why i blog

So, I started thinking about the short history of my blog the other day, and I asked myself the pertinent question: why is it that I blog? I think the reason has evolved a bit from what it started out as, and that evolution was a good thing. I think that the ability to step back and reflect on why we do something is often one of the most effective learning tools that we have at our disposal. This inner dialogue with ourselves can provide some interesting insights.

I first started this blog a short time after I shut down my old website (which was primarily a means to share my growing library of digital pictures with friends and family). I had been experiencing a rather refreshing resurgence in my spiritual life, and I felt like my faith was leading me on a rather interesting journey. With everything that was going on, and all the ideas that were ricocheting around my brain, I felt the need to unleash some of the torrent so I could reflect on it later or perhaps share it. I tried typing up some conversational material in a document form, perhaps as a group discussion primer, but something just didn't feel right about it. I realized that this document sitting on my computer wasn't doing anyone any good, especially me - I needed feedback, or at least a feeling like what I was writing wasn't totally cracked. Having seen that a close friend of mine had started a blog to spark some digital conversation about faith in today's society, I figured maybe a personal blog would do me some good - and that maybe it would help me unearth some local people with similar struggles. Hence, one of my first posts was really a cry for help, "Am I crazy, is anybody out there? I would really like to sit down and talk." Once I made myself realize that blogs don't just automatically attract visitors, and that I needed to invite people, I kind of switched gears to just writing about things that came to mind - an online journal of sorts that I could share if I needed. I kept my audience small, a close friend or two, and I posted about interesting articles or where my faith had lead me. I never wrote anything I would consider superbly profound, just a different perspective perhaps. However, after about a month or so of blogging I hit a stride that worked for me. I wasn't actively looking for feedback, but when I got it I truly appreciated it. I wasn't looking to force my ideas on anyone, I was just writing about stuff I felt compelled to write about. I got more comfortable and quite honestly, my writing improved dramatically. I don't delude myself with thinking that anything I write is groundbreaking, brand new, or 100% original and unique. I'm just a guy blogging about what he experiences and perceives as I go about my daily life.

I suppose I've beaten around the bush enough, seeing as I haven't answered my own question. I've touched how and what, but not really why. Why do I blog when there are millions of other blogs out there and certainly many written by people with more credibility than I have? It's actually pretty simple...

I blog because I have to - I am compelled share my faith journey as I experience it. I write when I am hit by something that just has to be shared, whether that be an actual encounter or some new perspective on an old topic I was intrigued with. I write this blog on some off chance that a person will stumble upon it and say to themselves, "hey, I am not alone, someone else has been there and lived through it." This is the one medium in all the world that I most am comfortable communicating through, and so I make my amateur effort at sharing Jesus' message through my own interaction with the world. So, welcome to my existence - one of experiencing faith through everyday experiences whether that be music, movies, the Internet, nature, or whatever other curveballs life throws at me.

So now out of curiosity, why have you stopped by to read my blog?
(That's my sneaky way of asking who it is that reads, but open endedly as to stimulate conversation)

a new kind of leadership

Prompted by Big Mike Lewis' latest blogs (Shepherding the Emergent Flock Part I & Part II), and consequently some of my own thoughts that had been backburnered for quite some time, I decided now was a rather appropriate time to answer what I presume were rhetorical questions meant to generate new thinking.

1. What place does an eldership have in these [emergent/postmodern] churches?
   Eldership I think should play a large role in churches, but I think the name and role will be much different. First, eldership is a horrible name - as Mike stated, there is an enormous stigma attached to it. More appropriately, these groups would be recognized by what they truly are, leaders, shepherds, guides, caretakers, counselors, etc. They won't be quite so formulaic though, as to properly shepherd a church these days, you have to have a diverse pool of talent to pull from when it comes to planning.
   
2. Do we need them in the same way we have used them in the past (even in the present)?
   No, we no longer need managers or executives (be honest, that's what many practically are). What we need now are people willing to think outside the box, people who are willing to admit when they don't have all the answers (but willing to journey for new answers), and people who are approachable with any question, comment or concern because it is known they are not judgmental. We don't need a board of execs who primarily ensure that the status quo (i.e. doctrine, interpretation, etc) is maintained and no one disturbs the peace.
   
3. Are elderships necessary to a vision that may be over their heads (and beyond their comprehension)?
   Yes, but that means that a new group of shepherds are needed, or the shepherds need to be learning and growing right along with everyone else. If you can't understand it and never will or never intend to, how can you be effective at guiding and counseling other people?
   
4. Can you have a modern person shepherd a postmodern flock?
   Yes and no. You cannot have a modern person shepherd a postmodern group if the modern person is not open to new ideas and differing opinions. If they are perfectly comfortable with other people being on different journeys and not forcing their own perspectives or agendas on people, then they could certainly shepherd just about anyone.
   
5. If you assemble a postmodern eldership, what would be the requirements because we know that the biblical elder qualifications were different for different churches (Timothy's and Titus' letters were different and those two were different than the ones in Acts, Ephesus, Philippi, etc.)?
   Different strokes for different folks. I don't know where I first heard that phrase, but I think it applies well to much of what emergent recognizes. Communities are not homogeneous around the world, so why would the church (which is a spiritual community)? The qualities for postmodern shepherds could be very different depending on where you are, but I think the following types of criteria would be used in drafting the qualities for an ideal group of candidates.
   
   • Does this person believe that Jesus is the Son of God and profess the basic teachings of Christ: faith, love, and hope?
     
   • What are the problems facing our local/regional community and can this person understand, cope, and relate to the issues?
   • Does this person agree with and grasp the vision/mission of our church?
   • Is this person willing to use their talents, whatever they may be, for furthering the work of God's kingdom?
   • Can this person give and receive both praise and criticism with a humble, loving heart?
   • Is this person a good communicator (verbal, written, or otherwise)?
   • Is this person a good listener?
   I honestly think a present day, emergent/postmodern leadership would look a lot more like a successful project team - project manager, architect, handful of techies with different focus areas, lawyer, accountant, human resources manager. Each person has a role, but each person also has a voice in the process of keeping the work of furthering God's kingdom running like a well-oiled machine. I know it's cliche, but you know how preachers like to talk about the church being like a human body with Christ as the head - some people are hands, feet, fingers, legs, etc - well its the same concept. Everyone is different and has something to add to the church, and the same should apply to those leading the church.
   
6. What implication would this have on elderships' roles in our current modern church bodies...would they need to change the way they do some things?
   The implications are rather huge, if I do say so myself. For one, I think it would turn a lot of "elderships" on their heads, primarily because of the 2nd, 4th, and 5th bullets. Most elderships that I have seen are well, elderly, as well as detached from the local community, not very open to criticism, sparse with praise, and locked in to certain kinds of talents. I'm not saying older Christians can't be shepherds, but I am saying there are plenty of younger people that are well-suited to being a shepherd but are blocked from eldership due to strict requirements of age and familial status. It's kind of like saying, we want you to use your talents in our church, but we don't want to recognize you formally as a leader - just keep digging that ditch while we sip lemonade and nod approvingly. I think if the role changes were taken to heart and implemented, you would suddenly find that leadership groups would become much more effective at attaining the goals they set forth because there would be a lot more buy-in since different talents are not only recognized but utilized.
   

I think the dictionary definition of a shepherd best describes the core of what an elder should be: "One who cares for and guides a group of people." And with that, I will go ahead and tackle Mike's un-tackled thought:
<controversy>
Yes, I do believe that a woman could be a shepherd and be a part of a church leadership group.
</controversy>

powerful

I couldn't think of anything else to title this, so powerful it became since powerful it was. I found this new blog over the weekend, and really dug into it a bit since then. There is some awesome stuff over there, check it out!

Tent Pegs by Patrick Mead

And just so you know, here are a couple of my favorites - in no particular order...
Family Code
Jack's "L" Plate
A Deuteronomy Life

the curious world of culture

Prompted by some blogs I have read or responded to, I felt the need to say something in a much more lengthy form than some comment that may go unnoticed by many. So here goes - with apologies for the rather heady/abstract material and possible controversial stances, but what must be said, must be said.

Despite the many times that I have brought up the major impact that cultural context has on our everyday lives, I think there are a lot of people out there (including some who read this) who either don't accept the fact or don't understand the depth of influence that culture has. From the moment we are born, we are immersed so completely into a particular world culture that every theme and the very essence of that culture becomes ingrained into everything we do, say, and comprehend. Often times, part of that cultural inheritance is a mindset that your culture is the right one and people who don't follow your cultural standards are wrong. I think the effect is best summed up by Obi-wan Kenobi in Return of the Jedi - "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view." (Quote from the 1983 novelization).

Oddly enough, doesn't Jesus follow the same logic? Wasn't Jesus counter-cultural? Isn't that part of the whole point of the Good Samaritan parable in Luke 10? Jesus basically said (pardon my language), anybody can be an ignorant, apathetic ass hole regardless of their culture or status in life. The parable in modern terms could just as easily use a Catholic priest, a conservative Evangelical Christian, and for the hospitable role an Islamic Jordanian, Pakistani, Saudi Arabian, etc. Jesus was also telling people to stop allowing culture to be the basis for comparison and judgment in life, it's a regional, man-made standard for societal normality and it's wrong to push that frame of reference onto someone who wasn't raised in it.

We also need to start being accountable for our own frame of reference and cultural biases. The United States has been increasingly becoming a nation where one is no longer accountable for their behavior. Sure, if you kill someone you will be held accountable, but something made you do it - the voice in your head, the vicious childhood, the demeaning society - everyone is a victim. Men who have a wandering eye when it comes to women will claim, "I can't help it, I'm a guy and that's the way I'm wired," or some other nonsense. Women will complain about how high heels and tight dresses are uncomfortable to wear, and yet claim they have no choice because that's what fashion says they have to wear. These types of excuses crop up all the time, or some other variant, and I know these are vast generalizations but the point is they exist. The culture we have established and supported over the years has compensated by placing the responsibility on everybody else but the person with the problem. "Men have wandering eyes? Then women should be modest and not wear revealing clothing." Or perhaps, "People are becoming obese? Well then restaurants need to start offering healthier food." Why isn't it the man's responsibility to learn that women are not sex objects for his viewing pleasure? Wouldn't that kind of eliminate the modest/controversial clothing issue? Why isn't it the overweight person's responsibility to eat healthier and exercise?

Jesus talked about this, though we pretend he didn't. We like to pigeon hole his advice into specific categories it sometimes seems. Again from Luke, "Why do you see the speck in your neighbor'’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, '“Friend, let me take out the speck in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, 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." This particular verse we like apply to sin and hypocrisy, but nothing else. I say this verse is aptly applied to cultural behavior and attitudes. Sticking with the sexual objectivity issue - how can we almost instantaneously make the shift of saying that a scantily clad woman in our society is a sexual object that men can't help but stare at, to looking at scarcely clothed tribal women in a third world country and have an attitude of superiority and pity. The answer, it's actually fairly easy, because we are stupid enough to listen to the marketing hype that the media and entertainment industry tells us is the truth. They tell women they are strong, confident, sexy individuals who can wear whatever they want because sexuality is the currency of the world. They tell men they are muscled, intelligent, rugged individuals who can't help but be attracted to scantily clad women of Western civilization who exist to be pleasing to the eye. Don't deny it, despite the age of political correctness and women's empowerment, the message is still be broadcast loud and clear that in Western civilization, especially in the United States, men are the powerful "providers" who are rewarded for their hard work with beautiful, sensual women who will tend to their every need (but who can have their own career, too). Sort of funny isn't it, sounds very familiar to me - where else have I heard about men being rewarded for work with women? Oh yeah, fundamentalist Muslims believe that martyrs (people who die in defense of their faith) are granted numerous beautiful women, and plenty of creature comforts when they arrive in paradise. So their after-life is what Western civilization touts as reward in real life - hard working men get beautiful women.

I'm not casting stones here, as many would probably head my way in return. However, I am casting light on a controversial topic that I think more people need to stop and think about. I have been told I have a great gift for seeing things from many perspectives, I can "walk a mile in another person's shoes" fairly well so to speak. Just remember, from the moment we are born there is a cultural filter being assembled in our brains that contextualizes everything we experience. Sometimes we need to stop and think about things a little longer in order to brush away petty differences and truly understand the core issues, because we can't let culture rule the way we live our lives - as Christians, isn't there something or someone else that is supposed to fill that role?

Then again, I could be totally off-base...

a call for young adults

In my former post - Theophilus ;) - I seemingly argued in defense of the young adult community. Sure, I can, and feel that I should, respond being that I fall in that group and can relate directly with the struggles. However, I also feel that all things being equal, there is a burden to be shared by all sides in order to address the apparent shortcomings of modern Christian communities. From the young adult crowd, we need people to stand up and be counted. We need young adult Christians, regardless of their current faith situation, who are willing to make a commitment and show some leadership in furthering the kingdom of God. From the church leadership side of the house, we need new levels of understanding and willingness to be courageous and different. When these young adults do stand up and volunteer to lead, the church needs to be ready to back them up even if their proposals seem a bit strange or bleeding edge. You probably heard the phrase, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," well sorry people, but there are some traditions out there that are definitely broken in the eyes of young adults, and they desperately need fixing. Let's go point for point on some issues (some misconceptions, some generalization, some stereotypes)...

• Young adults have a tendency to church-hop.
• Church leadership has a tendency to play aggressive numbers games with membership.
• Young adults can be overly flexible in their Biblical interpretations.
• Church leadership can get bogged down in being right, rather than being loving.
• Young adults won't make a commitment to the church.
• Church leadership focuses too much on growth and finances, instead of message and impact.

Let's face it, young adults are looking for more in the way of spiritual experience blended with scriptural knowledge that impacts their life and those around them. Many churches are still focused on having the right scriptural interpretation and catering to the immediate Christian community. We need more from church than visiting nursing homes to sing once a week, being a communion server, leading/attending worship, leading/attending devotionals, leading/attending Bible class, having "bring a friend" days, and all those stereotypical, boilerplate outreach and church service programs. Shouldn't it be "Be a Friend Day" everyday? Isn't there more to being a Christian than Sunday worship and having some form of Bible study a couple of days a week? How much impact does having a community outreach effort a couple of days a year really have? How much good is done by constantly switching from church to church? Do you have any impact with your visits and do you even know what it is you are looking for? Once you find what you are looking for, what are you doing there besides warming a pew? It time for all of us to sit down and remember what it is we are here for.

We are coming swiftly to a crossroads... one road leads towards unity, two roads leave some group wounded in the ditch, and we can't go back the way we came.

struggles of the young adult crowd

So some semi-inspired topics came up today, not in conversation or anything like that, but in catching up on some online news, blogs, and forums that I read. Apparently there are a lot of young adults out in the world who feel alienated by many of the churches they attend (or used to attend as the case often is). The following is a highly edited, condensed, and cobbled from many sources view of what many young adults tend to find among churches once they hit the real world.

What I find really disappointing is that young adults are often left out in church. There are youth groups that caters to high school kids. There are young couples groups which make me feel that I can't be included if I am single. Sometimes there are singles groups if you find a larger church, but those often focus on trying to cure you of being single. There are activities for adults, but most of the adults are twice my age, or married, or have kids, or all of the above, which I totally cannot relate to. I'm just really upset that it seems like I don't fit in anywhere, why do they overlook young adults?

To be completely honest, I agree on many levels with this attitude. What is out there waiting for post-college adults (single or married) who need something other than a singles or couples environment? In many cases the answer is: nothing. You either join the all encompassing adult group or you drift by yourself. And sadly, the usual result is drifting because of the often hectic schedule of young adults, especially young professionals. If you are single on top of all that, then forget it because just like the first question young married couples get asked is, "when are you having kids," the young single adult gets bombarded with some variant of, "so when are you getting married?"

Often the one thing that gets asked of young adults is time. Time for attending retreats, or conferences, or mid-week devotionals, or some other church spiritual gathering. You know what - most young adults don't have a ton of spare time on their hands. They are typically running about to attend weddings, manage career responsibilities, meet up with friends from college or high school, see family, and attempting to maintain some kind of social life. If it doesn't fit into that schedule they don't have time, much less the energy to devote to spiritual programs or agendas that quite honestly don't relate to their lives at all. So with all this floating out there for contemplation, you know what the simplest conclusion is....

The reason the young adult populations in churches is dwindling or non-existent is because the entire system is built around being under the age of 18, over the age of 30, or married with kids.

Pretty cut and dry, huh? And quite honestly, the solution really isn't that difficult to come by. What is needed is a place where they can come to talk about the problems or accomplishments in their life where they won't be judged. They need a place they can come to where sporadic attendance isn't frowned upon. They need a place where they don't have to sit and be taught, and at the same time are not expected to be a leader. In short, they need a place they can come to for comfort, growth, and encouragement when they need it.

emergent in thought

So there's this quiz/evaluation floating around out on the Internet that many of the blogs I read have mentioned. Supposedly it takes your answers to a bunch of questions and determines your best fit theological world view, it was pretty interesting, though I think some of the questions hit grey area.

You scored as Emergent/Postmodern. You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this.

Emergent/Postmodern 86% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 68% Classical Liberal 64% Modern Liberal 50% Neo orthodox 50% Roman Catholic 36% Charismatic/Pentecostal 32% Reformed Evangelical 14% Fundamentalist 4%

What's your theological worldview?

So apparently I am not just waving my flag under the newest theological fad, and I really do think differently (some would call it "liberal" or "post-modern"). Although I do like the idea of being able to label myself somewhat, in case someone were to ask me such a loaded question, I'd almost rather not be categorized at all. Afterall, the labels we apply are based on the trivial differences we see each in other, which then give us a reason (however misguided it is) to alienate, separate, and promote a superior/inferior attitude.

love of worship

If you read my previous post, you might get the idea that I was bashing the idea of worship altogether. I was somewhat, but not entirely. What I take issue with are the modern, stereotypical images and definitions of worship. The idea that worship is gathering to sing, read scripture, hear a lesson (perhaps with the tang of guilt), take part of communion, sing some more, pray a couple times, and then go home. To me that is not worship, it is tradition, ceremony and in some cases a feeling that you are punching the clock.

My friend has a great elaboration on the kind of worship I look for, which coincidentally was posted just a few days after my musing.

Worship for the Sake of the World

Enjoy!

the divine marriage

So as is my usual mode of operation, I was thinking about some stuff today. One of the first things that popped into my head was something I thought would be a real thought provoking topic of discussion: what does it mean to be a Christian; what is the point of being a Christian?

Now I mean this is a broad scoped way, not the "little Christs" or other literal interpretations. It is more a kind of, "I just became a Christian; what now, what does that mean," type of question. Immediately, a corner of my brain piped up and answered a fairly cookie-cutter answer, we are to worship God and spread the Message, more or less. Well isn't that quaint, what then? What if in an ideal world everyone was told the Message and began worshipping God? We'd have a world full of people who did nothing but worship God, and while that is not a terrible thing, I don't think that is the point. No, I don't think that was a major factor in God's overarching plan for Creation. I mean think about it, are there really all that many places where Jesus or God specifically communicate that what is desired is worship? I mean, the account of Adam and Eve doesn't exactly contain a whole lot of worship now does it? The 10 Commandments from what I recall don't mention anything about worshipping God. And personally, a god who decided to create the universe and everything in it just to appease some innate desire to be worshipped, doesn't exactly sound like the God I know. A god that fits that description sounds a lot more like the gods of Greece and Rome, who were said to dish out retribution and destruction if they were not worshipped and attended to.

The God I know, is more concerned with love than worship. God is in love with Creation, and specifically humanity. The relationship is like that of parent to child, and somewhat like a husband and wife. The spousal relationship I think fits rather well, and probably the reason that the apostles use that imagery as well. What happens when a married couple suffers the heartbreak of infidelity or betrayal? The wronged party has a decision to make, whether to reconcile with the one who wronged them. We wronged God, and we had only 2 things to do, love and obey. God, with his unbounded grace, would never turn his back on us, so the decision is for reconciliation. The problem is, what if the party in the wrong doesn't admit their fault and refuses to reconcile? That is their choice, and it would hurt the wronged party even more greatly to be rebuffed when they opened themselves up for reconciliation. However, they do have the choice, and that is the choice we make when we stand up and identify ourselves as Christian. We have turned around to face God, with the guidance of Christ (God who came to us at our level and showed us we could do it), and admitted that we are wrong and are willing to make things right. His limitless grace wipes the slate clean, and we are able to love, purely love, God and those around us. God chose not to bring everything into existence for the purpose of worship, but to love. It has been said and written many times that God is Love. He created so that he could share his love, and in return receive it, for what else is love for? What better purpose in life that to love and be loved?

Boil down everything else in this world that is good or that is in need of fixing and all that you will be left with are 2 things: love and the lack thereof. John Lennon was a smart guy, but he only had it half right, we need love and God (the original source of love).

So if you followed all that, congratulations, because while I had been thinking about this a while, it kind of flowed out broken and choppy. Then again, I never really said I was a writer...