Certitude, which is a word for saying out loud when one means something specific.

I read something today… to sum up the striking part for me: “We seek out certitude(s) in life and when we hear the gospel we project certitude into it. Really, the gospel is an invitation to fidelity- and certitude is not in the program.”

Huh.

That makes one think.

I mean, i hear that all the time- its not about me, its about Jesus, or others… all so vague and so i just slip back into my search for certitude.

What a great word: certitude.

I just like typing it.

Filed under: Blogging, Philosophical-Possibly Theological, Theology , certitude, fidelity, virtual abbess

…but go, and learn what this means: AFOL.

I don’t usually openly talk about lego here. But came across this post on ‘netiquette and thought it was relevant outside the world of colored bricks… mostly. Worth a read, regardless.

Filed under: Blogging, Interdisciplinary Action, Lego, Recommends, Seemingly Random

a word from the editor.

hi. here at metamoses content, clarity and cleanliness are highest priorities. we hope you’ve enjoyed the outlandish articles and pointless theories presented here. we would like to apologise at this time for our complete lack of understanding concerning the difference between emerging and emergent and capital E and lowercase e in each scenario. we don’t know what the difference is and use these terms pretty interchangeably thruout our posts. we just like emergence theory as applied to Church and think it serves as a lovely and very useful metaphor. regarding the emerging/emergent differentiation, we offer these words: whiskey tango foxtrot. can someone please clear this up for us? we dont feel like doing research we suspect will not be worth our time. seriously- where should we start?

Filed under: Blogging, Emergent Church

Rhetorical Question?

So, here’s a question…  if the point of xianity is ‘just’ Jesus dying on a cross, then what was all the teaching about? If we don’t follow Jesus just because he was (is?) a good teacher, but so much more, then why do we dis the rabbi thing? Couldn’t he have just been a carpenter turned revolutionary and gotten killed that way? Why dedicate your life to the Law if your death is about to cancel it out?

What is that all about?

Wait, are you saying Jesus wasn’t a carpenter?

Right. He was a Rabbi- that’s  not a part-time waitress thing where you’re not quite good enuf to be a full-time waitress- its something you literally dedicate your entire life to. You prove you are “the best of the best” and THEN spend the next 12-15 years learning as a disciple… THEN you get to be a Rabbi afterward.

Well, that changes some things.

Right. If he’s ‘just going to die’, then why take the time to do the Rabbi thing? Seems pretty complicated to invest in something, then cancel it out… if you believe that the new covenant that Jesus brought cancels out the former… anyway, I mean, does that make sense at all? The point of xianity isn’t to “live a good life”, so why did Jesus dedicate himself to teaching people to live a good life?

Two Options… so far:

1. Jesus sees the rabbincal system as the best way to get people to follow him so he can send them out to tell everyone about his death and salvation, etc. End of story- a means to an end.

2. There is intrinsic value in the Torah and the faithful handling of it. The rabbincal system furthers the gospel and/or the gospel is the next evolution in the Torah timeline. Praps he was purging and redeeming said system?

 Extra question: how many covenants are there? new and old? abraham? noah? is it just one big covenant? why all the covenant talk? what’s wrong with carpentry- not good enuf for ya?

Filed under: Rabbinical Tradition, Theology, church , rabbi, Rabbinical System, torah

Church Planter Alert.

Start up? Multi-Site? READ THIS. … and the link, too. Sound familiar? I almost get teary.

Also, I have posed a question in The List of Bad Ideas page. Under #4. Please consider leaving an answer in the comments. Best idea will be displayed and win a free, advance copy of the disc. Thanks.

Filed under: Interdisciplinary Action, Leadership, Recommends, church , Church Plant Rules, list of bad ideas, Mark Cuban, singing chickens, Start Up Rules, super mario bros.

Blogroll Updated.

Formerly thought of as a man’s pastime, blogging is now a co-ed sport.

“Can’t be!”, you say? Well, its true.

I have seen women smoking, too, if you can believe it. With my own eyes!- but the picture wouldn’t link properly. This interweb will be the death of the our gender codes.

Please welcome two women to the blogroll who (to my knowledge) do not smoke. Bea and my wife, Cara.

Filed under: Blogging, Blogroll, Recommends , interweb

The Emergence in Question

So, here’s a theory;

the emergent church is a propaganda product. It does not actually exist. It is a construct of church leadership.  Negativity is always the lowest common denominator. The best way to raise support (money, people, resources) is to create a scenario where there is a good guy and a bad guy and tell people that the bad guy is threatening your way of life, your god, whatever… and it will take money to stop the bad guy. The emergent church is the bad guy.

Is this like the Scapegoat Mechanism we find in ancient religions?

Kind of. The emergent church is too vague. You need names and faces to target or it doesn’t work. The Baghdad thing was fully supported by the american people until they ‘got’ Saddam- and the whole mechanism broke down because they ‘got’ the face. Lost all support for it because you can’t place vague blame- it has to be specific. Terrorist cells? Huh? Bin Laden- yeah, people get that.

Is that where Brian McClaren and Rob Bell come in? 

Exactly. You have to channel your negativity toward names and faces. Clarity is power. Specificity is action. Brian uses emergence theory when talking about church- and it is a beautiful analogy of the church- but i guess that’s why he’s been made the poster boy. I mean, i didn’t need Brian to tell me a bunch of stuff i already knew.

Rob, on the other hand, doesn’t even try to go for the emerence theory stuff directly, uses the term loosely and appropriately, and generally disengages himself from emergent church talk. But his name always comes up when someone needs a scapegoat for their cause of righteousness.

“We need to be careful of terrorist cells and ’squishy theology’”… huh? what? “We’ve got Saddam on the run and Rob Bell is a heretic”. Oh! People get that. 

That’s a terrible theory- why would anyone do that?

There’s a lot of anger out there/in here. People need to place blame. Need to have a place to put their anger. People feel threatened by “new” ideas or thoughts. When people feel like they have to defend the gospel or stand for righteousness or stick up for god, its not because the gospel or righteousness or god is actually threatened, its because their way of life, which they think is divinely-mandated, is threatened, because their power is challenged.

Way of life, anger and power are not abstract concepts- they are very real and present actualities. We deny our involvement by making them abstract and fuzzy and complicated to cancel out our complicity.

We engage in these behaviors without understanding. We claim allegiance to the Scapegoat Crucified when our own complicity created the need. We know not what we do.

Deeply Misguided Theory or Mind-Blowing Revelation?

Filed under: Emergent Church, Eschatology, Interdisciplinary Action, Philosophical-Possibly Theological, Theology, church , brian mcclaren, emergence theory, Emergent Church, Gil Bailie, Rene Girard, Rob Bell, scapegoat mechanism, violence unveiled