Category: Church

Motivation or Ridicule?

Posted on

So the blog buzz over the weekend were the anti-emergent motivational posters and then Emerging Grace’s beautiful response. She took what was an attempt to tear down others, and focused on the true message of the gospel. I found the anti-emergent set to be disturbing and cruel and not just because I disagree with the sentiments they express. Some of them just completely miss the point of the emerging conversation which I hope is the result of ignorance and not malicious misrepresentation (one can always hope right?), but others demonstrate seriously harmful attitudes of prejudice and intolerance. While of course many who like these posters are the types that uphold intolerance as a Christian virtue (its all about the hate man), they so miss the point of the Christian message it’s not even funny.

For example the following two posters were created to ridicule emergent and anyone who is not a middle aged white middle class yuppie –



The unspoken assumption that those people are crazy, they are wrong, and that they need to change is heartbreaking. It made me recall a few years ago on The Ooze when I got into an argument with one of the many men who post there in order to tell the rest of us why we are wrong. He was going off about how dress codes in schools are good things because khaki pants and polo shirts really are the most appropriate clothing for everyone. As he saw it, yuppie middle class white America males are the majority in the world and therefore make the most godly choices (flawless logic of course) . All people (of any culture or ethnic group) should emulate him in how they dress if they are to be good Christians. He was serious. And he got really pissed when I mentioned that his ideas were racist, classist, ageist, and sexist among other things. It’s great if he personally wants to dress a certain way and worship a certain way, but to assume that we all have to become like him in order to be real Christians is not only absurd but it is hurtful to the millions of people who don’t fit inside his myopic view of Christianity. To say that the people in these posters cannot really have an authentic relationship with Jesus until they change their appearance and taste in music is one of the most sad warpings of the Gospel I have ever heard.

I love the poster Emerging Grace created in response –


If the Gospel is truly good news, then it is good news for this person right now. Not after he gets his life straight and comes to church looking like he just came from the golf course, but right where he is at. And the gospel is good news for people no matter the length of their hair, the number of piercings or tattoos the have, or if their clothing is made from hemp or stain-resistant wrinkle free cotton/polyester blend. The gospel is relevant to all people. That is the message of Jesus Christ, so its really no big surprise if it happens to be the message of some in the emerging church (or anyone in the entire history of Christianity for that matter).

So Pyromaniacs and Ken Silva can use the emerging church as the butt of their jokes if making fun of people is what entertains them, but I want to go on record here in asking them to stop making fun of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Read more

The Good Shepherd and his Dinosaurs

Posted on

So I got to hang out with the kids in church today. We only have a handful of kids that are all pre-school age and we take turns in the kid’s room during church. There are many many things I dislike about that system, but at the moment its the best we can do. But from what can tell, the kids generally like it.

We usually don’t have “lessons” for the kids (it hard enough getting people to help much less teach a lesson – one of my issues with the whole thing). Basically whoever is in with the kids get to chose what to do – generally that involves free play time or watching a movie. I went with a lesson today based very loosely on the Catechesis of the Good Shepherd. We didn’t have any toy sheep or a shepherd really. But we had a whole set of toy dinosaurs. So we did the story with dinosaurs. The kids thought it was funny, but it worked.

Well my idea was to do the story thing using the toys then move on to sing songs about how God takes care of us. The kids had a different idea. They wanted to have the shepherd let the “sheep” out of the pen and count them coming back in over and over again. They wanted to make sure all the “sheep” were safe with the shepherd. Repeatedly. The songs full of abstract principles about this God person were fun, but they understood the shepherd counting the sheep.

I loved that. Fur a bunch of kids who (although loved dearly) hear most often through any given day to stop doing whatever it is they have chosen to do and start doing whatever the big people want them to do – to be counted and safely cared for is a big deal. To know that they are wanted no matter what is the ‘God thing” they need.

And so went my lesson on the good shepherd and his dinosaurs.

Read more

Gurus, Mentors, and Guides

Posted on

I’ve recently started reading Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert and am thoroughly enjoying it. The book is a chronicle of the year the author spent traveling to Italy, India, and Indonesia. The stories are witty and the musings about life, love, language, faith and food are well worth the read. One bit that struck me today was her description of following a guru. That’s right a guru. She went to an ashram in India to study under a particular guru. The author fully admits how weird such a thing sounds to our American sensibilities. To put something as personal and private as our faith into the hands of another person is not a normal part of our typically protestant experience. In fact we look down on people who follow gurus as deluded hippies (or something of that sort). And yet the author overcame all of those stereotypes, found a guru, and went to India to study her way of yoga. Interesting.

Besides a few painful classes at the community rec center, I have never done much yoga (not that I wouldn’t like to try) and any that I have done has been of the strictly physical sort (hatha yoga I think it is). I am not looking for a yoga guru (although apparently there were a number of Christians at the ashram), but the concept itself is appealing.

A guru. A mentor. A guide.

All good things even to us protestant believers. I think the issues arise when the concept of a person attracting a following comes into play. That scares us. We shy away from personality cults, fear leaders being placed on pedestals, and ignore whatever a person has to say if they get too popular. I see all the dangers in such things, but should someone be dismissed as a guide just because a lot of other people see them as a potential guide as well? If they have the ability to inspire, teach, and mentor is it really all that bad to want to study under them? I see this all the time in the emerging church. For just reading McLaren or listening to Rob Bell, I am told that I care more about them than about God. So respecting someone as a teacher and wanting to learn from them means I worship them above God? Oh, I’ve seen personality cults form and devotion that borders on idolatry even in the emerging church (and yes even of those two men). But can’t I desire to learn from a person I respect without being accused of idol worship? There has to be a balance there.

So, why am I rambling and ruminating about such things. I think I’m just frustrated in my inability to find a person I can see as a mentor. Oh there are a number of authors, pastors, and bloggers that I respect and look to for a sort of guidance. I greatly appreciate that input in my life. But unlike in the yoga guru system, such leaders wouldn’t dream of taking on disciples (especially not a woman, but that’s another issue). I could pay a lot of money for a spiritual director, but while she may function as a guide, the personal connection gets mired in the business transaction. It is an odd predicament of wanting a mentor, but not knowing anyone who could fit that role. I think that’s why I liked reading about the concept of following a guru. There’s this ready made system in place where one can choose a person to guide them who has no issues taking on pupils/disciples. It’s a very convenient method of mentorship.

Read more

Diversity, Variety, and Vision

Posted on

While driving around in my car today, I was listening to the radio. I generally have it tuned to the Chicago station The Mix. Up until recently it hasn’t been much of a mix station, just a “today’s hit music” thing. I had to tune to one of Chicago’s many “we play anything” stations created in the last year or so for a better mix. But I noticed today as I heard a Carrie Underwood country song being played that the variety has increased. Not that there is a huge variety of indie or say folk music being played, but the stringent genres are beginning to blur. Generally I like this, I enjoy the variety (not that there is ever any excuse to have to listen to Justin Timberlake, but that’s a different issue entirely). I personally like variety on the radio and in the blog world and at church. But this contradicts what the “experts” tell me I should like.

Read any expect advice on how to have a good radio station, or blog, or church and you will hear the same thing – pick a target audience and stick to that audience. I read that if I want my blog to be read I need to only talk about one thing – politics or theology or social justice or entertainment or family. Apparently people only want to read a blog for one thing and one thing only. Same thing with church. I’ve read advice that tells churches never to have blended services. The advice reasons that since no one ever listens to both rock and country music or both classical and pop, they won’t attend a church that forces them to worship two different ways (as if there are only two ways…). It’s all about marketing and dividing ourselves into smaller and smaller interest groups.

But I personally think that advice has serious issues. Perhaps there are people who are so immature that they can’t listen to a variety of music or put up with a personal post on a blog that usually deals with technology or cope if their church uses organs (or guitars or lectio divina or whatever). Is the point really to cater to the myopic and the immature? Our culture is moving towards greater diversity in areas such as these. The radio stations play a greater variety, multicultural expressions in cuisine, decor, clothing and philosophy are mainstream, and the lines between politics, religion, and family are obviously beginning to blur. Why be controlled by the opinions of those who can’t get over themselves? I am more interested in staying true to a vision and reaching a more open-minded group of people than I am in compromise for the sake of marketing.

Perhaps this is all excuses – why I like the radio stations I do, why I blog like I do, why we do church like we do – despite what the “experts” say. And perhaps the attempts to appreciate diversity and live holistically won’t work or succeed (as the general definitions of such things go), but at least we can say that the vision wasn’t sold out to marketing strategy. But I don’t think its just me either.

Read more

Church Signs Again – It’s all About Me

Posted on

So our local crummy church sign church finally got around to changing their sign (since I last posted about them). Here’s the newest display (recreated of course) –

Unlike the last sign, this one at least makes sense, but it is no less problematic. I’ve heard this phrase before. Actually, its usually said as “the Bible is God’s personal love letter to you,” but I guess they must have run out of room on the sign. Because I am more familiar with this phrase, my first thought as I drove past the new sign was that this one was at least harmless. Then I started to think about it.

How in the world is the Bible God’s personal letter to me? When did I become the center of the universe and God’s revelation?! Okay, so I understand that the probable intent of the sign is to make people feel all warm and fuzzy that God cares about them personally. And as much as I cringe at religion based on that which makes one feel good emotionally, I too believe that God does care for each of us. But to twist that idea into an individualistic philosophy that pretty much throws out the entire historic and cultural context of scripture is messed up. People start to read the passages as if they were written to them personally and not the church as a whole. (I’m assuming they will only actually take the time to read the epistles so I’m not too worried that they will think that God’s instructions to Hosea were a personal note intended for them…). The church then becomes focused on helping people continue feel like they are the center of God’s attention (and God help that church if that person doesn’t feel like they are getting the attention they deserve).

Sorry, but I can’t do that. The Bible is NOT God’s personal letter to me. The Gospel is not about ME. The church is not about ME. So __________ Baptist Church you once again win the crummy Church sign award. Congratulations!

Read more

Interfaith Encounters

Posted on

So got to spend the better part of the day today in Chicago (the city as opposed to the general geographic area). I caught the train at the end of line at a station surrounded by cornfields and spent the next hour watching those cornfields change into small farms and horse corrals, then cookie-cutter suburbs, then nice rich suburbs, then older artsy suburbs, then poor ethic suburbs, then run-down factory zones, until I finally entered the land of skyscrapers and trendy loft apartments. It was a most interesting ride to watch the history of urban sprawl pass by my window.

I went downtown to participate in a ecumenical, inter-faith clergy discussion. It was an amazing group that had gathered at Wicker Park Lutheran Church for lunch and discussion. I think I was the only pseudo-evangelical. Others represented Lutherans, Presbyterians, Catholics, and Unitarians and from outside Christianity there were two Zen Buddhist Priests and an Emerging Jewish Rabbi. The “clergy cafe” is hosted by Reverend Clare Butterfield (Unitarian-Universalist) of Faith in Place, a Creation care ministry based in downtown Chicago. Mike attended the last gathering (read about it here) so I got to go this time.

The topic for discussion was family systems theory and its implications for leadership for people in modern congregations and modern times. We were given a book list to choose from that dealt with systems theory. I read Peter Steinke’s Healthy Congregations. Having not been to seminary (yet) where it seemed most people there had studied systems theory, I felt a bit lost at points in the discussion. We spent a lot of time discussing the central necessity of self-differentiation in systems theory. As Wikipedia explains –

Differentiation of self refers to one’s ability to separate one’s own intellectual and emotional functioning from that of the family. Bowen spoke of people functioning on a single continuum or scale. Individuals with “low differentiation” are more likely to become fused with predominant family emotions. (A related concept is that of an undifferentiated ego mass, which is a term used to describe a family unit whose members possess low differentiation and therefore are emotionally fused.) Those with “low differentiation” depend on others approval and acceptance. They either conform themselves to others in order to please them, or they attempt to force others to conform to themselves. They are thus more vulnerable to stress and they struggle more to adjust to life changes. (534 Bowen 1974) To have a well-differentiated “self” is an ideal that no one realizes perfectly. They recognize that they need others, but they depend less on other’s acceptance and approval. They do not merely adopt the attitude of those around them but acquire their principles thoughtfully. These help them decide important family and social issues, and resist the feelings of the moment. Thus, despite conflict, criticism, and rejection they can stay calm and clear headed enough to distinguish thinking rooted in a careful assessment of the facts from thinking clouded by emotion. What they decide and say matches what they do. When they act in the best interests of the group, they choose thoughtfully, not because they are caving in to relationship pressures. Confident in their own thinking, they can either support another’s view without becoming wishy-washy or reject another’s view without becoming hostile.

The lack of self-differentiation can result in conflict and the most unhealthy way to address conflict is to cut oneself off from it. “The opposite of an emotional cut-off is an open relationship. It is a very effective way to reduce a group’s over-all anxiety. Continued low anxiety permits motivated family members to begin the slow steps to better differentiation.”

It is all a very fascinating topic, but as with most traditionally modern expressions of faith, I felt the Emerging Church just didn’t fit. In Systems Theory (according to my very limited understanding thereof) stronger leaders and more distinct individuals are necessary for a group/church to be healthy. This seems to fly in the face of organic, missional approaches to church where hierarchy is replaced with community. Also those from the mainline perspectives couldn’t understand that for some in the emerging church, leaving a church (cutting-off) may be the only healthy option. They couldn’t fathom that there could be churches where questions weren’t welcome and intellectual honesty was suppressed for the sake of tradition and doctrine (or where ecumenical/interfaith gatherings weren’t the norm, much less approved of). So to assume that to leave a church is always unhealthy isn’t something I can concede. It may not always be painless, but sometimes it is the only possible way to stay alive for many people involved in the emerging church (and is often a decision that is made for them anyway). But the conversation was a good reminder that my post-evangelical emerging experience is hardly a common story or issue outside of the bubble I exist in (not that that makes it any less valid, just different).

It was a fun day and I’m still processing our discussion. I hope I can take the opportunity to gather again with this group in the future.

Read more

Watch Your Mouth? Offensive Language and Christianity

Posted on

Andrew Jones has an interesting post up about offensive language. He writes about recent offense that has been taken by the usage of certain words and then delves into the history of what offends. He proposes that in premodern times people were offended by words that were “excommunicatory in nature – offensive words were religious terms that threatened punishment and damnation.” In modern times it was “words that cause most offense affront our personal and private sensibilities. These offensive words are normally associated with private body parts, bodily functions of a toilet nature, and sexual relations.” In our postmodern times “it is exclusionary language that causes most offence. Marginalizing people due to their race, gender, disability or status is about the most offensive thing you can say.” He then mentions the bible passages that refer to offensive language including “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” Eph 4:29.

Call me a stereotypical postmodern, but I understand the pre- and postmodern views on offensive language, but just can’t justify the modern. Biblically if the point is not to use the Lord’s name in vain (which referred to making flippant curses or oaths) or not to tear anyone down, the modern sensibility just doesn’t fit. In fact the modern approach does just the opposite – instead of building people up, modern bans of “offensive language” exist to exclude and ridicule. Most of the language that is offensive under the modern sensibilities (bodily and sexual references) is called vulgar. While we have come to perceive of “vulgar” as anything bad, dirty, and lower, it was originally just a term of derision used for the lower classes. So anything associated with the poor, uneducated masses (including their language) was considered vulgar and inappropriate for civilized folk.

So usage of terms that implied that one didn’t subscribe to classism, racism and the like became taboo. Proper people don’t use the germanic/anglo language of the poor (shit, fuck) they use the latinate language of the rich and powerful (excrement, fornicate). Over time the taboo took on mythic dimensions. Certain words came to hold almost magical powers. Say a certain word (incant this spell) and you have sinned (cursed yourself to hell). I doubt that most Christians actually stop to think about what sort of theology they are promoting when they insist that just saying “fuck” is a sin.

The fact that for most Christians it’s okay to use language of hate and derision (making fun of homosexuals, women, and other religions), but its sinful to say certain “vulgar” words displays a seriously messed up theology in my opinion. We are told to build others up with our language and encouraging language of hate while forbidding the language of the poor achieves the exact opposite. So label me as just being postmodern, but I see the more constructive (and biblical) option to be to avoid language that excludes, tears down, and ridicules. So I really don’t care if someone drops the “f-bomb” but I won’t abide “you throw like a girl.”

So it has nothing to do with wanting to be hip and cool or selling out to the culture if I choose to use a word that for a certain period of English history was considered taboo. It has more to do with actually considering my theology of sin, understanding the call to love my neighbor, and living accordingly. But that just pushes the walls of the box a little too far for most people…

Read more

Comfort as Idolatry

Posted on

I’m back from our church retreat. It ended up being a good time, relaxing although not granting much sleep.

We spent the weekend examining our conceptions of God. This of course is a very broad topic, but we tried to understand our default assumptions about God and explore the implications thereof as well as push ourselves to expand our views on God. Since all of our language for God is metaphor anyway, to claim full knowledge of God or to even limit our naming of God to one or two terms leads to conceptual idolatry. So while we as finite beings can never capture an infinite God, it helps to be willing to see that God is bigger than the box we usually stick him into.

We employed a number of activities to help us with this process. One activity was to read selections from books that discuss how we conceive of God or that present a picture of God. One of the selections I read was from Donald Miller’s Blue Like Jazz. In it he complains about a writer who conceives of spirituality in trendy ways (assuming that if it is trendy it is therefore wrong). He accuses those who wish to explore new expressions of spirituality of just desiring comfort. He writes, “your problem is not that God is not fulfilling, your problem is that you are spoiled – God is not here to worship me, to mold Himself into something that will help me fulfill my level of comfort.”

I see the truth in his words, but also cannot fully accept them. It is easy to just create God in our image. God is not us or a pet we can train. But to condemn an exploration of truth just because it might be trendy and comfortable doesn’t seem right either. Too often I see comfort used as the excuse for not letting God out of the box. I hear people say that they intellectually understand that the one or two terms they use for God (Father, Lord) are limiting and tend towards conceptual idolatry, but that they are comfortable with those names for God. It isn’t easy for them to use more expansive and inclusive language for God. So because they don’t want to be uncomfortable and think about their theology as they pray, they won’t let God out of the box they have created for him. Comfort then becomes the idol.

I think that most of us tried to smash those idols and explore a bigger picture of God this past weekend. We had some good conversations especially regarding how our conception of God influences our spiritual practices. I’ll try to post about some of those in the next few days.

Read more

Retreat

Posted on

Spiritual retreat – the idea is to take time to reflect, get away, and focus on God. It should be a time of refreshment and growth. At least that’s the idea. It’s harder when you are leading these things and going crazy trying to get all the last minute details together.

Anyway, we are taking our church on a spiritual formation retreat this weekend. Our focus is our conceptions of God – reflecting on how we talk about and picture God, how that affects our relationship with God and others, how we can grow in our understanding of God, and how we can expand our ability to see God working in the world.

It should be a good time (if I can manage to get everything together for it). There’s been too much on my mind stressing me out so I’ve not planned ahead for this weekend like I should have. So I’ll be off retreating for the weekend. Hopefully it will actually be a retreat.

Read more

Lord’s Army

Posted on

This is disturbing. A Liberty University freshman was arrested for plotting to detonate homemade bombs apparently to stop potential protesters from disrupting Jerry Falwell’s funeral. (read more here). For me, this just epitomizes the culture of fear that the conservative right-wing propagates. The idea that there is some vast conspiracy out there that is out to destroy truth, justice, and the American Way (i.e. Christianity as they know it).

I don’t deny that there may have been protesters at Falwell’s funeral or that there were a lot of us that really didn’t like him. Or that intended protesters included the Westboro Baptist cult who were pissed that Falwell didn’t hate gays enough. And I know that this is just one kid with his own issues. But when you’re fed on the language of “taking back our country for God,” defending the faith, and being part of the Lord’s Army (yes sir) it’s going to eventually get through. Promote violence (however metaphorically intended) and it will beget violence.

Read more