01.17.09
The New Status Symbols
Very quickly the status symbols are changing. The way we live life is shaped by very powerful commanding motifs.
1. Wealth:
During the tail end of the 20th century we watched prosperity affirm the commanding motif of prosperity. It was understood in the accumulation of things. This is where our mind goes first when we hear the expression “status symbols.” Examples of such are wealth and possessions.
2. Business (“Busy-ness” as in being “busy,” not “corporate” necessarily; however, that case can be easily made as well.)
Shortly following, and having a brief reign, we watched the status symbol of prosperity share its throne with the status of being busy. We as a culture affirmed people who are busy or “important” by some arbitrary standard. It was understood in the accumulation of things to do. The reign of being busy still exists, but it cannot stand alone. It must stand with prosperity or popularity/influence. Examples of such are having to travel a lot, attend meetings, receiving lots of mail, e-mail, phone calls, etc.
3. Influence (Popularity)
Mentioned in number two is the status symbol of being popular or influential. It is impossible to separate these two. One must recognize that if culture knows of an individual, by necessity, that individual has tremendous influence. Popularity, by virtue of the shallow heart of culture, is inextricably linked also with prosperity. For example, we would be hard-pressed to name a hip-hop video that isn’t dripping in expensive cars, girls, and gold (even if these things were rented for the video shoot).
It is understood very simply as being a leader (regardless of whether or not they are a leader). They are in front and people follow them. They speak and people agree. In reality, followers are affirming themselves when they affirm their influences, not someone else. They are making a statement about themselves, not someone else.
One example of the status of influence is the obsession with associating ourselves with someone that we find interesting and distancing ourselves from those we find boring.
4. Goodness: As in, “He was a good person.”
Of the two newest status symbols, the first is that of being good. Our society is intolerant of intolerance. Good is broadly defined as someone who nods a lot. The intolerant people are not good because they are often shaking their head. “Good” is defined by an arbitrary collective standard in much the same way culture chooses influencers. We affirm ourselves when we determine what defines “good.” Any attitude or stance that says what is popular and condemns what is unpopular will award that person with the title of being a “good person.” If it doesn’t harm anyone, then it cannot be bad.
5. Happiness:
The new commanding motif of our society is happiness. The rule is that everyone deserves to be happy. The law of happiness governs and dominates our behavior. It is understood in the individual placing themselves in the absolute center of any decision. Examples of such are abortion, divorce, and homosexuality. We have a right to make our own decisions and do what we want, as long as we are happy. We can say “yes” to anything as long as it doesn’t harm anyone. It can be understood by any statement that begins with the phrase, “I have a right to . . . “ These convictions come from an arbitrary standard that is constantly shifting. It is the result of constantly comparing and contrasting ourselves with others in our culture, while at the same time believing that I am not happy, but someone else is. One day, I will also be happy.
The new status symbols are tragic in that when they are played out–they lead to several errors. The convictions of society are often logically fallacious–often referred to as Ad Populum:
(Latin: “appeal to the people”) which concludes that a proposition is true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that “If many believe so, it is so.“
It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, the spreading of various religious beliefs, and of the Chinese proverb “three men make a tiger” (ad populum: from Wiki).
I personally believe that the rock upon which convictions must be made is Christ. This Rock does not shift. He has all status. I affirm him as good, and I affirm the sinfulness of my flesh. In doing so, I affirm myself as accepted only when I affirm Him as alone righteous. I affirm that I am someone who has been given authority, but who must also submit under His authority. He has rights, I surrender mine to Him. He has sovereign free-will, I do not. He has true life, I lay mine down. I am hidden in Christ. I am dead. It is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me (Gal. 2:20), and not for my own glory, but His. In doing so, I am made complete. I am made holy.
01.16.09
Who do you say that I am?
Opinions are cheap. All information is cheap anymore. The minute there is more supply then demand of anything, that thing loses value. What does this mean to you or I who blog? It means that either we are saying something important, or we are adding to the noise.
Christ was asking Peter a public opinion poll. “Who do others say I am?” The next question was personal; “Who do you say that I am?” It seems to me that the second question was of more import than the first. The first question was merely a set up. It was the noise. The background. It’s as if Christ was saying to Peter, “Out of the noise, the rancor, and the popular consensus among the the disillusioned and blind, what do you believe?”
Does it matter? Does what Peter thinks matter?
These are loaded questions. It matters to Peter. Answer number one.
Answer number two: His answer is the only thing that matters. In fact, Christ said that He was truth. He is the Rock upon which the church is being established.
“Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father has revealed it to you. Upon this rock I will build my church.”
So we all have a say. We make all sorts of noise. We add to the noise. We share common beliefs. At times, our cultural identity, church identity, and personal judgment are inseparable, but the only thing that is important enough to matter, important enough to reshape our live around, is something bedrock and unshifting.
01.05.09
The Church’s True Front On Stewardship and Great Commission
The church . . . Why is the church here?
What is the role of the church in the world?
Until the consummation, what is the church supposed to be doing?
Like so many, I’m currently asking these questions as if to analyze the current American church. I love the church, and I remain hopeful while at the same time, I am quite unimpressed with her. More specifically, I am unimpressed with the mindset of seeker-sensitive or non-denominational church. It not only has no clue as to the answer, they are quite loud about the wrong answer.
The Double Responsibility of the Church: (from R.B. Kuiper’s The Glorious Body of Christ)
Some time ago the wife of a minister said that in her opinion the sole task of the church is to preach the gospel to those who are outside the fold. There are whole denominations, some of them large, which have impressive missionary programs but do next to nothing for the building up of their own membership in the faith. Not only is this view of the church’s task extremely one-sided, it is decidedly pernicious. At least two serious errors underlie it. It fails to take into account the children of the covenant, who are members of the visible church and beyond all doubt are in need of Christian nurture, an important phase of which is their indoctrination by the church. And it loses sight of the significant truth that salvation is not merely a momentary occurrence but a continuous process as well . . . Therefore, the church must zealously proclaim to its members the truth of God, for through it God is wont to sanctify His own (John 17:17) . . . He who would evangelize those outside of the church while neglecting the building up of those within the church is a good deal like the head of a family who is moved with deep compassion for the emaciated children of his neighbor but neglects to feed his own, forgetting the startling warning of the inspired apostle: “If any provide hot for his own, and specifically for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel” (I Tim. 5:8).