Ok, if one uses the family metaphor for Church, how easily can we do the reverse? Does the family see itself as Church? If the family does see itself as "church", then how does the family carry out ministry?
It seems that this is at the heart of what it means to be "people of God" or "followers of Jesus". Does the community that calls itself "family" come together to sing hymns, listen to pretty music and listen to Bible stories, or is something else going on? You see, this is where the rubber meets the road. Jesus was "radical" in the truest sense: he was changing society at its roots and the move to take Jesus' message to the streets, as it were, makes that change happen.
Merely meeting together one day a week - no matter the day one would pick - does not change a person. Take, for instance, a self-help group. If they meet once a week for information and some encouragement, that is great; but how do the individuals who participate in the group change their habits? The church is not a "self-help" group. The church does meet once a week, but how do the individual participants in worship actually apply and live what they celebrate on Saturday night/Sunday morning? Do they tell others about the changes God has made in them? Do they live as people who have a wonderful message of "great joy" or do they act in another way? Do they live the new commandment Jesus gives in John's gospel, "love one another"?
It takes some time for a congregation to move from old lifestyles to new ones - you know the old proverb about "old dogs and new tricks"... Humans like our habits - they're comfortable. The problem is, we also want to see changes in our communities. Some famous person once said that insanity is "doing the same things and expecting different results" - that applies here.
To be fair, life is change; it is inevitable that everything change. We grow old, we die, we move from one house to another, we move away and go to college, change is all around us. The change we are talking about here is the change within us that accepts and uses the inevitable changes around us for communal good. A mind change has to happen in order to think in this way and we need mentors to help us along the way. How does our congregation/community use mentors? Do we care about helping one another through the changes and chances of life? What can we do?
Well, what do you think?
Tim
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Sin: the good, the bad and the ugly
I have been thinking about the "code words" that we use in Church. One that is particularly perplexing to people today is the word "sin". The meaning of the word does not often explain the gravity, nor the systemic nature of the problem. As with all evolutionary processes, the word has changed over time. I think that today's understanding of sin is often ridiculous.
Take for example, someone who hoards to the extent that his house becomes inhabitable. He no longer takes care of his animals, letting them defecate wherever and whenever they wish. The outside of the house starts to tell the tale of what's going on inside, as weeds take over, trash cans are left unemptied and miscellaneous junk sits idly for "later use". Inside the house, the kitchen sink is full of dishes and rats have started to invade for the half-eaten food that remains on each plate and bowl. Where carpet used to invite guests, holes are worn throughout so that sub-flooring shows through. The smell of the house is so heavy that it takes your breath away as you enter to see the shell of an individual who is just out of control and has nowhere to turn.
In this hypothetical scenario, society immediately gravitates toward getting "help" for the person: "Get him out of the house. Get him to a doctor for some medication for his problem." In reality, society has helped to create the problem. Western culture for too long has imprinted its citizens with the need for more. Desire out of control is the problem at the root of so many of the economic, educational and societal problems today. The deepest problem of all, however, is that the problem is spiritual: it reaches into the very spirit and soul of individuals and changes our very make-up. Is there some kind of ontological change going on at a molecular level? I don't know. Of course, the individual in question must come to a point of realization that he (or she, as this applies to anyone) really is out of control and needs help.
But, and here's the clencher, society carries an equally powerful, perhaps more responsible part in the person's demise. Yes, you read that correctly; we all are to blame for the deep, systemic, societal problems that separate us from one another. In Hebrew thought, especially seen in the Old Testament, sin itself is a systemic problem that we all participate in, that we all must fight against together. In New Testament terminology, Jesus the Christ has given us power over sin by placing humanity in a position of power over it. Sin no longer need have a power over humanity as Jesus has conquered its power for us. The new reality for humanity is to believe that God has acted on behalf of humanity and in humanity's favor.
So what to do about the hypothetical scenario? Well, once humanity realizes that we all are in this situation together, moralistic blame and guilt no longer make sense. Now, we work to show the one who suffers from sin that God still cares for them. And if God can care for them, so can I; no judgments, no characterizations - just pure selfless acts of compassion.
True, the individual in sin will have to move definitively from the situation, but that move may take more steps than I desire. The house still needs to be cleaned, the individual still needs to move away from the lethal situation. However, the long, hard work of relationship building can begin wheresoever the person finds himself/herself.
What do you think?
Take for example, someone who hoards to the extent that his house becomes inhabitable. He no longer takes care of his animals, letting them defecate wherever and whenever they wish. The outside of the house starts to tell the tale of what's going on inside, as weeds take over, trash cans are left unemptied and miscellaneous junk sits idly for "later use". Inside the house, the kitchen sink is full of dishes and rats have started to invade for the half-eaten food that remains on each plate and bowl. Where carpet used to invite guests, holes are worn throughout so that sub-flooring shows through. The smell of the house is so heavy that it takes your breath away as you enter to see the shell of an individual who is just out of control and has nowhere to turn.
In this hypothetical scenario, society immediately gravitates toward getting "help" for the person: "Get him out of the house. Get him to a doctor for some medication for his problem." In reality, society has helped to create the problem. Western culture for too long has imprinted its citizens with the need for more. Desire out of control is the problem at the root of so many of the economic, educational and societal problems today. The deepest problem of all, however, is that the problem is spiritual: it reaches into the very spirit and soul of individuals and changes our very make-up. Is there some kind of ontological change going on at a molecular level? I don't know. Of course, the individual in question must come to a point of realization that he (or she, as this applies to anyone) really is out of control and needs help.
But, and here's the clencher, society carries an equally powerful, perhaps more responsible part in the person's demise. Yes, you read that correctly; we all are to blame for the deep, systemic, societal problems that separate us from one another. In Hebrew thought, especially seen in the Old Testament, sin itself is a systemic problem that we all participate in, that we all must fight against together. In New Testament terminology, Jesus the Christ has given us power over sin by placing humanity in a position of power over it. Sin no longer need have a power over humanity as Jesus has conquered its power for us. The new reality for humanity is to believe that God has acted on behalf of humanity and in humanity's favor.
So what to do about the hypothetical scenario? Well, once humanity realizes that we all are in this situation together, moralistic blame and guilt no longer make sense. Now, we work to show the one who suffers from sin that God still cares for them. And if God can care for them, so can I; no judgments, no characterizations - just pure selfless acts of compassion.
True, the individual in sin will have to move definitively from the situation, but that move may take more steps than I desire. The house still needs to be cleaned, the individual still needs to move away from the lethal situation. However, the long, hard work of relationship building can begin wheresoever the person finds himself/herself.
What do you think?
Friday, April 5, 2013
The Gathered and Gathering Community
Family: you don't get to pick them, someone once famously said; it's not like your friends! Nate Frambach feels at once comfortable and uncomfortable with thinking of the Church as "family". Family can be the place where one receives nurture - that would be good for anyone. Family can be to place you go when you're in trouble or have tough times to go through. There are too many instances of families that do not nurture and are not available for one another in difficult times. Sometimes, family is the last place to go because no one will listen, no one will nurture.
Another problem with calling the church community, "family" is that it can convey an idea that the specific little piece of real estate where "my family" worships, is not open to "you" because you are not part of the "family". To break into such an atmosphere is difficult, often daunting. Couple this with the fact that, in this family we use a code language in order to communicate. We use words like "faith", "salvation", "heaven", "hell", "God" - all words that can be interpreted in many different ways, depending on which "family" you talk to. Why would someone want to become part of a "family" if they couldn't even speak the language?
For Nate, a better terminology for the church is the "gathering community" or the "fellowship". In scripture, when the word for Church is used, it's always "ecclesia" - the called out ones, and it refers to a gathered community called by someone to a specific task. In the case of the Church, God calls humanity to live together and to spread the gospel.
As Nate directs, so we can ask, "What are favorite metaphors for church? Which metaphor best explains the community where you worship?" Further, do you, like Nate, bristle at calling the church a "family"? What would be a better way for the church to call herself?
Finally, concerning the "code language" of the church, how can we seek to talk among ourselves and with others so as to live and act as people who desire to spread God's good news? What words do we need to change? What words can we keep? Remember, the church does not exist for the sake of itself, but for the sake of the "other".
Another problem with calling the church community, "family" is that it can convey an idea that the specific little piece of real estate where "my family" worships, is not open to "you" because you are not part of the "family". To break into such an atmosphere is difficult, often daunting. Couple this with the fact that, in this family we use a code language in order to communicate. We use words like "faith", "salvation", "heaven", "hell", "God" - all words that can be interpreted in many different ways, depending on which "family" you talk to. Why would someone want to become part of a "family" if they couldn't even speak the language?
For Nate, a better terminology for the church is the "gathering community" or the "fellowship". In scripture, when the word for Church is used, it's always "ecclesia" - the called out ones, and it refers to a gathered community called by someone to a specific task. In the case of the Church, God calls humanity to live together and to spread the gospel.
As Nate directs, so we can ask, "What are favorite metaphors for church? Which metaphor best explains the community where you worship?" Further, do you, like Nate, bristle at calling the church a "family"? What would be a better way for the church to call herself?
Finally, concerning the "code language" of the church, how can we seek to talk among ourselves and with others so as to live and act as people who desire to spread God's good news? What words do we need to change? What words can we keep? Remember, the church does not exist for the sake of itself, but for the sake of the "other".
Thursday, April 4, 2013
"Being" Church
"Where are the new wilderness roads that are emerging around us? Where are the new wilderness roads to which you are being called, along which perhaps you are already walking?"
Two rather involved questions, aren't they? First, one must identify the "wilderness" areas for the community. Where do you feel least comfortable? Does the breadth of the work take your breath away? Do you thirst for something more than just "same old same old"? For me, the last question is the first place to start.
In the wilderness (i.e., desert) thirst moves one forward. Something to quench the thirst must be found before dehydration and rigor mortis takes over the body. So often, I think of the desert as the barren place of nothing; but, I wonder, can the desert be the place that shows me the thing that I thirst for the most and the deepest? Can the wilderness be that place that helps me to realize my deepest desires? I think it's common to humanity to have "wilderness times" - those times when one must seek with lots of effort to find what is most important, most desirable. For our community, can we identify the personal, individual wildernesses of self? Does that wilderness place coincide with the wilderness areas of our community?
To identify the wilderness wandering, it helps to focus on the present moment. Let go of the past and don't try to make the future real at the moment; just focus on the present moment. In the moment, one most easily realizes the opportunities available. When the opportunities arise, it's much easier to act on them for future development.
So, what is emerging around us?
What do you think?
Peace,
Tim
Two rather involved questions, aren't they? First, one must identify the "wilderness" areas for the community. Where do you feel least comfortable? Does the breadth of the work take your breath away? Do you thirst for something more than just "same old same old"? For me, the last question is the first place to start.
In the wilderness (i.e., desert) thirst moves one forward. Something to quench the thirst must be found before dehydration and rigor mortis takes over the body. So often, I think of the desert as the barren place of nothing; but, I wonder, can the desert be the place that shows me the thing that I thirst for the most and the deepest? Can the wilderness be that place that helps me to realize my deepest desires? I think it's common to humanity to have "wilderness times" - those times when one must seek with lots of effort to find what is most important, most desirable. For our community, can we identify the personal, individual wildernesses of self? Does that wilderness place coincide with the wilderness areas of our community?
To identify the wilderness wandering, it helps to focus on the present moment. Let go of the past and don't try to make the future real at the moment; just focus on the present moment. In the moment, one most easily realizes the opportunities available. When the opportunities arise, it's much easier to act on them for future development.
So, what is emerging around us?
What do you think?
Peace,
Tim
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
"Being"
The verb "to be" is a weird one. In just about every language - maybe all of them, I don't know - it is an "irregular verb". Anyone remember what that means from school? It doesn't conjugate in a normal way; as a matter of fact, it changes throughout its conjugation: Present tense - I am, you are, he/she/it is; past tense - I was, you were, he/she/it was; future tense - I will be, you will be, we shall be...enough for the grammar. Enough to be said that it's a weird verb.
If we were to define the verb, it means, "to exist, to remain or continue, to come to or belong, to happen or occur". Of all of those words, I like "exist" the most. It comes from two Greek words "ex" and "istemi"; together they mean "to stand out". That's interesting to me when we think about what it means "to be" something - like a fireman, a nurse, a doctor, a secretary. It means that the one who is playing the role is "standing out" as that role.
There is a deeper meaning behind that, however: whatever role you play in life, you are still you and not the role itself. When you or I are "being" whatever role in our job, or another position in life, we are not really that role! That's interesting because one of the first questions I always ask someone when I meet for the first time is, "What's your name? What do you do?" - as if the role determined what kind of individual the person is.
What, then, does it mean "to be" the Church? First and foremost, it is a role that you and I play. Now, to play a role is an important thing. The better you play your role at a job, the better you get at the job, the more confidence the boss has in you. It's important to play all roles properly and with our best effort. The role does not tell who you are, however. Underneath the role is the real you, so "to be" Church is "to be" the real you.
All of this may sound weird, but think about it: let's say you like a nice juicy piece of bacon every once in a while, but are part of a community that does not condone it on moral/religious grounds. If you continue to be in that group, you will have to reveal "less than" your real self to the group. "To be" true to yourself, you will have to reveal that you are "a pork lover." Such a revelation can get you ousted from your community. Truly standing up for what you believe in can cause division in a community. I guess what I am insisting is that "being" the Church is a whole lot more involved than reciting a creed, or singing the right kind of hymns, or even confessing things with the right words. "Being" the Church is radically different! Being the Church means knowing that deep down you are loved by God; you are a child of God, and that realization has implications to change your whole outlook on life.
What do you think?
Peace,
Tim
If we were to define the verb, it means, "to exist, to remain or continue, to come to or belong, to happen or occur". Of all of those words, I like "exist" the most. It comes from two Greek words "ex" and "istemi"; together they mean "to stand out". That's interesting to me when we think about what it means "to be" something - like a fireman, a nurse, a doctor, a secretary. It means that the one who is playing the role is "standing out" as that role.
There is a deeper meaning behind that, however: whatever role you play in life, you are still you and not the role itself. When you or I are "being" whatever role in our job, or another position in life, we are not really that role! That's interesting because one of the first questions I always ask someone when I meet for the first time is, "What's your name? What do you do?" - as if the role determined what kind of individual the person is.
What, then, does it mean "to be" the Church? First and foremost, it is a role that you and I play. Now, to play a role is an important thing. The better you play your role at a job, the better you get at the job, the more confidence the boss has in you. It's important to play all roles properly and with our best effort. The role does not tell who you are, however. Underneath the role is the real you, so "to be" Church is "to be" the real you.
All of this may sound weird, but think about it: let's say you like a nice juicy piece of bacon every once in a while, but are part of a community that does not condone it on moral/religious grounds. If you continue to be in that group, you will have to reveal "less than" your real self to the group. "To be" true to yourself, you will have to reveal that you are "a pork lover." Such a revelation can get you ousted from your community. Truly standing up for what you believe in can cause division in a community. I guess what I am insisting is that "being" the Church is a whole lot more involved than reciting a creed, or singing the right kind of hymns, or even confessing things with the right words. "Being" the Church is radically different! Being the Church means knowing that deep down you are loved by God; you are a child of God, and that realization has implications to change your whole outlook on life.
What do you think?
Peace,
Tim
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Living God's Mission Today: An Emerging Landscape
From the first chapter, Nate Frambach observes many of the same trends in mission and ministry with which many of us are already acquainted: people today, in general, don't read the Bible and therefore many people make uneducated assumptions/observations about the biblical story; there are some general identity challenges for the Church today, and for "lutheranism" in particular - who are we? what makes our message important?
Nate makes, I think, a very important point from the beginning, and he even reiterates that point at the end of the chapter as he adds some questions and thoughts for reflection. The first question starts with an assignment to read Acts 8.26-40. From the familiar story, what did you learn about telling others about God? What does it mean to "be" a follower of Jesus?
In keeping this story in mind, what does it say about how God works in any community? He suggests that it may be important to discuss how our community came into being. In our own story we may find out something about ourselves as well as about God. I think what Nate intends for us to understand is that to follow the Risen Christ, is really about a state of "being" at every point in our lives. No matter where we are, no matter who we meet, no matter what we are doing, if we remain focused on "being" a follower of Jesus, our actions and words should show Christ to the world. Here's what I mean.
I saw a video last night of a little boy holding a placard that said something like, "God hates sin - repent or die". He stood outside of a congregation that was leaving worship - a congregation that had apparently voted to affirm gays and lesbians and their privilege to celebrate life with someone of the same sex. As he stood there, the boy shouted out that he loved them and God loved them as well, but God wanted them to change. If they did not change, God would hate them. The parishioners filed out and walked past the boy, but one older woman walked up to the boy and said that she loved him and wanted to know if she could hug him. He responded, "No. Go away," and then went back to his preaching. It would be no surprise to you to know that the little boy was from a well-known church in the US. It would also not surprise you to know that the man filming this "event" was standing behind the boy saying, "Preach it, boy!"
I will be the first to say that each of us has the right to free speech. I wonder, however, if the little boy had grown up in a community that knew the same Jesus that this congregation professed? The two communities clashed on that sidewalk in the name of one who is supposed to unify and repair creation itself. Whether we agree with the boy or with the congregation he protested is not so much the point. The focus of the struggle is that neither community was able to hear the other because they spoke different "languages". The little boy spoke of a God who was just and a rule maker. The congregation spoke of a God who was merciful. Which one was right?
Read the story of Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch in the text mentioned above. What do you think the story says about how one tells others the Good News of God?
Well, what do you think?
Nate makes, I think, a very important point from the beginning, and he even reiterates that point at the end of the chapter as he adds some questions and thoughts for reflection. The first question starts with an assignment to read Acts 8.26-40. From the familiar story, what did you learn about telling others about God? What does it mean to "be" a follower of Jesus?
In keeping this story in mind, what does it say about how God works in any community? He suggests that it may be important to discuss how our community came into being. In our own story we may find out something about ourselves as well as about God. I think what Nate intends for us to understand is that to follow the Risen Christ, is really about a state of "being" at every point in our lives. No matter where we are, no matter who we meet, no matter what we are doing, if we remain focused on "being" a follower of Jesus, our actions and words should show Christ to the world. Here's what I mean.
I saw a video last night of a little boy holding a placard that said something like, "God hates sin - repent or die". He stood outside of a congregation that was leaving worship - a congregation that had apparently voted to affirm gays and lesbians and their privilege to celebrate life with someone of the same sex. As he stood there, the boy shouted out that he loved them and God loved them as well, but God wanted them to change. If they did not change, God would hate them. The parishioners filed out and walked past the boy, but one older woman walked up to the boy and said that she loved him and wanted to know if she could hug him. He responded, "No. Go away," and then went back to his preaching. It would be no surprise to you to know that the little boy was from a well-known church in the US. It would also not surprise you to know that the man filming this "event" was standing behind the boy saying, "Preach it, boy!"
I will be the first to say that each of us has the right to free speech. I wonder, however, if the little boy had grown up in a community that knew the same Jesus that this congregation professed? The two communities clashed on that sidewalk in the name of one who is supposed to unify and repair creation itself. Whether we agree with the boy or with the congregation he protested is not so much the point. The focus of the struggle is that neither community was able to hear the other because they spoke different "languages". The little boy spoke of a God who was just and a rule maker. The congregation spoke of a God who was merciful. Which one was right?
Read the story of Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch in the text mentioned above. What do you think the story says about how one tells others the Good News of God?
Well, what do you think?
Emerging Ministry: Being Church Today
Being Church today, with intentional emphasis on the verb. That's the name of Nate Frambach's book. Nate was at the Synod Assembly in 2012 and he presented the main ideas from his book in a keynote session he led. I like the book because it's short and it says some important things for the Church in a succint way. For the next few weeks, I would like to get some discussion on Nate's book. You may want to buy it, but you don't have to do so. Here is the book at Augsburg fortress (www.augsburgfortress.org) :
In stock.
Friday, April 13, 2007
This item is part of Lutheran Voices
Curious about the world in which we live and informed by the emerging church conversation, Nathan Frambach asks, "What does it mean to be the church as we... read more
$11.99
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)