Thursday, September 27, 2007

This is my son, with whom I am well pleased:
Kaleb Timothy Braun. Born Wednesday, September 26th, 2007.

Saturday, September 22, 2007

Monday, September 17, 2007

Orthodox box.

Thank you for indulging me in my ramblings.

While I sometimes like to think outside the box of orthodoxy, at the end of the day I usually end up back inside the box, looking out through the little oblong hole where your hand goes.

But I truly think that it is important for us to frequently analyze "Christianity". I mean, the Church is the Bride of Christ, right? So, what does Christ think about His bride? To attempt to grasp this sometimes it's worth getting outside the box and looking around.

At various times throughout history Christian Orthodoxy has included varying forms of racism, sexism, violence, ignorance, repression, oppression, and many other things that make me cringe when I think about it. We see this from our vantage point as 21st century Christians. Those poor, disillusioned Christians of ages past! If only they knew what we know now!

But what does Christ think about us? What does it mean to be His Bride now?

Will the Church of the future look back and wonder why we did so little to stem the tide of AIDS or poverty in the third world? I recently heard that if all the Christians in the world would only tithe (give 10%) then, without any help from governments or other organizations, we could end world poverty in a single generation. Just Christians... just tithing.

Or maybe it's not social justice. Maybe it's our theology. What about this push for non-denominationalism. Is this a good thing; a new ecumenical unity. Or is it a bad thing; the watering down of each denomination's distinctives into one "tame" Christianity.

What do you think?
How far can we push orthodoxy ('right thinking')?
What might Christ think of His 21st century bride?
What other things in the Church's past used to be orthodox but no longer are?

Tuesday, September 11, 2007


So, this post is sort of a continuation of the comments from the previous post.

I remember being a surprised in a Genesis/Exodus class I had at Bethany College when our prof challenged our ideas of the perfection of creation. I know that this initially sounds heretical; and I also know that our prof was mostly challenging us just to get us thinking critically.

But the fact is that the Bible doesn't claim the perfection of creation... at least in so many words.

The first time "perfect" is used in the Bible is in Leviticus 22:21 (NASB). I also know that a lot of the ideas of Pre-fall Eden are a reflection of the Post-apocalyptic "New Eden" in Revelation (ie. heaven). But the fact is that the word "perfect" is not used anywhere in the book of Revelation either.

Obviously this raises a lot of questions (primarily: is "Pastor" Tim being blasphemous?).
I hope not. It is certainly not my intent. I'm trying to be a good post-modern Christian: a full plate of good intentions with a side order of scepticism.

Think of it this way: Does a "perfect" world allow the option of sin?
Eden did.
Heaven will not.

What is our definition of "perfect"?
Is Heaven simply a return to what Eden was or is Heaven something even greater? IE. if Heaven is greater then it must be "better" or "more perfect" hence Eden was "less perfect"/ not actually "perfect".
OK. I'll stop now and let you all set me straight.

Tuesday, September 4, 2007 be Human...

So, I've been reading "The Wounded Healer" by Henri Nouwen and this idea has captured many of my stray thoughts:

"When man is no longer able to look beyond his own death and relate himself to what extends beyond the time and space of his life, he loses his desire to create and the excitement of being human." (pg. 13)

Nouwen is talking about what he calls the "nuclear man". Essentially he is talking about the post-modern generation (he wrote this in '72 before our language of post-modernity was widely used). He says that the plight of the post-modern individual is caused by a Historical Dislocation, a Fragmented Ideology, and a Search for New Immortality. What I love about Nouwen's approach is that he doesn't attack Post-Modernity but acknowledges it as just another philosophy that will one day be replaced by something else; it's just what we've got to work with for now.

So, according to him, when we cease to seek immortality we cease to be fully human (ie. created in God's image).
There's a thought. What do you think?

He says that mankind's desire to extend himself beyond his own life is part of what it means to be made in God's image.
To create is to emulate the creator.
So please "create" some comments and discussion.