Up until now I have kept things general, but now I turn attention to the "Church" at large.
Some of you count yyourselves a part of that mystical body, others not. Either way I think it still worth exploring, right?
[I will define "Church" in the largest of all possible contexts. Despite the particulars of your own "creed" I suppose I would refer to anyone who feels themselves so connected in a spiritual sense. If it helps you can think of what C.S. Lewis called "Mere Christianity".]
Where does the Church, go in an "age which advances progressively backwards?" And how will we communicate the reality of God's good news in Christ in the haunt of jackals? How will Christ be lifted up in an age which is blinded by image and how will we speak of Him in a world that no longer trusts words?
These are the questions which the current generation of believers must wrestle with.
If people in the time of Christ had a hard time understanding who Jesus was and what He was saying, how much more today where the very ways of seeing and hearing are being tampered with?
To further complicate matters, some powerful preachers in America have added a political agenda to their rationalistic dogmatic propositional "faith" (where real faith and trust is no longer required) which has branded the "Church" once again as mostly just dead organized religion.
But we must proceed anyway.
These are no small questions. Let's not shrink back. After all, the original meaning of "Gospel" is simply God's good news, and not even widespread human stupidity and blindness to its reality can alter it.
The very real temptation is for the Church to attempt to keep up with the world and its obsession with images and accumulated information. But I am convinced we must not learn the "way of the nations" or blindly implement the "customs of the peoples" which usually end in delusion. I do not say this out of some emotional reaction to Modernity, or out of some sort of quasi-biblical paranoia. I am simply observing the blackened fruits of a dying culture. Computer information has not resulted in wisdom; the wealth of images has not enhanced anything but our sense of alienation; and the devaluation of words has bankrupted our ability to live in vital relationship with each other.
Do you really see it any differently?
The modern question must be: what is solid, what has meaning and leads to life?
For those who count themselves as skeptics, unbelievers, agnostics, atheists, etc...the thing we all share is that we are spiritual. We share a sort of spiritual DNA that unites us as human beings. And if the truth be told, with some notable exceptions, I find that I often am able to commune more openly with those outside the Christian sub-culture who simply understand that we are spiritual beings as well as physical, sexual, emotional, relational, and intellectual beings (I'm certain I left out other attributes, but you get my drift).
In fact, I often find that the hardest people to really explore with are those who have bought into a commercialized Christianity. The type of Christianity that Kierkegaard would imemdiately call "Christendom"...a sort of official state religion.
That isn't vibrant enough to have any effect in the haunt of jackals. It more often will simply mimic it.
For those who count themselves somewhere within the "Church" (even if they are, like myself, out around the outer rim with one leg dangling over the side) it seems, to me, that regular connection to the vitality of Jesus the Risen is a pretty sure thing.
Those who would communicate faith, hope and love in an age of blindness and distrust, will themselves need active eyes to see and ears to hear this One and be capable of telling others the truth in love. But how can we perceive His work and will more clearly, and hear His leading more fully?
These two questions must be answered by any church which hopes to thrive in the modern world. Because so much depends upon seeing and hearing Christ clearly. And this is no easy thing, and a bit of a mystery really.
It reminds me of the story of the men walking with Jesus after the resurrection. They conversed but really did not get that it was him until they sat down for dinner and broke bread together.
This was real bread, not a depiction, and as they broke it their eyes were opened to the reality, who then vanished.
And they asked each other "didn't our hearts burn as he was explaining the Word to us?"
I do not know about you, but when I am flipping channels and see these preachers up on their huge stages doing their theatrics I am repulsed. But it does quickly gives me heartburn.
1 comment:
Part 4 was brilliant you showed exactly how words are controled by the media through images,which of course has resonated into us so when we walk out the door we actually believe that is how the world is. Desolete. Because they are taught words mean nothing 'BUM' 'NIKE' yet they seem to become our identity without meaning and still the image they project through media, doesn't come to reality when we identify with the meaningless words when wearing them.
And the last paragraph in 4 is very good, we are only communcating with an inanimate object.
(heh, i hope i am catching your meaning here, Considering i just came from place where i was communicating with an inanimate object, which revealed to me what others viewed to be important)
Part 5
I like where you say the church is falling for the same carrot, media control. Which doesn't cause anyone to have an indentity other than with the TV an inanimate object.Very impersonal and people are already taught what words mean through the other media in part 4 so they hear nothing different.
Then you hit a real blow to the church (which is good) it is loosing it spirituality. You do this by expressing that all people have spiritual regardless of their 'religion' (best word i can find, yet it may not be the right word)
When you say that an athiest is spiritual you insult the church (Christendom).
Then you say that christendom has no spirituality, they are not hearing Christ words.
The church hears words without meaning.
How do we wear Christs words?
In part 5 i get the impression that 'spiritaulity' is where the words have meaning. Through a spiritual lens, communication is somewhat easier.
I hope i am grasping your point in so far.
Last paragraph in part 5 and the 'it gives you heart burn' is cool. Because it says what others feel, just as meaningless as wearing BUM, NIKE, LEVI. These theatrical evangelist are to be wearing Jesus, yet it appears Jesus is meaningless to the 'preacher' since he has to 'act'.
Hope it makes sense.
Post a Comment