I've had a $25 gift card to Wal-Mart just lying around for over a year now, so I decided to use it today. I had earlier had the idea to possibly buy a canvas and some paint, and paint my own abstract or contemporary-ish art to hang in my room or somewhere around the house, to add some color. I figured it would be cheaper than buying something, and nicer than a poster. Well, I went to Michael's first, and their painting supply is high-dollar. Disappointing.
I later found some 16"x20" canvases at Wal-Mart, as well as some cheap acryllic paint. I bought primary colors and black and white in big $1.67 tubes, more than enough for the canvases (maybe I can make more art later). I also bought a candle, and a wooden box in the craft area that I thought looked nice for a dresser organizer (I put my keys, watch, cufflinks, etc., in it to take away clutter).
It feels good to be able to beautify a living space, even a temporary one. Having a creative flow at times, be it art, furniture aranging, writing, singing, dancing, or anything (I'm also honing a green thumb with some peach trees I put in pots out back) helps produce a worshipful heart. It helps me to appreciate the creative flow that was used to bring to existance all the somethings I am now working into an aesthetic form from nothing; the beautiful colors of art, the wonderous music of Bach, the slow eloquence of a plant blossoming, were all truly original ideas. We are simply working it all into what it was intended for: beauty.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Evangelism gone wrong, Evangelism rectified
I've been reading the book The Provocative Church lately, and must say I give it two hands up and an amen. Reading this book will jump in the face of everything you thought evangelism was.
Once not long ago (as in, beginning with my entrance into college and up until just recently) I felt very guilty regarding evangelism. The book hit this to a T when it sums up that most Christians feel that evangelism is something that ought to be done, but they don't readily do because they don't know how, they don't feel good at doing it, or they don't want to subject friends to a church that they themselves are bored and unfulfilled with.
I have always wished to evangelize, but have always had the principle hindrance in feeling that it does no good to talk about God to someone who isn't really curious. And, to that end, I've simply strove for Christian progress (see Justification, Sanctification, Reconciliation, in a previous entry). This book holds that just such an approach, on a church wide level, is the cornerstone of evangelism. If the whole chuch should be living a life different to the world around it, and preach a message of how to practically go about loving others, living in peace, and caring for people and the world around you, people will ask why. When you tell them why, tell them about Jesus. Having already gained their attention, they will be far more likely to listen.
Some might say that there's people out there who just don't seem like they would notice, or care. Well, and I indite (sp?) myself on this as well, I guess we just haven't shown them something different yet.
The other day over ice cream I was telling an old high school friend what I do with my friends for fun, and also telling her that all of these friends for the most part are from my church. She was interested, excited that we had so much fun and were so communally close without having to get completely drunk. Pretty soon, I'm going to make sure she (as well as anyone else she cares to bring) gets to see this kind of community. I'm not going out of the way to share the gospel with her. She's asked a little before, and I've answered a little, so I know she is to some degree interested. Hopefully, she'll be more intrigued, and gradually (by observing it) get to see the truth of the gospel through life lived by a church.
Once not long ago (as in, beginning with my entrance into college and up until just recently) I felt very guilty regarding evangelism. The book hit this to a T when it sums up that most Christians feel that evangelism is something that ought to be done, but they don't readily do because they don't know how, they don't feel good at doing it, or they don't want to subject friends to a church that they themselves are bored and unfulfilled with.
I have always wished to evangelize, but have always had the principle hindrance in feeling that it does no good to talk about God to someone who isn't really curious. And, to that end, I've simply strove for Christian progress (see Justification, Sanctification, Reconciliation, in a previous entry). This book holds that just such an approach, on a church wide level, is the cornerstone of evangelism. If the whole chuch should be living a life different to the world around it, and preach a message of how to practically go about loving others, living in peace, and caring for people and the world around you, people will ask why. When you tell them why, tell them about Jesus. Having already gained their attention, they will be far more likely to listen.
Some might say that there's people out there who just don't seem like they would notice, or care. Well, and I indite (sp?) myself on this as well, I guess we just haven't shown them something different yet.
The other day over ice cream I was telling an old high school friend what I do with my friends for fun, and also telling her that all of these friends for the most part are from my church. She was interested, excited that we had so much fun and were so communally close without having to get completely drunk. Pretty soon, I'm going to make sure she (as well as anyone else she cares to bring) gets to see this kind of community. I'm not going out of the way to share the gospel with her. She's asked a little before, and I've answered a little, so I know she is to some degree interested. Hopefully, she'll be more intrigued, and gradually (by observing it) get to see the truth of the gospel through life lived by a church.
The Da Vinci Code and Art in the Park
I went to see The Da Vinci Code last night with Thane. He wanted to see it after reading the book, to see how the movie compares. I wanted to see what the hubbub was all about without reading the book. Boy, was a silly little story.
I believe it's been out a couple weeks now, and it is probably going to be pulled from theaters real soon; the Forum showing we went to had five people watching it, including Thane and me. Thane says that the movie isn't completely like the book, and that it fails to embellish certain very important parts that in the book were elaborated to no end.
Afterwards, we both drove back to my place and Thane came in for a while. We had been discussing the movie, and religion, and other things. Eventually we started talking about faith and apologetics and evidence of the truth of Christianity. Thane was telling me about what the book Case for Faith is like, and his intentions to read Case for Christ later on. He made an exceptional point in an exceptionally simple way though, when he said that he doesn't want his faith to be a "proof". He considers himself a poor evangelist, in the sense that he isn't a walk up to strangers share your faith and answer every question kind. He was making the point that any book for or against Christianity has an author's bias, and of course they will prove themselves right. If you base all of your faith off of logical arguments and evidence, Thane said, you miss the whole point of faith, which is a matter of your heart. So simple and profound, he told me how he thinks so much Christian evidence literature merely makes the issue complex, when in his heart it is far more simple of an understanding. Incredible.
Earlier in the day yesterday I went to Art in the Park with Kelly Coffey and Dan Cotter. Out of all the things I looked at with the potential of buying, I bought an Art in the Park can koozie and can of lemonade. There's my souvenier.
I believe it's been out a couple weeks now, and it is probably going to be pulled from theaters real soon; the Forum showing we went to had five people watching it, including Thane and me. Thane says that the movie isn't completely like the book, and that it fails to embellish certain very important parts that in the book were elaborated to no end.
Afterwards, we both drove back to my place and Thane came in for a while. We had been discussing the movie, and religion, and other things. Eventually we started talking about faith and apologetics and evidence of the truth of Christianity. Thane was telling me about what the book Case for Faith is like, and his intentions to read Case for Christ later on. He made an exceptional point in an exceptionally simple way though, when he said that he doesn't want his faith to be a "proof". He considers himself a poor evangelist, in the sense that he isn't a walk up to strangers share your faith and answer every question kind. He was making the point that any book for or against Christianity has an author's bias, and of course they will prove themselves right. If you base all of your faith off of logical arguments and evidence, Thane said, you miss the whole point of faith, which is a matter of your heart. So simple and profound, he told me how he thinks so much Christian evidence literature merely makes the issue complex, when in his heart it is far more simple of an understanding. Incredible.
Earlier in the day yesterday I went to Art in the Park with Kelly Coffey and Dan Cotter. Out of all the things I looked at with the potential of buying, I bought an Art in the Park can koozie and can of lemonade. There's my souvenier.
Misconceptions, stereotypes, misrepresentation
"There are two great lies I've heard:
The day you eat of the fruit of that tree, you will not surely die
And that Jesus Christ was a white middle-class Republican
And if you wanna be saved you have to learn to be like Him" - Derek Webb, A King and a Kingdom
Lately Tyler and I have had lots of discussions on the subjects mentioned in the title of this post. To use a second quote from Derek Webb (I know, two in one post!), "A lot of the songs on Christian radio are just outright misrepresentations of the character of God." I want to move that beyond radio and music, however. I think that it is far too easy to fall into the trap of putting God in a box, as they say; for someone to write a book that gives a suddenly new "insight" into who God is and what He's about. It's also a problem to assume to have correctly interpreted the Bible, which has for centuries been hotly debated as to what it means or instructs in many instances.
What strikes me as happening very often, is that instead of gaining insight or understanding on who God is or who Jesus was, people (myself included) will project a part of themselves, a part of someone else they know (a parent, grandparent, mentor, lover, etc.), or a character quality they want to see or be close with. This is not to say that it is always incorrect, but not always correct either. Or, something also concerning to me at times, is the practice of finding God's providence in every tiny detail, or the gleening of a deep lesson errantly (such as if a decision you make results in a poor outcome, and then interpreting it as what God wanted, instead of recognizing the consequences of your intitial poor decision). My concern with these is that if every event, if every little coincidence, if every tiny good turn of events is portrayed in a miraculous light, how much less miraculous will true miracles be? How much more disheartened will we be when things go poorly, if we are conditioned to walking on a holy cloud of blessings? Bare with me, I am not raining judgement down on those folks who lace every conversation with reference to Christ or God; those people are truly blessed with a worshipful heart. Forgive me for being more, shall I say, suspicious.
In a country with the president we have, with the televangelists we have, with people so eager to find God in activities or lifestyles that are more for their benefit than the proper representation of who God is, we need to be more discerning. It may be a matter of semantics at times, or it may be simply understanding what in your life is truly God's work, what is your own; what is God's divine hand in situations, and what is God's instruction for living working out through His people in day to day Christian brotherly and sisterly love.
This was originally a little more coherent, but turned into a bit of a vent, and a whole lot of an imploring for discernment. I would use specific examples, but wish to keep things as anonymous as possible.
Addendum:
This may be something that, as a man, I'm not able to fully understand, but I know that for a lot of women there is this adoration of Christ as the "perfect lover", in a sense. I've seen it walk a hazy line between a truly Biblical example of the church as the bride and Christ the bridegroom and then something altogether different; Christ as the model lover for the girl who has had broken or failed relationships, or difficulty in general. For men, it can happen with a different persona, usually father, sometimes brother, also best friend. I find this kind of....replacement....dangerous, because as I said, it can become a matter of what do we want God to be, as opposed to what God is.
The day you eat of the fruit of that tree, you will not surely die
And that Jesus Christ was a white middle-class Republican
And if you wanna be saved you have to learn to be like Him" - Derek Webb, A King and a Kingdom
Lately Tyler and I have had lots of discussions on the subjects mentioned in the title of this post. To use a second quote from Derek Webb (I know, two in one post!), "A lot of the songs on Christian radio are just outright misrepresentations of the character of God." I want to move that beyond radio and music, however. I think that it is far too easy to fall into the trap of putting God in a box, as they say; for someone to write a book that gives a suddenly new "insight" into who God is and what He's about. It's also a problem to assume to have correctly interpreted the Bible, which has for centuries been hotly debated as to what it means or instructs in many instances.
What strikes me as happening very often, is that instead of gaining insight or understanding on who God is or who Jesus was, people (myself included) will project a part of themselves, a part of someone else they know (a parent, grandparent, mentor, lover, etc.), or a character quality they want to see or be close with. This is not to say that it is always incorrect, but not always correct either. Or, something also concerning to me at times, is the practice of finding God's providence in every tiny detail, or the gleening of a deep lesson errantly (such as if a decision you make results in a poor outcome, and then interpreting it as what God wanted, instead of recognizing the consequences of your intitial poor decision). My concern with these is that if every event, if every little coincidence, if every tiny good turn of events is portrayed in a miraculous light, how much less miraculous will true miracles be? How much more disheartened will we be when things go poorly, if we are conditioned to walking on a holy cloud of blessings? Bare with me, I am not raining judgement down on those folks who lace every conversation with reference to Christ or God; those people are truly blessed with a worshipful heart. Forgive me for being more, shall I say, suspicious.
In a country with the president we have, with the televangelists we have, with people so eager to find God in activities or lifestyles that are more for their benefit than the proper representation of who God is, we need to be more discerning. It may be a matter of semantics at times, or it may be simply understanding what in your life is truly God's work, what is your own; what is God's divine hand in situations, and what is God's instruction for living working out through His people in day to day Christian brotherly and sisterly love.
This was originally a little more coherent, but turned into a bit of a vent, and a whole lot of an imploring for discernment. I would use specific examples, but wish to keep things as anonymous as possible.
Addendum:
(my reply to a friend's comment)
I agree with you on the part of praying for what to eat, what to wear, etc. Trivial matters in life do not, in my opinion require divine intervention. That is why God gave us a capacity for wisdom and intelligence! It is right to try to become so close with God that you can feel open with him as a friend, although I don't want such a closeness if it makes me fail to recognize his Kingship.This may be something that, as a man, I'm not able to fully understand, but I know that for a lot of women there is this adoration of Christ as the "perfect lover", in a sense. I've seen it walk a hazy line between a truly Biblical example of the church as the bride and Christ the bridegroom and then something altogether different; Christ as the model lover for the girl who has had broken or failed relationships, or difficulty in general. For men, it can happen with a different persona, usually father, sometimes brother, also best friend. I find this kind of....replacement....dangerous, because as I said, it can become a matter of what do we want God to be, as opposed to what God is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)