Moving to New Location

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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 . . .

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.