Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Next chunk of Crazy Love

Next chunk of Crazy Love

Great discussion so far. It's been fun to see people with different ideas about the book "Crazy Love" checking in.

On Wednesday, January 28th, we'll be discussing chapters 3-5.

In the meantime, Katdish sent me an article that Catalyst did with Chan called "A Gathering Force."

Here is the intro paragraph. Check out the rest if you get a chance:

Is there any logic in believing that God started His Church as a Spirit-filled, loving body with the intention that it would evolve into entertaining, hour-long services? Was he hoping that one day people would be attracted to the Church not because they care for one another, not because they are devoted to Him, not because the supernatural occurs in their midst, but because of good music and entertainment?

6 comments:

JC Lamont said...

Excellent article. We're failing miserably to be what we should be as the ex-gang member proved.

I think civil war is one of the biggest failings of the church(Christians fighting Christians).

It's espcialy disheartening when you read John's account of the last supper. Jesus kept asking them to love one another as He love them. Over and over He said this. Knowing this was his last pre-death time with them, knowing the emotional turmoil He had to have been in at the time as to what was coming, it's very powerful that this is what He wanted the disciples (first Christians) to do the most.

And it is what we have failed the most to do.

daphne said...

I often wondered about the Acts church. My friends and I have even joked about it. To be honest, I guess I would have to say there are not that many people I go to church with that I trust enough to offer my all to. I would hesitate to be life insurance for others because I do not believe they would really be the same for me. Looks like I put more trust (or lack there of) in people instead of God.

My love and I took our daughters to Disney World in Dec of 07 and he and I both commented that if church people were as nice and awesome to us as the Disney Cast, everybody would go to church.

Crap! I think I just defined my problem as reeping and sowing. Maybe if I trusted God enough to sow more, I would reep more. Hmm.

ps..let me know if my foul mouth is offensive to anyone. I feel barely saved after reading the comments from SCL's cussing repost.

chriscrossing said...

This whole article was great - thanks for pointing it out. This sentence really grabbed me....

"Looking back, I wonder if I came to those conclusions because there was a part of me that wasn't sure I wanted it. It's interesting how much our theology is driven by desire."

I feel like a lot of the things in the Bible are dismissed with excuses. Like the rich-man-who-was-told-to-give-away-all his-riches story. Does it really mean we need to give away all our possessions? I've heard it said that Jesus told the rich man that because he knew love of money was a problem for him. But if it's not a problem for you, you are not expected to make that sacrifice to follow Jesus. I would like to believe that. But is it a valid interpretation? I don't know.

disess - explaining away parts of the bible. "disess what that really means"

heartafire said...

chriscrossing---
I've thought about this too, and my own interpretation is that Christ knows exactly what your particular "Jones" is. And that's what he wants you to be willing to give up. For the rich yourn ruler, it was his money and things.

On another note, you highlighted my biggest beef with Chan:
""Looking back, I wonder if I came to those conclusions because there was a part of me that wasn't sure I wanted it. It's interesting how much our theology is driven by desire."
HE IS SPEAKING OF HIMSELF.
He doesn't even realize how much his own desire for how things should be done, has shaped is own personal theology. In fact, regarding all of the things he believes Christians should do, they jsut HAPPEN to be things he is good at.

I wish that his theology was more scripturally-based (and backed up by specific scripture) than it was a Chanocentric one.
He does not seem to have much personal awareness, and I feel a need to call bs on him. (And yes, I freely confess that I'm a sinner.) There's lots of diagnosing going on, and lots of prescribing, but where is the humility? the grace?

Leanne said...

daphne -- isn't blaspheming the problem? I'm fairly sure that the only thing wrong with those good Anglo-Saxon words is that they're not meant for polite company. Hee.

heartafire -- I think you're right. And that if we really looked at what we each believed about God, we'd come up with some slightly different stuff, or prioritize it differently. Because our theology's not just formed by our desires, but by our upbringings and world experiences.

Which doesn't necessarily make it right.

Oh dear, now I'm not sure at all what I'm saying.... *sigh* Except I do agree with you!

Matthew W said...

Amen to that paragraph. God's power is just as alive today as it was in the first century AD.