Hi blog readers! This is Linda Butler. My husband Deaven and myself have been Larry's business partners for several years! We have, together, built a series of companies dedicated to helping people become debt free and financially independent! This vision for Maven Holding Company was birthed out of a prayer meeting in Larry and Catherine's lake home over six years ago! Larry is a man of true honor and integrity- he loves his family with a passion and his friends and co-laborers as well. People have written some mean and false things about him, but he continues to love and help all God brings in his path! We have watched him carry loads that would crush most- and still smiles and seeks to encourage others. Larry has a passion and a gift to share principles and wisdom to live a successful life. If you have even heard him speak you know exactly what I mean! He is fun, engaging and wise (don't tell him I said all that! There will be NO working with him!).
Please contact us through our web site www.MavenHoldings.com to schedule a time where Larry can come speak to your group, company or Church organization. He requires no pre-set fee for speaking! He asks that any travel and lodging expenses be covered and announce that a free-will offering be taken up after his speaking engagement! No minimum amount is required! We are here to serve and bless! You will be glad you had him come- and we will be glad to get him out of the office for a few days!! :) You'll be blessed!
18 February 2008
15 February 2008
WWJD- Are You SURE You Mean That??
Remember the WWJD bracelet craze? It's a nice idea to think you're doing what Jesus would do — until you start to think about what Jesus actually would do — and did. Think about it, would you really “feel blessed” if your child ditched you without so much as asking in order to hang out with the religious leaders of the day? Or how about a son who says to his mother, "Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come" (John 2:4)? If that's not enough, immediately after quoting Jesus saying just that, John describes a rather memorable incident in which Jesus turns up wielding a whip in the temple (I can see the WWJD bracelets being thrown in the garbage as fast as they went on wrists!).
If it's never safe or predictable to ask what Jesus would do, it may be even riskier to ask what he would undo. This maybe a good time to give you a brief history that started my journey down this thought-path; I was discussing Architecture- a specific school of thought in Architecture called “deconstructionism” with a friend in Kansas City, Bo Nelson, who is studying to be an Architect. Being an ol’ Architect myself this conversation was exciting to me- but my “wheels” started spinning as I got a vision of reformation coming to the church and maybe, sacrilegiously, looking at Jesus’ actions while here on earth as a “deconstructionist” and whala.. you are now reading this thesis.
As we REALLY read the Word of God, it continually reminds us that unpredictability is what characterizes Jesus' action throughout the Gospels. You never quite know what — or how — Jesus is going to deconstruct, since he takes on both the religious and political powers of his day- something lost in the fodder of America under the anemic banner the church hovers under called “political correctness”.
Even though, according to most people, it's the Religious Right that has championed the WWJD question, it has been theorized that if Jesus the Deconstructor were brought back to question the church today, he'd end up surprising — rather than confirming — those on the Far Right (I can here the cries of “heresy” screaming from some of you right now).
This article discusses and takes particular aim at the ecclesiastical establishment, whether Charismatic, Protestant or Roman Catholic, arguing that their claims of “following Jesus” have been all too easily assumed. Jesus constantly rebuked the religious establishment of his own day. For example, Jesus' stinging rebuke of the Pharisees was that they burdened the people by substituting their own laws for those of God: Jesus says, "For the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God. You hypocrites!" (Matt. 15:6 – 7). These are strong words of deconstruction. And Matthew's Sermon on the Mount is full of Jesus' refrain, "You have heard that it was said … but I say to you." So Jesus was constantly deconstructing prevailing views regarding the Law (NOT OF the Law), as well as expectations about what the Messiah was to accomplish.
But wait: Isn't deconstruction the problem? I remember a sermon given by a Theology Professor who proclaimed, "Deconstruction is the theory that says you can make texts mean anything you want them to mean." I admit that's a fairly standard definition of deconstruction, a French term resurrected and redefined by Jacques Derrida. Notoriously difficult to define, deconstruction is not a method or technique. Instead, insisted Derrida, it is the movement of truth coming to the surface. The movement itself is neither negative nor nihilistic; although there's no doubt that a great deal of mischief has been conducted under the banner of deconstruction, some of it simply silly and some downright evil.
But deconstruction in its simplest meaning is the breaking apart of concepts or texts that reveals their component parts and structure, and allows for reconstruction. Deconstruction questions assumed interpretations and the presumption of institutions to be the rightful arbiters of meaning. As to his own deconstructive readings, Jacques Derrida is a model — if sometimes controversial — reader, and moderate thought Christianity and the youthful rise and renewal in church today follow his example.
Applied to Scripture, deconstruction would most helpfully take the form of, "This is what we always assumed we were supposed to do and that passage was saying, but let's take another look at it to see if our assumption is right."
Appropriately enough, we’ll begin with Charles Sheldon's late nineteenth-century novel In His Steps (with the subtitle "What Would Jesus Do?"). It's the story of a well-to-do congregation visited by a vagrant who arrives at the Sunday service one morning just after some particularly pious singing ("where he leads me I will follow") and a stirring sermon, and who asks the uncomfortable question: "What do Christians mean by following the steps of Jesus?" The visitor dies a few days later, but Pastor Maxwell is so taken by the question that he assembles a group of parishioners who all agree to do nothing for an entire year that isn't preceded by the WWJD question.
Although it's hardly great literature, the novel shows the characters that agree to live by that question as they discover how much it actually demands of them. One might suspect that we are suggesting that we are going to use deconstruction as a way of lessening Jesus' demands on us, but this strategy is designed to be just the opposite. As long as we've tamed Jesus' teachings, his demands seem high but relatively attainable. But, once we submit ourselves to their full force, then all hell breaks loose.
In fact, a possible criticism of “Christian” deconstruction is that it is all too demanding, for I remind us of Jesus' most uncomfortable teachings. Following Derrida let me emphasize the "impossibility" of these demands ("for mortals, it is impossible") rather than the biblical attenuation of those demands ("but for God all things are possible," Matt. 19:26). If one is to show true hospitality, says Jesus, don't invite your friends but "the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind" (Luke 14:13) — in short, the people who can't repay you. When asked about forgiveness, Jesus suggests that there should be an endless supply. So it is Jesus who should be blamed for the hyperbole — assuming it's really meant as hyperbolic.
Of course, asking such a question and getting a firm answer are two different things. When a parishioner asks Pastor Maxwell, "How am I going to tell what He would do?" he replies, "There is no way that I know of, except as we study Jesus through the medium of the Holy Spirit."
It comes as no surprise, then, that our answers may or may not be exactly like yours or mine. For example, let’s concludes that Jesus would have supported Alabama Governor Bob Riley in his conviction that the state income tax should favor the poor over the rich, despite the fact that the Christian Coalition (evidently getting a very different answer to WWJD) vehemently opposed him. Likewise, myself, although no proponent of abortion, must question why abortion foes only seem so concerned about the 1.3 million abortions in the U.S. and considerably less moved by the 10 million children who die of hunger each year.
Asking the WWJD question (in either its "do" or "deconstruct" variants) doesn't produce uniform responses. Still, both Maxwell's question and this variant are well worth asking. For having the boldness to push deconstructive thought like we just did, is to be both carefully undertaken and commended. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this thesis is less important than that this deconstruction will force anyone who takes it seriously to think more carefully about why they've answered the WWJD question in the ways they have. And being pushed in that direction can hardly be a bad thing.
Our younger churchgoers are all too turned off with “blind-following” and “because, we’ve ALWAYS done it that way” answers. Those in “authority” find this movement troubling- and they should. Jesus questioned the religious leaders of the day because He saw a move away from the WWTFD? (What would the Father do?) And had the people doing what the Rabbi would do! If we want to see the fire of Heaven and true reformation begin, then deconstruction, I believe, is a HUGE part of the solution.
But who will be the strong catalyst; the one to risk reputation, position and wealth to begin this season of radical deconstruction of a stale lifeless state the American “church” is in? Many years ago I asked a true Man of G-d, “Why don’t I see more men and women today doing what G-d’s word says consistently and accurately?” He looked at me from under his glasses and said to me “Then BECOME it.” Thus the journey has begun- come along, I could use the help.
If it's never safe or predictable to ask what Jesus would do, it may be even riskier to ask what he would undo. This maybe a good time to give you a brief history that started my journey down this thought-path; I was discussing Architecture- a specific school of thought in Architecture called “deconstructionism” with a friend in Kansas City, Bo Nelson, who is studying to be an Architect. Being an ol’ Architect myself this conversation was exciting to me- but my “wheels” started spinning as I got a vision of reformation coming to the church and maybe, sacrilegiously, looking at Jesus’ actions while here on earth as a “deconstructionist” and whala.. you are now reading this thesis.
As we REALLY read the Word of God, it continually reminds us that unpredictability is what characterizes Jesus' action throughout the Gospels. You never quite know what — or how — Jesus is going to deconstruct, since he takes on both the religious and political powers of his day- something lost in the fodder of America under the anemic banner the church hovers under called “political correctness”.
Even though, according to most people, it's the Religious Right that has championed the WWJD question, it has been theorized that if Jesus the Deconstructor were brought back to question the church today, he'd end up surprising — rather than confirming — those on the Far Right (I can here the cries of “heresy” screaming from some of you right now).
This article discusses and takes particular aim at the ecclesiastical establishment, whether Charismatic, Protestant or Roman Catholic, arguing that their claims of “following Jesus” have been all too easily assumed. Jesus constantly rebuked the religious establishment of his own day. For example, Jesus' stinging rebuke of the Pharisees was that they burdened the people by substituting their own laws for those of God: Jesus says, "For the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God. You hypocrites!" (Matt. 15:6 – 7). These are strong words of deconstruction. And Matthew's Sermon on the Mount is full of Jesus' refrain, "You have heard that it was said … but I say to you." So Jesus was constantly deconstructing prevailing views regarding the Law (NOT OF the Law), as well as expectations about what the Messiah was to accomplish.
But wait: Isn't deconstruction the problem? I remember a sermon given by a Theology Professor who proclaimed, "Deconstruction is the theory that says you can make texts mean anything you want them to mean." I admit that's a fairly standard definition of deconstruction, a French term resurrected and redefined by Jacques Derrida. Notoriously difficult to define, deconstruction is not a method or technique. Instead, insisted Derrida, it is the movement of truth coming to the surface. The movement itself is neither negative nor nihilistic; although there's no doubt that a great deal of mischief has been conducted under the banner of deconstruction, some of it simply silly and some downright evil.
But deconstruction in its simplest meaning is the breaking apart of concepts or texts that reveals their component parts and structure, and allows for reconstruction. Deconstruction questions assumed interpretations and the presumption of institutions to be the rightful arbiters of meaning. As to his own deconstructive readings, Jacques Derrida is a model — if sometimes controversial — reader, and moderate thought Christianity and the youthful rise and renewal in church today follow his example.
Applied to Scripture, deconstruction would most helpfully take the form of, "This is what we always assumed we were supposed to do and that passage was saying, but let's take another look at it to see if our assumption is right."
Appropriately enough, we’ll begin with Charles Sheldon's late nineteenth-century novel In His Steps (with the subtitle "What Would Jesus Do?"). It's the story of a well-to-do congregation visited by a vagrant who arrives at the Sunday service one morning just after some particularly pious singing ("where he leads me I will follow") and a stirring sermon, and who asks the uncomfortable question: "What do Christians mean by following the steps of Jesus?" The visitor dies a few days later, but Pastor Maxwell is so taken by the question that he assembles a group of parishioners who all agree to do nothing for an entire year that isn't preceded by the WWJD question.
Although it's hardly great literature, the novel shows the characters that agree to live by that question as they discover how much it actually demands of them. One might suspect that we are suggesting that we are going to use deconstruction as a way of lessening Jesus' demands on us, but this strategy is designed to be just the opposite. As long as we've tamed Jesus' teachings, his demands seem high but relatively attainable. But, once we submit ourselves to their full force, then all hell breaks loose.
In fact, a possible criticism of “Christian” deconstruction is that it is all too demanding, for I remind us of Jesus' most uncomfortable teachings. Following Derrida let me emphasize the "impossibility" of these demands ("for mortals, it is impossible") rather than the biblical attenuation of those demands ("but for God all things are possible," Matt. 19:26). If one is to show true hospitality, says Jesus, don't invite your friends but "the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind" (Luke 14:13) — in short, the people who can't repay you. When asked about forgiveness, Jesus suggests that there should be an endless supply. So it is Jesus who should be blamed for the hyperbole — assuming it's really meant as hyperbolic.
Of course, asking such a question and getting a firm answer are two different things. When a parishioner asks Pastor Maxwell, "How am I going to tell what He would do?" he replies, "There is no way that I know of, except as we study Jesus through the medium of the Holy Spirit."
It comes as no surprise, then, that our answers may or may not be exactly like yours or mine. For example, let’s concludes that Jesus would have supported Alabama Governor Bob Riley in his conviction that the state income tax should favor the poor over the rich, despite the fact that the Christian Coalition (evidently getting a very different answer to WWJD) vehemently opposed him. Likewise, myself, although no proponent of abortion, must question why abortion foes only seem so concerned about the 1.3 million abortions in the U.S. and considerably less moved by the 10 million children who die of hunger each year.
Asking the WWJD question (in either its "do" or "deconstruct" variants) doesn't produce uniform responses. Still, both Maxwell's question and this variant are well worth asking. For having the boldness to push deconstructive thought like we just did, is to be both carefully undertaken and commended. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this thesis is less important than that this deconstruction will force anyone who takes it seriously to think more carefully about why they've answered the WWJD question in the ways they have. And being pushed in that direction can hardly be a bad thing.
Our younger churchgoers are all too turned off with “blind-following” and “because, we’ve ALWAYS done it that way” answers. Those in “authority” find this movement troubling- and they should. Jesus questioned the religious leaders of the day because He saw a move away from the WWTFD? (What would the Father do?) And had the people doing what the Rabbi would do! If we want to see the fire of Heaven and true reformation begin, then deconstruction, I believe, is a HUGE part of the solution.
But who will be the strong catalyst; the one to risk reputation, position and wealth to begin this season of radical deconstruction of a stale lifeless state the American “church” is in? Many years ago I asked a true Man of G-d, “Why don’t I see more men and women today doing what G-d’s word says consistently and accurately?” He looked at me from under his glasses and said to me “Then BECOME it.” Thus the journey has begun- come along, I could use the help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)