Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Not-so-bad Communists...
According to the MSNBC article linked below, there are reports that two senior officials in the Vatican (and consequently, the Catholic Church), are visiting Beijing to possibly discuss opening relations between the Chinese Government and the Vatican. Apparently, the Vatican hasn’t had any formal ties with China for over 50 years, even though the underground Church in China is tremendous and from what I hear, is continuing to grow even more rapidly (Catholic, Protestant, and Evangelical denominations included). Among the contentions that the Catholic Church had with China were recognition of Taiwanese independence and the Chinese Government’s insistence on appointing the Catholic bishops in China.
Anyway, moving past summarizing, two interrelated issues brought up in this article particularly interested me. First of all, the whole idea of the Vatican acting as an official nation-state, destroying and establishing diplomatic ties with various secular governments seems somewhat confusing to me. Maybe it’s just the fact that the “separation of Church and State” is an American ideal that is preached in classrooms and by government officials and the popular media constantly. I just struggle with the notion that those who claim to lead a significant part of Christ’s body would also “take up the sword” and delve into politics. Politics is a product of the fall of man, and while this doesn’t mean it is always evil (political science is what I study), it does imply to me that the Church should desire higher means in its interactions with others, and these means are exemplified and offered by Christ alone, not Karl Marx or John Locke. Politics provides a way for sinful men to live together without experiencing the utter brutality of complete anarchy, while the Church should seek to offer men “life to the full”. To me, while these are both gifts from God, they are very different, and only one can claim to be the path to life.
Secondly, while it doesn’t surprise me that the authoritarian Chinese State would seek to appoint Chinese Catholic bishops, and while I’m very glad our government doesn’t currently have the authority to act likewise, I want to consider the wider implications of both approaches. The American “separation of Church and State” was originally intended to protect all denominations from governmental favoritism. But what I fear is that those inside and outside the American Church have all come to militantly cling to this ideal in a way that has prevented us from realizing the interconnectedness of human life. I know that was wordy – let me explain. While it is good that the American Church is legally protected from government interference, and it is also good that government affairs are protected from Church influences that would wrongly seek to further the Kingdom through earthly means, we must realize that as humans, it is damaging to view our lives as divided into political, spiritual, social, familial, etc. parts. It is fine and good to argue about whether or not teachers should lead prayer in public classrooms, but it is detrimental to consider ourselves political creatures when we vote, but spiritual creatures when we pray. We are humans created in God’s image – period. And while I would never claim to endorse authoritarian Chinese policies that attempt to control Church affairs, perhaps they are closer to realizing how all aspects of our lives are connected and influence each other. How many times have we attempted to “put our religious/social/political differences aside” in America, and thereby claim to acknowledge only parts of each other as humans? I don’t mean to suggest that difference-based conflict should escalate, but perhaps our focus in interacting with each other (through conflict or agreement) should not be on how to ignore differences, but rather to recognize how specific differences in individuals influence all of who they are. This perspective could maybe help us see each other more completely, as the Creator intended, helping those in the Church recognize what following Jesus looks like outside of a Sunday service, and helping those outside the Church to see how Christianity is truly a – no – THE way of life, and not a social gathering or crutch for hard times or empty tradition or escape from reality. So maybe, in an ironic way, those atheistic Communists aren’t so bad after all.
Anyway, moving past summarizing, two interrelated issues brought up in this article particularly interested me. First of all, the whole idea of the Vatican acting as an official nation-state, destroying and establishing diplomatic ties with various secular governments seems somewhat confusing to me. Maybe it’s just the fact that the “separation of Church and State” is an American ideal that is preached in classrooms and by government officials and the popular media constantly. I just struggle with the notion that those who claim to lead a significant part of Christ’s body would also “take up the sword” and delve into politics. Politics is a product of the fall of man, and while this doesn’t mean it is always evil (political science is what I study), it does imply to me that the Church should desire higher means in its interactions with others, and these means are exemplified and offered by Christ alone, not Karl Marx or John Locke. Politics provides a way for sinful men to live together without experiencing the utter brutality of complete anarchy, while the Church should seek to offer men “life to the full”. To me, while these are both gifts from God, they are very different, and only one can claim to be the path to life.
Secondly, while it doesn’t surprise me that the authoritarian Chinese State would seek to appoint Chinese Catholic bishops, and while I’m very glad our government doesn’t currently have the authority to act likewise, I want to consider the wider implications of both approaches. The American “separation of Church and State” was originally intended to protect all denominations from governmental favoritism. But what I fear is that those inside and outside the American Church have all come to militantly cling to this ideal in a way that has prevented us from realizing the interconnectedness of human life. I know that was wordy – let me explain. While it is good that the American Church is legally protected from government interference, and it is also good that government affairs are protected from Church influences that would wrongly seek to further the Kingdom through earthly means, we must realize that as humans, it is damaging to view our lives as divided into political, spiritual, social, familial, etc. parts. It is fine and good to argue about whether or not teachers should lead prayer in public classrooms, but it is detrimental to consider ourselves political creatures when we vote, but spiritual creatures when we pray. We are humans created in God’s image – period. And while I would never claim to endorse authoritarian Chinese policies that attempt to control Church affairs, perhaps they are closer to realizing how all aspects of our lives are connected and influence each other. How many times have we attempted to “put our religious/social/political differences aside” in America, and thereby claim to acknowledge only parts of each other as humans? I don’t mean to suggest that difference-based conflict should escalate, but perhaps our focus in interacting with each other (through conflict or agreement) should not be on how to ignore differences, but rather to recognize how specific differences in individuals influence all of who they are. This perspective could maybe help us see each other more completely, as the Creator intended, helping those in the Church recognize what following Jesus looks like outside of a Sunday service, and helping those outside the Church to see how Christianity is truly a – no – THE way of life, and not a social gathering or crutch for hard times or empty tradition or escape from reality. So maybe, in an ironic way, those atheistic Communists aren’t so bad after all.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Time seems to move slowly...
So, it's Friday afternoon, and time has somehow slowed down simultaneously with my workload, so that I've spent the last 1 1/2 hours at work trying to spread out the few tasks I can do. I don't like the feeling of "wasting time", but I don't think that's the best perspective to have. It's easy to say and believe in the idea of "life to the fullest", but how does that work during boring Friday afternoons in bio-technology laboratories? I want to learn - I just feel like Jesus would have known how to enjoy even the most boring of circumstances, and would want us to know how, too.
On a different note, below is a link to a National Weather Service site with interesting severe weather images - the latest entry is of a radar loop showing a storm envelop a swarm of bats in south Texas...I'm serious. Check it out...http://www.spc.noaa.gov/coolimg/
On a different note, below is a link to a National Weather Service site with interesting severe weather images - the latest entry is of a radar loop showing a storm envelop a swarm of bats in south Texas...I'm serious. Check it out...http://www.spc.noaa.gov/coolimg/
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Initial thoughts...
You might wonder about the name of this blog. According to dictionary.com, exposition is defined primarily as “a setting forth of meaning or intent” or “a statement or rhetorical discourse intended to give information about or an explanation of difficult material.” But exposition also has musical and theatrical significance as well. Students of music history will know that an exposition is the opening section of either a fugue or sonata which introduces the themes of the composition. And I learned today that exposition is “the part of a play that provides the background information needed to understand the characters and the action.” Besides Trivial Pursuit preparation, you might wonder what practical significance there is in discussing the definition of this usually academic term. Well, first of all, exposition is something that I’ve thought a lot about lately in terms of preaching. I’ve grown increasingly impatient (for better or worse) with sermons based on 3 or 5 thought-up points that sometimes, if done especially creatively, form an acrostic. Scripture is meant to be read and thought about and talked about and challenged and accepted and proclaimed as it’s written, and if the people of God don’t embrace this challenge, who will? (I want to write more about this at another time)
But beyond Sunday services, I’m realizing that, in many ways, I want my life to be about exposition – exposition of truth, that is. Not in a final or permanent sense. More like learning truth exposition as a process, or journey. I want to learn what it means to live in a way that shows the meaning and intent of truth, however difficult it may be. What do I mean by “truth”? A lot…it may be best to first say what truth is NOT. Truth is not limited by language, as in “telling the truth”. Truth is not limited by human minds, as in “understanding the truth”. Ultimately, I think it boils down to how God reveals Himself to humans. But this can be debated, and I hope it will. Truth displays reality – not just what we see and feel, but that which explains everything. And then some – truth is something infinitely big that always allows for deeper and deeper discovery. I also like the idea of living as musical exposition, introducing truth “themes” that are hopefully meaningful to those I know. And theatrical exposition is cool, too…it’s important to live knowing where you’ve been, and how those who have already lived influence you now, no matter what walk of life you’re on. Anyway, I’m just realizing that this expository living thing is a much bigger subject than I realized when I started writing tonight. But I’m really excited to think about this more. And if you’ve read this far, I hope you are, too.
But beyond Sunday services, I’m realizing that, in many ways, I want my life to be about exposition – exposition of truth, that is. Not in a final or permanent sense. More like learning truth exposition as a process, or journey. I want to learn what it means to live in a way that shows the meaning and intent of truth, however difficult it may be. What do I mean by “truth”? A lot…it may be best to first say what truth is NOT. Truth is not limited by language, as in “telling the truth”. Truth is not limited by human minds, as in “understanding the truth”. Ultimately, I think it boils down to how God reveals Himself to humans. But this can be debated, and I hope it will. Truth displays reality – not just what we see and feel, but that which explains everything. And then some – truth is something infinitely big that always allows for deeper and deeper discovery. I also like the idea of living as musical exposition, introducing truth “themes” that are hopefully meaningful to those I know. And theatrical exposition is cool, too…it’s important to live knowing where you’ve been, and how those who have already lived influence you now, no matter what walk of life you’re on. Anyway, I’m just realizing that this expository living thing is a much bigger subject than I realized when I started writing tonight. But I’m really excited to think about this more. And if you’ve read this far, I hope you are, too.
