Across the Universe

Posted on

To continue in the theme of recent posts…

I recently got around to watching Across the Universe. I know the movie was all the buzz last Fall, but I don’t get to see many movies these days so I waited until it finally arrived through Netflixs. I loved the whole concept of a musical journey through the sixties to the soundtrack of the Beatles, I just wasn’t expecting it to be so depressing. It had the obligatory happy ending of course, but the general message was “live for yourself because trying to make a difference in the world is pointless.”

The film portrayed the existential struggles of youth, the crisis of the Vietnam war, and the struggles of the civil rights movement during the sixties in ways that deliberately spoke to their exact parallels today. On one level it is disturbing how little has changed since then. The characters sought to bring change to their world and failed. As the characters sought unity they found selfishness. As they sought spiritual answers they met the hollowness of consumerism. As they attempted to serve something bigger than themselves they found despair, madness, and death. As they sought to work for peace they found apathy, hypocrisy, and corruption. In the end they just had to give up on those passions and causes and find contentment for themselves. To put it in Beatles terms – “And, in the end, the love you take/ Is equal to the love you make.”

I found the message depressing and disturbing mostly because I’ve heard forms of it over and over again from the church. “Don’t bother trying to change the world, you won’t make a difference anyway.” “Just focus on your own relationship with Jesus, that’s all that really matters.” “There is so much evil and corruption out there that you can’t ever really change things.” And the implicit message – “see none of this is new, people have tried to work for peace and justice before and they failed, so just grow up and get over it.” I’m sick of these messages. I’m sick of the defeatist, “all things conspire against you so just give up” attitudes. What will it take for people to actually have hope?

Read more

Rethinking Discipline

Posted on

Thinking out loud here on the topic of discipline. I know that there are different meanings of the word depending on one’s intent and purposes, but I sometimes wonder if we restrict what we mean by the term too much in certain circumstances.

The etymology of “discipline” takes us to the Latin terms referring to the instruction given to a disciple. Instruction/discipline was necessary in order to shape a disciple. So Jesus instructing his disciples is discipline. Yet over time the emphasis shifted from shaping a follower to dictating the manner or rules by which the disciple should live. Later the term evolved to refer to punishments inflicted if said rules were not followed.

The two areas I most commonly hear the term used are in reference to child rearing and spiritual disciplines. In both areas, I think we often focus so much on the later meanings of the term that we fail to remember its roots. Instead of shaping disciples (ourselves spiritually or our children) we dwell on legalism and rules. We have checklists for how to be a good Christian and are often punished personally by guilt or corporately through ridicule and ostracism if those rules aren’t followed. We don’t go to church, do our quiet time, appear engaged in worship and we suffer the consequences. And of course we all know the arbitrary rules and punishments we inflict upon our kids all the time. But I wonder if we are effectively making disciples? Are we instructing them and helping shape them (and ourselves) into disciples who choose to follow a certain path? Or have we just created good systems of rules and punishments that keep some people in bounds some of the time?

I’m not saying get rid of rules, just wondering if we limit our understanding of discipline to our detriment.

Read more

Happy Easter

Posted on

Happy Easter All.

The quote of the day. After the war-protesters were arrested at Holy Name Cathedral this morning, Cardinal Francis George responded “We should all work for peace,” George said, “but not by interrupting the worship of God.”

Because this is America. Peace has nothing to do with worship, or Easter, or Jesus…

Edited to clarify my thoughts –

I honestly have really mixed reactions to the whole thing.  I don’t think the protest was the best approach to getting the message out there.  As the paper mentioned this morning, doing something like that in Chicago in the wake of the NIU shootings is a bit too much.  Luckily this was a Catholic church and not an evangelical megachurch or the protesters could have been shot on site.

But I understand the need to do something for peace and that yes shocking people out of complacency is needed.  They might have had a somewhat sympathetic audience at the cathedral, but how many people there are actively working to bring an end to violence?  If their words don’t translate into action what are they worth? (and yes I am speaking to myself here as well).  Perhaps the homily would have encouraged some to action, perhaps not.  This is an issue that goes much deeper than politics and should not be ignored by the church because it can be labeled “political.”  If we care about peace, if we care about the Iraqis who deal with real horror everyday, we wont shut such things out of our worship services.  We wont be more pissed off that our “Easter finery” got fake blood on it and that we had to think about uncomfortable things than the fact that those horrific things are happening to real people.

This was an Easter service.  A celebration that God has overcome death – that enemy has been destroyed.  It comes just a week after we remember when Jesus challenged political powers in a triumphal entry into Jerusalem and then marched into the Temple to speak out (in physical action) against the injustices being perpetrated there against foreigners and the poor.  Was what he just did a silly stunt to gain a bit of media attention?  Shouldn’t he just have let the people worship the way they expected to worship over the Passover holiday?

Honestly I’m conflicted.  I don’t know if the protest was useful, but I think something is needed.  What would have been better and effective?  How can the message of Jesus and the hope of Easter be translated into action and not just warm fuzzies?  How can we get over just our comfort and care about the needs of others (in Iraq and elsewhere)?  There are deeper questions here than just the “disturbance of peace” and I think they need to be addressed instead of just brushed aside because something challenges our assumptions regarding what is appropriate behavior for church.

Read more

America, Race, and the Church

Posted on

This past week in America we have witnessed a rather disturbing portrayal of the the church. The reactions across the blogosphere and in newspaper editorials to the Rev. Wright’s comments and Obama’s response have helped demonstrate the underlying attitudes of priorities of the American church. First I should say, although I don’t agree with some of what Rev. Wright said, I do think he spoke prophetic truth and pointed out some real issues in America. I thought Obama’s speech on racism was accurate and something our country needs to hear. I am shocked at the extreme denial of “race issues” in America that has resulted from the speech. I’m sad that Obama’s first real public act “as a black man” has caused so many to turn on him. Obviously there are still deep race issues in America, regardless of the number of white editorials that say “I don’t look at a person’s skin color.”

But it’s the church issue that really gets me. Two thoughts keep surfacing in the things I read – first that Obama should have caused dissension and left his church community years ago. This assumption reveals the opinion of many Americans that this is how church should operate. If you don’t like something at church, you need to initiate a coup and/or leave the church for a better option. Community doesn’t matter as much as getting what you want from church. Apparently challenging words and honesty about issues in America are cause enough to destroy or abandon community. Church splits, gossip, backstabbing, and church-hopping are all apparently what America expects and wants from church. I know this is a complicated issue for many churches, but why has the first priority become leaving or kicking people out instead of building community and engaging in dialogue?

The second assumption I’m encountering is that pastors shouldn’t be controversial or prophetic, especially if that involves questioning America. This elevation of civil religion and America worship is scary. To place pointing out the sins of the country or just areas where growth is needed as out of bounds for the church prevents real change from ever occurring. I’ve heard plenty of sermons pointing out the issues with other countries, minority groups in America, or the poor, but they never cross the line into questioning establishment America. I could get soundbites of vitriolic hatred (lacking any constructive outlook) from any number of churches regarding “minority” issues (against homosexuals, women, Muslims, the poor…) and for some reason those statements are generally tolerated or at least ignored (if not taken up as a battle cry). Question the greatness of our empire or suggest lifestyle changes for the average American and you are ostracized (and told you are unbiblical for causing division).

What a freaking load of crap. What has happened to the church? When did questioning America become a greater sin than permitting injustice? For me, this is no longer about a political race, this is about having lost the idea of what church is.

Church doesn’t exist to rubber-stamp the status-quo of the empire’s powerful. Church isn’t about a nice experience that helps you feel content with your life as it is. Church isn’t about getting to sing happy songs. Church isn’t about what makes you feel most comfortable. Church isn’t about ignoring the problems of the world until you actually believe they have disappeared. Church is not about complacency in the American Dream.

The church is about being salt and light. About being a city on a hill. About loving God and loving others. About overturning the tables in the temple. About loosing the chains of injustice and setting captives free.

America – it is about getting over ourselves, laying down our lives and giving ourselves fully to following Christ. Somewhere we have seriously lost our way.

Read more

God and Gender

Posted on

A couple of days ago, Mark Oestreicher posted his thoughts on gender pronouns for God. He described his lengthy journey into understanding that solely using male pronouns limits God and alienates many women. It is an open an honest reflection on how seeking to understand God and scripture better brought him to a place of seeing how he needs to be careful about how he speaks of God. First, I want to thank Mark for being one of the first men I have encountered who not only thinks this way, but believes it is important enough to discuss. This is a huge issue for a lot of women and a significant issue regarding truth and idolatry (my thoughts on that here). I appreciate men being willing to acknowledge that and challenge taboos to actually discuss it.

But of course his post has stirred much controversy. There are those fearful that Youth Specialties will take a similar stance (to which my reply is – “what? actually be biblical?”). They claim that they (as youth pastors) would not be allowed to attend YS events if YS said that God isn’t strictly male. I personally find it depressing that a church would promote idolatry over unity or truth. Others there though claimed that if one doesn’t believe God is male then one therefore doesn’t believe the Bible is inerrant (which I think they are inappropriately using as a synonym for true). I was just fascinated by the whole thing. I’m used to this topic being taboo, I’m used to being told that it’s just easier to use male default language, I’m used to people being uncomfortable with including female metaphors in their God talk, but I haven’t heard such extreme “God has a penis” rhetoric in a long time. Do these people really think they are being biblical? (have they studied the Bible???) Do they just really hate women? Are they so narcissistic that God can only exist in their own image? I know those are harsh questions, but have they ever really thought about it?

I thought I’d ramble on here with my questions since I didn’t want to jump into the mess over there. I know this whole topic has been a journey for me, and I still often default to male pronouns for God. But I’m convinced that if I want to be respectful to God, this is an issue I can’t ignore. I don’t want to limit God by the smallness of my biases and God is constantly pushing me into a deeper relationship. I can’t go back now.

Read more

Going Green

Posted on

One of the unexpected outcomes of having a complicated pregnancy and having to spend a lot of time waiting in doctors’ offices is that I have ample time to read a variety of magazines (at least the varieties that are to be found in the typical OB/GYN office). Well the April issues of all the home and garden, parenting, and cooking magazines just came out. Given that Easter is in March this year, I suppose that they all had to come up with some other trendy April event to focus the issue on. So in honor of Earth Day, I’ve read a good number of “going green” articles recently. And while these articles have been generally informative, they have also been highly amusing.

There is of course the home magazine that interpreted “going green” beyond environmental themes and had a whole section on incorporating green (as in the color) accents in your house. Cute. The fitness magazine that encouraged readers to buy an eco-sports bra – which of course was only “eco” because a tiny portion of the sale would be donated to some earth friendly cause. I’d really love to know how green (if at all) the production of said sports bra really was. My favorite was an article on “Growing Green Kids” that listed as its number one way to accomplish that as watching a nature movie with your kids so that kids will “develop empathy for the natural world.” Okay, I’m not opposed to watching movies but doesn’t that seem just a bit counter-intuitive? (to give the list credit, gardening made it as #4 on the list).

What struck me the most though were the underlying attitudes present in all of the magazines. Going green wasn’t necessarily about caring for the earth or for others – it was about helping you have a better life (which yes I know is kinda the premise behind most of those sorts of magazines, but still). The message was to say, eat organic for your own health. There were even lists provided as to which foods to buy organically and for which ones that “didn’t matter.” But of course the criteria for “didn’t matter” involved solely the amount of toxins you personally might be exposed to – ignoring anything to do with the amount the earth or the farmers might have been exposed to. Then there were the fashion articles on how to dress eco-friendly and still look trendy and cute (as mentioned above the definitions of eco-friendly varied widely). And it seemed like great lengths were taken to somehow fit what people already do into the idea of “going green.” For example do you know that you are eco-friendly if you shop at Walmart? They apparently provide space for plastic bags to be recycled, so therefore they must be eco-friendly (duh). The message I came away with is that I really don’t have to change much to care for the earth and that going green is just another way to feed my selfish tendencies. It was a bit depressing.

I know I really shouldn’t criticize, each magazine also provided some really good information. But some things just really make me wonder.

Read more

Rumors and Lies

Posted on

So this has been a busy week again. Sorry for the lack of posts, comments, or returned emails. I’m working on it. So once again I give you a weekend rant out of frustration.

This past week on Andrew Jones’ blog, he hosted some comments from Chuck Colson who was promoting his new book The Faith. Now I’ve not been a fan of Colson for awhile now. I remember being disappointed when he was chosen to speak at my college graduation, appalled by his CT opinion piece saying that not dressing up for airplane trips is a sign of the moral decay of our society, and always uncomfortable with his personal definitions of postmodernism. But I know he’s popular in certain circles and is the voice for some segments of Christianity. So I generally quietly disagree and just try and ignore him. I was a bit offended though by his comments this past week when he wrote (about his book) – “You will notice in chapter 4 of the book that I distinguish between the “emergent community” which rejects the Bible, and the “emerging movement.” There’s much about the emerging movement that I applaud.”

I know others have commented on how absurd that statement is, asking for him to name just one emergent church that rejects the bible. While the part of me that stands for truth and reality echos that call, I know that such an accusation is easily flung about (it surfaced here just this past week). “Rejecting the Bible” is of course code for “does’t think the same way as I do.” But it is never phrased that way. “Think as I do” is warped into “biblical” or “how all Christians have always believed.” I’ve written here before that such concepts are basically a myth and demonstrate a complete lack of historical perspective. The assumption that the modern evangelical belief of the last 150 years or so represent “all Christians ever” is fairly arrogant, but apparently it’s easier to believe the myth than act humbly.

I guess I’m just sick of the repeated accusations that I reject the Bible. People who don’t know me (or other emergents) revel in spreading this lie and refuse to accept the truth of our actual beliefs and experiences. Do they hate and fear us so much that they choose falsehood over the truth? Yes we may disagree, arrive at different interpretations, or develop divergent doctrines. But “rejecting the Bible”? Are you kidding? I know how I interact with the Bible. I dig deep into it each week, I see it as God’s word, I let it teach and inspire me. I desire to discover more about it and the world it describes. I don’t worship it, or make it fit into modern boxes. But I most assuredly don’t reject it. So I would appreciate it if people would stop spreading rumors that I (and my friends) do. Talk to us, engage (gasp) with us, disagree with us, but stop telling lies about us. Please.

Read more

Integrity in Faith

Posted on

I’ve been making my way through Krista Tippett’s new book Speaking of Faith recently and have enjoyed her reflections on her personal faith journey. I always find myself intrigued by her radio program by that name, but hearing from her own experiences has helped me better understand how she engages so brilliantly with representatives of so many faith traditions. At one point in the book, she explores how she became aware of the wideness of the Christian tradition and how that sustained her faith. Her background was in a rather fundamentalist Baptist tradition and as she returned to faith as an adult she desired to only return there “with open eyes, rigor of thought and speech, and the same powers of reasoning [she] expected of [her]self in the rest of [her] life.” As she wrestled with the process of accepting where she had been while still moving forward with integrity in her faith, she quotes a few lines from T.S. Eliot –

Of all that was done in the past, you eat the fruit,
either rotten or ripe
And the Church must be forever building, and always
decaying, and always being restored.

I love that image of church – accepting what has come before and yet always moving forward. It portrays a church, a faith, that is alive – ready to affect the world it inhabits. I find such an image hopeful and know that similar realizations have saved the faith of many (especially in the emerging church). We want a faith that stands up to questions and doesn’t reject us for merely framing those questions. We want a faith that serves the world in life-giving ways. It is a blessing to finally discover a faith like Ms. Tippett did that pushes us beyond disillusionment and can still inspire and transform us without limits.

Read more

An Evening with Anne Lamott

Posted on

I had a fun evening tonight as I got to go hear one of my favorite authors – Anne Lamott. She was doing a booksigning/Q&A event at a local college and I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to hear her. Traveling Mercies is the most raw and honest book on faith I have ever read, and Operating Instructions is the same for parenting books. I appreciate her witty “tell it like it is” style and never fail to be blessed by the insights she delivers from everyday life.

So seeing her speak tonight was a treat. I have to admit, she was less edgy and far more (dare I say) cute in real life than the impressions I developed from reading her work. But yes, even in the conservative of conservative DuPage County she had no fear being her die hard democrat self. But the evening wasn’t all politics. After reading a selection from Grace (Eventually), she spoke on her influences and what it takes to find one’s voice as a writer. She addressed her writing process and why she is hopeful these days (politics did play a roll there). The final question of the evening involved what hope does she see for the church in America. I enjoyed her answer which did touch on the move away from the religious right’s grasp, but focused more on seeing the church choose to follow the example of Jesus. Of choosing to serve and care for the needs of others, and of capturing a vision of a better world.

I’m a fan and I’ve been blessed by her writings. So it was really fun to hear from her in person and to finally meet someone whose story has helped shape me.

Read more