fluidfaith

Fluid Faith has moved to a new location

2007-03-20T13:32:00.000-07:00

Yes, I'm still blogging. Or I'm blogging again. Or I'm blogging temporarily.

I guess it's just a matter of how you look at it.

Anyway, the new (not yet improved) Fluid Faith can be found here.

So come on by and see what's new.

More Seminarians Equals Fewer Preachers?

2006-03-23T00:40:00.000-08:00

Interesting article from the New York Times on the high number of seminary students who do not see themselves as destined for the pulpit.

Across the country, enrollment is up at Protestant seminaries, but a shrinking portion of the graduates will ascend the pulpit. These seminarians, particularly the young ones, are less interested in making a career of religion than in taking their religion into other careers.

Only about half of those graduating with a Master in Divinity now enter parish ministry, Mr. Aleshire said. The portion has fallen sharply in a generation, he said, and declined 10 to 15 percentage points in the last five years alone.

Something is going on here. These bright, capable minds are seeking out theological training and reflecting deeply on the way their faith should be lived out in the present world. But they do not see that as a preparation for employment in the established church realities.

I have friends who are graduate students of theology and ministry but express the same sorts of reservations. They may see themselves as ministers in a way, but they are not at all inclined toward professional training for a ministry life inside the dominant church culture.

They might be church planters.

They might work in efforts of justice and economic development among the world's poorest citizens.

They might end up as servants of God living in Christian vocation as teachers, counselors, or public servants.

But they cannot see a fit between where they are and the life of establishment ministry.

Is this a cause for concern? Or a reason for hope?

World Water Day 2006

2006-03-21T22:39:00.000-08:00

Today is World Water Day.

I know what you're thinking. "Water has a DAY?" Mothers get a day. Fathers, too. Columbus gets a day. So does Martin Luther King Jr. Saints Valentine and Patrick have a day. Secretaries, er, um ... Administrative Assistants, Grandparents, Ghosts and Goblins. And oh my, does Nationalism and Independence have a day!

So, why in the world does Water need a DAY?

Well, I figure if the greeting card companies, candy companies, florists, and governments can give us a long litany of holidays, memorials, and mindless party days, surely one of the most basic units of human sustenance deserves a day, too.

So, in recognition of World Water Day 2006, here are a few important facts for you:

-- Nearly 1.1 billion (with a 'B', people!) lack access to safe drinking water
-- The lack of clean water kills almost 4500 children every day!
-- There were 2.2 million unsafe drinking water deaths in 2004 and 90% of those were children under age 5.

But here's the biggest factoid of the day:

Consumers in the USA and other developed industrialized nations spend an estimated $100 billion every year on Bottled Water! Wait, there's more. The world's drinking water crisis could be cut in half over the next decade just by spending $30 billion each year. That's right, for 30% of what we spend unnecessarily on bottled water we could ensure a supply of drinkable water for more than half of those who presently do without.

We have perfectly good, drinkable, clean tap water available everywhere we go. But we wastefully purchase bottled water which has been shipped needlessly from some other place while nearly one-fifth of the world's population is compelled to drink unsafe water. And apparently in some cases that wonderfully tasty water we drink from plastic bottles has been extracted from various "exotic" locales so that even those local communities and villages risk running out of good water because of the practices of water bottlers like Coca-Cola's Dasani brand.

So, forget Columbus and St. Patrick. I say, "Happy World Water Day!" Now, let's do something about it. I suggest we start by taking some of the money we spend on bottle water ... or bridges to nowhere ... or perhaps pre-emptive military invasions and invest in solving one of the world's greatest humanitarian crises.

As a Christian who has grown up among conservative believers I've been part of a segment of this country that has often staked out a significant political position on defending a "right to life." But what exactly is a "right to life?" Are unborn children in the US more entitled to this right than the tiny malnourished and endangered children of the developing world who have no water? Water! It's one of the Big Three! Air, Water, Food. They could have clean water, if only we had the will to bring it to them. I'll close with a quote for you to consider:

"There is some hope, I think, in the idea of the commonwealth, which seems to acknowledge than we all have a common interest or share in the land, an interest that precedes our interest in private property. Of the precedence of our share in the common wealth the best evidence is that we share also a common health; the two, in fact, are inseparable. If we have the "right to life," as we have always supposed, then that right must stand upon the further right to air, water, food, clothing, and shelter." :: Wendell Berry, "Private Property and the Common Wealth"

What exactly is a right to life without water? They are indeed inseparable.

So even while some are so active in defending the right to life, I have to wonder if we are not guilty of infanticide by neglect.

Contentment

2006-02-27T11:38:00.000-08:00

C o n t e n t m e n t.

Ann Coulter is just like the rest of us

2006-01-28T10:00:00.000-08:00

Reader's Guide: This post should not be read as a "See, I told you so."
______________

Ann Coulter had an appearance Thursday night at Philander Smith College -- a private christian college in central Arkansas -- at which she reportedly joked about liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens: "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee."

There you have it: brutality masquerading as wit. In a world of violence and anger we often encounter viciousness disguised as political discourse, vengeance as self-defense, and open war as defense of freedom.

But really, Ann Coulter is not the problem; she is simply a troubling symptom of a much larger problem, one which goes deep into each of our hearts. A pernicious streak of violence runs through our collective way of life, one in which we all are perpetrators and our world is the victim. The ways in which we participate in such violence should be obvious to us; that it is not obvious is just another symptom of our disease.

When we buy their books, listen to their radio programs, pay their speaking fees, or attend their speeches we are granting an audience to such violent speech and giving it the credibility and currency of our presence. In a media-culture economy that seeks to quanitify every person as a rating point, book-buyer, conference-attendee or some other unit of consumption, our viewing eyes, listening ears or seat-filling bodies are not simply passive receivers of what is being said.

Every cheer and jeer, every angry epithet hurled from either side contributes to the culture of violence and to the fame of those who incite it. And it is Fame which is fuel for the fire, the oxygen which keeps it burning. Fame is the supply train for the army of ideologues who would gladly dominate our world with their 'Truth' by winning an open war with other ideologues who also threaten to dominate our world with their 'Truth.'

I believe that we should not abandon ourselves to a world of violence and retribution. And yet, we do. Often. And in so doing we lose our way, neglecting the path of peace to which we were called. Unwittingly and unreflectively, we become complicit in the violence which surrounds us. Don't we?

-- When we dehumanize our enemies or torture the detainee don't we debase ourselves as well?

-- When we cast our vote to elect a President who vows to kill in our name (which I will remind you was BOTH of the major party candidates in the 2004 election), haven't we committed ourselves to his path, perhaps even prostrated ourselves before the throne of vengeance?

-- When we build our wealth on the labor of those who cannot sue for wages don't we join in the global oppression of the poor and participate in the violent injustice which uses the powerlessness of the weak to increase the economic power of the strong?

You see, Ann Coulter is in many ways just like the rest of us; her violent speech is merely emblematic of the sins which engulf us all in this empire of wealth, profit, and power.

I believe that as followers of Jesus, we should no sooner participate in the abusive speech of political punditry than we should oppress the poor, do violence to our enemy or take revenge on those who do us harm. But since we are so frequently engaged in or complicit in these latter sins, it should not surprise us that we so easily tolerate the former.

As I've mentioned before, I live very near to the campus of a private christian college in central Arkansas -- my alma mater, Harding University -- that first invited and then uninvited Ms. Coulter to speak as part of a university lecture series. It was big news; I won't rehash it here.

But in the end, I'm quite glad (even grateful!) that such things will not be spoken this semester from the stage of this valuable christian institution. (Reader's Guide, pt. 2: This post can be read as "Whew! That was a close one!")

Resisting the opportunity to promote this way of speaking, refusing to lend our ears and the credibility of our presense to these ideological 'truths' -- this is an important first step in resisting the violence of our age.

After that comes a second step which is more difficult by far.

To persuade our institutions (colleges and churches) and our theologians, ministers, professors and thinkers to assist us in the birthing of a new way of thinking about our world.

To imagine and practice a politics and economics of resistance against the consumptive, exploitive, violent ways which dominate our existence.

To recognize "the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you to the truth." To name that blindness and live as a people who see "with and not through the eye."

To live in solidarity with the world's poorest citizens and to refuse every opporuntity we are given to profit by exploiting them. To abhor violence and seek true reconciliation at every turn even if doing so has disastrous results for our own wealth, position or power.

Of course, what I'm suggesting will almost certainly not increase the Endowments of our colleges or the offerings in our churches. But it just might help to form us as the people of God committed to the redemption, reconciliation, and justice we find revealed in Jesus our Lord.

It's Official: I hate the mouse

2006-01-18T13:38:00.000-08:00

Question of the day: How did I ever get by without knowing keyboard shortcuts? A recent conversation with my brother about the greatness of Firefox led to further conversation about keyboard shortcuts and other really great aspects of keyboard functionality. First, I started using URL aliases in Firefox, then the typeaheadfind feature, then gmail keyboard shortcuts.

I've come to the point where I simply Hate My Mouse!! Not hate my mouse in that ergonomic/stylistic way based on how it feels in the hand or glides on the surface or looks on the desktop. No, I mean I dislike the very functionality of the mouse. I hate moving my arm over to find it and click a drop-down menu. I hate trying to keep it out of the way of papers and books I'm using on my desk. I hate using it almost any time.

It just simply seems too far away from the place where my hands are already working. My hands are here -- typing. The mouse is way over there -- sitting, mocking me:

"Here's Mousy! You're gonna have to use me sometime. Pretty soon, you'll have to stick a label on that piece of Gmail. And you'll be needing me then! And I'll be right here waiting."

In the end it seems I have very little choice. Some applications just simply require a pointing device of some sort. But if any of those great Web 2.0 developers are out there listening, I'm begging you: More Keyboard Shortcuts!!

Here Kitty, Kitty

2006-01-15T22:54:00.000-08:00

I have to wonder what my friend Mike Cope would think of this. At the risk of calling out the world's most prominent Church of Christ blogger, I present to you one of history's great theological conundrums:

Who's Your Favorite Cat: Aslan or Hobbes?

Clearly, this is a difficult question (for some more than others) and demands assessment by our most gifted and astute theological minds. Especially those who are committed to the deep theological truths contained in comic strips. And most importantly, those preachers and theologians who have an avowed allegiance to Calvin's indefatigable, tummy rub-loving tiger!

Of course, the humorous question raised by this CT article -- A Tale of Two Kitties -- leads directly to some more serious reflection on the nature of communication, the relationship between message and medium, and the unmitigated commercialization of our age. The writer draws some really significant contrasts between choices made by the creator of the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip and the producers/distributors/marketers of the recent Narnia film.

It's a worthwhile read and a set of questions worth considering. It makes me wonder what C.S. Lewis might have thought.

As for me, I think I'll have to vote for Hobbes.

Faster, Faster! Learn More! Hurry!

2006-01-15T21:04:00.000-08:00

I was born into a christian family. Went to church on my third day of life. Spent almost every Sunday of my childhood in Sunday School. Had a Bible in my hands at the earliest of ages and always seemed to have a one that fit the ongoing development of my faith. In other words, I've pretty much always been a part of a christian family/church/world and had the Bible near the center of my existence for all that time.

And yet, surprisingly, in all those years it never once occurred to me that I should try to read the Bible in Ninety Days. Hard as it might be to imagine, I have never stopped to ponder the potential value or feasibility of a ninety-day Bible reading program. Just never crossed my mind.

Until this weekend, that is, when I found out that the church we've been attending was encouraging everyone to participate in a ninety-day Bible reading plan. Of course, as a person who never even paused to consider reading the Bible while brushing my teeth, I'm quite uncertain how to begin such a daunting task.

But good news! Reading the Bible like it's the HOV lane on the highway to heaven is far simpler than you'd think. And the folks at Zondervan have it all mapped out for you in their specially designed Bible-in-90-Days program. Of course, I know what you're thinking: my regular Bible -- you know, the one of long liturgical usage and leather-bound heritage (several translations of which are in the public domain) -- doesn't really come readily divided into 90 convenient chapters.

Well, Zondervan has good news for you, too! That's right, for only $20 you can get the specially designed Bible in 90 Days(TM) version of the sacred 1900 year-old text.

Or, if you're really committed to getting the most from this exercise -- those of you who always wished for spiritual guidance under the tutelage of Evelyn Wood -- you can purchase the whole Bible in 90 Days Curriculum Kit for a completely disposable $79. The kit includes everything a growing speed disciple needs (participant guide, DVD curriculum, and Bible).

The website (which is also specially designed to help you get the most from this experience) includes a special 90 Days Challenge from the Bible's "creator." You can read the challenge here. It promises that "something just happens to you when you do this."

Now that I think about it I can suddenly imagine all the things I've been missing all these years when I wasn't reading the Bible in 90 Days(TM). And I'm a little upset with my mom and dad, my professors, my christian mentors, and a whole bunch of other people for denying me the opportunity to have something happen in my life by not teaching me how to read the Bible in 90 Days(TM)!

In fact, I sort of feel bad for all those believers who followed the teachings of the Bible during the past 2000 years and never had something just happen to them. And I think especially how hard it must've been for those very early believers who had to endure that terribly long and spiritually unproductive period in which the Bible was being written, copied, debated, and canonized.

For the New Testament that took about 109,500 days. If only they could've read the Bible faster, Christianity might've made a real difference in the world during those first 300 years.

Friends, we're missing something in all this. But what we're missing is NOT the great blessing of reading the Bible in 90 Days(TM). And until we begin to see through these kinds of faux need/benefit marketing, we'll continue to miss out on the simple pleasures of living in this world as followers of Jesus. We'll keep looking for the Faster Easier Life-Change Special Plan for Believers Who Don't Have Enough Time to Talk to their Kids and dropping another $20 for the product and promises they offer.

If somebody ever figures out how to put the Bible into a capsule, food additive, or communion wafer, you can bet there will be a company ready to sell it and churches and christians lining up to buy it and consume it.

Meanwhile, Jesus stands by the shore -- with "no purse, no bag" in his hands, "no place to lay his head," no market to sell his wares -- and says simply, "Come, follow me." Sounds like that might take awhile.

Where's Waldo?the christian metaphor edition

2006-01-12T08:47:00.000-08:00

Quick! Go read this brief article about Ants and Food in the Tech/Sci dept. at CNN.com

Then, we can play a game together. Okay kids?

I think there might be a useful analogy to Christian faith embedded in this article. Can you find it?

Leave your response in the comments section.

Oh wait! Unlike Waldo games, with our little search there is no inherent value in finding the metaphor.

The only value is in LIVING the metaphor!

The Art of the Coffee Maker

2006-01-12T07:58:00.000-08:00

From the 'Oooh! Let's Tell a Story about My Wife (and see if I can stay out of trouble while doing it)' File:

Angela (who never drinks coffee!) got me a new coffee maker. I think the old one was our original, first-married coffee maker...no wait, our first one was REALLY minimal (and broke within a couple of years)...so this was our second one.

Anyway, she got a new one this week, even though she never drinks coffee. I came home one afternoon and it's just sitting there on the counter. The kind with a thermal carafe instead of a heating element. All black and silvery, kinda like the oven and the dishwasher and the toaster oven. Nice, I guess. No big deal really. The other one was doing a fine job for a ten or twelve year-old Mr. Coffee.

But you wanna know why she got it?

For me? NO.

She got it for herself. (Did I mention that she never drinks coffee?) Because lately I've been drinking more coffee at home, which meant the old (i.e. 'ugly') coffee maker was constantly sitting on the kitchen counter instead of hiding in the pantry where it typically has been. So she got something that would look nicer on her counter.

This is the woman I married. Just so we're all clear here: I'm not complaining at all! In fact, there is a whole lot about this story that I like because it reminds me of some of the things I really like about my wife. One of which is that she cares very much how our home looks and functions. Neat is the order of the day. Which it wouldn't be if I was actually in charge, because ... well, I'm a bit of a slob.

The other part of the story I like is where she found a coffee maker she could have on the counter and didn't spend too much money to get it.

Oh, and this part too... I now have a coffee maker (for the first time in my life) with a clock and timer on it! This is really kinda cool because -- and maybe some of you didn't know this -- you can actually set the machine at night before you go to bed so that there will be coffee already made when you get up in the morning. Brilliant!!

What's next? A TV with a remote control?

Had This Thought at Church Last Night

2006-01-12T07:51:00.000-08:00

Jesus is dead. That's all. End of story.

____
[THIS POST NEEDS ADDITIONAL COMMENTS]

Who Speaks for Evangelicals?

2006-01-09T13:50:00.000-08:00

What's the most important part of the word "infamy?" That's right: FAME. To wit, here's today's recipe:

1. Pat Robertson makes a stupid comment.
2. The media reports it.
3. Bloggers like me respond.
4. Talking head pundits (liberal and conservative alike, I might add) feel compelled to fill their 24-hour news cycle by hammering the topic for two days.
5. Prominent evangelical leaders book a slot on Larry King to plublicly disavow the original statement.
6. The words "Robertson," "Christian Broadcasting Network," and "700 Club" are constantly repeated on the public airwaves.
7. Rinse and repeat.

CBS News' PublicEye blog has a pretty good piece today on whether comments from a guy like Pat Robertson should be considered newsworthy. And personally, I'm willing to take the message to heart, as one who has previously felt the apparently irresistable need to comment on Robertson's comments (not once, but twice!).

The article eventually turns on the question of whose thoughts/quotes can be considered representative of the group we know as American Evangelicals. Different folks in the piece have different lists, but few include Robertson. One guy really likes to get quotes from Rick Warren and Joel Osteen (20 million book buyers can't be wrong). Others mentioned Billy Graham and his son, Franklin. Another suggests Jim Wallis, but the article quickly points out that Wallis would likely seem too left-leaning for most mainstream evangelicals.

The post closes with a list that I find interesting ... and very telling. "Sullivan says that Ted Haggard, Warren, Brian McLaren, Osteen, Rod Parsley, and Franklin Graham, among others, are religious leaders who should be featured as evangelical voices of today." Cafeteria-style evangelicalism. A little surprised to see McLaren and Parsley on this list. Shocked to see Dobson excluded. But mostly intrigued by the diversity here.

Which raises the most important point of all, I guess. In the end, nobody can be said to speak for this group or that group. It reminded me of this really awful, awkward moment back in the 1980s when members of my own tribe appeared on the Phil Donahue show to talk about a court case in Oklahoma in which a church member had filed suit in civil court against a local Church of Christ that had disfellowshipped her. It was a minor media circus of sorts. I mean, hey! Donahue thought it was interesting enough to put on his show, so you know it had to be up to his usual circus-standards.

Anyway, somewhere in all this a question was asked of somebody who was (I dunno) an expert in Churches of Christ or something. (Please remember, I was like 17 years old when all this happened, so my memory's a bit sketchy.) As I recall it, Donahue asks the guy: "So, what does the Church of Christ believe."

The answer was -- rightly, I think -- prefaced in terms of local church autonomy and diversity of opinion, etc. and summed up with this classic description: "So, Phil, a Church of Christ might believe just about anything." In other words, if you're looking for a definitive, uniform, unwavering representation of the group known as Church of Christ, well...think again!

Which is an important reminder about generalizations and, especially, about using the quotes of any one person as representative of a whole group. Especially if that quote comes from Pat Robertson!

I'm just plain embarassed

2006-01-05T13:20:00.000-08:00

Oh. My. God. Please, help us!!!

Dear God, more and more I find myself wishing that the Christians would shut up so the stones could be heard more clearly! I think they would do a better job.

Update: Is it possible that Pat Robertson and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad worship the same God?

How to Beat the Corporate Automated Phone System

2006-01-04T09:24:00.000-08:00

Ok. I think this qualifies as the absolutely coolest thing I've seen this week. It's a full cheat sheet on How to Speak to a Human Being when navigating an automated phone system full of menu options ("for _________ please press One") or those newfangled voice options ("please say Yes - or - No"). Yikes! Oh how I hate those things!

The list is divided up by categories (banks, governement, telco, insurance, pharmacy, technology, retail) and contains simple instructions to bypass the automated system for each company listed. The whole thing is contained on a single webpage, so no clicking through a series of links on your computer to figure out how to bypass a series of buttons on your phone.

I just used it this morning to get a real human being on the phone at SBC DSL. It was great!!! Defeating the corporate giants' attempts to frustrate my day! Oooooo-hwhwhhaaaaaaa (evil genius laugh)!!

The Joy of Uncertainty

2006-01-02T17:58:00.000-08:00

Connor was born on December 26. Great birthday for tax breaks. Bad birthday for . . . well, birthdays. The upside: I get to count him as a dependent for all of 2003 even though we only had him for four days. The downside: he spends a lifetime having one of the most overlook-able birthdays on the calendar.

"Oh well, tough break, Kid. If it's any consolation, your Mom and I bought a hot tub with the tax return money." (Not really, of course. We bought diapers instead.)

So now we're starting to face the question of how to handle a birthday the day after Christmas. This year we decided we'd hold the actual celebration a few days after to get some distance from the whole manger menagerie. The cousins, aunt & uncle, and grandparents all came over to the house last night for dinner and cake and general frivolity and gift giving and worship. It was really good. Which means, of course, that my wife did a great job of planning and executing the whole affair.

The interesting thing was the way she handled the period of worship she'd planned as part of the gathering. This is an item on the agenda that is frequently handed off to me as part of her planning. But this time she handled it herself. The result was spectacular. Clearly, she had some things on her heart that could only be shared by her, in her words.

Two themes jumped out at me. First, was JOY. We haven't exactly had a lot of joy this past year. And yet, we've quite a nice dose of it. Connor's arrival in our lives was a "pleasant surprise." We had not planned for more children and received him as an unanticipated gift. The gloriousness of that gift has only been revealed this past year. Just as we began to walk through this dark and difficult phase of life -- this wilderness, this period of isolation and loneliness, this uncertain adventure in our post-churched life -- our son has hit that most joyful time of life. We call them the Terrific Twos. (The rest of you can mope and complain, if you like. But ours are delightful!) He's in that period of discovery where every word is like a ripened fruit, each new skill, new moment, new activity is a delight to behold. This is our joy.

Even now, as I write this he sits quietly on the floor in my "office" playing with his brother's unending collection of matchbox cars and a little piece of race track. He lines them up. He runs them down the track and back. He identifies them and carefully ponders them. His sublime concentration and diligence punctuated by the occasional crash of two vehicles flung together or the clearly distinguishable words "fast car," "big truck" or "two buses." And then, of course, that most endearing of noises, the hearty Vrrroooomm! which goes forth from the lungs with such geyser-force that it seems to rise unbidden from a wellspring of . . . well, of JOY!

The second theme of Angela's deeply reflective and thoughtful words was that of Uncertainty. We did not know what a blessing Connor's joy would be for us this year, because we could not anticipate how much we would need it. We could not know how dark these days might be. We live -- we all live! -- with the simple unmitigated uncertainty of life. In fact, it may be that such uncertainty is the essential substance of life, of a story not yet written, of a future not yet known.

For all of our theological pretensions, all our systematic theologies describing a God who has everything planned out -- an all-knowing, pre-ordaining God of meticulous control -- those who have an intuitive sense of the world around us realize that uncertainty is the order of the day. Nothing is guaranteed to us. We may suffer painful loss or stumble upon inexplicable gain. Tragedy or natural disaster or terror may steal possessions or life or loved ones from us. This is the world as we know it. And we must live in that uncertain world.

Lay aside for the moment the deep and difficult questions of what God knows, when God knows, how God knows, and if by "knowing" the future God does not also control it.

As followers of the way of Jesus, we are shaped by the story of nativity and the surprising, almost unthinkable, character trait of God revealed in that story. In Christ, the God we worship chooses to entrust God's Own Son (the very life and story of God) to the vicissitudes and uncertainties of a broken, violent world. The Author who knows the beginning from the end puts God in the middle of the story. And God becomes a subject of Creation, not simply the Creator of it. So, all the essential dangers (and delights) of a good-but-broken world are experienced by God; all the uncertainties of a story yet unwritten; all the possibilities of free-will run amok.

God joins us in our uncertainty. Why? Perhaps because that is the path to participating in our joy and because it allows us to participate in God's joy. Seriously, who wants to live in a story that's already written? Instead, God gives us the joy of uncertainty -- a story filled with pain and sorrow, to be sure. But also one filled with surprise, anticipation, delight, flavor, frivolity, and the pure human happiness of living.

What a gift is my wife! What a joy to hear her words! What joy to experience this ridiculous adventure of uncertain outcomes alongside her and in the midst of our three wonderful children. Yes, our days have been dark. And the ending may still be dark. We do not know. But what else can we do but live the adventure and delight in the gift of joy wherever it may be found.

And so we go on ... "darkly, with necks stuck out."

____________________
"God has also set eternity in the hearts of humanity; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end. I know that there is nothing better for them than to be happy and do good while they live. That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in their toil -- this is the gift of God." :: Ecclesiastes 3:11-13

How to Begin a Beginning?

2005-12-31T23:21:00.000-08:00

A thought for new beginnings as the new year dawns and I consider the beginnings which are before me. The ones that have been waiting for me for six months now. The beginnings which I have yet begun, for fear of what? I don’t know.

"Beware the thoughts that come in the night. They aren't turned properly; they come in askew, free of sense and restriction, deriving from the most remote of sources. Take the idea of February 17, a day of canceled expectations, the day I learned my job teaching English was finished because of declining enrollment at the college, the day I called my wife from whom I'd been separated for nine months to give her the news, the day she let slip about her 'friend' -- Rick or Dick or Chick. Something like that.

That morning, before all the news started hitting the fan, Eddie Short Leaf, who worked a bottomland section of the Missouri River and plowed snow off campus sidewalks, told me if the deep cold didn't break soon the trees would freeze straight through and explode. Indeed.

That night, as I lay wondering whether I would get sleep or explosion, I got the idea instead. A man who couldn't make things go right could at least go. He could quit trying to get out of the way of life. Chuck routine. Live the real jeopardy of circumstance. It was a question of dignity.

The result: on March 19, the last night of winter, I again lay awake in the tangled bed, this time doubting the madness of just walking out on things, doubting the whole plan that would begin at daybreak -- to set out on a long (equivalent to half the circumference of the earth), circular trip over the back roads of the United States. Following a circle would give a purpose -- to come around again -- where taking a straight line would not. And I was going to do it by living out of the back end of a truck. But how to begin a beginning?

A strange sound interrupted my tossing. I went to the window, the cold air against my eyes. At first I saw only starlight. Then they were there. Up in the March blackness, two entwined skeins of snow and blue geese honking north, an undulating W-shaped configuration across the deep sky, white bellies glowing eerily with the reflected light from town, necks stretched northward. Then another flock pulled by who knows what out of the south to breed and remake itself. A new season. Answer: begin by following spring as they did -- darkly, with neck stuck out."

So reads the opening page (all of it...the last words falling at the end of the page) of Blue Highways by William Least Heat-Moon. (The emphases are mine.)

And so we begin again. To what end I do not know. All I know is I must begin. NOW.

Encouragement from a Reader

2005-12-31T22:54:00.000-08:00

One of our regular readers, Keith Brenton, has expressed the opinion that my recent silence should come to an end ... soon. I appreciate this encouragement and I think I agree. Stay tuned for more....

Provocative, indeed!

2005-10-20T06:40:00.000-07:00

Now here's a provocative quote!

"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist [or Republican]" :: Winston Churchill, November 21, 1943(Source)

Seriously, Winston Churchill!! Ok, I added the "or Republican" part, but only in the spirit of contemporary application.

Let's put that on a coffee cup and see what conversations come up!

Provocative, huh?

2005-10-19T13:02:00.000-07:00

This qualifies as somewhat interesting. News today out of Seattle that Starbucks has plans to put a God related quote from Rick Warren, author of The Purpose-Driven Life (as if I need to tell you that), on coffee cups. This is part of a larger collection of quotes from writers, cultural critics, scientists, musicians, politicians, etc. which have been placed on Starbucks cups in an effort "to carry on the coffeehouse tradition of conversation and debate."

This is cool, I think. It fits Starbucks' mythic character as the home of dialogue, encounter, and overpriced free-trade coffee drinks. I'm more than happy for Christian thought to be presented alongside other quotes in this collection. It has a Paul at the Areopagus feel to it.

And if modern Christian thinking is to be represented in this campaign, I can think of no more prominent voice to represent the understanding of modern American Christianity than Rick Warren. I might would wish for quotes from Jesus himself or Martin Luther King or others (all or some of which may already be included; I wouldn't know personally as there is no Starbucks in Searcy, AR).

But I have to wonder (and some of you might want to slap me for this), is this the best we could do?

"You are not an accident. Your parents may not have planned you, but God did. He wanted you alive and created you for a purpose. Focusing on yourself will never reveal your real purpose. You were made by God and for God, and until you understand that, life will never make sense. Only in God do we discover our origin, our identity, our meaning, our purpose, our significance and our destiny."

Don't get me wrong. If Starbucks wants to put words on their coffee cups, then well, these are certainly words. But I have to ask, "Are these the best words Christian thought has to offer?" Is this even the best Rick Warren has to offer? Couldn't we be represented by something a little less prosaic?

The USA Today story describes this as "the first mention of God in the company's provocative quote campaign, The Way I See It." If it is indeed the first mention of God and if this truly is a provocative quote campaign, couldn't we have found a quote about God that was, well ... er, I don't know ... provocative?

In the history of Christian spirituality there have been many expressions of the faith which have been beautiful, poetic, ironic, artistic, thought-provoking, incisive, evocative, profound, deeply meaningful, subversive, dissonant, or counter-cultural, often striking the human ear and heart with a poignancy and depth that resounds to the very soul of human existence and illuminates the essential needs of humankind.

So, I'm thinking (and this is just me) if you're gonna try to revive the coffeehouse tradition in which provocative writings spark conversation and debate, I'd like to have some quotes that have some actual spark to them. Otherwise, you're left with conversations that are about as stimulating as your average self-help book, as predictable and character-deprived as your average Starbucks.

Engaging God's World

2005-10-18T11:12:00.000-07:00

Spent the weekend at the World Mission Workshop on campus at Harding University. I got to network with a lot of neat folks who are passionate about the kingdom mission of God and our many opportunities to join in what God is doing in the world. Exciting stuff. I'll have more to say later.

----------------

A couple of weeks ago I attended the anuual Lectureship at Harding. For me it was a local event, so I went. And the Lectureship was ... well, it was fine. In line with expectations.

But something struck me as I browsed through the Lectureship Program. On the back cover was an ad for next year's Lectureship, enticingly entitled, "Engaging the World." Around the margins of this Dates-and-Theme reminder was a length collection of words intended to describe this world we are engaging:

Vulgar | Violent | Self-Serving | Offensive | Cruel | Evil | Violent | Lost | Seeking | Confused | Changing | Aggressive | Indifferent | Hostile | Addicted | Fractured | Postmodern | Apathetic | Secular | Pluralistic | Consumeristic | Passionate

Of these, I can see only two potentially positive descriptors: passionate and seeking. And there are perhaps a couple more fairly neutral terms. But the list by and large is negative and unflattering.

It left me wondering what this reflects about the picture we have of God's world. How does this view impact our mission in this world? Does our picture of the world and our descriptions of it actually influence the manner in which we are "Engaging the World?" And more importantly, what words were left out?

I began to try my hand at another list of words which might also be used to describe our world, God's world:

Joyous | Creative | Diverse | Blessed | Beautiful | Good | Alive | Orderly | Free | Pleasing | Gracious | God-filled | God-honoring | Beloved | Yearning | Loving | Open | Spiritual | Resilient | Life-giving | Delightful

New Vocabulary

2005-10-13T12:30:00.000-07:00

I've used a lot of different words the past few months to describe the present season or passage in our spiritual lives.

Wilderness. Desert. Exile. Detox.

There are others, I'm sure. And all of these apply so beautifully in a variety of ways. Each is a rich metaphor exploring our place in the story and none of them are ready to be shelved or removed from the litany yet.

But I'd like to add a new word to your vocabulary list...

Sabbatical.

It's a word that has come to be meaningful only in the past two weeks or so. But there's something about this word. It rings with a tone of hope and rest which is harmonious with the sound of the others, and yet deepens the chord, enriches the sound, and lifts the refrain into a new theme.

I look forward to exploring it further.

I'm Still Here

2005-09-21T17:07:00.000-07:00

Yes, I'm still here. Just been busy for the past few days working on the new Fluid Faith site that we're preparing. Hopefully, that will be ready for viewing soon. It's more than just a new look for my blog, but I'll have to explain more about the vision as we get closer. Stay tuned.

Question of the Day

2005-09-13T06:35:00.000-07:00

In the churches I come from a favorite song in recent years has been "As the Deer," taken from Psalm 42:1. The hymn is a romantic paean to a God who is always there for us: "You alone are my heart's desire and I long to worship you.... I want you more than gold or silver, only you can satisfy."

It's a pleasant little song. Catchy tune. Feels soulful and deep. Like an intimate walk through a garden with the God of the Universe.

So, here's my question: Why don't we sing the rest of Psalm 42? Maybe we could start with verse 3:

My tears have been my food day and night,
while men say to me all day long,
"Where is your God?"

Or pick up the theme in verse 4:

These things I remember
as I pour out my soul:
how I used to go with the multitude,
leading the procession to the house of God.

Call me picky. But I think it's sad when songs taken from verses of Scripture don't sound anything like the verses of Scripture they were taken from.

The panting of the deer envisioned here is a desperate panting of a deserted and devastated soul. Not the romantic panting of embracing lovers.

Shall we sing?

Today's Interesting Links

2005-09-13T06:21:00.000-07:00

>> Principles for a Post-Katrina New Orleans?

>> Cool! A "Fair Tax" Plan that allows you to keep more of your money. Except...you have to take less money.

>> Pedometer for GoogleMaps . Neat tool for figuring walking distance anywhere.

>> What would it mean to Live on Less? Some thoughts on simplicity.

A Peace Parade

2005-09-12T14:24:00.000-07:00

We commemorated Sept. 11th with a little Peace Parade in Searcy yesterday. Sure, only five people showed up. But really, there were only five folks who knew about it. So, small is relative, I guess.

During our little time of family worship and prayer yesterday morning, we talked about what it meant to be "on the run" from something or forced out of your home for some reason. We shared the story of the ancient Israelites who ate flat-bread on the run from Pharaoh and prayed for those forced from their homes by Hurricane Katrina. We ate the sacred flat-bread of communion and talked about that day four years ago when thousands had no choice but to walk the giant exilic footbridges of Lower Manhattan, across the water, to an uncertain future.

Our children understood.

Then we had a parade -- just the five of us. As a family we walked the few blocks from our house to the courthouse square, carrying a tiny American flag and a quiet prayer for peace. We stood before the monument that names those from our county who have died in wars for "worldwide democracy." And we prayed.

I listened as my children prayed for all those who are exiled from their homes, for our fellow-Americans who've died in our wars, for peace in the midst of violence. They prayed for Iraqis killed and maimed in war and times of unrest, for all those we call "enemies," and all those who mourn the loss of ones they love. We prayed for America, but mostly for our world. And we prayed that God might help us be the kind of people who look like they follow the Prince of Peace.

God has blessed us with such great kids! I pray that they will learn peace by walking in the ways of Jesus.

Searcy's Newest Extreme Sport

2005-09-09T13:26:00.000-07:00

Does anybody else out there live in a community that has apparently given up completely on the hope of encouraging people to walk instead of drive?

I ask this question because my son and I just got back from nearly being run over while trying to cross (on the crosswalk) the FOUR-LANE road that is a mere three hundred feet from his school.

Just so you get the picture... No crossing guard. No police patrol. No traffic control device (stop sign or light). No School Zone (it's 45mph right there). No passive devices (speed bumps, etc). Nothing. Just cars, whizzing by.

This is in the middle of town -- a nice small town. This is a neighborhood school just a few blocks from the city square. Not some suburban bedroom community reality. We've got grid streets where walking should be encouraged and facilitated. Instead, it's an extreme sport! "Here, Son, put on your bicycle helmet so we can walk to school safely."

To be fair, in the three weeks since school started there has been a police officer at that crosswalk about half the time. Would somebody please tell me:

What's the value of a crossing guard who's on duty every other day?

More constructively, what can communities do to encourage more walking, less driving, especially in these nicely constructed older, small-urban, compact communities?

After Four Years of Planning...

2005-09-09T10:03:00.000-07:00

"Hurricane Katrina had exposed a critical flaw in the national disaster response plans created after the Sept. 11 attacks. According to the administration's senior domestic security officials, the plan failed to recognize that local police, fire and medical personnel might be incapacitated." :: Link

Uh...oops! We sure are spending a lot of money to fund a government that apparently can't figure out that in a disaster (natural or criminal) first responders might be prevented from fulfilling their role as first responders. Something is broke.

Are Our Church Buildings Temples?

2005-09-09T08:53:00.000-07:00

A commenter rightly called me out yesterday on whether megachurches were more "resource intensive" than smaller churches in a measurable, per capita way. In other words, he asked, aren't megachurches more efficient with resources because they work on economies of scale and therefore use less resources "per person served?" I concede this is an excellent point and one that makes sense in terms of financial business modeling, especially if the cost-beneift analysis fails to account for "externalized costs" like miles commuted, fuel consumption, and time/energy exerted. I expounded a little in my reply to him.

But more than that, his question demonstrates a failure on my part to be fairer and more clear in my reservations about church-as-we-know-it. I offered a business-like evaluation of church models that didn't really convey what I believe. The truth is much harsher and won't be pleasant to hear. And it applies to Institutionalized Christian Faith across the board, almost regardless of size:

Our churches are built on Mammon.

There, I said it. Mammon. The fact that one church-model uses extreme quantities of money is only a difference of degree -- and therefore opens us to cost-benefit analysis and makes economies of scale seem more reasonable, even required. But that's not the point. The point is that the god-whore Mammon rules American life in almost every way.

There is almost nothing in the common experience of churched faith in America that is not built on this one, immutable truth: WE HAVE MONEY! Our churches rise and fall on the existence of sufficient money. Our buildings eat the stuff for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Our programs inhale it like oxygen. It is the foundation on which church life in America is built.

Notice, I said we have Money. I'm not talking about Provision -- wages or daily bread or shelter. I mean we only have church-as-we-know-it because we have ridiculous piles of completely Disposable Income. It is the lubricant which oils all the gears of the religious machine. And it makes sense. I mean, if you believe that life consists of having monstrous high-definition TVs and McMansion houses with a bathroom large enough to sleep three families fleeing genocide in Darfur. If you believe that life is made better by owning a $50,000 automobile or having a closet full of the latest fashions or children that go to the snazziest private schools and participate in four extracurricular activities a week or owning every conceivable piece of "labor-saving" technology you can afford, OF COURSE you're going to believe that life in Christ consists of having the very best Fifty Gazillion Dollar Church Building providing all the niche-targeted programs and services necessary to meet your spiritual needs!!!

So, when I said that megachurches were "resource intensive" I was trying to politely suggest that there might be better ways to approach our mission, ways that are rooted in simplicity and demonstrate our refusal to worship Mammon or receive from him all his filthy lucre (oh, wait...I meant "blessings"). But when you use words like "resource intensive" you place yourself in a position of doing business-framed cost-benefit analysis. That was a mistake. I chose that approach largely because I don't like this subject and I'm afraid of saying something hurtful and I know how money-driven my life own is and I don't know don't know where to draw the lines.

You see, we have this problem communicating clearly (and perhaps hearing from God clearly) about our relationship to wealth. We have lots of consultants ready to tell our churches how to raise more money or how to leverage their wealth to "expand their ministry." And we have lots of pastors trying to become better CEOs so that they can properly lead the wealthy American church in utilizing its resources. And pretty soon, I suspect, we'll even have some advisors helping churches to "become more missional" or "reach emerging culture" or "promote justice" in small incremental ways within the present structure. The freelance language of bloggers and the organic christian counterculture will become corporate buzzwords and the concern of church leaders and they'll want pastors who can "help us be a missional church." Someone who can gradually adjust their programs and promotions and worship style and budget to reflect a hipper Millenial Generation concern.

We don't want anybody to upset the status quo too much, or do anything radical that would undermine confidence in the leadership, or cause a slackening of the returns in the offering plate. We truly seem to believe that it is possible to promote justice, reach emerging generations, and become more missional without dealing with any deep spiritual issues of formation. We apparently want someone to teach us how to join Jesus' redemptive mission without having to risk what we already have, without having to give up all the things we already like about church, without sacrificing our wealth. But here's Jesus' well-developed mission strategy:

"Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep. Whaterever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave."
:: Matthew 10:9-11

Surely, Jesus didn't mean to say that. What he meant to say was:

"Okay, guys. First, you gotta have a Fundraising Campaing, because you'll never get any ministry done without money. Preferrably, try get a commitment for at least three years of financing. It'll give you a good cushion. Then, when you get to the town, the first thing you need to do is find a prominent, well-to-do man and convert him to Christ. This'll help others see that yours is a serious ministry that's going somewhere and they'll want to join you too. Also, find yourself a good house with a low-rate mortgage, perferrably where your kids can go to quality schools. You should also begin looking for a great place to build the church -- prime real estate on the busiest street would be a good place to start. Oh, and get those new converts to start giving generously to the ministry. If possible try to get them to sign up for automatic debits from their checking account so that no matter what kind of month they're having the contributions can still flow in."

[Okay. Today I'm being a little cynical.]

We're not doing this on purpose. Truly, we're not even aware of it most of the time; it's the nature of our addiction to money, our enslavement to the ways of the world, that we would ignore its impact on us. The Mammon Temple Cult is the water we swim in, the air we breathe. For most of us, it's all we've ever known. It permeates our existence, rules our lives in so many ways, and shapes our expectations of home, work, school, nation, world...and, yes, church.

There's a reason Jesus told the Rich Man to sell everything. I wonder what it was.

__________________________
Read More: The Weary Pilgrim has some thoughts that also get at what I'm trying to say.

Today's Interesting Links

2005-09-08T09:05:00.001-07:00

More stuff to consider:

>> The Real Disaster in New Orleans

"New Orleans was not a disaster waiting to happen.... The disaster was already under way long before Katrina ever existed. The flood that followed the storm...sent an already weakened city down for the count.... Those were the residents who, for the most part, were left behind to suffer and die when the people of means began sprinting toward higher ground. They are the ones who are always left behind, out of sight and out of mind, and I'd be surprised - given the history of this country - if that were to change now."

>> Better than Palm: a really inexpensive pocket organizer

>> Insightful perspective from Andrew Jones on tent-dwelling and following a refugee messiah who had no place to lay his head.

Beyond Generosity to Justice

2005-09-08T09:05:00.000-07:00

There has been much talk about justice and poverty in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. This is good, even if the scope of the discussion has been too narrowly focused on the USA rather than a more global perspective. This tragedy -- as well as those in Southeast Asia and the Sudan -- should cause us to pause and ponder.

But I suspect that we will never take seriously the issues of justice in our world, until we are willing to take a deep, critical look at ourselves: at the wealth that permeates our lives, at the standards of luxury we demand for ourselves, at our thoughtlessly unrestrained consumption, at the attitudes we have toward our own posessions.

"A change of heart or values without a practice is only another
pointless luxury of a passively consumptive way of life."
:: Wendell Berry, "The Idea of a Local Economy"

Unfortunately, I'm not too sure I'm ready for that kind of change. Are you?

Collections...for what?

2005-09-08T07:56:00.000-07:00

I just spent the last twenty minutes reading a comment thread at another blog, a fairly popular one. It depressed me. That's why I won't tell you which one, because you'll just go over there to look at it yourself and invest your emotional energy and, well...anyway. The gist of it was that the author of the site had recently visited a very prominent, well-known megachurch with a prominent, well-known pastor (nope, not gonna tell you which ones...you'll just google it and find the comment thread and go over there to look at it yourself and invest your emotional energy and, well...anyway).

The blogger didn't say anything overtly negative about the megachurch, just that it wasn't his style and not the kind of place he felt God wanted him to be fulfilling his mission and calling. Very gracious. Short. Observational. Confessional. No big deal, right? Well, apparently not. The comment thread has a life of its own. Starting in February. Alive in April. Vigorous through the summer doldrums. And reinvigorated in September.

What's worse, it's a conversation I've read several times before. "Are MegaChurches Good or Bad? Please respond." Different locations, specific churches, named pastors, etc. But the conversation is usually the same. Critique is offered graciously. Defenders show up and comment graciously. The thread goes off-topic. Comes back. Pragmatism rears its ever-present head. Etc. In this one, though, the PROMINENT MEGACHURCH PASTOR involved himself in the discussion. Again, graciously.

But the whole thing fatigues me. Why have we bought into the pragmatic formula? Why have we allowed some to sell us this dichotomy? Growing Churches are good. Dying Churches are bad. If you're growing, you must be faithful. If you're not, clearly you're stuck in the past and unfaithful to God. Why do we believe that bigger is better?

For me, the whole megachurch reality is undesirable for a number of reasons, but perhaps the biggest of all is this: They are incredibly resource intensive.

"No people. No finances. No future." Is that really a kingdom principle?

God has hitched his wagon to multimillion-dollar facilities and six-figure pastors?

Two final questions:

1. What else could be done with the billions of dollars tied up in the corporate American Church?
2. What did the early church spend its money on?

Today's Interesting Links

2005-09-08T07:53:00.000-07:00

Just a few things found while browsing today:

>> Mike Cope has a great quote from a new book.

>> What constitutes being Rich or Poor? Look at the Global Rich List to determine where you rank. Just so we're clear: $50,000 US/yr puts you pretty high on the list.

>> Some thoughts on Natural Disasters and Punishment from God.

Living in a Post-Christian World

2005-09-08T06:50:00.000-07:00

A few things for Christians to keep in mind while living in a post-christian world:

1. The survival of Marriage does not depend on definitions provided by civil governments. -- It did not when Herod married his brother's wife. Or when Nero was keeping company with a variety of women in varying states of relationship -- wives, concubines, mistresses. Or when various apparently celibate Roman Catholic Popes fathered children, carried on affairs, and had sons named to be their successors. It does not now.

2. Faith does not rest on science. -- We are not dependent for our belief on scientific proof or probablities, or the scientific teaching standards approved by any school board Our faith is a story not a science. It is told from friend to friend and in the community of family and ekklesia, regardless of the other stories, mythologies, or sciences which form the ideas of the world around us.

3. The hope for lasting peace and justice does not reside in the Pentagon. -- As the gospel-storied people who follow Jesus, we believe peace comes through forgivenenss and reconciliation, not through the destruction of enemies.

4. In general, governments make very bad churches.

Cynical? Not so much...

2005-09-07T08:35:00.000-07:00

cyn·i·cal ('si-ni-k&l); adj.
having or showing the attitude or temper of a cynic : as in
a) contemptuously distrustful of human nature and motives;
b) based on or reflecting a belief that human conduct is motivated primarily by self-interest

When you talk as much as I do it's practically inevitable that you will choose words poorly on occasion -- even frequently. Yesterday, I made this comment in response to Greg Kendall-Ball's frustration regarding mission, benevolence and generosity in America. Saying that the American church is every bit as self-interested and faddish as the culture at large, I chose to describe myself as cynical.

It was a poor choice of words. ["I'm not cynical, only realistic" (last refuge of denial?).] I do not believe that human nature and motives are incurably untrustworthy or that we are irreparably enslaved to self-interest. It seems undeniable to me that we live in a culture where the dominant ways of being are marked by individualism and self-interest. That our churches and even our theology have fallen prey to this behavior is also fairly plain. Humans are prone to act in self-interested ways. Saying so isn't cynical. But how we respond to that reality may be....

Cynical is a media culture that needs to "sex-up" their coverage of any event because people won't watch unless they are compelled by drama, conflict, or purient voyarism.

Cynical is believing that a good cause or opportunity for generosity has to be slickly marketed in order to garner attention and entice people to commit.

Cynical is a church culture that sells the gospel as a set of "benefits" to the buyer like it was some other consumable product, because that's the only way to draw in self-interested American consumers.

Cynical is an Evangelical-Theology-at-its-worst that sees evangelism as a "free gift escape" from a wicked world instead of the gospel-ing (evangel-izing) of a broken-but-beautiful world loved by God and transformed by God through God's people.

Cynical is an Empire of Righteousness that believes an evil world is best controlled by a "benevolent power" who uses strength and might in service to "greater good."

Truthtelling is not cynical. Straightforward story is not cynical. Realistic assessment is not cynical.

Pre-packaged political Talking Points are cynical. A truly open dialogue is not. Advertising Slogans are often cynical. Loving Relationships are not. Killing enemies is cynical. Serving them is not. "Giveaways" are cynical. Generosity is not.

When we behave cynically we demonstrate our lack of trust. Because we do not trust humans to make the choices we desire, we manipulate them with cynical ploys -- enticement or coercion -- to get the response we want from them (purchase, viewership, attendance, conversion?). We do not trust God, so we cynically use people and money as resources in the Doing-God-Stuff machine, instead of committing ourselves to the simple practice of planting and watering.

We live in a cynical age of distrust, hopelessness, media manipulation, mass marketing, and self-interest. Our impure motives feed off each other in a cynical cycle in which we use what we know about others to get what we want or think is good. It is not cynical to say or observe that our culture is on the whole enslaved by self-interest, greed, fear, lust, or voyaristic impulse. But using those impulses, maipulating those fears (or guilt), appealing to that self-interest in the effort to gain for ourselves wealth, notoriety, adherents, or even "noble results"...THAT's cynical. It's everywhere. Just spend five minutes watching TV commercials.

As Christians we are called to live a subversive story that upends the abusive ways of a cynical, untrusting world. The Pharisees are cynical. Jesus is pure. The Wizard is cynical. Dorothy is pure. Purity of Heart. Humility. Trust. Mercy. Forgiveness. Sacrificial love. Generosity. Meekness. Justice. Simplicity. These are the antidotes to a world mad-drunk on money, sex and power. A cynical world set adrift on an ocean of hopelessness, apathy, abuse and scorn.

The answer for us is found in the Trust given by God to Creation. This gospel is rooted in a hope-for-the-world found in Jesus. The gospel is based on an unthinkable hope that in spite of all the fallenness, sin, and failure there is still a boundless goodness in Creation. Boundless, yet bound by the unredeemed self-interest, greed, and violence which covers our world. The gospel seed takes root in that hope. The expectation that we humans are indeed capable of living in the way of Jesus. That through the righteousness, mercy, love, and forgiveness of a hope-filled God we can discover a redeeming hope for God's Creation.

This gospel is our story. But it cannot be told cynically or sold slickly or coerced violently and still be gospel.

By the grace of God, I am not cynical. But "I am a man of unclean lips and I live among a people of unclean lips." I am discouraged, yet hopeful. I am realistically aware that our enslavement to self-interest is very strong indeed. That we are currently "awash in a sea of Money and Materialism" which seems to define our every move. But I am hopeful because I believe that this is not how God intended the world to be. I know my people -- our greed, our selfishness, our injustice, our failure. I do not believe that God is pleased by this. But I have hope because I live in a gospel story, a new way in Jesus, a new life in a broken world.

Our current behavior is not who we are, but it is what we've become. Our hope lies in living a whole new way.

Katrina and Missional Imagination

2005-09-06T12:49:00.000-07:00

“I sometimes catch myself looking up at the moon, remembering the changes of fortune in our long voyage, thinking of the thousands of people who worked to bring the three of us home. I look up at the moon, and wonder: When will we be going back? And who will that be?”
:: Tom Hanks, as Jim Lovell, Apollo 13

I'm wondering today what missional christian faith looks like in a post-Katrina world. I think we are seeing it lived out in so many various ways right now. The stories continue to roll in. But I'm pondering this not based on the wonderful missional things happening right now, but based on what may happen down the road.

After the exile. After the return.

I heard a story today. It's just a story from a third party so I won't be using names or any other markers, except to place it in the New Orleans area. I tell it because I suppose it is not an unusual story. Like every other enterprise and person in New Orleans, the endeavors of religious faith are also displaced by the storm and its aftermath. The city is uninhabitable and inhospitable to everything that represents "normal life" to us. So, families and businesses, schools and churches are all equally uprooted.

Today, I heard the story of a minister whose entire church has been scattered -- like all churches have, I assume -- relocated to the four winds by circumstances. The minister and his family have temporarily set foot in Texas, waiting along with everybody else.

But now comes word from his church leaders that none of the elders of the church intend to return to the city. They'll all begin to put down roots elsewhere, as will many church members. There is no expectation for when -- or even if -- the church will reopen its doors. No people. No finances. No future.

He should begin to look for other employment somewhere else, just like every other formerly employed person in the region. This is not surprising. Every business owner is likely telling his or her employees the same thing. The hotel...the bar...the manufacturing plant...the drugstore may never reopen. You should start looking for something else. This is reality.

Our churches are susceptible to the exact same economic forces as our businesses, governments, and schools. Growing communities create growing churches. Shrinking ones create shrinking churches. And the more institutionalized the particular church, the more susceptible. Our structures require a critical mass of financially able adults to support the buildings and salaries which contribute to our experience of faith. No people. No finances. No future.

After the exile...return.
After the temple...synagogue.
After the scattering...mission.

Eventually, the city will begin rebuilding and people will return. Not all, but some. Children will play. Work will resume. Bourbon will flow again. Hard-scrabble life in the old city will return to normal. Everyone seems to agree the city will be smaller and different.

What will be the expression and form of a missional imagination after the storm has rolled through? If the people and finances and structures of the "former life" of faith are gone -- washed away by unthinkable change -- what will christian faith look like when the city moves on with its new life?

When will we be going back? And who will that be?

Amazing Video! Little-Known Church Gets Media Coverage

2005-09-02T07:01:00.000-07:00

Here's a little British perspective on the American Megachurch phenomenon from a BBC Video report focusing on Joel Osteen and Lakewood Church in Houston. The piece includes a sound bite from Dr. Lynn Mitchell, Resident Scholar in Religion and Director of Religious Studies at the University of Houston, and a respected leader at the Bering Drive Church of Christ in West Houston. Can't be sure, but I think maybe Mitchell had more to say that didn't get included in the report.

A telling comment from one of the worshippers outside the service:

"It's a wonderful production; the music was great. It was very inspirational. Everybody was so welcoming; it was enjoyable to be here."

The piece goes on to suggest that the growth expectation is still high at Lakewood: "Within a few years, Joel Osteen reckons this congregation will have reached a hundred thousand and will have outgrown their new home."

But it also reveals the reverse side of this phenomenal growth as Christians continue the flight from dinghies to cruise ships: "Whilst these megachurches are making merry it's estimated that smaller churches are closing their doors at the rate of up to sixty a week."

How much longer can that trend last? And to what end?

Rebuilding with Humility

2005-09-01T17:56:00.000-07:00

Listen, lad. I built this kingdom up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was swamp. Other kings said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So, I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, THEN sank into the swamp, but the fourth one stayed up! And that's what you're gonna get, lad. The strongest castle in these islands." :: King of Swamp Castle, Monty Python and the Holy Grail

This classic bit of comedic genius crossed my mind today when I read US Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert's latest remarks:

"It makes no sense to spend billions of dollars to rebuild a city that's seven feet under sea level, House Speaker Dennis Hastert said of federal assistance for hurricane-devastated New Orleans." :: Link

Silly man! Undoubtably, Hastert will be reviled by many politicians in the region and by any spotlight-seekers who can find a camera. Clearly, his words were impolitic and insensitive, a little like going to a funeral and asking the surviving spouse when they're gonna start dating again. It just seems like a poor choice; bad timing at the very least.

It's very unlikely any of that will matter. New Orleans will be rebuilt and inhabitants will move in again. And, hopefully, the challenges of the next storm will be met differently. Certainly, many of Louisiana's poorer citizens may never have the resources to return to their homes. Necessity might demand that they begin to make new lives somewhere else long before New Orleans is rebuilt. But still, these are their homes we're talking about and, for many, a homeland of several generations. There is something wonderfully human about the promise to rebuild, an expression of indomitable spirit and hope. I, for one, hope that soon all those who are displaced by this terrible reality will be able to return to their homes, to their lives, to that which is normal and very real for each of them.

But there's something else to keep in mind as well. Hastert's remarks -- and our visceral, storm-drenched response to them -- remind me of the attitude taken by this country in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. As with fist raised to the sky, the vow to rebuild the World Trade Center became a rallying cry and the pride of a certain comeback (an in-your-face, so there! kind of response) permeated the land. There is no rebuilding happening yet, and the ultimate plans for that process are still being finalized.

America is a proud nation, probably too proud. And our people are a persevering lot with a bootstrapping can-do confidence about them, all good and helpful traits when served in good and helpful quantities.

But I wonder if we don't sometimes mistake Defiance for Determination. Or trade Perseverance for Pride.

Yes, we can rebuild; that's fine. Let's do that while keeping our humility as well. Let's remember that Nature is a force which has often driven humans from some places, that God's Creation is a powerful system of storms and constantly changing landscapes. That sometimes we discover that a place isn't as hospitable to human habitat as we might like it to be.

While restoring the levees and rebuilding homes, we might ask if we shouldn't also learn to live a little lighter on the land? Couldn't we hold our possessions and our sense of place with a grip not quite so tight? Could we learn to recognize the transcience and uncertainty of all of life's blessings?

Just a thought rolling around in my head tonight.

Astrodome Assistance Update

2005-09-01T15:52:00.000-07:00

The website is up for the Hurricane Katrina Relief Effort being mobilized by our friends at the Southwest Central Church of Christ near the Astrodome in Houston. During our time in Houston I was blessed to have several relationships with folks from this church, especially Steve Sandifer, who is on staff there. I believe strongly in their commitment to ministry in their local community and especially their heart for these displaced souls who are arriving in Houston.

This is from the email I just received from Steve's office:

The Astrodome is only 2 miles from the Southwest Central church of Christ. Our leadership at Southwest Central has committed to providing the necessary assistance that will be needed long-term for the folks at the Astrodome. We are currently mobilizing a core team to lead the relief effort. We are one of the closest congregation to the Astrodome, and we know full well what that will mean in the coming months....

Immediate needs will be taken care of buy the Red Cross, United Way, Salvation Army and FEMA The gap will come with time...sustaining 25,000 plus people for the months ahead.

Our efforts will be focused on those housed at the Astrodome because of proximity to the church's building, and because we cannot ignore so great a need. We will coordinate a core team, a long-term plan, and an infrastructure to funnel 100% of all funds, donations and services to our neighbors housed in the Astrodome.

They've still got some development pieces to fill in on the website, but you'll get the idea. Pass on the link to all you think would be willing to assist them. At present, the only mechanism for giving is by sending a check in the mail. Hopefully, their internet presence will allow for online donations soon. Please pray for these good people as they minister to our friends in need.

Click here to visit their website.

Research Endowment Needed at Harding

2005-09-01T08:41:00.000-07:00

Fatigued as I am from the whole Ann Coulter fiasco, I am hard-pressed to know how to respond to this quote from the Inside Higher Ed website's coverage of Harding's decision:

“Harding and Ann Coulter are probably on the same page on many issues,” [director of public relations, David] Crouch said in an interview Wednesday. But he said that the alumni agitation — and seeing some of Coulter’s more outrageous comments, which he said “we did not know about” — had prompted “second thoughts” on the part of administrators. “We grew concerned with the manner in which she presents her ideas. We believe that some of her comments are very controversial and confrontational, and we just weren’t confortable with that.” ::Link

Seriously? A word of advice: Next time ... Google-IT!!

Hurricane Katrina Assistance

2005-09-01T07:07:00.000-07:00

Just recieved this email:

Dear Mr. Shaw,

Steve Sandifer forwarded your message to me. I am coordinating volunteers and interested individuals for our ministry. I have added your contact information to my list.

When our website is up and running within hopefully 24 hours, we will contact everyone on the list so that you can stay up to date with our progress, what we need from you, etc. In the meantime, any donations should be made to Southwest Central Church of Christ - marked Katrina Relief. These are tax deductible and you can be assured that 100% of those funds will be used for direct refugee relief.

The address to send donations is:

SW Central Church of Christ - Katrina
4011 West Bellfort
Houston, Texas 77025

Thanks for your concern. I will send information as we get our website up.

Konny Cross - volunteer recruiter
Southwest Central Church of Christ Katrina Relief Effort
konnycross@aol.com

If you're looking for a place to help those impacted by the storm, this is great place to start. Southwest Central is a wonderful church located in the shadow of the Astrodome which has a real commitment to their local community and to ministry among the people who live in that part of the city. For them to take on part of the daunting task of assisting the displaced families from Hurricane Katrina is just a natural extension of their life in SW Houston.

When I have more info, I'll post it. As soon as their website goes live, I'll let you know.

UPDATE: The website for SW Central's Hurricane Katrina Relief Effort is up. Click here to visit. They've still got some development pieces to fill in, but you get the idea. Pass on the link to all you think would be willing to assist them. At present, the only mechanism for giving is by sending a check in the mail. Hopefully, their internet presence will allow for online donations soon. Please pray for these good people as they minister to our friends in need.

Justice and Katrina

2005-09-01T06:18:00.000-07:00

When speaking of justice in the aftermath of Katrina's rage it would be easy -- too easy -- to think of the need for more police and more troops to enforce law and order, prevent looting, and stem the tide of lawlessness in the ravaged city. But for the people of God, Justice is never simply about law-keeping; it is not simply the meeting out of punishment in response to crime.

For us, Justice is about "putting things right." It is about fairness and equity, about proper treatment of human beings, and about care for the poor. Larry James, president of Central Dallas Ministries comments on the issues of poverty and justice in the wake of Katrina's impact on New Orleans where many already lived in poverty or on the far fringes of our "ownership society."

"For years now on the annual National Day of Prayer, we have quoted the famous call and promise recorded at 2 Chronicles 7:14.... Normally, when we read these words as a call to the nation to pray and seek the guidance of God, we link needed national repentance to sexual sins and the fear associated with immoral media, a lack of religious expression in the public sector, etc. Politicians and preachers take to the stages of America to pray and to pronounce. The following day the poor continue to suffer.

Just once I wish we were honest enough to link this call and its promise to our out-of-control materialism, to our systemic national injustices and to our failure to care for the weakest among us. Such an emphasis would certainly move us much closer to what the writer of the passage had in mind."
:: Link

Take a moment to compare Larry's perspective...

"The happenings in this wonderful, now wounded city break my heart."
:: Link

with this statement:

"Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city."
:: Link

Any thoughts?

A Loyal Opposition

2005-08-31T14:53:00.000-07:00

In the comment thread of my recent epic-length post on marginalization and ministry (From the Margins), a reader asked, "What we can do to change the thinking in our own multimillion dollar country club churches?" I offered in my reply to his comments just a few suggestions that seemed to make sense at the moment. I'll work on more complete and reflective post on it another time.

But the question and my answer reminded me of something I had posted several months ago. It was a rather lengthy quote from Logan Fox in which he answers a similar question: "What can a 'loyal opposition' among us do?" He offers four actions:

First, we can be free -- "ecclesiatical leaders have very limited freedom.... [T]hose of us who are not burdened with such leadership must exercise our freedom for ourselves and for them."

Second, we can confess what we really believe -- " We may be right or we may be wrong, but we can do no other than to confess what we believe."

Third, we can act rather than react -- "If we do not choose to be expedient, we make the choice freely and without bitterness, and we shall reap the reward of peace of mind at the price of popularity...."

Fourth, we can be what we are -- "I am not in the main stream of this movement, so I shall not pretend to be. I am a Christian, a part of the whole great movement...that goes back to Jesus.... I am a human being, a man, so I will cherish my human soul and love all men as fellow members of my race."

Seems like a good place to start. You can Read the Whole Quote Here.

Hardship Throughout the World

2005-08-31T07:25:00.000-07:00

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina it seems clear that the devastation is unthinkable, certainly beyong anything imagined or anticipated beforehand. The city of New Orleans is flooded and may take months even to dry out. Other cities like Slidell, LA, Biloxi, MS and Mobile, AL, have likewise suffered terrible damage. Many thousands are homeless and may not have homes to return to. There are reportedly more than 20,000 people who need to be evacuated from the Superdome, New Orleans' biggest hurricane shelter. And the death toll is simply unknown at this point. Already the number most commonly mentioned is over 100 people, but it appears that authorities expect that to rise significantly. It is simply awful and tragic.

At times like these words can sometimes fail us. Hyperbole and exaggerated imagery run rampant. Words like "Hiroshima" and "Tsunami" are tossed around by government officials as if these words did not already have historical meaning and gravity, as though these are synonyms just lying around in the public speaker's thesaurus waiting to be used. Unfortunately, they are not.

Hardship and suffering is widespread, arising everyday all over our world. The hardship and pain in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama are very real and deserve our attention, care, prayer, and help. We should mourn for those who are lost in this tragedy and be moved to act in compassion for those who are alive but displaced, homeless, injured, and grieved. Our heart goes out to them, not because they are "our people" or because this happened to "us," but because we recognize that "we are all God's offspring" -- the sons and daughters of Creation.

And so we remember these who are suffering because of Hurricane Katrina and we offer our help to them. But in doing so, we should never forget other sons and daughters...

-- The victims of the actual Southeast Asia Earthquake and Tsunami where it is now estimated that nearly 300,000 were killed.

-- Those who suffer in genocidal murder and deprivation in the Sudan, where to this day -- with nearly 400,000 already dead -- there is an estimated death toll of nearly 10,000 per month.

-- The approximately 850 who are dead today in a tragic human stampede in the city of Baghdad.

Today, we watch and pray for all these sons and daughters who are in the way of harm and suffering. And we cry out for justice and mercy, healing and love:

O Lord, hear the cry of the defenseless.
The men who are defeated by life.
The children who have no food to eat.
The homeless who have no place to sleep.
The prisoners who have no one who cares.
The women who are beaten and abused.
The unborn who are killed in the womb.
The elderly who are shoved aside.
O Lord, hear the cry of the defenseless.
For Jesus sake,
Amen.
:: Richard Foster, Prayers from the Heart

University Reconsiders Invitation

2005-08-31T06:20:00.000-07:00

Here's the Searcy newspaper's coverage of Ann Coulter's dis-invitation to Harding's Lecture Series.

David Crouch, director of Harding public relations, said that Harding received mixed responses from students and alumni after announcing on August 16 that Coulter would be a keynote speaker for Harding's American Studies Institute in 2006.

"We began to have second thoughts of the image that [Coulter] portrays in some of her presentations," Crouch said. "We have not criticized her conservative philosophy. Our concerns were with the manner in which she puts forward her ideas." :: The Searcy Daily Citizen

This is, in my opinion, exactly the right decision for all the reasons that the administration puts forward in this statement. These were precisely the concerns expressed by alumni and students. And I am quite thankful that Harding has chosen to reevaluate and rescind this invitation. I'm also thankful that the retraction is being publicized with the same vigor that characterized the original announcement. Kudos, Harding.

"Reconsidered"

2005-08-30T12:18:00.000-07:00

Greg Kendall-Ball is reporting that the decision to invite Ann Coulter to speak in Harding University's Distinguished Lecture Series has been "reconsidered." According to his sources, she will be replaced on the schedule by former Prime Minister of Spain, Jose Maria Aznar.

Obviously, I consider this good news and an encouraging sign.

Voicing Concern is Never in Vain

2005-08-29T14:27:00.000-07:00

NOTE: I do not know if this is indicative of anything, or if it is, what exactly it might indicate. But on the Harding-Coulter matter, the announcement of speakers for the Distinguished Lecture Series has apparently been removed from the 'Recent News' section of Harding's Website. It was displayed as a link alongside all other recent news items as recently as this weekend. But I cannot find it now.
_______________________________

I’m hesitant to hit this note again for fear that it will seem that I am being abusive or shrill in sharing my frustration. In truth, I only desire that we learn from this situation and hopefully gain/provide perspective as we walk through it together. So, I’ll jump in one more time.

In response to the whole issue of Harding University’s invitation of Ann Coulter to speak on campus, a number of folks have been encouraged to speak out to the university administration and the Board regarding their concerns. Both Justin Baeder and Greg Kendall-Ball have recommended this course of action. Personally, I am thankful for all those both on campus and outside the present university culture who have raised their concerns in a constructive way. I pray they are heard in the spirit they are presented.

But it reminded me early this morning of another – not dissimilar – episode in our history that long ago troubled me. It is a painful story of our fellowship and it’s not pleasant to revisit, but this nearly fifty year-old incident is perhaps a reflection of the difficulties faced by all who would seek to live in the way of Justice and Peace:

“When I was serving as president of the student body at Harding College, some students asked me to help them circulate a petition demanding an end to the de facto policy of racial segregation at the school. I suggested that we were not in a position to make demands and asked for time to draw up a statement of attitude that would indicate clearly the feelings of students and faculty. . . . When an overwhelming majority of people at the college signed the statement, we sent it to each member of the Board of Harding College, along with the following letter:

_______________________________________________________

‘November 10, 1957. The following is a statement that was circulated on the Harding College campus:

To the administration and Board of Trustees of Harding College:

A number of members of the Harding community are deeply concerned about the problem of racial discrimination. Believing that it is wrong for Christians to make among people distinctions which God has not made, they sincerely desire that Harding College make clear to the world that she firmly believes in the principles of the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. To that end, the undersigned individuals wish to state that they are ready to accept as members of the Harding community all academically and morally qualified applicants, without regard to arbitrary distinctions such as color or social level; that they will treat such individuals with the consideration and dignity appropriate to human beings created in the image of God; and that they will at all times face quietly, calmly, patiently, and sympathetically any social pressures intensified by this action.

…. Forty-nine faculty members signed, forty-two staff members and eight executive directors. There is a total of nine hundred and forty-six signatures affixed to the statement. There are nine hundred eighty-six regularly enrolled students in the college.

We appreciate your continued individual thought and expression given to this problem, which is of great concern to us.

Sincerely, Bill Floyd, President, Student Body.’

_____________________________________________________

In later sessions with the administration I learned a great deal about the power structure of the Church of Christ. The president told students in chapel that the action was improper and that the signatures were not an accurate expression of student feeling. . . . and that we would lose students and financial support if we were to integrate. I was told in private by one administrator that I had betrayed my trust as student body president . . . that when one works for an institution he should accept all its thinking and keep silent about contrary beliefs, and that if I wanted to crusade for integration I should go where everyone believes in it.”
:: Bill Floyd, “Why I Could Not Be a Career Preacher” in Voices of Concern.

This is part of our history, as ugly and painful as it may be. History is informative, challenging, and hopefully instructive. We always hope that we may learn from the difficulties of our past, even our mistakes.

Thankfully, much of the hurt and injustice of that period has passed into the realm of faded memory, though certainly more faded for some than for others. In time many of the failures to pursue justice have been rectified, though others no doubt are still unaddressed. And we are grateful for those institutions and individuals who have sought reconciliation of the old wounds created by this painful treatment of those who are brothers and sisters in God's Creation.

But this incident is a reminder – albeit, one that we'd probably rather not have mentioned – that our church-related institutions are often impervious to the voices that God has placed around them – whether students within their halls or alumni outside them. Religious Institutions are not The Church. And they often face challenging decisions when trying to ensure institutional viability, survival, and success. But these Institutions can and do manifest the quality and depth of Christ-formed discipleship among those individual who live and work inside their walls. Where Christ is found in their hearts that will be plain enough in those areas of institutional life where it can come through. Where we are still unformed in the ways of Jesus, that too will show up.

Institutions often have many competing interests which conflict and create great difficulty for those running their operations. Individuals and small collections of believers can keep their conflicts of interest at a minimum and as a result face the challenges of discipleship and integrity differently. We should be prayerful for all who work within these Institutions as they face hard choices and are sometimes bombarded by myriad voices with strong opinions.

It is also a reminder of the importance of speaking truth and justice into all situations, no matter the "power structure," no matter whether the voices will be heard or heeded. Pursuing justice, mercy, love, and forgiveness are the ways of Jesus and therefore, ought to be our ways as well.

We ought to thank God for those who spoke out against racial discrimination in those long-ago days. And for those who speak of mercy and forgiveness, who love their enemies, who offer in all times a peaceable voice and a peace-loving life in a violent and destructive world. May their voices be heard.

Engaging the World, Part 2

2005-08-26T10:19:00.000-07:00

In Part One of this post I related some of the reasons for our recent move and how those ideas fit with a more missional understanding of our lives as belivers who live "outside the walls." But I first mentioned that I love my alma mater. So now, back to the question: What Does This Have to do with Harding University?.

Harding has been much in the blogo-news lately. First, with the hiring of the new Dean of the College of Bible and Religion who does not have a terminal degree. There are a lot of mixed feelings and divergent opinions on this topic. I do not wish to comment here on what has been said.

But as the Fall Semester begins the local paper is covering Harding on several matters. This Column by Howard Norton, Harding's Asst. Dean of Church Relations, includes this revealing quote:

"I believe in Christian education because students seem to have a better opportunity to learn both sides of controversial issues in the Christian environment than they do in the secular classroom."

There is also an interview with Bruce McLarty, the previously mentioned new Dean of Bible and Vice President of Spiritual Life, on what it means for Christians to be engaged with the world:

"We as Christians have something very important to contribute to the public discussion and to the pursuit of knowledge in all areas. Instead of hiding behind walls and fearing the things we find threatening or distasteful, we must prepare our students to evaluate everything intelligently and to challenge opposing ideas thoughtfully."

It's very hard to argue with either of those sentiments. And it seems important for Harding to have people who will express these views publicly. But, alas, these very quotes bring me back to the second newsworthy event at Harding in the past few weeks: the announcement that Ann Coulter would be speaking at Harding's Dinstinguished Lecture Series this year. Coulter was described ironically as "fairly opinionated" by university President David Burks when speaking to the press about the speakers.

Ms. Coulter's rhetoric is well-known. Hers is a walled world of Us and Them. It is a world of war and violence. A world of winning through the exercise of power and might -- political, economic, and military. It is a world where those who differ are Wrong and some are worthy of simply and only being killed. Her world is not a place where we are encouraged to "evaluate everything intelligently and to challenge opposing ideas thoughtfully." Hers is not a place where we are delighted by the friendly exercise of dialogue, (i.e "to learn both sides of controversial issues").

Her world is a place where We are Americans and Christians. And We Must Win!!

God's world, on the other hand, is a place where "the first shall be last, and the last shall be first." God's world is a place where peace is made through forgiveness and reconciliation, where love and mercy are the highest values.

I'm truly thankful for the words of Howard Norton and Bruce McLarty, because I believe they point us in the right direction for both Christian academics and Christian life in a pluralistic world. The other option is fear. Some have suggested that fear appears to be a universal thread running through many recent decisions made by universities, churches, individual Christians, politicians, and other various institutions. Fear of scientific inquiry. Fear of philosophical dialogue. Fear of ideas. Fear of dying or failing or running out of money. Fear of losing.

It is fear that drives our warring and our conflict. Fear that feeds much of our poilitical "discourse." Fear that fuels our economic striving.

But fear is not the way of Jesus. If we fear and shrink back into power and control, we have lost our sense of adventure and our mission is already dead. Yes, these are uncertain, difficult, and even perilous times. For us, that is good news. Because God's story is always moving us out into uncertain and difficult waters. For that is where we learn to trust God, where we find faith. That is why we have Wilderness and Exile. Stable and Cross.

In the end, I believe that Christians who long to live the missional story of God's redemptive work will have to step oustide the walls in faith. We will have to unmoor ourselves from the Great American Cause. We will have to weigh that anchor and set sail into uncharted waters. To walk into wild untamed lands with the Good Shepherd at our side.

We must shut our ears to the screeching political landscape that offers its false promise of stability and morality. We must turn away from all the human weaponry that provides us a false sense of security. We must live with the stranger, embrace the offender, love the enemy. We must walk in the human story of life in this complex, difficult, pluralistic, dangerous world. Life that begins in a stable and ends on a cross.

I love my people -- my school, my town, my upbringing, my faith heritage. And I have hope -- sometimes great hope -- for the place they may fill in a fallen and broken world, if we will only leave behind all we hold dear for the incredible missional adventure to which God has called us.

Engaging the World, Part 1

2005-08-26T08:50:00.000-07:00

I want to be very clear. I love Harding University. I was educated at Harding, made many friends there, and lived the wonderful simplicity of early married life on and around campus. I have great affection for both the school adn the community of Searcy. But that love is very much like the love I feel for my religious heritage (my upbringing in Churches of Christ).

When Angela and I decided to move to Searcy earlier this year, it was with some very specific (ok, well... I'm not sure how specific) goals in mind. First, we wanted to live a smaller life, more rooted in community and the practices of simplicity, more committed to discipleship in the ways of Jesus which form us as a people of mercy, justice, love, community, and peace. And to live that life alongside family, in the intimacy of Christ-formed friendship and fellowship.

Second, to bear witness to that different kind of life in the midst of a community that is sometimes dangerously constrained by a singular -- frequently narrow -- institutionalized version of faith.

Third, to suggest by our living this new kind of Christian life that there is hope for those -- both within and beyond the walls of "our churches" -- whose faith and search for faith has been frustrated by the business-as-usual realities of modern church life.

Fourth, we hoped that by living a life of mission, simplicity, and community "outside the walls" of a walled city we might help to spark the imaginations of a new generation of disciples committed to following Jesus out of the security and certainty provided by brick and mortar, professionalism and programming. Out into the margins and edges of a fallen world, into obscurity, uncertainty and faith. Out of the sheep pen where hired watchmen could easily do the job, into the field and the valley, the pasture and the path of the wolf, into the wild untamed land where true shepherds are needed.

I guess it's a little hard to make a compelling case that Searcy, AR is The Wilderness, especially for those who've lived here at one time or another, affectionately referring to it as "The Bubble." But we wonder, Could this community be both The Bubble and The Wilderness at the same time? We think so.

It is certainly a wilderness of sorts if you are committed to living a post-christendom, post-constantinian, (and post-Republican?) life of following Jesus apart from power and influence, apart from military strength or economic control. If you are committed to living the mission of redemption in ways that explore and express the life God's people will be living after The Age of the Institution has passed.

You see God has called us to live in the world, to love the world as God does. This world. Our world. God's world. To live in it as a reflection of God's own story of love for the world, where life begins in a stable and ends on a cross. But that life calls us to refuse the political powerplays of the kings who behead the prophets or the emperors who invade, conquer, and convert or the senators and presidents who would destroy their enemies through personal betrayal, scandalous insinuation, or outright war. That is not our path, because it is not Jesus' way. And his ways are our Way.

So, did I mention, I love Harding? More to come shortly....

Part 2: So, What Does This Have to do with Harding?

Also, Not Jesus

2005-08-25T06:23:00.000-07:00

NOT Jesus:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war."
:: Ann Coulter, invited speaker at my Alma Mater's Distinguished Lecture Series

Jesus:

"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit. You can tell what a tree is like by the fruit it produces. You cannot pick figs or grapes from thornbushes. Good people do good things because of the good in their hearts. Bad people do bad things because of the evil in their hearts. Your words show what is in your heart. "
:: Jesus of Nazareth, not expected to speak at Harding University anytime soon

You can read more in Ann Coulter's books.

Or, if you'd like to be a better person,
I'd suggest reading Jesus' Framework for Public Speaking.

Sure, it won't make you famous or get you that big book deal or invited to sit in on Hannity and Colmes. And it certainly won't get you an invitation as a "distinguished lecturer."

But in the smallest and most important ways you'll help make the world a little more like God planned it to be.

Not Jesus

2005-08-24T13:29:00.000-07:00

NOT Jesus:

"If he [Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.... [He is] a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."
:: Pat Robertson, famous Christian public figure

Jesus:

"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you."
:: Jesus of Nazareth, willing to let enemies kill him

You can read the Full Story on Robertson's murderous plea.
Or you can watch him on video.

Or, if you're trying to make a difference in your world,
I'd suggest reading Jesus' Peace Plan.

From the Margins

2005-08-23T23:01:00.000-07:00

It was a nice treat last week to have Justin and Amy in town and over to our home for a few hours to visit. The conversation turned -- as it always does for us -- to things bloggy and churchy. I have great deal of respect for all these bivocational missional church planter types -- non-professional pastors, non-leadery types -- who are simply leading integrated lives of christian faith in the context of small faith communities. It's simple. It's organic. And in a very real way (perhaps the only way that really matters), it's church.

As we talked we were reminded how thoroughly church-obsessed we are. Not just “us” – Justin and me and everybody who writes about this stuff – but all Christians in our culture of churched faith.

Fred Peatross put it this way in one of his Abductive Columns this week:

“I hate to say it, but we have a bad case of ecclesiolatry. Our phrases tell on us. We don't love Christ, we love the church. We don't partner with Jesus in an effort beyond-the-church; we serve and work for the church. We don't tell people about the crucified and risen Lord, we tell them about the church.”

In a world where the cultural influence and power of the church is waning (all the while the political power and influence of Constantine-inspired Christendom enjoys a resurgence) the question arises as to a proper response. On the one hand, the church may simply accept the decline of Christendom’s cultural power (thus, embracing the exile) and move underground into a mode of submergence and subversion. Justin’s comments following our conversation suggest this path holds great promise for followers of Jesus.

The other option – and clearly the most popular one at the moment – is to resist this cultural decline and deploy every weapon in the church’s arsenal (spiritual and, increasingly, secular weapons) to shore up this waning influence and ensure the church’s survival as the Shaper of Policy, Maker of Laws, Definer of Morality, and, whenever necessary, the Wager of War. It is most surely believed by many that this is the role God desires for God’s people.

Christendom is caught in a dramatic tension. While prominent Evangelical leaders promote Christendom’s message on the public stage – from Christian-in-Chief George W. Bush to “Justice Sunday” organizers to the “Hey! I’m a Christian, too” style of courting Red State Voters – it would seem Christianity’s power is reasserting itself. But on the personal and cultural front, traditional indicators of Christianity’s prominence are eroding everywhere. Church attendance continues its long slide despite the widespread acceptance and practice of popular “church growth” strategies (and when more reliable data is explored, the decline may be steeper and more alarming than commonly believed). Violence and sexuality in media continue to rise unabated. And there are a number of other issues in the long-running “culture war” on which the typical Religious Right position seems to be losing ground and perhaps destined for defeat.

Aside from the Constantinian strategy of a resurgent Christendom exercising political power to address this decline, the solution for many local church groups seems obvious: get the Unchurched churched! How effective this strategy has been remains to be seen, though thirty years of church growth planning appears not to have stemmed the statistical tide. But still they work and plan and promote all in the attempt to “help this church grow.”

Two articles appeared in prominent national online publications this past weekend discussing the place of marketing and promotion in the religious world:

Churches Seeking Marketing-Savvy Breed of Pastor
The Message: God is Cool

Public relations. Marketing. Promotions. All these are on the rise in Christendom, all attempts at increasing market share measured by attendance, membership, involvement, and conversion at the Institutional Church. Sixty million church-related mailouts (or, “snail mail spam”) were sent out by churches last year alone. (That’s a pretty large chunk of Landfill Real Estate, if you ask me.) Spending on TV ads and “giveaways” is increasing. All because the public profile of the church must compete with the “mind share” of other prominent brands in the marketplace.

The allure is obvious: growing, influential churches have more resources, accumulate more resources, and thus acquire more influence and prominence which can be used to grow even more. H.B. London, vice president of pastoral ministry at Focus on the Family puts this point plainly enough:

"Nearly every pastor is a salesman or a marketer of one kind or another because ... we have a philosophy to sell," he says. "The best marketers and best salesmen will have more converts, will have more people, will take in more money.... Evangelicals are marketers because they're really passionate about their product."

Just so we’re clear, that’s “pastoral ministry” at Focus on the Family.

There is a story about Jesus told in the Gospel of John (ch. 7) which seems instructive. As one of the Jewish Feasts approaches, Jesus’ marketing and promotions department comes to him and presents an urgent, act-now proposal to assist Jesus in building his start-up ministry:

“You ought to leave here and go to Judea so that your disciples may see the miracles you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.”

Brilliant public relations angle, don’t you think? Get your name out there! Generate some “buzz.” Make sure they know who you are. Compete for market share and mind share. Raise your profile. Show them the benefits of joining your organization. Oh, and do some product differentiation, so they’ll have an idea of how you’re better than “all those other guys” that got their attention before. You know: MESSIAH – new and improved for the First Century!

The advice Jesus got came from his brothers who apparently weren’t trying to help at all but just being Class A Smart-Guys at the time. The story says that “even his own brothers did not believe in him.”

But here’s the kicker. After Jesus receives and rejects this proposal (“no one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret”), his brothers go to the Feast. Immediately, the writer tells us that Jesus also goes to the festival, “not publicly, but in secret.” One cannot help but notice the comparison which is captured in this one moment. On the one hand, we can see the similarity between the self-promoting instinct which fuels the brothers’ skeptical taunt and the modern church’s own naïve marketing. By contrast we see the distinction between those twin realities and the behavior of Jesus himself, who chooses to act in secret.

Unwilling to follow Jesus down the path of powerlessness, obscurity, and marginalization, the church too often prefers to hire Jesus’ brothers and utilize their instincts on how to be a public figure. We have bought our culture’s fundamental beliefs about power, position, and prestige:

Those on the bottom are pitied.
Those on the sidelines are ignored.
Those on the margins are silenced.

Only the ones who “get in the game,” who raise their profile, who promote and present themselves as a packaged product – only those who attain prominence and prestige have an opportunity to influence.

It is very hard – nigh on impossible – for us to accept that one can truly lead From the Bottom or From the Sidelines. Or that God most often comes to us From the Margins of creation. Or that the real future of God’s kingdom would lie with the marginalized, the forgotten and forsaken, the rejected and scorned.

But why shouldn’t God’s future be there? That’s where God’s past is!

Throughout our Scriptures the story of God’s relationship to creation is filled with a reminder that God’s story happens on the margins. Moses banished to watch his father-in-law’s sheep for forty years. David staying just a step or two ahead of death. Wilderness. Exile. Nineveh. And what about those women in Jesus’ genealogy? Tamar. Rahab. Ruth. Bathsheba. Oh, and that baby born to an unwed girl in a grimy stable.

All the best stuff happens outside the centers of power and influence. But somewhere we lost our story.

In a recent article entitled, “Leading From the Margins,” Len Hjalmarson makes a few really good points on this subject. At one point he quotes these lyrics:

What if the highest destination
of any human life
Was not a place that you could reach if
you had to climb
Wasn't up above like heaven
So no need to fly at all
What if to reach the highest place
you had to fall?
:: from ”Fall,” by Peter Mayer

What if you had to fall … to the Bottom?
What if we all had to recede … to the Sidelines?
What if the church had to be pushed … to the Margins – in exile and defeat?

Is it possible the falling, the declining, the defeat might open a door to a new possibility – that the margins are where all the real action is anyway? In a way, God’s story helps us to realize that the path of humility, obscurity, and marginalization is both the past and the future of the church. Another quote from "Leading from the Margins":

As ministry decentralizes… moves to homes, malls, pubs... the internet… fractal networks and reduced structure... and as we move away from positions and roles and titles to functional leadership, we are learning to lead from the margins.

You see, somewhere along the way we lost the storyline. Jesus moved from Manger to Manager. And the followers of Jesus – at one time Mission-Centered Martyrs – became Market-Savvy Managers. What was once the sarcastic retort of Jesus’ cynical brothers, in our day has been taken to heart instead as sage advice, as though the words had been spoken by Jesus himself, indeed, a Jesus who wants to be a public figure.

This is the Jesus of power, Jesus as TV evangelist. The "successful leader" version of Jesus who looks more like a capitalist CEO with each passing year. And it seems to be the Jesus worshipped by many Americans.

Perhaps, in the spirit of Abraham Lincoln, someone should write a victorious, triumphal biography telling the Rise-to-Power story of this stable-born Jesus. Call it, From Sheep Pen to Corner Office.

Or maybe Jesus himself should write one of those self-help/business/success books about his accomplishments: How I Became President in Only 2000 Years.

But when we see Jesus through his teachings and manner of living, and through the choices made by those who also followed his example, we begin to unlearn leadership as defined by our world’s dominant ways of living:

Paul urged leaders to imitate his personal example of how the message of Jesus inverted status.... Dying and rising with Christ meant status reversal. In Paul’s case, he deliberately stepped down in the world. We must not romanticize this choice. He felt the shame of it amongst his peers and potential patrons, yet held it as the mark of his sincerity.

In the end, turning away from Institutional Church reality to walk along the margins among those in exile is not simply some practical response to a changing world (though it is that), or a new form of ecclesiolatry (thought it could become that), or a better, “deeper” ecclesiology (though I hope it is also that).

No, rather than ecclesiology, it is fundamentally Christology and Missiology. It is a rediscovery of Jesus the Nazarene and the Redemptive Mission of God on Earth. It is a reframing of our lives and a reorientation to the ways of Jesus which in turn will shape our discipleship and form us as a people (i.e. the church). And our Christology defines the very nature of our expectations of ministry, spiritual authority, and leadership:

Where once leadership was seen to come from the front, from appointed persons in defined roles, from paid professionals, and from the few to the many, now leadership often comes from the one walking beside us. Instead of the Wizard, it is Dorothy who has wisdom. Instead of Aragorn or Gandalf, it is Frodo whose obedience may be the fulcrum for change.

But when we fail to understand who Jesus is we take up the ways of the world instead, wield the weapons of power, and pull the strings of influence. Because we do not know who Jesus is, we market and sell the church like any other product. When we build multimillion dollar facilities, when we wage international war and support those who kill in our name, when we act as though our mission is to get more people into church, we demonstrate that we have not heard Jesus or followed his ways.

Until we begin to understand the marginalization of Jesus and the marginalization of all who would follow his teachings – join ourselves to the story of the poor and the outcast, the disaffected and disillusioned – we will not begin to be shaped as the kind of people we are called to be.

Until we are willing to receive the story of rejection and exile – to embrace Jesus in his weakness, subjugation, and death – we will continue grasping for power and influence.

Until we learn to love obscurity more than security, we’ll keep running to Center Stage and shouting for attention and approval.

Until we choose to accept our own marginalization, we’ll keep declaring our relevance and telling everyone we’ve got exactly what they’re looking for.

Meanwhile, God is already writing the story again in the lives of those on the margins, leading from the bottom, serving from the sidelines. And that is Good News.

From the Sidelines

2005-08-22T12:29:00.000-07:00

This song speaks to me. And maybe about me. I've always kind of liked it, but lately it's seemed more relevant.

Watching the Wheels
:: by John Lennon

People say I'm crazy doing what I'm doing
Well they give me all kinds of warnings to save me from ruin
When I say that I'm ok, well, they look at me kind of strange
"Surely you're not happy now; you no longer play the game."

People say I'm lazy, dreaming my life away
Well they give me all kinds of advice designed to enlighten me
When I tell them that I'm doing fine watching shadows on the wall
"Don't you miss the big time boy? You're no longer on the ball."

I'm just sitting here watching the wheels go round and round
I really love to watch them roll
No longer riding on the merry-go-round
I just had to let it go

Ah, people asking questions, lost in confusion
Well I tell them there's no problem, only solutions
Well they shake their heads and they look at me as if I've lost my mind
I tell them there's no hurry
I'm just sitting here doing time

I'm just sitting here watching the wheels go round and round
I really love to watch them roll
No longer riding on the merry-go-round
I just had to let it go
I just had to let it go
I just had to let it go

From the Bottom

2005-08-22T08:01:00.000-07:00

I fell in a hole.
Maybe there's something wrong with me.
Maybe there's something wrong with everybody else.

I fell in a hole.
It's dark and quiet here. And lonely.
I think I like it here.
It feels safe.
The darkness is only scary some of the time. And nobody bothers me here.

I fell in a hole.
I tried to shout to be heard, but nobody listened.
Or maybe I only dreamed I was shouting.
Perhaps I whispered because I wasn't sure I wanted anybody to hear me
and think less of me. Or think I was crazy.

Maybe I am crazy and somebody put me in this hole.
To protect me.
To protect themselves.
I feel safe. They feel safer.
It's a win-win for everybody.
There's mud in this hole. I sank down in the mud.

So if you're wondering what happened to me,
I'm over here in this hole.
But don't worry;
I'm ok. And if I'm not ok,
I will be. And if I won't be ok,
well, then...ok.

[WARNING: This is a psychoanalysis-free zone! Don't even try. I share what I can. You listen, if you're willing. That's the deal. Comments are fine. Hugs and pats on the back are appreciated. But leave your repair manuals, fix-it sessions, and platitudes at home, please. Sorry.]

AOL Spammed Me!

2005-08-10T19:43:00.000-07:00

Some years ago, during a lean period of bi-vocational ministry, provision for my family came from a job in Old Media. That's right, I had a newspaper route delivering early morning papers for the Wilmington Star-News. The dollars-per-hour-invested were really quite good and it freed me up for the other things I knew I was called to do.

[Who knows? My family's provision may again come from another job not unlike that.]

Anyway, I still recall the day I went to pick up my papers and found that on that particular day the papers were accompanied by special bags. Marketing. Every paper had to go in a bag (which was pretty rotten since it was completely unnecessary seeing that almost every paper on my route was hand delivered by me into a mailbox-like rural "tube" protecting it from the elements). This added time to my route and since I was on a contract, time meant money. Plus, it was just a hassle.

What's the point? Well, these bags -- in addition to being pre-printed by expert marketers/designers with the advertiser's preferred content -- contained a special little door prize for every subscriber. A gift if you will, from the New Media to the Old Media. That's right, a CD from AOL.

I mention this because the memory of it returned to me while going through today's mail. There it was in my mailbox right along with the local shopper, a bill or two, and other assorted junk mail -- a CD from AOL. A cardboard container wrapped in plastic offering me the wild and heretofore unthinkable promise of a whole whopping 1175 Hours of FREE internet service!! Six to eight ounces of complete waste.

Which left me wondering: Is this the best marketing plan AOL has come up with? Seven years after I first recall delivering AOL's newspaper spam, they're still unwaveringly committed to the free CD software new customer enticement plan? I think it demonstrates exactly what kind of customer AOL thinks it's looking for.

Which leaves me wondering one other thing. Today is the tenth anniversary of the initial public offering of Netscape. Ten years after the internet exploded into American consciousness, AOL is still sending out land-spam to millions of anonymous "Current Residents".

If this is their strategy, it makes me wonder if someday soon I might be referring to AOL as "Old Media."

An Anniversary...of sorts

2005-08-04T18:12:00.000-07:00

Today I was doing some writing and work on other upcoming projects when my research and recollections led me to search for an article I read a couple of years ago during my early internet explorations into re-thinking church.

Imagine my surprise when my search turned up the article in question at TheOoze.com site (just as I remembered it was) and I noticed that the initial publication date was August 4, 2003. That's exactly two years ago today. Not a big deal, really. Trust me, I don't have a carefully marked calendar containing every date of every article I've ever read.

In fact, I wouldn't care about this little anniversary of sorts, but for one thing. I must have read the article almost immediately after it was published, because I have an email dated Aug. 7 addressed to the author. I wrote to him because his language and emphasis seemed to suggest he might share my Church of Christ background. (It's a kind of CofC-dar that we restorationists have...smell 'em a mile away!)

Thus, began my friendship with Justin Baeder, fellow graduate of Harding University, missional Christ-follower in Seattle, and Radical Congruency blogger. More emails have followed that one, along with shared theological conversations, one floor-crashing visit to Seattle, a pretty decent Mexican food lunch in Houston, and more than a few words of encouragement, sympathy, and prayer.

So, in celebration of this little anniversary, browse your little self over to theooze and read Justin's thought-provoking article...

Moving Beyond the Worship Service.

Christ Plays in the Dearest of Friends

2005-07-21T09:55:00.000-07:00

Few blessings in this life outshine the blessing of good friends. Friends who are well when you are sickly, so that they may care for you. Friends who are sick when you are well, so that you may care for them. Friends whose words -- whether spoken or written -- encourage you along the path of life. Friends who love you in spite of yourself and friends whom you can love in spite of themselves. Friends who let you crash in their house when you drop into town unannounced.

I am blessed with such friends.

I write this from the town of Pasadena, Texas where I have spent the past four years near such friends. I am here on what will likely be my last visit for the foreseeable future, preparing our empty house for the sale which is soon to close (next week, we expect).

And as I spend these brief few days in town and my family continues to settle into our new life in Searcy, I brush against these friends and feel the texture of their lives once more. I find here a friend who writes warm and encouraging words for me and greets me with brotherly embrace. I find those who are well and care for me. I find those who are ill and I'm drawn to care for them.

I had lunch today with those love me in spite of myself and let me love them in return. And I sit now in the quiet living room of treasured friends who have given me a bed and coffee and conversation.

James and Martha Fife are the kind of friends every young man should have and no young man should take for granted. They are further along the path than I, but not too far so they must turn back and yell to be heard. I am richer for the moments in which the voice of such friends has been heeded.

After I arrived yesterday, James suggested that if I had time "you oughta take a look at this book while you're here." (A dangerous proposition; I've been known to have sticky fingers!) But here the book sits on my lap, Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places, by Eugene Peterson.

I do not know if James is right when he says, "you should read it" or "you would really enjoy this." But as I quietly scan the page I find Peterson opening his discussion of spiritual theology -- which he describes as "life, life, and more life" -- with these words which appear on the first page:

"Spiritual theology is the attention we give to the details of living life on this way. It is a protest against theology depersonalized into information about God; it is a protest of theology functionalized into a program of strategic planning for God."

Hmmm.

"The meteroic ascendancy of interest in spirituality in recent decades is fueled by a profound dissatisfaction with approaches to life that are either aridly rationalistic, consisting of definitions, explanations, diagrams, and instructions ... or impersonally functional, consisting of slogans, goals, incentives, and programs.... There comes a time for most of us when we discover a deep desire within us to live from the heart of what we already know in our heads and do with our hands. But 'to whom shall we go?' Our educational institutions have only marginal interest in dealing with our desire -- they give us books to read and exams to pass.... In our workplaces we quickly find that we are valued primarily, if not exclusively, in terms of our usefulness and profitability -- they reward us when we do our jobs well and dismiss us when we don't. Meanwhile our religious institutions ... prove disappointing to more and more people who find themselves zealously cultivated as consumers in a God-product marketplace or treated as exasperatingly slow students preparing for final exams on the 'furniture of heaven and the temperature of hell.'"

Hmmm. Again.

I am blessed to have friends who grasp -- even if they can see me only "through a glass darkly" -- what words, writings, teachings, or thoughts will resonate with me. And blessed to have shared this time with such good friends.

Footnote: If you have the right kind of friends, you'll occasionally be given a book you don't deserve simply because you raved about it during your visit with them. So, now Peterson sits in the passenger's seat of my car as I prepare to return home to Searcy. James will have to buy another copy for himself. Thank you, my friend.

Shipwreck and Kingdom

2005-07-21T09:44:00.000-07:00

How many guys have a father-in-law who sends them copies of the latest speeches of N.T. Wright? Last week Angela's dad forwarded a link to the text of Wright's speech three weeks ago at the Anglican Consultative Council in June. Good stuff. Really good stuff.

Here's a quote:

"We know today better than for many generations that we have to announce to the principalities and powers that their time is up, that Jesus is Lord and that they are not, that the unchecked power of Mammon is an idol that has to be named and shamed, that the seductive blandishments of Aphrodite are a ghastly lie which has to be refuted and resisted, that the horrid trumpets of the war-god Mars appeal to all that is worst in us and will make the world a worse place. We know all this. We know we must resist paganism in all these forms in the name of Jesus the crucified and risen Lord. And we are eager to bring this message to bear.... We are not a complacent church. We are struggling to be a faithful church."

Wait. There's more...

"And in this context the church is finding its voice in new ways. We are reaching out and grasping again the wholistic gospel of Jesus Christ, a gospel not just for souls and not just for bodies but for whole persons and the whole world, the whole cosmos which is groaning in travail. We are working in new ways for Christian unity and refusing to connive at the scandal of separation. We are learning from one another, and discovering that we have more in common than we had imagined. We are asking the hard questions about how the gospel applies to the real world and refusing to be put off by the sneers of the media and the threats of some politicians. We are starting to realize that the lies put out by the Enlightenment – that Christianity was disproved, outdated, and bad for your health – were the childish taunts of those who were anxious in case God’s kingdom might call them after all to costly obedience. We are on the threshold of a great new work of God, a work of wholistic mission and evangelism in which God’s kingdom will be announced, and Jesus will be named as Lord, openly and unhindered."

Read the whole thing.

I insist. Ok, please.

Writing Again

2005-07-21T09:19:00.000-07:00

Extremely light blogging the past couple of weeks. We've been in the midst of finalizing the sale of our house in Texas and working on some other projects. We continue to make strides in our new life in Searcy and are greatly enjoying the close company of Angela's family whom we see so often now.

I suspect that I will have a little more to say beginning today -- another burst of writing energy. Then we'll be off to attend a wedding in Missouri and enjoy a couple days of vacation while we're away.

Peace Through Smallness

2005-07-08T04:32:00.000-07:00

What do you do when a Muslim grasps the path to peace better than some Christians?

"Leading a sort of James-Bondy-but-'extremist muslim' lifestyle with lots of sneaking around and secret passwords and high explosives and Manichaean struggles between the collosal forces of Good and Evil is so much more fun than the actual process of creating goodness, justice and peace in the world, which lie in the small struggles of everyday life."
:: Muslim emailer to Andrew Sullivan

I might add,

• Securing international "peace" through international war...

• Waving flags and singing patriotic songs about freedom and sacrifice...

• Imagining yourself as a War-Time President whose Christian faith guides him into battle...

• Inflicting on your Enemy as much destruction as possible...

• Picturing your nation engaged in a violent struggle of Pure Good v. Absolute Evil which will rid the world of "terror"...

is so much more heroic and grand than the actual process of creating goodness, justice and peace in the world, which lie in the small struggles of everyday life.

And so I commit myself to the small, difficult, intense work of forgiveness, mercy, love and justice in family, community, nation, and world.

Discipleship in the Face of Violence

2005-07-07T13:13:00.000-07:00

Some days it just seems harder to follow the teachings of Jesus than other days:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'

But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also....

You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'

But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
:: Matthew 5:38-48(NIV)

But it is on those days -- days like today -- when following the ways of Jesus seems more vital (and more dangerous!) than ever. When we are prone to vengence, we turn to the Teacher. When the actions of others lead us down the path of anger and hatred, we choose to hear the Teacher. When the world is filled with violence and evil, we follow Jesus so that we might "be as our heavenly Father is."

A friend sent this quote to me this morning. It seems especially powerful today:

"They [the ancient followers of the monastic way] believed, in spite of society’s pressures, that love is the goal of the Christian life and humility is what it takes to bring us toward it. Love and humility were not the pious attitudes of idealistic but impractical men and women who could not cope with 'real life.' Rather, as they understood them, love and humility provide human beings with a realistic and powerful way of disarming such a violent society as theirs and ours. Without them, they believed that life dissipates into nothing, and paradoxically, the self and its power to act are lost altogether. Only as we learn to love God and others do we gain real freedom and autonomy in a society in which most people live in a state of slavery to their own needs and desires."
:: Roberta C. Bondi, To Love as God Loves

Today, may we learn the ways of Jesus who taught us that our real Enemy is the Thief who "comes only to steal and kill and destroy." For it is Jesus who calls us to join him in this world-changing mission in which he has "come that they may have life."

Lord, teach us to love as you have loved.

Prayers in the Face of Violence (II)

2005-07-07T11:47:00.000-07:00

As bombs go off in London, we pray...

for the survivors of the attack.
for the families who have lost loved ones.
for the rescue workers and police on the scene.
for the doctors and nurses caring for the hurting.
for the reporters who work through intense emotion to bring us the pictures and news of the day.

for the Primeminister and other elected leaders who so desperately need wisdom from beyond themselves.

for the pastors/vicars/ministers who care first-hand for the spiritual needs of those who have experienced this great tragedy.

for the military and intelligence agencies who seek to find out who would do this so they might be brought to justice.

for our united kingdom -- that this event will bring us together and turn our thoughts toward helping each other to oppose terrorism.

for all those who might be tempted to think that violence accomplishes anything of lasting value.

May God break the cycle of violence to make a difference for His Peace and Grace in this broken world.

via Jason Clark in the UK

Prayers in the Face of Violence (I)

2005-07-07T11:40:00.000-07:00

A Prayer for Our Friends in London
by Jay Voorhees

Why?

Why, O God, do these things have to happen?

We know that your desire is for peace. We know that you desire that all conflict end. We know that it is not your will that many die and suffer. We know all this, but find ourselves confused when human hate trumps your will. We need your guidance and grace to calm our fears, still our anger, and to be agents of your love.

We pray especially for our friends in London, those who have been terrorized by this recent act of violence. May your presence come down in a mighty way that your love may be made real. Comfort those who grieve. Heal those who have been injured. Be present in all things.

We pray too for those who perpetuated this act, those for whom their understanding of faith or nationalism justifies in their minds these actions. We don’t want to. We want vengance. But you have reminded us that there is no redemption in hate, so we lift up those who have hurt us and ask for you to speak to their hearts. Lead them to a new way of being. Help them to realize the power of love.

God of the ages, you have proved again and again your power to redeem that which seems lost and hopeless. We look for that now.

We pray in the name of the one who experienced violence on our behalf, and then overcame it for the sake of the world.

Amen.

The Uprising Begins Here!

2005-07-06T12:08:00.000-07:00

How should Christians respond to the humanitarian crisis and human rights tragedy in Darfur?

• With action?

• With support for international agencies like World Vision?
Or Unicef?
Or Doctors Without Borders?
Or Save Darfur?

• With prayer?

• With political action aimed at world leaders?

Yes! To all of these! And probably many others.

But what about... with Worship?

I like what the folks at Cedar Ridge Community Church are doing with others in the Washington, DC region. They have decided to Worship For Justice. What? Worship for Justice? How can that be of any help? What good will it do? How can that be a good use of time? Surely, that's not enough!

Actually, it's not enough and more than enough at the same time. For citizens of the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth and the unchallenged imperial influencer of the world, there is much that can and MUST be done. There is much that is under our control and justice demands that we DO what we are ABLE to do.

However, there is much we do not control. Like the victims of violence in Darfur or Rwanda or China or Iraq, we also find ourselves living under systems and powers which are outside our control. So our response in the face of such dominant principalities and powers is to worship. That's right...worship.

I have an audiocassette (remember those?) somewhere -- actually Samuel Clark has it, and I want it back! -- containing a speech given by Will Willimon at a Church of Christ seminar on preaching (that convergence alone is worthy of comment in itself). Willimon, who was at the time Dean of the Chapel at Duke University, tells a story about their response to the War in Iraq. Near the onset of the U.S.-led military action, he was approached by someone from the campus newspaper who asked if they would be doing anything in opposition to or response to the war.

Willimon replied, "Yes. We'll be meeting for prayer everyday at 11 AM."

The journalist, certain he was misunderstood, reiterated his question, "That's your regular schedule. I mean, will you be doing anything special in regard to the war?"

"Yes. We'll be meeting for prayer everyday at 11 AM."

"That's it?"

"Whadya mean, That's it? Of course that's it!" Willimon continued, "Look, we're Christians. So, we're not real good at exercising power and influence, but we know how to pray."

(I've taken a little license here because I'm going off my memory of the speech. If I had my tape, I'd transcribe it for you.)

Willimon is right, of course. I do think that Christians in the West have unique forms of influence at their disposal, certainly more apparent power that the majority of Christians in history have had and undeniably more than any Christian has had outside the Constantinian West. But in the end, that's not the thrust of what we do. We can and should act as we are able. But the strength and vitality of our faith is not embodied in our use of might or money or militarism.

We worship and pray, and in so doing we affirm a truth about our God and our world:

"We confess that it is to this God that belongs 'kingdom and power and glory,' not to Pharaoh, not to Canaan, not to Rome, not to Babylon, not to the military industrial complex, not to the rulers of this age, not to the power of fear and hatred and hunger, but to the Lord who has said 'fear not.' Praise is an act of poetry! It is only this poetry that will crack the muteness and let life begin again."
:: Walter Brueggemann, Finally Comes the Poet

So in the face of unspeakable atrocities inflicted on God's creatures in the Sudan, we worship and praise God and cry out for justice and remind ourselves that justice and mercy and peace belong to our God and not to all those powers that rule our world.

This is our confession, our story, our faith. A faith that moves us to action. A faith by which we "do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God." In this way, Worship is an act of defiance, as Karl Barth has said,

"To clasp hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world."

Check These Out

2005-07-05T12:05:00.000-07:00

My friend Justin Baeder has a couple of thought-provoking posts at Radical Congruency. I thought both were worth the time to read and reflect on.

First, he takes on the possibility that our sights aren't set high enough in Emerging Theology Doesn't Challenge Me.

Then, he offers some nice lists in a discourse on How to be More Biblical Than Evangelicals.

I think Justin is putting good words to some of the struggles we all face as we try to envision the new wineskins that God is still crafting for us:

"I think that’s the source of my discomfort. I’ve outgrown the old to the point that it’s become unwearable, but the new is not yet woven, and I’m getting cold standing around waiting. Know what I mean?"

Oh, yes, Justin, I know exactly what you mean!

A Home Within the Wilderness?

2005-07-04T16:51:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was Sabbath rest for us. We did little. Just quiet and peace. Simple family time. I wrote some, but I didn't post anything. We took a pleasant drive through the countryside to the west of town.

But with our rest is also unrest, disquiet. The jitters of withdrawal from our normal routines. This is our wilderness. A quiet walking with God that is filled with all manner of uncertainty, fear, and unrest. It is painful, but essential.

The story of Sabbath and Jubilee and Wilderness is a story of trust. It is a path of rest and peace beset by anxiety and trepidation. Imagine the anxiety of not gathering on the Sabbath or the sheer human insanity of forgiving all debts and releasing all slaves at Jubilee. Or willingly walking into a deserted and forsaken place where only God can provide what is needed. Where it seems we may be as likely to die as to be redeemed.

And so we walk a few steps on. Dust in our eyes. Manna in our bellies. Cloud on the horizon. We wander on...and on...and on.

In the wilderness we wander
In the wilderness we weep
The wasteland of our wanting
Where the darkness seems so deep
We search for the beginning, for an exodus to hold
We find that those who follow him, must often walk alone

In the wilderness we're wandering
for a way to understand
In the wilderness there's not a way
for the way's become a Man
and the Man's become the exodus, the way to holy ground
But wandering in the wilderness is the best way to be found :: Michael Card, The Wilderness

Detox

2005-07-04T16:37:00.000-07:00

When I first started blogging eighteen months ago, I wrote a little about our addictions to church and posted a link to this article by Jason Zahariades, entitled Detoxing from Church. I recommend reading it as a way of thinking about the dominant place that organized church activity and programs have in our lives. (At least the dominant place it holds in the spiritual lives of those who are "committed Christians" and demands or offers for everybody else.)

Reading this article will be difficult and painful for some, especially those who reject any notion of an "addiction to church." It will be as troubling to them as an intervening friend is to the alcoholic who refuses to concede his addiction.

But for some of us -- those who realize that following Jesus and living life in the ways of Jesus is an altogether different reality from "going to church" -- for us, these words contain important truth about the condition of our lives and our faith. I've known for quite awhile now how deep this addiction runs in my life (and in churches). But I haven't made any real attempt to break the hold it has on my and my family. Oh, we've come close before, for a little while (described in the earlier post).

But the cultural expectation and the deep lure of the good-churched-person profile is very hard to resist. Almost universally in our culture the good-churched-person profile holds sway as an admirable idea, if not for us, then for our children. And therein lies the insidious power of this addictive notion. Most people -- even many truly unchurched people -- will admit to believing that church-going is a good idea, and even if they don't think it's particularly their inclination to go, they seem to believe it would be "good for our kids."

So we worry. "What about our kids? What will happen to them if they don't have a church home? How will they grow in faith without an organized bible curriculum complete with hand motions?" Nervous and jittery, we pace around our little cell. Getting a little jumpier every time Saturday night rolls around. "Shouldn't we be going somewhere?"

It's okay. It really is. Withdrawal is a painful process, but one I'm sure will be a blessing to us.

Question of the Day

2005-07-02T21:32:00.000-07:00

Does moving to Searcy, AR seem like a strange way to kick our addiction to church?

A little like a recovering gambler taking a job as a dealer in Vegas?

More on this later. It's Saturday night and man, we are jonesin for a fix!

Are All Needs Created Equal?

2005-07-01T14:45:00.000-07:00

Now back to my earlier question about this obsession we seem to have with having someone "satisfy my needs."

We used to sing a song in the church of my youth called, He Knows Just What I Need.

My Jesus knows just what I need,
Oh yes, he knows just what I need;
He satisfies and every need supplies,
Yes, he knows just what I need.

Apparently, God (or "My Jesus" as the song calls him) is as obsessed with meeting our needs as we are with having them met. Of course, this must keep God terribly busy. In fact, it is plainly evident that "My Jesus" is so extremely busy, so consumed with the work of supplying the needs of me and every other American Christian that he is unable to adequately supply the needs of the poorest children in the world. Think of the daunting -- and apparently impossible -- choice God faces everyday...

"Let's see, what should I do today? Feed a billion souls teetering on the brink of starvation? Or help Tim of Nashville, TN get a new $75,000/yr job?"

"Why don't we do both?" the angels inquire.

"Nope. I think Tim needs relief from that boss of his who doesn't like the fact that Tim is a Christian. Besides, if we do it right, we could get Tim a salary bump so he can qualify for the mortgage on that Brand-New 3500 sqft house-in-the-suburbs his wife has been praying about."

"Hey!" God continues gleefully, "That'd be two prayers answered at once. Two needs for the price of one!"

You see, what we have here is a deeply troubling theological problem. If God is in the business of meeting needs, then God either has a unique defintion of the word "need", or plays favorites in granting help, or is simply bad at the need-meeting job frequently described in modern theology, songs, and scripture emphasis. Because no matter how you look at it, the self-evident needs of the world's poorest citizens are going unmet everyday.

Meanwhile, American Christians seek satisfaction of their superficial and luxuriant "needs" by a God who (presumably) is deeply involved in helping me own a better car or house or whatever. Such circumstances create a theological conundrum and raise some difficult questions.

Is God too busy meeting our needs to meet theirs? Or are their needs too hard for God to meet? And ours somehow easier? Or maybe Their Needs aren't really "needs" at all, but luxuries instead? Yes, that must be it. God is available to meet our needs because starvation isn't really a need after all.

So, how do we explain the fact that we (American Christians, for instance) have all that we need -- and more! -- while the real, everyday needs of billions (that's BILLIONS, friends!) remain unmet, and apparently ignored? Our theological descriptions of a God who supplies all our "needs" creates some real problems when laid alongside the unmet needs of billions. Are all needs created equal? It looks like our theological systems (and our failure of action) suggest that they are not...ours are more important. Maybe the explanations are simple:

1. God likes us better than them. We're more righteous or more faithful or more effective or smarter....
2. God simply can't help them. Something prevents God from meeting their needs but allows God to meet ours.
3. God isn't in the "need meeting" business in the first place.

Oh, by the way, today (July 1) is International White Band Day. Check it out.

House of the Sacred Tamale

2005-06-30T06:51:00.000-07:00

I saw a dear friend this weekend during my return visit to Pasadena. To call him a dear friend might be misleading and yet, precisely descriptive. It's not that I've spent a great deal of time with him building a close friendship. But I treasure the special bond of brotherhood and kinship that I feel with this man. It was especialy poignant to see him again, because he recently suffered the tragic death of his daughter in a senseless auto accident.

I was reminded -- just by being in his presence -- of all the ways that we truly minister the love of God to each other. All those things that simply don't fit the pesky professional categories that come with our typical definitions of church. One of my fondest memories of this friend is exactly one of those...

I recall an evening in which we were invited to enjoy dinner in their home. The time was spent in typical American activity. Kids played video games and ate a simple supper of hot dog and chips. Adults talked and ate a simple supper of homemade tamales (that's all...fresh tamales). We had simple birthday cake to celebrate life with the family’s youngest child. We talked about parenting and shared the dreams and frustrations of fathers and their sons. We carried on about marriage with all of its blessings…and the other stuff!

We watched and shared as other families -- parts of their extended family and neighbors from the apartment complex where they live -- came into the room and stayed with us a little while, then moved on with other activities of the evening. In the end, we gathered children together and spoke quietly and graciously about kids who respect their parents and parents who don’t frustrate the children God has given them. We prayed a blessing over family and home, hugged each other, and parted in the peace of Christ.

In many ways, it was one of the best experiences of church I've ever had. The warmth of hospitality. The grace of generosity. The utter lack of pretense. And the tamales. Tamales as sacred communion....

"You're Such an Amateur!"

2005-06-30T06:22:00.000-07:00

“The mission of the teaching-and-learning of Christianity is simply to turn the ordinary values and practices of the world right side up. To accomplish it requires the most daring strategy, the most agonizing risk a human being can undertake – living and working with persons who may evade the opportunity of love, neither condoning nor condemning them for what they have been, identifying with them in their difficulties and achievements, offering to them the invitation to interhuman dialogue because God gave himself to man in much the same way.”

“…mere professionalism is not the cure-all answer to the problems of teaching Christianity. Indeed, it may be no answer at all, for dialogue is not taught professionally. The essence of Christianity can only be taught by the amateur, that is, by the person who does it for love, as the root word 'amare' suggests.” :: Wayne R. Rood, The Art of Teaching Christianity

These quotes are a special joy for me, because they were brought to my attention by our office administrator at the church where I was working. She found these words while culling old books from the church library and recognized in them a similarity to things she was hearing me say about the future of ministry, what it means to "be church", and my own uncertainty about the shape of professional ministry. It was one of those good days where I felt like my words might actually be making sense to somebody.

Who's the Fifteen Year-Old in the Tuxedo?

2005-06-30T06:09:00.000-07:00

Today, June 30, is Angela Shaw's wedding anniversary and she has graciously invited me to join her in celebration of sixteen years of marriage. So, I shall...with joy!

Amazing to think how much life goes by in such a short span of time. But we are richly blessed with three wonderful children and a continually unfolding story that always surprises us. As we celebrate today, we can also see a few steps ahead into this new way of living which God has opened to us in the past few months. There are many uncertainties, a few doubts, and a healthy dose of anxiety.

But we are confident that God has called us to a new life and a new way of living our faith in Jesus. So, here we go.

We're also amazed and a little bit troubled that they apparently were in the habit of allowing children to marry back in 1989. What were they thinking?

Subversive Act of the Moment

2005-06-30T06:05:00.000-07:00

Justin is busy scamming the mighty Consumer Marketing Machine and using its greedy impulses against itself. Sure, he'll probably only net out a few quarters in the process, but hey! it's one more refusal to be satiated by the Eat More Fries, Spend More Money message which makes us fat and the corporations even fatter. Besides, it's summer and Justin's a science teacher. So what better use of his time than stamping a few envelopes in order to score a huge Amazon Cash Card?

This Just In

2005-06-29T20:03:00.000-07:00

"There is no bigger issue on the Christian agenda...."

Than what? You ask? Well, according to Chuck Colson, the biggest issue on the "Christian agenda" is getting the "right kind of appointments to this court." (Source) And in the aftermath of Monday's Supreme Court decisions on the public/govermnmental display of Ten Commandments monuments, Colson and others are calling on Christians across the land to mobilize for action.

So, for all of you Christians out there in Christendom-land, you'd better get ready for this latest version of the good fight. I'm sure your marching orders are already in the mail.

It'll be the envelope with RNC as the return address.

Question of the Day

2005-06-29T14:27:00.000-07:00

Why are we so obsessed with having someone (god, spouse, government, church) satisfy our needs?

Your turn...

Stop Giving to Your Church?

2005-06-29T10:40:00.000-07:00

Len at NextReformation has a link today to a lengthy, but must-read article on the nature of giving and concern for the poor in the early church and its implications for us. Here's a significant quote:

"[W]hen I give to the church, it is not 'given away' at all. I am the church! Revenue given to the church directly benefits me as a believer in providing pastoral care, Bible teaching, family counseling, facilities for my children and a building for me to worship in. In that sense very little is given away. Most of the money I give to the church is spent by the church on meeting my needs and those of my family." [emphasis mine, jcs] :: Ray Mayhew, Embezzlement: the Corporate Sin of Contemporary Christianity?

Reminds me of a response I had to the Red States are More Generous coverage I saw after the election which tried to establish that states voting for Bush give more to charity than states voting for Kerry (see this chart for instance). Apples v. Oranges. I'm not sure that Red State giving to churches necessarily qualifies as "charity" since so much of what we give is spent on ourselves. More like membership dues or club fees than "alms for the poor."

An Alternative Vision

2005-06-29T10:36:00.000-07:00

I'm enjoying reading about Alan Creech's plans for a monastic community.

Time Waster

2005-06-29T10:34:00.000-07:00

Just for Mindless Fun...check out the Flash Mind Reader. It's a math thing my brother-in-law would probably enjoy. (And figure out sooner than me.) An explanation of how it works (the spoiler) can be found here.

And the Answer Is...

2005-06-28T17:31:00.000-07:00

Okay. So nobody wanted to venture a guess in the first FluidFaith Online Contest. So, I win.

Of course, the answer to my silly little quiz is probably rather obvious to most of you. The portion of Isaiah 58:10-11 which had been underlined for special emphasis was this gem: "he will satisfy your needs."

It seems to me that highlighting the Benefit-to-You portion of this passage is terribly unfortunate and risks a greivous act of injustice to the entirety of Isaiah 58, and indeed to the whole of Isaiah's writing. And it seems to me that committing a greivous act of injustice while reading from the Book of Isaiah constitutes a considerable irony.

It is an abuse of the Scripture, an abuse particularly of Isaiah's deep concerns for the kind of people Israel should be. Now, just so you know, this type of abuse is not uncommon and I am not unfamiliar with it. I've screwed up more than a few biblical contexts myself in pursuit of the point I was making or in an effort to get the audience more "on board" with an idea they might find tough to swallow.

Furthermore, the character and theme of this particular incident is now so commonplace as to be expected -- even demanded -- by hearers of almost any presentation, speech, or sermon. Any self-respecting (and that's really the key) American listener is going to ask in one form or another, "What's in it for me?" We demand to hear the benefits, to know the upside, to ask -- as all good (i.e. shrewd) consumers must -- "What's your best offer?"

In the theological realm -- the religious experience of worship -- the question is tinged or veiled with inquiries about God which are really just inquiries about ME. "What are God's promises?" Meaning, what has God promised to give me? Of course, nobody says it quite like that, but the long-term impact of "here's the benefit for your life" messages is essentially the same.

I think it's clear that we fail to understand how powerful a delusion this can create. But to give you an idea of how powerful this can be, just look at the way a simple highlighting of "he will satisfy your needs" distorts the real emphasis of Isaiah 58:

"Shout it aloud, do not hold back.
Raise your voice like a trumpet.
Declare to my people their rebellion
and to the house of Jacob their sins.
For day after day they seek me out;
they seem eager to know my ways,
as if they were a nation that does what is right
and has not forsaken the commands of its God.
They ask me for just decisions
and seem eager for God to come near them.
'Why have we fasted,' they say,
'and you have not seen it?
Why have we humbled ourselves,
and you have not noticed?'

"Yet on the day of your fasting, you do as you please
and exploit all your workers.
Your fasting ends in quarreling and strife,
and in striking each other with wicked fists.
You cannot fast as you do today
and expect your voice to be heard on high.
Is this the kind of fast I have chosen,
only a day for a man to humble himself?
Is it only for bowing one's head like a reed
and for lying on sackcloth and ashes?
Is that what you call a fast,
a day acceptable to the Lord?

"Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter--
when you see the naked, to clothe him,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
Then your light will break forth like the dawn,
and your healing will quickly appear;
then your righteousness will go before you,
and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard.
Then you will call, and the Lord will answer;
you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I.
"If you do away with the yoke of oppression,
with the pointing finger and malicious talk,
and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
and your night will become like the noonday.
The Lord will guide you always;
he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land
and will strengthen your frame.
You will be like a well-watered garden,
like a spring whose waters never fail.
Your people will rebuild the ancient ruins
and will raise up the age-old foundations;
you will be called Repairer of Broken Walls,
Restorer of Streets with Dwellings.

"If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath
and from doing as you please on my holy day,
if you call the Sabbath a delight
and the Lord's holy day honorable,
and if you honor it by not going your own way
and not doing as you please or speaking idle words,
then you will find your joy in the Lord,
and I will cause you to ride on the heights of the land
and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob."
The mouth of the Lord has spoken. :: Isaiah 58:1-14 (NIV)

Guessing Game...Join In!

2005-06-27T12:56:00.000-07:00

SEEN, yesterday at church...this quote from Isaiah displayed on PowerPoint:

And if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
and your night will become like the noonday.
The Lord will guide you always;
he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land
and will strengthen your frame.
You will be like a well-watered garden,
like a spring whose waters never fail. :: Isaiah 58:10-11 (NIV)

Now, for the first FluidFaith Online Contest, guess which part of this passage was underlined onscreen.

Seriously, you go ahead and guess. I'll get back to you later with some more thoughts on it.

One Man's Art...

2005-06-27T12:39:00.000-07:00

SEEN on the I-440 bypass coming through Little Rock on my way home to Searcy last night:

"Billboards are the Art Gallery of the Public."

Wow! Who would've guessed that? And to think I thought billboards were more like glossy magazine pages strewn along the highway. "Aren't they pretty?"

Or evidence that a really large edition of the Yellow Pages had exploded into not-so-tiny obnoxiously intrusive bits of marketing fodder. Skid marks of the speeding semi-truck that is our consumer culture, if you will.

Or more like Pop-up ads on stilts. Permanently affixed to their skyline cluttering locations. "Kids, look at that cloud over there, the one that looks like a rabbit!" "Where, Dad?" "Right there to the left..." [POP: "Heartbreakers Club for Men: No Three-Foot Rule"] "Uh...never mind, kids. Hey! Look over here at the beautful black smoke coming out of that eighteen-wheeler in front of us."

But, really, an Art Gallery? If that's the case I'd like to suggest we hire a new curator.

Writing, not so much

2005-06-21T12:52:00.000-07:00

Trying to figure out why it's been so hard to maintain the discipline of writing lately. Some of it is the logisitcs of moving and the displacement that comes with that exile from one place and new beginnings in another. Some of it is being very uncertain about how to express the unfinished thoughts that continue to rotate in my head and heart.

Lots of uncertainty and impatience. A few feelings of failure and worthlessness. But that's what we face when God moves his people out into exile, right?

I'm truly amazed that some folks keep showing up here to see if I've written anything. Thanks for the implicit encouragment to write that provides me. I'll keep trying to get this engine jump-started.

Goodnight, GoodFriends

2005-06-21T12:36:00.000-07:00

A scene from my life.

Two friends. Partners with me in ministry and life. For the briefest of moments, or so it seemed. For endless days, or so it seemed. It was neither really...and both at the same time.

The course of my life is changed dramatically by the two-and-a-half years I have spent in friendship and partnership with these two men. Robby and Samuel have been more than friends to me. They have been brothers -- gracious and forgiving, stern and stubborn.

Now that our time in ministry together has ended I look back at those days and I am filled with regret and grief, pride and joy. Ours was a unique journey, or at least it was unique for us.

Today, I think of them, replaying the scenes of our friendship -- and our failures -- over in my mind. And the music that plays behind the scene is Billy Joel's ironic reflections on the Vietnam War, Goodnight Saigon.

We met as soulmates
on Parris Inland
We left as inmates
from an asylum
And we were sharp...as sharp as knives
and we were so gung ho to lay down our lives.

We came in spastic
like tameless horses
We left in plastic
as numbered corpses
And we learned fast...to travel light
our arms were heavy but our bellies were tight

We had no homefront
we had no soft soap
they sent us Playboy
they gave us Bob Hope
we dug in deep...and shot on sight
and prayed to Jesus Christ with all of our might.

We had no cameras
to shoot the landscape
We passed the hash pipe
and played our Doors tapes
And it was dark...so dark at night
and we held onto each other
like brother to brother
We promised our mothers we'd write

(chorus)
And we would all go down together
We said we'd all go down together
Yes, we would all go down together.

Remember Charlie,
remember Baker
they left their childhood
on every acre
And who was wrong...and who was right?
It didn't matter in the thick of the fight

We, held the day...
in the palm...of our hands
They, ruled the night
And the night...seemed to last as long as six weeks
on Parris Island
We held the coastline
they held the highland
And they were sharp...as sharp as knives
They heard the hum of the motors
they counted the rotors
and waited for us to arrive

(chorus)
And we would all go down together
We said we'd all go down together
Yes, we would all go down together

Moving On (redux)...

2005-05-23T14:15:00.000-07:00

Feeling a touch of sadness today. We said goodbye yesterday to the church where I've preached and shared my heart and life for the past nearly-four years. Both my family and the family of my ministry partner Samuel Clark were given a gracious send-off from our friends and spiritual family as we both move into new and uncertain fields of endeavor...and experience the feelings of adventure, excitement, and exile that go with endings and beginnings like these.

We are blessed to have some really good friends who have cared for us, laughed with us, cried and despaired with us, and who now send us on to the places -- high mountains and deep valleys -- where God is leading us. This has been a blessed experience of friendship, fellowship, learning, and grace as we have walked through the challenges, griefs, and joys of life with this congregation.

So, we begin our move later this week, filled with uncertainty and angst. God be praised!

STEB

Moving on...

2005-05-16T11:33:00.000-07:00

As you might have guessed, I am finished talking about the Christian Affirmation for now. I really did not design Fluid Faith as a place to engage in the intramural squabbles of my tribe. I'm happy to discuss them occasionally and I'm truly hopeful for the path of conversation and dialogue that I believe needs to happen among this group I call "my people." But such things can too quickly distract us from our true mission of following the ways of Jesus in our broken and unredeemed world.

So, this week I'll turn my attention to other matters and point to some folks who really enliven my imagination about the unfolding work of kingdom and gospel in our time.

First, as a bridge between these two discussions, I'll point you to a great quote from Brian McLaren's book, A Generous Orthodoxy, which Mike Cope offers as an insight into the Affirmation, restorationism, and the dangers of chasing the wrong dream.

Comparative Reading Exercise

2005-05-11T13:36:00.000-07:00

As I have dialogued further this week with my friend, John Mark Hicks, I've tried to reflect more deeply on why I reacted so negatively to the Christian Affirmation 2005 document. In the comment thread of my earlier post, I referred to it as Post-Traumatic-Restoration Syndrome. I'm speaking here of the more visceral, emotional quality of how I felt about the document, rather than my intellectual response.

Having misunderstood the Affirmation's provenance and origins, I saw it as narrow, authoritarian, and exclusivistic, choosing to describe the author/framer(s) as a conclave of experts emerging from behind closed doors as with a piece of scripted parchment (or worse, stone tablets). I regret some of these images now and am driven to wonder more deeply what fueled my frustration.

When I was a kid, we had a cat. Siamese. Adopted us, she did. You know the kind. Hang around near the front porch. Whining. Meowing. Til someone finally feeds her. Then you're stuck with a cat. Three small children and one aggressive, almost meanspirited cat. Not a good combination.

Her aggressiveness was at times extremely volatile. Why? DNA? Breeding? Mistreatment? It didn't take long for us to realize that this cat was gonna hurt anyone who tried to touch her front paws. Hissing, scratching, biting. Small children. Ouch! It became clear, to us at least, that she had been abused, suffered some trauma, experienced some pain involving those paws. In time she became comfortable receiving that touch, but only from one person. My father, who took the time, the painstaking effort to love that stupid, mean cat. He would pet her, comfort her, and slowly gain her trust, til finally she would let him in close enough to touch those perfectly normal-looking, but still emotionally sore paws.

Some of us are perfectly normal-looking, but deeply scarred inside. Frustrated. Traumatized. Tired. There's an aggressive streak that seems to arise from a combination of our Church of Christ DNA, breeding, and mistreatment. We all need some patience with each other, a willingness to take the time and nurture the trust required for real, constructive dialogue.

I still have some strongly felt misgivings about the Affirmation, its form, its style, and its content. I stand by the critique that I have offered. But I also realize that all documents of this sort are prone to these weaknesses. The act of writing it down codifies and excludes. That's not always bad. I began to wonder if I had ever seen a similar document which didn't offend me quite like this. It took me only a second to recall one.

I suggest we all engage in a little Comparative Reading Exercise:
After reading A Christian Affirmation 2005, spend a few minutes with this New Confession of Christ.

There are differences, to be sure. But I have to ask, Why was I moved by the latter and offended by the former? What can I learn from this experience? What happens the next time somebody tries to touch those paws?

Response and Observations: A Christian Affirmation 2005

2005-05-09T02:27:00.000-07:00

[Note: Recently twenty-three academic professionals who are members of the Churches of Christ produced, signed, and published, A Christian Affirmation 2005, which appeared first in the May issue of the Christian Chronicle and subsequently on a website wholly dedicated to the document. The Affirmation is a must-read and should be reviewed before reading the following response; it can be viewed in its entirety here, complete with list of charter signers. The thoughts and observations which follow are offered in friendship and in the patient hope that the Affirmation will provide a context and opportunity for a radical rethinking of our mission and what it means to be the Church.]

In the Fall 2004 issue of Christian Studies – the faculty publication of Austin Graduate School of Theology (a Church of Christ seminary) – J.J.M. Roberts refers to a “general cultural drift toward a homogenized and undifferentiated Evangelicalism” in which leaders of Church of Christ congregations and graduates of brotherhood schools have demonstrated either ignorance of or “blatant hostility toward the central concerns of our theological tradition.”

Roberts is a charter signatory of A Christian Affirmation 2005 and Professor Emeritus of Old Testament Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary. As such, his is a voice worthy of our attention. Joining Dr. Roberts both as a signer of the Affirmation and as a contributor to the same issue of Christian Studies is Allan J. McNicol, Professor of New Testament at Austin Graduate School of Theology.

Dr. McNicol’s contribution to the faculty publication – a review of Recovering Mother Kirk: the Case for Liturgy in the Reformed Tradition, by D.G. Hart – includes a telling observation about that “form of pietism which lately has mutated into Evangelicalism.” He suggests that “spiritual formation informed by the tenets of pietism and that which is nurtured in a confessional church community inevitably conflict.” According to McNicol, this conflict has significant implications for Churches of Christ: “In the present climate of dismantling historic worship practices, we wonder whether the connection between corporate worship and spiritual growth can be recovered? … There are many who see little or no value in tradition – especially as it applies to contemporary worship practices.”

These are only a handful of sentences from a couple of signers of A Christian Affirmation 2005. It would be wrong to place the entire weight of the Affirmation onto these thin pegs and it would be unfair to the other original signers to paint them with the brush I might make from these few strands. But I think that these two statements may provide a useful context, first, for understanding the thrust and rationale for the document and then, for meaningful dialogue about its meaning and impact.

If these words help us to understand something of the concerns which drive these two Church of Christ scholars (and perhaps their colleagues and co-signers), we might find a great deal in common with them and with their desire for Churches of Christ in the unfolding postmodern era.

These are interesting times to live and worship in our little tribe of Jesus-followers. As the significant base of suburban American Boomer-run, Boomer-focused churches have embraced this “general drift toward homogenized and undifferentiated Evangelicalism,” something real has been lost. Tribal distinctives are certainly lost, whether by ignorance and neglect or through blatant hostility. But Dr. McNicol’s review suggests that the loss is felt not only by Churches of Christ, but by many other Christian tribes. The neglect of such historical practices within our own fellowship may be the least of all our tragedies. Indeed, the danger exists in this pietistic mutation that meaningful Christian realities – irrespective of the manner in which they are expressed in various historical traditions – will be sucked into the sinkhole of modern individualism, consumerism, business-like church practices, and the cultural-political isolationism which dominates our age. These hazards are not unique to Churches of Christ, nor do I think there is by necessity a distinctly Church of Christ response.

But for Church of Christ folks caught in this matrix there are a several noticeable consequences. Spiritual formation – whether shaped by the importance of corporate worship or by other important practices – seems of little concern in contrast to more pressing institutional realities. Local preachers, church leaders, pastors and teachers are trapped by the great practical corporate “felt need” to have a church that is “going somewhere”, where something is happening, where people are drawn to the spectacle of a big church, or at least a getting-bigger church. These ministry practitioners, then, are under immense pressure to be experts in the pragmatics of church growth rather than masters of the arts and practices of discipleship.

A second group of leaders working within and beyond the local congregation – many of them theologians, academics, and thinkers – rightly see this problem as a crisis which threatens a deep and abiding loss of what it means to be the church. But judging by the recent rapid pace of our cultural drift toward a generalized Evangelical identity, these reflective voices are falling on deaf ears in the congregations they are seeking to challenge and shape.

Unknown to some, a third group of leaders exist, for whom the most pressing potential consequence is alienation. Deep thinking, theologically inclined ministry practitioners – usually young, postmodern, missional innovators – are pushed to the far fringes of the Church of Christ fellowship. Their rejection of the Evangelical drift of American Christianity, their postmodern ideological inclination, their mission-focused desire to follow Jesus into the world, and their rejection of church-growth-mad pragmatism leaves them few places to fulfill their calling and ministry. They willingly walk into the desert to build small monastic communities of spiritual formation which may or may not reflect the practices they knew earlier in the Church of Christ tribe.

I recognize several of the signers of A Christian Affirmation 2005 and I count two of them among my friends. I do not pretend to know their motives or to divine their intent with regard to this affirmation. I suspect, however, that among them are some who share the concerns raised by Professors McNicol and Roberts in the quotes above. Further, I believe that the clarion call embodied in this Affirmation is likely fueled by these concerns and similar frustrations with the general drift of church life in America.

I share these concerns and join in the indictments offered by Roberts and McNicol. Moreover, I believe that many of those younger, missional innovators described above would connect themselves with these larger frustrations of culture, ecclesiology, practice, etc. with which the framers of this Affirmation are likely struggling.

I want to say to the Signers of the Affirmation, “Welcome to the ‘emerging church’ conversation!” just as the Signers would welcome us to their long-standing work and mission of Biblical, theological, and ecclesiastical reform in Churches of Christ. We probably have a lot to agree on, and for that we should all be thankful.

THREE AGREEMENTS ... and a caution

I think we would agree substantially, for instance, with this statement, “The path to substantive Christian unity is found in returning to the clear teachings of Scripture and practices of the early church, commonly acknowledged and respected by all Christian traditions.”

And we would definitely resonate with the sentiment expressed in their call, “We seek through discussion with our brothers and sisters a deeper understanding of God’s saving truth.”

I too have felt deeply what the authors call the “sad irony if, now that others in the religious world are recognizing the value of a return to Christian beginnings, our own churches were to abandon the quest.” I have believed for some time that much of the historical character and theological impulse of Churches of Christ speaks well to what is happening in the emerging church discussion. There is a renewed interest in the spiritual formation practices of the early church, including baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and corporate worship. And I feel confident we have something significant to contribute to that process of discovery.

But mere pragmatism need not be replaced by mere primitivism, and this is the only option the Affirmation seems to offer us. A “return to Christian beginnings” and a call to receive guidance from the “original design” are noble aims which have been repeated many times over by faithful disciples. But the application of these aims has proven frustratingly elusive and – at times – exasperatingly divisive, leaving us no nearer in spirit or practice to the “original design.” There is more to say on this subject; I’ll return to it in a bit.

WORTHY OF AFFIRMATION…AND INQUIRY

First, there are the several items of practice recommended to us by the Affirmation which are certainly worthy of affirmation, but also call for questions and dialogue:

BAPTISM – The Affirmation begins its brief list of sacramental practices with Baptism and rightly so. Clearly, the practice of Christian baptism is “foundational to our response to the saving work of Christ….” And I commend the signers for pointing us away from the hyper-individualism in so much of modern salvation language; this emphasis is desperately needed.

I have a question, though, about some of the statements about Baptism and Lord’s Supper which seems to imply a stance favoring “closed communion.” This may not be the intent of the document, but the description of Baptism as “our faithful submission to his lordship in baptism” when laid alongside the promise that “all who acknowledge Christ’s lordship…are welcome at the Lord’s Table,” raises questions in my mind. Let me be clear: Closed Communion is not in and of itself a reason to reject the document or the arguments contained therein. In fact, I suspect that reclaiming a proper appreciation of the Fellowship of Jesus-followers as a peculiar people might lead us to a more closed communion view. But I think this is an area of the document which begs for extensive dialogue and further questioning.

THE LORD’S SUPPER – I agree that the Lord’s Supper rightly practiced in the peculiar community of Christian fellowship is a vital practice of spiritual formation, not only of the individual believer but also of shaping the whole community into a uniquely bonded collection of counter-cultural prophetic people demonstrating an alternative way of life in an unredeemed world. That the Supper is a uniquely Christian practice instituted by Jesus for this purpose also seems undeniable.

I guess I would only ask us to go further and recognize that the Supper is not the only practice of Christian formation which is recommended to us by the early believers. Communal gatherings of all types, commonly held resources, generosity, hospitality, and the incredibly challenging discipline of forgiveness and reconciliation in a world bent on destroying enemies; all these serve as formative practices in the early church. We would be wise to affirm these and many others as well. Unfortunately, it seems that in my three decades of experience in our fellowship, the confident practice of a couple of key “sacraments” (especially the three named by this Affirmation) actually contributed to our general failure to affirm other important virtues and formation practices which might have assisted in shaping our tribe into a better reflection of the peculiar kingdom people God had in mind.

I grant without reservation the authors’ contention that the Lord’s Supper is the embodiment of the church’s Passover memory and eschatological hope. And I count it a great blessing to have come to faith in a fellowship thoroughly committed to the regular weekly practice of the Lord’s Supper. However, I am far less certain that the Supper as I have experienced it constitutes one of the “practices that have served to strengthen the Christian identity of Churches of Christ.” In spite of our historic commitment, I’m not at all sure that our practice is actually a good model of corporate Christian formation.

I was in attendance at a church recently in which a church member rose and gave the typically banal, pithy commentary which has come to characterize the Lord’s Supper “meditation” in most Churches of Christ. It was sadly deficient and an agonizing reminder of how spiritually ineffective our practices have seemed for most of my nearly-forty years in this Christian fellowship. I found myself longing deeply for something like a good Catholic mass, some reverence and liturgy, some communal practice of spiritual formation. Other than the regularity of weekly practice in Churches of Christ and the apparent weight and importance implied by that frequency, there is little in the recent historic practice of Communion that I would recommend as corporately valuable, spiritually strengthening, or foundational for Christian discipleship.

CORPORATE WORSHIP (or more precisely, acappella singing) – On the practice of corporate worship it’s hard to disagree with the framers’ reminder that worship “stands at the center of the church’s existence and the formation of Christian identity” or that in worship “the people of God remember and rehearse God’s great acts of disclosure and deliverance….” But, alas, these are not uniquely Church of Christ claims; we have many Christian friends who would agree with us.

But it is exactly at this point that we must face the Affirmation’s most troubling dissonance. While the document promises to return us “to the clear teachings of Scripture and practices of the early church, commonly acknowledged and respected by all Christian traditions,” it is very hard to know how to evaluate this claim. If the things enumerated in this Affirmation are “commonly acknowledged and respected,” then they wouldn’t be uniquely “beliefs and practices that have served to strengthen the Christian identity of Churches of Christ.” Would they?

If the Affirmation’s purpose is merely to present Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Christian Worship as commonly acknowledged and respected practices, there seems no reason for its existence. This would constitute a unity “grounded in minimal agreements among Christian traditions,” which the authors reject.

But this raises the deep – and thoroughly unanswered – question of what it means to pursue a “path to substantive Christian unity” through “clear teachings” and practices “commonly acknowledged.” It can be argued that Baptism as a formative Christian practice has prominence in the clear teachings of Scripture and is certainly an undeniable part of the early church. Whereas immersion as the form of baptism used in the early church is also fairly evident, it’s harder to label this aspect “commonly acknowledged.”

The Lord’s Supper, by comparison, is given far less prominence in the clear teachings of Scripture. It is certainly present and unarguably important, but its form and the actual manner of its practice is presented only circumstantially in Scripture. Because of this ambiguity, its practice is a matter of considerable dispute among various Christian traditions.

But on the matter of Corporate Worship the Affirmation finds the shakiest ground of all. Strictly speaking, Acappella Music is not at all a concern of the clear teachings of Scripture. Moreover, the form, structure or liturgy of Christian Worship is almost entirely undeveloped in the New Testament and what we do know about the early church’s practice of worship seems radically different from common practice in almost all modern Christian fellowships. The argument that “the practice of a cappella singing recovers both the ‘original design’ of the early church and the common practice of the whole church for centuries” seems particularly thin. Especially, given that the churches for whom that was the common practice for centuries also incorporated into worship many things that the authors of this Affirmation would likely reject.

I know that Dr. Everett Ferguson, another of the signers, has done much excellent research on the history and practice of the early church and has established to my satisfaction that early practice was baptism by immersion, regular weekly celebration of the Supper, and singing without instruments. That I myself lean strongly toward seeing these practices as vital does not, however, lessen my dissatisfaction with the Affirmation’s framing of these matters.

TOO SMALL A THING

“It is our intention to clarify our Christian identity in a time of increasing uncertainties,” the Affirmation opens. But it is only our Practices which are clarified. Our Christian Identity remains obscured, unless of course, our identity is reduced to, “We are the People who practice these three things.”

In classic Church of Christ fashion, horse and cart have been transposed and our real mission obscured. The Affirmation speaks about practices but offers us no ecclesiological vision to undergird them. And in so doing, the framers of this document, it seems to me, have reinforced (perhaps unwittingly) a powerful, age-old Church of Christ myth. Namely, that by having the right practices a right church may be formed. In the lines of this Affirmation they seem to offer us only the option of restored primitivism to guard us against unchecked modernism and pragmatism. This is a false choice; a trap into which we have fallen before.

We are in desperate need of a real conversation (both within Churches of Christ, and beyond) about what it means to be the Church, about the mission of God’s kingdom, about the alternative community which is that kingdom on earth. There are deep questions of ecclesiology and theology which must be explored anew. (And these questions are being explored in some obscure circles on the Church of Christ fringe, among other places.) But practices of spiritual formation must follow in the service of ecclesiology and be evaluated based upon their value in shaping actual followers of the ways of Jesus.

The Affirmation reminds us, “the work of restoration is difficult and has often been done poorly.” This reminder must not be glossed over. Restoration has been done poorly because it is dangerous and dicey work and when it is done poorly spiritual damage follows in its wake. If we are to engage in primitivism and restoration we must proceed humbly, carefully, conditionally, always ready to engage in the painful work of revision.

But, most of all, perhaps we need to consider that the work of restoration is “too small a thing.” Maybe restoration misses the point entirely. What if we’ve failed to properly understand our mission? What if we moved beyond primitivism to reconsider the very nature of being God’s people? Might we discover that our calling is to live in an ever-present reality which both benefits from and affirms the ancient practices of the early church (and the medieval church, and the modern church, and …) but reclaims those practices in the light of a still-unfolding future-oriented story of redemption, mission, community, kingdom, and discipleship.

What might emerge if we were striving to be a kingdom people which is neither stuck in the past nor slave to the present?

I like to think of myself as a post-denominational person rather than un- or non-denominational, or as purely ecumenical, or as narrowly parochial. In this post-denominational framework, I rely heavily on a tribal identity in which I honor and affirm those blessings I have received from my heritage. Moreover, as a member of this tribe, I am committed to continued renewal of God’s kingdom mission among our people. But this is not my only or final allegiance. I am caught up into the larger family or nation which is the kingdom of heaven. I am born into a new race of earth-bound people living heavenward and I recognize that my citizenship in this race calls me out beyond the provincialism of denominational concern. My allegiance to the kingdom and mission of God both includes and transcends the little band or tribe of disciples in which I find myself.

We must be careful. Again, I think the project of restoration and renewal in Churches of Christ may be “too small a thing.” Our mission is much bigger than this. Our calling moves us out beyond local, tribal or parochial concern, and into the global mission of God who warns us that restoration is a nice-but-narrow goal.

A MATTER OF STYLE

To my ears, the document has the ring of exclusivity. This is hard for me to say, because this is not a trait I have encountered in those signers I know personally. So, I offer this as criticism of the Affirmation’s style while hoping that I do not impugn the framers when I take issue with their language. The linguistic style of the Affirmation seems creedal or polemical rather than scholarly. Instead of a call to process, dialogue, or discovery, I am left with the impression that the authors are making a claim with which I am expected either to agree or disagree. This forced choice makes me uncomfortable, but maybe that’s the point.

Scholarly writings – which many of these signers produce regularly – generally anticipate constructive disagreement and concede the incompleteness of research, reflection, or study on the matter at hand. Creeds, on the other hand, suggest something of a fixed position, an established view which is defended as a relatively final rendering of the subject.

Some of the Affirmation’s language seems chosen exactly to rule out other interpretations:

“In the ancient church there were no unbaptized Christians.”

“The early church practiced baptism as the immersion of believers in water….”

“Christian singing from the very first and for nearly a thousand years was … without accompanying instruments.”

These are exclusive claims and they are offered here as a matter-of-fact declaration of guiding historical precedent and non-negotiable requirement. As such they are authoritarian claims, not merely reflections of historical reality about early church practice.

In spite of the invitation to join a “moderated email discussion”, the document itself seems to preclude discussion. Its style and presentation suggests a fixity and rigidity which resists dialogue while officially inviting agreement, “If you wish to sign….” Symbolically, the act of presenting a creedal/polemical document in a fixed form with a set of blank lines at the bottom for readers to “sign on” feels to many of us like an invitation to join the authors in their certainty. Meanwhile, some of us are looking for someone to join us in our doubts.

The “invitation” suggests an opportunity to talk ABOUT the Affirmation rather than collaborate ON it. My response is similar to Microsoft’s asking for my feedback on the latest release of Windows: “What difference does it make, now? You’ve got the code all worked out for me. I can either buy it or not.” This kind of Proprietary approach is a little off-putting to those of us living in an Open Source world.

I’d like to risk one final thought on this subject of style. I say risk, because I fear that what I have already said may have strained the good will of these brothers who have crafted and signed the Affirmation.

Recognizing, first of all, that anytime we write, publish, or present our opinions for public review, we (that means all of us who scribble, jot, doodle, blog, send an article to a magazine or website, write a book, or whatever) open ourselves to criticism. We presume to present our opinions or thoughts as right or relevant, as important or useful, as the position everyone else should hold. In this way, we are all engaged in opinion-giving, polemics, or creedalism; the unrealized narcissism and conceit in all of us who do such things may open the way to arrogance, vanity, and self-importance.

Protection against such dangers is found in collaboration with others. The open and reactive nature of blogs, the never-quite-finished form of wikis, even the unfolding drama of discovery in the true scholarly enterprise of academic research all demand a rigorous dialogical process. When an author publishes a book or submits an article, when a blogger dashes off his impulsive reaction, when anyone editorializes on the actions or words of another, the form itself makes clear that what is expressed is clearly opinion and is therefore subject to revision, objection, clarification, etc.

But when a large group of men complete with credentials and standing in important institutions publishes a document so matter-of-fact, another unintended consequence may arise. It might seem to some that a bunch of important men (and let’s face it: that the entire signing group is comprised of males is a bit disconcerting and demands further discussion) figuratively went into a room and closed the door, brought all their expertise, experience, and scholarship to bear on the matter at hand, composed a defining set of words, and then came out from their conclave to present their findings. Would it seem too dramatic to suggest that Those Who Know Better Than Us have come forth to enlighten the lowly masses? Yes, too dramatic. That’s not what is intended, I’m sure. But truthfully, it just seems to mirror too closely the manner of leadership which has predominated in our fellowship for generations. A group of men emerge from behind closed doors, announce the grand plan, and ask the rest of us to get on board. Some of us are simply tired of that kind of leadership and this document does not seem to model a new way for our people.

A CLOSING APPEAL

I’ll close by returning to Dr. McNicol’s book review in Christian Studies where he reassures us: “Our point is not to advocate blind assent to our tradition, nor to maintain it mechanically. We need to recognize that the connection between doctrine and liturgy has served as an adequate framework for the spiritual development of many generations. Fragile as this may be, we need to think long and hard before discarding our traditions.”

I’m thankful for this emphasis and moved by the sentiment and the deep commitment described here. And if these words describe not just Dr. McNicol but the spirit behind the Affirmation, we have great reason for hope. We have a basis for further constructive work and dialogue. We can only trust that in the coming days this process and dialogue will be characterized by the complexity, modesty, and sophistication which we find embodied in Dr. McNicol’s words, but sorely lacking in the Affirmation’s present form.

May we indeed be a people who join together to “think long and hard before discarding our traditions” … and before affirming them.

________________________
Further Reading:

Justin at Radical Congruency has commented here and here about the Affirmation (be sure to read the comment thread) and has a growing list of blog posts about the Affirmation here.

An Interesting Discussion

2005-05-06T12:26:00.000-07:00

Following the publication of this Christian Affirmation document -- first in the May 2005 issue of the Christian Chronicle (a newspaper which reports on matters occurring in and affecting Churches of Christ) and then online at the ChristianAffirmation.org site which is wholly devoted to the document -- an unmoderated online discussion has sprung up about the signers, their words, and their intent.

Much of it is speculative; some of it reactionary; most of it productive; all of it interesting. I have more to say, but I need to write it first.

In the meantime, check out Justin's take (Part One and Part Two) and especially note the comments section. Also, swing by the blogs of Chris Gonzales, Bobby Rozell, and Keith Brenton for more insight and discussion. Finally, read through Keith's subversive response called One Christian's Affirmation for a thought-provoking reboot of the creedal impulse.

Now, I'll go write my own thoughts....

Change is Coming Soon

2005-05-05T11:35:00.000-07:00

Change is coming soon to our little lives. Change in our geography. Change in our ministry. Change in our lifestyle. And change to FluidFaith. Keep watching this space for more cryptically encoded messages masquerading as pertinent information about the transitions which are at hand as we move, re-imagine the shape of life, re-vision the context of ministry, and re-load the work of FluidFaith.

Good Question

2005-04-01T15:32:00.000-08:00

Leighton Tebay asks a valuable question in the wake of American media coverage of Terri Schiavo's case.

Did I Miss Something?

2005-03-31T11:14:00.000-08:00

In the aftermath of Terri Schiavo's passing, a good friend passed on a link to the Guardian Ad Litem report compiled by Jay Wolfson at the directive of Florida Governor Jeb Bush after the Florida Legistlature had passed legislation in Oct. 2003 granting Gov. Bush the power to issue a stay, force the re-insertion of the feeding tube, and investigate the matter fully. Several facts emerge from this document that I find worthy of note.

Regarding the early years after Theresa's collapse in 1990 and Michael Schiavo's care for her:

On 18 June 1990, Michael was formally appointed by the court to serve as Theresa’s legal guardian, because she was adjudicated to be incompetent by law. Michael’s appointment was undisputed by the parties.

The clinical records…indicate that Theresa was not responsive to neurological and swallowing tests. She received regular and intense physical, occupational and speech therapies.

Theresa’s husband, Michael Shicavo and her mother, Mary Schindler, were virtual partners in their care of and dedication to Theresa. There is no question but that complete trust, mutual caring, explicit love and common goal of caring for and rehabilitating Theresa were the shared intentions of Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers.

In late Autumn of 1990, following months of therapy and testing, formal diagnoses of [PVS] with no evidence of improvement, Michael took Theresa to California, where she received an experimental thalamic stimulator implant in her brain. Michael remained in California caring for Theresa during a period of several months and retruned to Florida with her in January of 1991 . . . . where she received 24 hour skilled care, physical, occupational, speech and recreational therapies.

Despite aggressive therapies, physician and other clinical assessments consistently revealed no functional abilities, only reflexive, rather than cognitive movements, random eye opening, no communication system and little change cognitively or functionally. . . . Periodic neurological exams, regular and aggressive physical, occupational and speech therapy continued through 1994."

Regarding the Schindler family, their relationship with Michael, and their commitment to Terri's care:

It took Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life – something he was actively encouraged to do by the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart. He was even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his in-law family to women he was dating.

Testimony . . . included very personal statements about [the Schindlers’] desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive. . . . The Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open heart surgery. . . . Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. . . . Throughout . . . the family acknowledged that Theresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state."

Did I miss something? Was I out of the room when the media reported on the Guardian Ad Litem's findings? Is it possible that I completely ignored these facts regarding Michael Schiavo's devoted care for his wife following her illness?

Or is it possible that the media was too busy giving me more opportunities to hear from Randall Terry, James Dobson, Pat Boone(jeesh!), Jesse Jackson, etc. to do the work of real reporting?

More Schiavo

2005-03-30T20:15:00.000-08:00

The Terri Schiavo case is fatiguing and frustrating in so many ways. I have little energy to comment intelligently. And I continue to believe that talking specifically about the particular case at hand is counterproductive to real dialogue and provides no real opportunity to sort through the thorny issues implicit in the case.

Justin has a great (even humorous, in a way) post about an interview with a Catholic priest on ethics and the dying process.

My good friend Samuel Clark sent me a link to an article on Christianity Today's website, entitled Is It Ever Okay to Pull a Feeding Tube? The article -- an interview with John Kilner, president of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity (whatever & wherever that is, unreported by CT) -- is worth reading and has some useful points to make about the process of ethical decision-making in critical end-of-life situations.

1. Avoid sweeping statements about what should be done with nutrition/hydration. It's not automatic that you do whatever possible to provide nutrition/hydration in every situation.

2. Avoid the temptation to respond to all situations with a flat, "No." No assisted suicide. No denial or withdrawal of treatment. Period.

Unfortunately, the article is mostly advocacy masquerading as intelligent dialogue. (The links to "earlier CT coverage" of the Schiavo story demonstrate the rather settled bias in this regard.) Mr. Kilner clearly has a well-defined opinion on the Schiavo case and explains it in detail, advocating a specific response to this situation. This irreparably clouds the interview and thoroughly frustrates any hope that this article might provide an unemotional presentation of some ethical principles which would prove useful in most situations. The presenting question, "Is It Ever Okay to Pull a Feeding Tube?" is answered only in the context of Ms. Schiavo's situation and is complicated by the difficult additional complexities in her case. (For instance, Kilner stops to comment on the questions regarding Michael Schiavo's guardianship and implies that his motives may be clouded by financial gain or sexual entanglements. Again, this is advocacy posing as a bioethics discussion.)

I remain concerned that we have bought into an ethical principle that says simply: Because we can, we must. While Mr. Kilner eventually makes some useful points buried in this interview, a dangerous implication seems to be that because we can keep Ms Schiavo alive we are required to do so. Indeed, in this convoluted conversation there seems to be a position emerging among certain advocates that would completely eliminate any discerment or choice in such matters.

Notice Mr. Kilner's statements regarding why discontinuing medical intervention in Ms. Schiavo's case is unethical. "To withhold her feeding tube is to intend her death. The governing ethical criteria are that it's inappropriate to intend someone's death." This strikes me as a sweeping generalization that obscures any process of ethical decision-making.

In one grand move of his ethical hand Mr. Kilner removes the need for knowing the patient's desires and completely nullifies all discussion regarding "living wills" or "advanced directives." If it is unethical to "intend someone's death" then the matter is settled. Period. The fact that a patient was willing to intend his/her own death (and expressed that willingness in a prior instrument) is irrelevant, since that would fall into the same condemnable category as euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Mr. Kilner's rhetoric is carefully designed to leave us with few options. By choosing words like "intending death" is to make the choice analogous to "causing death." I believe that this is exactly where the extreme conservative "pro-life" advocates in this case are taking us by their arguments. Even though Kilner is willing to concede the propriety of removing nutrition/hydration in the final stages of extreme end-of-life cases, I cannot see how he can justify such a position. Clearly, if the removal of Ms. Schiavo's tube is to intend her death, the removal of an end-stage dying patient's tube would mean intending their death. It's a distinction without a difference.

All this means that if the "pro-life" arguments in Ms. Schiavo's case are taken seriously, these same advocates should be expected to attempt nullification of all advanced directives, undermine the guardianship of every spouse who would discontinue medical intervention, condemn every medical professional who removes a feeding tube, and resist every judicial order which provides support for the private doctor-patient decision to permit the death of any human body.

U2 Kicks Off Vertigo Tour

2005-03-30T07:21:00.000-08:00

USA Today has a good review of U2's tour-opener in San Diego Monday night. Now, if only I could justify spending ridiculous sums of money to see these guys in person. Oh well, maybe they'll do a concert in the afterlife (heaven is free, right?).

With All Due Respect...

2005-03-23T15:10:00.000-08:00

Not-quite-so-random thoughts:

1. Language is important, because it is the means by which we define and describe our reality. In the midst of highly charged political situations and rhetorical flourishes by moral and political spokespersons, real meanings of words can be damaged, sometimes irreparably.

2. A feeding tube IS a form of medical intervention. I cannot insert one myself. My wife cannot insert one for me. It requires a practitioner of medicine. As a form of medical or mechanical intervention this technological intrusion into one’s body is by any meaningful definition of terms a form of “life support.”

3. Food and Water are typically served in plates, bowls, and cups and are generally consumed by humans through the mouth. If something can be ingested through the mouth and consumed for the nourishment of the body, it is referred to as Food or Water (even the Big Mac qualifies, in spite of the nourishment aspect). To refer to substances which are not served in this way or consumed in the typical human fashion as “food and water” strains the meaning of words.

4. When any human body reaches the point at which that body can no longer take in natural forms of sustenance (oxygen, food, water) through ordinary human means, death is the natural consequence. Current technology enables other humans to “provide” these life-giving provisions through mechanical means, essentially force-feeding oxygen, fluids, or nutrition to an incapacitated body. Failing to provide this intrusive, mechanical, extraordinary support to that body is NOT a form of euthanasia. To call it “euthanasia” – or worse, using words like “murder” or “kill” – damages and weakens the real and ordinary meaning of important words.

5. I am married to a wonderful woman named Angela. As part of that marriage, my wife is afforded both the rights and responsibilities that come with sharing a life together in the context of a legally binding government-sanctioned marriage. Guardianship of my wishes is part of the responsibility that she has to care for me in whatever state I may find myself (“in sickness and health”, I seem to recall). Any efforts by any state legislature, state or federal court, or politicians in the US Congress to undermine or eradicate her rights and responsibilities as my spouse – without due process and proof that she cannot act in my best interests – undermines the established contract of marriage. I am not married to my parents or to my brother or my sister. They are not afforded the rights and responsibilities which my wife is granted by virtue of our marriage. To argue (or establish by eleventh-hour legislative fiat) that these other persons are better guardians than my spouse or should have legal standing as though they were my spouse, seems to harm the definition of the word “marriage.” And I once heard somewhere that the “definition of marriage” was an important principle to some people!

6. And finally, I do not want to live in a Theocracy! Especially one which is run by “Christian” moralists and technocrats who apparently lack the ability to discern the difference between human “life” – in the normal, essentially human meaning of the word – and prolonged machine-aided animation of an otherwise decaying human body.

All of these are thoughts and beliefs that I have had for a very long time. They predate by a number of years any recent or ongoing situation which you may have heard about in the media. I am not so much seeking to comment on any particular situation, but rather to provide an account of what our language ought to describe and the dangers inherent in allowing polemical debates or difficult emotions to cloud our judgment or alter the meanings of our words.

We would do well to keep this in mind: In the days before modern medical technology prolonged both healthy living and terminal dying, Life was no less meaningful and no less humane, only shorter – and maybe more human.

Opposition, Freedom, and Peace of Mind

2005-03-01T14:38:00.000-08:00

Pre-Emergent: Voices from My Past A continuing series describing the pre-emergent voices and formative ideas that impacted me long before I ever heard of an "emerging church."

I began to see the limits that would be placed on our work because of our involvement with the main stream of [Churches of Christ]. I carried out a policy of expedience [for a time]… but … when we considered going back to resume leadership, I found myself unable to agree to stay within the imposed limits. I had the feeling that after fifteen years of trying to pull the train I had not made it move much. And if I were to pull it at all, I’d have to pull it in a direction I could not conscientiously go. So I resigned from my church ministry … and brought to an end my effort to achieve spiritual ends by political means….

What can a “loyal opposition” among us do? These four things, I would suggest: First, we can be free. Freedom Is not someone’s gift, nor is it something we need permission for. We must not complain that we are not free. Christ has set us free and it is ours to act freely. Responsible ecclesiastical leaders have very limited freedom…. [T]hose of us who are not burdened with such leadership must exercise our freedom for ourselves and for them. Second, we can confess what we really believe…. God helping us, let us determine to speak and write our minds. We may be right or we may be wrong, but we can do no other than to confess what we believe. There is a crisis of faith among our people. Our pulpits are filled with men who do not believe what they preach and who dare not preach what they believe.

Third, we can act rather than react. Too many of us have childishly blamed others for a situation which is not their fault. Some may have chosen to be expedient and to reap the reward of popularity at the price of painful conflict. If we do not choose to be expedient, we make the choice freely and without bitterness, and we shall reap the reward of peace of mind at the price of popularity….

Finally, we can be what we are…. For myself, this is at the heart of my present strivings. I am a member of the Church of Christ, so I must be that. I am not in the main stream of this movement, so I shall not pretend to be. I am a Christian, a part of the whole great movement … that goes back to Jesus and the Jewish people, so I will sink my roots deep into this heritage and know my kinship with all other Christians. I am a human being, a man, so I will cherish my human soul and love all men as fellow members of my race. **:: Logan J. Fox, “Destiny or Disease” in Voices of Concern: Critical Studies in Church of Christism, ed. Robert Meyers** (1966)

I was a student at Harding University, a Church of Christ affiliated school in Searcy, AR., spending a lazy afternoon one day “browsing” the college library. Bookhound that I am, I walked along the stacks the way one would browse titles at Barnes & Noble, picking up whatever looked interesting, perusing the pages, and not really buying (or checking out) anything.

And then I stumbled into it. An almost 25 year-old book sitting there among the university’s collection, quietly subverting much of what the university itself stood for and embodied. As I stood there reading my mind raced; I was stunned to find such words and sentiments expressed so passionately and profoundly by folks from my very own tribe – a real critique resonating with heartfelt desire for the kingdom of God. It was like finding spiritual contraband.

I quickly grabbed up this little volume, checked it out, and spent the next few days consuming it. I cannot fully describe the impact it had on me, but I knew immediately I had found kindred souls among my people. Unfortunately, more than a few of them had left our ranks and more would no doubt be dead by now. But I realized immediately that what I had discovered was a deeply subversive thread of prophetic faith embedded in the very foundations of the institutional religion it meant to upset. I’m still moved by the irony.

I’ll be returning to essays from this little book again.

Simplicity: a new/old practice

2005-02-28T13:55:00.000-08:00

Pre-Emergent: Voices from My Past

More of what I can recall of the wisps of this New/Old Language I began to hear years ago. An ongoing series of entries sharing the pre-emergent voices and formative ideas that impacted me long before I ever heard of an "emerging church."

We must clearly understand that the lust for affluence in contemporary society is psychotic. It is psychotic because it has completely lost touch with reality. We crave things we neither need nor enjoy. “We buy things we do not want to impress people we do not like.” Where planned obsolescence leaves off, psychological obsolescence takes over. We are made to feel ashamed to wear clothes or drive cars until they are worn out. The mass media have convinced us that to be out of step with fashion is to be out of step with reality. It is time we awaken to the fact that conformity to a sick society is to be sick. Until we see how unbalanced our culture has become at this point we will not be able to deal with the mammon spirit within ourselves nor will we desire Christian simplicity….

Courageously we need to articulate new, more human ways to live. We should take exception to the modern psychosis that defines people by how much they can produce or what they earn. We should experiment with bold new alternatives to the present death-giving system. The Spiritual Discipline of simplicity is not a lost dream but a recurrent vision throughout history. It can be recaptured today. It must be. :: Richard Foster, Celebration of Discipline (1978)

This book dramatically altered my life. Well, okay...it radically altered my thinking. My life is just now getting the memo. The call which Foster lays out for God's people in this book resonated deeply for me when I first read it. I knew then, as I know now, that until my life more closely and intentionally reflected the disciplined life of the gospel ways of Jesus my soul would not rest and I would find no peace. My faith has remained restless; my connection to the power-infused, secularized, materialistic "churched" culture has grown increasingly tenuous.

We now live in a time in which a large segment of the church refuses to have a meaningful conversation about economics, about consumerism, about materialistic impulses. We have simply equated "our" (i.e. American) economics with gospel and declared that justice for the world will come with an ever-expanding, unlimited economic pie in a world of limited resources. Meanwhile, we follow a teacher and savior who had "no place to lay his head."

Of Life and Limbs

2005-02-25T09:23:00.000-08:00

Chuck Colson speaks out again…and gets another Open Letter.

Several things jumped out at me from this exchange.

I was interested to hear that a noted evangelical (Mark Noll) had a similar response as mine to the entire question of voting in the recent presidential election. It reminded me that I may need to comment sometime on why I chose not to vote in 2004.

I’m also perplexed by Colson’s persistent unwillingness/inability/disregard/failure (not sure which it is) to find common ground with those Christians – like Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren – who are making a concerted effort to positively and actively reframe the work of being God’s people in this fragmented world. Are the connections Wallis is making between a conservative commitment to “life” and the gospel concerns about peace, violence, poverty, etc. so tenuous that Colson believes they are unworthy of serious attention and reflection. Or is he merely being obtuse?

Personally, I find the “conservative” concern about abortion and its deep implications for human dignity commendable, in spite of the difficult complexities involved in this long-standing political debate. But I also find it incomprehensible that there is for many Christians no discernable connection between such a concern for human dignity and the political, nationalistic enterprise of war.

Colson, in his critique of Wallis, emphasizes the magnitude of the abortion issue in this way: “We oppose abortion because we respect the fact that all humans are made in the image of God.” WOW! That’s exactly the reason I oppose WAR! Or any other act of violence used to accomplish the ends which I think are justified.

It appears to me that the foundations of ethical reasoning have been replaced by political expediency on a number of subjects. Apparently, our moral reasoning in the American church can only extend this far:

>> Pre-born children in the USA have an inalienable right which should be codified into law that protects them from having their limbs sucked off their little bodies while ensconced in their uterine protectorate.

>> Post-born children in Iraq do not have an inalienable right that protects them from having their limbs blown off their little bodies while exposed in the collateral damage war-zone of well-meaning democracy-builders.

Basically, it seems to me that evangelical ethics has taken an untenable stand, opting for an argument in one realm they would refuse in another. In short they have decided in the context of war what they would refuse to others in the context of abortion, namely:

In order to save the life of the mother (a free and democratic Iraq) it is acceptable to abort her already-born children.

Voices from My Past

2005-02-24T20:18:00.000-08:00

Pre-Emergent: Voices from My Past

These are some of what I can recall of the wisps of this New/Old Language I began to hear years ago. This will be an ongoing series of entries sharing the pre-emergent voices that impacted me during my upbringing, education, and early ministry. The quotes are from a variety of sources and tribes, but all share a prevailing sense of the concern outlined on the cover of Resident Aliens: "a provacative Christian assessment of culture and ministry for people who know that something is wrong."

In the midst of my own spiritual development, these voices weren't just interesting ideas about theolgical minutiae. These were formative for me, shaping and influencing me, and giving voice to my nascent concern about the direction of church-as-we-know-it.

Sometime between 1960 and 1980 an old, inadequately conceived world ended, and a fresh new world began. We do not mean to be overly dramatic. Although there are many who have not yet heard the news, it is nevertheless true: A tired old world has ended, an exciting new one is awaiting recognition. This book is about a renewed sense of what it means to be Christian, more precisely, of what it means to be pastors who care for Christians, in a distinctly changed world....

Having challenged the notion that Christianity is fundamentally a system of belief...we want to argue that Christianity is mostly a matter of politics -- politics as defined by the gospel. The call to be part of the gospel is a joyful call to be adopted by an alien people, to join a countercultural phenomenon, a new polis called church. The challenge of the gospel is not the intellectual dilemma of how to make an archaic system of belief compatible with modern belief systems. The challenge of Jesus is the political dilemma of how to be faithful to a strange community, which is shaped by a story of how God is with us. :: Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon, Resident Aliens(1989)

These words rang true for me in ways I could not fully understand when I read them during my junior year in college. But instinctively I knew the authors were describing a reality that I was already living. The only questions that remained were ... too numerous to count! What would it mean for those called Christians to trade in their Constantinian ideas about church and nation in order to become a people, a unique kingdom community, a colony of heaven on earth, a divine polis engaged in the gospel practices embodied in the ways of Jesus?

I had absolutely no idea...yet!

Ground(water) Control to Major Tom

2005-02-24T11:03:00.000-08:00

O great! Now this is really distrubing. My only question is, Where do you put the government-mandated warning label?

A Towering Failure

2005-02-22T14:41:00.000-08:00

Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.
They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."
But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The Lord said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."
So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel--because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.:: Genesis 11:1-9 (NIV)

They’re afraid of losing something. Fearful of being displaced, scattered and separated. They can see on the horizon the disturbing possibility of losing their place of prominence and influence. So they fight against that prospect with the best tools they’ve got.

Intellect. Planning. Engineering. Technology.

With the reliability and permanence that only brick and mortar can provide, they construct a fortress against obscurity and marginalization. What they build practically shouts, “We’re important! We matter!” No one could ever deny their importance or declare them irrelevant. Their carefully designed structures would forever stand as a testimony to their values, their place, their contribution to the world.

And they would never have to worry about being scattered. Or being forgotten.

Confident in themselves and their ingenuity, relying on their technology and skill, they build the tower that would provide the influence they crave, shelter them from the anonymity which threatens us all, and protect them from the diversity they fear.

There’s something reassuring about bricks and buildings, about engineering and predictability. Uniformity of design; reliable results. Steely confidence that tomorrow will be just as we designed it to be. They labor under such a hope and work with that aim.

United in a mono-culture of language and ambition, they build that which will unite them further and preserve their provincial dreams of never being forced to engage the larger world with all its diversity, uncertainty, and injustice. So they produce for themselves that which only appears to reach toward heaven. But heaven has not come down to them and the kingdom of heaven certainly has not been borne in them.

In response God decides to scatter them. A God who defeats such ambitions. A God who tears down structures like these. A God who constantly declares that brick and mortar cannot bear the weight of bearing witness to the God of Creation; only flesh and blood can carry such a load.

God would give them a New Language – a diverse new collection of languages – and scatter them throughout the world in an act of divine defiance against all their parochial plans and schemes.

In the end of the story all that remains are a vacant civilization, empty decrepit memorials to a people with purpose and vision. Reminders of all they meant to accomplish and the fears that inspired them. Traces of the monolithic empire of language and culture they longed to ensconce in a secured homeland. And the wisps of their unified language are lost forever, while the rousing monologue they spoke among themselves, to themselves, about themselves echoes through the halls of an abandoned cityscape.

Irony falls in on them. As they secure their homeland and future, their security is destroyed. Troubled by the terror of cultural anonymity, their culture is destroyed. They lose everything and find all their greatest fears realized, not because they fail to execute properly and fulfill their vision, but because they succeed. But they were a success at something that did not promote what God desired.

So God would deconstruct all they had planned and raise up instead a diverse, uncertain, even confusing world of cascading voices and clashing cultures. A world in which God could call forth a unique people out of the obscurity and marginalization feared by those who build towering empires, who resist the scattering, who despise new languages.

But that’s enough about the modern church.

Let’s talk about these guys that tried to build a tower in Genesis 11…

Fumbling for Words

2005-02-18T21:18:00.000-08:00

I had a really good conversation this week with a friend, one with whom I frequently (and enjoyably) disagree. He is a bright, thinking person who seems to delight in the vigorous joys of a good conversation, knows how to use the language, and isn't afraid of the more colorful ways of expressing oneself, thus making encounters like this one even more delightful.

As I spoke with him, though, I was reminded yet again of how difficult it has become to communicate clearly with others all the stuff that is going on inside my head and heart. Conversations like this one are not always as enjoyable. I have been acutely aware for some time -- more than a year now -- that this difference, this failure to communicate, is for me akin to a vast, seemingly insurmountable language barrier. Speaking louder and trying harder don't help. Unless someone already has a rudimentary understanding of the language there seems very little place to begin. (Think Robin Williams teaching bad English to a roomful of Vietnamese nationals in Good Morning Vietnam.)

Some folks around me seem to have a notion that my beliefs have changed -- and they have, but not as some suppose they have. It doesn't seem helpful to say, "I don't believe what you believe." Surely that would promote misunderstanding, besides the fact that such a statement is terribly imprecise and dangerously general. Since I am very likely to "believe" quite a lot of what another believes, they are left only with the troubling task of figuring out what belief of theirs is no longer shared by me. A task they will almost certainly fail at, given that by instinct it seems they are likely to suppose that I no longer believe something that is of great -- and non-negotiable -- importance to them, the removal of which would do great and irreparable damage to their belief system. Thus, would they be greatly alarmed at my departure from this most prized possession of The Faith and of The Faithful.

For these and many other reasons I would not choose to place my difficulty in such terms. I do indeed share many, even most, of the most important beliefs with most any of those who call themselves Christian. This is not the problem.

No, the problem is not nearly that bad ... and far worse!

It is more accurate to say that I do not share their assumptions. Assumptions are different, in a way, from beliefs. But they are not necessarily any less powerful, and they are frequently more subtle than beliefs, thus making them far more powerful. Assumptions are, by their nature, not really up for discussion or critique and they are almost entirely subconscious, un-analyzed, vital parts of our being. Invisible though they are, assumptions are notoriously pesky little suckers, intruding into almost every aspect of our thought-life. That's exactly why it is so annoying to try talking with someone who doesn't share your assumptions, especially if you thought they did share your assumptions and only begin to realize that they don't when you discover in the middle of your conversation that they don't seem to be on the same planet you're on, which is strange because you don't remember dialing Interplanetary Long Distance.

Talking with someone in this situation is very much like ... you guessed it: Speaking a Different Language. Changing your assumptions, then, is a lot like altering your native tongue. It's a little disorienting, a lot of hard work, and frustrates the heck out of everybody around you. Language is built on a whole lot of little assumptions that you learned long -- way! way! way! -- before you could ever be conscious of what is happening while you're learning the language.

In college I had a bilingual friend from Venezuela who had married a young woman from the USA and joined her as a student at Harding University. I asked him once when it was that he began to feel that he had gotten the English language, when he realized that he was truly an "English-speaker". His answer has always stuck with me: "When I began to dream in English."

For me, I have always had a bit of a bilingual impulse. Many of the assumptions which came to me as a child -- understandings of church, kingdom, life, faith, justice, gospel, etc. -- were delivered, mostly by my mother, alongside a treasured gift very few seem to receive. Even as these foundational pieces were being assembled in my life, she was drawing the diagram and writing the disassembly instructions. My assumptions were being constructed and largely deconstructed at the same time. Like a unique wrench specially designed for this one job, Critical Analysis of the ideas we hold was included as a primary piece of the ideas themselves. Perhaps like having a postmodern English teacher as a parent, it seemed as though my "language" of kingdom & gospel was being learned and analyzed simultaneously.

Imagine that you heard some pieces of a "foreign" language as a child, even learning a few phrases from someone who spoke it with you. You understood it and treasured it. But eventually the language and the whips you could recite were lost to the deep recesses of childhood memory, forgetting even what kind of language it had been or what land it had come from. Many years later you are called on a mission to a land and language that is foreign to you. You're committed to learning the new language, but as you begin to study, as its sounds and rhythms touch your ears it resonates deep within you, like familiar hands plucking long-lost tunes on the harp strings of your heart. You don't know the language, but it isn't exactly "foreign." Instinctively, it is known to you, familiar to you, somehow easier to learn than any other language in the world would be. The language is New; you could not speak it before. But somehow it is also Old, as though it lay dormant in your heart waiting for this moment.

I have begun to speak a new language. Yes, that much is true. My assumptions and my ways of describing the kingdom of God, God's people the church, and all that is attached to following the gospel ways of Jesus have changed. That change is real and not imagined. What is heard coming from me must certainly sound like a "foreign" language, and it is. But for me, it is as familiar as it is foreign, not simply a New Language but also a very Old Language, one that has lain dormant inside me for many years.

The language I speak now is one that sounds to my ears like a dialect of that spoken by the ancient prophets and the early gospel. It is a song of justice, mercy, and peace. A longing for transformation and conversion in the kingdom ways of Jesus.

It is a tongue that I believe should sound familiar to all of God's people but strangely, tragically has been lost by much of modern Christianity in America, where we are so intensely focused on ourselves, on our own survival, on our virtue that all the concerns that would be birthed out of real critical analysis of ourselves sounds like so much chatter, like the tongues of barbarians.

Finally, it is a language I have only begun to learn by speaking and it reflects a way of life -- a culture of kingdom community -- that I haven't yet started to learn by living. I am blessed by those who are patient with me, trying hard to understand my babbling ways. I'm encouraged by their willingness to listen and wait while I continue to find my voice and reframe my life according to the practices that I believe God will use to form the kingdom of heaven in us and through us.

For the sake of these people I will continue seeking to communicate clearly, naively confident that if I try hard enough I'll eventually find the right words, but painfully aware that I may never be able to speak in ways that they will fully understand.

In the meanwhile, I'll be busy dreaming in the New/Old Language of God's Kingdom.