The Brady Bunch

To what extent can the television show, The Brady Bunch, be used as a metaphor for the church? Talk amongst yourselves. 

Bonhoeffer quote on Community

"Let him who is not in community beware of being alone. Into the community you were called, the call was not meant for you alone; in the community of the called you bear your cross, you struggle, you pray.  You are not alone, even in death, and on the Last Day you will be only one member of the great congregation of Jesus Christ.  If you scorn the fellowship of the brethren, you reject the call of Jesus Christ, and thus your solitude can only be hurtful to you." -- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together

Response to Philip Clayton's post on Theology After Google

I just spent way too long typing out a response to Philip Clayton's blog post on theOOZE (a site that I rarely frequent and that I only checked out in this instance because Jason at Sustainable Traditions recommended it.) only to find that my comment wouldn't go through.  Aaaarrrgggghhh!!!! (No Wonder there were no comments posted there yet.)

So I'm posting it here, mostly because I don't want to let all that work go to waste. (I don't even know that what I wrote was even decent, but still, it's the principle of the thing that counts here. If I spend that much time pounding out a reply, someone should have the opportunity to read it.)

i was shocked after reading through your article to see that there were no comments after you'd specifically asked for comments!  if some sites can get hundreds of idiots to reply their their posts, then this post should at least get the comments of one idiot.  

so here i am.   ;-)

(hopefully there's not 10 comments waiting in moderation before mine making me look like even more of an idiot once they all go through. *sigh*)

i suppose i'm left, after reading your article, wondering who you're talking about.  if pastor's are no longer authorities, is that because non-christians no longer see them as authorities? or because our churches have grown into mass media spectacles where you simply can't have a personal relationship with your pastor in which you can talk out theology and life in such a way that you build a relationship and respect for that individual and allow him to speak into your life -- to have some level of authority?

i'm a member of a small church (in a denomination that's been around since the '60's i think, when it split off from a mainline denom). i read blogs right and left. i write about my own spiritual journey and i feed my intellectual and spiritual self in a plethora of ways (from books to online posts to online communities). and i don't see my pastor as a host at all.  he's a teacher and a pastor.  he prepares information for me to digest, cogitate on and discuss.  he's the authority because he's the one spending the time it takes to research and delve into the topic in order to present it to us. granted he's not just stuffing facts and rules into our spiritual gullets. there's a lot of conversation and interaction. but he's guiding us, not hosting us. he's teaching us.

i also think you're creating a bit of a false dichotomy.  you're saying there's what church was and what church is becoming.  but what church was wasn't always church.  in my opinion it was far more common as recently as 30 or 40 years ago for churches to be filled to the brim with people who didn't believe a word of what they were hearing. they hadn't chosen to follow jesus. they were just "going to church" because that's what you did.  that's not church. ok, so it is, but it's a very different definition of the word than i think either you or i would mean by it. and how much "authority" did any pastor/clergy have in that case? they had neither authority nor were they a host.  they were just part of the ritual that people went through on sunday mornings.

i think i also balk at the "we're not in kansas anymore" overall idea to the post. yes, in many ways the internet is changing our world dramatically.  and yet people are still people and relationships still involve talking and interacting and probably having a bite to eat and something to sip on while you're together. in that sense, things are still very much the same.  church is made up of people learning to get along with each other despite differences, learning to love self-lessly, to care for each other and so on.  that's not internet stuff.  that's the same sort of thing that the church has been doing for millenia. 

New Monasticism

I came across these 12 marks of New Monasticism today. I thought I'd post them here both as a way to discuss them and to think them through a bit more. You can find the original list here at newmonasticism.org.  They don't give explanations for these, either. So make of them what you will.

1) Relocation to the abandoned places of Empire.

2) Sharing economic resources with fellow community members and the needy among us.

3) Hospitality to the stranger

4) Lament for racial divisions within the church and our communities
combined with the active pursuit of a just reconciliation.

5) Humble submission to Christ’s body, the church.

6) Intentional formation in the way of Christ and the rule of the
community along the lines of the old novitiate.

7) Nurturing common life among members of intentional community.

8) Support for celibate singles alongside monogamous married couples and their children.

9) Geographical proximity to community members who share a common rule of life.

10) Care for the plot of God’s earth given to us along with support of our local economies.

11) Peacemaking in the midst of violence and conflict resolution within communities along the lines of Matthew 18.

12) Commitment to a disciplined contemplative life.

May God give us grace by the power of the Holy Spirit to discern rules for living that will help us embody these marks in our local contexts as signs of Christ’s kingdom for the sake of God’s world.

RT @FakeSpurgeon "This thimble of grape juice represents my blood..." #whatjesusneversaid -- http://twitter.com/FakeSpurgeon/status/8284646367

Authentic

One of the things that I loved about the church I was a part of in Detroit was that it was utterly authentic. When we sang, it wasn't the sound of angels, or even of a choir.  It was the sound of a doctor, a janitor, a grandma turned mom again, a German, an African-American, a heinz 57 white person, a college graduate, a post doc student, a man who never made it past 3rd grade....  It was the sound of us. No more. No less. We were off key and off beat. We mucked our way through the songs and some days it sounded good and some days it was just a sound. But it was always a group of people pouring their hearts out to God.

I thought of this authentic style of worship again today when the pianist fumbled over the music, the songs were kinda cheesy youth groupy songs, and no one clapped but me and Rob. I was a bit embarrassed because we had three groups of visitors and all I could think was, "They must think we're so pathetic!" And yet, what they were hearing was us, just as we are.  Granted, last week the music rocked, so it's not like we're always stumbling along. But today we were. It was us. Just as we are. No frills. Nothing fancy. 

And it struck me -- the buzzword among "cutting edge" churches these days is that they're authentic.  But ironically, the "cutting edge" churches in our denomination, the ones that tout themselves as being "authentic Christian community"s are the ones that pay professionals (often not even Christian professionals) to play the music in their services.  How authentic is that?

Another buzzword is community. There's a movement to build community within churches rather than just walking in, punching your card (so to speak), and leaving again. Our church doesn't really talk about community, and yet we live it. We're not perfect, but we have a deep rooted sense of our family-ness with one another.  And again, the "cutting edge" church in our denomination that we attended, where community was an oft used term and people thronged to the church to hear the pastor speak on the topic, was probably the church with the least amount of community that I've ever been a part of.

I suppose my point is that people can talk a good talk. They can speak of authenticity and community and it all sounds blessedly marvelous. But the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. And it's not necessarily something you can see in one visit to one event in our congregation. Community is something that you see over a period of time. Authenticity is something that you recognize as you look at the church budget, as you talk with the church members, and as you see people's words and actions in alignment over a period of time.

I appreciate that I'm a part of a congregation that doesn't just talk the talk. It walks the walk. Granted, it's a jagged, jumbled, scraggly, fumbling walk. But we're walking it, in all of our messed-up-ness and frailty. We're on the road. Authentic isn't really very pretty. It's plain and sometimes it's even awkward and bumbling. But it's who we are.

What do you think of when you hear the word ___ ?

I've been thinking about that word "church" again and I was going to ask you all what you think of when you hear that word, but I hadn't gotten around to writing the post.  Then I read this article by Kathy Escobar called, the difference between “cultivating communities” and “building churches”, in which she asks what people think of when they hear the words "Christian," "Jesus" and "Church". So I thought, what the heck, lets ask about them all.

So if you're interested in the article, don't read it yet.  First, list whatever comes to mind whenever you hear the following words. (I even threw in a few extras for fun.) There's no right or wrong answers. This is a free association type of exercise.
 
1) Christian
2) Evangelical
3) Jesus
4) Church
5) Worship
6) Spiritual
7) Grace

(I threw "grace" in because I watched Jim Wallis on the Daily Show and he used that word. It made me wonder what people thought it meant.)

Jesus Died for Myspace in Heaven

Nathan and I heard this advertised on the radio this morning.  I laughed so hard I nearly choked.

Is adoration worship?

True fellowship with God

Our pastor handed out a survey a couple of weeks ago and I'm just now getting around to working on it.  For the most part it's measuring stuff that I think our church is already doing pretty good at (caring for one another, understanding that holiness is something to strive for but not something we'll achieve in this life nor can self-righteously demand in others, etc.), but I just hit one question that has me stumped:

When measuring a church, we must look at the degree to which believers in the local church are regularly experiencing fellowship with God and one another.  Question: To what extent are the people in our church experiencing true fellowship with God and with one another in an integrated way? -- from the book The Measure of a Healthy Church

What is "true fellowship with God" and how in the world would I know if our church is experiencing it?  I can imagine coming up with an answer for myself (which would probably be something along the lines of, "is that even possible when you share a pew with kids?") but to answer that for the church? How should I know?

And what's the bit about "in an integrated way"?  Does that mean fellowship with God and one another at the same time? Or in the same setting?

Sounds like a bunch of Christianese to me.  Perhaps it's explained in the book but all I have is a photocopy of the survey. So, what do you think it means?

Tree Hugging for Jesus

This is a short interview of Tri Robinson. (I reviewed his book, Saving God's Green Earth, awhile back.)

"[Christians] need to understand that God does care about his creation
and has commissioned us to care about it."

Tree Hugging for Jesus from Recycle Your Faith on Vimeo.

Can you love someone that you hold in contempt?

This is a video of Bart Campolo. He lives in Cincinatti, Ohio, which sounds a lot like Detroit as far as I can tell. Although I don't think he finished so strong, he begins with a great question, "Is it possible to love somebody and have contempt for them at the same time?"  What do you think?

A Loving Contempt from Recycle Your Faith on Vimeo.

If you click through, the video is larger on the original website.

When I hear of Christians who describe themselves as "radical", I find that "arrogant" is another word that often comes to my mind.

Church Leaders

Between Steve's post on leadership in AA, his follow up post on authority, and the fact that the pastor and one of the elders is coming over to our house this afternoon for a chat, I've been thinking a fair bit about leadership in the church. I think we often have expectations of those in leadership and we don't always think out clearly what those expectations are and whether or not they're even reasonable expectations to have.  (Our leaders are, after all, only human.)

As I've already alluded to (here and here), I've been struggling with the leadership at our church. It's been an ongoing problem for several years now and I think I've grown re-discouraged about it lately because I thought things would change with the entrance of a new pastor, and they haven't. But as I prepare for our meeting, I keep asking myself, what is reasonable to expect? Where do I have expectations that I either haven't expressed to them, or that I'm out of line to expect? And the real problem, of course, is that I have a lot of energy behind this, so the ultimate question is, "How can I go into this meeting in a way that addresses the issues without going overboard, without showing bitterness, and without causing more hurt than already exists in the problem?"

So what should I expect from our church leaders? What is reasonable? What should they be doing? Our pastor actually posted some answers to that question, quoting extensively both from John Piper and the Bible. Here's the passage Piper preached on:

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. -- 1 Peter 1:1-3

So they should be shepherds, voluntarily, not for gain but with eagerness, not lording it over the flock but as examples. But my idea of "shepherd" might be very different than someone else's idea of "shepherd." Piper describes being as shepherd in this way -  "God holds them accountable for seeing the big picture and acting for the good of the whole flock." I have no idea if the elders of our church see any picture, let alone see the big one. And I'm not really sure what they're doing to "act for the good of the whole flock." If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? If the elders meet and see things and act on things but no one ever knows they've seen or acted, does it make any difference?

Like I said last week, I still think our church is a good thing over all.  It's a great bunch of people who truly do want to follow through on their decision to follow the Christ. But just because something is good doesn't mean it's easy. I'd love to hear your thoughts on church leaders and what is reasonable to expect from them.

The Magnificent Ability Christians Have of Munging Things

As both church treasurer and the office admin for a non-profit (soon to be a private foundation, which I don't think can be called a non-profit anymore, can it?), I end up with the occasional oddball letter in my mailbox. One that I received recently is, in my opinion, a classic example of how Christians munge things together without, apparently realizing that they're doing it (or that doing so lacks integrity). Here's a copy of the letter (with all formatting as shown in the original):

SOLDIERS OF CHRIST ARISE

This is a wake up call to God's people! In America, God and His son, Jesus, are cursed in the media, in the public arena and in the market place, all with little overt negative reaction or correction by believers in His Son.  Muslims on the other hand, are willing to die for Allah and Mohammed.  They will not permit criticism of their religion in any way, even using violence if necessary. Muslims stress morals, daily prayers and clean living.
What happened to our morals in this land once established on faith? What happened to the faith of our fathers? What happened to morality throughout this land? We sit back and hope things will change for the better while they deteriorate. Regardless of what the "Word" demands on homosexuality, many large businesses support same sex marriage with funds and personnel. Lobbyists have been able to push their agenda in the schools whereas the Bible is deemphasized or forbidden.
The Word urges Believers to unify to build up the body of Christ to maturity. In every church or religion, there is a lack of will to work in concert to reach a common goal.  Our different interpretations of God's Word keep us from focusing together for Biblical morality. Emphasis on teaching morals is a major need in our pulpits. Scripture teaches that the body will grow to maturity in unity, and only then will there be positive outcomes.  Each denomination is individually ruled, yet all can work as ONE for the morality of this nation. We are losing the battle in families, especially with our young people who are drawn to the dark side of computer technology, television, movies, drugs and a downward lifestyle all because WE failed early on to monitor and express our outrage as worldliness crept in. It is not too late to be assertive.
God generously sent His only Son Jesus because He saw man incapable of directing his steps.  However, with this gift comes the responsibility for our ministries to be proactive in counteracting errant behavior.  You may feel you, and others, have done this.  God is the judge.  If moral standards are emphasized throughout the nation, there will be positive improvement and a reduction in sinful practices.  Why aren't we standing and being counted to bring this nation to the morality about which the apostle Paul spoke? Ponder this message and pass it on to every one you meet.  One person can make a difference.  YOU can make a difference! Will you stand up?

A Pilgrim

What interests me is the confusion about who "we" are. Granted, there are several other interesting pieces to this letter like thinking that terrorists have a lot to teach the church, that the goal of church unity should be for the "morality of this nation", and the strongly stated but completely unsourced statement that emphasizing moral standards will reduce sinful practices. But I think most of those oddball things can be chalked up to the mad ravings of an eccentric outlier.  That confusion about "us" though, that's something that I hear in Bible studies, Sunday school and other Christian gatherings, and it's from some pretty un-eccentric people.

The very first sentence of the letter states that it's to "God's people." Granted, that doesn't necessarily mean Christians, but I think it's safe to assume that that's who the "Pilgrim" had in mind. The second sentence makes clear that an outside group (the media, the public and businesses) is cursing God. After a short digression in which terrorist Muslims are praised before being munged together with non-terrorist Muslims) there's suddenly a switch to a concern about "our morals in this land." Who's morals? The Christians? The Muslims? The general populous of the nation? The media, the public and businesses? The munging has begun.

Throughout the letter it's difficult to tell whether "Pilgrim" is upset about the lack of morality in the church, or in the nation as a whole. It appears to be the latter, but the premise that's made is that the church's morals should be the nation's morals because "this land [was] established on faith." (I could swear that this nation (the U.S.A) was founded upon the declaration of Independence, which is a political document, not a religious one.) In other words, "Pilgrim" seems to be tying the church and the nation so tightly together, that they appear to be one entity with the same regulations, responsibilities, etc.

At what point did the church receive instructions from God to rule the nation (and is it just for one nation, or should the church be ruling all nations)? At what point did those in the nation, who are not Christians, come under the jurisdiction of the church? Jesus was not sent to make us all moral. Nor did he come to make disciples whose chief goal would be to make others moral. Jesus came to bring life, something that had been lost to us specifically because we couldn't keep the laws (morals) that had been given.

To expect those who have not chosen to be one of "God's people" to follow God's laws is inappropriate and a severe misunderstanding of the gospel. The good news is not that we need to be moral people. The good news is that even though we can't be truly moral people, no matter how hard we try, God has provided a means of forgiveness and acceptance anyway.

Eccentrics happen (not just in Christian circles but within every subset of the populous). You generally can't convince them of anything accept that you don't agree with them. But munging is a wider problem and one that I believe is inappropriate and leads to confusion and hurt. Yes, Christians should be exhorted to be loving and kind and gentle and pure and all the other things that are directed in the Bible. But our attitude toward non-Christians should not be one of forcing our morals upon them.  Rather Jesus tells those he sends out to "proclaim the good news," to "cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons." (Mt 10:7,8)

Jesus tells his followers to "first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye." Claiming that someone else's eye is your own, and then attacking the other eye with a vengeance is a serious misinterpretation of that directive. As Christians, as "God's people," it behooves us to be clear about who we are talking to, who we are talking about, and what we have been directed to say to those individuals. Munging just muddies God's name.