Plato, Aristotle, and Christian Music

Plato, Aristotle, and Modern Church Music

In this paper, my overall purpose will be the examination the modern musical habits in the church in light of Plato and Aristotle’s philosophical understandings of the role of art within the human, and more precisely, Christian experience. I want to use Plato and Aristotle to consider the subtle, yet unimaginably significant and dangerous effects of our practices as they distort and suppress our understanding of the Good. I will argue that our musical practices do not benefit the Christian life. I will go about achieving this by first laying down the foundational concepts upon which Plato and Aristotle agree, and then develop their contrasting ways of thinking about art. Plato first. Aristotle second. I will then present a brief explanation of overall goal of the Christian life as the pursuit of love in order to provide a lens through which to analyze the place of modern church music as an art form within the Christian life.

Plato and Aristotle agree with the concept of a closed cosmos, meaning, they come to the same philosophical conclusion that there are intelligible, governing principles that structure the physical universe. Consequently, they both think that the world can be arranged in a hierarchy, with these principles, or patterns, that make the world go being the highest approximation of reality, and with all other things being a lesser degree of what is real. It is from this notion that Plato’s famous analogy of the divided line is born, as it explains the four degrees of existence, or reality. These four degrees are then broken down into the visible (“shadows“ and things that do not really exist, and physical or sensible things) and the intelligible (scientific things such as abstract mathematical objects, and Forms - especially the Form of the Good). #

Plato then explains the overall goal of the human endeavor as the upward movement along the divided line, from the lowest approximations of reality (the visible) to the highest (the intelligible). He expands upon this notion via his cave analogy which can be most simply understood as the turning of the soul to love the right things; that is, the Forms. # In order to fully grasp what this means, one must understand Plato’s conception of the soul in three parts - the appetitive, the honor loving, and the rational. # With this in mind, it then follows that in order for a soul to love the right things it is necessary that it be ruled by the reason of the mind and not the appetites in order to result in the achievement of true honor and satisfaction. It is upon these understandings of the soul and reality that Plato and Aristotle formulate their opposing ways of thinking about art.

However, before we explore their differences, let it be said that Plato and Aristotle both see art, that is, all forms of entertainment, as mimesis. In other words, they view art as the representation of what is real, that is, the Forms. Where they part ways is an issue of epistemological disagreement, as they do not see eye to eye on the role of art in the human experience in regards to how we go about accessing these ultimate principles governing reality (The Form of the Good).

From Plato’s point of view, matter is dependant upon the Forms. That is to say that the Forms transcend the physical world, leaving the senses behind. Therefore he claims that we must stay rational and not get distracted in art, because art, he says, of necessity, originates from the imagination and consequently works at levels of reality three and four times removed from true reality as it wallows in the perceptible - the lowest degrees of what is real.# Because of this, art, Plato claims, is unbeneficial to the human condition since its overall affect is to leave us in an emotional state which is not desirable because if you are sentimental and nostalgic, you cannot think clearly and therefore cannot achieve the good as it is dependant on ones rational capacity.

Aristotle, on the other hand, views the Forms as dependant on matter. That is to say that from his point of view, everything we see is a complex of matter (tangible and visible), and form (has a specific identity by its structure). The significance of this is that it allows for the Forms to imminently reside within the world, which is complete opposition to the Platonic view previously discussed. One way of looking at Aristotle’s spin on Plato’s view of art is to say that he tilts Plato’s divided line on its side, bringing Plato’s mystical and abstract world of the Forms from outside of this world to within it, thus allow the form of the good to be revealed and investigated through the senses and by material states of affairs. This changes everything since, what he refers to as good art now has the potential to represent universal patterns and not simply the particulars. In light of this Aristotelian way of thinking on art, good art belongs in the category of philosophy as it has the capacity to lead us into a better understanding of what it means to be human by representing the Good and forcing us not only to philosophize this Good as we critically analyze why it is that we desire such, but also by its capacity to teach us how feel the right kind of things in a given situation. Aristotle refers to this process of learning how to feel the right kind of things as catharsis.

It is with the ultimate goal of bringing the entire soul to work in harmony in order to achieve a balanced life, which is said to be marked by the mind controlling one‘s being, that Plato and Aristotle develop their opinions of the place of art. This pursuit of the Good, that is those things that do not change, is in essence the same basic message of Christianity if we only spell Good with one less “o”. Moreover, I would like to suggest that it is rightful to further define this fundamental pursuit of the Christian life as not only the pursuit of God, but in particular, the pursuit of His love.

In his book Wishful Thinking, Frederich Buechner says:

In the Christian sense, love is not primarily an emotion, but an act of the will. When Jesus tells us to love our neighbors, he is not telling us to love them in the sense of responding to them with a cozy emotional feeling. You can as easily produce a cozy emotional feeling on demand as you can a yawn or a sneeze. On the contrary, he is telling us to love our neighbors in the sense of being willing to work for their well being even if it means sacrificing our own well being to that end . . . Thus in Jesus’ terms, we can love our neighbors without necessarily liking them. In fact liking them may stand in the way of loving them by making us overprotective sentimentalists instead of reasonably honest friends. #

In light of these words, the overall goal of the Christian life, that is the pursuit of love, is primarily a matter of action. However, it is my fear that modern church music is distorting our conception of love to be something different. I intentionally call it church music because I’m afraid calling our music “worship” is terribly dangerous as it is unintentionally causing people think that singing “worship” music isn’t true worship.

To worship God means to serve him and basically there are two ways to do it. One way is to do things for him that he needs to have done – run errands for him, carry messages for him, fight on his side, feed his lambs, and so on. This is true, essential worship. The other way is to do things for him that you need to do – sing songs for him, create beautiful things for him, give things up for him, tell him what’s on your mind and in your heart, in general rejoice in him and make a fool of yourself for him the way lovers have always made fools of themselves for the one they love. This kind of worship which wallows in the senses is only necessary in as much as it translates into the first category of worship and it is this category under which musical worship is found.

With these understandings of the Christian life and the place of musical worship within it, we can now get down to analyzing our modern musical practices through the lens of Aristotle and Plato’s conception of art. My first claim is that our modern church music is bad art in an Aristotelian sense. My reasoning for this is two fold. First, it is my belief that, in general, the music does not force us to philosophize the Forms. This is because the majority of the lyrics are lacking in theological and void of most any philosophical notions. Instead, the lyrics are highly emotive, which is embellished by a musical form that manipulatively draw out intense emotion through dramatic builds and repetition. This is an issue in the minds of Aristotle and Plato alike because this music keeps us within the sense experience, the lowest approximations of reality, rather than acting as a stepping stone up the “line” to true reality.

The second half of my reasoning lies in the other negative implications the music upon the soul from the perspective of Aristotle’s idea of catharsis, since the music is not teaching us to feel the right things. What I mean by this is that people listen to the music and go to their favorite “worship” bands show (which is sadly just that), or sing the same songs in church service (which can also be just that), where they are hit with an emotional high within a super-spiritualized atmosphere. People enjoy this, and thus continue to seek it out, especially because of the great importance the American church puts on singing these worship songs in a way teaches us to do so. However there is great danger in this and I think C.S. Lewis states it best, “God will set us off with communications of His presence which, though faint, seem great to us, with emotional sweetness…But sooner or later He withdraws, if not in fact, at least from our conscious experience, all those supports and incentives. He leaves us to stand up on our own legs—to carry out from the will alone duties which have lost all relish.”

These things said, my purpose in this is not to deny the place of music within the church, the simple inclusion of the book of Psalms within the Biblical cannon, not to mention the numerous texts expressing that it is good to sing unto the Lord, seem to make such an argument rather difficult; nor is my purpose to deny that God, or the Forms, can be found in it (art) and thus argue Plato or Aristotle to be the distinctly Christian perspective. Rather, my purpose has been the examination our modern musical habits in the church in light of these two philosophical understandings of the role of art within the human, and more precisely, Christian experience; recognizing that there are no black and white answer here, and in that tension seriously consider the subtle, yet unimaginably significant and dangerous effects of our practices as they distort and suppress our understanding of love to the lowest approximations of reality and are thus completely unbeneficial to the goal of the Christian life - and to be conformed to the likeness of the Good (God).

It is in his book, Confessions, that St. Augustine seems to echo very similar opinion that offers a rather fantastic summation and conclusion for my thoughts:

The pleasures of the ear had a more tenacious hold on me, and had subjugated me; but you set me free and liberated me. As things now stand, I confess that I have some sense of restful contentment in sounds whose soul is your words, when they are sung a pleasant and well-trained voice. Not that I am riveted by them, for I can rise up and go when I wish. Nevertheless, on being combined with the thoughts which give them life, they demand in my heart some position of honour, and I have difficulty in finding what is appropriate to offer them. Sometimes I seem to myself to give them more honour than is fitting. I feel that when the sacred words are chanted well, our souls are moved and are more religiously and with a warmer devotion kindled to piety than if they are not so sung. All the diverse emotions of our spirit have their various modes in voice and chant appropriate in each case, and are stirred by a mysterious inner kinship. But my physical delight, which has to be checked from enervating the mind, often deceives me when the perception of the senses is unaccompanied by reason, and is not patiently content to be in a subordinate place. It tries to be first and to be in the leading role, though it deserves to be allowed only as secondary reason. So in these matters I sin unawares, and only afterwards become aware of it.#

leadership core values

It’s not at all uncommon today for a business or organization to print “Our Core Values” on handouts, or to even have them engraved on a plaque to adorn their walls. In fact, I find them every Sunday on the backside of the bulletin at the church I attend in South Pasadena. Some would suggest, and without much effort, that such increasing popularity of core values is in many, if not most, cases a fad that has diminished their relevance and importance. Nevertheless, the principle behind the emergence of core-values as a mainstay in various organizational arenas during the mid-seventies remains - to define and thus form the culture of an organization by helping to guide behavior and decision making (Kaufman, 2010).

Such a value driven mentality is not only considered useful, but often even pertinent and necessary to all kinds of leadership positions. In light of this, the overall purpose of this essay is four fold. The first being to determine my personal core values in regards to leadership at large - they are: compassion, meaningful risk/challenge, and simplicity. The second being the process of defining these values. The third being an explanation of their importance. And the fourth, the exploration of their implications on my leadership. What follows is just that.

For the purpose of this paper, I will define compassion as the willingness to further the well-being of others even if it means sacrificing your own to that end (Graham, 1997, p. 66). From my understanding of the Scriptures, this is, in a Christian sense, the primary understanding of love. That is, when Jesus says to love our neighbors, he is not telling us to love them in the sense of responding to them with a cozy emotional feeling. You can as easily produce a cozy emotional feeling on demand as you can a yawn or sneeze. Instead he is telling that to love is an act of the will. This is why I have chosen the term compassion, meaning “co-suffering” in Latin, since it is this specific dimension of love that I desire to engage.

So why, why engage it? It seems to me like the importance of love goes for the most part without saying. I mean, it is something we all recognize is good and something of which we never cease to desire. In the words of Dave Matthews and the Beatles alike, “all we need is love.” Without much thought, it is pretty clear that love is fundamental to human existence, any major religious text will text you this. Likewise, with much thought, love is the one things that most every sane philosopher finds at the crux of life. Whether we like it or not, love is the law - “He who does not love remains in death” (1 John 3:14); and one can test it just as you might test the law of gravity by stepping off of a ten story building.

Considering love’s fundamental relationship to life, explicitly embracing it within my leadership only makes sense, as it would not only benefit others, but also myself. The first example I would like to consider is the way in which liking follows on the heels of loving. By the definition given, we can love someone without necessarily liking them. In fact, liking them may stand in the way of loving them by making us overprotective sentimentalists instead of reasonably honest friends. However, although liking does not have to be part of loving, that does not mean it cannot. In fact, it is my belief that sometimes, and maybe more often than not, liking follows on the heels of loving. Raynolds and Chatfield (2007) at Outward Bound seem to agree with this, stating it is terribly hard to “ignite the highest dynamics of the human soul by providing for others needs very long without coming in the end to rather like them too” (p. 29).

This is important because often times, leadership involves getting one abrasive person to work with another and throughout my soccer career, I found myself in this kind of situation more than once. Playing for a highly respected club, our team attracted the best of the best. And with that came the biggest of the biggest heads, so to say. “Pre-Madonna’s,” as my coach referred to them. With this came the difficult task of uniting these big heads under one crest, and on the field that meant an instated compassion that looks out for the well being of your teammates.

Although it took a significant amount of time for any real transformation to take place, my coach got the idea that the outworking of the co-suffering kind of love I am discussing would change things. So he preached it to us, over and over, pointing out that we would never achieve our full potential as a team until we realized that the law of the game is love - a willingness to exit the immediate sense stream of self and look toward the needs of others.

As a leader I will embrace these principles of love by strategically developing situations in which such co-suffering is highly probably, if not unavoidable. One potential opportunity that comes to mind would be the redistribution of a persons gear who is having a difficult time keeping pace, onto the backs of others. For in the words of the Raynold and Chatfield (1997):

When people throw themselves into working for the common good, serving their group or community, and showing compassion for their fellow human beings, their strongest, most admirable selves come forth. Even though their initial inclination might be just to look out for their own needs - particularly in challenging or difficult situations - people usually find that by helping others, they discover strength that they didn’t even know they had. (p. 28)

Over the years, Outward Bound has developed a uniquely successful reputation for putting people in challenging situations. Their reasoning for doing so rests in the words of American mountaineer Willi Unsoeld who once said that “Risk is at the heart of all education” (Raynold and Chatfield, 1997, p. 90). As a Christian leader, education, which, as far as I am concerned, is not only limited to factual inquiry, but also includes personal growth and character development, is of utmost importance. It is because of this importance of education, accompanied by my shared belief with Willi Unsoeld that profound personal and spiritual growth depends upon an element of risk, that I determine my second core value of leadership to be just that - risk/challenge.

I backslash challenge behind risk for two reasons. The first comes out of my point of view as a leader, since “leadership and challenge are inextricably linked” (Kouzes, 2002, p. 164 ). A statement which can only be fully understood when leadership is defined as “a dance - a delicate balancing act involving the potential hazards and rewards of risk taking and the apparent safety and security of the status quo” (Raynold and Chatfield, 1997, p. 85). The second reason is because the “stretch zone”, the area outside of one’s comfort and inside their “panic zone”, is a place that many people visit occasionally and a few people enter frequently (Raynold and Chatfield, 1997, 104). Thus, the act of taking risks is a challenge in itself. The two are intimately connected.

If asked, I would place myself in the category of people who more frequently enter the “stretch zone.” Looking back at my childhood, the infatuation with action sports and the broken bones that comes with, it is apparent that my affinity for risks is part of my DNA. But I also cannot help but believe that my need to leave the comfort zone for the edge is something that has been further developed over the past years. I credit this to my increased understanding of the possibility of reward - that is, the feeling of accomplishment when you do something you previously never thought possible. I acknowledge the athletics as the main imparting source of this wisdom. I also credit my relatively new found conviction that considers risk to be a central element of the Christian faith.

Let me explain. You have probably heard it said, and maybe even said it yourself, “I just want to be comfortable.” It is my belief that that sentence is the one sentence that no Christian should ever say. That sentence, is the kiss of death. You will hear it no place from genesis to revelation. No place at all. Jesus did not say on the cross, “My God! My God! … I just want to be comfortable.” Nor did he say in the garden, “Oh Lord, not my will but Yours … just as long as I can be a little bit comfortable.” He did not say to the rich man, “sell everything you have and give it to the poor … well, just as long as you are comfortable, and then, go and follow me!” He did not say it to the disciples. And as far as I am aware, it is no where in Paul’s letters. “I just want to be comfortable” is a euphemistic way of saying, “I just want to be lukewarm.” It is a substitution of an agreeable and inoffensive expression for one that offends and suggests something unpleasant.

There is this quote I have come to live by that says, “God comforts the disturbed, and disturbs the comfortable” (anonymous). Experience has taught me this to be true. This is partly because every time I find myself comfortable in the faith, I stop growing; and partly because I have found a life of vitality and courage and fullness in the discomfort, that is, in the risk, in the challenge. You see, I am not sure God knows what to do with those who do not take risks and simmer in their comfort. I mean, you can die comfortable and never be redeemed. That’s the problem with comfort. It’s like a long, slow, euthanasia. It’s a good slow death. And you die long before you hit the grave. And that is why risk/challenge are part of my core values.

The implications of such on my leadership are vast. All of which converge upon the goal of getting “the ships” of my followers out of the safe harbor, and out on the open seas because it is for that what they are built. In order for this to be done, and to be done well, a friendly, welcome environment must be developed to put participants at ease in order to inspire their confidence in me as a leader, as well as “foster openness, trust, and support amongst themselves in order to set the stage for future intimacy and strong group cohesion” (Raynolds and Chatfield, 1997, p. 75 ).

My followers confidence in me as their leader is critical because in order for me to be able to push them, whether it be in action or thought, they must trust my judgment, my skills, and my concern for their well-being (Raynolds and Chatfield, 1997, p. 88). Furthermore, they are trusting in my ability to distinguish between recklessness and adventurousness, as well as the ability to distinguish and present the adequate challenge for their individual self since too great of a challenge will likely end in failure, and too little of a challenge is the death blow to a vibrant learning environment (Raynolds and Chatfield, 1997, p. 173).

The implications of this upon my leadership do not necessarily mean putting my followers through more dangerous scenarios than usual, however that is not to exclude its potential to do so. So when it comes to deciding whether to take the gnarly mountain pass or whether to cruise the mellow and boring trail, the first line of thought is safety. The following line of thought judges how beneficial the action will be increasing ones willingness to step out of comfort. In my mind, reasonably risky actions are essential to the way out of the harbor, however experiences of this like only come to fruition in regards to the connection with the Christian faith through conversation. As a result, my leadership position will cause me to not only seek the embodiment of a reasonably risky and vibrant life, but to also seek the development of my ability to captivatingly articulate the reasons why.

Simplicity is the third of my core values. Yvon Chouenard (2010) once said that “It is so easy to make things more complex. The hardest thing to do is simplify you life,” (Malloy) and I could not agree more. Nonetheless, he implies that the pursuit of simplicity is worthwhile. Bannis (1989), on the other hand, expresses a much more fatalistic outlook on the principle of simplicity in his book On Becoming a Leader:

“Life has never been simple and is growing more complex all the time, yet we persist in attempting to reduce it to bumper sticker dimensions. The advocates of simplicity see reality as mechanical, static, segmented, and rational, when it is, in fact, organic, dynamic, whole, and ambiguous. They see relationships as liner, sequential and serial, discrete, singular and independent, when they are, in fact, parallel and simultaneously connected, murky, multiple and interdependent. They are determinists, believers in cause-and-effect, when, in fact, probability is the rule and the inevitable hardly ever happens. They wear square hats, when they should try sombreros” (p. 93)

In response to Bannis, I would like to suggest that simplicity is not a denial of the complexity of reality to something irrational and non-sensical. By simplicity I do not mean to evoke a notion of sun-drenched, bumblebee dreaming hippies. Rather I mean to evoke the kind of simplicity that Richard J. Foster (2007) speaks of, when he says that “Simplicity is freedom. Duplicity is bondage. Simplicity brings joy and balance. Duplicity brings anxiety and fear. The preacher of Ecclesiastes observes that ‘God made man simple; man’s complex problems are of his own devising’ (Eccles. 7:30)… many of us are experiencing the liberation God brings through simplicity” (Foster, p. 79).

Christian simplicity is an inward reality that results in an outward life. Both are essential. We deceive ourselves if we believe we can posses the inward reality without it having an effect on how we live, just as much as we deceive ourselves if we believe we can have an outward life-style of simplicity without the inward reality. Either combination is deadly.

Kierkegaard seems to capture the essence of this inner reality in his book title, Purity of Heart Is to Will One Thing (1948). It is not a call to ignorance, nor is it a call to “wear square hats” when we should try “sombreros” (Bannis, 1989, p. 93). It is a call to sanity; a return to our divine center.

Culture lacks both the inward and outward realities of simplicity. Resultantly, we are held captive by our lust for status and position, extravagance and possessions (Foster, 2007, p. 80). The importance of simplicity is that it liberates us from the insanity of these pursuits that never seem to satisfy, in order to “seek first his kingdom and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33). This is the central point and importance of simplicity. To keep the kingdom of God as our number one priority of our lives is to live in simplicity (Foster, 2007, p. 95). And herein lies the value of practicing simplicity in regards to my leadership as it allows me to have a greater focus on the deeper things of life.

It is these values of compassion, risk/challenge, and simplicity that I desire to have guide my behavior and decision making as a leader. However, to write about them only does so much. For, as Antony Jay points out, “The only real training for leadership, is leadership.” In other words, it is a give and take process, and it is my desire that the foundation these three principles provide will function as my initial gift to leadership, in hope of receiving what it has to give in return.

A little something on prayer

So this morning we’re talking about prayer, and rightfully so, Paul says we’re suppose to be ceaseless in it. Surely it’d be worthwhile to spend time talking about what the heck that even means. But instead I’d like to get back to the basics of prayer. So my question to add to our discussion this morning is this - Why pray? I mean seriously, why pray? What’s the use? Is Niche right? Is it just an opiate that makes us feel better? Is that what it’s all about? Ya know, telling Jesus what’s on your heart via some quaint and polite monologue? Or better yet, maybe it’s just another one of the fine tools we have in order to compete with a brother, so as to elevate ourselves as being more spiritual by speaking with the right, loving tone, and mixing together a few theological bangers with some pretty sounding words, and making sure to slide in every name for God any time we transition between thoughts.

Obviously I’m being sarcastic here. The reason I’m doing so is because we Christians find ourselves caught in the middle of a major theoretical problem when it comes to prayer.

You see, as Christians we hold to this idea that our God, is infinite in goodness. And we cling to the belief that our God is omnipotent and sovereign, that is, our God is all-powerful and able to bring about his will as he pleases: whenever, wherever, however. So why? Why pray?

I mean, if you think about it, it‘s a senseless endeavor. Can you really believe that infinite wisdom needs telling what is best? Or that infinite goodness needs an urging to do it? Can you believe that God ever really modifies His actions in response to our suggestions? Do you see the theoretical problem this raises? God doesn’t need you, or me; or your prayers, or mine. Neither does he need missionaries, or even medicine at that. He could convert any heathen, and heal any disease laden body in the twinkling of his eye.

Yet for some reason, “God,” in the words of Pascal, “instituted prayer in order to lend to His creatures the dignity of causality.” It’s a fancy way of saying God chooses to limit his power in such a way that the muscles and minds and wills, of you and I , are given the opportunity to cooperate in the doing of His will. And the truth in this goes beyond prayer. You see, whenever we act at all he lends us that same dignity of causality; it is the only reason we can cause anything. Therefore, it is not really any more or less strange to think that our prayer should affect the course of events than any others do. And get this - in doing so, we are not advising or changing God’s mind - that is, His over-all purpose. That remains. But our actions, and prayers will cause that purpose to be realized in different ways.

Along the same line of thought, C.S. Lewis says this, “For He seems to do nothing of Himself which He can possibly delegate to His creatures. He commands us to do slowly and blunderingly what He could do perfectly. He allows us to neglect what He would have us do, or to fail. Perhaps we do not fully realize the problem, so to call it, of enabling finite free wills to co-exist with Omnipotence. It seems to involve at every moment almost a sort of divine abdication. We are not mere recipients or spectators. We are either privileged to share in the game or compelled to collaborate in the work, “to wield our little trident.” Is this amazing process simply Creation going on before our eye? This is how (no light matter) God makes something - indeed, makes gods - out of nothing.”

It is my desire that every one of us here would come to not only know of prayer as some theological concept, but to truly know the creative power we’ve been given to challenge and change the human history until it conforms to the norms of the kingdom of God in such a way that we cannot help but begin enacting it now.

Which brings me to my last thoughts. (Couldn’t come up with any nice transition)

If you view prayer as some sort of machine, as if God is some genie in the sky, floating around, ready to grant your requests, I want to tell you your wrong. And if you’ve ever been down because what you pray for never comes to be, and you are lead to think, “dude, what’s wrong with me,“ as if it’s the faithful who have the greatest influence on the throne; I urge you to consider this hard quote I once heard -

“I have seen many striking answers to prayer and more than one that I thought miraculous. But they usually come at the beginning: before conversion, or soon after it. As the Christian life proceeds, they tend to be rarer. The refusals, too, are not only more frequent; they become more unmistakable, more emphatic.”

It’s not a pleasant suggestion, and if those words don’t sit right with you at first consider this. In Gethsemane, Jesus requests of God to spare him from the peculiarly unpleasant death set before him is refused. Which raises the difficult question, “Does God forsake those who serve him best?“ There is a mystery here that takes far more courage than I have to explore, but I suggest that next time your prayers are granted you refrain from drawing any conclusions to your own advantage. For in the words of Lewis, “If we were stronger, we might be less tenderly treated. If we were braver, we might be sent, with far less help, to defend far more desperate posts in the great battle.”

From the mind of Jake Steedman

My guy Jake sent me this today. Simply beautiful thoughts just prior to re-entering life in America upon the close of a month in George, (insert country) Africa. (oops)

Last time in the hospital, last time at Kids Stop, last time on the streets. I see kids leaving from sick beds, people on the street able to light their own cigarettes and fend off people even when they have no hands or legs… life goes on in George without the righteous missionaries from Great America. People will be healed, protected and taken care of by God in one form of the other, by his will. The question is can the missionaries live without a George? Of course we can survive, even luxuriously, but can we truly live? We have lived right this last month, with the word of Mathew 25 at the heart of our worship. Can we continue to do so in our comfortable, secure, sheltered lives? Could I dare venture off to visit the sick, widowed, lame, destitute, hungry without the call of our coordinator? Have we not all been called by one mightier and with authority above all? “A short term mission fails when you think its over when you get on the plane home.” Let this journey not be in vain. Let this not be a fulfillment of our self-righteous endeavors to satisfy our guilty souls. May we find the radical call to reform our eyes, mind, ears and hearts to comfort the broken, bless the unblessed, and feed the hungry. Then may we see that truly we are being blessed by the unblessed, we will be comforted by the broken and fed the bread of life only given by our Lord, who was and claims to be disguised as one of the least of these. So after all, was it George who was blessed or who was in fact the blesser? “Has not God chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom?” Thank you father.



Strengthen our so very weak flesh. May we find how to truly love. We could feed the stomachs of many and heal the injuries of the masses. We can visit the lonely and be with the broken, but if we have not love, we do nothing. May love set fire to our souls that long to truly live…which means to truly die! May we find peace, joy, fulfillment, blessing and life in the footsteps of Christ our mentor of death and life, blood and water. Open our eyes open our hearts and let love flow.

Luke 3:11

In the first story Luke and Matthew offer us after John the Baptist returns from his leave for solitude in the wilderness (Luke 1:80) where “the word of God came to him” (Luke 3:2) (…as he munched on crunchy grasshoppers and tasty wild honey), we find John preaching the necessity of true repentance - But only after he tells the crowd how it is, calling them a “brood of vipers”; hateful to God, and hating one another.

In verse 10, we then find the crowd responding to John’s words, asking of him “What then shall we do?” To which, John says, “Hey, if you want to live the kingdom, if you have to coats give one away, and do likewise with your food.”(v12)

Como say what?! Does he really mean that? …If you have two coats give one away, and the same with food?

Along these same lines, Basil the Great has this to say -

"When someone strips a man of his clothes, we call him a thief. And one who might clothe the naked and does not — should not he be given the same name? The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry; the coat in your wardrobe belongs to the naked; the shoes you let rot belong to the barefoot; the money in your vaults belongs to the destitute."

Or, in the words of Dorothy Day, "If you have two coats, one of them belongs to the poor." Should we not, then, return our stolen goods with humility, like a child returning a stolen candy bar to the grocery store clerk? Should we not cry out, in the words of St. Vincent de Paul: "May the poor man forgive me the bread I give him"?

In light of these words, giving to the poor is not charity, but simply giving back what was stolen. It is what is expected of us.

From John to Jesus, repentance is linked to redistribution. This is evident in Luke 19, when Zacchaus for some strange reason decides he wants to go to heaven. So he gives half of what he has away, and decides to pay back what he has stolen from people tenfold, to which Jesus says, “Ok, now salvation has entered this house” (19:9). Apparently, there’s a lot more to salvation that simply saying “Hey, I’m sorry. I am sinner.” It’s about repenting from our sin. (see Luke 13:1-5)

And apparently, as John and Jesus seem to suggest, part of our sin is holding onto all of our things.

You see, poverty was created not by God, but by you and me. (See Deut. 15:1-11. You should consider seriously studying this passage.) We are responsible for today’s imbalance that leaves unthinkable numbers of people dying every single day due to lack of basic human needs. We are the murders. We are the thieves. The blood is on our hands. Gandhi puts it this way, “There is enough for everyone’s need, but there is not enough for everyone’s greed.” And it because of this earthly reality of imbalance and the spiritual reality that we are all created equal that the way of Jesus is all about a radical way of sacrificial living for the sake of redistribution; for the sake of actually loving (which is in a Christian sense is primarily a verb) your neighbor as yourself. In other words, Jesus is telling us not to just talk about it all the time, but to actually love our neighbors in the sense of being willing to work for their well-being even if it means sacrificing our own. And to do it without limitations.

Jesus also tells us to embody a reckless faith that is dependent on God like the lilies and the sparrows, constantly in need of the Lords providence - making the most room for the transcendent as possible by not worrying about missing out, or being preoccupied with getting, which might be so that we can begin to respond to His giving. This vision of such a reckless faith is given to us in Matthew 6:25-34where Jesus tells us not to worry about three things: our food, our clothing (all image laden pursuits), and our shelter. I mean really Jesus? Because we worry about this stuff all the time... And food? The most basic need of life? Craziness.

Jesus says it’s the pagans nations, it’s the unbelievers, that strive after all these things. And I think the reason why we are to do differently is becayse when we live out this unconcerned recklessness, we are truly free to be preoccupied with God affairs, “seeking first his kingdom and his righteousness”.


But the thing is, if I were to say anything like this, or say the simple coat idea, to another Christian they’d surely think it’s a nice thought, but it’s likely their real thoughts are along the lines of, “Well hey man! It’s just a coat.” Why is that? I wonder if has to do with the fact that most of our lives we’ve been taught the moral things. Don’t drink, don’t to smoke, don’t have sex before marriage, and as long as we do these things we are free to spend our money as we want - to live comfortably and in abundance. Why? Because we’re doing the things Jesus said not to do! But the funny thing is,it seems to me that Jesus relatively didn’t have much to say about the “don’t do’s” in comparison with the “do do’s.” Yet, it is the typically evangelical occupation to lead people to the cross foot of the cross to lay down their sinful life, and rightfully so; however all too often we forget the very thing Jesus was most concerned most with, which is all that we’ve been given to pick up.

For me, redistributing my wardrobe and all of my other possessions was a very spiritual thing. And it continues to be as I continue to risk more, recognizing that I am surround by over-abundance, having way more than I need. And furthermore, it continues to be as I press on in ripping myself from my consumerist ways, filtering all my every day decisions through the lens of the ultimate goal of keeping not what I want, but only what I need to survive. If you think that sounds crazy then good. Maybe now you’re beginning to catch a glimpse as to why the Apostle Paul refers to himself as “fools for Christ’s sake” (1 Corinthians 4:10).

In the early church we see a trend of them selling everything they have to provide for the needed within their community. Acts 2 they sell everything they have and give to the needy, Acts 4, Acts 15, Acts 18; it keeps happening. And the more people they meet they find, the more they get rid of. Apparently they were addicted to giving. Apparently they understood what Jesus meant when he said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35)

And the more I give, the more I want to give. Almost as if there’s truth in these words Jesus spoke. Like the best thing to do with the best things in life is to give them away. Simply put, giving is addicting. A friend Peter who lives on Skid Row cleans a few storefronts every morning (which most often entails the disposal of urine and feces) for some extra spending money even though he can make it on his social security and the provision of the missions. When I asked him why then he works and what he spends it on, he told me he gives it away, which I found totally peculiar, so I then asked why. He motioned me to come near, looked left and right, and then exuberantly whispered in my ear, “it's better than sex!”

It was once said that Mother Theresa didn’t care about nice things, to which she interjected, “Are you kidding me? Of course I do. I am a woman. But I’ve found something greater, and far more important,” referring to the people of her community in Calcutta. The people she needs to survive; just as Adam, though in the actual presence of God, (and not just in his presence like we talk about where you can’t see him, but presence as in walking side by side with God) yet was still lonely. We need each other, that’s all there is to it.

Don't have any sweet ending for this put two more thoughts...

In terms of the family of Yahweh, our community is worldwide. As Christians it is imperative that we attend to universal issues and withdraw our attention from the stream of immediate sense experiences.

And for us to create these scenarios where what we have we’ve earned, as if God was blessing us with it, is tragic because if anything it seems that our things tend to keep us away from God, who is mysteriously found in those people in need of what we have to give (Matt. 25).

Post Thoughts to Last Post

Post thoughts.

“God wants you to fall out of love with him. Because in order to be in love, you must first fall out of love.” . . .

There is a difference between loving someone and being in love with someone.

A marital relationship offers a perfect parallel. Initially, a marital relationship is filled with intoxicating emotive highs, and a relationship with the father is most often no different. It’s initially highly emotive, and it should be. It is only natural for your emotions to get rocked should you begin to truly grip who God is and what he has done for you. It is a love like no other. It is a love beyond all reason. And upon first hearing word of this love, your insides should swell with devotion and your heart should erupt with thankfulness that’s impossible to contain. The kind of thankfulness that has the power to make Kimbo Slice lose all consciousness of self and for a moment become a child, dancing in the street with praise coming off the tip of his tongue like a trigger happy crack addict.

However, in a marriage and likewise with God, those emotional highs soon die down, become less intense and more infrequent. Not because the love isn’t there anymore, but because it’s maturing into something so much more. No longer is it a puppy love, or what I refer to as a crush on God.

This is the necessary falling out of love in order to be in love - a love that is not primarily an emotion, but an act of the will. In a Christian sense, love is primarily a verb. Jesus taught us to love our neighbors, not by responding to them with a cozy emotional feeling, but by being willing to work for their well-being, even if it means sacrificing our own well-being to that end.

In his book Screwtape Letters (letter VIII), Lewis (writing on an entirely other idea) suggests this process of falling out of love as one God intentionally initiates, and then defines true love as faithfulness. (Read the whole letter and you’ll find yourself extending the thoughts I’ve written into all kinds of other places.)

“He will set them [us] off with communications of His presence which, though faint, seem great to them, with emotional sweetness, and easy conquest over temptation. But He never allows this state of affairs to last long. Sooner or later He withdraws, if not in fact, at least from their conscious experience, all those supports and incentives. He leaves the creature to stand up on its own legs—to carry out from the will alone duties which have lost all relish… Our [Satan’s] cause is never more in danger, than when a human, no longer desiring, but intending, to do our Enemy's [God’s] will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys.”

"I just want to be comfortable"

You may not even be consciously aware of this, but if the Christian faith to you is a lifestyle you’ve missed what the faith is intended to be. Christianity is not a lifestyle. In fact I loathe that word lifestyle. It reminds me of that new movie out called the Joneses. That is a lifestyle. Christianity is not. It is a distinctive and radical call on a person’s life that should speak to the depths of who we are. And that call is scandalous in its particularity. In fact there’s a term called the scandal of particularity and it’s about Jesus Christ. And I’m sure many of you have heard, perhaps everyone here, of the audacity of the Christian faith to claim that one person who lived two thousand years ago is the only way to God. That’s the scandal. Yet somehow we know this scandal and somehow we expect that Christian life to mean something to us without giving it attention through meditation and solitude, allowing it to indwell in us, and it becomes a drag, remaining something outside ourselves.

Well it’s time for us, for you, to start paying attention. It’s time for us to wake up! We’ve been asleep too long!

Believe it or not, we are by nature idolatry making, carbon base life forms. We are prone to making idols of things. And maybe you’ve heard idolatry talked about in church, but sadly I think we all too often miss our most grievous form of idolatry, which is the way we idolize God. We have this tendency to objectify God by making him out to be a series of rules, as though he’s something we can control. Why? Because it is far more comfortable and easy to love something you can control . . . as bastardized a version of love it may be.

So we resort to Christian euphemisms and easy answers. We domesticate the transcendent. We tame God. So that in some way, we think we can ultimately control the outcome of our lives, as if God will somehow always be there to predictably do exactly what we want him to do. The problem with this is that the more we idolize God, that is the more we turn him into a object, the less able he is to love you. And the less able he is to love you, the less able you are to love him. And the less able you are to love him, the less able you are to love others. And the less able you are to love others; the less able you are to love yourself. And the less able you are to love him, self and others, the more of a shell of a person you become. It’s an eternal digression. And when we fall prey to this tendency of controlling God Karl Marks right! Religion becomes an opiate. It makes us feel better. Isn’t that what it’s about? Feeling better? No! In fact just the opposite. It’s about sacrificial living. Otherwise there’s no reason to live.

So we fall prey to this and Christianity then becomes something akin to afterlife insurance, allowing you to live effectively the same life as everyone else. And after a year at a Christian institute, I think this is the danger of any Christian school, that instead of being in the world but not of it, we become of the world but not in it. We entirely reverse the call. That’s the danger.

You’ve heard it said and maybe you’ve said it yourself, “I just want to be comfortable.” That sentence is the one sentence no Christian should ever say. That sentence, is the kiss of death. That sentence, “I just want to be comfortable”, you will hear it no place from genesis to revelation. No place at all.

Jesus didn’t say on the cross, “My God! My God! … I just want to be comfortable.” He didn’t say in the garden of Gethsemane, “Oh Lord, not my will but Yours ... just as long as I can just be a little bit comfortable. He didn’t say to the rich man, “sell everything you have and give it to the poor… well not everything, but you know as long as you’re comfortable. And go and follow me!” He didn’t say it to the disciples. And as far as I’m aware it is no where it Paul’s letters.

I just want to be comfortable is a euphemistic way of saying, “I just want to be lukewarm.” It is a substitution of an agreeable and inoffensive expression for one that offends and suggests something unpleasant. “I just want to be comfortable.” It’s not the message of God. It’s the message of the devil. Comfort is satanic.

There’s this quote I’ve come to live by that says, “God comforts the discomforted, and discomforts the comfortable.” Experience has taught me this to be truth. And should you choose to open yourself to suffering I imagine you too will experience the same. But should you choose otherwise, just know that if you find yourself comfortable in the faith, there’s a good chance you’ve stopped growing. “…I just want to be comfortable…”

You guys, God wants us to live lives of vitality, of courage, and of sacrifice. Just look at the people in the Old and New Testaments who we now consider the great followers of the Lord. Moses, called to lead his people and have a nice little chat with Pharaoh. Something no sane person would do, but he does it anyway, risking his life because God has asked it of him. So with unbelievable audacity he tells the Pharaoh to release the Israelites. He commands him to give up the majority of his economy. And he stutters. And then there’s David. Or how about Peter, or better yet, Paul, a once was terrorist against Christ until he was forever changed after an encountered God on the road to Damascus where he was told to preach to the very people he persecuted. Think that was comfortable? Or Noah, a guy who likes to get drunk and naked yet for some reason God choose him to bring forth his people. What was God thinking? Was he running out of choices? No! He wasn’t! Apparently God prefers people who sin boldly. Now please, listen close here because this could be misunderstood in the wrong ears. I’m not suggesting that you sin boldly… Martin Luther did! But I’m not Martin Luther.

But the thing is, apparently God has something to work with when we sin boldly, when we are people who don’t play it safe, when we take risks for his sake. God doesn’t know what to do with people that are comfortable. He doesn’t know what to do with people who are lukewarm…well actually he does, and it’s rather disturbing.

In the fabulous book, “The Screwtape Letters” by C.S. Lewis, Screwtape, the senior devil is writing to his junior devil, Wormwood, on how to damn his patient. That’s what they call each person. And again, and again, and again, they’re trying to damn their patients unto hell. And constantly Screwtape is saying to Wormwood, “NO! Don’t do anything dramatic. The slow and gradual road to hell - no sign posts, no sudden turns, nothing tragic; that’s what we want! Have them say things like, ‘everything in moderation.’ That’s what we want. Have them go to church and sing songs, and you know, have them say things and feel things as much as they want.”

In fact, C.S. Lewis had this picture of sin and it was three concentric circles. The outside circle was your feelings, the second circle was your thoughts, and the inner circle was your will. And Lewis suggests that the devil will kindly clear the way for us to lay down our lives at the foot of the cross. “Let them give the outer circles to God, their thoughts and their feelings. Just absolutely let them pour it on! Lay down your lives at the foot of the cross. Fill your thoughts and feelings with those of God! Admire and worship Jesus!” . . . Preaches the devil. “Applaud what he taught and stood for” . . . goes the devil’s chorus! “Just please oh please,” he cries so sweetly, “just don’t goes as far as to do what he did. Don’t take his radical words seriously. Don’t learn that you’re called to live by faith, and to suffer, and to die for the sake of Love.” In other words, just don’t figure out that all the devil wants is your will. He only cares about what you do. Not what you say, not what you think, not what you feel, but what you actually do.

And so Screwtape is constantly giving Wormwood fabulous advice about how to turn people away, and I can almost wonder if God would prefer someone who says things like: “I want to be filthy rich, I want to live on a beach in Malibu, I want to have lots of money and be famous and have people adore me.” Because at least then there’s a chance that they will hit the wall. Realize they’re completely broken and fall to their knees and be redeemed. But comfortable? You could die comfortable and never be redeemed. That’s the problem with comfort. It’s like long, slow, euthanasia. It’s a good, slow death. And you die long before you ever hit the grave.

In the scriptures, Paul calls us, the body of believers, the New Ishrael. In Hebrew the word Ishrael literally means: “Ish”, human; “Ra”, fight; “El” God. It’s rather fitting considering our human condition and that’s why Jacob’s name was changed to Ishrael when he wrestled with God. So we are the New Ishrael and the implications are so deep.

(This one’s for you Sam) Guys, this is like the spiritual UFC! We’re supposed to wrestle our way, to God. Sanctification, or call it the process of conversion, the process of conforming your will to God’s, is very unpleasant. It’s the process of learning to how to let God love you and it’s the single hardest thing for any Christian. Not how to love God better, but how to let God love us better. That’s way more costly. It’s hard! And it should be difficult. It’s supposed to be. You were called into difficult living. But at the same time, it will rock your world. And I’m not talking about feelings, it can and will rock your feelings and that’s fine and good to some extent. But it’s a terrible disease to think that Christianity is all about having your shit together and being happy because sanctification will rock your world in ways you don’t want it to rock your world. He will literally clean your house, which includes your wallet; turning your ideals on their head.

And I can understand why some of you, trust me I was there too, who don’t understand this think it’s hip to be rebellious. You know, go smoke hookah, and want tattoos. But you know what I’m talking about, you do your thing. You do whatever you can to show that you’re over or not really into this Christian thing. I mean maybe you think it’s so kind of neat and whatever, but really? Come on. I’ve got life to live man! I’ve got halo to play, and flicks to watch, chicks to bang, ganja to smoke and time to waste, people to impress, things to buy.

Well I tell you what, if it was all about being nice, and being behaved, and well mannered, I’d be sick of it too! I have no interest in that. But if I’m going to follow Jesus Christ - a man who grew up no different than you and me, walked the earth, said some really funky and extremely threatening things, only to persecuted for it and die a peculiarly uncomfortable death, and then defy the grave on the third day – Como say what?! Man there’s nothing uninteresting in that at all. The way of Christ, the gospel way of life if you will, is utterly radical. Just listen to him as he equates your thoughts with the very action itself. Go! Sell everything and give it to the poor! To live is to die, to die is to live! Consider your life worthless for the sake of others! Love your enemy!

Faith is either radical or it’s nothing at all because Gods love is overwhelming and you don’t respond to God’s love with a moderated, “Oh ok, yeah, ok, sure.” It’s either radical or it’s nothing at all. The Christian faith is not open to a mediated response. You’re either all in or all out. And that doesn’t mean that you don’t doubt or are always happy. In fact, the deeper you go in your faith, the more you will embrace doubt as your ally.

Yet so many of us have managed to dumb down the gospel; to gentrify it. And by many of us I mean the vast majority of all American, self-proclaimed Christians, including pastors. America has turned the gospel into a moderated Christianity.

So get this, you will never leave the faith because you’ve disproved it; you’ll leave the faith because you’ve grown tired of it. We fall back into sin and materialism not because of some dark impulse, but because we’re just tired. We’re tired of believing if you pray from something, somehow it’ll happen (which in case you are unaware, is not how things are). So you know, we pray for someone to get better and then they die. Or to take it home, you pray for your mom who’s battling cancer, and then she dies. Or we commit ourselves to prayer about our parent’s relationship and then it breaks off and they hit you with news of a divorce. And we pray about something we’re suffering from or struggling with and it never seems to get better. And at some point, if we’re honest with ourselves, and we’re not distracting ourselves with the endless little gadgets we all have, we become tired, it’s a spiritual exhaustion that causes us to wonder what‘s the use, and ask, “is this really all there is?” Because it feels so often like a lifestyle – something voguish and superficial. It’s almost as though it’s a club. Or if you go to younglife on Monday nights it quite literally is, as the name suggest, a club where we all get together and play a few games and then wink wink, nod nod, yeah!, Jesus Christ is great, mmhmm. Isn’t that fabulous? Yeah! God is good… All the time.

Sin, is spiritual exhaustion. And sin is not naughtiness, it’s tragedy. Sin is not naughtiness. It’s tragedy. This idea isn’t supported by any moral base arguments; you can’t get or not get this. It just has to soak into one’s psyche. It’s tragic. It’s tragedy. And too often I think we give sin a bad name because we tend to think otherwise.

So often we hear things like, “don’t sleep with anyone before you’re married. Don’t objectify women and look at them lustfully. Oh, and pst! Now I know this is awkward and embarrassing and everything … but don’t masturbate!

Do you see what I mean? We generally treat sin as thought it’s naughtiness. But it’s not naughty to do any of those things. It’s tragic! Why? Because it breaks down the whole purpose of what it means to be intimately connected with God and other people.

So back to C.S. Lewis’ idea of sin. We give God our hearts and our minds, yet somehow our wills are still tied to sin. This past semester a professor told me, “if you want to know what somebody believes, watch how they live. Don’t listen to what they say. Watch how they live. Chances are you won’t see too many people jumping off two story building just to sort of test gravity. We all believe in it. So we don’t do it.” So you want to know what you believe? Watch what you do. Watch how you live. That’s what you believe.” Faith is manifested in action.

You guys, if we want to learn how to live the life we were created for, if we want to live the way we are, then we have to take God out of the little boxes we’ve put him in. We have to stop fooling ourselves that we’ve got God figured out, as though he is some little thing we can just put on the shelf over here and not pay attention to, or at least only when we feel like it. Or, maybe it would be more realistic for me to say that some of you just need to find a box to put God in the first place. But in either case, we have got to recognize and embrace the mystery of God. And by that I mean all that we do not, and will not, because we cannot understand or completely explain and rationally make sense of. And once you’ve got that, once you come to terms with the fact that the mystery of the Christian faith is not one you solve, but one you meet; and once you realize that you can’t control God or throw out easy answers to difficult questions; then you have to start paying attention. And not just Him, but to yourself and others as well.

So if you get anything out of this, get this. You have been called into difficult living. It’s the world that wants you to be comfortable, not God! God wants you to live a life of vitality. He wants you to have a life that has meaning, and purpose, and substance, and direction. Your friends, your family, the vast if not the entire majority of the people you interact with, or see on TV, or listen to on your ipod’s want you to be comfortable. Jesus Christ doesn’t. And it’s not because he’s a kill joy. It’s because it’s the only way to joy. And if you are among those who think the Christian faith is about behaving and being sweet and well mannered and nice and all of those things, I am here to tell you that that’s wrong! That’s not what it is. If you ever grow tired and spiritually exhausted out of boredom of the Christian faith because it means you don’t understand it. It means it has quite gripped you yet. It means you haven’t yet gone beyond having a crush on Christ and you need to get over it because you can’t actually love something until you’ve fallen out of love with it. This is going to sound weird guys, but God wants you to fall out of love with him. Because in order to be in love you must first fall out of love and falling out of love in a relationship means it’s just about to get real.

So in the end, we are all going to get burned. The question is whether or not we will let the Gospel burn us up here and now and then heal, or whether we will opt to burn in the fire of hell. So here’s my question to you, and I’m ending on this - Will you simmer in a moderated faith of comfort for the rest of your life, or will you suffer and live sacrificial lives for the sake of others and in doing so actually be a servant of the gospel?