The last post on this site was 2015, a year or so before we returned to the US from France.
Since then, we've lost my brother, mother, nephew and sister in law. It's been rough.
God is good, and I think I will use this platform to publish some thoughts and ideas as I go along.
Thanks again for checking in.
howard
A sermon by Claude Rouviere, 11/Oct/2015
« They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together at the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. » (Acts 2, 42-47)This well-known text describes the first fellowship of believers and gives us a model of how the Church should be but it seems that most communities have drifted from this over centuries.
« everyone», « all », « together », « in common ».When Jesus said « For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them » he highlighted something very special about community in His name : it’s a refuge where His presence is assured in a very special way.
« How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity !This very short psalm is fundamentally built around these words : « live together in unity » . Everything else describes this fellowship with the words « it is like », « it is as if »
It is like precious oil poured on the head, running down on the beard, running down on Aaron’s beard, down on the collar of his robe.
It is as if the dew of Hermon were falling on Mount Zion.
For there the Lord bestow his blessing, even life for evermore. »
« I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance… Yet I hold this against you : you have forsaken to give me the first place in your love»Jesus didn't blame this Church for its lack of good works but the lack of desire for Him. Religious activities can easily make us forget God or relegate Him to second place.
The wilderness comes in many shapes and sizes, just as the deserts of Judaea and Sinai are by no means uniform. I used to think of deserts as simply miles and miles of flat sands, punctuated by the odd oasis; but the wilderness that surrounds the Promised Land comes in many forms. There are huge crags, like Masada, the last bastion of the revolutionaries after the fall of Jerusalem, an enormous barren rock to the south-west of the Dead Sea. There are gullies and crevasses, great rocky outcrops and hidden valleys. Walk a mile or two off the road and you could get lost quite easily.
The wilderness of the spiritual journey is much like that. For some, it is simply a sense that everything has gone very dry. There is no delight in prayer or reading the scriptures. Going to church has become boring and futile. The sacraments seem a pointless ritual. Where before there was a sense of God’s presence as a loving parent, gently nursing and guiding, or of the wise prompting of the Holy Spirit, there now seems to be a great emptiness. The story of Jesus, once so full of interest and stimulation, the scrap-book of the life of a new best friend, seems dull, and even the story of the cross and resurrection has apparently lost its power to sweep the heart. This is the common experience of many, many Christians at some stage in their pilgrimage. Tragically, some at once conclude that what happened at the Jordan was all a delusion, a passing phase, that there really is no Jerusalem to go on to. Others wander blindly without hope, and stumble by accident — or was it an accident? — back on to the right path. But the way of Christian maturity is to recognize the desert path for what it is — another mile on the road called ‘Faithfulness’ — and to tread it with obedience and patience:
27 Then Jesus and his disciples went away to the villages near Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Tell me, who do people say I am?” 28 “Some say that you are John the Baptist,” they answered; “others say that you are Elijah, while others say that you are one of the prophets.” 29 “What about you?” he asked them. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.” 30 Then Jesus ordered them, “Do not tell anyone about me.”
Ash Wednesday was celebrated last week, which traditionally marks the beginning of the Lenten season, the 40 days to Easter and the Passion of the Christ. Often times Protestant do not participate in the ceremony, and they do not usually contemplate the meaning of the event.
The aim of Ash Wednesday is said to be threefold:
Our daily worship should be filled with the impact of this gospel truth. In order to truly understand and appreciate the impact of these three statements above, we have to start by answering the question that Jesus posed to Peter: “Who do you say I am?” If we can answer whole heartedly to Jesus, as Peter did, “you are the Messiah,” we can then rejoice with the Apostle Paul when he says,
“Consider yourself dead to sin and alive in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6:11).
To Reflect:
Spend some time being still before God, and ask the Spirit to search yourself:
Psalm 139:23–24 (GNB)
23 Examine me, O God, and know my mind; test me, and discover my thoughts. 24 Find out if there is any evil in me and guide me in the everlasting way.
Picture Credit: The White Crucifixion by Marc Chagall, 1938
Tthis video has come to light of Ferguson police interviewing witnesses to the shooting of Michael Brown.
Her music is interesting, but not necessarily my cup of tea. I don’t endorse many of her beliefs or lifestyle (some of it will raise eyebrows): Such as, in one of her videos she walks up to a girl who is reading a bible, takes it away from her and tosses it over her shoulder; or in another video, she sings about getting an abortion (complete with coat hanger metaphor and some mockery of pro-life Christians). There is no doubt she is a very creative person. But this post is not about the content of her music, videos or lifestyle.
But what she talks about in this video is important.
For example, she says this in the video:
“I wrote the songs, and eventually we started making enough money that I could quit being a statue, and as we started touring, I really didn't want to lose this sense of direct connection with people, because I loved it. So after all of our shows, we would sign autographs and hug fans and hang out and talk to people.”
Ouch! That pushes me outside my comfort zone.
I wonder how much we think about the idea of a direct connection with people? The very essence of the Christian faith, if you read enough of Paul and the gospels, is connection. Isn’t the basic image of the church that of a body? Think 1 Corinthians 12 and 14.
But read on to see how she acts to connect with others. She reaches out over twitter and other social media, she will connect with people who will let her “couch surf” in the home, things like that. While the actual events are important, it does imply openness to others and a certain amount of vulnerability.
It also implies a certain amount of asking and giving. She will ask for help with different things, and her fans reply overwhelmingly. She has come to rely on her fans in many ways, which amounts to interdependence. There is almost a symbiotic relationship between her and her fans.
Yes, asking.
“And the media asked, "Amanda, the music business is tanking and you encourage piracy. How did you make all these people pay for music?" And the real answer is, I didn't make them. I asked them. And through the very act of asking people, I'd connected with them, and when you connect with them, people want to help you. It's kind of counterintuitive for a lot of artists. They don't want to ask for things.But it's not easy. It's not easy to ask. And a lot of artists have a problem with this. Asking makes you vulnerable.”
This is really counterintuitive. Asking makes you vulnerable, which is not what we in the west are about. We are about control, power, positioning, et al. But again, read some Paul or one of the gospels. You see a different picture. One of the most counterintuitive words of Jesus is “The son of man did not come to be served, but to serve.”
“And I think when we really see each other, we want to help each other.”
So, a idea to end with is all about “seeing each other.” I think there are some good ideas here, ideas that we as followers of Christ shouldn’t have to be reminded of.
One idea that I continually confronted with comes from a friend who strongly dislikes the basic fundamentalism she encounters in so many churches. To her (correctly), the Christian faith is about transformation, not changing behavior. But too many of the sermons she encounters are more about Stop doing that and start doing this! and less about depending on grace.
What would happen if we took an interest in someone and ASKED them how they were, and kept asking questions instead of giving them a four step plan to happiness and productivity? We are not the dispenser of grace, but we can be the conduit.
So, how do we reach out to others? How can we choose to be vulnerable, open and interdependent with others?
If someone outside the church can get these basic principles, why can’t we?
What do you think?
Paul Auster wrote that "Bartholdi's gigantic effigy was originally intended as a monument to the principles of international republicanism, but 'The New Colossus' reinvented the statue's purpose, turning Liberty into a welcoming mother, a symbol of hope to the outcasts and downtrodden of the world"
"New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Okay, so I did my own revision of the poem, based on the continual stream of news coming out of the US.
Like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates stands
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exclusion. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide scrutiny; her fierce eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Don’t give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
Keep the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
I will send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed back,
I lift my lamp beside the closed golden door!"
What pains me is the Scriptures are fairly clear on this issue, but the culture and ethos of that culture have shaped the conversation into a political maelstrom. For example:
He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
God is looking for three things:
What happens when the culture emphasizes one over the others? Imbalance. We arrive in the end at something else determining how to interpret and live out these scriptures. In this case, when the emphasis is on Justice at the expense of mercy, you create a place where patriotism and nationalism pre-determine how to interpret scripture.
So, now what?
Mary did not need to get Joseph's permission or submit to his authority. She had God's word, God's authority. That was enough for her. Mary was willing to submit to God's will with or without Joseph. She had no idea what Joseph's response would be. She had no idea what he would do. The decision was hers and hers alone to make. She was called on by God to do his work and she willingly submitted. She was willing to face the humiliation, ridicule, and rejection of pregnancy before marriage — alone if need be.
That does not mean that Mary did not need Joseph. She needed Joseph's love, his support, his understanding, his willingness to serve God alongside her, his partnership, his protection in a patriarchal society. She needed him to walk the journey with her. But, when she responded with a resounding yes to the angel, she did not have the assurance that Joseph would stand with her when she accepted God's call on her life. But, she did not need his permission to do what God called her to do. Joseph was told after the fact, and he willingly submitted to God's call on Mary's life. He stood with her, supported her, and encouraged her. Joseph was Mary's "ezer kenegdo" — her "suitable helper." --dona
My personal perspective is that the complementarian view does a great disservice to a large part of the body of Christ –Women in Christ. I believe that complementarians often represent a misunderstanding of what a text says.
So many of their articles are a Procrustean bed of interpretation, allowing a theological premise to pre-interpret a text without really struggling with the context and to see what it actually says. But I’m not going to go into the morass of interpretation to try to refute and correct this thinking. But let me share a few thoughts:
1. Both perspectives argue that they know exactly what God is trying to tell us through the various scriptures. But it still comes down to human understanding. When you take your stand on a position, are you certain that you are not guilty of two things?
2. Do we really understand the historical context of a passage? To say that “it is in the bible, and therefore it true for all for all times” can raise havoc with our understanding of what a text says. Paul’s letters are that, letters written to a specific audience for a specific purpose. There are plenty of passages in the Pentateuch that give lie to the point of view that its true for all for all of time. If it is true for all time, why don’t we kill the ox that gores a neighbor after the owner was warned that it was dangerous? Or, why don’t women go outside of town for seven days when they experience their menstrual cycle? But you say, “well, that was the law, we are under grace.” Then what do we do with the Ten commandments? That was Law as well. We can’t pick and choose what we want to obey. I would never think of jumping into a discussion with someone without trying to understand the context and background of the conversation –and believe me, I’ve done it and made a fool of myself.
3. What is the REAL principle being taught in a passage? I once took a class on building codes when I was a property manager in the US. I remember that the instructor said that building codes, whether electrical, plumbing, etc., are the MINIMUM standard for safety, not a standard for excellence. I see much of what is said by Jesus and the NT authors falling into this category. If Paul is laying out a principle for a specific situation in a specific time and place, why should we think that this is the standard for all people in all places and all times? Why do we think that this is the highest standard of faith and expression of God’s will? We have no trouble saying that women wearing head coverings in church was for the church in Corinth at the time, but to spiritualize this concept and make it a standard for all to follow and for women to be properly submitted to their husbands/men/et. al. does violence to the text.
4. Remember, Just because Scripture is inspired and inerrant does not mean that your interpretation is as well. Look at the battles over justification and interpretation of Scripture during the reformation. Not only was there a divide between the Reformers and the Roman Catholics, there were also divisions between the Reformers themselves. At one time Calvin and Luther both called for the suppression of the Anabaptists, imprisoning and executing many of its adherents. Have we convicted and passed judgment on any Anabaptists lately?
5. God is not using sinners (women who desire a greater role in the Body of Christ) to shame the men because they have abdicated their roles somehow. Remember, the Sadducees, the priests and the scribes? They believed that the Temple in Jerusalem was God’s ultimate expression of his will. When he chose to have his temple on earth through Jesus Christ and then in the body of Christ, they missed the point and the boat, so to speak. Their theology was severely trumped by God’s action in Christ and as a result they were by-passed and suffered the destruction of the Temple complex in Jerusalem.
And if you are going to “cherry pick” subjects to defend and interpret, why pick just this one? The scriptures have a lot to say about gossip and slander, but if we see someone doing it, we don’t condemn them as a heretic and outside the will of God. Be careful what you wish for.
A final thought. Since so many of the passages lend themselves to different interpretations, perhaps we should take that as an admonition to go slowly and grant a lot of grace?
And if someone is seeking to find the will of God and serve him, should we stand in their way and condemn them for it? (see #1 above)
Halley's Comet passed by the earth in 1985. One person, who had seen the comet 75 years earlier, was disappointed. He said it wasn't like before, he distinctly remembered hearing it go "WHOOOSH!" as it passed by. In 1996 the comet Hyakutake passed close to the earth. Appearing as a blur in the sky, it disappointed those who expected a fiery display. Our expectations of faith often resemble our expectations of comets. We hunger to see God do spectacular things, but instead, God will act is a way much different from our expectations and prayers.
1. How have you been blessed by someone in a way that you were not expecting?
2. 2 Kings 5:1-7. Who is Naaman and what is his situation? What contrasts or differences can you see between Naaman’s social and political positions and his physical condition?
3. How did the answer to Naaman's problem present itself (2 Kings 5:2-3)? What are some of the contrasts or differences that can you see in this encounter?
4. Why do you think the King of Syria (Aram) sent Naaman to the King of Israel (2 Kings 5:4-6)? What did he expect to accomplish with all this wealth?
5. Why did the king of Israel's respond this way? Could it cause problems for Naaman (2 Kings 5:7)?
6. 2 Kings 5:8-12. Why did Elisha the prophet get involved in Naaman's problem? What was his reason for getting involved in this issue?
7. Elisha never appears, he never meets Naaman. You do not see him. Why does Elisha do this?
8. Why did Naaman react to Elisha in such a strong way (2 Kings 5:11-12)? What are his expectations?
9. 2 Kings 5:13-15. How did Naaman's servants show wisdom (2 Kings 5:13)?
10. Naaman begins to immerse himself seven times in the Jordan River (2 Kings 5:14). What principles do these two actions show us? a) He turned around and went back; b) he did what Elisha commanded him to do.
11. What are your expectations of God? What do you want him to do? Are your expectations preventing you from hearing and obeying him?
Ask God for wise friends like the servants of Naaman who can give you wisdom and wise advice in your life.
2. Jesus is not interested in numbers, budgets, buildings and attendance.
3. Is a disciple just someone who shows up at our stuff, gives money, and maybe feeds the poor or _____?
4. Church is the result or the effect of discipleship, not the other way around. (The church is not the cause of growth of the church.)
5. If you make disciples, you always get the church. But if you make a church, you rarely get disciples.
6. If you set out to build a church, you probably won’t grow disciples; you create consumers who depend on the spiritual services that the religious professionals provide.
What is a disciple? Let’s think of some definitions:
JOHN 8:31: "Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, 'If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.'"
Abiding seems like a good thing. Am I an abider? how
The vision in Rev. 21 opens with a great divine act of re-creation. As only God can create, calling suns and stars, water and land into existence at the beginning, so only God can restore, bringing into being a new world in which his will for his creatures is fully realized.
Apocalypse recapitulates Genesis. A fresh start is made. The first heaven and the first earth are not said to be destroyed, like death and hades in the previous chapter. John simply says that they “passed away” (apēltham). “The sea was no more,” not because the ocean as such is cursed, but because the sea in Israel’s imagination represents chaos, darkness, the deep. Now chaos yields to cosmos, disorder to peace, death to life.
God does this. It is not the outcome of any human scientific or technological achievement. The new city comes “down out of heaven from God,” a sheer miracle, a gift apocalyptically bestowed at the end of history and not the outcome of history itself. The unmistakable apocalyptic signature here is the word idou (“behold”), uttered first by a “loud voice from the throne” (21:3) and repeated by “he who was seated on the throne” (21:5).
his unambiguous act of divine speech is the first such we have heard since 1:8. Idou invites us not to act but to see, not to perform but to watch in awe, not to take action but to rejoice, welcoming the city’s gracious manifestation among us. . . .
The goal of all this is the establishing of communion: “Behold, the dwelling place [skēnē] of God is with man. He will dwell with them [skēnōsei met’ autōn], and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God” (21:3). The language is drawn from the law (Lev. 26:12) and the prophets (Ezek. 27:27), reminding us that the people of this God can only be Israel and not some generic “humanity.”
If grace does not destroy nature, still less does the new creation annul God’s covenant with Abraham! The language bespeaks a covenantal sense of mutuality, God with his people, the people with their God. The long history that reaches from Moses to David to Jeremiah and beyond is not undone.
Yet just as in the new creation imagery, John seems to envisage a certain return to the beginning: thus the image of the desert tabernacle, the skēnē, the tent of the divine presence. The tape is being rewound, past the historical Jerusalem with its compromised history, past even the settlement of the land, to the time of Israel’s wilderness wanderings. It is as though God’s new dwelling with Israel will combine the splendor of life in the city with the simplicity of life in the wilderness, when, for Jeremiah anyway, the bride of YHWH was still faithful to her spouse (Jer. 2:1-2).
But skēnē is also the language of incarnation. It is the term John the Evangelist uses to speak of the Son of God’s “tenting” or “tabernacling” in human flesh (John 1:14). Not, of course, that the heavenly city is identical with Christ’s historical sojourn in the flesh. But the city inhabits the space of divine-human communion he has established.
The “dwelling of God is with man,” first and decisively in Christ himself, then in the church so far as it is joined to his divine-human, life-giving person.
A friend posted this article from Forbes, Leadership 310: The Four Principles of 'Followership'. I am reposting the main points with a few comments of my own.
The four key attributes to strong followership
1) Trust: In everyday behavior, followership requires that the leader provides evidence that they can be trusted. Do you do what you say? Do you answer questions honestly? Are you transparent and share with the team your challenges, obstacles, and needs to achieve your larger goals?
2) Stability: Leaders with strong followership remain calm in the face of panic and give a sense of confidence to those around them.
3) Compassion: Strong followership leaders have unrelenting passion for people and show empathy when those folks are enduring hard times.
4) Hope: Followership requires that the leader has unwavering belief that their product/service will not only succeed, but will change lives.
Many times people are placed in leadership roles and inherently believe that their teams will follow them due to the title on their business card and not the substance of their character. Leadership is as much about being the person that people want to follow as it‘s about knowing where the team is headed.
I think the biblical corollaries are obvious. But which ones spring to mind for you? And more importantly:
Why would anyone want to follow you?
What does the prophetic office look like in today’s church context? I believe pastors are called to provide prophetic leadership via four specific practices:
Food for thought.
‘As we anxiously gaze into the future and delve back into our history and traditions to retrieve missiological tools from the Christendom toolbox, many of us are left with the sinking feeling that this is simply not going to work’ (17). What is needed is a new paradigm: ‘a fundamental change in our thoughts, perceptions, and values, especially as they relate to our view of church and mission’. –Alan Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways.
Hirsch believes that we need to put the emphasis on developing the quality of new life in Christ as an alternative to the spiritual and moral bankruptcy of Western culture, rather than on a quantitative program of church multiplication? Why do we not explore what it means to be an effective prophetic community?
Eph. 4 11It was he who “gave gifts”; he appointed some to be apostles, others to be prophets, others to be evangelists, others to be pastors and teachers. 12He did this to prepare all God’s people for the work of Christian service, in order to build up the body of Christ.
extend the gospel. They ensure that the faith is transmitted from one context to another and from one generation to the next. They are think about the future, establishing the church in new contexts and developing leaders, The shepherding and teaching functions are needed to ensure people are cared for rather than simply used.
know God's will. They are particularly attuned to God and his truth for today. They bring correction and challenge the dominant assumptions we inherit from the culture. They call the community to obey what God has commanded and question the status quo.
recruit. They communicate the gospel message to recruit others to the cause. They call for a personal response to God's redemption in Christ, and draw believers to engage in the wider mission of growing the church.
nurture and protect. As caregivers of the community, they focus on the spiritual maturity of God's flock, cultivating a loving and spiritually network of relationships to make and develop disciples. Shepherds value stability of the of the mission.
understand and explain. They communicate God's truth and wisdom and help others to remain biblically grounded to better discern God's will, guiding others toward wisdom, helping the community remain faithful to Christ's word. and constructing a transferable doctrine.
Paul is saying that these various gifts are given to the church so that it can know where it needs to go and what it needs to do; to keep on track, as well as to nurture and protect the flock.
The question is, how does the church recognize these gifts, who has them, how are they used in the ministry of the body of Christ?
Finally, how would you define each of these gifts? Do you agree or disagree with the individual synopses?
“The circus is among the few coherent images of the eschatological realm to which people still have ready access and ... the circus thereby affords some elementary insights into the idea of society as a consummate event. This principality, this art, this veritable liturgy, this common enterprise of multifarious creatures called the circus enacts a hope, in an immediate and historic sense, and simultaneously embodies an ecumenical foresight of radical and wondrous splendor, encompassing, as it does both empirically and symbolically, the scope and diversity of creation. I suppose some ... may deem the association of the circus and the Kingdom scandalous or facetious or bizarre, and scoff quickly at the thought that the circus is relevant to the ethics of society.... To [these people] I only respond that the connection seems to me to be at once suggested when one recalls that biblical people, like circus folk, live typically as sojourners, interrupting time, with few possessions, and in tents, in this world. The church would likely be more faithful if the church were similarly nomadic.”
—William Stringfellow, A Keeper of the Word: Selected Writings of William Stringfellow
I like the image.
“To become and to be a Christian is not at all an escape from the world as it is, nor is it a wistful longing for a “better” world, nor a commitment to generous charity, nor fondness for “moral and spiritual values” (whatever that may mean), nor self- serving positive thoughts, nor persuasion to splendid abstractions about God. It is, instead, the knowledge that there is no pain or privation, no humiliation or disaster, no scourge or distress or destitution or hunger, no striving or temptation, no wile or sickness or suffering or poverty which God has not known and borne for [humanity] in Jesus Christ. He has borne death itself on behalf of [humanity], and in that event he has broken the power of death once and for all.
To become to be a Christian is, therefore, to have the extraordinary freedom to share the burdens of the daily, common, ambiguous, transient, perishing existence of [humans beings], even to the point of actually taking the place of another [person], whether he be powerful or weak, in health or in sickness, clothed or naked, educated or illiterate, secure or persecuted, complacent or despondent, proud or forgotten, housed or homeless, fed or hungry, at liberty or in prison, young or old, white or Negro, rich or poor.
For a Christian to be poor and to work among the poor is not a conventional charity, but a use of the freedom for which Christ has set [humanity] free.”
~~ William Stringfellow, My People is the Enemy
Beautiful answer.
“The kind of fasting I want is this: Remove the chains of oppression and the yoke of injustice, and let the oppressed go free.
Share your food with the hungry and open your homes to the homeless poor. Give clothes to those who have nothing to wear, and do not refuse to help your own relatives.
Isaiah 58:6-7 GNT
What do disciples do ?
What would it look like in our church if we did this stuff ?
“Neither revolution nor reformation can ultimately change a society, rather you must tell a new powerful tale, one so persuasive that it sweeps away the old myths and becomes the preferred story, one so inclusive that it gathers all the bits of our past and our present into a coherent whole, one that even shines some light into our future so that we can take the next step…If you want to change a society, then you have to tell an alternative story.”
--Ivan Illich
What does an alternative story for the church look like? I think it encompasses three concepts:
How do we find it in the noise and bluster of life? How did we make something so great and grand so oblivious to others?
We can't make it grow, we can't force it to grow, we have to do what we are called to do and let it do what it is designed to do on its own.
The caveat is the question Jesus asked in Luke 6:46:
"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?"
The first part is important. What does it mean to call Jesus "Lord"? What does that look like in our day to day lives?
"...and not do what I say?"
What are the implications for us. For Grenoble, for the Romani, and so on? How do we speak, live and incarnate the message to others?
Rather, it is a radical call, and he calls for a radical change in the direction and the way they lives their lives. It is a call to vocation (a vocation is about the gifts and talents that God gives us to orient us toward specific purposes and a way of life; not what we do for a living). What was involved in "follow me"? They had on the job training --on the fly. They watched him, he gave them tasks, learning experiences, etc. If that is the case, then what does that mean for us? As my friend Max shared, it's about inviting people to participate in the kingdom (following Christ is not a spectator sport). We need to put them to work in the kingdom, help them (and us) to figure out their gifts, throw them in the lake if necessary, and see what happens.
