We are in the fifth week of our "Christianity in the 21st Century" class and all I can say is, "Where did the time go?" Seems like every time we get together as a group, we gave just begun. I guess we could even ask that question about our lives in general, couldn't we? As I get older, the days seem to run together. I look around at all the children I have taught who are now adults; I see my children getting older and taller and I wonder, "Where has the time gone?"
Time has been the subject of countless books, magazine articles - there's even one magazine called Time - scientific studies; time touches every part of our lives and we almost seem to have no control over it.
I remember in college reading from a poet, Andrew Marvell. His poem, To a Coy Mistress, has a famous line, "time's winged chariot/always at my back". For Marvell, time has a life of its own, and it's chasing after all of us as quickly as it can. Escape from time's grasp is virtually and really impossible. So, how shall we, then, live if our lives are controlled by time's death grip?
The ancient Ammas and Abbas of the desert, as well as their contemporaries who live as monks and nuns, realized that within the present, the past and future are wrapped up. For mystics and the more spiritually-inclined among us, there is an increasing understanding that time can be dealt with in positive ways. Perhaps the most positive, constructive way of dealing with time means living in the moment without past cares or worry of the future. What would life look like if more people lived for today, cared about what happened right now, and let go of the past or the hope of the future?
Perhaps this is not what Phyllis Tickle means with her question, "How, then, shall we live?" I wonder, however, how this mystical understanding of time could shape the question of how we "emerge" as the Church of the 21st Century. What do you think?
See you Thursday!
Tim
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Friday, November 1, 2013
Is preservation living?
It's really a good question: when I try to preserve myself, am I really living? You know, if I reserve all of my time an energy for saving my "self", do I have any time or energy left over to live?
I struggle with "self" preservation all the time. I want Tim to be important; I want Tim to have what Tim wants; I want, I want, I want. In the end, will I find emptiness where a life could have been lived? As I struggled with that a few weeks ago, I read a very good reflection from my book by Mark Nepo, The Book of Awakening. Here's what he said on October 17:
"Early in life, I learned to protect myself, and this meant that I became very good at catching things. In fact, I never went anywhere without my catcher's mitt. No matter what came at me, nothing could surprise me. And while this saved me from unpredictable assaults of my family, and even helped me in my odyssey through cancer, it eventually had a life of its own. Everything - birds, women, friends, truth - was intercepted by the quick reflex of my mitt. Eventually, nothing got through, and the very thing that helped me survive was now keeping me from being touched. The softness and wonder of the world was vanishing from my life. (my emphasis)...We are, each of us, in a repeatable war between defending ourselves from hurts that happened long ago and opening in innocence, again and again, to the unexpected touch of life."
Wow! Those are important words to ponder. They also could help us in our quest to understand one another as we go through the "changes and chances of life". In our class of Emergence Christianity, we have encountered many challenges to our sensibilities, some challenges to our ways of thinking, even a few challenges to personal definitions of "church". If I had to sum up the challenges we have had in the class, it would probably look like Mark Nepo's reflection.
Think about it: when we meet challenges in life, the first thing we do is try to protect the "self" - make sure I am safe from harm. After some time, I start to realize that I am safe and I can start to reach out. The problem is, when I start to get comfortable, some new challenge comes along and I start the "self" preservation process over again!
How can the Church help us to let go of "self" and allow the "softness and wonder of the world" from vanishing? I am not sure how that happens, but I think it happens most often in a life-giving, life-transforming community - hey, isn't the Church one of those kinds of community's? It sure is! How could the world change if the Church lived out its call?
What do you think?
Peace,
Tim
I struggle with "self" preservation all the time. I want Tim to be important; I want Tim to have what Tim wants; I want, I want, I want. In the end, will I find emptiness where a life could have been lived? As I struggled with that a few weeks ago, I read a very good reflection from my book by Mark Nepo, The Book of Awakening. Here's what he said on October 17:
"Early in life, I learned to protect myself, and this meant that I became very good at catching things. In fact, I never went anywhere without my catcher's mitt. No matter what came at me, nothing could surprise me. And while this saved me from unpredictable assaults of my family, and even helped me in my odyssey through cancer, it eventually had a life of its own. Everything - birds, women, friends, truth - was intercepted by the quick reflex of my mitt. Eventually, nothing got through, and the very thing that helped me survive was now keeping me from being touched. The softness and wonder of the world was vanishing from my life. (my emphasis)...We are, each of us, in a repeatable war between defending ourselves from hurts that happened long ago and opening in innocence, again and again, to the unexpected touch of life."
Wow! Those are important words to ponder. They also could help us in our quest to understand one another as we go through the "changes and chances of life". In our class of Emergence Christianity, we have encountered many challenges to our sensibilities, some challenges to our ways of thinking, even a few challenges to personal definitions of "church". If I had to sum up the challenges we have had in the class, it would probably look like Mark Nepo's reflection.
Think about it: when we meet challenges in life, the first thing we do is try to protect the "self" - make sure I am safe from harm. After some time, I start to realize that I am safe and I can start to reach out. The problem is, when I start to get comfortable, some new challenge comes along and I start the "self" preservation process over again!
How can the Church help us to let go of "self" and allow the "softness and wonder of the world" from vanishing? I am not sure how that happens, but I think it happens most often in a life-giving, life-transforming community - hey, isn't the Church one of those kinds of community's? It sure is! How could the world change if the Church lived out its call?
What do you think?
Peace,
Tim
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Physics or Philosophy?
OK, don't be put off by the title. I know it's a bit of a stretch to think of physics and philosophy as ways of viewing the world. It was for me, at least, until I took physics in college.
I was one of those people who wanted to think he had a scientific mind but really didn't. Especially in physics and chemistry, my mind always wandered away from the subject. Why did I have to memorize all of those formulae? Did anyone really think this stuff would be helpful when I started actively contributing to society in a meaningful way? Who thought up all that stuff anyway? It wasn't until my physics class in college that I realized that I had been thinking about science all wrong! Science in general, and physics more particularly, could be approached in ways that the philosophers have used for centuries! That Welsh physics professor helped us to explore not only basic physics, but life in general by asking questions, experiencing and providing an environment in which to talk about the experience. Soon enough, the class realized that the formulae were not a required "law" but a gift to help give words and shape to the life experience.
Sounds weird, I know - welcome to the inside of my head! That experience reminded me of a truth that Phyllis Tickle shared with our book group recently. She quipped that Albert Einstein gave rise to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, that later gave rise to philosophers like Caputo, Foucault and the 20th Century Existentialists.
I admit that the only thing I know about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is that one of two components can be determined at a time about an electron: (1) its location and (2) its momentum. In other words, when observing the atomic world (the quantum world, even) the observer can never know for certain (thus, the "uncertainty" of the Heisenberg Principle) the momentum if s/he is observing the location; conversely, the observer cannot know the location if s/he observes the momentum. To observe one is to be uncertain of the other.
Of course, philosophers latched on to this idea and deconstructed all of life - not just atoms or electrons. It seems a clean manner of learning about life. In reality, the Uncertainty Principle makes a mess of everything! No longer can I say that "this happened because of that". Can I any longer say, "where there's smoke, there's fire"? I don't know.
Where is all this going? I don't know. No, really, I don't know and I wonder if it's OK to say, "I don't know"?
I was one of those people who wanted to think he had a scientific mind but really didn't. Especially in physics and chemistry, my mind always wandered away from the subject. Why did I have to memorize all of those formulae? Did anyone really think this stuff would be helpful when I started actively contributing to society in a meaningful way? Who thought up all that stuff anyway? It wasn't until my physics class in college that I realized that I had been thinking about science all wrong! Science in general, and physics more particularly, could be approached in ways that the philosophers have used for centuries! That Welsh physics professor helped us to explore not only basic physics, but life in general by asking questions, experiencing and providing an environment in which to talk about the experience. Soon enough, the class realized that the formulae were not a required "law" but a gift to help give words and shape to the life experience.
Sounds weird, I know - welcome to the inside of my head! That experience reminded me of a truth that Phyllis Tickle shared with our book group recently. She quipped that Albert Einstein gave rise to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, that later gave rise to philosophers like Caputo, Foucault and the 20th Century Existentialists.
I admit that the only thing I know about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is that one of two components can be determined at a time about an electron: (1) its location and (2) its momentum. In other words, when observing the atomic world (the quantum world, even) the observer can never know for certain (thus, the "uncertainty" of the Heisenberg Principle) the momentum if s/he is observing the location; conversely, the observer cannot know the location if s/he observes the momentum. To observe one is to be uncertain of the other.
Of course, philosophers latched on to this idea and deconstructed all of life - not just atoms or electrons. It seems a clean manner of learning about life. In reality, the Uncertainty Principle makes a mess of everything! No longer can I say that "this happened because of that". Can I any longer say, "where there's smoke, there's fire"? I don't know.
Where is all this going? I don't know. No, really, I don't know and I wonder if it's OK to say, "I don't know"?
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Knowing God
It may come as no surprise to many: I like to read. Mostly I read books that challenge me to think in different ways. I don't always agree with what I read, but the process of reading offers to me an outlet to meditate on new ideas. Recently, I have been reading about the relationship between science and spirituality. Not science and religion - that would lead in a wholly different direction - but science and spirituality.
For the writer of the book I am reading, "spirituality" is more like the ability to recognize and accept the sacredness that one encounters in life. This kind of sacredness can be experienced in the rational mind of a scientist who stands in awe of galaxies and universes. That sacredness could happen at work, or at home; in the car or while walking; one could encounter "spirituality" anywhere. The author mentions the work of Rudolf Otto, The idea of the Holy - an early 20th Century work about the encounter of things that one could call "holy".
According to Otto, holiness happens when one listens to a work by Mozart or Beethoven; perhaps when one attends an opera; it could happen, of course, when one goes to worship; it could occur most anywhere one feels outside the normal life. A holy moment is that moment when one forgets the cares of the world and realizes that everything finally fits together. It's a "numinous" moment, says Otto - a moment that is beyond description, even if you could find the words to say.
I had read Rudolf Otto's book many years ago. In typical German style, it is very dense and difficult to read without saying, "What did I just read?" It's one of those books you read the same page about three times before having just an inkling of an idea what the author is saying...I think you get the point. I almost put it down several times, but something kept drawing me back to it. Finally, at the end, I realized one thing: anything that I consider holy must be experienced.
Experience: that's what knowing God is all about. I could read 10 or 10,000 books on God, but until I finally experience God's presence with me, I cannot "know" God. Understanding God is not what I am talking about here. I don't think I will ever understand God, but I can "know" - in a feeling, perceiving way about God with me.
What experiences have you had in which you felt like you "knew" God? Even if that experience lasted only seconds, when have you felt that you were standing on holy ground?
For the writer of the book I am reading, "spirituality" is more like the ability to recognize and accept the sacredness that one encounters in life. This kind of sacredness can be experienced in the rational mind of a scientist who stands in awe of galaxies and universes. That sacredness could happen at work, or at home; in the car or while walking; one could encounter "spirituality" anywhere. The author mentions the work of Rudolf Otto, The idea of the Holy - an early 20th Century work about the encounter of things that one could call "holy".
According to Otto, holiness happens when one listens to a work by Mozart or Beethoven; perhaps when one attends an opera; it could happen, of course, when one goes to worship; it could occur most anywhere one feels outside the normal life. A holy moment is that moment when one forgets the cares of the world and realizes that everything finally fits together. It's a "numinous" moment, says Otto - a moment that is beyond description, even if you could find the words to say.
I had read Rudolf Otto's book many years ago. In typical German style, it is very dense and difficult to read without saying, "What did I just read?" It's one of those books you read the same page about three times before having just an inkling of an idea what the author is saying...I think you get the point. I almost put it down several times, but something kept drawing me back to it. Finally, at the end, I realized one thing: anything that I consider holy must be experienced.
Experience: that's what knowing God is all about. I could read 10 or 10,000 books on God, but until I finally experience God's presence with me, I cannot "know" God. Understanding God is not what I am talking about here. I don't think I will ever understand God, but I can "know" - in a feeling, perceiving way about God with me.
What experiences have you had in which you felt like you "knew" God? Even if that experience lasted only seconds, when have you felt that you were standing on holy ground?
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Is there ever a bad reason to forgive?
Seems like a rhetorical question, but I am serious. Is there ever a bad time to forgive someone? Do I forgive because I feel like the other person is deserving of forgiveness? Or, the converse, do I ever withhold forgiveness because someone is not worthy? That's a harder question. I guess I could say that all of these have something to do with my faith, don't they?
On Sunday, we will hear once again from Luke's Gospel, the story of the "dishonest steward" (Luke 16:1-13). In that story, the dishonest steward of the master's estate has been mismanaging things and he got caught. In order to make amends, what could the steward do? Well, this guy "cooks the books"! That's right, the dishonest manager of the estate decided to forgive every debt - at least partly so.
This story creates lots of challenges for me and even more questions: Was it right to forgive on behalf of someone else? If so, how does that apply to me as I forgive others on behalf of God? When I forgive someone, does the other person have to accept that s/he is forgiven? What happens if s/he does not accept the forgiveness I have offered?
A long time ago, someone told me that forgiveness is not about others; it's about me. Forgiveness is about me letting go of the power that holds me down in a relationship. When I name those powers, I start to gain control over them; as I struggle with them, and get more uncomfortable with them, their power tries to overtake me. In forgiveness, I say, "No more!" I bind the powers of sin that try to keep me from moving forward and there's a two-fold deliverance: (1) I am freed from the other person's anger; (2) I free myself from my own regret.
Sometimes this two-fold process happens simultaneously; at other times, one step follows the other. In the end, the result is always the same. Someone is set free from spiraling deeper into an endless abyss of grief, pain and self-denial. There really is no better way to say it. Often the evil from which one is created comes directly from the heart of individuals; at other times, that evil is systemic in culture or society (such as in racism).
So, is there ever a bad reason to forgive?
On Sunday, we will hear once again from Luke's Gospel, the story of the "dishonest steward" (Luke 16:1-13). In that story, the dishonest steward of the master's estate has been mismanaging things and he got caught. In order to make amends, what could the steward do? Well, this guy "cooks the books"! That's right, the dishonest manager of the estate decided to forgive every debt - at least partly so.
This story creates lots of challenges for me and even more questions: Was it right to forgive on behalf of someone else? If so, how does that apply to me as I forgive others on behalf of God? When I forgive someone, does the other person have to accept that s/he is forgiven? What happens if s/he does not accept the forgiveness I have offered?
A long time ago, someone told me that forgiveness is not about others; it's about me. Forgiveness is about me letting go of the power that holds me down in a relationship. When I name those powers, I start to gain control over them; as I struggle with them, and get more uncomfortable with them, their power tries to overtake me. In forgiveness, I say, "No more!" I bind the powers of sin that try to keep me from moving forward and there's a two-fold deliverance: (1) I am freed from the other person's anger; (2) I free myself from my own regret.
Sometimes this two-fold process happens simultaneously; at other times, one step follows the other. In the end, the result is always the same. Someone is set free from spiraling deeper into an endless abyss of grief, pain and self-denial. There really is no better way to say it. Often the evil from which one is created comes directly from the heart of individuals; at other times, that evil is systemic in culture or society (such as in racism).
So, is there ever a bad reason to forgive?
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Akedah: The "Binding"
I admit, quite freely and without coercion: I have a lot of trouble with the story in Genesis 22. What father who loves his son would submit to sacrifice him? I get to preach on this text on Saturday night (the narrative lectionary) and I don't know, yet, how my interpretation of the story will go over.
Does the fact that I struggle with this story reveal the nature of this text; namely, that one's life of faith is one of struggling and listening to God? I find it not so difficult to say that I struggle with a text from scripture, but how many people who sit in the pews want to know that I don't have all the answers for life? Frankly, from my perspective, I want to hear words from a preacher that reveal vulnerability and challenge.
Maybe the kernel of faith of this text lay in its ability to speak to all of humanity about our personal and communal perceptions of God. Maybe, just maybe, the ideas that I have about God and the ideas that my community instill in me don't really understand God. I am more and more convinced that my meager understanding of God and what my community of faith teaches to me, pale in comparison to the reality of God that sometimes smacks me in the face.
Literarily speaking, this story foreshadows the impact of God's willingness to submit to sacrifice of self for all of humanity in a world that knows nothing more than violence. As Isaac's life is spared for father Abraham, God will submit to the same kind of sacrificial love and yet not stay the knife. Death will come to Jesus, in the Gospels, and God will place the imprimatur of approval on Jesus' own death by Resurrection on the third day. All of this reveals the extent of God's compassion for all of humanity; God's willingness to go the "extra mile".
Come struggle with us Saturday night at 5pm. We will struggle with the challenge of why God allows such an atrocity and why people of faith allow such a text of terror to be part of holy writ.
Friday, September 13, 2013
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Messy hands, or theological parsley?
Just ordered some new books by Girard and Girardian thinkers: Compassion or Apocalypse? A Comprehensible Guide to the Thought of Rene Girard by James Warren; Wolfgang Palaver's Rene Girard's Mimetic Theory; and Feodor Dostoyevsky: Resurrection from the Underground by Rene Girard.
What do I hope to gain from these writers? The same thing I demand of any writer: the opportunity to see life from a different perspective. Even when I read good fiction, I have that expectation. I suspect that's why I like science fiction so much; the genre confronts modern situations in a way that allows me to stand aside, watching and enjoying the ride, and say, "So, that's what's going on!"
It's not everyone's proverbial "cup of tea" to read Girard or those who write from his perspective, so it's up to me to digest and present the material, that is so life-giving, to "others". Just writing that previous sentence makes me think of my role as pastor or one's role as a disciple of Jesus.
Often, the "other" does not understand why I could be joyful, or why, as some have said, "I could have hope in a God that allows people to die." It's up to me, as a disciple of Jesus, to put Jesus' message of hope and salvation in words that can be understood by others. A famous preacher from the US, Barbara Brown Taylor once said to a group of preachers that no one will believe those who proclaim the good news of God in Jesus unless we first prove that we have gotten our hands in the muck of life and dug down deep, pulling up the mess for all to look at and better to understand. When we serve up a little grace with some "theological parsley on top", people will learn to look elsewhere for food.
What does that mean - to serve up grace with a little "theological parsley on top"? For Taylor, she means to keep it real. Those of us who are Christians, must let our actions and our words match, but even more, we must begin to tell God's story in a way that others can understand. What does that mean for you?
What do I hope to gain from these writers? The same thing I demand of any writer: the opportunity to see life from a different perspective. Even when I read good fiction, I have that expectation. I suspect that's why I like science fiction so much; the genre confronts modern situations in a way that allows me to stand aside, watching and enjoying the ride, and say, "So, that's what's going on!"
It's not everyone's proverbial "cup of tea" to read Girard or those who write from his perspective, so it's up to me to digest and present the material, that is so life-giving, to "others". Just writing that previous sentence makes me think of my role as pastor or one's role as a disciple of Jesus.
Often, the "other" does not understand why I could be joyful, or why, as some have said, "I could have hope in a God that allows people to die." It's up to me, as a disciple of Jesus, to put Jesus' message of hope and salvation in words that can be understood by others. A famous preacher from the US, Barbara Brown Taylor once said to a group of preachers that no one will believe those who proclaim the good news of God in Jesus unless we first prove that we have gotten our hands in the muck of life and dug down deep, pulling up the mess for all to look at and better to understand. When we serve up a little grace with some "theological parsley on top", people will learn to look elsewhere for food.
What does that mean - to serve up grace with a little "theological parsley on top"? For Taylor, she means to keep it real. Those of us who are Christians, must let our actions and our words match, but even more, we must begin to tell God's story in a way that others can understand. What does that mean for you?
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
The Way of Non-Violence
Love this picture that was on an article on the internet. The article was about the precariousness of life for some animals around the world because of climate change. I kind of feel like the elephant these days with balancing between prayer and meditation for peace, and trying to understand the intricacies of diplomacy.
These past few days and weeks have been fraught with international tension. Behind the scenes, I am sure that many late-night meetings took place in the United Nations, in the halls of justice of different countries throughout Europe and here in Washington, DC. Syria, a country that has been at the center of tensions for millennia, once again has taken center stage. The proverbial sabers have been rattling, Russian and China, old allies of Syria, have lined up behind the country they consider a buffer between the US and the Middle East.
In the midst of all the turmoil, Pope Francis prayed for peace to prevail in Syria and asked all Christians around the world to do the same. Now as we awake this morning, there is news that Syria has promised to hand over to international authorities, all of its chemical weapons. What happened overnight that Syria has considered drawing down the stand-off? Did the prayers of faithful Christians prevail? The bigger question for me: From where does conflict come and why do we, humans, feed it so freely?
For some years, I have read about human conflict and studied it from the French author, Rene Girard. He is a literary critique who began teaching French Literature many years ago because he needed money and the job promised a steady flow of it. Through his studies, he found that all of the classic literary pieces of the world exhibited a basic theory that I am only coming to fully understand.
As I understand it, Girard surmises that all violence comes from within the individual and flows out to others through "mimetism" (the need to mimic others). He purports that "I" desire because "I" see what "you" have and covet it. Rolled up in Girard's theory is "scapegoating" - once I cannot get what I want, I seek out an individual in the community who can serve as the reason for all of "my" problems. Once I consider how to get the community behind me, the blocks fall into place and the scapegoat is killed. Society goes back to "normal", the desirous parties get what they wanted, and the cycle starts again.So, why mention Girard's theory now?
Perhaps, as Girard proposes, there is a different way for Christians to look at the world that helps to diffuse such violent, tumultuous situations as our current one in Syria. The people who are called "Christians" could consider how we use the power that we have in the world for good ends. We are already in the midst of the turmoil simply because of its public nature. The question remains: How, then, shall we act?
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Keep your eye on the prize
I watched a movie a while back, In Time, I believe was the title. The movie focused on the "haves" and the "haves not" but with a twist: those who were the richest dealt in the commodity of "time". In the end, the whole house of cards fell because the ability to build a sturdy, sustainable system always involves a firm foundation. Time ended up being too easy a commodity to wrench away from the few and give to the many.
In the movie, everyone has implanted in his/her arm a clock that registers the amount of time left in one's life. During fights, people can grab the arm of another and siphon away time. In order to win the fight, one had to remain focused on the fight. At one point, when the protagonist is in the midst of one such battle, he diverts his attention for a few seconds and literally hours tick away from his personal clock - leaving him drained physically. He then remembered that in order to remain focused, one cannot watch the clock.
There's a life lesson in the staying focused on the task at hand rather than the possibility of losing something precious. How often do I gather together wonderful things that make life great only to worry about how I can keep it forever? We live in a community where many people leave houses open all day. I wonder how important knowing the neighbor and caring for the neighbor is when determining the safety of one's own neighborhood? How important is it for me to make my neighborhood a hospitable place in order to keep what I need?
It seems to me that focusing on what matters most becomes the more important endeavor in all of life. As a friend of mine so often reminds me, "We get in the most trouble when we get off in the weeds" - I think he likes to golf, but finds himself in the weeds too much...but that's another story.
How many of the problems of life could be solved merely by focusing on the importance of life itself instead of all of the trivialities and novelties of everyday life? Of course, I enjoy my CDs but would life be less without them? Of course, books make my life more enjoyable, but would I be lessened any if I had to walk into a library more often and borrow them, instead of having my own?
Keep your eye on the prize, Tim, keep your eye on the prize.
Peace.
In the movie, everyone has implanted in his/her arm a clock that registers the amount of time left in one's life. During fights, people can grab the arm of another and siphon away time. In order to win the fight, one had to remain focused on the fight. At one point, when the protagonist is in the midst of one such battle, he diverts his attention for a few seconds and literally hours tick away from his personal clock - leaving him drained physically. He then remembered that in order to remain focused, one cannot watch the clock.
There's a life lesson in the staying focused on the task at hand rather than the possibility of losing something precious. How often do I gather together wonderful things that make life great only to worry about how I can keep it forever? We live in a community where many people leave houses open all day. I wonder how important knowing the neighbor and caring for the neighbor is when determining the safety of one's own neighborhood? How important is it for me to make my neighborhood a hospitable place in order to keep what I need?
It seems to me that focusing on what matters most becomes the more important endeavor in all of life. As a friend of mine so often reminds me, "We get in the most trouble when we get off in the weeds" - I think he likes to golf, but finds himself in the weeds too much...but that's another story.
How many of the problems of life could be solved merely by focusing on the importance of life itself instead of all of the trivialities and novelties of everyday life? Of course, I enjoy my CDs but would life be less without them? Of course, books make my life more enjoyable, but would I be lessened any if I had to walk into a library more often and borrow them, instead of having my own?
Keep your eye on the prize, Tim, keep your eye on the prize.
Peace.
Friday, June 21, 2013
More "Emerging" Ideas
Much has happened since my last post in April. I took some time away from the "blogosphere" for two reasons: (1) I don't want to depend on it everyday; so, I have decided to try blogging on a periodic basis instead of daily - perhaps once a week will be enough. (2) I wanted to see if anyone was listening out there. I have had a few conversations face to face about blog posts, but not a lot online. It is my intent that we would converse online so that everyone would have the benefit of getting in on the conversation. To that end, I have a few things to add to my last post about "Emerging".
There are a lot of studies out in print and on the internet about the "decline" of the church in the US. As many reasons as studies are out there! Every study has a new take or tries to explain the decline in lots of different ways. The Pew Forum for Religion (pewforum.org, a trusted group that does studies on the church) has put out a lengthy report on "The Rise of the Nones". "Nones" is the name given to the group of people since the 1960s who self-identify with "no affiliation" when asked about religious preference. After reading that report, I started researching the decline phenomenon and gathered some interesting insights:
1. There are changes in the modern family demographics: late marriage means few or no children. Among the people who fit into this group, there is not the draw for faith formation for the children like in the past. For many reasons, the smaller families have not opted to train their children in the faith communities that have nurtured them.
2. Sunday is filled with many activities other than worship. This then begs a question: Should the church consider worshiping on Saturday night and honoring families by encouraging more family activities on Sunday?
3. There is an increasing search for meaning that the Church does not provide. This was a shocker for me. The Church should be a place that confronts all of the challenges of life and gives meaning to all that we do. On further research, especially through reading Peter Rollins and Brian McLaren, I have realized that often the Church does not confront the realities of doubt and disbelief. The Church is in the business of faith and does not allow for either doubt or disbelief, even though everyone experiences them - even pastors!
4. There is no or little connection with the community for the Nones. Even though the Nones experience a need for more community involvement, most people today live in communities where neighbors don't know one another! Community connections have been lost.
5. There is little of no focus on what God has called the religious community "to do" in the community. For Christians, there is much biblical basis for faith and works together; the lack of working one's faith shows a lack of understanding of Jesus' mission and life.
In September, I will be starting a study to tackle some, or maybe all of these challenges - and maybe a few others. The participants will study two books by two different women theologians: Phyllis Tickle's, The Great Emergence and Diana Butler Bass', Christianity for the Rest of Us. Each of these wonderful theologians tackles the challenges of the modern church in a different way. In addition, if you are interested in historical background and more theological stuff, you could read ahead of time Karen Armstrong's The Great Transformation (It fits in well with Tickle's book and fills in the gaps of her research.)
All three of these women theologians have written and taught extensively and anything they write I would commend to you. Karen Armstrong is my "go-to" historical theologian, Phyllis Tickle is my "go to" challenge theologian and Diana Butler Bass makes things so easy to understand that she has become a "go to explicator" for me (if that's a word!)
Well, that's enough assignment and thought-provoking stuff for now. Until next week.
God's peace,
Tim
There are a lot of studies out in print and on the internet about the "decline" of the church in the US. As many reasons as studies are out there! Every study has a new take or tries to explain the decline in lots of different ways. The Pew Forum for Religion (pewforum.org, a trusted group that does studies on the church) has put out a lengthy report on "The Rise of the Nones". "Nones" is the name given to the group of people since the 1960s who self-identify with "no affiliation" when asked about religious preference. After reading that report, I started researching the decline phenomenon and gathered some interesting insights:
1. There are changes in the modern family demographics: late marriage means few or no children. Among the people who fit into this group, there is not the draw for faith formation for the children like in the past. For many reasons, the smaller families have not opted to train their children in the faith communities that have nurtured them.
2. Sunday is filled with many activities other than worship. This then begs a question: Should the church consider worshiping on Saturday night and honoring families by encouraging more family activities on Sunday?
3. There is an increasing search for meaning that the Church does not provide. This was a shocker for me. The Church should be a place that confronts all of the challenges of life and gives meaning to all that we do. On further research, especially through reading Peter Rollins and Brian McLaren, I have realized that often the Church does not confront the realities of doubt and disbelief. The Church is in the business of faith and does not allow for either doubt or disbelief, even though everyone experiences them - even pastors!
4. There is no or little connection with the community for the Nones. Even though the Nones experience a need for more community involvement, most people today live in communities where neighbors don't know one another! Community connections have been lost.
5. There is little of no focus on what God has called the religious community "to do" in the community. For Christians, there is much biblical basis for faith and works together; the lack of working one's faith shows a lack of understanding of Jesus' mission and life.
In September, I will be starting a study to tackle some, or maybe all of these challenges - and maybe a few others. The participants will study two books by two different women theologians: Phyllis Tickle's, The Great Emergence and Diana Butler Bass', Christianity for the Rest of Us. Each of these wonderful theologians tackles the challenges of the modern church in a different way. In addition, if you are interested in historical background and more theological stuff, you could read ahead of time Karen Armstrong's The Great Transformation (It fits in well with Tickle's book and fills in the gaps of her research.)
All three of these women theologians have written and taught extensively and anything they write I would commend to you. Karen Armstrong is my "go-to" historical theologian, Phyllis Tickle is my "go to" challenge theologian and Diana Butler Bass makes things so easy to understand that she has become a "go to explicator" for me (if that's a word!)
Well, that's enough assignment and thought-provoking stuff for now. Until next week.
God's peace,
Tim
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
"Emerging"
Every time I see or use the word "emerging," I see in my mind's eye an image of a mosquito larva coming out of the water as a newly formed flying insect that makes a nuisance of itself in the summer. The first time I saw a photo of one of those transformed larvae emerging from the pond water, I was amazed. I ran to the pond at my grandfather's farm and lay on the ground waiting to see one of those elusive insects. I got a lot of mosquito bites that day, but I never got to see an actual, real-life mosquito emerging from its watery environment. Oh, I saw many mosquito larvae in the pond, but none of them willing, or ready, to move to its changed, blood-sucking form.
"Emerging Ministry" is the name of the book about which I've been blogging these past weeks. It seems to me there are some analogies that we can make with the mosquito larva. It may take some observation on our part, but the lowly mosquito may have something to teach us about ourselves.
In order for the mosquito larva to grow in the water, a mosquito egg must be deposited in the water. It's interesting to watch the dancing mosquito deposit her eggs one after another into the still water. She ever so lightly touches the surface of the water, so as not to be pulled down by a waiting fish, just breaking a small ripple. One has to be quick in observation; once you see the mosquito at the water's surface, the egg has already been deposited. Hours and days produce a tiny wiggly larva. Up and down like tiny submarines the tiny larvae move in the water. As shadows of predators or clouds creep over the water's surface, the larvae quickly wriggle to the bottom, to escape certain, or not so certain, death. Up and down, up and down they go, day after day until finally one day when they have eaten enough and the metamorphosis has taken place.
At that moment, they seem to attach to the surface of the water and the mysterious happens. Out of the snake-like larva emerges the humble, flying insect - a mosquito. The adult mosquito, then, goes on to live a few more days; mating, reproducing and starting again the cycle of depositing eggs that will continue the chain of life.
The emerging is not just from water, however; there is emerging of eggs from the adult mosquito. The tiny larvae emerge from their watery depths to the surface to feed and get oxygen to breathe. The adult mosquitoes hide in grass or crevices during the day, to emerge at night and buzz human ears. Then, there is, of course, the emerging of human blood as the mosquito removes its long proboscis from your arm, leg or neck. The humble, pesky mosquito is all about emerging!
The church, too, seems all about emerging. The followers of Jesus emerged long ago from the Jewish tradition. Originally a Jewish sect, Jesus' followers found themselves increasingly uncomfortable in synagogues and the Temple. The emerged as a new religion.
Throughout its history, the Church has emerged from difficult and dark times, to brighter, less challenging ones. The Church seems over and again to emerge from "crucified" moments of great challenge, to the moments of "resurrection". Followers of Jesus inevitably follow after the same life, death and resurrection of the Christ - continually emerging from ourselves and realizing that our task, our mission, is not personal and private, but one for the sake of the world.
Every morning, with the rising from our beds, the Church "emerges" from slumber; each week, as we spill out of worship spaces, the Church emerges as a people with a life-giving message for everyone; every year, with our liturgy, we proclaim that the Church is born anew at Pentecost - emerging from self-centeredness, fear and complacency to spirit-filled life.
There are 10 signs of "emerging church" that Nate Frambach uses:
1. worship is team oriented: it's designed, planned and led by a team
2. feedback loops: they provide on-going communication about the communities needs
3. the arts are back: banners, graphics, sculptures, poetry, drama
4. language matters: the "real" matters and how we tell about the "real" in our lives makes a difference in how people hear and respond to God
5. room for spontaneity: worship is ordered by not over-defined; sometimes it's ok to change it up in the middle of worship
6. music is at the core: when all else fails, sing
7. worship space and time: time and space are no longer bounded by a building
8. the function of humor: special attention needed here so that the humor does not detract from the overall message; but, its use can be crucial to touching lives
9. attention to texts: this means peaking the senses in as many ways as possible - texts can be poetry, biblical, movie, drama; the text conveys the message
10. the understanding of suffering: just keeping it real; suffering happens, we don't worship to escape it, but to look at it, hold it and affirm the hurt within us
So, my questions are many at this point: How does this word "emerge" fit with the Church? Or, does it not fit? Where do you see transformation/transfiguration/metamorphosis in your life or in the life of the Church? How accurate are Nate's 10 signs? Do you see any or all of these in your community? What other observations do you have about "emerging"?
That's enough for now. What do you think?
Peace,
Tim
"Emerging Ministry" is the name of the book about which I've been blogging these past weeks. It seems to me there are some analogies that we can make with the mosquito larva. It may take some observation on our part, but the lowly mosquito may have something to teach us about ourselves.
In order for the mosquito larva to grow in the water, a mosquito egg must be deposited in the water. It's interesting to watch the dancing mosquito deposit her eggs one after another into the still water. She ever so lightly touches the surface of the water, so as not to be pulled down by a waiting fish, just breaking a small ripple. One has to be quick in observation; once you see the mosquito at the water's surface, the egg has already been deposited. Hours and days produce a tiny wiggly larva. Up and down like tiny submarines the tiny larvae move in the water. As shadows of predators or clouds creep over the water's surface, the larvae quickly wriggle to the bottom, to escape certain, or not so certain, death. Up and down, up and down they go, day after day until finally one day when they have eaten enough and the metamorphosis has taken place.
At that moment, they seem to attach to the surface of the water and the mysterious happens. Out of the snake-like larva emerges the humble, flying insect - a mosquito. The adult mosquito, then, goes on to live a few more days; mating, reproducing and starting again the cycle of depositing eggs that will continue the chain of life.
The emerging is not just from water, however; there is emerging of eggs from the adult mosquito. The tiny larvae emerge from their watery depths to the surface to feed and get oxygen to breathe. The adult mosquitoes hide in grass or crevices during the day, to emerge at night and buzz human ears. Then, there is, of course, the emerging of human blood as the mosquito removes its long proboscis from your arm, leg or neck. The humble, pesky mosquito is all about emerging!
The church, too, seems all about emerging. The followers of Jesus emerged long ago from the Jewish tradition. Originally a Jewish sect, Jesus' followers found themselves increasingly uncomfortable in synagogues and the Temple. The emerged as a new religion.
Throughout its history, the Church has emerged from difficult and dark times, to brighter, less challenging ones. The Church seems over and again to emerge from "crucified" moments of great challenge, to the moments of "resurrection". Followers of Jesus inevitably follow after the same life, death and resurrection of the Christ - continually emerging from ourselves and realizing that our task, our mission, is not personal and private, but one for the sake of the world.
Every morning, with the rising from our beds, the Church "emerges" from slumber; each week, as we spill out of worship spaces, the Church emerges as a people with a life-giving message for everyone; every year, with our liturgy, we proclaim that the Church is born anew at Pentecost - emerging from self-centeredness, fear and complacency to spirit-filled life.
There are 10 signs of "emerging church" that Nate Frambach uses:
1. worship is team oriented: it's designed, planned and led by a team
2. feedback loops: they provide on-going communication about the communities needs
3. the arts are back: banners, graphics, sculptures, poetry, drama
4. language matters: the "real" matters and how we tell about the "real" in our lives makes a difference in how people hear and respond to God
5. room for spontaneity: worship is ordered by not over-defined; sometimes it's ok to change it up in the middle of worship
6. music is at the core: when all else fails, sing
7. worship space and time: time and space are no longer bounded by a building
8. the function of humor: special attention needed here so that the humor does not detract from the overall message; but, its use can be crucial to touching lives
9. attention to texts: this means peaking the senses in as many ways as possible - texts can be poetry, biblical, movie, drama; the text conveys the message
10. the understanding of suffering: just keeping it real; suffering happens, we don't worship to escape it, but to look at it, hold it and affirm the hurt within us
So, my questions are many at this point: How does this word "emerge" fit with the Church? Or, does it not fit? Where do you see transformation/transfiguration/metamorphosis in your life or in the life of the Church? How accurate are Nate's 10 signs? Do you see any or all of these in your community? What other observations do you have about "emerging"?
That's enough for now. What do you think?
Peace,
Tim
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
How to pass on "my" story?
In the last post, I asked how stories show the connected-ness of all humanity. If all humanity is connected, it would seem that there are some shared stories - ones that we can repeat and talk about together. These kinds of stories help us to get closer to one another; they also give meaning to our community.
Today, I think it's important to ask, "How do I pass on a story that's been important to me?" Each community, organization, family, has its own story; how do you gather together to tell those stories and show how they have as much meaning today as when they were first told?
When Annie and I moved to France (in Cameroon and NW Ohio, incidentally, we have experienced the same thing) we were immediately thrust into an unknown culture. Subconsciously, we searched for the "untold" story that would help us navigate the new found world. No one seemed willing to divulge any secrets. To Annie and me, it seemed that our friends and family were right, "The French are rude, stuck up people who don't care about outsiders." As we stayed longer, we realized that first assumption was far from the truth. We could name numerous instances of encounters with French people who did not at all fit that stereotype.
It took Annie and me reflecting, talking and living with the people we encountered to start to piece together the "story". Eventually, we realized that the French people were not rude but felt vulnerable. Throughout history, they had been overrun by Spain, England, Germany, The Holy Roman Empire. I, too, would not want to open up quickly with people. We learned that life in France was very "eucharistic". This revelation changed our whole attitude to the French and to life itself. If you wanted to get to know someone, it now became important to sit down, have a cup of coffee or a glass of wine, eat a meal and enjoy one another's company. Slowly, the "story" that gave meaning to our French friends began to materialize - not just in conversation, but in our life together. The experience reminded me of the walk to Emmaus.
Remember in the story how the two followers of Jesus are talking about the resurrection event and suddenly Jesus appears? They don't know who he is until that evening, around the table, as he breaks bread with them. Then the two disciples realize that he had been with them all along. Had they walked away from the encounter and branded him a "weird outsider" who was the "only one in Jerusalem who didn't know what was going on", the world could be different today. Yet, they took the time to listen to this stranger and to invite him in to eat with them.
I am sure that we have the same kind of encounters within our own community. I am certain that I miss opportunities to delve deeper into the story because I don't take the time to do just that - "go deeper". Eucharistic means "thankful"; that's exactly the way life seemed to Annie and me in France - thankful: thankful for the stranger in the midst, thankful for good food and someone to enjoy it with, thankful for life itself. How this world could change if I lived a "eucharistic" attitude to life everyday.
Oh, yeah, there is the theological dimension to this "eucharistic life" as well: in the breaking of bread, even at the simplest of tables, our common story reminds us that the Christ is with us. Where the Christ is, there is God's kingdom; where the kingdom is, God's mercy and justice reign supreme. Imagine an end to hatred, violence, injustice; imagine making swords into plowshares and studying war no more! I guess we do have a common story; do we live it? That seems the primary way of sharing it! In the meanwhile, let's sit down, converse with one another, and enjoy some food!
Peace,
Tim
Today, I think it's important to ask, "How do I pass on a story that's been important to me?" Each community, organization, family, has its own story; how do you gather together to tell those stories and show how they have as much meaning today as when they were first told?
When Annie and I moved to France (in Cameroon and NW Ohio, incidentally, we have experienced the same thing) we were immediately thrust into an unknown culture. Subconsciously, we searched for the "untold" story that would help us navigate the new found world. No one seemed willing to divulge any secrets. To Annie and me, it seemed that our friends and family were right, "The French are rude, stuck up people who don't care about outsiders." As we stayed longer, we realized that first assumption was far from the truth. We could name numerous instances of encounters with French people who did not at all fit that stereotype.
It took Annie and me reflecting, talking and living with the people we encountered to start to piece together the "story". Eventually, we realized that the French people were not rude but felt vulnerable. Throughout history, they had been overrun by Spain, England, Germany, The Holy Roman Empire. I, too, would not want to open up quickly with people. We learned that life in France was very "eucharistic". This revelation changed our whole attitude to the French and to life itself. If you wanted to get to know someone, it now became important to sit down, have a cup of coffee or a glass of wine, eat a meal and enjoy one another's company. Slowly, the "story" that gave meaning to our French friends began to materialize - not just in conversation, but in our life together. The experience reminded me of the walk to Emmaus.
Remember in the story how the two followers of Jesus are talking about the resurrection event and suddenly Jesus appears? They don't know who he is until that evening, around the table, as he breaks bread with them. Then the two disciples realize that he had been with them all along. Had they walked away from the encounter and branded him a "weird outsider" who was the "only one in Jerusalem who didn't know what was going on", the world could be different today. Yet, they took the time to listen to this stranger and to invite him in to eat with them.
I am sure that we have the same kind of encounters within our own community. I am certain that I miss opportunities to delve deeper into the story because I don't take the time to do just that - "go deeper". Eucharistic means "thankful"; that's exactly the way life seemed to Annie and me in France - thankful: thankful for the stranger in the midst, thankful for good food and someone to enjoy it with, thankful for life itself. How this world could change if I lived a "eucharistic" attitude to life everyday.
Oh, yeah, there is the theological dimension to this "eucharistic life" as well: in the breaking of bread, even at the simplest of tables, our common story reminds us that the Christ is with us. Where the Christ is, there is God's kingdom; where the kingdom is, God's mercy and justice reign supreme. Imagine an end to hatred, violence, injustice; imagine making swords into plowshares and studying war no more! I guess we do have a common story; do we live it? That seems the primary way of sharing it! In the meanwhile, let's sit down, converse with one another, and enjoy some food!
Peace,
Tim
Friday, April 12, 2013
Whose story: Yours, mine, ours...
"Having" something denotes possession. I have a car = there is a car in my possession; I bought it, I put gas in it, I drive it, I pay for upkeep and insurance. Having a story differs in some ways. When someone says, "I have a story to tell;" or, "That's my story and I'm stickin' to it," that person means, "This story doesn't belong to me like a car or a piece of jewelry. The stories we tell do not "belong" to us in the same way; they are ways for you and me to communicate things that have happened to us.
For example, I once read a story by C.S. Lewis, called Until we have Faces. It's a wonderful story about a young woman who is deformed from birth and has to wear a mask to cover her deformity. One day she finally realizes that her face does not determine who she is; it's what is inside that is more important. At that moment, she takes off her mask and never wears it again.
Now, I can say, and I have many times, that is my story to tell, although I did not imagine it or write it. So powerful is that story that it gives life to my own experiences of life. I tell the story to others because I think it is powerful enough to give life to others as well. Others can claim the story as their own! Yet, the story remains one of C.S. Lewis.
Each person has a story about her or his life to share. Everyone alive deserves my attention as she or he tells that story - and, who knows, I may just learn something about myself, about others, about God from listening.
When Nate Frambach claims that humanity is made of stories, I think he's getting at that very simple point: each human being has a story to tell and each other human being can take the time to listen to it. In the telling and the listening, we re-claim our common humanity. You see, when I take the time to listen to someone else's story, without judgment or criticism, I change. It's hard to judge someone when I see someone as a fellow human being!
I once had a teacher who had a very challenging relationship with a fellow on a board on which she served. Every time my teach would walk into the board room, she would tense up and fill with anxiety. She knew that within a short period of time, that offending individual would upset her. Then one day she consciously decided to say to herself, "This person is a human being like me, and worthy of God's love as well as mine." She started saying that to herself as she drove. When she arrived at the meeting, she was still saying that mantra. In a short period of time, just like clockwork, the colleague said something that offended her. This time, however, she didn't tense up; she changed her whole demeanor toward the man and was able to talk with him during the meeting - something that, in the before-time was practically impossible.
When I hear stories like that, they are moments to pause and reflect on my own life. How could I adopt that same attitude? Do I really need to hate or antagonize others because I disagree or because the other offends me?
I don't know about you, but I am a "storied one". Stories not only remind me who I am, they also remind me that others are part of my story. We all know that when we include others in the story, the whole ending changes, doesn't it?
What do you think?
Peace,
Tim
For example, I once read a story by C.S. Lewis, called Until we have Faces. It's a wonderful story about a young woman who is deformed from birth and has to wear a mask to cover her deformity. One day she finally realizes that her face does not determine who she is; it's what is inside that is more important. At that moment, she takes off her mask and never wears it again.
Now, I can say, and I have many times, that is my story to tell, although I did not imagine it or write it. So powerful is that story that it gives life to my own experiences of life. I tell the story to others because I think it is powerful enough to give life to others as well. Others can claim the story as their own! Yet, the story remains one of C.S. Lewis.
Each person has a story about her or his life to share. Everyone alive deserves my attention as she or he tells that story - and, who knows, I may just learn something about myself, about others, about God from listening.
When Nate Frambach claims that humanity is made of stories, I think he's getting at that very simple point: each human being has a story to tell and each other human being can take the time to listen to it. In the telling and the listening, we re-claim our common humanity. You see, when I take the time to listen to someone else's story, without judgment or criticism, I change. It's hard to judge someone when I see someone as a fellow human being!
I once had a teacher who had a very challenging relationship with a fellow on a board on which she served. Every time my teach would walk into the board room, she would tense up and fill with anxiety. She knew that within a short period of time, that offending individual would upset her. Then one day she consciously decided to say to herself, "This person is a human being like me, and worthy of God's love as well as mine." She started saying that to herself as she drove. When she arrived at the meeting, she was still saying that mantra. In a short period of time, just like clockwork, the colleague said something that offended her. This time, however, she didn't tense up; she changed her whole demeanor toward the man and was able to talk with him during the meeting - something that, in the before-time was practically impossible.
When I hear stories like that, they are moments to pause and reflect on my own life. How could I adopt that same attitude? Do I really need to hate or antagonize others because I disagree or because the other offends me?
I don't know about you, but I am a "storied one". Stories not only remind me who I am, they also remind me that others are part of my story. We all know that when we include others in the story, the whole ending changes, doesn't it?
What do you think?
Peace,
Tim
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Human Beings are Storied Creatures
Do you have memories of sitting around a campfire, telling ghost stories? Maybe you told stories about maniacal creatures that roamed the woods at night, making noise and frightening campers? How important were those stories to you?
I remember my Granny telling us grandchildren about the fairies that would come out of the trees in early Spring. We couldn't wait to go to Granny's house in Spring to catch a glimpse of the elusive fairy, emerging from hibernation.
Are those stories wrong to tell children? I don't think so; I still foster belief in fairies with my children. Stories like that are important to my Irish roots; they help me remember who I am and where I came from - maybe they can even tell me where I am going. Someone could ask me, "Do you believe in those stories?" I guess my answer is a resounding, "Yes!"
I do believe in the stories that we tell around the campfire; I do believe in the fairy stories; I do believe it is important to pass on the stories that have nurtured my imagination. The stories need not be "true" in the scientific, factual sense; they are "true" in that they give meaning to my life.
It may sound odd, but the stories of the Bible can give the same life. For a long time, scientifically minded individuals and religiously minded individuals have fought over the significance of the Bible. Is it important to say the everything happened, exactly, word-for-word as it is written in the Bible? Or, is it more important to understand the meaning behind what the author is saying?
For example, there are 2 creation stories in the Bible (Genesis 1.1-2.4a and Genesis 2.4b-25). Which one should a literal interpretation of the Bible choose? They are, after all, two different stories from two different perspectives. Can a believer in God also believe in evolution?
Nathan Frambach reminds us in his 3rd chapter that one's faith is not based on "right belief" but on, what he calls, "God-spotting". I think what he means is the believer's ability to see God at work, even in the mundane things of life. The Bible contains the stories of faithful people who have experienced God at work in daily life. Their stories give examples of the humanness of faith. Sometimes people fail, sometimes people succeed, but the Bible was written in order to show the believers that God does not give up - even in failure, even in the pride-filled moments of success.
So, what is your story? What are your key stories, values and beliefs that others have passed on to you? Are they worth passing on? How will you do it?
Peace,
Tim
I remember my Granny telling us grandchildren about the fairies that would come out of the trees in early Spring. We couldn't wait to go to Granny's house in Spring to catch a glimpse of the elusive fairy, emerging from hibernation.
Are those stories wrong to tell children? I don't think so; I still foster belief in fairies with my children. Stories like that are important to my Irish roots; they help me remember who I am and where I came from - maybe they can even tell me where I am going. Someone could ask me, "Do you believe in those stories?" I guess my answer is a resounding, "Yes!"
I do believe in the stories that we tell around the campfire; I do believe in the fairy stories; I do believe it is important to pass on the stories that have nurtured my imagination. The stories need not be "true" in the scientific, factual sense; they are "true" in that they give meaning to my life.
It may sound odd, but the stories of the Bible can give the same life. For a long time, scientifically minded individuals and religiously minded individuals have fought over the significance of the Bible. Is it important to say the everything happened, exactly, word-for-word as it is written in the Bible? Or, is it more important to understand the meaning behind what the author is saying?
For example, there are 2 creation stories in the Bible (Genesis 1.1-2.4a and Genesis 2.4b-25). Which one should a literal interpretation of the Bible choose? They are, after all, two different stories from two different perspectives. Can a believer in God also believe in evolution?
Nathan Frambach reminds us in his 3rd chapter that one's faith is not based on "right belief" but on, what he calls, "God-spotting". I think what he means is the believer's ability to see God at work, even in the mundane things of life. The Bible contains the stories of faithful people who have experienced God at work in daily life. Their stories give examples of the humanness of faith. Sometimes people fail, sometimes people succeed, but the Bible was written in order to show the believers that God does not give up - even in failure, even in the pride-filled moments of success.
So, what is your story? What are your key stories, values and beliefs that others have passed on to you? Are they worth passing on? How will you do it?
Peace,
Tim
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Church as Family?
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
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
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
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Emptiness...
Seems to be the theme since Palm Sunday - emptiness.
First, there was Jesus' emptying of self. In that act, Jesus showed to humanity the fullness and depth of God's love. It's a love meant not only for humanity, but for all creation. God will stop at nothing to bring creation to a place of beauty, justice, mercy, compassion, love.
Then, on Maundy Thursday, we heard Jesus' command to "love one another, as I have loved you..." In so loving, Jesus stooped to wash the feet of his disciples. That, too, is our call as Jesus' disciples - to serve one another in love. Emptying becomes our call as followers of the one who emptied himself of all power and authority. In humbleness, we stoop before the world to love and serve.
Holy Friday's emptiness comes in abandonment: abandonment of Jesus himself as he cries out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"; abandonment of the followers of Jesus as he dies, leaving them empty of leadership; abandonment for us today, as we experience it in so many places and so many ways in daily life - of self, of friends, of loved ones.
Finally, the Great Easter Vigil shows us the final emptiness: the empty tomb. There we find hope for daily life - the little deaths of each day bring life in other places. The emptiness of the tomb reminds us of the disappearance of the seed planted in the ground, only to rise as a tree; it reminds us of the emptied womb with the birth of a child; the empty tomb gives hope that death need be no longer feared.
Today, we celebrate the hope of resurrection that is all around us!
Peace,
Pr Tim
First, there was Jesus' emptying of self. In that act, Jesus showed to humanity the fullness and depth of God's love. It's a love meant not only for humanity, but for all creation. God will stop at nothing to bring creation to a place of beauty, justice, mercy, compassion, love.
Then, on Maundy Thursday, we heard Jesus' command to "love one another, as I have loved you..." In so loving, Jesus stooped to wash the feet of his disciples. That, too, is our call as Jesus' disciples - to serve one another in love. Emptying becomes our call as followers of the one who emptied himself of all power and authority. In humbleness, we stoop before the world to love and serve.
Holy Friday's emptiness comes in abandonment: abandonment of Jesus himself as he cries out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"; abandonment of the followers of Jesus as he dies, leaving them empty of leadership; abandonment for us today, as we experience it in so many places and so many ways in daily life - of self, of friends, of loved ones.
Finally, the Great Easter Vigil shows us the final emptiness: the empty tomb. There we find hope for daily life - the little deaths of each day bring life in other places. The emptiness of the tomb reminds us of the disappearance of the seed planted in the ground, only to rise as a tree; it reminds us of the emptied womb with the birth of a child; the empty tomb gives hope that death need be no longer feared.
Today, we celebrate the hope of resurrection that is all around us!
Peace,
Pr Tim
Friday, March 29, 2013
Father, forgive...
Those words, from the Gospel according to Luke, ring loud and clear for me every Holy Friday. This year, however, there is something different about them. Usually, I think of forgiveness as me gaining some power back from an offending person; in forgiveness, I release that person's grip on me as well as my need to be held by that oppressive power. Today, however, there is a bit of a deepening in that understanding.
Here's the scene: Jesus is on the cross; he has been unjustly judged and beaten by Roman authorities, so say all the gospels. According to John's Gospel, Jesus' own religious leaders have even turned on him. These same religious leaders had seen Jesus perform miracles, heal people, even cavort with people of questionable backgrounds. The last straw for these authorities, according to John, is Jesus' final miracle - raising Lazarus from the dead. In that final act before his arrest and crucifixion, Jesus proved his power over death itself. Fear struck the authorities: "We have to kill him or the people will start to believe in him."
Luke has Jesus say from the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they are doing..." Even there, perhaps especially there, one sees Jesus as one who eats with sinners. On the cross, Jesus renounces all of the forces of evil that have paved the way to his death. He has seen how dark the human heart can become, and in their final act, humanity even tries to kill the Divine itself. Forgiveness halts the powers of sinfulness and death in the moment when Jesus cries out, "Forgive".
Forgiveness, it has been said by a professor in seminary, is the only the thing the Church has to offer. Perhaps that is right. From forgiveness itself flows a host of other emotions/virtues: compassion, humility, love, acceptance. Forgiveness is about the offended one, but, in some mysterious way, it also unleashes the powers that turn the hearts of humanity. In the name of religion, so much has been said and done against nations and peoples, against one another. Religion has for too long propagated what is called "sacred violence". We see it in the crusades and holy wars of all ages; we see it even in the rhetoric of political leaders of modern times. In Jesus, however, we encounter the Christ, the anointed one of God, who changes all violent realities. No longer is violence in any form legitimate, because God says from the cross, "Forgive."
It's almost like a command: "God forgive them! Release them! As these powerful words are spoken, make it happen that humanity would see the travesty in the violences they commit against one another." When Jesus cries, "Father, forgive," he means that all of the sacred violence that has been condoned since time immemorial is now no longer valid and humanity is released to act in a new way - the way of the Christ.
Blessed Holy Friday,
Tim
Here's the scene: Jesus is on the cross; he has been unjustly judged and beaten by Roman authorities, so say all the gospels. According to John's Gospel, Jesus' own religious leaders have even turned on him. These same religious leaders had seen Jesus perform miracles, heal people, even cavort with people of questionable backgrounds. The last straw for these authorities, according to John, is Jesus' final miracle - raising Lazarus from the dead. In that final act before his arrest and crucifixion, Jesus proved his power over death itself. Fear struck the authorities: "We have to kill him or the people will start to believe in him."
Luke has Jesus say from the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they are doing..." Even there, perhaps especially there, one sees Jesus as one who eats with sinners. On the cross, Jesus renounces all of the forces of evil that have paved the way to his death. He has seen how dark the human heart can become, and in their final act, humanity even tries to kill the Divine itself. Forgiveness halts the powers of sinfulness and death in the moment when Jesus cries out, "Forgive".
Forgiveness, it has been said by a professor in seminary, is the only the thing the Church has to offer. Perhaps that is right. From forgiveness itself flows a host of other emotions/virtues: compassion, humility, love, acceptance. Forgiveness is about the offended one, but, in some mysterious way, it also unleashes the powers that turn the hearts of humanity. In the name of religion, so much has been said and done against nations and peoples, against one another. Religion has for too long propagated what is called "sacred violence". We see it in the crusades and holy wars of all ages; we see it even in the rhetoric of political leaders of modern times. In Jesus, however, we encounter the Christ, the anointed one of God, who changes all violent realities. No longer is violence in any form legitimate, because God says from the cross, "Forgive."
It's almost like a command: "God forgive them! Release them! As these powerful words are spoken, make it happen that humanity would see the travesty in the violences they commit against one another." When Jesus cries, "Father, forgive," he means that all of the sacred violence that has been condoned since time immemorial is now no longer valid and humanity is released to act in a new way - the way of the Christ.
Blessed Holy Friday,
Tim
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Arvo Part: Passio
I have a personal tradition: during the Triduum, I like to listen to music for the Passion. Some years I listen to Bach's Passion or Beethoven's Passion. This year I am listening to my all time favorite composer: Arvo Part (last name pronounced like "pear" with a "t" on the end). He is Estonian, a 20th Century composer who does a lot of work based on minimalist and Eastern Orthodox works.
Part's music holds a sense of mystery and openness - it's hard to explain unless you listen to him. So, give him a try.
In our house, we usually color eggs on Holy Friday. Don't know why, it's just a tradition. I really get tired of eating boiled eggs...
Those are my traditions for Maundy Thursday, Holy Friday and Holy Saturday. What traditions do you have?
Peace,
Pr Tim
Part's music holds a sense of mystery and openness - it's hard to explain unless you listen to him. So, give him a try.
In our house, we usually color eggs on Holy Friday. Don't know why, it's just a tradition. I really get tired of eating boiled eggs...
Those are my traditions for Maundy Thursday, Holy Friday and Holy Saturday. What traditions do you have?
Peace,
Pr Tim
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
"Crood" or fearful: How do You Choose to Live?
Annie and I, Luke and Sophie took a day off to the movies on Monday, 25 March. I recommend seeing "The Croods" in 3-D. Not only is the animation great, the movie has a good theme: how one deals with change concerns more than inconvenience - whether we change is a question of life and death.
Epha, one of the main characters refuses to live a life of sameness, of caution - a life based on fear. She exclaims at a pivotal moment that living in fear is "not living, it's just not dying!"
It makes me think about my life. How often am I content with "just not dying" because I am afraid to live? It's not just a matter of answering the right question, though.
How many friends and influential people in my life keep me thinking that "just not dying" is normal? You see, to live is to change. Life always involves change; every moment of every day is change. You are not the same person you were when you began reading this blog post just seconds ago.
Epha, one individual in a prehistoric cave dwelling family, realizes that change is inevitable. As a matter of fact, she show us a deep human reality: when you and I choose to live in fear, the oldest, least developed part of our brain takes over. You and I, in reality, become those cave dwelling Neanderthals who could not see any further than the mouth of their cave.
That's a difficult truth to accept, but look around at what is happening around us. Is everything remaining stagnant, or is the world dynamic? If we are honest, the call to change seems fear-filled, but it takes a lot more energy to make sure our little corner of the world remains the same.
Remember when Jesus called us to "take up our cross", and remember when he reminded that his message "brings a sword" that divides? What does he prepare us for but change? It's inevitable, it's a natural step in the right direction. The only question now is: Which fears can we release in order to help us go forward?
Peace,
Pr Tim
Epha, one of the main characters refuses to live a life of sameness, of caution - a life based on fear. She exclaims at a pivotal moment that living in fear is "not living, it's just not dying!"
It makes me think about my life. How often am I content with "just not dying" because I am afraid to live? It's not just a matter of answering the right question, though.
How many friends and influential people in my life keep me thinking that "just not dying" is normal? You see, to live is to change. Life always involves change; every moment of every day is change. You are not the same person you were when you began reading this blog post just seconds ago.
Epha, one individual in a prehistoric cave dwelling family, realizes that change is inevitable. As a matter of fact, she show us a deep human reality: when you and I choose to live in fear, the oldest, least developed part of our brain takes over. You and I, in reality, become those cave dwelling Neanderthals who could not see any further than the mouth of their cave.
That's a difficult truth to accept, but look around at what is happening around us. Is everything remaining stagnant, or is the world dynamic? If we are honest, the call to change seems fear-filled, but it takes a lot more energy to make sure our little corner of the world remains the same.
Remember when Jesus called us to "take up our cross", and remember when he reminded that his message "brings a sword" that divides? What does he prepare us for but change? It's inevitable, it's a natural step in the right direction. The only question now is: Which fears can we release in order to help us go forward?
Peace,
Pr Tim
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Would Jesus Eat Mashed Potatoes and Noodles?
Culture is such a powerful motivator in everyone's life. As a matter of fact, it's so powerful that one often acts under its influence without even knowing it! For instance, do you like mashed potatoes topped with noodles and gravy? It's cultural. I would never have thought to do such a thing.
When I lived in South Carolina, I often ate chicken and dumplings - something we even eat in NW Ohio. But did you know that dumplings in the South are not made of biscuit dough! They are more like egg noodles! Yeah, I know, I was shocked, too, the first time I was served dumplings!
I say all of this to remind myself as much as you, that often what we pass off to others as "christian ways" or "the way things are done" our ways may be nothing more than cultural manifestations of beliefs. Is Jesus a tall white guy with a beard or did he look more like Arabs or Palestinians today? Why is it so important for us to believe the former while dismissing the latter? Is it because we want God in our own image?
The first book of the bible makes it clear for us: God was not created in our image, but we in the image of God were created. What difference does that make, you ask? Well, a big difference, thank you! The image of God must transcend gender or ethnicity. It goes beyond my personal or cultural beliefs, so that everyone can be included in God's "plan" (whatever that means). You see, I get nervous when someone claims to know some plan that God is supposed to have. Usually that person's knowledge of such a plan is based on nothing more than that person's small world. If I do not somehow fit into that world, I am outside of God. It seems to me that scripture - especially the Gospels - proclaim a God who is not bound by cultures or personal beliefs. Thanks be to God, because Jesus' message would just have been for the people of his time and place. Indeed, his message goes beyond all boundaries.
I guess the big question now is, "Would Jesus eat mashed potatoes and noodles?"
Peace,
Pr Tim
When I lived in South Carolina, I often ate chicken and dumplings - something we even eat in NW Ohio. But did you know that dumplings in the South are not made of biscuit dough! They are more like egg noodles! Yeah, I know, I was shocked, too, the first time I was served dumplings!
I say all of this to remind myself as much as you, that often what we pass off to others as "christian ways" or "the way things are done" our ways may be nothing more than cultural manifestations of beliefs. Is Jesus a tall white guy with a beard or did he look more like Arabs or Palestinians today? Why is it so important for us to believe the former while dismissing the latter? Is it because we want God in our own image?
The first book of the bible makes it clear for us: God was not created in our image, but we in the image of God were created. What difference does that make, you ask? Well, a big difference, thank you! The image of God must transcend gender or ethnicity. It goes beyond my personal or cultural beliefs, so that everyone can be included in God's "plan" (whatever that means). You see, I get nervous when someone claims to know some plan that God is supposed to have. Usually that person's knowledge of such a plan is based on nothing more than that person's small world. If I do not somehow fit into that world, I am outside of God. It seems to me that scripture - especially the Gospels - proclaim a God who is not bound by cultures or personal beliefs. Thanks be to God, because Jesus' message would just have been for the people of his time and place. Indeed, his message goes beyond all boundaries.
I guess the big question now is, "Would Jesus eat mashed potatoes and noodles?"
Peace,
Pr Tim
Friday, March 22, 2013
Family Changes Everything
Senator Rob Portman of Ohio changed his views on gay marriage recently when his son "came out" to him. No matter one's religious or moral beliefs, one has to respect Portman for not turning his back on his son. If he accepts and loves his son, wouldn't it be duplicitous of him not to change his political position?
In Augustinian terms, duplicity is the inconsistency between what one says and that which one does. For instance, if I say that I believe that cats are good luck and then mistreat everyone I find, my actions do not match with my beliefs; if I say that walking under a ladder is bad luck and then seek out ladders under which to walk, I am either crazy or duplicitous. Of course, for St Augustine, there is a deeper concern: when one's actions don't match one's speech, there is a hidden, twisted desire that is lurking about. Duplicity belies one's tendency toward sinfulness.
Sometimes we are duplicitous in order to save our own skin: "If I tell others what I really believe, if anyone knows what I truly desire, they won't like me." Or, in the case of Rob Portman - "they won't vote for me." Sometimes we are duplicitous because we willfully want to deceive someone: "I don't want so-and-so to pal around with my friend, so I will speak ill of my friend in the presence of the unwanted other." Sometimes we are even duplicitous in order to be "nice": "Oh, that dress looks great on you." In reality, the dress is the wrong color and definitely needs to be another size.
I respect Senator Portman for standing by his son and for standing firm on his position. He will, no doubt, suffer much criticism from his new-found position. It is unfortunate and in the utmost of bad taste, not to say, unchristian-like behavior, when someone attacks his son - as has been done in the news lately. Let us pray for the Portmans that their love for one another as a family will continue to grow. Let us not be caught up in the ad hominem attacks that do nothing but lead to more hatred and violence.
God's peace,
Pr Tim
In Augustinian terms, duplicity is the inconsistency between what one says and that which one does. For instance, if I say that I believe that cats are good luck and then mistreat everyone I find, my actions do not match with my beliefs; if I say that walking under a ladder is bad luck and then seek out ladders under which to walk, I am either crazy or duplicitous. Of course, for St Augustine, there is a deeper concern: when one's actions don't match one's speech, there is a hidden, twisted desire that is lurking about. Duplicity belies one's tendency toward sinfulness.
Sometimes we are duplicitous in order to save our own skin: "If I tell others what I really believe, if anyone knows what I truly desire, they won't like me." Or, in the case of Rob Portman - "they won't vote for me." Sometimes we are duplicitous because we willfully want to deceive someone: "I don't want so-and-so to pal around with my friend, so I will speak ill of my friend in the presence of the unwanted other." Sometimes we are even duplicitous in order to be "nice": "Oh, that dress looks great on you." In reality, the dress is the wrong color and definitely needs to be another size.
I respect Senator Portman for standing by his son and for standing firm on his position. He will, no doubt, suffer much criticism from his new-found position. It is unfortunate and in the utmost of bad taste, not to say, unchristian-like behavior, when someone attacks his son - as has been done in the news lately. Let us pray for the Portmans that their love for one another as a family will continue to grow. Let us not be caught up in the ad hominem attacks that do nothing but lead to more hatred and violence.
God's peace,
Pr Tim
Thursday, March 21, 2013
On the History Channel there is a new series on the Bible. Have you seen it? I have not. Life without cable or satellite is not without its drawbacks. I will have to wait for it to come on Netflix or on Hulu. If you have seen it, I would like to know your reaction. Did you like it? Did you not like it? What was done well or not so well?
I ask this question because I think it helps us to understand a little about how we view the Bible. Is it necessary to keep every word exactly the same and tell a story from it without any embellishment? Is it ok for a movie to take "poetic license" when retelling the story of the Bible? Our responses to this question may help us see what is most important to us as followers of Jesus when we hear, tell or discuss arguably the "greatest story ever told."
Take the question a step further. How many of us take the time to read the Bible daily? How many of us have actually read the entire Bible? What did you get from reading it entirely? Do you learn something different if you read it in small portions that may skip around or concentrate in certain areas? How can we discuss scripture if we do not answer these questions for ourselves?
Scripture, it seems to me, has a prominent place in our lives because it helps to inform us how God has acted in the past and can act in our lives today. Additionally, because it was written by a community of believers and because that community continues until today, it helps to form us into a specific people who follow after a specific God who has specifically chosen to be with us, to live, suffer, die and rise from the dead.
So, what do you think?
Pr Tim
I ask this question because I think it helps us to understand a little about how we view the Bible. Is it necessary to keep every word exactly the same and tell a story from it without any embellishment? Is it ok for a movie to take "poetic license" when retelling the story of the Bible? Our responses to this question may help us see what is most important to us as followers of Jesus when we hear, tell or discuss arguably the "greatest story ever told."
Take the question a step further. How many of us take the time to read the Bible daily? How many of us have actually read the entire Bible? What did you get from reading it entirely? Do you learn something different if you read it in small portions that may skip around or concentrate in certain areas? How can we discuss scripture if we do not answer these questions for ourselves?
Scripture, it seems to me, has a prominent place in our lives because it helps to inform us how God has acted in the past and can act in our lives today. Additionally, because it was written by a community of believers and because that community continues until today, it helps to form us into a specific people who follow after a specific God who has specifically chosen to be with us, to live, suffer, die and rise from the dead.
So, what do you think?
Pr Tim
Well, since my last blog post (too long ago, I must say) we have gotten a new website, updated the audio-visual system in the worship space and gone live on the internet with every worship service! Now, this blog, which was formerly a semi-private one has gone public on our congregational webpage! I need to explain a bit about the blog.
First, this blog was started as a tool of continual learning for a handful of people who attended a discipleship class on Sunday mornings after worship. I posted in the beginning things that directly related to things we had learned in the class together. Then, the posts evolved into other areas - emerging church, theology and personal reflections on scriptures.
Second, the blog was meant to be for a small group. When writing for a specific group, one usually knows the group well enough to know what to say and how to say it. The blog posts, then, have been pointed at deepening the learning of things we experienced together in the discipleship class.
Third, the blog was intended to make all of us in the group to think. Too often in modern society, we don't have to think because we can pick up a computer and know what to think by "googling" a question or struggle of the day. Those who followed the blog knew that the posts were not always easy to digest in one, quick reading; one had to ponder the reflections over coffee or even discuss them with others. These are not "be all - end all" answers to life's deepest, darkest questions. These posts are the thoughts and reflections of a fellow pilgrim in the midst of life's struggles.
Finally, my desire is now to change up the blog a bit. I want to expand the audience of this blog. I also want to blog more regularly and get anyone who decides to read the blog to respond to the posts. You have found you way to this point and I invite you to comment on the posts. We follow some simple rules:
1. All posts must be cordial in nature, no personal attacks on anyone. Any posts that do not reflect the nature of cordial discourse and discussion will be deleted.
2. We respond in a timely manner. Once a new reflection comes up, we end conversation on the previous one.
3. We do not monopolize the conversation. Sometimes it is good to sit back and listen to other comments. Usually, one comment per person is sufficient.
4. This blog is not about making sure that everyone who responds believes the right thing, nor is it my job to make sure to correct erroneous thoughts.
To that end, welcome to the pastor's blog "Expecting the Unexpected".
Peace,
Pr Tim
First, this blog was started as a tool of continual learning for a handful of people who attended a discipleship class on Sunday mornings after worship. I posted in the beginning things that directly related to things we had learned in the class together. Then, the posts evolved into other areas - emerging church, theology and personal reflections on scriptures.
Second, the blog was meant to be for a small group. When writing for a specific group, one usually knows the group well enough to know what to say and how to say it. The blog posts, then, have been pointed at deepening the learning of things we experienced together in the discipleship class.
Third, the blog was intended to make all of us in the group to think. Too often in modern society, we don't have to think because we can pick up a computer and know what to think by "googling" a question or struggle of the day. Those who followed the blog knew that the posts were not always easy to digest in one, quick reading; one had to ponder the reflections over coffee or even discuss them with others. These are not "be all - end all" answers to life's deepest, darkest questions. These posts are the thoughts and reflections of a fellow pilgrim in the midst of life's struggles.
Finally, my desire is now to change up the blog a bit. I want to expand the audience of this blog. I also want to blog more regularly and get anyone who decides to read the blog to respond to the posts. You have found you way to this point and I invite you to comment on the posts. We follow some simple rules:
1. All posts must be cordial in nature, no personal attacks on anyone. Any posts that do not reflect the nature of cordial discourse and discussion will be deleted.
2. We respond in a timely manner. Once a new reflection comes up, we end conversation on the previous one.
3. We do not monopolize the conversation. Sometimes it is good to sit back and listen to other comments. Usually, one comment per person is sufficient.
4. This blog is not about making sure that everyone who responds believes the right thing, nor is it my job to make sure to correct erroneous thoughts.
To that end, welcome to the pastor's blog "Expecting the Unexpected".
Peace,
Pr Tim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)