Leadership and the Art of Invitation

One Book that I highlighted in my last post was Peter Block's "Community". Current realities and situations have had me going back to Block a lot lately and I find even more depth and insight as I revisit his book. He has both enlightened me and challenged me now that I have returned to the traditional church infrastructure. I am reading him and hearing him through a new lens. Here are some thoughts from a 2005 keynote address. The original post can be found HERE!

Enjoy! and Thoughts?

______

Change the conversation, change your thinking, change your life.

…(M)aybe the audience creates the performance. Maybe the listening creates the speaking. Maybe citizens create leaders, maybe employees create bosses, maybe students create teachers and children create parents. Maybe the purpose of problem solving is to build relationships.

The only way the future gets created … is through invitation.

I’d rather have two people in the room who chose to be there than a thousand who were sent.

…(T)he idea of invitation is very powerful. What constitutes a powerful invitation? One that says, “Please come, and if you come here’s what’s required of you.” Most invitations are too soft, there are elements of begging: “Please come, it’s going to be great, nothing much will be required of you, it’s not going to take long, we’ll be fast, it’ll be organized, Robert’s Rules of Order, there’ll be food, there’ll be drink, the seats will be comfortable, and if you can come late, come at all, leave early, whatever, please come. God bless you.” A powerful invitation is one that says, “We want you to come! Now if you choose to come, here’s what will be demanded of you. You’ll have to show up. You’ll have to engage with your peers in powerful conversations. You’ll have to leave your interests at the door. We didn’t come together to negotiate; the future’s not created through negotiation, it’s created through imagination. It’s created from a dream… (A) possibility creates an alternative future. We’re not coming to negotiate. Leave your interests at home. You’re coming to engage in the primary actions between you and other citizens, you and other people who came. If you’re willing to live by these requirements, please come.”

To me servant-leadership… is a leadership that confronts people with their freedom.

… (T)he act of love is to confront people with their freedom, is to assemble, lead, in a way that says the choice resides in all of us. What greater gift can you give somebody than the experience of their own power, the experience that they have the capacity to create the world?

The skill of servanthood to me is to get good at questions that no matter how you answer them, you’re guilty. No matter how you answer this question you’re on the hook for being a creator of the future. You’re on the hook for being accountable. You create questions so people will choose accountability. We can’t hold each other accountable. We think we can legislate accountability. We can do performance management, we can have rules of the road that we’re (going to) enforce, but people talk about empowerment when all they really want to talk about are boundaries and limits, what will happen to me; we talk about consequences, there’ve got to be consequences; all of these are forms of patriarchy and they have no power. They have no power to create an alternative future. They have no power in the world. The question is, “How do I engage people so they choose to be accountable?” Well, questions do that. There are certain questions that if you start to answer them, you’re in trouble. No matter what you answer, you are responsible for creating an alternative future. The task of servant-leadership, in my mind, is, “Change the conversation, change the future.”

…(T)he questions have to be ones that have embedded in them the notion that choice resides in the world. It doesn’t reside in leaders; it doesn’t reside in the cause. It’s not in the performer, in the parent, in the teacher; cause resides in people’s connectedness to each other, in individuals.

Most of our organizations and communities are parent-child, boss-subordinate, mayor-citizen conversations — we think that matters. We think the boss-subordinate relationship matters, but I don’t think it does.

We think bosses are responsible for the emotional well being of their subordinates. If they have a depressed, low-morale team, it’s their fault! ...Maybe people are responsible for their own emotional well-being. What would it be like to be in a world where individuals were responsible for their own emotional well being, and we didn’t pretend that the boss was cause and subordinate was effect?

Here are some thoughts about conversations that have the power to create an alternative future. One’s the conversation of possibility. What’s the possibility I came here to live into or to create?

There’s a conversation of ownership. Take whatever you’re complaining about and say, “What have I helped do to create that situation?” Beautiful question. “What’s my contribution to the problem? What have I helped do?” It means I’m an owner. Whatever I complain about, let me turn that question and say, “How have I created that thing?” It’s a conversation of ownership.

There’s a conversation of commitment. Commitment means, what’s the promise I’m willing to make with no expectation of return? That’s a commitment. …“What’s the promise you’re willing to make with no expectation of return?” … Now who do I make the promise to? To peers. If you’re in a leadership spot and you want to create choice, engagement among people working for you, then you say let them make promises to each other. Let them sit in witness of those promises, peers, and say, “Okay, is that enough?” and that shifts the focus from boss-to-subordinate to peer-to-peer.

(W)hy not ask each individual, “What are you here to create? What’s the vision you have?” Now people get nervous: “Suppose we don’t have agreeable, compatible visions,” but I’ve never heard a vision that wasn’t embraceable. I’ve never heard an individual say, “The possibility I’m living into is to walk over people. To succeed at the cost of others.”

“Well, suppose my only purpose in leading would be to bring the gifts of the margin into the center. I just love that thought. I have no idea what it means, but I love the thought. And suppose when we come together we agree for the next six months we’re only going to talk about gifts. And we do it in the moment. We do it with each other and say, “You know, here’s the gift I’ve gotten from you in the last ten minutes.” And you teach people to breathe that in. Most people, when they’re given love or given a statement of gifts, exhale. And they begin a story. And so that’s the thought. And then you devise ways of doing that. So the gift conversation has a lot of power to it.

…(H)elp is just a subtle form of control. People want to give advice to each other. They want to tell you what they did when they were at your stage of life. They have an answer for you, and it’s called generosity; for me it’s mostly a conversation stopper. Whenever you engage people in powerful questions you have to set them up very carefully and tell them, do not help each other. Do not give advice. Do not mask your advice in questions: “Have you thought of this, have you thought of that?” Do not tell them what you did at this stage.

I want you to substitute curiosity for help. Every time you have the instinct to be useful, helpful, to have an answer, to give advice... Ask the other person, “Why does that matter to you? What’s the meaning that that has to you? What’s at stake for you?” In a deeper sense you say, “I came here to serve you by valuing meaning over speed. Meaning over efficiency. Meaning over problem solving.” People say, “I’m a problem solver.” I know you are, but it’s only a part of who you are. You have to inoculate people against the search for the quick answer, by asking them: “What does this mean? Why does it matter to you?”

Bono Reads Charles Bukowski

Bono reads "Roll the Dice"


Reposted from Peter Rollins Blog.

How To Be Nasty Religiously (A repost)

This if from a person I have followed since I first began blogging, David Hayward. I have shared a lot of his art over the years, but he is far more than a talented artist. He is an insightful minister and human-being. You can find his blog here.

I found this post to be very insightful and thought-provoking. As I was taught in Kindergarten, it is always good to share! Check out his blog for more!

____________________

I realize mind-games and manipulative behaviors go on in every sector. But what I’ve experienced is that when someone is nasty in the work place, they are just nasty, it is recognized as such, and called for what it is. Usually. Not always.

But what I’ve noticed over the many years in the church, in spirituality, in Christianity, is that the nastiness in religious domains is more subversive. Christians, I’ve concluded, generally want to be nice, sincere people of faith. They would never want to hurt anybody.

So when something upsetting happens to them against their will, rather than get consciously angry, mean, manipulative or deceitful, they drive these unpleasant thoughts and feelings deep underground and cover it all in a sentimental spirituality laced with ultimate concern for the church, God’s will, and mission.

What actually happens is this psychologically separates the unconscious drives from the conscious ones, allowing the unconscious ones to bloom with full sanction under the guise of genuine concern. Anyone with any discernment can see the monstrosity of the person’s thinly veiled ulterior motives, lack of honesty and integrity. But the person himself is completely blind to them. His spirituality won’t allow him to recognize it. He lacks integrity. In other words, he is not an integrated person. He is not integrating his unconscious with his conscious, his dark side with his light, his sinner with his saint.

To address the issues head-on would fall on shocked, offended and deaf ears. It is useless. Unless a close friend or relative points it out. Then maybe. Otherwise, from my experience, it takes the mortifying trauma of an understood bad dream, a revelation, self-awareness, or realization (whatever you want to call it) for it to be addressed. Plus humility.

Looking at Clergy Burnout

There is a fantastic article in the NY Times on this issue. READ IT HERE!

I've had countless conversations with people in the field of ministry (doesn't matter pastor, associate, youth, children's, etc...) that have or are experiencing burnout. I know that I have experienced it, not in ministry, but during non-stop semesters of college and straight into Div. School. I took classes every summer and after 8 years, I was showing the signs.

I know ministers who have been at churches 25 years who are burned out, and I know ministers who have been at a church 5 yrs. who are showing all of the symptoms. It seems that you are hearing more and more about clergy burnout these days. I think that there are many culprits here, the biggest being that both clergy and laity are not aware of the symptoms, or even the problem.

Clergy like to go nonstop, they take on the emotional burdens of their beloved congregation. ministers often times have "boundary issues" as is backed up in a study mentioned in the above article. They don't know when to say no to things and don't know when to separate themselves emotionally and physically in order to take care of themselves. I think that this is part of the personality of most ministers, and is simply something of which they need to be aware about themselves.

Laity can help too! Knowing the signs of burnout can help the laity take care of their ministers. It only makes sense. If you have a good minister you want to keep them healthy so that they can continue to be a good minister! It is a win for all. However, the best thing the laity can do is have steps in place FROM THE BEGINNING to PREVENT burnout. It's like heart disease, why wait until you have a heart attack to make a change when you can practice prevention and perhaps keep one from ever happening!

What Laity can do:

Encourage/allow ministers to seek regular therapy.

I have done counseling for a couple of ministers, and I have been counseled professionally. It keeps your sanity. It helps you keep tabs on yourself, and gives the clergy a safe place to express their feelings. Sadly, ministers do not feel that they can open up or explore their feelings with their congregations. I understand this. I can't speak for everyone, but I used to feel that expressing my frustrations, doubts, fears, and troubles would burden the congregation that I loved so dearly. I'm not sure this is true anymore, but in any case, the congregation cannot be a substitute for a professional counselor.

Encourage/allow ministers to meet regularly with other ministers.

Ministers need to vent at times. But they also need to be refreshed with new ideas. Sometimes the thing I get the most excited about is when I share and listen to the ideas of others. I can see what is working for other ministers, get feedback on my own thoughts and frustrations, and then take that back to the congregation. I have found that this benefits both the congregation and the minsters alike. And let's face it. Like any profession, the people that know best what you are going through are the people in the same field as you. Other ministers can also provide a support group and point out what one minister alone may not see.

Make sure your ministers take vacations and sick days.

This is one thing that I see a lot of ministers not doing; taking their vacation. Since only 2 churches I know of let their ministers bank vacation days, if the minister doesn't take it, they lose it. I've worked in and with churches for 13 years now and I know how hard it is to find time to take vacation days. There is ALWAYS something going on at the church, and you always have to coordinate to make sure that only one staff member is gone at a time. I am thinking of a certain pastor (and I know this isn't the only case), who has been called back for an emergency more than once. I remember one time that he had to spend extra money in order to change flights and come back early, leaving his family in the midwest. He never got that vacation time back. There needs to be some protection for the minister. He or she should not go on every vacation with the fear of being called back. This is where the laity and other staff members should step up and give some vacation security!

Everyone needs time away. We all need time to get our mind off of the daily stuff, get away, spend quality time with their family, etc... things that people in other fields of employment take for granted. Think about it, clergy are at church most holidays. And speaking from the experience of someone who's whole family lives out of town, it makes the built-in vacation times over those holidays (after the Christmas eve service I we jet out of town) far from relaxing and rejuvenating.

Ministers need time away. Their families miss them, they need to relax, and they need to come back excited and rejuvenated. The laity needs to be the minister's biggest advocate on this, because ministers often times get to the end of their year and are stuck with more vacation than they can take. Then it is a struggle to get away and they end up losing their vacation. Or the church has lost a minister suddenly for 2-3 straight weeks and becomes frustrated. This can be prevented.

The same goes with sick days. A lot of ministers are stubborn about taking sick days. Let's face it, if you are a pastor, you can't just call in when you wake up sick Sunday morning. This is where having a staff that can jump in as a support system in these times is important. Heck, even laity could still do the worship sans sermon if need be. But most ministers will power through the Sunday morning duties. But many are so overwhelmed with expectations and responsibility that they have trouble taking a day away from the office/ meetings/ visitations in order to take care of themselves. This is really where a staff covenant of helping, as well as a strong laity support system could take that pressure off of the minister. I can remember only one time in my ministry where a person looked at me and told me to go home and they would cover the meeting that night. I felt really guilty. I'm not sure why i felt guilty, I def. don't like being sick! However, she convinced me and I handed her my agenda/notes for the meeting and went home and got rest. What would happen if more laity stepped forward and told ministers who are sick to go home and get rest. Remember, the healthier the minister, the healthier the congregation has a chance to be!

Give comp. time!

This is one that is easily overlooked. As a youth minister I worked it into my contract to receive time compensation for extra time (time outside of my contracted weekly hours) that I worked. Ministry is always a 24 hr. on call job. Now I didn't keep up with every hour I spent over my 20 or 40 hr. work week. However, if there was an emergency that took up a whole night, a week of extra services, a conference out of town, or even a weekend (or better yet, a week-long) youth trip, I would find time to take and rejuvenate myself. I would be out of the office on monday, take an early weekend (being Thurs.-Sat., not Sunday), or just leave early one day.

Now, I never took all the time that was due to me, but that was ok! I was taking ENOUGH. I would go play golf with friends, have lunch with a colleague I hadn't seen in a while, get some stuff done around the house, or simply take a nap! It amazes me how few churches build in comp. time! The few I know have it for their youth ministers but not for the other clergy. Let's face it, many churches expect ministers to be in the office during the day (so we will say 9-5 mon.-thurs.), and then most of the day Sunday. There's the 40 hr. work week right there! However, the majority of the stuff that happens in ministry happens outside of those times. Services, meetings, meals, and ministry are often done when people are off of work. That means either in the evening or on Sat., which is the time the ministers usually have off. This is the nature of ministry and being available when people need you is why I went into ministry. However, being expected to pull "normal" hours plus the other 20-30 hrs. when ministry happens outside of the 9-5 window quickly wears and tears a minister. Giving the minister the option of using some comp. time when needed does wonders when he or she feels they need a breather! It allows them not to feel guilty when their child gets sick, they have a dental appointment, want to take a day to spend with their kids, or when they just need a day of real rest (since the ministers do most of their work on the "day of rest").

Unlike vacation days, most ministers won't feel like they have to take all of their comp. time. They won't feel bad when they have to take an afternoon to themselves and don't have to worry about using up sick days except for when they are truly sick. They can see it as a perk, as being recognized as a human being, not a machine. We all need some time off, especially if we've been pulling extra hours at work. My mom (not a minister) works more than 40hrs a week, and one month a year she is there from 7am-10pm most days. However, her boss makes sure that her and her staff get a break afterwards. My mom takes a week to herself (not sick or vacation days), and then throughout the next month she takes a few long weekends as comp. time for how hard she worked during the busy times. It makes my mom not dread the really tough month, and makes sure she is refreshed and happy when she's at work afterwords. Did I mention she loves her job? What if more churches took this approach? How much healthier would they and their ministers be?

Set up and honor sabbaticals.

This is an important one for many ministers because it gives them a nice break...one long enough that they are usually eager to get back because they miss their congregation and have so much new stuff to share. Let me be clear, A sabbatical is not an extended vacation on a beach. There is relaxation and vacation involved, but this is a time where a person betters themselves. Most ministers will take classes, catch up on some reading, visit other churches to see what they are doing in ministry, visit the Holy Land, take a tour of European Church History, etc...

This is a time where a minister become a stronger and more rejuvenated person. We've all heard of ministers and their "bag of tricks". They have 3-5 years of "tricks" (sermons, lessons, ideas, etc..) in their bag and once they have used them up, the feel they have to move on in order to find a new place where the bag becomes new again. Ministers who are given a sabbatical (usually with the contracted understanding that they will do more than just vacation) come back with fresh ideas. This means fresh sermons, new programs, new ministries, and new experiences to share and discuss. An excited minister means an excited(ing) ministry!!!

In the article above, Rabbi Joel Myers says this: “We now recommend three or four months every three or four years,”. Most churches I know of that give sabbaticals contract one 6 month leave after 5 years at that church, and a 4 month leave every 3 years subsequent. I don't think this is a bad set-up. It means the minister has put in enough years to not be new, but (hopefully) not to long to have begun to burn out. I think 4 years would be better (take the sabbatical on the 5th year), but there is some negotiation here. Remember this will end up benefiting both the minister and the church. I know I would use my time to visit a school and take some challenging classes. Or perhaps I would teach at a seminary in South America. Who knows? But I know I would come back with new invigoration and excitement, wanting to share all of my new experiences with my community.

The problem here is that when a church offers a sabbatical, it is usually only for the pastor. We expect so much out of all of our ministers, why do we treat them differently...like they are less of a "minister"? What happens when the youth minister goes to a huge youth ministry conference overseas or on a different coast? What happens when the education minister goes to a seminary to brush up on the latest education concepts and understandings? What happens when the music minister takes a couple of months and does an apprenticeship under another well-renowned music minister? Besides preventing burnout? I think it would benefit everyone, even beyond that specific ministry!

Finally,

Create an environment where the minister is allowed to be human!!!

This is prob. the bedrock/most important thing a Church can do to prevent burnout. Why? Because this happens on a daily basis! Many ministers are put on a pedestal, expected to be the museum display of the perfect Christian. Remember though, we are all on this journey. No one, not even the clergy, had "arrived" yet. These ministers are not Christ! They are not perfect. Yet they come into the church having to feel like they can't make a mistake. And if they do, people are quick to jump on them. We have to change our expectations!!!

This goes for the ministers too. What happens when you teach your church that you are a simple pilgrim and divulge openly when you make mistakes. What happens when we teach our laity love and forgiveness over judgment especially when it comes to clergy? What happens when we become intentionally authentic (no masks, no pretending, just be ourselves flaws and all) and humbly transparent? It is a scary thing for a minister to do, trust me. But if we work together we can create an environment where it is safe for EVERYONE to be one's self, admit their mistakes, find encouragement, and receive forgiveness. This can happen for both clergy and laity alike. This isn't a new idea, it is the Biblical concept of community!

Creating this intentional place is hard. It means letting go of power, changing one's expectations, and accepting everyone for who they are. It means loving each other, regardless of our differences; the way Christ teaches us to love. If we can't do it in our churches, then how can we do it in the world around us?

Just remember, it is just as easy for a church to get burnout with their ministers as it is for the ministers to find themselves in the same state. These things mentioned (and I'm sure other ministers would have some other great ideas), are just a few easy ways to PREVENT this from happening. A healthy congregation with healthy ministers leads to a ministry and community with vitality! And remember, vitality...life is what people are seeking when they look at our churches!

Leave your thoughts, and ideas!

Picture above taken from Outreach Magazine article on burnout. Click to read!

Global Empathy

This video was on The Burner Blog from Fuller Theological Seminary, and I simply can't stop thinking about it. Take a look!

It is interesting to me how we are wired and how empathy is in our nature. In fact it seems to be our default. As my wife said, "this all makes sense and is nothing earth-shattering", yet somehow it is. Why? Because we find empathy so hard! We fight against our very NATURE, the IMAGE in which we were created (IMAGO DEI).

This scientific study and lecture sounds a LOT like the Kingdom of God of which Christ went on about. It IS conceivable that we can reach a level of global empathy, yet we still can't empathize with those people around us. If we can't respond emphatically with our neighbor, how then can we expect to grow into an empathetic relationship on a global scale.

There is a LOT to think on in this video. Ideas of empathy, not only for other humans, but also for all of creation including the planet itself. There is also a lot to ponder when they mention the way institutions we have structured to stabilize our lives push us away from empathy. There is a lot of good thoughts Brian McLaren has on this subject in his book, Everything Must Change.

In any case, it is worth pondering. Too much for me to go into properly, but def. worth a watch or three.

Feel free to comment!

Laughing With Sarah: A review

I chose to review "Laughing with Sarah" not only because the description on the back (I'm a sucker for the anyone who is willing to admit that faith is a journey), but, also, being a minister of a small home church that is discussion-based, I love when books add a group discussion section into the book.

Perhaps my hopes were a bit high!

Jennings' book is a collection of sermons on differing topics. The best word I could use to describe this book is pedestrian. It is a feel-good devotional. Now that is not a bad thing by itself. However, Jennings is very very illustration heavy. He is constantly using a story from a book, movie, or some other media source. These start to feel less than genuine. Very few of the stories are personal and thus, I 1) never felt I formed a personal connection with this author and 2) It simply began to overshadow any Biblical texts that he might use. In this case, I also could not form a connection with the topic or text as well as it always seemed to fall short of anything really meaty!

Don't get me wrong. There are some good illustrations in there. A couple I have flagged for any occasion I may need them. However, they will have to be used sparingly and naturally connect with the text. Yet even the good illustrations are easily glossed over by the sheer number that he chooses to use. I neither think that this makes for a good sermon, nor a good devotional.

I will admit that my wish and disappointment came from whizzing through the Biblical texts. I wanted something much more to chew on. I would have loved for him to spend more time on the texts he chose and given some background that would tie it all together; something that would make a connection between the text and the topic stick with me. Instead I am more likely to be faced with a topic and a short pop-culture illustration that comes to mind.

I understand that this book will be good for some people. If you like, for instance, "Guideposts" magazine with their inspirational stories, than you would probably find this book enlightening and soothing. This is neither a condemnation of either publication, simply an observation (I used to love "Guideposts" growing up).

However, if you want something with a bit more meat on it's bones... something that truly inspires conversation (the discussion notes did not inspire much to talk about in my trial), then perhaps this is not the book for you.

For more info about the book please visit:

http://www.genejennings.com – Gene’s blog

http://www.laughingwithsarah.blogspot.com – Laughing With Sarah booksite

A Review for theOoze.com

Doubt and Certianty

If you have not seen the movie DOUBT, you really owe it to yourself to rent it. Based on an award-winning play and with 5 Academy Award nominations, this movie is def. a watch, think, and discuss movie.

In the spirit of discussion I post here a portion of Mike Leaptrott's thoughts on the movie. I find this the best and most eloquent insight on the movie, as well as the faith journey, I've read. Check the full post out here at Progression of Faith.

___________

From Mike's Post:

Brilliant movie! The best description I can think of is that it is a postmodern exploration of our sources for knowledge. The movie forces the viewer to ask questions about how we can "know" what it is we feel we "know". How do we come to "feel" certain? Is faith possible without doubt? Is doubt an act of faith? Is a search for truth a journey into the destruction of faith?

All of the performances are wonderful and each character helps us visualize a different foundation for epistemology. For some, our certainty remains in question until we acquire a particular level of evidence. For others, a declaration from some source of authority helps us claim to "know" with certainty. At times, we just can't locate the reasons why we feel so certain. These characters help us see that any search for truth is not a linear path from doubt to faith to knowledge; it's more of a constant interplay between all three. In the end, the movie explores the risks we take when we attempt to locate truth, a search which demands a willful sacrifice of our certainty, a deconstruction of our faith, and a full embrace of our darkest doubts.

A Jesus Manifesto

Len Sweet and Frank Viola wrote and published a document on the 22nd of this month entitled A Jesus Manifesto. This is a great and inspiring document that has drawn a lot of good discussion. I repost it here to help in its circulation and continuing discussion.

A Magna Carta

for Restoring the Supremacy of

Jesus Christ

a.k.a.

A Jesus Manifesto

for the 21st Century Church

by Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola

Christians have made the gospel about so many things … things other than Christ.

Jesus Christ is the gravitational pull that brings everything together and gives them significance, reality, and meaning. Without him, all things lose their value. Without him, all things are but detached pieces floating around in space.

It is possible to emphasize a spiritual truth, value, virtue, or gift, yet miss Christ . . . who is the embodiment and incarnation of all spiritual truth, values, virtues, and gifts.

Seek a truth, a value, a virtue, or a spiritual gift, and you have obtained something dead.

Seek Christ, embrace Christ, know Christ, and you have touched him who is Life. And in him resides all Truth, Values, Virtues and Gifts in living color. Beauty has its meaning in the beauty of Christ, in whom is found all that makes us lovely and loveable.

What is Christianity? It is Christ. Nothing more. Nothing less. Christianity is not an ideology. Christianity is not a philosophy. Christianity is the “good news” that Beauty, Truth and Goodness are found in a person. Biblical community is founded and found on the connection to that person. Conversion is more than a change in direction; it’s a change in connection. Jesus’ use of the ancient Hebrew word shubh, or its Aramaic equivalent, to call for “repentance” implies not viewing God from a distance, but entering into a relationship where God is command central of the human connection.

In that regard, we feel a massive disconnection in the church today. Thus this manifesto.

We believe that the major disease of the church today is JDD: Jesus Deficit Disorder. The person of Jesus is increasingly politically incorrect, and is being replaced by the language of “justice,” “the kingdom of God,” “values,” and “leadership principles.”

In this hour, the testimony that we feel God has called us to bear centers on the primacy of the Lord Jesus Christ. Specifically . . .

1. The center and circumference of the Christian life is none other than the person of Christ. All other things, including things related to him and about him, are eclipsed by the sight of his peerless worth. Knowing Christ is Eternal Life. And knowing him profoundly, deeply, and in reality, as well as experiencing his unsearchable riches, is the chief pursuit of our lives, as it was for the first Christians. God is not so much about fixing things that have gone wrong in our lives as finding us in our brokenness and giving us Christ.

2. Jesus Christ cannot be separated from his teachings. Aristotle says to his disciples, “Follow my teachings.” Socrates says to his disciples, “Follow my teachings.” Buddha says to his disciples, “Follow my meditations.” Confucius says to his disciples, “Follow my sayings.” Muhammad says to his disciples, “Follow my noble pillars.” Jesus says to his disciples, “Follow me.” In all other religions, a follower can follow the teachings of its founder without having a relationship with that founder. Not so with Jesus Christ. The teachings of Jesus cannot be separated from Jesus himself. Jesus Christ is still alive and he embodies his teachings. It is a profound mistake, therefore, to treat Christ as simply the founder of a set of moral, ethical, or social teaching. The Lord Jesus and his teaching are one. The Medium and the Message are One. Christ is the incarnation of the Kingdom of God and the Sermon on the Mount.

3. God’s grand mission and eternal purpose in the earth and in heaven centers in Christ . . . both the individual Christ (the Head) and the corporate Christ (the Body). This universe is moving towards one final goal – the fullness of Christ where He shall fill all things with himself. To be truly missional, then, means constructing one’s life and ministry on Christ. He is both the heart and bloodstream of God’s plan. To miss this is to miss the plot; indeed, it is to miss everything.

4. Being a follower of Jesus does not involve imitation so much as it does implantation and impartation. Incarnation–the notion that God connects to us in baby form and human touch—is the most shocking doctrine of the Christian religion. The incarnation is both once-and-for-all and ongoing, as the One “who was and is to come” now is and lives his resurrection life in and through us. Incarnation doesn’t just apply to Jesus; it applies to every one of us. Of course, not in the same sacramental way. But close. We have been given God’s “Spirit” which makes Christ “real” in our lives. We have been made, as Peter puts it, “partakers of the divine nature.” How, then, in the face of so great a truth can we ask for toys and trinkets? How can we lust after lesser gifts and itch for religious and spiritual thingys? We’ve been touched from on high by the fires of the Almighty and given divine life. A life that has passed through death – the very resurrection life of the Son of God himself. How can we not be fired up?

To put it in a question: What was the engine, or the accelerator, of the Lord’s amazing life? What was the taproot or the headwaters of his outward behavior? It was this: Jesus lived by an indwelling Father. After his resurrection, the passage has now moved. What God the Father was to Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ is to you and to me. He’s our indwelling Presence, and we share in the life of Jesus’ own relationship with the Father. There is a vast ocean of difference between trying to compel Christians to imitate Jesus and learning how to impart an implanted Christ. The former only ends up in failure and frustration. The latter is the gateway to life and joy in our daying and our dying. We stand with Paul: “Christ lives in me.” Our life is Christ. In him do we live, breathe, and have our being. “What would Jesus do?” is not Christianity. Christianity asks: “What is Christ doing through me … through us? And how is Jesus doing it?” Following Jesus means “trust and obey” (respond), and living by his indwelling life through the power of the Spirit.

5. The “Jesus of history” cannot be disconnected from the “Christ of faith.” The Jesus who walked the shores of Galilee is the same person who indwells the church today. There is no disconnect between the Jesus of Mark’s Gospel and the incredible, all-inclusive, cosmic Christ of Paul’s letter to the Colossians. The Christ who lived in the first century has a pre-existence before time. He also has a post-existence after time. He is Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End, A and Z, all at the same time. He stands in the future and at the end of time at the same moment that He indwells every child of God. Failure to embrace these paradoxical truths has created monumental problems and has diminished the greatness of Christ in the eyes of God’s people.

6. It’s possible to confuse “the cause” of Christ with the person of Christ. When the early church said “Jesus is Lord,” they did not mean “Jesus is my core value.” Jesus isn’t a cause; he is a real and living person who can be known, loved, experienced, enthroned and embodied. Focusing on his cause or mission doesn’t equate focusing on or following him. It’s all too possible to serve “the god” of serving Jesus as opposed to serving him out of an enraptured heart that’s been captivated by his irresistible beauty and unfathomable love. Jesus led us to think of God differently, as relationship, as the God of all relationship.

7. Jesus Christ was not a social activist nor a moral philosopher. To pitch him that way is to drain his glory and dilute his excellence. Justice apart from Christ is a dead thing. The only battering ram that can storm the gates of hell is not the cry of Justice, but the name of Jesus. Jesus Christ is the embodiment of Justice, Peace, Holiness, Righteousness. He is the sum of all spiritual things, the “strange attractor” of the cosmos. When Jesus becomes an abstraction, faith loses its reproductive power. Jesus did not come to make bad people good. He came to make dead people live.

8. It is possible to confuse an academic knowledge or theology about Jesus with a personal knowledge of the living Christ himself. These two stand as far apart as do the hundred thousand million galaxies. The fullness of Christ can never be accessed through the frontal lobe alone. Christian faith claims to be rational, but also to reach out to touch ultimate mysteries. The cure for a big head is a big heart.

Jesus does not leave his disciples with CliffsNotes for a systematic theology. He leaves his disciples with breath and body.

Jesus does not leave his disciples with a coherent and clear belief system by which to love God and others. Jesus gives his disciples wounds to touch and hands to heal.

Jesus does not leave his disciples with intellectual belief or a “Christian worldview.” He leaves his disciples with a relational faith.

Christians don’t follow a book. Christians follow a person, and this library of divinely inspired books we call “The Holy Bible” best help us follow that person. The Written Word is a map that leads us to The Living Word. Or as Jesus himself put it, “All Scripture testifies of me.” The Bible is not the destination; it’s a compass that points to Christ, heaven’s North Star.

The Bible does not offer a plan or a blueprint for living. The “good news” was not a new set of laws, or a new set of ethical injunctions, or a new and better PLAN. The “good news” was the story of a person’s life, as reflected in The Apostle’s Creed. The Mystery of Faith proclaims this narrative: “Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again.” The meaning of Christianity does not come from allegiance to complex theological doctrines, but a passionate love for a way of living in the world that revolves around following Jesus, who taught that love is what makes life a success . . . not wealth or health or anything else: but love. And God is love.

9. Only Jesus can transfix and then transfigure the void at the heart of the church. Jesus Christ cannot be separated from his church. While Jesus is distinct from his Bride, he is not separate from her. She is in fact his very own Body in the earth. God has chosen to vest all of power, authority, and life in the living Christ. And God in Christ is only known fully in and through his church. (As Paul said, “The manifold wisdom of God – which is Christ – is known through the ekklesia.”)

The Christian life, therefore, is not an individual pursuit. It’s a corporate journey. Knowing Christ and making him known is not an individual prospect. Those who insist on flying life solo will be brought to earth, with a crash. Thus Christ and his church are intimately joined and connected. What God has joined together, let no person put asunder. We were made for life with God; our only happiness is found in life with God. And God’s own pleasure and delight is found therein as well.

10. In a world which sings, “Oh, who is this Jesus?” and a church which sings, “Oh, let’s all be like Jesus,” who will sing with lungs of leather, “Oh, how we love Jesus!”

If Jesus could rise from the dead, we can at least rise from our bed, get off our couches and pews, and respond to the Lord’s resurrection life within us, joining Jesus in what he’s up to in the world. We call on others to join us—not in removing ourselves from planet Earth, but to plant our feet more firmly on the Earth while our spirits soar in the heavens of God’s pleasure and purpose. We are not of this world, but we live in this world for the Lord’s rights and interests. We, collectively, as the ekklesia of God, are Christ in and to this world.

May God have a people on this earth who are a people of Christ, through Christ, and for Christ. A people of the cross. A people who are consumed with God’s eternal passion, which is to make his Son preeminent, supreme, and the head over all things visible and invisible. A people who have discovered the touch of the Almighty in the face of his glorious Son. A people who wish to know only Christ and him crucified, and to let everything else fall by the wayside. A people who are laying hold of his depths, discovering his riches, touching his life, and receiving his love, and making HIM in all of his unfathomable glory known to others.

The two of us may disagree about many things—be they ecclesiology, eschatology, soteriology, not to mention economics, globalism and politics.

But in our two most recent books—From Eternity to Here and So Beautiful—we have sounded forth a united trumpet. These books are the Manifests to this Manifesto. They each present the vision that has captured our hearts and that we wish to impart to the Body of Christ— “This ONE THING I know” (Jn.9:25) that is the ONE THING that unites us all:

Jesus the Christ.

Christians don’t follow Christianity; Christians follow Christ.

Christians don’t preach themselves; Christians proclaim Christ.

Christians don’t point people to core values; Christians point people to the cross.

Christians don’t preach about Christ: Christians preach Christ.

Over 300 years ago a German pastor wrote a hymn that built around the Name above all names:

Ask ye what great thing I know, that delights and stirs me so? What the high reward I win? Whose the name I glory in?

Jesus Christ, the crucified.

This is that great thing I know; this delights and stirs me so: faith in him who died to save, His who triumphed o’er the grave:

Jesus Christ, the crucified.

—

Jesus Christ – the crucified, resurrected, enthroned, triumphant, living Lord.

He is our Pursuit, our Passion, and our Life.

Amen.

_____

Feel free to post your thoughts here!

Jesus Interrupted (A Review)

I am one of those people who likes all of Ehrman's popular writings and this

entry into his library is no exception. One reason that I like his popular writings is that he can take complex ideas and translate them so that it is accessible to the masses. If you were to put this book together with Misquoting Jesus and you basically have a crash-course of a New Testament Intro/Survey Class.

And this is Bart's purpose for writing. He wants to bridge the gap between Biblical academia and the pews. In his purpose he succeeds on a level that I think is unmatched by any other scholar. Is his scholarship debatable? Yes! He even lists critics (including website addresses) of the most respected critics of his previous book. I agree that there is a huge gap between the academic world and the Church world. I also think it is important that people step in to bridge that gap. Ehrman has a way of engaging the reader with sometimes complicated material and helps them to grasp onto these (many times for the audience) new thoughts and ideas. This is not a book that many Sunday School classes would use, so it raises many questions for the average reader about the Bible and perhaps the "faith" they are being sold in their churches.

This brings me to Ehrman's overarching purpose (why he writes what he does), which shows up beautifully in this book. Ehrman not only wants to engage the masses with Biblical scholarship, he has always enjoyed challenging the "inherited faith" of his students and many Christians in general. He believes (and I happen to agree), that a faith that has not been challenged and avoids the intellectual complications and enlightenment that can come from being exposed to Biblical academia, is not an "owned faith". So, on this, Bart succeeds in his book as well! So well in fact, that he gives you tons of information about things that are at odds with each other (or itself) in the Bible, and then leaves you to figure out what to do with it. He gets a lot of heat for doing this (deconstruction with no reconstruction), But I have to respect that he considers his audience to be intelligent people. For Ehrman, the fact that they do not know these things about the Bible has more to do with the teachers and leaders than it does the laity.

Most people know that Ehrman is a self-proclaimed agnostic. This is one reason he receives the amount of criticism he does. However, he does admit that reviewing the discrepancies (most of which he considers inconsequential, but are rarely pointed out anyway) is NOT why he is agnostic. In fact he goes as far as to say that 2 possible reactions that someone could have after initial exposure to these discrepancies is to 1) reject their faith, or 2) climb back into a hole and ignore their existence. He cautions against both of these outcomes and considers them an unhealthy reaction. This helps keep the framework of Bart's purpose intact. You can disagree with his scholarly view, but the challenge from there is to then continue to search and form your own opinions. He never comes across as arrogant in his writings, and in fact gives the reader access to other scholarly views in the notes. I think that these are huge reasons that his books succeed in the mass media.

So I believe that Jesus Interrupted is a successful book in the Ehrman library, but does it have any negatives. I would have to say that my views are more wishes than negatives. I wish there were more references to other scholars to back up his claims. He uses the phrase "many scholars" and "most scholars", but never truly names them, even in the notes. Although he names a few alternate sources for alternate views, most of the notes reference a previous work of his own.

The second wish is that, while I agree that there needs to be a bridge built from the world of academics to the pews, I think that there also needs to be a little more "spirituality" in the academic circles. It is way too easy to take the human/sacred element out of Christianity. However, I can't claim this as a negative since 1) that is not in Bart's purpose, and 2) I would think Bart would consider himself unqualified in this department. Being an agnostic, I think that he would claim that there are others far better at adding back in the spiritual element after breaking down the New Testament.

So what does one do with Jesus Interrupted? I think that one must use it as a primer for further research into the Bible and what else is out there. Just like a NT Survey class, you don't get everything that is out there from one teacher and one sitting. However, this book is meant to open up a whole new world simply by looking at something that the majority of his readers will be very familiar with. Just like most entry level Div./Seminary students who are taught these same views, there will be a lot of "How did I not know that?" and "Why have I never seen this?". This book is best used as a springboard to launch one into seeking out more about what the academic world has to say about the Bible and, through those people, work towards bridging the gab between the classrooms and the pews.

_-_-_-_

Preview Post

For a different perspective see:

Ben Witherington Detailed Review Post: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Also more reviews on Ooze Viral Bloggers

An Ooze Viral Blogger Review

Should Clergy Perform (LEGAL) Marriages?

I am ordained clergy and one of my favorite parts of being ordained is the unique role that I can play in officiating a wedding. I've already done 2 this year, and there's more to come. There is something so holy to me to when I walk a couple through the vows that they chose/wrote for each other as they look lovingly in each others eyes.

However, as of late there has been an interesting point being pointed out by many in the church. The latest is found on Tony Jones' blog entitled: Doug Kmiec Is Right: Clergy Should Not Perform (Legal) Marriages.

In this Tony points out some interesting and thought-provoking observations about clergy and marriage. He says:

In no other fuction as a clergyperson did I function as an extension of the government -- not when I was baptizing, burying, counseling, or communing. Only when performing a wedding did I, with the stroke of a pen, make official a legally binding contract that, in the eyes of the state, allowed that couple to enjoy certain privileges like the ability to file joint tax returns, visit one another in the hospital, and receive joint health care benefits from one of the partner's employers.....
I do find it odious that clergypersons are called upon, in this one instance, to act as agents of the state.

He goes on to conclude:

Clergy and churches, on the other hand, should have no part in legally-binding contracts. Instead, religious professionals should bless and sanctify unions and partnerships that fit within their religious traditions as part of their sacerdotal functions.

Of course part of this is brought on by the issue of same sex marriage. Douglas Kmiec on The Colbert Report (Video Below), points out that "the state has an obligation to treat all of its citizens equally and to preserve the principle of equality." In essence, he is saying that by allowing the polemic Church to decide who can and can't be married that the State is not upholding its role of equality for all citizens. This is something of which I had not considered, but has been thought-provoking to me.

By watching the video and reading all of Tony's blog, you will see that what they are suggesting is a separation of the two roles. This allows the state to practice equality, while allowing the Church to decide according to their own convictions and traditions. That would mean that different traditions would bless and marry same sex couples, and others would not. If a couple would not be recognized/blessed by their own church/tradition, then they could seek out another tradition. Either way, they would still have equal rights as heterosexual unions, because according to the State, all couples would have to go through the state for the legal union of marriage.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Douglas Kmiec
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Gay Marriage Commercial

I'm not sure this solves the problem, but it is an interesting concept. Let's face it, when it comes to marriage there is no separation of Ch. and St. When that occurs, others suffer. In this case, some churches suffer and many individuals and couples suffer. I agree that the Church and her clergy should not be agents of the State, but marriage has also become a tradition of sacrament.

I'm not sure what the right call is here, but it is a new (at least to me) thought that is interesting and will be given more thought! I do believe in equality, but in that equality it also means not forcing churches into performing marriages with which their beliefs do not mesh. How do we provide equality for all parties involved? I do not believe that there is true equality if one party is hurt by the "rights" of the other. I think on this issue it goes both ways.

In the meantime, I will continue to do weddings when asked because I truly do enjoy the unique perspective on that holy moment. I adore watching as everything that the couple feels for one another culminates into that one moment where they are pronounced married for the first time! I will continue to do it because I love the role that God plays in the blessing of those that want to seek the marriage commitment. But I will also continue to speak out for equality for all, even those that I don't agree with. Those that want to call me names and label me because I disagree with their theology, I will still fight for you. Why? 2 reasons: Because liberty for one means liberty for all. And 2, because I am called to love all and not be judgmental. And I will never forget that behind these "issues" are real human faces. People with feelings of love, pain, sorrow, etc... the same feelings that I feel. We must never remove the human element when discussing these issues or we chance perhaps losing our own humanity in the process.

These are some interesting thoughts, feel free to share yours.

Jeffrey C. Pugh Speaks to my boy Tripp Fuller about his new book: Religionless Christianity: Dietrich Bonhoeffer In Troubled Times. I think this is a great podcast that you should listen to. Done with the love and care of all of Homebrewed's podcasts, this one shifts some thoughts about Bonhoeffer's genius and how it would apply today in a post-Christian shift.

CHECK IT OUT HERE!

A thought-provoking and challenging series of thoughts!

Jesus, Interrupted (Preview)

Dr. Bart Ehrman, professor of Religious Studies at UNC Chapel Hill, has written several books that often cause a lot of conversation (and sometimes controversy) over the years. My first experience with him was reading Lost Scriptures (and its companion Lost Christianites) in my New Testament class. He deals with the books and manuscripts left behind in the canonization process of the NT. This book was an eye-opener for me because it made me (and through me, my class) ask the question, who gets to choose which version of Christianity "makes it" into the bible. There are many other traditions in our early Christian history that have all but been silenced though the canonization. One big question that this book made us wrestle with was, "did in fact the 'winners' get to choose our Christian beliefs, and what did we lose when we lost the views of the 'losers'?" Now many people will argue (and have argued...a lot!) that the process (which was messy and happened over a long period of time) brought forth the "true" scriptures and the heretical scriptures were weeded out. After reading many of those "weeded out" texts one begins to wonder what exactly we have lost in declaring them the "losers"? In essence, at that period in our history all of these groups and writings were struggling with the same questions: "Who was Jesus?", "Who are we as followers of Christ?" and "What exactly does it mean to be 'the Church'?". The answers may vary, but the questions are some of the same questions we struggle with today!

Among Ehrman's other publications, his most talked about have been Misquoting Jesus, where he explores the translation and preservation (copying) process and how that has impacted the Bibles we hold today. He sheds light on how messy and inexact the process is, and how what we read may not have been in the original texts.

His last book, God's Problem, dealt with the questions of pain, suffering and evil and how it is or isn't present in the Bible. Both of these books have brought equal amounts of praise and scorn from their readers. However, What I admire most about Ehrman, is that he brings these issues, which are commonly talked about in the world of Christian academia, and delivers them to the pews. Many people who read these publications (which are highly accessible to the average reader) are forced to ask, "is this true?" and, "Why have I never heard this talked about in church before?". Ehrman peels off the outer layers of the surface religion that is so common in American Christianity, and forces the reader to encounter, question (I would argue in a good way), and converse with the deeper parts of their own faith, assumptions, and beliefs. While I myself may not always agree with his conclusions, I highly respect and encourage his works and the dialog opportunities that they offer!

His newest book, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them), is on its way via snail mail, and I will be reviewing it within a month of receiving. Until then, as with the last post, I offer these materials to help get us all pumped for the book.

This is an excerpt and description!

This is Dr. Ehrman's Webpage

This is a blogalouge debate on the problem of pain and suffering between Ehrman and NT Wright, also a revered New Testament Scholar.

This is a video:

And if all that doesn't tide you over, I don't know what will.

What are your thoughts on the books you've read by Dr. Ehrman?

UPDATE: New Media
Ehrman's Interview on Colbert

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bart Ehrman
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

An Ooze.com Viral Blogger post.

QotW

Several "Quotes of the week" that I really like

first from U2's new CD No Line ON The Horizon

I can stand up for hope, faith, love
But while I’m getting over certainty
Stop helping God across the road like a little old lady

Out from under your beds
C’mon ye people
Stand up for your love

Love love love love love…

I gotta stand up to ego but my ego’s not really the enemy
It’s like a small child crossing an eight lane highway
On a voyage of discovery

Also:

Its not if I believe in love
If love believes in me

And from John Philip Newell

I do not believe that the gospel, which literally means "good news," is given to tell us that we have failed or been false. That is not news, and it is not good. We already know much of that about ourselves. We know we have been false, even to those whom we most love in our lives and would most want to be true to. We know we have failed people and whole nations throughout the world today, who are suffering or who are subjected to terrible injustices that we could do more to prevent. So the gospel is not given to tell us what we already know.

Rather, the gospel is given to tell us what we do not know or what we have forgotten, and that is who we are, sons and daughters of the One from whom all things come. It is when we begin to remember who we are, and who all people truly are, that we will begin to remember also what we should be doing and how we should be relating to one another as individuals and as nations and as an entire earth community."

(This came from a response to Tony Jones' Blog Post)

Just some thoughts to think about!

Adding To The Mix

I apologize for being slightly negligent on the blog this week.  It has been busy.  I hope to make it up to both you who read my posts regularly:)

Until then I thought I would point you to another post that explains an exciting opportunity that I am partaking in.  A conversation being put together by by good friend Tripp (PhD student at Claremont and co-blogger/podcaster of Homebrewed Christianity) for Transforming Theology.  

You can read all about it over at "Recliner Ramblings", who is also participating in this project.  

Here's also a video explaining the overall project.  

This is a huge project that could make a lot of positive and effective changes in many areas of Christian Life.  The beauty is that it isn't just in the academic world, but that this can impact and change for "the people in the pews" as well.  I'm grateful to be a part of this.  Your comments can also add to this conversation!

The book I will be discussing (as seen on my "Kindle Kollection" sidebar) is Incarnation and Imagination: A Christian Ethic of Ingenuity By Darby Kathleen Ray.  You should see AT LEAST one post concerning this book as I read, but we may also look at some of her thoughts as we go.  Your comments will be welcome here and I hope that we both enjoy the ride.  

A Hypothetical Faith-Based Brain Teaser

Brittian Bullock over at Sensual Jesus has asked a hypothetical question:

Imagine that God speaks to you—we’re not talking about general revelation here,
this is specific divine interruption. He lets you know that he desires to
give you a Gift, but because of “free will” it will need to be one of your own
choosing. Having said that you’re given two options:

1.) You
can spend the rest of your life being absolutely certain about God, there will
be no questions of faith or doubt. There will be an abiding sense of God’s
presence and smile in all your ways…but everyone you meet will instantly begin
to doubt the certainty of their own faith. They may or may not ever recover from
that crisis.
OR

2). through you many of the wrongs in the world
will be righted, justice and mercy and grace will be exhibited, the blind will
see, the deaf will hear and the lame will walk…but you will cease to believe in
God at all. You will even forget this conservation between yourself and the Most
High…it will have been all in your imagination.

Which do you choose and why?

This has manifest into a great discussion you might want to check out and join in. Here's my initial response:

Yes these questions are unfair, but alas, so is life and even more-so
faith. However, I don’t believe that these hypothetical ponderings are all that
obscure. There are many times in the Bible that what God does or does not do
seems unfair to us. Jesus+cross still= unfair, no matter what your
interpretation of that is.

When speaking of such celestial matters, I don’t think #1 would be
advisable at all. As a matter of fact (and yes your assumed outcome is biased,
although I tend to agree), I think that choosing the first option would be
downright catastrophic. I think the only way to have certainty is to “see the
face of God”. Last time I checked, that was still considered taboo. I think that
there’s a reason for that (literally or metaphorically).

I say catastrophic both to the world/people around you as well as to
self. I have a feeling that it would be catastrophic to self because you would
find that there is no certainty in God. Only depth, creativity, and mystery. I
know we speak more of the Holy Spirit in this language than we do God, but I
think the Trinity is still an acceptable doctrine all-around. I think we would
find that God is like the wind, not static, always in motion. There is no
grasping the wind. The spirit goes where it is needed and is always changing
form to make differing impacts. Just think, a wind can be a gentle breeze in the
summer, a bitter chill in the winter, a tornado or hurricane, or so light its
only evidence is a slight movement in the leaves.

One might would get so lost in this depth and wonder that is God and
would lose all sense of self. The world would vanish from the conscience, as
well as all relationships. Like Peter Pan in Hook, Peter would forget that his
life actually existed.

This would be catastrophic to the world because, lost in another
reality, that is one less person doing the kingdom’s work on earth. It would be
one less person fighting against injustice, greed, war, death…. it would be one
less person giving hope to all of those that once knew him or her.
Certainty
as we know it is an illusion. To me, it’s what the tree of Knowledge represents.
Nothing good can come from it, and everything horrible comes flooding out with
one bite into that enticing fruit.

the interesting thing to me about these questions is that Christ never
calls anyone to number one, but calls everyone to number two. Perhaps he didn’t
word it quite like that (and I know people will quote some guard dog scriptures
of classical discernment at me), but when Christ called us into faith…into
belief, that seems to be, by very definition, non-certainty. I mean he even left
without properly outlining and blueprinting what he meant by “Church”. He left
his followers in a lot of confusion over that (which I argue we still haven’t
figured that one out). But I’m sure he had his reasons. Perhaps it is something
about questions and uncertainty fueling faith and action; pursuit and passion.
But I guess I can’t be certain on that. I’ll just take it on faith.

Feel free to jump over there and join in on the discussion. There are some really good thoughts up there!

Same Sex Marriage Blogalogue

An interesting discussion Over at Beliefnet between Tony Jones (Emergent Church) and Rod Dreher (Conservative politics and religion blogger) on the issue of Same Sex Marriage. Obviously this is a hot topic after the prop. 8 vote.

I am not promoting one over the other as the discussion continues (it will continue over several weeks), but give ear to both writers and the comments. It is a great resource that you can participate in...just please do so respectfully on all sides!

check Tony's first post here, Rod's is linked at the end of Tony's post, and at the top of this post.

feel free to leave your thoughts here too if you like!



A taste of the discussion!

Loss Of Focus?

I found these thoughts and news interesting from Adam over at POMOMUSINGS. Concerning James Dobson and Focus on the Family's priorities of late.

(Original Source)

It’s good to see that Dr. Dobson and the crew in Colorado Springs at Focus on
the Family really does put families first…well, maybe not those whose family members actually work at Focus on the Family. There was an interesting article in The Colorado Independent entitled “More
layoffs at Focus on the Family” that told the story about how 202 jobs will
be cut from Focus on the Family. However, the article focused on how Focus on
the Family was one of the largest out-of-state financial backers for Prop 8 in
California. In fact, the organization gave $539,000 in cash and $83,000 of
non-monetary support to the fight to “protect marriage.” Over half a million
dollars spent to “protect” families from the dangers and evils of gay marriage.
Unfortunately, they didn’t do a good job of protecting their own; how 202
families will be suffering a loss and needing to find work elsewhere. Sure, the
current state of the economy is playing a major role in these layoffs, I’m sure.
However, the articles points out that this may simply be a good example of the
true priorities of Focus on the Family, and other like organizations. Are they
really trying to put families first? It’d be interesting to hear from some of
those who are going to be laid off, especially after Dobson and crew spent their
salaries trying to prevent gays in another state from getting hitched.

I ask myself, did they lose focus, or consciously decide that a loss to that many families was worth defeating prop. 8 (the same employees that helped fight that ironically enough). IDK, as someone struggling in this economic crisis with job security, I guess my priorities would have been a little different! Just my 2 cents tho... (which is worth absolutely nothing in this economy)

Your thoughts?

Brian McLaren on "The Voice"

I recently plugged The Voice, A new Bible translation now available. Today, on Emergant Villiage's blog, Brian McLaren writes about working on the project and a little more on what the purpose of this translation is. There's a lot of info in the article.

Check it out here!!

There's also a video which I will post here...but the article is worth reading!

Election Afterwards: A Reflection

John Ortberg Writes a great post as he reflects on the election, and the role that Christians seem to play in politics. He calls it the, “Seven Deadly Sins of Evangelicals and Politics.”

It is a good reflection and warning about how NOT to approach an election as traditionally most Christians (esp. evangelicals) seem to do. I post this because of my own conversations during this election season, and I see how utterly true this has been. I've cut-and-pasted the list below.
_-_-_-_
Messianism. The sin of believing that a merely human person or system can usher in the eschaton. This is often tipped off by phrases like: “The most important election of our lifetime” (which one wasn’t?); or “God’s man for the hour.”

Selective Scripturization. The sin of using Scripture to reinforce whatever attitude toward the president you feel like holding, while shellacking it with a thin spiritual veneer. If the candidate you like holds office, you consistently point people toward Romans 13: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.” If your candidate lost, you consistently point people to Acts 4:10 where Peter and John say to the Sanhedrin: “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God.” It’s just lucky for us the Bible is such a big book.

Easy Believism. This is the sin of believing the worst about a candidate you disagree with, because when you want them to lose you actually want to believe bad things about them. “Love is patient, love is kind,” Paul said. “Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth.” But in Paul’s day nobody ran for Caesar. There was no talk radio.

Episodism. The sin of being engaged in civic life only on a random basis. The real issues never go away, but we’re tempted to give them our attention only when the news about them is controversial, or simplistic, or emotionally charged. Sustained attention to vital but unsexy issues is not our strong suit.

Alarmism. A friend of mine used to work for an organization that claimed both Christian identity and a particular political orientation. They actually liked it when a president was elected of the opposite persuasion, because it meant they could raise a lot more money. It is in their financial interests to convince their constituents that the president is less sane than Jack Nicholson in The Shining. Alarmists on both sides of the spectrum make it sound like we’re electing a Bogeyman-in-Chief every four years. I sometimes think we should move the election up a few days to October 31.

One Issue-ism. Justifying our intolerance of complexity and nuance by collapsing a decision into a simplistic and superficial framework.

Pride. I couldn’t think of a snappy title for this one. But politics, after all, is largely about power. And power goes to the core of our issues of control and narcissism and need to be right and tendency to divide the human race into ‘us’ vs. ‘them.’
_____

Find it in full here.
NOTE: I place the picture of our President-Elect, not to point out that this happens one-sided. It is on both sides, but this is the man that was elected, and I like putting up pictures to easily identify posts:)
Thanks to Mike for pointing this out.
let me know your thoughts.

Relativism Pt.2: A Response

I've been thinking a lot about how to respond to the article a few posts back from John Piper called Relativism Challenged. It is far to tedious, and I believe unnecessary, for me to go paragraph by paragraph/point by point through his essay. So I think I'm going for more of a general approach, although if through responses there seems the need for clarity or specificity, I will be glad to dialog in more detail.

Piper begins by trying to define "relativism". I think he does a poor job both in his definition and his over-simplistic analogies. For one, he does not do the word justice by suggesting that there is only a single type of relativism. Yes he is trying to make the term easier to understand (a simple Wiki-search reveals the complexity), but there are some philosophical concepts that when over-simplified completely distort the defined understanding of the term/concept. It also doesn't help that he has a definite bias when it comes to this topic. If one has read/heard anything from Piper in the last 2 years, they know that he sees relativism as a threat to the "truth" of Christianity. While I can understand why some would think that, it is not an honest way in which to tackle an explanation of a philosophical concept. It isn't a healthy way in which to even tackle reality in general.

While he does begin to tackle ONE facet of relativism, he later departs from that concept into a convoluted marriage of several relative theories. He doesn't quite get the type of relativism that is present in today's Christianity.

So what is the relativism we face? Here is a better explanation, although not as eloquent. This is practical relativism, over say strictly moral or object relativism. Defined, (as Jeff put it in the comments of the previous post) relativism is the lenses through which we take in and process reality. How we do these things are relative to our race, upbringing, ethics, culture, socio-economic class, age, geography, sex, Religion, etc... A person who is of an African-American Heritage does not see and interpret things the same way as a white person does. Neither does a male and female think and process alike. This is called CONTEXT. We all think out of several specific contexts, and my contexts may not be the same as yours.

The picture above is a neat take on Joseph Jastrow's Duck-Rabbit Illusion (real image here). Wittgenstein refers to this illusion above to make the point that we all see and process differently. Some first see a duck, and some first see the rabbit. People sometimes will not be able to see both, and thus argue that it is a duck vs. a Rabbit.

That leads us to the part that people like Piper and John MacArthur are fighting against in our emerging worldview, relative (T)truth. This is what they see as the biggest threat to Christianity. What is Truth? See, we can't even begin talking about what it is without relativity showing up. It is just fact that people perceive truth differently.

As is shown very poorly (and I would argue, irresponsibly) in the conclusion of his essay, Truth for him is a conglomeration of many smaller truths. Allow me to play devil's advocate. He states that Jesus is the "Truth". And here's how that conversation can go:

What makes Jesus the "Truth"?
That he is the "way, truth and light, no one comes to heaven or the father
except through him"
How do I know that is true?
The Bible says it is so.
But what if I don't believe the Bible to be true?

Thus the argument and definition of "Truth" has already become convoluted. Usually the argument/debate's next step is to either pull a Bible out and use apologetics to "prove" truth, or the person results to threats of, "well it just says so and you have to believe it or you will go to Hell."

To say that our postmodern/relative culture does not believe in "Truth" is a false and unfair statement. While there are a few people out there that will say "I don't believe in Absolute Truth." One should point out that to believe there is not an absolute truth is to claim a truth. However, most people say something along the lines of this: "I believe in a higher Truth, but do not believe that it is completely knowable because it is so big and we are so small in comparison." In fact most people would call this Truth, "God".

And there-in lies the big difference. This understanding of "Truth" is not based on a set of concepts or standards, this "Truth" is based on something bigger than theology, the Bible, and even Jesus. In fact, this "Truth" is so big that it transcends any one context (culture, race, class, religion, etc...). Paraphrasing and substituting a sentence by Marcus Borg about the Bible, "The Bible is not [Truth], it is a finger pointing to [Truth].

Piper makes the statement before his 5-part "solution", how evil and destructive some of [relativism's] effects are." Now that is a subjective and relative statement at it's finest. From the point of view of a Christian who proclaims that they hold the "Truth" (concepts and ideas deemed to be true above other "truths"), relativism is a scary thing. Although Piper doesn't truly understand practical relativism (judging from this article and other resources he as published/preached), the idea that "Truth" is not concepts and ideas is threatening.

However, many who understand this reality of relativism see it not as evil, but as a great chance. Why? Because it people are more open to dialog about God now than they have been in the last century. However, because of the way God has been "delivered" in the past century, one has to be cautious in HOW they speak of God. People are willing to discuss but do not want to be lectured or proofed/apologized.

I find it interesting that many people like Piper and John MacArthur (and MANY others) believe that Apologetics is the correct way to reach the more relative thinking people. There is even something called "The New Apologetics" that has stemmed out of this.

But emerging people desire authentic conversation. They want to be HEARD and not preached at or debated. They want you to give them something to think about as they leave, but they also want to contribute to to discussion in such a way that you leave thinking about something they've said too! It's not arguing that there is ONLY the duck OR the Rabbit, but working together so that both see the duckrabbit.

For the first time in a long time, people are searching for "Truth", but they already have a head start in believing that this "Truth" is a higher power. For the first time in a long time, Christianity can become a monotheistic belief again. Throughout modernity we have made other Gods in Christianity. Doctrine, theology, rules, titles, preachers, pews, the Bible, etc... have all become our demi-gods. But we have the chance to start anew and say that God is bigger than any one person, theology, book, etc.. can understand. Let's explore "Truth" together! What do you say?

___________

Other helpful links:

no, i did not simply do research on Wiki. I simply refer to that for convenience and easy understanding. There are many great books/philosophers/ministers/etc... out there that I could point one to. Here are just a few simple links from both sides:

A discussion on this article @ Small Dead Animals

Tall Skinny Kiwi

Apologetic's look at Relativism