church

My Scarlet Letter

August 3, 2006 By heather Leave a Comment

Here I go again pasting my red A on my chest. I have recently discovered the joy of carnival blogs. Through one in particular, I found some beautiful bloggers, some new daily reads. I feel like I entered a new clique. I linked one of my posts to this carnival blog, unknowing at the time that I was breaking the rules. Since then, I learned that there are requirements for this particular carnival (from the comments of a wonderful blogsite, which I found through said carnival). This one is a Christian carnival. And I believe it is only for women. Okay. I happen to be a Christian and a woman. The hostess requires that all adhere to the Nicene Creed. The hostess asks that all believe in Christ as the only way of salvation. So far, so good. The hostess asks that in all submitted blogs, theological controversies and debates are omitted. Fair enough. Then the hostess requires that no where in the blog, not just the submitted post, but in any of the entire blog, does it “promote the emergent conversation/movement/whatever.” This leaves me out.
I do not attend the emergent church, and while I do think some of the things that some of the churches are either just shallow changes or maybe borderline (depending on the church, but hey, isn’t that the case for all churches/movements/denominations?), I think they are doing a grand job reevaluating epistemology and ecclesiology in order to be missional in this post-modern culture. Honestly, I’ve been frustrated that there has been so much labeling and division on both sides, especially when all adhere to the ancient creeds. “It seems that more than ever the compulsion today is to identify, to reduce someone to what is on the label. To identify is to control, to limit. To love is to call by name, and so open the wide gates of creativity. But we forget names, and turn to labels” (Madeleine L’Engle, Walking on Water, pp. 112-13). Christ said that our unity and love for each other would tell the world of the Father’s sending of his Son for redemption and restoration. We are not telling the world that message very loudly right now. Instead we fight over the spiritual celebrities as to whose side they are on much like the Catholics and Luther fought over Augustine. I actually saw on one website that good Christians should no longer listen to John Piper because Piper quoted Dallas Willard who may or may not support the emergent church. I happen to love Dallas Willard. I also happen to agree with a lot of the philosophies in the emergent church. Just for clarification, the emergent church means a lot of things. It has become a wide encompassing label for anything that may look in the least post-modern. It includes more seeker-sensitive services (which is not how I feel we best incarnate Christ’s love and peace and truth, personally). It includes liturgical. It includes small house churches. It includes mega-super-size-me churches. It includes Calvinists and Covenants and Dispensationalists. Like our fragmented culture, the emergent church label has been placed on a variety of churches.
So what does it mean “does not promote the emergent conversation?” I’ve talked about hermeneutics in my blog. I’ve talked about rethinking the platonic model in our Christianese. I’ve talked about the nature of the Bible. I’ve talked about frustrations with the marketed church. Maybe I’ve promoted the emergent church, maybe I haven’t. Either way, to respect the wishes of the hostess, I will have to refrain from entering any more blogs on her carnival, which is unfortunate because upcoming topics include chocolate and music, two loves of my life. But to heck with it. It’s her prerogative to put the requirements she wishes. From what I’ve seen on her blog, she is a lovely woman seeking God and beauty. This is me. And my scarlet letter.

Filed Under: church

Marketing Church

July 24, 2006 By heather Leave a Comment

I had a disturbing church experience yesterday. Chris and I decided to visit a satellite church out of curiosity. How does this work? What is all the fuss about? I left with tears, not touched, meaningful, poignant message tears, but tears of disgust.
The service began with a concert. I loved the type of music, and I believe all music can and should be used to praise and glorify God, as long as the Church participates. But the church did not participate. They watched the light show and the dry ice effects and listened to the concert. This was followed by a motivational speaker piped in on what appeared to be an HD screen. The message itself was not terrible. The speaker made good points. The leader/announcer/emcee (?) for the service asked us to fill out the guest cards, which Chris dutifully did (and which I would never have done). We walked out of the auditorium/sanctuary, in and out in exactly one hour. All of the congregation made straight for the exit. No hi’s to one another. No gathering groups in the lobby. Odd. It appeared that no one knew another in the building.
Chris and I walked to the information booth, looking for the guest card drop-off and seeking more information on this Sunday conference. The only community service and other such activities were linked to and done in and around the home church, a good hour, perhaps hour and a half away. Nothing in this community. Were they planning on becoming a local church in our town? Chris posed this question to the volunteer behind the booth.
“I don’t know.” Brilliant.
I was ready to leave, but Chris wanted to make one more stop, the store. Now, I do not have a problem with churches having a shop in the church, supplying the congregation with books, materials, resources, music, etc. But something seemed wrong here. It felt off beam. The first display as you walk through the opening is that of T-shirts and purses. Then we found exhibited on table after table material by the pastor of the main church, books that state how to have a great and happy life. Chris flipped through.
“How is this not prosperity theology?” he asked. We moved on. We came to a magazine rack. The cover announced 10 tips for healthy living, 5 steps toward financial security.
“Do you know what this is?” Chris probed.
“A magazine.”
“The Bible.” And that, my friends, was the proverbial straw. I don’t care if the Bible is printed on magazine paper, if you carry it in a convenient, small package, a large print or thick study bible, on your blackberry, or read it online. But to market Christianity in 10 tips and 5 steps and denigrate the message to being happy with success rather than the true hope of redemption in the midst of this evil and corrupt world… What have we done?
I have spent years studying intercultural communication and cultural anthropology both in general theories and specifics with the postmodern world. I have studied epistemology and ecclesiology, looking at different ways we can know God and reflect God. I am excited about the possibilities of seeing a different aspect of God in different cultures. But I also believe that each culture is corrupt. I hate the materialism and consumerism and convenience-driven life of the United States that takes advantage of poorer nations and overlooks the poor. And yesterday, I tasted this corruptness in the marketing of the church. I wanted to overturn tables. I left and cried. Please, help me understand, am I misunderstanding? Is this only an attempt to make God “relevant” that I should appreciate? Should we address this issue as a problem?

Filed Under: church

Ramblings in a New World

June 26, 2006 By heather Leave a Comment

I confess, I have not been a peacemaker. I confess, I have been more interested in tending to my wounds and validating my way of thinking. The question at hand is, can the divarication of the “new kind of Christian” (as termed by Brian McLaren) and the “traditional evangelist” (named by Robert Webber) be repaired? The western culture at large, as is well-known, is going through a shift akin to the Medieval times to the Modern era. While Post-Modernism may be the resting place (and hopefully receive its own name if so), or while it may be transitory, Christians are reacting to this alteration in differing ways. Unfortunately, instead of basking this conversation in love, both sides (it’s even unfortunate that I label them as sides) feel attacked, retreat, and become defensive.
The new generation expresses feelings of inauthenticity, of feeling rejected and/or unloved at times, of inability to enter into a meaningful relationship with God and/or community in the way that has been done for the past 100 years, of a desire to approach the Bible, still as the infallible voice of God’s revelation, with a different method at times. The “traditional” (and by traditional, we must understand that I mean the tradition of the past 100 years) church takes offense, understandably so. They feel that we are telling them that they have been doing things completely wrong and have led us pharisaically into a ditch, ruining the church. Of course, we are not saying this, but I understand how they would hear this. Their offense at what we say, as well as some misunderstandings and some fears at our approach, comes back to correct us so that the Word of God may remain pure in these frightening times. We both wrongly employ straw men, exaggerated figures that puppet a conclusion that serves our own arguments.
Side note, or side question: Do the “traditionals” believe that Christians are outside of culture while the “emerging” see Christians as tied to culture? This could greatly affect conversation. Also, many “traditionals” with whom I have spoken define post-modernism as a rejection of “absolute truth.” I have a different answer to that question. I would call it a rethinking of modernism. This has a complex and fragmented answer.
Side note: I dislike being camped with the “emerging.” I am excited about the post-modern change, and would even consider myself a pomo, but I think that being boxed in as an “emerging” is limited. The emerging church, I feel, is a great answer to the questions culture is asking, but it is not the only answer. Then again, how do you define the emergent church. Is it liturgical? Is it contemporary? Is it social? Yes, yes, and yes.
I have been married for a little over a year. One of the lessons Chris and I are learning in our young marriage is that sometimes the issue isn’t always about being right or wrong but why is someone feeling this way. How can we work together as a team to make the person feel more secure in love and in the plan God has for us?
I believe that two of the larger issues at hand in this conversation are missional and corrective.
Regarding missional, we, as the Universal Church, need to set aside “right” and “wrong” in order to try to understand why a large number of people feel a lack of authenticity in many churches. Why do so many feel that churches are inauthentic? Why do they feel unloved and rejected by the church? “Forms” and “approaches” need to be evaluated. In the same way that a missionary goes into a foreign mission field, so does the church need to go into the post-modern world. As N.T. Wright points out, we need to first figure out who we need to be for the world, and then set forms and structures for that. What are the questions of the culture? How are they asking these questions? Forms and structures need to be evaluated, and this needs to be in balance with 2000 years of global church history. What remains consistent and universal? I wonder if some in the “traditional” church might be surprised to see how much of their church is connected to modern ways of thinking. This has been appropriate in a modern world (and still is appropriate for the continuing modern world), but will not hold water in this new world. I wonder if some in the “traditional” church are more open than we think, once words and terms are clarified. How can we reach this new culture? How can we show them, as Christ’s body, Christ’s love and truth? This may affect worship styles; this may affect learning styles. Bible study formats, systematic theologies may resemble more of the Bilbao Guggenheim museum architecture than a skyscraper. This may affect preaching styles and apologetics. It may broaden the understanding of the gospel, not in the basis for salvation (Christ) but in how it is lived out everyday (Christus Victor model and social justice as well as personal salvation).
Side note: this “new” culture has many commonalities, shares some building materials, as the “old” culture, but scraps some materials and adds others. We’re still a western culture at heart.
I said there are two issues. The missional issue, I think, is where the majority of the fight resides. The second issue is addressing some of the inherent weaknesses in the western church. These are different issues for different churches and different denominations. I believe that both “emergings” and “traditionals” recognize and are addressing these issues.
This has been long and rambling. Much of this probably doesn’t make sense outside of my head. We all know the issues, but do we? Have we all been too caught up in our own causes to mend Christian relationships, being one so that the world may know that we are from Christ? So that the world may see something different in our union? Is my peacemaking reflective of a child of God?

Filed Under: church, confession, postmodernism

Jonah and the Church and Me

June 13, 2006 By heather Leave a Comment

What’s up with Jonah? The man refused to do what God asked him. He ran the other direction. Yeah. Like that would work. God created this whole thing. He sees everything, but hey, maybe he happened to not be watching that one boat. Oh, there’s Jonah on the way to the docks. He must be on his way to Ninevah. Good one, Jonah. You really slipped the wool over God’s eyes. Snuck in on that boat going the other way. Brilliant. But God showed him amazing grace. He saved Jonah’s life. God brought Jonah back to Himself, restored their relationship, and gave Jonah another chance. He sent a huge storm that put every man’s life on the ship in peril until Jonah threw himself overboard. He’s a dead man. And then the fish swallows him.
By the way – the fish, the really big fish that swallowed Jonah. I grew up with this story. I saw the illustrations in kiddie books. Jonah with his face upturned, a spiritual glow hallowing his pious expression, hands clasped earnestly, barely a puddle of very clean looking water swimming around his knelt knees. Seriously? How did he breathe in there? This big fish lives in the sea, swallowing water and an assortment of sardines and plankton. Mmmm. Appetizing. And Jonah gets caught in it. So now Jonah is swimming around with his nose squeezed between the digestive juiced waters and the lining of the stomach, gasping for the little bit of oxygen that had found its way into this concoction. This is how God kept Jonah alive and restored their relationship.
And Jonah (seemingly) gets it, at least for the moment. He knows he messed up. He repents. He thanks God for saving his life from the storm. For three days he meditates on the goodness of God. He prays a crazy happy praise Psalm. And God forgives him.
Jonah is spit up onto a beach (another pleasant experience, I’m sure), and then goes into Ninevah to tell them about God’s grace, the same grace that he had just experienced. But wait, they are asking for forgiveness. They are repenting. And God wants to forgive them! See, God! Jonah exclaims. This is exactly what I knew would happen! Man! This is why I didn’t want to come! Stupid Ninevites! I knew you would forgive them if they turned to you! Fine! Here’s the deal then. Either kill me or kill them. That’s all I have to say about that.
Is this the Jonah that prayed so earnestly in the belly of the fish?
And then he picks a prime spot and waits for the next Sodom and Gomorrah. Smiling, he can’t wait to see the destruction. These were his enemies, and they would get what they deserved! Wshoo. It was getting hot up there. On cue, a small weed sprouts into a tree large enough to shade Jonah. Yep. God is on his side. Gave him the best seat in the house and comforts to go with it. Here comes the Haagen-Dazs guy now with his ice cream cart. He fell asleep, very pleased with his little plant.
Jonah wakes up the next morning to find a worm had eaten at the roots of the tree. The tree lay next to him. Dead. Withered. WHAT!!! All right, just kill me. I would rather die. (Apparently Jonah had a flare for the dramatics.) God shakes his head in disbelief. You really care this much about this little tree? Did you plant the tree? Did you do anything for that tree? And you’re ready to jump off a cliff at its destruction. I created the Ninevites. I created every man, woman, and child, every personality, every cow, sheep, and goat. Shouldn’t I care about their destruction?
But Jonah was too busy throwing a temper-tantrum.
What’s up with Jonah? Why on earth did he begrudge God’s forgiveness when he himself had experienced it in the face of his rebellion? Why did he care more about hating his enemies than seeing them as fellow creations? Why did he care more about their destruction than in love? Why did he care more about his own comforts than a whole nation? Why did he throw a hissy-fit over his lost luxury and not over the annihilation of a whole people group?
Why does the North American church look more like Jonah than Jesus? Why does she spend more brain cycles on the comfort of its own people than in feeding the hungry? Why is she more concerned with waging war against the enemies than in extending the same forgiveness she was extended, than in sharing the same story she experienced?
And why do I look like this gnarled Jonah?

Filed Under: bible stories, church, theology