The Rambling Disciple

One of the most common questions I have heard in the context of Bible classes and small group discussions is "How does this apply to us?" Or it comes in a comment like "I think this applies to my life by..." Generally speaking, if a sermon or lesson is not obviously "applicable" then it isn't considered good. If the topic does not have something to say specifically about my life, struggles, situation, or context then it is of no use. Applicability is a double edged sword, in my opinion. We obviously want the lessons and sermons we hear in church or the devotional books we read at home to speak to our lives. Every time I teach or preach I want the people I am speaking to come away with something that helps them in their walk with Christ. I want to be "applicable." The double edge is that I think we too narrowly and selfishly use the term "applicable," hence my use of quotes. When someone complains that a lesson or sermon isn't &q

What is the primary way we use Scripture today? I think the answer, at least in our society, is private reading and study. The majority of our spiritual advice can be summed up in "study the Bible more." The moral of many sermons is simply that we don't read the Bible enough. I think that this is absolutely true, but I probably mean something a little different. While I obviously agree that we, in general, don't read the Bible enough individually that isn't actually my main gripe. I think we don't read the Bible enough out loud, in community, as a part of worship. This, I think, should be a central part of our gatherings every week. We should simply read the Bible out loud and listen together in community. How much is the Bible read aloud in your gathering? I'm talking specifically about just reading, not during sermons or classes. How often is the Bible simply read without someone commenting on or explaining it? Just the Scriptures read aloud for all to h

I think that it is relatively safe to say that in many of our churches there is no real difference between the act of teaching and preaching. Sure, we tend to regard teaching as more interactive and preaching as less so, but otherwise they are pretty much the same. Whether someone is teaching or preaching they are typically trying to impart knowledge and encouragement. In essence what we have is just teaching in slightly different modes. Biblically speaking teaching and preaching are actually two different things. They are translated from two different Greek words that aren't even related to each other. Teaching comes from the word didasko  and preaching from the word kerygma . This tidbit of Greek should help us think about these two activities as different, even though in our culture preaching and teaching have become synonymous. So what's the difference between preaching and teaching? Well, teaching is about instruction and building up the knowledge of a student. This is whe

I think that most of the time we all hate being uncertain. We like stability and the comfort of being sure that we want, believe, or profess to know is true and good. We want our relationships with our friends, family, and other loved ones to be well defined. It's uncomfortable to not know where you stand with someone you care about.  The same is true in matters of religion and faith. We like certainty, of being sure that we are on the right path or believing in the right thing. It makes us feel safe, secure, and stable when we are certain about the particulars of our faith. This is the great draw of fundamentalism and is the reason so many of the churches and Christian communities in our country could be identified as such. There is, however, a problem with certainty. Actually, there are multiple problems with it. The first is that when a community is absolutely certain about their particular interpretations, understandings, and practices it shuts down honest questioning and seeki

As most people who read this probably know, I am currently back in school full time. No, they didn't find out that I secretly flunked the 6th grade and sent me back to junior high (though I'd still probably struggle with 6th grade math). I'm currently taking classes as prep to begin a PhD program next year at the Oblate School of Theology. My focus is on spirituality. Don't worry, this isn't some weird, hippy type of program. I'm studying spirituality in its academic sense, the experiences people have of God and how they relate to theology, the Bible, and living a Christian life. Every single one of us has had experiences of a religious sort, be they positive or negative. My goal is to understand how our experiences of God, both good and bad, impact our ability to do theology and be disciples.  For many people it is their experiences that are the primary governing factor in how they view life and faith. You can study the Bible on a particular point with someone

There is an ongoing discussion raging in many Christian circles concerning what to do with ministers, pastors, and other leaders who are accused of abuse, assault, and other harmful activities. The discussion is not about whether or not these individuals should be disciplined, everyone agrees that they should be, but rather what comes next. At what point does a leader who has been abusive in the past become eligible to lead again?  Some believe that those who have been proven to be predatory and abusive as leaders should be disqualified from church leadership for the rest of their lives. They should be forgiven, but what they did should not be forgotten. Others feel uncomfortable with this. They believe that Christianity is a religion of forgiveness and that it would be wrong to permanently bar someone from leadership if they have reformed. These leaders should be forgiven and their past sins blotted out. The tricky thing here is that both sides of this advocate for forgiveness towards