Travelers

Moving to New Location

2007-01-16T08:56:00.000-06:00

Rather than work with this again, I decided to take another route . . . and the new blog can be found here (http://web.mac.com/disciplesfellowship/iWeb/Travelers/Journal/Journal.html or by clicking on the title of this post)

NOTE: this is different than the last address i gave yesterday (if you happened to be here!)

Holy New Template, Batman!

2007-01-10T09:44:00.000-06:00

Wanted to post something . . . you know, insightful. Comment worthy. Earth-moving, even.

But then I updated to the new version of blogger . . . and now I am distracted by the appearance of the new template. To be fair, they warned me that i would lose format changes I had coded into the old template. I just didn't think my choices would be so limited.

Oh well, I'll have to write in a third column for my other stuff.

New Start

2007-01-03T15:30:00.000-06:00

New year and a new computer . . . I guess I'm set to blog again.

Thanks to the gracious brothers and sisters at DF for the new mac, which is an excellent machine. I am enjoying learning how much easier everything can be.

So what's been happening within our fellowship? I believe that we are learning more about inward, centered-on-God worship. It is not hyped, staged, or presentational. I think we are discovering more about how to create a worshipful space within our selves . . . heart, mind, and spirit . . . so that we might engage in the adoration of God within his grace and love.

Some of our initial attempts have focused on incorporating a Taize-style of contemplative worship within our gatherings. The emphasis is on peacefulness . . . quiet, inward reflection, having a focus on God, and a simple use of songs and words to create an unhurried way to love God as a congregation.

Somehow it has been easy for many of us to be Christians for years without learning how to simply, peacefully, and reverently enjoy being in the presence of God in worship.

With a similar intent I plan to have us pray through the transfiguration tonight through reading each section, praying a simple prayer, and then leaving space and slience for each person to engage that thought. Here's the plan:

Praying the Transfiguration – Luke 9:28-35

Read vs. 28- "Lord, take us with you to pray, as you took Peter, James, and John. Teach us to enter prayer with you."

Read vs. 29- "As you appeared on the mount, help us to see your glory, your radiant holiness. Let your glory overwhelm us."

Read vs. 30-31 "May we love your glorious redemption, spoken of by the prophets, and given us in the cross. Your grace and love is beyond our understanding."

Read vs. 32-33 "Forgive us when we say the wrong things, think the wrong things, and do the wrong things - which we confess now . . ."

Read vs. 34 "Remove our fears, of the future, of our failures, of all things . . . and envelope us in your comforting presence. May we not fear you"

Read vs. 35 "May we always hear the voice of your beloved Son, and conform our lives to his love in the strength of your grace"

Finish with the Lord's Prayer.

Two Good Posts

2006-12-08T09:48:00.000-06:00

Brian blogs about he and Bobby's trip to visit the nuns here.

A post on being incarnational and the matter of having a building here.

Why We Need a New Way of Being the People of God

2006-12-06T14:49:00.000-06:00

One of the greatest needs I see for our current situation, is for a new ecclesiology. That is hard on my own denominational heritage (back to the roots idea of the last post) because so much of that identity was in matters of ecclesiology. The emphasis ended up, even if no one originally intended it to be this way, on forms concerning church gatherings for worship and church polity.

So when there arises a need for a new ecclesiology, that shakes the foundations of a denominational identity that is rooted in how to structure a church, what to call it, and what to do in its plenary gatherings. Put all your eggs in a basket of how the church is expressed (even effectively and redemptively) in a particular time and place, and you are likely lose all your eggs when the times change.

But the need for a new ecclesiology is not, in my opinion, due to the shortcomings of my own particular heritage. The problem stems from the fact that modernity and its monolithic confidence in objective, scientific data is losing out to something that is not modern. Instead, this new world is pluralistic, less certain, and thankfully less shallow. Little is as shallow as the empiricism and humanism of modernity. I remember the Time article several years ago that explained all human love and our appreciation of human beauty as a drive to find the most fertile and healthy mate to bear our genes.

We are determined by our chemistry. Modernity has no room for poets. Modernity is a type of scientific hyper-Calvinism devoid of human creativity, choice, and asthetics. Choice is illusionary. We do as we are forced to act by our genes and chemical processes. The anthropology of modernity is miserable and dehumanizing.

So why a new ecclesiology? A few initial thoughts come to mind . . .

We need to be more humble.
We must learn to be less certain of ourselves, though still certain of God.
We must avoid slapping simple answers on complex problems.
We have to find ways of being more communal in a less communal world.
We must offer an alternative to consumerism.
We can no longer trust the social sciences to handle all but "spiritual" matters.
We cannot use leadership models that are not Trinitarian and thrive in God.
We must learn to co-inhabit this world with others as aliens rather than rulers.
Our evangelism must be less imperialistic and formulaic.
We must not agree to be a figurehead chaplain who words meaningless invocations and benedictions at our culture's events.

It is not having a new ecclecsiology for its own sake, but finding how the ways in which we are the church may reflect a clearer sense of our real mission.

Church Roots

2006-12-04T11:28:00.000-06:00

Leroy Garrett writes about changes within his denomination, the Churches of Christ, a group with which I once identified exclusively. I say exclusively because it is not that I do not identify with those churches today, it is just that I also find my identity with many others as well. I am not finding my home with fewer churches, but with more.

However, due to the demands of exclusiveness that are intrinsic to much denominational thinking, and very true of Churches of Christ, having a Christ-identity which embraces many denominations is sufficient to have one excluded from many groups.

In discussing what is happening among some Churches of Christ, Leroy praises one congregation in Fort Worth for not leaving that particular heritage "and becoming rootless." He talks about other congregations taking generic names and leaving the restoration.

However, I would suggest that there are not only these two options: 1) persisting in a restoration tradition, and 2) going generic and becoming rootless. In other words, is every congregation which doesn't keep a particular name and identify with a certain line of teaching and thinking necessarily rootless?

I am not accusing Leroy of believing in only two options. I don't know what he would say, but I am merely reflecting on my impression of his thoughts. I agree that many seeker-sensitive, mega-church wannabes do opt for a very generic and lowest common denominator type of ecclesiology, if not theology. Many do try to cater to people's consumeristic desires and apparently become rootless, even if unintentionally.

But let me say that I do think that there is another option - becoming rooted in historical, creedal, orthodox Christianity in a way that is not exclusive. Rather than becoming a rootless community, perhaps some congregations might leave the more distinguishing externals of Churches of Christ (or other denominations), not in becoming what some have called a-historical, but to move more thoroughly within historical Christianity.

If there is at least this third option, it is the one I aspire to follow. I certainly do not want to say that to preserve my "roots" I have to adhere to certain particulars of denominations in which I may have grown. I also do not want to simply reject those roots and be the church of now.

What if sometimes staying rooted means losing some exclusive aspects of an identity that comes with that particular heritage? Certainly seeking renewal within a denominational identity is admirable. One may also seek renewal within Christianity as a whole, and embrace the largest history of all believers.

Incarnation and Understanding

2006-11-28T13:16:00.000-06:00

A synopsis of Sunday's meditation:

God did not become man so that he could understand what it is like to be human,
but so we could understand what it means to be like God.

God did not become man so that he could understand what it is like to be human,
but so we could know for certain that God has always understood us.

I suspect that God is not more understanding of our condition after the incarnation than before. I think being the Creator and Sustainer of all things enables God to understand intimately our condition, and that of the whole creation.

However, we would likely doubt God's understanding had we not the clear demonstration of the incarnation to prove God's empathy. Having been tempted in all ways like us, can we argue God doesn't understand?

Conversely, can we claim that we don't get what it means to be called to live on this earth like God?

It's Only Worthwhile If . . .

2006-11-21T13:22:00.000-06:00

I am very glad that many of us at Desperate-for-Christ Fellowship were able to participate in Operation Christmas Child through Samaritan's Purse.

I wish my memory served me better on this, but it seems that the promotional video we watched this year had more of an emphasis on how each child would receive a Gospel tract and now 1,000's had commited themselves to Jesus, than in pervious years. Maybe we just watched a difference segment.

It seemed from the presentation that the value of giving these gifts must be measured by how many children confess Jesus as a result. I am all for coming to trust in Jesus, and actually am concerned that in certain circles that seems to be intentionally left out- as if we are going to help people with their real needs . . . like food, shelter, education, medicine.

Can I reject both camps? I don't want to be kind only to convert, but also not to only do good and never tell what is good.

To treat people as whole beings is to bring the good of God to their whole life. What good to do first, or how to serve others in what order, must be occasioned by the person, circumstance, and moment. Some interactions that Jesus had with people seemed to be devoid of any concern toward their physical well-being (and who has no needs to be addressed?), while other times he seemed to address a physical need with little gesture to other matters.

I believe that ultimately the whole person is addressed by the good news. The good news should not be reduced to apply only to certain parts of a person. Helping someone with a physical need has value . . . not more and not less value than telling someone about their inward journey toward God.

Sin and Sanctification

2006-11-15T18:08:00.000-06:00

Sin.

I used to have a clear and simple idea of sin:

1. Sin is doing what God forbids, or failing to do what he instructs.
2. Sin separates us from God and so is what makes us lost.
3. Sin is willful disobedience to God.

Addressing our problems of sin was equally as straightforward, and corresponds to the previous three statements:

1. Learn what God wills.
2. Receive forgiveness in Jesus.
3. Choose to stop sinning.

Get knowledge, get saved, make new choices. Anyone who suggested anything different was usually seen as "soft" on sin.

Now . . . enter complexity.

Concerning point two, sin does separate us from God . . . sometimes. I say "sometimes" because it is unforgiven sin and an unrepentant attitude that makes sin something that separates us from God. Since God has taken all the necessary action in Christ to forgive our sin, when we are people of faith in the sacrifice of Jesus, our sin (though still here in the old style of life that we all inhabit to some degree) no longer separates us from God. Having been justified, the sin which still needs to be rooted out through sanctification is no longer separating us from God.

Becoming saved and forgiven is extremely easy; how difficult is it to receive a freely given gift that one must only accept?. Having received grace, sin no longer separates us from God (making us lost) but does separate us from the life of God (making us unholy).

Very quickly the "problem" that sins presents to us changes. However, most people seem to think of sin only in the what damns me mode. Sin is exclusively tied to being in a state of lostness, which then gets in the way of dealing with the reality of sin. The old fears of being lost make them grasp for salvation again, rather than resting in salvation and moving toward sanctification.

If the simplistic ideas of point two keep us focused on being saved rather than moving on to maturity, the simplistic idea that sin is wholly a matter of choice puts the final block in the way of growing in holiness. This idea makes being sanctified a stoic endeavor. To overcome sin I need to steel myself to just make better choices.

However, my expereinces show that while there is often willfulness involved in our sinful actions, there are often other factors as well. If it were simply a matter of will, we could always say "Stop it!" and a person could choose to cease committing sin.

Here's where the charges of being "soft" on sin really enter in. If I suggest that besides the will, there are often aspects to sin over which we are powerless to simply "choose" to do differently it sounds like we are absolving people of responsibility. That is not the case.

The assertion that the will is all one needs to eradicate sin is sure to drive people to hopelessness - because when one tries by will alone to deal with sin, and fails, then one often concludes that there is no point in trying. They suppose that they cannot do what they believe others can. They resign themselves to sin, thinking that for some reason of personal failure they can't be sanctified. They hide the sin, and the guilt and shame grow. The sin grows too. And the they continue to be told "just choose to be different, what's wrong with you?

No one tells them that they powerless over sin. No one says that as only God can pronounce justification, only God can work sanctification. No one says that it is not only a matter of one's choice.

Sin is also rooted in the body, which has a willfulness of its own. The desires of our bodies are not always the desires of our spirits. Dealing with sin means that simply having the sincere will of heart might not be enough when the body has other desires. Also there are emotional dimensions to sin and cognitive dimensions as well. We cannot simply will ourselves into new emotions, new thoughts, new actions of the body . . . though willingness of the heart or spirit is essential. Essential but not sufficient. Food is essential to the body for life, but not sufficient for life. Alone, food cannot sustain life. Willingness is essential but not sufficient to lead to sanctification because sin is not simply our unwillingness to follow God.

We are right to call people to will to do good, but the work of overcoming sin is not done in that alone. I am not powerless to will with my spirit, but I am powerless over the emotions and thoughts that come to me. I am not completely powerless with how I will to deal with them, but I cannot control their appearance by all the willpower in the world.

Okay . . . the post is getting too long. But I will continue.

200!

2006-11-13T12:49:00.000-06:00

If my blogger homepage is correct this is my 200th post since beginning this blog in September 2003. Actually I should add the 76 posts to the Contemplation blog for my total blogging output.

Would that be considered a blogthology, or blogorpus? Maybe its my blogistory. It is certainly the most tangible part of my webdentity.

I guess this should be a notable post . . . something memorable to mark the event.

Untortunately, I'm not feeling very 'notable' right now.

I remember in the early 90's when all the correspondence from Africa was sent by two-week airmail. A month minimum for a reply . . . three to four months for a package.

Then there was the twice-a-day email from a satellite in solar synchronous orbit through a network for medical workers in the African interior. I helped configure their Macs for free access to their email system.

Today workers in Mwanza have blogs. But they still don't have reliable electricity.

Here I sit, writing my 200th post. A lot has happened.

I wonder what might be happening when I write a 400th post . . . if we still have blogs then.

An Emerging Adventure

2006-11-10T15:26:00.000-06:00

The previous post was a little sarcastic . . . .

I was sincere about what the prayer said, but wanted to highlight how I think we truly ought to pray "in celebration of our existence".

A friend was telling me about the prayer he heard at a celebratory day that basically recounted the congregation's glorious history. I thought that a proper prayer in such a situation should not laud our efforts, or even accomplishments, but point in a different direction. Thus, the irony.

Which leads me to what I've been thinking. It has recently come back to my attention that when I left Africa I was convinced that my mission was to share with the American church a new ecclesiology - based on my experiences in Africa.

Alot has happened since then, not all of it particularly pleasant. Church life can often be brutal. But as I look back, I have really been an evangelist for a new ecclesiology. This started in 1999 - before I every knew anything about emerging churches. This was also before I had heard talk of being missional.

However, it's interesting that my own journey has involved a new ecclesiology (like the emerging conversation proposes) out of a mission perspective (as missional thinking promotes).

In Emerging Churches, by Gibbs and Bolger, they list 9 characteristics evident in the newer ecclesiastical approaches that take seriously our current context. These emerging churches that are within the emerging culture often:

1) identify with the life of Jesus
2) transform the secular realm
3) live highly communal lives
4) welcome the stranger
5) serve with generosity
6) participate as producers
7) create as created beings
8) lead as a body
9) take part in spiritual activities

From my thoughts (not Gibbs and Bolger) it might be possible to contrast these characteristics with the tendencies of more traditional congregations to:

1) take their identity from the teachings of Jesus and beliefs of the apostles
2) separate from the secular realm
3) interact with one another primarily at worship services or within planned programs
4) welcome the members, or prospective members
5) serve with the intent to convert
6) participate as consumers
7) ignore the creative arts
8) lead from a hierarchy
9) take part in worship services, seminars, meetings, courses, and other programmed, group events.

This comparison is not to suggest that emerging churches have no interest in the teachings of Jesus, or that what has been modernity's more prevalent traditional church has had no interest in living the life of Jesus. But I do believe that the comparison is helpful in showing where the emphasis lies - in emulating the daily life of Jesus or believing the teachings of Jesus. What makes us Christians - the beliefs we affirm or the way we live?

I do not present those as a hard dualism where these are mutually exclusive. However, sometimes deciding how we would rank these helps clarify our own ecclesiology.

This new ecclesiology is not simply the result of modern and postmodern differences, but also Western versus Eastern differences. In my thinking there is a wholistic versus compartmentalized dynamic influencing our ways of being Christians.

Prayer for Anniversary Sunday

2006-11-07T07:45:00.000-06:00

We need to celebrate the existence of our congregation. Many churches plan days to commemorate their tradition, history, and legacy. We are nearing the fourth anniversary of the beginning of this marvelous adventure, and so a prayer of thanks is in order:

O Lord, we praise you for the mighty ways in which you have worked among us, bringing us together as believers committed to Christ to live out our common faith as Disciples' Fellowship.

We thank you that a number of Christians met initially to begin this ministry without clear ideas of what to do, and that we have remained, by your grace, in that state ever since. May your Spirit, rather than our wisdom, shape our walk as a congregation.

Your provision has been evident in the two places that we have used for our gatherings. You have allowed us to use both vacated offices and an old car dealership. May our uncertain leasing situation keep us mindful that we are aliens in this world.

We praise you for the Hispanic Ministry that we attempted to begin, and which failed to materialize. We praise you for the Angel Food Ministry, DF Housing Ministry, service to veterans, ministry to Jessie's Place, Honduras mission, and other good works that have continued, and may we always remember that only you give the increase.

We are thankful that you have kept the theft of items from our worship place to a minimum, as we continue to live openly as a community. May those times in which we lose something remind us not to put our trust in material things but rather in you alone.

You have been gracious, O Lord, in that we have never had a serious incident when we've gathered and some of us have been under the influence of something other than your Spirit. May we continue to practice an acceptance of one another however we come in search of you, and may we gently and humbly help one another to grow in holiness and devotion.

We thank you for all the disagreements that we have had, many of which remain differences among us to this very day: whether to have signage, whether to have formalized leadership structures, worship styles, wine for communion, etc. Through these we have learned, by your grace, to be patient with one another, to allow for others' consciences, and to keep Christ central.

We praise you, God, for smashing any aspirations we might have held for Disciples' Fellowship to become a large, attractive, and prominent church in Birmingham. Obviously, that's not going to happen. Continue to teach us humility through our unpretensious existence as a congregation.

As we celebrate our unflattering past and look forward ot an uncertain future, be our All in all. Your hand of grace has transformed us through every difficulty, according to your mercy.

Glory be the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, world without end. Amen.

Last Week and This Sunday

2006-10-27T08:57:00.000-05:00

Bobby moved his sculpting work into our space . . . which gave us a great opportunity to have regular morning prayer each day at 8:30 am. We gather in the sanctuary, light a Christ candle, and pray the hours. Anyone is welcome to drop in to pray with us. I believe that I need the rhythm that such discipline produces.

Father William presided over our holy communion last Sunday, and was such a blessing. His presence and manner completely deconstructed any sense of pomp that one might have assumed because of this vestments. He had a distinct joy and lightness of spirit in leading us through the breaking of bread.

Last Sunday morning I spoke on this text: I have made you known to them and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them. John 17:26

I focused on the promise of Jesus to continue the work of making the Father known to us, encouraging us to open ourselves to this ongoing work of Christ in us. The end, of course, is that the love of God will be rooted in our hearts, and Christ himself will be formed in us.

This Sunday, I plan to take up this word of Jesus: the one who feeds on me will live because of me. John 6:57. Christ was no steely logician. He was not an empiricist. He did not look at life, God, and the world through a modern perspective. Jesus was a mystic who spoke about the mystery of coming into real union with God.

With the discrediting of the scientific worldview as a sufficient and adequate way of interpreting reality, and the corresponding epistemological shift, Christ's mystical sayings take on more of their original depth and mystery, eschewing the flat meanings modernity imposed. Jesus is certainly not saying pray a sinner's prayer or believe in me and you will go to heaven as a reward. He says I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. Our life in Christ is the same essentially as his life in the Father. There is mystery and spiritual union here . . . divine stirrings and grace that modernity can never grasp.

Faith and the Coming Elections

2006-10-18T11:21:00.000-05:00

Christians who view their political choices as a simple matter of faith have a problem.

A president that is anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage, but pro-torture, detention without trial, and mistreatment of the nation's enemies seems to deeply challenge the idea that this administration is any more Christian than previous ones.

Can we call for respecting the humanity of fetuses but not of terrorists? If it is wrong to abort a fetus, is it wrong to treat full-grown humans inhumanely? Seems to me like being "pro-life" means being pro all life. All life is sacred - even the lives of my enemies.

On the other hand, this president isn't more non-Christian than previous ones. Chavez is wrong. To say that Bush is a Christian is accurate. To say that his presidency is Christian - that would associate God with some things I know God to abhor.

The fact is that Bush is head of state, not head of a church. Bush isn't a Christian president. No presidents have been. No president will ever be able to run this country by the Sermon on the Mount. The country is run according to the Constitution.

America isn't a Christian nation and never has been (ask the native Americans). The presidency is a civil office, and America is a nation.

Some of our presidents have been better statemen, wiser, better servants of the people, than others. Sometimes America has acted well in world affairs, and sometimes acted poorly.

I am not an advocate of Christians having nothing to do with society's governance . . . of being aloof. We also cannot afford, as believers, to baptize certain candidates, a particular party, or exclusively focus on a few issues. People of faith and careful thought will differ on how to participate and address what is happening in our society and the world.

I think that Christans will have much to weigh, many subjects to consider in the coming elections, and won't be able to simply vote for candidates who are Christians or a particular party.

And after we vote . . . we will still have much to do in our world that governing authorities can never do.

Either/Or

2006-10-12T13:23:00.000-05:00

Either/Or ways of thinking assume, maybe correctly, that ideas or thoughts can be stated carefully enough to be either correct or incorrect. I know God can certainly be that precise. However, I truly doubt that I am ever able to reach that level of clarity and comprehensiveness in what I say. You should take that as a warning about this post!

Typically, when I say anything I am acutely aware that so much more could be said, and that I am leaving some things unsaid.

When I am teaching, often someone will raise a point that they believe contradicts what I am saying. I know it may appear that I just want to agree . . . but rarely has anyone ever said anything that didn't have some element of truth - usually describing part of the subject that I was not and could not address. I can usually affirm such statements, because the complexity of everything means that either/or is rarely the case.

I had that type of discussion last night about the reality of evil - is there a definite evil being called Satan? To some this might seem clear, there either is or there isn't . . . and scripture definitely talks about such a being.

But here's the complexity: we know scripture is truthful about God's nature and our realities, but how literal is it as it talks about existence, God, and humankind? The language used is often representative and may more or less be literally true. We recognize that in talking about God. God is no rock, though He is called one.

I am comfortable with evil being personified in a being, a fallen angel . . . but am also sympathetic to those who would think of evil as more the absence of God, and think less that there is an actual being who is the leader of darkness. Such people might think of Satan as a useful way of understanding the way evil besets us . . . as if there is a malevolent being who acts like a roaring lion trying to eat us.

I am comfortable with anyone who believes firmly in a definite, personal being called the Devil. I am also comfortable with those who might not. I can be comfortable with contradictory ideas because there is enough complexity to make me uncertain absolutely of either option.

My concern is that neither understanding lead to a lite view of temptation, our own vulnerability to fall into temptation, or the reality of something that is most definitely not God. How we live with regard to God and what is not God is more important than how we conceive of the darkness - as absence or malevolent presence.

There is an either/or reality on this matter . . . but I am okay knowing that God knows it even when I don't. This is why I believe that all Christian community is based on a unity that God gives, not on a unity of understanding that we achieve.

Sex: Legalistic or Formative

2006-10-04T10:02:00.000-05:00

Okay . . . it is way too easy to point out imperfections. Since the worst expression of my own character is to be overly critical, I have to guard against that.

Maybe this can be redemptive and not merely harsh.

I was sent a link to a preacher's comments on how Christians ought to be having 'hot sex'. The article and a video clip from his appearance on a morning show are there for anyone interested.

My concern is that his approach is a legalistic one - he identifies what is banned, and then encourages everything that is 'legal' biblically. The reasoning put in Aristotelian terms is like this:
1. Strong marriages are good.
2. 'Hot sex' contributes to strong marriages.
3. Therefore, Christians ought to be having 'hot sex' as long as they don't do one of the no-no's (no one but your spouse, no animals, and no one gets hurt).

This leads to some interesting places, such as his assertion that vibrators are good. No animals, but machines are okay. What about blow up dolls?

I think the approach is spiritually legalistic and shallow. What if sex is spiritually formative, and our guide to sexual relations is not merely what is legal, but what is transformative and expressive of God's nature?

One real danger is the pursuit of more and more pleasure and excitement. At some point, everything legal becomes 'boring'. His 'hot sex' is only 'hot' because at least some of those he is talking to haven't been doing some of what he advocates. But his 'hot sex' will cease to be 'hot' after a while, and then only something new will spice up the relationship again.

Maybe 'hot sex' isn't about positions, machines, techniques, but spiritual connection - with God and one's spouse.

Some were excited to see one of "their" preachers on a national TV show, but actually I am embarrassed at the legalistic thinking displayed. I am also concerned over the direction that is encouraged - more excitement rather than deeper spirituality. Actually, nothing is 'hotter' than spirituality.

What's Coming

2006-09-18T11:57:00.000-05:00

Mondays are always "pull together the pieces" days - time to figure out what happened and seems to need to happen next.

On Tap: Adam Ellis will be sharing a meditation with us next Sunday. I'm looking forward to meeting Adam, Dana, and Emma. They're going to be in town visiting family and so we've invited him to help us look to God this Sunday.

We are going to be exploring in coming weeks practices of contemplation, ways of expressing reverence for God's holiness, and how we might practice this in our Sunday morning gatherings. Don't ask me more because I don't even know what it will look like. Just seems several threads are coming together in this way . . . and so we will see how to develop our sense of awe in the presence of God - in the belief that this will be formative for us.

New plans for the spiritual formation of our children and students have been through December - and on line resources gathered. Now if we just finish the ceiling in the high school room . . .

Today and the Weekend

2006-09-05T08:45:00.000-05:00

Today
Confessional lasted about an hour this morning. I hear confessions only because no one can tell me anything that in its root isn't something I'm all too familiar with.

But confessional time isn't just one way; it's also a time to give spiritual disciplines - new actions and practices of faith that address the root causes of sin. The confessional is a time to clarify the real matters that are driving the sin, rather than the more periphal manifestations that look like "problems" or "difficulties" rather than inward diseases.

Of course, it simply looks like a bunch of guys sitting around talking in real terms about what each is struggling with. No matter, this really is a confessional practice within community from which I benefit as much as any other.

The Weekend
My weekend was an interesting experience of roaming about the Kingdom. Got to visit Fellowship Bible Church, join in an evening worship time at another congregation, attend a university chapel service, and just move about God's world.

God's world is an incredibly beautiful place. His people are varied in their expression of faith . . . but it is all faith nonetheless. To move about with a type of freedom to participate in all that is good, without having to obstain from anything that is flawed (what isn't?), is a blessing.

To see the flaws and not have to say anything about them . . . that is the way to move about the Kingdom.

Sunday's Rock Liturgy

2006-09-01T09:25:00.000-05:00

This week's communion liturgy is intentionally eclectic. In the middle of a formal responsive liturgy, we will listen to All is Forgiven by the Canadian rock group Default. This band is not a "Christian" band (I dislike the use of "Christian" as an adjective!) but their song about feeling unforgiven, and accepting forgiveness seems appropriate once we have confessed our sins to God.

To include it within a formal liturgy is one way of reclaiming and redeeming, and erasing the false distinction of secular and sacred. A solemn liturgy is certainly stylistically different than the rock song, but when liturgy is understood as the "people's work" this song is no less liturgical than my free adaptation from the Book of Common Prayer.

For all you who won't be here to experience it, here it is (the bold parts being the congregants' response) and the words to the song are found within the liturgy.
-------------------------
Let us prepare ourselves for our holy communion of thanksgiving with God.
As we contemplate our humble state, let us remember God’s Word to us:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them (Gen. 1:27).
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. (Gen. 1:31).
Lord, we know that the heavens and earth are full of your glory, that your goodness and beauty have been woven into your creation. We confess that we alone, as men and women, have abandoned your purpose and corrupted your creation.

We have sinned against your holiness, and against your image that you gave us.
We petition your forgiveness,
For every selfish and unloving act;
For every prideful and unholy thought;
For every way in which we have rejected You;
Forgive us as we prayerfully confess, and repent, and seek to reform our lives through the power and direction of your Spirit . . .
Those who desire may kneel

Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker of all things, Judge of all men; We admit and lament our many sins and evil ways, which we have committed in thought, word and deed, against You.
We earnestly repent, and are truly sorry for our sins. The remembrance of them is grievous unto us. The burden of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us, most merciful Father, for your Son our Lord Jesus Christ's sake, Forgive us all that is past. And grant that we may ever hereafter serve and please you in newness of life, to the honor and glory of your Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Everyone may be seated . . .
Let us embrace your forgiveness God,
And accept your grace which teaches us to live holy lives.

All Is Forgiven
As if the wait was not enough
And one can only take so much
You broke into pieces seems hopless now,
but at least you know the tables can turn around,
And time will repay you

And the rain comes and goes, and all is forgiven, can we learn to let go, so all is forgiven

You're on your knees reaching out
reaching for someone to lift you up right off the ground,
is anyone out there?
You can't breathe, you're chokin', you'll make it through, just keep holding on,
I know that it won't be long, til somebody saves you

And the rain comes and goes, and all is forgiven, can we learn to let go, so all is forgiven

And the times burn away, and all is forgiven,
Let the night turn to day so all is forgiven,
Don't stop the rain from pouring down
Let it wash the pain where it can't be found

And the rain comes and goes, and all is forgiven, can we learn to let go, so all is forgiven

And the times burn away, and all is forgiven,
Let the night turn to day so all is forgiven
All Is forgiven

We praise you for your grace and mercy on us,
For we are sinful and unworthy of forgiveness.
Teach us new ways, and discipline us to be conformed to the life of Christ. Let us not cowardly refuse your instruction, but in trust and thanksgiving welcome your work in our lives – whether it be sweet or bitter to us. For your ways are higher than our ways, and we cannot judge what is truly good.
May we humbly accept your work of recreating us into your image.
May it be so,
Amen.

We know that we celebrate in this communion a oneness with God, won by Jesus Christ for our sakes, and given to us by grace.
All the works of God are beautiful in our eyes.
Let us receive the gifts of God for the children of God, the bread of Christ’s body and the cup of his blood, as we receive Christ with all thankfulness.

For in the night in which he was betrayed, he took Bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is my Body, which is given for you; Do this in remembrance of me. Likewise, after supper, he took the Cup; and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this; for this is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins; Do this, as oft as you shall drink it, in remembrance of me.

1 Corinthians 10:16
The cup of blessing which we bless,
is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?
1 Corinthians 10:17
Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.
All are invited to come and share in the Bread and Cup

life

2006-08-30T15:18:00.000-05:00

You've filled my plate with the practice of humility toward self and love toward others. What need do I have to perform miracles?

I've not mastered my tongue, and the world of my thoughts needs constant discernment and correction. Should I desire to have marvelous and exciting experiences?

When I read the stories of Jesus, what do I do with his teachings? With his miracles? What forms me?

We want to learn his prayer that moves mountains, but not the one we need: "not my will, but yours be done."

What is the proper expression of the life of a Christ-follower? What are our expectations?

Do we have a misguided longing for the ostentatious, the impressive, and the gratifying? Will we wreck spiritually on the rocks of what appears grand, while missing that to which we've been called?

I wonder.

New Worship

2006-08-21T10:11:00.000-05:00

Monday morning.

First task on Mondays is to write contemplations for the week. Today writing those went very quickly . . . so thought I would take a moment to post.

I think yesterday we discovered a new way to worship . . . starter kits, CD's, seminars, and instrucitonal books and vidoes ought to be available soon . . .

Seriously, Chuck had this great idea of worshiping our way through a book of the Bible. So we read all of Ephesians, and worshiped as a community through the letter. When Paul prayed, we prayed. When he reminded us of our unity with God, we broke bread and shared in the cup. When he wrote about singing psalms and spiritual songs, we sang. When he told us to pray on all occasions with all type of prayers and requests, everyone had an opportunity to pray.

I am always amazed at the creativity of my fellow travelers . . . and thankful to be in a fellowship of believers where we are free from human constrictions to be able to try whatever might edify.

This was definitely a way of worshiping in a gathering that we will try again.

Opps!

2006-08-11T10:23:00.000-05:00

Obviously we corrupted Tyler . . . he'll never be able to minister in a "real" church again. How will he ever finish his MDiv and interview to be a professional minister at some "nice" church? How will he get invited to speak at all the big venues if he's as screwed up as we are?

Our apologies to everyone who had high hopes for Tyler becoming the next superstar preacher.

I'm here alone . . .

2006-08-10T08:54:00.000-05:00

The usual suspects are absent.

Bill's at the VA this morning.
Gordon is on his way to Decatur for some business appointments.
Tyler and Lindsey have gone after a summer of being co-conspirators.
The Thursday morning study group wasn't here . . . guess most weren't able to make it.
Steve is working at his mother's.
Tom won't be back until the weekend.
Bill even gave away his pet snake (the one I was hoping to raise to sufficient size to have that snake-handling service everyone is anticipating) to one of the kids from the apartments.

I'm sitting here alone . . . which doesn't happen often. Listening to Bob Marley and waiting on an email so I can start on the powerpoint for Sunday.

Thinking I might as well read a little of Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis and enjoy the break.

I am starting some regular prayer time on Monday with Father William Wilson.

Planning some prayertime tonight with our family as Aaron and Adrienne start a new school year tomorrow.

Being alone to reflect for a bit is good. God is good. Life is good. Having fellow-travelers is good.

Worship Assemblies

2006-08-07T11:33:00.000-05:00

Some ways of looking at the Sunday morning worship assembly:

1) Since God is very exacting and demanding in how he wants to be worshipped, it is of utmost importance that we get it right and please him so his wrath does not descend on us. Every Sunday is an exercise in appeasing (pleasing) God.

2) Being a good and faithful Christian means attending each and every Sunday to fulfill the requirements so one stays "saved." Each Sunday is an act of self-preservation through punching a card.

3) Sunday mornings are the time to share God's message with a lost and dying world, so we need an event that communicates in the language and context of 'the lost' so they will be attracted and taught as well. Sunday is a time for attracting seekers on their terms.

4) Sunday mornings are another moment in a lifestyle of following Jesus, neither more or less important, but a significant moment because of the gathering of believers. Sunday is an assembly time for believers that reflects their daily walks and feeds those journeys as well.

I know there are more options, and variations for viewing the Sunday assembly, than just these four, but these will serve to illustrate my thoughts.

I don't like the first because it is worship out of fear and a flawed view of God. I don't agree with the second because it is self-serving and ultimately empty. It has no daily-life dimension.

The third, though popular in many churches today, strips Christian worship of anything distinctly Christian if it is also not culturally popular. It is consumer-oriented worship; pop-culture worship for a pop-culture world (or whatever worship for whatever world).

Of course the fourth option is the one I prefer. Sunday isn't more important than other days, but it is an important event - to get together with others. We don't focus on appeasing God . . . we share in whatever has to do with our faith and our journeys. Because it is not elevated to a more important time than other times, we are free to do whatever is helpful to our daily walks.

Sunday mornings are not a time to please God, nor to please people. No order is arranged to satisfy God, nor is something planned to satisfy people's desires. Our gatherings should be meaningful and speak to our daily experiences - giving us opportunities to reflect on what has happened in our daily lives, and to prepare us for what will happen as we walk daily with Jesus.

The 'evangelistic' dimension comes not in having a very comfortable 'relevant' worship experience which is a vehicle for communicating a 'how to be saved' message, but in speaking boldly and authenically about life as lived in faith. As believers gather to have real conversation about real life and faith, the Good News is inherent in that discussion.

Rather than assemblies stripped of anything unfamiliar to a person unacquainted with Christianity, our assemblies ought to contain testimony to our faith . . . no matter how foreign that might seem to some. I heard the rationale for a new church start-up in the 80's where the celebration of communion was relegated to Sunday night small groups because the Sunday morning assembly wasn't to have anything that might make the unbeliever uncomfortable. The logic is sound if one's goal is consumer-friendly Christianity.

I hope we continue to spend time planning our worship gatherings, not to appease God, not to entertain or attract people, but to deal authenically in whatever way possible with how faith and life in our world intersect. We are free to be rich in Christian meaning and free to be adaptive to ways of communicating with no other goal than to be truthful about how to live in the Kingdom of God.

Catching Up

2006-08-04T10:38:00.000-05:00

For anyone interested - here's what's been happening:

I survived a week without my laptop (while it was repaired) and was made acutely aware of how much of what I do depends on it.

Went to a Taize prayer service last night and was thoroughly blessed. For me it was a perfect sense of peace and quietness.

Been listening to Peter Gabriel lately - and Matisyahu "Youth" today. Nothing like a hasidic reggae/rapper to give a change of pace.

Have thoroughly enjoyed working with Lindsey and Tyler - our student ministers this summer - and am going to miss them greatly. Fortunately Lindsey is in school here, so she will still be around!

Our "monastic" community is growing - and I need to begin a practice of daily prayer with the brothers. We might need to work out our own version of Benedict's Rule.

I think we are closer to God . . . and further from religiosity than ever before.

How we come across to others . . .

2006-07-11T11:06:00.000-05:00

Zidane, the French soccer superstar, lost his cool in the World Cup Final and got ejected from the game. I found an interesting post about that incident here by a Yahoo writer on health.

I've read a few pieces by this writer before, and there is a holistic spirituality in what he writes - but always, as in this article, he takes his wisdom from eastern sources.

Actually, I have no problem with his sources. I think everything he quotes is true. The wisdom is real wisdom about human nature and life. It's Truth.

It also just strikes me how different it sounds when this writer gives a Zen proverb, and how if a Christian writer were to pen a similar piece it would sound when that writer would quote scripture. I'm guessing here, but I suspect that the "Christian" writer would be heard differently.

The writer from a Christian perspective would be suspected of being authoritative and exclusive - of trying to make a definitive, deny-all-other-truths truth statement. I think many people see Christianity in that way - not helpful, but belligerent. Someone who doesn't play well with others, who only wants his own way. Who dictates and never listens.

I think many would see a "Christian" article to be subtlely calling for a conversion, to accept the Christian view. Of being implicitly "against" other views.

I doubt that anyone would read the article by this writer and think that he's out to convert his readers to Buddism or Hinduism. It's non-threatening, non-confrontational, because it seems like he's just trying to help. He seems to be helping people understand the problems of anger, and help them live differently. Actually, that approach may result in readers becoming very interested in Zen proverbs and the teachings of Hindu gurus.

I want my faith to come across that way . . . that I am simply trying to help. I hope that when I share the wisdom of scripture I don't seem confrontational, but open and helpful.

Which all makes me think about how Jesus came across when he was teaching . . .

Friday

2006-07-07T12:34:00.000-05:00

Somehow, by an act of God's grace, everything seems to be getting done that needed to happen today. You have no idea how unlikely this seemed at 7:30 this morning. And it's only 12:30!

Statements of Belief

2006-07-03T13:34:00.000-05:00

Any statement of what I actually believe would simply be a snapshot of a moment on this journey of seeking God. It might be useful for helping someone put me in a convenient pigeonhole . . . and it might be helpful for my own personal reflection. But to make a belief statement of "here I stand" might also tend to hold me back from where I need to stand.

God knows where I need to be standing. Sometimes I know where I am standing. I am never certain how much those two places overlap or share space.

I would like to have a statement of what I aspire to believe, rather than a statement of what I currently believe. Something like . . . I hope to believe in the mysteries of God, of Christ, of faith, of the Holy Spirit, of the resurrection, of baptism, of the second coming of Christ, of the Church, of righteous living . . . of loving God first.

But all these are mysteries in that to God they are fully known, and to me they are partially known. I don't even know how much (25%, 50%, or 80%?) I actually know.

I want to believe in all that God is, and stand firm on the pursuit of Him. I stand hopefully and humbly on my understanding of any of the mysteries of God. It seems that what we Christians share in common are not statements of belief as much as aspirations of belief. When I see others in terms of what they hope to believe rather than what they actually might articulate as belief today or tomorrow, I can certainly be gracious.

Being gracious is good. I hope to stand firmly in my belief in graciousness.

This is it!

2006-06-26T11:32:00.000-05:00

Organizationally we may be suspected of incompetence, doctrinally we may be too diverse to qualify for "sound in the faith", we can certainly be accused of lacking a distinct vision for the "enterprise" (that's what one church consultant told me pastors should do - build an enterprise), and we don't always seem to attract the right kind of people . . . but this email today about the ladies' get-together last night is what being Christian means:

I wanted to thank you for a great evening. I've never been with that large a group of women who exchanged differing views and ideas with as much grace and respect, kindness and consideration and just good 'ole laughter as you all exhibited last night. From my perspective God was glorified.

God was definitely glorified - because love, kindness, gentleness, mercy, patience, joy, goodness, forgiveness, humility, grace, and respect were evidently present within that gathering last night! This is godliness. This is what it means to follow Christ.

Some might counter that this is not a zero-sum game. That we could embody all the first things I mentioned and still have the fruit of the Spirit, as in what I remarked was evidently shared last night.

Perhaps.

I do tend to think that choices must be made. Emphasis has to be put in certain places, and not in others. Some values have to take precedence - and I do believe that institutional efficiency often is at odds with loving community. Maybe we can't have it all. Maybe structured efficiency is somehow less than merciful, patient, and gracious - and so when cultivated hinders the others' growth.

Could it be that a distinct "entrepreneurial" vision will at some level undermine respectful, diverse, and kind dialogue? Could it subvert the practice of loving my neighbor? It just might be that we can't have both as equal emphases.

Maybe.

A Visitor's Comments

2006-06-21T08:47:00.000-05:00

This last Sunday was Corpus Christi - the feast focusing on the Body of Christ. The morning's worship centered on the meaning of Holy Communion.

I'm going to post an email that I received from a fellow-believer who joined us for worship last Sunday morning. The PCUSA general assembly was here in Birmingham last week, and three adventurous Presbyterians decided to find an emergent-like place to worship . . . and our website scored the best . . . so they came to worship with us.

I hesitate to post this because he says some complimentary things about me . . . and it's not because I am so humble that I usually don't usually share this type of stuff, but because pride is such dangerous enemy. The truth is I would love to share things like this for all the wrong reasons!

But while I'm confessing this to hedge against being self-promoting, not sharing it would keep others of you who share in this congregation from being encouraged and blessed. What I find in his comments is a testimony to God's work - that someone can come among us and they do see what I hope we are living out. This is a glory to God . . . he is helping us to live the life of community and faith that we hear Jesus talking about.

So here is his email to me on Monday - note particularly the insightful postscript about how a dismembered world is being re-membered in holy communion.
-------------------

Greg,

You had to go off to other responsibilities and we were mobbed by more of your members (that we found out weren't really members, since you don't have members), so I didn't get to speak with you after the service. [I was the one you didn't put to work.] I want you to know that the moment of transformation you described in your sermon/message/whatever YOU would call it happened for me. I told my new friends that you gave me ideas for about six communion meditations. (If those were "random" thoughts, I would like to hear you speak when you are really focused.)

I know the service was not about you, and it was designed to make that very clear, but I think you should know how very deeply the experience touched me, in mind, heart and spirit. Both sides of my brain and that part of me that is beyond thought were thoroughly engaged.

Your community is well named. I felt like I was among people seeking to live as disciples and who exhibit what true fellowship in Christ is about.

It was not MY design that brought the three of us Presbyterians together in the first place, surely not my effort that discovered your fellowhip, nor my inclination to drive to the other side of town; but God knew what needed to happen, and I am grateful.

Maybe even some of us stodgy Presbyterians can trim our sails to this move of the Spirit. Thank you for showing us what can be.

Grace and peace,
(name omitted)

PS: one communion idea your sermon triggered: If the opposite of remember is not forget, can the opposite of remember be dis-member? It is in re-membering that what is torn apart by the world is brought back together in Christ.

Theology and Children

2006-06-08T15:23:00.000-05:00

I am reading some of Children Matter. I say "some" to be honest, because I am much more of a scimmer who jumps around and gets the gist, then a reader who starts at the beginning and goes to the end.

Sunday morning after next I am supposed to help a reading group discuss the chapter on Theology and Children. The authors talk about three distinct traditions - though certianly not the only ones - sacramental, covenantal, and conversional and how each tradition tends to handle the spiritual formation of children.

Which of course makes one think about one's own experience. The churches I grew up in were definitely "conversional" - children aren't Christians until they convert. The trick was, of course, to get us to convert in that narrow window of "old enough to make a personal decision, but still young enough to not be into full-blown adolescent rebellion."

Ten to twelve seemed to work well. Much beyond that, and many didn't seem to convert - having already having decided to blow off as uncool any type of repentance. If you miss that window, I guess it often means waiting until they are somewhere into college years or later. But college age seems more like a time when kids who didn't grow up Christian turn to it, rather than those who did, but opted out, come back. They usually seem to do so later.

Anyway - makes me think, and realize how different my children's experience has been from mine. I don't think they ever had the idea they weren't Christian and needed to convert, but more like they've always been Christian and took another step, a personal one, in continuing in that direction.

I just don't think they grew up with as much fear of hell (and of God) as I did. I count that a blessing. Which puts me somewhere more in a sacramental/convenantal world in practice with my own children.

Questions About Being Church

2006-06-05T13:18:00.000-05:00

God is love. That is clear. God's love is the condition of the inter-relationship of three distinct persons who are one. Even if this is a mystery, it is still clearly the case. When only one thing is what we choose to say about God, love - the dynamic of the trinitarian existence - is what we would name.

What does it mean for us to be the church of this God? If we were to try and deduce the nature of God from churches that we see today, what would we conclude? What would be the outstanding and striking characteristic?

If people were trying to deduce what is important to God from what is important to us, what would their view of God be?

Like it or not, some value trumps other values. Choices have to be made. Those choices are not always between good and bad or holy and evil. Often they are between better and best; between high and highest. What does it mean for love to trump everything else?

What happens when we are church because of love, and through love? What happens when love is the first and greatest concern, the agenda that has first priority? What would we have to be like as church for people to conclude by looking at us that love is the chief characteristic of our God?

What would be important, and what would not be important?

Religion Test

2006-05-31T17:03:00.000-05:00

I just tried taking a religion test but couldn't make it through to the end. The choices were lousy, limited, and cliche. I wanted to find out how suitable I am for Christianity - but they didn't say anything about what "failure to complete" might mean.

It would not have been very valid anyway since I was having to fudge too many times in choosing one of their limited possibilities. The "Christian" answer was usually obvious but many times I cringed at the characterization it inferred.

I guess one thing it does say: I'm not a Christian in terms of the test-makers' definition.

Living true in Love

2006-05-25T14:59:00.000-05:00

Last night in our discussion we looked at the familar statement in Ephesians 4:15 commonly rendered in English translations as: "speaking the truth in love".

Naturally, we have often read the English as if the instruction is about preaching or proclaiming truth, with "love" being the way we go about telling others the truth. In other words, we need to tell others what is true, but do it lovingly. The "truth" in this reading of the verse comes down to facts, information, or doctrines. That is what we've heard this verse saying.

But the original Greek has a whole different meaning. The Greek uses a verb form for truth, in essence saying something untranslatable into English - truing in love. The Pulpit Commentary remarks that this word is hardly translatable in English - "it implies being true as well as speaking the truth and following the truth. Truth is the element in which we are to live, move, and have our being."

Rather than being about telling truth in a loving way to others, it is about us being true in love. It's why Paul then talks about the body of Christ building itself up in love - rather than truth.

The focus is not propositional truth statements told in a loving way, but love lived in a true way.

Through it all Tim brought up the concept of truing a tire, which is shaving rubber off an uneven tire until it is perfectly round again. We couldn't think of another English use of true as a verb - but this one works well.

We are to be trued in love.

Then we will be like Jesus, who is truth - not just has it or spoke it, but is truth.

Being true in love.

Holy Communion

2006-05-18T11:02:00.000-05:00

I grew up in a Christian tradition that observed the Lord's Supper frequently, but from where I now stand, didn't do it well or with much meaning. We were doing it because we were supposed to . . . and dutifully partook and tried to think the right thoughts in order to please (appease) God. Our thinking didn't go much beyond "we were commanded to do this, so here we are."

Andrew Jones shares a bit of his dialogue with some others in a post when he says:

"so let me get this straight. after examining the last supper of Jesus and the historical accounts of the early church, you have come up with a communion service that: - excludes children, swaps a full meal for a sample, avoids any technology, forbids joy or laughter, happens in a hall with men on a stage, dispenses with conversation, has no wine whatsoever . . and you think that is more biblical? more godly?"

I have the same question - how'd we get here? How can we with a straight face claim that what we have done is anything like the early Christ-follwers? Face it . . . we can't.

However, try to make holy meal more meal-like and authenic and you'll find out how uncomfortable many would be if they were transported back to one of the early churches. Actually, I really don't want a codified observance in any format. It's not like I believe that we must make it more like the original meal. I just wonder what's the problem if we do?

Monday I was sharing a meal with a Roman Catholic brother who expressed his confidence that the Eucharist, in the western tradition, would continued to be celebrated a 1000 years from now. I don't doubt that. I actually enjoy such a solemn, content laden, personally formative, and God-is-present observance.

What I don't get is why it has to be that way. The early Christians didn't have a formal, lengthy, prescribed celebration. They also didn't have a pinch of cracker and sip of Welch's.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not favoring a mode. I am wondering why we've become committed to modes, one way or the other. Give me formal and reverential. Then give me informal and conversational. Tell me when to stand, kneel, and sit. Next, let me do whatever I want. Let's have a full meal, and then let's have a pinch and sip.

No longer being a "patternist" in my thinking, I don't believe that we must celebrate communion in the exact mode of the earliest believers, but I also do not want to become exclusivistic about any later traditions associated with this sacrament. Those modes are not sacred unless we believe some era of the historical church after the first century achieved a level of perfection not realized among the apostles and their congregants.

2006-05-17T09:36:00.000-05:00

This irreverant (be warned) satire on evangelism is too true.

Finding Direction in the Missio Dei

2006-05-16T08:45:00.000-05:00

A God-is-Distant Beginning
For me, and some others with similar journeys, we started out with a very removed God. He worked closely with his people in "Bible times" - miracles, prophecies, inspiration, and direct guidance - but in our day had drawn back, no longer doing anything "supernatural." Fortunately, God had left us a manual, the Bible, which we were to follow carefully, mining it for clues about how to please him by doing the right things.

Obviously, though we wouldn't have said that God was an impersonal force, practically our interaction with God was very impersonal because all we had was the Bible. We lived with and by a set of documents. God was passive and an observer while we worked hard to please him according to the instructions he'd given.

A God-is-Near Discovery
Something world-changing happened when I was found by the reality of a near God, who was not only known distantly through texts, but immediately by his continued work and presence. Obviously, I didn't throw away my Bible. I did, though, need to discover how to live within the presence of God, interacting moment by moment.

Now I can change my verbs to present tense - and I am still learning how to live with God as a person. This is not easy, because besides the old view I had, there are other ideas about what it means for God to be real and active in our world, and for us to shape our lives to his reality.

A God-is-Leading-Me View
See, some would tell me that since God is living, active, and present - I can expect constant and daily guidance in everything. Walking in the Spirit means taking every matter to God and looking for divine help - answers, direction, or whatever is needed. Being a spiritual person means being in touch with God's voice, and his word is personalized to me and directs me each moment to do His Will. We learn to hear God's voice and to faithfully respond.

In it's best aspects, this view takes seriously God's involvement in our world and encourages constant reliance on Him. I am to think of God always, and trust Him for everything. That is good.

One of the possible problems with this approach is the assumption that there is personalized divine direction for everything. Will God tell me specifically which car to buy? I don't mean does he establish principles of moderation, of propriety, of extravagance, and of stewardship under which I look for how to be godly in my decision, but will God pick the Toyota over the Ford for me directly? Am I to look for a sign of God's leading when I am in the dealership?

It may sound as if I am making fun of this view, but I am not. These are real, practical questions for how I am to expect God's Presence to shape me. These are faithful questions. Do I look for specific, addressed-to-my-question answers?

An associated problem is how to know whether I am getting that direction from God, or is my "impulse" coming from somewhere else? It can become too easy to be certain that all my urgings are from God. If I adopt this approach, at least let me be hesitant with my "readings" of God's Will lest certitude close me off from God's direction which may not always come from within me. A good question is whether God's direction is regularly or only occasionally a matter of an "inner" message laid on the heart.

A God-is-at Work View
I actually like another understanding of God's immediate action and presence, and a different expectation of what it means for me to receive direction - and this is the Missio Dei, or Mission of God. This is a different starting point: God is at work with his purpose or mission, rather than God is at work guiding me. Let me try to unpack the difference.

Starting from the Missio Dei we would say that God is not distant, but as throughout history, intimately involved in his creation. God is near and active. What God is doing is completing his work. His constant activity is not attending to me (answering my questions, directing each decision) but attending to his purpose. This doesn't mean I have no direction. It doesn't mean God is leaving me out. On the contrary, my work is to join God in his mission! He has shown us what is good . . . act justly, love mercy, walk humbly with your God.

I do have constant direction from God, but it is not centered on me and my questions about this or that in life, but centered on Him and his purpose. My direction is not what car to buy, but how to be about God's purpose. Ultimately, with this view, I do have to bring my purchase of a car under God's direction. I do not expect God to make something happen to direct me to the right car dealership, and choose the "right" model, but I do have to ask how my choices might be in harmony or out of harmony with God's purposes.

The spiritual life, walking in the Spirit, or however you want to describe this God-centered life . . . is not learning to be a "sign-reader" of all God's personalized messages to me, but how to conform myself to what God is really doing. God is not attending to me; I am learning to attend to Him. There is a world of difference here.

2006-05-08T08:40:00.000-05:00

We wrestled in prayer this morning . . . and God delivered. Malevolent presence was replaced by comfort and peace.

Weekend Update . . .

2006-05-01T12:08:00.000-05:00

Had a great time in Dothan, AL yesterday with Christians of The Journey. Two of us went to spend Sunday with them, and were blessed by their gracious hospitality and encouraged by their community and focus.

I told them that it reminded me of being in Africa - where every Sunday was a 2-4 hour drive to a church to teach, discuss, and reconnect with Christians I hadn't seen in a while.

We get to experience the same in reverse next weekend, as Christians who've started a house church in Auburn travel here and we'll have some time to sit down and discuss how God leads in being his people in our respective situations.

Should be a blessing!

Idealists and Intuitives

2006-04-28T08:12:00.000-05:00

I am quite clearly an idealist. That is to say, I try to live out of ideas . . . principles that are as true as I can make them to my own understanding. I guess it goes with being an idealist that one then tries to order life according to those ideals, which means that integrity is the consistent application of those truths. For an idealist, to lack integrity is to not aspire to the truths one knows. In other words, to know, but to ignore and do otherwise.

One thing I have learned, that has tempered my idealism, is that my hold on truth is flawed. Furthermore, the exact nature of where my perception is flawed is hidden from me. So my idealism is for me the way I must go, while I must also be constantly ready to adjust that idealism to new understandings of truth.

We had a guest last Sunday, a Roman Catholic scholar who spoke (among other things) about Aristotle's view of man. One of the fundamental characteristics of man is his desires, which is quite different from the mind. For me it is natural as an idealist for my desires to be for a life ordered more about the mind seeking truth - and as a Christian truth is the person of God.

However, I see that others order their lives around their desires, and the mind for them works to support their desires. I am not talking about sinful, fleshly desires, just that they seem to want, not as the result of thinking, but just out of who they are. I am also not suggesting that their desires are selfish. Perhaps I could contrast their approach as more intuitive versus my idealism. This is, I assume, as natural for them as my idealism is for me. But it sure drives me nuts!

So here's the confession . . . being with those who think and live this way is work for an idealist! I just don't know how to do this well (at least "well" in the way I think of it). But that's another whole subject . . .

So here's what happens: I think about how we should be based on seeking truth, my desires not being as important as finding truth - at least as well as I can grasp it at this moment. These other people, most unlike me as they can be, seem to desire a way to be. I am not saying this is wrong, just talking about how foreign our processes are to one another.

While my thinking is toward discovering how we should be, their thinking seems to run toward finding ways to say why we should be as they desire to be. I can see all sorts of inconsistency in their thinking. What is put forward to "support" a desire would be disowned by them in an instant with regard to another of their desires that it would not support. But I realize that "consistency" in thinking is important for me in ways it is not likely as important for them.

This drives me bonkers. For me, living by my thinking (flawed as it is, but what else do I have?) is my end; for them, thinking is a means to support the ends they desire.

The weird thing for an idealist to realize is that their desires have as much a chance of being "right" as my grasp on truth. Since my best efforts to order life around a search for God, in a particular manner, is always flawed, their desires might be as true or even more correct. Whose to say?

So we are left to muddle through, living as inscrutable creatures to one another. And so here is God - creating space for the practice of grace, patience, love, acceptance, and all other aspects of his nature by shaping some of us as idealists and others as intuitives. That we live in this tension is likely more important than sorting out our different approaches - which probably will never happen anyway. There isn't much chance of me ever not being an idealist. I can't expect to turn intuitives into people like me.

An intuitive probably wouldn't have spent the last hour trying to sort out a cognitive framework for understanding this dynamic.

Dietrich

2006-04-25T12:20:00.000-05:00

I watched a PBS presentation on Bonhoeffer last night. The show was really well done with interviews with his students, his best friend from when he was teaching in the seminary in northern Germany, the sister of the young woman he proposed to . . . and of course they included many of his own words from his books and letters.

His understanding that faith had to have concrete expression in the world - which did not allow him to ignore the Nazis' actions - is compelling. His willingness to identify with the hurting and marginalized people, abdicating his position of safety to risk death with even those who did not share his faith, is truly a story of the presence of Christ.

He obviously wrestled with the meaning of faith - pursuing with sincerity what he believed was truly faithful, while struggling with profound questions.

As much as he believed that his faithful duty was to oppose Hitler, and even to try and kill him, the events show that it was not God's will that Hitler die by another's hand. I don't intend to defend God's choices . . . God has mercy on whom he has mercy.

I have no doubt that Bonhoeffer was faithful and pleasing to God even though what he tried to accomplish God did not wish to do. Instead of bringing a tyrant to the grave, God gave the church a martyr . . . and a clear voice that needs to be heard today.

Recent Blessings . . .

2006-04-12T12:24:00.000-05:00

Had a visit from Eddie Rogers last week. Eddie and his wife Kathy were missionaries in Kenya when we were in Tanzania, and I hadn't seen him since before they left Kenya in 1997. It was so good to see him again . . . and to talk.

They have recently moved out of their denominational heritage and are discovering what else they've been missing. It's never all good, but there is more good in Christianity than is contained in any of it's denominational manifestations.

We remembered conversations long ago about such matters . . . while sitting in their home in Sotik, and later Kericho. They lived along the road we would take for the 13 hour drive from our home to Nairobi, Kenya for doctor's appointments and to stock up on supplies.

We were talking then about a journey which continues now in different circumstances - but it is the same seeking of God that we were about then. Today we are still being formed more by the Misseo Dei than pragmatics, economics, career opportunities, denominational structures, or such.

I was also blessed last week to hear Brian McLaren speak at Samford University on the subject of interfaith dialogue. His sense of needing to be generous and respectful, truth-seeking while not fearful, open, careful, and nuanced in dialogue, and to be true to convictions all resonate powerfully with me. It was a reminder of what I have sensed is so needed.

In one week, these two events reaffirmed to me the journey which I first understood in Africa, and the difficulties of pursuing it where civil religion and the lure of respectability and practicality demand other choices. This Easter we need a resurrection of simple faith, discipleship, obedience, and love in a Christian world too enamored with its economic weight, media inroads, political initiatives, and institutional efficiency.

I guess, like Paul, I want to say "I was not disobedient to the vision" (Acts 26:19). It is not an undestanding that I force on anyone, but concerning which I will speak to everyone who is willing to listen. Ironically, it is a vision which includes room for those who don't share it . . . which is the posture Brian was talking about.

2006-04-07T08:33:00.000-05:00

Being gracious.

Exuding love.

Patience which is long-lasting.

Unpretentious kindness.

Deeply rooted humility.

Ready forgiveness.

Self-sacrifice for others.

Promoting peace.

Quietness.

Simplicity.

Generous assumptions.

Loving what is good.

The uncommon manifestations of the presence of God in us.

Free-Market Christianity?

2006-03-29T12:04:00.000-06:00

Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, has a book out about free-market small groups that someone showed me a few weeks ago. He also has one out entitled the Jerusalem Diet for how to reach your ideal weight . . . but I am trying to avoid my less-than-gracious urges to say more about that one.

Back to the first book: though I appreciate the desire to be relevant, I worry that we are too often treating Christianity like a belief system that can be communicated by any "effective" means. The idea is that Americans, who are people raised in and accustomed to a free-market society, must have their church small groups conform to that model . . . in order for the small groups to be effective. The belief is that the way to form our spiritual lives is along the lines of the economic models of our society. Economic theory becomes the guide for how to pursue spiritual formation.

I actually applaud the creativity, wholism, God-in-everything, and anything-can-be-holy concept that Ted is promoting, but I don't like the idea that we ought to pragmatically do life in whatever way our society endorses. Aren't there theological reasons for being creative, wholistic, seeing God in all of life, and reclaiming all sorts of activities as God-honoring? Do we do this only because it fits the free-market economics of our nation? Do we encourage creativity in forming small groups because our economy endorses the idea of a free-market, or because God is creative and our human diversity is by his design and ought to be encouraged?

Obviously, I think there are compelling out-of-the-nature-of-God reasons for what Ted talks about. But when we say we are encouraging people to be creative, to find God in everything because they live in a free-market society and like things that way . . . we put our economic system in the guiding role.

I know . . . we have to communicate the message in ways people can relate to. However, do I want to tie the message of the Kingdom of God to the principles of a free-market economy? Do I want to say that these two go together like hand-in-glove? Do I believe that these are wholly complementary? Is there nothing about our free-market economy that God's Reign questions?

This is actually a much bigger problem of the people of God losing their identity. It is the belief that all that is "good" about America is consistent with being the people of faith. Being a "good" American - supporting democracy, a free-market economy, free-trade, opposing big government, advocating low taxes, and such ("good American" as understood by the conversative right) - is part of being a good Christian.

The church that sells itself to people with the message of how appealing, satisfying, and relevant it is, and tries to build customer loyalty so expand marketshare is following the American ideal. The prevalent model of church in a free-market society where the competitive capitalistic values have become the norm for how the people of faith pursue a life of faith, has lost its identity. No longer can such a church call people to what is unpopular, uncomfortable, unaccustomed, or unlike the status quo. A free-market culls out whatever doesn't sell.

Don't assume that I am opposed to free-markets, or democracy, or that I like big government. I don't and I'm not. I just know that such things stand under the judgment of God, and are imperfect. I know that as the people of God we will never be completely comfortable nor in harmony with our society - whether we live in communist North Korea or in the Bible belt of the southern U.S.

If we stop being theologically-driven, and become pragmatically-driven, becoming the advocates of national political or economic policies and equating those with our faith, our identity in God is compromised.

I really don't want to take Ted to task, for I assume his motives are nothing but good. I want to offer a critique of an approach that his book perhaps exemplifies, in the hope that we might be formed by who God is rather than the ways of our culture.

Good blog post by Creech

2006-03-21T14:59:00.000-06:00

I was reading Creech's blog today (http://www.alancreech.com/) and felt a kinship with him.

Though I was planted in different soil than him, I've think I've come to the place of not wanting to be stuffed into religious boxes anymore-which is what I see him saying. I don't want to choose a label, a flavor, a limited expression of faith and make it my norm. Of course, whatever I actually do will reflect some flavor or branch of the Christian Church . . . that's obvious.

I also don't want to try and be ahistorical, pretending I'm somehow able to transcend the realities of being a follower of Jesus in a time and place. I can't be a Christian without a context. In fact, only within a context (a real circumstance) can we be Christians.

Strangely enough, the heritage I grew up in once said things like "Christians only, but not the only Christians" and somehow lost that sentiment. Now trying to be "just a Christian" gets one in trouble with the very denomination that once sought to be only that.

Of course my own heritage has no monopoly on being denominationally-minded. It's the disease of denominationalism.

A short note . . .

2006-03-10T08:45:00.000-06:00

To someone who is struggling and asked for my prayer, I wrote . . .

I certainly will be praying. Sounds, though, like a regular day for most people – that is, to struggle with all sorts of thoughts, impulses, and temptations. Sometimes we become more aware, and sometimes the struggle is greater. I do not say that to downplay what you’re feeling, but only to remind you that it may be more typical than atypical. In other words, of such is the nature of our journey.

For whatever reason the struggle is increased, or your awareness has been deepened, I pray that you will find the grace to practice simple obedience – following carefully the way of Jesus through submission to God, humility, full dependence, honest confession, and above all love. This I have great confidence you will continue under God’s strength and blessing, though the immediate difficulties may be apparent as beyond your abilities – as truly they are.

Perhaps such unsettledness of spirit is a nudge into healing those parts that still hurt, so it may be angels and not demons that stir these emotions. Either way, God’s goodness will be realized through your patient seeking.

Peace.

Birmingham Today

2006-02-27T12:26:00.000-06:00

Despite what I said in the previous post - I just looked at the Birmngham News' newly published civil rights era photos. So I am posting after all.

I look at those images and think that the people working non-violently for rights, for opportunity, for justice . . . won technically, but I am afraid that looking at Birmingham today, they really lost.

Bigotry and prejudice are always inventive, and ways were found to comply with the changes in law but to keep the evil going. New legal ways were crafted to separate blacks and whites, for the whites to hold onto wealth, and to leave blacks in poverty.

Here in the great "Christian" south where some champion putting the ten commandments front and center, we still fail miserably to do right by our neighbors. Some southerners will resent my assertion, but then you only have to go outside this area to see what life is like where racial prejudice does not continue to profoundly shape society.

To be fair, prejudice exists everywhere -it was Polacks when I lived in Iowa, wogs and aborigines in Australia, wetbacks in Texas . . . but there is something more prevalent where the separation continues in systemic ways.

What the bigots don't realize is that when any of us are impoverished, it affects us all. We are all poorer. You don't get ahead by stepping on others . . . you only sink down by trying to push them down.

Reusing Posts

2006-02-27T12:02:00.000-06:00

Because I have too much to do to write another post today, or at least I think I have too much to do, I am including part of a post from my other blog, Contemplations.

peace.
----------------

Contemplation #111
“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ . . .” Galatians 1:6

The grace of Christ tolerates no rivals and no exceptions. God’s grace is so all-consuming that it leaves no room for any other way of living. Therefore, any move to live by means other than grace is a desertion of God’s merciful action in Christ. This is why our abandonment of grace can come quickly. We do not slide gradually from living by grace, but at the first turn to something other we immediately abandon God and the way of grace. The nature of grace means, though, that my quick desertion of it is not the same of God’s removal of it. Paul instructs us to return to the grace that we so quickly leave, living intentionally once again in that which we left, though which did not leave us.

Another Voice . . .

2006-02-23T12:54:00.000-06:00

Words from Ozzy Osbourne's Dreamer:

Gazing through the window at the world outside
Wondering will mother earth survive
Hoping that mankind will stop abusing her
sometime

After all there's only just the two of us
And here we are still fighting for our lives
Watching all of history repeat itself
Time after time

I'm just a dreamer
I dream my life away
I'm just a dreamer
Who dreams of better days

I watch the sun go down like everyone of us
I'm hoping that the dawn will bring a sign
A better place for those Who will come after us ...
This time

I'm just a dreamer
I dream my life away oh yeah
I'm just a dreamer
Who dreams of better days

Your higher power may be God or Jesus Christ
It doesn't really matter much to me
Without each others help there ain't no hope for us
I'm living in a dream of fantasy
Oh yeah, yeah, yeah

Truth Telling

2006-02-18T21:00:00.000-06:00

I think that I (and I cannot say to what degree this may or may not be true for others) am still only slowly coming to understand how Jesus dealt lovingly with others - to nurture them toward God. I am convicned that I have not known how to be first loving, and only "right" within that framework.

Too often in the past I said what was "right" or "correct" on a matter, believing that being truthful in telling others what was right was to be loving. It makes good logic, but in practice I think it is actually self-satisfying. What I mean is that when I tell someone else truth to unburden myself, I am telling them out of self-love, not love for others.

Surely you know the same Bible stories that made me tend to do this - the lepers who had to tell everyone that the enemy army was gone. The watchman who isn't guilty of the people's blood as long as he sounds the alarm; if they don't listen, their blood is on their heads.

Many times I think I was like Pilate, washing my hands of other people's blood, by making sure I told them the truth. Now it was up to them - not me anymore. I was off the hook eternally.

Now when I look at the gospels - I just don't see Jesus telling others "truth" so he wouldn't be responsible. He seemed to say what they needed, not what "truth" demanded.

If you don't know what I mean by "truth" here . . . this is going to be long enough without explaining it completely. Maybe I can say simply, "truth" is something that I believe to be "right" but may have nothing to do with helping anyone. It's sterile, laboratory truth. It's truth about what is sin. That kind of statement.

Contrast this with Jesus talking to the woman caught in adultery. When he says "I don't condemn you . . . go and sin no more" he tells her three things, only one of which is new. She knew what she was doing was sin, and that she shouldn't do it anymore. It had been 1200 years since Moses received the ten commandments. She knew this.

What Jesus told her that was new was that he didn't condemn her. What if Christians stopped being those who tell everyone the "truth" of how what they are doing is wrong, and shared the truth of how Jesus (and his followers) are not in the condemning business?

We'll all be roundly labelled as soft on sin, of simply being pc, of being tolerant and reflective of a permissive age, and not believing in absolutes.

Oh, well.

Order and Love

2006-02-14T14:27:00.000-06:00

In part of our coffee conversation the idea was raised that in congregational life orderliness and love are at odds. Orderliness can have many forms such as to be nice and neat about beliefs and practices, about forms and structures, or about ways of simply doing community. Love is about acceptance.

Orderliness requires the exclusion of any who might not conform. When the dominant "order" is love, then there is the inclusion of diversity in belief and practice, forms and structure, and divergent ways of being a community.

The unavoidable reality is that there is a lack of orderliness in humanity, and in our spiritual condition. To love will mean not easing our discomfort concerning the orderliness of another that seems disorderly to me.

Catching the Wave

2006-02-08T09:06:00.000-06:00

We are glad to begin sharing the building we lease with another church, Tapestry of Hope. For anyone who's been missing going to two services on Sundays . . . well now at our Lorna Road building Disciples' Fellowship meets in the mornings and Tapestry of Hope in the evenings.

The really cool thing is that this is just one in several ways in which God has mulitiplied our participation with His people in the last few weeks. In my missions experience, it takes 2-3 years for a movement to really get started, to work through the start-up process, and then begin really moving as God directs.

Realistically, many who began this journey did so with a considerable amount of extra luggage - more like great weights and chains which shackled everything. Thorugh God's grace we've are being brought to where we won't bind our burdens on others - and have been freed to lay much down that was needless and the dictates of men.

To me this is a sign of God moving us into an exciting and uncomfortable adventure (uncomfortable if you like knowing what is going to happen) of being and doing what will be to God's glory.

It seems that some of that is going to be practicing a unity with believers and an acceptance of anyone struggling to come to belief.

When our work in Africa reached this point I likened it to riding the crest of a wave of the Spirit's working . . . just trying to ride it and knowing there is no controlling it.

Way cool.

Out of A Continuing Thought

2006-01-30T09:24:00.000-06:00

Yesterday the lectionary text that we looked at duirng our meditation was 1 Cor. 8. I find that this is a difficult text because we are so distant from the type of circumstances that it is discussing, and we tend to equate much lesser matters - like how I feel about what you're doing or how what you do makes me uncomfortable or offends me - with what was at stake in dining in the temples of idols.

Something that came to me this morning is that we are not just looking at how to form people to be moral, but we are forming them to be like Jesus. For sure, being like Jesus means being moral, but it is possible to form people to be moral without them being like Jesus.

One of the scariest parts of the this passage is the radical freedom that Paul talks about - where he has no problem, per se, with believers eating food off the altars of other gods. The temptation for us is to quash such freedom to make sure that we form people to moral. But if we form people to be moral through legalism (and it certainly can be done - as Paul knew as a pharisee) they are not moral out of the love of God, that is, moral as Jesus was moral.

Morality through legalism is not the same as morality born out of love. To form people in the image of Christ we must talk about radical freedom.

Yesterday's Lunch

2006-01-24T09:08:00.000-06:00

I was blessed yesterday to share lunch with Father William Wilson. We immediately have struck up a closeness that can only be in God, and is fueled by the similar ways that we have been formed - though we started from very different places and have come through dissimilar traditions.

I have much to learn from Father Wilson: his focus on the love of God through Christ's Passion and the Eucharist, what he's learned about spiritual disciplines in 25 years as a Trappist monk and seven years in silence, and his theological training (he is quick to point out that our lives are not about religion and orthodoxy, though there is a place for doctrine, but rather about the love of God).

He is so transparent about his struggles, and we share some of the same. We talked about so much yesterday - the power of ego, of the way in which scripture informs our lives in Christ but must not take center stage in our faith, about being open to what the Spirit is doing and recognizing that movement in so many diverse gatherings of believers, and Christian mysticism.

As he remarked yesterday, this is what being Christians is about - people getting together and having discussions about Christ, and sharing the good news of God's love - that it is given completely and unconditionally to each person, without preference or degree, but fully to every individual. Talking to one another about this gift and learning to live within it, this is so much different than being religious.

Because we come from such different worlds in Christianity, when either one of us references a movement or discussion, the other is completely unaware of it - which shows me how the Spirit is doing much of the same work in all parts of the Church even when those parts aren't in regular dialogue.

I am looking forward to Father Wilson, as he prefers it, having some conversation and dialogue with the gathering of believers at Disciples' Fellowship. How amazing - he prefers communal conversation to one person lecturing! Who would've guessed????

A Gift of Grace

2006-01-21T22:41:00.000-06:00

I am having way too much fun, and should be feeling more guilty for enjoying life so much. I have even stopped worrying that it's sure to end in utter catastrophe (it might, though).

Marsha and I enjoyed the show Thirtysomething before we left for Africa. I know that the series got panned by some as trite, but I thought, and still do, that it dealt with real issues in real ways. They were just the problems of a person living with oneself and others - and not issues of larger scale.

I remember the show where Michael Stedman is told that he can't enjoy the now because he's always waiting for the Cassocks to sweep down and destroy the village. Maybe I've always been a little that way. Always pushing to do, and not enjoying the being in the here and now enough. Didn't know the sacrament of the present moment.

By some mystery of God's grace, I am now in a place of peace and joy and am not even worrying about when it will end. The realization that it could all end tomorrow doesn't even fill me with anxiety, though I am in no way in denial about the fact that something will happen, sooner or later.

I don't think that I am to indulge in these gifts selfishly, though. Actually, being "in" these gifts helped me to truly "be" with a good friend, David Emerson, and his children as David's wife, Beth, passed away 10 days ago. Sitting in the waiting room, going into the ICU ward to pray with the family, and accompanying them when the end came . . . without the grace of these gifts I don't think I would have ever been able to truly "be" there . . . unselfishly, without self-conscious concerns, and open to letting God's grace touch them.

I say this not boastfully, but in true awe. I used to be a person who fled from emotional situations, was extremely uncomfortable around death and dying, and tried to ignore suffering. I confess that I "thought my way through" much of the suffering I encountered in Africa, often not acknowledging the real hurt - afraid it would be too crushing to think about. How astonishing that God could change me this much.

If I can see any design of God in my life, one clear pattern is that He moves me to a place of "being" which then becomes obvious as a means for some service of His planning.

Though I enjoy the peace and clarity I now have, I think I've be graced with this for a purpose . . . to share this grace. The hard part, at least right now, seems to be having something I believe i am supposed to share but not knowing exactly how to do it. In what way am I to impart this peace and grace? I interact constantly with so many who are in such turmoil and I don't know what I am supposed to be doing. What I do manage to offer, seems so little and ineffectual. This grace is not given to others easily.

Okay . . . time to stop writing. I've simply been thinking out loud in this post. No plan . . . just write whatever comes . . . and then have the guts to click the "Publish Post" button. Here goes . . .

Gift or Vice?

2006-01-17T09:56:00.000-06:00

Steve raises a good question - is charisma (our choice for naming a personal attractiveness which draws others) a gift which is redeemable though also able to be abused? Or is it like being born hot-tempered or with addictive tendencies - always a source of personal struggle and what, if left unchecked by God's grace and strength, will lead to all sorts of problems.

If it is the latter, then the redeeming aspect is that it is a thorn in the flesh, something to be mortified and which constantly reminds one to be humble and how thoroughly sinful the human heart is.

For many, this human attractiveness is unquestionably a gift which we should cultivate and employ, because it is useful in 'bringing people to Christ'.

An innate self-assurredness may also tend to foster security and confidence in others, but it may be nothing more than pride. If people want someone to 'follow' who exudes competence, that might be more appealing than someone broken and humble, but that doesn't make personal competence a gift to be used to God's glory.

I am not convinced that charisma, the natural way some people can draw individuals to themselves, is good. If they have a 'natural' skill at this that could easily be used to draw people to anything - even that which has nothing to do with Christ - then I truly wonder if this is a gift to be turned to God's use, or a temptation to be avoided.

Paul was trained in rhetoric, but chose to keep his proclamation simple and free from such techniques. Why didn't he use his training to help 'advance' God's cause - redeeming all that schooling? Can't the wisdom of men be put to redeemed use in the Kingdom of God?

We are not told to draw people to Christ, but that God/Christ will draw people to the Son/Himself. The charisma of a person should not draw people, but if anything should draw others toward an individual, then it should be only and nothing more than Christ in that person. There should be nothing about the person that we should desire him/her - isn't that what was said of Jesus?

Just because people (some people, certainly not all) were drawn to Jesus, must we conclude that he had a personal or innate charisma? Maybe the scripture is right - there was NOTHING about him that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected. He couldn't be ignored because he was radical and thrust himself into the nation's debate, but were people drawn to a magnetic personally? Or did seekers find in this most unlikely of backwoods tradesman something of God, and that drew them because he was a teacher come from God?

I believe we want to think that what we find personally effective should be good - it's good if it gets results. But have we lost too much along the way?

Okay . . . I know . . . I'm outside the popular opinions on this type of stuff . . . and I irritate others by even raising such questions. I will try and mortify, and others may try and redeem . . . and we will all trust in God.

More on Charisma

2006-01-12T19:07:00.000-06:00

During a recent lunch with a man who was a Trappist monk for 25 years, we were discussing charisma. He noted that priests are trained to restrain and diminsh themselves, to nurture public self-abasement so that they might allow the focus to be on the Eucharist that they administer.

Is personal charisma generally helpful - or does it tend to obscure Christ? I tend to think that the ancient traditions which seek to spiritually form their ministers to restrain themselves probably have the right idea.

Random Thought

2006-01-09T14:00:00.000-06:00

Sometimes I think about something in a strange circumstance - when it doesn't seem to connect to what is going on. Usually those ideas just go away . . .

While loading my car in the Sam's parking lot (plates, cups, coffee, etc . . . all the "stuff" we consume in fellowship) this popped into my head:

Charisma wins out over integrity. People may admire integrity, but they often choose charisma.

Prayer for Starting the Year

2006-01-05T08:04:00.000-06:00

We struggled last night through what to pray about for the coming year. No one suggested their own vision of prosperity - which was good and no less than I would expect.

Last week we listened to and talked about 'Peace of Mind' by Boston, and then tried to think of what would be our orientation for seeking God's life in ours through this next year - or at least how we understand that here at the beginning.

Every one had good thoughts, and were confident enough to be self-revealing about struggles and doubts. In some ways our small group sounded glum, but then surprizingly we were also confident.

Through the discussion I was thinking over what I had said to someone earlier in the week: that I am dangerously content.

So my prayer comes out as longing to be thirsty and hungry while enjoying being filled and satisfied. I guess I see some dangers in God's gifts - namely me and my ability to take something good and twist it to my own destruction.

Incarnational Unity

2005-12-19T14:05:00.000-06:00

I've been thinking about Christian unity. One conclusion that I've been driven to by my experiences is that God's unity is beyond and more than human endeavors.

I say this because if the reality of godly unity were only known through experience, I would struggle to affirm its existence at all. The existence to which I could attest would only be that it is fleeting, easily disrupted by human agendas, and not very powerful in transforming our world. If unity has to do with the presence of God's reign, practical observation would lead me to question whether the Kingdom is near.

So I am convinced that unity does not exist only with our experience of it, but even when we fail to embrace it, live it, see it, or understand it. Christian unity is a spiritual reality despite our historical realities.

I also know the dangers of simply spiritualizing something, making it ethereal and intangible, so as to justify its non-existence in so much of our communal living out of faith. That is an easy path to take - excuse our failure by claiming unity has no Monday morning or Friday night meanings.

This is why I find myself wanting to talk about Christian unity as being incarnational - of God beyond history, and yet of God in history.

When I experience so little living out of unity in faith, I am reminded that the reality of unity is not proved by experience. However, I am called to relentlessly pursue the practice of particularized unity, historical unity, in everyday living unity . . . and so the unity which is beyond history is also historical. Our unity is a tension even as Jesus, God-as-man, is the tension of the beyond history and historical flesh and blood.

Advent

2005-12-12T10:04:00.000-06:00

The first three Sundays of Advent have been particularly rich in our fellowship gatherings. Perhaps it is because many of us came from Christian traditions that would readily celebrate Christmas as a "Santa" focused holiday, with little or no emphasis on Christ.

There is a redeeming of the season going on in my heart . . . and I think in others as well.

A Constantinian Christmas

2005-12-06T12:01:00.000-06:00

I am reading A Peculiar People by Rodney Clapp, which probably isn't good because it encourages the radical within me . . . and I generally don't need any encouragement in that area.

Put that together with the current blurring of lines between Christianity and politics in our country and the way Christmas has become anything but spiritual, and I'm in a radical mood.

Here's some of my beef:

That Christianity sacrifices its essence in trying to create a kingdom of this world is apparent in many ways. It wasn't long after Jesus said that his kingdom was not of this world that his followers started to try and prove him wrong. "In, but not of" has been discarded for "over and of".

This continuing trend is seen in the conservative right's attempts to create a theocracy - or claim that America has always been one - and rewrite history in the process. This New York Times article gives one such example regarding the present season.

I noticed another indication in my recent visits to Kirklands. I have been looking for candlesticks and whatever we might use to create a more sacred place for where we gather to worship. Kirklands has a good selection of crosses, ones to hang on the wall, table crosses, nativity scenes, and all types of items symbolic of Christian faith.

But I don't like it.

The problem is, I think that Christian faith is now sinking into a sentimental and nostalgic part of our history, so it is "in" to decorate and accessorize with symbols of Christian faith. Turn faith into fashion and it ceases to be authentic.

But this is the end of trying to make Jesus' kingdom into a realm of this world. The path ends in quaint reminders of what has in reality lost all meaning. When it is not scandalous to wear a cross, it is not a sign that our culture is Christian, but that the meaning of the cross has been compromised.

Of course, I can take advantage of Kirklands' marketing and easily find symbols of the sacred . . . but for our community these aren't simply options for interior decoration. We have to be keepers of radical faith that is not of this world . . . which isn't easy in a world where faith is trivialized as a political agenda, a marketing strategy, a sentimental curio, or a national identity.

Reviewing the Journey

2005-11-26T10:48:00.000-06:00

I keep thinking about this journey we've been on for almost three years. What I mean is that I reflect on where God has been leading us, how in general terms it is what we vaguely imagined, but how in specific ways we have moved along in ways I didn't imagine.

There are at least two reasons this keeps churning over in my mind: 1) as a congregation we continue to talk about what we are to be, reviewing and adjusting our sense of community and mission to hopefully tune our walk to the Spirit's rhythm, and 2) we've had and receive opportunities to discuss with others how they might embark on a similar trek through non-institutionalized Christian life.

Our general idea of being a congregation that does nothing to further its own existence but only seeks to be involved in God's Mission in the world has been an interesting goal. This value has led us to have no weekly contributions, to abolish any sort of church membership, to de-emphasize the Sunday gathering so as to not let it be the penultimate mark of faithfulness or Christian life, to remain largely unstructured and unorganized, and to choose to meet in a leased building.

This concept has also entered into our reluctance to do much with having signs. Anything that moves our focus off living for Christ daily and onto building up "our church" has been suspect. By implication all marketing is out. So is any proselyting of people to come to "our church."

This is not to suggest that sharing this vision has been all that easy. We've all had to struggle with tendencies to fall back into institutionally-focused ways of thinking and acting. It is easy to want to ensure our own existence by planning for our corporate future, and harder to allow God the freedom to do whatever He wants.

One leader of another church in town, on hearing of our original vision of being a church that welcomed and accepted marginalized people, remarked that one couldn't build a church with people like that. In other words, you need resources to build a church . . . and when you focus on the needy - they "consume" resources rather than provide them.

Interestingly enough, our congregation - which continues to try as best we can to simply do what God asks and not to think of our own institutional needs - is having no trouble finding resources to do whatever is needed. Obviously, God really is faithful even when we aren't planning our own path.

What I take away from my review is not a prideful "pat-on-the-back" for how well we are doing, but a gratefulness for God's faithfulness and a sober realization that we must continue on the difficult path of being willing to lose everything - even our community - for the sake of God.

A few weeks ago I came to the decision that my role is not to "defend" the journey we are on, but to simply be on that journey. A non-institutional community won't try and preserve its non-institutional character. Such defensiveness is an institutional trait. A truly non-institutional group will remain such by staying focused on life in God rather than the nature of its own existence. As soon as I start defending rather than simply being - I've become more concerned with how we exist in this world rather than how we participate in God's Reign.

So . . . when we lose it, we gain it. And if we try and keep it, we lose it. Imagine that!

More on 'Leadership'

2005-11-21T14:01:00.000-06:00

We rejoined the Christian calendar - actually at the end with "Christ the King" yesterday. I am looking forward to the rich movement of Advent through Easter.

Don Hill led a good discussion class yesterday about what it is like when people exist together as an organism of life rather than a static organization.

One of the real challenges that came out was the tension between being a Christian within the hierarchies that exist in the world and the lack of such among believers. Since I do not long for a utpoian Christian society, I think that as believers we live counter-culturally in a world that will continue to need hierarchies, and yet the Kingdom will come among us when we have only servants and no positional leaders. That cannot be replicated in the world, and cannot by definition be forced on others. Only a group that chooses this may experience it.

We do have giftedness which encourages us to fulfill different roles in the Christian community, but there is no gift of telling everyone else what to do. There is a giftedness of suggesting creative ideas, and even visionary possibilities, . . . but each responds to these as the Spirit directs and not as the visionary instructs.

Again . . . leadership is about the willingness of others to listen.

Epistle to Dothan

2005-11-15T16:23:00.000-06:00

First, the text from a seminar on being missional for those who are thoroughly modern:
-----------
Advanced Consulting Skills for Missional Transformation: August 1-12
This specialized 2-week training is for those who wish to increase their diagnostic skills to work out of a missional framework with church systems. Participants will learn how to probe more deeply and productively into the complex theological, interpersonal, and organizational dynamics of the church.

Discover and learn to use a powerful diagnostic model in your consultative role that will help churches to -
* clarify the end-results they are seeking,
* identify the multiple factors at work,
* put complex situations in perspective,
* integrate and apply a variety of concepts and theories,
* define and evaluate progress on a missional journey.

Participants will learn to use the Systems Model of the Church within the context of a powerful feedback and learning process for the church. An actual intervention with a local church will serve as a significant learning tool. As a result you will be able to incorporate many new skills into your ministry.
---------
Yes . . . this text was accompanied by a diagram of the aforementioned systems model with nice arrows, text, and flow chart flavor.

I'm glad someone is creating charts about being incarnational.

On to the next subject . . .

Our trip to fellowship with the believers in Dothan was a blessing. They have a truly wonderful storefront space which dissallows standard preconceptions about "attending church" or "listening to sermons."

The location and functionality of the area lends itself to multiple uses . . . and they are thinking about ways of letting it be a place of commnity and conversation . . . for whoever. Really good.

What we talked about was not at all sterile and systematic nonsense- you know, the type of mechanistic planning evident in the example I copied above. We ended up in very real-life discussions about sharing faith, building community, setting boundaries, accepting others, clinging to faith in God's mysterious working - observing general principles from our discussions of specific situations.

I was blessed by the opportunity to talk and worship with the Christians there. I am confident in God's working as clearly evident in their ministry to one another. I know that the same care and guidance will be shared with everyone whose lives they touch.

As one of the others who went from our Birmingham fellowship remarked as we were driving home, it seemed like a very New Testament church-like thing to do . . . the sort of thing Paul would write a letter about:

To the saints in Dothan, grace and peace to you, from and through our God, who has richly filled us in our inner being with every gracious gift.

I give thanks every time I think of you, and the joy you have in serving the Lord. May your patience and love be expressed to one another in grace for the sake of Christ, so that you may continue to offer hope and care to anyone who is suffering and discouraged.

For you know that today many are fleeced in churches that seek only their tithes in order to service their debt. Many are promised earthly rewards for their faithfulness, which only leads to a crisis of faith. And others labor under fear, guilt, and shame as they seek to please God believing he will only save those who are worthy. Many have settled for membership in a religious club not knowing the way of a disciple.

All these are the children of God, and need to hear again the Good News of God's grace through Jesus. They need to find others willing to listen and bear their burdens; those willing to be patient as they walk imperfectly on a journey in Christ through the Spirit. Their hearts are sincere and good, but do not know the way of our Savior who gave us life in him rather than a church to attend.

There are many others who search through the confusion of today's culture, unhappy with the religious nature of the churches they have rejected, but struggling to find God. They have an inner awareness of needing the transcendent, and relationship, and hope and love, but the only churches they know seem in their eyes to offer little of this goodness.

You will be the body of Christ to each one you accept, encourage, and instruct in love. Do not worry that your efforts should produce great gatherings of many people, or impressive movements, for God is Sovereign and He will do His work to His glory! It is enough for you to be faithful in offering whatever is in your hand to give. The fishes and loaves feed thousands even when we do not see who is being fed. We should not be limited to wanting to minister in ways where we can see the results. Our work is by faith.

I have seen God among you, and enjoy His presence and be thankful. God is doing much, and all of it will be both glorious and difficult. Rely on the Spirit at all times. Honor everyone above yourselves and others will see God.

Grace and peace to you all in Christ, and may he supply your every need for the ministry to which you have been called. Be content with the mystery of God's working, finding the faith He gives sufficient for your contentment. Live in Kingdom you have received. The saints who meet at Disciples' Fellowship greet you.

Or something like that . . .

Dothan Trip

2005-11-11T14:32:00.000-06:00

Several of us leave tomorrow to spend a couple of days with Christians in Dothan, AL who have begun on a journey similar to ours. The similarity is not necessarily in the details, but in the overall values.

I look forward to sharing in conversation, fellowship, and worship with them.

We'll see what the Spirit has in store.

Community and Coercion

2005-11-08T09:07:00.000-06:00

One thing that was impressed on me during our years in Africa is that ecclesial power is illusionary. In that situation you realize how powerless you are - and how foolish it would be to believe you can control those people.

I used to tell the Tanzanians "Budula wane buli giki, butogwa wingwe wa kudegeleka" (my power is this, your willingness to listen). I was being honest. They could walk away, do anything they wanted, and totally disregard me. There was nothing I could do to make them do what I wanted or said.

All Christians are volunteers. In Tanzania the word for believers also meant "agree-ers". What binds us together is uncoerced agreement. We agree to submit to one another. We agree to follow God's leading. None of this can be forced.

So often guilt, shame, and fear are used to wield power over people even in matters of faith. "Jesus gave us the power to bind on earth and in heaven so if you don't do what we say we will consign you to hell." The threat of excommunication kept medieval kings in line, if not because of their own fear, because their subjects would rise up in revolt against an excommunicated sovereign.

Spiritual blackmail has no place in spiritual formation. No fellow believer rules over me spiritually, and I rule over no one. We are all brothers. And yet I willingly submit to the instruction, guidance, and interests of others.

Trying to live out this reality in a community is challenging because all models that I am familiar with, have a hierarchy at the core. That hierarchy is based on illusory power, but those at the top of the structure attempt to wield it nonetheless.

Being free to pursue God, and yet indebted to love others, is the tension that keeps us in relationship without the coercion of human power.

My Moment in the Academy

2005-10-27T12:22:00.000-05:00

I got to talk about Africa yesterday to 23 Master of Divinity students at Beeson Divinity school. They are taking Introduction to Christian Missions and I was a guest lecturer on church planting in Africa.

I was amazed that no one raised their hands when I asked who was familiar with current discussions of the church needing to be missional. That's where I started in an attempt to show the relevancy of what I would be sharing - that it wasn't just how to live in the Kingdom somewhere else, but how to be participating in the Missio Dei here.

The rest was basically about how everything is God's, and our best work is to not screw up what He is doing. The Spirit of God will lead and work if we don't try and control everything out of our patronizing and ethnocentric tendencies.

All in all I enjoyed the experience. Without a context of knowing the students, or much about what they've already studied, I shared what I shared and have little idea of how it agreed/conflicted with what they've already heard. The damage may be irreparable.

Seeing . . .

2005-10-24T06:19:00.000-05:00

Imparting vision. I know God does it . . . but is there anything we can do to help someone else see?

While I know that all spiritual insight is a divine gift, I do believe that God wills also to give such revelation to us through one another. I am reformed in my persistent desire to trace every impulse and good gift back to God - while affirming the role of willingness on our part to submit and accept God's working.

However, given our human nature of self-will, our culture which has enshrined that tendency in individualism and independence, and the protestant idea of sola scriptura that has sometimes been hijacked by individualism to make each one his or her own spiritual authority, little room remains for submitting to spiritual direction.

There is a difference in accepting spiritual instruction - a more educational situation - and spiritual direction. We will readily accept teaching in a classroom setting, but to accept individualized spiritual guidance which cuts to the root of our problems is foreign. And threatening to individualism.

When people approached Jesus as a Rabbi they expected spiritual wisdom more than intellectual information - due to their tradition of spiritual mentoring. We see people coming and asking for guidance. Obviously, many turned away from the personal prescription he gave when it didn't suit them . . . but at least they expected such. Were I to speak so boldly to identify spiritual maladies and point out the remedy to people individually, the resistance would not only be to the diagnosis but to my apparent audacity. I would be "overstepping" my role religiously.

Which is one spiritual vision I have - that of people seeking mentoring and wisdom. But how do I share that? Can I do anything to impart it? How can believers move from consumers who want to be served to seekers who want to be formed?

(Okay . . . that last sentence just popped out there, an insight from my writing process).

This is one of the core problems. As Christians we are consumers who believe we are the customers in the motto the customer is always right . . . and therefore our needs ought to set the agenda. How can we make a fundamental shift? The task is a revolution against the culture and human nature.

All I know to do is talk about it . . . and let those who have ears to hear, hear it.

Sunday

2005-10-19T14:24:00.000-05:00

This past Sunday we heard from several about how their creative pursuits are reflections of their spirituality. Kara posted about her experience and the text of what she wrote/read and you can read it here.

One of the passages we read was from Exodus 35:30-36:1 where Moses said that God had given his Spirit and skill in crafts and artistry to those who would build the tabernacle. Beauty and creativity have always been inherent to spirituality, but unfortunately not always to our practice of church-ianity (at least for some protestant churches).

I am thankful that God is helping us to rediscover how our creative impulses reflect the image of God, and can become pathways for nurturing our spirituality.

Confession about Idols

2005-10-11T14:59:00.000-05:00

A personal observation: The favorite idols of natural man are his fleshly appetites; the idols of church-going man are his preferences. It is as difficult to wrest self-indulgence from a person in the world, as it is to tear personal religious preference from the grip of someone accustomed to living a religious life. Neither can imagine life without these, and therefore both resist every attempt to find God as one's sole sufficiency and comfort.

In fact, one might say that the problem is one and the same; the personal preference of the person of faith is a form of self-indulgence transferred from more fleshly pursuits to religious ones.

I can assert this with the confidence of having seen, and am now seeing, that I have idols of both kinds. I am in some ways still very much a natural man, and I cannot imagine living without my self-indulgent sins. How can I let go of the fleshly sins that give me comfort? My possessions, pride, and lusts all give me some pleasure and sense of self. Can God alone satisfy me?

Can I let go of my preferences concerning my faith, and let God do whatever, however, and wherever? Can I trust God enough to have no conditions about my faith? I don't want to go "back" to certain things - but does that make spiritual growth an idol?

Selfishness is at the heart of this - not wanting to let go of some level of control or my idea of what I need - whether in sinful indulgence or religious faith. It is all the same - dying to self is the answer, and it will erase both my sinful indulgence and religious preference.

Questions to Suggest Direction

2005-10-11T09:40:00.000-05:00

What if . . .

worship was an expression of the whole of our lives of faith rather than a disconnected event where people try to correctly perform a checklist of activities to keep God happy?

we really stopped worrying about who is first and how to get others to see/do everything our way, and instead pursued servanthood and enjoyed the diversity of the Spirit within one another?

no one had ever taught us to concentrate on inconsequential matters and make those the bedrock of faith, and we simply enjoyed whatsoever is good, pure, lovely, noble . . . wherever it may be?

we followed Christ as if he is teaching and showing us how to live rather than how to be saved?

we understood the word church as refering to people who've received a different way of living rather than a place where we go and an organization in which we have membership?

we knew what Jesus meant when he said his Kingdom wasn't of this world, and we stopped trying to contradict him?

we lived by an ethic of love of God through faith instead pleasure through selfishness?

. . . how different would we be?

Ramblings . . .

2005-10-07T10:06:00.000-05:00

Here I sit.

I feel like I should blog - basically because I want to do something, but don't feel like doing anything else. Blogging seems to be legitimate ministry, don't you think? I'm not being lazy if I'm blogging.

Bill got a job - and an offer to come fill out paperwork for another - so he's going to end up with a choice of jobs. Looks like Stanley got a job too! If everything comes through he will be helping take care of animals at a local veterinary clinic!

I am genuinely rejoicing for them . . . but selfishly I am glad for this progress because it takes a burden off me (see the last post). Self-interest is always in the back of my consciousness even if I don't want it to be.

When I think of Jesus being tempted in every way like us, I imagine that he knew what it was to think of everything from an economy of selfishness.

Oh, Father! Why did you give me these 12 losers?? Keeping James and John from destroying people with divine fire is a constant drain, and the in-fighting . . . ! 'I want to be first!' all the time. Maybe if I heal these people they'll go away and leave me alone!

No way . . . not Jesus! No person's need was too taxing, no request the last straw, no day too long.

Yeah, right!

But what am I talking about . . . today I am actually seeing progress! Just waiting for the other shoe to drop. Is that too pessimistic?

Okay, think about the good stuff.

I really am enjoying the Thursday morning group I've joined. We are focusing on prayer. Our biweekly meet-up of emergent-ish/ancient-future believers is rich. This faith community is a constant blessing as we share life instead of doing church. My lovely wife, Marsha, and two great kids are extraordinary blessings. Aaron was reading me his favorite lyrics from an Alter Bridge song last night - what a blessing to have a 16 year old that shares his own thoughts with me.

Enough rambling . . . got to spend some time thinking about worship this Sunday.

Where Selfishness Lives

2005-10-03T12:10:00.000-05:00

We started housing some evacuees from the coast in our building- and in the process also began more intensely walking with others who are in recovery. This new challenge has highlighted some spiritual garbage in me that has always been there - but is now just more apparent.

My selfishness makes itself evident in the ways I minister to others when I try to find easier and quicker ways to help people - desperately wanting their problem or struggle to be resolved without too much personal cost to me. Secretly I don't want their struggle to be too big a burden for me.

I know . . . that attitude really sucks. But I think it is what is often lurking around backstage and subtly influencing me.

The reality is that I can neither be the savior for someone else, nor should I hope bandaids can be a substitute for discipleship in community. Being in community does impose itself on "personal" space - and may call into question whether there is anything really like "personal" space in Christ's way.

If I think about it, not only do I not want ministry to become inconvenient, I don't like it to be without obvious "progress." Sometimes what makes another person's burdern something I don't want to share is that it can't be "solved." So I end up treating persistent struggles as temporary ones - hoping in vain that without too much effort it will go away.

So I really do have a selfish attitude. Somehow, by God's grace, I also have a true desire for ministry - to see God's working and participate in it. I am a contradiction: wanting to administer God's grace into the lives of others (in my regenerate self) and being selfishly concerned with how much of me that process involves (in my sinful self).

A little more death comes creeping in.

New Community

2005-09-27T10:03:00.000-05:00

Todd and Teresa Thomas started "being" a new church - Disciple's Song - and you need to check out their website.

Awesome guys! Who gave you permission to do that??

More on Good News

2005-09-26T13:44:00.000-05:00

continuing . . .

Given the fact that the first century was a target rich environment for anyone wanting to blast away at false religions, we should be amazed to realize that none of those gods and deities are named and criticized in the letters of the New Testament. Criticism of wrong belief and behavior and false religion was leveled at those within the Christian community rather than at those without. The consistent proclamation from John the Baptist, to Jesus, to the apostles was God's reign. That was the Good News. They didn't start with "Zeus is false."

Could it be that all human pursuits of the divine, however misguided and fundamentally flawed, are a pursuit of God? Could this be why Paul, in his pluralistic environment, criticized flawed ideas of God instead of disparaging anyone's pursuit of God no matter how incorrectly conceived, parsed, and executed. Surely there was graciousness and generosity involved in not taking easy shots at the piety of those who aren't following Jesus.

The other side to this discussion goes beyond the way the believers we read about in scripture didn't go around tearing down other religions and shows that what they did proclaim didn't require proving other religions wrong. When the Gospel is seen as a set of propositions to be accepted, of course there must be a competition with every other set of propositions. When Christianity is reduced from a way of life to a religion of beliefs, then it has to fight with other religious ideas.

However, when the Good News is that God is near, and that He reigns, the proclamation isn't about the clash of propositions. In fact, everything doesn't hinge on those - and the Gospel can be communicated through a cup of cold water. Of course, the story of how atonement was accomplished in Jesus is part of the nearness of God's reign, but not the only part. It is not even the first part for the person whose throat is parched.

Exclusive Good News

2005-09-20T09:22:00.000-05:00

With the on-going collapse of modernity and Christendom, there is a mix of those who will readily engage in discussion, and others who won't. If one engages in discussion, not like we see Paul and Jesus, but from a Christendominal (can I make up words?) mindset there will be resistence among those typically willing to share in metaphysical dialogue. In other words, there is a willingness today for many to talk about spiritual matters, but often the way Christians try and have that discussion results in closing down the dialogue.

It is amazing to me that in Christianity where the foundation of our identity is in grace we often can't seem to speak about our faith without coming across as intolerant. We are so certain that the Good News means asserting our exclusive claims on truth we are perplexed when others don't hear any Good News in what we have to say. We attribute the problem to their relativistic leanings, rather than asking ourselves whether we know what the Gospel is. Maybe the Good News isn't "you're wrong and I've got the only real answers . . . want to hear them?" Maybe if we learn the Good News of the nearness of God's Reign then we will be able to speak readily without always coming off as intolerant of others.

When we consider the posture of Paul in conversation with Greeks in Athens (Acts 17) he doesn't say that he's got the truth and that they don't. He doesn't condemn the Greek gods, tell those philosophers that they are lost, or try and accuse them of being guilty of sin. Instead he compliments their spiritual orientation and devotion while seeking to expand their thinking about God. He proclaims the nearness of God and the grace of God in history. He manages to talk about Jesus without maligning their gods. I think if he'd been able to keep going, the grace of God through the resurrected Christ would have been where he would have gone - calling people to accept this outrageous gift.

Is this a aberrant behavior on Paul's part, or did he go around sharing Good News without trashing the beliefs of others? What about the riot in Ephesus (Acts 19)? Surely the artisans who started that were upset because Paul had denounced their religion - right?

Read carefully: even those who were angry with Paul had only this accusation - "He says that man-made gods are no gods at all." They didn't say "Paul has denounced Artemis as a false god." Why didn't Paul preach clearly that their god was false?

I can't believe that these artisans were missing an opportunity to accuse Paul. Seems that he wasn't denouncing their faith in Artemis, but only pointing out that graven images could never represent that which was truely divine. It seems from what he's accused of that Paul was doing in Ephesus what he'd done in Athens. He is talking about God's nature being beyond the conceptions of idolatry - that God needs our service or that he can be represented physically - in other words, that he's just a bigger version of us. But vilifying the beliefs and faith of pagan people, Paul doesn't do that.

Of course, to people of faith, he can speak bluntly that the there is no communing at the tables of demons and of Christ. But sometimes I think we have missed the difference between how we are able to speak to one another and to those who are unaware of the Good News.

I'm not done - but gotta go . . .

In Celebration of Chaos

2005-09-15T08:29:00.000-05:00

For those wanting to keep up with the insanity of how our dysfunctional fellowship continues to make bad choices which keep us from ever becoming a respectable church . . . you can read a recent article from our website on how we are An Unorganized Church.

Supposed Prophets

2005-09-12T14:05:00.000-05:00

The usual chorus of some who believe they are following a biblical prophetic model can be heard pronouncing that Katrina was God's judgment on New Orleans.

Some facts they miss:

1) Biblical prophecy of doom almost always preceded the event of destruction in order to bring about repentance - rather than following it as a way of heaping abuse on those who have suffered.

2) This was the position of Job's friends who insinuated that his calamity was due to his sinfulness. They were wrong, God was angry with them for misrepresenting him, and ultimately Job was the intecessor for them.

3) When Jesus encountered those who were suggesting that the Galileans were slaughtered by the Romans because of their sinfulness, he turned the conversation back on those making such suggestions. He denied that these after-the-fact claims were right in asserting that the Galileans were greater sinners. Seems those making such accusation ought to heed Jesus' warning.

Todd's Blog

2005-09-06T10:57:00.000-05:00

A good friend (and fellow mal-content with the status quo - why can't it be better?) recently started a blog. More accurately . . . I recently discovered the blog he started several months ago!

Anyway, Todd is a good friend from way back. He and his family followed us to Tanzania - coming in as we were leaving.

Maybe it is the being missionaries thing - but we share a spiritually adventurous bent which pursues God without tremendous regard for sacred cows.

So I encourage you to visit his blog and read his confessional post about being tired of the idea of strategy.

blessings.

Called to be . . .

2005-08-29T11:22:00.000-05:00

I came across a good quote from Soren Kierkegaard:

"It is well known that Christ consistently used the expression "follower." He never asks for admirers, worshippers, or adherents. No, he calls disciples. It is not adherents of a teaching but followers of a life Christ is looking for."

Down to the River to Pray

2005-08-29T10:11:00.000-05:00

We went down to the river to pray yesterday. Not just any river, but a particular place on a particular river. Stanley wanted to be baptized and had a very special place in mind.

Since I come from a baptizing tradition - I mean serious as hell about baptizing, or maybe it is serious as heaven. Either way, we were baptizers in a big way.

But Steve's baptism last week and Stanley's yesterday were not the result of "a sit down Bible study" which ends up with a dissertation on proper Christian baptism (with all the proof texts in tow) and the question "so do you want to be baptized and go to heaven or stay like you are on the road to hell?"

No, they asked for baptism as part of their continuing journey of being drawn to God. Their participation in fellowship and through being loved and accepted is what moved them to ask for baptism. Their faith was ready to be expressed in this new way, a declaration of accepting Christ and his way even more fully.

This new acceptance wasn't based on new understandings of modes and the meaning of baptism, but on their changing lives and deeper understanding of the need to rely on God. Conversion isn't a point in time like their baptisms, but a process over time with many "points" of newness and change.

Thinking About Our Future

2005-08-27T19:25:00.000-05:00

Every so often I get an urge to think about where our spiritual village is going. Maybe it hit me this week because school has started, summer is over, and we are into the Fall. Maybe I started thinking about this because Mark is back from Honduras.

The truth is that I don't know if these urges are Spirit-driven impulses to embrace what God is doing or deadly temptations to direct our own steps through human ingenuity. I can't say that I've figured out the answer this week, either.

But I did think about our community and wonder what is coming/should come next.

When in doubt, it is always good to share those doubts with others. So I told Ken. We didn't resolve anything, but did discuss how thinking about what to do next might either be good or bad. If anything, being aware of the dangers means we are less likely to fall prey to them.

Probably, the Spirit is prompting me to think about our community's immediate future, but it is not likely that the Spirit is giving me the green light to generate awesome programs to accomplish a bunch of temporal goals. Nothing I've learned about the Spirit's work or the nature of our journey with others under God's reign would suggest this. I've found most promptings have to do with reminding me how dependent I must be . . . not how important it is for me to take hold of things.

So . . . I am reminded that we need to be aware, intentional, and active in pursuing God and let the Spirit's community arise out of a divine fellowship founded in that hunger. I am thinking about the future of our congregation - but less in terms of its organization, promotion, or funding - and more from the standpoint of loving only God.

Pragmatists and Christianity

2005-08-24T10:37:00.000-05:00

The whole Pat Robertson speculation about given the option to invade or assassinate, maybe we ought to assassinate - is too easy a target for a rant . . . so I won't do it. On CNN last night Ted Haggard seemed too interested in making fine distinctions, and Jesse Jackson in making political points by calling for the FCC to go after Robertson.

The unanswered question is "what is the Christian response to the Venezuelean president's rhetoric?"

Loving your enemies doesn't seem to have made it as a viable option next to fullscale invasion or assassination.

Cool Days in the Hot Summer

2005-08-22T11:43:00.000-05:00

Yesterday was a spiritually cool day. I guess I could say Spiritually cool - giving correct emphasis to the One who made it that way.

Cool things the Spirit did:
1. Our Barnabas Sunday seemed to touch hearts, when I thought it might come across (at least my meditation) as trite and shallow.
2. Andy and Jill, guests from Nashville, shared their thoughts and stories through music that made it one of the best "classes" we could have had.
3. Steve Watson was baptized in a swimming pool, giving God all the glory for his continuing recovery and changes in his life.
4. Stanley Autery said he wants to be baptized next week in Cahaba River where it runs through his uncle's property.
5. Our students and their parents got together to talk about continuing spiritual formation and ministry for the Fall. God is doing very cool things with the youth.

Can't wait to see what will happen this week!

Can't We Be Relational?

2005-08-18T11:10:00.000-05:00

I'm still stuck on this idea of questionnaires . . . which I think Paul would hate. He seemed to despise "letters of recommendation" and prefered the personal ties to be sufficient.

He vouched for Phoebe, which is a long way from filling out a multi-part critique of her various skills so it can be cross-referenced with a matrix of suitablility scores (gleaned from surveys received from 25,342 ministry and para-church workers, along with ordained clergy, from 46 states and analyzed by a Sun-Micro systems super computer on a proprietary program which generated a .46 correlation - quite good actually) which compares giftedness with task and role criteria to produce a "fitness rating" so we can find out if statisitically she is likely to perform well, under the Spirit's leading, of course, in the position for which she is applying. All of this was developed by Spiritual Analytical Ministries of Boise, Idaho - a thriving company dedicated to producing scientific instruments to decipher the Spirit's working (none of that wind blowing where it wills stuff) since 1987. The company's current work is on a spiritual prognosticator, which rather than measuring what the Spirit is doing right now in any given disciple, is intended to predict what the Spirit will do - all to develop more efficiency in plugging believers into the right ministry. Fitness, you know.

I read Post-Rapture Radio on the trip to my father's funeral (another subject entirely, which I will blog about . . . I think) so that might explain my sarcasm in the previous paragraph. But I'm not far off . . . am I?

If we are more relational, less focused on "is this person going to be able to contribute like we want" - if we had less of an agenda of what we want to do and were more focused on who others are, leaving the "what to do" more up to God, then we might act differently.

Or not.

Modern Questionnaires

2005-08-12T15:27:00.000-05:00

I just filled out a recommendation for a friend concerning a ministry position. It struck me how the form asked for all very modern attributes: how organized, efficient, prompt, analytical, good at setting objectives, reporting on progress, is this person. Leadership was about communicating objectives, forming teams, making progress.

This would not be surprising but this friend isn't applying to work as a pastor in some institutional church, but to be involved in church-planting through a group looking at starting house churches in apartment buildings, among other things.

I suspect that some of the modern values are there because often the funding will come from modern churches - but the relational stuff, more creative attributes, personal attributes like genuineness, transparency, humility, goodness were almost missing entirely.

I would like to believe that we can assume that everyone looking to start new churches are prayerful, humble, accepting, people - but do we really want to look for all the business skills?

It occurred to me that what the questionaire was asking for is some of the least important stuff with regards to what I do within my community. I can't say that right now I have a better questionaire, but I've got to believe that a better one with less ties to modernity could be created.

A Christian Nation?

2005-08-05T11:48:00.000-05:00

We invited a guest who has been worshiping with us this summer while in a Master's program to speak to us about what God has been teaching her. She is Jordanian, a Christian woman in a nation where only 2% of the people are followers of Jesus.

She shared many of her insights as she spoke about wisdom. Her faith, conviction, and pursuit of God came through clearly in her testimony.

After she concluded her thoughts we had a time for questions, and one asked what it was like living in America where there are so many Christians, as compared to Jordan which is overwhelmingly muslim. She said (as best I can remember and paraphrase) it's not very different. You see, the muslims believe in Jesus as a prophet . . . so they believe in Jesus. Here in America people believe in Jesus just like the muslims do . . . that he is a savior, a teacher, and they see themselves as following him, but they don't take him seriously.

This godly woman who has grown up in a muslim country sees "Christian" America as no more truly committed to following Jesus that a muslim country.

I think she is, unfortunately, correct.

Critiquing My Own Criticisms

2005-07-27T13:39:00.000-05:00

I've sometimes posted my concerns regarding the "marketing" of Christianity. I want to add another example, and also to address some thoughtful responses I've heard or received.

On our trip back from the northeast yesterday I saw one of those billboards purportedly saying things God would want to say, if He chose to. The one I passed said "All I know is . . . everything. God." I'm not sure what the point is. I guess getting people to realize the God is omniscient is good.

Personally, I would be hesitant to put words out there and attribute them to God. Does anyone else feel apprehensive about being a publicist for God? "Here's what God would say . . . " seems presumptuous. To me it would be different putting on the sign actual things God did say, but putting words in God's mouth?? I don't want to go there.

Now I know that you may feel that I am being too critical, too hard on these attempts to make people more God-aware . . . and some have referred to Paul's observation that for whatever reasons, good or bad, at least Christ was being preached. If these marketing campaigns get people to think about God, isn't that good?

Not necessarily. We must encourage helpful, true, transforming thought about God. For me there is an important reason that Paul's words do not fit this situation.

There are two things Paul is talking about: motivation and message. In his case, he says that a true message is being communicated though the motives may differ. However, in the marketing situations I see just the opposite: there is a true motviation, but the technique of marketing changes the message. Paul says that if the message presented is true, then we won't worry about the motives. I don't doubt the motives of anyone who is marketing their faith, but I'm concerned that the message is unwittingly changed in the process.

Whether it is billboards, slick presentations, the ads in the movie theaters in our area offering rocking music, free donuts, and Starbucks coffee if you attend the advertising church, mass mailers, or other marketing techniques, it seems to me that the message is being changed . . . and that is not what Paul was talking about. It's not all good just because the subject is God.

How is the message changed? When we start trying to appeal to people, to market Jesus to them, we are leaving the proclamation of "Christ and him crucified" and are trying to find ways to "package" and "spin" a life of faith to people so that they will be attracted to it.

Does this change the message? Yes, I think so. We put matters of faith right along side shampoo, dietary supplements, fried chicken, and everything else that is being peddled. Paul said something about not using rhetorical techniques to persuade, and not peddling the gospel. I believe that there is a subtle change in the message, not an overt one, but a change through the very fact that we are trying to "sell" a life of faith. Paul had deeply theological reasons for not employing the refined Greek rhetorical oratory techniques of his day. Often I hear that we ought to use whatever means are available to advance the cause of Christ. Why didn't Paul think that way?

Many others have made the observation that when people have Christianity marketed to them as something to meet their needs, we should not be surprized that they rebel at the idea of Christ calling them to self-sacrifice. After all, the initial appeal was that God would serve them . . . not that they would serve God. Christianity was presented in the same was as a "product" to enhance their lives . . . much like a wrinkle-reducing cream. No wonder they balk at the hard teachings of Jesus. We can't appeal to people's appetites, and then turn around and call on them to abandon their appetites to the desires of God.

Some others have wondered if Paul's concept of becoming all things to all men would justify such an approach. Again, I think this suggestion misunderstands the thrust of Paul's statement. Paul is not saying that any means may be employed to reach a desired end. He is not talking about techniques of sharing Christian faith.

Instead, Paul is addressing his own self-sacrificing posture in sharing his faith. He is not saying to those who want a quick-fix, he becomes a quick-fixer; to those who are looking for something to enhance their own lives, he becomes one who enhances their lives. If they want a buddy, he becomes a buddy. Some suggest that Paul is describing how he becomes whatever his audience wants, which sounds very much like a marketing technique, but there is a difference between incarnational identification and serving the tastes of people.

Paul is declaring that he works incarnationally, leaving his own desires and self for the sake of others. He is not saying that he markets the message to people in a way they want to receive it. Rather than forcing Jews to act as Gentiles, or Gentiles as Jews, Paul presents gospel as gospel. He gets himself out of the way so as not to contaminate the message with his own Jewishness.

We cannot adjust the message of the cross to make it appealing to our audience, but instead wait for the Holy Spirit to adjust the audience to make it desire the message of the cross.

Mid-Town

2005-07-23T18:47:00.000-05:00

Today we did the mid-town part of Manhattan. It was less hectic than yesterday. We just got to amble around and take in the sights, look in shops, and enjoy the beautiful (low humidity) weather.

It was good family time.

NYC

2005-07-22T20:08:00.000-05:00

Spent the day in lower Manhattan today - doing sightseeing and the usual tourist things.

I am thoroughly overtaken by the diversity of humanity. The subway, with everyone lost in reading a paperback, the paper, or listening to music, emphasizes the isolation that is possible among so many people. There was a salesman in our subway car on one trip, trying to sell Duracell batteries for $1.00. His pitch was you didn't want to wait until the music stopped to get new batteries. Just made me think . . . how we wouldn't want the cocoon of music to stop.

Later on the ferry back to Battery Park, a young jewish man was shooting pictures out of the same window as me, trying to get just the right shot of the the Statue of Liberty - and I noticed the earphones he was wearing - keeping him company on the ride.

Probably if I had an ipod I would be doing the same (he actually had a CD player).

Connecting, community. The urban setting has so many possibilities for community . . . but I probably wouldn't cultivate it if I were living here. The fact that I have to work to build it in my life right now is a good indication I would struggle even in the middle of so much humanity.

I've got much to learn about living relationally.

Travels

2005-07-19T11:25:00.000-05:00

My absence from the blogging world has been caused by recent travels - and upcoming ones.

Last week I acompanied some of the young people on a retreat and had a blast. Tomorrow our family leaves a week in the Big Apple, though I do hope to blog some from there.

We'll see what happens.

Unchurched?

2005-07-11T15:57:00.000-05:00

I am somewhat suspicious of the number of churches around here that claim 70-80% of their members are from the ranks of the "unchurched" population.

I associate "unchurched" with my African missions experience: never, ever been Christian.

Obviously, in the Bible-belt south there aren't many "unchurched" people unless they are recent immigrants (and virtually none of the Hispanic population is unchurched).

I think it is a point of pride and straining for legitimacy for a church to claim such a high number of "unchurched" people in its ranks. They are fending off the accusation that their new mega-church edifice is just rearranging the sheep - taking them from more traditional congregations and entertaining them with a more appealing show.

Here's Barna's definition:
An adult (18 or older) who has not attended a Christian church service within the past six months, not including a holiday service (such as Easter or Christmas) or a special event at a church (such as a wedding or funeral).

Thom Rainer has a more stringent definition: one who has not been in church, except sporadically, for at least ten years (most for a lifetime).

A Presbyterian group says: The general definition of an unchurched person is anyone who has not attended church other than Christmas, Easter or special events in the past five years.

My guess is that some are sliding towards definitions even less stringent than Barna - saying something like "someone who was uninvolved in his or her previous congregation," "was just an attender," or "never was a regular weekly church-goer". Barna says if you miss 24 Sundays (excepting high holy days) and you are a prime unchurched prospect. I guess that means anyone can woo you into their group with a clear conscience. No sheep rustling here!

I wonder if the reason "unchurched" has become a popular term is that it would be much harder to say these people aren't Christian. But because we want it to sound like we aren't simply taking sheep from other flocks, we declare people "unchurched" so it sounds like we are carrying the Gospel to places its never been.

Most of us in our congregation weren't unchurched people. We can't even approach the high percentages of unchurched "members" of the congregations around us. Maybe I would say that 10% were not churched. The few I would point to as being unchurched before joining with us in a faith community hadn't been in a church, nor practicing a person faith-walk with Jesus, in over 20 years, if ever. Such a person I would say was "someone coming to Jesus."

Chair Arrangements

2005-07-05T09:12:00.000-05:00

For two weeks our sanctuary has been arranged so that we are meeting "in the round" with Christ in the center, his presence indicated by the bread and cup. There is no "front" - only believers gathered around a center.

Like so many different ways of experiencing our worship together, this one brings its own blessings and richness. Of course, we are not searching for some way that we will ultimately settle on so that we might "do it right". All aspects of our journey are a continuing seeking that brings constant change, and if that restless pursuit of God can be expressed through a shifting physicality in the forms of our worship times - so much the better.

My daughter wants us to keep it this way - she says she likes it. I do too.

Christian as an Adjective

2005-06-27T18:22:00.000-05:00

I'm sitting in our meeting place waiting for the bands to start. We've opened our leased facility to the local bands and so now regularly host a concert every couple of months. Tonight it'll be a couple of the regular local bands, and one from Oregon and another from Italy (unless Alex was messing with me). Should be interesting.

So I get to sit here and blog . . . and probably work on some teaching for this week.

Note to all cynics - we've had upwards of a couple hundred high school students here putting on their own concerts several times, and except for the one incident where someone microwaved a t-shirt and discovered the singe/melt factor . . . we've never had any trouble. The organizers even stay afterward and help set up the sanctuary after it's over.

I'm sure that some would want to ask "are they Christian bands?"

I'm not sure how to answer that. I'm not sure what that question means. Does is mean the band members are believers? Does it mean the songs are overtly Christ-centered? Does the band have to have a creedal statement to be Christian?

Sure . . . I know what most people mean by that question, but it is a lousy question. "Christian" is not an adjective that can be used to modify all our nouns. Is that a Christian school? Is that a Christian restaurant? Is that a Christian political party? Is that a Christian nuclear weapon? See how quickly it devolves?

Using "Christian" as an adjective separates the world into two camps. By not bestowing that adjective we implicitly label them as pagan. It seems that in an Ephesians sorts of way Christ is seeking to break down walls of separation - not erect them. We are redeeming, inviting, including, welcoming, and leavening the world. That's hard to do when everything either receives or is denied the "Christian" adjective.

I doubt that these bands are Christian in the overtly we-are-trying-to-communicate-evangelical-messages way. They might even be wary, perhaps hostile to Christianity. I heard two girls talking in the hall as they looked at some of the books we have in our coffee shop area, and one said sarcastically, "let's read the Bible." But maybe the fact that we welcomed those two girls to use our space, and even to express their disdain, will start to undermine their negative attitudes toward believers. Of course I want to tell them that we're different . . . not like institutional bastions of exclusion - but they'll only believe it if they experience a difference. I can't tell them anything.

Still sound checks. It's going to be a long night.

Hell and the Kingdom of God

2005-06-24T15:10:00.000-05:00

Yesterday with people in an addiction recovery program I facilitated a discussion on the subject of spiritual motivation. We talked about what serves to motivate us. People mentioned what I would consider positive motivations, and the destructive ones like fear (abject terror - not biblical awe), shame, and guilt. Those are negative as long term motivations because they tear down. Being afraid, shamed, and feeling guilty, have a place but cannot be the foundation for spiritual growth - at least in my opinion.

Threatening people with Hell as never led them to be Christ-like. Did the Son live in holiness out of love for the Father or fear of punishment? Was shame, guilt, and fear the driving forces in his life? Did he obey that he might not burn?

We cannot form people into the image of Christ through terrorizing them spiritually. We may indeed foster some compliance, but they will hardly resemble Jesus when we are done. We cannot stoke fear, shame, and guilt believing those to be fires that will refine in people lives of righteousness, holiness, love, joy, peace, and such.

The reason punishment is not driven out of our vocabulary through perfect love may be that often the agenda is to convert people rather than form them into the image of Christ. When we convert them in ways that create an inner motivation that is foreign to the spiritual maturity of Christ, attempts to form these same people to grow up into Christ has become doubly hard.

The Spirit will convict, and the Spirit will comfort. To those in the grace of God in Christ there is no longer any condemnation, and perfect love has dissolved the fear of punishment. The kindess of God has led them to repentance (Rom. 2:4) and the Spirit brings fruit from that good soil of every godly attribute.

Installment #6

2005-06-18T11:45:00.000-05:00

Perhaps my last (for now) thought about working for renewal in an established congregation, is the idea that renewal can't be copied.

What I mean is that renewal is an authentic response by believers to the movement of God's Spirit. Therefore, it cannot be, by nature, the calculated response of those seeking pragmatic ways to accomplish their desired goals, even if those goals are admirable and theologically-driven. The latter is by nature not renewal. It can't be.

To illustrate, one cannot be like Thomas Edison by inventing the light bulb. Thomas Edison, when he invented the light bulb, was creating something new. There is a difference between mimicking Edison (creating a light bulb) and being like Edison (inventing something new).

Renewal cannot be mimicked, though that is often attempted. We cannot copy the faith of others (though the Christian heritage I grew up in tried desperately to do just that) but must live it out ourselves.

What this has to do with congregational renewal is that a community must faithfully seek renewal according to the movement of God's Spirit in their time and place. We can learn from other examples of renewal (in scripture, Christian history, or our world today) but we do not gain from those stories techniques and strategies (as if renewal can be brought about on human terms) but indications about how to connect with God's prevenient Spirit. We can be inspired, we can see what faithfulness looked like for others, but in the end we must ask God anew to stir us with his Presence.

So if you take what I am saying seriously, I have almost completely nullified everything I've been talking about in these installments! I have . . . if anyone has been sifting them to discover a "plan" for renewal. It is about new wineskins, and about believers being bold in their faithfulness so that God may redefine their relationships with him, with each other, and with the world.

I hope that the experience of the gathering of believers I journey with daily will entice others to hunger and thirst for a similar adventure. If they seek, they will find . . . and another story of God bringing renewal will be written . . . in order to lure others to bold abandon.

Comment and Response

2005-06-17T08:33:00.000-05:00

I thought the following comment to my last post deserved a post of its own - because several good points are made. My being "depressed" over Emergent heading in a more institutionalized direction isn't leading me to slit my wrists or anything - or abandon conversation and affinity with others of the emerging church.
-------------------------

Hey Friend,The fact that emergent village has a national director won't mean that we have less of a conversation. I'm here in blog world even with a natinoal director. In fairness, the leadership team of emergent, along with much help from Laci Scott, has done much of what a national director will be doing. Neither you nor I can run conferences, help direct conversations, nor keep in contact with supporters when time is limited. A full-time director will be able to give his/her full attention to the emergent conversation. I would strongly encourage you not to be too depressed about this decision. While it may not be what you nor I might want, it doesn't mean that either the theology or conversations will change significantly.Send me an e-mail if you are still depressed about this one... we need you in this conversation too.
-----------
Randy,

You made some good points and I do realize that whether the whole thing becomes more institutionalized/organized that does not really affect my opportunity to share in and enjoy the conversation on this journey. My journey started in Africa and quite independent of “Emergent” – and it will continue because I can do no other.

My disappointment is that I can see a shift – in language and practice. Servants are always needed, and service is vital to the discussion and to invite others into the openness of it. But, I like the fact that no one has been able to “speak for the movement” but only for themselves. The request “take me to your leader” should be met with apology for our inability to point to human beings. I’ve succeeded in getting some of my brothers and sisters to stop introducing me to their friends as their preacher or minister – but just as a friend.

At least in the eyes of the rest of the world, this move turns the conversation into an organization replete with the necessary levels of leadership. Tony becomes the spokesman in the eyes of the world, whether he likes that or not. Even if Emergent continues to act in counter-cultural ways, something important has been lost in the means that have been chosen to get to a desired end.

I would rather remain, and do within the community I worship and share life with, downright stubborn in my refusal to be more than a servant despite some suggestions that being a “leader” would give us a more efficient organization. I think we have to resist mightily that direction because it is seductive.

I’m not going anywhere conversationally. Part of the dialogue is saying “I don’t agree”. To me, what is being set up is a para-conversation organization. Why? Because we need to grow the conversation.

Whatever.

Big 'E" Emergent

2005-06-15T10:24:00.000-05:00

The white smoke was seen rising from a cabin in Minnesota. The "leaders" of the emergent conversation gathered in conclave, and chose a "National Director" (click here). But that was only the first of four announcements - and I can hardly wait for the next three!

Now we can start distinguishing being emergent (the original, institutional-less conversation, small "e") and Emergent (the institution born out of the conversation, big "E").

I'm depressed about this.

My first encounter with the emergent conversation was in Chattanooga several years ago when three of us went from our community and were blown away to find others were thinking like us! We never patterned ourselves after some supposed template, didn't start our community based on the conversation, and our worship is not as cool and "out there" as many other places. Our community also includes many people in their 60's even into their 90's - which I suspect is why we don't look exclusively pomo. Our community worship reflects who we are, which is diverse, not some specific group we are trying to evangelize (like gen-Xers).

Our commonality with emergent wasn't in externals, but in theology, the journey, the searching, and the non-institutional/non-leadership community emphasis. It was exciting to find like-minded seekers. I not saying we don't have anything in common any more, but I think our paths are diverging somewhat. That part is disappointing. I hope, like one of the bright spots of the Christian heritage I grew up in, they have their own "Last Will andTestament of the Emergent Leadership Council".

Spiritual Direction in Marital Counseling

2005-06-14T14:36:00.000-05:00

I have no extensive training as a marriage counselor though I've tried to help couples who've come to me. I have meant well, but not sure that what I've done has helped much.

I think the problem has been that I took an analytical/behavioral approach . . . which all the relationship/marriage books seem to employ. You know . . . endlessly examine what he does and what she does, try to foster self-understanding, see how the other person views it, attempt to substitute new behaviors, suggest alternative techniques, and underlay it all with some godly teaching. Sound good? For the most part, it has been a failure as far as seeing real improvement goes. Maybe I should have used more shame and guilt . . . just kidding.

On the other hand, I can think of three couples who have told me that I have helped their marriages . . . and I have done absolutely "zero" marriage counseling with them! Does everything have to be ironic?

The difference was that they benefited and experienced transformation in their marriage because of fresh understandings of Jesus, of God's grace, of what it means to be Christian . . . not through addressing the specifics of their married life together, but the foundations of how they relate to God. Our spiritually formative journey has brought healing and new blessing to their marriage relationships.

The obvious lesson I am drawing from this is to no longer search for behavioral techniques to substitute for current behavior (can't you say something positive in the morning instead of criticizing him/her?) but to focus on spiritual formation and disciplines.

I am coming to believe that there is great wisdom in the Catholic concept of the confessional. Sometimes we just need to hear someone tell us we are forgiven as we expose our sins, and then we need to be told to pray. I won't go into how I believe the practice has been panned by Protestants (perhaps, in some cases, rightfully so). To confess, to hear we're forgiven, and then to be told what to pray or do, not to pay for the sin, but to discipline oneself against falling prey to the sin again, seems profoundly formative.

Last week a man I met at the alcohol and drug treatment center asked if I would do some counseling with he and his wife. My response: yes, but I won't talk about what you're both doing and how to change it. Instead, we'll talk about becoming like God through prayer, meditation, scripture, and action. I feel like this is a good, theologically sound change in how I respond to those seeking help with their marriages.