This came at the end of one of my conference calls that I have to be a part of every Monday morning (we bankers were off yesterday):
"All mankind is divided into three classes: Those that are immovable, those that are movable and those that get moving!"
- Unknown
I have no idea where this came from but I immediately thought about how this quote, which was being used in a business/work context, applies to our daily lives as Christ followers. I'm sure you can think of different people in your life that fit each of the three categories. Which category fits you best?
Unfortunately, I spent the better part of over a decade trying to maintain the "immovable" image. I had my systematic theology, ecclesiology, soteriology and all the other "ologies" down into a perfectly immovable system. That is our number one calling in life right? According to many people it was and still is. After all, if the Christian life is all about going to Heaven what else are we supposed to do while here on Earth?
Thanks to some great friends, I am beginning to live out a much healthier, more holistic Christian life. I would no longer characterize myself as immovable and with God's help, I will never be there again. I think there is a huge misconception that theology is something that has an answer and that we are to figure it out so it can be settled. May God grant us grace to live a life that is worthy of the calling placed on our lives. May it always be about openness. May we be open to new ideas, new friends, new ways of looking at the world, new depths of our faith and new ideas shared by others.
Closed minded and "immovable" can only lead to atrophy and ultimately death. Let's encourage one another to be "movable" and to "get moving". It's fine to memorize another scripture but for me, it is about trying to figure out how to live out the ones I already know.
PB
5 comments:
So do you think there are any "unmovable" doctrines that define what it means to be a christian? For instance original sin, the resurection of christ, the diety of christ, etc...
if so, how do we pick which ones are unmovable?
If not what standard is there for one to call oneself a "Christian"? and is that standard set outside of human experience (ie by God), or is it a standard that is only set within our collective context?
I know that Rob Bell suggests that we can move some of those "bricks" in the wall of theology around, which I agree with to a point, but what bricks are holding the wall up? And how do we know what bricks are safe to move especially considering that we can't see the whole wall.
Just askin'...
Great stuff Dax. Sorry for the delay in answering...I haven't figured out how to make it email me when there is a response to a post.
I guess I'm beginning to count myself in with the "collective context" camp although I do believe on a practical level there are a few "bricks" that are non-negotiable. Being a good "emerging church" Christian, I am unwilling to state those beliefs out loud:) I'm to the point where I'm comfortable with the community defining "truth". I'm trying to get away from the systematic theology approach that leads to many more rules about who is out and who is in than it does the kingdom activity that I believe Jesus came to call us into. I guess to try and answer the question about which ones we pick, I would say that I believe we make better decisions as a whole than I would on my own. I might have a slant towards a belief that God didn't really need Jesus's blood to accomplish what He accomplished and another slant towards an "unmovable" view of Christ resurrection as penal substitutionary...what if no one else in the community felt that way? I'm rambling because it is late but the point I was trying to make is that I believe we should have an immovable or two based around Christ but I don't want to make it such a big deal that someone might not join our efforts because of it/them. I want to be known as someone who pursues justice and cares for the abused, marginalized and hurting....not as someone with a long list of "essentials" for Christianity.
The standard for calling oneself a Christian...that is a fun one. I guess someone who is pursuing a Christ-like life? I guess God might have a standard set outside of human experience....I guess I believe both because I also believe that our community/context sets a standard as well. It is ultimately not my job to decide who is a Christian and who isn't (thankfully)...I am willing to laugh, love and learn from anyone who will acknowledge me.
To address your final paragraph, I'm at a place in my life where I would rather push the envelope on the side of moving some bricks around than trying to make sure a huge wall of theological essentials/bricks is undisturbed. I don't think we know which bricks are safe to move and that is the beauty of the Holy Spirit guiding us into all truth. Again, I might not be listening but you are and as we dialogue about it and pray about it God uses you (the community) and the Holy Spirit to show me God's truth within our context.
I may regret this post of off the cuff ramblings...very tired and ready for sleepy time....almost 1AM! Don't hold me to any of this...hopefully it will inspire more conversation.
Just ramblin'...
So now I must be up later than you, so I'm going to do some very unproverbial stuff and go ahead an open my big fat mouth...
I have this little slogan: "subjectively applying absolute truth from a vantage point of incomplete knowledge". That pretty much sums up my epistemology. I believe that God is real and true and has set a standard by which man should live. However because of my own sin and ignorance the only way I can get a view on that standard is by a supernatural intervention.
however I will say that I think its ok to tell someone that they are wrong and to even tell them that they aren't a christian, and still be able to love them with a non-condescending, christ like love. If i'm feeding the poor and someone doesn't want to join me in the activity because I believe that Jesus' death atoned for my sin, then I really think that it's them that has the problem and not me. The bible tells me that it requires work on God in someone's life in order for them to be able to accept this fact (1 cor chpt 2). So in the same way that I can't boast in some kind of arrogance because of my faith, then logically, I also can't condemn someone because of their lack of it (1 cor 4:7).
As for moving bricks around I'm all for it, with the exception of the brick that is Christ. You see the way I figure is that if I have a correct opinion about God then it must come from God, because on my own I'm pretty much only capable of pure sin or foolishness. If I move some bricks around and am wrong about it, it will become very apparent soon enough, because my brick moving doesn't change the way things are, the change is only in my perception of those things and not the things themselves. My error will be apparent because when any delusion is confronted with reality it creates stress and frustration on the one with the delusion, the trick is recognizing this and adjusting the delusion to align more closely with reality (reality of course being the revealed will of God (Heb 1:3)).
The brick of Christ however is the corner stone (the stone the builders rejected will become the corner stone), sometimes it might be hard to spot the load bearing parts of a wall, but the corner stone is pretty hard to miss. i would leave it alone. The idea that "God could have accomplished what he accomplished without Christ's blood" has to be thrown out especially considering that Christ earnestly begged God that it be accomplished another way, yet it didn't happen another way. We can only conclude from this that a.) it could only happen that way or b.) God is a sadistic abusive parent bent on the torture and murder of his child for the purpose of redeeming sinners that he could have redeemed in a broad array of other, less gruesome alternatives. I don't know about you but I'm going to worship God A...If my wall comes crumbling down because of that brick, so be it.
"Ahhh" you say to me "your assuming that I accept the premise that Christ's death atoned for my sin"...
yes I'm assuming that. I guess when I look at Jesus sure I see all the great things he did and the wonderful things he taught about how we should treat each other, and i get it, but you know buddah and confusious and alot of other people all told us some really great ways to treat each other, Jesus said he was God...to me that kind of stands out from the rest of his message, and i really have to struggle with it because most people who tell me that they are God, no matter what other good advice they have, I have a tendency to write off pretty quickly. So if i'm going to judge a christian by someone who is just trying to live a "christ-like" life, do I first exclude all the parts of christs life where he was really exclusive and said that he was the only way to God, and that he was God and all that and just focus on the love your enemy parts? To me I really have to take some time and struggle with this idea that Christ is God...and not just some little God but the one and only God that I have to completely think outside of my own cultural context to even get a grasp on the concept of the idea of this God he is claiming to be...which kind of throws out community context as a method by which i can ascertain truth because my own culture has no context for this kind of God, i have to study jewish or even islamic history to come even close...
crap i'm stopping now, this could turn into a book, it's already so long that i'm almost positive that you won't even read this sentence.
feel free to take it from here if you wish...
Late night blogging sure does bring out the best in me...I think i could have probably done a better job stringing those ideas together if it wasn't so close to the "witching hour" when i did it...
the real question is what does all this have to do with what it looks liek to live as a christian? Probably not as much as we'd like to think...
I opined on this very thing the other day on my blog. Check it out, you'll double my readership if you do.
My blog: ~DAXOLOGY~.
Post a Comment