Lent and Justice Article

Posted on

I have a new article up in the February edition of Next-Wave Ezine entitled Lent and the Pursuit of Justice. Head over there to check it out and to read the other great pieces featured this month.

–

I was in college before I discovered Lent.  That might sound strange given that I grew up in the church, but I came from non-denominational Bible church traditions where the church calendar wasn’t followed.  I knew about Mardi Gras and Ash Wednesday, but had no understanding of their significance.  So during Spring Semester Freshman year at my non-denominational Christian college as many of my friends started giving up caffeine or dessert I found myself curious.  I bought a Lenten devotional guide at the college bookstore and tried to figure out what it was all about.

Even so, it took a few years before I began to grasp the spiritual significance of the season.  Sure I joked with my friends about giving up homework for Lent and even flirted with giving up chocolate a few times (how significant is denial if it doesn’t lead to spiritual reflection?), but Lent remained an odd tradition I played at and not a habit I embraced.  I respected the idea of discipline, but balked at the legalism of giving up something just because that is what people do during Lent.  Perhaps hearing my friends complain about how desperate they were for a cola and not hearing anything about how they had been affected spiritually fed my confusion.  Lent just didn’t make sense, at least not in the popular ways I saw it conveyed and practiced.

Then I discovered the connection between Lent and justice.  I was serving as a Children’s Director at a small Baptist church and was attempting to find a way to introduce the kids to Lent in tangible ways.  As I pulled together resources, I discovered that many of the common practices of the Lenten season sprung from the desire for justice.  Prayer represented justice toward God, fasting justice towards self, and charity justice towards neighbors.  Through this threefold pursuit of justice I saw that the Lenten season encompassed more than just personal piety, but called for a period of restoration of relationships with God, with self, and with others.  In essence, a specific time to focus on the ways Jesus had taught us to actually live.

With the children, Lent became a time to focus on the needs of others.  We adopted a homeless ministry to pray for and support.  A practice of this ministry is to pass out bags of toiletries to the homeless, so the kids were encouraged to use their own money to buy travel sized items to donate.  It wasn’t a huge gesture, but it was something they could tangibly engage – involving prayer, personal sacrifice, and charity to others.  They saw that believing in and following Jesus involved seeking justice in these ways.

Through guiding the children through this project, I realized that I too needed the discipline of the Lenten season to put into practice the pursuit of justice in my life.  I had for a few years been reading about the importance of ethical consumption – making just decisions in one’s shopping habits.  I knew that I could care for others, this world, and myself by making better decisions in how I shop, but I always had some excuse for not actually doing it.  It was too expensive, too hard, too inconvenient.  So a few years ago I decided to put my money where my mouth was and use the Lenten season to be disciplined enough to seek justice in my shopping habits.

I choose during the 40 days of Lent to seek to buy food that had been produced ethically.  I sought food that had been grown locally, produced without hazardous chemicals, drugs, or hormones, and for which the producers had been paid a fair wage.  I researched where to find such food in my area and committed to change my habits to serve God, others, and myself in this way.  And it mostly worked.  We had to make serious adjustments in the way we ate in our household, but we also weren’t so legalistic that we starved.  I learned a lot about food and where it comes from, but I also discovered that I could be disciplined enough to attempt to be an ethical consumer.  This was a pursuit of justice that I didn’t abandon as soon as Easter Sunday rolled around, but habits I integrated into my life year-round.  Of course, I am the first to admit that not all of my shopping choices are ethically influenced, but I don’t see this as an all or nothing issue.  I do what I can, where I can.

Lent represents for me a period where I devote myself to following more closely the way of Christ – not just for a season, but for life.  It is a time in which I seek to bring my life into alignment with the values of the Kingdom of God.  Values that include personal sacrifice, devotion to God, and service to others.   It is still a very personal time of devotion as I choose these forms of spiritual growth and sacrifice, but I have finally come to understand a bit of its purpose.  And for that I am grateful.

Read more

Adapting Our Stereotypes

Posted on

The world runs on stereotypes. We expect people to fit into certain boxes and shape our society around those boxes. Those that don’t fit, well, we just let them fall through the cracks. They don’t count, they aren’t normal, if they want to make it they should start acting just like everyone else. The problem is – more and more people are falling through the cracks and systems, flawed to begin with, are falling apart.

I was reminded of how our world is changing as I recently followed the saga of a local Chicago area 1st grader who was barred from attending school for nearly two months. This boy officially lives with his mom in the Homewood school district, but stays with his dad in a different district some nights (and occasionally with his grandmother as well). His parents are divorced and both work so-called “non-traditional” jobs (as in their hours aren’t 8-5). But in a school system that’s strapped for cash, the boy doesn’t spend enough nights at one house to quality for residency and so was barred from attending school. It took the state governor reading about the boy’s story in the newspaper for him to intervene and demand that the boy be allowed to attend school. (read more here and here). The boy and his family didn’t fit the mold and so he was allowed to fall through the cracks (thankfully the press can still do some good). But the thing is, his story is becoming more and more common these days. The world is changing.

I can’t help but think about how the church is responding to these changes. Are we making room for “nontraditional” families and schedules? Or do we just complain about divorce rates, the stability of the family, women working outside the home, and the taxes we pay to the schools to deal with people “like this”? Nurses, and artists, and traveling jobs are more the norm these days than ever. What was once considered “typical” barely exists anymore. The stereotypes and molds have crumbled, so why does the church pretend that nothings changed? A few years ago I was at a church that started a Saturday night service. This allowed a few families with “nontraditional” schedules (who had to work Sundays) to attend church. But there were others in the church who opposed the service saying the only reason people would come to church on Saturday night was because they were too lazy to get up on Sunday mornings.

Divorce is a reality, alternative families are a reality, and nontraditional schedules are a reality across every economic level these days. If all the church does is complain about it and try to make it stop, all that will happen is for the church to make itself obsolete. Refusing to accept the realities of this world in favor of some nostalgic stereotype of the world as we wish it would be doesn’t seem like a smart way to serve our communities. The church needn’t be a system that falls apart as culture evolves, but it does need to learn to adapt and stop rejecting change for the sake of rejecting change. Perhaps that means emerging, perhaps that means just opening its eyes to the community it serves. As a church leader I know I personally find it difficult to even know where to begin sometimes, but for the sake of the community I serve I at least want to try.

Read more

Defining and Defending the Blog

Posted on

This past week fellow Daily Scribe blogger Nick Norelli asked the following questions on his blog – “Is a blog a blog if it doesn’t allow comments? And if it is then is it a blog worth reading?” My initial response was to answer “no” to both questions. Something may perhaps fit the technical definition of a blog and may even contain good information, but in my opinion, a good blog is one that allows conversation, that invites interaction and doesn’t hide dissenting opinions. I find blogs where the authors pontificate on their own opinions but don’t allow questions or criticisms to represent the height of arrogance. It’s even worse when comments appear to be allowed, but dissenting opinions are deleted or edited or when only pre-approved voices are allowed access. Now I’ve deleted a handful of comments here, but only the spam and the super-creepy sexual ones. I prefer the open comment policy. But from my experience the bloggers who don’t allow comments aren’t interested in conversation at all – just in attempting to get everyone to think they are right. They tell the world what to believe, or (more commonly) ridicule ideas or people they don’t like and then walk away. Sure some bloggers don’t have time to respond to every comment, but not allowing commentary at all seems like a way of avoiding responsibility for one’s opinions. But then again, I’m not a fan of having some authority on high telling me what I should believe without allowing me to question or examine their ideas.

These questions reminded me of the recent discussion we had over at the Emerging Women blog regarding the benefits blogging has brought to marginalized voices. In the church world where the voices of white men predominate (or are at least perceived to do so), blogs have provided women and others on the margins with the opportunity to have a voice. So I find it interesting that it is generally white males in positions of power who don’t allow comments on their blogs or who complain (on their blog) about too many voices out there blogging. Why? Some dislike the open source nature of blog discussion preferring instead good old traditional authority. Others think there are too many voices out there for conversation to be meaningful and therefore blogging should be restricted (to those with authority perhaps?). Others don’t like giving the “uneducated” or “unsupervised” the opportunity to have a voice. And perhaps some just want theirs to be the only voice that gets heard.

I admit, there can be issues with blogs. I’ve encountered the crazies out there (blogrush is such great entertainment – did you know that aliens will aid Jesus in his second coming by bringing him to Roswell??), I see the dangers of posting pictures of yourself partying in Cancun that any potential employer can google, and I’ve stuck my foot in my mouth on a few too many occasions – but I still support the freedoms it brings. I like that blogging helps me to examine my world and think critically about ideas I encounter. I like that I get pushed to justify my opinions (not that I always succeed at doing so). I like that as a mom who is often confined to the house I can have adult conversations and maintain friendships with people around the world. I like that women are breaking free from the lies the church has told them and realizing that yes, they can do theology and have a voice in these sorts of discussions. Without the blog many post-evangelical women would be left with no one to talk to, no one to encourage them, and no way to move forward in their faith. So for a man who has never experienced the same confines and dismissal as these women to say that our blogs are just noise that need to go away in order for the important voices to be better heard really irks me (even though I know that most of the men making such statements are not necessarily directing them at women).

I’m all for the conversation. I want to learn from others and I want to question, challenge, and clarify what I read online. To me, such interaction is the trademark of a good discussion, a good educational setting, or a good church not to mention a good blog. I find it frustrating these days to listen to a sermon or read a book and not be able to push deeper by questioning it. I recall the most frustrating classes in college were the ones where the profs refused to respond to questions – instead saying meaningless things like “that’s a good question” and continue on with their lecture. I didn’t want more notes to take, I wanted to engage with what I was learning. Blogs have provided me with that opportunity to continue learning by engaging my world. Sure I enjoy “real-life” conversations, but once a month or so is far too infrequent and I don’t have the babysitting funds for much more (and don’t even get me started on the local Feminist Thought Club I tried to join which ended up being a bunch of college guys trying to pick up women…). I need more than that.  So I am grateful for blogs and for the discussion they should support. I am not afraid of the hard questions nor do I think the “simple questions” are just creating noise. The opportunity to read and engage daily with others is needed at this stage in my life. For me, it’s what helps me grow.

Read more

Thoughts on Lost

Posted on

So I feel like I should give some sort of commentary on the new season on Lost.  I’m just happy to jump back into the story.  I like following a mystery over a multi-year period as it just gets more and more complex.  And this season has thrown in twists that question any assumptions we have made so far in the series.  So a few things that have stood out to me this season –

So far the show has been a story of salvation/redemption.  The characters face the demons of their past and generally reach some sort of healing.  (well, then they die and “leave” the island…)  So I found the language used in the recap episode which asked “will the survivors be saved” intriguing.  They didn’t use the tern rescued, but saved.  But as we now see flash-forwards into the future, the demons remain for some.  I’m interested to see how this develops.

What is primary on my mind right now is the significance of the new character Charlotte Staples Lewis.  The writers of this show do not make throw away literary references, so the blatant C.S. Lewis reference has to mean something.  We already have a John Locke and a D. Hume.  And when Ben showed up using the name Henry Gale, any Wizard of Oz fan knew him to be a fake (although I found Ben’s acceptance of Sawyer nicknaming him Yoda this past week amusing).  So what’s the Lewis reference?  Is it a Narnia alternate world reference?  A Great Divorce purgatory reference? (which I know the producers have denied)?  A Screwtape allusion?  Or just a religious or academic idea?

Any ideas?

Read more

Children, Violence, and Veggie Tales

Posted on

This series of rambling questions is posted in the “why yes, I do have a toddler” category.

I am not a fan of violence and I try to prevent exposing my child to situations that model violence. That said, I have to wonder at some of the strategies to avoid exposing kids to violence and/or death, that take things (in my opinion at least) a bit too far. For example, I’ve had other parents freak out when I talk to Emma that the cute little cows and chickens at the zoo are like what we eat for dinner (apparently they didn’t want their kids to know that). And I once had a parent get upset because during a Children’s Church Easter lesson I told her elementary aged son that Jesus shed his blood on the cross and died. They were committed Christians, but she was appalled that I would mention the death of Jesus to children in church. I guess I was just supposed to stick to “safe” bible stories approved for children like Noah’s Ark and David and Goliath (sarcasm fully intended).

I was noticing this strange habit to shield children from death and violence the other day as I was watching Veggie Tales with Emma. Now I’ve been a fan of Veggie Tales for years (I did live in Wheaton during it’s heyday). On Friday nights when we weren’t studying, my friends and I would get together to watch Veggie Tale videos (aren’t you wishing you went to a Christian college too…). Anyway, what I noticed recently was the transformation over the years of the costumes for the Pirates Who Don’t Do Anything. In the original silly song by that name, Pa Grape sports a pirate hat complete with traditional skull and crossbones. But by the time those Pirates host the Silly Song countdown, the skull and crossbones have been replaced by a smiley face with an eyepatch (both can be observed in the video here). Then in the Jonah movie such references to real pirates have disappeared in favor of a tic-tac-toe game on the hat. The recent Pirates Who Don’t Do Anything movie (produced under new owners) returned to a design reminiscent of the skulls and crossbones but which uses a “P” and fork and knife.

Okay so perhaps I am a bit too obsessed with Veggie Tales, but I have to wonder what happened. Did Christian parents pressure them to remove the elements pertaining to death and violence? Veggie Tales has a history of giving into such parental pressure like when they changed the lyrics to “The Bunny Song.” Apparently parents didn’t like a song about idolatry that prompted kids to say they “don’t love my mom or my dad, just the bunny” or that they won’t go to church or school (the new version just mentions not eating soup and getting a tummy-ache from eating chocolate bunnies, it’s not nearly as catchy). Obviously the message is – children can’t understand idolatry and must be shielded from death and violence all the time.

Somedays I really don’t get it. We protect the kids by putting metal detectors in schools and refuse to let them wear multiple layers in class (for fear of hidden weapons). As a substitute teacher (who kept my winter coat on all day) I saw kids unable to hold pencils they were so cold and who stood outside in the sleet with no coat during a fire drill for over an hour. How did the rules protect these kids? Then there were the Chicago area police who recently had to escort an elderly Chinese man off a playground/park for practicing traditional exercises with short swords because (they said) it might be upsetting to people. Somewhat understandable, but then why are our parks and VFWs decorated with massive weaponry (tanks, bombers, cannons)?

Is there any standard? Do people have any clue what they are doing or what it is they are attempting to protect children from? When have we gone too far in the sheltering of children? Is refusing to talk about blood or bones or where or food comes from a deception on the level of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy? Would we rather tell our kids lies about the world than introduce them to reality (in loving and appropriate ways of course)? Somedays I just have too many questions. Maybe I just need to stop watching Veggie Tales.

Read more

Book Review – What Would Jesus Deconstruct?

Posted on

The terms “postmodernism” and “deconstruction” are popular buzzwords these days.  For some in the church they represent the evil that is trying to undermine the truth of the gospel.  For others they convey a freedom to question and criticize religious traditions they no longer accept.  And, of course, for others they are utterly meaningless ideas that they wish would just disappear.  Yet John Caputo in his latest book, What Would Jesus Deconstruct? (Baker Academic, 2007), attempts to cut through all the confusion as he explores the philosophical roots of deconstruction and why he believes it can offer good news to the church.

In posing the question “what would Jesus deconstruct?” Caputo deliberately evokes the popular WWJD campaign.  He questions the assumptions of moral authority that movement often conveys and seeks instead to place the phrase into its original historical context – Charles Sheldon’s book In His Steps.  Sheldon’s use of the phrase dealt mainly with issues of social justice – issues which Caputo accuses the contemporary conservative church of largely ignoring.  He proposes that a philosophical deconstruction of the church is therefore necessary in order to promote justice and the Kingdom of God.

What follows next is a whirlwind introduction to the postmodern philosophy of Derrida and Caputo’s argument as to why deconstruction can serve as the “hermeneutics of the kingdom of God” (26).  Deconstruction is not, as many believe, an act at destruction, but instead an attempt at understanding – an understanding that seeks ultimately love and justice for the Other.   Laws and systems can be created to promote justice, but believers must always be ready to question them at every step as to whether or not they serve the kingdom of God.  There are no concrete answers defining such things in this journey of faith so believers must continually seek to deconstruct and understand everything they encounter as culture and context shift around them.  It can be an unsettling process, but one that promotes faith and a continual returning to examine the message of Jesus.

From this philosophical basis Caputo then explores the practical outcomes of asking the question “what would Jesus deconstruct?”  In following the tradition of the WWJD movement, he focuses mainly on the areas of ethics and politics.  Keeping in mind Jesus’ call to love others and the upside-down values of the Kingdom, Caputo addresses the controversial issues of economic justice, militarism, patriarchy, abortion, and homosexuality.  In examining these issues he challenges the assumptions of both the left and the right and demonstrates the need for everyone to question sacred cows before they become idols.  As he puts it, “it is time to let a few theological feathers fly.” (90).   Even so, Caputo remains fair and deals honestly with the complexities of all those issues.  He doesn’t propose any easy solutions, and his ideas about how to apply the call to love the Other to these issues will challenge most readers’ preconceived opinions (a significant reason to read the book in my opinion).

In the book’s final section, Caputo provides the reader with two examples of communities which have attempted to deconstruct ideas and assumptions about church.  From an urban Catholic priest who faces the traditions of hierarchy and bureaucracy as he seeks to serve the broken, the addicted, and the poor to an emerging community in Ireland that is rethinking the structure of church gatherings altogether, one sees the effects of a church being able to question how best to serve the Kingdom in its particular context.  Caputo is not proposing that tradition be abolished, just that one should always retain the ability to question and deconstruct any structure.

With this book Caputo succeeds in demonstrating the benefits of postmodernism and deconstruction to the church.  It is in many ways a necessary text for any Christian seeking familiarity with those concepts.  And the philosophically uninitiated shouldn’t fear, Caputo translates these ideas into accessible language and illustrates his points with examples pulled from the daily news and popular television.  This is an offering from which the church can benefit greatly.  The question of “what would Jesus deconstruct?” deserves ongoing engagement, and Caputo has thankfully paved the way for its reception in the church.

Read more

Excellence, Worship, and American Idol

Posted on

If you live in USA it is hard to ignore the fact that American Idol is back in full swing for its new season (and stop grumbling about silly television or our worship of popular culture – you know you watch it). As the season gets going viewers are subjected to the horrifically enthralling auditions. Amongst the handful of contestants that can actually sing there are those who are merely there to grasp their 15 seconds of fame (and yes I am still disturbed by the guy in the Princess Leia slave-girl costume). Then there are those who contrary to reality truly believe they have some ability to sing. Their confidence is high, their friends and family have praised their voices, and then they are shocked and generally incredulous when the judges reject them. While I assume the purpose of highlighting such contestants is to mock them, I am left feeling awkward.

While I understand that the driving force behind American Idol is fame, I have to question where the line of “excellence” can be drawn. If a person can’t sing then being famous and having a career based on one’s singing ability isn’t an option. But what about worship? In churches today worship is generally associated with music. If a person can’t sing can they participate in worship? What about lead worship? Does excellence and skill matter in those areas or do enjoyment and giving glory to God trump the ability requirement?

I know in many ways this is a silly question (of course if people want to sing to God they should be able to), but as I watched yet more worship leaders and choir members get mocked on American Idol the question came to mind. I know I’ve personally sat through some very painful “special music” moments and have sat silently through worship because the leader was so bad it was impossible to sing along. There is the part of me that wants to be generous and accept the messiness of it all. I want to say that having a good heart and a willingness to try is more than enough. But then I find myself squirming to some off-key song, or faltering sermon, or sappy poem, or amateur art, or stumbling dance done in the name of worship and I don’t know what to think. Do I lie and pretend it’s good?  Do I tell the truth and defeat the entire purpose of the act?  And this isn’t some snobbish condescension about someone not being classically trained or having sufficient(??) theological training, just that I’m so uncomfortable that I often go hide in the bathroom to escape. (and before I go further let me say that I know I’ve forced others to suffer through my junk, so this is about me too).

Maybe I’m just self-centered and judgmental and I should just shut-up and deal with it. I’m sure the typical poor singer given the mic on a Sunday morning doesn’t harbor delusions of grandeur, so I should just be more generous in appreciating sincere effort. This isn’t about me, it’s about God, so I just need to get over my distraction. Or perhaps I can lay all the blame at the church’s obsession with performance driven worship. (Come on, if it’s a performance at least it can be good…) In our misunderstanding of what it means to worship we’ve laid expectations on it that were never meant to be there.  I honestly don’t know.  Is this just me being weird or is this a question others have as well?

Read more

Embracing Deconstruction

Posted on

So I was feeling well enough the other night to actually get out and make it to our local Emergent Cohort. Let’s just say that with all of this sickness and complications with the pregnancy I haven’t been outside the house for adult interaction since October. So even though I paid for it the next day, it was really really nice to get out and interact (can you tell I’m getting a tad stir crazy?).

Anyway at Up-rooted West we are making our way through McLaren’s latest book Everything Must Change. At the very start of our conversation the other night someone mentioned appreciating the book because it helped point the way forward. Too many books or discussions in the emerging church focused on deconstruction apparently and not enough gave constructive ways to move forward. While I fully appreciate the need for positive constructive books, I am wary of the tendency to avoid deconstruction. To many in the church the term “deconstruction” is just code for unnecessary negative criticism that hurts and destroys. I have a few issues with that view. While I see merit in the need to avoid negative attitudes all the time, to deny people the right to criticize and expressing disappointment (just because those are negative things) restricts the telling of truth and silences prophetic voices. (I wrote about that here recently). But I also think that to view deconstruction as solely a negative act is a misunderstanding of the term.

Although my philosophical understanding is rusty and it’s been years since I’ve read Derrida, I seem to recall that deconstruction is less about the evil practice of tearing down and destroying that many Christians have made it out to be and more about understanding and justice. It involves discovering and understanding the underlying assumptions present in an idea, system, or belief. The goal of deconstruction ultimately is justice (the one thing that cannot be deconstructed) – for as one seeks better understanding one is able to better love the Other. In all something whose goal is love and justice seems to be a fairly positive endeavour in my view. I see much of the conversation that is occurring in the emerging church to be based on these habits of deconstruction – attempting to understand the church and the systems of the world in order to increase love and justice. Deconstruction is part of what it means to move forward as followers of Christ.

Which is why I am loving what I have read so far in John Caputo’s latest book What Would Jesus Deconstruct? – The Good News of Postmodernity for the Church. He writes –

But in the view I am advancing here, deconstruction is treated as the hermeneutics of the kingdom of God, as an interpretive style that helps get at the prophetic spirit of Jesus – who was a surprising and sometimes strident outsider, who took a stand with the “other” … In my view, a deconstruction is good news, because it delivers the shock of the other to the forces of the same, the shock of the good (the “ought”) to the forces of being (”what is”). (p. 26-27)

and as James K.A. Smith writes in the introduction –

Caputo plays here the role of witness and midwife, giving voice to the ways in which Jesus’s vision of the kingdom deconstructs all our domestications – not to leave the institution razed to the ground, but merely flattened. In fact, the whole project is animated by a passion for just institutions – a desire to see things otherwise, to see an institution open to the Other, to the future, and most importantly, to a Jesus who will surprise us.” (p.16)

Deconstruction is about creating a positive vision. It is about moving forward and for us as Christians that involves living with the expectant hope found in Jesus. Discovering ways to fulfill the “on earth as it is in heaven” description of the Kingdom. It is about understanding ourselves and what we believe so that we can respond to the call to love.

Read more

Book Review – Rising from the Ashes

Posted on

I recently finished reading Becky Garrison’s new book Rising from the Ashes: Rethinking Church (we have also been discussing this book over at Emerging Women for this month’s book discussion). This book is different from the typical offering on this subject in that it consists solely of interviews Becky conducted with a wide diversity of people who have experimented with “rethinking church.” I found this pure inclusion of various voices refreshing and a good representation of the vast array of changes happening in the church today. These voices come from mainline and evangelical backgrounds; and while many of them are involved in the emerging church conversation, this book is a good reminder that streams of change are present across the broad spectrum of church and are not just limited to the emerging camp. That said, I was interested to see how even amongst the emerging voices the expressions of how church is being rethought varies from culture to culture and church to church. The voices often disagree or place emphasis on differing areas, but I found that to lend validity to the widespread nature of this conversation on the need to rethink church.

I found a quote in the interview with Brian McLaren to be helpful in summarizing this diversity in the conversation –

There’s so much going on, and people are at all different places. I mean, I started asking certain questions fifteen years ago, and one question led to another and another, and here I am now. other people are just asking the first set of questions, or they’re asking the questions in a different order. But what all of us have in common, I think, is this sense that we’re trying to be faithful to God in the aftermath of modernity and colonialism and all that they entail. (p. 51)

So as the conversation is explored in this book we hear from voices like Phyllis Tickle, Jonny Baker, Shane Claiborne, Diana Butler Bass, Tony Jones, Ian Mobsby, and Nadia Bolz-Weber on topics such as the state of the church, the Gospel of the Kingdom, Christian community, and worship practices. Many of those interviews hold tight to particular church traditions as they attempt to understand the church in this day and age. Others seek to question existing structures or to examine our very conception of church itself. In their responses one sees a mix of theology and practice as well as a deep commitment to serving God in whatever way they can. Rethinking church for them is not about being new or different, but about being faithful and committed followers.

I find this book to be a necessary offering at this stage in the conversation as it serves to highlight the diversity of voices present therein. It is a needed reminder that around the world and across denominations the conversations do not look the same although they may have common elements. I hope this book can help raise that awareness and heighten the appreciation of those who are coming at this conversation differently from us (whoever “us” may be). Not everyone is rethinking church in the same way and there is much to be learned from each other. I recommend this book as a great resource and glimpse into the currents moving the church today. It is helpful to know where we are headed and prudent to understand the passions and rationale of others during these times.

Read more

Ideological Luddites

Posted on

I’ve written often here about ethical consumption and the need to be aware of what we are supporting with our shopping habits. Too often we don’t care that women were abused in the factory that made our shirt or that children were kept in slavery to produce our chocolate. I have a real problem with treating people as objects to be manipulated, used, and destroyed – especially when there are things that could be easily done to make things better. But sometimes even I question the ideology behind some of these discussions.

For example, I am not a fan of hating technology because it is technology. I don’t think that scientific development is necessarily evil and that all technology should be feared (and shunned). Sure it changes the way the world functions, but I’m not the type that sees change as inherently evil. I’m not a fan of rampant advertising from companies that oppress their workers and try to convince people that the acquisition of more and more stuff is the goal of life, but I don’t boycott all TV, Internet, magazines, and billboards in order to avoid any exposure to such things.

Same with things like Facebook and blogging. Sure I am putting my personal information “out there” for any ad exec (or the US government) to access and target me with, but that doesn’t stop me from enjoying the benefits of those mediums (for more on the uber-capitalistic big brother nature of Facebook check out this article (HT – Will Samson)). I’m not a fan of all aspects of the system, but I still participate it in (similar to how I engage with church or politics).

I have a hard time accepting the luddite tendency these days to condemn all forms of technology and media because they have the potential to be used by corrupt and controlling forces. I’ve more of a mind to embrace that which I enjoy, ignore that which is stupid, and oppose that which I see as wrong. I’m not a fan of the constant culture of advertisements we see, but I would rather be critically aware of the system instead of rejecting the entire system. I don’t mind the way something like Facebook works because I expected no less from them. If I tell the world that I like XY and Z products/bands/movies I am under no delusion that that won’t be used by someone somewhere. But I do have the choice to not allow advertisements on my own blog if I don’t want them there. I choose what I want to participate in. (although I do find Gmail ploy to scan my emails so they can target me with “Pastor Ringtones” and “Girlpower Marketing” creepy and annoying).

So to bring some sort of conclusion to my ramblings today (which I hope make sense outside my head although I am beginning to doubt that), I would just say that ideology must be coupled with critical thinking. To me there are differences between committing actual evil, encouraging the support of evil, and the potential to commit evil. And for all I prefer to help redeem the system instead of reject it altogether.

Read more