Matthew 5:21-23
[“Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’]
[“But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit upon his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered in his presence, and he will separate the people as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep at his right hand and the goats at his left.“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’“Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’“And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’“Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, ‘Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons. For I was hungry, and you didn’t feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn’t give me a drink. I was a stranger, and you didn’t invite me into your home. I was naked, and you didn’t give me clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’“Then they will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?’“And he will answer, ‘I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.’“And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life.”]
Matthew 25:31-46
So is this saying what it appears to say?! Surely not...:D
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
“There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path”
-The character Morpheus from "The Matrix"
Not far from where I grew up, there is a little white building. This little white building happens to have a steeple. In front of the building there is a sign with “______ church” painted on it. I am familiar with this building because I spent significant amounts of time in it during my childhood and early teenage years. This building was the center of a thriving community, where over one hundred people met every week to express their faith corporately. Every age group was represented, from infants to octogenarians. Now, ten years later, three elderly women and a pastor attend faithfully, showing up every Sunday morning. What changed? I am no stranger to the Church, and the fact that I have spent most of my life intimately connected (as well as one could be) to the “traditional church” has given me a unique perspective. Feel free to join me in this conversation about change…
To successfully discuss any topic, one must be aware of the terminology involved. I want to define several words or terms which I will be using frequently in this paper. The first term is “traditional church”. When I use this term, I am describing a congregational model typical of American denominations in the last 150 years. The prevailing attributes in this model are hierarchical, single (typically male) leadership focused, have professional clergy, location centered, and in outreach focused on bringing potential members in. The other terms in need of definition are “simple” and “organic”. Simple and organic models of church are typically led by non-professional members, are community centered (decentralized location), and have outreach that focuses on rapid multiplication and social engagement. “Multi-Site” is a term sometimes used for simple or organic churches but is less prevalent and therefore less defined.
Part I - The problem…
It is no secret among American pastors that attracting church members (or potential members) is becoming increasingly difficult. Indeed, most of what is hailed as “church growth” can be attributed to a simple shift in attendance of churchgoers to a different congregation. *According to a study by the Barna research group, the leading research firm in the field of church statistics, between 2000 and 2025, the percentage of Americans who express their faith through a local church will drop from 70% in 2000 to between 30 and 35% in 2025*.In another study by the Fermi project,* less than 10 percent of young adults mention faith as their top priority!* For those of us in ministry, this is very troubling. My opening illustration is not an isolated case, as many of the rural congregations in my community are in the latter stages of dwindling in membership, to the point where they can no longer give any financial assistance to a minister, and struggle to even pay their utility bills.
*An argument could be made that secularization (the process by which religious ideas and institutions lose value to society) are to blame, but I believe that is not the biggest problem faced in regards to church growth. The reason for my belief is that Americans are still, in majority, religious. Truly, the most significant problem facing churches and mainstream denominations is the negative perceptions of Christianity by the younger generation. As congregations age nationwide, fewer and fewer young people are connecting with the traditional church. In my own experience, none of the traditional churches I have been involved with had a significant representation of the 18-30 year old age group. Again, the Fermi project found that only 10% of “outsiders” (those not connected to the church) in the 16-29 year old age group thought that the description “relevant to your life” applied to Christianity “a lot”, and only 9% believe that the term “something that makes sense” applied “a lot”. Clearly, the church has an image problem. I encounter almost every day among my co-workers, classmates, and friends. For the majority of those not connected to a church, it’s not unqualified dislike, but rather an all too telling reflection of the message we as church leaders are sending in the way we do this thing called church. *The Fermi project also discovered that “among non-Christians ages 16-29, 82% have attended church at some point in their lifetime. *
Churches today employ many modern marketing strategies that have been borrowed from business models and adapted to church use. Though it appears that these models have some success in bringing people into a church building, current trends indicate that the rate at which people are connecting with the church congregations and becoming part of the membership is dropping. In other words, people still are willing to give the church a visit, but are finding no compelling reason to stay. We can no longer afford to ignore this issue and pretend it will go away. Indeed it looks like we’re the ones that are going away! So what is the issue here? Why do people under thirty not find anything attractive in the church? I think the answer is in two words: “authentic community” (or lack thereof).
The reason my generation (I’m 22) is not connecting with the church is that we value community more than institutions, and relationships more than traditions. Church practices that have 150 year old denominational roots make little sense to a group that spends little time studying history, and lots of time building relationships. My generation doesn’t understand why churches that talk about friendship and claim to offer relationship seem to be all about some guy in a suit talking to us for an hour about politics. They don’t understand why groups that claim to be about the message of Jesus (which most have a basic idea about) spend more time promoting political agendas. My generation has no idea what Jesus and his alleged message has to do with steeples, pews, or pulpits. They are looking for something deeper than rules and politics. Here’s a few of the negative perceptions traditional churches give:
1) Exclusivity. A unique building, unfamiliar dress code, and unfamiliar “Christian” terminology foster a very intimidating environment.
2) A hierarchical, personality driven leadership structure all too often allows for abuses of power by pastors, and is especially distasteful to those under 29 who hold a post-modern mindset and have no unqualified respect for “authority”.
3) The “bubble effect”. Christians tend to spend the vast majority of their time in monolithic communities populated by people of the same social demographic, political persuasion, financial status, and race. This creates an environment of shallow relationships which discourages all questioning and places too high of a value on conforming to an image. Diversity is becoming an everyday reality, especially in the urban centers that shape our culture.
4) Sustainability. The financial overhead for a traditional church is substantial, even
burdensome. Establishing even a modest church in a functional building will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, let alone the monthly expenses of upkeep and repair. This is not a problem, unless you consider the fact that this money is being poured into a situation that is no longer relevant.
So many times I’ve heard pastors and church leaders say “Yes, we have problems, but every institution faces the same problems.” I agree with their sentiment, at least in part. Any time you have human involvement in anything, there will be error; humans make mistakes. However, can we any longer use that claim to excuse the fact that our church structure is creating an ever-widening gap with society? If we claim to be about the message of Jesus, a message of love and peace based on truth (objective or relational), is it not imperative that we be able to communicate that message in a culture in desperate need of those values? If there was, a better way, would we take it?
Part 2 - A Solution…
I believe there is a better way: it is called the “organic” or “simple” church. This church model is based on small groups of people, loosely connected, with multiple meeting spaces (houses, coffee shops, etc…). Theses churches typically have short statements of faith, and value personal relationships over programs. Other key elements of this model are “lay leadership” (not having professional pastoral staff on a congregational level) and a missional focus (that is, emphasis upon service and social concern as the responsibility of every member). This model has many advantages over the traditional model, the primary being adaptability. Organic churches are thriving in coffee shops, college dorms, apartment complexes, even bars! The ability of this model to integrate into any cultural setting it encounters also facilitates the engagement and influence of the urban society in ways not possible before. Other advantages include
1) Relevance. Post-moderns typically discover truth in the context of relationship, so a model that reinforces relationship building has a much greater chance of engaging post-moderns.
2) Sustainability. An organic church plant has no overhead to start, and little to operate. The financial resources of the members, funneled primarily to building and organizational interests in a traditional church, can be used to make an immediate impact on neighborhood and community problems.
3) Historical authenticity. In the early days of the Christian movement, the church met in houses and multi-purpose communal spaces, even occasionally using the catacombs that housed the dead. The organic model is the closest modern manifestation of the church-movement that altered the course of world history.
4) Diversity. Instead of representing the opinions and interests of a select few denominational leaders or “Christian celebrities”, the organic church reflects the passion and diversity of its members in a way that is impossible in the traditional church. This is an effective answer to the negative stereotype presented by the extreme political views of a small minority of church attendees. Organic churches are more likely to include individuals from divergent social, economic, and racial backgrounds. While this may spell the end of a “Christian” political machine, it can only be a positive for the cultural message we in the collective church are sending.
The biggest objection to the organic church is usually this “How will we ensure that the teaching presented is reflective of a correct theological view?” My answer to this is that, first of all, an over emphasis on theological scholarship is one of the main causes of our declining cultural influence. Christian language and terminology is outdated and in most cases unintelligible to a modern individual. We forget that the Bible was written in the Coinae(common) Greek, and the largest times of expansion in the Christian faith (the 1st century and the reformation) have been catalyzed by an “everyman theology”. If Christianity is only understandable to professional scholars, then it will thrive only in institutions of higher learning. If it is to attain some measure of its culture-shaping aspirations, than it must become the property of the soccer mom and the business man, accessible to even the most basically educated member of society.
The other objection that I have typically encountered is of this form – “ I think the organic model sounds great, but it’s not been proven; can you demonstrate its success?”
Enter Neil Cole. Mr. Cole was the pastor of traditional church before moving to Long Beach, CA to begin planting organic churches. Writing in his book, titled* “Organic Church: Growing Faith where Life Happens”, Mr. Cole describes the surprising results of his church planting network “In our first year we began ten new churches. In our second year…18 churches. The next year, we added 52 starts…At the time of this writing (2005), there have been close to 800 churches started in thirty-two states and twenty-three nations around the world, in only six years” (italics mine)*. Clearly this is church-planting success on a level few denominationally funded efforts could boast. I have personally been involved in multiple organic churches, and have observed that, though they are quite successful in connection with those under thirty, they are also surprisingly effective at reaching all ages. The question of viability is answered with a resounding positive.
As I was making lattes for my job at starbucks, I discovered that the man across the counter was a pastor. He began describing to me his church (very much like a parent describes one of their children). I soon discovered it was a traditional rural church from a mainline denomination. I also began sharing with him about the organic community I am a part of. He quickly asked the inevitable question. “How many attend your services?” I smiled and told him anywhere from 30-60, depending on how many people were out of town (largely because the members of our community are college students or young businessmen). He responded with “Yeah, my church has that problem too, since most of our members are retired.” It seems to me that it demonstrates in a nutshell what traditional churches are facing. But these problems need not signal the death of the Church’s collective influence.
The conclusion that the overwhelming majority of statistical research is pointing toward is that the traditional church model must change or become completely irrelevant. The conversation our culture is having with us demonstrates that they are not closed to spirituality, but we must meet them where we are. The organic model is a viable, even desirable alternative, and our church planting efforts in the future should be shifted to focus on this model. It may not happen overnight, but the accelerating rate of cultural change demands that we begin to act well, and as the old adage (attributed to Aristotle) says, *“well begun is half done”.*?*
-The character Morpheus from "The Matrix"
Not far from where I grew up, there is a little white building. This little white building happens to have a steeple. In front of the building there is a sign with “______ church” painted on it. I am familiar with this building because I spent significant amounts of time in it during my childhood and early teenage years. This building was the center of a thriving community, where over one hundred people met every week to express their faith corporately. Every age group was represented, from infants to octogenarians. Now, ten years later, three elderly women and a pastor attend faithfully, showing up every Sunday morning. What changed? I am no stranger to the Church, and the fact that I have spent most of my life intimately connected (as well as one could be) to the “traditional church” has given me a unique perspective. Feel free to join me in this conversation about change…
To successfully discuss any topic, one must be aware of the terminology involved. I want to define several words or terms which I will be using frequently in this paper. The first term is “traditional church”. When I use this term, I am describing a congregational model typical of American denominations in the last 150 years. The prevailing attributes in this model are hierarchical, single (typically male) leadership focused, have professional clergy, location centered, and in outreach focused on bringing potential members in. The other terms in need of definition are “simple” and “organic”. Simple and organic models of church are typically led by non-professional members, are community centered (decentralized location), and have outreach that focuses on rapid multiplication and social engagement. “Multi-Site” is a term sometimes used for simple or organic churches but is less prevalent and therefore less defined.
Part I - The problem…
It is no secret among American pastors that attracting church members (or potential members) is becoming increasingly difficult. Indeed, most of what is hailed as “church growth” can be attributed to a simple shift in attendance of churchgoers to a different congregation. *According to a study by the Barna research group, the leading research firm in the field of church statistics, between 2000 and 2025, the percentage of Americans who express their faith through a local church will drop from 70% in 2000 to between 30 and 35% in 2025*.In another study by the Fermi project,* less than 10 percent of young adults mention faith as their top priority!* For those of us in ministry, this is very troubling. My opening illustration is not an isolated case, as many of the rural congregations in my community are in the latter stages of dwindling in membership, to the point where they can no longer give any financial assistance to a minister, and struggle to even pay their utility bills.
*An argument could be made that secularization (the process by which religious ideas and institutions lose value to society) are to blame, but I believe that is not the biggest problem faced in regards to church growth. The reason for my belief is that Americans are still, in majority, religious. Truly, the most significant problem facing churches and mainstream denominations is the negative perceptions of Christianity by the younger generation. As congregations age nationwide, fewer and fewer young people are connecting with the traditional church. In my own experience, none of the traditional churches I have been involved with had a significant representation of the 18-30 year old age group. Again, the Fermi project found that only 10% of “outsiders” (those not connected to the church) in the 16-29 year old age group thought that the description “relevant to your life” applied to Christianity “a lot”, and only 9% believe that the term “something that makes sense” applied “a lot”. Clearly, the church has an image problem. I encounter almost every day among my co-workers, classmates, and friends. For the majority of those not connected to a church, it’s not unqualified dislike, but rather an all too telling reflection of the message we as church leaders are sending in the way we do this thing called church. *The Fermi project also discovered that “among non-Christians ages 16-29, 82% have attended church at some point in their lifetime. *
Churches today employ many modern marketing strategies that have been borrowed from business models and adapted to church use. Though it appears that these models have some success in bringing people into a church building, current trends indicate that the rate at which people are connecting with the church congregations and becoming part of the membership is dropping. In other words, people still are willing to give the church a visit, but are finding no compelling reason to stay. We can no longer afford to ignore this issue and pretend it will go away. Indeed it looks like we’re the ones that are going away! So what is the issue here? Why do people under thirty not find anything attractive in the church? I think the answer is in two words: “authentic community” (or lack thereof).
The reason my generation (I’m 22) is not connecting with the church is that we value community more than institutions, and relationships more than traditions. Church practices that have 150 year old denominational roots make little sense to a group that spends little time studying history, and lots of time building relationships. My generation doesn’t understand why churches that talk about friendship and claim to offer relationship seem to be all about some guy in a suit talking to us for an hour about politics. They don’t understand why groups that claim to be about the message of Jesus (which most have a basic idea about) spend more time promoting political agendas. My generation has no idea what Jesus and his alleged message has to do with steeples, pews, or pulpits. They are looking for something deeper than rules and politics. Here’s a few of the negative perceptions traditional churches give:
1) Exclusivity. A unique building, unfamiliar dress code, and unfamiliar “Christian” terminology foster a very intimidating environment.
2) A hierarchical, personality driven leadership structure all too often allows for abuses of power by pastors, and is especially distasteful to those under 29 who hold a post-modern mindset and have no unqualified respect for “authority”.
3) The “bubble effect”. Christians tend to spend the vast majority of their time in monolithic communities populated by people of the same social demographic, political persuasion, financial status, and race. This creates an environment of shallow relationships which discourages all questioning and places too high of a value on conforming to an image. Diversity is becoming an everyday reality, especially in the urban centers that shape our culture.
4) Sustainability. The financial overhead for a traditional church is substantial, even
burdensome. Establishing even a modest church in a functional building will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, let alone the monthly expenses of upkeep and repair. This is not a problem, unless you consider the fact that this money is being poured into a situation that is no longer relevant.
So many times I’ve heard pastors and church leaders say “Yes, we have problems, but every institution faces the same problems.” I agree with their sentiment, at least in part. Any time you have human involvement in anything, there will be error; humans make mistakes. However, can we any longer use that claim to excuse the fact that our church structure is creating an ever-widening gap with society? If we claim to be about the message of Jesus, a message of love and peace based on truth (objective or relational), is it not imperative that we be able to communicate that message in a culture in desperate need of those values? If there was, a better way, would we take it?
Part 2 - A Solution…
I believe there is a better way: it is called the “organic” or “simple” church. This church model is based on small groups of people, loosely connected, with multiple meeting spaces (houses, coffee shops, etc…). Theses churches typically have short statements of faith, and value personal relationships over programs. Other key elements of this model are “lay leadership” (not having professional pastoral staff on a congregational level) and a missional focus (that is, emphasis upon service and social concern as the responsibility of every member). This model has many advantages over the traditional model, the primary being adaptability. Organic churches are thriving in coffee shops, college dorms, apartment complexes, even bars! The ability of this model to integrate into any cultural setting it encounters also facilitates the engagement and influence of the urban society in ways not possible before. Other advantages include
1) Relevance. Post-moderns typically discover truth in the context of relationship, so a model that reinforces relationship building has a much greater chance of engaging post-moderns.
2) Sustainability. An organic church plant has no overhead to start, and little to operate. The financial resources of the members, funneled primarily to building and organizational interests in a traditional church, can be used to make an immediate impact on neighborhood and community problems.
3) Historical authenticity. In the early days of the Christian movement, the church met in houses and multi-purpose communal spaces, even occasionally using the catacombs that housed the dead. The organic model is the closest modern manifestation of the church-movement that altered the course of world history.
4) Diversity. Instead of representing the opinions and interests of a select few denominational leaders or “Christian celebrities”, the organic church reflects the passion and diversity of its members in a way that is impossible in the traditional church. This is an effective answer to the negative stereotype presented by the extreme political views of a small minority of church attendees. Organic churches are more likely to include individuals from divergent social, economic, and racial backgrounds. While this may spell the end of a “Christian” political machine, it can only be a positive for the cultural message we in the collective church are sending.
The biggest objection to the organic church is usually this “How will we ensure that the teaching presented is reflective of a correct theological view?” My answer to this is that, first of all, an over emphasis on theological scholarship is one of the main causes of our declining cultural influence. Christian language and terminology is outdated and in most cases unintelligible to a modern individual. We forget that the Bible was written in the Coinae(common) Greek, and the largest times of expansion in the Christian faith (the 1st century and the reformation) have been catalyzed by an “everyman theology”. If Christianity is only understandable to professional scholars, then it will thrive only in institutions of higher learning. If it is to attain some measure of its culture-shaping aspirations, than it must become the property of the soccer mom and the business man, accessible to even the most basically educated member of society.
The other objection that I have typically encountered is of this form – “ I think the organic model sounds great, but it’s not been proven; can you demonstrate its success?”
Enter Neil Cole. Mr. Cole was the pastor of traditional church before moving to Long Beach, CA to begin planting organic churches. Writing in his book, titled* “Organic Church: Growing Faith where Life Happens”, Mr. Cole describes the surprising results of his church planting network “In our first year we began ten new churches. In our second year…18 churches. The next year, we added 52 starts…At the time of this writing (2005), there have been close to 800 churches started in thirty-two states and twenty-three nations around the world, in only six years” (italics mine)*. Clearly this is church-planting success on a level few denominationally funded efforts could boast. I have personally been involved in multiple organic churches, and have observed that, though they are quite successful in connection with those under thirty, they are also surprisingly effective at reaching all ages. The question of viability is answered with a resounding positive.
As I was making lattes for my job at starbucks, I discovered that the man across the counter was a pastor. He began describing to me his church (very much like a parent describes one of their children). I soon discovered it was a traditional rural church from a mainline denomination. I also began sharing with him about the organic community I am a part of. He quickly asked the inevitable question. “How many attend your services?” I smiled and told him anywhere from 30-60, depending on how many people were out of town (largely because the members of our community are college students or young businessmen). He responded with “Yeah, my church has that problem too, since most of our members are retired.” It seems to me that it demonstrates in a nutshell what traditional churches are facing. But these problems need not signal the death of the Church’s collective influence.
The conclusion that the overwhelming majority of statistical research is pointing toward is that the traditional church model must change or become completely irrelevant. The conversation our culture is having with us demonstrates that they are not closed to spirituality, but we must meet them where we are. The organic model is a viable, even desirable alternative, and our church planting efforts in the future should be shifted to focus on this model. It may not happen overnight, but the accelerating rate of cultural change demands that we begin to act well, and as the old adage (attributed to Aristotle) says, *“well begun is half done”.*?*
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Good News...
So about this "Good News" (otherwise known as the gospel)...
I've been having some recent conversations with my Christian friends, and my question is this: "What does the good news mean to disciples of Jesus?"in other words, what are the implications of the Good News to those already a part of the movement of Jesus?
Discussion welcomed as always...
peace,
michael
I've been having some recent conversations with my Christian friends, and my question is this: "What does the good news mean to disciples of Jesus?"in other words, what are the implications of the Good News to those already a part of the movement of Jesus?
Discussion welcomed as always...
peace,
michael
Saturday, April 11, 2009
"Life"
It has been a long time since I have written. Too long, in fact; writing helps me stay honest about myself, my journey, and my growing experiences. Writing also helps me stay in touch with those of you that I have difficulty maintaining frequent contact with. I have recently realized that my massive circle of friends is impossible to stay in touch with, at least with my current lifestyle. But just because I don’t talk to you often doesn’t mean I don’t think about all of you often…
Life. The best analogy I can think of for it is one of those gimmick “penny funnels” that are placed in malls for the sole purpose of enticing children to beg their parents for donations. A coin placed on the edge of the funnel travels to the center in an inexorably tighter orbit, spiraling towards the terminating of its dance with gravity in a mesmerizing, beautiful, and brief exhibition. So too, go our lives: for no matter how fast or slow we travel, all our lives terminate in the same place. Death; the great leveler, the end of the story, waits for all. And matter how many revolutions we make around the center, in the end the sum of our orbital repetitions will seem but a fleeting moment. So what then?
Impact. Though the previous paragraph may seem to be a muse on futility, it is most emphatically not. Rather, it is a call; a call to revolution, a call to devotion, a call to abandon…most importantly, a call to wake. Too often we fail to realize the value of the lives we live, or the potential impact of the everyday implications of our decisions, imagination, and action. We live in a world of chaos, a system gone wrong, and a reality that is more often than not, painful. Injustice, suffering, oppression, and hate have become our twisted normalcy. We have accepted things the way they were never intended to be, and we find no peace in this world. The footsteps of our journey through life are dogged by the twin ghosts of unrealized possibility and missed opportunity. No wonder we question! No wonder we hunger and thirst for more! No wonder we can never quite convince ourselves to settle; the only way to truly silence the whispers of our soul is to end life itself. If there is more to live, if we hunger to be truly alive, then what is the answer? Where is life?
We spend much of our lives looking for life, desperately attempting to realize our place in the story we find ourselves in. Who am I? Where do I belong? With whom do I belong? The questions push us onward, prodding us to search deeper and higher and farther, until we find life and peace, or until we settle for less and try to kill the questions. Sadly, most of us settle for the latter rather than the former solution. In light of this fact, I ask you – do you want to live? Do you want life? Life in its fullest? Meaning? Significance? Identity? Community? When did you sell out your soul for a respite from the questions? What part you have you sacrificed for a little sanctuary from your irresistible desire to live? O sleeper, do you want to wake? You who hold onto a delirious half-life, would you die to truly live?
We approach Easter, the day we who follow Jesus claim to celebrate His resurrection. But is life what we are about? Are we, like that itinerant homeless preacher named Paul said , living a “life of Love” like Him who we claim to follow, and are we part of the story and movement of Jesus at all? Whether you are a church-raised-dyed-in-the-wool-pulpit-pounding Christian or someone completely disconnected from Christianity let me tell you this: this Easter that we make such a big deal over, is about one thing - life. That’s it. L-I-F-E. The kind you can only get from death. Life that is totally focused outside of yourself and life that never ends. Life that brings peace, hope, and joy to this broken reality called the 21st century. “Life to the fullest”
Life that costs you everything to live, the only life worth living…That’s the point of the Resurrection. If Jesus is not truly alive, not truly risen, then you can throw this in the trash. If he did rise, then doesn’t that change everything? Every moment? Forget your failures, screw ups, and problems – He’s offering you life – with identity, community, peace, love, and joy. Not the kind you get at church. Not the kind you get from wearing a cross. Not the kind you get from sex, drugs, televangelists, church productions, attention, or any other distraction. Life. Life to the fullest…
“I have come to give them life, life to the fullest…”
-Jesus
[Then Jesus said, “Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you. Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle at heart, and you will find rest for your souls.] [Matthew 11:28-29]
Life. The best analogy I can think of for it is one of those gimmick “penny funnels” that are placed in malls for the sole purpose of enticing children to beg their parents for donations. A coin placed on the edge of the funnel travels to the center in an inexorably tighter orbit, spiraling towards the terminating of its dance with gravity in a mesmerizing, beautiful, and brief exhibition. So too, go our lives: for no matter how fast or slow we travel, all our lives terminate in the same place. Death; the great leveler, the end of the story, waits for all. And matter how many revolutions we make around the center, in the end the sum of our orbital repetitions will seem but a fleeting moment. So what then?
Impact. Though the previous paragraph may seem to be a muse on futility, it is most emphatically not. Rather, it is a call; a call to revolution, a call to devotion, a call to abandon…most importantly, a call to wake. Too often we fail to realize the value of the lives we live, or the potential impact of the everyday implications of our decisions, imagination, and action. We live in a world of chaos, a system gone wrong, and a reality that is more often than not, painful. Injustice, suffering, oppression, and hate have become our twisted normalcy. We have accepted things the way they were never intended to be, and we find no peace in this world. The footsteps of our journey through life are dogged by the twin ghosts of unrealized possibility and missed opportunity. No wonder we question! No wonder we hunger and thirst for more! No wonder we can never quite convince ourselves to settle; the only way to truly silence the whispers of our soul is to end life itself. If there is more to live, if we hunger to be truly alive, then what is the answer? Where is life?
We spend much of our lives looking for life, desperately attempting to realize our place in the story we find ourselves in. Who am I? Where do I belong? With whom do I belong? The questions push us onward, prodding us to search deeper and higher and farther, until we find life and peace, or until we settle for less and try to kill the questions. Sadly, most of us settle for the latter rather than the former solution. In light of this fact, I ask you – do you want to live? Do you want life? Life in its fullest? Meaning? Significance? Identity? Community? When did you sell out your soul for a respite from the questions? What part you have you sacrificed for a little sanctuary from your irresistible desire to live? O sleeper, do you want to wake? You who hold onto a delirious half-life, would you die to truly live?
We approach Easter, the day we who follow Jesus claim to celebrate His resurrection. But is life what we are about? Are we, like that itinerant homeless preacher named Paul said , living a “life of Love” like Him who we claim to follow, and are we part of the story and movement of Jesus at all? Whether you are a church-raised-dyed-in-the-wool-pulpit-pounding Christian or someone completely disconnected from Christianity let me tell you this: this Easter that we make such a big deal over, is about one thing - life. That’s it. L-I-F-E. The kind you can only get from death. Life that is totally focused outside of yourself and life that never ends. Life that brings peace, hope, and joy to this broken reality called the 21st century. “Life to the fullest”
Life that costs you everything to live, the only life worth living…That’s the point of the Resurrection. If Jesus is not truly alive, not truly risen, then you can throw this in the trash. If he did rise, then doesn’t that change everything? Every moment? Forget your failures, screw ups, and problems – He’s offering you life – with identity, community, peace, love, and joy. Not the kind you get at church. Not the kind you get from wearing a cross. Not the kind you get from sex, drugs, televangelists, church productions, attention, or any other distraction. Life. Life to the fullest…
“I have come to give them life, life to the fullest…”
-Jesus
[Then Jesus said, “Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you. Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle at heart, and you will find rest for your souls.] [Matthew 11:28-29]
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
"Hope and change" or "A revolution of the unseen"
*author's note* This will undoubtedly be a controversial piece of literature. I ask that you suspend response until you have read the whole article and carefully considered the thesis. However, I would love to discuss this so that we can learn .
Peace,
Michael
Today, over a million people participated in what is being called one of the most significant events in the history of the United States. As countless eyes watched, and as countless ears listened, Barack Obama was sworn in as President of the United States of America. The most intriguing thing was not the actual events of the inauguration, but the response. We have become even more polarized as a society, a schizophrenic collective of voices, responding either with euphoria or deep trepidation. Even the news anchors seemed trapped in the moment, forgetting their typical journalistic stolidity. As I did a online surmisal of the electronic world, the response of those "inside" the movement of Jesus seems to be of the same polarized extremity.
I don't get it.
To be perfectly honest, I feel nothing in regards to what happened today. The reins of power to a kingdom were handed to a different figure head. A different group of fallible humans will now spend the next four years trying to convince the "Kings and Queens" of the general public to support their policies. So be it, for this is the way of the world as long as anyone can remember. I fear we have forgotten, or maybe never learned the lesson as old as time: anything begun by man will ultimately come to wreck and ruin. If history has taught us anything, it is that every one of us is hopelessly broken and fundamentally flawed. The democracy of the United States will ultimately destroy itself in the same implosion that felled the Babylonians, the Greeks, and the Romans - sin. Ultimately, given the same choice, we (humans, collectively) will make the same choice that we always have - to believe lies, do evil, and choose self over love. Am I saying this as a pessimist, chuckling cynically as the world goes to hell? Absolutely not. There is a hope -an ignored, reviled, rejected hope...
Enter Jesus.
Once there was a man, a man who claimed to be the Son of God, and a King. Yet He said "my Kingdom does not originate from this world", that in His kingdom "the least is the greatest".
He taught that the only laws that mattered were "Love God with everything", and "Love your neighbor as yourself". He claimed that His Kingdom was about relationship and community, about the outsider, the opressed, and the broken. He claimed that in His Kingdom, there were no citizenship requirements, no borders, and no systems. He invited everyone to be part of this Kingdom, to be part of restoring creation back to it's intended purpose...
This man was Jesus Christ, He is the Son of God, the rightful King, and He invites you to swear allegiance to His Kingdom. He came for you! He said "come if you're weary, come and rest", that He came to set the oppressed free, give sight to the blind. He is the only hope, as He broke the power of evil by by His death, and He rose to bring us the hope of the Kingdom, and the only hope for change...
New life.
What if real hope is not in the next president? Indeed, what if the next president is ultimately inconsequential, like a human puppet in a cosmic war between good and evil? What if the only real hope for humanity came 2000 years ago on a bloody cross as God gave His life for man? What if the only true change started with the One, the Messiah, freeing hearts, and revolutionizing lives? What if the only response that will bring hope and change is when I start living the implications of the words and the Way of Jesus out in my life?
"People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them." -Hebrew 11:14-16 (NIV)
Peace,
Michael
Today, over a million people participated in what is being called one of the most significant events in the history of the United States. As countless eyes watched, and as countless ears listened, Barack Obama was sworn in as President of the United States of America. The most intriguing thing was not the actual events of the inauguration, but the response. We have become even more polarized as a society, a schizophrenic collective of voices, responding either with euphoria or deep trepidation. Even the news anchors seemed trapped in the moment, forgetting their typical journalistic stolidity. As I did a online surmisal of the electronic world, the response of those "inside" the movement of Jesus seems to be of the same polarized extremity.
I don't get it.
To be perfectly honest, I feel nothing in regards to what happened today. The reins of power to a kingdom were handed to a different figure head. A different group of fallible humans will now spend the next four years trying to convince the "Kings and Queens" of the general public to support their policies. So be it, for this is the way of the world as long as anyone can remember. I fear we have forgotten, or maybe never learned the lesson as old as time: anything begun by man will ultimately come to wreck and ruin. If history has taught us anything, it is that every one of us is hopelessly broken and fundamentally flawed. The democracy of the United States will ultimately destroy itself in the same implosion that felled the Babylonians, the Greeks, and the Romans - sin. Ultimately, given the same choice, we (humans, collectively) will make the same choice that we always have - to believe lies, do evil, and choose self over love. Am I saying this as a pessimist, chuckling cynically as the world goes to hell? Absolutely not. There is a hope -an ignored, reviled, rejected hope...
Enter Jesus.
Once there was a man, a man who claimed to be the Son of God, and a King. Yet He said "my Kingdom does not originate from this world", that in His kingdom "the least is the greatest".
He taught that the only laws that mattered were "Love God with everything", and "Love your neighbor as yourself". He claimed that His Kingdom was about relationship and community, about the outsider, the opressed, and the broken. He claimed that in His Kingdom, there were no citizenship requirements, no borders, and no systems. He invited everyone to be part of this Kingdom, to be part of restoring creation back to it's intended purpose...
This man was Jesus Christ, He is the Son of God, the rightful King, and He invites you to swear allegiance to His Kingdom. He came for you! He said "come if you're weary, come and rest", that He came to set the oppressed free, give sight to the blind. He is the only hope, as He broke the power of evil by by His death, and He rose to bring us the hope of the Kingdom, and the only hope for change...
New life.
What if real hope is not in the next president? Indeed, what if the next president is ultimately inconsequential, like a human puppet in a cosmic war between good and evil? What if the only real hope for humanity came 2000 years ago on a bloody cross as God gave His life for man? What if the only true change started with the One, the Messiah, freeing hearts, and revolutionizing lives? What if the only response that will bring hope and change is when I start living the implications of the words and the Way of Jesus out in my life?
"People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them." -Hebrew 11:14-16 (NIV)
Thursday, December 4, 2008
In recent days, I have been hearing with increasing frequency conversations about the future. It seems that the recent economic crises have shaken us from our collective drowsiness, and brought to the fore our deep-seated fears that somehow our way of life may be changing, and we are helpless to stop it. It doesn’t seem to matter whether those I talk to are religious or not, whether they claim the Way of Jesus, or some other way, the despair seems to be prolific.
So what’s up with that?
Man, listen here! We have so much to rejoice over – and we are unsettled by the prospect that our money will go away?
So what’s up with that?
Man, listen here! We have so much to rejoice over – and we are unsettled by the prospect that our money will go away?
“I’m giving you peace – my peace, peace that nothing and no-one else can give,
and I’m giving it to you” -Jesus
Let’s not forget that we have hope, hope that transcends the shifting uncertainties and swirling possibilities of time and space, and we who claim Jesus the Christ have staked all we are or have on one Hope beyond all hopes. The Hope of a God who came and showed us the sheer impotence of the existential, the vast inconsequence of what is, bringing us something better in a Kingdom not of this world. The question is, do we really believe?
“I know WHO I have believed in, and I’m convinced that He is completely able to hold safe that which I’ve given to Him, until He comes into His own…” -Paul
In times of widespread trouble, in days of darkness and doubt, in moments of crisis both personal and communal, we have promises that transcend the temporal limitations of whatever crisis we find ourselves in! I’m talking about hope! Do you think for one moment that He has ceased to be involved? Do you think that this is no longer a story He is telling? Don’t be afraid, don’t despair – this is your moment, because it’s His! This is the time for love to shine, for hope to gleam brightly in the eyes of the Children of the Kingdom. If people ever needed to see what God reigning in our lives looked like, it’s now. If there’s ever been a moment when we need people of faith, hope, and most of all, love- we’re in it!
We have to let go our self, to see outside of our own story, to truly live! All we have to do is take another step after the One who called us, or maybe a first step of faith.
“Don’t grow weary while doing good, when it’s the right season,
we will reap the harvest if we don’t lose heart” -Paul
Today we need to kick fear to the curb and throw ourselves into the opportunities and challenges of life. It’s not as if we’re doing this alone – He’s there, ever step, our best, brightest, and only hope…
Peace,
The Suburban Vagabond
Let’s not forget that we have hope, hope that transcends the shifting uncertainties and swirling possibilities of time and space, and we who claim Jesus the Christ have staked all we are or have on one Hope beyond all hopes. The Hope of a God who came and showed us the sheer impotence of the existential, the vast inconsequence of what is, bringing us something better in a Kingdom not of this world. The question is, do we really believe?
“I know WHO I have believed in, and I’m convinced that He is completely able to hold safe that which I’ve given to Him, until He comes into His own…” -Paul
In times of widespread trouble, in days of darkness and doubt, in moments of crisis both personal and communal, we have promises that transcend the temporal limitations of whatever crisis we find ourselves in! I’m talking about hope! Do you think for one moment that He has ceased to be involved? Do you think that this is no longer a story He is telling? Don’t be afraid, don’t despair – this is your moment, because it’s His! This is the time for love to shine, for hope to gleam brightly in the eyes of the Children of the Kingdom. If people ever needed to see what God reigning in our lives looked like, it’s now. If there’s ever been a moment when we need people of faith, hope, and most of all, love- we’re in it!
We have to let go our self, to see outside of our own story, to truly live! All we have to do is take another step after the One who called us, or maybe a first step of faith.
“Don’t grow weary while doing good, when it’s the right season,
we will reap the harvest if we don’t lose heart” -Paul
Today we need to kick fear to the curb and throw ourselves into the opportunities and challenges of life. It’s not as if we’re doing this alone – He’s there, ever step, our best, brightest, and only hope…
Peace,
The Suburban Vagabond
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Politics and the Kingdom continued
Three reasons politics is a unhealthy pursuit for the Church
(1) Contrary to Kingdom growth:
The power of God is manifested in His people when we emulate the example of Christ by demonstrating love with humility, service, and sacrifice. Seizing power over "the world" to change behavior and make it a more comfortable place to be a Christian is contary to both the message of Jesus and the methods He used. Remember, He was the rightful heir to the throne of God, one with the Father, the rightful ruler of the world. But rather than seizing power by force, He chose to "empty Himself" and "make Himself of no reputation" (Phil. 2)
Consider His instructions to those who would follow in his footsteps: "Be as sheep among wolves" Be wise as serpents, gentle as doves" "Turn the other cheek" "Go the extra mile" etc...
The spread of the Kingdom (better translated "Reign of God") was clearly organic, not systemic. The gospel ("good news") of Christ ultimately revolutionizes (and I use revolution in the GK Chesterton sense) the world as it revolutionizes YOU (The Kingdom of Heaven is AMONG you)
(2) Distracts the Church from her true mission with a myopic vision:
The temptation here is to replace the authenticity of a Spirit-led life - Submission to God, respect for authority, completely sold-out Kingdom life - with self: becoming like a God to others (determining their actions by "power-over"), being the authority (ie..."The Moral Majority"), and having our own kingdoms stamped with a "Christian" label to justify our idolatry.
When this happens you have law over love, you replace Kingdom life with nationalism, Godliness with gain, humility and submission with power over others.
Once again, the followers of Christ that manifest this organism known as the Church were intended to BE the embodiment of the "Reign of God" by living a life that imitates Christ in message and method.
(3) It doesn't work:
There is no historically demonstrable example of the seizure of power being beneficial for the cause of Christ (a few negative examples would be the crusades, the reformation, and the slave trade) . Rather, the Church flourishes when believers are living a life that is completely Kingdom-focused regardless of their situation and occupation and outside of the world's methods of gaining power. From the first 300 years of the Church to the modern spread of the movement of Jesus in China, God has continually demonstrated His willingnes to manifest His power when His people humble themselves, seek HIS face, and turn from their OWN sins.
grace, peace, love,
michael
phil 1:20-21, 3:7-10
(1) Contrary to Kingdom growth:
The power of God is manifested in His people when we emulate the example of Christ by demonstrating love with humility, service, and sacrifice. Seizing power over "the world" to change behavior and make it a more comfortable place to be a Christian is contary to both the message of Jesus and the methods He used. Remember, He was the rightful heir to the throne of God, one with the Father, the rightful ruler of the world. But rather than seizing power by force, He chose to "empty Himself" and "make Himself of no reputation" (Phil. 2)
Consider His instructions to those who would follow in his footsteps: "Be as sheep among wolves" Be wise as serpents, gentle as doves" "Turn the other cheek" "Go the extra mile" etc...
The spread of the Kingdom (better translated "Reign of God") was clearly organic, not systemic. The gospel ("good news") of Christ ultimately revolutionizes (and I use revolution in the GK Chesterton sense) the world as it revolutionizes YOU (The Kingdom of Heaven is AMONG you)
(2) Distracts the Church from her true mission with a myopic vision:
The temptation here is to replace the authenticity of a Spirit-led life - Submission to God, respect for authority, completely sold-out Kingdom life - with self: becoming like a God to others (determining their actions by "power-over"), being the authority (ie..."The Moral Majority"), and having our own kingdoms stamped with a "Christian" label to justify our idolatry.
When this happens you have law over love, you replace Kingdom life with nationalism, Godliness with gain, humility and submission with power over others.
Once again, the followers of Christ that manifest this organism known as the Church were intended to BE the embodiment of the "Reign of God" by living a life that imitates Christ in message and method.
(3) It doesn't work:
There is no historically demonstrable example of the seizure of power being beneficial for the cause of Christ (a few negative examples would be the crusades, the reformation, and the slave trade) . Rather, the Church flourishes when believers are living a life that is completely Kingdom-focused regardless of their situation and occupation and outside of the world's methods of gaining power. From the first 300 years of the Church to the modern spread of the movement of Jesus in China, God has continually demonstrated His willingnes to manifest His power when His people humble themselves, seek HIS face, and turn from their OWN sins.
grace, peace, love,
michael
phil 1:20-21, 3:7-10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.JPG)
