math?

the more i study theology
the more i realize it's like math

which sucks
because i'm terrible at math
but love theology

and yet
i find myself growing quickly in my theological understanding
while - at the same time - recognizing how little "math" one genuinely needs to be a legitimate lover and follower of jesus christ

so...
i've come to think of it like this

theology is like math
in that there are certain definate & true answers to certain questions
and that there are applications for theology/math well outside of the strict discipline of theology/math
and that theology/math affects our daily lives without most of us even noticing it
and - perhaps most 'sexily' - that theology/math contain much room for hypothesis, rumination, and speculation about meaning and significance in real life stuff

in order for someone to truly to be considered a lover and follower of jesus
i believe they ought to work hard at understanding basic math
they ought to know how to add and subtract
they ought to ascribe to something basic [like the nicene creed, even with its many theological pinholes that so much of evangelicalism is fond of fighting over]

for me
and for many other pastors
however
we need to know more than addition and subtraction
we need to know - at least - calculus and algebra
so as to see the deeper levels of meaning and the use of numbers/texts

what concerns me is how many "famous" pastors seem only to have grasped
what looks like multiplication or, far too often, division

to be fair
we truly cannot judge their worth from a distance
and - even if we could - it would unethical for us to do so
without, at least, acknowledging their noble purpose and being in some manner of relationship [either professional or personal] with them

but
if we're honest
we do need to be clear that more is required of pastor/teachers than simply addition/subtraction, multiplication/division

for myself
i've humorously recognized that my particular bent is towards
applied theology/math

applied mathematics is the field of study concerned with stuff that makes a visible difference in real life
with the analysis of the world around us
and positive suggestions for how it could be improved
or better utilized and/or enjoyed

theologically speaking
i love to think through the hyper-complicated parts of faith [i.e. the real and complex numbers, number theory, etc...], but am only concerned with them insofar as they help us all connect more meaningfully with jesus and with the world around us.

perhaps this is a useful way to understand my contribution to the world around me

words that drive me nuts: organic

"organic" is a term oft applied in the word of business/leadership/management

it was originally coined in this way to refer to the autopoeitic emergence [i.e. self-creation] of healthy systems that reproduce other, similar healthy systems; also, it was a reference to denote how unhealthy systems will naturally become healthy if permitted to self-diagnose and sustain [though, that may include removal of certain agents/persons contributing to the unhealth of the overall system].

these days,
however,
the term is often reduced to the functional opting out of managerial responsibility
wherein leaders don't lead or provide direction
because it's not "organic"

in churches
there is a great fascination with organic terminology
in part because of the obvious crossovers with jesus' teaching on spirituality

however,
the term seems most applied in churches as a way to kind of sex-up whatever program
the church is promoting these days

all of thus bugs me

and,
since blogs really do tend to be about stuff that bugs bloggers,
i thought i'd offer something a little more helpful in the way of understanding what it truly means to be organic

1. "organics" is truly about people
...and people don't "run" like machines. people cannot be controlled and be simultaneously passionate/creative. leadership in churches is organic because the people in our churches will do whatever they want, regardless of whether or not we want them to do it.

says mag wheately:
"it is important to recognize that people never behave like machines. when given directions, we insist on putting our own unique spin on them. when told to follow orders, we resist in obvious or subtle ways. when told to accept someone else's solution or to institute a program created elsewhere, we deny that it has sufficient value."

2. managing living systems/cultivating health/sustaining growth
... the only way forwards, then, is to look to the system-as-a-whole. we can influence the system towards health/growth/sustainability, which isn't "in-organic" just a recognition that we - as leaders - are also part of the larger system and, as such, our role in the system may be to influence the overall web towards things that are more true, more beautiful, and/or more good.

3. paying attention to what's naturally happening around you
...the best way to do this - at least, it seems this way in 12+ years of ministry - is to notice the good things around you and publicly laud and authenticate them, providing rationale/teaching for why, exactly, they are so beautiful/true/good; and, to notice the absence of critical things in the system and try and introduce them through the manifestation of growing concern about their absence in the other people involved [i.e. make everyone aware of how screwy it is that "compassion" - for example - is noticeably absent in our churches, and then help them realize what "compassion" might look like in their locale].

this is just a start

but i just can't simply be bothered by misuse of "organic"
when
in actual fact
this kind of orientation towards faith/leadership/systems truly is one of the greatest perspectival gifts of the 21st c.

jesus and paul

i've come into a few discussions lately about people who seem eager to dismiss the apostle paul from conversations about christianity.

their claim is that paul somehow misrepresented jesus, thereby hijacking christianity and making it into something other than what jesus himself intended.

in their minds, the theology of jesus [and the kingdom] is very different from the theology of paul [and christianity]; and, if we're true christ-followers, we'll focus far, far less on paul than on jesus.

because,
after all,
paul only quotes jesus once in all his letters
and only references the gospel stories 4-5 times

however,
i think there are a couple of giant leaps made in this kind of thinking

dangerous leaps

first of all,
the great worth of jesus christ is not primarily his teaching
...it's HIMself

don't get me wrong - jesus' teachings are crucial
but he was more than just a good moral teacher

he is the resurrected
glorified
son-of-man
prophecied about
who superceded the messianic expectations of his friends and followers
and manifested divinity in a skin suit

he is god

when we take away these important
little details
we're left with only a better ghandi

and a better ghandi in no way addresses the real metaphysical issue
of our separation from our creator

ghandi can't atone for sin

and we do need atonement
even though that's not a popular understanding these days

the second big flaw i see in this silly line of reasoning
is the arrogant assumption that a 21st century american
somehow beter understands the local context of a 1st century palestinian jew
than the apostle paul
who was, himself, a 1st century palestinian jew

i mean
how did we get so full of ourselves
that we think we would be able to magically understand something about jewish messianic expectation that paul would not have understood
or sacrificial atonement
or the nature of god
or the promise to abraham

furthermore,
if paul had totally screwed up the reality of christ
peter
james
john
and all of the other disciples whom paul knew personally
would have set him straight

instead
it was repeatedly paul who set the disciples straight
because they kept making the gospel smaller and smaller
focusing on just jews
focusing on just the legality of righteousness

now,
i do understand that the gospels were all written after paul's missionary journeys were completed
and i do understand that john mark, who wrote the gospel of mark [aka peter's account of jesus' life] traveled with him
so there are some who say that maybe the gospels were a correction of paul's misunderstandings

but this is an argument from silence

...and a silly one at that

so,
how do we best understand jesus?

is it by his teaching alone?

or is it also by the work of the new testament theologians who made his identity and significance clear?

right.
i know.

i shouldn't even have asked the question.

rocks and stones cry out

i once heard darlene zschech talk about luke 19.40, wherein jesus tells some passersby that if his disciples keep quiet about his claim to divine authority that the 'rocks and stones will cry out'

meaning that the rocks will begin to praise god
if we don't

now,
i've heard that interpretation before
but darlene gave it a cool twist

she cited songs like audioslave's "show me how to live"
and dishwalla's "counting blue cars"

and films like "the matrix"
or "the fountain"

as examples of rocks and stones crying out

it was just a cool spin
on how revelatory the art of the unfound
can truly be

thinking, speaking, writing

it seems like this is all i do.

think

speak

write

and, somedays, it's a little trippy to get my head around

i mean
for the first 10 years of ministry
i understood my role as much more of a pastor/shepherd
i did a lot of mentoring
i worked hard to develop strong relationships with my "people" [whom i never thought of - and still don't - as "people", they're just my friends]

and i understood pastoring primarily in terms of relationships

to be honest,
i still understand it that way
but my life just isn't that way anymore

these days

it's just more thinking

it's just more speaking

it's just more writing

i think ad naseum
i read everything i can get my hands on
i've done 15 magazine subscriptions
i read a complete non-fiction book every 3-4 days
i read a lot of fiction
and all of my reading just barely keeps me fueled enough
barely keeps up my ammunition
to keep thinking

thinking about how the church needs to etymologize for the present world
not to mention the future world [which is it's own category of thought]

thinking about how to better communicate the full gospel to our world
via live experiences and via the web/podcasts/utube, etc...

thinking about key doctrines
particularly soteriology, hamartiology, pneumatatology
and how they jive in this new world in new ways
ways we may never have fully appreciated before

thinking about dissipative ecclesial structures
and modular methods for leading a growing church

not to mention
personal development thoughts
family thoughts [my fav]
god thoughts
or backyard dreams/plans


and after i've begun thinking
i find myself with a shortage of time before i have to speak

i mean
a lot of my life is about talking

and not just preaching/teaching

i mean,
i end up talking for most of my work days
it's good talk
it's fun/work talk

but some days
i actually pray

"god,
please don't make me talk anymore today"

please.


and then i've got to synthesize
my thoughts
with my teachings
with my reflections
and my conversations
with the collaborations and contributions of friends and critics
so that i can write it all down for someone to make sense of later.

[and, no - in my mind, blogging doesn't count as writing. so, please don't imagine me sitting in my office logged on to blogspot for any more than a furious 5 min. at a time]

currently,
in addition to our teaching atlases

we're spinning out
what will be
about a 200 page "booklet"
on the core doctrines of the christian faith

and a 100 page "booklet"
on a new modular ecclesiology
that will completely reengineer the way our church works

and i'm very excited about completing both writing assignments

so i can play on our new trampoline
with my fantastic son
my beautiful 1yr. daughter
and the everlasting love of my life
who i duper into marrying me 9 years ago

ok...time to go.

the sins of pentecost & the sins of evangelicalism: an overview

ironically, there is no written definition for sin in the bible.

there are lexical studies on the greek [hamartia] and hebrew [chata', chet, etc...] words
and there are descriptions about what the effects of sin are
but there's no space in scripture that says "sin means ______"

so i've been looking for such a definition that is true to scripture, and makes sense for real life

and i've grown fond of defining sin as 'the breaking of relationship.'

it works spiritually because our sin separates us from god - and that, really, is why sin is "bad"...because we're no longer connected to our creator

it works practically because our sins against one another separate us from one another. when we lie or cheat or say hurtful things, they alienate us and dehumanize both the victim and the oppressor

but one of the reasons i've tried to better understand sin
is because of the things we do to one another
that the bible never truly addresses
but that feel so wrong

so, so wrong

and i'm not sure what else to call these things except 'sin'

and,
after a little hamartiological digging
i'm fairly convinced that that is exactly what they are

let me give you an example

i grew up pentecostal
and, i've come to understand, pentecostals as a larger cross-section of christendom
have their own sin-set

[to be fair, i am addressing the worst of pentecost here, not the norm]

their sin-set includes things like

- spiritual manipulation, wherein someone uses language that makes it sound like the holy spirit wants someone else to obey the person speaking. for example, this may be use in awful instances, like "the lord told me that you are quenching the holy spirit" or, "god wants you to know that he is unhappy with your waywardness and your ear-piercings." to be fair, some of the "spiritual perspective" may - at times - even be valid [certainly, if we claim to believe the new testament, we must also claim to believe that god still speaks to people today], so my sin-label doesn't apply to the practice so much as it applies to the manipulative intent behind the exercise of that practice.

- misuse of scripture, by which i refer to the often hilarious instances of proof-texting for which pentecostals are lampooned. for example, citing 1 cor.6.19-20 [re: your body is the temple of the holy spirit] as "proof" against anything and everything they don't want you to do because it's not proper. so, that text then is somehow supposed to mean that we shouldn't drink anything, wear certain kinds of clothing, get any kind of tattoo or body piercing, and refrain from all extreme sports because our bodies are "temples." now, again, to be fair - there may be real wisdom in cautioning people against some of these practices - but that text is not about any of those things and we should be very wary of mis-applying it. that text is about sexual immorality. in fact, in most versions of the bible vv.12-20 are even labelled "sexual immorality", so i get puzzled as to why we think they're about something else.


- sense of superiority, this refers to the idea that pentecostals commonly hold wherein they see themselves as special, above and beyond other christians, because they experience the power of the holy spirit in a richness and a depth that no one else seems to either [a] want, or [b] care about.

to be totally transparent, they may even be right - but the sin is the fact that they allow that special quality to separate them from the rest of christendom, and - at worst - they begin to associate anyone without such an "experience of god" to the camp[s] of either backslider, heretic, or catholic.


* * * * * * *


now,
since moving to michigan
i've become aware of a funny difference between pentecostals and the rest of evangelicalism

a difference i was certainly not prepared for

see,
the sins of evangelicalism
are different than the sins of pentecost

pentecostals break relationship
because of their deep convictions about experiencing the holy spirit

evangelicals break relationship
because of their deep convictions about the truth of scripture

and i,
naively,
thought their sins would be the same

i thought i'd still be fighting the mis-application of proof texts

i thought i'd still be slowly, patiently, trying to reason someone out of calling fire and judgement upon the worship leader for not flowing with the spirit

i was not prepared at all for the following sins of evangelicalism

- apologetical pugilism, wherein i mean that evangelicals love to fight about every single point of doctrine [either major or minor, central or peripheral] and are willing to hate one another over varying interpretations of scripture. to be honest, i'm still reeling from this with disbelief - in pentecostal circles, this is the very reason why we never associated with outsider/broader evangelicalism. every week, i teach the bible to a degree of depth that i rarely hear advocated. i study hard, check all my sources, re-check the underlying theological premises of my statements and assertions; and, if i'm ever wrong, i try and publicly make it right. but the amount of smarmy, overconfident, critical [not to mention WRONG] feedback that i get about this-or-that minor doctrinal issue still baffles me. i'm just never sure how to react - i mean, how do you respond to the 18 year old bible college know-it-all who has only ever read one theologian and that guy happened to be his dad/professor? i always find myself torn between polite dismissal of their ignorance, and the carnal desire to unleash the full bore of my mental acumen and theological study on someone who could never withstand the heat of my self-righteousness.

it's the reason i disabled posts on my blog

i just couldn't continue to hear from people whose theology was incomplete at best
but who felt the freedom to question mine with an air of disdain and superiority

it was making me too angry

and i'm in ministry to connect people with jesus christ
not to defend myself against know-it-alls and dissenters


- practical gnosticism is the other big evangelical sin i've come up against since moving to michigan. we're really quick to make divisions between the life of the mind and the life of the spirit, between right thinking and right relationship - and we always seem to prioritize the brain at the expense of the heart. where apologetical pugilism deals with the aggression of "rightness", my concern with practical gnosticism lies with the dismissal of the interior life. we just don't pay near enough attention to what god is speaking to us [sometimes it seems like no one even believes he is], or to becoming more malleable to his will in each moment. of all the evils i've looked at, this one makes me the most sad.


* * * * * *

this post - i realize - is pretty overbearing. in fact, i probably should have put some kind of disclaimer on the top warning everyone of my grouchiness.

but let me close with a couple of short things

1. i wrestle with my own sin, so when i point out the broad-stroke sins of two movements i'm not trying to get even or be vindictive. i'm trying to help others who've struggled with the effects of these sins get some perspective on what to watch out for.

2. westwinds, where i presently serve, has been a wonderful mix of the BEST of both pentecost and evangelicalism. i have always been pleasantly surprised by the low amount of garbage i've personally had to deal with here, even with the messy circumstances that existed upon my arrival.

3. i'm really trying to train myself to be aware of my own propensity for judgement...and i'll probably spend a lot of time repenting/reflecting for being so abrupt on this post. maybe, though, it will also serve as a trigger for me to ask myself whether or not i display the perils of either movement in greater relief than their merits.

too much?

too early?

well, long-windedness certainly counts as a member of the teaching pastor sin-set, so i guess that's to be expected :)

causemology

i've been working for months now on something new for westwinds

to be fair, i've not been working alone on this
jvo and randy have been heavily involved
as have most of our staff [and elders], in one form or another

and so have many of my friends from other countries, places, and backgrounds

as well as the numerous authors [like capra, myers, foster, weston, senge, merton] and thinkers [sweet, dad, richardson], and artists [warhol, yorke, and anyone who's ever been featured in communication arts]

which is all very cool

because - here at the middle-end - i feel like we truly have something significant to offer our church.

coming this september, we'll be unloading a truly open-source, self-emerging, missional ecclesiology that will allow each person who participates to learn/grow/exhcange/experience/think/believe/love/care/know god & our world in new ways.

and i'm really looking forwards to that

it may be the one great contribution we're able to offer our church

fauxthenticity

i recently read an article in fast company magazine about how big brands are fighting hard to "stay true" their ethos/identity.

it seems that companies like starbucks and hagen daas are finding it increasingly difficult to be unique in a world so full of imitators.

the article, of course, reminds me of all the funny conversations we have in the emerging church about authenticity - and i thought i might take a few lines here to delineate the dangers of that kind of orientation

one may be that we're not truly honest about things that are wrong - using, instead, authenticity as a kind of insulation against recognizing our sinfulness. for example, many times i've heard people say brutally horrible things to one another under the guise of "just being authentic and/or transparent", as if our truthfulness to ourselves should somehow excuse our willful harm to another.

another danger of the way we conceptualize authenticity is the way in which we seem to decry everything that anyone else has ever done [as per our frequent criticisms of mega churches and/or successful churches]. we become so caught up in our own brand [which, if we're honest, is still mostly defined by our reactions against the brand of our precedents] that anything that looks/smells like success must somehow be "inauthentic" because we didn't think/dream of it first. this, i think is a very hard truth for us to reconcile with because so many of us have been hurt by the ecclesial machine of american christianity; but, we must repent of this alienation and recognize that much we identify as "authentic" is truly only pride and resentment.

my final notice of our use of authenticity, though, bears the title of this post - 'fauxthenticity' - wherein we participate in the worst kind of fakery by claiming to be authentic with one another but still not really caring about each other. in this scenario, we observe people who are highly familiarized with the concept of "authenticity" and have - ironically - become desensitized to it; so, we use the concept as a frame and a justification for our words and deeds, but have actually stopped engaging the spirit of god and the people around us. we've become fake.

in fact, much of what we [in the emerging/progressional/experimental/lab church] do feels increasingly fake.

we have our own pet publishers
our own conferences
our own blogosphere

and there feels like less and less room for outside influence to penetrate our world

perhaps we've spent so much time defending ourselves against fundamentalists and self-relfecting apologists that we've stopped innovating?

perhaps, in our sincere efforts to be more than just a brand, we've lost the essence of what made us special?

there seems little enough published about interdisciplinary mediums
less about innovations in ministry perspectives/forums/models/rubrics [and, yes, i know model can often be counterfeit measures of spiritual effectiveness, but models are neither wholly good nor wholly bad and criticizing a system/structure/model for being flawed in-and-of-itself ultimately produces the great dual fruits of uselessness and superiority]

to all this i suggest we add to our working vocabulary words like truth and rightness [with all french literary deconstructionist tendencies invoked, nonetheless] and, more importantly, that we add verve, enthusiasm, creative capital, and passion back into our repetoire.

we've become staid academics and rote defenders of an orthopraxy we're no longer reinventing.

sorry for the rant

i'm just being authentic :)

the pop of king

stephen king is anathema to most christians.

but he's still a brilliant writer and a wiseman.

take, for example, his weekly column 'the pop of king' attached to the hindquarters of entertainment weekly. there, king regularly exposes the b.s. of celebreality and asks us to evaluate our own inconsistencies and flights of useless fantasy.

almost
(dare i say it?)
like a prophet.

take the following article, for example, about celeb rehab. herein, king rips on the facade of public penitance perpetuating rock star spectacle - a theme, i might add, that ought to be more prevalent in our churches.


NO NO EASY ROAD, by Stephen King


After reading an article in The New York Times about the various cushy rehabilitation facilities where celebrities dry out, I got curious about just how many ''celebs'' we were talking about. So I cued up my current favorite song, which just happens to be Amy Winehouse's ''Rehab,'' and made a list. The song's only 3:33, but I had a pretty good roster before it was done: Eddie Van Halen, Jesse Metcalfe, Marc Jacobs, Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, Keith Urban, Mel Gibson, Robbie Williams, Courtney Love, Kate Moss, and Colin Farrell. I don't doubt there are many more.

The Times article suggests that, in spite of Ms. Winehouse's defensiveness (which those in recovery bluntly call ''denial''), rehab has become a kind of hood ornament for famous folks who like to get high. And why not? The rooms are private, tasteful, and in some places include beds with 600-thread-count sheets. There are pools and gyms, the grounds are peaceful, you can get naturally high with a massage. Of course the price is also high, but you can afford it if you're a movie star. And golly, you might even get a movie out of the experience, or at least a book (Rummies, for instance, by the late Peter Benchley).

So what's to No No No about?

Judging by my experience, quite a lot —but of course, I went through rehab 20 years ago, before rehab was cool. At that time, recovering alkies called finding oneself in such a situation being in a jackpot. The word, I assure you, was used ironically.

And no star-time for me. The place where they took away my keys, sharp objects, and credit cards upon admission wasn't Promises or even the Betty Ford Center, but a place called Brookside, in scenic Nashua, New Hampshire (not). In her song, Ms. Winehouse says she doesn't want to be jugged for 70 days. Maybe they keep 'em that long in California, but at Brookside it was 28. I don't know what the thread count of the sheets was, but some of them had some mighty interesting stains on them.

My first roommate was cool. The second, a suspended transport driver with a maniacal grin, tried to smuggle in roughly 50 airline nips by burying them at the bottom of his suitcase. Staff removed them over his loud protestations that someone had confiscated his personal property. The guy across the hall had spent the previous five years designing weapons guidance systems while ingesting coke eight-balls (so relax, you Enemies of Freedom). He agreed to go for treatment when his girlfriend discovered that the smell of freebase was not mildew on the bathroom shower curtain, as he had been assuring her.

Our bathrooms were done in that classic style known as ''Early YMCA.'' The showerheads didn't move; the temperature setting was Eternal Lukewarm. There was a horrid tiny smoking room that filled up with roughly 50 people during free periods. This was at the height of the summer, and the air conditioner wheezed a gruesome sludge comprising water, nicotine, and exhausted coolant. It probably could have been freebased, and I'm sure some of the inmates thought of it.

Rehab didn't sober me up. The well-known recovery program founded by Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob Smith managed that trick (at least for today). Yet it was Brookside that introduced me to the program, and it was Brookside where I first heard a counselor who looked like a Hell's Angel say, ''I got tired of being in jackpots, that's all. I finally just got tired.''

Plain or fancy, I doubt if Mel and Britney and Lindsay really wanted to go to rehab, in spite of the new cachet; I imagine they went yelling, No No No. The demands of loved ones that you change your whole way of living is never comfortable to contemplate. Six-hundred-thread-count sheets probably aren't much consolation.

The great thing about Brookside, with its lukewarm showers and nicotine-poisoned air conditioner, was that it took away all the props I had depended on to keep killing myself. It also took away the idea that because I'd been born with a little talent and parlayed it into a fair amount of cash, I was different somehow.

Most sobering up — almost any recovering-drunk-on-the-street will tell you this — starts with a merciless ego-stripping. You've got to find out you're no better than anyone else drowning in booze or lost in a cocaine snowstorm. I remember, near the end of my stay, that a gas station manager who'd ''graduated'' came back to speak. I asked him the question that gnawed at me: How do you fill the hours knowing that when 5 o'clock comes, you still can't get high?

''Steve,'' he said, ''I don't even think about it. I'm so busy there aren't enough hours in the day now.''

And about those amenities. New York Times reporter Ruth La Ferla, in her piece on substance-abuse resorts, quotes Chris Prentiss (the cofounder of Passages Malibu) as saying, ''After all, Britney Spears isn't going to stay in a shack.'' Maybe she should. Maybe it would be better. After all, look at Anna Nicole Smith. She's staying in a box these days.

the eyes of morgoth

i've just begun reading "the children of hurin", which is a tolkien narrative reprinted by christopher tolkien and taken from his father's notes.

the book takes place about 6500yrs. before the lord of the rings
and tells of a family cursed by morgoth

[morgoth was sauron's master
whom many believe to be the figure of lucifer in the supra-allegory
into which lotr is placed]

in the introduction, we're told that morgoth curses hurin
by giving him his eyes

meaning,
hurin only ever sees the world through the eyes of morgoth

we might do well to think of this as a curse that abides today

if we're honest
many of us continue to suffer under such a curse
seeing our entire reality
through the eyes of corruption and malice

the great struggle of christian spirituality may, in fact, be to break this curse

to swap out the eyes of morgoth

for the light of christ

i realize that relating christianity to the writings of jrr tolkien is almost passe
but i also feel like the curse of seeing a distorted reality
is perhaps the most prevalent curse
within the church
within the world

and within our hearts


may we all have an experience like paul on the road to tarsus
and see the world truly

the clumsiness of fictional christianity

i loved the da vinci code
i loved holy bood, holy grail
i even liked the less-well-written 'last templar'

but let's be honest

these portrayals of christians are demeaningly one-dimensional

authors just don't seem to "get" christians
they write us as being scared of the truth, fascinated by folklore, and deprived of all rationale thought in favor of ancient mysticism

for example,
in the last templar
a character makes mention that there is "proof" of the humanity [aka non-deity] of jesus christ

he goes on to state the obvious, that this is threatening to christians, and makes the assumption that we are threatened by the "truth"
and that we prefer the "experience" or "comfort of faith" over "the facts"

but this is where they get it all wrong

see, there is a difference between truth and meaning

things that are true can be proven to be true
but true things are not always meaningful

likewise,
meaningful things don't always have to be factual
[love, for instance, isn't a fact - it's a kind of experience]

the problem with dan brown and raymond khoum is that they think we count our experiences are proof of the veracity of christ's claims

which we don't

in fact,
we believe the teachings of the bible
because there is ample archaeological evidence and scholarly research to prove the worth of the text

despite all of the hullabaloo about the council of nicea and all the pseudopegraphic gospels [gospel of thomas, of mary, etc...]
the scholarly evidence overwhelming supports that the books in our bible are
- written by their claimant authors
- authoritative in local churches [beginning in 1st C palestine]
- consistent with history and biblical theology
- credible [in the case of the gospels] first-hand and/or eye-witness accounts of the life and times of jesus of nazareth
- withstand the rigors of textual criticism [i.e. there's proof that the books we have in our bible are actually the original books written by the original authors] far more so than those of plato, aristotle, or caesar's gaelic wars

in short,
there is real proof that the bible is real [aka a credible, historical document]

that's why we believe it to be true

furthermore,
there are always those who say that jesus never claimed to be the son of god
that this is a distortion of the church or pauline theology

but this is also complete bollocks
there could be no greater student of the hebrew scriptures
or one more fully commensorate with the followers of jesus
than paul

so, when paul traces the claims/miracles of jesus through the hebrew scriptures
[and, then, so does the anonymous author of hebrews]
we get a pretty solid evidentiary set
that,
yes,
jesus did make claims to be god
equal with god
and his teaching supports the idea of a trinitarian god ruling all of the kosmos

so,
again,
we believe in jesus' teachings as they are commonly understood by orthodox theologians

because they're true

but just because they're true doesn't make them meaningful

again - this is where i think our fictional authors get it screwed up
"they" think that "we" overlook the proof/factuality of [1] the biblical text & [2] the claims of jesus because we're scared that the proof doesn't lie on our side

i.e. if we really looked at the evidence, we'd be forced to give up on our superstitions

but this just isn't the case

the scholarly proof
by-and-large
supports the biblical story

we can thank our host of apologeticists for unmistakeably showing us that [lee strobel, josh mcdowell, et. al.]

and i think the reason those authors [brown, khoum, etc...] make that mistake is that they hear us talk about our experiences so passionately and assume that that's all there is to faith

but this is not so

the proof makes it true

but the experiences make it real

real.

the experiences make it real in a way that proof never can

the experiences make it meaningful
which is why we talk about our experiences of god
rather than the proof

particularly in a postmodern world
we've come to take "truth" for granted
and have become disullisioned with the meaninglessness of some "true" things

so, what we've come to want more and more and more
are things that are meaningful

christian spirituality is ferociously meaningful
the experience of god is life-changing
living guided by the holy spirit into a lifestyle of divine cooperation is a fundamentally altering path

which is why we talk about it so much

but let's not be confused

just because we talk about our "experiences" more than our "proof"
doesn't mean there is no proof

it just means that proof isn't enough to affect us

for that, we need something more

we need something real

we need to experience god for ourselves

a straight line with a crooked stick?

i've always thought that god can use "a crooked stick" to draw a "straight line"

and i still do

i mean,
every teacher/preacher/apostle/etc... is flawed [aka "crooked"] to some extent

so,
by virtue of the fact that we learn/are expanded as a result of any of my/their teachings/inspiration, obviously god is using them to point us to him

yes?

but i'm really wrestling lately with the difference between "flawed" and "crooked"

i mean,
i consider myself flawed
because i'm not perfect
i'm still prone to losing my temper
acting like an idiot
speaking out of frustration
not watching my tongue
etc...

but
in no way would i consider myself "crooked"

by which i mean
deliberately
openly
rebellious
to the lifestyle advocated in the new testament scriptures

however
i see plenty of examples of people who seem to disregard these lifestyle commands
and also seem to prosper in ministry

which is hard for me

and
which forced me to deal with my own issues about significance, meaning, calling, ministry, and judgement

but also makes me wonder about accountability

what are we to do
if we see someone living contrary to the scriptures
who is in leadership
but who has no accountability?
no governing authority to whom they are supposed to report?
no one to "remove them" from their "position"?

this is scary to me

because i think - in the absence of accountability - the only thing that truly authenticates the ministry of someone is their charisma and their talent

and we are all easily swayed by those

now,
this may be why the book of jude is given to us in our bibles

but i'm wrestling about whether or not instructing people to read and re-read the book of jude is ever really a sufficient response to the ironies and injustices i see in the world of ministry around me.

how about you?

friends, not companies

i'm in paducah, kt, right now spending some time with my friend brad [a pastor here of a cool church]. brad and i met in college and have spent a good amount of time over the years woodshopping ideas over the phone and keeping one another fresh and innovative.

one of the things that being with brad affirms most for me
is how much energy/vitality/freshness i get from being with my friends in ministry

whether that's jvo or randy
vince, mark, steve, glen
cam, brad, ryan, ryan, stephan, dan
or any of the other million friends i have loved serving jesus with [perhaps most especially my dad]
i always find that it's my friends who keep me honest
keep me sharp
and keep me pure

ironically,
i don't think i've ever experienced sharpness, purity, or a challenge to integrity from my denomination

this isn't to say that the denom is anti-sharp, etc...
just that a group like that is a particularly impotent motivator

which is the primary reason why i've always tried to lead as a friend
instead of as a boss, or "pastor", or "leader"

because i think bosses are dumb
pastors are [far too often]fake
and leaders are dumb [except, of course, for their keen ability to use a goofy language all it's own, complete with words like "paradigm-shift" or "vision-cast"]

jesus was a friend
"no longer do i call you servants, but friends...the friends of god"
and provides a pretty healthy example for another way to lead
to love
to be in ministry
to be in relationship
to serve
to go
to dream

this "friend" thing was brilliantly exemplified by the quakers [though they did get enough other stuff so weird as to make their "friendship" seem spooky], who lived and served together in a profoundly spiritual capacity

and [minus the spooky bits] this is really how i'm hoping to model my own "leadership" and set of associations

by having friends

now, i've been told that i can really only make this work up to a point
that - if i'm serious about "being the leader god has called me to be" - i'll have to accept that my friendships will be few

but that perspective, of course, falls victim to the way the world actually works
and i - together with my friends - am trying to fix this world
to put the pieces back together again
so the world will be more like the way god intended it

full of friends

natural friends

so much anger

i'm often troubled by the amount of anger expressed by christians at other christians

in my tribe, this is most often manifested as young people
or emergent types
or pomophiles
or dissenters
angry at the church-as-it-commonly-exists-in-america
for their
consumerism
apathy
uselessness
irrelevance
marriage to tradition/disregard for mission

but,
i actually believe that our anger at these [justifiably] bothersome traits
is as much of a problem as the problems we are identifying

first
because our anger allows others to dismiss us as idealists/professional protestors
whom they assume will never be happy because we're "anti-institutional"

second
because we're very free about the expression of our anger
such that others see our malice
and equate our hatred with the cause of christ
the fallacy of religious unity
and identify us as the evangelical al-queda
on par with jerry falwell
or those weirdos from the appalachians who call down judgement on those unlike themselves

and,
third,
because it makes jesus sad to see us hate the very people he loves

because
after all
he does indeed love the church

he died for the church

we're told in the gospels that men will know we are christ's disciples
by our love for one another

not by our cool churches
or narrative theology

but by our love

which - to me - is what seems most absent about our movement

there is no love for one another in the emerging church

we defend against our detractors
we're hospitable to people of other faiths
we're engaging with people of no faith
we're warm and loving for anyone god brings to us - except brothers and sisters from another part of our family

and this
more than anything
is the quality that disqualifies us from effecting real change in america

we don't live the gospel to those who already know it

A Time for Miracles: Bono speaks to Europe

Fifty years ago this week, the idea of Europe was set to paper, on a continent unsettled but past the worst of the postwar period. The air was clear of sulfur if not spleen. Ireland was a small rock in the North Atlantic made relevant only by its cultural totems and ever increasing diaspora. In Berlin a chasm was opening up between East and West--the partition of lives, fortunes and fates. In the global struggle between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., between freedom and totalitarianism, Europe was the fault line and the front line. Old Europe was being rebuilt to fight the next war: a battle not just of ideologies but also, very possibly, of nuclear arsenals. It was not a moment for dreaming--more like one for digging a basement and ordering a year's supply of tinned soup.

And yet this was the moment the New Europe was born.

On the continent that had been the theater for mankind's darkest hour, we witnessed a very human miracle. The people of Europe found that their capacity for destruction was mirrored by an equally immense capacity for forgiveness, grace and hope. Looking to the U.S., Europeans could see how cherry-picked European ideas from minds like Locke, Rousseau and Tom Paine could flourish in a society not polluted by blood and aristocracy. And so, in 1957, six nations signed the Treaty of Rome and, with that one crucial act, built a showcase of multilateralism, prosperity and international solidarity.

Fast-forward 50 years. An Irish rock star reads the treaty with the enthusiasm a child has for cold peas but does uncover what I think technocrats might call poetry. Not much of it--just a turn of phrase here and there. Like Article 177, which summons the signatories to foster "the sustainable economic and social development of the developing countries and more particularly the most disadvantaged among them" and calls for a "campaign against poverty in the developing countries." Not exactly Thomas Jefferson but a glimpse of the kind of vision that might bind us.

Over the next 50 years, we might need a little more poetry. Europe is a thought that has to become a feeling--one based on the belief that Europe stands only if injustice falls and that we find our feet only when our neighbors stand with us in freedom and equality. Our humanity is diminished when we have no mission bigger than ourselves. And one way to define who we are might be to spend more time looking across the eight miles of Mediterranean Sea that separates Europe from Africa.

There's an Irish word, meitheal. It means that the people of the village help one another out most when the work is the hardest. Most Europeans are like that. As individual nations, we may argue over the garden fence, but when a neighbor's house goes up in flames, we pull together and put out the fire. History suggests it sometimes takes an emergency for us to draw closer. Looking inward won't cut it. As a professional navel gazer, I recommend against that form of therapy for anything other than songwriting. We discover who we are in service to one another, not the self.

Today many rooms in our neighbor's house, Africa, are in flames. From the genocide in Darfur to the deathbeds in Kigali, with six AIDS patients stacked onto one cot, from the child dying of malaria to the village without clean water, conditions in Africa are an affront to every value we Europeans have ever seen fit to put on paper. We see in Somalia and Sudan what happens if more militant forces fill the void and stir dissent within what is, for the most part, a pro-Western and moderate Muslim population. (Nearly half of Africa's people are devotees of Islam.) So whether as a moral or strategic imperative, it's folly to let this fire rage.

How will Europe respond? For all the babble of clashing ideas, there's more harmony than you might think. Historic promises have been made on aid, debt and even the thorny subject of trade. Aggressive progress on these, matched by advances in fighting the evils of corruption in Africa, could transform the continent and prevent the fire from spreading. As a group, the E.U. countries have promised to commit 0.7 percent of GDP to the poorest of the poor. How Europe works to keep that promise is as important to Europe as it is to Africa.

We might remember that Europe, 50 years ago, did not pull itself back from the abyss on its own. Across the Atlantic was a nation with a pretty broad notion of neighbor. Sure, the Marshall Plan wasn't all altruism--the U.S. wanted a bulwark against Soviet expansion as the temperature of relations dropped below freezing. But it was also generosity on a scale never before seen in human history. It defined America in the cold war era.

What will define Europe in this new era? What will provide the bulwark against the extremism of our age?

Part of the answer lies eight miles away.

probably not a big deal for you

the other night i was struggling to shut my brain off and fall asleep [a fairly common occurence in my world], when i began to think about why i'm here.

now, typically, when i begin to wonder about that i've got more than one good answer; i mean, i never have a difficult time hypothesizing about why any of us are here [yes - i am familiar with the westminster short catechism] or why i'm here as a dad/husband/son/friend/pastor

but the other day was different

i just felt like i had to get specific

why am i alive
and on the earth
and a pastor
and a black-sheep pentecostal
and a dissident emergent
and a canadian in exile in my other home
with a penchant for media
with a creative mind that never shuts off
who likes knowledge
but hates academia and fights hard not to give in to pomp and pretense
who loves jesus and the church
but hates the western deterioration of christian spirituality into maxims and slogans

etc

etc

etc

why

am i [specifially me, with all of who i am - good and bad]

here [on earth, today, in michigan]?


well, leaving michigan aside for present purposes
i've become crystaline in one particular lens
which really does speak to my out-of-placeness among other pastors
or artists, or musicians
and perhaps even addresses my pathological obsession with local church ministry

i think i'm here
to create venues of spiritual interactivity and relationship

i'm here
to create
- because i'm an innovator
- because i'm a creator/artist/playwrite/musician/writer/thinker/programmer

i'm creating venues
- because i think space is sacred
- because i feel there are certain places that elicit certain emotions and legitimate spiritual responses to the working presence of the spirit of god
- because environmental worship shares much of the same benefits are environmental learning experiences, which immerse us into another world/perspective/esprit

these venues are spiritual
- because i'm not interested in making art, i'm here to help facilitate people who long to connect more meaningfully with god
- because humanity is spiritual, but ignorant of our true identity as image-bearers of god, and i want to help us remember that

these venues are interactive
- because presentation is not the only legitimate form of spiritual intersection
- because our knowledge of god cannot simply be gnosis [head-knowledge], but must also be noetics [the knowledge of lived-experience] and allowing space for interactivity draws people out of themselves and into moving with god's spirit and engaging him in those moments

those venues are relational
- because i really do find things that are uber-cool to be deathly monotonous without the randomization of laughter and open conversation
- because i think god resides in and among his people in collections as well as in isolation
- because the whole rest of the world is so fragemented we ought to be a haven of family networks and relationships, a surrogate home


this has been really helpful for me to articulate
i've thought about it a lot since i first landed on this thinking
and feel like i've tested it enough for it to remain true


so i've put it here for those of you who care
who - by the way - always bless me by demonstrating that care
because you are my friends

and my mom

:)

a little advice, a little tryst

i've just been thinking about loving my wife a lot lately...so at the risk of sounding slightly like a sissy i thought i'd throw out some free verse.

it's a reminder for us all
and a peek into my mind for her.





You can never tell your wife too often that you want her.
She is elemental, but you’re the imitation rain.

You would drown in someone else’s pools.

You are desperate and parched
whenever she is not close at hand.

For my whole life I’ve hoped to die while swimming on downstream
holding her hand – a waterfall that daily makes me clean.

She is my aqua vitae.

I am her Samaritan.

meaning: form, process, matter

we're all searching for meaning

meaning, which is the highest aspiration of every individual
in every moment
in every relationship

a fairly significant problem with the church world is that church doesn't mean anything
at least, for most people it doesn't

church has lost it's inherent meaning

it's just become hard to see the point of going to church
or belonging to church
or feeling like going to church is important

but it is

it's just that we've got to be intentional about creating meaningful intersections
at/with/in church

see, it's not the fault of the people who find church meaningless
it's our fault for not caring enough to try and make it meaningful

it's the fault of those of us in the pray-trade who seem unwilling [at times]
to put aside our goofy notions about what the right
or wrong
way to do things
really is

when we ought to be asking ourselves
instead
what cultivates meaning

fritjof capra talks about meaning being the fourth dimension in social phenomena
he says that - in order for there to be meaning - there must first be

FORM - the pattern of organization, or "thing"
PROCESS - the means by which the configuration of relationships brings self-awareness
STRUCTURE/MATTER - the components of the form and their relationship to the whole


in eccleisure land,
this means we've got to take some time to process the spiritual needs
in the world around us
to think creatively about how to address those needs with people skilled and qualified to dream alongside us

it also means we've got to identify some kind of concrete response to these problems
which could be something as crude as an event
or as intricate as a rule of life
or as personal/private as a set of internal exercises designed for spatial and relational distance

but it must also be subject to some kind of structure
that defines how the parts relate to the whole
and why that should matter
and why we think it addresses the original need
for any response on our part to begin with

only when these things work
and work well together
can we encapsulate our experiences in a context of meaning

i.e. when we get how things are supposed to work
and then they work like that
we can begin to observe the changes brought on by those things
and test them to see if they're really helping

but...

we sometimes never get that far
for fear that our 'final product'
will be deficient in some way
that it won't mean anything
and that we'll have failed

which,
undoubtedly,
we sometimes will

but we'll never figure that out
unless we're willing to risk the meaningless we now experience
for the chance
at being
full
of
meaning

know what i mean?

prejudice

during our recent series on the novel "to kill a mockingbird" we tried to make the point that the racial prejudice in the book was only one of the many kinds of ungodly prejudice affecting our world today.

i mentioned that one inexcusable form of prejudice that evangelicals are particularly guilty of is hateful speech and beahvior towards either [a] gays, or [b] muslims
and have received a fair-amount of curious feedback from my remarks.

i've reprinted one set of correspondance here to illustrate:



Dear Dave,

We have some questions regarding your sermon on last Sunday (March 11th).

Were you advocating the homosexual lifestyle? Were you saying that if we believe as the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, sinful and separates the homosexual from God, that we are racist or have prejudices or that we are hateful?

Instead of focusing on and accepting the 'lifestyle', shouldn’t we focus on the individual and lovingly come alongside them to help them turn from sin? If we are going to be balanced, shouldn’t we address all sexual sin and not single out homosexuals?

How does what you said line up with 1 Cor. 6:9-11, I Tim. 1:8-11, or Romans 1:27?

Sincerely,

[names withheld]





hi guys - thanks for your email

for future reference, my personal email is david.mcdonald@westwinds.org and you can feel free to email me directly. i try to make myself really accessible for conversation, so please don't feel like it would be inappropriate for you to contact me this way.

as to last sunday's sermon, let me see if i can clear up any misconceptions here

first,
no - i am not advocating that homosexuality be considered un-sinful
in fact,
i think the bible is fairly clear on that issue
but,
i am concerned by how hatefully we proclaim it to be sinful

the old adage is 'hate the sin, but love the sinner'
which i find to be a little trite, but also very true

i think this is what jesus did

he never excused sin
but he never responded to sinfulness with sinful behavior
i.e. he never treated a "sinner" with disdain, prejudice, or hatred

and i think the north american church is often collectively guilty of treating homosexuals hatefully

now,
i realize that by saying we ought to be less hateful towards homosexuals [and/or muslims, etc...]
i run the risk of being labelled a liberal
or being boxed into a category of pastors/theologians who seem to disregard the scriptural mandate for moral behavior

but i'm not those people

in fact, i don't believe i made any mention whatsoever of excusing immoral or unethical conduct
including the immoral and unethical conduct of christian people who [through their deep convictions about biblical morality] often get carried away with condemnatory language and behavior


does that help?

your email is the third email i've received about my remarks last sunday
and i want to make sure i respond respectfully
because your concerns are valid

if i was actually dismissing the biblical mandate for moral and ethical behavior
you would be 100% justified in questioning my legitimacy as a bible teacher

but i'm really quite concerned that those standards remain unmoved
and that we all use the bible as the guide for our lives

also,
i'd like to make sure you know that i didn't catch any accusations or "complaining" in your email
it just seemed like an honest set of questions
so,
if my really long response seemed defensive
that wasn't my intention
i'm just trying to make sure that i give you the courtesy of a fuller explanation

if you'd like to talk further about these things then please let me know
i'd like to do everything i can to become a better pastor
and perhaps our conversations can help me in this regard

sincerely,

david





Thank you, David, for the quick response.
Your email helped clarify the misconceptions for us. The reason we emailed you was that we felt you left us hanging on what you meant when you brought up the topic of homosexuals/muslims...when your sermon was on racism. (which with muslims, would tie into the subject, but we couldn't figure out where in that homosexuals fit in.) When you bring up something like that, which is actually a new subject as it does not tie in to racism, perhaps you could explain a bit deeper. We did not imply that you were excusing immoral or unethical conduct; actually, perhaps you should have said you weren't excusing it and that would have clarified it, at least for us.

We would be interested in a sermon on homosexuals and how to reach them, lead them to Christ and set them free from the sin that has enveloped their lives. Actually, it should be a sermon about sin, and how it can take over one's life, as this is true with any addiction, be it alcoholism, pornography, gluttony, etc. It is the sin that they need to be set free from.

We realize this is not an easy subject (homosexuality) and a very controversial one. And we happen to agree with you that there are many who go overboard with hatred towards the sinner. For instance, we are extremely sold out on 'pro-life'. But it makes us sick when we see protesters yelling "baby killer" in front of an abortion clinic. I am sure Jesus is much more pleased when we make the effort to find a way to help the pregnant woman with her pregnancy; be it financial, moral support, or adopting the unwanted child, and hopefully, counseling her to better decisions that got her pregnant in the first place! (a life-style change?)

Sure, you can post our email on your blog, but as we are 'behind-the-scenes' type of folks, skip our names. Thanks.

Sometimes we trolls need things explained in more detail... (trolls being those who live beneath the bridge...okay, I'll explain that more if you don't get it...)

Sincerely,
[names withheld]

built in bullsh*t detector

hemingway was recorded as declaring that "everyone needs a built-in bullsh*t detector"

which, to be honest, is a concept that has probably been as formative in my spiritual development as anything by thomas merton or tom wright.

i just see so many people adopt "ways" of being "spiritual" that, in actual fact, seem to divorce them from spirituality rather than help facilitate it.

for example, i sometimes see people trying to practice "being present" with god and with others in each moment [this, btw, is a very noble intention and one that definately honors god]

but,
sometimes people work so hard to "be present" that that's all they think about

so, ironically, by being so intent on "presencing" they actually disengage from what's happening around them

and are not truly present, but are instead "being present"

which often looks like they've become zombies or drones

it's at this point that i feel like hemingway's magical b.s. detector would come in handy

i feel like saying,
"hey - quite presencing and look me in the face, weirdo"

which, i know, sounds harsh
but it just seems so foolish that someone would glaze over in conversation by virtue of trying to be more engaging

there are, of course, a myriad of ways in which people's efforts at being spiritual tend to prohibit them from actually being spiritual, and i gave this example only so i didn't fall into the tired litany of narratives about

1. the prayer-request gossipper, who uses your weaknesses as conversational carpet bombing

or,

2. the friendly-evangelist, who is nice so you'll become a baptist

or,

3. the passionate worshipper/passionate partier, who performs every day of the week but for a different audience

etc...

i suppose i'd just like to see more people own up to their shortcomings
without wallowing in them
or reveling in them
or lashing out at others for having them

but instead
demonstrating a willingness to just be who they are
while simultaneously feeling compelled to chip away towards becoming someone of whom
jesus can be more proud

i suppose i really just want this for myself as well

and maybe, to be fair, this is really what the "presencing" people are trying to do.
maybe they're looking at people like my friend randy shafer
who is sick with cancer
and yet maintains a remarkable ability to be present in conversation
and also with god
without falling into the glazed-over-spiritual guy trap
and seeing what it looks like to actually be present
instead of just trying to be present
but the only way to do that successfully is to just try

so maybe [again with the maybes?], i ought to have a little more grace for them in their efforts

but maybe not

'cause maybe we could all get there more truly if we skipped the vernacular
or the "approach"
and instead just did what we felt like the spirit was coaching us to do in the moment

'cause that is different

listening to god
is different
than adopting a mandate of "being present"

the former is a kind of spiritual honesty
the latter feels like a new kind of physical fitness craze that you try out
like atkins
or south beath
until it becomes something you used to do.




and, yes, this post does fall into the category of "useful for no one but me" :)