2004 Term 1 Week 8 - Freedom
Write on the board:
“I can’t save myself”
“I can’t save others”
“I can’t make myself more Christ-like”
Who agrees with each question?
I can’t save myself / I can’t save others
Ephesians 2:1-10
I can’t make myself more Christ-like
Romans 3:8-20 (10)
Galatians 3:1-14 (3)
Philippians 1:6
Monday, March 29, 2004
Monday, March 22, 2004
2004 Term 1 Week 7 - Power
Follow on from must/should/can. When we say ‘must’ we want to have a certain level of power in the lives of others.
I think power is a myth. Humanity seeks it and reveres it (false god?). I can have power in peoples' lives (affect them) by two ways. I can force myself on them or I can be invited by them. The first is violent and forceful and is more about me and my power than the effects of my 'power' in the life of another. And the effect is horrendously damaging. The second is out of my control, no matter how loving I am or how generous I am with my heart I can't make anyone invite me to affect them (and if I do try how is this different to the forceful way?), it is their gift to me. Their choice to allow me to have impact and presence in their life, a wonderful gift. So power is a myth. I do not have that amount of control over others, nor should I. Jesus knew this and the stories of Jesus’ interaction with people show this.
Matthew 4:19 – “Come, follow me”
Holy Spirit – Gentle leader/guider
When I hear about laying down power I rejoice. Laying down power is like recognising the gun you hold is a water pistol. When people say that it feels odd to lay down something they don't have I say yes, that's it. It's recognising what you don't have and what you will never have. And realising that you don't need it. This is freedom, wonderful glorious freedom. And with this freedom, perhaps we will take note of what we do have in Christ and pursue that.
Follow on from must/should/can. When we say ‘must’ we want to have a certain level of power in the lives of others.
I think power is a myth. Humanity seeks it and reveres it (false god?). I can have power in peoples' lives (affect them) by two ways. I can force myself on them or I can be invited by them. The first is violent and forceful and is more about me and my power than the effects of my 'power' in the life of another. And the effect is horrendously damaging. The second is out of my control, no matter how loving I am or how generous I am with my heart I can't make anyone invite me to affect them (and if I do try how is this different to the forceful way?), it is their gift to me. Their choice to allow me to have impact and presence in their life, a wonderful gift. So power is a myth. I do not have that amount of control over others, nor should I. Jesus knew this and the stories of Jesus’ interaction with people show this.
Matthew 4:19 – “Come, follow me”
Holy Spirit – Gentle leader/guider
When I hear about laying down power I rejoice. Laying down power is like recognising the gun you hold is a water pistol. When people say that it feels odd to lay down something they don't have I say yes, that's it. It's recognising what you don't have and what you will never have. And realising that you don't need it. This is freedom, wonderful glorious freedom. And with this freedom, perhaps we will take note of what we do have in Christ and pursue that.
Monday, March 15, 2004
2004 Term 1 Week 6 - Must / Should / Can: Freedom and Bondage
Differences in the listener's acceptance of what you are saying.
I must obey God
I should obey God
I can obey God
I must love others
I should love others
I can love others
I must read the Bible
I should read the Bible
I can read the Bible
I must take an interest in other
I should take an interest in other
I can take an interest in other
I must speak to my friend about my faith
I should speak to my friend about my faith
I can speak to my friend about my faith
I must pray for others
I should pray for others
I can pray for others
I must try to stop sinning
I should try to stop sinning
I can try to stop sinning
I must live for others
I should live for others
I can live for others
On Monday night one of the guys said "you must ..." and it hit a nerve in me. Is that the gospel? Where one MUST respond, where the christian MUST love others, MUST be generous, MUST not sin. I know that what follows may seem like a spliting of hairs, yet to me the distinction is liberating.
In our group we spoke about how the word MUST is a heavy burden and implies that the person wont want to do it and they need to be convinced/forced into doing it by something external. For example, "you must be generous" implies that the idea of being generous is not inviting enough in and of itself. Contrast it with "you must take this all expenses-paid holiday to Tahiti", of course!
So the word suggested to replace MUST was SHOULD. Which still shows our need for the imperative, our need to tell people what to do. We agreed that SHOULD was less heavy than MUST and introduced the element of choice that was missing in MUST. But our fear was that SHOULD was just a more politically correct way of saying MUST. Also it still implies that we needed convincing to do it. "Be good. Why? Because you should, its expected."
The next word suggested was COULD which we quickly upgraded to CAN to give it a more certain feel. We noticed that CAN didn't feel like a burden. The other thing we noticed was that CAN put the emphasis back on to the subject. Eg. "You can go to the park", I find I am thinking about the park and if I want to go there. Likewise, "you can be generous", has me thinking about whether I want to be generous or not. That maybe there is something about being generous that makes it worth being generous. I don't need an "or else", "for the greater good", or "its expected of you". Rather being generous is its own incentive. Also CAN is inviting rather than forceful. For example, "What you are doing is selfish. You can be generous."
So I love the word CAN and the way it subtly changes the meaning so that I can offer alternative ideas without the baggage of the imperative. And the way CAN draws attention to the idea rather than me (it avoids "who are you to tell me what I should do?").
Differences in the listener's acceptance of what you are saying.
I must obey God
I should obey God
I can obey God
I must love others
I should love others
I can love others
I must read the Bible
I should read the Bible
I can read the Bible
I must take an interest in other
I should take an interest in other
I can take an interest in other
I must speak to my friend about my faith
I should speak to my friend about my faith
I can speak to my friend about my faith
I must pray for others
I should pray for others
I can pray for others
I must try to stop sinning
I should try to stop sinning
I can try to stop sinning
I must live for others
I should live for others
I can live for others
On Monday night one of the guys said "you must ..." and it hit a nerve in me. Is that the gospel? Where one MUST respond, where the christian MUST love others, MUST be generous, MUST not sin. I know that what follows may seem like a spliting of hairs, yet to me the distinction is liberating.
In our group we spoke about how the word MUST is a heavy burden and implies that the person wont want to do it and they need to be convinced/forced into doing it by something external. For example, "you must be generous" implies that the idea of being generous is not inviting enough in and of itself. Contrast it with "you must take this all expenses-paid holiday to Tahiti", of course!
So the word suggested to replace MUST was SHOULD. Which still shows our need for the imperative, our need to tell people what to do. We agreed that SHOULD was less heavy than MUST and introduced the element of choice that was missing in MUST. But our fear was that SHOULD was just a more politically correct way of saying MUST. Also it still implies that we needed convincing to do it. "Be good. Why? Because you should, its expected."
The next word suggested was COULD which we quickly upgraded to CAN to give it a more certain feel. We noticed that CAN didn't feel like a burden. The other thing we noticed was that CAN put the emphasis back on to the subject. Eg. "You can go to the park", I find I am thinking about the park and if I want to go there. Likewise, "you can be generous", has me thinking about whether I want to be generous or not. That maybe there is something about being generous that makes it worth being generous. I don't need an "or else", "for the greater good", or "its expected of you". Rather being generous is its own incentive. Also CAN is inviting rather than forceful. For example, "What you are doing is selfish. You can be generous."
So I love the word CAN and the way it subtly changes the meaning so that I can offer alternative ideas without the baggage of the imperative. And the way CAN draws attention to the idea rather than me (it avoids "who are you to tell me what I should do?").
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)