Postcards from the Edge

Faithful Readers,

I’m thinking of trying something a little different. For the past year, I have posted entries here in article form—well thought out, focused musings and personal discoveries (see archive). I am finding it difficult, however, to devote the time and energy required to make such complete entries available. I have started MANY posts only to find that I haven’t the time to finish them. So, I am thinking of posting more often and less completely. This is not to say the entries will be any less thoughtful and, from time to time, I still hope to make more fully composed submissions. I enjoy (even relish) your comments and would love to pose some questions in hopes of discussion. Response is wonderful, but mutual engagement is even better. (Fighting the urge to post an emoticon wink right now. Don’t know what is wrong with me that I would even think about it. What has the world come to?)

I look forward to seeing how this goes. Thanks for stopping by my little corner of the internet from time to time. It means a lot to me to have the honor of capturing your thoughts for a moment.

James

"WE WANT YOU TO HAVE LOBSTER!"

My friend, Frances, keeps a blog she calls Cracked Clay Pot. Instead of replying to her June 19, 2008 post entitled "Spaghetti Sauce and Church," I decided to write about the topic here. You will want to read her entry before you continue (or risk serious metaphorical confusion).

Not only am I inclined to agree with her thinking on diversity, I feel a fundamental issue is curiously ignored in most discussions of church style/form/experience. [1]

"Why do Christians take everything so personally with Christ, ya know? It's like, not only do you have to worship him, you want everybody to. It's like, I like lobster. Do I go around pushing lobster on people? Do I say, 'you must like lobster? Eat lobster; it's good, it's good!' It's not only where you live. You go to Africa. You travel all over the world. 'Eat lobster. Have some more lobster. It's good! WE WANT YOU TO HAVE LOBSTER!'" - Larry David, “Curb Your Enthusiasm”

A growing number of people don’t want plain, spicy, OR extra chunky spaghetti sauce—a reality I believe to be widely overlooked by the church (and most believers in Christ). They don’t want spaghetti sauce, regardless of variety, because more and more people in America don’t like Italian food. They don’t care what Prego or Ragu or any one else produces because they find Italian food to be distasteful or overly simplistic or a key contributor to epidemic human obesity. If they do like Italian, they don’t understand why sauce should be required or they want only the sauce… noodles have WAY too many carbs. Or, maybe, they like Italian food just fine… just not exclusively. What’s wrong with Asian or Mexican or French cuisine?

My point: Only those who value spaghetti have a sauce preference. I wonder if this wasn’t among the reasons Jesus spent so very little time (comparatively) talking about the formation, structure, style, even purpose of faith community. He spoke rather, in words and example, to the formation, structure, style, and purpose of the believer. In fact, the apostles spent an inordinate amount of their energy trying to mitigate problems within and minimize the distractions of early Christian community.

I am not saying the fellowship of believers is bad or even unimportant. By no means. Even so, at what point did we come to understand organization to be the primary outreach tool? When did we shirk the personal responsibility to be what Christ challenged us to be? When did this become something we merely encouraged instead of the foundation of who we are? Why is it something we program, administrate, even cash in on? I wonder if the American aversion to Jesus is not more an aversion to a church who has used His name and message as a marketing tool for building its numbers.

"Between the first persecution under Nero in 64 to the Edict of Milan in 313, Christians experienced 129 years of persecution and 120 years of toleration and peace.” [2] During periods of persecution, Christian fellowship was an underground movement. Yet, it was in concurrence to said persecution that faith in Christ spread most rapidly. How was that possible without a local, socially relevant meeting, effectively advertised, with flexible catered structure and presentation to appeal to the diverse masses? When did worship (by way of style) come to bear the weight of ecumenical relevance in our culture? When did organizationally sanctioned children’s programs become the principle entry point for introducing kids to Christ? When did biblical instruction and evangelistic preaching of the Gospel become synonymous? Weren’t these once two different things? (see The Holy Bible: New Testament) Will a shift from traditional church thinking to community (mission) guided church thinking (organization) without a decided shift in the responsibility taking and vision of the individual believer really get it done in the long run? Is that what the organization is even for?

It is my conviction that we do not draw disciples largely because we do not equip disciplers. We do not empower disciplers largely because we have not really made disciples of Christ in the first place. What I mean is, we have made disciples of our church, our form, our style, our understanding… but it might appear that few people are meeting Jesus and engaging in deep meaningful relationship with Him—a relationship from which springs a deep and desperate passion to share His life, love, and spiritual rescue with others (even in the face of severe persecution). Sadly, it seems Larry David has not yet met a Christian whose testimony of Jesus is born of God’s desperate love and concern for… well, Larry David. We are not commissioned to propagate the church-going species. If that is all this is, then we ARE just pushing lobster—and it is ridiculous! God’s love for others must transcend our organization and be the fundamental motivation of its membership.

Getting someone to church isn’t necessarily getting them to God. Helping someone connect to God will not necessarily mean they will connect to your church. Building the Kingdom of God is not the same thing as building a ministry. Jesus didn’t die for churches, He died for people. He did not commission an organization, He commissioned disciples. Consequently, these people, these disciples are the Church… His Bride. When do we get to start talking about “the Church,” an entity (with common responsibility to Christ), instead of “my church,” an organization or schedule or style or event?

Footnotes:

1. Please note: (for those who read my post entitled “Two Thumbs Up”) This commentary is in no way intended as external criticism of Christ’s Bride. Rather, it flows from the growing personal conviction of a Christian leader. These issues strike me, as a foremost offender, squarely between the eyes. This blog is a dedicated forum for such discussion and discovery.

2. Maurice M. Hassatt, "Martyr." The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IX (Robert Appleton Company, 1910).

Deep and Wide

Communication is essential to social life. (I know, profound stuff isn’t it?) Interpersonal connection is a relatively natural thing for me most of the time. Reminded just recently that this is not always the case, I recognize the danger in taking the skills involved for granted. Still, I am not often misunderstood (note the difference between “mis-“ and “fully” as they relate to “understood”). I consider myself intuitive and creative enough to make situational communication matches. But, where I am inclined to go with my communication, the natural direction/destination for me… “aye, there’s the rub.”

I was chatting with a good friend a few weeks ago. After asking me some difficult questions, fully expecting careful answers, he commented about the level at which I had been thinking the situation through. “Funny, the truth is I haven’t had a chance to give it much thought until just now,” I commented. He jumped to another topic altogether. I tracked with him for a couple of minutes and then, without thinking, somehow connected the conversation back to the earlier depth. The safety I feel in our friendship, his concern, and his questions had commissioned a journey that wasn’t, for me, complete—a journey most would never have started in the first place (not without a good deal of prodding). Though the idea challenges my natural proclivity, I recognize not every journey is completed in a day— not every purchase is made with a single payment.

I caught myself and grinned. “You know what? I think I just figured out why we get along so well. You allow me to go deeper and I have no problem with you pulling the conversation back up to the surface.” In fact, we’ve come to expect it from one another. He laughed, “are you saying I’m shallow?” “Absolutely not.” I explained that the way I am inclined to process, the tendency I have in conversation is to take it deeper and deeper— to hold to one topic or any relative association, break it down to its DNA and/or consider its connections to larger contexts. It is the way I think. He is broader. When I share conversation with him, we are much more likely to cover a wider spectrum of topics— anything from politics to personal struggles, music to mechanical engineering, football to friendships. We may talk about these things only as they relate to a moment in time. I love it. More than abiding these tendencies in one another, I believe we value them, balancing ourselves against them. But, our friendship is unique and I am thankful for the awareness this discovery has afforded me as it bears on other relationships.

More than once over the course of the conversation, we inadvertently traded places. I drew on random connections and shifted topics freely. He connected the dialogue back to earlier, deeper thoughts. We caught ourselves doing it. Very entertaining. “See, we’re rubbing off on each other. Maybe I’m learning the joy of a broader conversational surface area and I’ll just leave the depth to you.” On the other hand, looking back over today’s blog entry... maybe not.

"Two thumbs up"

Doesn’t it seem the toughest (even foremost) critics in most disciplines are often past their prime, out of shape or limited on— even devoid of the talent needed to perform said discipline? Seriously. Simon Cowell couldn't sing his way out of a paper bag. What was the name of that acclaimed film Roger Ebert wrote or produced or starred in? Oh yeah, that's right... there aren't any. Political pundits don't actually govern. No one has elected them into office (though they likely have more power to shape government than any politician). The most ruthless judge in a dance competition is usually the one whose last active partner was Ginger Rogers. To my knowledge, Nobel and Pulitzer prize winning author, Earnest Hemingway, never reviewed for the New York times. It is a rare literary critic who has penned more than a widely published opinion. No matter the discipline, most critics’ reputations are based primarily on their ability to assess what is wrong, not on a proven ability to produce what is right. Maybe the cliché should go, “those who can, do. Those who can’t, critique.” So, why do we trust them? And, how did they become untouchable?

The 1988 film, "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels," provides an apt illustration. Lawrence Jameson (Michael Cane), a highly educated, refined, and extremely successful confidence man, imparts wisdom to his half-wit protégé, Freddy Benson (Steve Martin).

Freddy, as a younger man, I was a sculptor, a painter, and a musician. There was just one problem: I wasn't very good. As a matter of fact, I was dreadful. I finally came to the frustrating conclusion that I had taste and style, but not talent. I knew my limitations. We all have our limitations, Freddy. Fortunately, I discovered that taste and style were commodities that people desired. Freddy, what I am saying is: know your limitations. You are a moron.

Sadly, I fear the church remains caught in the same trap. Just because someone will stock our book, put us on television, publish our article, or listen to our sermon, doesn’t make us an expert. True, taste and style have their relative value. But, where the Bride of Christ is concerned, well… Who gets to tell Her what works and what doesn’t? Who gets to decide these things? The only opinion that truly matters here is that of the Groom. And, it would seem He has made His taste with regard to Her beauty quite clear. He desires Her affection and devotion, that She share in His joys and purpose, that She conduct Herself in ways that bring honor to His Father’s name, and that everyone be invited to the wedding. I hear Him express no real opinion on what band to hire for the reception, what color the living room curtains should be, or whether She should wear Her hair up or down. He will clothe Her so She needn’t worry. Pleasing Him is Her primary concern.

Yet, we all have an opinion on the how-s, when-s, and where-s. I have struggled all my life to gain weight. Anyone who has felt powerless to change their body mass understands this frustration. I have read countless weight gain and muscle development theories. Everyone wants to tell you their story. How they gained thirty pounds of pure muscle in three months. The trouble is, what works for one body, doesn’t always work the same for the next. Of course, there must be some givens here. Still, many how-s, when-s, and where-s are relative and only a careful understanding of the individual’s unique genetic make-up can reveal the best course of action for maximum results.

Long time critics of Bill Hybels and the Willow Creek model have had a field day with the recent self-publishing of the organization’s internal study. In the past few months I’ve read at least a half dozen “I told you so-s.” God’s people don’t always hit the mark. So, we self assess and learn and regroup and go again. Bravo to Willow Creek for being self-effacing enough to take a hard, honest look at their values, their measures, and reorganize accordingly. Few, if any, churches in America have successfully, consistently, and for thirty years reached with Christ’s love as many people as Willow Creek and its Association. Why doesn’t this fact alone drown out the “I told you so-s?” I would hardly say the organization has failed God. In fact, all Willow Creek has said is that they are dissatisfied with their effectiveness in making the kind of connections God has charged them to make. Why, instead of learning from this beautiful example of real, humble, honest leadership, are churches and Christian leaders so quick to use this study as evidence for validating their own, ineffectual practices—fuel for catapulting their own opinions and formulas to the forefront? When do we learn that listening carefully to those we serve and being honest with ourselves about what is most valuable by God's measure is an essential part of the success process, not a precursor to resignation. It is carefully setting up the next operation, not a painful debrief after a failed mission? Doesn’t it seem a better focus to lead toward positives, not away from negatives? Might not the former inherently take care of the latter?

Positive feedback is often robbed of any credibility because it isn't viewed as "constructive" criticism. Maybe Paula Abdul knows something about criticism that eludes most of us. People grow when they are encouraged and guided. This may most certainly include some pruning or painful shaping. But most of the time, it means fertilization and watering and the proper balance of environmental elements (light, temperature). I’ve grown tired of church critics so quick to negatively assess what isn’t working. They tell us why/when/where the problem began and who is responsible… but where is the encouragement in fruitful direction? Where is the watering of God seed or tending for healthy soil? Where are the examples of success? Oh wait, I just remembered— those folks are out getting it done and inviting us to come along, not chastising us for missing their mark. Well, not yet anyway. Unfortunately, it seems the allure of becoming the “expert” voice sometimes intoxicates the effective servant. Maybe it’s more inadvertent than that.

I have a young friend in his first year of Bible College. Earlier this year, he asked for my opinion regarding what he felt to be the growing prevalence of believer-centric worship. He was starting an “underground” newspaper with a friend “to critically examine Christianity at [this] school and how it can be improved.” I formed a careful response to his question, giving him history and context for my observations. Then I added…

Be careful. Before you go criticizing worship practices in the American church (something you have EXTREMELY limited knowledge of) or any aspects of church for that matter, consider that you are criticizing Jesus’ Bride. You are criticizing the way She expresses Her love for the Bridegroom. If there is something She is missing, ways in which She may be incomplete, it would be better for you to seek to instruct, encourage, support, complete Her than to criticize Her. Jesus will defend His Beloved. I wouldn’t want to be on the other end of that.

I didn’t hear from him again for weeks. I don’t think my answer set particularly well.

Don't get me wrong. Not all feedback should be positive. Not all criticism results in warm fuzzies. But God's instruction for His Bride, though it may at times be hard to take, always has Her triumph as its inspiration. This is a proper litmus test for church criticism.

So, it would seem the "expert" may not always be one's most valuable assessor. Outside-in objectivity has its place. But, the insider, the one who knows what it smells like in the trenches, the one who looks for the wins and then celebrates them along side you— that is the "constructive" critic. The person who helps you categorize the losses, disarming failure, guarding hope; the person who helps you navigate around potential pitfalls and warns you before you turn down a dead end street— this is the esteemed voice of a godly guide. God, Himself, is not objective when it comes to the Church, without apology. And, when all is said and done, His is the only opinion that counts.

A little respect...

No one likes to be (or feel) disrespected. But, I live in Southern California. I drive on the freeways. A disrespect-free life is out of the question. Seriously—it seems to me society now revolves around this word… this concept. We believe we deserve respect. We demand it. Name your reason. My ethnicity, my position, my bank roll, my age, my education, my experience, my fame, my appearance, my physical prowess… We further believe respect is ours to give or withhold at will. We wield it like a weapon. We use it as leverage. We withhold respect until proven respect-worthy. The most desirable position in society is one of unquestionable, universal respect without reciprocal obligation. Ludicrous!

We live in a nation (maybe a world) that has little regard for Christians (though I’m not sure Jesus doesn’t fare a little better than those who live to serve Him). So, I am used to having to earn respect. I don't generally resent this idea. In some ways, it is the nature of the life I’ve chosen and I’ve become accustomed (though not completely immune) to the frustrations of the process. In fact, respect earned has its rewards. Still, there remain a handful of people from whom I hope to be granted generous benefit of the doubt. Not because I deserve it (though I pray I might). Rather, I feel these individuals should understand the nature of the thing. Truly, I respect them enough to expect more from them. It is a small handful, mind you. Is that fair as expectations go? Maybe not. I just had a long, difficult conversation with someone over mutual respect. But, I wonder if it was difficult for all the wrong reasons. Jesus seemed saddened, once in a while irritated; but never derailed or even all that frustrated about an absence of respect from those who should have freely granted it. Huh...

To further complicate the issue, it seems "respect" has no universally accepted definition. For some, it is merely regard/consideration (to take into account, have or show concern for, think highly of; esteem). For some, it is value (relative worth, merit, or importance; to consider worth, excellence, usefulness, or importance). For others, it is preference (advantage given over others; a prior right or claim; the right or chance to so choose; being given priority). For some, it is an expectation of emotional responsibility (to anticipate and guard against all potential negative feelings in another). For still others, it is outright and unquestionable deference (submission or yielding to the judgment, opinion, will, etc., of another). At best and for most, it seems circumstantial. The kind of respect one gives is relative to whom and the kind of respect one deserves dependent on by whom it is being granted. While I can’t believe this entirely unreasonable, it is often extremely difficult to mitigate the inherent perils unscathed. It seems the arrows are flying before you even draw your bow (or wave a white flag).

So, is respect given, received, earned, lost… all or none of the above? Is it reasonably expected or is respect decorously withheld until one is proven otherwise worthy? What is the value, the power of respect received? Given?

As for earning respect: a friend of mine (musing on a slightly different topic) recently posed these questions…

"How much tooting of one's own horn is necessary?" Or is this something completely foreign to the Christ-centered life? And why is it that we feel that we have to make sure people know what we are doing? Is it because we are a society based on action, and if we do all our service in secret we appear to be inactive and ineffective? I guess it goes back to my favorite quote: "You know you are a servant when you are treated like one and it does not bother you."

I like his quote. A lot. It brings me to the rhetorical question of the day... Is there anything of lasting value that cannot be accomplished from a greater sense of respect given than received?

While I would not suppose it an ignoble or ungodly goal to live as one worthy of respect; and, though I cannot disagree that respect carries with it a certain freedom, authority, and responsibility; I wonder if being respected is requisite in the servant life... essential for joyful living. Or, maybe, it is a matter of Whose respect we seek and whether or not, when granted, it is enough.