A friend of mine posted to his wall
The difference between theater and Church is discipleship
Careful… you can often learn more at the theatre than in many churches!
But the goal isn't just learning, it's following.
Looking at what Christ said, the first thing to realise is that he almost certainly is using hyperbole. Actually the first thing to realise is that Jesus probably spoke either in Hebrew or Aramaic and that Luke is translating what he said into Greek. So we don't actually have a record of Jesus words to base it on.
But back to the idea of hyperbole... Middle Easterners use what Westerners would consider hyperbole a lot. Consider the word habibi in Arabic. Translated it means beloved or sweetheart or my baby or my darling. Hardly the word or phrase a man would use for a casual male friend, yet in Arabic it would be used that way, as hyperbole that is understood to mean my friend or my mate.
Hyperbole is something I use continually. I am sometimes criticised for using it as people try to interpret some of what I say literally. So reading the passages in Luke's gospel in context I just read them as hyperbole.
There has been much discussion on the interpretation of these passages, a lot of it online. I'm not going to quote it, you can just Google for it if you are interested. However the context is enough to convince me that being a disciple is a learner, but not a student.
When we were trying to find a phrase in Arabic for a follower of Jesus that was more neutral than the normal one we came a phrase of 'mourideen el masih' meaning disciple of the Messiah. The word mourideen is close to the Hebrew word talmidim. It is thought that when Jesus called the disciples he was engendering the concept of talmidim in contrast to the western idea of student.
In an article Rabbi and Talmidim on the followtherabbi.com the author claims:
In the Nooma DVD Dust, Rob Bell starts from the scripture record that it wasn't the disciples choosing Jesus but Jesus choosing the disciples that is significant. From that he asserts that it is more about Jesus believing in us than us believing in Him. It means that in Christ He can accomplish great things through us. But it's really the work of Christ. Grace. We can't do it without the call of Christ, the empowerment of Christ, the knowledge and wisdom of Christ, and the perseverance of Christ. It is something infused from rabbi to talmid.
But I think its much more than 'doing amazing things for God' but rather that as we are created in His image, as redeemed creations, with His power working in and through us, he calls us to follow in His footsteps, even to death. But it's all about relationship, His call is not about function but about our Father longing to express His love, His Grace in and through us.
Thinking more about this whole subject of discipleship, I have come back to our family. We home-educated our kids. I am deliberately using the english rather than american phrase home-schooled, not because we are English, but because the meaning is different. Our aim was not to create school at home, but to create an environment at home where our children would catch the vision to become lifelong learners. I think they have. School develops students, education develops disciples.
I am growing in conviction that the two words church and disciple are increasingly incomprehensible in 21st century western civilization. However, in the context of home-education, they seem to make more sense: In the relationship of family, we encourage our children to catch our way of life, to become life long learners following the Messiah.
Part of the problem is that the church has become more like a school and less like a family. At church we sit in rows watching the teacher, at home we sit around in the living room or the dining table discussing. One thing that guests to our house used to remark upon was the number of times at the meal table we would get out a dictionary while discussing the meaning of a word or phrase. We were and are continually listening and questioning each other. That is true learning not the idea of teaching we have today.
My concern is that the church has mirrored the secular way of teaching rather than encouraging learning. Rarely do was hear a pastor say 'Hey guys, I'm going to the mall to tell people about the good news Jesus came to share... want to come too?' Rarely do we see meals as the central place they appeared to be from the New Testament. Meals are great place for relaxed discussion and learning.
TS Eliot said 'A play should give you something to think about. When I see a play and understand it the first time, then I know it can't be much good.' Jesus parables frequently resulted in the disciples asking Him what they meant. Ralph Richardson, a contemporary of Lawrence Olivier, described the difference between theatre and music: 'In music, the punctuation is absolutely strict, the bars and the rests are absolutely defined. But our punctuation cannot be quite strict because we have to relate it to the audience. In other words, we are continually changing the score.'
In an article Rabbi and Talmidim on the followtherabbi.com the author claims:
Being like the rabbi is the major focus of the life of talmidim. They listen and question, they respond when questioned, they follow without knowing where the rabbi is taking them knowing that the rabbi has good reason for bringing them to the right place for his teaching to make the most sense.
In the Nooma DVD Dust, Rob Bell starts from the scripture record that it wasn't the disciples choosing Jesus but Jesus choosing the disciples that is significant. From that he asserts that it is more about Jesus believing in us than us believing in Him. It means that in Christ He can accomplish great things through us. But it's really the work of Christ. Grace. We can't do it without the call of Christ, the empowerment of Christ, the knowledge and wisdom of Christ, and the perseverance of Christ. It is something infused from rabbi to talmid.
But I think its much more than 'doing amazing things for God' but rather that as we are created in His image, as redeemed creations, with His power working in and through us, he calls us to follow in His footsteps, even to death. But it's all about relationship, His call is not about function but about our Father longing to express His love, His Grace in and through us.
A student at UNCA wrote, when discussing theatre:
My concern is that church has become imagination under truthful circumstances. Sometimes services have become like theatre, but theatre without questions and without life.
...children wholeheartedly pretend. They become so fully immersed in their imagination they act "truthfully under imaginary circumstances."
My concern is that church has become imagination under truthful circumstances. Sometimes services have become like theatre, but theatre without questions and without life.
Thinking more about this whole subject of discipleship, I have come back to our family. We home-educated our kids. I am deliberately using the english rather than american phrase home-schooled, not because we are English, but because the meaning is different. Our aim was not to create school at home, but to create an environment at home where our children would catch the vision to become lifelong learners. I think they have. School develops students, education develops disciples.
I am growing in conviction that the two words church and disciple are increasingly incomprehensible in 21st century western civilization. However, in the context of home-education, they seem to make more sense: In the relationship of family, we encourage our children to catch our way of life, to become life long learners following the Messiah.
Part of the problem is that the church has become more like a school and less like a family. At church we sit in rows watching the teacher, at home we sit around in the living room or the dining table discussing. One thing that guests to our house used to remark upon was the number of times at the meal table we would get out a dictionary while discussing the meaning of a word or phrase. We were and are continually listening and questioning each other. That is true learning not the idea of teaching we have today.
My concern is that the church has mirrored the secular way of teaching rather than encouraging learning. Rarely do was hear a pastor say 'Hey guys, I'm going to the mall to tell people about the good news Jesus came to share... want to come too?' Rarely do we see meals as the central place they appeared to be from the New Testament. Meals are great place for relaxed discussion and learning.
TS Eliot said 'A play should give you something to think about. When I see a play and understand it the first time, then I know it can't be much good.' Jesus parables frequently resulted in the disciples asking Him what they meant. Ralph Richardson, a contemporary of Lawrence Olivier, described the difference between theatre and music: 'In music, the punctuation is absolutely strict, the bars and the rests are absolutely defined. But our punctuation cannot be quite strict because we have to relate it to the audience. In other words, we are continually changing the score.'
My concern is that we have regimented following Christ and converted it into a religion. But I am sure Athanasius did not intend closing of Biblical Canon in 367AD to change following Christ from a relationship into an equation: A + B = C. Cross + Repentance = Salvation. The problem is that in a sense it is that simple, but it completely ignores the underlying motivation and relationship. It is almost more John the Baptist's message than Jesus'.
In none of his parables does Jesus reduce the Kingdom of God to a simple equation. The parable we call the 'Prodigal Son' has the son doing nothing except returning to his father. The centrality of this story is the love of the father for the son and the desire he has for relationship with the son. It's not strict punctuation. It is not a simple equation. It's a relationship.
In none of his parables does Jesus reduce the Kingdom of God to a simple equation. The parable we call the 'Prodigal Son' has the son doing nothing except returning to his father. The centrality of this story is the love of the father for the son and the desire he has for relationship with the son. It's not strict punctuation. It is not a simple equation. It's a relationship.
Posts
