conversation about Jesus is not equivalent to church

Imagine a group of people who meet at an informal location and converse about Jesus for a while. They refer to the Bible, share their opinions, engage in gentle debate, and so on. Was that church? More to the point, are they therefore part of The Church? Is that activity a full alternative to the typical church service, which might be off-putting to some of the conversationalists? Is a Bible Book Club enough?

It seems to me that conversation about Jesus is surely something that Christians should do, and frequently, with or without unbelievers. But regardless of their feelings toward traditional church, wouldn't any devotee admit that a victorious Christian life is much more? And wouldn't they further admit that a group of Christians, by combining efforts and wisdom, is more effective than an individual Christian?

I don't mean that it's a "bad" idea to gather to discuss the finer points of Christendom. I mean that those discussions aren't the entire reason for churches to exist. Sermons are increasingly easy to find and obtain (check a podcast directory online). In contrast, church membership also includes discipleship, giving, service, confession, correction, among other group interactions. If salvation is thinking the right thoughts, then aimless talking could be enough. If salvation is a radical transformation from the inside out, proceeding from an infectious Holy Spirit, then a church of the saved is people spurring one another on to love and good deeds.

We shouldn't try to avoid hypocrisy by doing nothing. We shouldn't try to avoid legalistic unmerciful judgments by ignoring the concept of sin. We shouldn't try to avoid preachiness by never saying we have the truth. We shouldn't try to avoid doctrinal controversies by throwing out sacraments. And finally, we shouldn't try to avoid scaring people with Hell by pretending salvation in this life doesn't matter.

abnormal

I got around to completing my tax return today. At the end TurboTax checked for risk factors for an IRS audit. It found one; it reported it as "Your amount of charitable contributions is abnormally high for your income level."

Of course it is! Why would someone who claims to be a Christian devotee expect any other outcome? According to this link,  the average amount claimed is about 3% of income. If you're going against the grain of materialism by living strictly within your means, and giving is in your budget, then surpassing 3% isn't difficult at all. We the grateful, who continually receive merciful divine forgiveness and grace, should be the pacesetters for distributing our blessings to the needy.

a trinity of infinities

Explanations of the Triune God often resort to analogies. These analogies tend to suggest that each of the three parts must be less than the whole. And a triangular division into three also tends to suggest that the whole must be finite: else how could something be a third of infinity?

Yet a mathematical analogy for infinity is available. Suppose that someone counts, and never stops counting. The resulting collection of numbers is "all the multiples of 1". These are usually called the natural or whole numbers. The entire collection is limitless, which is provable by a straightforward test. Any time you think you've reached the largest number, count one more time. The next number is greater than any of the prior numbers, so it's a new number (i.e. not equal to any of the others). Therefore the set is produced by a well-understood procedure, and nevertheless infinite or unbound.

Now consider some different procedures that result in different sets. The numbers 3, 4, and 5 have no factors in common; none is a multiple of the other two. 3, 4, and 5 are quite distinct. Now, for each number in the set from before, i.e. all the multiples of one, multiply that number by 3. If it helps, think of two tedious people standing side by side. After the first person counts, the second person immediately multiplies the new number by three. This set is "all the multiples of 3". Like all the multiples of 1, it's produced by a well-understood procedure, and nevertheless infinite or unbound.

We can do the same for 4 and 5. Finally, there's four infinite sets: the multiples of 1, 3, 4, 5. Since the procedure to construct the set of multiples of 3 consisted of multiplying each multiple of 1 by 3, all the multiples of 3 are also multiples of 1. The same applies to all the multiples of 4 or 5. These sets are provably infinite and still included in the "whole" original set, the multiples of 1. We have a trinity of infinities that are still contained in a infinite whole.

Although the member-numbers of the three infinite sets all belong to the set of natural numbers, the three sets aren't completely distinct. Presently, there are numbers that are multiples of both 3 and 4 (the multiples of 12), or 3 and 5 (the multiples of 15), or 4 and 5 (the multiples of 20). If it's more satisfying to consider three distinct infinite sets, then alternative procedures could accomplish that goal. However, the cost is greater complication and the exclusion of many former multiples. For the "3" set, instead of multiplying each natural number just by 3, 1) multiply by 3 then 2) multiply by 4. The result is a multiple of both 3 and 4, simply because it's equal to 3 multiplied by "other stuff" (i.e. the original natural number) and equal to 4 multiplied by "other stuff" (i.e. the original number multiplied by 3 a moment ago). Similarly, 3) multiply that by 5 to achieve the end goal of a number that's a multiple of 3 or 4 or 5. Now take that number and 4) add 3. This final number is a multiple of 3, because it's 3 added to a multiple of 3. On the other hand, it isn't a multiple of 4, because it's 3 added to a multiple of 4, which is 1 too few to "reach" the next multiple of 4. Neither is it a multiple of 5, because 3 is 2 too few to "reach" the next multiple of 5. Presto! The procedure can start with any (all) natural number and construct a number that's a multiple of 3 but not 4 or 5. Procedures that are broadly similar can produce an infinite set of numbers that are multiples of 4 but not 3 or 5, and an infinite set of numbers that are multiples of 5 but not 3 or 4. Due to the logical fact that a particular number can't both be a multiple and not be a multiple, it's a logical impossibility for a number that belongs to one of these sets to belong to either of the others. The first few members of the "3" set are 63, 123, 183, 243. The "4" set, 64, 124, 184, 244. The "5" set, 65, 125, 185, 245. (Naturally, the predictable gaps of 60 between adjacent numbers are due to 3 times 4 times 5. If you graphed these procedures as mathematical functions, with the result as the vertical axis and the starting number as the horizontal axis, you would see a set of closely space parallel lines.)

All different, all infinite, all drawing from the same source.

wrong question

Presently in the USA, I've observed more speculation than usual about the question of whether God favors particular outcomes in professional sporting events. Let me repeat the same opinion I always have for this category of questions. If your desire is to decode a supernatural Hand from out of the prosaic ups and downs that fill daily reality, then you're asking the wrong question entirely.

It's the wrong question for two simple reasons. God is too big, and the stakes too small. There are innumerable circumstances that are better opportunities for undeniable and necessary divine intervention. A sporting event is over in less than a day. Its consequences last for no longer than months and amount to not much more than lots of exchanges of money and perhaps some awards and/or injuries. Winning is of course a formidable obstacle to the players, but for God it's no trouble at all. It's not anywhere close to miraculous.

If you crave a real test, then consider a situation in which lives are in danger and in which no mere person could do enough. Like sporting events, obviously these situations also happen every day. People wage seemingly hopeless battles for the prizes of survival, dignity, relationships, and many others. Is God at work in those many battles? Like in the song "Take Me Out to the Ballgame", does He "root! root! root!" for good to win every time? 

I suppose that the eternal mystery of the unfathomable thoughts of the Infinite One prevent anyone from saying for sure that He contemplates professional sporting events. Nor can anyone say for sure that God contemplates anything else. But we do know that He cares about people.

advice to counteract consumerism

Last time, I opined that consumerism wasn't invented by Americans. Nevertheless, the USA economy is largely based on the consumption of its ordinary people. The pressure to consume can flow through obvious routes, like billboards and TV commercials and ads in printed or digital publications. It also can flow through subtle routes, like peer pressure and status-seeking and desires concealed by self-deception. Fortunately, Christians aren't helpless against the empty values of consumerism, and I have some advice to counteract it.

First, be on guard for consumerism's influence. Signals abound: excessive usage of credit, "fits" of shopping that consist of a string of unplanned purchases in a short time period. However, quantity isn't the only factor. Consider a vivid obsession of just one specific product, entangled with hopes and longings. Beware the thought, "If I had this, I would be so happy."

The dividing line is illustrated by the biblical story of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac, which ranks among the most disturbing sections. That extreme is in contrast with a petty soul who refuses to sacrifice mere stuff for God's sake. In my opinion, Christian devotees aren't required to live according to vows of poverty, but they're required to be "ready" to take such a vow. Anything is up for "grabs" by the Lord of all. This is a useful test. Nonessential things are to be held loosely. And most things that average Americans possess are nonessential.

In addition to conscious detachment from material goods, regular giving is a potent vaccine. Givers tend to not overspend their income. When they give, they reiterate that selfish hoarding is incompatible with Christian attitudes. Resources that are given away can't act as temptations to find fulfillment outside of God's kingdom.

While Christians certainly don't need to give everything they own or earn, they may wish to forgo their usual items from time to time. Withdrawal of these familiar items forces fewer distractions and dependencies. God remains. He's always present, but people often look elsewhere when they have the opportunity. Consumerism is the substitution of a never ending stream of trinkets.

I don't believe that objects are evil. I believe that inappropriate attention to objects can obscure God. Objects appear to be solid saviors for one purpose or another, and by comparison God appears to be shadowy and untouchable. Christian devotees should invert that perspective. God should be the solid savior who surpasses  every weaker competitor, and by comparison objects should appear to be flimsy pretenders that break and rot.

consumerism is not an American invention

People work frenziedly, then spend frenziedly, in order to accumulate frenziedly. Sellers and producers advertise frenziedly. Credit is lent frenziedly (i.e. "revolving" credit). To complain about "consumerism" is generally to complain about these economic frenzies. Christianity emphasizes morals, people, and relationships, which puts it into conflict with consumerism's values of greed, inanimate objects, and exclusive ownership.

Maybe consumerism was "perfected" in the USA. The joint causes could be abundant resources and population, technological and financial ingenuity, relatively unhampered markets, and sufficiently competent oversight. Large roles are played by the most successful retailers, product-making corporations, mass media, investment funds. Undoubtedly the economy, consumerism, and culture have reshaped one another. For now, the strongest bastion of consumerism is right here.

It's too simplistic, however, to equate consumerism and American culture. People are born with grasping urges for novelty. They reach for anything that promises to please. No teaching or training is necessary. Consumerism has extended deep roots in some nations, yet it spreads and grows to others without much resistance. Culture always matters, but culture itself changes over time.

"Rich" observers marvel at the simple contentment of people who live in nations that have minimal economies and technology. But this appearance is misleading. All people can adapt to their economic surroundings. One constant across all times and places is that people notice and compare their wealth and/or status. Some learn to be happy despite the differences, but some don't. Beyond a minimum standard of food and clothing and shelter, people can be quite happy as long as they don't consider themselves poor...

The gap is one of scope and opportunity. When societies produce very few goods for the domestic market, and mechanization and communication are primitive, the economic stratification in the society seems to be smaller. Americans have the option to consume in countless ways, and they're encouraged to exercise that option. Once presented with similar levels of encouragements and options, why wouldn't the same hold true for those of any culture? Immigrants to the USA who achieve acceptable income tend to start consuming at comparable rates, although their consumption patterns vary. "Consumerism" is what a typical person naturally does with their discretionary income, i.e. the remainder after taxes and bills and necessities. Lesser amounts of discretionary income are the likelier explanation for less consumerism. The cause isn't American culture, it's human nature.

impossibility or incorrigibility?

I'm somewhat amused when I read the perspective, "Merely eating less and exercising more is an approach to weight loss whose effectiveness has been disproved innumerable times throughout recorded history." While I agree that it's ridiculous to think that a person of any shape can target any weight they wish, surely it's beyond doubt that weight is affected by habits of eating and physical activity? Practically speaking, people come naturally in all sizes, but each person has the final decision on how to adjust those two "levers". Someone with the same inborn body range as me could be heavier or lighter than me, via the multitude of choices.

Some cultures put excessive emphasis on weight. Like the stars on the Dr. Seuss "sneetches", it's an easily identifiable distinction for sorting individuals by superiority. Cultural taboos and attitudes are quite variable. People who would be acceptable in one society could be scorned in a second. No sensible or universal rationale is necessary for the shaky "morals" of appearance and behavior that are invented by capricious earthly judges.

As Christians who follow God's laws, we think differently. In this case, we recognize the plain sin of gluttony, but we also acknowledge that conspicuous sins are often less deadly to the spiritual life than unseen or subtle sins. A greedy dependence on food may attract more stigma than a greedy dependence on money. Regardless, Christians shall forbid either in order to be free from enslavement to any created thing.

And when we repent of gluttony or the worship of Mammon, we live in faith of the possibility of change. We don't scoff at the idea of self-discipline. Instead we comply with the metaphorical crucifixion of our sinful leanings. Rather than contemplating and wrestling with temptation, we do something simpler: we deny it less than a toehold in our thoughts. The path to committing a sin of action or omission starts by committing the sin mentally within one's fantasies or mental plans.

Cynics are accurate in their observations of the failures of the unspiritual person to achieve personal transformation through weak natural willpower. Flesh demands fleshly actions. In contrast, Christians exercise their godly focus in practice. They release their hungers to Him, and they're revitalized to reject sin in general, including the unspiritual person's fixation on gluttony.