Al's Musings

Remember

2009-11-11T15:56:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-10T21:32:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-03T22:30:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-02T19:23:00.000-08:00

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

2009-10-29T12:41:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-14T21:30:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-13T07:47:00.000-07:00

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.

Where's Jesus?

2009-10-12T21:42:00.000-07:00

Sermon yesterday was from Luke 2 when Jesus goes to the temple at age 12. Makes me think of 'Where's Waldo?' as the family comes back from Jerusalem and realizes that Jesus isn't part of the whole group. His parents are looking all over for him, and finally head back to town to see if he might be there.
More than 'Where's Waldo?', I'm thinking about the church today.
--Traveling merrily along, thinking Jesus is part of the whole thing.
--Gradually realizing that he isn't where we thought he always was.
--Running back to look for him, not knowing exactly where we lost him.
--And hearing him say when finally we locate him, “Did you not know that I must be busy in the affairs of My Father?”
Does that strike you as it did me?
We who call ourselves Christ followers are traveling along, not even aware that the one we say we are following isn't necessarily at the head anymore.
When we notice, and start looking for him, he reminds us that we should be concerned about the things God is, instead of the things we have been concerned about.

Ouch!
Burn!

I'll let you hear what you are supposed to be hearing. God is quite capable of letting you know what is appropriate,

Cruisin'

2009-09-26T19:30:00.000-07:00

I live in Victoria, BC. Don't tell too many people, but this is really paradise.
For that reason, we are one of the stops on many Alaskan cruises during the season. This year (2009) there are supposed to be at least 215 cruise ships docked for a day, unloading something like 400,000 passengers.
Now I expect most of those passengers haven't been here before, and many won't come again. Their entire experience of the city, its people, architecture, food, culture, and tourist sites will have to occur over a period of a few brief hours.
Of course, our tourist agency will make sure these lovely people are exposed to the things we want them to see. We bill ourselves as being "more British than the British", so we will make sure they have the opportunity to ride our double-decker buses.

As well, they need to see our wonderful provincial government building. We are quite proud of this building (but perhaps not so proud of some of the decisions made therein).

As tourists, they need to visit our outdoor market on the inner harbor, where a wide variety of First Nations and other crafts are available, as well as street musicians. One of my favorite artists make some pretty awesome surreal stuff with paint spray cans, and a few small props. This is an example.

But enough of the travel ad, and back to the premise. Lots of people visit our fair city, and have a few short hours to get a feel for the place. My bet is that they get to buy a few souvenirs, eat some food, walk a few blocks around our touristy downtown core, and then leave--without ever really getting to know who we really are. And our chance is over, they are back on their cruise ship, and may never visit Victoria again.

Do you see where I am going with this? Although I expect you are getting an idea, let me spell it out for you. Lots of people have the unique and special opportunity of meeting us every day. Who knows, we might be the only Christ follower they see today. Maybe for many days.
Do they get a true picture of what a follower of Christ is? Or do they just see a facade, an act, or worse, a bad example of Jesus? We have the opportunity to live and love like Jesus, but is that what they will see? Or will they see someone mouthing off about something in the name of Jesus?
Will they see a loving reflection of this God we say we serve, or something less admirable?
We might only have that one chance to let someone know what God is like. Next time they might already be so turned off that they will only hear or see the negative expression they are expecting.

So, let the true Jesus out.

Out of the ghetto

2009-09-25T17:09:00.000-07:00

Ghettos are locales where people of a similar culture, social, or economic group live or hang out.
Sometimes this is enforced by an authoritarian government: Jews in various nations during WWII, Israelites in Eqypt in the time of the Pharaohs. Keep them together behind a fence so we can keep track of them, and so they can't bother us.
Sometimes it is completely voluntary. Hutterite, Amish or Mennonite communities, 'Little Italy' or other ethnic neighborhoods. Let's keep our uniqueness intact, so everyone else won't influence us.

I see a lot of the second, voluntary kind of ghettoization in the church.
There can be so many activities/meetings/programs that there is no time left to get to know anyone from outside 'the group'. Business connections so you can get your car, teeth, hair or house fixed by a fellow Christian. Christian sports leagues. Christian media. Some get so paranoid that they won't even associate with someone from the church across the street.

And still we think we are being a worthwhile influence in society. Just how do we think we are accomplishing this worthwhile influence?
When we march against some particular 'ill of society'?
When we gather in our bunkers to pray or pontificate about these 'ills'?
When we get together and bemoan how bad the world is getting?

I dare you!
--Don't look in the Shepherd's Guide the next time you need a professional.
--Quit your 'Christian' hockey team and join a 'normal' one.
--Drop one or two of your regular church activities and start hanging out with buddies from work. Or just start hanging out at your neighborhood purveyor of your favorite beverage.
--Don't sign up for yet another seminar about how to be a better Christian. Just get out there and do it.

Assuming that the presence of God's Spirit in your life is making you a better citizen, start being yourself.
--Join a political party that appears to promote better treatment of the little guy.
--Join a civic organization or service club or interest group.
--Find some worthwhile endeavor and help.

(As I was writing this, I received a message from someone who had been planning on joining the particular street outreach group I work with. She had to bow out until next Spring because she is planning on taking a weekly one of those "Better Yourself and Your Life" seminars that have the purpose of "teaching people To Live Their Lives Much More Better & Much More Fulfilled (In Every Area!) In A Spiritually & Physically & Mentally & Emotionally & Financially Way"!!
I kid you not.)

Sacred/secular

2009-09-12T20:29:00.000-07:00

Lots of people like to be able to sort things into categories. The universe seems to have obliged by giving us some apparently obvious dichotomies:
male & female
plants and animals
vertebrates and invertebrates
visible and invisible
black and white
Of course, you can often find some “other” categories that don't quite fit into either/or.

Such is the case with the desire for people over the past centuries to divide things (activities, objects, or ideas) into sacred or secular.
The hope is, of course, that everything can fit smoothly into one or the other, and never the twain shall meet.
The assumption is that God is completely in favor of some things (sacred things) and totally against other things (secular things). Or at least some things are really good at helping us get closer to God, and other things are really good at drawing us away from Him. Or maybe just that some things are kinda good and godly, and other things don't matter.
BUT
If we believe that some things are sacred, and other things are secular, then:
--there must be places where God is not. After all, wherever He is should be considered sacred, right? But if He is everywhere, then everything is sacred.
--there must be a source of creativity other than God. Otherwise, if God is the only wellspring of creativity, then the resulting art/machinery/philosophy must be sacred since it sprang from the heart and mind of God.
--some jobs/careers must have greater value and ultimate reward than others, and supporting people in these endeavors (or choosing that path for yourself) is more worthy than something less exalted. But where would you draw that line? What vocations are sacred? Preaching or any other church-related ministry (even including the church janitor)? Raising/supporting your family (spouse, kids, parents)? Helping the poor? Each of these are encouraged in scripture, along with things like fighting for justice, running an honest business, politics—things that usually would be considered secular. Not much is left that wouldn't fit the 'sacred' tag.
--some aspect of at least one part of music must be inherently 'not godly'. Some melodic pattern, harmonic chord or chord progression or rhythm must be alien to God's creative genius. (I know, over the years people have preached that minor chords, or 'the rock beat' or syncopation or whatever are of the devil, but nothing biblical or otherwise validates those claims.) Once again, who gets to make the rules as to what is 'heavenly' and what is 'earthly'? If you happen to like Beethoven and Billy Ray, does that make classical and country music OK, and everything else not OK? What if your favorites are a litle more eclectic like zydeco or Gregorian chant? That would really narrow down the repertoire! Perhaps anything that is played on a harp is the closest to heaven-like? The Bible doesn't give us much guidance on this.

Well, then, if some of the more common sacred/secular divisions don't work, lets look for some other possibilities.
Maybe there are sacred foods (fruits and vegetables) and secular ones (meat). Don't think that has much biblical basis, other than OT dietary laws.
Maybe buildings are sacred (churches) or secular (schools, businesses, homes). What happens if your particular church meets in a school or a home, or your church building is used for a school, or you live in the back of the church? That messes that one up a bit.
Maybe one day of the week is more sacred than the rest. If so, we could make them all sacred by not working, living at church, and eating out every day after church.
Maybe the language we use can be categorized into sacred or secular. Here is where sacred or profane might be the better categories to use. But what happens when some of the most flowery speech often includes one of the divine attributes (holy, good) and one of His names or titles (Lord, God, Jesus)? That makes it difficult to use vocabulary alone to define sacred language.
How about character qualities? Maybe things like praying lots, reading the Bible lots, hanging out with other Christians lots might be considered sacred attributes. And we should probably add being honest, truthful and loyal. While you're at it, don't forget being generous to the needy, fighting against injustice, loving your neighbor, being gracious and merciful, and a whole bunch of other positive traits enjoined in scripture. Even being a good employee or boss would be sacred, as well as being fair to your customers. Not really anything left for 'secular' character qualities.

So, does the Bible give us any reason to believe in the concept of sacred/secular?
Yes, but not in the ways we have already looked at.
The concept of 'holiness' is mentioned different times in the Bible. “Be holy, for I am holy.”
Holiness means set apart for a particular use. Yes, it probably would include being clean for that use, but it is the purpose that makes it holy, not the cleanliness.
The Old Testament temple had bowls set apart for the rituals of worship. These bowls might well be identical to ones used for feeding your family. What made them sacred or 'holy' wasn't that they looked any different, or were any cleaner than what you used at home. What made them 'holy' or set apart was that they were set apart. They were always used in the temple to serve God. It was their use that set them apart. In fact, a dirty bowl intended for temple use would still be holy—holier than the clean one at home in your kitchen.
In the same way, a person's job might be to wash these bowls. His job would be 'holy' if he was cleaning the temple bowls, but not if he was doing the dishes after dinner at home.

So, what is God's purpose for us that makes us 'holy'? What purpose sets us apart?
Is it just 'church work'?
No, I believe God's purpose for all of us is to reflect the love and mercy of Christ wherever and however, to uphold the cause of the little guy, to be the hands and feet of God in our world, to be incarnational—the visible, tangible presence of God on this earth. To love God, and to love our neighbor.

We are holy, set apart. Not by what we do, but by why we do it.

Some people might see what you do as being very 'secular'.
--selling cars.
--making cars.
--fixing cars.
--driving cars.

--painting pictures.
--painting houses.
--painting fingernails.
--painting cars.

--playing drums at Glad Tidings Church.
--playing timpani for the Victoria Symphony.
--playing percussion for Nelly Furtado.
--playing pots and pans with your kids.

If 'you' are holy (set apart to express Christ in your world), then pretty much anything you do might help fulfill that directive. And if you are missing the point of expressing the love of God in your world, then whatever you do is only a banging drum or a clanging gong (even if it appears to be so 'sacred').

Sacred or secular? It really is up to you to decide who you choose to be. Choose to be holy. Choose to be set apart to express Christ in your world. And it won't hurt to be clean too.

Scandalous!

2009-09-05T22:40:00.000-07:00

Every once in awhile I read or hear the phrase “God's scandalous grace” or “God's scandalous love”. (Like, about 10 minutes ago.)
So, I Googled the phrase “God's scandalous” and also found mercy, generosity, acceptance, and others.

Scandalous means: disgraceful; shameful or shocking; improper—words you wouldn't think fit in the same sentence as “God”.
But think about it. Remember some of the stories of Jesus' dealings with people.
Sinners.
Tax collectors.
Prostitutes.
Foreigners.
Thieves.

The way He dealt with them! Treating them as nicely as you would treat the queen.
Caring about their situation.
Forgiving them.
Affirming them.
Healing them.

It's scandalous, I tell you! Disgraceful, shameful, shocking, improper.

Why, we know better. We wouldn't do that. We know how to read people, we can tell those who deserve to be shunned, ignored, berated.
Those who aren't worth our time of day.
Those who are only fit to burn in hell.

But Jesus, now.
Why, He acted like He didn't know they were bad people, like they were normal.
He treated them like He treats me.
He loved them.

So where do we get off treating some people the way we do and saying we are followers of Christ?

Hmmm

2009-09-02T22:10:00.000-07:00

I've been reading some commentary about the place of scripture within our theology, and my mind has meandered down some interesting paths.
I think it is very telling and interesting to see what is the center of attention in a church sanctuary.
If you were to visit a wide variety of Christian churches, from a wide variety of 'flavors' of faith, you would notice a few things.
Old cathedrals (and even new ones) tend to be tall and awe-inspiring—pointing to the awesomeness and grandness of our God.
They are often built in the shape of a cross, with the altar being raised, front and center. Various activities (sermons, readings, music, etc.) happen from various locations other than the altar, but the center of attention, and the center of the service is the mass/communion/eucharist.
To me this says that for centuries, the center of worship was remembering the death of Christ. It happened every week (as happened in the early church), and was the prime reason of gathering together (again as was the practice of the early church).
An interesting sidenote: all of the scripture readings are read from the pulpit or lectern, except the Gospel reading which is delivered in the center of the congregation. This points to the value given to the words of Christ, and the centrality of his teaching to the life of the congregation, beyond any other parts of scripture.
As the Reformation began to affect theology as well as church government and style of worship, the pulpit (place where the sermon is delivered from) was moved from the side to the center. Evangelical churches tend to have the pulpit on a raised platform, with the altar usually directly in front and at floor level.
This points to the importance given to scripture being read and taught. Have you ever noticed that Paul tends to be preached more than Jesus? Or is that just my own observation?
In effect, scripture has taken precedence over the celebration of the sacrifice of Christ.
Another sidenote: Roman Catholic and Anglican churches still have the celebration of the mass/eucharist as a central part of each weekly service. Evangelicals tend to 'add it on' to one service a month.
Most of the previous probably isn't new news to most of you, although you may not have recognized the underlying significance of the shift.
Now for something new!
Look at today's charismatic/evangelical/contemporary church sanctuary design and order of service.
The pulpit may well be something more portable, and the center of the stage (not really considered the altar any more) is the worship band and the projection screen.
The first (and often longest) part of the service is the music/worship. Various aspects of prayer and personal ministry are made available during this time.
To me, this says the most important part of the gathering together is worship. In my particular fellowship, we went months without having a communion service. In recent months, a 'self-serve' communion table has been re-instated, available for anyone at any time during the service.

So, what's my point?
I'm not sure. For one thing, there has obviously been a shift over the past few centuries. Fortunately, all the 'flavors' are still available, but the unspoken message seems to be that our priorities have changed.
I might have come to the conclusion that this is a good thing that came about as people became more aware of the importance of scripture, and then worship/personal ministry.
However, perhaps it is as some are saying—it is more an adaptation of the church to the prevailing worldview and philosophy of the day.
For centuries, God was a mystery, dispensed in weekly doses by the clergy. This suited the era preceding the middle ages.
By the time of the Reformation, science was also coming into its own, and people were beginning to experiment and research, looking for answers to every question. It became reasonable to assume that there was an answer to every dilemma, every problem could be solved. Both the Bible and the clergy became expected to be part of this search for answers. Instead of enjoying the mystery, people needed to understand everything, solve everything, find absolute truth.
Perhaps the Bible was promoted from 'the Word of God' to 'the answer to all of man's questions'. Not only is it a record of historical events, poetry, and commentary on how to live out ones faith in the culture of the day, but now it is expected to have something to say on everything from terrorism to technology (and don't forget how the world will end!).
This may well have not been noticed by all of us who have had several centuries of modernism to come to expect such answers—until post-modernism started stirring up the pot.
Now there is a generation of people who have lost faith in absolutes—whether in science or faith. When one day oat flakes are supposed to be the cure for high cholesterol, and the next day they are nothing more than another breakfast food, people are losing their faith in 'scientific breakthroughs'. At the same time, they see one church promoting one method of baptism, and another church advocating another. Or one church saying supernatural gifts are for today, and another saying they are of the devil. All of these seem to have some scriptural basis to back up the particular belief.
So, the average unchurched guy figures no one knows what they are talking about, and the Bible can be made to say just about anything you want it to. Oh, I know advocates of whatever point of view can claim to be more 'scriptural' than the other guys, but it often boils down to trying to truly understand what the original text meant to the original hearers, and if it was cultural or not, and on it goes.

The end result is that post-modernism is replacing modernism, and much of the church hasn't noticed. We're still trying to figure out if hymn books are more spiritual than song projection, or at what point during the tribulation the rapture will take place.
Hmmmm.

Why?

2009-08-19T22:05:00.000-07:00

Why do I sporadically write stuff on this blog?
I suppose a simple answer is 'Why not?'
The technology exists, and with any luck, people might actually read it.

But that really is a bit "conceited, egoistic, egoistical, egomaniacal, egotistic, egotistical, individualist, individualistic, megalomaniac, narcissistic, pompous, self-absorbed, self-centered, self-concerned, self-indulgent, self-interested, self-loving, self-serving, selfish, stuck-up, vainglorious, wrapped up in oneself." (Don't you just love thesauruses? or is that thesauri?)

Truthfully, though, I think I have two reasons for dispensing my questionable wisdom on you, my hapless victims.
1. Sometimes, I just can't help but write. A thought starts swirling and swelling, just looking for a chance to erupt unsuspectingly on my fellow web travelers. It may not seem like anything profound, but it seems to be something that is looking to have life breathed into it. I like parables, similes, metaphors--stories that illustrate deeper but less tangible concepts. Sometimes I think others will enjoy that spark of inspiration that darts through those itty bitty wires attached to your computer.
2. Sometimes, I feel like I need to change the world. I consider myself much more of a philosopher and a poet than a prophet, but some of the things I am musing about need to have a wider audience than just my heart. At least I think others need to hear them.
If you are a regular reader of this blog, you may have noticed various rants about the church and theology lately. Firstly, they are things smoldering in my own heart. Secondly, I think there is value in stirring up the pot so you at least think about them as well.
This brings me to a concluding point. I'd love for you to respond to things that either resonate or irritate your spirit. I'd love to hear your comments--not just what bounces back from the things you have been taught, but what really surfaces when your heart and brain are engaged.
I know I have had visitors from every continent except South America (and Antarctica, but that is likely to be expected!) However, I really don't have too much of a clue who some of you are--and I'd like to know. I've met some really cool people through the blogs I follow, and I'd like to be able to say the same about you. So, I encourage you to sign up as a follower (No, it's not like being my disciple, you silly!).
Meanwhile, thanks for stopping by. And be sure to grab a coffee or a nice cuppa tea and come by again.

A rant about church and theology

2009-08-08T21:59:00.000-07:00

That title should be enough to scare some of you away. But I hope there are others of you who are concerned enough with where the church is and is going to keep reading.
A recent blog by my fellow hare-brained loose cannon Peter
got me thinking. He's quite good at that!
He refers to the 'Wesleyan Quadrilateral'.
Wikipedia defines it saying that“ Wesley used four different sources in coming to theological conclusions. The four sources are:
Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
Experience - a Christian's personal and communal journey in Christ”

I believe it is time that the church returned to a place where all four are operating in balance.
This resonates with me in two ways:
--That there is great value in having all four areas involved in developing our understanding of God (theology), and
--Church should be a safe place to explore all four, a place to discuss with people who share your desire to come to a fuller understanding and practice of your understanding of God.
Scripture. My experience (fairly limited, I admit) has been that church tends to be the presentation of a singular point of view. Although it purports to be 'scriptural', that point of view is not usually open to discussion or deeper study as to whether the point being presented is a legitimate understanding of scripture, based on as full an understanding as possible of the place, culture and language of the time, and purpose of writing. It seems to me that sermons are more a monologue than a dialogue, and not much place (if any) is provided to truly study and converse together. So, although the Bible is used as a foundation for the teaching, there often is no place for people to bring tradition, reason, and experience into the conversation in a desire to better understand the full message of that scripture. Add to that the tendency of some people to say “The Bible says __________” with the not-so-subtle inference that any other interpretation is denying the authority of scripture. That alone is valid cause for making sure that tradition, reason, and experience are all part of the process of understanding what God wants us to learn and live from the Bible. For too long people have taken their particular understanding of scripture (often based as much on tradition as good exegesis) and said that any other understanding is evil, wrong, against God, or whatever other words they can use to keep the flock in line—sometimes to the detriment of a Christ-like character. (The Crusades, slavery, anti-abortion militancy, treatment of gays and other unloving actions come to mind.)
Tradition. It seems to me that many denominations are either quite open to the past 2000 years of church tradition, or quite closed to it. Tradition either figures largely in the content, government and style of a church, or very little (although even new denominations seem to have formed their own contemporary traditions). I think it is time to recognize the strength of the past, but to also be ready to move ahead. Tossing out 2000 years of wisdom and experience in favor of the last few decades can easily doom us to repeating mistakes that have already been made. We have accumulated a lot of wisdom and understanding over the past two millennia. On the other hand, speaking in a centuries-old style in today's world only serves to demonstrate to a person outside of the church that faith is outdated and out of touch with reality. A balance is necessary.
Reason. There seemed to be an era in parts of the church when reason was considered evil. Higher education was shunned, individual thought was denounced. Anything that seemed to question the 'traditional/fundamentalist' view of scripture was immediately branded as diabolic and tossed out, even if there may well have been a need for some new insight. For example, any discussion on the Genesis creation account that didn't include six literal days, or a 6000 year-old earth, or even hinted at (gasp!) evolution was considered blasphemous and so were the people who brought it up. Leaving out reason acts as if only the leader/priest/pastor/teacher has understanding (and sometimes even they are not allowed to question 'the way it has always been'). Leaving reason out of the process also tends to make our faith appear out of touch with the world around us. Four centuries ago Galileo Galilei was promoting the new scientific understanding that the earth was not the center of the universe. He was 'tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy," forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.' for his ideas that were considered "false and contrary to Scripture".
Experience has either been strongly affirmed or negated, depending on your particular stream of Christianity. But usually, it is only one's own experience that counts, not someone else's. So, if I have experienced __________, I will believe it is of God and for today. And if I haven't experienced _________, I will say it is of the devil and so is anyone who says they have experienced it. You can fill in the blanks with a number of supernatural phenomena. Here again balance is in order. Experience alone can soon run amok if it is not offset with the other three. I'm sure you can think of enough recent examples to illustrate either extreme.

In balancing scripture, tradition, reason and experience I see the need for a safe place for discussion, where the student of the Bible and the cynic can both listen to each other. Where the person steeped in tradition can hear the concern of the person with different experience, and neither feels disrespected or scorned. Where the differing opinions of two students can both be laid on the table, and both are valued, and open for discussion. Where a person with little church experience can raise her questions about what the preacher is saying.
I believe it is time to make church a place where we can all be 'experts', be listened to, be valued. To all be students where no one claims to have all the answers. A place where ancient liturgy and church practice can be experienced, but willingly replaced with something contemporary. A place where the spirit of God speaks through all of us to bring us to where we need to be. Sure, my perspective on an issue may be totally out to lunch, but that is likely to become very obvious in the presence of my peers. On the other hand, the long-held traditional theology may be what needs to give way, and that probably won't happen if there isn't a safe place to argue (I mean discuss!).
Since a Sunday morning crowd of tens or hundreds or thousands of people isn't a conducive place for this kind of dialogue, I think home-sized groups are vital to keep our theology vibrant and thoughtful.
Probably every 'revelation' of new understanding came about as someone questioned the status quo. If we keep all four corners of the quadrilateral dynamic and functional, we can safely work through the questions and issues facing us today. If we climb up on our favorite corner and chose to ignore the rest, we only display our fear and insecurity about the validity of our present insight, and both we and the world at large will suffer for our arrogance.

OK, I'll get down off my soapbox now, and try to dodge the rotten tomatoes!

Messing with your theology

2009-08-05T21:56:00.000-07:00

I bet this is going to mess with your theology. It has with mine for awhile now.
I was out 'strolling' a few nights ago, wandering around downtown Victoria. It was hot (for Victoria), and people were just sort of moseying along.
I happened upon a couple of people I know fairly well. She is usually out panhandling, stretching her income as best she can. He lives on the street, pushes his grocery cart around, scrounging for whatever he can find. They are both in their 40's, I would suppose.
He commented that they hadn't been able to find any food in the dumpsters today, nobody was throwing out anything. They had seen lots of people going by, carrying their take-out food, but no one had offered them any.
Meanwhile, it is still two days to 'payday' (Welfare day).
As we were chatting, along comes 3 young guys, one of whom I have chatted with a number of times. I really didn't know his two friends.
The guy I know says “Hi”, and asked how things were going. Then he said they had some food for my street friends—a fresh, 12 inch Subway sub.
Of course, the recipients were happy.

Now we get into the sticky stuff.
As I said, I have had many conversations with the one young guy who brought the food. He knows I am a Christian, involved with CARTS, a weekly food and clothing ministry to the homeless. He has often shared how good it is that people are offering assistance to people on the street.
All in all, what happened was a very Christ-like thing. These guys, sharing their food with someone in need. Offering it gladly, not having to be asked. It's what Jesus would do (WWJD).
Living up to Jesus statement:
John 13:35 This is how everyone will recognize that you are my disciples--when they see the love you have for each other.
The sticky part? This guy is a Muslim.
Living like a Christian is expected to live.
Not confessing to be a follower of Christ.
But living like it.
Luke 6:43, 44 No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit.
I continue to see some people who say they have nothing to do with Jesus (perhaps trying to keep clear of those who call themselves 'Christian', but don't live up to it), but putting many of us to shame by their commitment to love the 'least of these'.
That's why my theology is getting kinda messed up.
And I think it might be a good thing. Our theology probably needs to be shaken up regularly, or else it will go rotten.

Iced theology

2009-08-01T17:53:00.000-07:00

I stopped by one of my two favorite java joints (Beans & Greens—Peggy sells coffee and plants) today for an iced latte and a cup of ginger pea soup. As I ordered, I made some forgettable wisecrack about feeling guilty, and she said something along the lines of “It's OK, there is no shame here at Beans & Greens”. I couldn't help but respond--“I need to put that up as a sign at church.”
Then, after I had completely enjoyed both the latte and the soup, Peggy told me that there are things that are both good and good for you—that things can be pleasurable as well as healthy. The two do not need to be mutually exclusive.
Again I thought—that would be a good thing to hang up at church.

Two awesome bits of theology, wrapped around a frosty iced latte:
--Jesus didn't come to bring shame, reproach, or condemnation. (Romans 8:1)
--Everything God created is good, and to be received with thanks. Nothing is to be sneered at and thrown out. (1 Timothy 4:4)

Strength in diversity

2009-07-22T23:22:00.000-07:00

I used to think the best-case scenario would be if everyone had the same values, theology, lifestyle. “Diversity is bad, uniformity is good.” It fits with the idea that there is an ultimate truth, an ultimate understanding of all things, and the whole idea is to reach that wonderful place when you know it all. (Of course, there are those among us who sound like they have reached this point of enlightenment already, and they are only too happy to help us join them.)
More recently I have been coming to the conclusion that in many areas of life, there is more than one way to look at things. Different points of view are equally defensible. “Diversity is OK, uniformity isn't as good as I thought it was.”
Now, even that conclusion is facing some opposition. I am beginning to consider that diversity brings strength. “Diversity is ideal, uniformity is limiting.”

Visualize an underwater communication cable—the kind of technology that first brought telephone communication between continents. Its main purpose is to transmit a large number of different telephone calls over large distances. At first glance, you might think that bunching a large number of bare copper wires together would accomplish this task. But it won't. The interconnecting wires would combine the various calls into one jumbled mess.
No, each wire needs to be insulated from each other wire.
But it doesn't stop there. An underwater cable needs overall waterproofing as well. It needs to have a tough enough outside layer to keep all moisture out.
The ocean floor can be a rough place, so the outer layer needs to also protect from the effect of sharp rocks.
This cable is laid on the ocean floor, often at quite a distance from the surface—so it needs extra strength in order to handle its own weight as it is spooled out.
So, the overall success of this cable depends on the diversity of the components. Some need to conduct electricity well, others need to not conduct electricity at all. “Diversity is ideal, uniformity is limiting.”
Here's another word picture: a piece of hard clear crystalline substance with many facets to refract light is called a diamond. A piece of hard clear substance with one facet is called a pane of glass. It takes the variety of facets to begin to display the beauty within the stone. “Diversity is ideal, uniformity is limiting.”

I expect you are wise enough to see the parallels. The kingdom of God is stronger because of its diversity, not weaker.
And I am not just thinking of the gifts and abilities we have individually.
I am also thinking of the diversity within the traditions and denominations we see within the Church.
--the longevity, history, and artistic beauty of the Roman Catholic church.
--the tranquility and liturgical framework of the Anglican church.
--the joy, immediacy, and power of Charismatics.
--the centrality of the Bible, of Jesus, or of social justice of various groups.
--the compassion and inclusiveness of liberals.
--the passion for a personal connection with God of the conservatives.
Every 'flavor' has its unique value, and adds to the overall strength of the whole. Each also has potential areas of weakness, and no one can stand alone.

I am beginning to see the value of Brian McLaren's “A generous orthodoxy: Why I am a missional, evangelical, post/protestant, liberal/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, charismatic/contemplative, fundamentalist/calvinist, anabaptist/anglican, methodist, catholic, green, incarnational, depressed-yet-hopeful, emergent, unfinished Christian.”
I used to think that progressive reformations/spin offs/splits were God's way of helping us get closer and closer to the 'real' church He wanted. Now I am trying to see that no one group can fully express the breadth and depth of the kingdom. It takes all of us (and even more) to even begin to demonstrate the fulness of Christ's character.
I suppose the challenge to me is to discover my strength and purpose, which particular facets God wants to reflect Himself through in me, and not try to become a “jack-of-all-trades” kind of Christian.
My purpose here isn't to encourage you to be everything, but to value the combined strength we have because of the diversity we each contribute.

Freely

2009-06-30T09:38:00.000-07:00

Have you ever noticed that it's easier to extend grace when you have already received grace?
The more we understand: John 8:4, 7 They said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery." He straightened up and said to them, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.", the less we are inclined to throw stones.
Matthew 10:8 “Bring health to the sick. Raise the dead. Touch the untouchables. Kick out the demons. You have been treated generously, so live generously.”
Luke 7:47 “Impressive, isn't it? She was forgiven many, many sins, and so she is very, very grateful. If the forgiveness is minimal, the gratitude is minimal.”
It's not that some of us haven't received very much grace, but perhaps we aren't as aware of how much we have already been forgiven.
It's the 'sinners' among us that better realize how much love and forgiveness mean to us. It's easier to be patient with someone in an area that I know I need patience with.
Mark 5:19, 20 But He would not let him; instead, He told him, “Go back home to your own people, and report to them how much the Lord has done for you and how He has had mercy on you.” So he went out and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him, and they were all amazed.
Thinking that we have already arrived, and have need of nothing can be a very detrimental thing. Luke 18:24 Seeing his reaction, Jesus said, “Do you have any idea how difficult it is for people who have it all to enter God's kingdom?"
So don't be embarrassed about realizing how great God's forgiveness has been in your life. Let it be a catalyst to energize you to extend that forgiveness to others.
And if you tend to find it difficult to see how God could forgive someone for ________ (fill in the blank with whatever sin you think God can't or shouldn't forgive), then seek to better understand how gracious God has already been to you.

The gap

2009-06-29T10:26:00.000-07:00

One of my regularly read blogs was part of a 'synchroblog' a few days ago. A blog devoted to “conversations on befriending our gay neighbours” organized over 60 bloggers to write something on the same day on “how we can best reach across the divides that often separate Christians and LGBT individuals.” The blog is called “Bridging the Gap”, and they have also produced a DVD resource as “a catalyst for courageous conversations and fearless, love-based relational engagement with gay neighbours.”

I read a number of the various blog posts, and was struck by a few things.
I recognize that there is indeed a vast chasm between some Christians and the gay community. Perhaps even many Christians and the gay community. However, I think the first thing to overcome in desiring to get rid of personal prejudice in any form is to choose to lose the 'us and them' mentality. You may decide you are going to treat people from another culture and background as fellow human beings, as equals. But if you still refer to them as 'those First Nations people', or 'those Chinese', you are still exhibiting racism. Keeping the 'us and them' references means you aren't considering them the same as yourself. Keeping the 'us and them' tags means you will always have a great divide that will always need to be bridged. The same is just as true for people who are gay, or homeless, or Buddhist. I think it is imperative that we learn to treat everyone around us as ordinary, normal, conventional, standard, common, usual, unremarkable. Yes people have their unique qualities, but treating someone in a distinctive, peculiar or special way means you aren't seeing them as an equal. Consider this: do we set left-handed people apart, and treat them in some special way? Or people with blue eyes, or people who can't swim? Do we talk about the need to 'bridge the gap' between us? No, because we still consider them as equals, even though they have some unique qualities. We need to move into the same realm regarding sexual identity.
Another thing that struck me in reading these posts was the number of people who had a conservative Christian upbringing, came to a point in their life that they acknowledged they were gay, and then felt it necessary to leave their conservative church setting. They haven't left their faith in God, they just feel very uncomfortable/unwanted/unaccepted/unloved in the church setting of their earlier years. I think that sadly demonstrates that we in the conservative evangelical branch of the church haven't done a very good job of loving and affirming God's love for some people. That is worse than sad, it is unconscionable. In effect, we created the gap that we now need to bridge.
As I read the comments posted by other readers of these blog posts, I discovered a large number of people approached the subject with grace and generosity. There was lots of dialogue on various ideas being raised, and for the most part, people were ready to listen to the points of view brought forth. But there were a few people who appeared to miss the point of the topic: “How can we befriend our gay neighbours” and used the forums as a place to state their theology that homosexuality is a sin, end of discussion. That attitude hurts. It hurts me, it hurts the church, and most sadly, it hurts many people who first need a place to be heard and loved, not to be attacked, squelched, and shut down. It also is a contemptible way to explore and discover truth. The fact is, we don't have all the facts. We still have more to learn, on just about everything. Devoutly affirming something as 'biblical' doesn't guarantee that it accurately reflects the original heart of the author. And it doesn't provide a safe place for someone to explore and discuss questions they may have. I believe the biggest problem with this kind of 'I already know the answer and you are completely wrong' kind of attitude is that it isn't what Christ calls us to.
John 13:34, 35 “Let me give you a new command: Love one another. In the same way I loved you, you love one another. This is how everyone will recognize that you are my disciples--when they see the love you have for each other.”
John 15:12-14 “This is my command: Love one another the way I loved you. This is the very best way to love. Put your life on the line for your friends. You are my friends when you do the things I command you.”

Lest you accuse me of also missing the point of “How can we befriend our gay neighbours”, let me reiterate.
--treat your neighbours as good people—whether they are Chinese, gay, lawyers or computer geeks. Treat them like people. Talk about stuff—the weather, the economy, local issues, relationships, sports, food, whatever. The less you single out one aspect of who they are, the more you will be able to relate to them as whole individuals. Appreciate their distinct personality traits and interests, but don't major on just one facet.
--listen to them. Care about the things they care about, their hopes and aspirations. Prove that you aren't there to preach at them. Establish trust. Be ready to demonstrate God's love. Share your heart, your questions, your desires. If they bring up issues of sexuality, be honest and open.
--be ready to change your mind about things. Have discussions, not debates. Be more willing to learn than to teach. Explore things together.
If you haven't noticed, the preceding ideas are just as valid with befriending someone who is of another race, faith, or political persuasion. And, if you have forgotten, your neighbout isn't just the guy who lives next door.

Unity

2009-06-22T09:07:00.000-07:00

I have this dark, pessimistic theory:
When someone starts promoting 'unity', they really mean "Why can't everybody else see things my way?"
When someone says "Why can't we all just get along?", what they are really saying is "If you saw things the way I do, we wouldn't have any reason to fight."

While the basic logic of those statements could well be true, that doesn't mean the world would actually be a better place.
If I say that 2 times 2 equals 5, and everyone else decides to follow suit, we wouldn't be on the right track--even though we would be in unity.

Globally, I could promote a particular system of government, say democratic capitalism (Hmmm sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it?). Having the rest of the world switch to the same system and philosophy of life wouldn't necessarily make the world a better place.
Nationally, I could promote unity by telling everyone to become a Liberal (or Conservative, NDP or Green) supporter. We might have unity, but I doubt if we would have utopia.
Religiously, it is even worse. Within Christianity (let alone other faiths) we have people and isms of every stripe claiming to be biblical. Their dream of unity is probably for everyone else to interpret the Bible the way they do.
Dangerous idea, actually. It can, and has, so easily lead to arrogance, pomposity, and even violence. We have an incredible amount of disunity as people write their books, preach from their pulpits and TV screens, and march against all manner of things, just because that is how they understand the Bible. Meanwhile, the little guy gets swallowed up in the politics of the system. Variety and creativity are stifled as being 'unbiblical'. Honest questions are quashed, and discussion and learning are replaced by bombast and brainwashing.
I admit, it's pretty easy to believe I am right, and everyone else needs to see things like I see them. Even this bit of musing about unity is trying to persuade you to see it like I do.
But I can guarantee you: I am out to lunch on some things (If only I knew which ones!), and on other things, there is definitely more than one way to look at the question at hand.
I don't think unity means being a bunch of clones of one particular leader. And don't try to tell me that trying to be the same as Jesus is the whole answer. That is what so many of us are indeed trying to do, but we are seeing different parts of His character, and none of us has come even close to seeing the whole picture.
That brings me back to my theory--it's way too easy to pretend that 'My way is the right way', and that unity will only come if you become like me.
I believe unity is the desire to walk together, even though we walk differently. It is a willingness to see the strengths in the other guy's position, and being ready to change your own position if appropriate. But sometimes, it is just as right to have different ideas of what 'truth' is, and to walk together anyway.
I think that is what true unity is.

Me three

2009-06-10T07:23:00.000-07:00

Check this out:

What insight!
I'm not thinking business so much here, but the whole idea of new ideas.
Lots of people have good, new ideas.
Some people are the visionaries with the grandiose schemes. They seem to always be running around with something new to promote. They don't seem to care if anyone agrees with them or is willing to work with them. They act like they have no inhibitions, and will do whatever comes into their mind to do.
Sometimes someone else sees one of these ideas and recognizes its value. Quite possibly they had been thinking the same thing, but didn't have the nerve to try it on their own. But they are now willing to risk the possible embarrassment and join the first guy.
Then comes the all important 3rd guy in. He too is on the cutting edge. He has been watching carefully. He may not have had the initial idea, but he totally recognizes it as something of value. He knows it is powerful and needs to help it catch on. He knows his support will help add momentum. He knows people will begin to pay attention if he comes on board. He knows if he takes the plunge, others will find it easier to join in.
Guy #3 is probably the critical mass.
Guy #3 doesn't have to come up with the good idea.
He doesn't have to suffer the embarrassment of being the 'token' supporter of #1.
Guy #3 casts the deciding vote. Once he is in, it is incredibly easier for many more to come onside and be the "me-too's".
I want to be a guy #3.

Today

2009-06-04T10:27:00.000-07:00

I had an awesome chat with a young man a few nights ago. He was filling in as cashier at the local gas bar/convenience store. He was all excited about working on his pickup—he's already spent thousands on a pretty deadly sounding engine, and thousands more to go on body work, paint job, etc.
And he has all this money because he doesn't drink or do drugs.
Oh, he's tried pretty much everything, he said, but moved on.
I just had to commend him for his wisdom (having seen so many people who spend a bunch on that kind of stuff).
It was one of those connections that I'd really like to be able to continue. To be able to keep affirming him, to encourage him, to make sure he knows he is making some smart decisions, to see his truck as he works on it.
But sometimes those connections aren't to be.
I hope I see him again, but it might not happen.
Sometimes the only opportunity we have to say or do something is this opportunity. All we can be sure of is right now. We can't count on having another chance to say what we really want to say.

So, make the most of today.
Be positive and uplifting in your conversations.
Give compliments.
Buy someone coffee.
Smile lots.

Bored?

2009-05-27T20:28:00.001-07:00

—I'd get bored listening to a lecture on nuclear fission. The words (at least some of them) might be English, but I really have no concept of the concept.
—I'd be bored in a Grade 2 spelling class. No challenge, nothing to catch my interest.
—I'd be bored listening to a debate over which beer tastes the best—personally, I don't plan on ever caring!
—I'd be bored if I took courses on classic literature, grammar and creative writing, but never was given any opportunities to actually write.
—I'd be bored if I attended the regular meetings of a club, but was ignored by all the other members as they chatted with each other.

I think there are common threads why many people (even Christians) don't want to have anything to do with the religious systems often called the church.
—The church doesn't speak my language, they use big words, or use ordinary words that seem to have some coded meaning, or refer to theological concepts I don't understand.
—I don't hear anything new, up-to-date or relevant in church, only old, tired diatribes, the same old harping about a particular sin.
—I don't care what your particular church teaches about the rapture—pre, mid, post, or whatever; how you baptize—dunk or sprinkle; or what style of music you use. Figure out what is really important, and then I might be interested!
—If the church really believed all they preached about love and compassion, they would be out there making a difference, not just spending money on their fancy buildings, and never stepping out of them into the real world.
—If the church truly represents God, why don't they seem to care about me? Why are they so busy talking with their friends, and ignoring me?

If you or I would be bored in a similar situation, why are we surprised so many people are bored with church?

A conversation...

2009-05-19T21:08:00.000-07:00

We look around and realize that things aren't what they should be.
A light bulb goes off. I know what I will do! I will pray!!

God, things are pretty bad out there.
Yes, they are.
There's crime and injustice. There's fear and messed up relationships. Lots of problems. God, please fix everything. Amen. Good night! Over and out.

Time passes.

God, why didn't you fix things?
Ahhh! Well, ...
Yes, I'm listening!
Good! You want things to be made better?
Yes!!
You want my kingdom to be expressed on earth like it is in heaven?
Yes! Yes!
You want my will to be done on earth?
Yes! Yes! Yes!
Good! That's what you are there for!
What?
Did you think everything would just 'appear' so your life could be perfect, so everything would be a utopia?
Well, I knew I should pray, and then I just thought that would solve everything.
Remember when Jesus said “You are the salt of the earth”?
Yes, but...
And that “You are the light of the world”?
Yes...
Salt works when it gets out where it is needed. Light works when it shines in darkness.
Hmmm. So praying isn't the answer?
Well, no that's not what I said.
OK, so fill me in. How is prayer useful if I have to be salt and light? That sounds like it all depends on me!
Remember where James says that “You don't have because you don't ask, or because you ask wrongly”?
Yeah.
Well, your prayers can be very useful IF...
If what?
If you pray with the right purpose and understanding.
Huh? Sorry Lord, I don't think I get it.
OK. If you are the one to cause my kingdom to come and my will to be done ...
Yeah?
Then pray for wisdom in how to bring that about. Remember, James also said, “If you need wisdom, ask God, and He will give it to you.” So, ask me for wisdom.
Wisdom is good.
And discernment.
Discernment? What about?
Discernment to see what part of the job is yours.
You mean, it isn't all up to me?
No, of course not. That's what the rest of the family is for! That's why you all have different abilities.
OK.
And different interests.
OK.
And different people around you that you can influence.
Right!
So, if you were a steel worker, building a bridge, I'd expect you to do your job well, setting a good example, building the best bridge possible.
Yup.
But I wouldn't expect you to find a cure for poverty.
Whew!
Or, if you were a school teacher ...
Oh, that one's easy. You'd want me to teach all the kids to love you.
Well, ultimately that is true. But you'd need to start by loving the kids the way I do, even the obnoxious ones. I'd want you to instill a sense of honesty and fairplay, a thirst for both knowledge, and the wisdom to use it, and the ability to be great citizens of my kingdom. You see, this kingdom takes time to build, as the generations march on.
Hmmm. In some ways it sounds easy, and yet it looks like it won't come over night.
No, it won't. Reread the stories about my kingdom that Jesus told. Several of them compare the kingdom to seeds which take time to grow. One time He talked about the kingdom being like yeast which takes time to permeate the whole loaf. I kind of like the word 'infiltrate' because it infers a gradual penetration. Do you see my point?
Yeah.
Good! Now back to you. If you were a musician, ..
I could write beautiful songs of worship.
Yes, you could, and I would be blessed.
Yeah!!!
But ...
But?
Worship songs have a somewhat limited audience.
You mean ...
It's kind of like when the salt stays in the shaker, or the light stays under a basket. It enjoys being in its safe, familiar environment, ...
But it doesn't bring much saltiness or light into the places where the need is.
You're getting it! So, you could write songs that encourage people to make a difference. To feed the hungry, to be humble with each other, to give instead of just take in their relationships. You know, infiltrate people's minds and hearts with the principles of the kingdom.
OK!

I think I get the idea of praying for discernment bit. Is there anything else I should be praying for?
Sure! Remember the early church? The book of Acts mentions a few things they prayed for.
Things like boldness, and opportunities, and even power, right?
Yes. Remember when Jesus told his disciples to wait for my Spirit?
Yeah?
He said wait until, right?
Yeah?
And then what? Were they to remain in the upper room forever, praying, worshiping, hearing good sermons?
Well, no. I suppose when the promised power came, they were allowed to leave.
Not just allowed, but encouraged! This brings us back to your mission! Go! Cause my kingdom to come. Make a difference. Multiply yourself, so that there are even more people helping bring my kingdom.
Oh, and since you seem to like writing ...
Yeah?
In fact, I expect you know where that interest and ability comes from, don't you?
Yes, although sometimes, it sure doesn't seem very, well, effective, or powerful, or ...
That's OK. That's another aspect of the prayers that you pray. I give you the ability, you pray for good ways to use that ability, ...
And?
Ultimately, you leave the results up to me. Like you said earlier, the kingdom doesn't come over night. Your effectiveness may not be seen immediately. There are lots of examples in history. The abolition of slavery in Britain, for example. There were many years of prayer, work, and influence before it came about. But is the world a better place? Was it worth it?
Of course!
So it is with anything I lead you to do. Be faithful and patient. Salt works slowly; even the light of dawn takes time to dispel the darkness of night. So, keep thinking, praying, writing. Don't despise the day of small beginnings.
Yes, Lord!