Tuesday, June 30, 2009
You Are Here
God who is always here
In the light and breeze and breath
Of a warm spring afternoon
God - flitting on the wings of the robin
Skipping on the path - In each blade of grass
God- you are always here
In the prayers of the saints
In the cries of the martyrs
In the hearts of the faithful
And in the hopes of the downtrodden
Even in this silence - you are here
Even when I am not - you are here
God - you are always there
For those who sing your praise
Who can't recite your Word and offer their prayers
And for those who cannot pray
For death, and sadness, and horror
Have overcome them to darkness
Even in the dark - you are there
Even when I am not - you are there
I live and walk through the waking hours
But even when I sleep
When I am not aware
You are there
I cannot fathom your Presence
I can only sense - you are here
My skin extends - my fingers reach out
My soul gives praise
But then I sleep - I drive away
Distraction is so commonplace
But you are still here
In the dark - In the cold
In the light - and in the heat
When I am not - you are here
When I cannot - you are here
This morning's Scripure
Isaiah 41:9-10
"I took you from the ends of the earth,Powerful words on the day of a job interview -
from its farthest corners I called you.
I said, 'You are my servant';
I have chosen you and have not rejected you.
So do not fear, for I am with you;
do not be dismayed, for I am your God.
I will strengthen you and help you;
I will uphold you with my righteous right hand."
Monday, June 29, 2009
More Wise Words from Merton
"The curious state of alienation and confusion of man in modern society...underlying all life is the ground of doubt and self-questioning which sooner or later must bring us face to face with the ultimate meaning of our life. This self-questioning can never be without a certain existential 'dread' - a sense of insecurity, of 'lostness,' of exile, of sin. A sense that one has somehow been untrue not so much to abstract moral or social norms but to one's own inmost truth." ... It is the profound awareness that one is capable of ultimate bad faith with himself and with others: that one is living a lie."
This inner uncertainty and awareness of being untrue to oneself is profoundly powerful, and more common than we would like to admit. I know that I have sensed it in myself, and it is a scary place to explore. But the lazy river of American life slowly and naturally drifts me away from deep and real integrity. As he says, "Society itself, institutional life, organization, the 'approved way,' may in fact be encouraging us in falsity and illusion."
Because I resonate with his description of this "inner dread," I also resonate with his description of the solution:
"In order to be true to God and to ourselves we must break with the familiar, established and secure norms and go off into the unknown...the turning to a freedom based no longer on social approval and relative alienation, but on direct dependence on a invisible and inscrutable God, in pure faith...This is the creative and healing work of the monk, accomplished in silence, in nakedness of spirit, in emptiness, in humility. It is a participation in the saving death and resurrection of Christ. Therefore every Christian may, if he so desires, enter into communion with this silence of the praying and meditating Church, which is the Church of the Desert."
There are not many Christians, let alone American churches, advertising this type of faith. It's a difficult call to follow Jesus into the desert, into temptation, into solitude and confusion. But I have found that this is where God's heart lies, not in the easy answers or superficial feel good-ism, but a genuine search from the heart. It doesn't look like the faith that has always been described to me.
But at least it doesn't feel like I'm lying to myself anymore.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Important Words on Homosexuality
Today, there is a synchro-blog happening on Bridging the Gap, which is a great resource for articles and up-to-date conversations regarding sexuality and Christianity. Brian's post is here, and his conclusion is powerful and right on, and it's fully based on a powerful story from Scripture.
"Neither race nor sexual identity was an obstacle for the apostles in welcoming a new brother into the community of faith...But as we all know, as the years went on, both issues once again became obstacles. It's only in my lifetime that we have truly begun to racism behind us...Now, it's time for us to remove the second obstacle. Not in spite of the Bible, but because of it."
If his words are surprising to you, read his full post here - it's not too long, and it's full of Scripture.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Thoughts on Iran
But I'm not entirely sure I understand phrases like "Free Iran." What type of freedom are we calling for? I would guess that we conceive of an American-like, democratic freedom. But that is not the middle East and that is not Iran's political set up. We can't just throw around words like "freedom" without understanding the implications.
The video below touches upon the important aspects: First, the entire situation is dramatically compelling and heart wrenching. I believe that the images and footage of Neda will rightly be remembered forever, and perhaps may become a symbol for a turning of politics in Iran. However, the support from people across the internet - while it is well-intentioned and touching in its own way - is simple, requires little effort and certainly no sacrifice, let alone any type of informed decision or procession of the complexities of the situation. What good does it do for me to change my profile pic to green when I have nothing to do with the situation, and in fact I may be conceiving of "changes" "freedoms" and "rights" that would do more harm than good in Iran. As the news report conclude, Neda is an example of the sacrifice that Iranians may have to make - not Americans.
Many American condemn the Iraq war, arguing that we have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Middle East. So why are we eager to push our conceptions of freedom upon Iran during their election? Again, I find the the support beautiful in a way, but it also confuses me. Six years and counting in Iraq should give us some insight into the complexities of Middle East politics, or at least remind us that it is not as simple as overthrowing the unpopular leader du jour.
I agree with President Obama's stance in which he condemns the violence and the stifling of free speech and political rallies. He states that "the United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days." The President is correct that it is always a tragedy when life is lost and that free speech is a freedom that should be protected around the world.
However, I also agree with his restraint and decision to not more openly support the protests in Tehran, despite criticism from other politicians. I think his words here are very wise: "The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States," Obama replied. "That's what they do. That's what we're already seeing. We shouldn't be playing into that." In contrast, the words of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) seem driven more by politics and childish games than wisdom. He said "[The President has] been timid and passive more than I would like. There is a monumental event going on in Iran, and, you know, the president of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it."
Americans have to learn how to carefully balance support, concern, and grief for tragedies around the world, with an equal temperance and understanding that the governments and politics of other countries are not the same as ours. There are other ways to experience freedom beyond the American version of democracy, and for us to simply push phrases like "Freedom in Iran" seems, to me, ignorant and almost insulting, since we would not be the ones to pay the price and do the work to achieve such a freedom.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
Monday, June 8, 2009
A fellow "contrarian"
"People often think of contrarians as cynical, but I believe we are just the opposite. We are accused of playing the devil's advocate or of being provocative just for the sake of it. But to me, being a contrarian means holding out hope when others have stopped hoping. It means looking past the limitations and imagining the possibilities. It means rethinking ideas that have been ignored or dismissed in the past."
I know that i have often been accused of disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing, but I think Pagitt makes a good point. I want to believe in a "bigger" gospel, have a wider hope, and believe that the good news means the bad news isn't true. This quote reminds me of something Brian McLaren said when challenged about his beliefs regarding hell. He said he was trying to expand the boundaries of the Christian faith, to be believe that more being changed by the love of God.
How could this ever be a bad thing? Why is it looked down upon when "contrarians" imagine new possibilities? Why do we want to keep Christianity to ourselves?
XWB Discussion Post #1
This post is a part of the online discussion about Doug Pagitt's book "A Christianity Worth Believing in anticipation of his visit to Columbus."
Introduction: "I want to believe differently."
The following is an excerpt from chapter 1, taken from here. You can also listen to a reading of the chapter or download a .pdf of the whole chapter here.
I especially appreciate Doug's honesty here, right at the beginning of the book, clearing confessing his faith, but admitting to his unbelief in the prevailing systems of Christianity and struggle to believe differently.I am a Christian — a theologically trained, church-planting, evangelizing, Jesus-loving Christian. I trust in resurrection, and I seek to join with God in the world. But I have problem, an internal conflict that has only gotten worse in my twenty years of following this faith. It’s the kind of problem I tell others about with great caution and no small amount of anxiety.
I am a Christian, but I don’t believe in Christianity.
At least I don’t believe in the versions of Christianity that have prevailed for the last fifteen hundred years, the ones that were perfectly suitable in their time and place but have little connection with this time and place. The ones that answer questions we no longer ask and fail to consider questions we can no longer ignore. The ones that don’t mesh with what we know about God and the world and our place in it. I want to be very clear: I am not conflicted because I struggle to believe. I am conflicted because I want to believe differently.
Have you felt this tension before, between loving Jesus, but not loving Christianity? Where has it led you? What particular parts of the "versions of Christianity" do you struggle with, disagree with, or give you problems? Is it possible to be a Christian but not believe in Christianity? How will that affect your involvement in church and with other Christians?
Perhaps the most important questions are, if you have felt this tension, how have you successfully resolved it or found answers? Where do you find hope, even within Christianity? Obviously in the book Doug goes on to offer, as the subtitle states, "a hope-filled, open-armed, alive and well faith for the left-out, left-behind and let-down." But it may be important first to recognize that there are many who love Jesus, but are feeling beat down and disappointed with the versions of Christianity that are commonly offered.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
A Quote...and a Question
"God is a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is
nowhere." - Alan of Lille, 11th cent.
So what does that say about how we often label people/groups/sects
"in" or "out"?
Chasing Death Brings Full Life
Now that one chapter in my career story is ending, I am forced to reflect on what might be next for me. And I am confident, more than anything, that I don't just want a casual, easy, laid back lifestyle. To be a follower of Jesus means I am always living my life to the point of death.
Jesus said that if we want to follow him, we have to pick up our own, personal execution device and carry it with us at all times. Paul wrote that he was being "poured out as a drink offering" to the point of death - but it was worth it.
And maybe, in a sense this a paradox of what Jesus means when he talks about the "life to the full." Am I only really living a full life when it stretches me so far I feel as though I am on the brink of death?
I know that this what my soul craves - a deeper revelation of God's truth, a more vibrant connection that is buzzing with life and love, a challenging ministry that encompasses my whole life. I can't just commit in part - when I give my life to Christ, I am chasing my death, and therefore living a more full life every day.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Ecclesiological Shifts
Not sure when or where I first saw this list, but I found it underneath a stack of junk on my dresser today and took a second look at it. I think it's a really good list that points out many of the theoretical, broader shifts taking place within the Church, or rather the relationship between the Church and Western culture at large.
Seven significant ecclesiological shifts from Christendom to post-Christendom:
From the centre to margins: in Christendom the Christian story and the churches were central, but in post-Christendom these are marginal.
From majority to minority: in Christendom Christians comprised the (often overwhelming) majority, but in post-Christendom we are a minority.
From settlers to sojourners: in Christendom Christians felt at home in a culture shaped by their story, but in post-Christendom we are aliens, exiles and pilgrims in a culture where we no longer feel at home.
From privilege to plurality: in Christendom Christians enjoyed many privileges, but in post-Christendom we are one community among many in a plural society.
From control to witness: in Christendom churches could exert control over society, but in post-Christendom we exercise influence only through witnessing to our story and its implications.
From maintenance to mission: in Christendom the emphasis was on maintaining a supposedly Christian status quo, but in post-Christendom it is on mission within a contested environment.
From institution to movement: in Christendom churches operated mainly in institutional mode, but in post-Christendom we must become again a Christian movement.
As I read this list, I wonder what changes need to happen within the Church, in terms of activities, presentation style, and what we actually "do" day-to-day, week-to-week. IMO, one of the biggest shifts needs to move away from preaching the gospel to presenting the gospel. That verbage probably isn't the best, but what I'm thinking about is when pastors spend a lot of the sermon time telling the congregants what they need to "do" differently, or how they are wrong and what should be different.
Perhaps a change in approach could be toward a presentation of information, of truth that is profound and compelling, and then allowing the individuals to understand, interpret and apply for their unique situation. Too many sermons are irrelevant within the first few minutes because of the topic, and within the sermon I suspect that many congregant ignore the preaching because of an innate resistance to being told what to do. Even if the speaker gives compelling arguments and reasons from Scripture, there has to be something that touches deeper, on a more profound level.
This is where multi-sensory and participatory worship could play a role. Presenting the gospel in alternative formats that communicate its radical nature, and then allowing each individual to respond as they saw fit. Would this mirror the prevalent social networking/interaction that so many people find attractive?
What other changes within the church activities need to happen? Or will naturally happen because of these larger ecclesiological shifts?
Quote
Ran across this quote today as I was cleaning up stuff from the school year. We used this in our "Stations of the Cross" experience in April -
"There is good biblical evidence that God not only suffered in Christ, but that God in Christ suffers with his people still. ...It is wonderful that we may share in Christ's sufferings; it is more wonderful still that he shares in ours."- John Stott, The Cross of Christ
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Emergent Justice?
articulating a genuinely new vision for what it means to be a liberal
justice in the 21st century."
The author quotes from Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope," in which he says that "democracy not as a house to be built, but as a conversation to be had." In regards to the Supreme Court, the new understanding is called "democratic constitutionalism" and seeks to remain faithful to the constitution within the current American context. Essentially there is an ongoing dialogue between the popular opinion and the values of the Constitution, as well as between the President, Congress and Supreme Court. A more full description:
"courts and political movements [are] partners, influencing each other and
society as a whole. Courts sometimes act boldly and sometimes
cautiously. Constitutional change ultimately flows from the bottom up,
not the top down (which results in “democratic
constitutionalism”), but the courts play an important if subsidiary
role in codifying and extending values that the American people
themselves have come to embrace as fundamental (which results in
“democratic constitutionalism”)"
The parallels with emergent Christianity and the Great Emergence as a whole seem evident. First of all, moving beyond the old dichotomies of liberal and conservative; embracing a conversation that is more ambiguous that clear cut, but is deeply concerned with the concerns of the common person (I think the nomination of Judge Sotomayor is absolutely beautiful in this regard). And finally, an approach that will lead to change within the institutions that will reflect the change that is already happening within the popular culture.
"What We Cannot See"
The most common description of faith for Christians is "being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we cannot see." I've been thinking a lot lately about what I can't see, about what is uncertain and unknown to me, and how that demands a new level of faith.
There are many moments throughout the day when I feel the need to justify and explain myself to people. I want to be sure they know that I am right, that what I am doing makes sense, and I even want them to be impressed by my ideas and actions. But sometimes, decisions are made or opinions are formed about me and I don't know why. I don't know where the information (false, as I understand it) came from, and I don't have the opportunity to defend myself.
This makes me think about Jesus, when he was on trial, and the guards would hit him across the face. They said, "Prophecy, who hit you?" Jesus must have been blindfolded, or so bloodied that his eyes were swollen shut. I've always thought that he knew in his "God-ness" who was hitting him, and he just stayed quiet because he was better than that, or something. But maybe he didn't know? Maybe he really was blind. Maybe he had to suffer through the challenge of being accused, beaten, ridiculed and mocked, even though he thought he was innocent.
I wonder if during his trial and crucifixion Jesus ever had a crisis of faith in which he wondered, "Maybe I have failed. What did I do wrong? Maybe I made a mistake somewhere, and I deserve this." To me, this is a new aspect of "faith in what we cannot see." We don't always know why our actions lead us to the result, or why people respond to us they way they do. This is especially the case when acting upon deep convictions. It is our deepest convictions that will lead us to the greatest conflict with others. And this is also where I must have the greatest faith.
First, I have faith in God's justification, and not my own. I recognize that my actions and ideas are full of sin, pride, envy, and desires for self-aggrandizement. Any ridicule I receive, I deserve at my most basic level.
But beyond that, I have faith in God's justification of my virtuous actions. I do strive to be Christ-like, and I know that God sees and is aware. It is not the opinion of other humans that matters, but God's perspective.
This all sounds and feels very "Sunday school-ish" in a sense, but there is a significantly new aspect of faith that is required: Faith that trusts in God's justification of the given situation, and not another humans' opinion. Faith that knows that I am acting out of conviction, and that is enough. Faith that is OK with being hit, struck, accused, beaten, even though I really am innocent. And I do not need to strike back, because I have faith not in my own works or actions, but in God's work on my behalf.
I am called to take up my cross and follow Jesus, even if that means following blindly.