"You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can chose from phantom fears and kindess that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose free will."
This is a quote from the Rush song "Freewill". It's brilliant in it's simple observation. Some would say simplistic. With that said here is a quote from King Solomon from way way back in the day.
" Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight"
I would hope that my readers are intelligent enough to observe the startling contrast between these two quotes. I think it can be said accurately that both particular quotes can neatly summarize these two individuals worldviews. But I would like to point out a couple of things. The Rush lyrics cannot be deconstructed nearly as easily as King Solomon's proverb. In other words, Rush seems to be describing things the way they really are, and given this fact it makes Solomon's admonition self-contradictory. Behind all the wordiness and poetic mush is a simple statement. "Stop bustling about for higher meaning. What you see is what there is. You are the one who makes the choices, and therefore you are the ones on whom the fate of the universe stands." How can this not be the case? When have you ever done anything against your will? I urge you to really think about that one. Everything, (everything) you do you decide to do it. Given this truth, there is no way to know what or who is the force is behind your decisions. You may believe that it is God, but He never makes the decision for you. The bottom line is, that you make the decisions, therefore you are the decider of your fate.
Solomon does not deny the fact that you make the decisions. This is a strong implication in that he urges his readers to make decisions, based not on their understanding, but on the LORD's. The obvious question is: "What is the LORD's understanding?" To Rush's point, aren't you the one who makes the final decision about who's understanding you're going to follow? You still make the final decision. This would not be so disturbing if there was a handbook or something titled " The LORD's understanding". Many say that there is a handbook. It is called the Bible. But if this is truly what the Bible is, a handbook. Why doesn't it let us know? Why does it tell us stories, and prophecies? Why does it communicate so often in poetry and figurative language? Language that has to be translated, and interpreted. If the LORD's understanding is what Solomon wants us lean on, it is not a very stable post. Why doesn't the LORD tell us plainly what is the way? Why do we have to move in order for God to come direct our paths for us. I think more people would be followers of God if he gave clearer orders.
There is a third player in this debate. It is the fatalist; the one who believes that the course of the universe is set and that fate has already been decided. Therefore, all of our decisions are really illusions. Apparently, this force or god behind all of this is highly sadistic, because as we all know, life sucks and then you die.
Here's what I think about Calvinism. Taken to it's logical conclusion (fortunately most Calvinists refuse to take it to this point) it is nothing more than theological fatalism attached to apologies for God, who appears to be sadistic, even though the Bible says that he is love itself. To be fair, the Calvinists arguments and apologies are often some of the most logical, compelling, and well constructed out there. They defend their beliefs better than anyone. The problem is that Calvinists claim to be biblical theologians. And while the Bible certainly says that God is sovereign, the Bible never suggests that God is in the puppetmaster of the universe. And here's what so many people miss. If God told us he was the puppetmaster of the universe, 1)Why should we believe him? 2) If it were true, what could we do about it? 3) If it were true, what would it change? The answer to the third question is that all it would change is the way that individuals make decisions. Game, set, match, Rush wins. In the end, whether the universe be fatalistic, or given to chance, whether our decisions are illusions, or the movers of fate itself, does not change the fact that what is the most clear and obvious observation is that all we know about life is the decisions that we ourselves make.
But hold on a minute. If this is the case. If Rush's view of the universe is truth. The practical ramifications are the same as for individuals who hold fatalistic viewpoints. For what gives Solomon the underdog victory in the end is the eqaully simple observation that we need a frame of reference for decision making at all. The fact that it is not obvious what we should be doing, that there are disagreements at all about what to do in different sitations, that there are debates on values and morality, that all wars are essentially wars originating in the mind, played out on battlefields, the fact that questions always remain, even at the end of a philosophy leads us directly to the need for answers without physical verification. In other words, why does Rush think it is important to say what he has to say? Is he not expressing a value, and is he not calling for people to see things a certain way? To say that there is no value to having values is a value. It is not the fact that we make decisions, that is most clear. It is most clear that we believe in concepts. Unlike the rest of creation. And that we must assign values, not only to things that we see and understand, but also to things beyond our physical touch and brain compacity for understanding. Where does this come from? It seems to be just there. We are the only species that asks; Why? And it the fact that we ask "why"? That gives us our starting place. Modernity has let us down. Modernity has taught us to skip "why" until we find the "what". And that once we find the "what" we will know the "why". But if you remove the "why" from a human being, you remove the thing that makes him distinctive as a human. Therfore, modernity can be viewed as the dehumanization of humanity.
Rush asks "why?" long after it was unacceptable to ask it. All he had to go on in his quest for an answer, was a blank chalkboard, retaining a faint chalk stain where "why" had been erased. His conclusion; There is no "why", therefore there is no meaning. All we are is all we are. End of story. Oh, but there is a "why". The why always remains. You can insert it in any situation, anytime that you want. Someone may be able to keep you from verbalizing the "why", but they can't stop you from thinking it. The beautiful thing is that you can't stop yourself from thinking it. It's just there. And I don't think it's there to lead us to rational conclusions. I think it's there to point us to something bigger than ourselves. For if you have a "why" than cannot be answered, either there is no answer, and therefore no "why", or there is an answer and it's too glorious for you. It's full of hope actually. If we were it, and this were it, what's the point? But it's not possible. That we are all we are. Why then do we ask "why"? Because there is someone out there who doesn't have questions or answers. He knows all. And we can know him. We can't if we think that we are all we are. We can if we accept that the majority of things that happen every day are out of our control. How does it happen? It's a good question. Maybe it doesn't just happen. Maybe the sunrise doesn't just happen? Maybe, rain and snow, doesn't just happen. Maybe birth and death don't just happen. Try to grab the sky, or run across the ocean, or predict what others are thinking and feeling, or make it rain or make it snow, or make the sun come out, or make it set.
What is the LORD's understanding? It is not our own. And that is all that we need to know. If we can believe that most things are out of our ability to ultimately control, then we can relax, and enjoy the simple pleasures we once did; when we were kids, wide eyed, and trusting, before we were enlightened. Enlightened to what? The truth that all we are is all we are. It cannot be, because then we would not care about the "why". Enlightenment is not when you have the answer to the "why", but when you finally embrace the "why".
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Where do you turn when the society doesn't work for you! (Vomitous Mass)
Is there anybody else out there having trouble trying to figure out what they're supposed to be doing in this life? And is this a bad question considering my Christian faith?
The heart of my theology is that Jesus brought a new way of thinking about life to not only the people he had personal contact with but to all of us who claim humanity as our species. This brought him in direct opposition with both major institutions that would run his life if he allowed it to. What was funny about that is that those institutions were in opposition to each other. (I believe that it is in the nature of institutions to oppose one another). So Jesus, brings an opposing worldview to a world on the edge of blowing up with a worldview war. The Pax Romana vs. strict Judaism, Enter Jesus. The climax of the story?: The Pax Romana and strict judaism make a once in a lifetime alliance. It's actually the only time they ally. And they agree that it is in both of their best interest to kill the Nazareth carpenter that we call Jesus. This just raises the most important questions in the universe. Questions, that if answered should help us figure out what we're all supposed to be doing in this life. The question first and foremost is. Why should I assume that a singled out historical context has more significance to this universe than what is apparent? And what is apparent, if you were confused, is that Jesus of Nazareth was a radical with ideas dangerous enough to both strict Judaism and the Roman Empire for him to have to be executed. There is no good reason to assume it without faith. (Faith needs no reason) The reason I say this is not a good reason is based on the keen observation that Jesus Christ rules the Western World despite the fact that there have been other radicals who died for good causes at the hands of opposing worldviews. Why haven't we made a world religion out of them? Why haven't we done to them what we've done to Jesus, and that is turn them into more than the simple men that they were, turn them into causes, into reasons and purposes, into systems and rituals? Is it not obvious that Christianity is an overwhelmingly dominating institution? Is Jesus merely the Western symbol of social justice, and personal salvation? Does the real Jesus of Nazareth even matter anymore? And why should he matter anymore than Martin Luther King, or Abraham Lincoln, who's deaths did arguably more for their causes than their lives? Could not the same thing be said of Jesus? Why put such emphasis on Jesus? Why put your faith in Jesus? The answer that the Apostle Paul gives us is the Resurrection, that Jesus was the first to rise from the dead, the "firstborn from the dead" as he put it. What's interesting about this is that in Paul's day it was actually moderately common for disciples of a "messiah", of which there were many, to give meaning to a "messiah's" life by giving meaning to his death by saying he rose from the dead. In other words Paul's reason for what made that particular radical from Nazareth signigicant is that he didn't stay dead, for real. Paul believed this was true not by faith, but by sight. He claimed that he saw the risen Jesus, and that the risen Jesus vindicated the pre-risen Jesus' message. To Paul, the teachings of Jesus mattered because Jesus did something impossible, proved himself to extra-human, or as Paul would claim along with other apostles, proved himself to be the God of Israel as Jesus claimed to be. Remarkably, Paul exclaims to the 1st century church at Corinth that his whole life of preaching and suffering is in vain if Jesus did not rise from the dead. What I have been implying that I will now say openly. Our faith is not a moral faith. For Jesus taught morals only disagreeable to an institution, but not to an individual. Jesus taught us the morals of all of our mothers. He taught us to treat others as we would like be treated, to sacrifice for each other, to feel the need to teach others before we fell the need to prove ourselves. And these morals, can be easily followed by a good young boy, on a personal level. But on a international level, on a societal level, on an institutional level, you can forget about it. Imagine telling President Bush that you think America should follow the teachings of Jesus, and just give Iraq all that we have because the God who "formed this country" will provide for all of our needs. Most Christians in America would call this suggestion something like, misguided, naive, idealistic, or even unpatriotic. Let's think about this. What happens in war? People kill each other. For what? To protect their ideals? What ideals? Ideals like "do not murder"? By the way we protect this ideal by executing those who kill people. What matter has an ideal if it cannot be lived out? How does more killing improve the quality of life around the world? If anything it's all an admission that human being are screwed up and everything is out of control. Am I the only one who's not satisfied with living out Jesus' teaching's in my "own personal life",as if my "own personal life" has no affect on the world?
I believe that Jesus' teaching's were about social justice.
I believe that we all agree with Jesus in our own personal lives.
I believe that when we get together and try to make a just society that we screw it up. Even when we do it in Jesus' name.
This is why I ask... What am I supposed to be doing with my life?
I won't bring in the realization of Jesus' teachings on earth by organizing and motivating a group of people to do it.
Nor will I bring the realization of Jesus' teachings by complaining and doing nothing.
Maybe, I am thinking on the wrong thing. Maybe my addiction to thinking about "what to do" instead of "what am I?", "who is Jesus", "how did I get here?" and other paradoxes is what is getting me and the rest of the world into trouble. What if I lived my life in perfect awe? Always, simply enjoying entertaining the mysteries, the questions without answers; "How did I get here?" "How did Jesus die and then live?" "How was Jesus born of a virgin?" "How does the Universe not have an end?" How does time have a beginning and an end?" How many stars are there?" What if these thoughts made me realize that life is bigger than my job, my payments, even the worlds problems, affording me time, without coercion, to live out Jesus teaching. The beginning of wisdom is awe as Solomon tells us. Awe results in obedience. Obedience results in joy. Joy results in purpose. It starts in your mind. Try to stop thinking about what you're going to do, and think about all that's been done, let your mind be blown away. I can gurantee that the mighty sounds of airstrikes, the impressive sights that are towering skyscrapers, prove to be infentessimle squeaks, and micropscopic sights. And when man no longer impresses us, he can then have our compassion.
The heart of my theology is that Jesus brought a new way of thinking about life to not only the people he had personal contact with but to all of us who claim humanity as our species. This brought him in direct opposition with both major institutions that would run his life if he allowed it to. What was funny about that is that those institutions were in opposition to each other. (I believe that it is in the nature of institutions to oppose one another). So Jesus, brings an opposing worldview to a world on the edge of blowing up with a worldview war. The Pax Romana vs. strict Judaism, Enter Jesus. The climax of the story?: The Pax Romana and strict judaism make a once in a lifetime alliance. It's actually the only time they ally. And they agree that it is in both of their best interest to kill the Nazareth carpenter that we call Jesus. This just raises the most important questions in the universe. Questions, that if answered should help us figure out what we're all supposed to be doing in this life. The question first and foremost is. Why should I assume that a singled out historical context has more significance to this universe than what is apparent? And what is apparent, if you were confused, is that Jesus of Nazareth was a radical with ideas dangerous enough to both strict Judaism and the Roman Empire for him to have to be executed. There is no good reason to assume it without faith. (Faith needs no reason) The reason I say this is not a good reason is based on the keen observation that Jesus Christ rules the Western World despite the fact that there have been other radicals who died for good causes at the hands of opposing worldviews. Why haven't we made a world religion out of them? Why haven't we done to them what we've done to Jesus, and that is turn them into more than the simple men that they were, turn them into causes, into reasons and purposes, into systems and rituals? Is it not obvious that Christianity is an overwhelmingly dominating institution? Is Jesus merely the Western symbol of social justice, and personal salvation? Does the real Jesus of Nazareth even matter anymore? And why should he matter anymore than Martin Luther King, or Abraham Lincoln, who's deaths did arguably more for their causes than their lives? Could not the same thing be said of Jesus? Why put such emphasis on Jesus? Why put your faith in Jesus? The answer that the Apostle Paul gives us is the Resurrection, that Jesus was the first to rise from the dead, the "firstborn from the dead" as he put it. What's interesting about this is that in Paul's day it was actually moderately common for disciples of a "messiah", of which there were many, to give meaning to a "messiah's" life by giving meaning to his death by saying he rose from the dead. In other words Paul's reason for what made that particular radical from Nazareth signigicant is that he didn't stay dead, for real. Paul believed this was true not by faith, but by sight. He claimed that he saw the risen Jesus, and that the risen Jesus vindicated the pre-risen Jesus' message. To Paul, the teachings of Jesus mattered because Jesus did something impossible, proved himself to extra-human, or as Paul would claim along with other apostles, proved himself to be the God of Israel as Jesus claimed to be. Remarkably, Paul exclaims to the 1st century church at Corinth that his whole life of preaching and suffering is in vain if Jesus did not rise from the dead. What I have been implying that I will now say openly. Our faith is not a moral faith. For Jesus taught morals only disagreeable to an institution, but not to an individual. Jesus taught us the morals of all of our mothers. He taught us to treat others as we would like be treated, to sacrifice for each other, to feel the need to teach others before we fell the need to prove ourselves. And these morals, can be easily followed by a good young boy, on a personal level. But on a international level, on a societal level, on an institutional level, you can forget about it. Imagine telling President Bush that you think America should follow the teachings of Jesus, and just give Iraq all that we have because the God who "formed this country" will provide for all of our needs. Most Christians in America would call this suggestion something like, misguided, naive, idealistic, or even unpatriotic. Let's think about this. What happens in war? People kill each other. For what? To protect their ideals? What ideals? Ideals like "do not murder"? By the way we protect this ideal by executing those who kill people. What matter has an ideal if it cannot be lived out? How does more killing improve the quality of life around the world? If anything it's all an admission that human being are screwed up and everything is out of control. Am I the only one who's not satisfied with living out Jesus' teaching's in my "own personal life",as if my "own personal life" has no affect on the world?
I believe that Jesus' teaching's were about social justice.
I believe that we all agree with Jesus in our own personal lives.
I believe that when we get together and try to make a just society that we screw it up. Even when we do it in Jesus' name.
This is why I ask... What am I supposed to be doing with my life?
I won't bring in the realization of Jesus' teachings on earth by organizing and motivating a group of people to do it.
Nor will I bring the realization of Jesus' teachings by complaining and doing nothing.
Maybe, I am thinking on the wrong thing. Maybe my addiction to thinking about "what to do" instead of "what am I?", "who is Jesus", "how did I get here?" and other paradoxes is what is getting me and the rest of the world into trouble. What if I lived my life in perfect awe? Always, simply enjoying entertaining the mysteries, the questions without answers; "How did I get here?" "How did Jesus die and then live?" "How was Jesus born of a virgin?" "How does the Universe not have an end?" How does time have a beginning and an end?" How many stars are there?" What if these thoughts made me realize that life is bigger than my job, my payments, even the worlds problems, affording me time, without coercion, to live out Jesus teaching. The beginning of wisdom is awe as Solomon tells us. Awe results in obedience. Obedience results in joy. Joy results in purpose. It starts in your mind. Try to stop thinking about what you're going to do, and think about all that's been done, let your mind be blown away. I can gurantee that the mighty sounds of airstrikes, the impressive sights that are towering skyscrapers, prove to be infentessimle squeaks, and micropscopic sights. And when man no longer impresses us, he can then have our compassion.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Obama's better than Satan, and Satan's not Bush.
Although there is no emprical evidence to support my claim (nevermind how overated empirical evidence is), I hold that this claim is self-evident. Obama won last night because America bought the "change" mantra. Something there is empirical data for is President Bush's job approval rating. He will be handing the presidency to Barack Obama with the worst approval rating in the history of the presidency. This fact made it easy for Democrats to win this election. All they needed to say was; "We will bring change". What does all of this mean? Of that I am not exactley sure. But I do believe that rating a presidency is meaningless, that President Bush is not a politician, and that Barack will not bring the change that people are looking for. For some politicians, politics is about values, and not politics. A politician's values are best shown by his voting record (if he is in Congress). It is difficult to separate values from politics in the person who is an executive. But I truly believe that the less popular an executive is, the more of a value person he is. Approval rating is our access into the value rating of a politician. The value person apparently doesn't care what people think. Unless of course, the politician is just really stupid. Which some would of course argue that President Bush certainly is. I would argue that he certainly is not. I do not think any public official is. Inarticulate? Oh yes, our president sounds like a blithering idiot. Stupid? If he's stupid, all those who voted for him are stupid. Are all Republicans stupid? Even the ones who are doctors, and have degrees from Yale, Harvard, ...? Do not forget that our president graduated from Yale. Yes, he was a drunk cheerleader. But weren't we all at some point? With that said my point is this. No matter what you say about President Bush, his approval rating shows that he did what he thought was best for every American, and he did not care what you thought. And admit it, this is what you hate. President Bush does not care what you think. President Bush will not change his mind, admit it when he is wrong. He is a stubborn right-wing Texan who likes oil, and likes to blow things up. And he never hinted that he was anything different. And the USA voted for him twice. President Clinton cared about what you thought. He cared enough to tell you that he didn't have any sexual relations with that woman. He cared enough to remove an evil dictator, even though no apparent American interests were at stake. If you say that no American interests were at stake in Iraq, you are lying to yourself, because Iraq has oil, and to President Bush this is certainly an apparent American interest, and he doesn't care if you think oil isn't an American interest. But, you say, "President Bush does care what we think, because he lied to us about why we were going into Iraq. He knew we wouldn't buy the oil thing as an excuse" Correction: Although Bush is a bad politician, he isn't that stupid. America almost always goes to war for oil these days. (Unless they're led by Clinton, then they let young men die so that America forgets about what happens in Billy's pants). Unless politicians have another reason, other than oil, that the public would deem legitimate, they will not go to war. I believe that President Bush really believed that there were WMD's in Iraq. I believe that he will not fess up to America, not becaused he's a dishonest politician, but because he's a stubborn bastard. Bush is not a liar. He's just a (as my friend Devon would say a "benkwrp", I think that's how you spell it)Say what you want about the president, what you see is what you get, and in these days that is something admirable in a politician. The quality we all see and despise in President Bush is the same thing that makes him admirable, and in this way he is just like the rest of us.
This includes president incumbent, Barack Obama. Depending on how good of a politician he is will determine whether one day we find his excellent rhetorical skill to be no longer dazzling but instead, annoyingly vague. Do you remember when President's Bush's "kicking "sarbmp" and taking name's" attitude earned him a 90% approval rating? He wasn't being a politician then either.
Some people are fearful if Obama's voting record is any indication of his values, (and they are) that America will be a pacifist state, with a Socialist economy, and millions upon millions of dead infants. Here's the thing. America cannot afford to be a pacifist state. Barack knows that. There are still too many powerful people benefitting from Captilism to allow one man to change that. Millions and millions of babies were aborted under the most pro life administration to date, not to mention the most pro life supreme court, which could change. It is however unlikely, that Barack could find 2 supreme court justices who would agree to his extreme views on the abortion issue. Nothing is going to change about Roe v. Wade. America will still be capitalist in 4 years. America wil still be killing people with big guns. Big oil won't let the Obama administration find alternate energy. And if Obama tries to be a value president, he will be unpopular, and the Republicans will win by a landslide in 12'. It depends on whether Obama is anything like Bush if we ending up liking him. And although it seems that President Bush always gets his way, it is only in the realm of foreign affairs that this happens. What this means for Obama, is that if he is a value president and not a politician, (which in our current situation will yield the same results) he will pull the troops out. But a little research on Obama, when it comes to foreign affairs, the area the President has a lot of power, maybe too much power, will reveal some scary things. If Obama is a value president, by the time we have another election, we will have a lot of unhappy evangelicals living in a truly religious pluralistic society, nearing an Islamic takeover. Not militarily but culturally. And it is on this cultural front that the battle will be waged. And many, many Americans will passionately hate the president. But, I don't believe that Obama is that ballsy. And is this belief that leads me to believe that for the next four years things will remain much the same as it has been, except we will not have much of a military presence in Iraq.
It's hard to tell exactly what the next president will be like, or what he will do, or what he will actually change. My belief that Obama is not courageous enough to continue his friendly relations with Mid-eastern Muslims is met with fair confidence but not full certainty. But if he that courageous, get ready for change. But don't be too sure that Obama will not go more to the right as an executive in the limelight. Basically I am saying; Barack Obama, the values president is something to be concerned about. But the more likely scenario. Barack Obama, the politician, is as harmless to America as a young friendly intern. However, Michelle ain't Hilary.
This includes president incumbent, Barack Obama. Depending on how good of a politician he is will determine whether one day we find his excellent rhetorical skill to be no longer dazzling but instead, annoyingly vague. Do you remember when President's Bush's "kicking "sarbmp" and taking name's" attitude earned him a 90% approval rating? He wasn't being a politician then either.
Some people are fearful if Obama's voting record is any indication of his values, (and they are) that America will be a pacifist state, with a Socialist economy, and millions upon millions of dead infants. Here's the thing. America cannot afford to be a pacifist state. Barack knows that. There are still too many powerful people benefitting from Captilism to allow one man to change that. Millions and millions of babies were aborted under the most pro life administration to date, not to mention the most pro life supreme court, which could change. It is however unlikely, that Barack could find 2 supreme court justices who would agree to his extreme views on the abortion issue. Nothing is going to change about Roe v. Wade. America will still be capitalist in 4 years. America wil still be killing people with big guns. Big oil won't let the Obama administration find alternate energy. And if Obama tries to be a value president, he will be unpopular, and the Republicans will win by a landslide in 12'. It depends on whether Obama is anything like Bush if we ending up liking him. And although it seems that President Bush always gets his way, it is only in the realm of foreign affairs that this happens. What this means for Obama, is that if he is a value president and not a politician, (which in our current situation will yield the same results) he will pull the troops out. But a little research on Obama, when it comes to foreign affairs, the area the President has a lot of power, maybe too much power, will reveal some scary things. If Obama is a value president, by the time we have another election, we will have a lot of unhappy evangelicals living in a truly religious pluralistic society, nearing an Islamic takeover. Not militarily but culturally. And it is on this cultural front that the battle will be waged. And many, many Americans will passionately hate the president. But, I don't believe that Obama is that ballsy. And is this belief that leads me to believe that for the next four years things will remain much the same as it has been, except we will not have much of a military presence in Iraq.
It's hard to tell exactly what the next president will be like, or what he will do, or what he will actually change. My belief that Obama is not courageous enough to continue his friendly relations with Mid-eastern Muslims is met with fair confidence but not full certainty. But if he that courageous, get ready for change. But don't be too sure that Obama will not go more to the right as an executive in the limelight. Basically I am saying; Barack Obama, the values president is something to be concerned about. But the more likely scenario. Barack Obama, the politician, is as harmless to America as a young friendly intern. However, Michelle ain't Hilary.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
What Kind of Church Was That?
In the first century A.D. there was this “sweet” church. They didn’t know they were a church as 21st century people might know themselves to be a church. All they knew was that they were believers in Jesus of Nazareth’s resurrection and Messiahship, and that mysteriously He wasn’t with them at the present, that He had ascended into heaven, but was coming back to receive them and institute the kingdom that God had promised to them. They were a little confused about what they were supposed to be doing in the meantime. But they were pretty sure they were living in the final days, and that their resurrected King was coming back at any time. They understood that God was giving His people one last chance to repent and believe in Him and His anointed Messiah, Jesus. And so they figured that they would just try to persuade their Jewish brothers that the resurrected Jesus who had ascended to heaven was coming back to be their King and Messiah if they believed and repented. These basic beliefs bound them together; made them a community. Besides preaching that Jesus was the resurrected king, they also lived very unique lives. They were given the Holy Spirit, and so the Apostles, a.k.a. “the commissioned ones” were given Jesus power to heal and cast out demons. They preached the good news that Jesus was the resurrected king coming again to set up the promised kingdom. They initiated those who believed this by baptizing them into their faith community. They listened to and complied with the Apostles teaching, and fostered relationships with them and each other. They ate together. They remembered Jesus and his death by breaking bread. They prayed together. They remembered that when Jesus was with them he taught them that possessions could not give them eternal life, that if they wanted to lose their soul they would keep their things, but if they wanted to win their own souls they would give their possessions away. So they sold all of their possessions and divided them amongst themselves as anyone had need. Every day they went to temple and hung out. They went from house to house remembering Jesus by breaking bread and eating together very casually. Every day they went to the temple and praised God and made friends. And every day God added more people to their faith community.
Without going into deep theology, I want us just for a moment to think about how beautiful this is. Most of what I have said about the first church I got straight from Acts 2:41-47. In a strictly literal sense, this is not the exact formula for the perfect church. Time has made it difficult to be a mirror image of that first church. In general, however, how can one read this and not breathe a sigh of relief to know that there was once a community in the history of the world that got it right? And if they got it right due to their unflinching commitment to Jesus, why can’t we do the same in our context? We can. We may have to make radical changes, scary changes, unpopular changes, but if our Messiah is their Messiah, there is no reason that we cannot have the same kind of community today. May we mull over what a first century church would look like in the 21st century? May we be willing to make the necessary changes no matter how radical, scary, or polarizing they may be to be the kind of church we ought to be today?
In an earlier writing I asked the question; “What Kind of Church is This?” It was a response to the confusion I had heard expressed in the Scranton community and even in the Steamtown Church community about Steamtown Church. I hope that this writing; “What kind of Church Was That?” starts us thinking about what kind of church we are going to be.
Acts 2: 41-47
Those who accepted the message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
In the first century A.D. there was this “sweet” church. They didn’t know they were a church as 21st century people might know themselves to be a church. All they knew was that they were believers in Jesus of Nazareth’s resurrection and Messiahship, and that mysteriously He wasn’t with them at the present, that He had ascended into heaven, but was coming back to receive them and institute the kingdom that God had promised to them. They were a little confused about what they were supposed to be doing in the meantime. But they were pretty sure they were living in the final days, and that their resurrected King was coming back at any time. They understood that God was giving His people one last chance to repent and believe in Him and His anointed Messiah, Jesus. And so they figured that they would just try to persuade their Jewish brothers that the resurrected Jesus who had ascended to heaven was coming back to be their King and Messiah if they believed and repented. These basic beliefs bound them together; made them a community. Besides preaching that Jesus was the resurrected king, they also lived very unique lives. They were given the Holy Spirit, and so the Apostles, a.k.a. “the commissioned ones” were given Jesus power to heal and cast out demons. They preached the good news that Jesus was the resurrected king coming again to set up the promised kingdom. They initiated those who believed this by baptizing them into their faith community. They listened to and complied with the Apostles teaching, and fostered relationships with them and each other. They ate together. They remembered Jesus and his death by breaking bread. They prayed together. They remembered that when Jesus was with them he taught them that possessions could not give them eternal life, that if they wanted to lose their soul they would keep their things, but if they wanted to win their own souls they would give their possessions away. So they sold all of their possessions and divided them amongst themselves as anyone had need. Every day they went to temple and hung out. They went from house to house remembering Jesus by breaking bread and eating together very casually. Every day they went to the temple and praised God and made friends. And every day God added more people to their faith community.
Without going into deep theology, I want us just for a moment to think about how beautiful this is. Most of what I have said about the first church I got straight from Acts 2:41-47. In a strictly literal sense, this is not the exact formula for the perfect church. Time has made it difficult to be a mirror image of that first church. In general, however, how can one read this and not breathe a sigh of relief to know that there was once a community in the history of the world that got it right? And if they got it right due to their unflinching commitment to Jesus, why can’t we do the same in our context? We can. We may have to make radical changes, scary changes, unpopular changes, but if our Messiah is their Messiah, there is no reason that we cannot have the same kind of community today. May we mull over what a first century church would look like in the 21st century? May we be willing to make the necessary changes no matter how radical, scary, or polarizing they may be to be the kind of church we ought to be today?
In an earlier writing I asked the question; “What Kind of Church is This?” It was a response to the confusion I had heard expressed in the Scranton community and even in the Steamtown Church community about Steamtown Church. I hope that this writing; “What kind of Church Was That?” starts us thinking about what kind of church we are going to be.
Acts 2: 41-47
Those who accepted the message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
Philippians
Philippians is a letter in a very real sense. We preacher types, especially those of us with an evangelical influence, tend to want break down everything that the Apostle Paul writes into nice little particulars attached to one major theme. With a bit of cleverness and a little more hard work we might actually be able to squeeze out something of a major theme in this letter, but it might end up being quite contrived. If there is a theme of Philippians it is not literary. Philippians is the writing of a human being who is magnificently and beautifully putting on display his deep love, affection, commitment to and passion for the message of Jesus Christ.
Paul, perhaps more than anyone who ever lived, gave his life to the message of Jesus. Ironically, but so appropriately it brought him a lot of struggle, suffering, pain, and injustice. In fact Paul was in chains when he penned this delightful letter. Yet, he can rejoice. And he does not seem to be forcing himself to do so. Even more fascinating is that Paul is not rejoicing just because he knows that his faith in Jesus will get him to heaven when he dies. Although this is true and is one of the many reasons that Paul has to rejoice, it is still only one reason. With enthusiasm and childish charm the Apostle finds joy in any and every circumstance because he sees every circumstance of his life, whether he suffers or whether he prospers, as having a direct association to his relationship to Jesus Christ.
I have to believe that if Paul, even while sitting in a Roman jail cell, tried to look for a reason to despair he could not find one. He found that the gospel advanced whether or not he was preaching it. It advanced whether or not it was preached with good motives. He found that the worst thing that could happen to him was that they would kill him which he ends up saying would be the best thing that could happen to him because it would mean his being with Christ. But even if they didn’t kill him, his remaining on earth would be good news for those who he would minister to. He found that his life of suffering identified him so closely with Christ, and that the injustice he suffered at the hands of the Roman Empire would be vindicated by his rising again from the dead just like Christ, leading to his ascension into heaven just like Christ.
The gospel was about preaching and living out the message of Christ, and Paul was living it. This bode well for him ultimately. So even in his suffering he could rejoice because his suffering for the cause of Christ showed the legitimacy of his gospel. Paul was discovering that this world, no matter how hard it tried, could not stop the gospel. It could imprison its preachers, sabotage its message, and kill its followers, but it could not stop the gospel. This inspired Paul to write a beautiful letter, containing not a centralized theme, but a majestic poem, inspiring its readers to not give up courage, to stand strong together, knowing that they were preaching an incorruptible message, and following in the footsteps of an utterly victorious savior.
Philippians is a letter in a very real sense. We preacher types, especially those of us with an evangelical influence, tend to want break down everything that the Apostle Paul writes into nice little particulars attached to one major theme. With a bit of cleverness and a little more hard work we might actually be able to squeeze out something of a major theme in this letter, but it might end up being quite contrived. If there is a theme of Philippians it is not literary. Philippians is the writing of a human being who is magnificently and beautifully putting on display his deep love, affection, commitment to and passion for the message of Jesus Christ.
Paul, perhaps more than anyone who ever lived, gave his life to the message of Jesus. Ironically, but so appropriately it brought him a lot of struggle, suffering, pain, and injustice. In fact Paul was in chains when he penned this delightful letter. Yet, he can rejoice. And he does not seem to be forcing himself to do so. Even more fascinating is that Paul is not rejoicing just because he knows that his faith in Jesus will get him to heaven when he dies. Although this is true and is one of the many reasons that Paul has to rejoice, it is still only one reason. With enthusiasm and childish charm the Apostle finds joy in any and every circumstance because he sees every circumstance of his life, whether he suffers or whether he prospers, as having a direct association to his relationship to Jesus Christ.
I have to believe that if Paul, even while sitting in a Roman jail cell, tried to look for a reason to despair he could not find one. He found that the gospel advanced whether or not he was preaching it. It advanced whether or not it was preached with good motives. He found that the worst thing that could happen to him was that they would kill him which he ends up saying would be the best thing that could happen to him because it would mean his being with Christ. But even if they didn’t kill him, his remaining on earth would be good news for those who he would minister to. He found that his life of suffering identified him so closely with Christ, and that the injustice he suffered at the hands of the Roman Empire would be vindicated by his rising again from the dead just like Christ, leading to his ascension into heaven just like Christ.
The gospel was about preaching and living out the message of Christ, and Paul was living it. This bode well for him ultimately. So even in his suffering he could rejoice because his suffering for the cause of Christ showed the legitimacy of his gospel. Paul was discovering that this world, no matter how hard it tried, could not stop the gospel. It could imprison its preachers, sabotage its message, and kill its followers, but it could not stop the gospel. This inspired Paul to write a beautiful letter, containing not a centralized theme, but a majestic poem, inspiring its readers to not give up courage, to stand strong together, knowing that they were preaching an incorruptible message, and following in the footsteps of an utterly victorious savior.
Something I Wrote For My Church
What Kind of Church is This?
By Pastor Matt Miller
It is a loaded question. What kind of Church is this? It is unfair really. But it’s one that many are asking. I ask the same question every Wednesday during our wonderful weekly staff meetings. This question in particular is impossible to answer. The least of the reasons is that it is really difficult to actually box any entity in. It’s an inherently subjective query. What kind of store is Wal-Mart? What kind of coffee shop is Starbucks? What kind of house is Dennis’ house? Different people would see different legitimate ways to classify these different things. I think you could easily do the same thing with Steamtown Church. You might try to bring all the different perspectives together to form a coherent holistic definition. It’s possible and it’s a waste of time. The important question when it comes to Steamtown Church is not, “What kind of Church is this?” but, “Is Steamtown Church a church?” Here are just a few of the ways I have heard Steamtown characterized.
“Steamtown is the best thing that ever happened to Scranton”
“Steamtown is a college church”
“Steamtown is friendly”
“Steamtown is Dennis”
“Steamtown is a cult”
“Steamtown is a bible-believing fundamental church”
“Steamtown is an emergent Church”
“Steamtown is protestant”
“Steamtown is non-denominational”
“Steamtown is Baptist”
“Steamtown is baptist, but with a little “b”.
“Steamtown Church cares about the community”
“Steamtown Church cares about the poor”
“Steamtown Church is furthering the oil crisis”
“Steamtown is hip”
These are only a few of the comments I have heard over the years. It’s easy to see how some of these descriptions contradict each other. Steamtown cannot be emergent and fundamental. It cannot be non-denominational and Baptist. It is questionable whether or not Steamtown can further the oil crisis (this was said as a response to us giving away free gas downtown) and at the same time care about the community and its poor. There are many inconsistent and sometimes contradictory assessments in only these few comments. But if you talk to the individuals who make these assessments they all have a basis for thinking what they think. I point this out to drive my earlier point home. We will never be able to answer the question, “What kind of church is Steamtown Church?” An even trickier and potentially more frustrating question is, “What is Steamtown Church”. Again, the question that is important is, “Is Steamtown a church?”
The Greek word for church is transliterated as “ekklesia” which means “assembly”. The 1st century followers of Jesus chose not to make up a term for what they were. They decided to confuse the world forever and just call themselves an assembly. If someone were to ask the early followers of Jesus,
“Hey what are you guys?”
“Oh, we’re an assembly”
“Yea, but what kind of assembly?”
“We’re an assembly that has committed ourselves to praying together, spending quality time together, not depending on the possessions of this world to give us security, and spreading the news around this world about Jesus and the hope that He brings through His death and Resurrection.”
Is this what a church is today? No. It seems that a church today is a place you go on Sundays. Steamtown Church is not a place you go on Sunday. The Red Carpet Inn is a place you go on Sunday. Steamtown Church is supposed to be, if it is to really call itself a church, an assembly that is committed to praying together, spending quality time together, not depending on the possessions of this world to give them their security, and spreading the news about Jesus. Maybe to avoid confusion we should just call ourselves “an assembly” or maybe we shouldn’t call ourselves anything, and just call what we do something cheesy like, “The Scranton Movement”. One church in Texas brilliantly decided to just call itself Ekklesia.
There is a difference between what we are and what are mission is. Our mission is to bring God closer to every individual within our sphere of influence no matter where that individual is at. One of the avenues that we use to do this is to invite people to a service that we call Steamtown Church. Why? If we’re trying to communicate to people that Steamtown Church is not a place why do we invite them to a place and call it Steamtown Church? For one, one of the things that breaks down the misconception that a church is a place is that we don’t actually meet in a traditional church building, but we meet in a hotel. Obviously Steamtown Church is not The Red Carpet Inn but it is not the Sunday morning service either. I find myself sometimes, even as lead teacher, telling people that I am “going to church” on Sunday and then telling the people from up front that we are not at church but that we are the church.
Hopefully it has become apparent that “Steamtown Church” has a double meaning. On one hand it is the specific Jesus followers living in the Scranton area who have committed themselves…you know the drill. On the other hand it is the organization that has been all over the news, and on a billboard. It is a really hip service on Sunday Morning with cool songs, and sweet messages. But all the coolness, all the sweetness, all the hype is not who we are, but it is what we do in order to be who we want to be. It is our way of spreading the news about Jesus. It is our way of getting people’s attention. If you want to spend your time pondering over what kind of church Steamtown is, I will not stop you; only suggest that your time could be better spent. As for me I am willing to accept that Steamtown is what it is; a hyped up, fun, friendly, and unpredictable organization that meets together weekly in the Red Carpet Inn.(Though to be theologically correct that is not what the church itself is, that does however perfectly describe the organization that is “Steamtown Church”) At the same time it is an assembly of Jesus followers living in Scranton who have committed themselves to praying together, spending quality time together, considering the possessions of this world of no consequence to their security, and spreading the good news of Jesus around Scranton; a wonderfully interesting city with an impressive heritage, that has needed some good news for some time. This is what kind of church this is.
By Pastor Matt Miller
It is a loaded question. What kind of Church is this? It is unfair really. But it’s one that many are asking. I ask the same question every Wednesday during our wonderful weekly staff meetings. This question in particular is impossible to answer. The least of the reasons is that it is really difficult to actually box any entity in. It’s an inherently subjective query. What kind of store is Wal-Mart? What kind of coffee shop is Starbucks? What kind of house is Dennis’ house? Different people would see different legitimate ways to classify these different things. I think you could easily do the same thing with Steamtown Church. You might try to bring all the different perspectives together to form a coherent holistic definition. It’s possible and it’s a waste of time. The important question when it comes to Steamtown Church is not, “What kind of Church is this?” but, “Is Steamtown Church a church?” Here are just a few of the ways I have heard Steamtown characterized.
“Steamtown is the best thing that ever happened to Scranton”
“Steamtown is a college church”
“Steamtown is friendly”
“Steamtown is Dennis”
“Steamtown is a cult”
“Steamtown is a bible-believing fundamental church”
“Steamtown is an emergent Church”
“Steamtown is protestant”
“Steamtown is non-denominational”
“Steamtown is Baptist”
“Steamtown is baptist, but with a little “b”.
“Steamtown Church cares about the community”
“Steamtown Church cares about the poor”
“Steamtown Church is furthering the oil crisis”
“Steamtown is hip”
These are only a few of the comments I have heard over the years. It’s easy to see how some of these descriptions contradict each other. Steamtown cannot be emergent and fundamental. It cannot be non-denominational and Baptist. It is questionable whether or not Steamtown can further the oil crisis (this was said as a response to us giving away free gas downtown) and at the same time care about the community and its poor. There are many inconsistent and sometimes contradictory assessments in only these few comments. But if you talk to the individuals who make these assessments they all have a basis for thinking what they think. I point this out to drive my earlier point home. We will never be able to answer the question, “What kind of church is Steamtown Church?” An even trickier and potentially more frustrating question is, “What is Steamtown Church”. Again, the question that is important is, “Is Steamtown a church?”
The Greek word for church is transliterated as “ekklesia” which means “assembly”. The 1st century followers of Jesus chose not to make up a term for what they were. They decided to confuse the world forever and just call themselves an assembly. If someone were to ask the early followers of Jesus,
“Hey what are you guys?”
“Oh, we’re an assembly”
“Yea, but what kind of assembly?”
“We’re an assembly that has committed ourselves to praying together, spending quality time together, not depending on the possessions of this world to give us security, and spreading the news around this world about Jesus and the hope that He brings through His death and Resurrection.”
Is this what a church is today? No. It seems that a church today is a place you go on Sundays. Steamtown Church is not a place you go on Sunday. The Red Carpet Inn is a place you go on Sunday. Steamtown Church is supposed to be, if it is to really call itself a church, an assembly that is committed to praying together, spending quality time together, not depending on the possessions of this world to give them their security, and spreading the news about Jesus. Maybe to avoid confusion we should just call ourselves “an assembly” or maybe we shouldn’t call ourselves anything, and just call what we do something cheesy like, “The Scranton Movement”. One church in Texas brilliantly decided to just call itself Ekklesia.
There is a difference between what we are and what are mission is. Our mission is to bring God closer to every individual within our sphere of influence no matter where that individual is at. One of the avenues that we use to do this is to invite people to a service that we call Steamtown Church. Why? If we’re trying to communicate to people that Steamtown Church is not a place why do we invite them to a place and call it Steamtown Church? For one, one of the things that breaks down the misconception that a church is a place is that we don’t actually meet in a traditional church building, but we meet in a hotel. Obviously Steamtown Church is not The Red Carpet Inn but it is not the Sunday morning service either. I find myself sometimes, even as lead teacher, telling people that I am “going to church” on Sunday and then telling the people from up front that we are not at church but that we are the church.
Hopefully it has become apparent that “Steamtown Church” has a double meaning. On one hand it is the specific Jesus followers living in the Scranton area who have committed themselves…you know the drill. On the other hand it is the organization that has been all over the news, and on a billboard. It is a really hip service on Sunday Morning with cool songs, and sweet messages. But all the coolness, all the sweetness, all the hype is not who we are, but it is what we do in order to be who we want to be. It is our way of spreading the news about Jesus. It is our way of getting people’s attention. If you want to spend your time pondering over what kind of church Steamtown is, I will not stop you; only suggest that your time could be better spent. As for me I am willing to accept that Steamtown is what it is; a hyped up, fun, friendly, and unpredictable organization that meets together weekly in the Red Carpet Inn.(Though to be theologically correct that is not what the church itself is, that does however perfectly describe the organization that is “Steamtown Church”) At the same time it is an assembly of Jesus followers living in Scranton who have committed themselves to praying together, spending quality time together, considering the possessions of this world of no consequence to their security, and spreading the good news of Jesus around Scranton; a wonderfully interesting city with an impressive heritage, that has needed some good news for some time. This is what kind of church this is.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Fargo
Today, I watched a fairly old movie. Fargo it was. The directors; the infamous Coen brothers. These are the same schmucks who directed some of my favorite movies. Fargo was their breakthrough. And today was my first time seeing it. It was brilliant despite being terribly cliche', original in it's story. But it is debateable whether it is worth seeing; mad depressing, and not really funny even though it is listed as a comedy. To be fair, comedy in the classic sense has less to do with "ha hahs" and more to do with irony. The directors' wild use of irony is what gives the film its brilliance. But really it is not that funny. It's sad and pitiful, and ironically it is regrettably non-preachy. It's the first film I have ever seen that I wished to be preached at. But I think this is how they want the viewer to feel. They want us to feel that tension when we view art, not wanting to hear a simple moral sermon but a complicated existentialist message.
With Fargo, what we get is a simple moral message artistically shoved down our throats, leaving us choking on the truth wishing that is wasn't so true. And we as modern Americans are not entertained by such moral cynicism. But the genius of this film, the true originality of this film, is that it is American, it is extremly simple in it's message (though original in its story), and it's message is cynical, and leaves us with a lingering bitterness, and we as optimistic Americans still drink it and swallow it, verbalize our distaste, and ask for another cup. It seems that when we do venture from the suburban middle class world of Americana, we don't actually leave, we just pretend that we're European while the real Europeans snicker at us. But with Fargo, the Coen's have managed to leave America, actually and really, without actually entering any other known territroy, except that in this new land the moral law has not changed, and therefore neither can their message. If Fargo is not original, then it has brought back tragedy. I feel like this would not be welcome. But the Academy Awards that line the hallways of the Coen's home contradict that sentiment. My first reaction to Fargo was that I wished it wasn't so hopelessly sad. Now I understand that this is not the point. Against what I am used to, this film isn't trying to get to think or feel any specific way. It not trying to change anything. It is not trying to make a statment. It is not trying to philosophize. It's a sermon in the form of story. And it's message is one we are all well aware of, but struggle to apply. And we wonder why our lives are so hard? Fargo tells us what we already know with gutwrenching honesty and necessary melodramatics. Fargo tells us that are lives are hard because we make them hard. Stop lying, cheating, and being greedy. It will make our life so much easier. We just don't believe it, do we? No we don't.
Providentially, I ended up reading the book of Proverbs in a cafe this afternoon. Proverbs, like Fargo is unashamedly preachy but with a different literary style. Here is an excerpt of what I read feeling like I was reading the Coen's inspiration. (If you haven't seen Fargo, you should. I didn't want to take up space in this post to explain the plot. I assumed my readers had seen it.) Okay, here is Proverbs 1:10-19
My son, if sinners entice you, do not consent
If they say, "Come with us.
Let us lie in wait to shed blood.
Let us lurk secretly for the innocent without cause
Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, and whole, like those who go down to the Pit;
We shall find all kinds of precious possessions,
We shall fill our houses with spoil;
Cast in your lot among us,
Let us all have one purse"-
My son, do not walk in the way with them
Keep your foot from thier path; for their feet run to evil and they make haste to shed blood.
Surely, in vain the net is spread in sight of any bird;
But they lie in wait for their own blood,
They lurk secretly for their own lives.
So are the ways of everyone who is greedy for gain
It takes away the life of its owners
With Fargo, what we get is a simple moral message artistically shoved down our throats, leaving us choking on the truth wishing that is wasn't so true. And we as modern Americans are not entertained by such moral cynicism. But the genius of this film, the true originality of this film, is that it is American, it is extremly simple in it's message (though original in its story), and it's message is cynical, and leaves us with a lingering bitterness, and we as optimistic Americans still drink it and swallow it, verbalize our distaste, and ask for another cup. It seems that when we do venture from the suburban middle class world of Americana, we don't actually leave, we just pretend that we're European while the real Europeans snicker at us. But with Fargo, the Coen's have managed to leave America, actually and really, without actually entering any other known territroy, except that in this new land the moral law has not changed, and therefore neither can their message. If Fargo is not original, then it has brought back tragedy. I feel like this would not be welcome. But the Academy Awards that line the hallways of the Coen's home contradict that sentiment. My first reaction to Fargo was that I wished it wasn't so hopelessly sad. Now I understand that this is not the point. Against what I am used to, this film isn't trying to get to think or feel any specific way. It not trying to change anything. It is not trying to make a statment. It is not trying to philosophize. It's a sermon in the form of story. And it's message is one we are all well aware of, but struggle to apply. And we wonder why our lives are so hard? Fargo tells us what we already know with gutwrenching honesty and necessary melodramatics. Fargo tells us that are lives are hard because we make them hard. Stop lying, cheating, and being greedy. It will make our life so much easier. We just don't believe it, do we? No we don't.
Providentially, I ended up reading the book of Proverbs in a cafe this afternoon. Proverbs, like Fargo is unashamedly preachy but with a different literary style. Here is an excerpt of what I read feeling like I was reading the Coen's inspiration. (If you haven't seen Fargo, you should. I didn't want to take up space in this post to explain the plot. I assumed my readers had seen it.) Okay, here is Proverbs 1:10-19
My son, if sinners entice you, do not consent
If they say, "Come with us.
Let us lie in wait to shed blood.
Let us lurk secretly for the innocent without cause
Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, and whole, like those who go down to the Pit;
We shall find all kinds of precious possessions,
We shall fill our houses with spoil;
Cast in your lot among us,
Let us all have one purse"-
My son, do not walk in the way with them
Keep your foot from thier path; for their feet run to evil and they make haste to shed blood.
Surely, in vain the net is spread in sight of any bird;
But they lie in wait for their own blood,
They lurk secretly for their own lives.
So are the ways of everyone who is greedy for gain
It takes away the life of its owners
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
