Fred Fay

[ffay55]

We have a new leader

Our AG Network has a new leader. Don Ross!!! We are looking forward to great days ahead.

[ffay55]

One of my favorite stories I have shared with children is about Martin the Cobbler. He is the central character in Leo Tolstoy’s classic called “Where Love Is”. Martin, because of some very difficult situations in his life, has denied God. But through a visit of a missionary and a dream he believes God will visit him. It’s an endearing story about a tenderhearted man who shows kindness to others. He keeps looking for God, but thinks God did not show up. When he sees another vision in which each person he helped was a visit for God, his heart is changed. It comes out that Martin is not an unbeliever after all. God showed up in acts of love expressed while he was looking for God.

  There have been many philosophic movements that have attempted to replace God and religion as the primary social imaginary of society. While not claiming to be atheistic, they have attempted to replace religion. Terry Eagleton in his book Culture and the Death of God traces the history of philosophic movements that attempt to replace God and religion with reason, nature, desire, culture etc. It seems when God is eliminated something arises to take his place. He states, “Whenever the Almighty seems safely dispatched, he is always liable stage a reappearance in one disguise of another.” (119) So with Martin the Cobbler, so it is with us. Like Martin, philosophies are mostly a reaction to disquieting circumstances in life. In the few conversations I have had with atheists, they seemed to be arguing in reaction to religion, not making arguments for atheism. They had disappointments with Christians, found religion oppressive or could not reconcile evil with a good God. They found atheism a convenient substitute. But all created substitutes for God fall short. They would not help Martin the Cobbler.

  Rationalism falls short. Rationalist reacted to the controlling influences of a priestly order and the idea of the miraculous. But the scientific rationalism of the Enlightenment offers nothing in replacement of religion. Rationality reduced to cause and effect did not provide meaning and no basis for forming values. What rationalist cannot explain, Eagleton shows, is why it is good to follow the decrees of reason. When religious faith capitulates to reason it reduces itself to a list of propositions, but no basis for meaning beyond them. Martin would not find a good substitute for God here.

  Idealists fall short. They try to bring together the transcendent and immanent in culture. They make culture God. Art and aesthetics take the place of worship. The poet takes the place of the priest and art the place of religions rites. (61) The progressive capitalism of the Enlightenment did not offer the symbolic unifying strength of religion. The Idealists offers to bring together the aesthetic and reason. But the positivism of the Enlightenment falls short of dealing with the tragic. It did not see the limits of a positivistic outlook. It does not deal with hardship well. Martin needed something to deal with the tragedy of life. Idealism would leave him empty.

  Romanticism falls short. It sought to break free of systematic reasoning. In reaction to reason, romantic focused on the affections. They sought the organic as alternative to mechanistic reason. (114) Romantics challenged the rationalist view of nature as only something to be used. They found “God” in nature and the aesthetic in art. But Eagleton shows that this view cannot make social change happen. He says, “There is a tension in Romantic thought between an urge to spurn the world and a desire to transform it.” (118) Martin the cobbler might find a home here for Romanticism’s esteem for the affective realm. But it offered no real solutions. Eagleton declares that it did not change political powers but merely supplanted them. (116) Tolstoy was a realist, not a romanticist. Martin would not find help here either.

  Postmodernity falls short. This Eagleton shows comes closest to eliminating God. Postmodernists may not be against religion, they just don't find it important. As Eagleton states, “Societies become secular not when religion is eliminated but when they are no longer agitated by it.” (1) What Postmodernity does do that modernism did not is accept suffering. It is not something to transcend but embraced. Martin knows suffering. Will he find hope here? But Postmodernity has no stable identity. For Eagleton, Postmodernity falls short in that convictions and belief are held lightly. They are like commodities to be used and discarded as needed. He states, “the faithlessness of advanced capitalism is built into its routine practices.” (197) Now the priest is the celebrity and religious symbols are commodities. This is a form of atheism. But it offers no hope for Martin.

  Conclusion:

No philosophic movement has adequately replaced religion. They have replaced God with humanity and humanity has shone itself inadequate to the task. Eagleton asserts that, "No symbolic form in history has been able to replace religion's ability to link the most exalted of truths to the daily existence of countless men and women." (122) Christianity finds its hope in the God who embraced suffering, a God who was willing to show love to common humanity. Eagleton’s solution is a return to orthodoxy Christianity, “The Incarnation is the place where both God and man undergo a kind of kenosis…only through this tragic self-emptying can anew humanity hope to emerge.” (159)

  Was modernity in its rationalistic, idealistic and romantic expression a search for the hearts of people when they did not see it in the church? Is Postmodernity a search for the hearts of people because modernity failed to produce a better society? Can we the church return to fresh expressions that will show how people can flourish in a way that is both and immanent and transcendent? The most important question is “Can Martin find God in the church as the church expresses God in the world?”

[ffay55]

Who leads like this? Lincoln and leadership

Would you tolerate someone on your team with whom you had vast personality differences? Would you call people into account whom you knew had made verbal attacks on your character and abilities to lead? It seems irreconcilable differences are a good reason for so many who work together to not work together. Often when it comes to great leadership skill, the ability to execute well is most desired. But what of character? The ability to be dedicated to the job, the task, to an organizations success above personality friction is a rare quality.

I grew up in the “land of Lincoln”, Illinois. I have always had a kind of mystical awe from childhood of Abraham Lincoln. Having just finished the book Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin, my esteem of the man has only gone up. It is not because of great deeds he had done, nor his ability to win a war and preserve the unity of the United States. Above all it is his character that stands out, his ability to lead with greatness, his magnanimity that kept him focused above personality issues. (342)

Leadership lessons from Abraham Lincoln’s Life:

1. Lincoln looked for the common ground with those who opposed him. He tried to put himself in another person’s shoes. When attempting to appeal to slaveowners in regard to the legal status of blacks, he did not refer to some fundamental human right. He simply he pointed out the contradictions in their own laws concerning the morality of slavery.

Leadership lesson: When leading others, try to understand where they are coming from and appeal to their own convictions.

2. Lincoln held no grudges. Two rivals refused to support him for senator in Illinois even though he had the majority. Not wanting for his party to lose the election, Lincoln withdrew his name. Later when one of them was running for governor he wrote saying he did not believe charges that they did him wrong. He assumed the best of intentions.

Leadership lesson: Leaders rise above petty resentments and keep your eyes on the big picture.

3. Lincoln welcomed opinions that opposed his. As president he assembled his cabinet from formal rivals because he wanted the best people to help him lead.

Leadership lesson: Assemble the best team regardless of the personality differences. 

4. When Lincoln spoke he was able to articulate the issues of the day in profound and simple terms.  When crafting his inaugural address he took time to process his thought. When writing the Gettysburg address he was able in a short speech to talk about the common history of the country and the state of where the Union stood in light of that history.

Leadership Lesson: Acquire the ability to process complex situations and communicate reality in simple terms.

5. The United States faced a difficult decision about two former Confederate senators that escaped aboard a British ship. Lincoln wanted to take a firm hand in the matter and forcibly remove them from the vessel. Secretary of State, William Seward told Lincoln that they needed to let them go. The U.S. did not want a war with England also. He wisely listened and avoided what could have been a major disaster. (pp.399-400)

  Leadership Lesson: Listen well to your team and be able to adjust your thinking.

6. Though willing to listen and work with others Lincoln never wavered in his principles. Goodwin says that, an “indomitable sense of purpose sustained him.” (748) After proposing giving federal aid to states that agreed to the gradual abolition of slavery, he received severe criticism. Frederick Douglas thought him prejudiced. Horace Greeley, an influential newspaper editor, wrote a scathing letter that his stance on slavery was weak. Lincoln replied that his ultimate aim was to preserve the union, not to save slavery or annihilate it. He wanted to be rid of slavery but avoid further conflict. Goodwin states, “Experience had taught him that he must set priorities and concentrate on vital questions of the day.” (703)

  Leadership Lesson: Keep the “why” of what you do predominate and stick to your principles.

  Conclusion:

My biggest take-a-way about the leadership of Abraham Lincoln is what Goodwin calls the “unselfish magnanimity”. Magnanimous literally means “great soul”. The definitions describe Lincoln well. He had a “loftiness of spirit enabling one to bear trouble calmly.” He seemed to “distain meanness and pettiness.” Whether one agrees with his philosophy or his tactics about war, Lincoln was able to rise above the sectarian nature of the conflict and proposed a larger picture to bring people together. In light of that, leadership must be able to what some call “tell a better story” or “define reality” for the organizations they lead.

[ffay55]

Bridging the Gay/Church Divide

This will be my second blog on David Thompson. I have met him twice for conversations about gay couples and the church’s response. Since then, I have read his short book called Over Coffee in which he has a conversation on this subject. He converses with a pastoral character composed of many conversations he has had with other pastors. David does not take a polemic posture toward people he is trying to convince or get frustrated with those who do not agree with him. He is open to respectful conversations on reconciling Christian belief and gay marriage. He is a great bridge builder.

Three things surfaced for me, three bridges that can be crossed, as the book unfolded. One, is that the “issue” of gay orientation is a human one. The book reveals a pastor who talks with a member of his congregation who reveals his gay orientation. The care of the pastor for this man and his struggle with how to respond is typical in many conservative churches. In this conversation David shows the very human side of people. We all long to love and be loved. For me, love is the first response to people who we may not share ideologies. Speaking with David and reading his book stirred again my revulsion to those who express anger and hatred to those with which they do not agree. I grieve with people who struggle with their Christianity and their sexual orientation. Though the solutions will not be simple, the attitude should be one of concern for human beings. Concern for people is a good bridge to cross concerning being gay and the church. 

Secondly, David attempts to unravel arguments about gay marriage. He asks why grace is extended to those in the church that violate scripture such as honoring the Sabbath and divorce and remarriage. These are allowed to be members of the church, but gay people are not. What David is doing is arguing from contradiction. While arguing from contradiction is not a strong argument (Contradictions do not mean that one thing makes the other acceptable) he has a good point. It can point out hypocrisy.  What it does show is that Christian leaders confront some violations of scripture and grace is extended, but not to others. This is an important understanding. How are we to respond to anyone who falls short? Grace. For those struggle with gay marriage as a permissible Christian option, grace is an important bridge to form. The first step of grace would listening well and hearing a person's story in light of God's grace.

The last thing that surfaced is David’s weakest argument, but gets to the heart of the issue. He states that the original design was for men and women to marry the opposite sex and reproduce. This is true to the book of Genesis. Then he goes on to state, “it is not good for people to be alone” is also a command from God. While the statement is true that people are better together and being alone is not good, this is not a command. It’s a condition. People are meant to be together. David argues that this is one reason for gay marriage. It’s a weak one. Loneliness is not a healthy state, but sexual expression of one’s being is not the only way to bring people together. Christians believe God created humans to be in relationship with him. That relationship is to be expressed together in the church. We are created for communion with God and each other. Communion is not based on human need alone, but by God’s design. We are not to be alone for what reason? Because it does not express well the triune God. While sexual expression is a part of that communion. It is not the primary one. In conversation with me, David said that originally God created man and women to be united. But because we are broken by sin, the ideal has fallen short.  Sin has broken our relationship with God and each other. This is a significant statement. What this leads to is the importance that we are all broken by sin and need healing. While not many gay people would agree with David’s point here, Christians should understand brokenness and healing. The church can do this by the message of reconciliation and the act of hospitality. Could this not be the beginning of a new bridge to walk over? I think so.

What David does do well is show how the church has shunned gay Christians so they have no place to go. This should not be. Even if we have strong conviction about being gay, that should not make us, the church, exclude them from fellowship. I admire that David sticks to his conservative views while making effort to build bridges that hopefully people of gay orientation can walk over and be part of the church. What David does well is help the church to see the human face of this issue. People need to be loved, accepted and included in the church. Even though I did not agree with David’s logic, I agree with his sentiment. We the church cannot be dismissive and reactionary. We need to be inclusive and thoughtful.

[ffay55]

Typing at the Speed of Lite

Can you learn anything in just 20 hours? This week I took on the challenge of working on my touch-typing. I have been reading the book The First 20 hours: How to Learn Anything Fast by Josh Kaufman. So can I improve my touch typing this week? I must admit I am not trying to expect ultra fast typing in a week. Typing "lite" is my goal. I would like to get to 40wpm to begin. I have to get away from being so dependent on looking at the keys frequently. That is my most important goal.

I began thinking that practice alone will make this happen. But practice without focus only reinforces habits. I first tested myself to see how well I typed.  I began with a dismal 24wpm count and lots of mistakes. I began with ARTypist a free on-line program to work on my skills. First off, this is an indoor activity, which was difficult when the weather was so gorgeously summer-like. I realized I have a focus problem. One of Kaufman's tips, "avoid distractions". How do you avoid distractions? Close the blinds. 

After doing the exercises for a few hours, I soon discovered my problem with typing is that I was constantly using the wrong fingering and had not mastered many of the letters. I had been relying on the spell check on my computer to compensate for my errors. The exercises were helpful and made me focus on my hand positioning. 

 I also found I was trying to learn too many letters simultaneously. This program encouraged precision and not speed. So good so far because my precision was not good. I needed more skill work. Kaufman points out, skill acquisition requires a person to focus on one skill at a time and breaking down skills into sub-skills. As I focused on what I was doing, the anxiousness to get it right subsided. It was better to give myself completely to the task at hand. But after awhile this got to be monotonous. I read more about touch-typing in Kaufman’s book and switched to another program he recommended called Tipp10. This was more interesting and used real words to type. It kept track of speed and errors which was very helpful. But then I hit another snag. This program was asking me to use some letters that I had not mastered. I did another speed test after practicing about 6 hours going back and forth between programs. I was only up to 33wpm with many 45 errors again.

  Time to regroup. What are the barriers that I was facing? One, I still had not mastered some letters and hand positions. Two, repetition was losing my interest and slowing me down. Kaufman calls for working on speed and quantity. More skill development needed. Slowing down a bit to focus on precision. Then I retested 29wpm with 36 mistakes.  So, back to skill development. I did not find the perfect solution, but working on letter skill and not pushing for speed worked best. Then I went back to typing. So after about 10 hours into this project where do I stand? Slightly improved. I am still at about 30 wpm. With another 10 hours, we will see. I am not the 50 wpm I had hoped, but my understanding of the keyboard has improved. I have made progress, I don't look at the keyboard!

Most importantly, I realized something about myself. My tendency to not focus on the specifics a the skill and try to rush accomplishment. Kaufman’s focus on speed did not help here. What did help was learning to take apart the skills into smaller bits, learning to keep total focus for short amounts of time, and learning not to work on skills when the weather outside is too nice not to enjoy. Another 10 hours to go...

[ffay55]

Why do the nations rage?

Quite a few years ago I accompanied a group from the church I was working for on a missions trip to Ensenada. We passed through beautiful San Diego with palm trees, green            foliage and modern buildings. Then as we passed over the border into Mexico everything changed. The ground was brown and barren. There were no luxury buildings. It looked like a wasteland as we pulled into the city. One word came to mind of why this was so, “government”. The climate was the same, the ground was fertile, the people friendly. The only thing different was the government. The way people organize their lives together must be the culprit. This was true, but a limited truth. It must also be the people, I thought. The people just don’t have the same standards. They way they think must be limiting their ability to flourish. But something that I did not consider was history. History tied to geography. I thought that there must be something intrinsically wrong with the people. Questions come to mind. What makes the U.S. more prosperous than other countries? Why didn’t Mexico become wealthy and the U.S. struggle? Why does one dominate group become that way? One thing I did not consider was geography.

  Jared Diamond traces the history of human societies in his book Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. The premise is that developing countries had much in their favor. They had a favorable climate for growing crops, they had fertile soil, they had enough protein in their diet, and they had larger animals that could be put to work. The geography was conducive to prosperity. That also helped to grow populations large enough to develop chiefdoms, states and organized governments. Hunter-gatherers were always at a disadvantage. They were pushed to the margins, absorbed or killed. They did not have the means to resist stronger organized people. Governments with authority were able to develop an efficient means of food production and distribution, water provisions and shelter. Authoritarian communities are stronger than the hunter-gatherer subsistence living. Those with authority structures thrived; those who did not were often subject to those who were. 

Another example is language. The saying “knowledge is power” contains truth. If you know about the terrain and the people that you are encountering, then you have a huge advantage. You have the ability to plan. One thing Diamond points out is that writing and weapons went together. It enabled technology. What makes the difference in cultures that create technology? Is it intelligence, risk taking people or the readiness in the culture? The larger picture is that knowledge is cumulative. It relies on others. The proximity to other societies is a huge advantage. They can learn from each other. Again geography is the reason. What is upsetting, as Diamond traces the history of the world, is the fact that the powerful always exploit the weak. While Diamond presents the facts scientifically, he does comment occasionally on the brutality with seeming distain. He paints a bleak picture of humanity. There seems to be no moral guide. One group spreads at the expense of other groups.

The positive message is that Diamond confronts our prejudice. The differences between the histories of peoples have not been due to innate differences in the people themselves, but to the differences in their environments. He states, “Environment molds history”. (page 352) The negative is the there doesn’t seem to be much hope presented to solve present historical dilemmas, only to explain them. The one bright spot was when Diamond compared the histories of the Koreans and the Japanese. They come from the same heredity. They are physically similar. But the war of Japan on Korean left a permanent resentment and downright hate in the Korean people. The bright spot? He states that their futures depend on their ability to rediscover their “ancient bonds between them”. (Page 449) Perhaps a shift in how we see and deal with other countries is to know our common bonds. And also to realize the advantages the western world has had is not because of our brilliance, but our favorable environment. Societies thrive on the proximity to other societies. Cumulatively they do better. 

What is not answered is why did peoples develop a competitive and exploitive outlook, instead of a cooperative one? Diamond’s response seems to be that this happens only within countries when they are made to cooperate. Which is true. But, why is conquest so much a part of larger countries and states? What is it about humanity that behaves this way?

While I was reading I kept thinking of the Christian Church. In the book of Acts Chapter 2 it describes a community of shared learning, shared concern for each other and a sharing of resources. The church is to be an alternative society. Jesus calls his followers to not rule over each other, but serve. But, like ancient Israel, when the church adopts the practices of the world around it, it becomes idolatrous. When powerful countries used religion as a means to an end, both became corrupt. Diamond calls these “kleptocracies”. They use power to exploit its people in the name of religion. They rule by stealing. The historical church has had its share of guilt there.

A few questions for me remain:

Beyond Diamond’s thesis of environments being a huge factor in societies becoming powerful or not, does religion contribute in ways that are not exploitive? Has the church retarded exploitive practices? Diamond seems to miss this.

The church has been complicit in governmental conquest in the past. In what ways is this idolatrous practice evident today?

[ffay55]

Can a Book Change the World?

Could a book change your life? Many popular books promise that. “Read this book and it will change your life.” Millions of books have been written. Few endure. But some books have changed society. They have changed the world we live in. This week I have read 12 Books That Changed The World: How words and wisdom have shaped our lives by Melvyn Bragg. What impressed me was not only that these people wrote books, but their total commitment to their cause. These people both set their minds to their cause and wrote about it. They took action on their passion.  They put no limits on their mind, their energy or their times. It was total commitment… and they changed the world. They set into motion forces that initiated new ways that we think and live.

A book that has influence over time comes immersed in a story. Each author writes out of his or her social context. There was a highly motivated person whose time had come. Their ideas still perpetuate themselves today. It is like a rock thrown into a pond creating concentric ripples over the surface. These twelve stories were written by authors with drive. There was the drive to inquire and know. There was a drive that came from a painful social experience. And lastly, there was a drive to bring order in the form of laws and rules.

Isaac Newton was fascinated by the universe. In Principia Mathematica his inquisitive mind mathematically explained how it operated. Scientific pursuit of knowledge became a basis of how we know.

Marie Carmichael Stopes had a drive to change how men view women in a married relationship. In her book wrote Married Love: A New Contribution to the Solution of Sex Difficulties she changed the discussion on sex and reproduction.

The Magna Carta was written in reaction to the abuse of power of kings. Upon this document the idea of basic human rights was established effecting constitutional foundations for many governments.

  The Rule Book of Association Football may seem not to fit the list. But the chaos and violence of this sport pushed a group of educators to script a set of rules that could be used universally. So now globally the sport of football or soccer for Americans has wide appeal.

Charles Darwin upset the world with his theory called On the Origin of the Species. His inquiry drove him to formulate a cohesive theory of the different species. Today evolution in an assumed theory for most scientists and taught with authority in our schools.

  William Wilberforce’s speech called On The Abolition of The Slave Trade combated the terrible conditions of the slave trade. His identification with the humanity of the slaves pricked the conscious of nations and brought a halt to slavery (eventually).

Mary Wollstonecraft wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Women adding impetus to the women’s suffrage movement. She wrote out of her own personal experience of repression in a male dominated society and desired relationships between the sexes to be mutually affirming.

In Experimental Researches in Electricity byMichael Faraday we are introduced to a man who was fascinated by the natural world and how it worked. His research made possible technological inventions for years to come.

Richard Arkwright was driven by an entrepreneurial spirit. He revolutionized manufacturing and made possible the industrial revolution. His patent specification for the spinning machine made possible the production of goods in a massive scale. 

The King James Bible was made possible by more than one person’s initiative. The drive was to have an English version for the church that was accepted by the king and used in all churches. Some of the results were: the ability of the masses to think theologically for themselves, the basis for civil rights, and affected the vocabulary we use. 

Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations from a conviction that people are motivated by moral and social desires, not just natural appetites. His drive to know how wealth was created formed his philosophy of self-interest and productivity. From it the foundations of the capitalistic economy were formed.

William Shakespeare’s genius as a writer is well known. What motivated him is not as apparent. But he was an insightful observer of human nature and political passions. He spoke well for all humanity about our common condition of both comedy and tragedy. 

These books may have not been my choice, nor do I think the change they brought about was favorable. But books do change the world. Here are my observations for leadership. 

To lead is to be driven by something that is larger than oneself. Each of these authors had no idea how impactful their work would be. But they followed their passions that resonated with many in their generation. We, too, follow the passion of our hearts and cannot let that die. Replete though scripture is the injunction to persevere. Those who persevere in their passions do not let conflict, distraction or pain stop their pursuit.

Leading comes out of a social context. We lead out of our personal stories. The discontent about the way things are, the things that don’t make sense, or things that provoke interest can drive us to bring about change.

Written ideas matter. A book whose time has come can effect lasting change. These twelve books wrought both positive and negative change. We are all part of a grand story of humanity. We are shaped by the thinking of people who have gone before us. Sometimes a solution brings more questions. Sometimes they bring forth results the authors neither wanted nor imagined.

What about you? What is a book that changed you world? What do you sense is the one message that you can leave for people that will last years to come?

[ffay55]

Media Identities

Last week I watched the animated movie Frozen. It is a Disney adaptation of The Snow Queen by Hans Christian Anderson. I have two girls, young adults, who just love it. I found myself being taken in also by the story and music. The theme of rejection, family pain and finding one’s identity in a world where families are hurting, I think, resonates with many people. The overall story line is moved by the love of two sisters who overcome huge obstacles that come between them. If you think that a guy going to this movie is odd, all I can say is that you probably don’t have daughters. The original story is nothing like the movie. It’s theme is more about good and evil than rejection. It also has religious overtones with the Lord’s Prayer and scripture in it.[1] The only commonality is that love overcomes evil. The original would have been a better movie.

What goes on when we participate with media? How does it affect our personal space and how we see ourselves? My early upbringing warned about the dangers of the cinema. There was a concern that it inculcates the world’s values into one’s soul. Now its seems we consume media without the least thought of what it is doing in us. Instructive for me is to realize that media is never neutral. It carries a message and it is a formative tool by its very use. The book New Media, 1740-1915 is a collection of essays on how old media was once new. Then as now, it was embedded in a social context where people responded either negatively of positively. It communicates something about us, either intentionally or unintentionally. Early Amish resisted the telephone for its intrusion into community life. They complained that it violated sacred space. While their reaction may seem antiquated, they were right that media does not come into our world neutral. It’s not just the content, but its constant presence gives us little room for the sacred.

One old technology that correlates to film is the use and reception of the telegraph. Like the movies the telegraph raised similar issues regarding personal identity and personal space in relationship to technology. Katherine Stubbs reports that, “To speak on the circuit is to create a new identity which not identical to one’s identity in the real world.”[2]  Paul Young in his article called “Media on display: A Telegraphic History of Early American Cinema”, says the telegraph expanded the community outward. It’s presence expose people to a larger world. Likewise, the cinema’s advantage was that it brought viewers out of their home and out of their controlled environment of ideas.[3] 

Both the telegraph and early film were technological spectacles. They had the ability to astonish.[4] Today we are no longer astonished about the fact that movies happen, but we often go for their ability to move us emotionally, escape life and be visually impressed. Our world is enlarged as we view things we may never experience in real life; meet people we will never know and go places that are beyond our reach. It opens us up to the world and as we view the film, the world becomes open to us. As both the telegraph and early film became more accessible, people desired more and more of it. Both technologies changed the way we communicate. They also gave us greater access to more media in our lives. Young goes on to say that there are “the messages in the film and the visual messages sent by the film.” He cites three kinds of speech transmitted in film: 

The characters in the film to each other.

The image speaking to the audience.

The audience speaking back to the image as a sign of involvement.[5]

While we watch a movie we watch the characters and action of the film and are pulled in (or repulsed) by them. We may find our selves identifying with one of the characters. I was Luke Skywalker after viewing the first Star Wars movie. May children are either Anna or Elsa from Frozen. But more than that we are being spoken to. There also is a message, a social construct, being conveyed. It may be subtle, but it communicates. This is where film does its best work. It goes beyond our rational thinking and communicates at an emotional level, leaving an impact. The movie Frozen has children all over the U.S. are singing, “Let it go”. It’s the pied piper that has won their heart.

  The last kind of speech, that Young says film communicates, may seem a little harder to pin down. For today’s film, where does the audience speak back to the images in film? There have been many times I wanted to speak out at a movie. Usually there is something so absurd, unbelievable or offensive that I want to yell back at the creators. We may not speak at the movies, but movie watching had become another language that we communicate by. So many discussions are fostered by it. We process it and it shapes our thinking.

So the question I have is not so much about evaluating the content of the film or any media, even though this is a big concern. Its not so much about how much media we a surrounded with, but what is it doing to the spaces we inhabit? How does it transmit who we are by what we view and how much of our identity is shaped by it? Media opens us up to the world and can be used by us to open the world to us. These are good things. But how are we letting it invade all space till be have no sacred place to reflect and encounter God mediated to us?

    [1] http://www.online-literature.com/hans_christian_andersen/972/

[2] Gitelman, Lisa, and Geoffrey B. Pingree,eds. New Media, 1740-1915 Media in Transition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003., p. 102.

[3] Paul Young in New Media, p.242.

[4] Ibid., pp.235-236.

[5] Ibid., pp.242-257.

[ffay55]

Questions Allowed!

Young adults are asking questions about faith as they transition in life. One young lady wonders how she can really know God. Another young man is asking questions about morality that doubts traditional answers. Is there a place for their questions in the church? Questioning beliefs and authority in church can seem threatening to some leaders and intimidating to followers. All denominations have statements of belief. Usually a person must agree with those statements to belong to the church. Doubters may not be welcome. But to understand how to think not just what to think is ignored. How did the church develop those beliefs? Why have they become important? The origin of those beliefs and why they were developed is seldom taught. Philosophy is about how to think about God, humanity, morality, politics and everything people have had questions about for as long as history is recorded. William Raeper and Linda Edwards have written a good survey on philosophy through the ages called A Brief Guide to Ideas. They state that, “The point of philosophy is to frame the right questions, not to find the right answers.”

  For many centuries, people have been arguing about the existence of God. People desire to know what is true about God so that their lives can be lived accordingly. Questions about God and how we should live are to be welcomed. Today many believers quote the Bible to support their truth claims. But we need to know how to think about those claims. In the past proofs of God were posed as philosophical arguments. Anselm, one of the church theologians in the 12th century, proposed an argument that God exists based on logic and not experience. He claimed that God is the greatest being we can conceive; it is greater to exist in reality than in thought, so therefore God exists. Descartes argued that, “God is perfect. It is more perfect to exist than not to exist. Therefore God exists.” These arguments based on reason have some logic to them. But each has its own flaws. Asking question may be seen as a threat to faith. But Anselm’s initial endeavor of faith seeking understanding is an aid to faith, not a threat.

  Young adults seem to be in a crisis of faith. Many attribute this to secular world in which we live. Some cite the decay of family relationships, others the immoral behavior of our times. All are part of the problem. But often a singular problem with a simple solution is proposed. One thing may be ignored. Emerging adults are in a crisis of transition. In every transition questions, sometime ultimate questions are asked. Emerging young adults are taking longer to transition from adolescence to adulthood. Their questions are often from the view that their experience is the ultimate reality, but they are asking important questions. Truth may be relative. The idea of God may be obscure. Like most people they believe in some sort of god, but who that god is and what that god is like it they may be not certain. But isn’t part of our human development about asking questions? Perhaps one factor for churches is that we have not allowed young adults to be part of the conversation. Instead leaders insist on teaching them only what to believe but not how to thinking about believing. Young adults leaving the church or the faith may be because they need to process. They need a space where faith seeking understanding can develop. As James Fowler states they may be moving from a state of “Foreclosure” where beliefs are indoctrinated to one of  “Moratorium” where one becomes aware of other beliefs and wrestle with allegiance to them.

   Questioning faith assumptions of one’s origins is part of the process of developing a deeper commitment to faith. To assume that the spiritual lives of emerging adults is weakening without this consideration can lead to categorizing them too rigidly. Pete Ward in his book Growing up Evangelical: Youthwork and the Making of a Subculture talks about his experience in church youth groups. He says that the methods and structure of youth groups tended to foster childlike dependency. Ward’s premise is that the adolescent phase of life has been hindered by the inability for those groups to help youth transition to adulthood. Those youth who want to grow into adulthood have to leave the church because there is no place for them. (pp.195-198)

  As I read through the book A Brief guide to Ideas I was struck by how wrestling with questions about God and our place in the world in not just for youth and young adults. It is part of the human experience. Is it reasonable to believe? Anselm says yes. Locke’s says reason has limitations. That knowledge comes through experience. Kierkegaard’s great theme was faith. “Faith begins where thinking leaves off”. (Raeper p.107)

What all great ideas have in common is that they have come from great questions. The questions may not change much, but how young adults process those question can help faith emerge stronger. God knows we need fresh answers for the changing and complex world in which we live.

    William Raeper, and Linda Smith. A Brief Guide to Ideas: Turning Points in the History of Human Thought. Rev ed. Oxford: Lion, 1997.

Mark Cannister, “Moratorium Matters: Creating a Fertile Environment for Faith Formation.” Breakout session presented at the AYME conference, Chicago, IL.  October 20, 2013.

Pete Ward. Growing up Evangelical: Youthwork and the Making of a Subculture. London: The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1996

[ffay55]

The Corrupting Power of Basic Principles

Recently another Christian leader has come under scrutiny for sexual allegations. It would have been one of the least likely people by the way this man conducted himself. He was reserved, non-flamboyant and taught a moral high road. If you lived in the U.S. in the 70s and beyond, chances you would have heard of him, especially if you grew up in a conservative Christian environment. Bill Gothard created the Basic Youth Conflicts Seminar. His Principles for Living Seminar attracted large crowds. Later he went on to endorse and have seminars on the virtues of home schooling. The teaching was based on a strong hierarchy of power.

But as a 2003 book A Matter of Basic Principals points out, all is not well. The author claims both wrong conduct and wrong teaching. Apparently, he has been unwilling to take any criticism or correction about his legalistic teaching and taking hermeneutical license with scripture. His power could not be disputed. Back in 1981 Christianity Today ran an article that key leaders had resigned because of the way finances were handled. This year Gothard resigned when he was placed on administrative leave while sexual allegations were investigated. It is also alleged that Gothard covered up his brother’s improprieties. Some female employees contend that Gothard also was guilty of some harassment.

This man had a huge influence on me in my teenage years and on into my twenties. I probably attended his seminar seven times. He combined pop psychology, subtly legalistic theology and tightly defined principles for successful Christian living. This was empowering stuff for a teenager. We were Pentecostal. The power of the Holy Spirit was appealed to those who feel disempowered. The “spiritualized” atmosphere seemed to have little relevance to a teen dealing with the tension of parent’s arguments, school peer relationships and wanting to know girls. So a seminar that made practical application for everyday life was like a breath of fresh air. The principles influenced my thinking for many years. Two things changed my mind, marriage and ministry. Quickly I discovered that principles don’t always work. I grew to see how legalist this teaching was. Life is no easy seven principles to anything. It actually can create a subtle guilt for not living up to the principles.

Power in social settings needs to be understood. This week I have read the book Making Room for Leadership: Power, Space and Influence by MaryKate Morse. This is an excellent read on how we use power in everyday life. Morse is not against the use of power, instead she examines how power is used in the social space we inhabit relationally. Too often we learn more about power through its misuse instead of its use. In my Pentecostal church power was used and misused by leaders and church members. It seems the Gothard organization is not immune either. The desire to gain control of one’s life by controlling others is so subtle in every encounter. What MaryKate points out is the importance of understanding embodied presence. We are bodies that carry capacities to influence others.

One of the most helpful insights in this book for me is that people behave based on their perspective of their visual presence. Our impressions of ourselves and others determines our success at managing influence. Often our first impressions about other people’s visual presence can be misinformed (p.110) We also can fall into other people first impression biases. Morse gives insight on how we can manage to give positive second impressions to overcome these biases. They are ways power can be used to influence others. She gives eight visceral markers that contribute to a positive presence with others. These “viscerals” allow a person to more deeply assess a relationship. The first is focus. When a person has a determined focus they are not easily intimidated. Clarity about one’s purpose makes one more easily able to take up social space. Next is the ability to risk. Those who are more comfortable with risk have more influence. Attitude is another factor. Having an optimistic attitude is definitely more endearing to others. A positive mental affect opens one up to more social space. Fourth is creating boundaries. A sense of separateness defines who one is and who one is not. To keep healthy social boundaries creates power. Social skills is the next marker. These are learned behaviors one can acquire from observing others. Good eye contract, body position and appropriate touch are the last three. Each calls attention to how we use our bodily presence.

  What each of these skills display is that leadership influence is not merely inward. The spirituality of the Pentecostal world I knew as a youth saw all social skills overcome by a deeper commitment to God. The spiritual and the material were subtly separated. While the Basic Youth Conflicts seminar discussed relational interaction, it placed the attention primarily on internal attitudes and receptivity to godly principles. The chain of command principle has been highly debated. It seems the power structure is cracking. What Morse does is bring the spiritual and bodily actions together. God created us in a social space. Paying attention to that space helps clarify how to use influence as a leader in healthy God honoring ways.

  Channel Seven Eyewitness News, “Leader of controversial Oak Brook religious group resigns amid sex harassment.”

allegationshttp://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=9459342

  Battered Sheep, “The Blinding and Binding Teachings of Bill Gothard”.

http://www.batteredsheep.com/gothard.html

[ffay55]

Course Correction

Recently, our church team has intentionally taking extra time to reflect on what we are doing in our church. Action without reflection can have dire effects. Course correction is constantly needed. Daniel Patrick Forrester’s compelling book Consider: Harnessing the Power of Reflective Thinking In Your Organization is an alarm for organizations to take time for reflective thought. With the constant pressure to do more and do it better, time out to stop and reconsider what we are doing can seem counter productive. Its funny, I also have a book called Action: Trumps Everything by Charles F. Kiefer and Leonard A. Schlesinger.Which you would think has the opposite message. For me, these are a good balance to hold in tension. Both talk about the importance of giving thought to how an organization works. Both speak about taking intelligent action.

Kiefer and Schlesinger state, “without an overwhelming desire to make something happened. The odds are nothing will. You must truly want to being something into being.” (p.47) For Christian leaders, this is our calling. God has put within us an overwhelming desire to make a difference in our world. These authors call for acting our way into a new way of thinking. Their premise is that we are prone to inactivity. This may be presumptive because so often Evangelicals can act without much thought. But they do call for an inventory using key questions to assess actions. Since my tendency to over think decisions, I find it is a good course correction.

Forrester demonstrates the importance of intelligent reflection. Behind this reflection is an intention to act. He gives a great example of both inaction and unreflective thinking. On April 10th, 2012 the oilrig the Deep Water Horizonexploded causing eleven people to die and 4.9 million barrels of oil to be disseminated into the Gulf of Mexico. There was extensive damage to marine life and beaches. The devastation is ongoing. In 2012 dolphins were reported to be dying at six times their normal numbers.  The tragedy was caused by the main seal breaking down. Evidence was ignored. Chunks of the main seal were seen breaking apart. But stopping the drilling process to evaluate was deemed too costly. If leadership would have taken time to investigate, the tragedy could have been avoided. Since then BP oil has been levied 4.25 billion in fine by U.S. Justice department. A costly mistake indeed. 

How about the church? While it may be a stretch to compare a massive oil spill to what is going on with today’s church, some reflection could be in order. There is evidence of a breakdown at a deep level between the way church is running and the culture around it.

The church is viewed increasingly more as judgmental, hypocritically and irrelevant according to Barna research. (Chunks one, two and three?)

Church adherence is down. About 38% of people in the Northwest, U.S. have no religious preference. The trend in the U.S. is edging toward 25% according to a 2008 Pew Forum census.

Many churches are in a sense of moratorium about what to do. They can be caught up in preservation instead of perpetuation.

Taking time out to reflect can be more productive than the incessant drive of activity. In our church setting we have been asking some hard questions about our specific calling and assessing everything we do. While much of what we do is conventional; we sit in pews, sing songs, have a message, and have children’s and youth programs; we are evaluating how we can be effective and innovative for our setting. The motivation to change is compelled by the love for Christ and sincerely demonstrating that love through us. 

Jesus calls his church to be known for love of its members. Our best evangelism strategy is the quality of relationships of people who are called to live for Christ. Jesus prayer in John 13:35 states, “As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Back in 1970 Francis Schaeffer wrote a compelling book called The Mark of a Christian. He said we are to be known for how we love each other, but not to the exclusion of Christians. To exclude non-Christians is an “ugly” kind of love. Jesus included sinners. His invitation is wide open. Love compel us to include and care for all people.

Here is our take away. We are asking how we can demonstrate hospitality that encourages relationship, not just friendliness. Who are we called to include? What biases do we have? Will we let “sinners” serve? I believe Christians want to be inclusive, but live lives that put up barriers. Our leadership team no longer begins with discussions about programs and projects, but the people we are connecting with. We have raised the bar within the church for caring relationships. We still have a long way to go in identifying how to be inclusive to those that are not part of our church. To get over the insider/outsider dichotomy is a good first step.

Next we believe we need to be more conscious about how assessable our current services are for those who come as guests. So much is assumed. We are thinking through how much of what we currently do makes sense or is at least explained so anyone can know what is happening. But our most creative thinking is about creating a new venue that is conversational and interactive. If people are tired of being lectured to by Christians, why not include their voices in the discussion? We have not implemented this yet. But after Easter we will do an experimental once a month discussion-based “service”.

The Barna Group, “What people experience in Churches, “ January 9, 2012,https://www.barna.org/congregations-articles/556-what-people-experience-in-churches.html 

Barry A. Kosmin & Ariela Keysar with Ryan Cragun & Juhem Navarro-Rivera,“American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population”, Hartford, CT: Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society & Culture, 2009.http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/publications/american-nones-the-profile-of-the-no-religion-population.

Boston.com, September 19, 2010. “Blown-out BP well finally killed at bottom of Gulf”. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/09/19/blown_out_bp_well_finally_killed_at_bottom_of_gulf/

Discovery News, April 2, 2013. “Record Dolphin, Sea Turtle Deaths Since Gulf Spill” http://news.discovery.com/animals/whales-dolphins/record-dolphin-sea-turtle-deaths-since-gulf-spill-130402.htm

[ffay55]

The Leadership Process: Moving Through Times of Isolation

Literature on effective leadership had been prolific. Ken Blanchard defines it as “the capacity to influence others by unleashing their power and impact for the greater good”.[1] Leadership is influence for mutual good is a good starting point. Kouzes and Posner add that leadership as “the art of mobilizing other to want to struggle for shaped aspirations”.[2] There is struggle. There is a process. There are as many variables as what makes a leader as there are as what makes a human being. It is the social context, the time in history, a person’s upbringing, the type of organization, the events that led up to a leader’s role and many others. Regardless of how scientific the process may be, it is a human endeavor. Leaders are formed, not merely by innate gifts, but an ongoing process with other people. It is the challenge of working with human beings that make a leader. I know of no leader that has not gone through at least one crisis that has made her or him the leader they are today. As easy as some pop literature may make leadership development, it always emerges through pressure and struggle. Many times leadership brings with it times of feeling isolated from the people they lead as one pastor expresses it, “ I feel so alone in this thing”. One biblical character that comes to mind is Elijah. Before a great victory Elijah complains, “I am the only one of the Lord’s prophets left”. (1 Kings 18:22) Then, after a great victory he retreated from public interaction for fear for his life. He felt isolated and alone. He complained to God that he was the only prophet left who was committed to Yahweh. As Elijah complains to God, God does not abandon him to frustration. Through the message of a plant, the Lord reminds and refreshes Elijah of his leadership calling. (1 Kings 19) This feeling of isolation is part of the process.

  There are times where leaders are forced by circumstances beyond their control into times of isolation. There are other times when the leader feels compelled to withdraw or quit one organization because he or she no longer fits. Regardless there is a process for the Christian leader that can either grow them or hinder their development. Shelley G. Trebesch’s book Isolation--A Place of Transformation In The Life of a Leader describes the process well. She states that there is a fourfold process that a leader goes through in isolation. She calls the stages stripping, wrestling with God, increased intimacy and release for the future. Combining personal examples and other Christians she cites case studies to support her claim.

  The first stage of stripping can be very painful. People know that to be a better leader the leader must grow. The growing pains can either be resisted or embraced. To grow is to move into the fray not to retreat from it. As pointed out by Manfred Kets de Vries in The Leadership Mystique there are hidden irrational forces in any organization. There are also hidden irrational forces in a leader. Every leader has a “core confliction relationship theme” (CCRT) that contains the desires of a leader, their reactions to others and how they anticipate people will respond in the context of the leaders desires.[3]  This creates conflict for a leader. In one church I served in, there was a conflict with my CCRT and the culture of the church’s CCRT. This was definitely a stripping process. I said to myself that I did not like who I was becoming (or expected to become). It eventually led to me leaving that church. My expectations, my perceptions and my attitudes toward church all were being stripped away. My conclusion as I took the present leadership position in my church was “What do I need to unlearn about church to be the mission of Jesus in the neighborhood”. Everything was up for grabs.

  Trebesch next speaks of a wrestling phase in the experience of isolation. For Christian church leaders this may be a wrestling with God. More often than not it is a wrestling with the church organization, as we know it. This wrestling shakes up our preconceptions. For me, unexamined assumptions about what it means to lead a church were being squeezed under pressure. This often wounding experience, can make a person bitter or it makes a much more humane and caring leader. Bitterness and resentment is poison to a leader’s soul. Blaming others for the entire problem takes all power away from the leader. Seeing oneself as complicit in the problem without blame or shame has been one of the most healing elements of moving out of the wrestling phase. Without a disciplining of our spirits, we can be caught off guard. As the Apostle Paul states, “I discipline my body like an athlete, training it to do what it should. Otherwise, I fear that after preaching to others I myself might be disqualified.” (1 Corinthians 9:27)

  The next stage is increased intimacy with God. Sensitivity to God’s voice is what is missing in secular literature on leadership. Gordon Smith is perceptive of the need for hearing from God. Discernment is a key sensitivity that leaders need in church. Spiritual discernment is needed in a complex world. Through it, we can respond with courage. With reoccurring news of Christian leaders moral failures, it reminds us of the need to be alert to respond in ways that show love and justice.[4] The last stage then is leading with a renewed voice as one moves into the future. To be a Christian leader initially is a response to Jesus calling to follow him. This involves both trusting in Jesus to bring forth good and suffering for him (Philippians 1:29). Even though we go through times of isolation we know we are never alone. The burden does not have to weigh us down. Smith encourages us to know that, “The calling of God is not burdensome, even though it necessarily includes both challenge and responsibility. Rather, discerning vocation is substantially a matter of discerning what bring us joy and finding though that discernment who we truly are.”[5]

  [1] Ken Blanchard, Leading at a Higher Level. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Financial Times Press, 2007, p. xix.

[2] James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner, The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1995, p.30.

[3] Manfred Kets de Vries. Pp.44-45.

[4] Gordon T Smith, The Voice of Jesus: Discernment, Prayer and the Witness of the Spirit. Downer’s Grove: IVP Press, 2003, p.183.

[5] Ibid., p.199.

[ffay55]

Being gay: Listening to Dave

Last week I had a coffee appointment with a man named Dave. I had totally forgotten who he was and why we were to meet. He reminded me that he sent me a book to read. I remember receiving it but had not been able to read it yet. This was awkward. I forgot who this man was and did not read his book. He went on to explain that he had written this book about engaging in conversation with gay people. I remarked that this is coincidental in that my Dmin readings were on sex, gender and the Christian faith. We had a great open dialogue for about 20 minutes. Then I asked him why he had written the book. He replied, “Well, I am gay”. David’s book presents the case for gay partnership to exist in Christian community.

I am reading two books this week. God, Sex and Gender: An Introduction by Adrian Thatcher and Love is an Orientation by Andrew Marin. Both books call for a reexamining of Christian opinions and responses to gender issues. Thatcher attempts to walk through male/female roles in church and gay issues in general. I find many of his arguments convincing and thoughtfully presented. He does well to examine our thinking based on the bible, tradition, reason and experience. One strength of his book is the examining of exploitive relationships in marriage and women in church involvement. The unexamined assumptions of how male and female relationships exists are often shown to be “power-over” relationships. They can be controlling, exploitive and very unloving.

Thatcher’s focus is on sexual relationships. He very touchingly portrays the Christian ideal of love in sexual relationships when he states, “The abandonment of the self in the giving over of oneself to another, one of the many rich possibilities of love-making, is exceeded only by God's self-abandonment on a cross, the complete giving over of Godself in self-surrender.”  This is one of many statements many Christians can find agreement. He also elevates the importance of the marriage covenant. It is to be as permanent relationship based on mutual love. He continually builds his argument asking for agreement along the way. But many of us conservatives (theologically) would struggle with his applications. What Thatcher does do is question our assumptions about sex and gender that go beyond mere polemics. I did find many statements blunt especially about sexual activity. The arguments are well researched and tightly construed. Some of the conclusions seemed more shaped by culture than Christian reasoning. For instance he states that there is an “intermediate state of life between singleness and marriage. In this state of life straight people on their way to marriage may be free to have contracepted sex.” This is based on the fact that marriage is postponed. He does speak of a period of waiting, but this does not mean marriage but the betrothal time when commitment is made. 

Martin’s book, I found more engaging because it was more personal and less academic. The story of his involvement in the GLBT community is a demonstration of his growing love for gay people. His admonishing to know and love people as people is well taken. Whereas Thatcher conclusions seemed to have well reasoned arguments the conclusions were not always convincing. For me, Martin’s journey is more endearing. Both he and Thatcher’s Biblical unpacking of homosexual references were similar though. They both framed the references in a larger context. For instance, one example is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. This story is about sexual deviances for sure, but more importantly it was about violating hospitality laws, gang rape and exploitation. Also Romans chapter one speaks of ‘inordinate acts between same sexes”. The larger picture, though, is mankind’s rebellion against God.  This can show how the larger sin can be overlooked. 

David is gay and conservative. His reasoning is very different from the books I have read. He does believe that God’s original design was for sex between only men and women in marriage. But, now we must navigate in this fallen world as it is. He is committed to a life long loving relationship that would put many heterosexual relationships to shame. He stated that we are all broken. We agreed that sin has affected every part of humanity’s relational connections. He is initiating respectful conversations with pastors in our denomination. He is finding that many privately do not have that hard line stance against gays. I admire his initiative.

Here are my conclusions so far after meeting Dave, and reading Thatcher and Marin and Lee. 

Hatred and resentment in the Evangelical church toward gay people is sin. Attraction toward the opposite sex is not sin. If it was hatred is a far greater one. For this, I recommend the book Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gay-vs.-Christian Debate by Justin Lee,about a Christian man’s experience with being gay and how the present attempts at Evangelical cures have been judgmental and inhumane.

Respectful dialogue is the best Christian expression of love with people of different views on gender. How do we respond when we hear the anguish of a gay person who has asked God to take away their desires? How do we respond to the unloving and judgmental treatment of gay people?

There is more ambiguity than we realize about causes, biology and even Biblical interpretation about gay people. How do we respond when a gay man says he has never been attracted to a woman?

I struggle with my experience, Biblical theology, reasoning and tradition after hearing the stories of the gay community and meeting Dave.

My question for us is “How can we include gay people in the life of the church that treats them with respect and equally needing God’s grace?” If we start excluding people because of sin (think of the lack of commitment in heterosexual relationships) where do we stop?

[ffay55]

Evaluating Popular Culture

Interacting with popular culture as a Christian has been an interesting journey. In the church of my youth we couldn’t dance, drink alcohol or go to movies and a few other abominations. We looked at pop culture with suspicion. When I was in middle school a friend asked if I had heard the song “I’m a Believer” by the Monkees. I asked if that was a Christian song. That’s how far we were removed from the culture outside of our Christian circles. When I went to my first movie against my parent’s knowledge I felt so devious. My Christian beginnings demonstrated a withdrawal from popular culture. Popular culture was suspect. Movies were banned. Television was okay.

When the movie The Last Temptation of Christ came out in 1988 many Christians were enraged. At the church I served, we picked the local movie house. We were demonstrating against this exhibit the unchristian media culture. I am sure we helped more people to be interested in this rather poorly done film. Now it seems that pop culture its being consumed with less and less critical eye. We are saturated with media in music, movies and television (Justin Bieber get me off of this plane!). The impulsive consumerist mindset is not only being appreciated, it is affecting the pace, the styles and the message of the Christian church. I have realized how confused Christians can be about how to interact with popular culture. 

This week the readings given by Dr. Steven Garner have been instructive. Whether we attempt to withdraw, oppose or endorse popular culture we are all affected by it. We are all influenced by popular culture because we are embedded in it. Bruce Forbes declares, “Because popular culture surrounds us, it seems reasonable to assume that its messages and subtle themes influence us as well as reflect us.” It either reinforces what we believe or we tend to reject it. Kevin Vanhoozer states that popular culture is the “shared environment, practices and resources of everyday life.” Whether we are aware of it or not popular culture affects us either in dulling our spiritual lives or enlivening them. He points out that there are two general responses to it. We either respond with uncritical acceptance or have an aversion to it.

  Three things to consider for Christian interaction with popular culture:

We must interpret the culture.

We are meaning seeking creatures. The creative expression of popular culture expresses certain values. Those values may or may not align with Christian ways of seeking meaning. Unpacking popular culture presented in media is part of our calling. Kevin Vanhoozer calls this “cultural hermeneutics”. The first step is to attempt to read the media as it is without imposing a predetermined meaning on it.

What exactly is being communicated by Madonna’s “Like A Prayer”.

 2. We assess its message through the lens of the Gospel.

We not only read culture but we see through it. Although we cannot totally see how we are being affected by popular culture, we can use scripture as tool to evaluate it. Assessing its message in light of the redemptive work of God in Christ is a good lens to evaluate both its message and influence on us. We can see the redemptive actions of Frodo in The Lord of the Rings, the refusal for revenge in Batman Returns and the selflessness in Les Miserables. One of my favorites is the grace given in the movie Babette’s Feast. The lavish meal given to a dour church sect by a grateful woman demonstrates the generosity of God to a spiritual impoverished group. The general’s speech in sums it up well. See http://movieclips.com/x7Hcq-babettes-feast-movie-mercy-is-infinite/

 3. We present the Gospel in the culture we inhabit.

The Gospel is to be incarnated into an understandable medium. Steven Garner, speaking on the influence of the Internet, states that Christian theology of the life death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ set the lens through which be interact about justice, morality and mercy in the world. Christian engagement is needed to help shape popular culture. Media can be a means to network and communicate in innovate ways. Christians can contribute language and images that reflect the Gospel’s redemptive work in every facet of life. For me the movie Amazing Grace is an great example.           

For the church, we can ask new questions as we interact and even enjoy the media presented in our cultural.  We can ask:

What is happening in our culture? Not just isolated sound bites that are meant to alarm us, but what trends do we see? Are these hindrances or helps for us being a redemptive force in the world?

What cultural images and values threaten to destroy community? What are ways we can resist them?

What cultural images present a more humane way to live in community with others? How can we embrace them?

(These were gleaned from Gordon Lynch questions p. 19)

Lynch, Gordon. “What is Popular Culture?” and “Why Should Theologians and Scholars of Religion Study Popular Culture?” in Understanding Theology and Popular Culture. 1-42. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005.

Forbes, Bruce David. "Introduction: Finding Religion in Unexpected Places." In Religion and Popular Culture in America, edited by Bruce David Forbes and Jeffrey H. Mahan, 1-20. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “What Is Everyday Theology? How and Why Christians Should Read Culture.” In Everyday Theology: How to Read Cultural Texts and Interpret Trends, edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Charles A. Anderson and Michael J. Sleasman, 15-60. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. 

Garner, Stephen R. "Theology and the New Media." In Digital Religion: Understanding Religious Practice in New Media Worlds, edited by Heidi Campbell, 251-65. Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge, 2012. 

[ffay55]

Chelsie Meets the Bible

Chelsie came to our church about two years ago. She came only to accompany her husband who had recently rededicated his life to Christ. She knew nothing of the Bible, had a few encounters with Christianity which she did not understand and was very cautious about people who call themselves Christians. She has a bright mind and many confusing questions about Christianity. Over time, with people loving and including her, she increasingly became more comfortable with us. She has been on a journey that has led her to gradually embrace Christ herself. Besides the warm relationships, the most transformative force in her life has been her encounter with the Bible. She is half way through a yearlong process of discovering the Bible as one grand story. It wasn’t the principles for living, nor the arguments for faith or any dogmatic statements about Jesus. It was discovering the Bible for herself.

  Evangelicals have a high regard for the Bible. We esteem scripture are the normative guide for life. But with the strangulating effect of dogmatic categories that have been imposed over all ways of learning, many have strayed from the transformative power of scripture in people’s lives. Dogmatic unreflective thinking causes many to walk away from what Christians believe. We also emphasize conversionism. Our goal is primarily to see each person come to know Christ. The way we view scripture and use it can either attract people to Christ or cause them to be averse to its influence. Evangelism is often viewed as an event in one’s life. While this is foundational, knowing Christ is also a process. As for Chelsie and many other people I have talked with, this has been their story.

  What does it mean to be Evangelical? I am guessing that many church attendees have not even heard of the word and if they have it seems a strange foreign concept. To know what it means and how we are to intelligently interact with the world around us is vital for our faith. Many popular churches seem to be viewing theological understanding as a leisurely activity for an exclusive select few. Mark Noll has written a couple of fine books calling for us Evangelicals to respect the importance of scholarly thinking both in theology and the widening understanding of science, education, politics and others. What does it mean to think though our faith? His book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind is an alarm to reexamine some misunderstandings of what it means to be Evangelical. Noll calls attention to Jesus’ command us to also “love the Lord your God with all you mind”. This is a call to thinking deeply about what we believe. What we think about Jesus matters above all else. In his subsequent book Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind, Noll unpacks how Christ calls us to discern how the Bible interacts with all of aspects of learning and how theologically unpacking how the Bible leads to Christ.

  Fundamentalism has hurt our witness rather than promote the cause of Christ. Noll shows that the refusal to view research that differs from a predetermined conclusion has had disastrous effects. What was a reaction to threats to faith became a withdrawal from interacting in the world and denying the historical process that shaped that faith. The anti-intellectual attitude has even isolated Evangelicals from the wider body of Christian knowledge, history and science.[1] The premise of being Evangelical is to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ. But world denying knowledge has hindered the witness of the gospel. Noll says that Christians who use scripture to deny knowledge that unbelievers are experts in distances them from seeing the truths about scripture.[2]  If they find Christians mistaken about knowledge, how will they learn the truth about the gospel? Each part of scripture is related to the grand story of Jesus Christ.[3] The Bible is about Jesus and his saving grace. When it is used to assert things about the world that deny what science is saying then its salvic effect is minimalized.

  One of the roadblocks for Chelsie to Christ was partly her perception from the outside, but also her experiences on the inside. It was that the Bible and salvation experience was an emotional and even “magic” experience. Evangelicals had been known to emphasize a moment of conversion. This was another roadblock for Chelsie. The inspirational moments of eureka that seemed to be normative in some Evangelical settings did not happen for her. Her intellect caused her to question and try to understand, rather to accept unquestioningly what was being told to her. Noll relates how the pietistic tradition, which we are a part of, tends to focus on emotion to the neglect of the God revealed in creation and scripture. The gospel calls the whole person in mind and practice to devotion to Christ.[4] The Christ revealed in scripture calls for a whole life committed to God.[5] Noll states one of the goals of Christian thinking is “to promote careful study of Scripture that stresses the life-altering glories of Jesus Christ, rather than the whims of private eurekas.”[6] Essential is the fact that scripture points to Christ. When Evangelicals trust it to do this. Salvation then becomes the point.

[1] Mark Noll, Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011) p.129.

[2] Ibid., p. 100.

[3] Ibid., p. 133.

[4] Ibid., pp. 46 & 49.

[5] Mark Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 194) p. 244.

[6] Noll, Life of the Mind, p. 167.

[ffay55]

Social Church

Imagine this; an irate parent comes to church complaining about his untrustworthy son to a staff member. The parent cannot control the son’s behavior. The youth director feels that this young man is making people feel uncomfortable by inappropriate words and actions. His social interactions have become unacceptable. He is not welcome back to youth group. A woman shares with everyone she can, mostly complete strangers, about her horrible condition. She has gone through a painful divorce. Cannot pay her bills. She has had to leave her children to her ex-husband to take care of them. She is emotional dumping on every person who will listen and making him or her feel very uncomfortable. A staff member has to talk with her about proper boundaries and this behavior cannot continue. She then proceeds to tell someone else her troubles. Lastly, the drummer at the end of the service says, “I’m done”. He did not like the firm directions he was receiving from the worship leader. He wants constant affirmation, does not take guidance well and has boundary problems with women. What do the all have in common? The all have been coming to our church for quite some time. They all are socially awkward. They all will probably not come back. Welcome to the social world of church.

Every week ministers speak before congregations throughout the world. I am one of them. Each week people assemble to worship God in churches by listening to scripture, singing and hearing a sermon. This last week was an unusual one for us. These three people all on the same Sunday demonstrated that that they have deeply embedded social problems. This had come to a head all in one day. What happens on Sunday can be so misunderstood. First we come together not to the church but as the church. People interacting in relationships centered around Christ is what is central, not a building. Why is this so difficult for us to grasp? We have inherited a social construct of a previous churched social understanding. Secondly, listening is not the point of our worship. It is for our lives to be formed by God. As we exist in relationship with others in the church our lives can be transformed. Lastly, communication is not merely a message given and a message received. We are social creatures. Each person in a congregation does not come as an individual; we come with all of our present and previous relationships that have shaped us. We come from a local community and larger society that impinges its values on us. We come as social creatures above all else. The church is a social network.

David Brooks’ book The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character and Achievement affirms the social nature of human beings. He states that, “We are social animals wired from birth to crave social attachment.” (37) Brooks’ strength is in elevating the importance of social bonds and unconscious emotional movements within people that affect their behavior. These bonds have been studied through “attachment theory”. The way we connect with others is directly related to how we develop. (48). Those people who did not form an emotional rapport with parents and caregivers struggle with learning, forming close relationships and understanding social boundaries. They feel threatened and have trouble controlling their impulses. When people step into a church building then, and hear a message that may be exactly what they need to apply to their lives, they filter that though their social experiences of the past. What Brooks research implies is that people do not change and become healthy by a rational application of biblical truth. They need a social environment that encourages, nurtures and holds them accountable to it. Without that they will not live Christian lives. No one grows alone.

Brooks points out the error of thinking that we are primarily rational beings. He observes that there are two levels of thinking. Level 1 is the subconscious emotional level where decisions are made by unconscious impulses. Level 2 is our conscious mental processes.

We are not merely left or right brained. What we see is encoded all over our brain. He refutes the idea that reason and emotion are independent of each other. Instead emotions measure the value of something. Our brain and body interact to create an “Emotional Positioning System”. The EPS senses a person’s current situation and reaches certain judgments. (19) He asserts, “Emotion assigns value to things, and reason can only make choices on the basis of those variations.” (21)

We are socially formed. That forming is often an unconscious process. Level 1 drives can warp people’s perceptions. This is where people form stories of themselves and their world. We are held together by the stories of ourselves that we derive from our social bonds. The people who have trouble with making healthy connections in a church body are affected by their perceptions. People can attend a church service and hear a message that addresses their problems but the narrative they tell themselves is stronger than the rationalizing they make of their behavior. The quality of our social relatedness comes down to the health of these bonds. As Brooks comments, “The broken unconscious bonds are the roots of social problems.” (323) So the problem we all have with “church” isn’t necessarily about the music or the preaching or even when everything is done well. It is a human problem. Whenever two or three people come together their will be conflicting social stories. Perhaps that Jesus admonition to love one another was a command. He knew that all of our social attachments all have fragmented Level 1 thinking.

[ffay55]

I Will Not Fly Away

The is a sense that we all feel frustrated with the world as it is and get angry enough to say, “Why does this happen?” or “Why doesn’t someone do something about this?” We live in this world and want to make it a good place to live and yet often do not feel at home here. Home can be a very compelling image for the longing many people have for a better life. One popular song among Christians over time has been “I’ll Fly Away”. Personally, I do not like the music or the message and have to swallow hard when I hear it. Why? The escape theme has been ubiquitous in Evangelical Christian culture and has led us to either disengage with culture or fight it. When Albert Brumley penned those words in 1929 he was expressing a sentiment that came out of identifying with people who were oppressed or frustrated by the evils of this world. To say as another spiritual says, “This world is not my home” is quite compelling those who feel the world is screwed up.

But is this really the attitude we are to take toward this world? I say no. Jesus did say much about the values of this world. His kingdom is not of this world. His followers are not of this world. But we are to remain a vital part of it. Jedediah Purdy writes, “We doubt the possibility of being at home in the world, yet we desire that home above all else.” Which reminds me of what Christians say: “We are in the world, but not of it.” I would say that in reality our lived experience is different. Without reflection we can find ourselves living another motto: “We are of the world, but not in it.” We are of the world: Where the values of consumerism and success defined by materialism drives us. We are not in it: where we disengage from being part of the solutions to life.

Joanna Macy and Chris Johnstone present a way of dealing with the hard things in life, things we want to see changed, things that need changing, in their book Active Hope. Active hope is a process where we don’t wait to feel hopeful but take action, sometimes even when we feel hopeless. We may not feel optimistic but we choose to work toward the change we want to see. A big part of feeling at home in the world is to discover our place in it. (Parks p.51) Instead of cynicism or withdrawal they call on us to bravely go forth and work toward the home we want the world to be. 

They redefine selfishness as the primary human motivation. To begin to see and widen our sense of whom our family is and to care in expanding ways will offset the individualistic and consumer mentalities that pervade our world. The process is presented as a spiral. It begins with gratitude, then honoring our pain, seeing with new eyes and then going forth. One of their most compelling parts of the process they call us to is to “honor our pain”. We do not turn away from the pain we feel in the world, even if it threatens to upset us. The pain actually can empower us to initiate solutions rather than retreat in despair. (63-64) Then we see the world with new eyes. One exercise that this book encourages people to do is to envision life in this world differently, “To see the world with fresh eyes” in a reflective practice. Here is mine.

When I imagine the world we will leave to our children, it looks like…

A place where they can find work that expresses their abilities, they can raise children in an environment where they can physically and spiritual thrive.

A place where learning and working and spiritual/moral growth is not separated from the rest of life.

A place where suspicion will cease as we learn to respect, listen and include others in our lives- even those we differ with.

We are connected to this world. It reveals possibilities and resources we otherwise did not notice. Johnstone and Macy state, “When people are able to tell the truth about what they know, see, and feel is happening to their world, a transformation occurs. (70)

Active Hope is not a Christian book, primary because of its Deistic view of God. But it is Christian in its call to embody hope in a dark world. The basic call to love the world as God does compels us to work for a world as God would envision it and include others even in the middle of the darkness. Like Robert Fulghum encouraged people to remember what they learned in kindergarten, “when you go out into the world, watch for traffic, hold hands, stick together.” We do not fly away retreating from the world, but instead keep grounded in a world that is our home now.

Jedediah Purdy. For Common Things: Irony, Trust, and Commitment in America Today. New York: Knopf, 1999, p. 25. Quoted by Sharon Daloz Parks.. Big Questions, Worthy Dreams: Mentoring Young Adults in Their Search for Meaning, Purpose, and Faith. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000, p.34