Honduras trip

A question I've often received is "have you been on a mission trip?"  Well, yes and no, but definitely not one outside of the country.  When I married Keller I knew she and her family had a long history of being involved with a Honduras mission trip.  The trip was arranged by several different churches in Baton Rouge, Kansas City, and Hiram (Atlanta.)  The church in Hiram is known as West Metro church of Christ. [note: I can't remember if you are supposed to capitalize the church "C".  Regardless...]

We signed up with West Metro and the group totaled about 40 altogether.  Among others, we were joined with Keller's parents and two of her younger sisters, Carltron and Sossana.  Now, only a small inner sliver of me questioned using multiple vacation days to spend with my beloved in-laws - really, only a tiny amount.  But overall I was really looking forward to the trip.  :)

The morning we left our house at 4:30 AM, I was greeted by a maimed, half-full rear tire on the Tahoe.  It turns out that the convenience stores on Roswell Rd aren't open by then, but thankfully Starbucks was (Keller.)  After driving halfway to Hiram I finally filled it up enough to ease into the parking lot, knowing I'd be changing a flat upon our re-entry...

The flight and all went smoothly and soon enough we were in San Pedro Sula, Honduras.  The airport was crowded, but nice, and besides local Honduran travelers, other American missionaries were easily spotted.  We boarded an old school Bluebird school bus and began the trek to Sambo Creek, which was halfway to our destination Trujillo.  I was fascinated by the landscape, having never been to Central America, nor a spanish-speaking country.  There are a lot of mountains there, tall and jagged, covered in vegetation.  Palms grow all the way into the clouds.  Some palms near the road grew about 16' tall with massive fronds that fanned out at least 20'.  No wonder they are used for roofs.

Besides that, there's banana, mango, and coconut trees literally everywhere.  Tropical snacks only a reach away.   When the bus stops at a gas station, local vendors crowd around hoping to sell some snacks.

We stopped after a 3 hour bus ride at Sambo Creek, which I'm guessing is probably a long forgotten coastal ex-pat vacation area.  As we basically followed the northern coast of Honduras, we were near the Caribbean the whole time, and this night we stayed right on the water.  We arrived in time for the afternoon cattle drive on the beach...

 The sand was nice and soft, the water was an opaque tannish color, not exactly the best for swimming.  That night I enjoyed my first eyes-closed mouth-closed shower, the first of many to come.  In the morning we hit the road again, another 3 hour trip to Trujillo.  Along the way a common sight below: Everywhere, skeletons of houses.  Mostly just the concrete block wall, unfinished and no roof.  I don't know if people start to build them and then run out of money (just like in the States) or if builders just build them hoping to eventually sell them.  

 Eventually we wind our way to beautiful Trujillo.  Trujillo is on the northern coast of Honduras and you can see some of the outer islands from the coast there.  Roatan is not far away and is visible - Roatan is a popular diver's destination.  Trujillo is covered in bananas, plantains, coconuts, and mango trees.  Being a smaller city, however, it does not shake the "third world" image much though.  Some nicer and modern houses do exist but most houses seemed to be very basic.  As we stayed there several days it seemed like the typical lifestyle was to have the mother at home with several children, and the father working, if work was to be found.  Keller was struck by the difference in lifestyle that a 3 hour plane trip makes.  In the US she has a career and a lot of autonomy over what she does with her life, but in Honduras the typical mother is truly under the employ of the household all day every day.  Cooking, cleaning, laundry, and (multiple) child rearing was a full time and unpaid job.
   The days were hot, hot, hot...  Below is a view of of the road our hotel was on with the sea in the background.

 From what I could gather we went down with several initiatives to accomplish.  They were mainly focused on work and repairs needed in the community and local churches.  West Metro supports a Christian school in Trujillo and in Honduras, things break down and go missing with much frequency.  Our group painted, fixed things, and repaired various electrical problems around the school.  I worked on the carpentry team a few doors and helped build a bano door (bathroom.)  On the days I wasn't at the school, I helped on the house project.  About 30 minutes outside of Trujillo in the countryside there was a local church family whose home was in disrepair and needed a new place to live.  Our team took on the ambitious project to build them a house.  Mr. Hill (father-in-law) may have worked his way into the Catholic book of saints by spending every work day out on the house site.  Little shade, hot days, limited water, and legitimate hard work was done everyday at that site.  I volunteered to go out there the second day.  Here's a picture of Keller and I setting some blocks.  The hat was a lifesaver. 

One of the boys decided to "ride" this neighborhood dog.  Ears for steering.

Below, Keller and I mortaring the blocks using some precarious Honduran scaffolding.

Keller finally getting a chance to hold Joseph, who for days before had been terrified of the visiting Gringos.  On a seperate occassion I was walking with a group to work at the school and a 3 year old on a porch shouts out, "Hola, gringos!!"

At about the midpoint of the trip, Montezuma issued his assault on my digestive system and I was incapacitated for a short amount of time, but due to an abundant supply of medicine thankfully it was not too bad.  Had I been at the country jobsite, it would have been a VERY trying experience, but perhaps providentially we were at the hotel.  Unfortunately I got hit at the same time with a strange 2 day head cold / virus that about half of our team got while we were there.  So that morning was not my favorite, but again thankfully I spent it in bed and was able to recuperate sufficiently.

There are more pictures that I may sort and post eventually but as that could take weeks I figured I would go ahead and finish the trip synopsis so those that were wondering about our trip can read before they lose interest :)

As expected Honduras did leave several impressions on me.  I had never been to a third world country, and I don't know if Hondurans would take offense to that title, but at least from my understanding it is what it is.  But that doesn't imply that the country or it's residents are any "less" than we are.  The spirit of the people we met, or even strangers we just passed by in a store, was very strong and congenial.  I did not have any interactions that were unpleasant, in fact most were actually refreshing and enjoyable, despite the language barrier.  The people there were very appreciative and authentic and pitched in wherever they could.

Another Honduran element I picked up on was their sense of neighborhood.  With the lack of alienating technology it seems that relationships were "richer" there than what we were used to.  What I mean is here we travel alone in cars to work, work on computers, scroll our phones when bored, watch TV at home.  But because those things aren't as abundant in Honduras, the people rely on each other for quality of life.  Or, at least this is what I thought I observed - I'd leave it up to them to describe themselves.  But in any event, community was much more involved - for better or for worse.

A result of that was while we were there an old fashioned "door-knocking" was taking place with the local ministers.  Every night we would hear them tell us about the minister's success in reaching out to the community simply by going door to door.  Success in the sense that these people studied the Bible together and chose to believe.  Now, in our culture those methods might be perceived as obsolete or unsafe, or not effective any more.  But due to the Honduran communal culture, it seems to be very effective.

We actually got to witness some in action.  While building the home out in the countryside, one the of ministers came to the house where we were working.  One of the boys living there, Luis, had been assisting us in the difficult tasks of mixing concrete and filling mortar joints.  Luis and all of the boys and men in the household were all very helpful.  Anyways Luis studied with the minister, Santiago, and chose to be baptized that day.  Mr. Hill and Mrs. Hill (or Mama Hill as I am to call her) were out there that day and Mama Hill got to go down to the river where they witnessed the baptism.  I'm reminded of the scene from O Brother Where Art Thou!  Unfortunately that was the day I was in bed.

The most impactful information was learning that our group may have helped to influence his decision, if anything by just example.  That is a very convicting feeling, more important than how many doors we fixed or walls we painted.  And, it's one I don't think I've felt before.  On the last work day we showed up to find Santiago there again, underneath the thatched roof and on a dirt floor, with an open bible and talking to Luis' wife.  That day we finished the house and as we were hand-torquing the roof tin into the trusses a cloud came and gave us shade the last hour of the day.  We got to use our hands and wrenches because the power drill ran out of battery and we weren't near an electrical source.

There are more memories: drinking every possible tropical soft drink - coconut, banana, etc., eating plantains, spotting iguanas, watching the ocean, trying to teach kids how to bowl tennis balls into a stack of aforementioned soft drink bottles, and spending time with family and friends.  Perhaps paramount to those is how I can begin to see how you can begin to form relationships with the Honduran people despite sharing maybe 10-15 words of spoken language.  And for me personally it was part of my own mission to understand and experience the global purpose of Christianity.

Lastly, only one selfish benefit to the trip; I was looking forward to pestering our minister who came with us on the trip, Ricky from West Metro, with every possible theological and church history related question I could think of.  So thanks Ricky for being a good sport and hearing me out!!! And of course, another great benefit was getting to spend time with my new family, Mr. and "Mama" Hill and Carlo and Suz.

Last note: upon our return a church member had noticed my flat.  They own a tire shop and removed my tire, fixed the flat, and put it back on the truck.  I was so surprised. 

Chronocentricity

Great title, I know. 

Barring the discovery of some ancient advanced civilization, today in 2013 we most certainly enjoy the status of being the most technologically advanced generation the Earth has known.  That certainly must be a fact. Now, a Revolution-style catastrophe could occur, stifling electricity and throwing us backwards a couple of hundred years.  Or, the global nuclear wars feared in the 1960's could still happen and destroy our technological achievements, again throwing us back several hundred years.  However, that hasn't happened and is fairly unlikely to occur.  So, we should feel pretty confident that our future generations will still be in the vanguard of human achievement.  

It's pretty reasonable then to assume that our generation has something that is slightly better than previous generations.  There has to be some truth to that.  If I contracted strep throat, I'm going to choose a 2013 doctor over a Middle Ages barber-surgeon. If I needed to send a message to a relative in Africa, I'm going to send an immediate email rather than arrange a 1900's steamboat and an ensuing safari team to have someone reach them.  If I have some current need for toothpaste, milk, and a new knife, I can go to Target today, rather than an apothecary, a farm, and a blacksmith in Ancient Rome.  A strange list, I know.

You can't deny how the modern era has made us a more efficient, healthy, and safe people.  But does the benefit of being born into this particular era enable us to assume we're also intellectually superior to previous generations? 

In school we do get the opportunity to learn the fruits of years' worth of work left behind to us by the likes of Einstein, Curie, Pasteur, etc.;  we can sit in science class and memorize (and immediately forget) these scientist's formulas in just a handful of classes.  Although we get to use their lifelong scientific conclusions for our immediate benefit, the average student isn't automatically considered a genius just because they got a 92 on a physics test. 

I think it's even more so in the fields of philosophy, and more importantly, theology.  Granted I am probably guilty of this myself at some point, but how can anyone today begin to assume that just because we are living in this modern age, that we can summarily dismiss the past as obsolete and worthless?  

Here's what I'm getting at - a common objection to Christianity and the Bible is simply, it's old.  Antiquated, and uninformed.  It's a product of an age where it did apply but "we've moved on."  Surely we do not need to accept the attitudes expressed in this book because it was written thousands of years ago by ignorant and unenlightened brains. 

Ah, I'm glad you said that. 

Such is the opinion of the "Chronocentric."  I was surprised but someone wrote a wikipedia article about it as well which is accurate enough for me.  Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronocentrism

Chronocentrism is just as much a mistake as ethnocentrism.  Ethnocentrism, if you can recall again from school days, is an unmerited belief that your culture is superior to others.  For a quick and crude example, "Americans are better than any other nation.  Our lives are just better."  Ethnocentrism and racism can also be closely related.  And they are both inherently and absolutely wrong.  So is Chronocentrism - assuming that ourselves in our current time are more enlightened and smarter than previous generations.  This is simply not true. 

Think about the classic writers of the Enlightenment, the Declaration of Independence and early democratic ideals, philosophic works over the ages (Plato, Socrates, Kierkegaard, etc), novels, plays, music, ancient evocative poetry like the Odyssey?  (This list is embarrassingly brief, but you get the point.)

If you were to be transported to a room with one of these people and magically spoke the same language, what would you even talk about besides the weather?  A status update you made yesterday?  How stupid traffic is in Atlanta?

The writers of the Bible are no less significant than their secular historical counterparts listed above.  The mystical and mysterious nature of the poetry of Genesis is straightforward enough to serve as a history for an ethnic group (and everyone), but on the other hand is so full of enigma and questions that we'll never understand the answers in this life.  Proverbs contains timeless, though ancient wisdom.  John is a gospel, but reads more like a captivating novel.  And Paul in Romans and his other letters uses intricate and emotional language to dramatically and desperately convey his urgent message.  And it was all written hundreds of thousands of years ago.  

The argument that the Bible was written so long ago by ancients does not diminish or alter their message.  We must treat them as peers and their writings as legitimate, because humans are equals, despite race, culture, and even time.  

Caveat 1 - Obviously there were schools of thought that were antiquated (I'm thinking scientific ones mostly) like the sun rotating around the earth, the heavens are in the clouds, etc.  Also, things like human sacrifice in order for a good harvest, etc.  Obviously, people in the past are like us; they were misguided and made mistakes.  For the purposes of this post, I'm primarily referring to intangible truths gleaned from the Bible, i.e. the theology behind it. 

     Some parts of the bible are time-bound and culturally specific and should be interpreted as such.

Caveat 2 - Just because you respect the literature as being legitimate doesn't mean you have to agree with it.  Obviously I've written under my conviction the Bible is truth, but in reading this you may not have that conviction, which for the purposes of this article is not required.  The purpose is just to make sure we are aware and not thinking "chronocentrically," intentionally or not.  On the flipside, I need to respect the Quran or Bhagavad Gita as written by capable authors, though I don't agree with those particular movements. 

Note - I was listening to a song on the radio the other day, I think it was some kind of marriage equality song which one of the verses mentioned that the opponents of the marriage equality were using the Bible as their basis, and it was "written three thousand years ago" or something to that effect.  Thus the inspiration for this post.

Thoughts on "Renewing God's People: A Concise History of the Churches of Christ"

When I was a boy I went to church every Sunday.  Church in the morning, Sunday school, and then back again at night at 6 P.M. (or 5 P.M. in the winter, for some reason.)  Furthermore, we also attended church every Wednesday night.  To me, this was the pattern of life; it was normal, assumed - it simply was what it was.  Being young I guess I also assumed everyone else did the same thing, but I knew that not everyone went to the same church since I never knew what churches my school friends went to.  Eventually it became apparent to me that some people went to church much less regularly; in fact some didn't go to church at all!

   Whenever church became a topic of conversation between my peers and I, I'd tell them where I went to church, which was a "Church of Christ."  [I still don't know if you're supposed to capitalize the first "C".]  Amazingly enough, even amongst kids, I was usually greeting with something like, "Oh you're the ones who think you're better than the rest of us, and we're 'going to hell' right?"  Occasionally parents would also express this perception of my church.

  Ah, wonderful.

  Those attitudes came from some rather zealous church members whose knowledge of the CofC could basically be summed up in one sentence, "The Churches of Christ are modeled after the exact church of Acts - the one Jesus truly intended."  Nevermind history... or the Pope and all them others... or the rest of the world, we're the real church.  Which, you would have to admit, implies some pretty exclusive teachings.  Despite being raised around these kinds of attitudes, I didn't really identify with them.  And to the churches' credit, when we met, I don't really recall very many, if any, "hellfire and brimstone" type sermons.  So, what was this church in which I was raised, and still attend?

  A church elder recommended that I read Renewing God's People: A Concise History of the Churches of Christ. A short book, a quick read, can probably be finished in 2 or 3 good sessions.  The book, or others like it, is an absolute read for anyone who has been raised in the Church of Christ.  Especially folks from the South or from smaller congregations.  I love how the header for chapter 1 is a bit of a sarcastic (even Pauline?) jab at our own church - entitled, "Do we have a history?"

  The book starts where most would start - with the historical record of Acts.  But instead of going from 40 A.D. to 2013 in one sentence, we slowly weave through history, as we should.  I read one criticism of the book on Amazon before buying, and it was because the history of the church from the Apostles to the Reformation (1500's) was very brief.  I have a desire to learn more about the church then too, but admittedly it really that epoch does have little to contribute to the overall intention of the book.

  The reformers are highlighted, especially the fact that their theologies are very congruent with those of my own church.  Luther's sola scriptura is accounted for of course, and also the fact that he was adamant about translating the bible into local languages, allowing for personal study and understanding to be available rather than listening to a priest speak in Latin.  Fast forward to the new-found religious freedom of early America (which I had taken for granted) with our various denominations and groups free to practice in the absence of a state religion.  However, there were some, provoked even more than the Reformers to return to a purer form of Christianity, and to unite all of the denominations.  Two prominent ones were Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell.

  The most important parts of the books are understanding the Stone-Campbell movement, why it happened, and to learn about what the founders did to compromise on their convictions in order to lead a new church congregation.  Basically, they both had their own church "history."  Both were fed up with structure, titles, rites, creeds, etc.  They just wanted to be "Christian."  Both amassed congregations that eventually merged despite huge doctrinal differences. 

   Stone and Campbell were the leaders of the groups but expected no honor or status for it.  They were both for adult baptism, but disagreed on whether or not it should crucial for acceptance into the church (Thanks to my wife for reminding me!)  One wanted Communion to happen every week, the other celebrated it only occasionally.  Stone did not have today's traditional view of the equal Trinity.  Campbell thought noisy, emotional revivals were uncouth and preferred a rational, civilized conversation.  Similarly, they both had their own worship styles - Stone's charismatic and Campbell's subdued & European-influenced.  They also couldn't agree what name to put out on the sign in front of the church.  But regardless, they merged and with the help of some incredible evangelists such as Walter Scott, had explosive growth.

  The church that began as a unity movement later became called the Stone-Campbell movement, or the Restorationist movement (which also encompasses a few other traditions now.)  But, as we know, problems would later arise.  The civil war would split the country, and racism, especially in the south became rampant.  There were "Black" CofC's and "White" CofC's, which still exist to this day in the south.*  Issues like supporting missionary societies or instrumental music in church popped up, and since scripture doesn't address those directly, the churches didn't know what to do.  The silence of scripture became a vitriolic battle cry for people who determined that silence meant prohibiting.  More churches in this unity movement began to break away.  Eventually, those churches that came out on the same or similar sides of these debates were called the Churches of Christ and 2/3rd's of those were based in the South.

  The best chapter in this book is actually the last, which is kind of a "where do we go from here" type chapter.  The authors of the book take a long look at our history and what we have gone through - which I would surmise today's church members have very limited knowledge of.  I'm going to give away a bit of these revelations, so if you haven't read the book and plan to, you may want to skip this paragraph.  Sadly, some of us in the CofC tradition are legalistic, blind to the obvious pitfalls of the Pharisees in the very own Bible which we cling to so strongly.  We take the silence of scripture and use it against things that might be neutral (at worst) to the church.  We've had a history of "we're right and you're wrong"when talking to those outside of our congregations.  We need to end that.  A sample, --> 

“[We] should be open to what Christians with other names/practices can teach us.  [Our movement should] co-operate with other Christians any way we can.  If we can’t worship with them because of conscientious differences, we can serve others with them.  Meet for food and fellowship.  Break down the barriers of us vs them.  We can be reconciled and reconciling.”

   When I think about my youth and not knowing how to respond to the reactions of those who did not go to my church... eventually I learned how to smile and disarm those incendiary accusations, basically using common sense as my guide.  But reading this book and understanding my church certainly can help me understand myself even better.  I'll always have a soft spot for this church since it's been such an important part of my life.  How important it is to know though that my predecessors weren't perfect and had their own differing opinions.  It's almost imperative to hear the full story, as the authors say, "Warts and all."

  In conclusion, the Churches of Christ, despite being relatively new on the religious scene, have their fair share of history behind them.  The CsofC wield a powerful, double-edged sword.  The church is unencumbered with bureaucracy, overarching government, and official creeds and documents.  The sole guide is the Bible.  The church is, in theory, autonomous and flexible to provide for the local congregation.  But, this puts a lot of responsibility in the hands and messages of the local church leaders to properly represent Christ without "official" and sanctioned leadership from a headquarters somewhere. 

  Check the book out!

Thoughts on "Mere Christianity"

"The problem is not simple and the answer is not going to be simple either." - C.S. Lewis

I had always heard, bouncing around the vast halls of church buildings, people talking about this  book called "Mere Christianity," written by none other than the author of "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe" among other pieces of literature.  The author was C.S. Lewis.

Usually the overheard conversations were something along the lines of, "Well, if you are a christian, or have interest in christian beliefs, you should certainly read this book - it's very helpful."  So for years that had echoed around in my head and I finally got around to it! 

As I've only read this book once, and do not know much of the context and state of religious affairs of the twentieth century, I have a feeling some of my interpretations and notes could potentially be inaccurate, only partially correct, or perhaps even untrue altogether.  Regardless for these purposes of my notes here I attempt to recollect as true as I can to what I gleaned from "Mere Christianity."

From what I understand of the context surrounding the book is that it was actually a series of talks given by C.S. Lewis and broadcasted by the BBC during World War II (early 1940's.)  The BBC actually commissioned Lewis to sum up "what Christians believe."  What resulted a group of lessons provided by Lewis, a former atheist, which he then joined together under the title, "Mere Christianity."  The word "mere" is not a word we use often today and from what I understand the phrase "mere christianity" is meant to convey the simple truths of the Christian identity.  In other words, who we really are.    Sometimes, crowded and lost within the veins of hundreds of denominations claiming different things, it can certainly be seen why Christianity would be a confusing topic.

I also have a feeling that this book was a watershed for Christian teachings in the 20th century because perhaps there was a lack of material like itself.  Perhaps all of the denominations had reached a fever pitch and were not working together as they should be.  They are all on the same team... correct? As a side note I also know C.S. Lewis was contemporaries with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, though at the time I don't think they knew of each other.  Their ideas are remarkably similar and I most certainly know their allegiances to Christianity trumped their allegiances to Britain and Germany.  Irony.

As for the actual book.  It's dense.  It's readable, but difficult.  I found some parts I could soar through, understand and agreeing, and some other parts - more philosophical ones - more of a trudging and grinding process to get through.  Maybe someday when I am older or more enlightened I can return to them.  I feel like probably half of the book was like this to me.

I did enjoy the refreshing directness that today rarely exists.  References to other world religions are respectful but clearly acknowledge the errors within them.

I liked his analogy on Free Will.  Some folks have a hard time agreeing that we have Free Will.  And why would God create a world to set us up to fail.  And if God exists, and knows the future, do we really have this Free Will?  Lewis' simple analogy on this subject is:  Imagine a mother who tells their child she expects him to clean up his room every night.  She says she wont do it for them, they have to do it themselves.  Well, a few nights later she finds the room to be a mess. The mother wants it one way, and entrusts the child to act that way.  Whether or not the child does it or not is his decision - his choice - his free will.  If he does, he pleases his mother, and if not, then he doesn't.

The first few chapters build Lewis' defense of Christianity right from the ground up.  Lots of philosophy in the beginning, but it's understandable - talks about morals, right and wrong, the values of good and evil, etc, and why we seem to have this innate understanding when we are born.

I think the most convicting thing for me in this book was an illustration rather early on in the text. He's reasoned thus far that there is a God of the universe. And we are man, since our creation we have driven our own selves away from God, by knowingly committing acts contrary to God.  Whe we come to realize this, we could be fraught with worry or despair, or care less, or ask for forgiveness.  The forgiveness is know in the Christian realm as "repentance."

But though repentance might leave us penintent, humble, and acknowedging of our wayward ways, it doesn't bring us whole again.  We're still the same people.  That changed though, and that change gave all credence and authenticity to the movement we call Christianity, when God himself became a human, who went by the earthly name, Jesus.

God's intention was to send himself as a sacrifice to make up for our mistakes.  So, after he died, he was the "ultimate" sacrifice, which covers all our our misgivings.  That, combined with an accepting and repentant heart, is the key to return back to God.

I guess I had never really envisioned the whole "God coming to Earth" thing - I mean, I had heard the teachings before and could recite them to you, but I never had grasped the meaning or at least the fullness of the meaning before.  I've heard some people say that they're delighted when they find new levels of meaning in their studies.  On the surface Christianity can be easily and understood and fully viable - but then you accidentally go "x" number of layers down and find even more richness and meaning.  That is what it was like for me.

I'm glad I read it.  I don't know if it was exactly what I was looking for, but I do believe it is a vital read if you are in a position and of a mindset to do so.  Maybe I am too attention-deficit to sit and wax philosophic for too long at a time.  Or maybe it's been way too long since I just relaxed and read an entertaining fiction book.  Some of this content hurts my brain!  However, I think it is still relevant and certainly a classic and important book to read for anyone.

"Now, today, this moment, is our chance to choose the right side.  God is holding back to give us that chance.  It will not last forever.  We must take it or leave it." C.S. Lewis

Proactivity Pt. 2

Part 2.

I think the tone of this blog has been a skeptic's approach to Christianity, so in line with that today I am asking, what are some things we can proactively do to encourage building faith internally?

My last idea was Testing.  This time I want to discuss Asking.

Asking is much less controversial.   Ask and you shall receive, right?

For one, John 16:27, "...Truly I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you.  Until now you've asked nothing in my name.  Ask and you shall receive, that your joy may be full."

Ask for little things.  Ask for huge things.  Ask for anything.  Just try!  For so long I rarely or never tried and I have a feeling many of us are like that.  Is it self-sufficiency? pride? ...or simply ignorance?  Even today I struggle to remember Asking.  I sometimes forget that we have this vital luxury.

I wonder if the other world religions allow such a concept.

The fan-favorite blunt theologian James said, "You don't have, because you don't ask." (James 4:2)

But one of the most monumental episodes of Asking in the biblical record is Solomon's story.  It rings close to home for me because it ties in so many, very important things: philosophy, theology, judgement, knowledge, discernment, and above all, how to apply these truths in everyday life!  Ah, to be the owner of such vast and important information.   It's called Wisdom.

Let's briefly revisit the old King Solomon, king of Israel & Judah.  After surviving his older brothers' unjust attempts to claim the throne, he ascends and is probably overwhelmed by responsibility.  Displaying some uncommon insight (compared to other OT figures), he asks God to give him an understanding, discerning mind for governing God's people.  (1 Kings ch. 3)

Not for wealth, success in war, crops, or decendants.  He asked for a sharp mind.  God ends up being pleased with this powerful request and not only gives him wisdom, but also everything he didn't ask for.  He got the prestige, the gold, and the power.  And for one of the first times in the historical record God's tribe, "ate, drank, and were happy... [Solomon] had peace on all sides around him... and Judah and Israel lived in safety"  (1 Kings 20, 24-25.)

Solomon's request resonated within me.  Before I started studying anything at all, especially the Bible itself, I had a yearning to learn.   When I relearned Solomon's story for the first time as an adult, I thought it was really interesting.  So, I began Asking.  And Wisdom was amongst the top of the list.

So, again, be proactive in your faith... if you're doubting, skeptical, atheistic... but perhaps have the will to try... then try Asking.  And continue to do so.  I wish I could "try" to play the violin, and pick it up on the first time and play like Andrew Bird.  But it takes perserverance... and most certainly the right attitude.

Going back to James 4:2-3, "You don't have, because you don't ask.  You ask and you don't receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions."

Just as in Testing, Asking requires you to have the right motives. 

Proactivity Pt. 1

To begin with a butchering of poetry-

What then? Shall we sit idly by...

That phrase came to mind as I began ruminating on this topic.  I think the tone of this blog has been a skeptic's approach to Christianity, so in line with that today I am asking, what are some things we can proactively do to encourage building faith?

We can't demand that God show himself to us as Aladdin would to a genie.  Furthermore, these days we don't have Christian teachers showing up to dinner parties and turning water into Yellowtail Cabernet.  Those days appear to be past us, though we have quite a recollection of them (the Bible.)

Two ideas came to mind though; Testing and Asking.

The first concept of Testing is a bit touchy.  I get nervous at the concept.  Are we able to test God?  Deuteronomy 6:16: "You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah."  OK, this is a statement from God via Moses, referring to the Israelite's lack of trust in God's provision.  At this point in their journey at Massah, Moses' tribe had been carefully cared for daily with the provision of manna.  They had wandered into the land known as "Rephidim."  Apparently it wasn't known for it's bountiful streams and springs.  I have a feeling the people, upon the realization they would be camping there, were a little pre-emptive in their complaints against Moses' and God's choice of lodging.  It even got to the point where Moses feared for his life (Ex. 17:4.)  Well, what ended up happening?  God told Moses to smash a rock with his staff and water blasted out of it.

Jesus quotes this phrase too. In Matthew 4:7 Jesus says "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test" to none other than the primary antagonist of the world, whose motives must be the essence of evil.

So, in light of some unwise, disgruntled former slaves from Moses' tribe, and the sole being attempting to ruin as much as he can of God's empire, it would certainly appear that Testing God would be something we should avoid.

Or, is it?

A commonly quoted phrase in Malachi 3:10 is: "Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house.  And thereby put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need."  The passage goes on to explain how much of a reward one can truly receive if he only gives.

Now, considering the context this is in reference to those of Judah/Israel who had given up on God.  They had stopped tithing, finding it useless? Or maybe irrelevant?  But God says via Malachi, in modern English, "Get over your hang-ups, you're robbing me of what I am owed.  Start giving your share, and watch what I will do.  Test me, and see how much I can make you grow. I'll bless you beyond your imagination."

OK, so maybe that was one specific reference to a time that God spoke through a prophet to a specific audience giving them directions.  Since we aren't supposed to test God, we probably just shouldn't.  Well, I don't necessarily think so.  After all, 4 verses prior God reminds us, "For I the LORD do not change..."  so I think perhaps that "test" or challenge is open to people to this day.

I took it on and I think it changed my life for the better.

Of important note is to examine yourself and to determine where your heart is.  Do you want to test God like the Israelites, with bad motivations?  Are you complaining?

Or do you actually want to do the right thing?  Make sure you are motivated not in order for your own personal gain, but to be in compliance with what we need to give as Christians.

So that's one idea on how to get proactive with your faith - do you want to start seeing results?  One step could be to consider stepping up or starting your giving.

Asking is part 2.