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.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Mid-Town
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.
It was good family time.
Friday, July 22, 2005
NYC
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Travels
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.
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.
Monday, July 11, 2005
Unchurched?
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."
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."
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Chair Arrangements
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.
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.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Christian as an Adjective
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.
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.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Hell and the Kingdom of God
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.
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.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Installment #6
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.
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.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Comment and Response
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.
-------------------------
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.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Big 'E" Emergent
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".
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".
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Spiritual Direction in Marital Counseling
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Installment #5- Impediments
(This is the second post for today so you may want to read Installment #4 below)
One of the biggest problems I see for a congregation moving to embrace revival is any form of institutional pride. It is also the stumbling block that can stop a revival in its tracks.
What I mean is any sense of entitlement, achievement, legacy, nostalgia, "arrivalism", or satisfaction may be a symptom of group pride which suppresses the seeker mentality and striving forward to take hold of that for which Christ took hold of us. One of the hardest tasks is to not allow the blessing of "success" (and this doesn't have to mean crass temporal garbage like numbers and contribution, but real work that God does in us) to be a stumbling block toward additional movement.
I guess this is where a hungering and thirsting is essential, and where complacency must be banished. The goal to which we strive must not only be theologically defined but must be beyond satisfaction. The church growth movement is shot through with temporal goals manageable and achievable on human terms. There is nothing more aimless than a church which achieved its dream and now flounders for a new sense of purpose. Usually they just add superlatives to the original goal - more of everything.
Theologically driven congregations seek relationship with God, likeness with the Son, and filling with the Spirit. The mysterious here is sufficient to keep pride at bay, and a spiritual hunger and thirst alive. If humility is the beginning for a personal spiritual journal (see how the opening chapters of Thomas Kempis' Imitation of Christ and Fenelon's Forty Spiritual Letters begin here) it is foundational to congregational journeys as well. Without humility, it is hard for us to receive grace.
The question, then, for someone desiring to spark a revival, is how to subvert the complacency that results from any hints of congregational pride and to encourage a humble longing for God. If there is pride it flourishes in wrong goals, because longing for God is satisfied only by the inexhaustible person of God.
I am not suggesting that there is no satisfaction in seeking God, but only that longing for the Triune God is a unique endeavor in human existence because it offers genuine rest while never displacing the restless desire for God. We are filled while still hungering and thirsting. But this is not frustrating, because our desire for God leads to more filling. This paradox is only found in the mystery of relationship with God. This is the only goal for an individual or congregation that remains fresh, giving peace without complacency; satisfaction without sterility.
The one working for revival must help people acquire a "taste" for God so they see that He is good. This must coincide with cultivating a distaste for anything else - particularly the achievements of human effort. Even the gifts of the Giver should never satisfy. Undermining congregational and institutional pride is difficult, particularly when the accomplishments that are the objects of pride are the works of God himself. Glorying in the exodus instead of the God who wrought the exodus does little to prepare people for the wilderness.
I don't know how to actually communicate this . . . except to talk about it, draw the distinctions, live the proper orientation of longing for the immanent/transcendent God, and pray for the grace to be given for a congregation to taste God. A humble congregation that regards as refuse all human accomplishments and is careful not to confuse the blessings with the Blessor, will pursue the One who pursues them - satisfied but always wanting more. I believe that renewal will define their journey.
One of the biggest problems I see for a congregation moving to embrace revival is any form of institutional pride. It is also the stumbling block that can stop a revival in its tracks.
What I mean is any sense of entitlement, achievement, legacy, nostalgia, "arrivalism", or satisfaction may be a symptom of group pride which suppresses the seeker mentality and striving forward to take hold of that for which Christ took hold of us. One of the hardest tasks is to not allow the blessing of "success" (and this doesn't have to mean crass temporal garbage like numbers and contribution, but real work that God does in us) to be a stumbling block toward additional movement.
I guess this is where a hungering and thirsting is essential, and where complacency must be banished. The goal to which we strive must not only be theologically defined but must be beyond satisfaction. The church growth movement is shot through with temporal goals manageable and achievable on human terms. There is nothing more aimless than a church which achieved its dream and now flounders for a new sense of purpose. Usually they just add superlatives to the original goal - more of everything.
Theologically driven congregations seek relationship with God, likeness with the Son, and filling with the Spirit. The mysterious here is sufficient to keep pride at bay, and a spiritual hunger and thirst alive. If humility is the beginning for a personal spiritual journal (see how the opening chapters of Thomas Kempis' Imitation of Christ and Fenelon's Forty Spiritual Letters begin here) it is foundational to congregational journeys as well. Without humility, it is hard for us to receive grace.
The question, then, for someone desiring to spark a revival, is how to subvert the complacency that results from any hints of congregational pride and to encourage a humble longing for God. If there is pride it flourishes in wrong goals, because longing for God is satisfied only by the inexhaustible person of God.
I am not suggesting that there is no satisfaction in seeking God, but only that longing for the Triune God is a unique endeavor in human existence because it offers genuine rest while never displacing the restless desire for God. We are filled while still hungering and thirsting. But this is not frustrating, because our desire for God leads to more filling. This paradox is only found in the mystery of relationship with God. This is the only goal for an individual or congregation that remains fresh, giving peace without complacency; satisfaction without sterility.
The one working for revival must help people acquire a "taste" for God so they see that He is good. This must coincide with cultivating a distaste for anything else - particularly the achievements of human effort. Even the gifts of the Giver should never satisfy. Undermining congregational and institutional pride is difficult, particularly when the accomplishments that are the objects of pride are the works of God himself. Glorying in the exodus instead of the God who wrought the exodus does little to prepare people for the wilderness.
I don't know how to actually communicate this . . . except to talk about it, draw the distinctions, live the proper orientation of longing for the immanent/transcendent God, and pray for the grace to be given for a congregation to taste God. A humble congregation that regards as refuse all human accomplishments and is careful not to confuse the blessings with the Blessor, will pursue the One who pursues them - satisfied but always wanting more. I believe that renewal will define their journey.
Installment #4
(more of my thoughts about a friend's question regarding how his congregation might discover more of authentic Kingdom living) . . .
I ran across a list of characteristics of revival movements in Christian history on Andrew Jones' blog
- They always begin on the periphery of the institutional church
- They are motivated by a transforming experience (grace) of God by an individual or group.
- The result is the desire for a more authentic Christian life that often leads to concern for the church and world.
- Face to face groups for prayer, Bible study, mutual encouragement are important.
- New methods of selecting and training leaders become important. These are less institutional, more grass roots and lay oriented.
- There are theological breakthroughs, that is, rediscovery of aspects of the Biblical message that have been forgotten or overlooked by the Church, usually they involve a focus on the gifts of every believer.
- There is a leveling effect, distance decreases between clergy and laity, social classes, races, men and women, and denominations.
- The movement is countercultural in some ways, often because it reaches out to those who have not been valued by their society.
A number of these characteristics seem to necessitate (at least to my way of thinking) what I suggested about an instantaneous movement to a new paradigm and not incrementalism, about the need for guides with a vision of the Kingdom in new and robust terms, and concerning taking intentional steps to break our worst religious addictions. I know that for the congregation I am part of, many of the specific matters mentioned in this list were and continue to be deep concerns of our community.
I ran across a list of characteristics of revival movements in Christian history on Andrew Jones' blog
- They always begin on the periphery of the institutional church
- They are motivated by a transforming experience (grace) of God by an individual or group.
- The result is the desire for a more authentic Christian life that often leads to concern for the church and world.
- Face to face groups for prayer, Bible study, mutual encouragement are important.
- New methods of selecting and training leaders become important. These are less institutional, more grass roots and lay oriented.
- There are theological breakthroughs, that is, rediscovery of aspects of the Biblical message that have been forgotten or overlooked by the Church, usually they involve a focus on the gifts of every believer.
- There is a leveling effect, distance decreases between clergy and laity, social classes, races, men and women, and denominations.
- The movement is countercultural in some ways, often because it reaches out to those who have not been valued by their society.
A number of these characteristics seem to necessitate (at least to my way of thinking) what I suggested about an instantaneous movement to a new paradigm and not incrementalism, about the need for guides with a vision of the Kingdom in new and robust terms, and concerning taking intentional steps to break our worst religious addictions. I know that for the congregation I am part of, many of the specific matters mentioned in this list were and continue to be deep concerns of our community.
Monday, June 06, 2005
A major feature of my own journey (and I believe everyone's) has been shifting from man-centered ways of viewing everything, to seeing all things for the sake of God. I am talking about more than "who's on the throne" type of questions. Being raised in a Christian home meant that God was always on the throne; even so, my religion was largely human-centered.
In that continuing quest . . . I think about accepting people for the sake of God, rather than judging them for where they are theologically, spiritually, morally - in understanding or practice. Where anyone is in relationship to God is a phenomenon of time and place. I meet them here and now, but I don't know where they've been, or where they will go. If I make judgments on their present state, I am considering what God has done, but also their human imperfections. Anyone looking at me would see the same.
If, however, I view others through faith in God, then promises such as if one seeks, one will find, and Paul's confidence that the One who began a good work in the Philippians would bring it to completion, lead me to confidence in their perfection by grace (and mine too).
What if I accept people from a God-defined view, not measuring them in time where I meet them and noting the imperfections of thinking, practice, and devotion, but by faith in God when seeing evidence of his work and accept them as God will form them? I will accept the non-orthodox seeker as an orthodox believer, not giving them some "benefit of the doubt" or overlooking that person's non-orthodox beliefs or practices, but strictly for the sake of God's faithfulness.
I find that I have common ground not based on an acceptance of the Apostles' Creed, a high view of scripture, Trinitarian theology, a certain view of atonement, ecclesiology, eschatology, or a host of other important matters. I find that I am in a fellowship of seekers, and only find common ground lacking with those who don't seek (but might in fact agree with my thinking on many of the above-mentioned theological subjects).
May I accept those who seek on the basis on God's promise that they will find, welcoming them for the sake of God's faithfulness wherever they are "in time" on that journey. Of such, to my present thinking, is the Kingdom of God.
In that continuing quest . . . I think about accepting people for the sake of God, rather than judging them for where they are theologically, spiritually, morally - in understanding or practice. Where anyone is in relationship to God is a phenomenon of time and place. I meet them here and now, but I don't know where they've been, or where they will go. If I make judgments on their present state, I am considering what God has done, but also their human imperfections. Anyone looking at me would see the same.
If, however, I view others through faith in God, then promises such as if one seeks, one will find, and Paul's confidence that the One who began a good work in the Philippians would bring it to completion, lead me to confidence in their perfection by grace (and mine too).
What if I accept people from a God-defined view, not measuring them in time where I meet them and noting the imperfections of thinking, practice, and devotion, but by faith in God when seeing evidence of his work and accept them as God will form them? I will accept the non-orthodox seeker as an orthodox believer, not giving them some "benefit of the doubt" or overlooking that person's non-orthodox beliefs or practices, but strictly for the sake of God's faithfulness.
I find that I have common ground not based on an acceptance of the Apostles' Creed, a high view of scripture, Trinitarian theology, a certain view of atonement, ecclesiology, eschatology, or a host of other important matters. I find that I am in a fellowship of seekers, and only find common ground lacking with those who don't seek (but might in fact agree with my thinking on many of the above-mentioned theological subjects).
May I accept those who seek on the basis on God's promise that they will find, welcoming them for the sake of God's faithfulness wherever they are "in time" on that journey. Of such, to my present thinking, is the Kingdom of God.
Monday, May 30, 2005
Installment #3
In continuing to respond to a letter from a church leader who is seeking revival in his congregation . . .
-----------------------
I reread your request about how to get off “dead center” and saw something that I don’t know how to understand: namely that you have listening/praying leaders and yet, at least you, feel that something is being missed. Do others feel like something is lacking? Is God calling your congregation, and despite sincere listening, the call isn’t being heard? Is God calling, people sense the message, but don’t know how to act on it? Are you hearing it and others are not, or do others hear it too? Do many hear it, understand it, but fear acting on it? Is the problem hearing, understanding, or acting? – some part of all three?
If people aren’t hearing a call that you hear, it may be because you’ve had the experience of that small, vibrant community you mentioned. You, better than I, understand the nature of the Spirit’s prompting – which seems often to be a message which needs interpreting. The process of us working through the discernment is one aspect of why the message was given. Do others know God is calling, but struggle to interpret the message?
Being able to convey the concept of a land of “milk and honey” so that people catch the vision in God’s call is important. For those who’ve witnessed it, they want to be there. For those who don’t know it even exists, how can they hear the call?
If others are not aware of what can be, and so don’t sense God urging them onward, a guide is necessary. In many ways we spent four years preparing for our jump, but others had labored for years before me in the recesses of discontent within the hearts of seekers. Anyone who knew what could be, started sharing that with others and helping them taste the possibilities. At the time that this group began moving they had longed for something with the vague shape of what we now do. They were hungry and thirsty for community, ministry, living out of “one briefcase” (faith intersecting with all of life), and moving beyond southern civil religion – but the group needed guides who could describe the forms this experience of faith would take. The guides didn’t have to do much convincing, for when they described how things could be quickly a majority seized on it and affirmed “that’s what we’ve been wanting!” The majority were not being equipped by the Spirit to put the longing into some form, but the confirmation was there throughout the community for each step. Obviously, we have still had our troubles discerning, and nothing is ever unanimous. There are some who consistently struggle more than others to catch the vision.
I am writing so that I may understand (a stream of consciousness here) rather than putting this down as an essay. You’ll have to bear with my process.
Where my thinking is taking me is to a place of recognizing the importance of visionary people – but not in the entrepreneurial sense. We don’t need people with grand visions of their own imagination, but who have a “Kingdom sense” and can communicate it. The means must be Kingdom expressions. Having Kingdom ends is not enough to justify any means.
For me, God showed me what could be through watching God build churches in Africa. He’s shown that to you through that unconventional church (and many other experiences as well). The question is, what can we do to help others see what congregational life can be like when it is a daily expression of living in Christ rather than membership in an organization? For us it was experientially realized, not informationally through seminars and classes. It might happen at a convention, but I doubt it unless the people are already extremely primed. Conventions are forms that are too institutional (like lectureships) where often things come down to “how to” classes – which feed the wrong mentality. The form is too institutional to convey a non-institutional freshness.
I think that perhaps sharing, even for short periods, in congregations that have the life you are seeking for your community is the way to go. Different experiences will help people realize that it is not about a certain configuration. Two couples from here visited Church of the Savior. That is a good place to see very authentic Christian life being lived out. Besides personally witnessing community I think that narrative can serve as a vehicle for experience – even though instruction does not work well. The Emergent idea of conversation is powerful too.
I guess these ramblings are coming down to how you can guide others into hearing more clearly the call of God: creating dissatisfaction with where we are, longing for more of God, and experiencing how that longing can be met in vibrant community. I know . . . I’ve said nothing new. Maybe this “methodology” could be wedded to my earlier thoughts about “abrupt” change and intentional negation of our worst religious pitfalls.
Keith Brenton commented on my blog saying “wasn’t I talking about new wineskins?” Yes, I am trying to give some detail to what it means to have new wineskins. That is something we have heard said, but how well do we know what it takes to have new wineskins? I guess that is what I’m trying to describe as best I understand it- but I am afraid that you will likely find little new in my thoughts. I wish I had better answers!
Peace.
-----------------------
I reread your request about how to get off “dead center” and saw something that I don’t know how to understand: namely that you have listening/praying leaders and yet, at least you, feel that something is being missed. Do others feel like something is lacking? Is God calling your congregation, and despite sincere listening, the call isn’t being heard? Is God calling, people sense the message, but don’t know how to act on it? Are you hearing it and others are not, or do others hear it too? Do many hear it, understand it, but fear acting on it? Is the problem hearing, understanding, or acting? – some part of all three?
If people aren’t hearing a call that you hear, it may be because you’ve had the experience of that small, vibrant community you mentioned. You, better than I, understand the nature of the Spirit’s prompting – which seems often to be a message which needs interpreting. The process of us working through the discernment is one aspect of why the message was given. Do others know God is calling, but struggle to interpret the message?
Being able to convey the concept of a land of “milk and honey” so that people catch the vision in God’s call is important. For those who’ve witnessed it, they want to be there. For those who don’t know it even exists, how can they hear the call?
If others are not aware of what can be, and so don’t sense God urging them onward, a guide is necessary. In many ways we spent four years preparing for our jump, but others had labored for years before me in the recesses of discontent within the hearts of seekers. Anyone who knew what could be, started sharing that with others and helping them taste the possibilities. At the time that this group began moving they had longed for something with the vague shape of what we now do. They were hungry and thirsty for community, ministry, living out of “one briefcase” (faith intersecting with all of life), and moving beyond southern civil religion – but the group needed guides who could describe the forms this experience of faith would take. The guides didn’t have to do much convincing, for when they described how things could be quickly a majority seized on it and affirmed “that’s what we’ve been wanting!” The majority were not being equipped by the Spirit to put the longing into some form, but the confirmation was there throughout the community for each step. Obviously, we have still had our troubles discerning, and nothing is ever unanimous. There are some who consistently struggle more than others to catch the vision.
I am writing so that I may understand (a stream of consciousness here) rather than putting this down as an essay. You’ll have to bear with my process.
Where my thinking is taking me is to a place of recognizing the importance of visionary people – but not in the entrepreneurial sense. We don’t need people with grand visions of their own imagination, but who have a “Kingdom sense” and can communicate it. The means must be Kingdom expressions. Having Kingdom ends is not enough to justify any means.
For me, God showed me what could be through watching God build churches in Africa. He’s shown that to you through that unconventional church (and many other experiences as well). The question is, what can we do to help others see what congregational life can be like when it is a daily expression of living in Christ rather than membership in an organization? For us it was experientially realized, not informationally through seminars and classes. It might happen at a convention, but I doubt it unless the people are already extremely primed. Conventions are forms that are too institutional (like lectureships) where often things come down to “how to” classes – which feed the wrong mentality. The form is too institutional to convey a non-institutional freshness.
I think that perhaps sharing, even for short periods, in congregations that have the life you are seeking for your community is the way to go. Different experiences will help people realize that it is not about a certain configuration. Two couples from here visited Church of the Savior. That is a good place to see very authentic Christian life being lived out. Besides personally witnessing community I think that narrative can serve as a vehicle for experience – even though instruction does not work well. The Emergent idea of conversation is powerful too.
I guess these ramblings are coming down to how you can guide others into hearing more clearly the call of God: creating dissatisfaction with where we are, longing for more of God, and experiencing how that longing can be met in vibrant community. I know . . . I’ve said nothing new. Maybe this “methodology” could be wedded to my earlier thoughts about “abrupt” change and intentional negation of our worst religious pitfalls.
Keith Brenton commented on my blog saying “wasn’t I talking about new wineskins?” Yes, I am trying to give some detail to what it means to have new wineskins. That is something we have heard said, but how well do we know what it takes to have new wineskins? I guess that is what I’m trying to describe as best I understand it- but I am afraid that you will likely find little new in my thoughts. I wish I had better answers!
Peace.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Addendum to Initial Installments
As I think about two of the ideas I've put forth:
1) The type of change I am discussing must be an instantaneous leap to a new paradigm and not incremental progression,
2) Those jumping to the new paradigm exist as an open community among others,
I believe these aspects are seen in the Jerusalem church.
Peter describes the leap to a new world in his call for separation for the corrupt generation and submission to the name of Jesus . . . accepting completely the one who'd been rejected profoundly. The fact that those making this jump were distinct is seen in the statement that "no one else dared join them" (Acts 5:13). The paradoxical verse which follows says "more and more . . . were added to their number." To me it is language that decries any incrementalism: a little in and a little not. People didn't come gradually . . . they either were living there or they weren't.
And yet this distinct group which had leapt to acceptance of Jesus as the messiah still lived daily in the temple, among those who'd not made that jump. Everywhere, they continued in the synagogues. They spoke about new realities with a welcoming posture to anyone willing to begin living in the Kingdom.
Their story seems to me to illustrate how revival takes place. In essence, they were participating in a revival of Jewish faith. Avoiding the tired controversies of "saved" and "not saved" we can envision a revival in Christian congregations through reinvigorated faith, self-understanding, and action in similar terms. A new vigorous community erupts through God's Spirit among what has become stale. This is not about judgemental statements against those (like myself) who've been caught up in fossilized religion. The new community emerges abruptly, and is anything but exclusive. It is distinct and simultaneously inclusive.
In a similar fashion, a new Christian faith emerges within old communities, not to be iconoclastic, but to be inviting and hopeful.
Tibi gloria, Domine!
1) The type of change I am discussing must be an instantaneous leap to a new paradigm and not incremental progression,
2) Those jumping to the new paradigm exist as an open community among others,
I believe these aspects are seen in the Jerusalem church.
Peter describes the leap to a new world in his call for separation for the corrupt generation and submission to the name of Jesus . . . accepting completely the one who'd been rejected profoundly. The fact that those making this jump were distinct is seen in the statement that "no one else dared join them" (Acts 5:13). The paradoxical verse which follows says "more and more . . . were added to their number." To me it is language that decries any incrementalism: a little in and a little not. People didn't come gradually . . . they either were living there or they weren't.
And yet this distinct group which had leapt to acceptance of Jesus as the messiah still lived daily in the temple, among those who'd not made that jump. Everywhere, they continued in the synagogues. They spoke about new realities with a welcoming posture to anyone willing to begin living in the Kingdom.
Their story seems to me to illustrate how revival takes place. In essence, they were participating in a revival of Jewish faith. Avoiding the tired controversies of "saved" and "not saved" we can envision a revival in Christian congregations through reinvigorated faith, self-understanding, and action in similar terms. A new vigorous community erupts through God's Spirit among what has become stale. This is not about judgemental statements against those (like myself) who've been caught up in fossilized religion. The new community emerges abruptly, and is anything but exclusive. It is distinct and simultaneously inclusive.
In a similar fashion, a new Christian faith emerges within old communities, not to be iconoclastic, but to be inviting and hopeful.
Tibi gloria, Domine!
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Installment #2
See the previous post for the beginning of this subject:
---------------------------------
Brother,
I have continued to think about your query and to look for what I can say. As you know, none of this “life in community” follows a formula, though there may be some aspects that are common to such a journey. So let me dive into another of my opinions – one which is related to my earlier installment on making a clean, new start rather than attempting an incremental journey.
One of my missions professors, Dr. Ed Matthews, gave us this advice: when you go to your field of work, find out what stereotypes the people have about missionaries and Christianity, and break them. Where we were in Africa, two groups in particular, had been there for close to 100 years – the White Fathers of the Catholic Church and the African Inland Mission. One of the stereotypical ideas the local people had about Christianity was that one term for followers of Christ was “readers” because being a Christian was so closely tied to literacy. Among that tribe where functional literacy was well below 20% to me that was a problematic stereotype.
This doesn’t mean that I was going to criticize all that other missionaries had done before me, but to see where the people of that culture had put missionaries and Christianity “in a box” and then intentionally create a new hearing for Christian faith. To me this does not necessarily mean being iconoclastic, but showing the unbounded character of Christian faith, deepening the mystery, and exposing new aspects to surprise the local people.
We learned the tribal language and not just the trade language, which was something the Catholic missionaries did but not the Protestants. We tried to find ways to create a fresh hearing for the Good News among people who had experienced a Christian witness for 100 years but were still 90% traditionalists.
When I take this idea and apply it to my thoughts about reinvigorating a Christian community today, I think that a group must take some radical positions to directly challenge where there has been lethargy, “in the box” thinking, and routine. This is a very contextual endeavor.
Taking an example from our community, we felt led to break out of an institutional mindset that bred loyalty to congregations – their funding, their programs, their progress. We wanted to create a new vision for discipleship to Jesus in daily life rather than succumbing to the tendency to enjoy membership in a church much like membership in a country club. To hit this problem head-on (for ourselves, to remind us how we are susceptible to such thinking) we did away with “membership.” Since no one can be a member of Disciples’ Fellowship, we were actively opposing our own tendencies to revert to “institutional” promotion, thinking, and identity. We also started to use the knock-off from the Southwest commercial saying “You are now free to move about the Kingdom” as a way to intentionally capture our desire to see the body of Christ rather than our local congregation.
Obviously, someone in another context might see no sense in that intentional stand. They probably shouldn’t. When we talk about “not being Sunday-centered, preacher-centered, campus-centered, or sermon-centered” – again we are identifying the particular weaknesses that exist for us.
The general point I am thinking about is that not only does a clear change need to happen at a moment in time rather than gradually, that change needs to involve some distinct paradigm shifting which is a redefining of the weaknesses and negative tendencies of a group.
When you say that you feel that your congregation may be over-staffed, over-propertied, and self-centered then, if I were in your situation, I would do things to turn those aspects around 180 degrees. The same idea is suggested by Jason Zahariades in his article on “Detoxing from Church.” Like people suffering from an addiction to chemical substances, we need a radical detoxing unlike the “moderation” which is possible for those not addicted.
If believers in your community are addicted to too much staff, their property, and an inward focus – then I think a big jump is essential. Maybe nothing concerning the internal nature of the group will be discussed for a year – consciously and overtly changing the dialogue. Letting everyone know that we aren’t going to talk about . . . because, though those matters are good, we’ve neglected other conversations of the Kingdom. Maybe the staff is reduced, or maybe they start doing ministry to outsiders only (and do nothing for the internal maintenance of the group). Maybe the property is sold, or maybe in some way a new paradigm is introduced by some new use that makes it clear that the addiction is being broken. I like the idea of using the 12-steps of substance addiction as a process of thorough-going repentance.
We joked about being in church-recovery, or Church of Christ anonymous classes. That was the attitude that we had to adopt. I’m not sure, as I’ve said before, how this is worked out in your context as the practice of faith. Please accept this humble second installment - which may be simply the misguided thoughts of an outsider.
Peace to you.
---------------------------------
Brother,
I have continued to think about your query and to look for what I can say. As you know, none of this “life in community” follows a formula, though there may be some aspects that are common to such a journey. So let me dive into another of my opinions – one which is related to my earlier installment on making a clean, new start rather than attempting an incremental journey.
One of my missions professors, Dr. Ed Matthews, gave us this advice: when you go to your field of work, find out what stereotypes the people have about missionaries and Christianity, and break them. Where we were in Africa, two groups in particular, had been there for close to 100 years – the White Fathers of the Catholic Church and the African Inland Mission. One of the stereotypical ideas the local people had about Christianity was that one term for followers of Christ was “readers” because being a Christian was so closely tied to literacy. Among that tribe where functional literacy was well below 20% to me that was a problematic stereotype.
This doesn’t mean that I was going to criticize all that other missionaries had done before me, but to see where the people of that culture had put missionaries and Christianity “in a box” and then intentionally create a new hearing for Christian faith. To me this does not necessarily mean being iconoclastic, but showing the unbounded character of Christian faith, deepening the mystery, and exposing new aspects to surprise the local people.
We learned the tribal language and not just the trade language, which was something the Catholic missionaries did but not the Protestants. We tried to find ways to create a fresh hearing for the Good News among people who had experienced a Christian witness for 100 years but were still 90% traditionalists.
When I take this idea and apply it to my thoughts about reinvigorating a Christian community today, I think that a group must take some radical positions to directly challenge where there has been lethargy, “in the box” thinking, and routine. This is a very contextual endeavor.
Taking an example from our community, we felt led to break out of an institutional mindset that bred loyalty to congregations – their funding, their programs, their progress. We wanted to create a new vision for discipleship to Jesus in daily life rather than succumbing to the tendency to enjoy membership in a church much like membership in a country club. To hit this problem head-on (for ourselves, to remind us how we are susceptible to such thinking) we did away with “membership.” Since no one can be a member of Disciples’ Fellowship, we were actively opposing our own tendencies to revert to “institutional” promotion, thinking, and identity. We also started to use the knock-off from the Southwest commercial saying “You are now free to move about the Kingdom” as a way to intentionally capture our desire to see the body of Christ rather than our local congregation.
Obviously, someone in another context might see no sense in that intentional stand. They probably shouldn’t. When we talk about “not being Sunday-centered, preacher-centered, campus-centered, or sermon-centered” – again we are identifying the particular weaknesses that exist for us.
The general point I am thinking about is that not only does a clear change need to happen at a moment in time rather than gradually, that change needs to involve some distinct paradigm shifting which is a redefining of the weaknesses and negative tendencies of a group.
When you say that you feel that your congregation may be over-staffed, over-propertied, and self-centered then, if I were in your situation, I would do things to turn those aspects around 180 degrees. The same idea is suggested by Jason Zahariades in his article on “Detoxing from Church.” Like people suffering from an addiction to chemical substances, we need a radical detoxing unlike the “moderation” which is possible for those not addicted.
If believers in your community are addicted to too much staff, their property, and an inward focus – then I think a big jump is essential. Maybe nothing concerning the internal nature of the group will be discussed for a year – consciously and overtly changing the dialogue. Letting everyone know that we aren’t going to talk about . . . because, though those matters are good, we’ve neglected other conversations of the Kingdom. Maybe the staff is reduced, or maybe they start doing ministry to outsiders only (and do nothing for the internal maintenance of the group). Maybe the property is sold, or maybe in some way a new paradigm is introduced by some new use that makes it clear that the addiction is being broken. I like the idea of using the 12-steps of substance addiction as a process of thorough-going repentance.
We joked about being in church-recovery, or Church of Christ anonymous classes. That was the attitude that we had to adopt. I’m not sure, as I’ve said before, how this is worked out in your context as the practice of faith. Please accept this humble second installment - which may be simply the misguided thoughts of an outsider.
Peace to you.
Monday, May 23, 2005
From Institution to Fellowship of Believers - 1
Recently, I was asked how our fellowship of believers made the change to head towards what we are becoming . . . so because I want to kill two birds with one stone, here's part of that as a post. Unfortunately, you will have to do without this person's question and description of his own church situation. Suffice it to say that he is part of a very good congregation, but which may suffer from institutional lethargy - and he longs for a more vital, outward looking, missional/incarnational community.
-------------------
I take very seriously your request, which is why I am going to answer in several installments. I want to be able to think about this and let it simmer for a while. But I can respond initially to one thing you raise in your letter - Could you see an established church really transforming into what you now are?
I think it could happen 1) if the leadership is willing to take risks and pursue the vision, and 2) the fact that significant numbers of people may decide to not go along for the journey won't kill the effort.
If there is a united and courageous group of leaders, I think something can happen, but it will be a “cultural” change – which will be as difficult as that language suggests. We are not talking about organizational, methodological, stylistic, doctrinal, or some lesser change, but the most fundamental restructuring of the DNA imaginable. I believe that I am telling you nothing new.
Of course, such a thorough-going change is easier to adopt in a new context – rather than to infuse it into something familiar, just because the old places, structures, environment, configuration, etc. all are repositories for the old church culture. They are memorials which tend to lead people to associate familiar concepts of church with where they have practiced them. Again, nothing new here, but only my take on the added difficulty of doing something profoundly different in a location and with people who have long-established habits. Take those people out of that setting, and they know there has to be change, and I think they will be more accepting of it. If a family moves to New York, they expect to experience some change even if they would rather not. Changing at “home” is possible, but more difficult.
My second comment, and the thought that first “jumped to mind” (was prompted by the Holy Spirit? – that must yet be discerned) is that incremental change cannot get a group to this new culture. Using another subject to illustrate- there is no “incremental” pathway from legalism to accepting grace. Understanding the radical difference may come incrementally, but the leap is “all or nothing” in a moment. A person goes from trusting in his or her own actions to bring righteousness, to abandoning all hope of that and desperately leaping to a whole new paradigm that exists in an entirely new universe. Even if done imperfectly (there is certainly more to learn) the jump happens at a specific time. There is no middle ground – a little legalistic and a little grace-dependent. The gradualists want to believe in middle ground to lessen the impact, to manage the change – but not when we are talking about mutually exclusive matters.
We cannot assess where we are, figure out where we want to be, and then create a series of gradual steps to get from here to there. We can do this if the change is not at the depth of the fabric of things. But I think we are talking about a Copernican revolution that involves how we relate to God, what “church” is, how we are to exist in relation to the non-confessing world, what leadership is, the role of believer-to-believer relationships, how we view our Sunday activities, what being a Christian means, etc.
My own assessment of our congregation, in ways that I believe are not at first even evident to many outside observers, is that we are in a different world completely. I think the Emergent thing is like that – but many seem to be going to Emergent events to “get ideas” to apply in the usual modern incremental (tweak the model) fashion. I don’t think it will work.
That is not to say that every person who shares life with us here is in that new world – but if they hang around they learn the new culture. I guess every individual doesn’t have to “jump” to it at the same time, but the identity/focus/configuration (those words aren’t good, but I don’t know what to use) of the group must jump all at once to something new. Obviously, many people have to be “in” that first jump. Others will feel the disequilibrium, but their move may come later.
I am probably rambling, but I think this incremental versus instantaneous distinction is vital. Most churches that are established want to eat the elephant one bite at a time and hope people will be able to handle the change in small bits. If we talk about leadership, there is no incremental way to go from top-down authoritarianism to bottom-up servanthood. You stop the old way, switch to the new way, and deal with the whiplash effect. Now if you want to tweak the top-down to make it less arbitrary, maybe less mean-spirited, less personality centered – that can be done incrementally because there is a continuum to move along gradually since there is no fundamental change happening. It is just a new form of top-down.
If a church is going to move from self-centered keepers of the faith to Kingdom outposts to bless a non-confessing world, that cannot be done little by little. Trying to do it gradually usually means that it never happens. What one can do in an established church is to start creating a new church within the old church – the new one operating in a whole new way. People are invited to join the journey. Of course, through time the difference will become apparent, and often that can be painful and difficult. What many want is incrementalism. “Can’t you preach about grace and yet say things to emphasize the old essentials?” – as if those were compatible and the switch could happen gradually.
For me, the new emergent paradigm of church is so radically different that it cannot be ushered in through old means. In other words, the new pattern is not top-down, so it cannot be brought in through a top-down mandate. That would be a contradiction. The new is lived, not organized and implemented. So I think ultimately you are looking at people opting out of old ways, adopting new ways, and jumping to a whole new paradigm. If the “leadership” agrees, they cease to be “leaders” in any modern organizational sense and begin living a new reality. Can your congregation endure the whiplash and enter the new world? I don’t know.
My fear is that you’ll actually act on what I’ve written. I’m not even sure of what that would mean at this point. Let me think on this and maybe that will come in a later installment.
-------------------
I take very seriously your request, which is why I am going to answer in several installments. I want to be able to think about this and let it simmer for a while. But I can respond initially to one thing you raise in your letter - Could you see an established church really transforming into what you now are?
I think it could happen 1) if the leadership is willing to take risks and pursue the vision, and 2) the fact that significant numbers of people may decide to not go along for the journey won't kill the effort.
If there is a united and courageous group of leaders, I think something can happen, but it will be a “cultural” change – which will be as difficult as that language suggests. We are not talking about organizational, methodological, stylistic, doctrinal, or some lesser change, but the most fundamental restructuring of the DNA imaginable. I believe that I am telling you nothing new.
Of course, such a thorough-going change is easier to adopt in a new context – rather than to infuse it into something familiar, just because the old places, structures, environment, configuration, etc. all are repositories for the old church culture. They are memorials which tend to lead people to associate familiar concepts of church with where they have practiced them. Again, nothing new here, but only my take on the added difficulty of doing something profoundly different in a location and with people who have long-established habits. Take those people out of that setting, and they know there has to be change, and I think they will be more accepting of it. If a family moves to New York, they expect to experience some change even if they would rather not. Changing at “home” is possible, but more difficult.
My second comment, and the thought that first “jumped to mind” (was prompted by the Holy Spirit? – that must yet be discerned) is that incremental change cannot get a group to this new culture. Using another subject to illustrate- there is no “incremental” pathway from legalism to accepting grace. Understanding the radical difference may come incrementally, but the leap is “all or nothing” in a moment. A person goes from trusting in his or her own actions to bring righteousness, to abandoning all hope of that and desperately leaping to a whole new paradigm that exists in an entirely new universe. Even if done imperfectly (there is certainly more to learn) the jump happens at a specific time. There is no middle ground – a little legalistic and a little grace-dependent. The gradualists want to believe in middle ground to lessen the impact, to manage the change – but not when we are talking about mutually exclusive matters.
We cannot assess where we are, figure out where we want to be, and then create a series of gradual steps to get from here to there. We can do this if the change is not at the depth of the fabric of things. But I think we are talking about a Copernican revolution that involves how we relate to God, what “church” is, how we are to exist in relation to the non-confessing world, what leadership is, the role of believer-to-believer relationships, how we view our Sunday activities, what being a Christian means, etc.
My own assessment of our congregation, in ways that I believe are not at first even evident to many outside observers, is that we are in a different world completely. I think the Emergent thing is like that – but many seem to be going to Emergent events to “get ideas” to apply in the usual modern incremental (tweak the model) fashion. I don’t think it will work.
That is not to say that every person who shares life with us here is in that new world – but if they hang around they learn the new culture. I guess every individual doesn’t have to “jump” to it at the same time, but the identity/focus/configuration (those words aren’t good, but I don’t know what to use) of the group must jump all at once to something new. Obviously, many people have to be “in” that first jump. Others will feel the disequilibrium, but their move may come later.
I am probably rambling, but I think this incremental versus instantaneous distinction is vital. Most churches that are established want to eat the elephant one bite at a time and hope people will be able to handle the change in small bits. If we talk about leadership, there is no incremental way to go from top-down authoritarianism to bottom-up servanthood. You stop the old way, switch to the new way, and deal with the whiplash effect. Now if you want to tweak the top-down to make it less arbitrary, maybe less mean-spirited, less personality centered – that can be done incrementally because there is a continuum to move along gradually since there is no fundamental change happening. It is just a new form of top-down.
If a church is going to move from self-centered keepers of the faith to Kingdom outposts to bless a non-confessing world, that cannot be done little by little. Trying to do it gradually usually means that it never happens. What one can do in an established church is to start creating a new church within the old church – the new one operating in a whole new way. People are invited to join the journey. Of course, through time the difference will become apparent, and often that can be painful and difficult. What many want is incrementalism. “Can’t you preach about grace and yet say things to emphasize the old essentials?” – as if those were compatible and the switch could happen gradually.
For me, the new emergent paradigm of church is so radically different that it cannot be ushered in through old means. In other words, the new pattern is not top-down, so it cannot be brought in through a top-down mandate. That would be a contradiction. The new is lived, not organized and implemented. So I think ultimately you are looking at people opting out of old ways, adopting new ways, and jumping to a whole new paradigm. If the “leadership” agrees, they cease to be “leaders” in any modern organizational sense and begin living a new reality. Can your congregation endure the whiplash and enter the new world? I don’t know.
My fear is that you’ll actually act on what I’ve written. I’m not even sure of what that would mean at this point. Let me think on this and maybe that will come in a later installment.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Three police officers thought they might be making a drug bust Wednesday night when they rushed in, but found instead my friend and his son had taken another friend home from our prayer meeting and had just stayed to chat. Not that these officers didn't have a reason to suspect something illegal . . . they're just not aware of what divine transformation has been happening. They busted in on the fellowship of believers in Christ!
Oooooo . . . I love it when our witness is starting to make a real difference - when our presence is salt and light in places known to be otherwise.
Oooooo . . . I love it when our witness is starting to make a real difference - when our presence is salt and light in places known to be otherwise.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Confession
Okay, I admit . . .
Sometimes my ideas don't sound so good the second time around.
I still get a twinge of feeling left behind when I read/hear of others progressing in the profession of ministry.
I am still way too judgmental of those selling out ministry as a profession.
I sound like I am better read/more knowledgeable than I really am - I probably spent last night getting my butt whipped online in Halo 2 rather than reading . . . (insert notable author/book here).
I really do think that most heavy metal songs are redeemable if they're honest about life.
I am still unforgiving towards some people who have wronged me.
My thoughts are very heathen even if my actions aren't. I'm really scared of "snapping" and doing what I think about.
I'm not too certain that confessing like this is a good idea.
I wish God would put an end to all the silly stuff that is promoted on the INSP network.
That last confession means God would have to put an end to my silliness as well.
I'm a really judgmental idiot.
I need to think more before confessing - so really stupid statements like that one about the INSP network can be filtered so I can keep up the pretense of not saying dumb and self-condemning stuff.
I thought of something to confess, but I'm not going to say it here.
I get impatient with others.
I really do want to praised by men and women - though I know that is very dangerous.
Sometimes I worry about the future.
I don't want to get seriously sick for a long time.
I'm not real sure how I feel about definitely not being young anymore. I want to age graciously but don't know if I'll do that well.
I am too intently concerned about criticism - which is ironic because I knowingly do things that will generate it.
Sometimes my ideas don't sound so good the second time around.
I still get a twinge of feeling left behind when I read/hear of others progressing in the profession of ministry.
I am still way too judgmental of those selling out ministry as a profession.
I sound like I am better read/more knowledgeable than I really am - I probably spent last night getting my butt whipped online in Halo 2 rather than reading . . . (insert notable author/book here).
I really do think that most heavy metal songs are redeemable if they're honest about life.
I am still unforgiving towards some people who have wronged me.
My thoughts are very heathen even if my actions aren't. I'm really scared of "snapping" and doing what I think about.
I'm not too certain that confessing like this is a good idea.
I wish God would put an end to all the silly stuff that is promoted on the INSP network.
That last confession means God would have to put an end to my silliness as well.
I'm a really judgmental idiot.
I need to think more before confessing - so really stupid statements like that one about the INSP network can be filtered so I can keep up the pretense of not saying dumb and self-condemning stuff.
I thought of something to confess, but I'm not going to say it here.
I get impatient with others.
I really do want to praised by men and women - though I know that is very dangerous.
Sometimes I worry about the future.
I don't want to get seriously sick for a long time.
I'm not real sure how I feel about definitely not being young anymore. I want to age graciously but don't know if I'll do that well.
I am too intently concerned about criticism - which is ironic because I knowingly do things that will generate it.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
On Wanting
"You cannot have what you want."
"But what I want is good . . . it is of God," the disciple protests.
"Even so, if your desire is anything other than God himself, your longing has become a competitor . . . an idol. There is more to be considered than simply the 'good' or 'bad' of a thing. Your longing might be ill-timed, secretly self-flattering, or good your your own eyes, but only God knows what is truly good. Our vocation is to seek God himself, and to allow him to order the things of our lives, the times, the relationships, the possessions, the opportunities, and the experiences as he desires. Much is wasted by disciples who believe that God has shown them what is good and they pursue it for him, rather than understanding that God has shown himself to be good that we might long for him."
"But what I want is good . . . it is of God," the disciple protests.
"Even so, if your desire is anything other than God himself, your longing has become a competitor . . . an idol. There is more to be considered than simply the 'good' or 'bad' of a thing. Your longing might be ill-timed, secretly self-flattering, or good your your own eyes, but only God knows what is truly good. Our vocation is to seek God himself, and to allow him to order the things of our lives, the times, the relationships, the possessions, the opportunities, and the experiences as he desires. Much is wasted by disciples who believe that God has shown them what is good and they pursue it for him, rather than understanding that God has shown himself to be good that we might long for him."
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Evangelical Conversion
My last post, needs an addendum. Not only does the situation with the individual I am sharing life with in our faith community prompt a discussion of differentiating between self-serving "felt needs", that are the chief concern of many churches as they seek to "appeal" to the spiritual consumers out there, and a contextualized message that reveals God's grace as it is poured out into situations of human suffering, it also raises a question of typical evangelical notions of conversion (what a long sentence!).
This person does not need, nor would he understand right now, lots of talk about personal sin, eternal consequences, and "conversion" to take care of all that. His need is more immediate - not in heaven by and by. As I explained, the Gospel to him right now is good news about hope, peace, and sanity through Christ which rescues him from a chaos that is a lifestyle. Sure it includes "sin" - but that's not the problem. It is life as he knows it.
He's 82 days clean and sober today. I'm discipling him, but right now that has nothing to do with understanding atonement. Instead it is about having a Savior from the chaos here and now. I don't even ask the evangelical "big question": Is he saved?
He is becoming more like Jesus - the Spirit doing alot in 82 days. Anxiety is down, paranoia is waning, peace and sanity are invading a disturbed life. That may not be the norm for evangelical conversion, but it is spiritual transformation.
Making disciples is all about sharing life with others so they find the God who is seeking them. If we quit worrying about who's saved and lost, and just start discipling everyone (the nations) we might actually start doing what Jesus was talking about. Discipling does not follow conversion. Discipling is everything; those who put faith in Jesus are those who have been discipled to some extent, though they, just like me, are still being discipled.
Evangelical patterns of making everything about conversion with discipling being a later stage tries to make orderly and neat what is a messy process. How all of this occurs will never follow a precise and predictable sequence. Trying to make every person start at the same point and journey according to some formula only means we often miss the prevenient discipling of the Spirit in those we encounter because we were wedded to our own flow chart. Unlike Jesus, we have the same conversation with everyone, while he had personally relevant conversations with people as recorded in the gospels. Seems like Jesus was discipling everyone - richman, poorman, beggarman, thief (or adultress).
This person does not need, nor would he understand right now, lots of talk about personal sin, eternal consequences, and "conversion" to take care of all that. His need is more immediate - not in heaven by and by. As I explained, the Gospel to him right now is good news about hope, peace, and sanity through Christ which rescues him from a chaos that is a lifestyle. Sure it includes "sin" - but that's not the problem. It is life as he knows it.
He's 82 days clean and sober today. I'm discipling him, but right now that has nothing to do with understanding atonement. Instead it is about having a Savior from the chaos here and now. I don't even ask the evangelical "big question": Is he saved?
He is becoming more like Jesus - the Spirit doing alot in 82 days. Anxiety is down, paranoia is waning, peace and sanity are invading a disturbed life. That may not be the norm for evangelical conversion, but it is spiritual transformation.
Making disciples is all about sharing life with others so they find the God who is seeking them. If we quit worrying about who's saved and lost, and just start discipling everyone (the nations) we might actually start doing what Jesus was talking about. Discipling does not follow conversion. Discipling is everything; those who put faith in Jesus are those who have been discipled to some extent, though they, just like me, are still being discipled.
Evangelical patterns of making everything about conversion with discipling being a later stage tries to make orderly and neat what is a messy process. How all of this occurs will never follow a precise and predictable sequence. Trying to make every person start at the same point and journey according to some formula only means we often miss the prevenient discipling of the Spirit in those we encounter because we were wedded to our own flow chart. Unlike Jesus, we have the same conversation with everyone, while he had personally relevant conversations with people as recorded in the gospels. Seems like Jesus was discipling everyone - richman, poorman, beggarman, thief (or adultress).
Monday, May 09, 2005
Felt Needs & Desperate Needs
Over the last couple of months our community has been sharing God's love and His Kingdom with a man who has been heavily involved in the "under-culture" of drugs and crime. The "kick-proof" doors on his house aren't there to keep the criminal element out, but to keep the police from getting in before the drugs can be flushed.
In the last three weeks, in separate incidents, three of his associates have been arrested on his property, for drug possession and driving a stolen vehicle. Last week, two of his "friends" were involved in a police chase that included the attempted murder of three officers, the theft of two vehicles, and ended with the death of a woman who was a passenger when the high speed chase ended in a head-on collision.
This man has been finding Jesus . . . which leads me to think about the whole 'felt needs" discussion. Generally I don't like the felt needs approach because it often transforms God into "a means for my own agenda." The needs people "feel" are generally totally misconstrued addictions to themselves. Allowing Christian faith to be shaped by the perceived needs of the unregenerate or immature regenerate will result in shallow Christianity.
However, the situation with this individual has reminded me that the legitimate aspect of a felt needs discussion is that the work of God in Christ must be shown to be relevant to where people are. I've not talked to this man about Jesus in terms of personal salvation and the forgiveness of his sins, but for him Jesus offers a strength to overcome his own addictions and a new way of living without all the chaos. Jesus is peace, a refuge . . . his Higher Power because his own life is unmanageable. He falls back in faith on the sovereignty of God as he is overwhelmed by the inscrutable nature of his life.
We cannot retool Jesus to make him the answer to whatever felt need a person has, but we should demonstrate in a way that starts with robust theology that Jesus is a Savior in the midst of our desperate needs. That is contextualization of the good news of grace in terms of human life.
In the last three weeks, in separate incidents, three of his associates have been arrested on his property, for drug possession and driving a stolen vehicle. Last week, two of his "friends" were involved in a police chase that included the attempted murder of three officers, the theft of two vehicles, and ended with the death of a woman who was a passenger when the high speed chase ended in a head-on collision.
This man has been finding Jesus . . . which leads me to think about the whole 'felt needs" discussion. Generally I don't like the felt needs approach because it often transforms God into "a means for my own agenda." The needs people "feel" are generally totally misconstrued addictions to themselves. Allowing Christian faith to be shaped by the perceived needs of the unregenerate or immature regenerate will result in shallow Christianity.
However, the situation with this individual has reminded me that the legitimate aspect of a felt needs discussion is that the work of God in Christ must be shown to be relevant to where people are. I've not talked to this man about Jesus in terms of personal salvation and the forgiveness of his sins, but for him Jesus offers a strength to overcome his own addictions and a new way of living without all the chaos. Jesus is peace, a refuge . . . his Higher Power because his own life is unmanageable. He falls back in faith on the sovereignty of God as he is overwhelmed by the inscrutable nature of his life.
We cannot retool Jesus to make him the answer to whatever felt need a person has, but we should demonstrate in a way that starts with robust theology that Jesus is a Savior in the midst of our desperate needs. That is contextualization of the good news of grace in terms of human life.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
On Being Irrelevant
A recent statement issued by some professors as their affirmation of the identity of their denomination was done to "clarify" where they stand and believe their denomination ought to stand. Unfortunately, anyone familiar with Churches of Christ will recognize the standard subjects: baptism, Lord's Supper, and a cappella singing . . . and the thoroughly discredited notion that Christian unity can be achieved through a common interpretation and practice of ancient church forms.
Hasn't that been tried? Isn't it a modern idea that human understanding and agreement will be the basis of Christian unity? Unity does not exist through common practice and belief, but by the Spirit despite dissimilar human practice and belief.
While I don't doubt the sincerest desires of these men (several have been my teachers) it is a clear example of institutional irrelevance. Concern for the preservation of the organizational identity of the denomination leads to focusing on 'internal' discussions over disputable interpretations.
We have an urgent need for Christian faith and life to be theologically incarnated in today's challenging cultural contexts. At least for me, nothing can be more irrelevant than spending time defending historical interpretive positions for the purpose of clarifying and preserving denominational identities. The three matters chosen as an identity show how form-oriented the discussion remains for what Churches of Christ have been.
Hasn't that been tried? Isn't it a modern idea that human understanding and agreement will be the basis of Christian unity? Unity does not exist through common practice and belief, but by the Spirit despite dissimilar human practice and belief.
While I don't doubt the sincerest desires of these men (several have been my teachers) it is a clear example of institutional irrelevance. Concern for the preservation of the organizational identity of the denomination leads to focusing on 'internal' discussions over disputable interpretations.
We have an urgent need for Christian faith and life to be theologically incarnated in today's challenging cultural contexts. At least for me, nothing can be more irrelevant than spending time defending historical interpretive positions for the purpose of clarifying and preserving denominational identities. The three matters chosen as an identity show how form-oriented the discussion remains for what Churches of Christ have been.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Praying with St. Augustine
God of life,
there are days when the burdens we carry chafe our shoulders
and wear us down;
when the roads seems dreary and endless
the skies grey and threatening
when our lives have no music in them
and our hearts are lonely,
and our souls have lost their courage.
Flood the path with light, we beseech you;
turn our eyes to where the skies are full of promise.
Our hearts are restless, O Lord, until they rest in you.
Grant us purity of heart and strength of purpose,
That no selfish passion may hinder us from knowing your will,
no weakness from doing it;
But that in your light we may see light clearly,
and in your service find perfect freedom;
Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
-St. Augustine
there are days when the burdens we carry chafe our shoulders
and wear us down;
when the roads seems dreary and endless
the skies grey and threatening
when our lives have no music in them
and our hearts are lonely,
and our souls have lost their courage.
Flood the path with light, we beseech you;
turn our eyes to where the skies are full of promise.
Our hearts are restless, O Lord, until they rest in you.
Grant us purity of heart and strength of purpose,
That no selfish passion may hinder us from knowing your will,
no weakness from doing it;
But that in your light we may see light clearly,
and in your service find perfect freedom;
Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
-St. Augustine
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Life and Human Will
I grabbed a folder to bring with me to Iowa so I would have some paper to write on . . . and found inside my notes from several years ago on a seminar on grief by John Claypool. One of his statements that I wrote down was "If getting one's own way is what brings one happiness, grief and loss will be devastating."
Accepting our "creatureliness" involves acknowledging that our lives are lived within a framework that we can neither control nor manipulate. Peace comes from abandoning the desire to write life's script and welcoming the grace that is given for each experience.
Often we curse the darkness, fight against life as it happens, and complain that the grace is insufficient and improperly focused. That is because we want grace for our purposes, rather than seeing in grace a guide to the purposes of God.
The Sovereignty of God is not a reason for me to hope that I might get what I want, but the reassurance that life may be lived on the terms of the attendant grace.
Accepting our "creatureliness" involves acknowledging that our lives are lived within a framework that we can neither control nor manipulate. Peace comes from abandoning the desire to write life's script and welcoming the grace that is given for each experience.
Often we curse the darkness, fight against life as it happens, and complain that the grace is insufficient and improperly focused. That is because we want grace for our purposes, rather than seeing in grace a guide to the purposes of God.
The Sovereignty of God is not a reason for me to hope that I might get what I want, but the reassurance that life may be lived on the terms of the attendant grace.
Monday, April 25, 2005
My dad had a heart attack on April 15th - not so coincidental if you know his attitude toward money, and perhaps to big government specifically.
He's recovered some, which means he's not in a coma now, but the big goals for his day are learning to swallow, remembering names, and trying to talk. It is so easy to put words in his mouth - to assume his reply - but on a few occasions he did say a word or two that was distinct and obvious, if only in a whisper.
I found that today I dealt with spending the day in the hospital room with him better than I would have thought. It wasn't as difficult as I imagined, and tried to stay 'in the moment' and not run away into denial.
It is amazing how quickly so many people jump to emphasize the hopeful and don't want to contemplate what is for them the undesirable. I'm getting to practice my belief that peace is embracing the reality of a situation, acknowledging the sovereignty of God without making him into a good fairy-godmother, and living in the sacred moment.
All good advice that I am practicing for myself, and so far have found God's presence in a situation where there is not clear right and wrong, good and bad, and all is wrapped in mystery.
Gloria tibi, Domine!
He's recovered some, which means he's not in a coma now, but the big goals for his day are learning to swallow, remembering names, and trying to talk. It is so easy to put words in his mouth - to assume his reply - but on a few occasions he did say a word or two that was distinct and obvious, if only in a whisper.
I found that today I dealt with spending the day in the hospital room with him better than I would have thought. It wasn't as difficult as I imagined, and tried to stay 'in the moment' and not run away into denial.
It is amazing how quickly so many people jump to emphasize the hopeful and don't want to contemplate what is for them the undesirable. I'm getting to practice my belief that peace is embracing the reality of a situation, acknowledging the sovereignty of God without making him into a good fairy-godmother, and living in the sacred moment.
All good advice that I am practicing for myself, and so far have found God's presence in a situation where there is not clear right and wrong, good and bad, and all is wrapped in mystery.
Gloria tibi, Domine!
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Pagans and Tax collectors
This post has nothing to do with tomorrow - but last night. We were looking at Matt. 18:17 where Jesus says to treat the unrepentant person, unwilling to even respond to the loving concerns of the whole community, as a "pagan and tax collector".
I've always taken this instruction to mean "treat this person as a low-life, an outsider, an unwelcome person, a traitor, - an enemy, if you will." After all, Jesus is instructing us how to practice "church discipline." Church discipline has to be harsh. If a person won't follow, throw that person out and "shun" him. Of course, in love.
The question I asked myself yesterday, and the group last night, was "how did Jesus treat pagans and tax collectors?" Well . . . he loved them and invited them into the experience of God's reign. He showed them mercy and kindness. I can't find anywhere that Jesus treated these people as traitors or outsiders. He invited them to be insiders. I can't find where Jesus "shunned" them or rejected them in any way.
So what is the difference in how to treat them? Maybe it is the idea that disciples give one another the permission to correct, exhort, encourage, rebuke, and otherwise help each other. It is how we treat one another "on the journey" - but not those who aren't followers. We are not so presumptuous as to correct people when they aren't followers of Jesus. We invite them and love them. We don't hold them to the standards of a disciple when they aren't disciples.
A good question asked last night was 'what about tough love?' I am a big proponent of tough love in the sense that love is not always being nice to someone and making them happy - but love is always kind. Love says "no" sometimes: no to enabling, no to permissiveness, and no to the practice of people-hurting evil of all kinds.
Perhaps our "church discipline" ideas have gone overboard - like the Corinthians may have done after Paul's sharp words telling them to deal with their permissiveness in a matter of incest (1 Cor. 5:1-5) and then he had to urge them to forgive and comfort the offender (2 Cor. 2:5-11).
Our renewed commitment to discipleship to Christ calls us to reread the text and rethink our assumptions about dealing with sin as it appears among us (something few communities deal with). We would do better to hold tighter to love, and question not the love that says "no", but the idea of rejecting individuals in the name of love.
I've always taken this instruction to mean "treat this person as a low-life, an outsider, an unwelcome person, a traitor, - an enemy, if you will." After all, Jesus is instructing us how to practice "church discipline." Church discipline has to be harsh. If a person won't follow, throw that person out and "shun" him. Of course, in love.
The question I asked myself yesterday, and the group last night, was "how did Jesus treat pagans and tax collectors?" Well . . . he loved them and invited them into the experience of God's reign. He showed them mercy and kindness. I can't find anywhere that Jesus treated these people as traitors or outsiders. He invited them to be insiders. I can't find where Jesus "shunned" them or rejected them in any way.
So what is the difference in how to treat them? Maybe it is the idea that disciples give one another the permission to correct, exhort, encourage, rebuke, and otherwise help each other. It is how we treat one another "on the journey" - but not those who aren't followers. We are not so presumptuous as to correct people when they aren't followers of Jesus. We invite them and love them. We don't hold them to the standards of a disciple when they aren't disciples.
A good question asked last night was 'what about tough love?' I am a big proponent of tough love in the sense that love is not always being nice to someone and making them happy - but love is always kind. Love says "no" sometimes: no to enabling, no to permissiveness, and no to the practice of people-hurting evil of all kinds.
Perhaps our "church discipline" ideas have gone overboard - like the Corinthians may have done after Paul's sharp words telling them to deal with their permissiveness in a matter of incest (1 Cor. 5:1-5) and then he had to urge them to forgive and comfort the offender (2 Cor. 2:5-11).
Our renewed commitment to discipleship to Christ calls us to reread the text and rethink our assumptions about dealing with sin as it appears among us (something few communities deal with). We would do better to hold tighter to love, and question not the love that says "no", but the idea of rejecting individuals in the name of love.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Questions of Ecclesiology
I am reading a couple of books that are essentially exploring the nature of the church. One is Evaluating the Church Growth Movement, a self-explanatory title. I am interested not because I need people to explain to me the manifold deficiencies of that pragmatic and shallow diversion (I think history, which is extraordinarily patient, will prove it be to an aberration) but one of my former professors is one of those critiquing the movement.
The other book is Treasure in Jars of Clay by writers from the Gospel and Our Culture Network. A representative of this group is also a critic in the first book.
In this second work the GOCN people are attempting to respond to the criticism that their work has been too abstract by providing sketches of churches that are doing the type of things they envision as theologically founded. They want to show real-world examples of something other than the pragmatism of the Church Growth Movement and its scant theological interests.
(Here's where I had written some stuff which summarized the various theological or not-so-theological options I see being championed by some Christians . . . but I started thinking it sounded too negative. So I'll just move on to what I said next).
The biblical metaphors for the role of the people of God that I can think of offhand are:
1) ambassadors who represent and witness to a different Realm.
2) those who exist "to the praise of His glory."
3) the elect, chosen from before time to be undeservedly the recipients of mercy.
4) aliens and travelers who look for something not of this world.
5) salt and light that makes a difference in a corrupt world.
6) doers of good to all people, living at peace as much as is possible, and praying for the godless authorities and systems.
The ideas that are often popular today about the purpose of the church (you'll have to imagine your own because I'm just not going there . . . if you don't know what is lacking you'll have to find someone else to tell you) have enough of at least one of these or other biblical ideas to be partially true. But today's competing visions are in conflict because they try to elevate one biblical idea over another. One seizes an evangelical purpose, another an other-worldly vision, and another an intercessory posture for the sake of the world. Each one is right, but none is wholly right.
Last night when I was talking to Don Hill about thinking about our ecclesiology he said we start getting into trouble when we want to define it too much. He stated that we need to let it be a little ambiguous.
You know, I think he's right. If I try to be succinct and clear, I'll be reductionistic and I'll lose something. Let it be all these things - doing good on environmental and social issues, doing good by serving individual people, sharing the good news of a new reality, bringing glory to God through daily living, longing for a returning Lover . . . in other words entering into all of God's work. Let it be all these things and in no particular order. Let it be somewhat ambiguous to us so that we will be open to God's continuing revelation.
Let us also be rigorously theological and make sure that we acknowledge that everything centers on God and that we are merely invited because of His good pleasure to join in His Mission. Centered-on-God and open-to-God might be a good way to seek our ecclesiology.
The other book is Treasure in Jars of Clay by writers from the Gospel and Our Culture Network. A representative of this group is also a critic in the first book.
In this second work the GOCN people are attempting to respond to the criticism that their work has been too abstract by providing sketches of churches that are doing the type of things they envision as theologically founded. They want to show real-world examples of something other than the pragmatism of the Church Growth Movement and its scant theological interests.
(Here's where I had written some stuff which summarized the various theological or not-so-theological options I see being championed by some Christians . . . but I started thinking it sounded too negative. So I'll just move on to what I said next).
The biblical metaphors for the role of the people of God that I can think of offhand are:
1) ambassadors who represent and witness to a different Realm.
2) those who exist "to the praise of His glory."
3) the elect, chosen from before time to be undeservedly the recipients of mercy.
4) aliens and travelers who look for something not of this world.
5) salt and light that makes a difference in a corrupt world.
6) doers of good to all people, living at peace as much as is possible, and praying for the godless authorities and systems.
The ideas that are often popular today about the purpose of the church (you'll have to imagine your own because I'm just not going there . . . if you don't know what is lacking you'll have to find someone else to tell you) have enough of at least one of these or other biblical ideas to be partially true. But today's competing visions are in conflict because they try to elevate one biblical idea over another. One seizes an evangelical purpose, another an other-worldly vision, and another an intercessory posture for the sake of the world. Each one is right, but none is wholly right.
Last night when I was talking to Don Hill about thinking about our ecclesiology he said we start getting into trouble when we want to define it too much. He stated that we need to let it be a little ambiguous.
You know, I think he's right. If I try to be succinct and clear, I'll be reductionistic and I'll lose something. Let it be all these things - doing good on environmental and social issues, doing good by serving individual people, sharing the good news of a new reality, bringing glory to God through daily living, longing for a returning Lover . . . in other words entering into all of God's work. Let it be all these things and in no particular order. Let it be somewhat ambiguous to us so that we will be open to God's continuing revelation.
Let us also be rigorously theological and make sure that we acknowledge that everything centers on God and that we are merely invited because of His good pleasure to join in His Mission. Centered-on-God and open-to-God might be a good way to seek our ecclesiology.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
A New Computer and Consumerism
I am trying to avoid being a consumer. I'm fighting an uphill battle against a horde of skilled marketing people. They attempt to create an emptiness within me (promising the product they sell will fill that need) while I am trying to nurture an inner peace and contentment.
In order to avoid being a spiritually restless consumer, I am creating my own "needs testing" for determining when to purchase something. Actually that sounds much more analytical than it is. I don't have some formal test, but I do have to question my spending from a spiritual standpoint.
There is no doubt that this is spiritual - through and through. The subject at hand for me right now is a new computer. I have a trusty iMac at home that we bought in 1999 when we returned from Africa.
I am a bit of a Mac fanatic, but the reality is that it runs great. I've never had a harddrive crash, we receive and send email, the kids do their papers on it, and it surfs the internet on a DSL connection just fine - surprisingly well for a 233 mhz antique.
I know that many might think I am nuts for thinking that purchasing a new computer is a spiritual matter. I've got news for them - it is.
The fact that it is a bigger expenditure than buying a new toothbrush isn't what makes it a faith-issue. Buying a toothbrush is a spiritual matter too. The reason I don't think as much about a new toothbrush is that there isn't fleshly lust involved in what toothbrush I use - but it enters into the computer thing.
I get a new toothbrush when the old one wears out. I'm not giving in to some consumeristic mania when it comes to dental hygiene - but I am susceptible to doing that when it comes to computers. That is why I have to be more careful about this decision.
Do I wait for my iMac to give up the ghost (that might be a lot longer than I want to wait - but maybe that is revealing)? When does it become reasonable to spend a year's wages for a third-world working man on a new computer? When I do replace my old Mac, how much should I spend?
I am forming some answers . . . for me, not anyone else. I have no compelling reason right now to buy a new computer other than desire. That just isn't good enough for my walk with Christ. So I'm not buying now. In my thinking, having a computer is a part of living life in the place where I am - so someday I will buy another one. It will be perhaps later this year. I need to pray more and want one less, I think.
Perhaps there are spiritual disciplines to preparing ourselves to acquire things we desire. If I want something too strongly, then something is wrong. This is where I come back to the consumer world around us. When someone with a vested interest in me spending money to buy his product is urging me to make purchases, I need to be wary. Maybe my desires have been too influenced. Let me turn my desire back to God. To want God and only God. That is the correct posture for my faith.
None of the this is new - I'm sure Peter had to think about whether to buy a new net or simply repair the old one.
In order to avoid being a spiritually restless consumer, I am creating my own "needs testing" for determining when to purchase something. Actually that sounds much more analytical than it is. I don't have some formal test, but I do have to question my spending from a spiritual standpoint.
There is no doubt that this is spiritual - through and through. The subject at hand for me right now is a new computer. I have a trusty iMac at home that we bought in 1999 when we returned from Africa.
I am a bit of a Mac fanatic, but the reality is that it runs great. I've never had a harddrive crash, we receive and send email, the kids do their papers on it, and it surfs the internet on a DSL connection just fine - surprisingly well for a 233 mhz antique.
I know that many might think I am nuts for thinking that purchasing a new computer is a spiritual matter. I've got news for them - it is.
The fact that it is a bigger expenditure than buying a new toothbrush isn't what makes it a faith-issue. Buying a toothbrush is a spiritual matter too. The reason I don't think as much about a new toothbrush is that there isn't fleshly lust involved in what toothbrush I use - but it enters into the computer thing.
I get a new toothbrush when the old one wears out. I'm not giving in to some consumeristic mania when it comes to dental hygiene - but I am susceptible to doing that when it comes to computers. That is why I have to be more careful about this decision.
Do I wait for my iMac to give up the ghost (that might be a lot longer than I want to wait - but maybe that is revealing)? When does it become reasonable to spend a year's wages for a third-world working man on a new computer? When I do replace my old Mac, how much should I spend?
I am forming some answers . . . for me, not anyone else. I have no compelling reason right now to buy a new computer other than desire. That just isn't good enough for my walk with Christ. So I'm not buying now. In my thinking, having a computer is a part of living life in the place where I am - so someday I will buy another one. It will be perhaps later this year. I need to pray more and want one less, I think.
Perhaps there are spiritual disciplines to preparing ourselves to acquire things we desire. If I want something too strongly, then something is wrong. This is where I come back to the consumer world around us. When someone with a vested interest in me spending money to buy his product is urging me to make purchases, I need to be wary. Maybe my desires have been too influenced. Let me turn my desire back to God. To want God and only God. That is the correct posture for my faith.
None of the this is new - I'm sure Peter had to think about whether to buy a new net or simply repair the old one.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
A Community of Selflessness.
As believers, the journey we share is one of common submission rather than common understanding. We are united as Christians in submitting to God even when our thoughts about and descriptions of God differ.
The same can be said of scripture, or the historic creeds. We place ourselves under the authority of God's revealed Word and seek to live intentionally in ways reflective of the Word.
We don't and won't see all of scripture the same. Common understanding is sometimes what we enjoy, but it is not the essence of our community. Our unity isn't built on our understanding.
We can all recite the Apostles' Creed, and in doing so submit ourselves to a mystery we believe is expressed in those words. We believe that the words talk about God, but don't define God. Our understanding of the words of the creeds aren't as important as hearts that believe in the God the creeds point to.
Repeating the faith is our submission to a historical stream enlivened by the Spirit. We are saying this isn't about us, but about God.
We are together through the person of God, and what we have in common with one another in our humanity is submission. Our bond is what we acknowledge we don't have (competency, hence we submit) rather than what we might think we have (knowledge and understanding).
A community of selflessness.
The same can be said of scripture, or the historic creeds. We place ourselves under the authority of God's revealed Word and seek to live intentionally in ways reflective of the Word.
We don't and won't see all of scripture the same. Common understanding is sometimes what we enjoy, but it is not the essence of our community. Our unity isn't built on our understanding.
We can all recite the Apostles' Creed, and in doing so submit ourselves to a mystery we believe is expressed in those words. We believe that the words talk about God, but don't define God. Our understanding of the words of the creeds aren't as important as hearts that believe in the God the creeds point to.
Repeating the faith is our submission to a historical stream enlivened by the Spirit. We are saying this isn't about us, but about God.
We are together through the person of God, and what we have in common with one another in our humanity is submission. Our bond is what we acknowledge we don't have (competency, hence we submit) rather than what we might think we have (knowledge and understanding).
A community of selflessness.
Monday, March 21, 2005
Staying on Track
Last week Mark and I got to spend some time with Mike Lewis who is pastoring a new church here in Birmingham, Fellowship of the Valley.
Mike made some comparisons between the emergent stuff happening today and the Jesus movement of the 60's and 70's. One big difference he observes is the solid base of theological reflection that is going on in the current re-imagining of church, which was often lacking in the Jesus movement.
I also think that the current ties to ancient liturgies and the creeds helps keep us from simply going off into some jelly-bean and fluff kind of spirituality. The contemporary church movement which wants to make the Christian experience so relevant seems to me to want to be relevant in the wrong ways.
My missions training makes me desire relevance - but being relevant to the culture's desire for everything to be pre-packaged and microwavable (just for example) won't be the right type of relevance. Making following Jesus a self-indulgent experience for a self-indulgent culture is the problem.
We need to talk about the real areas for relevance . . .
Mike made some comparisons between the emergent stuff happening today and the Jesus movement of the 60's and 70's. One big difference he observes is the solid base of theological reflection that is going on in the current re-imagining of church, which was often lacking in the Jesus movement.
I also think that the current ties to ancient liturgies and the creeds helps keep us from simply going off into some jelly-bean and fluff kind of spirituality. The contemporary church movement which wants to make the Christian experience so relevant seems to me to want to be relevant in the wrong ways.
My missions training makes me desire relevance - but being relevant to the culture's desire for everything to be pre-packaged and microwavable (just for example) won't be the right type of relevance. Making following Jesus a self-indulgent experience for a self-indulgent culture is the problem.
We need to talk about the real areas for relevance . . .
Friday, March 18, 2005
A Visit
Today Charles walked in looking for food. Seems like another church provided him with a room last night in the motel next door . . . and he saw the "Angel Food Ministry" banner outside our meeting place and decided to come in.
I microwaved some broccoli and Swedish meatballs that were in the freezer here. We made sandwiches by putting the meatballs on hamburger buns which were left from last Sunday's fellowship meal and sat down to watch basketball.
Charles told me some about his divorce, about growing up in Jasper, several jobs he'd had . . . you know, the story isn't real clear and to ask questions to keep the conversation going seems to make the story even get more confused.
I don't care if Charles was telling me the truth. He was hungry and we enjoyed a meal. I talked about making changes in life, about relying on God because we can't do it ourselves by our own efforts.
He asked if I would give him money for a motel room. I offered to help him find a job and get a place to live . . . but he wasn't sure that he wanted to stay in Alabama. He said maybe he'd be going back to Florida, or Georgia. Wasn't sure he wanted to settle down.
Mark and I gave him a few bucks and welcomed him to come back anytime. We'd cook whatever food we have and he can watch TV or play pool. Charles said maybe he'd come to our fellowship meal on Sunday.
I microwaved some broccoli and Swedish meatballs that were in the freezer here. We made sandwiches by putting the meatballs on hamburger buns which were left from last Sunday's fellowship meal and sat down to watch basketball.
Charles told me some about his divorce, about growing up in Jasper, several jobs he'd had . . . you know, the story isn't real clear and to ask questions to keep the conversation going seems to make the story even get more confused.
I don't care if Charles was telling me the truth. He was hungry and we enjoyed a meal. I talked about making changes in life, about relying on God because we can't do it ourselves by our own efforts.
He asked if I would give him money for a motel room. I offered to help him find a job and get a place to live . . . but he wasn't sure that he wanted to stay in Alabama. He said maybe he'd be going back to Florida, or Georgia. Wasn't sure he wanted to settle down.
Mark and I gave him a few bucks and welcomed him to come back anytime. We'd cook whatever food we have and he can watch TV or play pool. Charles said maybe he'd come to our fellowship meal on Sunday.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Looking for God
Visiting a different church is always interesting. We automatically evaluate what we see, hear, and experience. Doing that comes naturally.
A good exercise for spiritual reflection is for us to be self-aware enough in that moment to stop evaluating the new experience and look at ourselves. What is the way we are measuring this time we are spending with a group of believers who are new to us?
For many of us, because of the way we've been formed by religion, our opinion of the event of worship with others comes down to "did I agree with what was said and done?" What does this say about what we believe is the essential reality of Christian worship and community?
Obviously this shows that for us everything comes down to an orthodoxy of correct doctrine and practice. Now that sounds good . . . but the "correctness" of everything is being measured by my own understanding. My intellect becomes the arbiter of what is orthodox. I aspire to orthodoxy as much as anyone else - but I'm trying to let go of the idea that assumes I am orthodox and therefore able to "detect" all those who are not.
What if we were to let God be the judge of orthodoxy? What if my "evaluation" of the experience of worshipping with others in a new situation was centered on one question: is the Presence of God here? Forget what I think about the rightness or correctness of what they say and do! If God is present, how critical should I be?
Seems to me that Peter judged his encounter with Cornelius not on the basis of his understanding of what was correct, but on the real Presence of God. In fact, looking for God seems to be what the early Christians did . . . and it helped them out of some of the wrong-headed ideas they believed were orthodox - like 'Gentiles can't be Christians'.
Conversely, God may also be obviously present where everything isn't truly orthodox . . . and that says something to us about His grace and mercy. If God is present in the imperfect, can I stay away? Don't I become like the slave of the foot-washing Master who refuses to wash feet? If God serves I can't refuse to serve and be called His.
I know . . . if we run around following God rather than our own understandings of orthodoxy who knows where it might lead! And we can't have that.
A good exercise for spiritual reflection is for us to be self-aware enough in that moment to stop evaluating the new experience and look at ourselves. What is the way we are measuring this time we are spending with a group of believers who are new to us?
For many of us, because of the way we've been formed by religion, our opinion of the event of worship with others comes down to "did I agree with what was said and done?" What does this say about what we believe is the essential reality of Christian worship and community?
Obviously this shows that for us everything comes down to an orthodoxy of correct doctrine and practice. Now that sounds good . . . but the "correctness" of everything is being measured by my own understanding. My intellect becomes the arbiter of what is orthodox. I aspire to orthodoxy as much as anyone else - but I'm trying to let go of the idea that assumes I am orthodox and therefore able to "detect" all those who are not.
What if we were to let God be the judge of orthodoxy? What if my "evaluation" of the experience of worshipping with others in a new situation was centered on one question: is the Presence of God here? Forget what I think about the rightness or correctness of what they say and do! If God is present, how critical should I be?
Seems to me that Peter judged his encounter with Cornelius not on the basis of his understanding of what was correct, but on the real Presence of God. In fact, looking for God seems to be what the early Christians did . . . and it helped them out of some of the wrong-headed ideas they believed were orthodox - like 'Gentiles can't be Christians'.
Conversely, God may also be obviously present where everything isn't truly orthodox . . . and that says something to us about His grace and mercy. If God is present in the imperfect, can I stay away? Don't I become like the slave of the foot-washing Master who refuses to wash feet? If God serves I can't refuse to serve and be called His.
I know . . . if we run around following God rather than our own understandings of orthodoxy who knows where it might lead! And we can't have that.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Gospel in a Song
A talented singer/songwriter/musician, Steve Tagliere, blessed us with a powerful song written for our worship time yesterday.
"Fall So Short"
By Steve Tagliere
Copyright 2005. Steve Tagliere. All Rights Reserved.
I'm not spending enough time on my knees,
Fear of unlocked doors, reach for the key.
I keep missing You, You meet all my needs.
Get so lost.
So many idols there's no room to move.
Closer or further, every step that You choose.
Sometimes I try to make my way without You,
I get so lost.
I fall so short,
But, You've made me Yours,
I fall so short,
You've made me whole.
I'm not spending enough time on my knees,
I prayed for my friends, but what about my enemies?
Am I taking in all that's there to receive?
I get so lost.
I fall so short,
But, You've made me Yours.
I fall so short,
You made me new.
You're with me when it's rough out,
And every time that I fall down.
You've picked me up and You've called me by my name.
I fall so short.
But, You've made me Yours.
I fall so short,
You made me whole.
And, I follow You and follow You, I follow You.
Yes, I follow You, I will follow You, follow Yyou.
Yes, I follow Ya, I will follow Ya, follow You.
You made me new.
We fall so short.
You made us Yours.
We fall so short.
We're paid for.
Copyright 2005. Steve Tagliere. All Rights Reserved.
"Fall So Short"
By Steve Tagliere
Copyright 2005. Steve Tagliere. All Rights Reserved.
I'm not spending enough time on my knees,
Fear of unlocked doors, reach for the key.
I keep missing You, You meet all my needs.
Get so lost.
So many idols there's no room to move.
Closer or further, every step that You choose.
Sometimes I try to make my way without You,
I get so lost.
I fall so short,
But, You've made me Yours,
I fall so short,
You've made me whole.
I'm not spending enough time on my knees,
I prayed for my friends, but what about my enemies?
Am I taking in all that's there to receive?
I get so lost.
I fall so short,
But, You've made me Yours.
I fall so short,
You made me new.
You're with me when it's rough out,
And every time that I fall down.
You've picked me up and You've called me by my name.
I fall so short.
But, You've made me Yours.
I fall so short,
You made me whole.
And, I follow You and follow You, I follow You.
Yes, I follow You, I will follow You, follow Yyou.
Yes, I follow Ya, I will follow Ya, follow You.
You made me new.
We fall so short.
You made us Yours.
We fall so short.
We're paid for.
Copyright 2005. Steve Tagliere. All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
The Coming Apocalypse
I used to criticize the ghetto-ization of evangelical Christians who want to pull out of the world and create duplicate "Christian" versions of everything so they won't have to be corrupted by the world when I suggested that we would some day have Christian health clubs.
I thought I was being absurd and ridiculous. It turns out that I was being prophetic.
Birmingham now has "Lord's Gym" - with an appropriately buff Jesus adorning the wall. He's not as muscular as the "Gold's Gym" guy, but he's ripped.
I'm not going to say anything about the hearts and intentions of those people who have created a place where Christians can sweat and pump iron in a godly environment, but this is madness. No, it's beyond madness. This is theologically bankrupt.
Think I am being too harsh? What about the command to not take the Lord's name in vain? Does that mean just "don't use divine names as interjections and exclamations"??? No, it means we do not treat God in common ways. We don't demote God, Father, Son, and Spirit, from a place of glory and reverence.
Naming my business with God's name is right up there as a vain use of God's name. What if Mazda's new vehicle was named the Jesus RX7? Maybe I'll open God's Grocery and Pawn Shop. Maybe Christians need God's First Bank of Birmingham, of course to be distinguished from all those other banks that aren't God's. It's a sign of how spiritually impoverished and theologically inept American Christianity is becoming. Let me invoke God's name to do more business.
Maybe I just need to calm down - listen to Christian radio, enjoy some Christ pretzels (in the shape of a cross and sold at all truly Christian grocery stores), and kick back in my Jesus-is-the-Way office chair from God's Furniture, Inc.
I thought I was being absurd and ridiculous. It turns out that I was being prophetic.
Birmingham now has "Lord's Gym" - with an appropriately buff Jesus adorning the wall. He's not as muscular as the "Gold's Gym" guy, but he's ripped.
I'm not going to say anything about the hearts and intentions of those people who have created a place where Christians can sweat and pump iron in a godly environment, but this is madness. No, it's beyond madness. This is theologically bankrupt.
Think I am being too harsh? What about the command to not take the Lord's name in vain? Does that mean just "don't use divine names as interjections and exclamations"??? No, it means we do not treat God in common ways. We don't demote God, Father, Son, and Spirit, from a place of glory and reverence.
Naming my business with God's name is right up there as a vain use of God's name. What if Mazda's new vehicle was named the Jesus RX7? Maybe I'll open God's Grocery and Pawn Shop. Maybe Christians need God's First Bank of Birmingham, of course to be distinguished from all those other banks that aren't God's. It's a sign of how spiritually impoverished and theologically inept American Christianity is becoming. Let me invoke God's name to do more business.
Maybe I just need to calm down - listen to Christian radio, enjoy some Christ pretzels (in the shape of a cross and sold at all truly Christian grocery stores), and kick back in my Jesus-is-the-Way office chair from God's Furniture, Inc.
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Trying to write on spiritual formation has convinced me that I prefer the "medium" of conversation to that of the written word. I know it seems contradictory for me to be writing this, but that's also what is really great about blogs: they are more like conversations.
I don't feel like I have to proofread them endlessly to make sure I am "getting it right." Bascially I just "talk" out through the keyboard (trying to catch the misspellings, of course).
The other advantage is that blogs don't "end." One of the problems I am having in writing what I'm trying to write - which is for people with whom I have no relationship for the most part, who don't know me nor I them, and so we have no shared "history" for the context of what I am writing - is that the piece is so confined. It has to be the whole conversation in 2500 words (or whatever the length should be).
It's just can't be done. Let's value having the face-to-face conversations, the interaction of sharing and listening, within a relationship and shared context. What a blessing!
I don't feel like I have to proofread them endlessly to make sure I am "getting it right." Bascially I just "talk" out through the keyboard (trying to catch the misspellings, of course).
The other advantage is that blogs don't "end." One of the problems I am having in writing what I'm trying to write - which is for people with whom I have no relationship for the most part, who don't know me nor I them, and so we have no shared "history" for the context of what I am writing - is that the piece is so confined. It has to be the whole conversation in 2500 words (or whatever the length should be).
It's just can't be done. Let's value having the face-to-face conversations, the interaction of sharing and listening, within a relationship and shared context. What a blessing!
Friday, March 04, 2005
Thinking About Spiritual Formation
The next Wineskins issue will discuss spiritual formation which is very much in line with our recent discussions - both within our fellowship and with our guests who spoke to us in this last week: Suha Jouaneh from Amman, Jordan, and Dr. Zhai Shiwei from central China. So here I am thinking . . . with thoughts still in the initial stages . . .
Preaching in general has often been 'too few attempting to direct too many in too little time'. In general we churchmen have put too much of our hopes for spiritual formation in the delivering of sermons.
If I look at how Jesus uses the times when he speaks to the masses, he regularly employs vague parables, paradoxical teachings, and provocative assertions which are not the mainstay of homiletics. The parables are intentionally designed to sift out of the crowd those who have ears to hear, the teachings puzzle as much as they clarify, and the assertions challenge people to rethink the status quo.
Continually Jesus seems to lure out of the crowd those seeking spiritual direction (e.g. Nicodemus, the rich young ruler) or he interjects himself into the lives of others (e.g. Zaccheus, the woman at the well) to initiate the same work. When Jesus speaks to the masses it is as if he uses that as a way to call out those who want to pursue spiritual formation. Individually and with smaller groups of his disciples, those who are committed to a long regime of receiving instruction, he does the formative work.
Of course, I am not recommending the abandonment of all preaching, but rather understanding the limits. Large mixed crowds of people of varying levels of interest and commitment are difficult to address, and real spiritual direction may be nearly impossible. Invitation to spiritual formation is appropriate, and giving people a taste for deeper things might be possible. Or like the sermon on the mount, perhaps we speak to the disciples and allow the conversation to be overheard with a ready acceptance of anyone willing to join the conversation.
Unfortunately, even well-crafted oratory presentations are forgotten quickly . . . and the vital work of spiritual formation cannot be trusted to something so impermanent.
Preaching in general has often been 'too few attempting to direct too many in too little time'. In general we churchmen have put too much of our hopes for spiritual formation in the delivering of sermons.
If I look at how Jesus uses the times when he speaks to the masses, he regularly employs vague parables, paradoxical teachings, and provocative assertions which are not the mainstay of homiletics. The parables are intentionally designed to sift out of the crowd those who have ears to hear, the teachings puzzle as much as they clarify, and the assertions challenge people to rethink the status quo.
Continually Jesus seems to lure out of the crowd those seeking spiritual direction (e.g. Nicodemus, the rich young ruler) or he interjects himself into the lives of others (e.g. Zaccheus, the woman at the well) to initiate the same work. When Jesus speaks to the masses it is as if he uses that as a way to call out those who want to pursue spiritual formation. Individually and with smaller groups of his disciples, those who are committed to a long regime of receiving instruction, he does the formative work.
Of course, I am not recommending the abandonment of all preaching, but rather understanding the limits. Large mixed crowds of people of varying levels of interest and commitment are difficult to address, and real spiritual direction may be nearly impossible. Invitation to spiritual formation is appropriate, and giving people a taste for deeper things might be possible. Or like the sermon on the mount, perhaps we speak to the disciples and allow the conversation to be overheard with a ready acceptance of anyone willing to join the conversation.
Unfortunately, even well-crafted oratory presentations are forgotten quickly . . . and the vital work of spiritual formation cannot be trusted to something so impermanent.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Sandwiched right up against some very good things in the last few days are some other trying things. The bad doesn't overcome the good, and the good doesn't solve the bad. Both are simply what they are.
I am who I am. I find it easy to rejoice in the good, but the bad brings out bad in me. My worrying self, my anxious self, my angry self . . . can exist right alongside joy, righteousness, and hope.
I sometimes think I am becoming more and more ready for heaven. My attachments to this existence are less than they have been. A friend of mine long ago used the phrase "homesick for heaven". Maybe that is God's slow working in us. The good news is that goodness is lasting, while the struggles of life are transitory.
I don't want to try and pretend the struggles don't exist - which would be to miss whatever grace can be found in them. I also shouldn't let genuine blessing be diminished by temporary struggles. Rejoice where there is rejoicing, and weep where there is weeping is probably a healthy and realistic way to live.
Maybe sometimes we find ourselves doing both.
I am who I am. I find it easy to rejoice in the good, but the bad brings out bad in me. My worrying self, my anxious self, my angry self . . . can exist right alongside joy, righteousness, and hope.
I sometimes think I am becoming more and more ready for heaven. My attachments to this existence are less than they have been. A friend of mine long ago used the phrase "homesick for heaven". Maybe that is God's slow working in us. The good news is that goodness is lasting, while the struggles of life are transitory.
I don't want to try and pretend the struggles don't exist - which would be to miss whatever grace can be found in them. I also shouldn't let genuine blessing be diminished by temporary struggles. Rejoice where there is rejoicing, and weep where there is weeping is probably a healthy and realistic way to live.
Maybe sometimes we find ourselves doing both.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Seeing Others Through Love
The bottom line seems to always be salvation - is a person 'saved'. We are obsessed with this question to the distortion of the gospel, the church, the kingdom, and spirituality. We look at the world in terms of who's in and who's out. We create an exclusive mindset foreign to God as displayed in Jesus.
I suggest a new question that will help us see the world correctly: 'is this person loved?'
Now everyone is 'in' and I ought to treat them as such. Everyone is loved, and I am to help everyone discover how to live in that divine love by discipling them. When Jesus was seeking and saving the lost was he looking for outsiders to bring on the inside, or was he seeking and redirecting those who'd wandered away from God - but who were still God's children?
Our sinful actions make us enemies and aliens to God, but God is no alien and enemy to us. He is always the loving Father, close and caring. The prodigal stopped being a son to his father, but the father never stopped being father to the boy.
From the son's perspective, he was on the 'outs' with his father, but such was not the case from the father's perspective. His son was always 'in' even though the older brother never understood it. The lesson isn't just for the older son to acknowledge the return of the younger, but to develop the kind of love the father always had for the prodigal. The father's love for the prodigal never saw him as having lost his place in the family, just his way of living in harmony as part of the family. We are the superior-feeling older brother when we banish the prodigal from the family because he's foolishly lost his way.
We do no wrong if we consider all the world 'in' by virtue of God's love. Not only are we not approving of sin, we find ourselves in a better posture by virtue of love and acceptance from which to make disciples of all nations.
I suggest a new question that will help us see the world correctly: 'is this person loved?'
Now everyone is 'in' and I ought to treat them as such. Everyone is loved, and I am to help everyone discover how to live in that divine love by discipling them. When Jesus was seeking and saving the lost was he looking for outsiders to bring on the inside, or was he seeking and redirecting those who'd wandered away from God - but who were still God's children?
Our sinful actions make us enemies and aliens to God, but God is no alien and enemy to us. He is always the loving Father, close and caring. The prodigal stopped being a son to his father, but the father never stopped being father to the boy.
From the son's perspective, he was on the 'outs' with his father, but such was not the case from the father's perspective. His son was always 'in' even though the older brother never understood it. The lesson isn't just for the older son to acknowledge the return of the younger, but to develop the kind of love the father always had for the prodigal. The father's love for the prodigal never saw him as having lost his place in the family, just his way of living in harmony as part of the family. We are the superior-feeling older brother when we banish the prodigal from the family because he's foolishly lost his way.
We do no wrong if we consider all the world 'in' by virtue of God's love. Not only are we not approving of sin, we find ourselves in a better posture by virtue of love and acceptance from which to make disciples of all nations.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
The Horse Whisperer
I watched the Robert Redford movie The Horse Whisperer last night. It is the story of a mother who takes her daughter and the daughter's horse, both injured in an accident and bearing physical and spiritual scars, to a Montana cowboy renowned for his ability to communicate with horses. It is soon obvious that the "uninjured" mother is just as scarred as her daughter and the horse.
As I watched the story unfold the thought kept coming back to me that Robert Redford's character, Tom Booker, the gentle cowboy who can heal horses, is a spiritual director. His way with the horse, the daughter, and the mother serves as an example of what being a mentor, a sage who nurtures spiritual formation, is really about.
Tom listens and tries to understand first. He doesn't start with answers - but with questions. He is extremely patient, not claiming to know when or how the needed changes will take place. He admits his limitations, but points back consistently to what is true and real - even when those are painful realities most would rather avoid.
He is deliberate in pointing out to each the personal responsibility inherent in embracing inner change. His "techniques" are like spiritual disciplines, tailored to create the setting for personal decision and change. Significantly, he contradicts the language of denial - especially when the mother wants to pretend that she can't do anything about her failing marriage. Tom makes it clear that she has a choice to return home to her husband and work on their relationship - that transformation is possible.
When the mother says she has to keep trying to fix things, although it never seems to work, Tom asks why she can't just let things fail. She says she can't, and he asks again, why not? To that she has no answer.
The character of Tom is someone with clear self-understanding, and who knows who he is and where he belongs in life. There is a kind of peace he has which others want, but which requires a type of sacrifice and journey they may not want to take.
All this isn't to say that the film is without some flaws - a notable one for me is that the rural community that Tom is part of is idealized and serene - as if that rustic Montana community is composed entirely of spiritually mature people at peace with themselves, their neighbors, and the environment. That romantic contrast between rural and urban life is not realistic.
But still, I think the Tom Booker character serves as a good archetype for a spiritual mentor . . . and gives us a useful image of how spiritual maturity can be expressed in ordinary daily circumstances.
As I watched the story unfold the thought kept coming back to me that Robert Redford's character, Tom Booker, the gentle cowboy who can heal horses, is a spiritual director. His way with the horse, the daughter, and the mother serves as an example of what being a mentor, a sage who nurtures spiritual formation, is really about.
Tom listens and tries to understand first. He doesn't start with answers - but with questions. He is extremely patient, not claiming to know when or how the needed changes will take place. He admits his limitations, but points back consistently to what is true and real - even when those are painful realities most would rather avoid.
He is deliberate in pointing out to each the personal responsibility inherent in embracing inner change. His "techniques" are like spiritual disciplines, tailored to create the setting for personal decision and change. Significantly, he contradicts the language of denial - especially when the mother wants to pretend that she can't do anything about her failing marriage. Tom makes it clear that she has a choice to return home to her husband and work on their relationship - that transformation is possible.
When the mother says she has to keep trying to fix things, although it never seems to work, Tom asks why she can't just let things fail. She says she can't, and he asks again, why not? To that she has no answer.
The character of Tom is someone with clear self-understanding, and who knows who he is and where he belongs in life. There is a kind of peace he has which others want, but which requires a type of sacrifice and journey they may not want to take.
All this isn't to say that the film is without some flaws - a notable one for me is that the rural community that Tom is part of is idealized and serene - as if that rustic Montana community is composed entirely of spiritually mature people at peace with themselves, their neighbors, and the environment. That romantic contrast between rural and urban life is not realistic.
But still, I think the Tom Booker character serves as a good archetype for a spiritual mentor . . . and gives us a useful image of how spiritual maturity can be expressed in ordinary daily circumstances.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Spiritual Formation and the Arts
The heart, the inner spirit and will of a person, is the most inaccessible part of a person to try and form. The mind can be spoken to directly, the body can be dealt with tangibly . . . but the heart seems the hardest to reach.
Since the heart is connected in one person to the mind and body, there is an indirect route through those parts. Discourse that immediately engages the thinking of a person may have a deeper resonance into the heart. The actions of the body which can be disciplined may have repercussions to the spirit. But the hardest part to reach, is the most important to be shaped.
We know that out of the heart a person speaks, meaning that both the thoughts of the mind and actions of the body are directed by a person's spirit. Emotions too are reflections of one's heart. The essence of spiritual formation is focused on the transformation of the human spirit by God's Spirit -with consequences for every other part of a human being.
I wonder if the arts are a way of speaking more directly to the heart. Moving music, an engaging story, a well-directed film, evocative paintings, poetry, and many other 'arts' seem in my experience to get into a person's heart, or spirit . . . pushing beyond the mind's thoughts and body's actions.
Not every use of the arts speaks to every person's spirit, but I wonder if there is something of importance here of spiritual formation. The love for what is true, what is beautiful, what is merciful and just, what is good and hopeful - and for the practice of love itself - must be a matter of the reformation of the spirit.
Since the heart is connected in one person to the mind and body, there is an indirect route through those parts. Discourse that immediately engages the thinking of a person may have a deeper resonance into the heart. The actions of the body which can be disciplined may have repercussions to the spirit. But the hardest part to reach, is the most important to be shaped.
We know that out of the heart a person speaks, meaning that both the thoughts of the mind and actions of the body are directed by a person's spirit. Emotions too are reflections of one's heart. The essence of spiritual formation is focused on the transformation of the human spirit by God's Spirit -with consequences for every other part of a human being.
I wonder if the arts are a way of speaking more directly to the heart. Moving music, an engaging story, a well-directed film, evocative paintings, poetry, and many other 'arts' seem in my experience to get into a person's heart, or spirit . . . pushing beyond the mind's thoughts and body's actions.
Not every use of the arts speaks to every person's spirit, but I wonder if there is something of importance here of spiritual formation. The love for what is true, what is beautiful, what is merciful and just, what is good and hopeful - and for the practice of love itself - must be a matter of the reformation of the spirit.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
The Problem with Metaphors
I am quoting someone (but forgot long ago who said it) when I say "all analogies limp." It's true. Analogies are illustrations to help us understand something, but all are imperfect and if pushed too far or taken in the wrong way they can really cause problems.
Over the last couple of years I have heard the question asked "are our churches are more like cruise ships or battleships?" In other words, are Christians looking for fun, relaxation, and pleasure while the church staff labors to keep them happy, or are we all serving selflessly a greater good? Do we whine if something isn't to our liking, or are we prepared to endure hardship because my personal comfort-level isn't what is paramount.
You get the picture . . . and in some ways this image isn't too bad. But there is a part of me of cringes anytime Christians start using militaristic analogies. I know there is biblical precedent, but my point is that there is a great danger of being misunderstood - by either those who are believers or those who aren't.
To someone leery of Christianity "battleship-talk" and the language of "spiritual warfare" fits all too easily their perceptions that Christians long to rule over the world and subdue by force nonbelievers. Of course, that's what Muslims want to do, right? Not us! How could anyone think that about Christians? Well, just listen to us sometimes . . .
Perhaps a way to modify the analogy is to ask whether being a church together with others is like "being on a cruise ship or on a hospital ship?" We keep the contrast of "here to be served and made happy" versus "here to serve unselfishly" without appearing like crusaders.
Over the last couple of years I have heard the question asked "are our churches are more like cruise ships or battleships?" In other words, are Christians looking for fun, relaxation, and pleasure while the church staff labors to keep them happy, or are we all serving selflessly a greater good? Do we whine if something isn't to our liking, or are we prepared to endure hardship because my personal comfort-level isn't what is paramount.
You get the picture . . . and in some ways this image isn't too bad. But there is a part of me of cringes anytime Christians start using militaristic analogies. I know there is biblical precedent, but my point is that there is a great danger of being misunderstood - by either those who are believers or those who aren't.
To someone leery of Christianity "battleship-talk" and the language of "spiritual warfare" fits all too easily their perceptions that Christians long to rule over the world and subdue by force nonbelievers. Of course, that's what Muslims want to do, right? Not us! How could anyone think that about Christians? Well, just listen to us sometimes . . .
Perhaps a way to modify the analogy is to ask whether being a church together with others is like "being on a cruise ship or on a hospital ship?" We keep the contrast of "here to be served and made happy" versus "here to serve unselfishly" without appearing like crusaders.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Ash Wednesday
Today is the beginning of Lent. For me this means no morning coffee.
I didn't choose to give up coffee because it will be some great sacrifice, but because it is part of my routine. Last year I chose to give up something I like, but not something I do regularly - which was missing the point. I wasn't connecting Lent with prayer, but seeing it more as some sort of duty.
I believe there is a profound difference between obedience and discipline, though both are important. Obedience does what is right, and discipline does what leads to spiritual formation. Last year I think my observance of Lent was more an obedience than a discipline.
By giving up coffee I am carving out a regular time that I will fill with prayer. The beverage is irrelevant, the discipline is the focus. That time each morning will be devoted to prayer and repentance.
I didn't choose to give up coffee because it will be some great sacrifice, but because it is part of my routine. Last year I chose to give up something I like, but not something I do regularly - which was missing the point. I wasn't connecting Lent with prayer, but seeing it more as some sort of duty.
I believe there is a profound difference between obedience and discipline, though both are important. Obedience does what is right, and discipline does what leads to spiritual formation. Last year I think my observance of Lent was more an obedience than a discipline.
By giving up coffee I am carving out a regular time that I will fill with prayer. The beverage is irrelevant, the discipline is the focus. That time each morning will be devoted to prayer and repentance.
Friday, February 04, 2005
Scripture as a Relational Moment
Before the invention of the printing press the reading of scripture was a relational event, something heard aloud in the company of others rather than an individual activity one experienced within oneself. We could even back up further to the oral tradition that preceded much of scripture - even more relational.
Today we carry scripture around in books, on PDA's, access it on our computers, and have the opportunity to bring ourselves to scripture constantly. Of tremendous importance is the mindset I bring to that encounter with holy writing.
I've heard many metaphors which compare the Bible to some other type of printed material: it is a blueprint, the constitution of the church, an owner's manual for human beings, the book containing all the answers (like a dictionary or encyclopedia), a road map, or something else. All of these suggest a mentality one should bring to an encounter with scripture. Come looking for a pattern or bylaws to govern things, bring your questions about life, ask your questions about anything, find out how to get where you are going, etc.
There are other metaphors that I've not personally heard people use, but they use the Bible in other ways. One is as a business model. A really bad one is that Bible is a treasure map with clues to wealth and success.
I will concede that none of these metaphors is totally without some truthful aspect, but some only have a sliver of redeeming application and in general are quite misleading. Each metaphor suggests the intention of scripture, and therefore the mindset I should bring to reading scripture.
One deficiency I see with all these comparisons is that they emphasize that the Bible is a resource of information. Our interaction with scripture is therefore primarily intellectual.
Since scripture is written, it would be easy to think like this. But if we take seriously the Hebrew writer's statement that the Word of God is living and active (4:12), and believe that scripture is the Word of God, then in a mysterious way the person of God is encountered through scripture. And so I believe that some relational metaphors, instead of informational ones, might be better to set my mind in the proper frame.
As far as the people whose stories are found in the Bible I think about the possibility of approaching them as I would a family reunion. If your family is like mine, not everyone you see at the reunion is who you'd choose if it was a 'friends' reunion. Some might seem downright strange, to my way of looking at things. Reunions are where the family history is revisited in many ways, often the good and the bad. There is information, but only in the context of relational interaction - people with people. That is different than a person with a document: a person and a blueprint.
Undoubtedly wisdom, family history, and a perspective of one's own narrative would be informational benefits of the experience. Though the metaphor is hardly sufficient, I think there may be some benefit in orienting myself in this way rather than as if I am about to read a roadmap or constitution. I am about to enter a living conversation.
When it comes to encountering God, I think the relational becomes even more pronounced. For me scripture then becomes a 'place' where I interact with God. Rather than being God's instructional manual for me (almost suggesting God has left that in place of His personal presence), scripture is more like a coffee shop - a venue for dialogue. Though the words within the books of holy scripture don't change, they are the place where God speaks and so become a meeting place of creature and Creator where new things happen (certainly not the only meeting place, by any means).
Is there something helpful about opening your Bible with the expectation of entering an ongoing conversation rather than intending to search for and extract information? What happens when we change the expectations we bring to reading our Bibles?
Today we carry scripture around in books, on PDA's, access it on our computers, and have the opportunity to bring ourselves to scripture constantly. Of tremendous importance is the mindset I bring to that encounter with holy writing.
I've heard many metaphors which compare the Bible to some other type of printed material: it is a blueprint, the constitution of the church, an owner's manual for human beings, the book containing all the answers (like a dictionary or encyclopedia), a road map, or something else. All of these suggest a mentality one should bring to an encounter with scripture. Come looking for a pattern or bylaws to govern things, bring your questions about life, ask your questions about anything, find out how to get where you are going, etc.
There are other metaphors that I've not personally heard people use, but they use the Bible in other ways. One is as a business model. A really bad one is that Bible is a treasure map with clues to wealth and success.
I will concede that none of these metaphors is totally without some truthful aspect, but some only have a sliver of redeeming application and in general are quite misleading. Each metaphor suggests the intention of scripture, and therefore the mindset I should bring to reading scripture.
One deficiency I see with all these comparisons is that they emphasize that the Bible is a resource of information. Our interaction with scripture is therefore primarily intellectual.
Since scripture is written, it would be easy to think like this. But if we take seriously the Hebrew writer's statement that the Word of God is living and active (4:12), and believe that scripture is the Word of God, then in a mysterious way the person of God is encountered through scripture. And so I believe that some relational metaphors, instead of informational ones, might be better to set my mind in the proper frame.
As far as the people whose stories are found in the Bible I think about the possibility of approaching them as I would a family reunion. If your family is like mine, not everyone you see at the reunion is who you'd choose if it was a 'friends' reunion. Some might seem downright strange, to my way of looking at things. Reunions are where the family history is revisited in many ways, often the good and the bad. There is information, but only in the context of relational interaction - people with people. That is different than a person with a document: a person and a blueprint.
Undoubtedly wisdom, family history, and a perspective of one's own narrative would be informational benefits of the experience. Though the metaphor is hardly sufficient, I think there may be some benefit in orienting myself in this way rather than as if I am about to read a roadmap or constitution. I am about to enter a living conversation.
When it comes to encountering God, I think the relational becomes even more pronounced. For me scripture then becomes a 'place' where I interact with God. Rather than being God's instructional manual for me (almost suggesting God has left that in place of His personal presence), scripture is more like a coffee shop - a venue for dialogue. Though the words within the books of holy scripture don't change, they are the place where God speaks and so become a meeting place of creature and Creator where new things happen (certainly not the only meeting place, by any means).
Is there something helpful about opening your Bible with the expectation of entering an ongoing conversation rather than intending to search for and extract information? What happens when we change the expectations we bring to reading our Bibles?
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Room for the Right Brain
I grew up in a Christian tradition that was very left-brained and so was all about thinking. Out of a desire to avoid being ostentatious, everything about our meeting places was minimalist and plain. Any sort of art was purely functional - like the flannel graph figures or pictures used to teach children Bible stories.
There is certainly an academic part of me that can be rational - but there has always been a creative part of me as well. In other words, I had a 'right-brain' side too. In fact, for a while I dreamed of becoming a commercial artist/illustrator - but that was discouraged by more practically-minded people (well-intentioned, I'm sure).
Now I am sharing in a community of believers that has room for the right brain - which is rediscovering art, beauty, creativity, and poetry . . . for at least me and I think for others as well. I am reading Brian McLaren's Generous Orthodoxy and one point he makes is that poetry is more capable than prose when it comes to talking about God.
Now I don't want to set up a fictitious conflict between the two sides of our brains, but rather to point out that prose has its place while I agree that it is incapable alone to express faith. I am finding that I am more of a mystic than a systematic theologian - though systematic theologians have blessed me in many ways throughout my journey.
Within our community of faith we have made a place for artistic expression - without labelling such work 'graven images' . . . because the point was not in the making of things but in the worshiping the works of our hands. That is a whole other subject - and we have worshiped our work plenty, though its not been the artistic work of our hands.
In finding a new place for my creative side I have created a couple of icons of Peter and Paul which are reminiscent of Eastern Orthodox icons.
I contribute these to our community not as decorative art, but symbolic art. In the style we affirm a connection with ancient Christianity, and in the depiction of Peter and Paul we are reminded of the spiritual unity of Jewish and Gentile Christians of the first century despite all their differences. May we be inspired to a similar unity.
There are many poets among us whose creative expression of faith will enrich the whole community.
There is certainly an academic part of me that can be rational - but there has always been a creative part of me as well. In other words, I had a 'right-brain' side too. In fact, for a while I dreamed of becoming a commercial artist/illustrator - but that was discouraged by more practically-minded people (well-intentioned, I'm sure).
Now I am sharing in a community of believers that has room for the right brain - which is rediscovering art, beauty, creativity, and poetry . . . for at least me and I think for others as well. I am reading Brian McLaren's Generous Orthodoxy and one point he makes is that poetry is more capable than prose when it comes to talking about God.
Now I don't want to set up a fictitious conflict between the two sides of our brains, but rather to point out that prose has its place while I agree that it is incapable alone to express faith. I am finding that I am more of a mystic than a systematic theologian - though systematic theologians have blessed me in many ways throughout my journey.
Within our community of faith we have made a place for artistic expression - without labelling such work 'graven images' . . . because the point was not in the making of things but in the worshiping the works of our hands. That is a whole other subject - and we have worshiped our work plenty, though its not been the artistic work of our hands.
In finding a new place for my creative side I have created a couple of icons of Peter and Paul which are reminiscent of Eastern Orthodox icons.
I contribute these to our community not as decorative art, but symbolic art. In the style we affirm a connection with ancient Christianity, and in the depiction of Peter and Paul we are reminded of the spiritual unity of Jewish and Gentile Christians of the first century despite all their differences. May we be inspired to a similar unity.
There are many poets among us whose creative expression of faith will enrich the whole community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)