Neglect

In my often overly romantic teen years I once wrote a poem about killing a flower. The idea was that there are dramatic and violent ways to kill it, but doing so by depriving the flower of the basic things it needs to survive is ultimately more devastating.

I've been neglecting this blog for the last few months.

If you want to see where my head is at these days you should chase me down at the Catalyst Foundation or on facebook.

When can I walk to school?

Shortly after getting out of the van from dropping off three children at school and daycare this morning I came across this from Al Hsu.
Life for me is in some kind of constant tension between competing convictions. I want my children to be confident, curious, and independent; but I worry whenever they are out of sight for too long. I want to minimize environmental impact; but driving less is terribly inconvenient. I want to spend more time connecting with my neighbours; but our own calendar already feels full.
The road to hell may be paved with good intentions, it is always easy to identify the sell-outs and compromises in the lives of others. When I hear of those doing much more good than I am I feel guilty. At the same time I can't imagine the sheer research load of doing something like Ben Bowen does.
Anybody else enjoying the angst?

Cosmo-Christians

Really like this article from Skye Jethani at Our of Ur, so I'm going to just post the whole darn thing:

Cosmo-Christians
A new breed of believers is challenging the nature and scope of Christian engagement in the world.
by Skye Jethani

Last year during the presidential campaign, the Christian segment of the population once believed to be a monolithic voting block turned out to be more diverse than previously believed. The hold of the Religious Right, Christian Coalition, and other GOP-leaning groups over the evangelical brand started to loosen. What emerged was a new, generally younger, more urban, and less politically idealistic group of Christian voters. Michael Lindsay, author of Faith in the Halls of Power, refers to them as "Cosmopolitan Evangelicals." According to Lindsay, they:
• reject signifiers of "populist" Christianity, such as the Left Behind books and Thomas Kinkade paintings.
• are less involved in local churches, but highly involved with parachurch organizations.
• may not theologically agree with same-sex civil unions, but they don't see them as an assault on the culture.
• remain definitively pro-life.
• are more engaged with matters of local and global justice. AIDS, poverty, and human rights have been added to "traditional family values" in their set of concerns.
• recognize the legitimacy of environmental matters and view them through the theological lense of "creation stewardship."
The movement of a number of evangelical heavy-hitters like Rick Warren and Richard Cizik toward poverty and environmental issues is an indication that cosmopolitan Christians are gaining influence, as is the inability of Religious Right pillars like James Dobson and Pat Robertson to rally young people in high numbers.
Lindsay's definition, heavily slanted to political issues, is an interesting starting point, but I believe the characteristics of this new breed of evangelicals may be broader than he's articulated. Consider the definition of the word cosmopolitan:
To be free from local, provincial, or national ideas, prejudices, or attachments; at home all over the world.
In a real sense, the younger cosmopolitan Christians have grown up with a global awareness on a scale unprecedented in American history. They are more connected via technology to the realities of global injustice, mission, and economics. And unlike populist or provincial Christians who carry a "God and country" value into their cultural engagements, the cosmopolitan Christians are more likely to downplay the role of patriotism in their faith and see global concerns as paramount.
But there may also be a common theological thread among cosmopolitan Christians as well. There is a significant debate occurring within the church about whether social justice is central to or is simply an implication of the gospel. In other words, did Jesus' incarnation, life, death, and resurrection seek merely to redeem humans who then express their redemption through good works on the earth? Or, was healing of social injustices part of Jesus' redemptive mission?
Increasing numbers of Christians are coming to the belief that healing the world's injustice is part of God's kingdom mission. A gospel with a wider scope than men's souls, as articulated by N.T. Wright's reflections and Robert Webber's Christus Victor perspective, is providing a theological framework for cosmopolitan Christians to hang their values upon. And they are not without biblical basis. The Apostle Paul says in Colossians 1:19–20:
For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in Christ, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
The reconciliation and redemption of "all things" that are broken, fallen, and rebellious in the world give cosmopolitan Christians a strong rationale for engaging issues of justice, poverty, environmental stewardship, and culture, as well as evangelism.
So the newly branded "Cosmo Christians," as I like to call them, have at least two qualities that define both the nature and scope of their mission. First, they are cosmopolitan-Christians concerned with the world's pressing issues and injustices. Second, they are cosmic-Christians who see the scope of God's redemptive work in Christ as extending to "all things," and not simply the rescuing of people's souls from a world destined for destruction.

10 Ways to NOT love your neighbour

I've been thinking a lot about what Jesus means when he tells us we are meant to love our neighbours and why us church people seem to find that so hard. I've been thinking a lot about my neighbours, the people who live on my street and what it would mean for me to love them. Here are ten ways I know that I can show I don't love them:

1. Drive more than 20 minutes to church: If my spiritual community and my geographic community are only connected by highway it is almost certain they will rarely connect. Part of Christian love is desiring to merge those communities.
2. Move more than 3 times in a decade: Love requires familiarity, moving makes it nearly impossible.
3. Never ask for help or admit your struggles: Hiding our faults doesn't make us look more godly, it makes us look fake; fake isn't love.
4. Spend lots of time in your back yard: In the suburbs (where I live) backyards are where we go when we don't want to see people, front yards and driveways are where we might end up in a conversation.
5. Don’t borrow things: Being self-sufficient is ultimately wasteful and exclusive.
6. Invite them out, but only to church events: Treating the folks next door only as projects is offensive.
7. Stereotype them: Take a little time to find out some of the stereotypes people have of Christians, especially evangelicals and you'll understand why this is so harmful.
8. Pray for them without asking permission: This one is a bit sketchy I admit, but how much more loving is it to ask someone what they want from God rather than pursuing your own agenda.
9. Spend at least 4 evenings/week not at home: More nights at church events does not equate to more love for neighbours. When do you expect to know them if you're never around?
10. Have church friends over often: The corollary here is that you don't simultaneously have neighbours over. If our social lives are filled with people from church we give the impression (usually accurate) that we have no interest, need, or time for getting close to those who live next door.

I admit that by these standards I don't love my own neighbours very much...I'm committed to changing that this summer.

Final Final Post

New posts are going up at www.catalystfoundation.ca
Update your reader/bookmark to keep up with what's happening at Catalyst.

De-baptism?!?

(This one's for you Yaksman)

Came across this article today about 100 000 people who have downloaded a certificate of de-baptism to signify that they are no longer in agreement with the decision made by their parents to ritually include them in the church. I've gotta say that I kinda like the idea.
While I have been baptised both as an unaware infant and later out of my own conviction as a teen, I do feel badly for those who feel tied to a faith they don't, can't, or won't adhere to. If this de-baptism is a sincere act of integrity to reconcile personal conviction with religious ritual I'm all for it. If it is being done just for laughs and mild rebellion, that's okay with me too.
The best thing about this is that people are considering whether they agree with the implications of baptism on their current life and beliefs. Nothing is much more Christian than regularly reconsidering the compatibility of our character and our stated convictions. If we genuinely don't desire to live in responsive obedience to the revelation of God we have received or what we believe isn't matching up to the spiritual community we are part of it is better that we face that directly and deal with it.
I would love to see a church offer a de-baptism day where they could provide the certificates and meet individually with people who wanted to be officially relieved of any expectations of identification or involvement with the church...

I want my pastor to...

During the 7 years I spent working full time in church I often came up against the expectations various people in the congregation had for what my role should be. In the beginning I spent far too much time and energy trying to figure out what was expected by everyone. I actually become much more effective when I stopped trying so hard to be a "good pastor" and tried to focus on being myself...

This week's Breakfast With Fred piece gives the late Fred Smith's perspective on what a pastor should be:

“I was asked to address the topic, “A Layman Looks at the Pastor.” I changed one word: Looking TO, not looking AT. Here are my personal views:.

1. I want my pastor to commit himself to building community. We live in a fractured world. Our cities are not friendly. Our workplaces are often combative. Sadly, even our homes are dysfunctional. As a group of believers, we need the fellowship of believers where people feel accepted and blessed.

2. I want my pastor to encourage the “priesthood of the believers.” He is not my agent negotiating a better deal with God than I can make. I want him to remind me that he isn’t a professional Christian with greater access. I want him to join with me in prayer --- not do the praying for me.

3. I want my pastor to teach me how to think about God, not just know what he thinks about God. My pastor is to awaken the teacher within me. He is to help me and guide me, but the responsibility for my spiritual health is mine.

4. I want my pastor to maintain his own spiritual vitality. I want his teaching to come from the artesian well of his walk, not the dead sea of old sermons and seminary classes.

5. I want my pastor to be my spiritual dietician, helping me to develop a spiritual regimen that is uniquely based on my gifts and opportunities. I am grateful for those who invested in my spiritual growth.

6. I want to be a regular person around him --- and I want him to be natural with me, as well. Maintaining images can alienate us from each other.

7. I want my pastor to know truth, not just the facts of the Bible. Just as information is not knowledge, and knowledge is not wisdom, so facts and word studies do not comprise the truth of the revelation.

8. I want my pastor to personify humility. I don’t want him to act humble – I want him to be humble. Our son, Fred, Jr., once gave me a great definition of humility: “Accepting your strength with gratitude.”

This week think carefully about: 1) What do I want my pastor to be? 2) How am I partnering with my pastor for encouragement? 3) What does it mean to be real with my pastor?

Point/Counterpoint

Larry Flynt sent members of congress free subscriptions to the porn magazine he publishes.

Most of them responded with condemning speeches (at least publically). But one was much more creative.

I don't know anything about this congressman, but this is pretty smooth.

Things I Need To Hear...

Over lunch today a good friend and I were talking about work and family and the mystery of balance. He's been out of work for a few months now, which gives him a certain perspective.

When I mentioned that I sometimes find it hard to reconcile the needs of my family with three small children at home and the encouragement to develop myself as a leader as much as I can he said something truly profound:

"Your job is not a covenant".

He went on to say that as a follower of Jesus I have a covenant promise with God, and as a married man I have another one with Kristen (and by extension our kids). But while I may be strongly committed to my other roles in life (profession, extended family, community, friendships, etc.), none of them have that same qualification.

A covenant is something much more than a commitment, it is a soul promise. It is an enduring sacrificial pledge from which there is meant to be no exit. It is a sacred and determining priority.

Church people often make trite statements about putting God first, marriage second, children third, church next, and so on...
But working that out in real life is far more complex. We can't just say that we always do family things before work. Real life requires compromise and constant renegotiation. that is why the reminder of covenant is so helpful. It's much deeper than a list of priorities. It's a fundamental orientation to life that honours core relationships even in the midst of the challenge doing so presents.

Thanks Gerb, I needed that.

Great Quote

“As a theologically conservative Christian myself, the challenge to me is to accept that it’s possible for someone to come to a different theological conclusion based on scripture, and still be a committed follower of Jesus. I’m used to feeling like, I know you’re a real Christ follower when you agree with me about everything, and part of the journey of a conservative Christian is realizing that there are genuine, heartfelt, passionate followers of Jesus, who arrived at different conclusions on some theological issues and some ethical issues rooted in their passion for, and study of scripture. Now there are also some sloppy, lazy, self-serving people who make up their ethics as they go along, to validate how they want to live, and then try to look through scripture to find the proof-text. And how do you know the difference between the two of those? First of all, as a Christian, I want to give people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, but also I get to know the difference when I get to know them, when we hang out together, when we do Bible study together.”

-Bruxy Cavey

Whose Story Is This?

I can't decide if I love this video or not.
I suspect that a lot of church people will think it's innovative and persuasive; but I wonder if people who aren't already convinced of the Christian message will just see it as another semi-typical attempt to market our faith...

Thoughts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WndCCNpD0BI

Two Good Starts

Last night I attended the "very soft launch" of Word Made Flesh - Canada. When Mark Petersen gets this motivated by a charity it is always worth checking out; and it was.

But the best part of the night came earlier, before I left home.

I was telling my 5 year old son, Ben, that I was going to hear a man who lives with people who don't have enough money or food. Ben asked why the man (Chris Heuertz) would do that. I explained that God loves everyone, but he has a special love for the poor. Ben nodded thoughtfully, then disappeared upstairs for a minute. When he came down he solemnly handed me the entire contents of his giraffe piggy bank and told me to give it to the man who helps the poor people. Then he drew a picture for them of someone who was given "clothes, food, money, a hat, and a house".


My son is more like Jesus than I am.

It was a sacred privilege to give his donation to Chris and after last night's event I am glad that Ben's first entry into generosity was in support of such a good organization.

Being Neighbourly

We've been in our house for almost three years. It's the kind of street where people rarely leave until the really have to, most of the houses are a little over 50 years old and many are still on their first residents.

This fall the neighbours on the east side of our place moved out, they needed somewhere with fewer stairs to accomodate their aging health. We spent a few weeks watching out our living room window as people came to see the house; who would our new neighbours be?

We've been hoping for either a family with young kids for ours to play with, or (even better) a teenage girl who could babysit. When the sold sign went up we watched even more closely and it seems like we didn't get our wish. We haven't met them yet, but it looks a couple in their mid-50's bought the place and are having a lot of renovations done before they move in. I can admit to being a little disappointed.

The thing is, whoever these people are, they are our neighbours. Today I read an article from Carolyn Arends, a musician I used to love a decade ago who now does a fair bit of writing and speaking. She talked about the reaction she had when her lovely family neighbourhood was overrun by grow-ops. What does "love your neighbour" feel like when the neighbour is in handcuffs?

A New Beginning

I really hope President Obama can deliver on some of the hope he has brought to both Americans and many in the rest of the world. I'm excited about the way he has set an entirely different tone for governing and engaging with people than his predecessor had. An amazing example is the new white house website.

Any chance Canada's political leaders will follow suit?
(Didn't think so)

Pro-What

I am not particularly interested in entering into the abortion debate on blog and facebook. I have zero confidence that the complexities and emotion of it can be usefully addressed here. But I do want to share these thoughts from Skye Jethani that express what I believe is a productive shift in the dialogue:

Christians have always been pro-life. During the Roman Empire when infanticide was rampant, it was Christians who retrieved abandoned babies from outside the city walls to raise them as their own. But it was also the church that gave unprecedented dignity to slaves, women, and social outcasts. Some have even hypothesized that it was Christianity's appeal to the disenfranchised masses that fueled its rapid expansion.
But since Roe vs. Wade, the way "pro-life" has been defined by many evangelicals has been very narrow. It has simply meant anti-abortion. But now that seems to be changing. Growing numbers of Christians are embracing a wider ethic of life. Jim Wallis has called for a Christian agenda that is pro-life "from the womb to the tomb." That means valuing people after they are born, and not just before. It means pursuing social justice, equality, education, health care, and human rights. It means fighting poverty and advocating for those without a voice.

I would love to see those who are so decisive in their condemnation of abortion become half as passionate about the lives of those that have been born. They might even earn a sincere audience...

The Root Of All Evil

(Note; the title above is a misquote from the Bible where it actually says "The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil" 1 Timothy 6:10)

The last year or so has seen some very public shame for a number of religious leaders who share in common the belief that God wants those he loves to be healthy and rich. The basic idea is that if we give generously to God (usually through the leader's organization) God will reward us with material prosperity. It's a very appealing invitation, especially for those who are economically struggling. Unfortunately it doesn't hold up to sound theology or practical observation.

This article gives the sad story of some of those leaders and how their followers are holding on to the teaching.

I don't really blame people for getting caught up in this. It's a very enticing idea; God will make me rich if only I stop sinning, give enough, pray enough, do enough. If I'm not rich it's my own fault for not trusting God the way I should.

The thing is, thee is an element of truth hidden here. It is a biblical principle that God provides us with all that we have so that we can bless others. Often, those who are faithful in giving their time, energy, love, abilities, and yes, money, do receive more in return. But the key to the whole thing is that it isn't a mechanical transaction.

We don't get to say to God, "I gave you $2000, now you owe me $10 000". It's all God's to begin with.

Truth only is true when it's equally true for everyone. Do the prosperity believers believe that those living in abject poverty are more sinful than the North American elite consumers? Do they think the only way God shows love is with cash?

I know this is a hugely loaded topic. I know there are tons of questions, for instances, objections, cautions, and pitfalls here. But I also know that there are a lot of people suffering with undeserved shame and false hope because they are convinced that they are only a little more donation away from easy street.

If the Bible teaches us anything, it's that there are no easy streets this side of heaven. Some prosperity preachers are finding that out now.