of our own for actual relationship and engagement.

Standards.  We’re awash in photos and blogs and status updates and Pinterest shares about ideal, perfect, gorgeous lives.  Children who are always well-scrubbed and well-behaved.  Homes that are unfathomably gorgeous and apparently devoid of any form of life, human or dust-related.  It’s easy to assume – based on the little that we share with one another – that life should be one constant happy-hour party.  It should be joyous and carefree and easy and simple and beautiful and perfect.

How many people do you know with lives like that?  How many homes have you been in that match that?  How many children have you met that are like that all the time?  Come on, man.  Let’s be real.  

As a homeschooling family my wife is often particularly concerned about the state of our house, particularly because she spends a lot of time there.  But there’s also a ton to do each day in teaching and cooking and relationships.  It’s easy to assume that our house must be the dirtiest in the whole of our home-schooling community.  Yet on those rare occasions where she is able to see other people’s homes, she usually comes away relieved.  They’re human, too.  They have piles.  Not all of those piles are clean.  They’re human.

In that recognition and relief relationships can be built and strengthened.  Our vulnerabilities and shortcomings can also be powerful building blocks for real, actual, relationships.  But we have to be willing to be vulnerable, to take that first step, and to risk the possibility of being judged.

Ministry.  Ministry rarely happens on a schedule.  Outside of Sunday worship, I don’t know and can’t predict when the meaningful moments of connection will occur in a given week.  

What holds you back from ministry?  Not the guilt-ministry that we’re so often force-fed.  The ministry of feeding orphans or becoming a full-time missionary – neither of which are bad things in and of themselves and both of which are necessary aspects of Christian community, but neither of which are the only, best, or necessarily your form of ministry.  Just as hospitality may not be your form of ministry, even though it’s Sarah’s.

What are you good at, and why aren’t you doing it?  What way do you best serve your neighbor and create the opportunity for the Holy Spirit to be at work in the middle of it?  Anybody that knows Sarah would know that hospitality and food and atmosphere are right up her alley.  Yet fear of inferiority and judgment may have kept her from putting those gifts to work.  What gifts are you afraid of putting to work?  

Remember that this isn’t just about you and I.  We can psychoanalyze and muse and self-examine all we want for answers to the above questions.  Those tools may be helpful.  But they also ignore the fact that Christians believe we have an enemy who wants to keep us ineffective and bottled up.  He might do that with a dirty bathroom or piles of clothing.  He might do that with feelings of inferiority.  

Don’t let him keep your gifts bottled up!

 

 

 

Disclaimer

January 5, 2011

My last several posts have sprung from a conversation I had with a friend who is not a Christian, but likes the idea of that sort of a God out there.  To an extent.

And I’ve focused on the sorts of rational/logical questions I’ve been trying to ask to prompt her in clarifying her position on what god she may or may not believe in.  It all sounds very clinical.  And at this stage of things, and given her background, it is.  Much of what she occasionally rails against theists for centers on a certain lack of reasonableness or logic to the faith.  Much of that is frankly based in an inaccurate understanding both of what Biblical Christians believe and why they believe it.  
But to get to a point where we’re discussing the reasonability of Biblical Christians, I’m trying to understand what conceptions she personally has about God, with the hopes that we’ll move to a place where she’s willing and able to hear about God from the Bible, , based on what she has been willing to agree to in these preliminary arguments (used here in the logical sense, not the confrontational sense) about God.  Once we have clearly articulated where she stands, then we can know if there’s a way forward in talking about the Bible.  Up until this point, attempts to go to the Bible have been uniformly unsuccessful.  But hopefully if I understand what she believes and why, and if she clarifies that for herself, we’ll know if there is a way forward in discussion.
But it’s not as if I’m going to argue her into believing Jesus Christ the Son of God is her Lord and Savior.  
That’s not a job I (or anyone for that matter) is capable of doing.  I’m praying that by trying to clear some of the undergrowth from around the issue, we’ll be able to get to a place where she can hear the Gospel without simply laughing or getting angry and running away.  But clearing the undergrowth is not the same as the Gospel.  
We like the idea that if we could just present the Gospel in the right words, the other person would have little recourse but to believe.  This is erroneous on lots of levels.  And it puts terrible, terrible pressure on the Christian, which can lead to crushing guilt if the person we’re trying to talk to rejects what we’re saying.  What if we failed that person?  What if that person risks eternal separation from God because we weren’t eloquent or convincing enough?  Man, that’s a hard thought to fall asleep on at night.  
Biblically, it’s clear that this is never what Jesus or anyone else had in mind (1Corinthians 1:18, for example).  It’s not simply a matter of non-believers being stupid or evil, as some once (and still) assume.  Satan works hard to blind people to God’s truth.  He uses many mechanisms to do so, some of which are fiendishly effective.  The war here is not between my words and someone else’s words, but between the power of the Holy Spirit and the power of Satan.  It’s not an even match to be sure, and if it were only that struggle at play, there wouldn’t be any non-Christians left in the world.  
But people are a part of the equation.  And people can resist or reject the Gospel for any number of reasons.  The goal of apologetics is to examine those reasons with an eye towards demonstrating them to be false or inadequate, so that the person acknowledges that they ought to at least listen to the Gospel message with an open mind.  They could still resist or refuse at that point.  But the Holy Spirit might surprise them as well.  
Are apologetics necessary?  Can God open someone’s heart to His truth without extensive groundwork by me or someone else?  Of course.  The Apostle Paul is a pretty stunning example of that, and he’s hardly the only one.  But barring direct divine intervention or action, some people seem to require groundwork to be laid.  Or perhaps it’s simply that laying groundwork helps me feel as though I’m making progress.  Perhaps it’s just a way of making me feel better about myself and my own faith, by assuring me I’m not a fool.
I’m a fool all right, but hopefully not on that particular matter.  Only Jesus saves, and the Holy Spirit is the key agent at work.  But as I’m led, I seek to be faithful in communicating the Gospel in any and every way that might be effective.  And if simply stating it outright (as I have with this friend) is not effective, I’m happy to backtrack and try another route.  She half-jokes that I want to save her soul.  I assure her that’s not in my job description, but that I hope to have some small part in the Holy Spirit’s work in her life, ultimately resulting in her acceptance of Jesus Christ as her Lord and Savior.  And if that requires continued conversation, so be it.  I’ll keep at it for the rest of my life, if that’s necessary.
I just pray it won’t be.  

Into Year Number 5

January 1, 2011

At midnight, this blog will enter it’s fifth year (more or less).  It has changed a lot in the last five years.  It has become (somewhat) more consistent, and (somewhat) better written.   I appreciate each of you that read this blog, and therefore save me from the narcissistic Twittering that it might otherwise become.  I hope that each of you sees yourself as part of this project, part of this dialog, part of this subplot to the great intricate story of our lives.  I hope you’ll continue to send me articles and other media that interest you, perturb you, or cause you to think and question.  I hope you’ll share this blog with others out there who might appreciate it in some sense or another.  Most of all, I hope that through this, we each become more faithful to who it is we were created to be, and that we will One Day become in full.  Until then we struggle better together than alone, and perhaps that is what this blog seeks most earnestly to articulate.

To mark the fifth year of this blog, and the new year, and because I like what I had to say when this all began, here is a repost of my very first blog entry from August 2006.  Happy New Year, everyone.
In the Beginning….
Beginnings are hard.  They frighten, intimidate, excite, beckon and threaten.  They seem often to create anxiety for and about.  As sequential, chronological creations, each moment seems a new beginning, and it’s only through the sheer number of such moments that we eventually grow numb to them individually, and begin to fixate upon specific moments in time as momentous enough to be called “beginnings”.  Perhaps part of our greatest anxiety is that beginnings connotate the unknown.  Most beginnings entail outcomes that are not necessarily known and predictable. 

Of course, our perceptions of beginnings and time and reality are skewed.  How could they not be?  We are broken, fragmented, shattered people living in a pipe-bombed carnival mirror-show.  Few things are as they seem to be, or as we interpret them to be in this world.  Yet we prod and dissect and insist that things are what we claim them to be.  Including beginnings.

In the beginning…

Not, ‘Once upon a time’.  Not ‘A long time ago’.  Not ‘A while back’.  

In the beginning…”

There has only been one beginning.  There will be only one end.  We experience our world in bits and pieces rather than as a continuity.  We can’t imagine how the assertion of Genesis 1:1 could possibly mean what it says.  We insist that there are a myriad of beginnings and endings.  Our birth.  Our graduation.  Our marriage.  Our divorce.  Our death.  Starts and stops, beginnings and endings.

But Genesis asserts differently.  One beginning.  One single starting point, initiated by an eternal God for His eternal purposes.  We are nothing new.  My children are nothing new.  Their grandchildren will be nothing new.  All was known and part of the one beginning.  But each is only shown to me moment by moment.  While I was created for eternity, I was not created for infinity.  I am not God, and was not designed to experience the totality of His designs – only my part in them.  

I look forward to the day that I can look out over the vistas of eternity and begin to make some sense of it all.  Perhaps never complete sense – not in the way that God sees and senses it.  But certainly enough sense to appreciate the beauty and magnitude and scope of it all.  Enough to see it in continuity, and to finally understand the whys and hows of my life.  

Until then, I am stuck with the imaginings of beginnings and endings.  And so, I begin again.

I’m Awake. Honest.

December 14, 2010

Hard as it may be to believe, I’ve scanned the entire Internet for the past three days and found nothing worth blogging about.  

Truly.
So I’m reading.  After a couple of books reviewed for our polity’s young adult web site, I’m back to reading something a little more interesting (to me, at least).  It’s the latest publication from the LC-MS  Commission on Theology and Church Relations.  The title is Together With All Creatures and the topic is the proper Biblical understanding of mankind’s role in relation to the rest of creation.  With the heavy emphasis on ecology and environmentalism and the green movement in the last 40 years, somebody decided maybe we ought to formulate a good statement on what we believe in this arena.  
I’ve only just started it, and I appreciate thus far that the first 30 pages or so are historical background on the issue, examining the statements of various influential people – Christian and otherwise – on the relationship of mankind and humanity.  It also takes time to examine some of the particularly American voices on this topic, which helps trace the evolution of thought in our country in regards to nature and the wilderness.  
The only thing I’ve found curious thus far is in the section that begins to delve specifically into theology.  The working premise of the theological section of this book is (on page 30) that, 
“We bring together the confession of our common creatureliness and distinctive creatureliness in the thesis: 
God has called us to serve His creation as creatures among fellow creatures in anticipation of creation’s renewal. This renewal has begun in Christ, is continued by the work of the Spirit in the church, and will be completed upon Christ’s return.”
To me, this doesn’t really seem to emphasize our distinctive creatureliness, but I’ll hold off on getting all rabid about this until I finish the book.  The other interesting thing I saw – less than a page later – was this statement, describing the other creatures in nature around us:
They are our fellow creatures, and in a sense our neighbors, because like us they have been created by God and formed from the soil of the earth.
I don’t disagree with the spirit (Spirit?) of the statement, but I couldn’t remember the creation account in Genesis indicating that God had formed the animals out of the ground.  Certainly, it doesn’t describe God forming them by hand as it describes Him doing with Adam.  But sure enough – Genesis 2:19 states that:
Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky.  (ESV)
I’ve read Genesis a zillion times, give or a take a few, and never noticed that line.  I guess with all the attention focused on God creating Adam out of the ground, I overlooked this.  That’s why we should always be reading Scripture, and why we should always be willing to go back to check Scripture against what someone says or claims or assumes Scripture says!  
I look forward to learning more through this document!