Comforting the Oppressor

And the winner is... oh s***, not again.

Wouldn't you love to hear this from an announcer at an awards ceremony? When Titanic just kept taking on Oscars, or Beyonce's name was called again and again at the grammys? If I was an announcer, opening the sealed envelope, I would want to call out a name that's surprising and unique; a real come-from behind champion; a cinderella victor. But somehow most of those revered but un-nominated envelope celebrities manage to read the names with a degree of gravitas or joy.

I couldn't do it.

The unfortunate fact is, even the surprise winners at the Oscars or Grammys or Golden Globes, etc, are not very big surprises. Every last nominee is a member of the inner circle in some way or another. Maybe there's a few nominees for "Best Reggae Album" or "Best Foreign-Language Film" that have escaped our notice over the past year, but they certainly are the exception.

And I will guarantee you one thing: the best album of every year is almost certainly an album that 99% of Americans have never heard. And the best new artist is some nobody practicing day and night in their basement or garage. But they will not walk the red carpet this year, or next year. Nor will they want to.

Our society has a narcissistic way of rewarding fame and fortune--the last things on earth that need or deserve a reward. You sold a gazillion albums! Here's a little gold statue! You starred in a movie that netted a billion dollars! Here is a moment in the spotlight, and the finally the recognition you deserve!

What a bunch of bull s***.

It's not just the entertainment industry, either. Who were the primary recipients of the government's bail-out money? The Fortune 50 companies who should have known better. Instead of taking pity on the broken and outcast, our tears are shed for the gilded insiders. Instead of comforting the oppressed, we comfort the oppressors.

Jesus was not impressed by royalty, or status, or wealth. He didn't go out of his way to talk to members of the upper-class, unless it was to call them out of it (think Zacchaeus or the rich young ruler.) He said that the first will be last and the last will be first.

I kind of hope there's no such thing as an awards ceremony in heaven (I'm sure hell will be full of them.) But if there is, I have an idea what it would be like. The nobody-artist practicing in her garage will get center stage, and the director with imagination, skill and a shoe-string budget will take home the statue. But most importantly, the people who have surrendered their lives and comforts for the sake of broken will be lifted up and crowned with honor.

They will hold their crowns high in the air for everyone to see, but they will not give a speech. They will throw them all down at the feet of Jesus. The cinderella victor.



+

The 2010 Cure for the Maturity Disease

I forget who said it, but here's a good New Years' Quote: "Youth is when you're allowed to stay up really late on New Year's Eve. Middle Age is when you're forced to."

I'm 30 years old. Have been for 8 months now. Maybe it's just because I hang around a lot of college-aged and mid-20s types that the late night thing hasn't worn off on me. And maybe it was because I didn't wear out the party urge in college the way many people do. It's true that my wife and I were definitely the oldest in our group of friends that rang in the New Year last night, if only by a year or three.

But I can look down the tunnel of middle age from where I sit, and I can see how pointless the party thing will look in retrospect. (Note: I advise everyone to drink with caution, and I will be the first to set that example. I only "party" to be with friends, and perhaps make some new ones. But the party atmosphere can be a bit infectious while you're young, and that's the thing that can wear off, even if drinking was never an issue.)

I'm sure that when I'm 40, or maybe even when I'm 35, I'll look back at the way I spent some evening weekends with friends, and regret having invested so much in something so silly. Nevertheless, I can say one thing: all the silliness was with friends. I wasn't trying to be someone I'm not, or trying to cozy up to a crowd that I don't belong in. I was spending real time with real friends, and whether the time was loud and crazy, or quiet and dignified, doesn't change that fact.

But there is one benefit, one insight, I receive from being part of the loud and crazy, and I think if I wasn't sober I wouldn't notice it. I have observed that every desired result of what some call "nightlife" seems intended to restore something in childhood that's been lost in the maturation process.

Think about it... how do little children party, when they're left to their own devices? If they hear music with a beat, they dance. If they see a food or treat they like, they eat it. If they hear a funny joke, they laugh uproariously. They make up stories and play games and talk loudly and run around and make new friends, and if they party hard enough, they'll collapse and fall asleep wherever they land.

But maturity doesn't stand for this. There is a standard of dignity and propriety that causes us to forget what it means to enjoy ourselves, to celebrate, to bind ourselves together in happiness and a recognition of blessing. We grow up, and we mature. But the fact is... the child never leaves us. It simply hides behind a veneer we call "sobriety," which can only be removed by alcohol. (That children's party I described above? Just add sex and booze, and I've perfectly described a frat party or a bachelorette party or a 21st birthday party.)

Might there be another way to remove it? What if we just started accepting each other exactly as we are? What if those around us had our affirmation in advance, and knew that had nothing to prove? What if we learned how to stop taking ourselves so damn seriously?

Because alcohol doesn't cure the maturity disease, it only relieves the symptoms. Perhaps the cure, if we're ready to accept it, is plain, old-fashioned Love.

Happy New Year.




+

Will the Real Muslims Please Stand Up?

A great question came up in our Socrates Cafe discussion last night. (Topic: Muslimerica) The question is, does a Christian have any right to decide who the True Muslims are?

Or the true Hindus? Or the true Buddhists? Do Muslims have a right to decide who the true Christians are? Wouldn't that bug you, if you're a Christian, to hear a Muslim pontificating on the "correct" way to follow Christ?

In other words, does anyone have the right to decide the right way to follow a religion that is not their own?

Some Christians will say that Muslims are a peaceful people, with a few bad apple extremists poisoning the well. This would certainly be true if, by "Muslims" they mean "all those who call themselves Muslims." But other Christians point out that the Koran has many violent mandates, to eliminate those who will not follow the teachings of the Prophet Mohammad. They will tell you that the only "True Muslims" are the ones who take the Koran literally, and do what it says.

But is it appropriate to superimpose an evangelical view of the Bible onto a Muslim view of the Koran? Must all sacred texts have the same role within their respective faith communities? It's impossible, because many religions have a hierarchy of texts, including semi-sacred writings. Muslims have the Hadith. Jews have the Talmud. And many religions have no monolithic divine work, but rather a collection of revered and renowned writings.

I believe my only chance at understanding how to be a "true" Christian, is in knowing Jesus. Not just knowing about him, but knowing him personally. If many sincere and growing Christians fail often at this, then how could someone know better who's not even trying to follow Christ?

If we're careful, we can still make a few blanket generalizations about those people who identify themselves with a certain faith. But I think we'd have to leave it at that.



+

A Body In Motion

A day in LA, and millions of faces are looking for movement
'Cause everything's stuck and everything's frozen
And everyone's broken and nobody moves

And everyone's scared that the motion will never come...

This is the incompletion, stuck in a line
Love is the Movement / Love is a Revolution
This is Redemption / We don't have to slow back down

Switchfoot, Love is the Movement

There is no lack of motion in our world. A surface glimpse into the people of LA, or New York, or even Springfield, will show lots of activity, lots of empty vibration, but is there motion? Is there a movement?

Sir Isaac Newton taught us that a body in motion tends to stay in motion, unless a force acts against it. In which case, its motion and energy is transferred into the object which has stopped it. Billiards is a perfect example. The cue stick transfers energy to the cue ball, the cue ball transfers energy to the other balls, and the other balls may continue the chain of motion.

For the global and eternal impact he made, Jesus' ministry was amazingly short: 3 years full of energy and full of motion, narrowly focused to transfer from the corporeal body of Christ (himself), to the universal Body of Christ (us).

The Gospel of Mark is a terse and lively account of this body in motion. And everything that we read from the life of Jesus will shed light on the motion that he has intended for us to carry on. "You will do greater things than me," he said. Because he healed the blind, we are Enlightened. Because he multiplied the bread and fish, we are Fulfilled. Because he died unjustly, we are Justified.

Because he moved, we have a Movement.

This is the idea behind my upcoming message series at The Core's Sunday morning Worship Gatherings. To follow the movements of Jesus, we'll be walking through the gospel of Mark, two chapters at a time. Here's the calendar:

August 23 - A Body In Motion (Introduction)
August 30 - Mark 1 & 2
September 6 - Mark 3 & 4

September 13 - Bye

September 20 - Mark 5 & 6
September 27 - Mark 7 & 8
October 4 - Mark 9 & 10

October 11 - Bye

October 18 - Mark 11 & 12
October 25 - Mark 13 & 14
November 1 - Mark 15 & 16

+

A Patch for Humanity

A patient will come to you at his moment of greatest dread, hand you a knife and say, "Doctor, cut me open." Why? Because he trusts you. He trusts you the way a child trusts. He trusts you to do no harm.

The sad fact is: human beings are not worthy of trust. It is human nature to lie, take shortcuts, to lose your nerve, get tired, make mistakes. No rational patient would put his trust in a human being... and were not gonna let him!

It is our mission here to rigorously and ruthlessly train the humanity out of you, and make you into something better.

We're gonna make doctors out of you.

-Dean Walcott, from the film Patch Adams

Last Sunday I spoke about our attitude toward the church. So often, when we first gain fellowship with this motley group of believers, we are desperately seeking someone to trust. We have found the central dysfunction of humanity around us, and inside us, and now we need the solution. We know our need to trust, and have tried it a few times with disastrous results: an abusive parent, an unfaithful mate, a disloyal friend, etc.

How many have made their entry into the church, imagining they have finally found an object worthy of their trust? They have discovered the sad fact that human beings are not worthy of trust, and so they have sought out a place that will train the humanity out of them... out of everyone.

"We're gonna make Christians out of you!"

How much harder to fall, then, when the realization comes that no one in the church has had the humanity trained out of them at all. Even if the teachers and leaders and mentors of the church were doing their jobs well (and usually they are not,) it just never happens. So maybe it's not supposed to happen.

Certainly, as we grow in Christ, we should expect to grow in love, in forgiveness, in discipline, etc. And we imagine that this is a departure from the faultiness of humanity. But perhaps it is just the opposite. Perhaps a successful journey into the heart of God is the process of having humanity trained into us... becoming more and more like the most human human who ever lived. How else can you explain the word humanitarian, or humane? To be fully human is to have compassion and grace.

Some of us seek to put our trust in those we deem "less human"--those who operate with a cold precision and computer-like consistency--hoping that they are the only ones who can heal our disease.

But there are also those who seek out real humans, complete with compassion and grace, capable of relationship and humor and pathos, and discover in the end that this is the remedy for the disease that kills not only the body, but the soul.

Perhaps this is the "Church" that Jesus had in mind.




+

The Office: Beauty is in the Eye of the Boss

NBC's The Office
"Business School"
Episode 3017 | Season 3 | 02/15/2007

Abridged Synopsis: Roy stops by Pam's desk to let her know how excited he is to see her art show. She reminds him that it's just a small show being put on by her art class. Pam later admits she's very happy to be back together with Roy because it shows maturity. Jim feigns indifference to the reconciliation.

Ryan discovers that he can get bumped a whole letter grade if he brings his boss in to speak to the class. Michael makes a fool of himself in front of Ryan's class by taking a student's textbook and ripping the pages out to make a point, a la Dead Poet's Society. Michael further humiliates himself in front of Ryan's peers by tossing candy bars at them during his speech.

Michael is then shocked to hear from one of the students that Ryan was harshly criticizing Dunder-Mifflin just minutes before he arrived. Michael tries his hardest to defend the company, then derides Ryan's failure at sales, before ending his speech by telling the class that Ryan didn't know anything, and neither did they!

Pam is excited to show off her artwork at the show, but a little disappointed when nobody seems to care. That changes when Roy showed up and brings his brother, Kenny. However, Roy unwittingly rubs salt in Pam's wounds when he brings up the fact that nobody from work bothered to show up. Later, Oscar and his boyfriend to stop by to discuss Pam's art, not noticing that she is standing behind them. Oscar does his best to say encouraging things, but his boyfriend is hopelessly critical.

After moving Ryan's desk to the annex to work next to Kelly, Michael goes to Pam's art show. She is already fragile after overhearing Oscar's boyfriend criticize her artwork, But Michael had nothing but praise for Pam's work. He is so impressed, particularly with her painting of Dunder-Mifflin's building, that he buys it to display at the office.

__________________

This is another one of those beautiful little Office episodes that could easily slip by as a touching, Michael-gets-it-right-for-a-change scenario. But once again, there is a very deep social message here that I'm sure is often missed.

Oscar's boyfriend, Gil, represents the artistic establishment. When Oscar reminds him that Pam is only a beginner, Gil compares her to Van Gogh, in his not-so-humble beginnings. According to the establishment, the artistic community if you will, greatness is always the goal. And greatness can only be achieved with impeccable skill, and unparalleled imagination and ingenuity.

This goes for music, too... and dance and drama and literature. To be accepted in the eyes of the elite, one must break the mold and constantly chart new artistic territory. Many an album has been lauded, and many a film critically acclaimed which was fresh, original, imaginative... and bad. Unentertaining, unrealistic, and unable to connect with anyone's actual emotions or experiences. Gil had unfortunately lost the ability to interact with art on a human level, and Pam's confidence suffered the blow.

She was about to give up when Michael arrived. He paid a few modest compliments and began to brighten Pam's outlook, but when he saw the painting of Dunder-Mifflin's building, he gushed. "That's my window! And my car! And there's your car! Wow..." he said slowly, "this is our buiding. You nailed it, Pam. You nailed it."

Certainly the aftertaste of Business School had not left his mouth... his favorite employee attacking his company, his loyalty, his livelihood. Michael's pride had surged as he vehemently defended Dunder-Mifflin as a personal place. A relational place that offers something the big box stores never can. And the pride that surged into shouting and name-calling in the lecture hall, surged again now in a quieter way.

"Pam..." Michael intoned with sincerity, "I am really proud of you." Michael and Pam connect in a way they never have before, and probably never will again. And both their needs are met.

For every one thing that Michael gets, there are 99 things that he misses. This is a one-percent moment, but it's a big one. Not only does he see that the value of art is in those who are moved by it, those who can connect with it, he knows the most important thing of all is simply showing up.



+

The Office: Games in Real Life

NBC's The Office
"The Coup"
Episode 3002 | Season 3 | 10/05/2006

Synopsis: Michael had made it a point to have Movie Monday every week. He called the office into the conference room to watch a 30-minute installment of Varsity Blues, but Jan made an unexpected visit and did not like what she saw. Angela had Dwight thinking that he could run the office if Michael was fired.

Dwight thought about it and decided to meet up with Jan. He lied to Michael and then told Jan to come to an outlet center where they could meet privately. Jan informed Michael that Dwight was trying to take control of the office. She warned Michael to get better control of his staff. Michael couldn't believe Dwight's nerve to go behind his back.

Jim's branch, in Stamford, CT, became obsessed with playing the computer game Call of Duty II while at work. His boss was infuriated when he found out that Jim was the reason why their branch was losing the game. Jim is beginning to like his co-worker Karen, but is also feeling very out of place in such a video-game-obsessed office.

Michael fooled Dwight into believing that he was going to take over the office. Michael told the office that Dwight was taking over, who immediately began implementing his leadership strategies. But when Dwight refused to take the keys to Michael's Sebring, insulting it as beneath him, Michael told Dwight he'd found out about his betrayal through Jan, and that the whole promotion game was a test. Dwight pleaded with Michael to trust him again. The office watched as Dwight got on his knees and begged Michael not to fire him. He offered to do Michael's laundry for a year, and Michael accepted.

Back in Stamford, Jim is putting on his jacket to leave and turns at the door to face Karen, still sitting at her desk. He makes a motion as if pulling out a hand-grenade, pulling the pin, and tossing it towards Karen, who grabs a handful of paper clips and tosses them into the air in a mock explosion. Jim smiles happily for the first time all day, and heads home.

___________________

This is easily one of my favorite episodes, mostly because it sends a message about the difference between virtual reality and old-fashioned reality, and how hard we've fallen into the former, at the expense of the latter.

Jim loves to play games. Pranks, tricks, hoaxes, jokes, all of it. Life is a game to him. Even his job as a paper salesman can occasionally bring him fulfillment when it allows him to stretch his imagination and add some competition, strategy or intrigue to the daily interactions of life.

But when he gets promoted, and transferred away from Scranton--away from his favorite partner-in-crime Pam, and his favorite nemesis Dwight--Jim loses much of what made his occupation worthwhile. Make no mistake... there's no lack of competitiveness at the Stamford branch, it's just just that they express it in a computer game instead of real life. Naturally, Jim is out of his league in the virtual world of gaming, and starts to feel homesick.

Meanwhile back at the Scranton Branch, Michael is playing head games with Dwight... testing his loyalty by fooling him into thinking he's going to take over management of the branch. It's a tense and intriguing interplay as the lies slowly take shape, culminating in a humiliating endgame for Dwight.

Although Jim is starting to worry about not fitting in at Stamford, there's a glimpse of hope right at the end, when he plays a little miming game with Karen, and she takes the bait.

As dysfunctional as the Scranton office is, we're given a dose of perspective by Jim's experience at Stamford. Pranks and games may not be good for productivity at Scranton, but at least they're real. At least they're relational. Stamford, by contrast, is trapped inside someone else's imagination... in a highly-polished, fabricated world of World War 2 violence.

Most people's lives, anymore, are like the Stamford branch. Our realities exist largely on flickering rectangles: TVs, Computers, Cell Phones, iPods, GPS screens, and all our myriad products endowed with LCD displays.

Have we really forgotten how to play a game in three dimensions? How to chat in a room with actual walls? How to see a show live, that isn't broadcast live?

And of course, the more I type this blog, the more hypocritical I get. Swing by the Front Porch tonight, and you can hear me ramble on and on in real life.




+

Wiksell's Hierarchy of Deeds

I was thinking this morning about what motivates us to do what we do. Why we make certain choices, and why we later stick them, or abandon them. As I thought about it, I realized that there is a spectrum of motivations behind our actions, from the very weak to the very strong. The very weak motivations produce no consistent pattern or reliability of behavior, and the very strong ones can define our very essence and identity.

Yes, the title of this post is a shameless pun, but (speaking of motives) the pun was not the motivation behind the post... it came after I'd already gotten the idea.

Following is my "Hierarchy of Deeds", from weak to strong: Chance - Whim - Habit - Preference - Phase - Commitment - Contract - Covenant. Let's presume that each of the deeds being evaluated here is a positive one, and "rewards" refers to the result of following through on the decision to act, and "consequences" refers to the result of failure to act according to the stated motivation.

A few things that I think are interesting about this hierarchy:

-Whim, Habit, Preference and Phase go together as factors of preference. Whim is fleeting preference, habit is past preference that affects the present, and phase is prolonged preference.

-Commitment, Contract and Covenant have similar consequences: social punishment, criminal punishment, divine punishment, respectively. A commitment is an arrangement between two relative equals, with no formal accountability. A contract is between to relative equals, under the accountability of a higher entity. And a covenant is between a higher entity and a lower one.

Chance

Motivation: arbitrary happenstance; involuntary action or re-action
Rewards: random luck
Consequences: random misfortune
Example: walking left or right around a pole in the sidewalk

Whim

Motivation: fleeting preference; mindless habit
Rewards: trivial or random
Consequences: a sense of inconsistency or inconvenience
Example: walking to avoid cracks on the sidewalk

Habit

Motivation: past preference or necessity extrapolated to the present
Rewards: ordered lifestyle
Consequences: unpredictability, loss of efficiency or pattern
Example: walking fast while at work, to appear busy

Preference

Motivation: personal taste; past experience
Rewards: pleasure; fun; satisfaction
Consequences: disappointment
Example: walking the dog on the quiet street instead of the busy one.

Phase

Motivation: prolonged preference; peer pressure
Rewards: belonging; personal identity; enjoyable lifestyle
Consequences: outsider reputation, dullness
Example: walking with a "gangsta" limp

Commitment

Motivation: conviction; belief in a cause or group
Rewards: community or relationship; making a difference
Consequences: social punishment; alienation or distrust
Example: walking a group of children to school every Monday

Contract

Motivation: business or employment; legal agreement or relationship
Rewards: profit; mutual benefit; legal mandate
Consequences: criminal punishment; civil litigation
Example: walking your rounds as a security guard

Covenant

Motivation: devotion; unconditional love; faith in a higher power
Rewards: temporal and eternal favor and blessings
Consequences: divine punishment and/or damnation (but God forgives)
Example: walking with God as a disciple of Jesus

Of course, Covenant is the most interesting to me, especially because of the way God establishes his covenant with Abram. Abram is scared to death to enter into this covenant, because he knows God is perfect, and as soon as he walks through the blood (another example of walking) he's a dead man. Covenants in the Old Testament were punishable by death. But instead, God himself passes through the blood, taking the entire weight of the covenant upon himself.

I've heard the marriage is a covenant, and also that marriage is more of a contract, because covenants are made only by unequal partners, i.e. man and God. It's true that in a legal sense a marriage really is a contract (and a commitment) but in a spiritual sense I believe it is a covenant, because it's an agreement between each spouse and God himself. That they make a covenant with God, together, in the presence of the community.

But it is not a covenant that is punishable by death, as in the Old Testament, since God took all the punishment upon himself in the form of his son, Jesus.

The ending to this post is going to seem abrupt, because I didn't really have a big finish in mind. Just wanted to express my highly analytical side for a change.

Thanks for humoring me.

Soft-Sell Tacos

Note: This post is adapted from an e-mail about Socrates Cafe, that I wrote to a fellow leader at The Core.

Funny thing...

Somebody came into the print shop I work at yesterday afternoon talking about how he wanted to start an evangelistic hangout for youth, and he mentioned the Front Porch as a place kind of like what he wants to do, but without the FP's "soft sell". What's funny is, he was talking to me, but he didn't know I had anything to do with it. So I didn't tell him, because I enjoyed hearing his unguarded opinion.

The fact is, I don't think we have a "soft sell" because I don't think we have a "sell" at all. At least I don't want to have one. Should an outsider's experience with the church be more like getting invited to dinner with friends, or more like stepping onto a used car lot? Some of the things we do have a pointed spiritual emphasis, especially the worship gatherings, and also things like QAF, the Sisterhood and the Journeymen. And I actually miss the spiritual discussions I used to have with QAF.

But there also need to be non-spiritual things, to show people that that's not all "church" people care about, or know how to talk about. I think it makes a big impact on some people to be able to sit down with a group of Christians and talk about political or social issues without there having to be some underlying spiritual principle behind it, or an overwhelming conservative bias. I think an environment like that, one that welcomes them in and wants to hear their view, gives them a fuller picture of who Christ is. But Socrates Cafe could never stand alone... it needs the more spiritual activities around it to make sure we don't "de-spiritualize" Christianity altogether.

We've just started a series with Socrates called "pro-con", based on the website www.procon.org, where we can work through some hardcore social issues, and really hash them out together, but in a respectful and thoughtful way. Last night we talked about legalization of Marijuana, and it was a lively discussion to say the least. If you've got ideas for upcoming topics, make sure to let me know...



+

Christianity and the Maps of War

I was thinking about Christianity as an institution; as an establishment, versus Christianity as a Spiritual Commitment, and I ran across this short video.



All that blue area... how did that happen? Was it a result of the Spirit-driven success of missionaries? At first, with splotches of blue throughout Israel, Asia Minor (Turkey) and Southern Europe, I would say definitely so. (You'll notice this is the only time in the video when any religion spreads in splotches, instead of smooth, thorough expansion. I think this is the difference between missions and conquest.) And although the modern-day spread of blue in Sub-Sarahan Africa is certainly exaggerated (Christianity is not nearly as predominant as that in this area,) I would concede that it's primarily a result of missionary activity.

But what about the rest? Europe began as a mixed bag of scattered enclaves of evangelism, but its religion was sealed by the conversion of Constantine in AD 313, which mandated Christianity in the Byzantine empire, and then by Charlemagne and the rise of the Holy Roman Empire in the 9th and 10th centuries. By that point, Europe was Christian by default, not by conviction.

And the rest is pretty obvious. Latin America was overrun by gold-hungry Spanish conquistadors, who made a mixed attempt at missions and conquest, both of which employed forms of coercion. A third method was intermarriage, resulting in the overwhelmingly Cathlic Latino ethnicity.

By contrast, the original inhabitants of modern-day English-speaking countries remain largely unconverted, but their lands became Christian as they were displaced by Christian pilgrims and colonists. These sojourners failed to establish new anthropological centers for Christianity, instead simply founding a "second Europe."

What's my point in all this? Look at the Christianity we have today. Can we honestly claim that this is the Spirit of Christ at work in the world? In many cases it is, but is the preponderance of our religious establishment a true representation of our Messiah? Or is it more accurately a result of power-mongering, influence-wielding, and gold-digging?

Even in the latter case, God produces good from evil, and many of the most sincere Christ-followers I know have been introduced to their Savior by cultural means. But shall we do evil that good may result? God forbid!

I have always had a feeling that world-wide Christianity is not what we have made it out to be. Jesus counts many among his own, but I honestly doubt that he is touting that 2 billion number that we see bandied about. To follow Christ is to subvert the natural order, and I don't believe it can ever gain establishment in society. It may, now and then, hold sway for a moment. But it always rubs too hard against the grain, until more worldly and pragmatic leaders regain power, dismissing the way of Christ back into the underground where it belongs.

There will always be a temptation to gain favor in the ways of mankind, to grow in influence, to produce a spiritual media-darling or a popular guru that brings comfort and popularity to our cause. We will always want to look for ways to be respected even by those who disagree with us. But Jesus warned us in Luke chapter 6, "Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat false prophets in the same way."

The true prophets are not so well-liked (don't think I'm necessarily referring to myself.) As the Spirit works in us, we will get the message through to some. But not all. And so long as we recognize this calling as the Missio Dei, a mission that belongs to God, not us, then we can thank him for that.

And press forward through the underground.



+

Living in Synonyms

If you're going to get involved in this post-modern ministry stuff, you might as well accept that you're gonna have to learn a new language. Don't bother complaining... unless you're reaching out to the same people you grew up with, it'll be the same no matter where you go. You can't help people unless you understand them. And you can't understand them unless you can speak their language.

Of course, translating from Christianese to Post-modernish is like any other translation process... it's not simply a matter of word substitution. There are shades and ranges of meaning, connotation, irony, poetry and inflection that can be caught, but not taught. And even if they were teachable, I wouldn't be the one to teach it.

So instead I will grossly oversimplify the matter for you here, as an introduction, if you will. (Come to think of it, I may have done this before on this blog. But if so, it will be better this time around.)

It is true that Post-Modern culture makes it very difficult to broach certain subjects at all. Some words simply cannot be said in isolation... only in very thoughtful paragraphs, or in connection with narrative or art. Without such cushions, these words are choked by stigma, history, prejudice and pre-conception. That's not what I'll be talking about here. What I want to address with you now, are the subjects which are not difficult to communicate to a Post-Modern society, but which can become difficult very quickly if spoken in Christianese.

To that end, I would like to propose a brief Thesaurus for you; a Christianese-Post-Modernish dictionary. If I were really serious about this, of course it would be much longer. But I hope this can be helpful to you for now.

Truth-------Reality
Sin---------Rebellion
Savior------Messiah
Salvation---Restoration/Redemption
Church------Body/Community
Bible-------Scriptures
Christian---Christ-follower
Commandment-Mandate

Some of these substitutions are handy as pure synonyms, because the institutional church has simply dragged the first word through the mud, and we need a replacement. Other substitutions are better because they actually communicate more effectively to a Post-Modern mindset. I'll go through them to give you my thoughts about each one.

Truth-Reality: This is my favorite one, and it represents both of the above reasons that a replacement word is necessary for Post-Modern communication. In the first place, the word Truth has been wielded like a hammer by modernist ministers. And it's only gotten worse as times have changed, and as Relativism has reared its head. It's as if the louder we say the word "Truth" the more likely it is to sink in.

I prefer to use the word Reality, because no one can fully deny it. We may be able to spin vain philosophies regarding the viscosity of truth, and approach at them the same way as we would approach a math equation involving imaginary numbers (you know, the square root of -1.) But everyone is at least partially familiar with reality, and recognizes the concrete nature of it. You'd be surprised how often you can substitute the word Reality when you're tempted to say Truth. Give it a try.

Sin-Rebellion: Here again, there's nothing wrong with the word Sin. But it's been so misused, usually in the context of legalism and misplaced judgment, that it carries far too much baggage. It is not necessarily a silver bullet to talk to a Post-Modern about Rebellion, but it is easier for most of them to relate to their real lives.

Savior-Messiah: On the left, we have a word that has been beaten to death in formulaic evangelism, and on the right, a word that alludes to Jesus' Jewish culture and context, which is something that Post-Moderns find themselves drawn to. Rob Bell, in his Nooma videos, shows us the philosophical appeal to a cultural/contextual reading of the gospels, and the thrill of understanding what lies behind the words we've heard all our lives. It's like colorizing a black-and-white photo, and has revived many a cold heart to renewed interest in the things of God.

Salvation-Restoration: Salvation has come to refer to the inclusion of a select group for a ticket to heaven, and the exclusion of those who don't fit in so well. I know that's not what it actually means, but still. Even in the best of cases, "Salvation" has become empty, whereas Restoration engages the listener's sense that everything is awry, and must be restored or redeemed. Those with a bent toward social justice will understand this particularly well, and may be more likely to see the need for it in their own hearts.

Church-Body: "Church" has insititutional and corporate/commercial overtones. In Post-Modern eyes, it is often a legal entity that competes with other such legal entities for money, publicity and notoriety. A Body or Community, however, is an organism that functions inter-depentently, relying on one another's strengths, and bearing each other's burdens.

Bible-Scriptures: This one I'm not dogmatic about. But Rob Bell again leads the way by choosing the less stigmatized of the two words... the latter.

Christian-Christ-follower: I've written about this in the past, and I have to admit that, from an objective, etymological perspective, the former word is better. It implies being "in Christ" rather than simply following him. But it has fallen so far in our process of cultural segmentation that its virtue is all but lost. I do not recommend abandoning the word "Christian" whatsoever. But one must seriously consider "Christ-follower" when broaching the topic in the company of skeptics.

Commandment-Mandate: This one just came to me yesterday, and I stand by this substitution only for the sake of its emotional impact. The first word sounds oppressive and confining, but the second sounds like a challenge. Like we're being offered an opportunity, charged with a mission and an objective. I can't back this up with a dictionary, but I'm going to try to make this switch as often as possible, to see how it bounces.

Please feel free to critique my list, or my explanations. But one thing I'd definitely like to see in the comments is more ideas for words substitutions. So have at it!



+

Turkey vs. Reindeer

A few days ago my friend Ben Johnson (profile name: Ben Jay) started a group on Facebook called "Advertise Thanksgiving". I would link you to it, but I don't know how to link to a Facebook group.

Here are a few lines from his description of it:

in my opinion, gratitude is one of the things we (as a society) need most. all of us.
we take so much of what we have for granted. everyday. and we don't even realize it. religious or nonreligious. (myself, included).

it's time to make a change.
everyone recognizes how ridiculous it is that christmas sales start so soon. ...so let's start doing something about it. people CAN make a change. not just at christmas season, but every season.

Of course it's nothing new to get out there and talk about how much we take for granted, and how we should be more thankful, but humor me for a second here:

Do you suppose there's a reason why retailers downplay Thanksgiving? Unless you're a grocery store, you don't have a lot to gain from the holiday itself. But you do have a lot to lose.

What would happen to Christmas (Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, etc...) if people really celebrated Thanksgiving? I mean really... like going beyond the turkeys and stuffing and cranberry sauce and football games and cornucopias and little pilgrim candles and falling asleep in the recliner. What if people stopped what they're doing and said "Wow, we really have everything we need"? "In fact, we have far more than we need! If somebody told us that we need something we don't have, we would laugh heartily and fill up another trunkfull to haul over to the Goodwill.

America... we are stuff-saturated! It brings to mind an episode of The Office where the boss, Michael Scott, gets a second job because he's so deeply in debt. When he finally concedes to debt counseling, the counselor looks over his finances, and gives him the skinny. He says (and I paraphrase,) "Michael, I've put all your expenditures into three columns. This first column is for needs. The second column is for wants. And the third column is for the things you've bought that no one... anywhere... could ever need... or want... ever."

If it wasn't so bad for the environment, I would suggest we pile up all these things that no one could ever really need and have a spectacular bonfire. Why give things to charity that are just going to needlessly clutter someone else's life?

So maybe Thanksgiving should be a time to simplify. Because what better way is there to express gratefulness for having all you need, then by giving those things a little elbow room?

And when the Christmas commercials begin assault your simplified senses, you can laugh heartily, and take another heaping, thankful bite from your tukey, stuffing and cranberry sauce sandwich.



+

The Google Era

I've found a new and better name for the Post-Modern Age:

The Google Era. At least for the time being.

It seems we're getting pretty familiar, as a society, with technology changing the way we do things, and the way we think about things.

And those of us of in my generation and younger are getting pretty adept at handling the transitions.

Used to be, if you didn't plan carefully, or know your way around, you could get lost.

Not anymore.

Used to be, if you couldn't afford to buy music albums, you had to wait for your favorite songs to come on the radio.

Not anymore.

Used to be, if someone wasn't at home, or at work, then they're out of reach.

Not anymore.

No big deal. But it hit me today, the way we can just "Google" things now. It seems like a minor shift, but think about it. If you have a question, it doesn't matter if you have access to an encyclopedia, or a library, or a resident scholar. You can just Google it. You don't have to "not know". You don't have to "always wonder" anymore.

It's as though the big challenge of our generation is not to find answers to questions, it's to find a question we can't answer. And I think some of us miss the wondering.

Maybe that's a big part of post-modernism. That we've lost interest in the answers, because they're too numerous, too available, and too concrete. Supply is up, so demand is down.

It's like the number 42, if you've read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. They're looking for the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything, and they discover the answer is 42. So they set out to search for the Question. The Answer comes easy, but the search for the Question takes eons.

And so it is for our generation. It's become a challenge to find something to always wonder. And that is what people are latching onto... anything with a little mystique. A story with a prequel. A house with a cellar. A bride with a veil.

But old habits die hard, and it has been a tough road to break our addiction to concrete answers and reach out to trust what we cannot define. And it's something that none of us can do alone. We need people around us to make up in the heart what we lack in the head.

Don't have anybody like that? I'm sure Google can help.




+

Use Only As Directed

There are four ways to use any given medication:

The Deadly Way - This is simple... overdose. Or if you're a real expert, combine it with other medications or chemicals, and create a killer cocktail. A scaled-back subset of the Deadly Way is the Harmful Way, which might involve developing an addiction, or doing something deadly but stopping short. The Harmful Way sucks, but at least you get to keep living.

The Illegal Way - Try taking it without a prescription. Or selling it. Or making crystal meth out of it. Such practices may hurt others, but they won't hurt you (unless you're allergic to handcuffs.)

The Effective Way - This might involve actually reading the directions. Maybe you're supposed to take it with food, or at certain times of the day. If it's been prescribed to you, and you take it in appropriate amounts at appropriate times, often you'll notice some kind of benefit.

The Best Way - I've been prescribed very few medications in my lifetime. But usually they will say something like, "For best results, take all prescribed doses, even after symptoms have disappeared." I have never done that. When I'm not sick anymore, the pills vanish from my mind. But of course this is not a concept unique to the pharmaceutical industry. Practically every product with instructions has some "for best results" advice for you. It's like the final word in "wash, rinse, repeat". Who washes their hair twice every day? And yet who can deny that it would definitely make your hair cleaner?

Whether or not you give much thought to the four ways to use things, you would probably grant that the maker of a product has a right to decide how it should be used. And you'd probably agree even more strongly if you were not the purchaser of the product, but the borrower. The owner gets to set the terms, and it's your job to keep them straight.

But for some reason we have trouble seeing life this way. Because there are four ways to use life as well.

When the Law of Moses instructs the Israelites in cleanliness, it is warning against using life the Deadly Way. For example, don't touch a dead carcass if you don't want to catch something. God, by and large, prefers people to live, and not die prematurely, and who better to give advice on the subject?

Examples abound in the Bible of instructions as to avoiding the Illegal Way. This is stuff that will not kill you, but it may kill others, or harm others, or harm the community, or disgrace God. Because God has a purpose in mind for his children, he is not happy with those working at cross-purposes with him, and he tends to punish them in one way or another.

Proverbs is a good source to learn how to live the Effective Way. Maybe you're not killing yourself, and you're not offending anyone, but your life doesn't seem to work all that well, either. Proverbs will advise you how to get along with people, how to prosper, how to gain wisdom, how to avoid strife, etc, etc. Another book by the same author called Song of Solomon will tell you how to have the best sex of your life. Like I said... effective living.

So you've made it this far, and it occurs to you that there's more. You want to go beyond mere common sense, mere compliance, and plain old good advice, to live out everything God intended for you. In other words, the Best Way.

This comes with admonitions like "When you are forced to go one mile, go two" and "Pray for those who persecute you". Words of Jesus that I don't believe are intended as law. But they are mandatory for those who are striving for the best way... the way of the cross. Paul follows suit when he talks about those things he is free to do, but which might cause a brother to stumble. In the freedom of Christ, "all" things may be permissible, but not all things are beneficial.

We are living in the best way when we trust the Father to give us the instructions, and the Son to set the example.

Naturally, it is not easy for everyone to agree on what exactly God is saying to us. Personally, I believe the more important the injunction, the more clearly we find the Bible to speak on it. But that's not really what I'm getting at here. What I'm talking about is whether we're even listening.

Although a vast majority of Americans believe in a creator God, it seems that very few believe that Creator has a right to set the terms of use for his creation. We see the concept all around us in the products we use. But we think of life as somehow different... we act as owners and proprietors, rather than as tenants and stewards. We put life to our various tests, and then stick to what feels good. And it's easy to see where "life on our own terms" has gotten us.

But if we decide to take the true Owner seriously, we see clearly that there is a way that leads to death, and to disfavor. But there is also a way that leads to benefit, and to blessing. And it's not until we can stop making excuses and see ourselves for who we really are, that we will be able to see God for who he really is.



+

In Defense of the Edifice Complex

One of the cleverest phrases to come out of the emerging church is right there in the title to this post: Edifice Complex.

In case you’re not sure why this is clever, I’ll explain. An “Oedipus Complex” (pronounced Ed-i-pus) is a romantic love or desire for one’s own parent.

To be fair, it was not the emerging church community who coined this term. It’s been used more widely in regard to politics and business than religion.

More Buildings. Bigger Buildings.

No matter what arena (no pun intended) of life it refers to, an Edifice Complex implies a fixation on the need for more buildings, or bigger buildings, or nicer buildings, to accomplish one’s purposes. Often this obsession relates to visibility: the more impressed people are with the number and/or size of your buildings, the more favorable will their opinion be of you and your operation.

So it’s easy to see why the emerging church would level this accusation at the institutional church. The phenomenon of the 90s was Megachurch; swelling and bloating as the influx of attendants reaches into the thousands and even tens-of-thousands.

The phenomenon of the 21st century has taken us in a different direction… Multi-site churches. Rather than build larger and larger buildings, as these churches grow they establish more and more campuses. Usually this involves a whole separate staff for each site, with the exception of the grand exalted senior pastor, who is “beamed” in each Sunday by closed-circuit television, or failing that, by tape.

Forgive me for sounding cynical. I will state outright that many Megachurches, and many Multi-site churches are populated and run by wonderful people, and are doing huge amounts of good in their respective communities. But if there were examples to point to of the Edifice Complex, look no futher. More buildings… Bigger buildings.

Just in case you’re in danger of some type of clarity, I’m now going to flip this whole thing upside-down. Because in our rebellion against the Edifice Complex, many of us have become suspicious of church buildings altogether. Some have come to believe that the church should not own property or equipment, or have a maintenance or housekeeping staff. Because the church is simply people, and people can meet anywhere! Especially when we are keeping things small and intimate.

And I would agree to that last sentiment. We can meet anywhere. Even in larger groups we have far more choices than many Christians seem to realize. But there is an important aspect of humanity that is getting left out of the equation here, and that is:

A Sense of Place

It is ironic that, even as our society’s Edifice Complex has raged out of control, we have been losing our sense of place. On the other hand, it may not be ironic at all. The more buildings we build, and the more quickly we build them, the less of ourselves we invest in the quality of those spaces, and the less relevance they will have in our lives.

I have few complaints about my workplace. It may not be fancy or well-appointed on the inside, but it is a 100-year old building in a historic district, and I like that. But when I go to my friend Raeganne to get my hair cut, I go to a brand-new building that looks 100 years old, and sometimes I wish I could work there instead. You could show up an hour early and sit down to wait without ever picking up a magazine, and yet you’d be entertained. I wish I was sitting there as I write this, so I could describe the décor in detail. But this salon, called Mojo Pie, is one of the wackiest places you’ll ever experience. It’s as if a pirate and a hippie got married and took up interior design together. When you’re there, you feel like you’re someplace.

Even as our sense of space has increased (especially in Texas) our sense of place has flown out the window. Our memories are wrapped up indelibly in the places they occur. The aesthetics of our daily commutes guide our thoughts, and the layout of our homes determine our movements. Each place has a feel, a personality, and a spirit of its own.

It is obvious that God understands this. He tied every story, and even the vast majority of spiritual concepts, to physical places: Jerusalem, Egypt, Athens, the Temple, the Tabernacle, the Stone of Help, the Jordan River, the Garden of Eden, the Camp, the Altar, the Desert. Our story is wrapped up in specific years, in proper names, and in real locales… it is a story with flesh on its bones. Even “The Word” is more a Person than it is a concept.

So for a church to have a sense of space is only natural. To want to own that space is not necessarily wrong. But to entertain that sense of space without a sense of place is a big mistake, and a failure to understand the human spirit. We need to think about how life really happens, and mold our spaces into places that will put flesh on the bones of our own stories, as they unfold from day to day.

If we’re going to have edifices, then so be it. But let’s not build them and decorate them so hastily and thoughtlessly. Let’s invest ourselves in them, to become the stuff of relationship, of emotion, of growth, of challenge, of memory, of welcome, and of the body-life that God intended us to live.



+

Fake China :: Fake Church

I have a friend who is about to travel to Beijing for the 2008 Olympics. One of her friends has a brother who is swimming for Tunisia, so she decided to come along for the ride.

Last night she was over at our house, telling us about some of the interesting steps the Chinese government is taking to make their capital city a world-class experience for these two weeks in August:

1) They are shutting down numerous factories for a period of time, with the hopes of drastically improving air quality. Imagine the let-down for those Beijing residents who discover what it's like to take a deep breath for two weeks, before going back to "normal".

2) They are banning cars from the road. For a three-month period, cars are restricted on alternate days, depending on their license plate numbers. My friend said they were banning cars completely during the Olympics, which may be true, but I haven't found support for that yet on the web.

3) She also said they'll be banning the internet, which is certainly something they'd like to do, but I can't prove that they've decided to do so, against the insistence the IOC.

In addition to those things, the Chinese government has prompted (to put it gently) its citizens to do many other things, such as: changing the names of its restaurant dishes (and remove dog meat from the menu), quit asking personal questions that might offend westerners, stop smoking, stop using fireworks, and the list goes on and on.

With all these expensive initiatives, it is not likely that China will make money on the Olympics. Chances are that they don't care... they see this simply as an extremely expensive public relations project, which will garner them First World status.

After mentioning all these bans, my friend lamented that she would just rather experience Chinese culture for what it really is. Of course the breathing will be nice, but she is sad for the lack of one very important thing: Authenticity.

We may laugh at the Chinese government's paranoid attempts at keeping, or saving, face. But there is something very human about it. In a bad way, that is.

The Church is a prime suspect of the same offense. The Church is polluted, it's noisy and messy. It has a beautiful culture, but is not without it's crazy jargon and undesirable characters. It's natural that we should want to mask all that ugliness. Otherwise, who would ever come?

But people can surprise you. Authenticity is a powerful thing, and people will put up with a lot to be in the presence of real honesty and transparency. It's scary to put yourself out there, and a lot of people really will turn away in disgust. But those are not the people you need around anyway.

And before you accuse the Church too sharply, do some navel-gazing of your own. What are you trying to hide? Put up your facade if you must; disbelieve it if you like, but most people would rather know the Real You.

The Swiss Cheese Curse

"Brendon... the ground you walk on is cursed, and no matter what kind of job you have, it will suck in one way or another. And chances are, most months there will be more month than there is money.

"Kara... you'll probably give birth to children someday, but without drugs the pain will make you wish you were dead. Oh, and Brendon will never quite meet your expectations, but he'll dominate you anyway."

I hereby pronounce you husband and wife. You may now start having second thoughts.

A few weeks ago Christina and I were able to travel to Portland, Oregon to see my brother (Brendon) get married to the girl of his dreams (Kara). Thankfully, the wedding didn't sound anything like the words above. I'm pretty sure no wedding ever has.

That's because the passage in Genesis 3 that this exchange is drawn from is A CURSE. People don't want to think about curses at weddings. As the King of Swamp Castle said in Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail, "This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who!" But I digress...

What I'm saying is, when you see a curse, it's best not to encourage it. The best thing to do is fight it, defy it, pray against it, live into the blessing.

But I think as many of us try to live out our lives as men and women, and as husbands and wives, we end up slouching towards the curse anyway. As I explain, I'm going to leave out the part about child-bearing. Drugs, no drugs... you can make up your own mind on that.

Adam, as we know, was formed from the dirt. Which is why, incidentally, it is so hard for a man to get, or stay, clean. Eve was formed later on from Adam's rib so that pastors would have something clever to say at weddings about the woman being equal to man because she came from his side.

Even when God was most involved in the lives of humans, he tended not to deal with us in a very direct fashion. He did not pop Adam and Eve out of thin air (ex nihilo for your seminarians,) he used materials. And it's as if those materials are always there to tempt us to put our trust in matter (materialism) instead of its Source.

Adam's matter was dirt. So how did God curse Adam? He cursed the dirt, so that men throughout history would have to bust their butts all day long, and this is the thanks they get from you kids?

Eve's matter was Adam. So how did God curse Eve? He said that she would always desire a relationship with him, but he would rule over her. She would always long for equality and intimacy and emotional/spiritual compatibility, but Adam would be too stubborn and dirty for much of that. Plus he'd be at work all the time.

At first glance, Eve's curse looks demeaning (although it shouldn't be strange that a curse would be demeaning.) But many women have lamented their fate to be subordinate to a man, and have decided that they'd rather have Adam's curse... workaholism! Now that's living the dream...

The fact is, they're both curses, and God does not expect us to seek out either one. He created us to be equal... for the first woman to come out of man, and every subsequent man to come out of woman. Similarly, he created us to seek God. When men (or women) try to achieve significance through their work, or when women (or men) try to find ultimate fulfillment in their human relationships, we are all missing the point. We are chasing after the curse instead of the blessing.

I probably don't even need to say that the curse is largely unavoidable, this side of eternity. But thankfully God's grace, especially as displayed on the Cross, has punched huge holes in it, through which we can see and live out what God intended for his children.

That is true religion... not to set up systems that play into the curse, but to guide ourselves and others into the blessings that God has made possible by his own sacrifice.

Now.... you may kiss the bride.

Letter to Christianity Today

I wanted to share with everyone a letter I wrote to Christianity Today. So here it is:

William Lane Craig is 99% right in "God is Not Dead Yet", but I believe his take on the impotence of post-modernism needs correction. He falls into a common trap—equating relativism with post-modernism.

Relativism is just one aspect of post-modernism, and not even the most defining aspect of it.

Although I would agree with Craig that “modern” apologetics will always be vital, he does not recognize the amount of damage done to that faith by modernist thinking.

And by damage, I am primarily referring to the reduction of a faith which values both certainty and mystery, into one which we have a right to thoroughly categorize and systematize for human consumption.

Post-modernism has, in my opinion, the potential to correct this mistake. Granted, it also carries numerous dangers, like relativism, but fortunately it is not a package deal. I believe that relativism is beginning to wane, even as the post-modern point of view is spreading rapidly, especially among those under 35.

And Don't Forget To Tip Your Waitresses...

You know I am really passionate about a topic when I never run out of metaphors or illustrations to get my point across. And here's the second one in a row in the food service category.

Last night Christina and I were having dinner with another couple at a restaurant downtown. The table we sat down at was a bit grimy, so we asked our waitress if she could clean it up. She acquiesced, but none too enthusiastically. When it was time to order, Christina and I ordered a single entree, to split, and the other couple ordered the same entree, to split. The waitress didn't seem too excited about that either, and I wondered if it was because she knew our check, and thus her tip, would be minimal.

All in all the service wasn't terrible, but it was painfully austere. Until she brought the check, that is. That's when she started joking around about who's bill was whose, and suddenly acting like she was one of those fun and friendly waitresses. I wanted to ask her who she was... because our waitress is the one without that smile on her face. But I didn't say that. I just played along, since I was more concerned about our conversation with the other couple than with our waitress' behavior.

But when Christina and I talked about it on the way home, she made me realize that our server had intentionally waited until check time to put on her happy face, so as to supplement her tip. And why not? After all, it's a lot of work being a good server. It's exhausting to be friendly and helpful all the time. And according to the primacy/recency effect, people only really remember the first thing, and the last thing, and not necessarily even the first thing if the food is good. So why not save your energy, and simply make a good last impression to boost your bottom line? Makes sense.

But, as Christina said, it also makes one feel used. It makes it painfully obvious, upon reflection, that your server is only interested in one thing: him- or herself. Even most good servers probably don't actually care about you, the customer, as a person, but at least they believe in serving you well, and doing a good job from start to finish. That way you're free to believe they care about you and like you. But when they make it so obvious that they're fishing for tips, it's hard to want to tip them at all.

But here's the payoff... this is often the impression that evangelism makes on the world. We have an agenda: to boost our numbers, to earn our badges, to seek out the prospects and expand the army of God. This is our sacred duty, and we'll do anything to accomplish it, by gum! Even pretending we like you! Whatever gets the job done...

Come on, world... just look how hard we've worked to serve you well, and all the time with a big, toothy grin on our faces. And we ask nothing in return, except a paltry tip of 10%.

And we better get it, too, or you never know... one of us might just spit in your communion cup.




+

La Comunidad Autentica

Several weeks ago, my boss hired a new employee named Diana to help out with the increasing workload. She is from Mexico, and has been a legal resident of the United States most of her life. Fortunately, she's happy to answer our questions about her home country, and her first language.

A week or two after she came on board, Andy (my boss) asked her if there were any truly authentic Mexican restaurants in Springfield. At first she said no. But then she changed her mind and said there's a place called Tamale King that's pretty close.

Christina and I actually ate at the Tamale King once. It's remarkably bare-bones, with linoleum floors, fluorescent lighting, and cafeteria-style tables and chairs. Two clues as to its authenticity were its wall of Latino grocery items, and the TV suspended over the counter playing Univision non-stop.

I'm not sure how many Mexican restaurants there are in Springfield, but there's at least several dozen. Of course the majority of them aren't even trying to be authentic: Taco Bell, Taco Bueno, Chipotle, Qdoba, Carlos O'Kelly's, etc. These are the franchise eateries that have stuck to the formula for success... put a lot of fattening American food in a tortilla, dip it in cheese, and give it a Spanglish name.

After that you've got your independently-owned places that are shooting for authentic... Tex-Mex, that is. It's still pretty Americanized, but closer. These are the joints that are always trying to convince you they're authentic. It's a great PR word. They play canned Mariachi music over the speakers, they hang ponchos and sombreros on the wall, and they may even sell funky sodas you've never heard of.

According to Diana, we've now described every "Mexican" restaurant in Springfield but one. And that one, Tamale King, doesn't seem to care if anybody thinks they're authentic. No wacky red-green-and-yellow decor, no trumpets and giant guitars, not even a fully Spanish name. Nevertheless, the proof is in the Mexican Bread Pudding.

It's obvious by the sincere attempts at authenticity in the restaurant industry that customers care about getting "the real thing". But why? It seems like a perfect world for an epicurean white guy like myself. Dozens and dozens of restaurants, all lined up to give me something spicy and exotic, but catered specifically to my caucasian sensibilities. What could be better?

So I think the restaurants in the Tex-Mex category have discovered something significant. White people don't really want authentic Mexican food. They just want to think they're getting authentic Mexican food. Why else would they go to all the trouble to dress it up, instead of just calling it what it is? You know... Spicy Burger Chopped Up Inside Taco Shell. (Not that there's anything wrong with that...)

Where am I going with this, you ask? Authentic is not just a buzzword in the culinary arts, it's practically a movement within the Church. Indeed, it's become a veritable silver bullet. "Let's all be seeker-sensitive, I mean let's have a revival, I mean let's be postmodern, I mean let's be missional, I mean let's be authentic! That's all we really need!"

Check me out, I'm guilty too. What's the unofficial slogan of the Front Porch? "Arts, Culture and Authentic Community." Not even a complete sentence, is it?

I am not writing this post to say that we are the Tamale King of churches (there's a slogan for you.) We are not a lone reed of integrity in a sea of spiritual pretenders. But if I can blow the horn in my sleep, perhaps I can give the whole Church a wake-up call.

Whether people really want authenticity, or they just think they do, the fact is that they need it. We need it. The temptation, as a church leader, and especially as a church planter, is to get a focus group, figure out everybody's preferences, and then create an experience especially for them. Just like the Taco Bells and Qdobas, it's a proven success strategy, and everybody wants to be a winner.

But what does it cost? Yes, the Chalupas are cheap, but the identity crisis is out of everyone's price range. Because the most fundamental human need is to know who you are... whose you are. And what you're worth. And every step we take toward a plastic spiritual utopia is a step away from that ultimate goal. It's a concealing, not a revealing, and down the road I get to find out just how many layers I've managed to wrap around the real ME... the person God created me to be.

So the question is out there... Do you really want Authentic Community? Because you have to take the sides that come with it, namely Repentance, Transparency, Intimacy, Forgiveness, even Awkwardness... ew. All concepts which can be pretty hard to swallow.

So... no room for dessert? Check please!



+

The Church Is a Whore, and She Is My Mother

Augustine said it.

Every generation is prone to certain superlative assumptions about itself. We are always...

the most enlightened, most advanced, most creative, most civilized...

AND/OR

the most wicked, most degenerate, dumbest, laziest, voted-most-likely-to-usher-in-the-end-of-the-world generation in history.

So naturally it surprises us when we look back and see the same attitude in history. Is it possible that a 5th-century Bishop, prior even to the Dark Ages, could be as jaded against the church as our own breed of postmodern critics?

But yes, Augustine said it. "The Church is a whore, and she is my mother."

Last night at the Front Porch, I slipped into one of those conversations. Somebody mentioned the alleged $50,000 that a particular church happened to have spent on speakers for the youth center. Not a speaker system... not human speakers, just speaker cabinets. And one of our more idealogical Wednesday night regulars became, shall we say, livid.

"How... hm... HOW MANY LIVES DO YOU THINK COULD BE SAVED BY $50,000!?!"

Whether the statistic was correct or not was beside the point. The fact is that we Christians are famous for finding ways to collect large amounts of money, and spend it on something that many others deem utterly irrelevant.

I wonder what the underground Christians in China or Indonesia or the Sudan might think. These churches seem to be growing spiritually and numerically, under far-less-than-ideal conditions. Of course, it would not be original of me to point out the way Christianity tends to thrive under oppression.

Last night my wife and I were wondering out loud if American Christianity was headed in that direction. "Sometimes, in a very weird way," I said, "I actually long for that."

"You do???" She exclaimed.

"Well... sort of. I mean, it's a hard thing to say. But it's as if someone is out to destroy us either way. If we're being oppressed, others are destroying us physically. If we're being validated by society at large, we inevitably start destroying ourselves spiritually. Only, in the first instance we are drawing closer to God in our adversity, and in the latter, we're wandering away from him."

"I never thought of it that way," She said. "I think that's true."

In my other conversation, with the Front Porch idealogue, I seconded many of his concerns about the way we Christians use and abuse the gifts of God. But I also tried to convince him to give even the most suspect church the benefit of the doubt. The fact is, we don't always (and actually we hardly ever) fully understand the underlying motives, and the heart behind the decisions that are being made in other churches.

"I actually know people in that church who really have an earnest heart after God," I said.

"But do you know someone in leadership?" the idealogue demanded.

"As a matter of fact, I do." He gasped. You might think he was being over-dramatic. I might think you'd be right.

"Or was, anyway," I continued. "He was in leadership. If you're right about this church, and that it needs change so badly, I believe he would have been one of the people there longing to bring it about. But he's not there anymore. Maybe he gave up. I haven't talked to him about it."

"Well... yes... maybe," he stammered.

There is so much to hate about what they've become. What we've become. Reminiscent of Rahab, or Gomer, or Israel at large, we have been unfaithful. We've forgotten our first love, and chased after everything else that moves, looking for what we've already found, but lost. The Church has become, by definition, a whore. With a long and proud tradition of corruption and, well... pride.

But she is ours. She is us. She is the true body of Christ that stands by his power and grace despite so many stumblings.

She is our mother.

Walking on Eggshells

Last Sunday morning one of the things I talked about at The Core was some of the things we can learn from other religions. I know this thought sends shivers down the spines of many Christians, and to others it's too little, too late.

If you know me at all, I don't have to assure you that I haven't gone soft. When it comes to the Bible, Jesus, etc, I still believe basically the same things I have believed most of my life. But even if we Christians are right about the most important aspects of spirituality, do we really need the arrogance that often comes along for the ride? Is it right to treat all other religions as if they are full of morons (no... not Mormons. There is actually one religion which is full of Mormons.) who managed to get everything wrong? Or do we have the humility to learn from our "enemies"?

It made me think of (surprise!) a metaphor. Namely, holding a belief is a lot like holding an egg. (You may have heard this metaphor used with parenting.) If you hold it too loosely, it will roll off and break on the floor. If you hold it too tightly, it will bust in your hand.

My point to the post-modern crowd is, there's nothing wrong with a little certainty. And to the modern crowd that there's nothing wrong with having an open mind. Because the danger of rejecting certainty is that, rather than validating all beliefs, it actually refutes all beliefs... considering all of them unworthy of really believing in.

And the danger of rejecting open-mindedness is that you can come to protect your beliefs so savagely that you actually weaken them in the process. Let me explain.

A true belief is able to stand up to scrutiny and skepticism. When we shield our beliefs from all such attacks, we insinuate that they cannot endure the onslaught, and thus, may not actually be true.

Either way, your egg is a goner. The only question now is... do you want it scrambled or fried?

Reality Bites

Here's the scoop.

I'm too much of a post-modernist to believe that every question has, or needs, a pat answer. Or that only those with sufficient and acceptable education should have a voice. Or that the arts are nothing more than helpful illustrations in an otherwise serious book.

But I'm too much of a modernist to believe that nothing is really true, or that certainty has no place. Because what I'm about to say is something I will not let go of.

The way I see it (there I go, talking post-modernese) we each have three choices as we attempt to discern the nature of reality:

A) Reality is a shape-shifter that morphs and customizes as it travels from person to person, and from one day to the next. No one has the right to speak with any certainty about it, and by no means does anyone have the right to correct anyone else's perceptions. (This is the one and lonely dogma of post-modernism.) We each define our reality, allowing it to flow to us fresh with each new whim and situation, and we listen to the observations of others like we would read a good novel, or view an abstract painting.

B) Reality is the easiest, most comfortable solution to my particular quandaries. There is indeed a solid floor to stand on, but I know I have not found it until it truly makes me happy. Nevermind that one man's truth is another man's heresy. Nevermind that every last satisfying belief I hold dear makes someone else bristle with irritation. Apparently the universe was shaped and molded to meet my expectations, and help me to sleep soundly every night.

C) Reality is full of hard truths, and hidden truths. There is no need to despair, because hope is present and powerful. But in order to know what is real, we have to be prepared to accept some ideas that seems unfair, or unreasonable, or downright ridiculous. Truth is stranger than fiction, and often harder to swallow, and no one finds it without a substantial dose of humility.

If you know me very well, you may be tired of hearing this stuff, but as I said, I just can't let it go. If you want to accuse me of skewing the choices, go ahead. Feel free to re-write them, or tear them down entirely, in the comments.

But whether you comment or not, at the very least, THINK ABOUT IT.

The Question of Suffering

Yesterday my boss had to take the day off because he pinched his sciatic nerve. Normally he provides the office music from his iTunes, which can include anything from Johnny Cash to the Beastie Boys.

But yesterday was quiet most of the day, so eventually I decided to turn on our local NPR station, and listen to Fresh Air, one of its more popular interview programs.

Although I was only able to listen to snatches of the show, I did catch that Terry Gross was interviewing an author named Bart Ehrman, whose book is called "God's Problem". Ehrman is a former minister and fundamentalist, and his driving point was that Christianity, and religion in general, have not found a satisfactory explanation for human suffering. Here is a quote from the book:

Eventually, though, I felt compelled to leave Christianity altogether. I did not go easily. On the contrary, I left kicking and screaming, wanting desperately to hold on to the faith I had known since childhood and had come to know intimately from my teenaged years onward. But I came to a point where I could no longer believe. It's a very long story, but the short version is this: I realized that I could no longer reconcile the claims of faith with the facts of life. In particular, I could no longer explain how there can be a good and all-powerful God actively involved with this world, given the state of things. For many people who inhabit this planet, life is a cesspool of misery and suffering. I came to a point where I simply could not believe that there is a good and kindly disposed Ruler who is in charge of it.

Knowing that it would be fodder for his detractors, in the interview he specifically referenced the book of Job. He claimed that Job, rather than providing an explanation for suffering, depicts a man who questions his intense suffering, and is reprimanded for it by God himself. Job says "Why? I don't deserve this!" and God says "Be quiet. Did you create the universe?"

Ehrman tears down the traditionally positive view held of Job, and rips into his character, saying that Job, rather than accepting his suffering in faith, constantly complained and defended himself. In response, God then (in Ehrman's view) scolds Job for even asking such questions.

I disagree not only with his view of Job, but with his completely cerebral approach to suffering. Perhaps if I read the book I would feel differently. But I certainly don't want to be guilty of it myself, and fail to recognize the suffering you may be experiencing in your life, even as you read this. Life hurts, and sometimes it's torture. No amount of analysis or exegesis or debate can make a dent in that. If you're suffering right now, the second worst thing I could give you is a rational explanation. But the number one worst thing I could give you is the sense that God doesn't care, and you're not allowed to scream in his face for relief. I'll talk more about that in a minute.

So book knowledge alone just doesn't cut it... even when that book is the Bible. Sometimes it doesn't matter how many chapters or books one has memorized from the Bible, because Ehrman has far more than his share. Memorization does not guarantee absorption, and certainly not relationship.

Because when I read Job, I do not see a God who sends lightning on those who ask why. I see a God who overwhelms Job with the power and awe of God's own presence; to the point where Job might even forget about his own pain for a moment.

Solomon says that man cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end. God was reminding Job that he is completely incapable of seeing the big picture, and steering him back to faith, not necessarily away from all doubt, but away from despair.

Humanity is absolutely not wrong to question its own suffering. Look at the Psalms, especially 22 and 69. Here is David, the "man after God's own heart", pounding on the chest of the Almighty, screaming out for answers. And God calls this sacred scripture--something each one of us should read and internalize. And for one reason more than any other... these passages point directly the sufferings of Jesus.

And that, more than anything I can think of, is the fulfillment of the question of suffering. Notice I don't say "the answer to the question" because modernity has convinced us to seek hard-and-fast answers where perhaps there can be none. It is my belief that, in those cases, we should instead seek fulfillment. Relationship. Then what is the fulfillment of the question of the suffering of humanity? I believe it's the suffering of Christ.

He did not promise us answers. He promised us himself. "I will be with you, even to the end of the age."

If we want anything beyond that, we do not want Jesus at all.

Happy Mandatory Romance Day!

Just in case you weren't present at the Front Porch on Sunday, I'm going to share a few slides with you that I used to make fun of Valentine's Day.

If you were there, just scroll down, because this post is not entirely redundant.

Let me begin with a few images that may bring a bit of nostalgia to those of us who were required by law to give every one of our classmates a valentine on that... special day:

Although, I don't know if "swing" is really the best word for a children's card anymore.

I guess those are Nintendo Wii controllers. Shows how behind the times I am. Still... it's a little troubling that so far we have "swingers" and "players". Perhaps something a bit more grown-up:

I think this card speaks for itself.

Here's a good lead-in to what I was wanting to talk about.

I know a lot of people who celebrate Valentine's Day, a lot of people who don't, and a lot of people who avoid it with a vengeance. One thing I can definitely understand is a cynicism for the "machine"; the Valentine's Industry. It's almost as bad as Christmas, although not nearly as big. It is the taking of something beautiful and mysterious and sacred, and converting it into some easy cash. Imagine two young people who look at each other, and like cartoon characters, their eyes turn to little hearts. Naturally, as soon as an opportunistic retailer notices this, his eyes turn to little dollar signs.

That's much of why Christina and I decided not to play into the machine when we celebrate this evening. We've made reservations at a brand-new uppity restaurant that opened up on Commercial Street, which is a historic district, yet one that is struggling to come back from the brink of squalor. To open such a restaurant on such a street is a real risk... a sticking-out of one's neck, which is a concept we feel we can relate to.

Finally, apart from the commercialization of Valentine's, there is the question of arbitrariness I feel I must address.

In my opinion, all holidays are at least somewhat arbitrary. Even if they mark the historic date of a special event, it still doesn't really matter what day that event is recognized.

But when you consider human nature, it's just a fact that, unless we appoint a specific period of time to recognize something significant, we just won't do it. We get busy with things, and hopefully we will, if we're doing well, live up on a daily basis to the standards created by our special events and cultural ideals, such as Romance. But often we can let a year pass by without doing something really special to ignore our daily concerns for a moment and focus on something worthwhile.

To me, that's the reason we have holidays. We can't rely on them as the be-all-end-all of the ideals they represent, but we also shouldn't ignore them as opportunities to focus on what makes us who we are.

I sense that you are in agreement with me. So now will you ride my turtle?