Lent

For the third year in a row now, I've decided to observe lent. I think I'm actually starting on time this year, and actually have something workable. I think I've mentioned in past posts on lent that I have a hard time with giving up a food type item because I don't see the spiritual benefit to it (not that it's not there for others, just not for me). The first year I tried to observe lent, I didn't actually wind up giving up what I had intended to give up (an extra hour of sleep) so I didn't really wind up observing it. Last year, I tried to give up watching t.v., thinking I would spend time more wisely, and hopefully more focused on God. That was short lived because all it did was separate me from the community in my apartment (which was rocky at the time anyway, so further separating myself just seemed to make things worse), so then I tried giving up "excess internet time" (things like facebook, and mindlessly clicking through websites. I did manage to give that up, but there were no real positive spiritual results. That brings us to this year. I actually got a head start on it, because I didn't want to wait, and as long as I was in the mood for it, it would be easier than otherwise. This year, I am giving up my novels.

I have a passion for reading, but novel reading in particular. If I could be doing anything I wanted to, I would choose to spend my time with my nose in a good novel. I don't actually do a lot of this, given my schedule, but you get the idea. I have for some time, however, thought of my aversion to reading factual or self-help kinds of books. I know they would be good for me to read. They would help me grow spiritually, and mentally. I know this because I spent the last 3 1/2 years of life reading mostly theological and philosophical books for school (although most of them had to be read too quickly for me to really digest what they said). I had a desire to spend time reading these books, but knew that I would not do it if I did not force myself to stop reading my novels. So here we are, year 3, and I think I might have actually made a commitment to something that will have the effects I am looking for.

So far, I'm really enjoying the books I'm reading, and I don't really miss my novels yet. Some of it I think is because when I get bored of what I am reading, I can put it down and do something else. It's okay to read these books slowly (reading a book quickly is something I sort of pride myself on) and doing so allows me to digest more of what is being said. We'll see how the actual time of lent turns out, but I'm looking forward to it. :)

Crazy Love

Just finished reading Crazy Love by Francis Chan. I had a little bit of a hard time understanding what the point was at first, because he talked a lot about what not to do...don't stress(instead, give it to God, much easier said than done), don't talk at God (talk to God), don't be lukewarm (and here's what a lukewarm person looks like!). It was kind of frustrating, but see, I have this thing about reading that when I start a book, I kind of bully myself if I don't finish it. I also thought I owed it to the book to see where it was going. So I kept reading. I am very glad I did. By the time I got to the end of the book, it was no longer telling us what not to do, but telling us what is meant by "crazy love" and even a little bit of what that looks like. It spoke about Christ's call to live an extraordinary life, rather than the privileged lives the majority of us lead. It was basically a call to action, without telling us specifically that we should go to the missions field, or sell our houses.

See, the reason it started with what not to do was in order to lay the groundwork of listening to what God has to say to us, personally. A lot of times, I feel that the church has missions conferences, and everyone gets fired up about going to the missions field. But what if that is not God's call for your life? I think that often times people who are not called to go over seas get guilt-ed into thinking they are bad Christians because they don't feel like overseas missions is what they are supposed to. But what if you are supposed to live for Him right here where you live? You obviously live where you live and work where you work for a reason, so why not do what God is asking you to do right where He has placed you right now?

I like the way the book ends, because it allows you that option. If you are called to sell your car and take public transportation, then do it! If you are called to work hard and be a light at your place of work, then do it! The only warning the book gives is to not wait to do what God calls you to do until you feel good about it. If He has told you to do it, then obey. I remember being told growing up that "delayed obedience is disobedience." It's true! If God tells you to do something RIGHT NOW, then you darn well better do it NOW. But don't do what He has not asked you to do. He will support you when you obey Him, but doing something because someone else tells you to, or makes you feel guilty for not doing is not an act of love.

We are called to love God with our whole hearts, and as a result, we need to be ready and willing to do His bidding, regardless of what it is. So get off your butt, give up your mediocre life, and live like God has called you to live.

Judgment

So something I realized the other day after a conversation I had with a friend was that those of us Christians of the "Evangelical" or more correctly protestant side of things tend to feel like they have the right to decide, among Christian denominations, which denominations are Christian, and which are not. Obviously the most common belief is that liturgical churches are wrong, and all of their members are just as lost as the people we witness to on missions trips. What gives us the right to decide that? It's true that the two types of churches have very different practices and beliefs, but the majority of them agree on the fundamentals of Christianity. The most common argument, of course is that liturgical churches are "dead" or "legalistic" and therefore practice works based salvation rather than faith based salvation. But just because you don't understand something doesn't make it legalistic "works based" salvation.

The other argument I have heard a lot is that of the people who go to liturgical churches, the majority of them are the kind that just go through motions without really believing. Ummm...judgment? Yea. I can't count the number of people I know or knew growing up at a protestant (Baptist) church who were there on sunday mornings and wednesday nights who no more acted like Christians than their athiest friends at school. For some reason though, protestants have decided it is their job to make everyone believe the same way they do. Yet for some reason, the people on the other end of the spectrum have no problem with believing that protestants are Christians.

It seems to me that the problem is the same, and the results are the same. Those who really live out their faith are the ones who are truly saved, regardless of what church they attend. Some of the people who are loved the most in the Christian community went to Liturgical churches. C.S. Lewis would be a great example. No one in their right mind would question his salvation, yet there seems to be an overall consensus that if you go to a liturgical church and are a Christian you are the distinct minority. Why don't we try backing off a little bit and instead of witnessing to them, treating them like the brothers and sisters in Christ that they are?