Category: Church

Being Negative

Posted on

Yesterday in church as we began our celebration of Advent we focused on Idolatry. Granted that isn’t one of the common themes of the season, but the advent of this different type of Messiah calls one to examine idolatry of empire versus allegiance to the Kingdom of God. As one stands against the false messages of empire, it become important to not only live differently but to have a prophetic voice where one is at. One needs to have the ability, the right, and the courage to stand up at times and say “this isn’t right.” Unfortunately that prophetic voice is generally suspect or corrupted in the church and in American society. As we discussed this, I was reminded of a recent quote of Tony Campolo to Tony Jones that I have seen posted on a couple of blogs (HT – Brother Maynard and Steve Knight)

“Don’t emerge. The Church needs you to not emerge. Keep being emergent. Keep saying what you’re not. Keep saying what you’re against. Be a prophetic voice in the Church, ’cause as soon as you say, ‘OK we’re done being against, we’re done kind of calling out the failings of the modern church, the weaknesses of the modern church,’ then you will become something, and you’ll no longer be Emergent. Then you’ll start ‘workin’ for The Man.’ You’ll become part of the big institution.”

While I am sure that more was meant in this statement than just what I am perceiving here, I think this holds some good advice for the church. One of the most common complaints I hear against us emergent types is that we are too negative – we just complain about the system and don’t actually ever say what we are for. While I often wonder if those making such accusations are just too miffed that our complaints hit too close to home to bother looking at what we do believe, these sorts of accusations generally end up shutting down constructive conversation. Conflict avoidance is next to godliness in most church settings I’ve been a part of, and so to accuse someone of being negative and inciting conflict is a sure way to silence opposition. In effect prophetic voices get muzzled or tainted with the label rabble-rouser. We can’t have people being negative now can we? Or as someone asked in church yesterday, did people tell Martin Luther to stop being so negative as he nailed his complaints to the door?
Granted, some attempts at having a prophetic voice are anything but helpful. Thoughtful engagement and criticism appear instead as hatred and judgementalism. Those voices are not looking for dialogue or change, but to merely tell others why they obviously are wrong. They kinda forget the whole “speak the truth in love” mandate or Peter’s advice to give a reason for the hope we have with gentleness and respect.
There needs to be a balance here. Judgementalism must be avoided in favor of respect and love, but prophetic voices shouldn’t be shamed into silence either. There is nothing wrong with calling for reform of the church or of the country – even though such a call is by its very nature negative. In exploring flaws and providing constructive criticism one is not necessarily rejecting those structures, just hoping to make them better. So while positive outlooks have their place, so do negative criticisms. We need to cling to the ability to be self-reflective of the cultures we inhabit (including the church) and continue to have a prophetic voice within those realms – no matter how uncomfortable it may be for others to hear.

Read more

Sacred Space and Revolving Christmas Trees

Posted on

Recently Scot McKnight over at Jesus Creed posted some thoughts that touched on the physical aspects of churches and how that affects our worship. While that conversation focused on whether the church’s sacred space hinders the diversity of the church, I had to reflect on just how important space really is for worship.

I understand that the space one enters into in a church can set the tone for worship. Very different messages are sent with a room full of stained glass and pews all oriented to a pulpit as compared to a room full of couches arranged in a circle. The latter focuses one on receiving blessing, instruction, and edification from those privileged to occupy the pulpit. There are benefits to such an arrangement as it can serve to draw one’s attention to grander things outside of oneself. The former arrangement of couches invites community and promotes equity in the worship experience which is welcomed by some but avoided as uncomfortable by others. But regardless of how the worship is approached, it remains worship in both settings.

So while worship might be different depending on the setting of where you worship, I am uncomfortable with the idea that any particular setting could create better or worse worship. Is God more present or more glorified in a cathedral in Rome of hand-hewn stone and stained glass to lift one’s eyes to the heavens or in a tin roofed cement block structure in Haiti where all the hymns are sung in French (not Creole) because all they could get are cast off hymnals from France? How about in a mega-church stadium that seats 10,000 with the only symbol present being an American flag or in a rented bar with neon signs and pin-up girl calenders on the wall? Sure the theologies may differ and each church might be far from the path of actually serving God, but if individuals in each church are seeking to worship God in their particular setting, I can’t see how a value judgement could be made as to whose worship is better.

These sort of discussions remind me a bit too much of the questions the woman at the well asked Jesus regarding whether one should worship on the mountain or in Jerusalem. Jesus of course replied, “Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.” (John 4:23) So while aesthetics and setting and the message our worship space sends are all valid considerations, if discussions of such get in the way of our worshiping the Lord in spirit and in truth, then we’ve run amok somewhere. And for that I am grateful because our worship space today was filled with tacky 1980’s Christmas decorations and revolving Christmas trees.

As a small church plant we rent space that is during the week a community center for mentally handicapped adults. It is a very functional space that retains a living room feel (couches and all that), but it is, um, a bit tacky. It has bright orange carpet and the decor generally consists of artwork done by the clients (generally of the crayon and gluestick variety). But then there are the holiday decorations. In mid-September we walked in one Sunday to discover Halloween gone wild. An entire pumpkin patch had planted itself in the foyer, plastic ghosts, skeletons, witches, and black cats graced the walls, and fake spider webs hung from every available space possible (complete with glow-in-the-dark spiders). We laughed about how we must be the first (pseudo)evangelical church ever to have a sanctuary decorated with witches and ghosts and just dealt with it. Well today the Christmas decor appeared – animatronic caroling dolls, fake snow, glitz and glitter, and revolving Christmas trees. The place looked like a department store circa 1985. But it’s still our worship space. And no matter how tacky the orange carpet, or plastic skeletons, or revolving trees may be, I can’t see how any of those things would make our worship any less pleasing to God. Sure there may be issues of whether such things prevent others from wanting to worship with us (which is an interesting discussion), but if our worship is done in spirit and truth no amount of plastic kitsch can diminish it’s validity or power.

Read more

Disability – The Bible and Perfection

Posted on

To conclude my reflections on disability I want to focus on the issue that has been the biggest ongoing struggle for me to deal with, especially within the church. It is the concept of perfection – the idea of needing to be flawless before God. For most of my life, I thought that referred to spirituality, but I have recently been exposed to those who promote physical perfection as necessary for truly serving God.

To back up a bit, in our culture perfection (or at least the absence of any visible physical flaws) is worshipped. We all hear about the millions of dollars spent on cosmetic procedures and the obsession with having a sexy body. But beyond that such obvious flaws like missing a limb are becoming less and less tolerated. This of course ties in with the whole abortion issue. Parents are now bringing “wrongful life” lawsuits against doctors if the doctor doesn’t inform them with enough time to abort that their child will have a defect. Apparently giving a child with a defect a chance at life is just wrong in their eyes. I’ve had people argue to my face that abortion is needed in the case of birth defects. To one such person, I asked, “so are you saying I should have been aborted because I am missing my arm?” Her reply – “I wasn’t talking about you, you’re smart.” But the assumption by many in our society is that unless you are perfect you don’t even deserve to be born. I find it easy to disagree and fight that assumption in culture, but then I find it in scriptures and the church as well.

I had always heard the language of “pure and holy sacrifice” referring to the lambs led to slaughter. Then one day I read the stipulations for Priests making offerings to God –

Leviticus 21:16-23 “The LORD said to Moses, “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy.”

Having been taught my whole life that “God made me this way” reading those words was hard. Missing a limb, being the way God intended a person to be, disqualified them from serving God. We weren’t perfect enough to for God. (granted women were automatically disqualified too, but that’s a different issue). Not only were we not perfect enough, we desecrate the sanctuary by our presence. Sure it could be assumed that after Christ came as a “perfect sacrifice for all” that such restrictions are lifted, but what really got to me was discovering that there are branches in the church that still promote these stipulations. In the Orthodox church you cannot be in church leadership if you have a physical defect (well except for the eye thing, they waive that one for people with glasses).

I honestly don’t get it. How does not being physically perfect disqualify a person from serving God? How does this make me any less holy than others? Sure there were tons of purity laws in the OT, all of which could be forgiven. But this was impurity for life. Reading passages like this and hearing about the policies of the Orthodox Church seem to me to fit more within the mindset of the Communists who sequester away the deformed children in Latvia or the parents who sue doctors for the “wrongful life” of their defected child. But while my worldview allowed me to accept such opinions from Communists and abortionists, I can’t seem to wrap my mind around how it fits in the Bible and the church. And so far I have yet to hear any interpretation of this passage that really makes sense. At best it just gets lumped in with all those other “Ancient Near-Eastern worldview” passages (like bashing babies’ heads against rocks) that basically just don’t make sense either.

So where does that leave me? I want my theology of disability to be that God made me to be me and uses me as I am. But the Bible seems to contradict that and tells me that I am unwanted and incapable of serving God because of my arm. I have chosen to just go ahead and serve God (as a disabled woman that obviously isn’t in the Orthodox church), but some days that choice can be hard to align with scripture.

Read more

Disability – Faith and Identity

Posted on

I am writing this week on my experience of disability – of missing my left arm. Growing up I heard two very contradictory messages about my arm from the church. The first was the mantra I was taught to tell people who asked about my arm – “This is the way God made me.” This was the way God wanted me to be and since we can’t question God there is no use in worrying about it. I’m missing my arm that’s just life. The second message I heard though was – “God can fix it.” Apparently even though God made me this way, He could fix the mistake if he wanted to. There were generally two options given for as to how God could fix me.

First, I have been told countless times that if I just prayed with enough faith for God to regrow my arm he would (the whole mustardseed and mountains thing). I always found this response odd because I grew up in Dispensational Cessasionist churches. We didn’t talk about miraculous healings, but apparently my arm was an exception. There were the times I believed that message and prayed for my arm to grow (and of course assumed my faith was too weak when it didn’t). There was never any mention of God’s will or basic laws of nature stuff, just the assumption that of course God would reward me with a new arm if my faith was strong enough. As I hear stories now of people trying to pray other physically manifest aspects of personality out of people (ADHD, Gayness..) I realize how utterly offensive such messages are. Just because we don’t fit into a cultural definition of normal, we are told that we must pray that God will change us to fit the dominant mold. Who we are is apparently less important than appearing to be just like everyone else.

The other way I was told that God would fix me would be in giving me a perfect resurrected body. It was apparently supposed to be a comfort that when I go to heaven after I die I will have two hands. But honestly, will I? If my life and my personality have been shaped by having one arm, why would my resurrected body necessarily be different? I don’t pretend to understand any of that stuff or assume how much of an echo of ourselves we will be in eternity, but the assumption that I would have two hands in heaven was always strange to me.

I guess my perceptions of God have changed over time. Do I still think that God “made me this way”? Maybe, I honestly don’t know. I don’t believe God micromanages everything, or does stuff like this to punish or build faith. But in creating me to me be, I can say God made me this way. I do believe in the possibility of miracles, but don’t see them as rewards for faith or as really all that necessary. And I don’t believe in wishing for a miracle to make a person appear more mainstream. And I’ve learned that living incarnationally in the world now, whatever our personal lot, is much more important than pining after what Heaven may be like. I want to be who I am not in spite of or in reaction to my arm. It is part of who I am, but doesn’t completely define me.

Read more

Join the Revolution

Posted on

As we ended our nearly two year study on the book of Luke this morning in church, we took a look at how Jesus open the eyes of his disciples to see how the whole of scripture points to him. While on one level it would have been nice if Luke had included that sermon in his Gospel, one can also interpret the entire book of Luke as being that sermon. The whole book echoes the themes of the Old Testament fulfilled in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

Part of the discussion included looking at the categories N.T. Wright presents in Simply Christian. In summing up the main themes of scripture, that represent as well the deepest longings of human existence, Wright creates four categories. These include – The Torah which defines our relationships, The Temple which represents our spiritually, The Kingdom which demonstrates justice, and New Creation which demonstrates our longing for beauty. These themes show up over and over again in the Old Testament and in the teaching of Jesus. He is calling us to live lives that tap into those longings and can be fulfilled through them. By developing right relationships, discovering true spirituality, seeking justice, and pursuing beauty we live in the ways we were meant to live.

But those are often the very things that are ridiculed by the world and discarded in favor of power and success. It is often the countercultural revolutionaries who uphold those biblical values while the mainstream promotes contrary values. I found it amusing last night that I saw that cultural struggle represented in one of my favorite movies. Moulin Rouge tells the story of the fin de siècle Bohemian revolutionaries in Paris who are seeking a new way of living out their values of Freedom, Beauty, Truth, and Love. They are of course despised and condemned as silly and impractical and told to cure themselves of “this ridiculous obsession with love.” I find the movie brilliant on many levels, but it was a good reminder that pursuing the values of the Kingdom is strange and challenges the dominant paradigm of culture.

To promote right relationships and to seek justice is to love others. To discover true spirituality and beauty is to love God and his creation. To actually live out these great commandments as it were goes against the messages of selfish ambition, greed, isolation, and power that the world promotes as primary. To follow Jesus one has to be revolutionary. Being ridiculously obsessed with love is impractical but it’s the way we are supposed to live. If it takes changing the way we approach everything in order to live the life we were meant to live, are we willing to do it? Is our faith real enough for us to leave everything and follow Jesus? To stop caring about ourselves and start caring for others? To join the revolution?

Read more

So What’s Your Excuse?

Posted on

Yesterday in church I led the conversation on the Great Commission. We have been making our way through the book of Luke for the last couple of years and have finally arrived at the end, which of course just means we are diving straight into Acts next. For many of us who grew up in the evangelical church, the Great Commission involves nothing more than convincing other people to believe in Jesus. Preaching forgiveness and making disciples simply meant getting people to intellectually assent to a certain set of ideas. We’ve left out the whole part about training people in everything Jesus taught.

So yesterday we looked at the mission Jesus sent his followers on (with the help of the Spirit) in light of how Jesus himself described his own mission in Luke 4 (to preach good news to the poor, to proclaim freedom for the prisoners,recovery of sight for the blind, and to release the oppressed). The Spirit of the Lord was on Jesus to fulfill his mission and Jesus promised the Spirit so that the disciples could fulfill theirs as well (which included training others in the way Jesus trained them to follow). But sometimes doing that mission – spreading the message of forgiveness and freedom through our words and deeds – is hard. We obviously have failed at the whole setting the oppressed free and bringing good news to the poor (since there is still oppression and poverty), so there is a lot more work that needs to be done to fulfill the Great Commission. That’s where the Spirit comes in to kick out butts.

I love the example Sarah Dylan Breuer gives as she compares what the Spirit does to a washing machine –

Washing machines don’t work if the load is stagnant; without motion, there’s no transformation. So the washing machines that I grew up with had something at their center that bounced around to push what’s at the center out to the margins and bring what’s at the margins in to the center such that the whole load could be transformed.

We call that thing at the center of the washing machine an ‘agitator,’ and I can think of no better word for what the Spirit does for us. The call of God’s Spirit pushes those of us at the center of our world’s all-too-concentrated power and wealth out to the margins to welcome the marginalized to the center. If we stay where we are and let the rest of the world stay as it is, we’re not fully experiencing the presence and work of the Spirit, and we won’t benefit as fully from the transformation that the Spirit is bringing.

We need that agitation, that kick in the butt, to actually be out there engaging in the mission Christ called us to. Our discussion yesterday concluded with a time of brainstorming of everyday practical things we each could do to engage in that mission followed by us having to list the excuses we give for why we don’t actually engage. Here’s a sampling of some of the stuff we came up with.

Ways we can engage in Mission

    • – Be a volunteer

 

    • – Get to know our neighbors

 

    • – Live more frugally and simply

 

    • – Take the time to be educated on justice issues

 

    • – Learn Spanish

 

    • – Buy Fairly Traded items

 

    • – Do chores for your elderly neighbor

 

    • – Go to student’s soccer games

 

    • – Write actual letters to lawmakers

 

  • – Visit the “unseen” in our culture

Our Excuses for Not Doing Anything

    • – I’m too shy

 

    • – I won’t make a big difference anyway

 

    • – It’s too expensive

 

    • – I don’t know where to begin

 

  • – There is always something better I could be doing to help others, so I end up doing nothing at all

What would you add to either of these lists?

Read more

Book Review – It’s A Dance

Posted on

I recently had the opportunity to read a review copy of It’s A Dance written by Patrick Oden. When I first heard about this book I was intrigued – a theology book about the Holy Spirit written in story form. I am aware that the role of the Holy Spirit is not mentioned often in emerging church discussions. Perhaps the fundamentalist/evangelical roots of many of us in this conversation who grew up being told that the salvation of Pentecostals and Charismatics wasn’t for sure and that the Holy Spirit no longer works in our current dispensation may have something to do with that. But whatever the case, I haven’t heard much talk about the holy Spirit recently and so wanted to explore It’s a Dance.

The book is set up focusing on a writing assignment of a southern Californian journalist, Luke. His assignment leads him to visit and review churches in the area in search of something new and different to capture the readers attention. While the assignment is part of his job, the search echoes Luke’s own spiritual quest to arrive at some sort of understanding and expression of faith he can accept. This quest leads him to a very different sort of church that meets in a pub. Luke then discovers the hows and why of this church’s differences as he sits down for long discussions with the pastor and church attendees. Through these discussions we hear the stories of what brought people to this different church (often stories of pain) and are exposed to the basic theology driving the church. All the while the presence of the Holy Spirit makes itself known as the conversation returns again and again to how the Spirit is at the center of what drives the church.

I personally enjoyed reading the theological exploration in conversational format. Many of the conversations in the book reminded me of ones I have participated in from time to time. There were points where the writing slipped out of conversational mode into sermon mode, but then again when you are writing through the voice of a pastor, it is hard not to sermonize every once in awhile. Although the book does not use footnotes (they would have broken up the flow of the conversation), Oden lists his sources at the end of the book and one can tell that centuries of theological traditions and reflections informed the dialogue in the book. As I read I encountered ideas common in emerging church circles as well as explorations of the Holy Spirit that were new to my understanding of faith. It was a fun intellectual journey to take.

In the presentation of the “different” church Luke encounters, it is easy to recognize many of the trendy trappings of relevant churches. They met in a pub connected to a coffee shop/bookstore, they don’t do programs, they offer a prayer room for contemplative prayer, they eschew the typical patterns of modern American churches and so forth. Nothing wrong of course with any of those things, they just fit the common stereotypes of what emerging churches look like. I appreciated that Oden went beyond describing the stylistic structure of the church and told the stories of the people who identify with that church. Reading their stories and discovering how they came to find a church home there fleshed out the theology presented in the book. Their lives represented theology lived out and were a great reminder of the real life implications of all that we believe. Through them one could see the Holy Spirit moving in the never-ending dance to draw us into faith and worship.

I think this book is a needed addition to the growing library of books on how we do church in an emerging culture. It is an accessible read and will be helpful to those who understand theology more relationally than didactically.

Read more

Trappings of a World in Which We Do Not Believe

Posted on

So this month’s Synchroblog is on Halloween, or more precisely about people sharing their thoughts, their experiences, and their expertise on the subject of “A Christian Response to Halloween” (or at least something remotely connected to that idea.) When I first heard about it I was excited to take the time to do research and pull together my ideas on reclaiming the roots of Halloween for Christians as a continuation of my post last month. But honestly I hit a wall. Nothing inspired me. Nothing grabbed my attention. The only thing I kept coming back to was a scene from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. In this scene Voldemort has arrived in Godric’s Hollow with the intention of murdering Harry. It is Halloween and he passes houses decorated for the evening and children masquerading as pumpkins. Voldemort refers to such things as “all the tawdry Muggle trappings of a world in which they did not believe.”

At Halloween our modern cultural rituals are a dim reflection of the historical practice of connecting with and honoring those who have come before. We lost the true meaning, but keep the trappings in hopes that we can connect in some way to something bigger than ourselves. We bring out the ghosts, jack-o-lanterns, and black cats not understanding what they mean, but longing nonetheless to grasp hold of a fleeting glimpse of the mysterious. We watch horror movies in hopes that fear, as raw and intense of an emotion as it is, will at least make us feel something beyond ourselves. But these things still remain trappings of a world in which we don’t fully believe.

Trappings of a world in which we do not believe. To what extent does that statement reflect the entire edifice of this thing we call Christianity? How much of our faith experience involves decorating our lives with symbols of that which we think might be fun if it were real but which is obviously not real enough to make a difference in our lives? Are all the trappings of church just forgotten symbols of a deeper reality? Do we desperately seek the next worship high in order to convince ourselves that we actually do feel something?

I don’t have the answers, but there are times when I take a look at what we do at church and wonder why the hell are we doing these things. I’m sure those rituals held some real meaning for some people once upon a time, but I just don’t get it now. It seems like the rituals, the trappings of faith, have become the only cultural artifact of faith. Much like plastic pumpkins and ghoulish blow-up lawn ornaments have replaced the historical roots of Halloween which are now only an echo, has this production we call church replaced the life Jesus called us to live? Is what we are doing at church just a hollow cultural echo of what we were meant to be?

Halloween and Christianity are safe because they are no longer connected to their roots. We can play around with them and only occasionally be reminded of the bigger mystery they represent. I do not fear Halloween because I only see a hollow artifice without roots (not that I fear those roots, but that’s another story). But I do fear Christianity when it is a hollow artifice. Trapping of a world in which we do not believe can be dangerous. Ignoring the wild and deep power of God as we engage in rituals of worship doesn’t sit well with me. I think we need to start lifting the veil and start believing again.

If you want to read other more coherent contributions to this Synchroblog (that maybe actually address the topic…) check out –
The Christians and the Pagans Meet for Samhain at Phil Wyman’s Square No More
Our Own Private Zombie: Death and the Spirit of Fear by Lainie Petersen
Julie Clawson at One Hand Clapping
John Morehead at John Morehead’s Musings
Vampire Protection by Sonja Andrews
What’s So Bad About Halloween? at Igneous Quill
H-A-double-L-O-double-U-double-E-N Erin Word
Halloween….why all the madness? by Reba Baskett
Steve Hayes at Notes from the Underground
KW Leslie at The Evening of Kent
Hallmark Halloween by John Smulo
Mike Bursell at Mike’s Musings
Sam Norton at Elizaphanian
Removing Christendom from Halloween at On Earth as in Heaven
Vampires or Leeches: A conversation about making the Day of the Dead
meaningful by David Fisher
Encountering hallow-tide creatively by Sally Coleman
Kay at Chaotic Spirit
Apples and Razorblades at Johnny Beloved
Steve Hayes at Notes from the Underground
Fall Festivals and Scary Masks at The Assembling of the Church
Why Christians don’t like Zombies at Hollow Again
Peering through the negatives of mission Paul Walker
Sea Raven at Gaia Rising
Halloween: My experiences by Lew A
Timothy Victor at Tim Victor’s Musings
Making Space for Halloween by Nic Paton

Read more

He with the Loudest Voice Wins

Posted on

Forget “come let us reason together.” Forget “love wins.” These days it feels like whoever has the loudest voice wins. I know that sounds really cynical but I’m getting tired of being drowned out by those voice. Let me explain.

We do church differently at our church – call it emerging or postmodern if you like. We don’t (generally) preach at people, but instead attempt to engage people in discussion and reflection. This works really well for people who are used to us or who have an bit of an intellectual bent. But occasionally we get people who show up who after listening to part of the conversation say something like “But Joel Osteen says _____”. That’s the end of the discussion for them. Joel Osteen has a TV show so therefore his voice being the loudest and most prominent is correct. So if we are talking about self-sacrificially serving others based on texts from Luke, but Joel Osteen said that we can have it all if we just have faith, Joel Osteen must be right. There is no interacting with the issue, no trying to determine which message holds the truth, just allegiance with the guy with the loud voice.

Then there are the issues with the radio preachers (as the Out of Ur blog recently discussed). These guys can say whatever they want and because it is Christian radio people believe them as Gospel truth. It doesn’t matter if your church preaches one thing on Sunday, if the people in your church listen to Christian radio they will believe the radio guys’ over you. If they are on the radio they have the loud voice and therefore must be right. So if you are say in the emerging church, but the radio preachers tell their listeners that the emerging church is a cult where they sacrifice children and have sex with Satan (or something similar) they will believe the radio guys and condemn you to hell. No honest intelligent dialogue. No pursuit of truth. Just automatic default to whatever the guys with the loudest voice are saying.

I’ve personally experienced this phenomenon in a women’s Bible study I was in a few years ago (which yes was just as painful as it sounds). Not much deep engagement went on at this thing. Our discussions involved reading whatever answer we filled in the Beth Moore blank with or occasionally reading the study notes from the NIV. Any attempts to push the conversation further were met with confused looks of “that wasn’t in the book.” One week our topic was on Rahab, and I was determined to bring up the alternative view that perhaps she wasn’t a prostitute. Before I could one of the other ladies chose to read from Liz Curtis Higgs’ Bad Girls of the Bible on Rahab. Essentially the passage claimed that Rahab has to be a prostitute because she represents our potential to be saved from the baseness of our sexual nature as women and if you question her role as a prostitute you are unbiblical and challenging the saving work of Christ. Which of course I disagreed with even more. At the risk of being labelled unbiblical (which I eventually was at that church) I tried to speak up and was immediately shut down. Who was I to question Liz Curtis Higgs the others asked? She’s the expert on bad girls of the bible, you can’t question the expert. So faithful exploration and biblical study don’t matter in the face of a loud voice.

The “loud” voices, the ones with clout, are considered more believable because they are prominent and reach a wider audience. As we in the emerging church attempt to rethink patterns of theology we run up against these loud voices. They don’t engage us in dialogue or a willingness to learn. Instead they ridicule, spread rumors and lies, and inoculate themselves against feedback by screening their calls and emails and deleting negative (or just basically insightful) comments on their blogs (if they allowed them in the first place). I guess it’s hard to remain a loud voice if you don’t just shut out all other voices.

So what do we do with this? People are allowed their own opinions, and I can ignore individuals who make fun of what I am a part of, but what about my family and friends who believe lies about me because of a few loud voices? Or who at least write me off for things I truly believe because they have been exposed to a bad representation of those things? Or what about those of us who have lost jobs because of the loud voice of others? How can we encourage church members and friends to actually think for themselves instead of swallowing whatever the loud voices tell them to believe? How can we do this without getting too cynical?

Read more

Conquistadors and Peace

Posted on


When I was in Santa Fe last week, we spent one afternoon doing the tourist thing. As we wandered around the city, we paid a visit to the Cathedral. Apparently the most famous relic in the Cathedral is a statue of Mary. I was a bit puzzled when I saw the sign that gave its name. All the signs there are written in both Spanish and English so I wasn’t surprised to see two names in those two languages listed. But I was surprised to read “La Conquistadora” and “Our Lady of Peace.” Last time I checked “conquistador” meant “conqueror” and not “peacemaker.” Obviously this wasn’t a matter of direct translation. So I decided to read up on the story. What follows is a very brief, cut and pasted history of the statue and Santa Fe.

The City of Santa Fe was originally occupied by a number of Pueblo Indian villages with founding dates between 1050 to 1150. The “Kingdom of New Mexico” was first claimed for the Spanish Crown by the conquistador don Francisco Vasques de Coronado in 1540. Spanish colonists first settled in northern New Mexico in 1598.

During the next 70 years, Spanish soldiers and officials, as well as Franciscan missionaries, sought to subjugate and convert the Pueblo Indians of the region. The indigenous population at the time was close to 100,000 people, who spoke nine languages and lived in an estimated 70 pueblos.

In 1680, Pueblo Indians revolted against some 2,500 Spanish colonists, killing 400 of them and driving the rest back into Mexico. The conquering Pueblos sacked Santa Fe and burned most of the buildings. From those burning buildings, the Spanish rescued the oldest statue of Mary in America, brought to New Mexico in 1625. In “exile” De Vargas made a vow to Mary that they would enthrone her as their Queen back in the Cathedral of Santa Fe if she would permit their taking their former property without bloodshed. In trust the Spaniards returned. The Indians for an unknown reason withdrew from their stronghold and Governor Vargas entered Santa Fe without opposition. Within four months, 23 pueblos of 10 Indian nations had been conquered and 2,000 Indians converted without the loss of a single life. The Mary statue returned to Santa Fe and has since become a cultural icon.

Originally known as Our Lady of the Rosary or Our Lady of the Conquest, she is currently called Our Lady of Peace. She is best known as La Conquistadora.

So she’s called “Our Lady of Peace” because the Spanish were able (the second time around) to kick the Indians off of their land without the use of violence. This symbol of dominion and empire is revered as a religious icon of peace. Wow. Is our faith still that messed up?

Peace as conquest that avoids bloodshed. That is what the Kingdom message of Jesus has been reduced to here. Imposing our wills onto others, taking away people’s homes, and forcing them to abandon their culture is revered as peaceful. And apparently the whole town throws a big Fiesta each year in honor of this statue and all it symbolizes. (and don’t get me started on the value of this 29-inch wooden Lady of “Peace’s” extensive wardrobe…). If this is the understanding of peace that we promote – that which merely avoids bloodshed no wonder we are having such a hard time understanding the issues behind America’s cultural domination of the world. We not only bring violence, but even our “peacekeeping” teams are conquerors and destroyers.

I think “peace” is a word that needs to be reclaimed. To be stripped from its associations with empire and dominion. To be returned to an active word that goes beyond passivity or just avoiding violence. Peace as working to restore relationships, peace as respecting others, peace as encouraging the oppressed. Peace as love not control.

Read more