Rebellion
My soul longs for redemption to occur in my lifetime. Redemption in friendships, families, the body of believers, and in all nations. It's time for the Third Great Awakening or maybe its time for a new thing ...Perhaps The Great Rebellion. I am thinking...Yes and Amen to that, because the rebellion has already begun....
My generations rebellion is different. Our rebellion is grass-roots. Our army is not like any other. Our army is made up of the dead. For we no longer live, but He lives through us. Our rebellion is birthed out of prayer. Our rebellion is against American morals. Our rebellion is against the American Dream. Our rebellion is against the strongholds of the mind. Our rebellion is against legalism. Our rebellion's outcry is that the Lamb be worshipped in all languages, and among all people. We declare that we want to see the Kingdom of God cover the earth like water covers the sea! Our rebellion cares nothing for our own desires.
Our rebellion will not be a revolt against the authorities. Our rebellion isn't against our Master. Our rebellion is in service to the King. Our rebellion requires us to devote ourselves, all of ourselves in service to the King. For his sake we must rid ourselves of all idols. We will give Him our all, for his All.
Our rebellion will take care of the poor, father the fatherless, bind up broken hearts,and feed the hungry. Our rebellion will Shine like the Dawn! Our King will be our rear guard, his righteousness will have our back, and it will go ahead of us, and it will be in us! If only we stand firm, than the Sword of His Spirit will destroy the enemy and their strongholds. He will renew his great deeds in our day, and in our time make them known! He will pour out His Spirit among this valley of dry bones. Our rebellion has dreams. Our rebellion has visions.
Our rebellion will not rest till the remant are called , the battle is won, the harvest is over, and the commission fulfilled.
My generations rebellion is different. Our rebellion is grass-roots. Our army is not like any other. Our army is made up of the dead. For we no longer live, but He lives through us. Our rebellion is birthed out of prayer. Our rebellion is against American morals. Our rebellion is against the American Dream. Our rebellion is against the strongholds of the mind. Our rebellion is against legalism. Our rebellion's outcry is that the Lamb be worshipped in all languages, and among all people. We declare that we want to see the Kingdom of God cover the earth like water covers the sea! Our rebellion cares nothing for our own desires.
Our rebellion will not be a revolt against the authorities. Our rebellion isn't against our Master. Our rebellion is in service to the King. Our rebellion requires us to devote ourselves, all of ourselves in service to the King. For his sake we must rid ourselves of all idols. We will give Him our all, for his All.
Our rebellion will take care of the poor, father the fatherless, bind up broken hearts,and feed the hungry. Our rebellion will Shine like the Dawn! Our King will be our rear guard, his righteousness will have our back, and it will go ahead of us, and it will be in us! If only we stand firm, than the Sword of His Spirit will destroy the enemy and their strongholds. He will renew his great deeds in our day, and in our time make them known! He will pour out His Spirit among this valley of dry bones. Our rebellion has dreams. Our rebellion has visions.
Our rebellion will not rest till the remant are called , the battle is won, the harvest is over, and the commission fulfilled.
posted by K at 8:46 PM
20 Comments:
Josh, this post drips of passion. It seems to me that passion stems from somewhere deep inside of us...a place that would need to contradict itself in order to declare:
"Our rebellion cares nothing for our own desires."
it seems to me that what we are passionate about is birthed directly out of our own desires. is it not true that you desire to be a part of a movement that will, "...take care of the poor, father the fatherless, bind up broken hearts,and feed the hungry"?
I would argue that your rebellion is deeply enmeshed in your own desires.
what seems necessary is the redemption of the thought that our desires are inherently evil because they are ours. is it possible that your desires are actually good?
it is a privelege to be a part of this dialogue with you my friend,
bryan
Bryan,
You know how to cut to the core of me Baxter....I mean bryan.
I really like your thoughts Bryan. They helped give me further clarity about what I was writing.
Bry, do you ever find that words in the English language just absolutely never get accross what you want them too. Thats the problem we have here i believe. Just like "will" or "love" can mean different things, it is the same with this word "desires".
At first I agree with what you wrote, I was edified by all of it of course, but in thinking more I believe I am coming from a different perspective.
Bry I don't think that desires to take care of the poor, father the fatherless, give a cup of cold water to a thirsty man, etc... come from us. I believe they come from the Father. So, from my perspective, my apparent good desires are in fact "God's desires". So really they are not mine. There is nothing in my flesh that would want to spend my time, energy, or money doing those things. My new self, however, does want to do those things.
So my question then is what about some of my other "desires" like to eat, sleep, play basketball, work out, etc? Are they bad?
I think I agree with the heart of what you are saying. If what your saying is that my desires, if they line up with Gods, are a very good and profitable thing indeed.
I would disagree, if you thought that a desire that is self-seeking was a good thing.
Desires aren't necessarily the evil...its what they lead to I imagine. I meant that desires our bad if they lead to our own glory, not of course the desires that lead to His glory.
it seems so tricky to discern where you end and where god begins...ya know? i agree that it is important to attempt to discern whether or not our desires are lined up with god's...but then again that lands us right back into interpretation and context.
perhaps it's true when you write, "I don't think that desires to take care of the poor, father the fatherless, give a cup of cold water to a thirsty man, etc... come from us. I believe they come from the Father. So, from my perspective, my apparent good desires are in fact "God's desires". So really they are not mine."
but i would say that how you interpret what it means to do those things in various contexts, and how you actually do it have much to do with you. maybe god trusts us with his desires more than we care to believe. it's convenient to excuse ourselves from that equation and seems to exempt us from responsibility if we can reduce it down to, "God made me do it...i really didn't want to."
every good and perfect thing comes from god...true...and all interpretation and application of those good and perfect things is our responsibility. god created the heavens and the earth and made adam & eve responsible for it's rule and care...what a blessed jerk god can be :-)
and, as interpretation goes, there is a great possibility that i am still missing you and what you are trying to say. you were wise in pointing out the falibility of language to represent the content of the soul!
love you friend,
bryan
Josh,
I would like to see a rebellion against the christian subculture and dialect. I would like to see us stop throwing around words (Shine like the dawn, valley of dry bones, Sword of his Spirit... what do these things mean?) and beating them to death until they have no meaning.
I wish a rebellion would tear down the large walls that we have erected around Christianity.
I know your intentions, and I think you know mine... I don't mean this to be tough or an attack or anything.
I just think you're talking about a rebellion that no one outside christianity can understand, isn't that ironic?
Mike,
What up bro. I liked alot of what you said and I know your heart behind it. It got me thinking about a few things ...
First, when you wrote:
I would like to see a rebellion against the christian subculture and dialect.
Me too but why is that? Why do we care and the modern church seems fine with it? My guess is that we see we should have never had to split off. We should have been part of the culture. Like Jesus was. So for the sakes of those who have no clue what were talking about we should change our dialect. I agree with this idea.
In my own defense, it never crossed my mind really that someone with no religious background would be reading this. To my knowledge, everyone who reads my blog has religious background, so my thinking in writing this latest blog entry was that only Christians are reading this anyway so why not give them language they understand. maybe thats poor logic, maybe it isn't.
You wrote :
I would like to see us stop throwing around words (Shine like the dawn, valley of dry bones, Sword of his Spirit... what do these things mean?) and beating them to death until they have no meaning.
Part of the greatness about our faith is the mystery behind it I have come to discover. We don't know what these things mean fully. The Word speaks to us all differently and freshly. So my question to you is why do you think we need to know what they mean? Why not just interact with what was written and see how it makes you feel?
About the Bibles words to describe what that "action" looked like before. Is it wrong to those "buzzwords" to guide peoples thoughts into what God might due?
I agree with your basic concern: that we need to be thinking of new ways to express ourselves,and new ways to relate to a culture we didn't grow up in.
you wrote: I wish a rebellion would tear down the large walls that we have erected around Christianity.
So what would that rebellion look like?
you wrote:I just think you're talking about a rebellion that no one outside christianity can understand, isn't that ironic?
Part of me agrees with you immediately. So then i should wan't them to understand, but then again, Part of me wonders why we think they would understand anyway. Of course they wouldn't. They don't understand because its foolishness to them. Why would you turn the other cheek, walk the extra mile, love your enemy,etc. Make no mistake....thats foolish to the world back then...and now. So i guess i dont think its ironic. The rebellion isn't for them, not because they can't be a part, but because they choose not to be a part. They serve themselves...even if they do good...how is that for the King?
Bryan,
I do so enjoy these discussions.
you wrote: it seems so tricky to discern where you end and where god begins...ya know?
My thoughts are this. How are we supposed to deal with the fact that "we are dead, and no longer live". Is that the truth? Is that supposed to be practical? I have trouble thinking that was only for people in Paul's time. If it is the truth though, then where I end, when I am dead, he begins and lives, and there is no me, because what could a dead person do. If I'm alive then I'm afraid I have no freaking clue, but I dont think we are....maybe thats why were called Christians...little Christs...nothing mentioned about us?
you wrote:i agree that it is important to attempt to discern whether or not our desires are lined up with god's...but then again that lands us right back into interpretation and context.
Your right about this...we do land there. We have always landed there though, throughout all history peopel interpret what is said to them, in their context. I am really frustrated with this contex idea.
I mean i feel like were saying its not potatoes its potAAtoes. I mean .... alright like to take it back to the feed the hungry, clothe the naked idea. Its without question that this is a major theme in the Bible.
So I "interpret" that this is a charachteristic of God to do these things. We are supposed to become more like Him right? From Deut, to Isaiah, to Matthew he does these things. So to take care of a poor person today is really alot like do take care of one back then, isn't it?
Now back then people shared their camels and sandals, today we share through goodwill clothes and nikes. So the "it", world of things around the poor has changed, yeah. But not the stronghold of poverty.
I think if i told you that i was gonna preach Sunday...out of context on purpose ...youd be upset. But Peter preached Joel 2:20 out of context in acts.... what about that?
Your right about how i choose to do those things God put in me to do is up to me. I believe this. He has given us tremendous freedom, and I beleive he means for all of our relationships to be unique. Which would give us great variety in how we serve Him.
About that idea, "God made me do it...i really didn't want to." Thats bull. After reading Desiring God, I realized its okay to do things for our own joy, God takes pleasure in us when we take pleasure in the things that give him pleasure. So just like Jesus, For the joy set before Him, endured the cross. We too are allowed .
every good and perfect thing comes from god...true...and all interpretation and application of those good and perfect things is our responsibility.
Yes and amen...lets get the word out on that idea. love you bro
Josh,
I think perhaps we are missing each other here on this context issue. I am not referring to locking the text into its historical context and solely preaching it from there. first of all i think it's absurd to believe that we can even fully understand the original context. and what you are saying peter did with the joel passage seems more on target with what i am talking about when i refer to contextualization. on some level i am sure that peter had an understanding, at least in part--like us today who read peter's passage and can have a limited understanding of its original context, and then preached the theme, or spirit of the text, or however else you want to describe it in such a way that was meaningful to what his current context was.
by the way, i don't think i would be too upset by what you choose to preach or how...why, because for some reason i trust your heart and the content of your character as a human being and as my friend and that seems more significant to me than any type of exposition.
as for what you wrote:
"My thoughts are this. How are we supposed to deal with the fact that "we are dead, and no longer live". Is that the truth? Is that supposed to be practical? I have trouble thinking that was only for people in Paul's time. If it is the truth though, then where I end, when I am dead, he begins and lives, and there is no me, because what could a dead person do. If I'm alive then I'm afraid I have no freaking clue, but I dont think we are....maybe thats why were called Christians...little Christs...nothing mentioned about us?"
josh, i know that you're really stoked about your idea of what this means, but i'm sorry...i just can't buy the fact that we are completely removed from this equation...it seems very self-righteous, even though the language of it sounds to the contrary. i am unable to reconcile the "death/absence" of me with the fact that i still F-up royally in so many ways: i.e. relationally, environmentally, socially, economically, in my taking care of the widows, orphans, and the estranged...the list goes on in the various ways i fail. yours seems to be a language of arrival, of completion. this whole relationship with God thing seems to me to be less about arrival and more about the continuation of the story of a people on a journey to love god and love others. i'm not sure what paul meant by those words, but i can't buy your interpretation of them as i look honestly at my own life. it seems like so much harm could be justified when we begin to use language of arrival...and again it seems we are conveniently exempted from responsibility if we can say that it's not me but God. perhaps it was in a similar vain of thinking that the crusades and many other horrific acts in the name of "not i but christ" were justified. Things that lead Tolstoy to write, “As I turned my attention to all that is done by people who profess Christianity, I was horrified.”
hear me when i say that i believe that your intentions are noble. i just think that it is a very dangerous way of thinking about who we are. there is much more bible, and much more to the story that the bible is telling than that small cross-section you've removed.
i don't mean for this to sound harsh, i'm just aware that these thoughts are what stir in me as i interact with your words...nothing more.
i am becoming increasingly aware, as this dialogue grows, of my own desire to sit with you face to face. it seems like much is lost in the black and white on this page.
peace.
bryan
Nice words, but they are just words, Nothing else.
I can no longer ignore the frustration that has been stirring in me as a result of seeing an anonymous post that does well to prove its own point by choosing to remain in the safety (and flight from responsibility) of anonymity.
indeed they are just words, this i know only too well. and how much more true is it that they are just words if we refuse to at least connect our name to, and own the words we speak.
i turn to you, josh, to say that i appologize if this post has morphed into something that you didn't desire. i don't desire that this turn into a battle ground. it is my hope that we will continue in genuine dialogue with one another in the hopes that as we encounter one another we will also encounter something of Christ Jesus.
in the beginning was the word...nothing else.
peace,
bryan
Anonymity gives you objectivity because You don´t have any preconceived thoughts about me.
We´re not important, our words are.
To All - thanks for a great discusison.
Bryan and Josh, from my perspective, it seems that the debate should not be over semantics, over our own use of language or over the use of language in the Bible, but should encompass the complex reality of existence in America (or anywhere in the world, for that matter) in the 21st century.
The reality is that we as individuals exist in many roles and contexts, are known differently in different siutuations by different people, and often are unable to act consistently with our beliefs - even our core beliefs. And these individual complexities don't even begin to encompass the complexities we encounter as members of groups and subgroups within society (the church, our country, our families, etc.).
We as Christians are both dead in Christ and alive in Christ. Our own desires, in themselves, can be either bad or good, as can the the desires of one who is not in Christ. This is a mark of the goodness of God on our very being (imagio Dei, though some may object to this particular interpretation and appropriation of the theological concept of "the image of God").
Plus, in an age of self-awareness, we may even view our own actions and motives (whether they originate from God or from within ourselves) imperfectly because of a faulty psychology (a mark of sin on our lives). Bryan, I think that this may have been my reasoning or feeling in the situation I wrote about in your posting about Pedro the Lion.
The point is, paradox (seeming contradiction) is inherent in the nature of complexity, even without the actual contradictions and irrationalities of sin thrown into the mix. In fact, from a finite human perspective, paradox is even inherent in the very character of God the death of Christ on the cross, and the processes of redemption and sanctification themselves.
This discussion seems to me to reflect the uncertainty we have with the true nature of existence in such a complex and imperfect world. We can each discern much of what is actually true about God and reality, and much of that may overlap. We might also each believe much that misses the mark entirely. However, I believe that we can also paradoxically view God and reality from a radically different perspective from someone else, and that both perspectives can capture an aspect of what is true, even though they may seem to contradict each other. After all, belief and truth are more than mere intellectual abstraction: they also encompass experience and emotion; and in some contexts, a certain idea or belief may be appropriate while it may not be in other contexts. This concept not only captures the essence of the validity of various individual experiences and outlooks, but is also helpful for explaining different outlooks among different cultures.
When writing this, I am reminded about what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians about love - that now we see imperfectly through clouded glass but when the perfect is perfectly consummated, we shall see see clearly; and right now we know and prophecy only part of what is true, but at that consummation, we shall know perfectly as we are perfectly known.
What I am talking about is not pure relativism or multiculturalism but is n outlook that has a high deal of regard for context.
What remains for us is to continue to struggle with living imperfectly (while striving to live redemptively) in an imperfect world, but still living as the redeemed who will, both through their own good desires and by the will of God and power of the Holy Spirit, to live redemptively.
In response to the anonymous poster, I would say that objectivity is unattainable, and we always come into every situation and endeavor with a full load of presuppositions and preconceptions. Truth is knowing and being known. Objectivity is a Western myth that came of age during the Enlightenment. Knowing most truly requires full investment of one's thought and experience into the pursuit of knbowldege and truth. We can know something intellectually, but truth can perhaps best be known through story. For story requires not only cognition but also emotion. that is why God revealed himself through the aesthetic of his creation, through the story of his interaction with his people throughout history, and most fully through his incarnation. None of these modes of revelation is a systematic treatise on truth.
interesting stuff going on here! josh, i was just struck by the following irony on your profile, it seems that you are very much alive! :)
Profile:
About Me
"I no longer live..."
Interests
flag-football chess tennis etc. Interested in what the Father will do with me.
Favorite Movies
Braveheart Dumb and Dumber Zoolander Willow I could go on and on.
Favorite Music
Wow...no way to answer that
Favorite Books
What's So Amazing About Grace The Wheel of Time Series anything Lewis Bonhoeffer Nouwen Brother Lawrence Foster Willard etc.
all to say that yes! we do matter!
and to the anonymous poster- your words mean nothing unless you choose to show up. your face matters greatly in this conversation- this is an invitation. will you be present behind your words?
Ok, fine. You want my name, you got it. My name is Daffy and I loooovvve Laffy Taffy. I hope this clears up any confusion and finally puts a 'face' on me. Don't my words really mean something now.
DISRUPTION!
anonymous,
words are rich in meaning. i what read in your words is desire and fear...in other words ambivalence. one who desperately longs to have an impact, but fears that if you connect your words to your personhood and they don't impact then you will be rejected.
clearly your words have had an impact here as several posters have addressed you. my question, why the biting sarcasm? why do you feel the need to use anonymity to do violence? what are you afraid of? do you feel rejected or attacked? i'm guessing that hiding is a very familiar feeling for you. it is my estimation that it is not only here in which you hide your identity, but probably in most aspects of life. even those who know you probably don't know you. my sense is that you are one who wants to be fully known more than anything in the world, but fears that if you were truly known then surely no one would be able to accept you.
your sniper-like, identity-less attacks have worked. they have frustrated those of us who are trying to have a genuine dialogue. and sadly, it seems that there is an us and you. again you are alone and unknown. these will be my last words to you: that you might find the courage to trust that who you are and what you have to offer this (or any other) community is good and valuable and that you don't need to be sarcastic, violent and anonymous to have an impact. rest.
bryan
haha, u guys are crazy. I think mr. anonymous might of had a point by not saying his name after the reaction caused by his comments and his choice of identity. I dont mind you being anonymous...keep on going my friend. And I find sarcasm as a great way to communicate sometimes.
Bryan, i applaud your comments but the language you use makes it sound a little like your Paul and Josh is Timothy or something.
"i am becoming increasingly aware, as this dialogue grows, of my own desire to sit with you face to face. it seems like much is lost in the black and white on this page." --- does anyone else see it?
keep posting Josh im enjoying reading ur stuff!
ill_legit's comments on the response caused by anonymous's snonymity and sarcasm are well-taken and are a reminder for me not to take myself too seriously. I think that this dose of humility is the true value (if there is any) of such interaction.
On a more academic level, I'm really curious to hear anonymous's explination of why he believes that words expressed here are just words and nothing else, while simultaneously asserting that whowe are (our identities) are unimportant, only our words are important. It's hard for me to take someone seriously who speaks only in contradictions.
You may imfer (correctly, i think) from my comments in this posting that I am making a value judgment on anonymous's interaction. This goes to show that I speak to him with preconceptions about him (her?), even without knowing his (her?) name (and I suspect that he/she has preconceptions about me).
Thus, I again assert that objectivity is impossible to achieve, even in the supposed realm of pure intellect or written word, and even when anonymity is involved. The object, then, should never be to impose artificial objectivity but to discern and interact with one's presuppositions with the hope that, through meaningful dialogue, one's preconceptions have the chance of being shifted.
Rarely is opinion shifted through biting sarcasm or personal attack. Many Christians still need to learn this lesson in their use of apologetics and evangelism as a battering ram to force an opponent into a corner. Who wants to believe what has been proven to be right through personal humiliation?
ill & pedro,
thanks to both of you. reading what you have both written definitely caused me to sit back, take a breath, and realize that i have been taking myself way to seriously on this thing.
i'm not exactly sure what you meant by the "paul & timothy" comment, but all i was saying in that statement was that a lot can get lost in the written word. it would be cool to be able to sit down with josh over coffee, or whatever...and, maybe i should've just said it that way.
peace,
bryan
Just for the record, I´m the real anonymous, the guy that wrote the last comment was not me. I think Sarcasm is the worst way of communication. And violence is just wrong.
I wanted to be anonymous because no one of you knows me. so my name does not matter. i just bumped into this site and wanted to make my point.
Please do not take yourselves so serious, life is short, so go ahead and enjoy it. after all thats why we are here.
anonymous,
Thank you for the clarification. Any hostility that you may have felt is, I believe, the result of frustration from people who value people's honest opinions and wish to interact with these opinions from within their true context. As pointed out, the black and white of written wrod does lend only lend only a limited amount of understanding to this context.
Please continue to interact with us.
hey anon, the whole point of being anon is to be anon, you have NO NAME. now you have given yourself a name, so identity is important to you: you are the "real anon"- funny. but i say, i'm the real anon, now what?
Post a Comment
<< Home