conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

Perhaps the word "sacrifice" is offputting? You know how words carry a charge. But, a planned linkage between the words "giving", "loving" and "sacrifice" could lead to a better framework for church work.

I'm not sure of this. I am starting to think that we have a massive re-education process in front of us, not to reteach meaning, but to refresh it. Once a person passes age 35, the pattern of repetiton becomes plainer. So, in the face of the pressures of daily life, we reduce what we know into quick takes. "Yeah, yeah, I sacrifice everyday. So what?" underlies the thinking of many people. It isn't cynicism as much as it is ennui.

Perhaps the new life Christ can bring needs to start with imbuing our thoughts and intentions with new life.

Giving and loving are sacrifice. Sometimes it feels good. Sometimes it does not. Sometimes giving is total where there is nothing left for us as we give. It's more than tithing, but it is sacrifice.

Giving and loving become sacrifice when we give and love all.

That is what I think might address the ennui we all struggle with. If life in Christ has become 'matter of fact" then perhaps it's time for a revival. Perhaps it's time to pray for a new spirit. Not to burden you with old language, but I think that this is the plain truth in it. That's why the leadership retreat was about faith...building a foundation of faith. Sometimes you have to start from the very beginning (It's the very best place to start.).

;-)

One of the points Tony Campolo hit on during his sermon at the New Baptist Covenant Celebration was that some of the problem the current generations (x and y) have with the church is that it has been made too easy. We (i am including myself here as an x-er) are looking for a call to sacrifice. We don't want easy, Jesus loves you and everything is hunkey dorey stuff, we want...need Jesus loves you now go and show what that means...

Two interesting things here, Tripp: in your comment above you seem to be suggesting that "matter of fact" is a bad way for a congregant or a congregation to feel. Do you expect a perpetual state of excitement from your congregation/individual congregants? If so, why?

To compare it to a marriage (not that I'm qualified) -- is steadiness a bad quality?

Second interesting thing, in the last paragraph of your original post: in very practical terms, we're all going to die anyway.

This leads me to wonder where you are going with the call to "come and die." It's not like by resisting the call, one can avoid the death -- and poetically speaking, believers hold the very opposite to be true.

Megan,

Perpetual excitement? No. No. Not at all. I assume a lot of dry times. I also assume that we bear some individual responsibility to acknowledge when our worship or prayer has become stale...and then to take some steps to wrestle with that. Perhaps a revival. Perhaps the simple recognition of the drought and an attempt to move even deeper into God's presence somehow. How, when, for how long will vary from person to person. But to simply remain in the "ennui" and only look to the outside for a correction is problematic. That's what I am trying to get at.

re: called to die

Bonhoeffer employs this phrase to mean that as we stand with "the least of these" we may actually put ourselves or our careers or some other aspect of our lives at risk. Death could be literal or figurative. He's speaking of martyrdom. So, it's not about our general mortality, but following Christ all the way to the cross.

Ooooh, Bonhoeffer - I'm in! :-)

He once wrote (I think it's in Life Together, but I could be wrong) that the church is only the church when it lives "with one another, for one another." For Bonhoeffer, I think that encompassed both the assurance of community and the exhortation to service - you couldn't have one without the other.

We have a noon Book group starting up again after an interim hiatus here; I think we'll pick up Life Together for our next session!

So, where do you place that? It connects to the Gospel story of the rich young man whom Jesus told to give all his wealth to the poor.

Does one literally do that? Or is one first responsible for supporting oneself (and one's family, if the situation calls for it) and then to give everything else?

You know ancient cultures and societies much better than I do. Is there a cultural difference between that call as it was issued then, and the society we live in now? If a person literally gave away everything he or she had in ancient Jerusalem or Athens, would he or she be permitted to starve and die in the streets?

Do martyrs actually do any good?

Megan,

re: martyrdom...Some say MLK was a martyr. He did good and his death came to mean much more. It's both. This is Bonhoeffer's point. Going off in order to die has never been seen as martyrdom. But going where God calls may place us in danger. I think about the minister I know in the Sudan who smuggle water into the refugee camps. They are sometimes killed when caught.

That martyrdom may come in other forms...more of metaphorical death than an exact physical death. And you point about the rich young man is spot on. He had done so much rightly. But there was this other step, too. And he just couldn't take it. It's so demanding, so difficult.

Bonhoeffer is not asking us to be careless with our responsibilities. He's asking us to expand our sense of responsibility. Your neighbor's kids are as much your children as your own are (Is that English?). The poor in the Sudan are our neighbor. For Bonhoeffer, it was the Jew. The Jew were those he began to understand as his own brothers and sisters, God's chosen people. He had to stand with them. He could not abandon them.

It's so hard to imagine. The conversation at last night's class touched on the "golden handcuffs" in all this. We have nice lives. Why ruin them? This is the struggle of the rich young man.

Re: First Century Economics and Ethics

Oh...well, yeah...that's a hard question. The whole patriarchal economic structure made for significant differences in the practicalities of this. That's another post. It's a great question.

Tripp, OK, but my question is actually whether martyrdom *itself* does any good. Would Dr. King have done more good if he had lived out his natural lifespan? Probably. Same as the minister you refer to in the Sudan.

Ah. I see.

Well, that kind of death really isn't a choice. Should we avoid dangerous situations? Maybe. But if MLK was not out in public speaking he would never have been heard...and he would never have been shot. Speaking truth to power, as they say, puts one at risk. It just does.

That's a point I am not arguing against, in the least. Nor am I missing it.

I know.