No better way to get the year started, aye?
Instigated by my recent foray into the theology of the Old Testament under professor Ian Provan, I found myself fascinated by a number of things – his perspective on Ezra / Nehemiah / Esther for one – but also the look into the wisdom lits, particularly Song of Songs. Long been held an allegorical reading of the love of Christ for the Church, I’ve always walked away thinking that was a stretch; it always seemed to me a pretty obvious picture of one thing: eros. Defining songs as allegorical just never really convinced me as I can’t seem to see that as the author’s intent. At any rate this is not so much about splitting hermeneutical hairs as much as it is about the deep redemptive value of a theology on sex; Songs has the potential to address the neurotic dysfunctionalism of our view on sex today; the problem is the allegorical message of Christ and the church keeps getting in the way – it seems to be blinding us to the more obvious – the literal interpretation of songs as a theology on the “healing of sex”. But at any rate:
Is there indeed, such a thing as a “theology of sex”? Is it in there, in the text? Is it an a priori of secularism? Is it relevant, devotional-type material? Can you make heads or tails of it? Does it speak to the church or the individual?
As it is pouring snow outside and I anticipate a few days of complete silence and confinement I turn my thoughts towards devotion:
Whatever your faith practice is, how do u begin your mornings? Read more…
Which is a fancy-schmancy way of saying “What is church?”
So contribute your thoughts, perhaps it will land in (or influence) the paper I am writing now titled, “The Kingdom As Church”. What is church? Is it a congregation? An established institution? Is it static and theoretical or dynamic, mission-birthed, people-oriented? Do you jive with the polemics of the progressive anti-institutional intelligentsia or do you prefer the familiarity of the old forms, traditions, liturgy, patterns? My answer to that question would be “yes, and…” but at any rate…
Further ponderings on the “success” question.
Some may disagree but I think there is a legit need to define quantifiable progress in church / missionary endeavor. Sure numbers are not everything but I think it’s necessary to know what is the telos of our work. A paradigm of mission is needed. Do we do good for goodness’ sake or is there a deeper reason? Before you fire off and say “Why? Do we always need a reason to do good?” I would say place yourself in my shoes of shutting down a dream and re-ask that question. Why do good if in the end it doesn’t happen? Why do good if in the end your efforts leave you discouraged, burned out, sucker-punched? Of course we could say with Mother Teresa, “do good anyway” – but that is not enough. There must be a telos to all of our frenetic religious activity. There must be quantifiable results. What are we driving at / towards? We must be able to answer that question. And the answer must be bigger than us. So what do I think is the telos of all missional / missionary activity? Read more…
Man it feels good to be back in Canada.
The above title was the convo @ the church planters gathering in Bellingham (Hothouse). Some of the attention was turned on me as those gathered knew about my recent heartache of closing down a church. And so I was queried about how I felt and if it was a loss or waste. It was therapeutic to be a bit narcissistic and talk about my angst but at the end the question was on the table and still stands: Read more…
Like
Recent Comments