Tag Archives: church

It's All About People

Posted on by
1

I’m making this up, but I think I’m right.

If you’re in business then it’s easy to think that it’s about the bottom line. It’s about income and expenditures. If you make more than you spend in a consistent, ethical, and reproducible way you should be good to go.

If you’re into religion it’s easy to think that it’s about figuring out what’s right. Its about the right religion or the right path. If you’re following a religion that is right and leads to outcomes that resonate with your definition of rightness then you should be good to go.

If you’re into philosophy then it’s easy to think that its all about thinking rightly. Right outcomes are less important than right processes that develop people along a pathway of consistency (I think. Honestly I get very lost in philosophy).

If you’re into art and creative expression then its easy to think that its all about freedom. It’s about the freedom to express who you are, what you see (or do not see) in the world, and to bring a voice to what might be left blank otherwise.

If you’re into education then its easy to think that it’s all about gaining information. The more we know the more power we have over our choices and our future. Knowing more gives us greater power, control, freedom, responsibility, and a whole host of valuable and important things.

If you’re into humanitarian work it’s easy to think that its all about fixing things. You recognize that the world is broken and your heart does not let you go on without being a part of the solution. So you build wells, you organize soup kitchens, and you care for the broken people and systems in our world ’till they are fixed.

Each and every one of those is of huge value (though I know that we each will value one much more highly than another!). But none of those are enough. None of those outcomes stand.

Because it’s all about people.

Actually, let me back up one more step. It’s all about this radical Latin phrase called the Imago Dei–that humanity is indelibly marked with the image of God. That you, I, him, her, that dude, that kid, and that one snarky old dude over there are all first and foremost created in the image of something first of all perfect, gracious, loving, creative, and beautiful. Broken as we are, in need of fixing, in need of more knowledge, greater freedom, consistent thinking, right ends, and even success–none of those things define us.

What defines us is our identity as a part of humanity.

Business, religion, philosophy, education, art, social work, and the many other elements of life that should be listed all come down to the same thing–how do we honor, cherish, nurture, and love the beautiful things we’ve been given–namely each other?

Obviously I’m not dumb enough to think I’m writing a blog post trying to answer that question. I’ll write that four point blog tomorrow.

But I’m also not going to be foolish enough to say that my wife and I are not making an attempt at an answer. For Jess and I (and those who are conspiring with us!) our response is this whole crazy stupid idea of creating a new Christian movement in downtown Vancouver that seeks to see a Grassroots Conspiracy emerge where people are finding new life in person to person interactions across streets, blocks, and neighborhoods.

We’ll see if it works…but the way I figure is it can’t hurt!

Jesus is not gluten free

Posted on by
Reply

My family eats gluten free. My wife has been cooking gluten free for most of our marriage and is actually quite skilled at it. She can bake really good bread, chocolate chip cookies, scones, etc. But I think there’s something inherently off about the gluten free culture. The gf culture is completely concerned with mimicry. All they do is try to recreate gluten-filled foods. They spend great energy (and lots of money!) trying to make bread that is as close to wheat bread as possible. But it is not wheat bread. It’s an impostor. It’s a faker. Instead of a cup of wheat flour you end up throwing in a little brown rice flour, xanthum gum, tapioca starch, and corn starch among other things. It’s not wheat bread. Some really good bakers can make gluten free pastries that taste nearly identical to regular pastries. Its awesome. I love it and crave it.

For quite some time the church has been the same. With regard to being creators (like a baker) they’ve been completely consumed with mimicry. For years there was no innovation or creativity, they’d look at the world around them and try to create “Jesus-versions” of what they saw. Like gluten free food they spend all their time trying to look like everyone around them…but they’re not everyone around them. The TV show Glee is creative and it has an identity, but this is not creative and its identity is tied up completely in being a crappy and cheesy version of something else (a terrible identity to own!). That shirt isn’t creative. It’s not cool. Its a faker and an impostor. Even still, however, some Christians crave this stuff. They buy up cheesy ‘Jesus knock offs’ like mad and sport those shirts with pride.

What if both groups (gluten free eaters and Christians) stop trying to be something they’re not? What if they both come to peace with who they are and stop trying to copycat those around them? What if gluten free eaters started viewing healthy and delicious eating apart from a wheat existence? Fruits, vegetables, meats, dairy, nuts…they could live off this stuff quite happily if they own it. Christians would be better off if they simply owned who they were. If they stopped defining themselves based on who they aren’t and started defining themselves based on who they are (and could be) everyone would be better off. Caring for the poor, compassion toward the marginalized, and taking risks for the sake others are all things Christians should own. I love seeing Christians wearing more t-shirts with non-profits on them because they better represents their identity. Other Christians refuse to wear labels on their clothes because they don’t want to be defined by these labels and neither do they want to support businesses that propagate pain in the world.

Own it. It’s a risky move, you’ll lose yourself before you find yourself, but at least it’ll be real…and I think it’ll actually be better.

Are you IN love with Jesus? Awkward…

Posted on by
8

Lets get this out of the way right up front: I love Jesus. I do. I love worshiping Jesus. I think its good to tell him that I love him. I think its good to remind myself that he loves me too. I do.

But can we be honest for a second and admit that the last ten years of worship music are kind of…awkward. Southpark might be right in saying that all we do is sing love songs to Jesus. I love the moment in that Southpark episode when record label executives try to ask Cartman whether he is actually in love with Jesus.

Music is powerful. It speaks to our soul, it captures our heart, and it captures moments in time and imortalizes them in our collective memories. With regard to worship, however, I think we’ve lost some of its potency. Rarely does it capture us up into a grand narrative, a story bigger than ourselves. Rarely does it inculcate us with the truth of Scripture, rarelycalling us into community or propelling us toward loving our neighbors more fully…what our worship music does is remind us how much we love Jesus.

Too much of a good thing is not good. Maybe we should stop just talking about how much we love Jesus and capture some of our story in song, capture some of our ancient historical story in song, capture truths about God in song, sing songs that invite us to live differently and more graciously in our world…instead…we just tell Jesus that we love him…a lot…

Too much of a good thing? I say yes, and awkwardly so!

My Apologies to the Fam

Posted on by
3

As far as I am beginning to see it I have two real options. One is to embrace my faith tradition and move forward as a part of a story and the other is to reject it and move forward as an orphan. I did not used to see things with this dichotomy, nor did I care much. More recently I’ve come to a place where I desired to embrace my immediate church history as long as it carried an asterisk that allowed an explanation of how my current expression was different in this way, that way, or another. In other words, even in my semi-embrace of my tradition I have been ashamed of it–embarrassed that people might get the wrong idea, that I might get lumped in with baggage that I have rejected. In reality, however, I question whether or not its even possible to reject your baggage and move forward without it. Even in the act of rejecting it, the baggage that you’ve rejected has caused you to make a specific choice in the present and therefore is a part of both your present and your future.

As I wrote in my previous post, an embrace requires a sense of vulnerability, and it is this exact vulnerability that I desire to avoid with regard to my church background. I am a part of the churches of Christ. I might disagree with some of their general principles and practices but they are my family. I might look different than many of their more common expressions…but not as wholly different than I might have previously thought.

We were not made to be orphans, we were made to inhabit a story, to be a part of something bigger than ourselves. This is where community comes into play. Community and family are never pretty, but they provide a sense of belonging. Our stories provide us a compass for the future, a larger narrative that will help to direct our dreams for tomorrow. Choosing to be an orphan, a lone wolf, or an island is a dangerous game and one that I’m coming to believe leads to loneliness, resentment, and aimlessness.

With that all said I would like to make a formal apology to Campbell, Stone, Raccoon, Lipscomb, Garfield, and even David Robinson. See you next Christmas.

The Anatomy of an Embrace*

Posted on by
Reply

Speaking to the church–to those following Jesus who gather as the church, we have often had a tainted posture toward others. To those on the insides of the mechanism we have an posture of arrival–because of this we’re able to put on our smiley faces regardless of the potentially destructive choices we’ve made or have been made around us. When the assumption is one of arrival it means that we’ve got to look the part of one who has arrived. If you haven’t arrived then you’ve either got to be saved or you need to repent…neither of which are appealing to someone on the inside (anyone for that matter). Toward those on “the outside” our posture is one of superiority and urgency. First off we honestly believe that we have the monopoly on truth, right living, and the virtues of goodness, generosity, and kindness. We dole out our wares to the savages outside our doors whom are in need of our product. If, however, they do not think that they need our product or are not as excited about our product as they should be we then introduce urgency and demand a quick and right choice. Arrival, superiority, and urgency. I’m sure much more could be said about all this and I’m certain that these are generalizations that carry a mixture of accuracy and inaccuracy all throughout. The point being, however, that our posture toward others is oftentimes off. My posture toward others is oftentimes off.

What if we allowed the act of embrace to better define our posture toward others (both those that we’ve awkwardly deemed “insiders” and “outsiders”)? An embrace creates vulnerability, it is relational but not intimate. An embrace demands a blend of space and proximity, it requires activity and stillness, it can be both awkward and affirming. An embrace can be broken down to four stages that have massive implications to how we relate with the otherness around us.

  1. Open Arms— An embrace always begins with arms wide open (please, no, that was not a Creed reference!) you have to want the other before an embrace happens. By opening yourself you both communicate care and desire for the other but you also open yourself to the awkwardness of vulnerability. As we approach others in life there needs to be a level of of awkward desire know and be known. There also must be space for others. Generally churches have open arms that are symbolic of an embrace but they lack the vulnerability that truly defines what it means to open your arms. What kind of space is there in our personal lives, in our church activities, in our church structures that allows space for others? There has got to be space for an embrace before it will ever happen.
  2. Waiting— It would be easy to fall out of the boat on either side of the “arms open wide” position. Either in the manner of a creepster we pursue others with our arms open saying “if you don’t hug me I’ll hug you” and we chase people down and hug them to death or we draw a line in the sand and say “I can’t cross this line, but I’m willing to hug you if you cross it and come over here. Look at me, my arms are wide open”. The reality is that there is a level of patience necessary, a willingness to open yourself up, make space, be vulnerable, and then wait. Wait for response, wait for desire and awkwardness to emerge from the other. “Waiting is a sign that, although embrace may have a one-sidedness in its origin, it can never reach its goal without reciprocity.” Are we willing to give space to people to respond in their own time? Is it OK for people to be angry and not in the mood to embrace? Are we willing to act out of the reality that we need others?
  3. Closing the arms–It finally happens! This is the goal of the embrace…the actual hug. “In an embrace a host is a guest and a guest is a host” In an embrace two people become one, four arms become one embrace. Reciprocity, relationship, unity, sharing…all these things sum up what happens as the arms close around each other. I think that we often want to rush this part. We want to skip the waiting period and just make the embrace happen. When we don’t wait, however, what happens is is two armed embrace. One person hugs while the other flails or awkwardly stands motionless. There is no reciprocity, sharing, or unity.
  4. Letting go— you’ve got to let go. While the embrace unites two bodies into one, the whole equation is negated if the parties do not let go. The purpose of an embrace is to let go and move forward, to anticipate future embraces with each other and with other partners. We’re always letting go with purpose or holding on with regret. While the goal is the embrace itself, an embrace is ruined without letting go. I feel blessed to be a part of a church (for another week!) that knows how to let go well. Renovatus is a sending church, they do not wait for right moments to let go, but rather believe that letting go is a part of a healthy embrace.

We have found this framework to be very true in our work in downtown Vancouver and with Renovatus. People need to know that you genuinely like them, you’ve got to be willing to be vulnerable, people need space to respond, you’ve got to believe that their authentic response is crucial, “success” is measured through shared commitment, and letting go is a necessary part of joining together: we are gathered to be scattered.

*without shame I am adapting and borrowing much of this from Miroslav Volf’s amazing book Exclusion and Embrace