This is bsergott's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following bsergott's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
bsergott
Recent Activity
I really appreciate your comments, Dave. I think we have similar situations, in that we have civic community cultures that are heavily influenced by conservative, institutional Catholicism. That is why, according to Barna, the people in Boston and in Green Bay are the least likely to share their faith. In that sense, Catholics have a tendency to shy away from evangelism and tend to see faith as a private matter of the heart. I can say this with some confidence, having grown up in the Catholic faith. But, in Cambridge, it seems that you have more of a transient population, spurred by the numerous college campuses in your area. That always breeds more free thinking, stage 3 faith. As you know, college campuses are hothouses for stage 3 experimentation. We ain't all that smart in Green Bay, and the campuses here are all outside the city proper. We don't feel that influence. The "townies" that come are all coming out of the Catholic or Lutheran tradition. They have a desire for liturgical expressions of faith. Having those touchstones or consistent markers help them to feel a sense of security. We do weekly Eucharist, for example, using a great deal of the Didache consistently. That serves as a consistent marker for people looking for something simple to click with. That makes them more open to experience Jesus and all of his destabilizing teaching. All that being said, there is actually very little that I make explicit. But, I can hear the warning flags that Amy and others have put forward. From time to time we need to do a gut check on our centered-set approach. Periodically we need to soberly assess whether we are putting up some kind of boundary, and, if so, either remove it or make sure it is explicit and easily permeable. I think if the perception of a boundary is there, then for that person, the boundary is very much there. It becomes more difficult to pass through a boundary when that boundary is ambiguous and unidentified. We want to keep a wide open front door for people to access this type of faith and make it their own.
1 reply
Otto, Yeah, I, too, am not respecting Peck's Stage Theory in the strictest sense. But I don't think it works if you follow it in the strictest sense. All models break down at some point, and I think in the area of clear definitions of people is where this one fails. I would argue that those of us who are striving to live in a stage 4 existence would have to, in times of honesty, admit that we are still stage 2 in some areas of faith, stage 3 in others, and even stage 1 in a few. For example, a stage 4 person who saw a homosexual friend die of AIDS related causes in the early 90s may still struggle with homosexuality. They may think, "See, that is God's vengeance on the sin of homosexuality!" Now, that is admittedly reductionistic, but so are models. They work to a point, but then the messiness of human attitudes, beliefs, relationships, etc., causes the model to become unwieldy at some point. A generally stage 4 person could be firmly rooted in stage 2 in regard to homosexuality, as my example pointed out. I like your challenge to my position, but I still say that hard line atheists are still stage 2. They have adopted with fundamentalist zeal a position that makes them secure in their own self-righteousness. I would include especially the leaders of the atheist movement in this category. They are not rebelling against their own belief structures. They are fully embracing them. I think Peck's model might work better without the word "stage" anywhere in it, because that assumes progression. Rather, I would have the four areas in a circle, like a pie chart, with a person moving around among all of them, based on the day, the issue, or whatever might affect human responses to the divine.
Toggle Commented May 18, 2010 on Soft Stages. Hard Stages. at Not The Religious Type
1 reply
How about "Fun Stage 2" vs. "Crusty Stage 2"?
Toggle Commented May 17, 2010 on Soft Stages. Hard Stages. at Not The Religious Type
1 reply
I like what you are saying here. The only thing I disagreed with to some extent was that extreme atheists are stage 3. I always approach them as hard stage 2. The vast majority I have met who would fall into this camp are a little reactionary, but the dominant characteristic is a fundamentalist devotion to the "religion of atheism". All of its dogma, tenets, and walls have been fully adopted and claimed. That is religious devotion, not rebellion. Not a major disagreement, but perhaps a difference in semantics. Maybe I am misled, but stage 3 seems to be the only stage that doesn't lend itself to the hard/soft differentiation. It seems to be a more transitional phase. Either the person adopts a set of religious belief that speaks to them and slides into a stage 2 level of devotion, or they stop throwing away all of the religious stuff and assimilate it into a balanced synthesis, forming a unique and mystical faith. No one seems to "arrive" at stage 3 and stay there. There is no sustenance in stage 3. That's why people can only listen to grunge music for a phase in their life, and then they need to move on to stuff that is actually saying something, other than just expressing random angst. All that being said, hard stage 2 people, I agree, need an act of God to move. I would place Saul in the hard stage 2 category. It took God knocking him off his donkey and blinding him to transform him out of that. Even soft stage people need an encounter with Jesus to move. That is the key to any of us moving, I think. We all need regular and powerful contact with Jesus. There is no movement anywhere without that. I find myself clinging to the little structures I built for myself constantly. Unless I encounter the destabilizing love of Jesus, I am usually unaware of how stage 2 I am in that particular area. Once I encounter Him, he destroys my self-built foundations. Then I have to decide if I will let Him build me back up His way, or if I will go back and try to rebuild my structure. That is the daily battle between grace and pride.
Toggle Commented May 17, 2010 on Soft Stages. Hard Stages. at Not The Religious Type
1 reply
Centered Set thinking has definitely grabbed me. When I first planted my church years ago, we started with that model and worked off of it. I live and minister in Green Bay, which, along with Boston (according to Barna), is in the lead for people absolutely not sharing their faith and doing faith life together. We were facing only boundaries and walls in the area of faith. In that way, this language and model has been useful. However, in a super conservative Catholic/Lutheran area, this kind of thinking is WAY outside the box. At first, in our church, we were filled with all people from outside the area. It took a while for our revolutionary (not really) thinking to settle in with people who were actually from here. Now, we have a ton of townies. So, is there a boundary? I think so. I hear Amy, and others, possibly saying that the boundary needs to be more explicit. There seems to be a sort of dishonesty with ourselves and, at worst, a dangerous element to keeping it implicit. We want to say that we are open to all, and that everybody can catch this vision of center set thinking, but I would say that is not entirely true. It would be great if everyone would, because the Church could walk away from judgment of others and move into its true calling to love. But, I think until someone has an encounter with Jesus in the context of a loving community, it is a sort of "putting the cart before the horse" to expect people to get it in any meaningful way, at least to the point of basic participation. I am not sure how to talk about this more clearly, and I don't think it is a problem with the model. I think it is a problem of terminology and expectations. If we want to be clear and consistent, we have to think about how we present this kind of thinking to people who are not accustomed to faith being like this: completely destabilizing and completely freeing at the same time.
1 reply
I absolutely agree, Brent. Great insight!
1 reply
Great comments! You rock at this, especially for someone who was worried that she wouldn't rock at this! I think your experiences of God are very valid and very profound. This is where I struggle and wrestle with God, because He seems to reveal Himself so uniquely each time. I speak from a Christian perspective, and you speak from a Jewish one, and somehow, we are speaking in similar frameworks and language. There is definitely a mystical element to Judaism, as there is in Christianity and many other world religions. Experiencing God, speaking with God, having Him reveal himself to us outside the bonds of sola scriptura is where the people in this conversation seem to reside. Those of us speaking into this conversation from a Christian perspective are speaking from a definite Jesus encounter type of worldview. I think it is also valid to bring into the conversation an encounter with God in a different sort of sense. You have a lot to offer, and we need your voice. I think that, since most of us are Christian pastors or leaders, there is a commonality among most of us of an experience of God revealed in Jesus. There can be a perception of a boundary for those coming in without such an experience, but I hope, as you said, that it is a permeable one! Also, in reference to your quote, I don't think it was Yeats. I believe it was Captain Steubing from the Love Boat...or Kierkegaard. One of the two. :)
1 reply
Amy, thank you for stepping out and asking such excellent questions. A form of one of your core questions came up in a small group I ran that was exploring Stage 4 faith. If stage 3 is reactionary and rebellion oriented, then how do we really define Stage 4? What do these people have in common? What draws them to want to do life together? As Brent was commenting, maybe it is necessary to present at least a few explicit boundaries from time to time in order to give people a sense of belonging and identity in order to share community in any kind of meaningful way. I think the definitions are clear in terms of Torah and tradition for the Jewish people, which allows them to have a common purpose, unity, and shared identity on this spiritual journey. The only thing I can point to as a common "boundary" (though not a gate-keeping sort of boundary, meant to keep people out) for the kind of Christianity we are talking about on this blog would be an experience of Jesus Christ. Once someone comes face to face with Jesus, all security in self-built fortresses of moralism or doctrine seem to fall away. He still speaks into our culture and challenges in a revolutionary way all of our ideas, which become like our own personal golden calves. Until someone has such an experience, there is no value in explaining or attempting to bring someone out of, say, a Stage 2 faith into a Stage 4 one. All they have is their Stage 2 stuff to hold onto. An encounter with Jesus means a destruction of all of our absolutes. He becomes, for us, all that we can know as being absolutely true. It ruins us for any kind of institutionalized religious faith. A good example of this is Ted Haggard, the fallen former leader of the Evangelical Association. He used to be the most outspoken anti-homosexual speaker in the world. He used to speak boldly in a national forum about how all homosexuals were bound for a fiery hell. Until he was found with a male prostitute in a hotel. Jennifer Knapp, a singer and songwriter who used to do only Contemporary Christian Music, recently came out as a lesbian and was on Larry King. A pastor was on there with her, telling her how morally superior he was to her. Then Ted Haggard came on, and he was so filled with grace and compassion for her. He was speaking strongly about how she is on a journey of faith, and that God would work it all out with her in terms of her sexual identity. Right now we just need to love her. THAT was a man who had come face to face with Jesus and was shattered to the core. I wanted to cheer for Ted, because he gets it. So is there a boundary? Yes. I would have trouble clearly defining it in any sensible way, other than that I can recognize it when I see it. I think the encounter, the experience, is necessary as a first step for entering into the kind of faith journey we are all desiring.
1 reply
This is really cool. I don't think it would have been just as effective to have the people all suddenly understand Peter's Aramaic. It spoke volumes to the people that the Gospel message was FOR THEM. It was in their vernacular, in their daily life and understanding of their world. I don't think they would have gotten any of that, if they had to change again in order to be the appropriate kind of people to receive the Gospel. They already had to change to survive under the Syrians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, etc. I think we say the same thing to people, when we make them adopt a language to receive basic care and have their needs met. I was just in Western Belize and Guatemala in March, and the Mayan descendants I met down there were incredible people. Out in the jungle, they are very resistant of the Creole-English that is spreading through Belize. I think it is important that we not only save these languages, but that we empower people to live and lead their people to a renewed sense of flourishing. We were joking a lot with the people in that region as we prayed for them and shared with them. We told them that we had the solution to all their problems. We would send them a bunch of big, white, American males to show them how to do stuff right. They would laugh with us about that stuff, but there was a sadness as well. They told us that we had no idea how many Americans actually see that as a solution. We need, in everything we do, to be lifting up the leaders and cultures of indigenous peoples. In Acts, I see the fingerprint of a God who loves diversity. Any way we can serve God in that mission, I am all about doing that.
1 reply
Please don't quit commenting on things outside of your expertise, and please don't go back into hiding! Your perspective is amazing! I really don't think any of us have God or faith within our area of expertise. That is why forums like this blog are so helpful for just putting thoughts out there and dealing with them, breaking them down, and even changing our minds (if we can, hopefully, remain pliable and teachable). I am so glad you commented here, because you gave me a great deal to process and think about. It is all of us risking and putting ourselves out there that allows all of us to grow. Thanks again, Amy.
1 reply
Excellent comment. In rereading what I said, I completely agree with you. I think "as is", unless there is a thought revolution, discussion on religion is useful only in the area of how it has shaped the historical and anthropological landscape. But my comment, without qualification, seemed to say that I take history and anthropology out of serious postmodern thought. That is not the case, and I appreciate you pushing back on that. I don't feel that those areas are stuck in the same dogmatic clinging to the Enlightenment as other areas. I really hope you are right, Hiromu, that people like Pinker are fading into the minority. I also hope your optimistic view is correct, because I would love to see universities moving to the forefront of progressive thought again. I just think there is still a great deal of work to do to get there.
1 reply
This may seem a little strange, but I actually agree with Pinker's resistance to this change in curriculum. Harvard, like many other universities, has fallen into a rigid modernism. Religion taught in an institution like that would be valuable from an historical/anthropological standpoint, but nothing else. I really believe that many of these universities are stuck in their own dogmatic worldviews. They refuse to release their Enlightenment foundations, and they long for "the good old days" when everyone just accepted Reason as the ultimate good. The same holds true for the new atheists. They come across as religious fanatics who are surrounding themselves with their own dogmatic beliefs to hold on to a "Golden Age" that was never all that golden. As a thoroughly postmodern person (setting all religious stuff aside), I live in a world where there is no longer a blind acceptance of Reason as the ultimate good or even as the means to "the good life". It is faulty at its core, along with other such time-honored "ultimate goods": democracy, capitalism, assured progress, rugged individualism, etc. Here is my point: If institutions, like Harvard, can't keep up with the tectonic shift that is taking place in the world and are instead choosing to bury their heads in the sand of their own dogmatic superstitions, then they have no business teaching something as postmodern as the tensions of faith and reason. Pinker is right. They should be allowed to remain ignorant and anti-intellectual, and, in turn, they should also be allowed to fade away into irrelevance and obscurity.
1 reply
bsergott is now following Dave Schmelzer
Apr 22, 2010
It's interesting, because when you look at the work of Martin Luther King, Jr., he seems to get it. He talks continuously in war language about pushing back systemic evil and injustice using non-violent approaches. I agree with Brent that it is not an optional language that simply falls into the realm of imagery. It is reality. We are at war. Where I struggle is when it becomes focused on individual people or when it is used as an excuse for Christians to join forces and fortress themselves against the world. Look at some of the home-school associations or some of the extremely fundamentalist Christian groups and read their rhetoric. They are all about a protecting of families from the world and even about overthrowing the current forces that be to create a utopic, Christian nation-state. I fail to see how the Gospel and even its warfare language would lead to such conclusions. God has no interest in having His followers stockpile weapons and prepare for the Christian coup. That is why I believe that we need to rethink the way we use and apply that language. I am not in favor of throwing it away, because, if anything, I believe we haven't focused on it enough. Rather, I want to somehow redeem the warfare language so that it becomes about our true mission and calling: taking ground for the Kingdom one life at a time with life-transforming love.
1 reply
I have had an ongoing love/hate relationship with warfare and battle language associated with Christianity. On the one hand, it is very off-putting when dealing with secular liberals or anyone who practices non-violence as a life discipline. On the other hand, it is very helpful for understanding the casualties and loss of life. I guess, for me, I have seen people in the Church historically take the battle from being against spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms to being personified and against particular individuals that the Christians deem to be immoral or pagan. In other words, judgmental Christians lose sight of the unseen enemy and look for a flesh and blood enemy. Then, labels like Antichrist get thrown around. That is not helpful. I do believe, however, that we are in a constant battle, where the Kingdom of God is pushing back the darkness and evil of this present age. I think we need a new construct to help believers stay on task in focusing on the evil forces of the enemy, not particular people. Somehow, the framework, itself, needs to be reworked to push people to fight the good fight. Greg Boyd also talks about how the Church is not known for being the place where someone can find grace and love. We have to realize that this battle is not fought by stamping out sinners, but by prayer and by loving people into life. When we pray for a broken person to be healed or set free from demonic influences, then we are fighting the battle. The darkness is getting pushed back. THAT is the kind of idea of warfare that I find both palatable and helpful.
1 reply
Titi, I love your comment. I think we all want the simple, black and white formulaic Christianity from time to time. It is so much easier to think that, if we pray, it will happen. And then if it doesn't happen in the face of prayer, we write it off as a lack of faith or indigestion, or some such thing. As a part of the Vineyard churches, I have watched the rise of the Redding folks, as they seek the power of God. I have kind of shook my head, because I have felt like they focused too much on the Kingdom Now, and not at all on the "Not Yet". But then I came up short as I realized that in my own tribe, we focus way too much on the "Not Yet". We have lost a lot of our expectancy that God will show up. I believe that it is not a battle between being spiritually focused and being grounded in reality. The lines are much more blurred than that. The Kingdom reality is a relational reality. There is not a framework, formula, or rules. There is only relationship with a dynamic, living God. There is always tension in relationships, because both sides are not static, and the relationship is not in a vacuum. Faith is not believing that God answers prayers from time to time. Faith is about diving into the deep end of fathomless mystery that utterly confounds us and profoundly sustains us at the same time. I can think of nothing more confusing and incredible. How does that answer the question of desperate prayers in the face of life-threatening illness? I am not sure it does, but I am also not sure I want it to. Why do people die of cancer? Why did the Holocaust happen? Why do some get miraculously healed and others don't? Faith is about looking those questions in the eye, without clean answers, and still declaring that God is good.
1 reply
I don't think the Church has any business trying to change culture. I believe we are called to change hearts and lives. Or, better yet, we are more called to put people into an encounter with the living God, who will change their hearts and lives. That is what I believe it means to make disciples of all nations. Once the people in our care encounter God, we get out of the way so He can do His work. I look at St. Patrick, and I see a guy who did not try to change culture at all. He walked alongside the culture of the people and used their common symbols and contexts to show them the love of Jesus. It was subversive and very Kingdom oriented. In that, God changed the people, which in turn changed the culture. This does not mean, however, that we lose our prophetic voice in the world. I believe that we are supposed to speak out against systemic injustice. But my main "battle plan", as you so aptly put it, Dave, is still to give individual people an experience of God. Then, he does the rest. I think the global Church needs to stop being distracted with political and social agendas aimed at changing culture. One example would be abortion. I am radically pro-life, but I left the national movement because of its distracting qualities. I did not see the value of holding dead fetuses in the faces of women coming out of abortion clinics. I am not sure we should even be focused on changing the laws. If the Church were doing what it should be, supporting women in unplanned pregnancies and loving them into life, it wouldn't matter whether abortion was legal or not. No one would make the choice to get one. They would be solid and secure in their faith and in their experiences of a God who loves them. Then it would be much easier to choose life. OK, I have said enough. I just feel strongly about sticking to the main and the plain. It is all about Jesus and bringing people to a place of having a tangible experience of Him. The rest seems to fall into place.
1 reply
Not having a father in my life always made me question my manliness. But I was a really big, strong guy in high school. I was in high school in the stone age, so there was no cyber-bullying. They did it the old fashioned way, with sticks and stones. I was left alone, but I saw many kids being tormented. It made me very angry, so I targeted the bullies. It didn't make me any better, even though I felt self-righteous protecting the weaker, smaller kids. They looked up to me, and it made them feel empowered a bit. However, I think all I did was further belittle the bullies, who probably were acting out of similar experiences from at home. I felt rage every time I saw the senseless victimization of kids, but I became a bully myself out of that, and therefore no better than the ones I was confronting. All that being said, I think there needs to be an incredibly quick and unforgettable response to defend the victims and prosecute the vagrant punks that are acting as bullies. Any victim of abuse, whether sexual, physical, or emotional, needs an advocate who immediately acts on their behalf to minimize the hurt and trauma. Dave, I will pray for your son. I'm sorry he is experiencing that.
Toggle Commented Apr 15, 2010 on Were You Bullied? at Not The Religious Type
1 reply
We have explored going multi-site with our church, and we have decided that we would much rather plant a bunch of neighborhood-based churches all around the area, with one main church overseeing and supporting all the satellite ones. Our church is very focused on community as the means for life transformation. It is in the relationships that people not only follow Christ, but they grow in leading others to Him as well. I think preaching via satellite sends a clear message that "We have only one super preacher who has the skill for this. The site pastor here has nothing valuable to offer to your walk with Jesus, so we won't have him/her preach." That is dangerous at its core. Also, I need, as a pastor, to know my people. I need to have my finger on the pulse of what they are going through in order to adequately care for them. I cannot get to know them through a video feed. I am sounding like an old man with this, but I see a real loss of community, connectedness, and empowerment with this kind of approach. I think Vince was dead on when he said that it only promotes anonymous consumerism.
1 reply
BTW, Marc, I wanted to also say that this is an excellent post. Thank you for being vulnerable and being willing to share your struggles in your walk. It helps all of us learn and grow!
1 reply
I think we all do a lot of mental and spiritual gymnastics with this area. If I spend time with God while hoping that he fulfills my dreams and desires, are my motives pure? We look for formulas and correct ways to pray for the stuff we need. Then we try to consider the lilies of the field... I think this is where faith is more tested than in trying to decide between choices like doing street ministry or surfing porn. That is an easy choice. Our faith is not tested in the obvious. It is tested in walking out a daily conversational relationship with Him and learning to trust him with each step. I think it is also a pouring out of everything we feel and experience to God. Engaging him in all of it. When you read the Psalms, and more than half of them are complaining Psalms, you realize that God just relishes the contact. He wants all of it: the good, the bad, and the ugly. I am learning how to share with him when I am having trouble trusting him. When He has allowed something that has hurt me or when He waits too long to fulfill a promise (in my timeline), I am learning to pour that out to Him. I think sometimes we feel guilty for wanting good things in our lives or in feeling fatigue in the midst of work for the Kingdom, and all of that is human and good. It just needs to be connected to our walk with God, rather than being placed in our own minds over and against that walk. Now, I am laughing as I write this, because I don't have any of this figured out. I am preaching to myself with all of this. I am a hard-headed people, and I pray that whatever is truth here will start to sink into my own mind and hard heart. But I wanted to share this, as it is what God has been talking to me about in this area.
1 reply
This is a great topic. I haven't commented for a while, because I was in Belmopan, the capital city of Belize. I was with one of the missions directors for the Vineyard churches, and the two of us were exploring the possibility of setting up a missions partnership with that country. It is interesting, because the churches down there are highly religious. Many of them, while the pastors are good people with great hearts, are set up as miniature kingdoms, with the senior pastor reigning as king. There are a number of churches there being run by American pastors who intended from the beginning to turn their churches over to nationals, but somewhere along the way they changed their minds. They decided that they can do it much better. So, and I am not being judgmental, but just repeating what the people on the street told me, they are perceived as highly religious and completely irrelevant. When asked whether they would be interested in being a part of a new church (these were all unbelievers) they said, "Not if it is anything like the churches we have here already." I think there is a spirit of religion in all parts of the Body of Christ, and it is the most destructive force in the Church today. There is a theologian I know who was writing a book called, "The Masturbating Church", but his publisher refused to even look at it, because they felt that the church could not handle that kind of truth. The Church has and does exist for itself and its members, when it should exist for the sake of the world. I am hoping that the conversations in this blog, and others like it, will open the door for true faith, free of institutional religion. Too many sins are glossed over in the name of power, and it is the people, especially the helpless and broken, who get beat up in the process.
Toggle Commented Mar 30, 2010 on Should We Blame Religion? at Not The Religious Type
1 reply
I have struggled with money and the link of that with God for my entire life. Your questions, Dave, are quite profound for me. My dad left when I was 4, and on his way out the door, he cleaned out my mother's savings and took everything she had. We always felt like we never had enough. As a result of that, I was left with a deep father wound, as we addressed a couple of days ago. I had no matrix or worldview that could incorporate knowing God as my Father. With that comes the security of the Father's provision. Needless to say, I have a lot of trouble trusting God in this area. I always find myself trying to figure out HOW to pray for money when I need it. I always hear of people having incredible financial miracles, and I have figured that those kinds of miracles must be for them and not for me. Recently, I received prayer from a fellow pastor, and I had an incredible experience of the Father's love. It absolutely wrecked me with overwhelming intensity. Right after that, we had a financial downturn in our church, and for the first time I had to go without pay. That was really tough, having my provision issues come right on the heels of such an affirmation of God's love. I know that the Father is my provider and He wants to lavish His love and blessing on me, but I haven't learned how to receive it yet. I'm just day by day trying to press into the Father's heart in this area.
1 reply
I totally agree with you, Jeff. When I was first starting the church, I was overly concerned with what "unchurched people" thought. Over the years, as people have left for reasons as silly as our arrangement of chairs, I have learned that compromising my values to please people is never a good thing. I don't think I hear much money talk at all in churches, an area where we have caved to the criticism of culture. I have learned that it needs to be much more central.
Toggle Commented Mar 15, 2010 on Your Thoughts on Money? at Not The Religious Type
1 reply
I made a huge mistake when planting our church in not talking at all about money. One of the complaints I always heard from my secular friends was that churches were always talking about money. I avoided the topic like the plague, and now that we have grown to a significant size, giving is still not a part of our culture. We have trouble almost every month. Now we started a whole pledge drive for March, and our people are starting to finally catch the vision of regular giving as an important part of worship and community life. It has taken years to get to this point, though. I always mistakenly thought that God would just provide what we need. But his miracles, even his miracles of provision, always involve people. Everything in me resents and rejects the Prosperity Gospel message, but I have seen real blessing poured out when people handle their finances in a Godly way. Since Jesus talked about money almost as much as he talked about love, I think it is pretty central. The prosperity folks are onto something, at least in the area of God's lavish gifting of us. I don't believe he wants us all to be rich, but I also don't believe he wants anyone going hungry. That is where the Church needs to be intentional about rethinking our approach to money. If we want to see the Kingdom expand throughout the world, the Gospel has to be good news for this life, even for the poorest of the poor. Instead of relying on social services or parachurch organizations, the Church needs to return to teaching radical generosity and take up the mantle, once again, of being the light-bearers of the Kingdom in a despairing world. Avoiding the topic was not only unhelpful for our own budget, it was detrimental for our Kingdom work. We need to make our teaching on money a central part of what we do.
Toggle Commented Mar 15, 2010 on Your Thoughts on Money? at Not The Religious Type
1 reply