If Burgess Meredith and Britney Spears had a love child . . . .

If Burgess Meredith and Britney Spears had a love child . . .
So I went to a "mega-church" this weekend, for the first time in quite a while and its got me thinking about all kinds of things. Having been way more involved in church politics than I would like to admit, I am still trying to repent of some of the awful things that I have done in my past when handling church business. With that said, I am always trying to chew over things more so I no longer make the same mistakes and sometimes I think pointing out positives and negatives can really create some good dialogue. So here it is – A review, or a good chewing over if you will. Feel free to chime in

The church was in Cincinnati – that's the only info that's relevant - some of you that know me might know which church it is, but for the purpose of this discussion, its not necessary

The good:
1.The music was excellent – as I would expect it to be when you can pull from such a big talent pool

2.The service featured creative sketches that were both funny and entertaining – Its great to keep people laughing and to not always be serious. I think this helps people stay focused. If the church needs anything, it needs to remember how to laugh

3.Multitude of programs and small groups – If you are willing to call someone or speak out, it would be easy to get involved. There is something for everyone – and for any focus you may want

4.The atmosphere – It was electric. It was Super Bowl Sunday. People were tailgating in the church parking lot. Free Hot Dogs, Free Coffee. A lot of young, good-looking professionals. Hipsters volunteering everywhere. People that look like me, or at least, look as hip as I want to feel (this truly is a compliment)

Rather than saying bad, or the bad, I am just going to ask questions. Questions I would ask of any church, for the most part, and questions that I believe should be asked. *No church is perfect – sorry to break that to ya, but considering its full of ruffians like me and you, what could we possibly expect?

Questions:
At one point should a church spend its money on itself rather than on the needs of its community, city, nation and world?

Are custom football jerseys at $300 a pop necessary for one Sunday?

Is it important to buy 10,000 people who come to your church a hot dog (presumably mostly from an affluent neighborhood) rather than buying 10,000 hotdogs for people who wouldn't otherwise eat today?

Could we set a better example in spending money on others than spending money on ourselves?

Are too many churches hiding behind the idea "that we are doing this to save souls" to justify spending money on themselves and their congregants?

Does the parable of the rich man and the widow have something to say about this (Mark 12:41-43), or does the multitude of deeds a large church can do put them in God's positive column, even if they are still spending lots on themselves?

Can we preach about the difference about knowing God's will and doing God's will and mention tithing to the church in the same message?

Can the cornerstone of a message's gimmick/theme revolve around the identity of a head pastor – or more simply stated, should we make a big deal about who the head pastor is at all times (or even more simply, can you lead a mega-church and not come off as arrogant)?

What is more important, the amount of money you take in, or the amount of people that attend? Or, how do we measure success?

Just because someone attends the "god-show" are we to assume they took anything from it?

Does spectacle equal experience?

Is it a mega-churches responsibility to lead the way in recycling by Serving God and Saving the Planet?

Does a large church have the responsibility to serve fair trade coffee so they can look the attendees in the eye and say "this cup of coffee did not oppress anybody" even if it means they have to spend a little more? Or is coffee unnecessary anyway?

Are gadgets God-approved spending, since after all, it gives people a better experience?

Do people attend because its God, or because its cool?

Is a mega-church a gateway, and can they only take you so far?

When you focus on toys and gadgets and gimmicks is it still possible to focus equally, or even more so, on God?

Is a mega-church like a Wal-mart to your local mom and pop shop?

I honestly don't have a lot of answers to these questions. I have heard stock answers to many of them and have spoken passionately about others, but either way, I think they are worth asking. I cannot condemn any church. I have my thoughts and opinions.

I am against picketing, I am just not sure how to show it

Its already time to be thinking about this next election. I would urge you really get involved in whats going on. True, Jesus came to establish his own kingdom, but we currently live in a world that is ruled by a government. It is our call to be a part of bringing God's kingdom into this world. Government, love it or hate it, affects our world. We need to think about these issues. Read, watch, learn. Do not just vote Republican because you think thats what "christians" do. Do not just vote Democrat because the Republicans are evil. Do not vote what will only benefit you, even if it means the oppression of millions. A lot of politicians are crooked, on both sides. Who has the greatest moral character? Who will do whats best for human rights and whats best for America? If these are different, how do we balance them? Should I vote for something that may not be great for me, but better for most people? I do not know, but I am trying to find out.



I recommend reading God's Poitics by Jim Wallis. You will probably love it or hate it, say its biased or fair, but either way, it makes a few good points.



And check out www.dehp.net/candidate It helps you determine which candidate best fits your beliefs. Do not just give gut reactions to the questions, think about the issues, read about the issues and ask, how does this relate to God's kingdom, if at all?



Interestingly enough, my two highest scoring candidates were split, one a republican and one a democrat. Interesting.



Just spitballin' here but how can someone be pro-life and pro-war? or pro-death penalty?

How can someone be pro-union and wear clothes made by sweatshop labor?

How can someone be anti-trade with eastern countries, anti-alasken drilling, yet drive a car that gets 2 miles to the gallon and oppose alternative energies?

How can I have fit into all of these categories at one stage of my life?

How can you even begin to simplify these issues into one stupid question?

Helen Hunt was never sexy

FARGO, N.D. -- A bank is giving its full-time employees $1,000 each and part-time employees $500 each. There's one condition - use it for people in need.

State Bank & Trust Chief Operating Officer Michael Solberg said each full-time employee will receive $1,000 and each part-time employee will receive $500, as part of a $502,000 "Pay it Forward" initiative.

"We're going to really see some huge impact on our community," Solberg said.

Employees were told not to use the money for themselves, their families or families of other bank employees. The bank asked each employee to document the good deed with a video camera. The deadline is June 30.

The employees were told they may choose an individual cause, pool their money for a larger project or collaborate with donors outside the bank. The privately owned bank has more than 500 employees, he said.

The bank made the announcement over the weekend.

In previous years, the Fargo-based bank has taken 5 percent of the company earnings and divided it up at holiday time among employees.



Why are we so afraid to do anything creatively? Why is a bank doing this, and not a "christian" organization? I hate to use a buzzword, but its clear why no one thinks God is relevant. These are the things we need to start doing if we want to impact the world. And just stop it with your sarcasm, "oh, what if these people use the money on themselves?" We need to give more people more chances to do the right thing, they may surprise us. We need to create and follow initiatives and ideas that are outside the "norm." We need to stop indulging ourselves. Its a simple formula that none of us quite understand, the more we invest in ourselves, the less good comes out of it, the more we invest in others, the better world we create. God gave us minds to be creative, this is why music and the arts are so important, they tap into who God created us to be. Use your frickin' noggin and lets go out and make a difference

Oh Gravity

And this just in, Congress passed a bill that all incandescent light bulbs are going to start being phased out in 2012 and eliminated by 2014. What does this mean? Start Replacing them now with compact fluorescents. They last up to 7 years and save a lot of energy, and if you were to replace thirty bulbs in your house, over the bulbs life span it will save you $500 to $1500 on your energy bills. But you shouldn't just do it for you, it saves all kinds of energy and greenhouse gases and stuff.

Turn on the magic of colored lights

Wow, it's interesting to note that I have received more responses with my critique of "Clash of the Choirs" than I have on many things prior. Not that I am complaining, but I am curious if its because I asked for replies, or if people just want to respond more to what's aggravating them. Maybe we are all just angry at something and we want to take it out on Kelly Rowland. Or maybe I really only have something to say when I am talking about pop culture. Either way, it's fascinating and perplexing, but keep up the responses. Argue with me or something. Let's debate serious questions like . . .






"Would you rather be machine-gunned to death by Lite-Brite pegs or be assassinated by Cabbage Patch Dolls?"



Favorite quote lately (paraphrased): You did X? You know there is an age limit on that sh*t, just like Fall Out Boy. -



Guess you had to hear that one in context





Between going and staying the day wavers, by Octavio Paz
Between going and staying the day wavers,
in love with its own transparency.
The circular afternoon is now a bay
where the world in stillness rocks.

All is visible and all elusive,
all is near and can't be touched.

Paper, book, pencil, glass,
rest in the shade of their names.

Time throbbing in my temples repeats
the same unchanging syllable of blood.

The light turns the indifferent wall
into a ghostly theater of reflections.

I find myself in the middle of an eye,
watching myself in its blank stare.

The moment scatters. Motionless,
I stay and go: I am a pause.


..> ..> ..>..> ..>..> ..>..> ..> ..>
..>..>..>
..> ..>

..>..>

I think, therefore I’m not

People often ask me questions about the Emerging Church. What makes this interesting is, I have never claimed to be a member and I guess the great irony is, if you claim to be, your not anyway, and if you say your not, you may be . . .its all rather confusing.

I do not have enough stuff figured out to be accepted by anyone, but either way, here is a good synopsis. . .



What is the Emerging Movement protesting? Let me count the ways.

That's not an attempt to be funny: there is a list of at least ten items the Emerging Movement is protesting, and most would agree that it has its finger on some hot buttons. And let it be said that its primary focus in protestation is the evangelical movement and, sometimes but not always, the mega-churches that so clearly define and set the tone for the evangelical movement.

First, it protests too much tom-fakery in traditional churches. This generation of Christians is not as capable or interested in putting up fronts when it comes to "church" or when it gathers. Instead, it prefers a higher level of honesty. (Now the older generation would contend that hanging out dirty laundry is not advisable, while this generation is not so sanguine about the desire to protect.) Let me give one example: most evangelical Christians don't pray. (Stats show this.) Neither do they read their Bibles as often as they claim. (Stats also show this.) The Emerging Movement doesn't want this hidden in non-confession but wants it out in the open — and then it might even ask if reading the Bible is making a difference or if praying "works." It likes to ask these sorts of questions.

Second, it denounces the divisions in the Church. Why there needs to be so many kinds of Baptists or free church types or so many others kinds of churches is becoming more and more incomprehensible to the emerging generation. If the gospel is what it is supposed to be, if Jesus prayed for us to be "at one," and if we are supposed to be able to do things together, why not worship together? And, it denounces such divisions as much by raiding the entire Church tradition as anything else: increasingly the emerging generation finds things it likes in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions — things that were "no no"s to a previous generation.

Third, it sees cock-sure certainty as a cancer. I will touch on this origins for this tomorrow in my post on postmodernity, but the emerging generation does not find certaintist expressions as amenable as less certaintist expressions — even when the same thing can be said in different ways. Certainty denies the frailty of humans, the limitations of our own minds, the need for conversation and relationship and communal growth, and it sets itself up for collapse the minute a more complete grasp of knowledge is found.

Fourth, it refuses to separate action from articulation. If the older evangelical generation found doctrinal statements the chief way of setting up boundaries, the Emerging Movement wants to see one's articulation expressed by one's action. "By their fruits, ye shall know them…" (I fell into some KJV language, but the point is the same.)

Fifth, it wants individualism absorbed into incorporation: that is, the Emerging Movement encourages personal redemption but solo-Christianity is not what Jesus wants. He wants to form communities of faith not individual Christians. (By the way, this is not a false dichotomy; it is ancient form of hierarchy.) The Emerging Movement will ask as much about how a community's spiritual formation comes about as how individuals are being formed. (So my current poll will soon find an emerging complement.)

Sixth, the Emerging Movement's mindset is against marketing the gospel. It is the simplistic packaging of the gospel, so it is sometimes said, that causes so many problems in the Church today, so the gospel needs to be presented and performed in such a way that its rugged realities are clear in the summons to join in the work of God in our world today.

Seventh, the Emerging Movement despises the idea that Church is what takes place on Sunday Morning, between 11 and noon. Sunday morning, if it is at that time or another time, is when the Church gathers to worship and share life, but the work of the Church is what occurs during the week as the local community of faith performs the gospel. Frankly, for many, stomach flu breaks out when they think of the ornateness and the elaborateness and the expense of Sunday morning services.

Eighth, the Emerging Movement rejects the hierarchy and pyramid structure of many churches. Authority is in God — Father, Son, Spirit — and not in the pastor or the elders or the board of deacons. Scripture, it must be seen, is an expression of God's authority and not an independent authority. The very notion that one needs pastoral approval for one's calling or one's promptings or what one is permitted to do many find unconscionably usurping of God's authority.

Ninth, the social gospel cannot be separated from the spiritual gospel. The Emerging Movement combines the Liberal social gospel with the Evangelical spiritual gospel and comes up with something that is neither Liberal nor Evangelical. To use my words (and you can trace this in my Emerging Movement Category in the sidebar), it wants a "purple gospel." It is not so much a denial of either but a combination of both. (There's a big difference in those two ideas.)

Tenth, the Emerging Movement wants to be Worldly. Not in the Johannine sense or in the Pauline sense, but in the Kingdom sense: it knows that God is working to restore the entire creation into an expression of his glory and so it summons everyone to participate in the grant work of God to restore and redeem. It embraces culture and state and politics and business and it protests old-fashioned Christian separationism and enclave Christian circles. The walls between Church and World, so it is suggesting, need to be impermeable and not permeable, they need to be knocked down so the passage from one to the other is an imperceptible as the passing of Jesus from one person to another.

1776

I was watching the Democratic Presidential Debate on TV the other day (I DVRed both the Republican and Democratic debates hoping to ascertain some idea of what's going on), and a questions was asked that still has me stunned. Now let me preface this by saying, several years ago I would have considered myself a hard core Republican, but that was mostly because the "Church" taught me that's what Christians were – Oh how foolhardy – and we wonder why no one wants to be a Christian; We NEVER seem to think for ourselves. Anyways, I have more recently decided that I am going to try to vote for the person who I think will do the best for the most people and not just for me. (Unlike say Christians who vote their agenda, or to be fair, people who only vote pro-union to increase their own wage or . . . ) See, too often we have made politics about what I can get out of it as supposed to the "what's best" approach. But I digress.

The question was "Is human rights more important than national security?" Let me preface briefly by saying the question arose from discussions of who to handle the war and other issues of diplomacy and trades in other countries. Let that questions sink in for a minute. What is really being asked here? We are talking about human rights measured against National Security. What sorts of implications do you get from this? Maybe my interpretation is a little extreme, but are we actually saying is it ok to disregard the rights of a human (whether they be guilty or innocent (and how do we define guilty) in the eyes of America) in favor of protecting our nation (or in other words, whats ours, or rather, what we think we have earned?) In other words, is it cool if we screw everyone else to favor and protect ourselves?

Have we really earned anything? Or is everything truly a gift from God? How much of your life have you acquired and how much of it is birthright? Does the American lifestyle make you better, or just more socially unaware? Should I be thankful to America because it affords me the freedom to question it? Is our world the world?

Here is what was scary. Every candidate said national security was more important, but then again, whether I say it or not, I think my lifestyle tells people I feel the same way. For that I repent, and am sorry. But how do I change? As a follower of Jesus, I cannot theoretically ever favor my luxuries over basic human rights . . . but I do. And its awful.