Should every player get to play?

In my professional life as someone who evaluates and develops nonprofit organizations I sometimes find myself stuck in a tension between honouring the best intentions of every participant and the reasonable expectation for meaningful performance outcomes that truly benefit those in need. It reminds me of the way I've been torn as a sports coach with whether to give equal playing time to everyone or to favour those who give the team the best chance of winning.

An article I read today argues that within the church everyone should get to play in the way that they want. In part the author says:

The church remains the home of the no-cut audition. We don't get to choose the other members of our body. You have to want to get in, but once you are here, we will find a part for you to play.

I'm so grateful that there is a place for everyone in God's great production. I hope I can keep that in mind when I need to suggest to some that they may be playing the wrong part. Ideally my true motive will be to see each one find the role for which they have been unwittingly preparing all along. Some of us don't realise that we are meant to be in the chorus, not singing solos. (Those who have heard my voice will now be thinking that some of us should maybe hold the lyric sheet and stay quiet).

At Christmas of all times, I pray that I and each one I interact with will discover more fully the dreams we can pursue in the company of a God who withholds nothing in his wild passion to be with us.

So whatever part you are now playing, and whatever parts you find yourself playing in the future; Merry Christmas

Advent

My favourite missionaries posted the most wonderful, simple explanation of the anticipation of Christmas:

http://forestviewchurch.ca/blogs/eggert/?p=22

Read it.

The Idology of Ideology

(Title taken from a Bruce Cockburn lyric "Call it Democracy")

Over lunch this week I may have confused a younger friend by saying that I am personally supportive of the legalization of gay marriage and all the accompanying rights that go with it, at least until political and religious leaders get their heads together and realise that the government should provide legal civil unions for any two people who so desire and each spiritual community should enact it's own practise for sacred unions.

In the discussion she referred to the idea that she just can't see herself letting go of some of the basic tenets of conviction she has been raised with. I understand that. Still, I hope that she will learn to hold most convictions loosely and only the most crucial of them in closed hands.

Brian McLaren describes what I'm experiencing as "ideological homelessness" in an excellent and very timely article.

Here's a snippet:

What they have in common, I think, is that they are seeking to create a new space that isn't clearly defined as "left" or "right." This is a space of civil disagreement, engaging with the other, crossing boundaries. Just yesterday, I heard somebody define this space as being homeless ... ideologically homeless.

If Rick were the right-wing nut-job that some of his hefty-lefty critics are painting him to be, he wouldn't dare accept an invitation by a Democratic pro-choice pro-gay President. If the President-Elect were the left-wing nut job his tighty-righty critics paint him to be ... he wouldn't invite Prop-8-supporting Rick Warren to give the invocation. If Rick were the compromising apostate his tighty-righty critics claim him to be, he wouldn't outspokenly disagree with the President-Elect on gay marriage and criminalizing abortion. And so on ... you get the point.

Meanwhile, what the critics have in common is that they have a home. They know where they stand - left, far left, right, far right, etc. They know who's in and who's out, who's orthodox and who's not, whom they're cold toward and whom they're hot about.

Christian does not equal Conservative

I've heard from more than one direction in this highly political year that Evangelical Christians must vote for the conservative (Republican in the US, Conservative Party in Canada) political party.

I find this utterly offensive.

While I have had some excellent interaction with people I deeply respect who are Christian and affiliate themselves with the conservative side, far too many of my spiritual siblings are simply stupid in this. They have limited what they understand to be God's interest to a very short list of hot topics; particularly the inclusion of homosexual couples in the civil institute of marriage. At the same time they are so partisan that they willfully turn a blind eye to other matters (environment, poverty, corruption, immigration/refugees for example), and often to the glaring inconsistencies and improprieties of their preferred leaders.

There is neither integrity or spiritual high ground in this.

There is also no historical perspective. My current favourite theologian, John Stackhouse, wrote an article that all politically interested followers of Jesus would be wise to give careful consideration. You don't have to agree, but you would be missing out on an important understanding if you ignore it.

And in the interest of honesty let me say that I have voted Liberal, Conservative, and Green each at least once in recent elections and I believe my current Member of Parliament (a Conservative) is worthy of respect and a committed representative of our riding.