Hey
I know this is a taboo subject but I would love for some insight.
Is pornography bad?
Is it a sin to watch/purchase/or masturbate to pornography?
I have always wondered what others thought about this question
Your thoughts Please
Friday, February 26, 2010
The Contextual Jesus!
Two and a half Questions
Why are there so many interpretations of Jesus?
Do you feel like your interpretation is the right/only one? Why
Why are there so many interpretations of Jesus?
Do you feel like your interpretation is the right/only one? Why
The Real Jesus!
Question: Who is the Real Jesus! Who is Jesus to you? What does he do? What doesn't he do?
Lets face it, the Bible means different things to different people! As a consequence Jesus means different things to different people! This is a known fact.
By what standard to we accept these different meanings as valid? I am frankly saturated with the various views on Jesus, God, and all this other theological theory. How can a new believer know what to believe with all of this variety.
Brian McLaren (brief biography)in his new book A New Kind of Christianity address the different ideas of Jesus through the hilarious and ridiculous comedy "Talladega Nights."
He makes these points
- People are still tempted to define Jesus the way they want Jesus to be
- Old opinion and view will produce Old interpretations and Old applications
- The interpretation of Jesus found in the Book of Revelation (19:11-16) was appropriate for the time that the author was writing. It was also appropriate for the context and challenges of that day
- Jesus in the book of Revelation is the same as Jesus in the Gospels
- Jesus has not adapted to methods of peacemaking that were used by the Greco Roman rulers and government. In other words, Jesus still plans to use peace to bring peace
As a result Mc Laren concludes this:
- All interpretations of Jesus are NOT CORRECT! IN FACT SOME OF THEM ARE UNACCEPTABLE!
- Jesus coming back to KILL IS INACCURATE! (see revelation 19)
- Jesus is strong even though he will not use violence as a means of salvation
Now,
The question still remains....Who is the Real Jesus! Who is Jesus to you?
Lets face it, the Bible means different things to different people! As a consequence Jesus means different things to different people! This is a known fact.
By what standard to we accept these different meanings as valid? I am frankly saturated with the various views on Jesus, God, and all this other theological theory. How can a new believer know what to believe with all of this variety.
Brian McLaren (brief biography)in his new book A New Kind of Christianity address the different ideas of Jesus through the hilarious and ridiculous comedy "Talladega Nights."
He makes these points
- People are still tempted to define Jesus the way they want Jesus to be
- Old opinion and view will produce Old interpretations and Old applications
- The interpretation of Jesus found in the Book of Revelation (19:11-16) was appropriate for the time that the author was writing. It was also appropriate for the context and challenges of that day
- Jesus in the book of Revelation is the same as Jesus in the Gospels
- Jesus has not adapted to methods of peacemaking that were used by the Greco Roman rulers and government. In other words, Jesus still plans to use peace to bring peace
As a result Mc Laren concludes this:
- All interpretations of Jesus are NOT CORRECT! IN FACT SOME OF THEM ARE UNACCEPTABLE!
- Jesus coming back to KILL IS INACCURATE! (see revelation 19)
- Jesus is strong even though he will not use violence as a means of salvation
Now,
The question still remains....Who is the Real Jesus! Who is Jesus to you?
Monday, February 8, 2010
What a Minister Should NEVER Do!
Should you put all of your information up on line for people to see as an individual? Should it be true? If you are a minister should you put your personal information online
One author says
• “Make sure every possible bit of information that anyone could want to know about you in on the web, searchable by Google” (page 44 of What Would Google Do? By Jeff Jarvis)
Can we please talk about this!!!
One author says
• “Make sure every possible bit of information that anyone could want to know about you in on the web, searchable by Google” (page 44 of What Would Google Do? By Jeff Jarvis)
Can we please talk about this!!!
Google Rules!! My thoughts
Theology After Google
These are just some of my thought on the “What Would Google Do?” by Jeff Jarvis
• The book begins stating that if you give people control they will use it
o This is very true but it only works for the informed individual. How can a person take advantage of resources if they don’t know how to use it? Computer literacy and internet literacy is complicated to the mind that doesn’t understand technology. What about the group of people who can’t afford computers and don’t have readily access to technology? What about the people who are not only impoverished but are in a climate that generates fear so that accessing public resources is equated to risking one’s life? What about those people who are faithful to their old and beat up phone refusing to upgrade to a phone that would allow them to access the internet? Is human intuition and curiosity that strong? Are people willing to be empowered simply because they are invited to? Is empowerment an innate or transferable ability? Can people who fall into these categories really ask the question, what would Google do? Or is our first task to tell them what Google is and teach them how to use Google?
In conclusion, you can’t empower the uninformed simply by giving them control. You must educate the person and introduce them to the tool you have given them before they can ever use or even responsibly control anything. People only like to control things that they understand. Those things that are beyond understanding are useless. I believe that these are the types of people that come into church frequently and this is what they are met with. They are met with useful but useless information. The information would be good if the people actually had a computer or had a mean to use a computer or even had training. There has to be a preliminary effort to provide a technological consciousness to the people we are offering the new developments of our society.
• Another statement says “when you hand over control you start winning” pg 21
o I can agree with this statement. I think it is really appropriate for ministry but dangerous depending on the leadership or ecclesiastical structure you find yourself in. Some traditions pay their leaders to keep control and take control. Some people, especially pastors, bishops, and the like, are paid to listen to the people but still do their own (which they call God’s) will. So, my question then speaks to the definition of winning. What does the author mean?
• About the worst and best customer and their role in your business or success
o This statement is absolutely correct but difficult in praxis. Your worst customer has the potential to get on your last and only nerve. Your worst customer cost you the most time and really doesn’t communicate in a way you would prefer. It takes a level of humility to deal with your worst customer. I do believe however that if the church can understand the genius in actually listening to the complaints of the people they would be better off. The solution, in the book, was not necessarily to make the exact change as much as let the people know you were listening to their dilemmas, problems, and challenges. When the people received a response that indicated that the representative actually listened to their complaint, the customer was drawn into an attitude of joy and delight. The key is listening to your customers, both good and bad. For the church, the key is to listen to your criticism and your celebrations. They can end up being a great blessing for your ministry
• Be a platform (page 32 of Theology after Google)
o This concept was so important to me. It is so applicable. The reading suggests creating a place for people to free address their problems and freely express their gifts. That is what Google does. It offers freedom. The church can learn a very valuable lesson from this. I currently pastor a young adult church and one of our methods is to provide a space for people to express their gifts. People take ownership when they are free to express. Expression improves as opportunities stabilize. Freedom becomes productive when it is offered in a religious space. I am not talking about the freedom that accompanies many people who are drunk with power. I am speaking of the humble freedom that allows the individual to humbly articulate, courageously express, and proudly display. BE A PLATFORM; YES!!! This is the key to building ministry and touching lives.
• “Make sure every possible bit of information that anyone could want to know about you in on the web, searchable by Google” (page 44 of What Would Google Do? By Jeff Jarvis)
o This is a rule that draws a fine line between private and public. Jeff Jarvis seems to believe that virtual or cyber publicness is the same as reality. I disagree with every fiber of my being. When you are always a public person there is no time for private. I believe that there are some things that should be kept private. As a preacher and all preachers should know this, the people can’t put up with being able to search out and search up your whole life. Now, if we are talking about the new and improved life, put it on the internet. If we are only talking about the life that people can see, put it up on line. If we are talking about the stuff that will cause people to publically, privately, and virtually persecutes us; the stuff that will empty out the building that has a 25,000 payment due every month; the place that continues to be the sources of the funding for the electricity that runs the computer; DO NOT PUT IT ON LINE. The statement above says “every possible bit of information.” I strongly disagree for, and not limited to, the reasons I mentioned above!
These are just some of my thought on the “What Would Google Do?” by Jeff Jarvis
• The book begins stating that if you give people control they will use it
o This is very true but it only works for the informed individual. How can a person take advantage of resources if they don’t know how to use it? Computer literacy and internet literacy is complicated to the mind that doesn’t understand technology. What about the group of people who can’t afford computers and don’t have readily access to technology? What about the people who are not only impoverished but are in a climate that generates fear so that accessing public resources is equated to risking one’s life? What about those people who are faithful to their old and beat up phone refusing to upgrade to a phone that would allow them to access the internet? Is human intuition and curiosity that strong? Are people willing to be empowered simply because they are invited to? Is empowerment an innate or transferable ability? Can people who fall into these categories really ask the question, what would Google do? Or is our first task to tell them what Google is and teach them how to use Google?
In conclusion, you can’t empower the uninformed simply by giving them control. You must educate the person and introduce them to the tool you have given them before they can ever use or even responsibly control anything. People only like to control things that they understand. Those things that are beyond understanding are useless. I believe that these are the types of people that come into church frequently and this is what they are met with. They are met with useful but useless information. The information would be good if the people actually had a computer or had a mean to use a computer or even had training. There has to be a preliminary effort to provide a technological consciousness to the people we are offering the new developments of our society.
• Another statement says “when you hand over control you start winning” pg 21
o I can agree with this statement. I think it is really appropriate for ministry but dangerous depending on the leadership or ecclesiastical structure you find yourself in. Some traditions pay their leaders to keep control and take control. Some people, especially pastors, bishops, and the like, are paid to listen to the people but still do their own (which they call God’s) will. So, my question then speaks to the definition of winning. What does the author mean?
• About the worst and best customer and their role in your business or success
o This statement is absolutely correct but difficult in praxis. Your worst customer has the potential to get on your last and only nerve. Your worst customer cost you the most time and really doesn’t communicate in a way you would prefer. It takes a level of humility to deal with your worst customer. I do believe however that if the church can understand the genius in actually listening to the complaints of the people they would be better off. The solution, in the book, was not necessarily to make the exact change as much as let the people know you were listening to their dilemmas, problems, and challenges. When the people received a response that indicated that the representative actually listened to their complaint, the customer was drawn into an attitude of joy and delight. The key is listening to your customers, both good and bad. For the church, the key is to listen to your criticism and your celebrations. They can end up being a great blessing for your ministry
• Be a platform (page 32 of Theology after Google)
o This concept was so important to me. It is so applicable. The reading suggests creating a place for people to free address their problems and freely express their gifts. That is what Google does. It offers freedom. The church can learn a very valuable lesson from this. I currently pastor a young adult church and one of our methods is to provide a space for people to express their gifts. People take ownership when they are free to express. Expression improves as opportunities stabilize. Freedom becomes productive when it is offered in a religious space. I am not talking about the freedom that accompanies many people who are drunk with power. I am speaking of the humble freedom that allows the individual to humbly articulate, courageously express, and proudly display. BE A PLATFORM; YES!!! This is the key to building ministry and touching lives.
• “Make sure every possible bit of information that anyone could want to know about you in on the web, searchable by Google” (page 44 of What Would Google Do? By Jeff Jarvis)
o This is a rule that draws a fine line between private and public. Jeff Jarvis seems to believe that virtual or cyber publicness is the same as reality. I disagree with every fiber of my being. When you are always a public person there is no time for private. I believe that there are some things that should be kept private. As a preacher and all preachers should know this, the people can’t put up with being able to search out and search up your whole life. Now, if we are talking about the new and improved life, put it on the internet. If we are only talking about the life that people can see, put it up on line. If we are talking about the stuff that will cause people to publically, privately, and virtually persecutes us; the stuff that will empty out the building that has a 25,000 payment due every month; the place that continues to be the sources of the funding for the electricity that runs the computer; DO NOT PUT IT ON LINE. The statement above says “every possible bit of information.” I strongly disagree for, and not limited to, the reasons I mentioned above!
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Can Young Pastors survive Tradition?
So, Chad and Professor Clayton have partially articulated a piece of their understanding concerning seminaries and how they prepare or don't prepare students. They have then addressed the very sensitive topic about those who are selected to pastor and tend to the suffering churches all over the land
Please read their posts here about 1/3 of the way down
Now I have something to say about this because I am a seminary student (Claremont School of Theology) and a member of the AME (African Methodist Epsiscopal) Church. I have some opinions about both of the topics mentioned above.
Professor Clayton,
I certainly agree with the fact that young pastor are not place in ideal circumstances when they are finally allowed to pastor churches. It is true that most church, especially irrelevant churches, have a constituency of people who are used to the traditional style of church. They are less likely to know about on coming technologies. I don't believe however that this means that a persons idealism has to be put away. I do not have all the answers to the challenge that you mentioned. As a young minister, I can empathize with the difficulty of preaching and teaching old audiences. I can empathize with the reality of trying to introduce new things. This is difficult. But one of the things I can say is that there is hope.
Seminary has hopefully taught students to think critically and study. There has to be a point where the ministry consults the art of study. The person has to begin to seek insight through psychology and studies about the culture of change. How do you merge into a context instead of bursting into the context? How do you respect your elders and allow them to understand your perspective without emptying the church? How do you use language that is familiar to communicate accurately? These are huge challenges and like I said I don't have the answers but if seminary is teaching me anything, it is the art of thinking critically which should prove to be universally advantages.
Chad:
Oh boy, you hit an interesting spot in my consciousness. I disagree with the fact that the denominations are not to blame. I think denominations have the ability to be super traditional. You can't blame the seminaries because the seminaries have a certain purpose. The provide students with the ability to think about the religiousity of theology. They don't equip people with the skills to deal with people. Denominations have to do a better job at discerning the people they place into position of power. If the churches reputation was not so challenges and preacers/people (all christians) were a little more responsible there would probably be an abundance of people to choose from which would likely produce better fits for more traditional churches. Unfortunately this is not the case.
My other challenge with your statement is that denominations keep getting let off the hook. The denominations have to figure out a way to reach out to these seminaries. Why aren't more denominations trying to partner with seminaries to offer theological and practical forms of ministry. The reason why most students are inequipped is because those (denominations) who have the practical experiences (they are the majority) are irresponsibly rejecting opportunity to send experience into the classroom that theory might be introduced to praxis. I am talking about for all denominations (even non-denominational which is also a denomination).
It is time for people to stop pointing fingers anyway because it does not yield results.
And concerning your opinions about managers and leaders. I have recently been reading leadership books and have become familiar with the distinctione between the two. I don't know that most churches have either or. I think churches are struggling to understand which technique are appropriate at which time for which situation. Praxis is difficult and I think that has yet to be mentioned in the conversation. Church is not easy. Look at Jesus. Ask the text if Church is easy. Look at the message of Christ. If it was easy everyone would have it and everyone would understand it. Everyone does not understand it.
The Praxis of pastoral ministry is a lost are and underrated. We must respect the craft and understand the task. Dealing with people, especially in the area of spirituality, is a world of its own. I guess I am trying to say you have to be well rounded (both manager and leader) to survive.
Please read their posts here about 1/3 of the way down
Now I have something to say about this because I am a seminary student (Claremont School of Theology) and a member of the AME (African Methodist Epsiscopal) Church. I have some opinions about both of the topics mentioned above.
Professor Clayton,
I certainly agree with the fact that young pastor are not place in ideal circumstances when they are finally allowed to pastor churches. It is true that most church, especially irrelevant churches, have a constituency of people who are used to the traditional style of church. They are less likely to know about on coming technologies. I don't believe however that this means that a persons idealism has to be put away. I do not have all the answers to the challenge that you mentioned. As a young minister, I can empathize with the difficulty of preaching and teaching old audiences. I can empathize with the reality of trying to introduce new things. This is difficult. But one of the things I can say is that there is hope.
Seminary has hopefully taught students to think critically and study. There has to be a point where the ministry consults the art of study. The person has to begin to seek insight through psychology and studies about the culture of change. How do you merge into a context instead of bursting into the context? How do you respect your elders and allow them to understand your perspective without emptying the church? How do you use language that is familiar to communicate accurately? These are huge challenges and like I said I don't have the answers but if seminary is teaching me anything, it is the art of thinking critically which should prove to be universally advantages.
Chad:
Oh boy, you hit an interesting spot in my consciousness. I disagree with the fact that the denominations are not to blame. I think denominations have the ability to be super traditional. You can't blame the seminaries because the seminaries have a certain purpose. The provide students with the ability to think about the religiousity of theology. They don't equip people with the skills to deal with people. Denominations have to do a better job at discerning the people they place into position of power. If the churches reputation was not so challenges and preacers/people (all christians) were a little more responsible there would probably be an abundance of people to choose from which would likely produce better fits for more traditional churches. Unfortunately this is not the case.
My other challenge with your statement is that denominations keep getting let off the hook. The denominations have to figure out a way to reach out to these seminaries. Why aren't more denominations trying to partner with seminaries to offer theological and practical forms of ministry. The reason why most students are inequipped is because those (denominations) who have the practical experiences (they are the majority) are irresponsibly rejecting opportunity to send experience into the classroom that theory might be introduced to praxis. I am talking about for all denominations (even non-denominational which is also a denomination).
It is time for people to stop pointing fingers anyway because it does not yield results.
And concerning your opinions about managers and leaders. I have recently been reading leadership books and have become familiar with the distinctione between the two. I don't know that most churches have either or. I think churches are struggling to understand which technique are appropriate at which time for which situation. Praxis is difficult and I think that has yet to be mentioned in the conversation. Church is not easy. Look at Jesus. Ask the text if Church is easy. Look at the message of Christ. If it was easy everyone would have it and everyone would understand it. Everyone does not understand it.
The Praxis of pastoral ministry is a lost are and underrated. We must respect the craft and understand the task. Dealing with people, especially in the area of spirituality, is a world of its own. I guess I am trying to say you have to be well rounded (both manager and leader) to survive.
Thelogy after Google: Responses to Chad and Professor Clayton
So I don't know if I am going to get through all of this because it is late and I am tired indeed but let me know what you think
Claytons article says:
But what church actually is has always been deeply affected by the world around it. When that world changes, so too does church. Everyone acknowledges that we are living in a time of revolutionary change. So tell me why we don’t think church is in for some radical changes?
Chad disputes
What the church actually is should be affected by what her Lord has called her to be, not what the world dictates. I think this is setting the bar far too low. What if, instead, the world was deeply affected by the Church within it? That is a far more radical idea and one that I think the church has long given up on ever since it married with the state as far back as Constantine.
I do agree that a church has to be affected by its context, which is the world around it. I think there is a problem with the way these responses are defining world. What is the world of a particular church? What is the world of the church in general? Is a church expected to meet the needs of every single person on this earth? Or is the church supposed to be specific? I think the challenge with many churches today is trying to meet the needs of the world. There are people right outside the any churches door that continue to display the actually needs of the "world" around the church. Instead the church looks at the news papers and television in order to assess what it should be doing. The work of the church or your church is right outside. It is amazing how sometimes thing that church needs to be affected by become invinsible in exchange for what someone else sees in the world.
In fact, if i may take a commercial, this is where the church and theology after Google must be careful. There has to be a point where we look beyond the screen to our physical environment. Our theology has to consider the real people that are right outside and sometimes within our homes. My concern is that theology after google might not contribute to the efforts of those right outside of our door. People may began to become addicted to e-evangelism and e- ministry and e- helping that seeing people and touching people becomes irrelevant. In this way, I can understand why technology can become a threat to the church and its mission. Many church mission encourage people to leave the comfort of their homes and their churches to go and touch and be with the people. I mean what about that?
If I may get back to the point, I would contribute to Phillip Claytons opinion by posing some question:
Professor Clayton: If the church changes with the world then why aren't more churches adapting to the changes in their community? Why are the messages still spiritual and less practical? (yes that is a contextual generalization) Why is the church still separate? Why are there still huge churches in poor places?
Chad:
I certainly catch your drift about being affected more by the call of the lord moreso than the world, but I do believe that God call us to be in touch with those around us. It seems like your comment excluded the necessity of listening, feeling, and addressing the world we live it. It is a reality that the world is changing. It is a reality that the church is on the brink of extinction because the church is holding on to call that are ceturies old (or should I say continuing to package the call in ancient wrapping paper). Can't the church change with the world and still be in line with God's will? Does the idea of change have to lead to the change of the core message of Christ?
I don't think so. I think we can preach loving your neighbor in different clothes with a different discourse. In fact, I think it is more than necessary.
see more of what i addressing by clicking here
Claytons article says:
But what church actually is has always been deeply affected by the world around it. When that world changes, so too does church. Everyone acknowledges that we are living in a time of revolutionary change. So tell me why we don’t think church is in for some radical changes?
Chad disputes
What the church actually is should be affected by what her Lord has called her to be, not what the world dictates. I think this is setting the bar far too low. What if, instead, the world was deeply affected by the Church within it? That is a far more radical idea and one that I think the church has long given up on ever since it married with the state as far back as Constantine.
I do agree that a church has to be affected by its context, which is the world around it. I think there is a problem with the way these responses are defining world. What is the world of a particular church? What is the world of the church in general? Is a church expected to meet the needs of every single person on this earth? Or is the church supposed to be specific? I think the challenge with many churches today is trying to meet the needs of the world. There are people right outside the any churches door that continue to display the actually needs of the "world" around the church. Instead the church looks at the news papers and television in order to assess what it should be doing. The work of the church or your church is right outside. It is amazing how sometimes thing that church needs to be affected by become invinsible in exchange for what someone else sees in the world.
In fact, if i may take a commercial, this is where the church and theology after Google must be careful. There has to be a point where we look beyond the screen to our physical environment. Our theology has to consider the real people that are right outside and sometimes within our homes. My concern is that theology after google might not contribute to the efforts of those right outside of our door. People may began to become addicted to e-evangelism and e- ministry and e- helping that seeing people and touching people becomes irrelevant. In this way, I can understand why technology can become a threat to the church and its mission. Many church mission encourage people to leave the comfort of their homes and their churches to go and touch and be with the people. I mean what about that?
If I may get back to the point, I would contribute to Phillip Claytons opinion by posing some question:
Professor Clayton: If the church changes with the world then why aren't more churches adapting to the changes in their community? Why are the messages still spiritual and less practical? (yes that is a contextual generalization) Why is the church still separate? Why are there still huge churches in poor places?
Chad:
I certainly catch your drift about being affected more by the call of the lord moreso than the world, but I do believe that God call us to be in touch with those around us. It seems like your comment excluded the necessity of listening, feeling, and addressing the world we live it. It is a reality that the world is changing. It is a reality that the church is on the brink of extinction because the church is holding on to call that are ceturies old (or should I say continuing to package the call in ancient wrapping paper). Can't the church change with the world and still be in line with God's will? Does the idea of change have to lead to the change of the core message of Christ?
I don't think so. I think we can preach loving your neighbor in different clothes with a different discourse. In fact, I think it is more than necessary.
see more of what i addressing by clicking here
Women Dominating
Hello Family,
I went onto the facebook page from out Theology after Google class and read one of the wall postings. I had some interesting feelings on it and before I let you know what my feeling where I think you should take some time to glance at it
If you wish to read it (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED) click here
have you read it
okay here is my response.
Let me know what you think
Okay so i Read this article and as a social man I disagree. I really think that the amount of women on a particular site does not dictate their dominance.
In my opinion, and no disrespect, I think that theory is poor because it leaves no room for history. Historically, those who outnumber never dominate. Slaves, Women, different races....in most of the catergories i just mention dominance is not dictated by numbers.
It is however dictated by influence. Now, the article says that we can think of a bunch of male names right off the back. That is because, unfortunately in the unjust world, there has been a history of male dominance or mysogynistic rule, or patriarchy. However you wish to say it. If you don't know the meaning of these words just look it up at www.dictionary.com.... See More
But my point is based on theory and I think that theory carries over into social media. The numbers don't dictate dominance. The numbers are simply numbers
looking to hear from ya
I went onto the facebook page from out Theology after Google class and read one of the wall postings. I had some interesting feelings on it and before I let you know what my feeling where I think you should take some time to glance at it
If you wish to read it (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED) click here
have you read it
okay here is my response.
Let me know what you think
Okay so i Read this article and as a social man I disagree. I really think that the amount of women on a particular site does not dictate their dominance.
In my opinion, and no disrespect, I think that theory is poor because it leaves no room for history. Historically, those who outnumber never dominate. Slaves, Women, different races....in most of the catergories i just mention dominance is not dictated by numbers.
It is however dictated by influence. Now, the article says that we can think of a bunch of male names right off the back. That is because, unfortunately in the unjust world, there has been a history of male dominance or mysogynistic rule, or patriarchy. However you wish to say it. If you don't know the meaning of these words just look it up at www.dictionary.com.... See More
But my point is based on theory and I think that theory carries over into social media. The numbers don't dictate dominance. The numbers are simply numbers
looking to hear from ya
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)