The Hsu’s Views

I’ve been working through “The Great Omission” by Willard for this course I’m in. It is a collection of writings and sermons/talks on discipleship. Great stuff. Willard writes:

“Spiritual formation in Christ is accomplished, and the Great Commission fulfilled, as the regenerate soul makes its highest intent to live in the commandments of Christ and accordingly makes realistic plans to realize this intent by an adequate course of spiritual disciplines.” P. 76

Then comes a great comment that is useful in helping heal so much of the division that exists in the church today.

Christian spiritual formation understood in this way is automatically ecumenical and inclusive in the sense that those thus formed, those who live in obedience to Christ, are thereby united and stand out as the same in their obedience. The substance of obedience is the only thing that can overcome the divisions imposed by encrusted difference in doctrine, ritual, and heritage. The lamp that is aglow in the obedient life will shine. The city set on the hill cannot be hid. Obedience to Christ from the heart and by the Spirit is such a radical reality that can never be achieved by direct efforts at union. It is not achieved by effort, but by who we are: “I am a companion of all who fear you” (Psalm 119:63).

Some years ago, ecumenism attempted to center on the confession (italics mine) of Christ as Lord. Little came of it because, in the manner to which we have been accustomed by history, the attitudes and actions of real life were left untouched by such a profession. But actual obedience (italics mine) to Christ as Lord would transform ordinary life entirely and bring those disciples who are walking with Christ together wherever their lives touch. Christians who are together in the natural contexts of life would immediately identify with one another because of the radically different kind of life, the eternal kind of life, manifestly flowing in them. Their mere non-cooperation with the evil around them would draw them together as magnet and iron. Any other differences would have no significance within the unity of obedience to the Christ who is present in his people.

Two reflections from these thoughts, maybe three. First, merely confessing Christ as Lord is not enough to transform our lives and give us the peace that accompanies the spiritual life that Jesus offers us within his Kingdom rule. We must choose to obey Christ, in all he teaches us. This choice should be reflected in our pursuit of spiritual formation.

Second, within the framework of the centered/bounded set conversation, I’ve seen the importance of developing or finding people who want to gather together because of (1) their love for Jesus, and because (2) they were informed with a Kingdom theology. I would now add a third critical element, Obedience to Christ. Intending to obey Christ will lead to a “radically different kind of life” characterized by “non-cooperation with the evil around them.”

Third, I may be self-deceived, but this is what I see in the lives of those U40-ites who choose to walk and minister together in the city. We have so many different callings and foci of ministry, yet we are not drawn together because of a particular denominational affiliation, a particular ecclesiology, or worldview. We love Jesus. We want to participate in His Kingdom. We want to obey him.

I’ve been paying more attention to spiritual formation recently through a book that our ministry is reading together called, “Emotionally Healthy Spirituality,” by Peter Scazzero. He talks about the importance of growing emotionally. He writes that “Emotional health and spiritual maturity are inseparable. It is not possible to be spiritually mature while remaining emotionally immature.

The second half of the book describes some of ancient spiritual practices that can be employed to help one develop an emotionally healthy spirituality. One of these includes the Daily Office. The “office” is a liturgical aid that contains bible readings and prayers that are intended to be used by a community to keep people focused on the Lord together. It provides a rhythm or an order to ones life that centers it on Christ.

I’ve been using “The Missio Dei Breviary” for a bit now, and will be switching to a printed version of the Northumbria Community’s daily office.

The prayer for this morning’s reflection was/is called The Methodist Covenant Prayer. I enjoyed it’s message and included it below for your benefit.

THE METHODIST COVENANT PRAYER
I am no longer my own, but Thine.
Put me to what Thou wilt,
rank me with whom Thou wilt;
put me to doing, put me to suffering;
let me be employed for Thee
or laid aside for Thee;
let me be exalted for Thee,
or brought low for Thee;
let me be full, let me be empty;
let me have all things,
let me have nothing;
I freely and heartily yield all things
to Thy pleasure and disposal.

And now, O glorious and blessed God,
Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
Thou art mine, and I am Thine.
So be it.
And the covenant
which I have made on earth,
let it be ratified in heaven.
Amen.

Reggie McNeal addresses the Reformed Church in America’s leadership conference called, “One Thing.” He speaks about Kingdom in the video below. Wade through the first several minutes of bantering and listen to his teaching about the Kingdom and the church. He includes some interesting comments regarding the fastest growing religion in the world (Christianity - but contrary to this post by Steve Addison.)  McNeal references Philip Jenkins work that it is growing fastest in the Southern hemisphere and asks where is the church stagnant? (N. America)

Memorable lines:

“We have looked at the Kingdom through our church lenses. We need to look at the church through a Kingdom lenses.”

“We’ve worked hard to get the church where it is today.”

You can find both messages (video or audio) at the RCA site.

Here are a few photos from our last U40 meeting at Point Loma Nazarene University on Jun 14, 2008. Click through for more.

Ran across a video that was helpful in tweaking my understanding of poverty. Like many, I would attempt a definition that begins with the lack of something(s) material. In this video, Brazilian “crazy” pastor walks you through a thought experiment and highlights relationships as a critical component to poverty. Reductionistic? View, then comment below.

How do you balance an understanding of the gospel that calls for individual response, with an understanding that includes the redemption and transformation of creation? Or put another way, is the gospel just about saving souls, or is there also a transformation of the ills of society and creation as suggested in a Kingdom theology?

Tim Keller sets out a few of this thoughts in this article for Leadership Journal. No surprise in my response. I enjoy the analysis and the attempt to proclaim both aspects of the gospel.

In this podcast from the folks at Audio Ur, Skye Jethani , David Swanson , and Matt Tebbe discuss Tim Keller’s article.

I ran across what must be a comprehensive list of resources, articles and interviews of Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. I’m posting it here because I think everyone will benefit from his teaching on the gospel and how to live missionally in the world.

I think he leads the N. American church in the conversation about cities, transforming culture, and church planting in urban contexts. While all these concerns are precisely the sorts of things that I’m thinking about as well in ministry, I listen to his weekly sermons because they feed my understanding of the gospel and deepen my walk with Jesus.

If you are an mp3 listener, turn your attention to the Audio/Visual section and listen away.

This book is a collection of the knowledge and the approach that Bakke and Sharpe have been espousing after years thinking about cities and how to help unfold the kingdom through the work of the church in those cities. Central to their approach is to recognize where God is already working in any given city to embrace, celebrate and come alongside that work. These signs of God’s working help to point a new direction in urban ministry.

One idea from this book that is particularly useful in my work here in San Diego is viewing the city as one’s parish. During the 2007 wildfires of San Diego, I noticed a difference in how our church, Rancho Bernardo Community Presbyterian Church (www.transformedlives.org) seems to approach our community, versus many evangelical churches. The parish mentality allows a church to see an entire geographical region as their area of responsibility. In contrast many evangelical churches see their audience as a subset of this region, namely those who have made a decision for Christ and joins our community to worship.

During the fires, our church identified 70 families from the church who lost their homes to the fire. Many of those 70 are people whose names have made it onto the attendance rolls of the church somehow over the years. Many of those we are seeking to be a blessing to are not involved in the same way we might expect from an evangelical church. Nonetheless, because of our church’s parish mentality, we view a much larger subset of people affected by the fire as our own. In fact, the number of families we are seeking to bless in our community is now 140, fully one-third of the 400 affected homes in our community.

I see firsthand how this parish mentality changed the boundaries of who gets ministered to in the church. The somewhat exclusive category of those who are “in” is much larger with the parish mentality. Those who are “marginally in” but ministered to in a parish mentality church, might be considered “out” in a non-parish mentality church. It seems that we should err on the side of ministering to those on the edges rather than only those clearly “in.” But need to be clear that the parish mentality that we are to develop must include both the immediate community as well as the whole city as the parish. The parish mentality must be coupled with broader sense of the church in the city.

This past weekend at a soccer tournament, squished on the sidelines between two fields, my daughter and I had little choice but to set out our blanket and umbrella next to a pile of peanut shells. Aside from the annoyance of people throwing their trash on the field (I know they are organic and biodegradable) I thought little of them.

I have many friends that do think about peanut shells tossed on the ground. Because those peanut shells can kill a child with peanut allergies. Our friends Kye and Sherry have been raising the awareness of such food allergies. As a physician with a child suffering from such allergies, Sherry (pictured below) has been doing heroic work in town with other like-minded parents. This is Kingdom work by a parent who understands how her calling/vocation can be used to be a blessing to others.

SEAN M. HAFFEY / Union-Tribune

Peanut-allergic children and their families and friends watched yesterday’s Padres game from a peanut-free zone at Petco Park. The Padres lost their third straight contest to the Mariners, 4-3.

Here is an article about how the San Diego Padres created a Peanut-Free Zone at the park. Such a zone is far more significant that a non-smoking section. The mere presence of peanut shells can send a kid into an adverse reaction. So, please think twice before leaving a pile of peanut shells.

I’m working on a sermon for Sunday. During my research I ran across a quote in Bosch’s book that I heavily marked the first time I went through it. In commenting on the early church, Bosch argues that Jesus had no intention of founding a new religion. Those who followed Him were not given a name to distinguish them from other groups, no creed of their own, no rite which distinguised them. Nontheless, “Their survival as a separate religious group, rather than their commitment to the reign of God, began to preoccupy them.”

“Jesus foretold the kingdom and it was the Church that came.” Alfred Loisy (p. 50)

The second failure, according to Bosch, is that the early church ceased to be a movement and turned into an institution.

“There are essential difference between an institution and a movement, says H. R. Niebuhr (following Bergson): The one is conservative, the other progressive; the one is more or less passive, yielding to influences from outside, the other is active, influencing rather than being (more…)