tabletalk

Missional Church: A Field Guide - Unmasking Principalities and Powers

I believe this is one of the most understated roles of the church. Partly because the church has to risk its very life to do this. For me, most mega-churches ride the wave of cultural acceptability. They rarely risk unmasking the "prevailing plausibility structures" which is how Newbigin describes the principalities and powers. What most culturally driven congregations do is baptize the prevailing culture and say something like, "You just need to add Jesus to your life and it will all make sense." The key here is that culture isn't questioned, and the only thing missing is a spiritual component that will "round out" a person's life - meaning and fulfillment will follow.

The irony is it fails to ask anyone to give up anything (except for money to build the facilities that give the impression of success!) I have a friend that would like to challenge the title of a book "From Success to Significance". He would like the next book to skip the 'significance' stage and move straight from success to sacrifice. It think Jon's right. It isn't until we unmask the things that have power to shape and guide culture and us, that we will begin to demonstrate the power of the Gospel.

Many have said that our wealth masks our needs. It gives us a false sense of security. It is true that our current economic situation is unmasking the false promises of false gods.

The church needs to consider doing this intentionally, not merely accidentally. That is we need to say no to those things that give us security and value and importance that are not born in God. We also need to unmask the motives of holding power and influence in our seemingly spiritual acts. The reason my friend suggests that we need to skip the significance part of the above equation is that we can still use all our manipulative and power holding skills to move ahead a very spiritual agenda, and God can be no where in sight. The means are the end for true spiritual success. So we need to give up our own powerful means so that God's means can be seen clearly.

I did a research project some years ago. In it I asked if preaching shaped the missional practices and character of newly forming congregations. The surprise wasn't that it did, but how much it did. The most interesting part of the research to me, however, was that what 'wasn't preached' equally had an effect on the church. In those congregations where social justice and prophetic challenges were absent, so were justice practices and prophetic actions. What we don't say speaks volumes.

At this point it is Paul's admonition in 2 Corinthians that informs me. "We have this treasure in fragile clay vessels to prove that this light doesn't come from us, but comes from God."

Principalities (princely or governing powers) and powers (culture shaping energy, say like advertising or nationalism), that tell us "the way things are" can only be unmasked when we demonstrate that they are wrong. We do this in weakness and reliance. We do this in brokenness and vulnerability. We get there through tragedy and sacrifice and identifying our lives more closely with those who have not, than those who have.

Why else do you think Jesus was born in a manger in Bethlehem? Jesus unmasked the principalities and powers in his incarnation. We need to get inside Jesus' life and live there.

Techniques - Tolerance or Inclusion?

(Thanksgiving - the day after.)

Holiday movies often take on this subject. The family and extended family and friends gather for a holiday meal. The comedic moments come as people encounter all those personalities that they spend the year and sometimes a lifetime trying to avoid. You know the personalities - the loud ones, the pedantic ones, the not so interesting ones, whatever flavor of person we find irritating or challenging or for that matter intriguing

In the previous post I noted that "Adaptive issues actually require a kind of solidarity with the ones God has called us to care for and love." Very often our approach to inclusiveness belies our technical orientation. Technical orientation can often betray our real feelings. In most of the comedic moments in film, the one trying to be inclusive is merely creating a technical way of tolerating the people they can't stand or wish to avoid, or a technical way of getting noticed. What creates the comedy is when the technique breaks down.

In real life when our techniques break down, it doesn't often lead to comedic moments but can lead back to alienation or hurtfulness. But the real question is, "How do we include those we really don't want in our circle of relationships?"

I was reminded recently of a short-term mission experience in India. I was in the international terminal in Hong Kong waiting to get on a plane with 400 people, mostly from India. It was then I had a moment of panic. The smells, the language, the feeling of being closed with a lack of personal space - I really didn't like Indian people. Not at that moment. The next month was going to be awful. My own prejudices, both racially and culturally had been exposed. My altruism and "faith" had also been exposed for their shallowness.

What happened over the next month was transformative. I was caught up in the hospitality and friendship of others. They made room for me in their lives. Our hosts were in solidarity with me. The tables were turned. My defenses broke down. My techniques were obliterated. I had to trust in my hosts. Their inclusion of me led to my inclusion of them.

When we think we are going to do good to others, often the way our technical attitudes and plans get broken open when the tables get turned. Not unlike my experience when I visit a hospital or a convalescent care center. Thinking I will be the one doing the ministry I am ministered to. This happens more often than not.

This is a clue to how solidarity with others is created. It's an old adage, "Walk a mile in another person's shoes." Not simply to gain understanding or to show sympathy, but so that one can "know" what another's life is like. We truly know and understand. Then we can walk together. Isn't this the goal? Isn't this why we are called to make disciples not merely converts? We are calling everyone into one body, into Christ. Not a way of thinking only. Not a lifestyle, not a philosophy - but walking together through this world. And the more diversity the better.

As long as we are intent on doing to others so we can get them to do what we want them to do, we will create comedic and I'm afraid tragic circumstances. Techniques end up being disingenuous at their best and manipulative at their worst. Tolerance is not a great value in God's kingdom. God is after inclusion.

On this day I am reminded of how much my heart goes out to the Indian people in the tragedy of these last few days. I was changed by the inclusive friendship of the Indian people and now feel a remarkable sadness and solidarity with them. A feeling I wish Americans can now sadly relate to after 9/11. More than a casual prayer has been said for those in danger and in mourning. Amazing how things change.

I need to stop here or it will be a true ramble.

It's Friday - Smile!

tod - it made me smile.

Vulnerability for Real

A friend of mine has asked me to make the last few blogs more intelligible.  OK.  Sometimes I get ahead of myself and write in order to think out-loud.  These are not completed or even good thoughts.  They are simply thoughts and deserve all the critique or disinterest they can muster.

Vulnerability.  Am I open to having my thoughts and positions truly questioned?  This is the initial posture we need to adopt in order to have a true conversation.  My guess is that most of us are intellectually honest and would nod in agreement if asked we were open to being challenged.  And I would conclude that most of us would be lying to ourselves and others.  It is what Alasdair McIntyre writes in his book "After Virtue", we don't really know why we hold our positions and therefore can't enter into a conversation without it getting shrill.  The reason?  We lack the ability to consider our position from many angles because we hold it from a very narrow perspective.

In the constitution of the Presybterian Church (USA) we say that we will undertake the ministry God gives us even at the risk of losing the church we know.  It's a great statement.  It is also merely a theory for most of us.  We are all trying to preserve what we have.

To be able to address the issues before our denomination we need to be truly vulnerable from all sides.  The problem is that we don't trust everyone to be willing to be vulnerable at this level.  So we hedge our bets. 

The cure?  Trust.  Trust God for the future.  Trust God for the present.  Our task is to trust that the church is Christ's not ours.  One or both or all sides need to risk losing their claim.  This means we need to have our positions open to real scrutiny. This is the heretical imperative at work. 

The first step - true vulnerability.  I don't know what it looks like just yet, but together maybe we can figure it out.

Vulnerability, Relationships, Reputations, Homosexuality, General Assembly

Lousy title for a blog.  Too much.  So why?

One of the reactions to our (PCUSA) General Assembly's actions regarding homosexuality is, as always, the cry to leave.  "How can we stay in a denomination that ignores God's Word?!" - is the cry.  Or "We've become heretical!" is another.  It goes on and on.  When the "other side" loses, it's not much different.  "How can we be so callous and unloving?"  "Is this acting like Jesus?!"  "Why doesn't God's love trump the rules?!"  The accusation of Pharisee shows up.  Homophobic is another. 

In a recent paper written by Dr. Ray Anderson, Senior Professor of Theology at Fuller Seminary, he comments on our denomination's recent decisions and suggests that leaving makes one an orphan.  This struck home with me.  In my adult life I am orphaned, technically.  My parents died some time ago.  That is the definition isn't it?  When Ray used the term orphan, it was a visceral response.  I won't choose to do that.  I won't choose to be without my faith parent.  There is an inherent disorientation to being orphaned.  Why would one choose this?  We often muse in our covenant group on the question - "So, where would we go?"  There is no new family that measures up.  Nor could we create one.

The Northumbrian Rule gets at one of the temptations.  Some in the evangelical circles I run with, would leave because it tarnishes our reputation and makes it more difficult to actually be the church.  Some would say it scares people off from our congregations and makes growth more difficult.  To that I have a couple of responses.  The first is that this is all about reputation.  Some will confuse reputation with witness.  That the idea that our denomination would consider ordaining self-avowed practicing homosexual persons as destroying our public witness.  But it strikes me that this is concerned with how we look not to the people outside the church but inside the church.  It would confirm the accusations that we are truly a God-forsaken liberal denomination. The evangelical folks don't want to be seen that way or defined that way or have that reputation.  I don't!  The second thing I want to note is that this is a confused understanding of witness, as evidenced by the fact that I don't believe the person outside the church cares what we say.  This is neither a positive or negative witness to the world around us.  It is a non concern.  The world assumes that most Christians are anti-gay.  So let's place this argument in the category of reputation.

Let us fall down on the side of relationships, beginning with Christ's relationship to us.  Then having that relationship permeate all others.  Northumbria has it right.  I can't control what people think of me.  But I can live in faithful relationship to those around me.  In or out of the church, I'm called to be consistent.  I like the fact that to live valuing relationships over reputation is deemed to be vulnerable.  I think it acknowledges why we are less likely to value relationships over reputations.  We can build reputations (or think we can).  Relationships are messy at best.  They don't always work out the way we want.  Sometimes I'm the one left out when I want to be the one on the inside.

When I look at the quandry of the PCUSA I'm disgusted that we allow the politics of religion to run our relationships.  We should know better.  Maybe we will learn to be better.

I want to think harder and have more discussion about this.  Particularly, I'd like to discuss the idea that both sides of the homosexual ordination issue have entrenched themselves along the lines of modern categories and need to reframe the conversation.  This is one of those times that a technical modern debate needs to grow beyond itself.  A little deconstruction may be needed.  Now I'm musing out loud.  I better stop and think.

Loving America

I have traveled quite a bit.  Little by some standards and a lot by other standards.  I love meeting people all over the world.  I'm getting antsy to get out and about.  But no matter how long I'm gone, I do enjoy coming home to the United States.  For all its flaws it is the place that allows for the most freedoms and makes room for me to hold my opinions without reprisal.

Bill Bishop in his book "The Big Sort" says this:

"The country may be more diverse than ever coast to coast.  But look around: our own streets are filled with people who live alike, think alike, and vote alike.  This social transformation didn't happen by accident.  We have built a country where everyone can choose the neighborhood (and church and news shows) most compatible with his or her lifestyle and beliefs.  And we are living with the consequences of this segregation by way of life: pockets of like-minded citizens that have become so ideologically inbred that we don't know, can't understand, and can barely conceive of 'those people' who live just a few miles away."

One of the ironies is that the freedom we enjoy, love and take for granted, is the very freedom that makes it possible to ignore and deride one another.  As we seek to associate with those who are like us, we lose touch with the majority of people we need to meet and get along with.  Every time we refer to "those people" we get further away from the American ideal of a united people.  Even more significant is that we get further away from God's vision for us to be "one people" in Christ. (see Bob Pearson's comment on the Big Sort article earlier.)

By sticking to "people like us" we become impoverished.  The Statue of Liberty has been a symbol for our country of our willingness to be an inclusive people.  Let's go further than being inclusive and love America.  Not the flag, or the rules, or the ideals.  They can become vague symbols that have no reality.  But let's love America the people.  This will put us in community with those whose ideologies and orientations and opinions challenge our own.  It will make us vulnerable to other thoughts and ways of living.  But isn't that the point?

Not Threatened By the State

Recently, I received an email inviting me to a discussion with a number of other pastors who are concerned about protecting the institution of marriage. In the header it suggested that we were in danger of being forced to perform wedding ceremonies that would violate the biblical values of marriage as an exclusive covenant partnership between one man and one woman. I believe this is the biblical value. But I was puzzled and in disagreement with my colleagues on several points.

The first is a practical point. I am not a servant of the state when it comes to performing a wedding ceremony. I don't have to unite anyone in marriage if I don't want to. It's my call. So from the beginning, their advertising was misleading and alarmist. Pastors can choose not to marry anyone.

But it's not true that we can perform weddings for anyone. In our Presbyterian church, we are bound by our constitution which says that marriage is a covenant agreement between one man and one woman. We are not free to go outside those bounds. My ordination is with the church not the state. Even if my conscience is open, as a representative of the church I am not open. I have restrictions which I agree with.

So what needs protecting? Well, I do believe in benefits and rights being the same for all domestic partnerships. I believe it is prejudicial that we don't allow single people to designate a family member or a dependent member of their household to get the same benefits afforded married people. This along with universal healthcare seem to be rights that we should protect and foster. We need to protect and encourage people to make commitments. If you are on my life insurance policy and my health benefits policy and my social security benefits, I'm committed to you. Commitment of caring for others is a good thing regardless of any kind of sexual, social, ethnic, or whatever orientation you can come up with. I know it will cost us something, but the costs are greater in the long run if we ignore it.

What about protecting marriage? First, I don't believe it needs protecting - at least not in the way that my colleagues have surmised. Marriage is a God thing. It is "created by God, blessed by the Lord Jesus Christ, and sustained by the Holy Spirit," at least that is what the marriage ceremony I use says. That means God protects it not me. We uphold it, but don't protect it.

Well, what if the state says that marriage is any two people who want to be together with a license? My response is still, "I'm not a servant of the state." I would argue against using the term marriage to mean something other than one man and one woman bound together. But, if the state, and our society is becoming more rapidly secular all the time, wants to call something marriage other than what the biblical standard is, then I am prepared to qualify what I do as Christian marriage. In fact, it already is that. For myself, if the state decides that same sex unions are to be considered marriage, then I'll stop representing the state in the marriage. People can get a marriage license, like they do in most of Europe. They can be married - but if they want recognition in the church of their marriage as a Christian union, then I will be happy to perform a Christian marriage. I'll stop being a representative of the state of California, even though I am licensed to be.

Maybe it is time we stop serving as cultural chaplains and become servants of the Kingdom of God. Oh I know, we'd lose an income source. So?

Just a thought from out there somewhere.

Questions From Without: Before Deconstruction

Deconstruction in some circles is a dirty word. For many it means making changes for change sake. For others it means throwing the baby out with the bath. Still others believe it is simply a reaction to the status quo by anarchists who want their own way to be put in place. Some of you are puzzled right now by the use of the word and what I'm saying.

It's a simple word. We're going to, as McLaren says, deconstruct Hell.

Let me give you an analogy. I've worked on many cars over the years. I've rebuilt engines a couple of times. I'm very methodical when I work on an engine. The manual is always next to me. As I pull things off the engine to examine the trouble, I lay them out neatly on the garage floor, usually on some sort of tarp, taking care to remember and organize the parts in the order that I have removed them. When I find the parts that don't work, worn rings, charred valves, whatever...I replace those things with new parts. Then I reassemble the engine with the new and original parts. Careful again to put everything back that is needed. If there are extra parts when I reassemble...then I have to go back and start over. I don't want to do that.

Deconstruction is a little like that, though we may decide that there are extra parts in our engine that we can do without. Things that simply inhibit the running of the engine. Or there are better designs to our current concerns.

Before we begin deconstructing Hell, let me remind us of one of C.S. Lewis's points in Experiment in Criticism. Again, I believe this is a must read for any teacher or preacher. I think it is a must read for anyone who wants to know how to view art or read a book. This little book, though quite literary in scope, outshines Adler's book How to Read a Book.

The point I want to take away from Lewis is this: allow the book to tell you about itself. As much as you can, surrender to the text. Don't read into it (which in hermeneutics we would call eisegesis). Literature like art, Lewis says, will communicate itself. Good, bad, enduring, superficial, it comes out in the reading of it. It is difficult to surrender to a book sometimes. Sometimes we're at odds with the author and their method. Sometimes it is over our heads. Sometimes there is such historical distance that we are unfamiliar with the context. All of this happens when we read the scriptures.

How does this apply to Hell? What we know of Hell is often informed by everything but the teaching of Jesus. We hold dear lots of opinions that simply don't come from Jesus. In order to know what it is, we also need to know what it is not. McLaren does the heavy lifting here. In his chapter "Homework Assignment" he outlines the Gospel's teachings on Hell in a way that allows us to examine closely what they are about, and he gives us a way of seeing what they are not about. You may disagree with his method or conclusions, but in the end we must at least take a look at the scriptural passages and determine whether our interpretations are broken or not. If they are, what needs to be done to fix the problem?

So, my encouragement: Be open to reading the text of scripture and surrendering to it alone. We can never be fully objective. But surrender means we will look, and read and wait until the truth or lack thereof, comes out at us. We also don't do this in isolation. There are reputable and faithful saints who have gone before who inform our reading. But for right now, let's put all the opinions aside and see if we can't simply take Jesus at his word without Dante or Milton or Luther jumping in. And let's be honest when they do jump in to not let what we've always held onto get put into Jesus' mouth.

Deconstruction is next.

Questions from Without: Hell Is Up Next

It's hard in an email to just throw out these questions when they represent 30 years of my emotions and deep concerns. Just last night I had another question come up in my thoughts during the night. Could you go over Hell? (Don't laugh.) This question of Hell is one that is always a part of a religious discussion here. What I mean is the idea that if someone doesn't believe in Jesus as their savior and lord then they won't have eternal life. I've always responded that yes Jesus is the way the truth and the life but God is the ultimate judge of a man's soul. This was how it was asked of me.There is only a certain percent of the population that is Christian. Do you mean to tell me that all of these other people are going to hell? It says that to be a Christian you have to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead and only those that believe in that are going to have eternal life. What about the rest of us? What about all of the people that went before us that didn't believe. That's a lot of lives not having eternal life in heaven. Craig this is the kind of thinking that is real to some non believers. I always say God is the judge of a man's soul.

These are the coming questions. I wanted to let you all know what is next. Damn.

Hospitality Sightings

A site worth looking at. The stories may be real or cyber-apocryphal, but it is interesting. It is a shameless ad for Hilton Hotels, but if you're looking for a potentially uplifting story, this could provide it. Go to Be Hospitable. Check it out for some fun.