I haven't been able to sum any of this up nicely yet, but there is something I am stumbling over, and that is making me crazy right now.
Here goes:
So there was John the Baptist. He lived in the wilderness, ate locusts and honey, and wore burlappy type sacks for clothes. Jesus said of him in Matthew 11:11, "among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Jesus himself was a big scandalous trouble maker among church leaders, and upset the status quo for most everybody He encountered - for the good, of course!
I am wondering to what degree our lives as Christians are compromised and fruitless because of our being man-pleasers instead of God-pleasers, and HOW our lives should change. Most people thought JB (John the Baptist for now) was a psycho, I'm sure. He just wasn't normal, let's face it.
If he were here today, he wouldn't be at the movies, he wouldn't play video games, etc. (sorry for another shot at movies... I'm just not thinking of more creative examples), he wouldn't live in a fancy house, or wear brand name clothes.
I imagine these 2 types of western Christians. They have to be western, cause I don't know how things work elsewhere in the world, socially, and I'm trying to figure out how to live here.
Christian #1 is a fairly normal guy on the surface. Yes, he loves God very much, is very devout, knows his Bible, whatever. But he doesn't freak people out with his intensity. He is a Christian while still being accessible to the larger population, and nobody thinks he is a psycho. At face value, his life isn't that different from your general upstanding citizen. Because he is accessible, he has more chances to talk to more people about God who don't instantly disregard him.
Then there is Christian #2 who DOES freak people out. He has so given his life to God's affairs that he stands out from society at large. He doesn't take more than he needs, he is not afraid to wear nerdy clothes and live in a home that isn't trendy or big or drive a little older, again, nerdy car. (a socialist for Christian reasons :P ) He chose this humble lifestyle in order to be able to give more to the truly poor and needy. He spends more time with church than most people deem 'balanced'. He spends more time praying and reading the Bible than most people deem 'balanced'. He knows little of pop culture because he doesn't bother with it, maybe sees it as a distraction from God. People think he is an insular, out-of-touch weirdo.
Which life has more impact? Or can we know or say? Which life is more pleasing to God?
I have been struggling with this for a while, but it came to more of a head when I heard criticism of people I know who have given their lives to prayer, fasting, and community service, I don't see how that is so much more different than Mother Theresa, whom I didn't hear ANYone of ANY faith criticizing. Everyone except the hedonists, who might have called her a sucker missing out on transient physical pleasures, or said, oh, isn't she noble, living a selfless life in the service of others.
I'm not saying every intercessory missionary should be up for sainthood.
I'm merely trying to figure out where the balance is in being accessible, living IN the world and not being OF the world, 'coming out and being seperate' while still having an impact, while still being true to the calling and the life that Christ led, if we are indeed following Him as we claim.
I don't think everyone should live in the desert or have to eat locusts, or even Kraft dinner 10 nights a week. I think that thrift store finds are perfectly acceptable replacement for sackcloth.
But I wonder how much we are rendering our Christian lives powerless and fruitless by our choices.
Today I spent $90 on maternity clothes from Old Navy. More than I've spent on clothes in years. Mind you, I still managed to get 7 items: a bargain by general retail standards. And I don't feel guilty about my purchase. BUT ultimately, I know the reason for spending that was vanity and pleasing man instead of God. It doesn't do anything for God if I'm stylish. I could have covered my body for a lot less with some less than stylish selections from the thrift store down the road. But my vanity wanted to still be "cute and cool" during my period of inflation. We make choices like this all the time.
How much more humble could/should our lifestyle be in order to be more selfless and giving?
How afraid are we of being weird or even material for a mental ward? Is this valid? How concerned should we be with being off-putting? JB was not concerned with being off-putting. He was OUT there, literally! Is it an excuse and copout to try to make your life more moderate so people don't think you are a freak and can relate to you? I really, really don't know.
I am wondering to what degree our lives as Christians are compromised and fruitless because of our being man-pleasers instead of God-pleasers, and HOW our lives should change. Most people thought JB (John the Baptist for now) was a psycho, I'm sure. He just wasn't normal, let's face it.
If he were here today, he wouldn't be at the movies, he wouldn't play video games, etc. (sorry for another shot at movies... I'm just not thinking of more creative examples), he wouldn't live in a fancy house, or wear brand name clothes.
I imagine these 2 types of western Christians. They have to be western, cause I don't know how things work elsewhere in the world, socially, and I'm trying to figure out how to live here.
Christian #1 is a fairly normal guy on the surface. Yes, he loves God very much, is very devout, knows his Bible, whatever. But he doesn't freak people out with his intensity. He is a Christian while still being accessible to the larger population, and nobody thinks he is a psycho. At face value, his life isn't that different from your general upstanding citizen. Because he is accessible, he has more chances to talk to more people about God who don't instantly disregard him.
Then there is Christian #2 who DOES freak people out. He has so given his life to God's affairs that he stands out from society at large. He doesn't take more than he needs, he is not afraid to wear nerdy clothes and live in a home that isn't trendy or big or drive a little older, again, nerdy car. (a socialist for Christian reasons :P ) He chose this humble lifestyle in order to be able to give more to the truly poor and needy. He spends more time with church than most people deem 'balanced'. He spends more time praying and reading the Bible than most people deem 'balanced'. He knows little of pop culture because he doesn't bother with it, maybe sees it as a distraction from God. People think he is an insular, out-of-touch weirdo.
Which life has more impact? Or can we know or say? Which life is more pleasing to God?
I have been struggling with this for a while, but it came to more of a head when I heard criticism of people I know who have given their lives to prayer, fasting, and community service, I don't see how that is so much more different than Mother Theresa, whom I didn't hear ANYone of ANY faith criticizing. Everyone except the hedonists, who might have called her a sucker missing out on transient physical pleasures, or said, oh, isn't she noble, living a selfless life in the service of others.
I'm not saying every intercessory missionary should be up for sainthood.
I'm merely trying to figure out where the balance is in being accessible, living IN the world and not being OF the world, 'coming out and being seperate' while still having an impact, while still being true to the calling and the life that Christ led, if we are indeed following Him as we claim.
I don't think everyone should live in the desert or have to eat locusts, or even Kraft dinner 10 nights a week. I think that thrift store finds are perfectly acceptable replacement for sackcloth.
But I wonder how much we are rendering our Christian lives powerless and fruitless by our choices.
Today I spent $90 on maternity clothes from Old Navy. More than I've spent on clothes in years. Mind you, I still managed to get 7 items: a bargain by general retail standards. And I don't feel guilty about my purchase. BUT ultimately, I know the reason for spending that was vanity and pleasing man instead of God. It doesn't do anything for God if I'm stylish. I could have covered my body for a lot less with some less than stylish selections from the thrift store down the road. But my vanity wanted to still be "cute and cool" during my period of inflation. We make choices like this all the time.
How much more humble could/should our lifestyle be in order to be more selfless and giving?
How afraid are we of being weird or even material for a mental ward? Is this valid? How concerned should we be with being off-putting? JB was not concerned with being off-putting. He was OUT there, literally! Is it an excuse and copout to try to make your life more moderate so people don't think you are a freak and can relate to you? I really, really don't know.
I've always loved II Corinthians 5:13 : If we are beside ourselves, it is for God; or if we are of sounds mind, it is for you.
Basically, I'm keeping my cool here so as not to freak you out. But really, if it were just me and God, I'm not gonna look normal, so I'm playing it down and containing it for your sake.
Back to point-
People I know that live as Intercessory Missionaries (somewhat akin to a modern-day, Protestant monk life, if it was an order that was active in community and social justice as well as prayer) are called a cult or mentally unstable now by some because of how much time they spend praying etc. and because, likely, a lot of them are rather intense individuals, not afraid to walk up to strangers and say things like, "God told me [fill in the blank] to tell you", to be more overt and visible in their Christianity.
I ranted a bit about this when I started the blog.
Can both Christian #1 and #2 be called "sold out" Christians, that have let go of their attachment to the world and are truly living FOR God?
What is the Church supposed to look like? Where is the true obedience in all that, where is godly living? Where is the church that changes the world by being devoted to and subjected to God? What does that look like? What WILL that look like?
I dunno. and it's making me nuts.
please... any feedback? Even email me if comments are too impersonal or visible, or brief a format. I would love to hear from you!
Can both Christian #1 and #2 be called "sold out" Christians, that have let go of their attachment to the world and are truly living FOR God?
What is the Church supposed to look like? Where is the true obedience in all that, where is godly living? Where is the church that changes the world by being devoted to and subjected to God? What does that look like? What WILL that look like?
I dunno. and it's making me nuts.
please... any feedback? Even email me if comments are too impersonal or visible, or brief a format. I would love to hear from you!
No comments:
Post a Comment