Remember

Some of my friends are pacifists. Some of my friends are activists. Some of my friends are in the military or have been in the military.

It's not a simple question with simple solutions.
Not resisting might mean you end up under the control of someone or something that radically limits your freedom. Not fighting back could mean death or imprisonment for you or your family.
But fighting back tends to escalate. What might have started out small ends up huge. What starts out with one side killing a few people ends up with the other side killing hundreds of thousands. What starts out as one specific issue ends up being a whole cloud of issues.

I come from a nation who's military involvement in the last half century has been in peacekeeping. We haven't started any wars, and no one has declared war on us. We just help other nations try to maintain the peace that has (supposedly) been negotiated. It's a pretty lofty calling, I imagine. Also pretty difficult. Kind of like standing between two siblings fighting over a toy. Both sides usually figure they have right on their side. And even though peace has been negotiated ('Stop fighting, or you will be grounded for a week.'), that doesn't mean peace is at the top of either person's priorities. So, the peacekeeper might end up getting it from both sides.

And then there's 'Blessed are the peacemakers.' Peacemaker—cultivator of peace, one who works for peace. It seems to involve action, not just observation. It might even involve actively engaging someone for it.
Perhaps pacifists are OK with peacekeeping and/or peacemaking. Perhaps not. Both could involve violence, even if it isn't directly intended.
Perhaps activists are OK with peacekeeping and/or peacemaking. Perhaps not. Either one might not be active enough to right a wrong, to enforce justice.

Today we remember.
What is it we are remembering?
--That people have died in various times and places of armed conflict?
--That some people felt strongly enough about freedom to put their lives at risk to uphold it?
--That what we take for granted today (liberty, human rights, standard of living, safety) has had a cost?

Lest we forget.
--that believing something is important may well call for involvement on our part.
--that even our democratic process can easily erode the freedoms we have enjoyed.
--that sometimes only a minority of people recognize a potential danger, and do something about it.

I don't know how you normally spend November 11.
I don't know if it reminds you to look around you today, as well as remembering the past decades.
I don't know if your life tomorrow will be more thoughtful than yesterday.
I don't know if you can think of anything worthwhile that needs your help in supporting it, fighting for it, sacrificing for it.

So today, don't just remember.
Remember and do something about it yourself.
Take up the torch passed on by those now gone.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch, be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields

In Flanders Fields was first published in England's Punch magazine in December 1915. Within months, this poem came to symbolize the sacrifices of all who were fighting in the First World War. Today, the poem continues to be a part of Remembrance Day ceremonies in Canada and other countries throughout the world.
The poem was written by a Canadian—John McCrae, a doctor and teacher, who served in both the South African War and the First World War.

ReThink

Certain physical symptoms point to a specific diagnosis, and a precise treatment. Now if the observation of the symptoms isn't deep enough, doesn't probe sufficiently, or ignores things that seem irrelevant, then the diagnosis may well be off, and the antidote ineffective.
Let's cut to the chase with an example:
What if you notice that a generation or two is missing from your church? Here are some possible solutions:
--more 'youthful' music.
--better use of technology.
--more relevant sermons.

Deeper observation might see a widespread disconnect in the country between these generations and the church as a whole—partly caused by too much connection between religion and politics.
So, the prescription might go a little deeper:
--have some conversations with university students.
--find some 'spiritual' topics for your sermons, served up in a post-modern style service.

But what if the patient has a deeper problem than a common cold, the seasonal flu (or H1N1)? What if the patient is terminal, actually suffering from a life-threatening disease?
--Is an anti-histamine enough?
--a couple aspirins?
--lots of fluids and a bowl of chicken noodle soup?

Is rethinking our style of music really going to matter?
How about retooling the order of service?
More technology and lights (maybe even candles)?
More relevant preaching?

What if it's rethinking Jesus that we need? Reconnecting with his love and compassion?
What if 'getting back to the fundamentals' means a trip of two thousand years, not just a few decades?
What if we need more than a trendy paint job, but a radically different looking building?
What if our reading the Bible means more than just a different font or contemporary language—but really needs us to have new eyes?

Let's look deep enough at the patient to see the depth and breadth of the symptoms. Then maybe we will discover what we really need to rethink.

Wanted: some reformers

I have noticed for quite awhile that several large and innovative Christian organizations had their genesis at about the same time. The organization I serve with (Youth With A Mission) celebrates 50 years next year, and Operation Mobilization had their 50th a couple years ago. Teen Challenge began 51 years ago. All were started by men with unique visions that have continued to this day. There may well be other organizations that fit the same template, but those are the three that I often think about.
I started checking on the age of the founders and started seeing something that is almost creepy, it is so peculiar.
I guess it makes sense that an organization that is now 50 was started by someone in their young twenties, but in about 10 minutes I thought of 11 men that are incredibly active (two have passed away) in the conservative evangelical church. They all have had a very strong media presence, and all began large ministries.
Now for the almost creepy part—Of these 11, 9 were born between 1930 and 1940.
As I said before, it stands to reason that people who are now 70 to 80 years old have had a life time to have a profound influence on the church. However, I doubt if you could find very many a decade or two younger who have had a similar influence.
Here are the men and their dates of birth (according to Wikipedia).
Billy Graham (1918) Billy Graham Evangelistic Association
Bill Bright (1921) Campus Crusade for Christ, wrote The Four Spiritual Laws (passed away in 2003)
Pat Robertson (1930) 700 Club, and many other Christian/political organizations
David Wilkerson (1931) Teen Challenge
Jerry Falwell (1933) Liberty University, Moral majority and Thomas Road Baptist Church TV presence (passed away 2007)
Jimmy Swaggart (1935) Jimmy Swaggart Ministries
Loren Cunningham (1936) Youth With A Mission
James Dobson (1936) Focus on the Family
David Mainse (1936) 100 Huntley Street (Crossroads Christian Communications)
George Verwer (1938) Operation Mobilization
Jim Bakker (1940) The PTL Club
Yes, some of these guys have been in the center of some spectacular scandals, but most are still faithfully serving God. Yes, some of them are best known for what they are against, but again, most have a pretty positive reputation. Perhaps most of them are cut from fundamental/conservative cloth, but they are a product of that era, after all—they come by that foundation honestly enough.
I just find it very interesting that that particular generation has had such an impact on the world, and on the church.
How about the rest of us?
Are we as visionary?
Are we willing to leave our comfortable denominational security as some of them did in order to follow the path they felt compelled to travel?
Are we pushing the envelope of our surrounding church milieu the way most of them have had to?
Are we seeing the potential in today's culture and technology the way they did?
As we look at the church today, we may be crying out for a new Reformation, we need a Luther, Zwingli or Calvin to stir up a complacent church.
Every generation needs someone to take what they have been given (in our case, 2000 years of Christian history) and make it appropriate and alive for that generation.
The 11 men I mentioned (with probably even more women!) poked and prodded the church of their day. Some of them left the security of a sending church and went out on faith and vision, and made a difference. Most of them adapted to new media technology and have used it widely. Most of them saw a hole that they could fill.
I think it's time for another gang to make a difference. Are you up for it?

Thinking about thinking

My last post ended with the sentence: “I think it's time we started searching and thinking for ourselves, and not just repeating the things we have heard others say.”
I have no well thought-out conclusions about thinking, but here's some of what I think so far.
We have a brain. It is capable of independent thought. In fact, I would say that is what it is intended for. Whether you believe God created humans in the exact form we now take, or that some form of evolution has occured, the fact remains that most people are capable of making decisions based on an internal process called thought. Basing all of your decisions on the thoughts of someone else is not maturity or independence. At best, this circumstance is necessary for people with incomplete brain development, at worst it is what happens to people who have been brain-washed.
If you are of the group who believes that you were put here on earth by God and designed by him, then you likely recognize the place 'free will' has in your life. You have made the choice to believe what your place and purpose in life is. If you are a part of the group that believes God either doesn't exist or doesn't have much involvement in what goes on around here, you also likely recognize the place of 'free will' in your choices.
I think all of us tend to put ourselves under the influence of people who we admire, who we think are good role models, who we will take advice from. And many of us have done so to the detriment of independent thought. Whether it is a system (religious, political, psychological), or a person (parent, minister, teacher, wise friend, musician), we let someone else translate life for us and tell us what is good for us.
Stop and think about how this has been good in your life—as a child, trusting your parents to feed you well, protect you from outside harm, help you understand weighty concepts. There is definitely a place for this. There is a place for that kind of influence throughout life.
Now think about how intentionally choosing to listen to others has stifled your ability to think for yourself. Learning that 2 + 2 = 4 limits your math skills (but in a good way). Learning that sticking your finger in a light socket adds spark to your life limits your ability to die early. Learning that capitalism provides food for your table limits your understanding of helping the less fortunate guy survive. Learning that your future existence is hiding just behind that approaching comet limits your ability to plan for your retirement. Learning that a certain passage in the Bible means this (and only this), limits your ability to see other nuances and ideas in that particular passage.
All of this is, of course, dependent on choosing to continue to believe what you learned, and not contemplate other possibilities.
I think that is the whole point I am making. There is a place for accepting what we are taught. There is a place for continuing to accept what we were taught long ago. But there is also a place for being open to re-thinking things. Probably more things than you might think.
Part of the criteria for re-thinking is recognizing who taught us, why they taught us what they did, and the benefits of accepting a new viewpoint.
The things we consider as 'truth' vary in their possibility of error or change. There are lots of things that we can consider as absolute. Certain math truths will never change ( 2 + 2 for example). Other truths develop as we mature and gain more knowledge (an electrician knows when he can put his finger in a light socket safely, for example). Other truths are principles that are best taken in conjuction with other principles (a blend of capitalism and socialism instead of either one alone, for example.) Still other truths are adequate for a certain time and place, but not necessarily for a future time or a different place. There were cultures where slavery was considered a normal part of society, and even the slaves didn't understand things differently. Today, of course, we have a more lofty view of human rights, the equality of all. (We still have a long ways to go to see this really put into practice, but that involves a personal willingness to 'adjust' our present concept of 'truth' to include a broader view of humankind.) Science continues to discover new and more complete explanations for things—the earth is no longer considered the center of the universe, and neither is the sun. And doctor's don't prescribe leeches any more.

My point in this monologue about truth is that we need to be open to consider new answers to old questions, to be willing to add new truth to old truth and reorganize our thinking accordingly. We need to recognize that even our understanding about God (gasp!!) has lots of room for growth.
You have a brain.
Use it.

Injustice and the lords of the (Olympic) rings

In light of the looming approach of the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver, and the imminent Olympic torch relay beginning in our fair city tomorrow, I have been thinking about injustice. (By the way, I don't think this post is for the faint of heart... There are lots of links, and I encourage you to check them out.)
I'm sure some of you wonder at the juxtaposition of the Olympics and injustice, but I will get there in a moment.

Some of my friends believe the best and right way to respond to something you disagree strongly with is peaceably, without force or violence. They believe that is the Jesus way.
I have other friends who are activists, very willing to use whatever means necessary to oppose what they see as wrong. They believe active evil requires active resistance in response.
I'm not sure where I put myself on this. I haven't studied it, but at the same time I'm not sure how willing I am to either put my neck on the line, or get involved in civil disobedience. I don't see myself as a pacifist, but neither do I see myself as a subversive rebel.
I suppose it would make a difference if I felt strongly enough about the issue. I have marched in a few parades (fun, but perhaps not too effective). Would I be willing to be arrested for my beliefs? I don't know.
The third group of people I perceive are those who go along with the status quo, and don't see the evil in the particular situation. Many Christians appear to be in this camp. For one reason or another, they are quite content to support the activity in question, even if there are suspicious undertones.
This third response is easy. It doesn't require standing out as against something. For them it may well be the best thing to do, and it isn't my purpose to be the voice of God to tell them they are wrong. (I would just encourage them to not be naive or unaware.)

Ok. Now for the Olympics.
In a very general sense, and on the surface, it probably seems like the Olympics are promoting positive things like sportsmanship and international cooperation. I expect the hope is that they rise above politics, nationalism, prejudice, greed and other ills of society. I hope that each new location starts out with those ideals in mind.
However, over the years we have definitely seen things to the contrary. Enormous debt for the host country is normal. Decisions are based on greed and political gain over the value of the athletes themselves. Some countries, specific sports and certain athletes have become notorious for increasing their chances of winning in a decidedly unsportsmanlike manner (Can you say 'performance-enhancing drugs'?)

As a citizen of British Columbia, in a city near to Vancouver (and home of the provincial government), I have seen and heard unending stories of how politics, money and injustice have once again hijacked what might otherwise be a nice way to spend a couple weeks in mid-winter, watching the best athletes in the world.
A group called no2010.com produced a video (Resist 2010: Eight Reasons to Oppose the 2010 Winter Olympics) to express 8 reasons why the 2010 Olympics should not take place. (This provides plenty of occasion to discuss how it might be appropriate to resist—peaceably, actively, forcefully).
These 8 reasons they give are:
--colonialism and imperialism
--no Olympics on stolen land (unsurrendered First Nations territory)
--ecological destruction
--homelessness and poverty
--impact on women
--2010 police state
--public debt
--corporate invasion

Injustice?
Money being spent by the rich on the rich, but the poor and homeless being treated even worse than before. “This is taxpayers’ money, our money. We don’t know exactly how much is being spent. But by our incomplete tally and with another year to go until the Games, it’s more than $6,000,000,000.”
“Yesterday, the city of Vancouver announced that they will begin ridding the streets of homeless individuals to prepare for the 2010 Winter Olympics starting in February 2010.”
Curtailment of free speech:
“The city passed the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games bylaw in June to restrict the distribution and exhibition of unapproved advertising material and signs in any Olympic area during the Games.”
Free tickets for politicians, but no help for former Olympians:
“Gary Reed has broken records running for Canada at the Olympics, but the proud Canadian athlete can't catch a break scoring tickets to the 2010 games. "
More reading from an indigenous point of view
Interesting insight on where the idea of the torch relay first began (Hitler in 1936):

I know what I feel about the Olympics, but I'm still having to dig deep to figure out what my response should be. I know I'm not supporting the torch relay tomorrow, and I'll probably join some anti-Olympic marches at some point, but as far as being peaceable or forceful, I don't know. I don't expect I'll blow anything up or hurt anybody, but what would Jesus do?
When do you 'turn the other cheek' (Matthew 5:39) and when do you 'kick over the tables of the loan sharks' (Matthew 21:12)?
How much 'activism' is appropriate, and how much is too much?

I'd like to hear your thoughts—not just what you might have been taught to think, but what really echoes the heart of God against injustice. (I think it's time we started searching and thinking for ourselves, and not just repeating the things we have heard others say, but that's for a different post.)

Creative space

Having just written a post on safe space, I started thinking about creative space.
We quote the Bible that man (humans, people, homo sapiens) were created in the image of God. So, if we see God as somehow involved in creation, and we carry His image, then we have creative genes in us.
It doesn't even require a belief in God as creator in order to see that we have an incredible ability to create.

So, it makes great sense to me that our interaction with each other (in whatever size or configuration of meeting together as Christ followers) should have lots of space for creativity.
If our collective gatherings should include aspects of worship, much creativity should be welcome for ways to do this.
If our gatherings include conversation about truth, ideas, questions, problems or joys, creativity should be rampant in how these conversations take place.
If our togetherness includes food, creativity must be encouraged!
If our communality includes involvement in the community at large, let creativity abound as to the many ways we can be Christ in our world.

Let's be creative as we look at different kinds of creativity.
Creativitity involves use of the senses:
--smells (incense, hot casseroles, freshly mown hay)
--sounds (percussion, harmonies, words)
--tastes (bread & wine, spices, soup kitchens)
--sights (banners, smiles, carvings)
--touch (hugs, anointing oil, more hugs)

Creativity involves doing something in a new or different way than usual.
It might still be spoken words, but they may be poetry, or antiphonal or accompanied by dance.
It may be a painting, but it might be done live as other worship occurs, or many artists on the same canvas.
It may still be music, but the player may be hidden, or the instrument may be hand made.
It may be a communion service, but the emblems may be non-traditional.
It may be a familiar hymn in an unfamiliar tune (or new words to an old melody).
It may be a regular meeting of familiar faces, but in a new venue.

Creativity involves giving permission for freedom.
It allows chaos, but perhaps glory.
It leaves room for God himself to show up.
It lets the little guy, the new guy, the shy guy to grow, to shine, to excel.
It says we want something more than a worship team, an offering, and a sermon.
It says we trust the Creator to let himself be seen though each of us.

Creativity has been squeezed out of church, replaced by excellence. (There is nothing wrong with excellence, as long as seeking it doesn't shut out the participation of 90% of the group.)
It has been usurped by technology (which could be creative, but often is just added to enhance the perception of excellence).
It has been replaced by tradition. We always have a worship team. We always take up the offering this way. We always have the seats arranged this way. We always have communion at the end of the service. We always use this version of the Bible for scripture readings. We always... We always... We always...

It's time to take back the wonder of newness. New ways of expressing age old concepts. (A hip-hop version of the Creeds?) Age old ways of expressing new concepts. (A Gregorian chant about saving the rainforests?)

Let's create some creative space in our communities of worship.

Safe space—the final frontier

I guess for me it started in conversations with people when I realized that my pat answers didn't totally fit, or weren't necessarily wanted. That the person I was talking with had some important things to say to me to help me gain understanding, and I needed to give them the space to talk. That the interaction I was having with someone was important because it gave them the opportunity to unload something, not because it gave me the opening to unload something.
Safe space. A place where ideas can be freely expressed without fear of being shot down, preached at or cutoff. A place where dialogue is the process, not monologue. A place where the goal is mutual understanding, but not necessarily solutions.
I've been thinking about this for quite awhile.
I've noticed that even our typical church discussion-type settings don't promote this, let alone our preaching settings. It seems we always have an agenda, an end goal, a predetermined conclusion—even when we ask others for their opinions.
I guess it comes from the preconception that we have the ultimate answer, the final word, the complete understanding on the subject at hand.
But this basis for intercommunication stifles it before it starts.
Can you imagine bringing up something that is pro-evolution or pro-abortion in a conversation with a church friend (or even worse, at a church small group)? Can you say “Shot down!” “Shock and horror”? How about an idea that disagrees with the prevailing eschatological views of your congregation?

No, we don't suffer fools gladly, or even doubters. So, people who have questions have to ignore them, or leave to find a place to safely discuss them.
If we are that hard on those who already are followers of Christ, how about those who are out there, scanning the landscape for a place to share, experience and discover mysteries of the supernatural. Are they likely to come in to our dogmatic little in-clubs? I really doubt it.
I guess this all comes from our modern idea of being able to have the complete and final answer for any question, and then feeling that it is our responsibility to pass that wisdom along. Too bad that we don't recognize that even our theology is a journey. Thinking that we have it nailed down is really just the final nail in our coffin.

But I think it has to start with me, personally, one-on-one. I certainly can't expect anyone else to change before I change myself.
And I can't expect to be able to either create or find something on a larger scale until I am comfortable with the concept in the most intimate setting of a conversation over coffee.

So, I'm trying to create safe space around me.
--Space where contrary answers are welcome.
--Where new understanding is desired.
--Where doubts with present conclusions don't cause gasps of horror.
--Where silence doesn't mean I have to pour forth all my superior knowledge.

Safe space is just that.
A place where a person can feel safe to be themselves, contrary opinions and all. Safe to vent their doubts and frustrations, hopes and dreams, questions and mysteries. Without reprisal. Without a sermon. Without arrogance.

I'm still working on creating that kind of space around me.