Innovation is a far better word than "change."
What good American can be against innovation?
It is through inventions (which I am sure has some greek-latin root or something) that we are able to type, play Madden football, smoke good cigars, play poker and do all the "fun" things in life. On the other hand, change is seen as an interuption to our ordered life. Change is moving to New Jersey, change is getting fired, change is often forced, cumbersome and painful. Innovation is fluid, risky and emergent (throwing that out there so I can rise in the GOOGLE rankings).
Last night Erwin McManus of Mosaic spoke about innovation as a necessity for evangelism in the church. Innovation provides space for unique people, "normal" people to be brought before the cross. Innovation says that I am not satisified with the status quo and want to overlap what is with what will be.
To me, that is wonderful, who could be against that?
Then I have to remember that many people don't see the overlapping as innovation, but change. The VP of GM motors who was interviewed on NBC Nightly News two nights agao, said that they [GM] were not going to "change" the way they made cars, they believe that the system they have in place is suffecient. Is it that mindset that makes it appearant why 44% of Americans now drive foreign cars? Compare that to GOOGLE, whose creators invented a logrythym that will constantly update, reorder, redirect and restructure their search results (their product).
Now which organizational structure would the PC(USA) fall under? Aren't we being "standardized" by Princeton Seminary and our CPM's to act, look, talk and think theologically the same, because we fear having to change?
So now I know why "Christians" are concerned about allowing change or innovation to occur (And I am not talking about plugging in a guitar and using powerpoint, I am talking about providing a space where diversity and even heresies can be expressed). I am talking about allowing "normal" people to be heard. I see why there is concern that postmodernism, emergent, hindus, catholics, whatever, might say something that converges with my understanding of "truth"; suddenly I would have to change my understanding of Biblical truth. But I have to believe that these "outsiders" cannot damage God. There may be some distortion of God, but it is through distortion that amazing innovations have and will come about.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Red Lake
Earlier, friends mourned English teacher Neva Rogers, the only teacher slain in the shootings.
While some Red Lake High School students crouched under their desks in a corner, Rogers stood out in the open and began to pray.
"God be with us. God help us," 15-year-old Ashley Lajeunesse heard Rogers say after telling students to hide as Jeff Weise shot through a window and marched into the room.
"He walked up to that teacher with the shotgun and he pulled the trigger but it didn't fire," said Chongai'la Morris, 14. "Then he pulled out his pistol and he shot her three times in the side and once in the face."
Rogers, 62, was the only teacher killed by Weise, a depressed teen who shot to death his grandfather and his grandfather's girlfriend, then went to the school and killed Rogers, a security guard and five students before shooting himself.
I am realizing how hollow our theological words often ring. As I want to claim that God is redeeming his creation now--and drawing us back to himself, I am reminded of the pain and suffering we go through.
That pain and suffering is where God lies, yet we try to move the sufferer along. Tell them that God is in control, that it is all part of God's plan. How ridiculous. My God better be able to shed a tear over Red Lake, over Columbine, over Iraq, over WTC, over Auschwitz...
It is admist that evil that God must be present. As the bullets fly and hate is unleashed, I pray that God is not there to stop the pain, because pain is inevitable, but to heal the pain.
I don't want to argue, discuss God's providence--it is not that He is "directing" or "orchestrating" the pain and suffering in our lives. I want to know-see-feel what the impact is upon Christ. What if Christ is being crucified (suffering) again and again due to us/me?
The Prayers of God (small portion)
Thou?
Thee?
I lynched Thee?
Awake me, God! I sleep!
What was that awful word Thou saidst?
That black and riven thing—was it Thee?
That gasp—was it Thine?
This pain—is it Thine?
Are, then, these bullets piercing Thee?
Have all the wars of all the world,
Down all dim time, drawn blood from Thee?
Have all the lies and thefts and hates—
Is this Thy Crucifixion, God,
And not that funny, little cross,
With vinegar and thorns?
Is this Thy kingdom here, not there,
This stone and stucco drift of dreams?
…Prayest Thou, Lord, and to me?
Thou needest me?
Thou needest me?
Thou needest me?
Poor, wounded soul!
Of this I never dreamed. I thought—
Courage, God,
I come!
by W.E.B. DuBois
What if our actions are crucifying the Lord far worse than the thorns did? What if God needest me?
Well I sure as hell aint doing a good job.
Sunday, March 27, 2005
Tivo: Religion-A Pop Culture History
Check this episode out if you can.
VH1 Religion: A Pop Culture History
Caught the final 15 minutes which talked about Simpsons and Creation Fest. Interviewed folks from Relevant Magazine. Talked about Audio Adrenaline and their transformation from a small christian band, to a popular band make waves in the mainstream.
Granted not all exposure is good exposure (remember Bakker), it is interesting to see the transformation occuring between the Church and the culture. Hopefully the church can take this "pop" exposure and making a lasting imprint.
VH1 Religion: A Pop Culture History
Caught the final 15 minutes which talked about Simpsons and Creation Fest. Interviewed folks from Relevant Magazine. Talked about Audio Adrenaline and their transformation from a small christian band, to a popular band make waves in the mainstream.
Granted not all exposure is good exposure (remember Bakker), it is interesting to see the transformation occuring between the Church and the culture. Hopefully the church can take this "pop" exposure and making a lasting imprint.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
art: Ancient of Days
*Note, I did not make the stained glass. But I did take the picutre. For the real masterpiece check out the cloisters
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
"fluid" leadership
What would an emergent leadership structure look like? Our corporate mindset has often associated leadership with delegation, demanding, hierarchy, etc. If you disagree, notice on the Apprentice who is considered a "good leader." The church unfortunately has fallen into the same trap.
A good senior pastor would be able to "The head of staff will lead and support a multi-talented staff...This person will be caring and compassionate with a sensitivity to group dynamics and the ability to accept opinions from diverse groups of persons; will be a good communicator/listener with a sense of humor and a desire to relate to all members of the congregation; and will be a dynamic, inspiring preacher who leads us in meaningful and relevant corporate worship. Our head of staff will be an experienced person with the desire to relate to and coordinate our multi-person staff, making use of the many talents of our staff and people. This person will be a visionary with the ability to delegate responsibility and to lead our congregation in ministry and mission." Not gonna tell you what church I got this from, but as you can imagine--this would be an apt description of any senior pastor in a multistaffed congregation.
Here is the question again, emergent implies fluidness, however, as soon as a name/leader/visionary becomes attached to the fluidness it starts to congeal. Therefore, what will the emerging leadership structure look like?
I return to my favorite new word..."Convergence."
A leader needs to become a convergence of ideas, vision, tradition, and most important voices. Not to decipher which is best and make a decision, but to create a space for those ideas to converge.
So basically, this is what I have discovered--emergent leadership, if it wants to remain fluid, must discard the top-down structure for a powerfully-weak leader, that is one who can lead by not leading. Impassable tension.
A good senior pastor would be able to "The head of staff will lead and support a multi-talented staff...This person will be caring and compassionate with a sensitivity to group dynamics and the ability to accept opinions from diverse groups of persons; will be a good communicator/listener with a sense of humor and a desire to relate to all members of the congregation; and will be a dynamic, inspiring preacher who leads us in meaningful and relevant corporate worship. Our head of staff will be an experienced person with the desire to relate to and coordinate our multi-person staff, making use of the many talents of our staff and people. This person will be a visionary with the ability to delegate responsibility and to lead our congregation in ministry and mission." Not gonna tell you what church I got this from, but as you can imagine--this would be an apt description of any senior pastor in a multistaffed congregation.
Here is the question again, emergent implies fluidness, however, as soon as a name/leader/visionary becomes attached to the fluidness it starts to congeal. Therefore, what will the emerging leadership structure look like?
I return to my favorite new word..."Convergence."
A leader needs to become a convergence of ideas, vision, tradition, and most important voices. Not to decipher which is best and make a decision, but to create a space for those ideas to converge.
So basically, this is what I have discovered--emergent leadership, if it wants to remain fluid, must discard the top-down structure for a powerfully-weak leader, that is one who can lead by not leading. Impassable tension.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
art: dreams
but this one is so postcardesque, I thought it may need a comment.
Plus i thought the title
"It is freaking freezing in March in New Jersey right now and I wish I were back here"
would be too long
Friday, March 18, 2005
word
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."
For most Christians and Theologians, you can catagorize them into two camps: Literalists and Liberalists. And once they have been catagorized it is easy to dismiss the opposing view.
What would a convergent idea look like though?
One that would proclaim The Central Message of Scripture, and one that would acknowledge the socio-political situation (not to mention the text-criticism) in which the texts were written.
I remember being chastized by my secular university religion professor for inserting into my first Biblical studies argument that Scripture is inerrant because it (an inerrant and infallible document) self-proclaims that in 2 Timothy 3:16. Of course he brought to my attention that the author of that verse would not have been aware of most, if any of the NT texts, so which texts was "he" refering to. My argument had been cut off at the knees.
It is when one locates the inerrancy within the literal text itself that one runs into the problem of original manuscripts, text-criticism (e.g. Mark's ending and the Adulterous Woman story), and canonization.
However, what if we relocate the "Word of God" not in scripture but in the logos. Therefore, the text becomes a living, eternal word, rather than a static historical document or a static inerrant idol.
This would give authority to scripture because its meaning and message are alligned and reveal to us who, what, why and how the Word became flesh. This would also allow for text-criticism, etc. because the value of the message is not found in the literal termonology used by authors, editors and redactors, but instead in the irrenant message revealed within the text, namely the Logos (the Word)
For most Christians and Theologians, you can catagorize them into two camps: Literalists and Liberalists. And once they have been catagorized it is easy to dismiss the opposing view.
What would a convergent idea look like though?
One that would proclaim The Central Message of Scripture, and one that would acknowledge the socio-political situation (not to mention the text-criticism) in which the texts were written.
I remember being chastized by my secular university religion professor for inserting into my first Biblical studies argument that Scripture is inerrant because it (an inerrant and infallible document) self-proclaims that in 2 Timothy 3:16. Of course he brought to my attention that the author of that verse would not have been aware of most, if any of the NT texts, so which texts was "he" refering to. My argument had been cut off at the knees.
It is when one locates the inerrancy within the literal text itself that one runs into the problem of original manuscripts, text-criticism (e.g. Mark's ending and the Adulterous Woman story), and canonization.
However, what if we relocate the "Word of God" not in scripture but in the logos. Therefore, the text becomes a living, eternal word, rather than a static historical document or a static inerrant idol.
This would give authority to scripture because its meaning and message are alligned and reveal to us who, what, why and how the Word became flesh. This would also allow for text-criticism, etc. because the value of the message is not found in the literal termonology used by authors, editors and redactors, but instead in the irrenant message revealed within the text, namely the Logos (the Word)
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
ex niliho
If saying that God created everything from nothing, what problems arise?
What is wrong with saying that we(everything) is subject to God...Isn't that true. Isn't the ultimate point of reference over and above all things? Otherwise he is not the ultimate.
And isn't that the first step in sharing the gospel--helping individuals realize that there is something greater than themselves out there.
But the tension arrives in the fact that if God is over/above us he is not among us. Yet if he is only among us, then he is subject to us. And that subjection is precisely what occured in Jesus. The risk of the incarnation is that Jesus Christ came and subjected himself to us. So if the Word lives, then doesn't that immence live? Isn't that the end of the Gospel presentation, that we this immenence (presence of Christ in us and the world) will be perfected and eternal.
I want to know what the "masses" think about God.
I want to know what the majority of Christians preceive God as.
I doubt that most would want to live in this tension.
Perhaps that is why i have been drawn to the Brian Nicholas/Ashley Smith case (the courtroom shooting case). Brian called Ashley the angel sent to her from God...obviously that is wrong on the level that she is not an angel. I pray that my God did not have those events occur (a determinist, transcendent God) so that an "angel" could appear to Nicholas. Similarly, I pray that my God was not absent from those events suffering alongside the victims, speaking from the faith of Smith and convicting the sin of Nicholas. Isn't it too simplistic to say that God had predetermined those events, yet isn't it too complex to say that God had predetermined those horrific events?
In the end, I yet again left with the Christian tension.
God created out of nothing, yet God, himself, was created in that act.
What is wrong with saying that we(everything) is subject to God...Isn't that true. Isn't the ultimate point of reference over and above all things? Otherwise he is not the ultimate.
And isn't that the first step in sharing the gospel--helping individuals realize that there is something greater than themselves out there.
But the tension arrives in the fact that if God is over/above us he is not among us. Yet if he is only among us, then he is subject to us. And that subjection is precisely what occured in Jesus. The risk of the incarnation is that Jesus Christ came and subjected himself to us. So if the Word lives, then doesn't that immence live? Isn't that the end of the Gospel presentation, that we this immenence (presence of Christ in us and the world) will be perfected and eternal.
I want to know what the "masses" think about God.
I want to know what the majority of Christians preceive God as.
I doubt that most would want to live in this tension.
Perhaps that is why i have been drawn to the Brian Nicholas/Ashley Smith case (the courtroom shooting case). Brian called Ashley the angel sent to her from God...obviously that is wrong on the level that she is not an angel. I pray that my God did not have those events occur (a determinist, transcendent God) so that an "angel" could appear to Nicholas. Similarly, I pray that my God was not absent from those events suffering alongside the victims, speaking from the faith of Smith and convicting the sin of Nicholas. Isn't it too simplistic to say that God had predetermined those events, yet isn't it too complex to say that God had predetermined those horrific events?
In the end, I yet again left with the Christian tension.
God created out of nothing, yet God, himself, was created in that act.
Sunday, March 13, 2005
base run
Roughly 11.5 miles
Out the canal to Kingston and back.
c2.15: 18.38
2-3: 8.55
3-4: 9.14
4-5: 10.07
5+: 5.32
-6: 5.26
6-7: 9.22
7-8: 8.26
8-9: 8.11
9-10: 7.59
10-11.5: 9.30
Total: 1:40
Out the canal to Kingston and back.
c2.15: 18.38
2-3: 8.55
3-4: 9.14
4-5: 10.07
5+: 5.32
-6: 5.26
6-7: 9.22
7-8: 8.26
8-9: 8.11
9-10: 7.59
10-11.5: 9.30
Total: 1:40
Thursday, March 10, 2005
redundancy
Thinking back to my experience in Charlotte, I am amazed at the number of churches doing the exact same types of ministry. How ineffective and un-Christ's-bodylike. Churches "compete" for new members, but really those new members were old members somewhere else.
"Infrastructure convergence not only eliminates redundant activity across entire federations (if you are Presbyterian, insert Presbyteries); it also creates an environment of complete transparency and shared data, allowing everyone in the federation to see the same reality" (Millenium Matrix, 166).
What if churches in a particular town, city, whatever stopped repeating what was being done somewhere else and began a fresh, new ministry. Or if they really felt called to provide a particularly redundant ministry, what if they were to partner up.
What would happen if someone stood up in a presbytery meeting and said, "I think we should pool all the PC(USA) small groups happening in this town into one conglomerant and desperse new members into these small groups based on geography rather than particular church membership."* The problem is that we believe our small group ministry is better than 2nd Presbyterians, so we would not want our groups to conglome with them. Well, if my group really is better, then what an opportunity for my small group ministry to lead and equip 2nd's ministry. Or vice versa.
*From Millenium Matrix: "Home groups might consider forming around those who live within a radius of a few blocks rather than importing members from our own churches who have to drive twenty to forty minutes to participate."
"Infrastructure convergence not only eliminates redundant activity across entire federations (if you are Presbyterian, insert Presbyteries); it also creates an environment of complete transparency and shared data, allowing everyone in the federation to see the same reality" (Millenium Matrix, 166).
What if churches in a particular town, city, whatever stopped repeating what was being done somewhere else and began a fresh, new ministry. Or if they really felt called to provide a particularly redundant ministry, what if they were to partner up.
What would happen if someone stood up in a presbytery meeting and said, "I think we should pool all the PC(USA) small groups happening in this town into one conglomerant and desperse new members into these small groups based on geography rather than particular church membership."* The problem is that we believe our small group ministry is better than 2nd Presbyterians, so we would not want our groups to conglome with them. Well, if my group really is better, then what an opportunity for my small group ministry to lead and equip 2nd's ministry. Or vice versa.
*From Millenium Matrix: "Home groups might consider forming around those who live within a radius of a few blocks rather than importing members from our own churches who have to drive twenty to forty minutes to participate."
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
blog.revamped
Alright, lets try and get this thing ticking again.
Since the last post...Linz and I have moved to Princeton, NJ. I have begun my studies at PTSem.
Theologically, I have been stretched, transformed and molded in a new direction. While it has been an exciting adventure so far, I am curious to see where it will end.
The two "big" theological concepts i have been wrestling with this semester are:
1) Universal-Particular:
Building from Tillich and James Cone use of this image, I have come to see how this is absolutely central for any theological reflection, because it shows in essence the paradox of the Christian faith.
First God is universal--while not wanting to go pantheistic--God as creator is present in all things.
Second God is particular--Jesus the Christ was the particular manifestation of God in a certain time and place.
I am still trying to unpack the full implications of our worshiping a universally-particular God, I think this helps with the absolute/ultimate truth arguments.
2) We Worship a Resurrected Christ
This is where i am the most frustrated with many students at PTSem, many seem to forget (or at least not verbalize in their theology) that our Lord has been resurrected from the dead. Therefore, we do not worship the God found only in Scriptures, but rather we worship the Living Word.
Since the last post...Linz and I have moved to Princeton, NJ. I have begun my studies at PTSem.
Theologically, I have been stretched, transformed and molded in a new direction. While it has been an exciting adventure so far, I am curious to see where it will end.
The two "big" theological concepts i have been wrestling with this semester are:
1) Universal-Particular:
Building from Tillich and James Cone use of this image, I have come to see how this is absolutely central for any theological reflection, because it shows in essence the paradox of the Christian faith.
First God is universal--while not wanting to go pantheistic--God as creator is present in all things.
Second God is particular--Jesus the Christ was the particular manifestation of God in a certain time and place.
I am still trying to unpack the full implications of our worshiping a universally-particular God, I think this helps with the absolute/ultimate truth arguments.
2) We Worship a Resurrected Christ
This is where i am the most frustrated with many students at PTSem, many seem to forget (or at least not verbalize in their theology) that our Lord has been resurrected from the dead. Therefore, we do not worship the God found only in Scriptures, but rather we worship the Living Word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)