The tendency to conform to those in authority is known as obedience. When it comes to faith, who is in authority? Christ, God, and the Spirit of God, of course are the ultimate authoritiy(ies). Who then is Christ, God, and the Spirit of God.
If you put God first (in lieu of let's say, yourself) what exactly are you putting there?
The authority of God comes from scripture, preachers, the community of believers, family, small group leaders, Sunday school teachers and other voices we allow in our lives.
When torn between trying to reduce God's voice of authority down to something more understandable and practicable vs. trying to hear, acknowledge and explore a wider array of God's authority (explore mystery):
I'm finding exploring rather than dismissing (listening to and trying to understand scripture, preachers, community of believers... differently) helps me connect to God.
The "problem" with the tower of Babel isn't what I thought in Sunday school- that the people were trying to be too much like God.
It is rather, for me, that the people weren't trying to be like God enough.
Research indicates, God likes diversity.
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
How better questions make better answers
Back in junior high school we learned about the Great Depression and Franklin Roosevelt and how our country overcame the Great Depression. We learned about Roosevelt's leadership and the programs he implemented. I came away thinking of him as a hero. I learned that he was pragmatic.
I didn't really understand the word pragmatic, but I thought it had to do with trying different things until you found something that worked.
Later as I started understanding politics, I found out that Franklin Roosevelt actually ruined our country with his policies and the programs he implemented. At that time I learned that Ronald Reagan was a hero. He overcame the programs Roosevelt implemented. No change on what I thought pragmatic meant.
When I came to work for the church and started working with groups, I mentioned to one of them that we should be pragmatic.
I was met with a chilled response. We won't be pragmatic said one of the leaders. Yes, said another, not pragmatic. I got the feeling being pragmatic was a bad thing. At least where faith was concerned.
Turns out to be pragmatic has three tenets that could be troubling to people of faith.
1. Truth does not exist "out there"- reality is shaped by our existence in the world as much as how world shapes our existence. It happens to us. It happens because of us.
2. People base their knowledge of reality on what is useful to them and tend to discard what doesn't work.
3. People define the social and physical objects they encounter in the world according to their use for them.
4. If we want to understand each other: we must understand the interaction of ourselves with the world, we acknowledge we and the world are constantly changing, we interpret our interactions differently.
Are these thoughts dangerous to faith?
I can see where this philosophy would interfere with our charge to believe in things we can't see and prove.
But, if you have ever sensed a disconnect when attempting to connect people, God, and ideas; the reality may be that we are all on some level pragmatists.
The problem is that we are unwilling to talk about it.
Before we discard pragmatism (which in itself would be pragmatic) as bad (or not useful), we might want to make sure we understand how pragmatic we each really are.
For the particular idea you are attempting to share:
1. Is it true?
2. Does it work?
3. Is it worth it?
We often get stuck on the first question. And we spend lots of time arguing with and giving the silent treatment to those who disagree with us. Question number two is where we might get bogged down in a discussion of pragmatism.
I have found the richer conversations I have are spent with question number 3. The reason you do what you do is because of question 3. Here is where faith and pragmatism can be held in a healthy tension.
Figuring out which questions we respond to leads to better answers.
I didn't really understand the word pragmatic, but I thought it had to do with trying different things until you found something that worked.
Later as I started understanding politics, I found out that Franklin Roosevelt actually ruined our country with his policies and the programs he implemented. At that time I learned that Ronald Reagan was a hero. He overcame the programs Roosevelt implemented. No change on what I thought pragmatic meant.
When I came to work for the church and started working with groups, I mentioned to one of them that we should be pragmatic.
I was met with a chilled response. We won't be pragmatic said one of the leaders. Yes, said another, not pragmatic. I got the feeling being pragmatic was a bad thing. At least where faith was concerned.
Turns out to be pragmatic has three tenets that could be troubling to people of faith.
1. Truth does not exist "out there"- reality is shaped by our existence in the world as much as how world shapes our existence. It happens to us. It happens because of us.
2. People base their knowledge of reality on what is useful to them and tend to discard what doesn't work.
3. People define the social and physical objects they encounter in the world according to their use for them.
4. If we want to understand each other: we must understand the interaction of ourselves with the world, we acknowledge we and the world are constantly changing, we interpret our interactions differently.
Are these thoughts dangerous to faith?
I can see where this philosophy would interfere with our charge to believe in things we can't see and prove.
But, if you have ever sensed a disconnect when attempting to connect people, God, and ideas; the reality may be that we are all on some level pragmatists.
The problem is that we are unwilling to talk about it.
Before we discard pragmatism (which in itself would be pragmatic) as bad (or not useful), we might want to make sure we understand how pragmatic we each really are.
For the particular idea you are attempting to share:
1. Is it true?
2. Does it work?
3. Is it worth it?
We often get stuck on the first question. And we spend lots of time arguing with and giving the silent treatment to those who disagree with us. Question number two is where we might get bogged down in a discussion of pragmatism.
I have found the richer conversations I have are spent with question number 3. The reason you do what you do is because of question 3. Here is where faith and pragmatism can be held in a healthy tension.
Figuring out which questions we respond to leads to better answers.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
What if the photo at Iwo Jima was staged?
When you gather pictures for the church directory or write up a bulletin article asking people to participate in the soup kitchen meal prep you are in many ways mediating your ministry. Like the media does.
You are portraying something that is or something that you hope is or something that you want to become. Like the media.
What if I told you the photo of the flag raising at Iwo Jima was staged?
When I first heard that, I was incensed. The photo represents to me a turning point of the war. A moment when good overcame evil.
I'm really not sure if the photo was staged or not.
I have learned some a few things about the flag raising at Iwo Jima.
The photo was taken before the battle: not after. Many of the men pictured in it were killed in the battle.
There were several photos taken of the flag and at least one was staged or posed.
There were two raising of the flags. The photo of the first one wasn't very inspirational to look at.
There were two raising of the flags. The photo of the first one wasn't very inspirational to look at.
And none of it really matters in terms of what the photo means to me as an American.
It's about good overcoming evil.
Some of the pictures in your directory or the stories of you ministry may or not be staged.
Some of the stories I read in the Bible may or not be historically accurate.
And none of it really matters in terms of what those pictures or stories mean to me as a person of faith.
It's about love overcoming fear.
The way in which we are made by as we participate in the sharing of our faith touches in some way every thing we do. Our context, our history, our scriptures, and our experiences. Do they lead us closer to God and to each other? How we embrace that and each other is what really matters.
Saturday, July 6, 2013
How to deal with deviants
de·vi·ant
/ˈdēvēənt/
Adjective
| |
Noun
|
W.I Thomas noticed that "Things which men perceive as real are real in their consequences."
In mission and ministry with the groups of people who have something (let's say us) and those who don't (let's call them deviants) we sometimes stop at attempts to economize how to best get the stuff that we have to the people who don't.
If we take a step further or take a step back, we might try for a moment to understand these deviants.
The homeless, I was told by a homeless person, wish sometimes that people would "quit trying to figure out homeless people."
What we think of deviants often comes from news sources, friends and family, and our pew and Sunday school seat.
Our perceptions of deviants are mediated by the media of our ministry.
In this scene from West Side Story we get the idea that these deviants are missing something that can be provided by the right resource.
The troubles of the deviants are seen as systemic and sociological. But our troubles occur individually as well.
What we often think of the deviant (you can substitute homeless, poor, unbeliever, fundamentalist, liberal, or any "they are wrong to my right" label you wish) comes from news, theology, or religious beliefs that we figure are just "showing it as it is".
And the fact is that they are all wrong.
Wrong for a reason.
They might even be wrong for good reason. For earnest, committed, Biblically based reason.
When a member of a church focus group heard some of our ideas about developing ways to get to know some of the folks we minister to on a personal level and then help each other get to know our abilities and gifts that we can bring to the community development table, she remarked "you better check with the mission people about that."
As in maybe the mission people wouldn't like that? Because the mission people had different reasons? Like getting people on board with a belief system that would make it so that they could get to heaven too. Like us. Like me!
In reality the mission people, if this is their reason, know this is wrong and the people in the focus group know it's wrong, but we seem to have this understanding that we are wrong and the people in our congregations know we are wrong, but we both have a role to play and we are doing it for the right reason (in this case salvation.)
The way to discipleship might lead through coming to understand what these good reasons are for this wrong way thinking.
How do we interpret each other's experiences and beliefs so that we can get to know each other and God?
It might start with trying to get to know the deviants before we try to understand them, much less fix them.
How to deal with deviants?
Make sure you know some.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
4 Choices you have when under stress
Stress for the purposes of our discussion is being in a position to do something that you don't want to do. In this moment, you would literally rather be somewhere else.
Most of the time we have at least four choices when under stress:
1. Do it because you decide you are going to be in this place in order to see what you can learn from it. Is there a different outcome you will discover that will lead you to a different, if not better place? This is basically the opposite George approach. "If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right."
2. Do it because, although you see it as a waste of time and beneath you, you know that it is important to someone else and therefore "making them happy will make me happy." Jin up your energy, punch the time clock, put on a smile and do the work well.
3. Don't do it and be OK with that because you just weren't in the right place for it at the moment. You earn the ability to take this option most likely after you have successfully employed option 3 a a time or two. There is nothing wrong with paying your dues to be able to say no. Consider this option also partly as a time to build up the reserves to take option 2. Options 2 and 3 might be considered as a bank account. Option 2 is deposits. Option 3 is debits. Try to build up some savings.
4. Do it and resent it. This is often the option we take most when we don't consider the other alternatives. But it is an option we should try to avoid at all costs. Because it costs more than it is worth. It drains any hope of joy. It bankrupts any capital we have. It creates negative energy and puts us behind the next time we have a choice to make.
The challenge? Developing the wisdom of when to employ which option.
I recently read a story about a doctor who took the time to help a patient eat her food, spruce up her pillow, and empty the bed pan for her. I must admit it was counter intuitive to me. It seemed like a rare thing for a doctor to do these things.
I asked a health care professional why it seemed so out of the ordinary.
They usually don't, she said, because they are so busy. They are under a lot of stress. They have forgotten that doing these little things for a patient are joy.
As a leader in discipleship, we are busy and under stress. Have we forgotten about joy?
Maybe being wise in moments of stress will lead us back to the moments of joy that got us into this work in the first place.
Choose wisely my friend.
Find joy.
Most of the time we have at least four choices when under stress:
1. Do it because you decide you are going to be in this place in order to see what you can learn from it. Is there a different outcome you will discover that will lead you to a different, if not better place? This is basically the opposite George approach. "If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right."
2. Do it because, although you see it as a waste of time and beneath you, you know that it is important to someone else and therefore "making them happy will make me happy." Jin up your energy, punch the time clock, put on a smile and do the work well.
3. Don't do it and be OK with that because you just weren't in the right place for it at the moment. You earn the ability to take this option most likely after you have successfully employed option 3 a a time or two. There is nothing wrong with paying your dues to be able to say no. Consider this option also partly as a time to build up the reserves to take option 2. Options 2 and 3 might be considered as a bank account. Option 2 is deposits. Option 3 is debits. Try to build up some savings.
4. Do it and resent it. This is often the option we take most when we don't consider the other alternatives. But it is an option we should try to avoid at all costs. Because it costs more than it is worth. It drains any hope of joy. It bankrupts any capital we have. It creates negative energy and puts us behind the next time we have a choice to make.
The challenge? Developing the wisdom of when to employ which option.
I recently read a story about a doctor who took the time to help a patient eat her food, spruce up her pillow, and empty the bed pan for her. I must admit it was counter intuitive to me. It seemed like a rare thing for a doctor to do these things.
I asked a health care professional why it seemed so out of the ordinary.
They usually don't, she said, because they are so busy. They are under a lot of stress. They have forgotten that doing these little things for a patient are joy.
As a leader in discipleship, we are busy and under stress. Have we forgotten about joy?
Maybe being wise in moments of stress will lead us back to the moments of joy that got us into this work in the first place.
Choose wisely my friend.
Find joy.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Atonement for All of Us
I'm a little fuzzy on atonement. Or Atonement.
And maybe that's it. I'm unsure of the relationship between atonement- making amends for our wrongs, missteps, and sins- and Atonement-what Jesus did for us and in fact the whole world.
Jesus came to take on the wrongs, missteps, and sins of the world.
But we still are expected to atone for our wrong doing- confession, asking for forgiveness, and reparations. In the court room and around the kitchen table.
But are we, as a part of our journey toward Christlike-ness asked to make up for, or own up to, the wrongs, missteps, and sins of others?
Some people say we do that for our children and for those closest to us.
But how about the world. Did God so love the world that he sent me?
If so, how might I live that out:
And maybe that's it. I'm unsure of the relationship between atonement- making amends for our wrongs, missteps, and sins- and Atonement-what Jesus did for us and in fact the whole world.
Jesus came to take on the wrongs, missteps, and sins of the world.
But we still are expected to atone for our wrong doing- confession, asking for forgiveness, and reparations. In the court room and around the kitchen table.
But are we, as a part of our journey toward Christlike-ness asked to make up for, or own up to, the wrongs, missteps, and sins of others?
Some people say we do that for our children and for those closest to us.
But how about the world. Did God so love the world that he sent me?
If so, how might I live that out:
- Giving money to the homeless guy instead of offering to buy him some food and watching him eat the food.
- Taking the blame for a committee chair screw up at the staff meeting. (Not because taking the blame and giving the credit is good "leadership", but because I am atoning Jesus style.
- Allowing someone who has a physical disability on the mission team even though you won't be able to accomplish as much because you will spend so much time helping them.
- Volunteer time to a cause that you don't believe in.
- Letting someone explain something to you that you frankly understand better than they do.
- Not explaining about how right you are about a decision that the group makes without your blessing.
- Letting someone espouse a theological understanding that is wrong.
- Listening to someone (like your wife maybe) share their frustrations without trying to fix them (not because you are reading Men are from Venus, Women are from Mars, but because you are atoning.
- Allowing someone to say Happy Holidays without having to remind them about the reason for the season (especially if the reason for the season is to call us to atonement).
Just a few ideas. Maybe there are others.
We learned in Disciple that Atonement can be explained at At-One-Ment with God. Does taking on the wrongs of others draw you closer to God?
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
The difficulty of deciding when to open the door
There is a memorable scene in the classic movie, Young Frankenstein.
For some reason the character played by Gene Wilder decides that he needs to go into a locked room with the "monster" that he has created. Things haven't worked out as planned with his creation, and he maybe needs to try to reason with his misdirected efforts at creating a human life.
Before he opens the door to the cell where he has the creature trapped he turns to his assistant and says something to the effect of No matter what I say or do, do not open this door.
Pretty much the second he goes in, the monster becomes enraged and Wilder begins banging on the door and in a very calm tone says, Open this door please.
The difficulty with accountability in ministry, parenting, or discipleship growth is when to hold those we serve in any of these areas to the promises and vows we take; and when to relent.
You can easily find yourself holding the bag (or outside the door of a locked room with a raging monster inside) of the fundraiser, ministry event, small group, or new puppy that someone, some time thought was such an awesome idea.
When to take up the reins of someone else's vision, when to let it die, and how much the monster beats them up before you let them out is one of the most difficult duties of discipleship I have run into.
I guess that is why we find ourselves rushing toward situations that everyone else is seems to be rushing away from.
Which is sounds kind of cool.
But, for the most part: I find myself shouting, "Open this door please!"
For some reason the character played by Gene Wilder decides that he needs to go into a locked room with the "monster" that he has created. Things haven't worked out as planned with his creation, and he maybe needs to try to reason with his misdirected efforts at creating a human life.
Before he opens the door to the cell where he has the creature trapped he turns to his assistant and says something to the effect of No matter what I say or do, do not open this door.
Pretty much the second he goes in, the monster becomes enraged and Wilder begins banging on the door and in a very calm tone says, Open this door please.
The difficulty with accountability in ministry, parenting, or discipleship growth is when to hold those we serve in any of these areas to the promises and vows we take; and when to relent.
You can easily find yourself holding the bag (or outside the door of a locked room with a raging monster inside) of the fundraiser, ministry event, small group, or new puppy that someone, some time thought was such an awesome idea.
When to take up the reins of someone else's vision, when to let it die, and how much the monster beats them up before you let them out is one of the most difficult duties of discipleship I have run into.
I guess that is why we find ourselves rushing toward situations that everyone else is seems to be rushing away from.
Which is sounds kind of cool.
But, for the most part: I find myself shouting, "Open this door please!"
Saturday, June 30, 2012
A recent email informed me that there can only be one truth.
Interesting, because I've recently been mulling over how there's more than one truth.
Your truth.
And my truth.
That's at least two truths and the fact is there is at least one truth for every you and for every me.
What difference does it make if you start with the idea that there is only one truth and everything else is false or if there are lots of truths?
For me, it's that one leads to lots of arguments about what Christian is.
The other one leads to discoveries about how Christians live.
I'll have to spend some time with you to figure our if your truth helps me live into the truth of Christ.
And you'll have to do the same.
I'd rather live with you and your truth and find out how it helps (or doesn't) me live a more truthful Christian life.
Than argue with you about what's true and what's false.
Either Jesus is truth or universalism is truth. What do you believe? I believe Jesus...
Interesting, because I've recently been mulling over how there's more than one truth.
Your truth.
And my truth.
That's at least two truths and the fact is there is at least one truth for every you and for every me.
What difference does it make if you start with the idea that there is only one truth and everything else is false or if there are lots of truths?
For me, it's that one leads to lots of arguments about what Christian is.
The other one leads to discoveries about how Christians live.
I'll have to spend some time with you to figure our if your truth helps me live into the truth of Christ.
And you'll have to do the same.
I'd rather live with you and your truth and find out how it helps (or doesn't) me live a more truthful Christian life.
Than argue with you about what's true and what's false.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Caring for homelessness without caring for the homeless
I was helping prepare a lunch at a soup kitchen one time. On this particular day, a group from an organization renown for its support of the work the soup was doing to serve the homeless was also on the property working on a construction of a new building..
This organization was involved with all sorts of projects with the shelter from construction of facilities to programs.
When it came time to serve lunch, an interesting thing happened.
The workers who took a break to eat their lunch dined alone and not with the homeless folks we were serving.
It got my mind to thinking that it's possible to care about homelessness without really having to become involved with the homeless.
I asked my two daughters about this and sensing the perhaps disdain in my voice as I asked their opinion, they simultaneously responded that "Not everyone is like you. People serve in different ways and that is OK."
I have mentioned the phenomenon to other people. One said, well when you really analyze it, we really don't do the service work at the shelter for the homeless, we do it for us.
There is no doubt a difference between caring about homelessness and caring about the homeless.
Maybe we prefer to be able to control our involvement and how and when we care about things.
And that's OK, but can we, together, have the courage to serve in a such a way that we can't necessarily control and with the homeless instead of just for the homeless?
Would anything change if we served out of faith?
This organization was involved with all sorts of projects with the shelter from construction of facilities to programs.
When it came time to serve lunch, an interesting thing happened.
The workers who took a break to eat their lunch dined alone and not with the homeless folks we were serving.
It got my mind to thinking that it's possible to care about homelessness without really having to become involved with the homeless.
I asked my two daughters about this and sensing the perhaps disdain in my voice as I asked their opinion, they simultaneously responded that "Not everyone is like you. People serve in different ways and that is OK."
I have mentioned the phenomenon to other people. One said, well when you really analyze it, we really don't do the service work at the shelter for the homeless, we do it for us.
There is no doubt a difference between caring about homelessness and caring about the homeless.
Maybe we prefer to be able to control our involvement and how and when we care about things.
And that's OK, but can we, together, have the courage to serve in a such a way that we can't necessarily control and with the homeless instead of just for the homeless?
Would anything change if we served out of faith?
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
My job is so demanding I can't do any work
I've been thinking the goal is to live an integrated life. Work, faith, family, self, religion all a part of one thing.
I thought I was doing it wrong or I wasn't very good at it because it didn't seem to be working at all.
I then I discovered that it's not necessarily nirvana: this integrated all parts working together thing.
A friend who discovers things at a young age explained to me that things started clicking for him when he consciously segmented his work from his ministry which I think he was referring to as his vocation.
Then I came across a piece in a transcript for an On Being radio show about life in Detroit
I thought I was doing it wrong or I wasn't very good at it because it didn't seem to be working at all.
I then I discovered that it's not necessarily nirvana: this integrated all parts working together thing.
A friend who discovers things at a young age explained to me that things started clicking for him when he consciously segmented his work from his ministry which I think he was referring to as his vocation.
Then I came across a piece in a transcript for an On Being radio show about life in Detroit
A job is similar to slavery in that one is forced to perform actions in return for some sort of compensation for one's labor. Therefore the rewards are extrinsic, and without such extrinsic rewards people cannot be forced into a job they dislike. To tolerate or compensate for these job conditions often times people will engage in excessive consumerism or self-medicate to counteract the boredom that comes from a job or to make themselves feel better.
Work, on the other hand, is defined as activities that one enjoys. To be compensated with money is not important because of the pleasures and satisfaction of work. Therefore the rewards are more intrinsic.
This seems right for me now. I have to start being realistic about what my job requires and do it with all the passion and intensity I can bring to bear. Numbers, ego, competition, accomplishment, pleasing others, service all will be alive and well here. I'll do my job with conviction that is making a difference in the organization and the world.
But there will need to be time for work to. This is the integrated place. Family, friends, foes, different ideas, the joy of being, failure, will be seen or sought or brought.
It as in most things is probably best to move from the integrated life to the segmented work life and after a while here, it'll be time to go back to the integrated thing again.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
2 Things Everyone You Serve in Ministry Will Want in 2012
They manifest themselves in different ways, but two things that everyone seems to want is to be heard and to be right.
It isn't enough to try something in ministry.
Having an idea and having it heard is important.
How does it fit into the overall mission and ministry of the church? Not as critical.
Of course it's sometimes hard to figure out just what the mission and ministry of the church is.
We sometimes confuse the mission and ministry of the church with right theology or with minimizing risk.
The most important thing might be to make sure the nativity scene is historically accurate or that the right forms are filled out for the trip to the soup kitchen.
Which leads to a third thing people will want in 2012.
To get their way.
The critical job for us will be to figure out if what we are doing is just trying to get our way or fulfilling the mission and ministry of the church.
A good start would be to hear others, and let them know we hear.
We have the rest of the year to figure out what's right and who will get their way.
It isn't enough to try something in ministry.
Having an idea and having it heard is important.
How does it fit into the overall mission and ministry of the church? Not as critical.
Of course it's sometimes hard to figure out just what the mission and ministry of the church is.
We sometimes confuse the mission and ministry of the church with right theology or with minimizing risk.
The most important thing might be to make sure the nativity scene is historically accurate or that the right forms are filled out for the trip to the soup kitchen.
Which leads to a third thing people will want in 2012.
To get their way.
The critical job for us will be to figure out if what we are doing is just trying to get our way or fulfilling the mission and ministry of the church.
A good start would be to hear others, and let them know we hear.
We have the rest of the year to figure out what's right and who will get their way.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
When is where you put the creche the point?
An excerpt from the movie script of Charlie Wilson's War between a US Senator and a powerful constituent details a scene in which the ACLU's lawsuit to have a nativity scene removed from the lawn of a fire station. It gives some interesting insight into our modern concept of incarnation.
Sure. We welcome other faiths to worship as they wish, but when you can't put a nativity scene in front of a firehouse at Christmas time in Nacogdoches Township, something's gone terribly wrong.
Larry: Every single year since the world was young, the firehouse in the Nacogdoches
Township has displayed a creche.
Now, the ACLU has filed suit against the township for displaying a religious symbol on public property.
It's Christmas time.
It's a creche.
I could understand if we were in gosh-darn Scarsdale, but this is east Texas, and I want to know who we're offending.
Except two lawyers from the ACLU.
Charlie: That is a terribly interesting and complicated question.
Let me make this suggestion, though.
There's a church about a block and a half from that firehouse, First Baptist Church of Nacogdoches.
They've got a beautiful rolling lawn out there in front.
Larry: No, no. This is a Christian country, Charlie, founded on Christian values.
Sure. We welcome other faiths to worship as they wish, but when you can't put a nativity scene in front of a firehouse at Christmas time in Nacogdoches Township, something's gone terribly wrong.
Charlie: Well, that's not really true, Larry.
You could move that creche over to that church and everything's just fine.
Larry: That's not the point!
Every since the magi came looking for Christ in the palace of Herod, we have been expecting God's presence to be proclaimed in the places of power.
We often still insist that his manifest existence is displayed in court houses, on the public square, at the check out counter, and even on the fire house lawn.
But incarnation is about how we bear God's existence and presence for others.
And not about what icon inhabits the public square.
On the eve of God's coming, we anticipate all the ways and places God's presence will find us in spite of our desire to control where we and others see him.
Or, what do you think is the point?
Every since the magi came looking for Christ in the palace of Herod, we have been expecting God's presence to be proclaimed in the places of power.
We often still insist that his manifest existence is displayed in court houses, on the public square, at the check out counter, and even on the fire house lawn.
But incarnation is about how we bear God's existence and presence for others.
And not about what icon inhabits the public square.
On the eve of God's coming, we anticipate all the ways and places God's presence will find us in spite of our desire to control where we and others see him.
Or, what do you think is the point?
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Kantians, modern consequentialists, and contractualists- living in the tension of right and wrong
If so, you might be a Kantian.
Do you believe that you should act based on what is likely to happen as being a good outcome or a bad outcome?
You might be a modern consequentialist.
Or do you put more stock in doing things guided by subjective principles of what "we owe each other"?
You could be described as a contractualist.
In her New Yorker Magazine article about philosopher Derek Parfit, Larissa MacFarquhar, using the following scenario to illustrate the difference in ideas of right and wrong:
A murderer asks you where your friend is, so he can kill her.
The Kantian would tell the murderer where the friend is. The consequentialist would not tell because it would mean the possible death of a friend. The contractualist would base his subjective and practical decision based on what he owes his friend vs. what is owed to society on being truthful or deceptive in this instance: lying or betraying a friend.
Parfit was looking for a way to satisfy all three positions with a convergent principle:
An act is wrong just when such acts are disallowed by some principle that is optimific [leading to best results], uniquely universally willable, and not reasonably rejectable.
It may the mother of all answers to moral dilemmas but not too helpful in the world of ministry.
The objective in bring people together around ideas probably shouldn't be an answer that satisfies everyone (let's face it, a Sunday school answer).
The objective should be for the consequentialist to understand why a Kantians is so Kantian and what experiences the contractualists had to make her so very...consequentialist.
Maybe then we can start to understand why we do what we do and have such strong feelings about what's right and what's wrong.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
How Often Should Community Outreach Announcements Include a Warning?
There are no doubt things going on in the church that might not be ideal for children of certain ages. We should protect our youngsters, for example, from committee meetings that don't follow an agenda or that don't include follow up with action items after the meeting.
It seems that most warnings, though, should only be included for inside communication with the church family.
I say that because I just received an invitation to an event at a church in town that includes the warning that the event deals with mature subject matter and strongly recommends children under 9 shouldn't attend.
That seems like a strange place to start a relationship. "Let the little children come to me... unless they are younger than nine and might hear about people they loved are in hell because they made poor choices."
It doesn't seem to ring true.
There are some trainings and some conversations in our churches that children aren't ready for yet and we all understand that.
But it just seems like when we are sending a message to people that we don't know, we should start with something everyone should hear.
God loves you.
Maybe in fact that is a good place to start and to stay.
It seems that most warnings, though, should only be included for inside communication with the church family.
I say that because I just received an invitation to an event at a church in town that includes the warning that the event deals with mature subject matter and strongly recommends children under 9 shouldn't attend.
That seems like a strange place to start a relationship. "Let the little children come to me... unless they are younger than nine and might hear about people they loved are in hell because they made poor choices."
It doesn't seem to ring true.
There are some trainings and some conversations in our churches that children aren't ready for yet and we all understand that.
But it just seems like when we are sending a message to people that we don't know, we should start with something everyone should hear.
God loves you.
Maybe in fact that is a good place to start and to stay.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
How making Noah's Ark more plausible doesn't grow your faith
I heard that a group or two is building a full size ark similar to Noah's.
Based on the dimensions from scripture.
It's massive- 500 feet long complete with cages.
It is said to give an idea of how big the original was.
So that you can see: that yes it's possible. Yes it was big enough and could really hold all those animals and their food.
The builder said that he hoped by doing this he would make the story of Noah's Ark more plausible.
No thanks.
I don't want to have to know that the things my faith tells me are certain.
I don't think a plausible faith is something I'm ready to believe in just yet.
Based on the dimensions from scripture.
It's massive- 500 feet long complete with cages.
It is said to give an idea of how big the original was.
So that you can see: that yes it's possible. Yes it was big enough and could really hold all those animals and their food.
The builder said that he hoped by doing this he would make the story of Noah's Ark more plausible.
No thanks.
I don't want to have to know that the things my faith tells me are certain.
I don't think a plausible faith is something I'm ready to believe in just yet.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
How being a slacker at home can make you a control freak at work
My wife is the engine that drives our family and our household economy.
She gets things done (as well as works a full time job) as far as house chores, a lot of the yard work, and she is the emotional glue that holds our family dynamic together. I cook the occasional meal, but generate more work than I produce in the order of a messed up kitchen. I mow the grass, but she has recently expressed interest in taking over that chore.
I feel bad about abdicating most home responsibilities to her. (But let's face it, not TOO bad.)
She will occasionally ask me to do some things which I most always try to do and sometimes in a timely manner, but often neglect.
So. I feel really guilty about asking her to help me do anything or ask for a favor in the household economy. If I ask her to go to the store to get stamps to mail the bills that I'm on the verge of paying too late, I feel bad.
A colleague in ministry told me the other day he felt like I was being a control person about something.
It shocked me. I have always prided myself in being a decentralized open source collaborator.
I realized perhaps that I have let my guilt of being a slacker at home makes me unwilling to ask others to do things in ministry (aka volunteer to offer presence and service).
I'm not sure exactly what to do about this, but I think I better go look at my to do list and quit feeling guilty about being a slacker at home.
Or quit being a slacker at home.
Or leave home at home.
Or... live my life authentically.
At home. At work. And in ministry.
She gets things done (as well as works a full time job) as far as house chores, a lot of the yard work, and she is the emotional glue that holds our family dynamic together. I cook the occasional meal, but generate more work than I produce in the order of a messed up kitchen. I mow the grass, but she has recently expressed interest in taking over that chore.
I feel bad about abdicating most home responsibilities to her. (But let's face it, not TOO bad.)
She will occasionally ask me to do some things which I most always try to do and sometimes in a timely manner, but often neglect.
So. I feel really guilty about asking her to help me do anything or ask for a favor in the household economy. If I ask her to go to the store to get stamps to mail the bills that I'm on the verge of paying too late, I feel bad.
A colleague in ministry told me the other day he felt like I was being a control person about something.
It shocked me. I have always prided myself in being a decentralized open source collaborator.
I realized perhaps that I have let my guilt of being a slacker at home makes me unwilling to ask others to do things in ministry (aka volunteer to offer presence and service).
I'm not sure exactly what to do about this, but I think I better go look at my to do list and quit feeling guilty about being a slacker at home.
Or quit being a slacker at home.
Or leave home at home.
Or... live my life authentically.
At home. At work. And in ministry.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
The desire to be a hero is killing Adam Smith's invisible hand thing
Ever see a sitcom where a prediction is made and then the protagonist doesn't believe it is going to happen, and sure enough before 30 minutes is over it happens. Taxi had an episode like this and without thinking about it too much maybe you can think of some more.
God has some things going on. The question is are we supposed to, like, make them happen or do we make sure to stay out of it so they will happen.
If you are a paid staff member of a church or organization that expects things to happen, it sure is easy to make what is supposed to happen (good numbers, right expenditure, proper amount of applause, good comments on the blog, etc.) happen.
Without any regard with what God will have happen... happen.
The pressure is incredible.
Adam Smith wrote or spoke about an invisible hand of self interest basically making the world go 'round.
My understanding of it has to do with something along the lines of God working for all things to work for good.
Are you willing to get out of the way of it?
How good good becomes may be a function of your willingness to be irrelevant.
Or we can spend more time being sufficiently mediocre.
Either way.
God has some things going on. The question is are we supposed to, like, make them happen or do we make sure to stay out of it so they will happen.
If you are a paid staff member of a church or organization that expects things to happen, it sure is easy to make what is supposed to happen (good numbers, right expenditure, proper amount of applause, good comments on the blog, etc.) happen.
Without any regard with what God will have happen... happen.
The pressure is incredible.
Adam Smith wrote or spoke about an invisible hand of self interest basically making the world go 'round.
My understanding of it has to do with something along the lines of God working for all things to work for good.
Are you willing to get out of the way of it?
How good good becomes may be a function of your willingness to be irrelevant.
Or we can spend more time being sufficiently mediocre.
Either way.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
The power of "Do you think..." in keeping people from leaving your discussion group
When considering our faith, that unrealized hope within us, discussion groups can be a pretty cool venue for growth.
We're talking a small (12ish), consistent (the same people every time) group of people that we can meet with regularly and get to know, appreciate, respect, and eventually love because of (or more likely in spite of) their ideas and beliefs which may even clash with our own.
A group like this sticks to questions like "Do you think..." (and understands the answer can be "no" and is OK with that).
Instead of "Don't you think..."
Or even the lethal "Don't you think people..."
A group that can speak about personal experiences and beliefs without its members attempting to make those personal ideas normative for everyone else has a chance of doing some thing.
Do you think we get bogged down by trying to get others to somehow come around to the fact that our ideas and beliefs are really the right ones?
I have found (also good language (I think) for creating a healthy discussion atmosphere) that when we share about our personal experiences and say things like "For me..." less people leave in a huff and talk about never coming back to "that group at the church".
I'm not sure why, in my experience, having a group that:
shares about personal experiences
and how those experiences shape each member's individual faith
and seeing how those individual faiths might shape the community's faith
is so difficult and scarce.
After all, I think:
"Don't you think.." is really code for "Shouldn't you think..."
And (unless you know the person you are speaking to pretty well) "Don't you think people..." is really code for I'm not going to do the work of getting to know you and there will be some people who are not going to like this and probably drop out of this group.
Don't you think?
We're talking a small (12ish), consistent (the same people every time) group of people that we can meet with regularly and get to know, appreciate, respect, and eventually love because of (or more likely in spite of) their ideas and beliefs which may even clash with our own.
A group like this sticks to questions like "Do you think..." (and understands the answer can be "no" and is OK with that).
Instead of "Don't you think..."
Or even the lethal "Don't you think people..."
A group that can speak about personal experiences and beliefs without its members attempting to make those personal ideas normative for everyone else has a chance of doing some thing.
Do you think we get bogged down by trying to get others to somehow come around to the fact that our ideas and beliefs are really the right ones?
I have found (also good language (I think) for creating a healthy discussion atmosphere) that when we share about our personal experiences and say things like "For me..." less people leave in a huff and talk about never coming back to "that group at the church".
I'm not sure why, in my experience, having a group that:
shares about personal experiences
and how those experiences shape each member's individual faith
and seeing how those individual faiths might shape the community's faith
is so difficult and scarce.
After all, I think:
"Don't you think.." is really code for "Shouldn't you think..."
And (unless you know the person you are speaking to pretty well) "Don't you think people..." is really code for I'm not going to do the work of getting to know you and there will be some people who are not going to like this and probably drop out of this group.
Don't you think?
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
How fine is the line between commodification and community?
When you work for a big ole church or organization with lots of resources, all of a sudden you have great tools to make engagement and connection so efficient and frictionless.
You come to realize that people can be involved in your cause without spending much time or trouble at it.
You start to feeling like McDonald's kind of.
You work extra hard to have signage, sign ups, and customer service.
And then you realize no matter how good at that you can be, you're never as good as a memory or somebody else who is actually is good at it.
You also realize that the real problem is that your members or your supporters or your tribe is trying to spend as little time with your organization as possible. Because that's how you are going about it.
You become commodified.
There is only so much time and energy in a day, so you have to figure out how to spend it wisely.
How do you create space for people to spend not less time with you, but more time with you?
And attention?
Who are the people who really enjoy the experiences you are having with them in service to your mission?
What if we spent more time with them and less time worried about making the purpose less painful?
What's holding us back isn't a lack of time and attention.
I'm convinced it's some sort of fear that once we got to that point, the people we invited in would be disappointed.
We gotta stop that.
You come to realize that people can be involved in your cause without spending much time or trouble at it.
You start to feeling like McDonald's kind of.
You work extra hard to have signage, sign ups, and customer service.
And then you realize no matter how good at that you can be, you're never as good as a memory or somebody else who is actually is good at it.
You also realize that the real problem is that your members or your supporters or your tribe is trying to spend as little time with your organization as possible. Because that's how you are going about it.
You become commodified.
There is only so much time and energy in a day, so you have to figure out how to spend it wisely.
How do you create space for people to spend not less time with you, but more time with you?
And attention?
Who are the people who really enjoy the experiences you are having with them in service to your mission?
What if we spent more time with them and less time worried about making the purpose less painful?
What's holding us back isn't a lack of time and attention.
I'm convinced it's some sort of fear that once we got to that point, the people we invited in would be disappointed.
We gotta stop that.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
If you focus on the top of the funnel, you might be digging a hole
The Funnel Isn't Just a Cake You Get at the Fair
In sales and marketing circles, there is such thing as a funnel.
You know what the funnel is without having to follow the link.
We see the funnel when a ministry team member (the narrow end of bottom of the funnel) says: We obviously need to get more people involved or we have to get the word out there or hey the announcement wasn't in the bulletin. These are ideas directed at the top of the funnel.
The top of the funnel is Attention. This is the advertising end of the funnel.
In between is Interest. This for us would be the Constant Contact clicks or the phone calls or emails we receive from the "for more information, contact ________________" part of the attention piece.
Then the next step is Desire. This is when the person signs up or joins, or makes an appointment to pitch the fundraiser or collection drive.
And then there is Action. This would be when the person buys something in the business funnel, so for us maybe this could be when they show up at the event or when they take on the chair position or in some way "own" the ministry.
So:
The Flip Might Not Be Dead After All
There's been talk of flipping the funnel.
So what we would do is spend a much greater amount of time on the action. We would focus on the ones in the leadership, active ministry phase. We would have the 20% percent who do the 80% over for dinner to our house. We would meet with them for no good reason. Have coffee. Send them handwritten notes. Make sure the bulletin articles got in the bulletin for their sake. To keep them engaged without regard to the attention thing. And then these action groups would create desire in the interested and out of that would come lots of attention.
This is a inside out approach like amplifying your voice through a flipped funnel (which would kind of be a megaphone).
We mostly go top down funnel instead of inside out megaphone.
This is the church. Our stuff is important. Come to it.
Rather than, Hey watcha doing?
Why is that?
What Does Oscar Wilde Know About Ministry?
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde.
There is only one thing worse than not getting anyone involved to the depths of your ministry:
Getting someone involved in the depths of your ministry.
We are afraid of what they will find out.
That really I don't know the answers or I'm really not that interesting or people don't really want to change.
It reminded me recently as I spoke about it of a guy who was given something important that he was to take good care of and that others were multiplying.
And he just dug a hole and buried it.
Not because the guy who gave it to him was a hard man or that he was afraid of losing it and being punished.
He dug a hole and buried it because spending so much time trying to get people who weren't interested in it kept the people who were living it from changing who he already was.
In sales and marketing circles, there is such thing as a funnel.
You know what the funnel is without having to follow the link.
We see the funnel when a ministry team member (the narrow end of bottom of the funnel) says: We obviously need to get more people involved or we have to get the word out there or hey the announcement wasn't in the bulletin. These are ideas directed at the top of the funnel.
The top of the funnel is Attention. This is the advertising end of the funnel.
In between is Interest. This for us would be the Constant Contact clicks or the phone calls or emails we receive from the "for more information, contact ________________" part of the attention piece.
Then the next step is Desire. This is when the person signs up or joins, or makes an appointment to pitch the fundraiser or collection drive.
And then there is Action. This would be when the person buys something in the business funnel, so for us maybe this could be when they show up at the event or when they take on the chair position or in some way "own" the ministry.
So:
Attention
Interest
Desire
Action
This is a top down approach like pouring into a funnel.
The Flip Might Not Be Dead After All
There's been talk of flipping the funnel.
So what we would do is spend a much greater amount of time on the action. We would focus on the ones in the leadership, active ministry phase. We would have the 20% percent who do the 80% over for dinner to our house. We would meet with them for no good reason. Have coffee. Send them handwritten notes. Make sure the bulletin articles got in the bulletin for their sake. To keep them engaged without regard to the attention thing. And then these action groups would create desire in the interested and out of that would come lots of attention.
This is a inside out approach like amplifying your voice through a flipped funnel (which would kind of be a megaphone).
We mostly go top down funnel instead of inside out megaphone.
This is the church. Our stuff is important. Come to it.
Rather than, Hey watcha doing?
Why is that?
What Does Oscar Wilde Know About Ministry?
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde.
There is only one thing worse than not getting anyone involved to the depths of your ministry:
Getting someone involved in the depths of your ministry.
We are afraid of what they will find out.
That really I don't know the answers or I'm really not that interesting or people don't really want to change.
It reminded me recently as I spoke about it of a guy who was given something important that he was to take good care of and that others were multiplying.
And he just dug a hole and buried it.
Not because the guy who gave it to him was a hard man or that he was afraid of losing it and being punished.
He dug a hole and buried it because spending so much time trying to get people who weren't interested in it kept the people who were living it from changing who he already was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)