Disqus - Latest Comments for mschellman

Re: Book Review: A People’s History of Christianity

mschellman — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:00:57 -0000

I was surprised by the title of this book and at first confused it with a series called Christian Origins (A People's History of Christianity) which is several volumes in length. In view of a People's History along the lines you suggested. I would suggest the documentary "Trinkets and Beads" by Christopher Walker. It covers the fallout resulting from missionaries in the Amazon Basin who were largely funded by oil companies. It is viewable on Youtube in 2 parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3o9KUH_DYU

Re: By what authority?

paulmunn — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:40:15 -0000

I agree that "people will still choose their leaders." One of the arguments I've heard in support of formal group selection of leaders (like voting for them) is that if we don't do this, people will still empower leaders among them, but in an unorganized way or in an un-thoughtful way, often ending with leaders who happened to be the loudest with their opinions, or the pushiest, people we wouldn't have selected if we talked and thought about it carefully as a group. That may be true. I hope it would be less likely if there's more mature Christians in the group.

But I really don't think we can or should control what "people" do. Jesus did not prevent others from choosing bad leadership (just as God did not prevent Israel from crowning a king, though he warned them against it, 1 Sam 8). But he did demonstrate a markedly different way of leading (without human authority or power), and related to the official authorities in a way quite different from most people. This is what I think we should do also.

I haven't tried to "take away" elections in our church, though I have challenged them, and not supported them myself. And I try to follow the leadership of various people in the community that have demonstrated that they have gifts and callings from God in various areas of life (whether or not they happen to be in any official leadership "position").

I guess I think that the body of Christ operates according to its nature, whether or not our institutional churches reflect that nature very well. I think mature Christians can see God's calling and gifts in people and they follow those people, as true leaders in the body, whether or not they are elected or are in their church or even their denomination. God organizes and leads his people; it's his body. So that's what I try to see and submit to and cooperate with.

I just wish our Christian communities reflected that more, instead of having leadership and authority structures that seem to be copies of every other human organization around us.

Re: By what authority?

mschellman — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:54:28 -0000

I agree with the gist of your argument, but I don't think your solution provides a way around the fact that people can chose the wrong leaders. There is no necessary link between power and authority. The people will invest power in whomever they choose. And sometimes they make the wrong choice. You can take away the formality of elections, and people will still choose their leaders - but perhaps by less rational means. I do like the idea you propose of leaders emerging from among the body for specific tasks. It would truly be impressive and display the true headship of God (so obscured by formal offices). For this reason alone I believe it would be worth doing. It is no guarantee however against bad leadership. Only a people truly seeking God's will above their own desires and biases will be able to choose the right leaders.

Re: The Taming of God (Obama’s Religion, pt 2)

dlw — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 11:21:20 -0000

good thoughts.

I think of Paul's dream that made him go to Macedonia instead of East. If he had not had that dream, the initial center for the development of followers of Christ would have been quite different. I also think of the time in Babylonian captivity and how other people groups were similarly moved to Babylon and then allowed to return home after the Persians defeated the Babylonians without extensive blood-shed. If this truly was the time of Daniel/Deutero-Isaiah and the time of spiritual renewal for the Jews(when most of the OT was edited/compiled) then it stands to reason that seeds/(points of contact) were planted and scattered among the Greeks and other nations. Not the whole, but important parts, w. different parts scattered in different areas, thus creating quite different tasks for followers of Christ in communicating the identity and significance of Christ using the native tongues.

dlw

Re: The Taming of God (Obama’s Religion, pt 2)

markvans — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:36:01 -0000

That all makes sense. I think the operating system metaphor threw me off.

Re: The Taming of God (Obama’s Religion, pt 2)

mschellman — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:19:33 -0000

Man - both of you guys. Where are you guys getting that this conversation was ever about authority and subordination etc. You are definitely reading that into what I am saying.
Let me try and explain what I was trying to say.

Pretend for a moment that I am not saying what you think I am saying. That the church is a subset of society. That's not what I'm saying at all. It is not, as a professor I had once said "the church is one of the pillers of our social order". While the church is not a subset of the society, it does exist within many differing social Milieu, and those human societies present a variety of differing challenges for Christians. OUR experience differs from believers in China? Europe? Latin America? The middle east? The prevailing culture for each milieu has different rules, vices, strong points, weak points, forms of social organization, ways of connecting with strangers. We must not assume that we can have a one size fits all approach to the world? There is no objective vantage point from which we engage the world. We are not OF THE WORLD but we are IN THE WORLD.

My initial response to Chris' article was only to point out that I have a certain affinity for our social milieu, because it allows us to engage people of differing viewpoints peacefully on the merits of what we proclaim. What we have to overcome is apathy, greed, materialism etc. These are unique to our environment. In another place or time, where violent repression existed and there was not such a large consumer class, our challenges would be different and so would our approach.

Re: The Taming of God (Obama’s Religion, pt 2)

markvans — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:19:20 -0000

I have difficulty thinking of the church as a subset of "society." It is, perhaps, better to think of the State as something subordinate to the Kingdom of God. After all, the government is upon Christ's shoulders. And Christ the King simply allows various states to exist. Those in Christ, ie, the church, I believe are to be properly anarchistic...their government is Christ.

Re: The Taming of God (Obama’s Religion, pt 2)

bren0110 — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:51:32 -0000

I think I'm not familiar enough with computer terminology to continue using your analogy, Mike, but I will say that identifying the Church as a state does NOT invariably lead to the exaltation of one visible form of the Church, and I can certainly provide numerous examples of that if you wish. I think if the Church were to mimic the secular State, that would be unwise and unhelpful, but I'm not proposing that.

We're not supposed to long for persecution or martyrdom?

Re: The Taming of God (Obama’s Religion, pt 2)

mschellman — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 03:03:53 -0000

Chris,

Here are some reasons I would hesitate from drawing the platform analogy the way you do. First, the Church is most clearly affected by the environment it is running in. This is not just a question of communication; rather, certain bugs and fixes exist in every environment, and these have a direct effect on the church's appearance and performance in the culture. Second, history bares out the fact that when we identify the Church as a state it invariably leads to the exaltation of one visible form of the Church. Rather than seeing the Church as a rival state I see the Church as the Avant-garde or 5th Column of the advancing Kingdom (the Kingdom of God being the rival state).

You also ask if the freedom to practice and promote our faith without serious repression is truly an advantage we should try to preserve?

You can make an argument that the Church thrives under persecution (e.g. blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church), but its not like we are supposed to long for it or seek it out. We should take advantage of the situation that we are in. If we are serious, we will find the walls our own culture erects.

Re: The Taming of God (Obama’s Religion, pt 2)

bren0110 — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:24:09 -0000

Mike, to carry your platform analogy further in my own thinking, The mistake I think most Americans make is in thinking of "church" and "state" as two different kinds of things. In your analogy, the state is a platform, and the church is a program. However, I would say that the church is a platform, as is the state. The question should then be, how are these systems able to communicate with each other? If we are simply a social organization within the "state," then your analogy holds sway. But if we are a sovereign state, then we have to ask what comity exists between our nation and the American nation.

"the freedom to practice and promote our faith without serious repression is an advantage that we should try to preserve"

Is it an advantage?

Thanks for your thoughts, Mike.

Re: The Taming of God (Obama’s Religion, pt 2)

mschellman — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 03:32:57 -0000

Chris,

I really liked your articles on "Obama's Religion." The example of Abraham clearly illustrates that the civil religion called for by a pluralistic democratic society does not mesh neatly with the call on the life of a disciple; but then,no societal structure ever did (or will).

I believe our government, at best, is simply a platform on which the localized church can run. Like Linux, Mac or PC. Running the church in a democratic environment has advantages and disadvantages. For instance,the freedom to practice and promote our faith without serious repression is an advantage that we should try to preserve; however, we must also learn to exist peacibly with people who's beliefs and values differ from our own. Would the church run better on another social platform? Maybe, maybe not - But I think we will not advance the mission of the church if we spend all of our time arguing about the platform it is running on. The real work of the church should be learning to work in the environment we are in - know its strengths and weaknesses and optimize our praxis.

After all, the Gospel should be capable of running in any environment. And I personally would prefer to have a say in Govt. policy. I think Christians get into trouble when we expect too much of the civil governemnt. We will never get a representative democracy to reflect our values exclusively, unless we are willing to change the character of our government. (That game has been played out many times already - and the results are not promising).

If God called me to sacrifice my son, I am glad to know that I live in a country where people would call the police on me. That means we can strive for a predictable - generally just society. God can call Abraham to sacrifice his Son - faith is trusting that though God is incomprehensible, he is ultimately good - and can resolve the seemingly conflicting messages we get in the moment. We are not called to put that kind of faith in the government. So long as the Government is morally predictable we can work within it - I do not mind that my faith will at times come to odds with it.

Thank's for your thoughtful and well written piece.

Re: The Style of Subversion: An Introduction

mike schellman — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 06:41:18 -0000

Hipster/Radical

Not this, Not that, Not not this, Not not that :-)

Between fashion and statement, how small the divide - between conformity and rebellion how great the divide.

1 Samuel 16:7b

(was that profound? - I'm not sure. - Sure sounded good.)

Re: Render unto Washington?

mike schellman — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:06:44 -0000

I think that Jesus response is such a beautiful and profound thing. He says, "look at the coin. Who's image is stamped on it?" - by this he also implies the question "And WHO"S IMAGE IS STAMPED ON YOU?" when he says "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's - and to God what belongs to God". Ceasar's image, Caesar's money, Caesars system, God can accomplish his purposes without them. They will have their time in the sun and eventually fall under God's judgement. Simple obedience to God, will accomplish his ends without resort to traditional means of revolt.