I'm on a journey that leads to destinations unknown. The ride has been good - a bit rough at times, but interesting. Sometimes I feel like I can see over the horizon and get a glimpse of the destination, but then it slips away, and I'm not sure I saw anything at all. But I know I will get to a good destination - I just can't tell you what that place looks like. I'm taking this journey at the pace of one step each morning.
For my daily Quiet Time, I'm spending time in the Word on the topic of God's Spirit. I made a list of every occurrence of the word "spirit" in Scripture, and am identifying which ones refer to the Holy Spirit in some fashion. Plus, there are some references that don't use the word "spirit" at all, such as "Comforter," "Helper," and "Counselor." I take one reference in context each day, study it, journal about it, and then pray through the passage for my own life. And then I pray that passage for those who are on my prayer list for that day - whoever is on the list, I'm praying from that passage for them.
There are 628 occurrences of the word "spirit" in the New American Standard translation, and a large portion of those refer to the Holy Spirit in particular. So - this journey will take a while. I'm in no hurry. I've already made it as far as Matthew. Most of my journaling is asking questions rather than answering them - and that's OK.
After I finish going through all the passages, I plan to then retrace my steps and collect my observations and questions into categories. I want to be able to see the variety of lessons there are for us about the Holy Spirit. I'm learning new things about the Spirit already, and I expect to find out more new things when I make this second pass.
I'm not sure where the journey is going, but I know it's good, and I'm excited to find out where it will lead me. Maybe it will become the stuff of a future sermon series on the Spirit, but even if it does not, I pray that I will know the Spirit more deeply as a result. Not just know more about Him, but to know Him better.
For your own Quiet Time, consider taking a topic and discovering all that you can from the Bible about it. There are plenty of tools and helps available to make this easier - I'm happy to help you with that part. Remember always to study a passage in context - most passages are understood rightly only by knowing the context (historical, cultural, and literary). At minimum, study a paragraph at a time.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
One Tithe Fits All?
Last week, we talked about being "crazy good givers" - being the kind of giver God wants us to be as a heart issue. There were also a number of things we didn't say - we didn't recommend a percentage, we didn't suggest that you are giving too much or too little, we didn't talk about all the good things we can't do until you cough up more. We didn't talk about these things, because we have no interest in teaching giving in this way. Considering that God doesn't need anything from us, we focused on the idea that God's plan for giving is more about developing us into a more Christlike character than getting more cash in the till.
A few days later, I received a very thoughtful, respectful question about this teaching, especially the idea that I was not teaching that we should endeavor to give a minimum percentage as a tithe. Many of us were taught to tithe, and it's a discipline that helps us to give with good motives. The person sending the email clearly cares about the health of the church, the need for us to be good givers, and the negative consequences if the members of a church didn't endeavor to give a certain percentage as a minimum. I appreciate the question, the attitude, the concern, and the commitment to support the ministry financially.
I received permission to discuss this question with you.
The idea of tithe is something that was specific to the Old Covenant. The English word shows up 30 times in the NASB, and only five of those occurrences are in the New Testament. In every case, the New Testament is referring to the Old Covenant practice. The tithe was tied to the temple and to the theocratic government of Israel.
In 2 Corinthians 8-9, Paul teaches voluntary giving that flows from first giving oneself to the Lord for the privilege of participating in God's mission for the Church. No law, just liberty. (The email I received was rightly concerned about the third "L" - license, turning liberty into an excuse for sinful attitudes.)
But that's the technical, theological view, and doesn't do justice to the strong concerns behind the question I got. The questioner respectfully holds a different view, and I completely support the motives and conclusions that they been drawn as a family.
When we talk about a tithe, the most common number discussed is 10% (of total gross income). Although I'm not a proponent of a New Testament tithe in the technical sense, I think this is a great target. Not everyone can do 10%. God will lead some to give more. But as a general rule of thumb, unless you have a strong sense of God's leading, otherwise it's a pretty good, challenging goal to set for one's financial stewardship.
If members of the churches across the US would give 10%, we could easily more than double ministry here and abroad. Plus, we would go a long way in developing hearts that were sacrificial and more Kingdom-focused.
As a practical goal, something like 10% minimum is a fine practice. However, I still choose to avoid the term tithe, and encourage every family to prayerfully, submissively consider what God would have you do. Read 2 Cor 8-9 carefully and determine to the best of your ability what kind of giver God wants you to be. And remember that generosity is not measured by quantity or by percentage, but in Christlikeness of one's attitude and actions (2 Cor 8:9).
There are several good articles on the topic at http://bible.org/topics/367/Tithing and http://bible.org/article/financial-faithfulness.
A few days later, I received a very thoughtful, respectful question about this teaching, especially the idea that I was not teaching that we should endeavor to give a minimum percentage as a tithe. Many of us were taught to tithe, and it's a discipline that helps us to give with good motives. The person sending the email clearly cares about the health of the church, the need for us to be good givers, and the negative consequences if the members of a church didn't endeavor to give a certain percentage as a minimum. I appreciate the question, the attitude, the concern, and the commitment to support the ministry financially.
I received permission to discuss this question with you.
The idea of tithe is something that was specific to the Old Covenant. The English word shows up 30 times in the NASB, and only five of those occurrences are in the New Testament. In every case, the New Testament is referring to the Old Covenant practice. The tithe was tied to the temple and to the theocratic government of Israel.
In 2 Corinthians 8-9, Paul teaches voluntary giving that flows from first giving oneself to the Lord for the privilege of participating in God's mission for the Church. No law, just liberty. (The email I received was rightly concerned about the third "L" - license, turning liberty into an excuse for sinful attitudes.)
But that's the technical, theological view, and doesn't do justice to the strong concerns behind the question I got. The questioner respectfully holds a different view, and I completely support the motives and conclusions that they been drawn as a family.
When we talk about a tithe, the most common number discussed is 10% (of total gross income). Although I'm not a proponent of a New Testament tithe in the technical sense, I think this is a great target. Not everyone can do 10%. God will lead some to give more. But as a general rule of thumb, unless you have a strong sense of God's leading, otherwise it's a pretty good, challenging goal to set for one's financial stewardship.
If members of the churches across the US would give 10%, we could easily more than double ministry here and abroad. Plus, we would go a long way in developing hearts that were sacrificial and more Kingdom-focused.
As a practical goal, something like 10% minimum is a fine practice. However, I still choose to avoid the term tithe, and encourage every family to prayerfully, submissively consider what God would have you do. Read 2 Cor 8-9 carefully and determine to the best of your ability what kind of giver God wants you to be. And remember that generosity is not measured by quantity or by percentage, but in Christlikeness of one's attitude and actions (2 Cor 8:9).
There are several good articles on the topic at http://bible.org/topics/367/Tithing and http://bible.org/article/financial-faithfulness.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
What's the deal with the structure?
Last Sunday, we covered Psalm 106, and we saw how the psalm was laid out:
This kind of literary structure is called a chiasm (KEE-asm, or a "chiastic" structure), and they are actually pretty common in both the Old and New Testaments. I try not to "nerd it up" too much during a sermon with terms like this (only when I feel it will really be helpful), so I didn't mention what this structure was called or why they are important. The name "chiasm" comes from the Greek word for the letter "x," which is "chi," because the structure resembles the left half of the letter "x."
Why does Scripture have them, and why so frequently? First, it's a nice literary device - it's parallel and balanced, it reinforces ideas, and it organizes the point being made. Second, it helps set off one section of Scripture from another. The chiasm should be treated as a unit, somewhat distinct from what precedes and what follows. It helps us to know which ideas belong together, and we should study chiasms as a group, rather than separated into parts. You fully understand the point when you take it all together.
Third, a majority of the original audience of Scripture were listeners and not readers. They didn't have chapter numbers, verse numbers, or helpful paragraph headings. You can't always hear where a paragraph ends, for example. Literary structures like parallelism, transitional phrases, and chiasms help a listening audience know how the book is organized and how the thoughts go together.
Chiasms are important because, as noted earlier, they help us to know how best to study Scripture well. Literary units should most often be studied as units. Chiasms are also important because they help draw our attention to the center of the chiasm. In this case, the author draws our attention to the "résumé of rebellion," the large center section of the psalm. That's the author's teaching tool - Israel's repeatedly errant history. The other parts of the psalm help us to put that history in perspective and what to do about it.
That's why we started the sermon from the inside and worked our way out.
There's always a wise caution with chiasms, though. Some people go crazy with them - finding them where they don't really exist in Scripture, trying to make too big of a deal of how the structure affects the meaning of the passage, and so on. Structures like chiasms are helpful literary devices, not magic keys to unlock the "true" meaning of Scripture.
It's OK to "nerd it up" in the newsletter, right?
Praise (1-3)
Request (4-5)
Israel forgot, but God saved (6-12)
Israel’s résumé of rebellion (13-39)
Israel angered, but God remembered (40-46)
Request (47)
Praise (48)
This kind of literary structure is called a chiasm (KEE-asm, or a "chiastic" structure), and they are actually pretty common in both the Old and New Testaments. I try not to "nerd it up" too much during a sermon with terms like this (only when I feel it will really be helpful), so I didn't mention what this structure was called or why they are important. The name "chiasm" comes from the Greek word for the letter "x," which is "chi," because the structure resembles the left half of the letter "x."
Why does Scripture have them, and why so frequently? First, it's a nice literary device - it's parallel and balanced, it reinforces ideas, and it organizes the point being made. Second, it helps set off one section of Scripture from another. The chiasm should be treated as a unit, somewhat distinct from what precedes and what follows. It helps us to know which ideas belong together, and we should study chiasms as a group, rather than separated into parts. You fully understand the point when you take it all together.
Third, a majority of the original audience of Scripture were listeners and not readers. They didn't have chapter numbers, verse numbers, or helpful paragraph headings. You can't always hear where a paragraph ends, for example. Literary structures like parallelism, transitional phrases, and chiasms help a listening audience know how the book is organized and how the thoughts go together.
Chiasms are important because, as noted earlier, they help us to know how best to study Scripture well. Literary units should most often be studied as units. Chiasms are also important because they help draw our attention to the center of the chiasm. In this case, the author draws our attention to the "résumé of rebellion," the large center section of the psalm. That's the author's teaching tool - Israel's repeatedly errant history. The other parts of the psalm help us to put that history in perspective and what to do about it.
That's why we started the sermon from the inside and worked our way out.
There's always a wise caution with chiasms, though. Some people go crazy with them - finding them where they don't really exist in Scripture, trying to make too big of a deal of how the structure affects the meaning of the passage, and so on. Structures like chiasms are helpful literary devices, not magic keys to unlock the "true" meaning of Scripture.
It's OK to "nerd it up" in the newsletter, right?
Monday, December 26, 2011
Our Reading Plan for 2012
Last year, we set a challenge to read the entire Bible straight through as a church. I started off the first part of the year doing a decent job of reminding you, but then I fell out of the habit of keeping the idea before you and encouraging you. That's not setting the best example of persistence, and that was just in reminding you to read, which is far easier than keeping up with the actual reading!
The advantage of the plan for 2011 was that we were reading the entire Bible, and doing so in a more chronological fashion. Reading large sections of Scripture allows us to see themes and the big picture, but it is harder to keep current with a larger reading plan. If you fall behind, it can feel overwhelming to get back into it. That's when many stop following the plan, even though it's easy enough to just start back up on schedule and not worry about the parts that were missed. Missing some is better than missing all.
We have a new plan for 2012 with a different strategy. We want to use a variety of strategies over the years - sometimes the whole Bible, sometimes just certain parts; sometimes sequential, sometimes chronological, sometimes thematic.
Our plan for 2012 is to read the New Testament together. But we're going to read it together in a unique order - instead of reading it sequentially, we're going to read it somewhat chronologically. Reading sequentially would put all four Gospels up front, so I'm putting one Gospel per quarter. We start with Luke, because I want to then use Acts as the timeline (Acts is Luke's sequel to his Gospel). As we reach a given location in Acts, such as Galatia, we will set Acts on "pause" and then read the epistle related to that location, then resume where we left off in Acts. (Even though each epistle was written later in time than when Paul was at that city in Acts, this plan will keep things together geographically.) After we're done with Acts, we'll then read the remaining books of the New Testament.
The organization may be a little complicated, but following the plan won't be - just follow the schedule we are providing. The readings are not long, and are grouped by week, not by day. That gives you plenty of flexibility to get your readings in with consistency.
You can get a printed copy of the plan from the table in the sanctuary or from the church office. You can get an electronic copy by clicking here (http://doiop.com/GF2012Plan). Also, if you go to our website, wait for the reading plan graphic to cycle through, just click on that picture and you'll get the plan that way.
Since the readings will be much shorter this year, I want to challenge you to a very important reading technique - read each section at least twice (I recommend three times). That will increase your comprehension and retention. Statistics suggest that retention almost doubles when the material is repeated, and can approach 90% if the material is covered three times.
Read with us! And I'll try to do a better job of reminding you.
The advantage of the plan for 2011 was that we were reading the entire Bible, and doing so in a more chronological fashion. Reading large sections of Scripture allows us to see themes and the big picture, but it is harder to keep current with a larger reading plan. If you fall behind, it can feel overwhelming to get back into it. That's when many stop following the plan, even though it's easy enough to just start back up on schedule and not worry about the parts that were missed. Missing some is better than missing all.
We have a new plan for 2012 with a different strategy. We want to use a variety of strategies over the years - sometimes the whole Bible, sometimes just certain parts; sometimes sequential, sometimes chronological, sometimes thematic.
Our plan for 2012 is to read the New Testament together. But we're going to read it together in a unique order - instead of reading it sequentially, we're going to read it somewhat chronologically. Reading sequentially would put all four Gospels up front, so I'm putting one Gospel per quarter. We start with Luke, because I want to then use Acts as the timeline (Acts is Luke's sequel to his Gospel). As we reach a given location in Acts, such as Galatia, we will set Acts on "pause" and then read the epistle related to that location, then resume where we left off in Acts. (Even though each epistle was written later in time than when Paul was at that city in Acts, this plan will keep things together geographically.) After we're done with Acts, we'll then read the remaining books of the New Testament.
The organization may be a little complicated, but following the plan won't be - just follow the schedule we are providing. The readings are not long, and are grouped by week, not by day. That gives you plenty of flexibility to get your readings in with consistency.
You can get a printed copy of the plan from the table in the sanctuary or from the church office. You can get an electronic copy by clicking here (http://doiop.com/GF2012Plan). Also, if you go to our website, wait for the reading plan graphic to cycle through, just click on that picture and you'll get the plan that way.
Since the readings will be much shorter this year, I want to challenge you to a very important reading technique - read each section at least twice (I recommend three times). That will increase your comprehension and retention. Statistics suggest that retention almost doubles when the material is repeated, and can approach 90% if the material is covered three times.
Read with us! And I'll try to do a better job of reminding you.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Christopher Hitchens is Dead
British philosopher, debater, and writer Christopher Hitchens died on December 15 from cancer. Lauded as one of the world's top intellectuals, Hitchens had venomous attacks for people across the political map. But perhaps he is best know for his atheistic views (e.g., his book God is Not Great).
Hitchens promoted himself as an "antitheist," which he described as more than an atheist - someone who is happy that there is no evidence for God. (I find evidence all over the place - evidence that he chose to interpret a different way. So, his claim is not that there is no evidence for God, but that there is no evidence for God that he was willing to accept. That creates a convenient, self-fulfilling worldview.)
I take no glee in his passing. I have no smug quip. I believe Hitchens is no longer an atheist or an antitheist, but it's a tragic realization. Nothing to gloat over.
I hear so many skeptics today echoing Hitchens' view about religion, that any belief system is ultimately just a mechanism to control people, to take away their individuality and freedom to think for themselves. So many people parrot these ideas. To be fair, there are some pockets within the Church (past and present) where you can accurately level this charge.
But it's not generally accurate. It's not an accurate description of thousands of churches today, and it is especially not an accurate description of the Christianity Jesus gave us. Wherever the church has tried to exercise this kind of control, it has done so by departing from the words of Christ. We can only do as Hitchens describes by contradicting Jesus.
The Christianity Jesus taught was very much the opposite of this charge. He taught His disciples to bear witness, to extend the offer of salvation by grace through faith, to consider the reasons for faith, and to come to Him of one's own accord. But He also taught them to "shake the dust off your feet" in response to those who reject the Gospel. Rather than try to control them, let them be! Likewise, when the Jews refused to accept Paul's teachings, he let them be and turned to those who would listen. This is hardly an effort to control anyone's thinking. John 6:66 is a prime example of people leaving Jesus because discipleship demanded too much, and Jesus did nothing to try to stop them, manipulate them, or control them.
For those who do choose to believe, Paul talks about loving one another, praying for one another, helping one another, even appealing to one another when they are caught in sin. But if people persist in rebellion, he doesn't advocate trying to control anyone. Rather, he tells the churches to disassociate with them until they are willing to repent and be reconciled. The goal is voluntary reconciliation. People are left with the freedom to pursue their lives contrary to the teachings of the church (just not allowed to bring that willful rebellion into the fellowship). The hope is always to be reconciled, but the fact that this is a hope shows that people are not being controlled or being stripped of their individual responsibility to think for themselves.
"Unity" is a common theme in the teachings of the New Testament, which is something we need when we have differences, not when we are being controlled and de-individualized. Paul taught grace for others who hold different opinions on the minors (see Romans 14), allowing God to be the change agent rather than trying to enforce that change ourselves.
The charge that Christianity is a controlling organization is an impossible change within the evangelical church, because there is no overarching hierarchy or authority (other than Christ). There's absolutely no mechanism to exercise control at that level. Clearly Hitchens did not spend enough time talking with church leaders of evangelical churches to see just how uncontrolling most those churches are. (I restrict this to evangelical churches not to suggest that other churches are controlling, but just to stick with what I know best.) Sometimes, it would be convenient to be able to have that control - we really need more children's church workers!
Hitchens' error is tragic for himself. His tragedy has been multiplied to all those who repeat his charge against the Church. Too many, I have seen, repeat his accusation without ever bothering to find out for themselves whether or not it's generally true.
Hitchens promoted himself as an "antitheist," which he described as more than an atheist - someone who is happy that there is no evidence for God. (I find evidence all over the place - evidence that he chose to interpret a different way. So, his claim is not that there is no evidence for God, but that there is no evidence for God that he was willing to accept. That creates a convenient, self-fulfilling worldview.)
I take no glee in his passing. I have no smug quip. I believe Hitchens is no longer an atheist or an antitheist, but it's a tragic realization. Nothing to gloat over.
I hear so many skeptics today echoing Hitchens' view about religion, that any belief system is ultimately just a mechanism to control people, to take away their individuality and freedom to think for themselves. So many people parrot these ideas. To be fair, there are some pockets within the Church (past and present) where you can accurately level this charge.
But it's not generally accurate. It's not an accurate description of thousands of churches today, and it is especially not an accurate description of the Christianity Jesus gave us. Wherever the church has tried to exercise this kind of control, it has done so by departing from the words of Christ. We can only do as Hitchens describes by contradicting Jesus.
The Christianity Jesus taught was very much the opposite of this charge. He taught His disciples to bear witness, to extend the offer of salvation by grace through faith, to consider the reasons for faith, and to come to Him of one's own accord. But He also taught them to "shake the dust off your feet" in response to those who reject the Gospel. Rather than try to control them, let them be! Likewise, when the Jews refused to accept Paul's teachings, he let them be and turned to those who would listen. This is hardly an effort to control anyone's thinking. John 6:66 is a prime example of people leaving Jesus because discipleship demanded too much, and Jesus did nothing to try to stop them, manipulate them, or control them.
For those who do choose to believe, Paul talks about loving one another, praying for one another, helping one another, even appealing to one another when they are caught in sin. But if people persist in rebellion, he doesn't advocate trying to control anyone. Rather, he tells the churches to disassociate with them until they are willing to repent and be reconciled. The goal is voluntary reconciliation. People are left with the freedom to pursue their lives contrary to the teachings of the church (just not allowed to bring that willful rebellion into the fellowship). The hope is always to be reconciled, but the fact that this is a hope shows that people are not being controlled or being stripped of their individual responsibility to think for themselves.
"Unity" is a common theme in the teachings of the New Testament, which is something we need when we have differences, not when we are being controlled and de-individualized. Paul taught grace for others who hold different opinions on the minors (see Romans 14), allowing God to be the change agent rather than trying to enforce that change ourselves.
The charge that Christianity is a controlling organization is an impossible change within the evangelical church, because there is no overarching hierarchy or authority (other than Christ). There's absolutely no mechanism to exercise control at that level. Clearly Hitchens did not spend enough time talking with church leaders of evangelical churches to see just how uncontrolling most those churches are. (I restrict this to evangelical churches not to suggest that other churches are controlling, but just to stick with what I know best.) Sometimes, it would be convenient to be able to have that control - we really need more children's church workers!
Hitchens' error is tragic for himself. His tragedy has been multiplied to all those who repeat his charge against the Church. Too many, I have seen, repeat his accusation without ever bothering to find out for themselves whether or not it's generally true.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
An Important Conference in Olathe on Purity
Several weeks ago, we had an important message about sexual purity. Dr. Ratliff and I shared some of the effects, causes, and helpful resources for dealing with the epidemic of impurity that is affecting every aspect of our society, including the Church. Your comments were very positive about how we addressed the topic in a straightforward, non-judgmental way. There were a number of people who have started taking steps toward more purity in their own lives, which is fantastic news!
We don't intend to put this topic to rest. We need to talk about it frequently and in different ways. Several of you asked us to make sure we don't ignore this topic going forward. We won't.
To that end, I want to recommend to you three related conferences coming to the Kansas City area (hosted conveniently in Olathe), all on this topic of purity. These conferences are designed to address many different aspects of purity, through both plenary talks and breakout sessions. Dr. Ratliff will be one of the breakout session leaders.
The conference for men is "Men of Valor" (Jan 27 - 28), the conference for women is "Women of Virtue" (Feb 3 - 4), and the conference for both college students and youth is "Youth 4 Truth" (Jan 27 - 28). Both the men's and women's conferences include both genders for the Friday night portion of their respective conferences. The college and youth conference has different venues for each gender. You can register for any of them at http://kcmov.eventbrite.com/.
There is no one who is unable to benefit from these conferences - they are not just for those who have acute struggles in the area of purity. Purity is a topic that we all need to learn more about, especially living in a culture that is progressively more sexualized - a trend that our children will face even more strongly that we have. These events are for everyone.
Please consider attending the conference that applies to you. They are not that expensive, and well worth it.
And we won't be done with this topic after the conferences. We will continue to lift one another up in this difficult area of life.
We don't intend to put this topic to rest. We need to talk about it frequently and in different ways. Several of you asked us to make sure we don't ignore this topic going forward. We won't.
To that end, I want to recommend to you three related conferences coming to the Kansas City area (hosted conveniently in Olathe), all on this topic of purity. These conferences are designed to address many different aspects of purity, through both plenary talks and breakout sessions. Dr. Ratliff will be one of the breakout session leaders.
The conference for men is "Men of Valor" (Jan 27 - 28), the conference for women is "Women of Virtue" (Feb 3 - 4), and the conference for both college students and youth is "Youth 4 Truth" (Jan 27 - 28). Both the men's and women's conferences include both genders for the Friday night portion of their respective conferences. The college and youth conference has different venues for each gender. You can register for any of them at http://kcmov.eventbrite.com/.
There is no one who is unable to benefit from these conferences - they are not just for those who have acute struggles in the area of purity. Purity is a topic that we all need to learn more about, especially living in a culture that is progressively more sexualized - a trend that our children will face even more strongly that we have. These events are for everyone.
Please consider attending the conference that applies to you. They are not that expensive, and well worth it.
And we won't be done with this topic after the conferences. We will continue to lift one another up in this difficult area of life.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Happy Merry Greetings for the Season Holiday Christmas Whatever
And just like that, it's the Christmas season! It's like the season lurks right around the corner, out of sight, and then all of the sudden, jumps out right in front of us and says, "Gotcha!"
A new holiday tradition has emerged over the last few years. Now, part of our Christmas is the fuss over which greetings employees use in the stores. Many stores no longer allow their employees to wish their customers a "Merry Christmas" (or at least not until the customer says it first), but that they should opt for a generic phrase, like "Happy Holidays." And part of our modern tradition has become that others raise a big fuss over the stores and how they avoid using the word "Christmas" anywhere.
Usually, it's not the employees' fault - they are just doing what they were told to do by management. But they are also often the ones who hear the bulk of the complaints. I feel sorry for them - people just trying to earn a buck caught in the middle of a culture war that they did not initiate.
Personally, I don't intend to demand that anyone else honor the holidays I honor. In fact, I really don't want to put the responsibility of continuing on Christmas tradition in the hands of a retail store. There's so little that retail stores have to do with Christmas, and making secular institutions give lip service to my second favorite holiday is of no value to me. I am, however, saddened that "Merry Christmas" is apparently so offensive and damaging to hear. I would be perfectly happy if stores displayed "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Hanukkah" and "Happy Kwanzaa" - I think there is value in stores showing deference to all their customers, rather than blending everything into a bland "Happy Holidays" meaningless vanilla phrase.
Let me offer an alternative suggestion that I'm going to use this year. Rather than jumping on anyone's case demanding someone else honor what I value (in the true Spirit of Christmas!), when someone says "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings," I intend to ask, "Which holiday are you celebrating this season?" - and to ask with genuine interest in the person and their values. Depending on the situation, perhaps I can then share which holiday I'm celebrating (and perhaps even why it's important to me). Perhaps I can ask additional questions to find out more about the person and what they believe and why that's important to them. Perhaps I can just leave with them knowing that I value them and that I don't blame them for the whole mess of genericizing the holidays.
Use the times to promote the love of Christ - that's a stronger Christmas message than, "I demand that you tell me something you might not even believe."
(If you desire to fight the trend, consider instead a kind letter to the management.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)