Some quotes I've been storing up and wanted to share:
Marge--"(grumble)..sorry its Ramen Noodles again for dinner" Homer--"Baby, you make Top Ramen seem like Cup O' Noodles any day!" ---The Simpsons, Marge Goes To College 90's Flashback
2 Paintings I saw: 1) a bunch of lemons and a glass of lemonade saying: "Dreams cost nothing....And Everything." 2) A painting of 2 coffee cups: "Enjoy a moment".
"Home is where your journey begins."-- a decorative plaque that my wife bought ____________
Watching Pearl Jam's Storytellers session, Eddie Vedder quotes Bob Whittaker: "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story."
As most fans know, Vedder has gotten very political and so he introduces a song with this: "We find ourselves living in a time in our country where truth seems to be a vanishing commodity. But the truth doesn't disappear, its always there. It's omnipresent! But it's somehow getting lost in a barrage of misinformation and fear is how we feel." ______ A car window sticker I saw said, "Only Jesus Matters". My response: Really? ONLY Jesus? There's nothing else on this planet, in our lives that should matter? ______ From Ken Follett's Pillars Of The Earth
"Preists don't know as much as they appear to, my father was one remember?" --Agnes on her religious doubts
"Please remember this: excessive pride is a familiar sin, but a man may just as easily frustrate the will of God through excessive humility." --Cuthbert speaking to Philip about his reluctance to become prior of Kingsbridge Monastery. ________ MISC.:
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. --Martin Luther King Jr.
Every truth has four corners: as a teacher I give you one corner, and it is for you to find the other three. --Confucius
Truth never damages a cause that is just. --Mohandas Gandhi
Apathy Their Stepping Stone So Unfeeling Hidden Deep Animosity So Deceiving Through Your Eyes Their Light Burns Hoping to Find Inquisition Sinking You With Prying Minds
The Ultimate in Vanity Exploiting Their Supremacy I Can't Believe the Things You Say I Can't Believe I Can't Believe the Price You Pay Nothing Can Save You
Justice Is Lost Justice Is Raped Justice Is Gone Pulling Your Strings Justice Is Done Seeking No Truth Winning Is All Find it So Grim So True So Real --...And Justice For All -Metallica
This is the first of my posts on a response to the religious implications of Obama's MLK speech that I posted previously. If you haven't watched it all, please, please take the time. I think it's worth it. A more brief (but less effective IMHO) transcript can be found here on The Daily Dish Blog from The Atlantic.com.
This first post I want to focus on politics from the pulpit. Is there a place for politics in the Church? I grew up with a stout Southern Baptist upbringing (that at least the Southern part I have departed from), that taught (although not exemplified) s strong belief in the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State. This has been a foundational doctrine since the conception of the Baptist denomination. But what does this doctrine mean?
I've studied many aspects and takes on this doctrine, but we must first understand that this doctrine was a reaction to the Anglican Church and a government-controlled Christianity. Baptists, as with most break-away denominational start-ups in early America, founded this doctrine in REACTION to the world reality that they had escaped. Religious Liberty was a huge issue (one I'll save for another post) with the churches in a young America.
As for the Constitution, it is often misunderstood that it actually calls for the "Separation of Ch. and State," but here's what the first amendment actually says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...(online source). Although not specifically stated as most people believe, the thoughts that there should be boundaries between religious beliefs and the newly established US government are there.
So where does that leave us today? What is the role of Religion and Politics in this country? I will argue that morality transcends religions. We, as a country, are too mixed in our religious beliefs that we can't push (as Southern Baptists have done so well) a "Christian" political agenda. Whether we were founded as a "Christian" nation or not (an opinion that I won't post here), We are no longer a "Christian nation"! In fact, it is our diversity that makes this country so great because it creates some checks and balances in society. I am relieved to see that the Religious Right seems to not have a voice or pull on the candidates of this upcoming election. It's not that they aren't entitled to their moral beliefs, it's just that those of other religions, and even those also within Christianity, may not share those specific moral beliefs that have seemed to be the deciding factor (even over the war in Iraq) in past elections. The candidates are supposed to represent the PEOPLE who make up America, not a specific religion or people group that thinks they are the foundation of America.
I believe that the government should have no say in matters of religion unless a legal exception occurs. I think that's the true spirit of the first amendment, although the debate continues on. What about OUR religious beliefs and their place in politics? I think it was Brian McLaren who said, "we should be the conscience of the government." (I could be wrong on who said that, if so please correct me). What does that mean? Well, the government has to make moral decisions based on a transcendent morality (one that transcends any SINGLE religion), and religious people need to respect that boundary within our government. The issues that majority of people can NOT agree on (homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, etc...), that seem to have driven past elections, should not be issues that religions should push our elected officials towards. However, because of us living in a free/democratic country, we should use the assets of our system to further transcendent moral responsibilities. The gray area is where to draw that line.
In Obama's speech he talks about war, peace, poverty, education, health care, civil rights, equality, genocide, environment, and world hunger. He's not the only politician focusing on these issues. Even as Edwards bowed out of the presidential race today, he was adamant that the voice of those in poverty and other causes he has voiced be heard. He went as far as contacting Clinton and Obama and asking that they continue to fight to allow those voices to be heard and represented. These are REAL issues where some progress can be made (and idealistically, the issues can be eliminated altogether). There's a reason that Bush campaigned against abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, etc... yet not real progress towards those agendas have been made. We as a country are morally divided on these issues. But we can rally around these other bigger issues, because these moral issues listed above are relevant in most all religious teachings, and yet, at the same time, transcend all religions.
These are the issues that the religious people should be pushing our government towards action. These are the issues that the US has the resources and power to influence for the good of all; not just of one religion or one nation, but to the benefit of all people everywhere! Obama speaks of MLK's religious POV acted on within the structure of our US government to advance the moral issue of Civil Rights for African Americans in his time. That was a moral issue that transcended the personal beliefs of his own Southern Baptist church, but was a national moral issue that needed to be addressed by our government! Civil Rights is still an issue to which we need to call the government to action, not because we believe in it as Christians (at least we should), but because ALL people should accept this moral responsibility of equality for all. Perhaps the religious people should come together and spend their energy, time and resources on an issue like this; one that can be solved rather than wasting those resources on the "typical, smaller" issues of the past.
One of my fav. quotes from Obama's speech was this: "'Unity is the great need of this hour' is what [Martin Luther King] said. Unity is how we shall overcome....not because it makes us feel goo, but because its the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in our country." He goes on..., "I'm talking about a moral deficit. I'm talking about an empathy deficit. I'm talking about an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother's keeper; we are our sister's keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny."
I really like a lot of what he says. It echos some of the thoughts I've had for a while, some stated here, and says some things that are thought-provoking! Some of the best comments for me: -his "Great News": "a new generation has come of age and is applying their faith to the biggest issues that face us." Go us (I am assuming that I am a part of that generation...if not, I'm inviting myself in:) -"We should speak [politically] in a moral language that is inclusive of everybody." -"There should not be a religious litmus test for politics. I care not about someones religion but their moral compass." --To which Jon Replies, "Good point, just that the morality, whether its religious or not, can be judged on its own merit." -I also like Jim's Idea of, "The Politics of the Common Good". I'll have to pick up his book for more insight.
Also, on the day that Bush was to give his State Of The Union address, Jim puts out a video of his own "State of the Union". Again, very interesting.
NOTE: EDIT/ADDITION: In conclusion, my thoughts on the politics in the pulpit are as follows. There IS room for politics in the pulpit! However, I do not believe there is a LOT of room. Mainly I think it can be used when it comes to calling people to action on social justice issues. The reality is that our churches do not operate in a vacuum. We are citizens of a democratic country where the political process is part of how we the people are supposed to voice and effect change. The Church should use that process when absolutely necessary, but not ABUSE the process as has been done in modern history. There is NO room for candidate endorsements from the pulpit. A person should not be told for whom they should or should not vote in church. I do have issues with Obama campaigning from the pulpit, although I do understand that his message and beliefs of change are so wrapped up in his campaign, that he could not separate them. I'm not justifying, just trying to put myself in his shoes. That still doesn't relieve the unease of him campaigning on that Sunday.
But to give all the candidates credit, none are overt about their religion. People have made a big deal about Romney, but I haven't seen him make a big deal about it himself. I've heard Barack say he's Christian, but he doesn't "play that card". The same seems to go for Hilary. I'm proud of the changes that have come about in this election. Right now it seems that there's a 75% chance that the person who becomes president will make history by being the first female, black, or Mormon president. That's an exciting place for our country to be in! But regardless of that, I think that history is being made in the process, as the tides are turning politically. This seems like a turning point in American political history, and that shouldn't be overshadowed by the bigger historical possibility of having a minority, female, Mormon president.
So, what is the role religion should play in politics. I don't claim to have THE answer, just some thoughts in progress.
I saw this on TM's Blog, and it is a fantastic MLK sermon. I know it's political, but it also has a lot of religious implications that are brought up. My first thought was: "is this when the religious get political, or the political get religious"? However, that line of separation between religion and politics perhaps needs to be blurred at times. I am not endorsing ANY candidate on this blog, but I am endorsing many of the ideas and statements made here. I will prob. pick some themes out in subsequent blog posts, but I want you to see it and form your own ideas first. Feel free to leave your thoughts on this speech/sermon.
Today in our creative worship service that I help prepare and lead, our topic was masks and authenticity. You can find more about it in my discussion with Lawrence here, in this recent blog post at the bottom of the discussion section.
One of the things that we did during the service is make a mask that represented the many masks that we wear in our lives. It was a great service that spoke to me still. As the members of the band, Switchfoot mentioned in the video we showed, "Authenticity is hard! It's a constant struggle!"
It inspired a little ditty upon reflection:
Masquerade
I made a mask today.
It Represented:
All the things I wish I was, but will never be.
All the things I think I am, but really aren't.
All the things I tried to be, but have never truly been.
It's all just a fantasy;
A Masquerade!
All I am
All I was
All I can ever be
Is simply me;
What I was created to be!
__________________________________________
Also these lyrics popped into my head during the service:
There have been several attempts to classify the different approaches (usually referred to as "The Emerging Church") to Postmodern Christianity. It's very interesting to see the different philosophical approaches that people have taken in trying to figure out the postmodern faith puzzle! An article from Emergent Village shows a breakdown on these approaches (more general than some other lists) by pastor Darrin Patrick.
Emerging Conversational — They are mainly after theological revision for the church. These folks are really interested in trying to re-imagine theology in light of our postmodern situation. They often challenge traditional understandings of evangelical theology and cast doubt on many of the insights of the protestant reformers of the church. They tend to focus on the mission dei (mission of God) that takes place outside the local church.
Emerging Attractional — They are mainly after methodological revision in the church. These folks are really interested in trying to re-imagine methodology in light of our postmodern situation. They often challenge traditional understandings of evangelical church programming and tend to focus on reaching people in and through corporate worship experiences.
Emerging Incarnational — They are mainly after structural revision in the church. These folks are really interested in trying to re-imagine ecclesiology in light of our postmodern situation. They often challenge the complex structures of the evangelical church. They tend to focus on reaching people through relationships and simple church structures.
_____________________________________
Another model comes from Wess Daniels...I include this because 1) Everyone usually agrees (disclaims) that none of these "emerging" categories are clear-cut, and 2) Wess adds in this list some key names of leaders that one might recognize from the groups.
Deconstructionist Model: Probably the most well known group of emerging churches these churches are truly postmodern in just about every sense of the word. These are Christians influenced mainly by deconstruction, a philosophical approach invented on the continent. In their holy readings of philosophical discourse Derrida, Lyotard, Foucault and Caputo would be there. Much of the focus is on adopting postmodernity, and contextualizing the Gospel accordingly. Peter Rollins’ Ikon in Ireland would be a good example of one such group. I think Tony Jones and Brian McLaren would also fall under this category. I would say they are accommodating to postmodern culture, against modernism, and often against the institutional church making them lean towards a sort of non-denominationalism.
Pre-modern/Augustinian Model: This model would be the second most influential within the EC, and can be in (friendly) opposition to the first group. Instead of understanding postmodernism in terms of Nietzschean philosophy as group one would do, this model leans more towards a Renaissance styled post-modernism (similar to what is represented in Toulmin’s Cosmopolis). Whether this group is truly early modern or whether it reaches back further to the pre-modern era I am not quite clear on, but St. Augustine and St. Thomas are key figures for this group. This is the where the Radical Orthodoxy of John Milbank, James K. Smith and others would fall. We see some catholics here, as well as other theologians that tend towards placing a higher emphasis on tradition within the overall framework of the Christian faith, rather than simply contextualization. This group would be see history as having shown us a better way, and if we reach back far enough we may be able to find wisdom that will help us in our quest of faith today. They would be more favorable towards institutional church, and have a pretty clear understanding of what kind of church we ought to become, but would also be seen as nostalgic and trying to uphold an institution that has often oppressed and violated those we are called to help.
Emerging Peace Church Model (Or Open Anabaptism): This model of the emerging church stresses the non-conformist tendencies of Jesus, and thus the church should follow in his footsteps through non-violence, love of enemy and caring for the poor. This one may be closest to a kind of new monasticism that has so often been written about in recent times. While there are people from the various peace churches involved in this type of church, there are also people from a variety of traditions who are seeking to contextualize the Gospel within our culture. This group does not accept any one style of culture as being good, thus their non-conformist attitude is directed at modernity and postmodernity alike. They see Jesus (and his incarnation) as their primary model for engaging culture. They are influenced by Wittgenstein, Barth, Bonhoeffer, John H. Yoder, McClendon and Nancey Murphy to name a few. In this group you will find people like Jarrod McKenna and the Peace Tree, Shane Claiborne, some Mennonites, Rob Bell’s Mars Hill, Submergent, Jesus Radical and convergent Friends, to name a few. This group is counter any kind of Christendom styled church and thus would be sometimes for and sometimes against institutionalization, and would see contextualization as important only up to the point that it remains ultimately an extension of Jesus’ ministry and message.
Foundationalist Model: This model of the emerging church is more conservative in their reading of Scripture and modern approaches to ecclesiology (standard preacher-centered teaching, music for worship, etc) while seeking to be innovative in their approaches to evangelism. This may come in the form of people meeting in pubs, having tattoos, cussing from the pulpit, playing loud rock music for worship and adding a layer of “alternative-ness” to their overall church service. These churches can be found within larger church communities, or can be on their own, sometimes as a large (possibly mega) church. They follow standard Evangelicalism in that they aren’t attach to traditions, and come out politically and theologically conservative, while maintaining a more accomodational stance toward culture in the name of evangelism, they will ultimately look similar to older church communities theologically. This is where I think Mark Driscoll, Dan Kimball, Erwin McManus and many “emerging services” within mega-church congregations like Willow Creek might be found.
_________________________
I display all of this to say that many people that bash the Emergent Church, really don't understand the depth and complexity of this movement. People like Ken Silva, spend a LOT of time harshly disagreeing with anyone HE considers a part of the "Emergent Movement". There is a lot of hostility by some towards the Emergent Church (as and example, Ken has lashed out at many like Tony Jones and Rob Bell (to the extent of even posting a quote questioning if Tony is truly a Christian...ouch! This caused a huge stir...just follow the links, you'll see). The problem (not to focus only on him, but as an illustration that many people and churches do this as well) is that this is done by said person without truly trying to understand the complex subtleties of the postmodern faith movements and why the emerging approaches might be needed. I would even argue that many of those involved in Postmodern ministry (even the "big" name leaders) would agree that they don't understand all of what's going on in postmodern faith. Hence why we can find several taxonomies of emergents and soooo many books written on this subject. I'm not criticizing Ken or anyone else who does this, just showing that there is a LOT of conflict and misunderstanding when it comes to postmodern ministry!
To me, this is an exciting historical event happening within the Christian faith. I feel like I am living and watching Church History happen. It is both a scary time for many individuals and churches, but also, a very exciting time for those who are willing to embrace and immerse themselves in postmodernity, and all it has to offer the Christian faith!
What are your thoughts?
Where do you think you might fit in?
Is there one category that resonates more with you? Why is that?
Is there another category not mentioned that better explains where you might be?
Def. one of the most interesting Ch. signs/adds I've run accross. I find it interesting the "labels" listed...and just as interesting: the "labels" missing?!
Sorry for the absence in my postings. Rest assured that I have been keeping a journal and will be back on a normal blogging schedule soon. The holidays were hectic, but wonderful. I always hate feeling like I am pushing soo much family into a short amount of time, nevertheless, It is always a joy and a blessing to see my wonderful family.
Alison and I also got away for 3 days to a cabin @ Pilot Mt. It was some much needed time that Alison and I got to spend together away from our hectic schedules. I also have done a lot of reading and even more reflection and thinking about many things. Some of those will result in blogs, some are concerning direction and some other big decisions in my life. Much prayer is appreciated! I came home with a slightly clearer head than when I left, and that in itself, is priceless!
________
OK, so on to today's topic. Since I lead, organize, prepare, and execute (with a great team of creative and wonderful people) a Creative Worship Service, I've been thinking a lot about Worship the last 5 or 6 months and what it means. As you can see from the picture above (provided by our friends @ ASBO), there is a struggle that I feel when trying to get to the roots of what worship is and should be, not just theologically and (more often) theoretically, but also in practice.
Most worship services look something like this (with minor changes):
Congregational Music (type depending on the church/service)
Tithing
A Prayer (maybe 2)
Scripture Reading
A Sermon (usually the central part of the service)
Choir/Special Music
Response/Invitation
Now that's a bare outline, but It spans most every worship service I've been to. The common denominator is that with the exception of the congregational music, there seems to be little to no community/Congregational participation. Now I know every once in a while (more often in some churches) the kids will sing, someone new will do a solo, be the scripture reader, participate in a skit, and do a reading/litany. But these seem to be in most churches the exception rather than the norm.
We try hard in our service to find ways to get the WHOLE congregation involved (more than just singing) as much as we can in addition to having individuals involved with dance, reading, acting, etc... That is a conviction that the whole planning/lead team has about this service, and the direction that we are wanting to continue to grow.
However, the mentality of the cartoon above is something that I see in most churches in regards to the worship services. "What do I get out of it?" "What's in it for ME?" Somehow we've made worship more about us than about God! Indeed, leading music, it is hard to find songs (both hymns and praise and worship music) that is not about me/us in its lyrics! To me, worship is what we give back to God. We receive from God, and ask from God, every other day of the week. Shouldn't that (at the least) that 1+ hr. we spend in "worship" each week be about what we can give to God? And that's the struggle.
I am a teacher at heart. I love to teach! But even I question how central teaching has become in protestant worship services. I could understand if there wasn't Bible study, Sunday School, Small Groups, etc... offered and all the church did was this one event each week, but churches have multiple (and I would argue better) teaching outlets than Greek Rhetorical/hermeneutical approach that happens in "worship services". Having studied Education, Philosophy, and psychology... the hermeneutical approach to teaching is usually one of the worst ways to impart information... not to mention that imparting information and education is NOT equivalent!
Now I'm not just talking about preaching, I have nothing against preaching. As a friend pointed out, we have paid money to go listen to a person speak for 2 hrs. I personally love preaching. The issue here to me (rather the question here) is is there a place for teaching in "Worship"? We've made it a place (especially in the 20th century), and yes, there are biblical examples of teachings happening at a "gathering" (not always intended to be read as a "worship gathering"), but a lot of what we have in our traditional and even contemporary services comes from a Greco-Roman approach that was used to best communicate and match the Hellenistic services for the newly converted gentiles.
What if we took teaching out of worship? What would worship look like? It might be less consumerist. It might end up being more about God than about us?! I'm not sure. Just some thoughts I've been having. Teaching is important!!!! Please hear me say that. But what if we spent more time making sure that solid education happened in better atmospheres (be it small groups, Sunday School, discussion groups, Wed./Sun. Night Bible Study, etc...) and then made that one hour a week solely about God and us giving back to God??? What if that became a discipline of the Church? What would that look like? What message would it send? Who would it reach?
IDK, these are VERY raw thoughts. I don't need anyone getting on here and telling me I'm wrong and being mean about it! I surrender to the fact that I am just trying to rethink worship and what it means, is, and perhaps, should be! I am in no way trying to devalue or attack the modern approach of a "worship service", instead I am asking questions in search of a better understanding! However, I would cherish any comments, conversations, and constructive thoughts that any may have!
