Losing My Religion: Re-Thinking Church

Here Ya Go

2008-08-06T23:36:00.007-05:00

For our readers who are fans of The Princess Bride....

Twenty Years Ago Today...

2008-08-06T07:00:00.003-05:00

...I did something that, apart from the choice to follow Jesus, has turned out to be the best decision I have ever made.

Twenty years ago today...I married my best friend.

From the very first time I saw her, at the beginning of our freshman year of college, The Wild One has captivated my attention and intrigued me. From the very first week, we talked about everything. We were going steady within two months. And three years later, we were married.

She says she fell in love with me when I made her laugh. (So okay, it wasn't my biceps.) And ever since, I have been on an eternal quest to make her laugh again and again. Her laughter is simply addictive. And contagious.

Truth is, she makes me laugh as much as I make her laugh. And she doesn't even have to try as hard as me. And that laughter has helped carry us through some very dark days together.

She is beautiful, she is joyful, she is full of wild, unbridled life. She is the mother of our incredible son, The Director. She is my greatest fan and my most honest critic. She has stood by me when everyone around told her not to. And she is far more than I deserve.

Her smile lights my world, and my heart still leaps when she walks into the room. She is, in every way, my soulmate.

Twenty years ago...we began an adventure together that has taken us to heights and depths, molded and shaped us, and bonded us. And I wouldn't have missed a moment of it. And we're not even halfway through the ride. (She tells me she is signing on for another 20 years, at least.)

Happy Anniversary, my love...my friend for life.

Three Questions

2008-08-05T09:41:00.006-05:00

What's something you have learned in church that has helped you grow closer to God?
What's something you've had to UN-learn from church that has helped you grow closer to God?
Would you say most of your spiritual growth has come from learning, or from UN-learning?

Talk.

Gawrsh, It's Hot

2008-08-04T21:05:00.003-05:00

I haven't felt heat like this since living in Texas.

104 Degrees Farenheit today.

Same thing yesterday.

Ozone alerts. Air you can actually see.

Makes me want to stay a Christian.

Thankfully the heat's supposed to break later this week.

More About Leaning

2008-08-02T21:45:00.001-05:00

So I've continued to ponder the subject of faith being a matter of trust more than just a matter of belief, and about what it means to lean oneself on the Lord. (Read here to catch the last post to know what I'm talking about.)

There's actually something about the idea of leaning on God that can be a bit troubling to some. I'm thinking specifically about those who say religion in general (and Christianity, in particular) is a crutch for the weak. It's true enough that the idea of faith being "leaning" signifies dependence, even need. Certainly not a picture of strength that would be obvious to the world. And there's also the modern thought pattern that says we should not trust in anything we cannot see or prove through natural means.

But here's what I've come to realize. First...I don't think there really is any such thing as a true "un-believer", as in someone who has no faith at all. We all have faith; we all believe in something, and the truth is, we all take some things on trust that cannot be proven. Take the concept of creation versus evolution, just as an example. Which takes more faith--to believe that a Divine Being created the universe on purpose, out of nothing; or to believe that despite astronomical odds, everything we see evolved by pure chance--that somehow the universe won the lottery? Each point of view can cite evidence; neither point of view can offer indisputable proof. Both creationists and evolutionists are leaning on unprovable assumptions. That's faith. Whichever way you happen to lean--you are still leaning. So it isn't a question of who has faith and who doesn't; it's a question of where we are placing that faith. Everyone is leaning on some unproven truth somewhere--simply because there are always intangibles that we cannot explain and cannot prove.

That brings me to the next thought--about faith being a crutch, and leaning being an undesirable thing. Not only does everyone have faith--everyone needs a crutch. Everyone leans, because everyone has to. Every single one of us is broken in some way, everyone in need of healing. Nobody is perfect. Let's just call a spade a spade: people who present themselves as completely independent are lying to themselves and everyone else. It's like the guy who was asked if he thought Jesus was a crutch, and replied, "Maybe so, but if you're crippled, that's not a bad thing." If we are honest with ourselves, we all have some form of crippling in our lives; and for that reason, like it or not, we are all leaning on something. So...we are all leaning, because we're all crippled. And a crutch is NOT a bad thing. :)

All that said...once again, it is not a matter of who has faith and who does not, or who is leaning and who isn't. The question is...where are you leaning? What, or whom, are you leaning upon?

So what does that mean? Doesn't sound very nice to accuse all humanity of being weaklings, does it? But there is a key to having strength, according to the Bible. That is the paradox: we gain strength through leaning.

I'm thinking of Isaiah 40, where it says, "They that wait on the Lord will renew their strength." The word renew also implies "exchange". When we lean on the Lord, we actually exchange our weakness for His strength.

A friend of mine put it this way. He said if we are burdened down with a load and are top-heavy under the weight, we can bear it without faltering if we lean upon something immovable. (He demonstrated this by pressing his own weight against a wall.) Simple physics says when we lean like that, we actually are transferring the force of that burden onto the thing we lean upon. Because we lean upon the wall, our load leans upon it, too.

This really is the picture that helped me learn about faith at a time when I desperately needed it. By learning to lean upon God--Someone strong, immovable--I felt my burdens shift, I felt stronger. I exchanged my strength.

I guess I'm saying all this to say...if you're going to lean--and you will lean--it's best to find a place to lean that can carry the burden, that can help you exchange your strength. In my humble opinion, there's only one place for man to lean that is entirely trustworthy.

Jesus put it this way: "Come to me, all you who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest." (Matt: 11:28)

Am I Sick For Thinking This Is Funny?

2008-07-31T21:39:00.004-05:00

ht: Mork

Leaning

2008-07-31T09:45:00.000-05:00

A few years ago, when my religion was failing me, a lot of that season was actually about un-learning and re-learning the concept of faith.

Being raised with a charismatic, Word-of-Faith background, my whole picture of faith was to take Scripture that applied to my case, pray, confess the word, and believe with all my heart that what I wanted to happen, would happen. Despite all claims to the contrary--to me, it was a formula I worked. And if it didn't work, I must have done something wrong.

But when I went through that time when nothing I was doing was working, when God refused to jump through my hoops, and I exhausted myself trying to get a breakthrough...something shifted with regard to my faith, and I realized how incomplete my picture of faith had been.

When you are exhausted and have no more strength--if you are standing up--what do you generally do to keep from falling headlong? You find something to lean on.

And that's just what I did. With no strength left, my soul began to lean on Jesus, literally for its survival. My long prayers of confession and declaration were reduced to, "God, I lean on You to get me through this day." There was this knowing that we would make it--or not--by the hand of the Lord, and by nothing else. There was nothing else.

And every day that I leaned on the Lord like that, I made it through that day better than before. Regardless of whether things looked better or worse...slowly but surely, my peace stopped being dependent on circumstances. And slowly but surely, things began to change for the better.

And that's when I began to live in the truth about faith. Faith isn't simply about believing; faith is about leaning. Faith is about trust.

After that time, God brought us into a season of much-needed rest, and it has been precious to us. That lasted until about the first of this year, and then we felt a shift, a change. I can feel the stirring of the waters, a strong sense of transition. I don't know what it's going to look like, but the in-between is not a comfortable place. It's like so much that seemed so certain seems uncertain now, and it's hard to know where to put your footing.

So I'm leaning.

I think it's important that we take the lessons learned from previous seasons into the new ones. Even though I've had a chance to breathe, I don't want to forget what brought me into that rest in the first place. So every time I feel uncertain, uneasy, or fearful, or want to "work the problem" on my own...I am trying again to purposefully lean upon the Lord. And just like before...every time I do that, I see His hand at work on my behalf.

Hm...seems like God is teaching me a thing or two. :)

The Mentality of "Us Versus Them"

2008-07-29T20:30:00.003-05:00

Tracy wrote a very thoughtful piece today called "Us Versus Them", talking about the mentality so prevalent among us humans to differentiate ourselves from others, to see ourselves as superior to others over this or that belief, or color of skin, or what-have-you.

At the end of the post, she asked us, her readers, to consider whether we still struggle with the us-versus-them mentality. The thoughts came pouring through my mind, too much to put in a comment; so I thought I'd reflect on it here. (I think this problem is common to all mankind, but for our purposes I'll put it in the context of belief and practice of faith.)

I think ultimately there are two ways we can come into the us-versus-them mentality. On one hand, when we feel we have tapped into a particular revelation, or been touched by a particular move of God, or something similar that other believers have not received, we may easily begin to draw identity from it, considering ourselves "free" or "less religious" than our brethren who are not so "fortunate" to see things the way we do. We may even be clever enough to cloak it in a false sense of compassion: "I feel sorry for them." But the subtle problem with that is that it can easily be interpreted as condescension, and in many cases rightly so.

The other us-versus-them approach is a more defensive posture. When we feel we have something fresh from God, and someone who sees it differently shoots us down or de-legitimizes us for it--that can create a sort of victim mentality, a more "reactionary" us-versus-them mentality. Instead of taking the role of the superior brethren, we take the role of the oppressed minority, the rebel outcast.

Sadly, to be quite honest...both of these approaches, in my opinion, are symptoms of the same thing: pride. And to be even more honest...I have been guilty of both approaches, at different times, and more often than I'd like to admit.

If I were to choose between the two approaches as to which one I struggle most with at this point in my life, it would be the second one--the rebel outcast. The sting of de-legitimization is still very fresh in my soul, and I would openly admit that some of that comes out in my blog here from time to time. If any of my readers have been here from the beginning, you'll remember that I started the blog saying that this was a place of processing my thoughts and feelings. Naturally, that's going to get messy at times. In the past seven months or so, I've laid a lot of stuff on the table here that has hopefully been helpful to the conversation, and I've also said a few things I've come to regret. But this isn't a sterile environment, and I'm not completely cerebral. Like anyone else, I don't just think; I feel. A lot. And not all of it is Christlike.

That being said...none of that justifies the pride that fuels us-versus-them. It's still sin, however you explain it. I see sin (including pride) as a sign of brokenness, and when I see the sin in my own soul, it points to my own ongoing need for a Healer.

The us-versus-them mentality not only divides brothers and sisters needlessly; it also blocks us from reaching others with the love of Christ. We need to deal with us-versus-them issues with the world around us as well. It's true enough that there is a unique sense of fellowship we believers find with other believers; but to allow that to make us feel superior to the world around us...that is a huge turn-off. One of the biggest complaints non-believers have toward the church is of our superior self-righteousness.

Us versus them. It's got to go. When you really think about it, it's only "us". Every person is a person for whom Christ died. Whether or not they ever accept His sacrifice.

God forgive us. God forgive me. Reader--forgive me. And thanks, Tracy--I needed that.

Outside the Box: Not Just About Being Weird

2008-07-28T22:05:00.001-05:00

Here's a question for any gamers out there. Have you ever been playing some sort of puzzle game and found yourself apparently stuck? Like, you're in a room with no apparent way out, or you have a door you must open but you cannot figure out how?

I have a sure-fire way of getting out of those predicaments: go to a hints website and find a cheat. :) No, seriously. I have no patience with stuff like that. Actually, what intrigues me about finding a hint is how simple the solution usually is--if only you approach the problem from a slightly different angle. When I get the hint, I usually have a V-8 moment. (*Smack* "Why didn't I see that before??")

One of my favorite moments in the movie Apollo 13 is when Mission Control is trying to find a way to rescue the stranded astronauts. At one point their carbon dioxide levels are getting too high in the cabin, so a group of problem-solvers gathers in a room back on earth. This guy dumps a bunch of gear on the table--stuff that would be found on the spacecraft--and basically tells them, "Find a way to fix this situation using only this stuff." And they do it--because they have to. No matter how impossible it seemed at the moment, creative, out-of-the-box thinking got it done.

It's pretty amazing how many seemingly-impossible problems can be solved simply by looking at it from a different perspective.

I'm thinking of another movie, one I've mentioned recently here: the classic movie Sister Kenny starring Rosalind Russell. Sister Kenny was a bush nurse in Australia who, years before the polio vaccine was discovered, "accidentally" found a method of treatment that caused patients to recover fully from the disease, without crippling. Yet when she presented this to the medical community, the doctors resisted her methods for years. Because their years of research were based on faulty assumptions about the disease, they simply did not have a grid for understanding how any treatment could prevent crippling--to the point that they dismissed her "cured" patients by saying that they could not possibly have had polio. This is a classic example of what it means to be limited and restricted by in-the-box thinking. The whole reason Sister Kenny found this new method was that she had not learned the classic institutional research on the disease, and so was not limited by it. She thought outside the box, used some common sense, and managed to view the problem from a different angle; and that made all the difference.

I think this is basically why I am questioning institutional Christianity. I know there are those who consider it an enemy because they have been hurt within (or by) the "system". I understand that, because I've been hurt, too. I also know there are those who simply feel like they are outcasts or oddballs--people who, even though they love Jesus, just feel like they don't fit in the institutional systems. The Wild One is very much like that. But taking all that into account...the more I look at it, the more I see problems and issues in relating to our world that institutional Christianity is not able to solve. It's like we're stuck, stalemated, and the way out is not easily seen. This begs the question: do we keep using the same old "tried-and-true" methods out of loyalty (even though they don't work anymore), or do we look at the problem from a different angle?

The classic character Sherlock Holmes often said of his methods of deduction, "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." This is the crossroads at which I think we're finding ourselves. The church itself (especially in the West) is in a place of crisis because we are becoming less and less effective at reaching people. When you have done all you can to solve the problem within the parameters of the institutional church, to little or no avail...then by process of elimination, you have to start asking whether the institution itself is part of the problem (no matter how improbable it seems). In my humble opinion, we are coming to that point. When institutional methods no longer work, you need to re-think them. It is simply irrational not to do so.

So being outside the box is not just about not fitting in, or being "weird" by some peoples' standards. For many, it's an honest attempt to look at the problems facing the Body of Christ from a different angle, to try a whole new approach. After all, some of the most formidable obstacles have been overcome by simple, out-of-the-box thinking.

As a point of balance, it should be said here that I realize there are still many institutional churches that are doing good things, and having good results, and I respect this. Looking at the overall trend, however, we see that on a larger scale the effectiveness of institutional Christianity is on the wane. Also...I don't believe that these are problems that can be solved simply by the mind. I believe the Holy Spirit is already at work in the earth, and He knows what needs to happen; and I believe we must rely on the insight of God even in the midst of our re-thinking. Going back to the gamer analogy--God is where we get our "hints" when we feel stalemated. And as we do this...I think we're going to be pleasantly surprised at how simple our answers will be--just by seeing things from a different perspective.

That's what I think, anyway.

The Elusive Search for Relevance

2008-07-28T07:00:00.000-05:00

Have you ever watched the movie Napoleon Dynamite? I haven't--not all the way through, anyway. I like certain kinds of what I call "stupid humor", but I lost interest really quick when I tried to watch this movie. Like maybe 10 minutes into it, I said, "That's enough", and changed the channel.

I understand, though, why Napoleon Dynamite was so popular. The one thing that it had going for it is that people really get a kick out of watching someone who thinks he is cool, but really isn't.

Maybe I related to the movie more than I cared to admit. I like to think I'm cool, but I'm really not. Coolness is a gift that The Wild One and The Director both share, but somehow it has escaped me. I am the geek of our family. I try very hard to fit in to the coolness that is my family, but I'm not very good at it. I have discovered, much to my dismay, that often when The Director laughs at me, it's not because I said something funny. Oh, well....

This is going to sound terrible, but I get a similar dose of amusement sometimes when I see the many different ways that churches try to slick up their public image, all in attempt to appear "cool" or "relevant." We design hip billboards and high-impact TV commercials, where the people in them are usually good-looking and skinny, and look very nearly as happy as those people in the beer commercials—except they are more modestly dressed and often have their kids with them. You get the idea. Then we have churches new and old arriving on the scene with hip new names like Re:Vamp or The Rain or GodPursuit. (I just made those names up off the top of my head; forgive me if your church is actually named one of these.) And I don’t know how many church entities I’ve seen that have picked up the catchwords “real” and “relevant” in their public literature.

Besides trying to improve our public face, lots of our church institutions are also trying to update their inner workings as well. We use animated PowerPoint lyric projection and video clips to punctuate the sermon. We design our sanctuaries as dark, windowless, acoustically dead auditoriums so we can have total control of lighting and audio--which really messes with some creative types who function better in natural light. We podcast our sermons now, or stream our services live via the Internet. Our services are becoming more streamlined, too--sometimes programmed to the minute just like a television show. We’re renaming our staff titles, as well. Gone are simple titles like “Pastor” or “Youth director”; now we’re using more suave terms like “Executive Pastor of Outreach” or “Campus Operations Director”. In some extreme cases, I’ve heard of new leadership coming in, firing all existing church staff and hiring new blood, to try and change the direction and approach.

Now, it isn’t that any of these ideas are necessarily bad ones (although arbitrarily firing everybody might be a bit over the top). And I happen to like technology, and even hip new names. But if you look past all the refurbishing to the substance and structure of our church systems, for the most part, it’s all pretty much the same as it was before. We’re still making people watch the back of other people’s heads; we’re still not engaging people in true Christian community; and we’re still having trouble making a real connection with non-believers. In an era where our culture is becoming more and more interactive, our church services overall are becoming even less participatory—playing more and more like a show where people sit and watch. Bottom line: we haven't really changed all that much. It’s a costume change for the same old song and dance. Napoleon Dynamite trying to act cool.

The point is, in our attempts to be "relevant", we're really missing the point about what it means to be relevant. There are some who say relevance is a myth, that the church was never intended to be relevant, but revolutionary. And I can certainly see their point. But I guess it's a matter of how you define "relevant." If relevance means coolness...then yeah, relevance is a myth. But if relevance has more to do with being effective and making an impact on the world around us (and I think it does)--then that is the type of relevance we should strive for.

I personally believe that the beauty of the gospel and authentic Christ-following is that they are eternally relevant, across time and culture. We don't really have to jazz them up; we just need to make them accessible to people. It's really a lot simpler than we've made it out to be...

Evidence of Our Addiction

2008-07-24T19:31:00.003-05:00

The Internet is down at our house, possibly until tomorrow night.

So...what did we do with all our free time?

The Wild One and I are at a local coffee shop with our laptops, so we can be on the Internet.

(The Director is here, too, just kinda hanging out)

What is wrong with us??

The Subculture of Christianity

2008-07-24T08:41:00.002-05:00

So I've been pondering how my thinking has changed over the past few years, and how I can't stomach so much of the Christian-ese lingo and churchy behavior anymore--which is funny because I used to be all about that stuff not too very long ago. I don't go near Christian television anymore, I don't listen to Christian radio hardly at all, and I usually can't stand to listen to sermons anymore. And I feel very out of place in most church meetings.

And I know why I'm like this now. And it's not that I've abandoned my faith.

It's that I've grown out of the subculture of Christianity. I don't have any use for it anymore.

As Christians, and as the church, we have our own little subculture. There's a whole lingo, a whole set of protocols. Just as I tongue-in-cheeked my way through the unwritten rules of blogging a couple of days ago...the church has developed its own set of unwritten rules. And we know if someone is "in" or "out" by how they talk, or if they "know the code". (Spoken pirate-like for effect.)

Now, I know some of that is inherent in any group that gathers together. But it gets in our way when we realize that the gospel is something that crosses all cultural barriers. We weren't supposed to make a clique out of this thing; we are supposed to take this into every culture. I don't think we can do that effectively when we superimpose the Christian subculture onto everything we do. And that's why I'm kind of leery of it. Not only do I think it's unneccesary, but I think it's messing with our ability to fulfill the Great Commission.

Let me give a quick example. There are Christians who believe that when they go out in public and say things like "Praise the Lord! Glory to God! Hallelujah! Bless you, brother!" that they are being a witness for Christ because they are being open about their faith. But those sayings, which probably began as legitimate expressions of praise, have devolved into catch-phrases, a lingo that identifies us. These days, when most non-Christians hear someone talk that way, they immediately classify that person as someone who, at best, they can't relate to; and at worst, someone who would judge them for their choices. Our lingo simply categorizes us as a subculture, and the only folks who might be impressed are...other Christians who talk that way. Kind of like a bird call.

Subculture. Get it?

So I'm not forsaking faith by being turned off by this kind of stuff. I guess I'm just looking for something more real, a way of speaking and living my faith that is more accessible to the people around me, that will give me more opportunity to actually share my faith in a meaningful way. If I'm no longer impressed by the Christian-ese lingo, how can I expect non-believers to be? This isn't about forsaking Scriptural principles at all; it's more about learning to de-construct all the extra trappings of religion and subculture that we've added on to our faith, the stuff that's unneccessary. Just another way I'm learning to travel light.

How about you? Can you relate? Any other examples of Christian subculture you know of that might be getting in our way?

Defending the Christian Label (or Traveling Light)

2008-07-23T10:07:00.005-05:00

Yesterday we went to a local retail hobby store, and there was a "now hiring" stand with lots of employment applications folded like brochures stuck in it. Out of curiosity, The Wild One picked one up.

The amount of red tape required just to get employed at this store was daunting. Drug/alcohol testing, background checks, aptitude tests (none of which I am opposed to, BTW)...but then there were literally two pages of fine print about an "arbitration agreement", where anyone who wanted to be employed there must sign a binding agreement to resolves disputes through arbitration (read: you can't sue us). NO ONE gets employed unless they sign the agreement. I know; it says so about four different times on the application.

Now, bear in mind that none of this is inherently wrong. But this wasn't an application to work at a law firm, or a coal mine, or a nuclear power plant, or to be an astrophysicist, or to work at Area 51. This was for a retail store. I moonlight in retail; I deliver flowers. I didn't need to fill out more than a couple of pages to apply, and I didn't need to agree to arbitration. At one flower shop, I called and said, "You guys need any help?" And they called back and said, "Yep. Come on in." That was it; no butt-covering, no positioning, no self-protection.

Yet everything--everything--about this retail store's application was designed to cover the company's @$$. It was all about self-protection, like every potential applicant was poised to screw them over or something.

This is the part of the rant where I tell you that this is a Christian company--a large retail chain owned by a nationally known Christian businessman. They play instrumental hymns on the store soundtrack and are closed on Sundays. This businessman also recently made news when he effectively "rescued" a major Christian university in our town that had been rocked with scandal; he did this by donating millions of dollars and offering to reorganize the board.

The whole thing reminds me of someone else I know, who at one time attended a local mega-church. She asked someone about volunteering in the church in some capacity; she was handed an application to volunteer, requiring all kinds of information, including submitting to a background check. I'm surprised they didn't draw blood right there on the spot.

Now, in some ways--and to be merciful--I can understand why this particular mega-church was so cautious. They had recently suffered scandal when one of the teachers in their school was found to be a pedophile and went to prison, and they were getting sued by multiple families for it. So obviously they wanted to be very careful about who was helping out.

Believe it or not, I can also understand why a Christian business wants to protect itself--because it seems like when you call yourself a Christian and you own a facility that's open to the public, there are always some folks who want to hold you to a higher standard than the rest of the world, or who might sue you just because they figure you're a Christian and won't fight back.

But I guess for me, this begs the question: Is this need for self-protection just a by-product of our culture...or is it that we've created too much that needs protecting? Could it be that the very institutions we have built in the name of promoting the gospel--whether it be church organizations or businesses--are now getting in our own way?

Is it really our job to set up church buildings and label our businesses "Christian" and then set up huge amounts of red tape to make sure the wrong people don't cause us damage? Is our number one priority in the world to make sure we don't get hurt or stolen from? Or is it to engage the world with the love of Christ? It's as if we are extending one hand to the world while using the other hand to block any punches we might receive. Can the world really take that love seriously if we are in such a defensive posture?

When Jesus sent out His disciples, He said He was sending them as sheep in the midst of wolves, and that they should be wise as serpents, but harmless as doves. Then He did something interesting: He told them not to carry extra clothes or money bags. Now, I'm not about to interpret that as a policy of poverty, as some have done; but I do think there's an interesting principle here to uncover. Why would Jesus tell them that? I can think of two possible reasons. One is so that they would be inter-dependent with the communities that they were going to--that they would have to engage people and allow their needs to be met that way. The other possible reason, and the one I'm chewing on right now...is that by traveling light, they wouldn't have anything to protect. They would be free to be "sheep among wolves" without worrying about what they had to lose.

I think that's the opposite of what we have in our world today. Creating massive institutions and labeling them "Christian" has given us huge amounts to lose. We're so busy trying to avoid exploitation that we cannot be nearly as effective. These institutions are essentially fortresses that we have built. Do these fortresses really keep us "safe"--or have they just become something we must defend? When you really think about it--which is protecting which?

I cannot help but think that this is just another way in which we've missed the point. I can't help but think there must be a better way to engage our world. I can't help but think that the church, while using buildings from time to time, was never meant to be contained in them. And I'm certainly not opposed to Christians owning and running successful businesses; but I can't help but wonder if affixing the Christian label (instead of just being Christians) is doing us more harm than good.

Maybe we should take a cue from the disciples. Maybe there's a better way. Maybe we could learn how to stop worrying about how we might get hurt by the wolves. Maybe we would worry less if we learned how to travel light.

(Photo by Ben Earwicker.)

The Unwritten Rules of Blogging (as I Interpret Them)

2008-07-22T10:30:00.004-05:00

So I've been officially in the blogosphere for a little over six months now, and maybe, just maybe, I'm getting the hang of it.

Come to find out that bloggers, like nearly any other group, have their own little culture. So you don't just sign on with a Blogger account and start writing. NOooooo. You have to learn how to do it, um, properly. Just like we had to learn certain rules of etiquette when we started emailing, or certain ways of expressing ourselves with characters other than the alphabet (like 300 different forms of smiley faces) :D --as a blogger, you eventually learn how to walk the walk. Online, of course.

There is no course of study on how to blog (or if there is, it's probably lame). For me, I'm a natural student of human nature, so what I have learned about blogging, I've learned by paying attention to what other bloggers are doing--kind of a peer pressure kind of thing. So here are just a few things I have learned about the unwritten rules of blogging.

Use lots of hyperlinks--like this random link to Aaroneous' blog, or this random link to one of my previous posts. Using links is not only a courtesy to help drive traffic to other bloggers' sites (and your own)--it also makes you look like you are real smart for all the online reading you obviously are doing.
When people are good enough to leave comments on your blog, you should comment back. Even if there are 237 comments and it takes you all night and part of the next day. Forget the job; blogging IS your job now. Responding to comments shows people you care. (Responding to 237 comments shows that you are obsessive/compulsive; but that's another blog entry.)
DON'T WRITE ANYTHING IN ALL CAPS, LIKE THIS. JUST LIKE WITH EMAIL, WRITING IN ALL CAPS MEANS YOU ARE SHOUTING. AND SHOUTING IS IMPOLITE. ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE BLOGGING ANYWHERE SOUTH OF THE MASON-DIXON LINE IN AMERICA.
Cool. Bloggers. Sometimes. Put. A. Period. At. The. End. Of. Each. Word. Like. This. I have no idea what this means. Just do it from time to time. You'll fit in.
Cool bloggers like to start postings as if they are continuing a conversation. Like starting a post with the word "So" (you'll notice my bloggy coolness in doing that at the beginning of this very post). Starting with "And" or "But" is done less frequently, but also pretty hip, if you ask me.
Bloggers sometimes deliberately use bad grammar for effect; however, you should try and spell-check whenever you can. Nothing makes a wors impression than bad speling.
Excessive potty-mouthing is not good, but it is considered chic to throw an occasional cuss word into your blog. Especially if you are a Christian. This is "in" right now.
Sleepwear and underclothes are the official blogger uniform. All the cool bloggers blog in their underwear. This, of course, poses a problem when you are blogging in a public place like a coffee shop or at work. To avoid arrest, I fool the masses by stealthily wearing my underwear underneath my regular clothes. Mwahaha. (Incidentally, blogging in the nude is not recommended. Most people simply cannot write intelligently when they are naked.)
Do not use your real name. (My name, um, is actually Elmer Sczhlapczkovsky. I went with the moniker to make my name easier to pronounce.)
Break the rules occasionally just to show what an independent rebel-type you are. (Except for the shouting part. DON'T DO THAT.)

Keep these rules, and you are virtually guaranteed success in blogdom. And as you learn...you'll find that for the most part, other bloggers are helpful, patient, and generally nice folks. :)

Covered Wagon or Bandwagon

2008-07-21T07:38:00.005-05:00

So I'm pondering the current trends I'm seeing, reading about, and experiencing--both away from more traditional forms of church and toward new expressions. Emergent, missional, organic, and other terms--these are words that are used in an attempt to explain what God is showing us, to explain what we are doing, and how it is different from the traditional approach.

The way I see it, there are generally two different approaches people have when venturing into new territory like this. For our purposes, let's call them the "covered wagon approach" and the "bandwagon approach."

The covered wagon to me is a picture of the days of westward expansion in America--the pioneers. People who left the comfort zones of the established eastern cities and ventured west into the frontier, who traveled in caravans of covered wagons to set up homesteads in the wilderness. These people were going into basically uncharted territory, starting from scratch. Their reasons were varied, but in general, they were dissatisfied with the status quo and wanted something more--a new start. They understood the risks of going into the unknown, but their hunger for adventure overrode their sense of caution. This is the heart of a pioneer--a hunger for something more, and a willingness to step outside the lines to find it.

In any new movement or trend, there are pioneers at the heart of it. The reason we even have new ways to look at church is that someone, somewhere, grew tired of the way things were and felt like there must be more. A significant number of people, actually. These are the people who actually own the changes that are happening, because the change has been worked inside of them. They have ventured outside the boundaries because they themselves are hungry, looking for a fresh expression of their faith, something to make it count for more than it did before. They would do it, even if nobody else did. That, to me, is the covered wagon approach--the true pioneer spirit.

The other approach, the bandwagon approach, is probably a bit more self-explanatory. "Jumping on the bandwagon" is a saying we use to describe people who see a trend as growing in popularity and want to associate themselves with it simply because it is popular. Now, admittedly, any trend worth its salt is going to attract followers and increase in popularity, and mostly that's something we'd want to happen. But to me, jumping on the bandwagon means that you have nothing invested in whatever new thing is happening--it's new, and it's up-and-coming, and that alone makes it appealing. The problem with this approach, of course, is that there is no real root structure in it. When people are just on the bandwagon, the moment it gets tested or challenged, or the moment something else "new" comes along, those people are hopping off the bandwagon and looking for something else to jump into.

In my journey the past couple of years, I've seen both types. There are a growing number of people who are truly hungry for more and have ventured outside the traditional, institutional boundaries (often with friends and leaders chiding them for it) in an honest attempt to rekindle their faith. Many of these have then looked around and found that there are a lot of other folks like them, people who are sharing the same hunger; and sometimes, these people begin to express their faith together in a tangible way. These, in my opinion, are the ones who are owning this journey.

Then I have seen the bandwagon kind. In the spiritual climate of my town, bandwagons are a dime a dozen. It seems like almost everyone is just looking for the "new thing." And the same is true with the missional/emergent thing. Now that those words are "out there", more and more churches here are trying to establish "emergent" worship services, almost the same way we split the contemporary and traditional worship services a few years ago. For some of these, it's just a bandwagon--a new marketing strategy to try and attract these "postmodern" types of people under their umbrella. Something new to make us look all progressive. It's so bad, in fact, that sadly, I'm already skeptical when someone here starts throwing these words around. I wonder if they are just on the bandwagon, or if they have really paid the price and earned the right to use those terms.

I'm careful about the labels I use to describe myself, for that very reason. I have ventured out here out of personal hunger, and in my studying and observing, I've found terms like "emergent" and "missional" and "organic". But before I start identifying with any of these, I want to know I have owned it in my soul. I want it to be real. I want it to truly describe both my hunger and my journey. I don't want to just jump on the bandwagon.

And that's my point, actually. The bandwagon approach doesn't stand up when the trials come. Not like the covered wagon, pioneer approach. The pioneers willfully endured the harsh conditions of an untamed wilderness because they believed, because they wanted something new, and they were willing to pay the price. That is how we need to be. Whatever God is doing in His church, we need to let Him do it in us. This kind of thing can't be jumped into blindly--not if we expect it to last. It has to be birthed in us, worked through the inside of us.

So if you're thinking of jumping--honestly--look before you leap. Don't just get excited about a new approach for its own sake. The Bible says it is wisdom for us to search out a matter. If you are truly hungry for more, let that hunger lead you to search it out, to count the cost. So that when you truly step outside the status quo, you will own it, and you will have the strength to endure when that decision is tested.

Checking In, Randomness and Some Link Love

2008-07-20T08:47:00.004-05:00

Moonlighting (um, sun-lighting?) delivering flowers several days a week has been taking a bit of a toll, both on my time and on my blog think-a-bility. Just a bit of an adjustment...plus everytime I stay up half the night to watch a movie, it takes me a few days to get back on track. :)

Worth it, though.

So, just checking in to say hi to all you folks in blogland, and I should be back to my deep musings soon.

Here are a few links I found interesting this week:

Mark Main tells a compelling story about depression--something I think everyone should read, especially people who have anything to do with church.

Brant didn't like The Dark Knight. One of the first things he's posted that I've honestly disagreed with....but go read it for yourself and see what you think.

Kathy wrote a powerful piece on advocacy.

Ben talks about worship and fear.

Molleth shares an awesome video on the campaign season.

Our flying Australians are finally back this weekend. Yay!

Today for house church, we're having pizza and watching that movie on Sister Kenny I told you about. I love being able to be that flexible.

Happy weekend!

Remember Some of the All-Time Great Villains?...

2008-07-18T07:38:00.007-05:00

Hannibal Lecter?

Freddie Krueger?

Darth Vader??

Amateurs.

Hands down...the Joker sets a new standard in movie villainry. At least...Heath Ledger's version of him.

I think they'll have to retire the Joker after this one. I can't imagine anyone coming close to Ledger's performance. (Sad, though, that he is not here to see it.)

Oh...Christian Bale was pretty good as Batman, too. :)

Little kids should not see this movie. Everyone else...go.

It is especially fun to watch at midnight with a theater full of fanatics.

(Yawn) I think I need a nap.

Stuff You Can Learn from the Movies

2008-07-17T09:11:00.003-05:00

As further evidence of my profound geekiness...I am a sucker for classic movies. Turner Classic Movies is my favorite television channel, and the DVR is loaded with some of the greats.

This is apparently "Rosalind Russell" month on TCM, so I recorded a movie called Sister Kenny a few days ago, and watched it last night. Sister Kenny is a biopic about, um, Sister Kenny--an Australian nurse who, while practicing in the remote Australian bush, accidentally discovered an effective treatment for polio years before the vaccine was discovered. (For those who are confused, Kenny was her last name, and she was not a nun. The term "sister" was used for nurses in the Australian military.)

The story itself is compelling. In a part of the bush country where there were no doctors, Elizabeth Kenny was treating a suspected polio victim, and after hearing by wire from a doctor that there was no cure, was simply instructed to "...treat them according to the symptoms as they present themselves." As she simply used common sense to "treat the symptoms"--without the benefit of the extra medical education--she brought several children to full recovery with no crippling effects.

Sister Kenny effectively spent the remainder of her life trying to convince the established medical community of the validity of her treatment methods, while continuing to treat polio patients as she had opportunity. What is remarkable is how much resistance she encountered, even in the face of proven results. Her methods flew in the face of the established beliefs about polio and its treatment; while she was helping children recover, many children under the old system went through needless agony, only to remain crippled for life afterward. In most cases, the resistance came simply because her treatments and terminology were not found "in the books", and many in the medical community labeled her a quack and said her methods were dangerous. So deeply ingrained was this mentality within the medical institutions that when confronted with patients who had recovered, the doctors simply claimed that they could not possibly have had polio. They simply could not accept the evidence that was set clearly in front of them. Although she gained great poplularity with the public who visited her clinics, it wasn't until many years later that her methods began to take hold in the mainstream medical community.

It is a classic case of an institution resisting change simply because it did not come from within itself. Interestingly (at least in the movie), Sister Kenny never thought of the doctors as her enemy; she respected their sincerity, and only wanted to help them to help the children. In her mind, they were on the same team. But the institutions of medicine did not want to listen to Sister Kenny because:

She was a woman.
She was a nurse and not a doctor (and doctors did not like to be shown up by nurses).
Her treatment, though effective, challenged long-held mindsets.

It is a classic case of an institution resisting change simply because the change did not come from within itself.

Can you guess why I'm telling you this story? Hmm...does it remind you of any other institutions you know?

The Fruit of My Journey Thus Far

2008-07-16T07:22:00.008-05:00

On the journey, every so often it is helpful to take a look backward--not in a bad way ("remember Lot's wife"), but simply to take inventory of where you have come. Some people say in cliche manner that we must only live in the moment, that we only have today, that we can't change the past and don't know the future, so let's just look at the road before us, no looking back.

People who say such things apparently have never driven a car. When driving, you can't just focus on the road right in front of you; you have to look everywhere, all the time--back, sides, farther forward down the road--because to keep a straight (and safe) course, your eyes need to take in the total perspective of where you are, where you've been, and where you're going. Also, you need to be aware of any other vehicles that might broadside you or something.

Why should this be any different for our spiritual journey? Yes, we live in the moment, and we should; and yes, it's more important to have our eyes mainly on the road before us (and not gazing at the rear-view mirror); but to block out anything but the present is simply unrealistic. When all you see is "now", you have no sense of perspective for the ongoing hand of God in your life. For that, you must be able to look back just enough to see where you were then, and where you are now--so you can see how much you've changed, and the rate of that change.

I think I've been in that place of looking back (which may have also sparked my recent piece on regret). And in doing so, I am marveling at the foundational changes in my own life that God has wrought. In particular, I'm looking at the fruit of my journey over the past 8 years or so (and especially the last 3)--in my journey out of institutional Christianity, from back when I was on staff at an institutional church to my life today. I'm looking at what I was like then, and what I'm like now.

Here's just a sample of what I see:

THEN: My main goal in ministry was self-preservation (at all costs) and promotion of a ministry career.
NOW: My whole image of "ministry" has been transformed, and my main goal is how I might best serve the Lord and others.
THEN: As a member of leadership, despite knowing the unbiblical nature of "clergy-laity", I still viewed the ministry as us (the leaders) versus them (everyone else).
NOW: I just see "us."
THEN: The institutional church was the only "church" I saw or recognized, and any believer who wasn't attending one was "AWOL" in the "Lord's army."
NOW: I define "church" by a whole different (and much simpler) set of parameters, and I can see how fluid, diverse, and creative she can be, and is.
THEN: I lived under an incredible amount of pressure--pressure to please or appease my superiors, then pressure to keep the flock coming back, pressure to grow numerically, pressure to prove the nay-sayers wrong, pressure to survive financially, pressure to perform, pressure to pray enough...and countless others. This pressure often came out in the way I dealt with people.
NOW: The pressure is off, and I am able to actually enjoy my life in the everyday. I still have my moments of stress, but overall I am a lot more relaxed, a lot less high-strung.
THEN: I was strongly co-dependent, and this was a dominant feature in my approach to leadership.
NOW: As a result of personal counsel and support groups, I am a recovering co-dependent, and looking back, I am both amazed and devastated at how much my leadership style once came directly from co-dependent behavior. I am equally amazed at how well that co-dependent leadership style fits within institutional Christianity, and it is now my opinion that this system actually fuels and enables co-dependency in many of its leaders. Extracting co-dependency from leadership has changed my leadership style drastically.
THEN: I had more answers then questions.
NOW: I have more questions then answers.
THEN: I was desperate for the approval of people--both people in general and others in my "peer group" (leaders).
NOW: I am learning to embrace the fact that God approves of me right now, and learning to live in the joy of that reality.
THEN: I was a control freak.
NOW: I am less of a control freak--which means I attempt to control fewer things, but I am still getting used to the idea of not being in control of everything. :)
THEN: I was driven.
NOW: I am led.
THEN: The most important element of church was the vision.
NOW: The most important element of church is Jesus, with the people coming in a close second.

Beyond all this, and underlying all these changes...I think the single most important change in my life has been a drastic reduction in fear. This is a deep work of change that probably has more to do with my own soul than with the institutional church (although certainly that system fueled my fears). Looking back at my life, I am astounded at how much fear I have lived in, at how many choices I've made in which fear was the primary motivator. This de-constructing of fear is still a work in progress; it's still easy for me to fall into it. But within the past couple of years, I have experienced more moments without fear than at any other time in my life. I have experienced genuine peace, and it is flavoring my life more and more. And that, to me, is one of the greatest gifts I have received from this journey. Just not being driven by fear has finally given me a chance to breathe, to enjoy my life, my family, my community, and the love of God.

Okay...enough babbling. Your turn to talk. What have you seen God doing along your journey lately?

Stuff We're Not Supposed to Know

2008-07-15T08:49:00.002-05:00

Uh, oh. I've been thinking again. :)

I've been working my way through The Reason for God by Timothy Keller, which has an interesting take on explaining and validating the Christian faith to intellectual skeptics--a particular group the author comes into contact with often. This has got me thinking, not just about what the book says, but about the issue of faith and intellect in general.

There is a misconception that faith and intellect don't really get along--which feeds the misconception that you must have a lower I.Q. in order to be a Christian, or subscribe to any other spiritual belief, for that matter. While some thinking people do have trouble believing in God, many others have no problem with it. So I don't think the issue is that faith and intellect don't get along as much as it is that faith and reason don't always get along.

I say this because in order to reason something out fully, you have to have a full grasp of the facts--and faith is largely about the stuff we don't know.

In our culture, we like to have an explanation for everything; we love to figure things out; we love knowledge. In this age of reason, humans tend to reject anything that they cannot explain, touch, feel, or see. We want things to be proven to us before we believe them.

But here are some things to consider:

1. We cannot prove conclusively that God exists--any more than we can conclusively prove that He does not exist.
We can find many clues of God's existence (the Bible indicates that He has put His mark on all creation, and I personally see strong evidence of His interaction in my own life), but there's not one thing we have right now that will conclusively prove to all mankind that He exists. There are those, like the outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins, who will use this fact to say adamantly that not only does God not exist, but that anyone who thinks He does must be an idiot. But I don't think proving God's existence is really the point. Why? Because God could prove Himself at any given moment. So I think it's on purpose that we cannot conclusively prove His existence. Because that's what faith is about.

There are things that God asks us to believe about Himself, and the world, and the way He set it up, that we have to take on faith, without a full explanation. There is evidence to support the claims He makes, enough to set us on the right track. But there are other things in Scripture we have a hard time explaining, but He wants us to take His word for it. He wants us trust Him with the stuff we don't know. That's what faith is.

In fact...from what I understand about faith, it actually requires an apparent contradiction. When everything looks the way my reason says it should, I don't need faith. It's when I don't understand, or can't explain, or when it doesn't make sense (read: I can't reason it out) that my faith kicks in. I have to take God's word for it. And just because someone has faith when they can't explain something, that doesn't make them less smart.

2. Everyone has faith in something--even the skeptics.
This is simply because we cannot explain everything! Dawkins himself, while blatantly denying God's existence, has a strong faith in the unproven theory of evolution. Intellectuals who think of Christians as idiots for their faith somehow have no problem taking it on faith that nature won the lottery, that all the intricate organization we see around us in the universe all happened by a freak accident. That is a form of faith. So even those who struggle with believing in God still have some sort of faith active in their life.

I feel I have an answer for the intellectual skeptics--and this is just my opinion. I believe there really is an explanation for everything in the universe. I believe there is a reason for it all; I just realize that as finite human beings, we don't have all the information. We don't have all the data, nor do we have the capacity to process it all if we could attain to omniscience. Only God (assuming He exists) knows it all. And here's the thing that might irritate the intellectual skeptic: I think there is some stuff in the universe that we're not supposed to know, that we are not equipped to know or understand.

For example...I think about the Garden of Eden, and the one tree Adam and Eve were told not to eat from: the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Why would God not want them to eat of that tree? Isn't it important to know the difference between good and evil? Was it God's intent to keep them in ignorance? I don't believe that was the issue; I believe God would have taught them everything they needed to know. I believe the issue was that eating of that tree was man's attempt to attain the knowledge for himself, knowledge he was not ready for, without God's participation in it. It was an act of distrust, and that's what made it sin. And man has paid a dear price for that knowledge over the centuries.

I think the King David had some sense of understanding of this when he wrote things like, "Such knowlege is too wonderful for me; it is too high; I cannot attain to it." (Ps. 139:6) and "O Lord, my heart is not proud, nor my eyes haughty; nor do I involve myself in great matters, or in things too difficult for me." (Ps. 131:1)

If the creature is not greater than the creator, and if God truly is our Creator...it makes sense that there would be certain elements of creation we would not be able to grasp. For me, if I could figure Him out, He wouldn't be God anymore. So I embrace the mystery, and trust Him on the things I don't understand, and trust Him with the stuff I'm not supposed to know. Skeptics might think that's stupid of me. But that's not a lack of intellect; in fact, it's sheer wisdom not to tangle with stuff you're not ready for. One day, I believe He will make Himself known to all, and one day, He'll show me all that I didn't know. I think one day it will all make sense. In the meantime, I'm content to trust Him with the unknowns. Because faith kicks in where my reason fails.

So We're Nuts, But Don't Judge Us

2008-07-14T09:49:00.003-05:00

The Wild One, The Director, and I have been waiting all year for this one.

What are you doing Thursday night at midnight?

I'll tell you what we'll be doing: We'll be at the midnight opening of The Dark Knight. Forget Batman (although Christian Bale is the best actor ever to play Batman, IMHO); we're looking for the JOKER.

Mwahahahaha.

We are such geeks.

Regret

2008-07-12T12:28:00.000-05:00

Every time I see one of those probing celebrity interviews, like where Barbara Walters is scouring the soul of some Hollywood icon, the question often comes up: Any regrets?

And when said celebrity smiles brightly and says, "No regrets,"--which is what the answer usually is--I wince inside.

In truth, I think anyone who says they have no regrets is either in denial, lying, or very, very rebellious.

I don't see how any adult with any sense of conscience could not have some sense of regret. The Bible says all have sinned. None of us is without it. To say you have no regrets means either you've never done anything wrong, or that you're not at all sorry for what you have done wrong. The question, I think, isn't how to live life with no regrets, but how to live with them.

As for me...I have more regrets than I can count in my life. I simply don't know how many times I've wished I had said something differently, done something differently, made a different choice here or there. How many times I ignored the still, small Voice screaming in my soul, and lived to pay the price. How many times I have wished I knew then what I know now. Opportunities I missed, moments I passed over, relationships I damaged, favors I took for granted, debts I couldn't repay. And countless acts of selfishness which I can never take back.

Regret.

While regrets can be depressing if we let them...my regrets make me very thankful for the grace and forgiveness of God. It is greatly comforting to know that our bad choices are no surprise to God, and that His grace and mercy are fully extended to us through Christ. And part of receiving the forgiveness of God is to learn to forgive ourselves.

And yet...even understanding God's grace and forgiveness, because actions still have consequences, there linger still the memories of things I wish I'd done differently. How are these reconciled with one another?

As I said...I don't think the question is how to live with no regrets, but how to live with them. I am thinking that the healthiest way to live with regrets is not to allow them to bog us down, but to let them be our teachers. Regrets are about the past, and we cannot change what is past--nor should we dwell in the past. But we can certainly learn from our regrets in order to choose differently for the present. For me, regret is this little reminder that nudges me toward better choices. For example, it is the regret of moments that I've missed that helps me miss fewer of them now. The regrets of how I've dealt with people in the past help to shape how I deal with them now.

I think we Christians sometimes think of God's grace, and the blood of Christ, as this mystical deal that is supposed to somehow erase our past. But I don't see a lot of evidence of that, actually. The apostle Paul--the same guy who wrote that when we are in Christ, we are new creatures, and old things are passed away, and all things are new--this same Paul referred to himself as the chief of sinners and often referred to the sins of his past. Apparently when old things are passed away, that doesn't mean they are forgotten. Paul obviously didn't forget. But I think it was the realization of his past that made him so appreciate the grace Jesus extended to him. How did Jesus put it? "The one who has been forgiven much, loves much."

For me...as much as I have to regret in my life, I don't think I want to forget. There is a bittersweetness in remembering my sins, failures, and mistakes--not in a sense of condemnation, but as a place of knowing just how much I've been forgiven. As a broken human who is still being healed--I still say and do things that I regret. But in the grace and forgiveness God offers, I want Him to use my regrets to shape my life for the better.

In fact, honestly...that's probably the only thing that regret is good for.