christmas shopping

it took me three hours of serious shopping to buy two of my family members gifts. three. hours. of walking and driving and searching.

christmas.

what the heck.

intellectual faith

a few months ago i had a rather heated debate with a friend over the usefulness of theology. over the course of the few days we hung out she made repeated jabs at seminaries, and specifically at theological studies. to be honest, i was the heated one. i finally had enough and became defensive, myself being a seminary student and an aspiring recreational theologian. my issue was not so much the personal implications of her attack as it was the practical.

the "evangelical" church is, for the most part, an anti-intellectual society. that is to say, it does not appreciate a biblical education or personal, disciplined, academic study of either the bible or extra-biblical subjects. it does not understand the need to rationally defend faith against the philosophies of humanism and scientism.
there are several reasons for such sentiments which i don't plan to list comprehensively. i will simply state that it has been a growing problem over the last century, resulting in the loss of the voice of the church in the public square; academia, the media, and politics. our voice has been lost because we cannot intelligently articulate a defense for our beliefs or create arguments against opposing beliefs. This has resulted in a divide between what is secular and what is sacred both inside and outside of the church. This division places what is sacred, what is of faith, on a level much lower than what is secular, undermining the defense of any guiding morality in society. due to the church's inability to affect the culture it is now affected by the culture, thus faith has been privatized and undervalued in minds of believers.

certainly, people could possibly get caught up in study and become irrelevant to the needs of society. i'm not arguing that any should go to such extremes with their education. however, we have most definitely become irrelevant by our neglect of academic study to improve our faith. doctrine without faith will be useless and faith without doctrine will be misguided. what i would like to see is the encouragement of a well-rounded faith, which includes studying a variety of topics from the perspective of a christian worldview in the midst of biblical study. the average lay-person does not necessarily need to attend a seminary, but a pastor does.
furthermore, doctrine should not be a bad word, and it should not be thought to be boring. doctrine is the result of passionate study of God's Word in order to understand His will for His church. we learn from the bible to understand the means by which we may please Him. everyone lives by doctrine without realizing it, so we should do our best to live by the right doctrine. and who better to direct us than the one or ones (ideally) who have spent the time studying God's Word truly?

ekklesia = gathering

this is where i flesh out the frame of an idea that has been slowly growing in my mind. i have found that my mind is like a crock-pot. here is part of the result of weeks of cooking.

my favorite way to begin a discussion is with a question. what is church, truly?
there are two senses in which church is discussed, one being an idea of the "universal church", and the the other is the local church. the idea of the universal church is the collection of believers past, present, and future, here in this time and outside of this time. i attribute this idea to the whole of the body of christ. i believe it is the kingdom of Christ. the local church is that much smaller, immediate gathering to which you belong, or which you attend, if you do either. i use the word "gathering" here for a reason. not to get too technical but the term used by paul specifically, and by the n.t. as a whole is ekklesia which more truly could be translated as "gathering." i could get into a discussion over its etymology but that would be boring. so, gathering of fellow believers should suffice as a whole definition. the term "church" was adopted later to describe a christian gathering. i doubt i need to remind you that a church is not the building.
i'm digging into this concept of a gathering because i believe that's what a church is simply meant to be. a local church simply is a local gathering of God's children together. there are many purposes for gathering together; worship, education, fellowship, love, support, guidance, etc. when i use the terms "simple church" or "church simply" i mean a church bent on these purposes and nothing more.
when i consider many of the churches i've encountered and conclude upon their apparent understanding of the church's function, i have to imagine that they have lost the original intent for the church. i am living in the heart of the southern baptist belt. some may also argue i'm living in the heart of the bible belt. i'm less inclined to agree with that, nevertheless i have tons of churches to choose from. what applies to southern baptists probably also applies to non-denominational churches, presbyterian, methodist, etc. when i consider these churches the first thing i notice is their building. many of them are enormous probably because a bunch of people attend them. they also have a multitude of programs such as youth group, men's group, women's group, nursery, this bible study, that bible study, vbs, sunday school, etc. none of these things are wrong per se, but my question is whether or not these things are attempting to fill a void, and if so what should fit properly in the place of that void?
basically, i think we neglect true community and attempt to fill it in with all these silly programs.
instead of valuing the church for what it is designed to be simply, and loving it for that reason, we create large organizations that look good and make us feel good though in turn they do not function as they should. church simply, requires a vision for God.
a simple church is nothing more than the gathering of fellow believers together to worship God, to make God known, and to learn to love each other. in this context everything is covered, discipleship, teaching, you name it. these things are most fully experienced in tight community. tight community is best facilitated in a local area where individuals have the ability to see each other on a daily basis and to do life together. in acts chapter 20: 17-32 paul calls to himself the elders from the church at ephesus. in these verses he outlines his ministry in ephesus and the relationship he had with those gathering together. we see that in three years time he created a community of believers, taught them, and discipled them to the point that he could leave them to fend for themselves against the "savage wolves" which would come in amongst them. he says that, "i was with you the whole time...teaching you publicly and from house to house." he was with them in sickness and in tears, in good times and bad. he was married to them! none of this driving 25 + minutes to church every week. a commuter community can not flourish. paul did life with these people and in that context he raised an strong, tight community of christians.
i also believe evangelism is best performed when faith is lived day in and day out in the eyes of non-believers. how effective would a tight community of believers be growing together in love everyday before those in their local area who have no hope? yes, it would be messy but messiness would only speak of authenticity and humanity in light of grace. i believe we avoid this concept of church because it would be messy. who are we to hide our messiness behind the walls of big buildings?
in order to succesfully create this simple, tight church gathering we would need to cast off a lot of pride and most of our concept of church. the pastor of this gathering would have to "settle" for service away from the spotlight. he may never get paid. he may never have a flock over 30, which may be advantageous if he never gets paid. maybe they never move into a building but remain in a home for their gatherings. i would argue that if such a community with such a vision is to exist its numbers must be limited (maybe not as low as 30) to encourage the maximum bond between members. when the numbers consistently exceed that capacity then another gathering should be created. this would not necessarily be a problem if discipleship and clear teaching are emphasized from the beginning. in this way a network of simple, tight churches could be created, and perhaps occasionally there could be a larger gathering of communities to worship and fellowship. i don't see why missions or anything else should be neglected by such a model.
let's let go of those things that hinder our growth together in Christ! let's let go of our pride and our fear!

random statements

that last blog about truth or agenda made no sense.

i would like to own a dog and name him snuffleupagus but call him "gus" for short.

vespa scooters are the only vehicles that make sense.

i partially take that last statement back because bicycles also make sense.

in heaven we will get to know everybody as well as they can possibly be known because we will simply have the time.

i would look really good on a vespa scooter.

bad music is immoral.

i hope i'm not immoral when i play the guitar.

dishwashers are awesome and you people who have them don't truly appreciate them.

my bathroom faucet leaks.

if you want an outdoorsey feel at home just sleep in your sleeping bag.

i am still accepting applications for a scholarship wife.

a scholarship wife is defined as the following: attractive woman willing to marry me and work to put me through school.

apparently i resemble michael scott from the office.

tomorrow i will make a sling david and goliath style.

truth or agenda?

i am caught somewhere between trying to figure out what is correct and what needs to be correct. is this essential? yes. and is this essential? maybe not. does this action have everlasting consequences? if not is that reason enough to justify it? are there any actions that do not have everlasting consequences? what is truth and what is an agenda?

it is easier to deal in black and white.

i understand that we try our best to make things black and white, but things aren't always so clear and perhaps it's unfair to make them submit to our will. can we cast a verdict upon things that are not clear with such certainty? are we meant to? what do we miss out on when we err one way or another?

there are universal essentials no doubt, i believe that as much as anyone. though there are also essentials for you that are non-essential for me. in my opinion these are two valid statements that do not contradict each other.

thankfully the univeral essentials are clear. so should we try to universalize the unclear personal essentials? again, where is the line between truth and agenda?

scandalous

it's late and i need to be up early tomorrow, but i haven't posted in a month and a half.

i've been learning a lot lately. i'd say i have learned more in the last two months than the average person learns in a span of two months. take that, average people! i doubt you would truly care to hear about my specific learnings...actually, you would probably learn that i tend to learn things later than most that is, if i were to enumerate my recent learnings. i feel that most people already know what i know, and if they don't then they should. wait, that's not true. my learnings are on a much deeper level than the average person. i'm not saying i'm better than average, i'm just deeper than average, which, depending upon the reader, might also mean i'm better than average. see, i allow for a sliver of relativism in my daily life, so i'm also open-minded. unless you're wrong. now that i've genuinely insulted most people i will get down to business.

i've been having a good time lately. you're probably wondering, "how in the world has dominick been having a good time lately, i was under the impression that he complains about everything?" and to that i would retort with, "tisk, tisk." the first tisk would answer that yes, it probably does seem like i complain about everything, and the second tisk would serve to explain that i have been breaking every illegitimate rule set forth by the local religious sects (in the name of Jesus of course) and have found that i actually enjoy life more for it. listen, there are certain things of paramount importance to the christian faith. there are things indispensable to the effective witness of God's word, and then there are things superfluous and restricting. these extra things are added by man to serve man's purpose in what they perceive as godliness. this godliness, let's call it false-godliness, was not in fact dictated by God in His scripture. this false-godliness has been fabricated by a culture of christianity to create a facade of piety. there are things which are down right negative to the kingdom of God as dictated by God, and then there are things negative towards the kingdom of man as dictated by man. i will simply give the example of dancing. in the circles in which i run (not by choice; more by simple association) dancing was and still is to an extent looked down upon. dancing!? can you already see the argument against dancing?? that some use dancing to insinuate lewd behavior...to hint of acts that are immoral. this fact leads many to the reactionary response of eliminating dancing from the list of appropriate christian behavior and placing it on the much longer list of shameful, worldly behavior. let me insist that reactionary responses to anything are almost never okay. all things may be and usually are perverted. this does not mean that we eliminate them in their entirety. we must weigh them out and discern whether and how they should be reclaimed for Christ. dancing is one of those activities that should be reclaimed for Christ. we should enjoy dancing because it was created for us to enjoy in the Lord and with each other. scandalous!! i am not nearly at the end of my argument against reactionary responses governing Christian behavior, but allow me to finish this segment by encouraging us to closely evaluate with the bible, all the rules or guidelines we have created. evaluate everything you have been taught by this standard. examine your closest assumption, even the most obvious "fact." from there, with scripture as your guide, move toward the necessities. you will probably find that a lot of what you have been taught is very good. but i'm sure there is some of what you are taught that serves not God but man's created agenda. i find the process liberating.

good night.

summer

summers should feel satisfyingly short. typically they do. typically by the end i look back wondering where it all went and though disappointed for a moment i realize that a short summer means it was a good summer. this summer has been arduous and long. is this what adult summers feel like? not summer? i must admit; this summer has been long. have i said that? contrary to what its relative length might infer, it has not been bad. actually it has probably been one of my best summers though it was completed with less ease or grace than any other. i suspect i may be near one of those moments of epiphany that come at the end of a difficult time. then again my sensing an epiphany might very well mean one is certainly not around the corner. suffice it to say that i feel like i've gotten somewhere, with or without an epiphany.