How to get more young people in church...

Thanks to Anna for pointing me to this: I had to share...

~~~~~

One of the most frequently asked questions I face as I visit parishes is, "How do we get young people to come to church?" I thought this week I would allow a genuine young person to answer that question. Tamie Fields Harkins served for four years as our chaplain to NAU Episcopal Canterbury Fellowship. Last week she had this to say about that question on her blog, which I share with you here.

+Kirk

Here is a step-by-step plan for how to get more young people into the church:

1. Be genuine. Do not under any circumstances try to be trendy or hip, if you are not already intrinsically trendy or hip. If you are a 90-year-old woman who enjoys crocheting and listens to Beethoven, by God be proud of it.

2. Stop pretending you have a rock band.

3. Stop arguing about whether gay people are okay, fully human, or whatever else. Seriously. Stop it.

4. Stop arguing about whether women are okay, fully human, or are capable of being in a position of leadership.

5. Stop looking for the "objective truth" in Scripture.

6. Start looking for the beautiful truth in Scripture.

7. Actually read the Scriptures. If you are Episcopalian, go buy a Bible and read it. Start in Genesis, it's pretty cool. You can skip some of the other boring parts in the Bible. Remember though that almost every book of the Bible has some really funky stuff in it. Remember to keep #5 and #6 in mind though. If you are evangelical, you may need to stop reading the Bible for about 10 years. Don't worry: during those 10 years you can work on putting these other steps into practice.

8. Start worrying about extreme poverty, violence against women, racism, consumerism, and the rate at which children are dying worldwide of preventable, treatable diseases. Put all the energy you formerly spent worrying about the legit-ness of gay people into figuring out ways to do some good in these areas.

9. Do not shy away from lighting candles, silence, incense, laughter, really good food, and extraordinary music. By "extraordinary music" I mean genuine music. Soulful music. Well-written, well-composed music. Original music. Four-part harmony music. Funky retro organ music. Hymns. Taize chants. Bluegrass. Steel guitar. Humming. Gospel. We are the church; we have an uber-rich history of amazing music. Remember this.

10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

11. Learn how to sit with people who are dying.

12. Feast as much as possible. Cardboard communion wafers are a feast in symbol only. Humans can not live on symbols alone. Remember this.

13. Notice visitors, smile genuinely at them, include them in conversations, but do not overwhelm them.

14. Be vulnerable.

15. Stop worrying about getting young people into the church. Stop worrying about marketing strategies. Take a deep breath. If there is a God, that God isn't going to die even if there are no more Christians at all.

16. Figure out who is suffering in your community. Go be with them.

17. Remind yourself that you don't have to take God to anyone. God is already with everyone. So, rather than taking the approach that you need to take the truth out to people who need it, adopt the approach that you need to go find the truth that others have and you are missing. Go be evangelized.

18. Put some time and care and energy into creating a beautiful space for worship and being-together. But shy away from building campaigns, parking lot expansions, and what-have-you.

19. Make some part of the church building accessible for people to pray in 24/7. Put some blankets there too, in case someone has nowhere else to go for the night.

20. Listen to God (to Wisdom, to Love) more than you speak your opinions.

This is a fool-proof plan. If you do it, I guarantee that you will attract young people to your church. And lots of other kinds of people too. The end.

Why new media matter in the Church

The post below comes from Bishop Alan Wilson's (the Anglican Bishop of Buckingham) excellent blog which you can read here

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

People who don’t get it about new media often assume that the revolution in communications through which we are living is driven by desire to play with kit.
Thus the anxious, especially those who do not want to appear anxious, can stay safe from any requirement that they change, by treating the use of contemporary media as a hobby.

“Phew! real change is happening, but belongs in the world of electronic hobbyists, so it can be business as usual for us.”

In fact, communications revolutions are always driven by the ways they change people. The invention of the printing press did have interesting implications for industrial design technology, but greater far was its impact on people’s attitudes to authority including the Church and the government. Once people could read and write, especially en masse, the old assumptions were subject to constant critical scrutiny. And, as the dear old CIA used to say, you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube.

The true implication of the printing press only took hold in the twentieh century, as costs came down sufficiently to allow information that had previously been privileged to flow all over the place. Information revolutions never go backwards, mostly because people have an insatiable thirst for information, and you can’t uninvent the technologies that provide it. One World War I song title expressed the rulers’ dilemma in the face of 20th century mass media technology perfectly — “How do you get them back on the farm, now that they’ve seen Paree?” But at least, then, they could try to control the media.

20th Century press was entirely free, as long as you owned a press. Now we all own a press, and we remain voracious information producers and consumers. We want to know the gossip, we want to know what’s going on, we want to be entertained.

Let me illustrate. Back at school governors in the 90’s we had controversy about making seat belts compulsory on school trips. We wrote to a local MP who assured us he was very much in favour, but the European Union, the square banana lot, wouldn’t allow progress on the issue. One governor had a dial-up connection and downloaded minutes from Brussels, where the UK had singlehandedly opposed compulsory seat belts on school buses, as a restriction of free trade. Same politician. Touché! Our dear leader was instantly outed for a bit of hypocrisy that would have been almost undetectable before.

What is called from all leaders in our new context is not necessarily technical skill, though the old pride that “Sunshine Deserts” British managers used to take in not being able or willing to type, an assertion of their superiority, is obsolete. It’s about radical transparency and mutual accountability. We shouldn’t have too much to fear, for our Scriptures teach mutual submission, redemption, and a call to consistency of life (Holiness). These are not things for which clergy should be too busy (or not). I wonder if our feared deficits in these weightier departments cause as much gut-churning fear of, and resistance to, new media as technical competence or busyness. I hope not.

Social Media for Social Chnge...

As someone who sees the possibilities and uses Twitter and Facebook (feel free to follow me in either or both spaces) to extend the walls of the church into the virtual space, I was delighted to be made aware of this day conference... and I have booked my place...

Social media is changing the way we relate to one another on a daily basis. Globally people are spending more time on Facebook than they are using Google's search engine. Five hundred million people are now communicating via Facebook, and Twitter is reshaping the way that news is spreading around the world. With this amount of change occurring, how can Christians harness the power of social media to bring social transformation?

30 November 2010, All Soul's Church, Langham Place, London
Cost: £15, including lunch and refreshments
Plus, the first 30 people who book will receive a complimentary copy of Leonard Sweet's Jesus Manifesto at the event - so book now to get one!

Iconic Images of Individualism

Internetmonk.com has a had a few blogs on individualism lately. There are particurlarly angry words against individualistic autonomy which is rightly contrasted with extremely communal living of some Christian traditions.

As Americans, individualism is the water that we swim in. We might not actually know what it is. If we do know what it is, we are used to praising it. I myself, am a incurable individualist at times. I do not think that individualism is bad per se, but it certainly affects Christianity in the United States. Pictures, however, are worth a thousand words. Here are some images I dug up when googling "Worship."





Notice a pattern? The images are always of the lone person communing with the God up on high. That individual worships God all by himself, with no one around. Such an emphasis on the individualistic Christian worship is so strong that it was lampooned at Saddleback church

I didn't stop there. If you have ever been through a Bible bookstore you have also seen images of individualism. Like these:




Like the images of worship, these book covers privilege a spirituality that is "me and God." It is a belief in sola ego with sola scriptura. The Osteen book even has it in the title: ...a better you. Again, individualism shows itself better through images than words can express.

There is also another way to notice individualism in our churches and worship. Listen closely to words used in worship songs. Do they emphasis the singular pronouns (I/me) or the plural pronouns (We/us)? The former emphasizes individualism. For sake of contrast here are the lyrics from two songs. First an old hymn:

A mighty fortress is our God.
A bulwark never failing.
Our helper he a mid the flood,
of mortal ills prevailing.
-A Mighty Fortress

here is a more contemporary song:

And I will rise when He calls my name
No more sorrow, no more pain
I will rise on eagles' wings
Before my God fall on my knees
And rise
I will rise
-I will Rise by Chris Tomlin

Notice the pronouns I highlighted. The contemporary song uses individualistic language ("I will rise"), while the older hymn uses communal language ("our God"). Also, try reading both of the lyrics as if they were sentences in your second grade English class. If your teacher said "please underline the subject of this sentence," what would you underline in each of those songs?

Now again, I am not saying that individualism is bad per se, but it does affect American Christianity. This is something we need to be aware of, and evaluate our practices accordingly.

So what do "you" think? ;-)

Anne Rice: I feel free

After a few days of following the recent "scandal" of Anne Rice's departure from the RCC, I feel like I can comment.

Her interview at CNN revealed a few things beyond what was on her facebook page. A nice article from Crosswalk gave some solid admonishments to react to her as something other than a turncoat.

Anne Rice, as is known to most people by now is frustrated by the anti-gay/feminist/democrat tendencies in Christianity. I think this is pretty common among a lot of Christians. The loudest voices in churches tend to be part of that group, but for every speaker that is vilifying homosexuals, feminists, and liberals that are a likely a dozen Christians who fall into at least one of those three categories. If not, I know that there are many more who are equally annoyed with our approach.

Christians who are thoroughly annoyed with the conservative Christian platform, usually find churches that do not endorse the conservative Christian platform.

Anne Rice sounded rather protestant when she was mentioning that she could not find in scripture a basis for the church's political platform. Now in fairness to her opposition, I do not think they ever claimed that it ever was. The RCC position on that matter uses scripture and is also guided by reasonable philosophy and tradition. Rice's detractors, as irritable as they might be, are right to criticize her on this point.

The impression I get from her interview is that Anne Rice is frustated/exhausted, and I can actually sympathize. She's angry because she is a celebrity Christian and probably getting more chaff than she ever wanted. I suspect that a huge motivating factor is a desire to be left alone and not feel the pressure anymore. I do not think she wants anyone getting in her face(book) when ever she posts an article that advocates for things that are close to her heart. Fame, I think, is a bit of killer when it comes to dissenting with Christian authorities.

As POD once angrily sang:

I can't do anything right!
You don't know me. Stay out of my life!
Kick me while I'm down, I don't want you to.
I can't be like you.
I don't want to be like you.

But do watch the video if you care. What is your reaction to Anne Rice?

Books I am reading...

I have always been passionate about the church engaging in a relevant way with people so they can effectively hear and see the Gospel. In other words, I have longed for a church that looks to see what God is doing, and seeks to join in. Or another way still, I am passionate that the church becomes passionate about mission & evangelism.

My recent sabbatical reconnected me with this deep longing & rediscovering the central and primal part the Eucharist plays in reconnecting the church with her modus operandi.

I thank Paul Walker for mentioning one of two recent reads on Facebook...

With all of that said, I have read much about how churches effectively & sustainably grow.

Two inspirational reads recently that deserve wider readership are:

1. 'Breaking the Missional Code' by Ed Stetzer & David Putman.
2. 'Transformational Church' bt Ed Stetzer & Thom S. Rainer.

They are an easy read & share good practise through theory & story. They are focussed on the US church, but the principals translate to the UK church without much difficulty.

Passionate about mission? Passionate about church growth? Passionate about incarnational & transformational ministry?

Buy, read & be inspired by the activity of the Missional God

Part V The Charity of The Listener

The LORD said to me, "Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another and is an adulteress. Love her as the LORD loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes." -Hosea 3:1

Authenticity is a good. The practice of confessing leads us to this and other goals. I think that most Christians would be willing to be a bit more authentic. So what stops this from happening? I suspect this does not happen because there are few who are willing to listen, not because there are few who are willing to speak.

I entitled this blog the “Charity of the Listener (aka the Confessor).” By charity, I do not mean that the listener gives away money or something. I mean it terms of Christian Charity, which is Love that surpasses our conventional thinking of love. Christian Love goes beyond loving what is similar and good in order to love what is alien and ugly. It loves that which normally unloveable. A Biblical example is the symbolic marriage of Hosea to a prostitute. God loves Israel like Hosea loves his wife. God loves that which is alien and ugly, so Christians must be willing to do the same. We have to love sinful people -most of all sinful Christians.

Hearing, and really listening, to someone accuse themselves of sin is an act of Christian charity. It means not responding with judgment and not with quick fixes. However, this act of charity begins long before a friend comes to you and says, “I have sinned.” We need the reputation as the loving listener long before because who would think to come to us otherwise? I have decided that I want to be the kind of Christian who listens. I want to have a reputation of patience and charity. This is reputation that will be hard earned. The first step to do so is to avoid harsh “tough-love” rhetoric. Judging is easy, but graciousness is hard.

Before you think of commenting on what I have said so far, please do this thought experiment with me. Before you start, try to be in a private environment and take a few moments of introspection. If you’re ready, please try this with me: think of one of your worst sins. Think back to a time when you did something or thought something that made you feel ashamed, guilty, and filled with regret. This might be a moment of envy of someone else good blessing. It might also be failure to look out for the needy. Maybe you lost your temper and became hateful. I am not asking you to tell me or anyone else what it is, but think about. Then think about how it made you feel after you realized it was sin.

With that in your heart, imagine meeting a pastor or another Christian who had this to say in a sermon:

Some of you guys are a total joke. I have no respect for you at all. You can’t get a job, keep a job, you can’t keep your hands off a girl, you can’t stop downloading porn… (source)

Or barring that, how about a message like this?

Have you ever thought that there are people who go to hell today that never thought they’d go there? You indulge in your favorite sin…You don’t want to be like God. You just want people to back off when they reprove the thing that you are in love with! (source)

Now do these approaches make you feel like being more open about your sin, or hide it more? If you are anything like most people, these are likely to make you defensive, frustrated, and possibly even a little bitter. If it makes you feel more open, what motivates you to serve God? Fear of reprisal? Guilt? Need for an authority’s approval? How long will such appeals remain effective?

What kind of approach would make you feel comfortable in being open about your sin?

I admit, There was a point in my Christian life were such rhetoric and language really made sense to me. Think though, of how it made you feel. I know I no longer have a positive reaction to this kind of stuff. If I did not have a good reaction to this than likely most other people did not either. I realized that I could not stomach this kind of thing much longer, and decided that I would repent -yes repent- of such behavior and make a conscious effort to do the opposite. I would rather be the kind of person who reminds people of God’s forgiveness, than the one who accuses them of sin.

Christian Charity means a few things. We must put our love and compassion for a sinner above a zealous tendency to renounce sin. We have to replace open contempt with patience. We must drop petty justifications for harboring resentment towards (other) sinners. We must learn to be like God who loves things that are ugly. As God listens the prayers of sinful people, so might he make us able to be listen to them too.

Now it is time for your comments...

...or the start of the series.

Part IV What it Gives us

Now, at long last, we can finally get around to things mentioned in the first blog. That is, our quest for authenticity, community, and humility. Those of you have been patient enough to follow this series from its beginning very likely see where this is going. Hopefully, everything I say in this blog will be mere re-affirmation of you are already thinking and feeling.

Authenticity is surely very obvious here. Authentic Christians are Christians who do not put of a front, do not wear a mask, and do not attempt to hide their sins and their struggles. The practice of confession takes it a step further. It encourages Christians to expose their sins to one another, in order that they may be healed. Interestingly enough, authenticity does not mean a violation of privacy. Those who hear eachother’s sins are assumed never to gossip about them. I myself have a group of a few friends who I confess to and vice versa. I have heard some of their dark secrets and they have heard some of mine. There is no doubt that we keep all this all between us.

Little else will encourage humility more than telling another Christian that you have done something that you are ashamed of. If one is doing the act of confession, you are not in a position to excuse your behavior or otherwise lie to yourself about the mistakes you have done. Interestingly enough, the person hearing the confession also practices humility -by biting his tongue. He must admit to himself that he cannot understand someone’s actions as well as the person who did them. He must be slow to speak and quick to understand. This is not easy for many people to do, especially if they are the person who is used to being heard.

Finally Community both precedes before and comes after the practice of confession. Think of the people who you trust most to tell them the things that you are ashamed of. You are no doubt confident that these people love you deeply. If this is the case, then you are very likely already in a good Christian community. This community is deepened as we become closer to each other, when we choose to love each other as Christ loves us.

There will be one last blog, which points to Christian Love.

Part III Things Luther Said

Be a sinner and sin strongly, but more strongly have faith and rejoice in Christ. -Martin Luther

Now that the Catholic blog is out of the way, it is time to discuss the story of Protestant’s golden boy, Martin Luther. Yes, Martin Luther had problems with the confessional, but it was not the confessional itself that was the problem. His personal struggles, and his reading of the Bible both lead him to a particular understanding of Grace and the priesthood that encourages us to play the role of either penitent (he who confesses) or the confessor (he who listens) for each other.

You may already know about Luther’s personal struggles. Luther once confessed that he could not love God, because he hated him. This was because Luther’s perception of God was that of a painful taskmaster. Luther knew he could be forgiven, but was constantly stressed –to the point of obsessive anxiety- over his sins. Luther could walk out of mass, in which all sins are forgiven, but then he would worry about sins he forgot to confess! Luther was on perpetual treadmill of personal holiness, and he knew he could never measure up.

Luther’s understanding of Grace, based on a reading of Romans and (what I think) a personal spiritual experience lead him to an enlivened understanding of grace. The idea is that a Christian is forgiven. This does not mean that a Christian is forgiven if that Christians pays alms, does the right penance, shows the fruits of the spirit, walks morally upright etc. A Christian is forgiven. There is no kind of “if” clause. There is no qualification. God cancels the debt of all sins, and there is nothing more to be said.

The Christian, will of course, continue to sin. They will always succumb to temptation. So a Christian, based on their behavior, will in many ways look like their same old unregenerate self. Nonetheless, God sees this person as spotless and clean. The Christian wears Christ’s righteousness, which is freely given to him. In Latin, the phrase Simul Justus and Peccator -at the same time justified and sinner- sums it up. Another famous metaphor is that we are sacks of garbage, but that God smells roses. This of course does not mean that a Christian should avoid seeking good and doing good, only that the failure to do so does not affect one’s standing with God and neither will more good deeds earn someone brownie points in the hereafter.

That is the grace of God that is extended to us. How might we extend this same Grace to our neighbors, especially other Christians?

There is another aspect of Luther’s works that is emphasized less: the Universal Priesthood of All Believers. Part of the reason why we forget this is not knowing what sacredotalism is. Sacredotalism is the belief that there is a special group of individuals (priests) who have a special kind of access to God that the ordinary Christian does not. In Catholicism, the priest, and only the priest (with some exception) may perform certain sacraments such as the Lord’s Supper, Baptism, and of course Reconciliation of Sins. The priest plays a mediator type role between individuals and God. Protestantism does not endorse sacredotalism and is said to have abolished it. I reiterate that this partially correct.

Evangelicals may consider it an offense that anyone can intercede between a Christian and God. Luther, however, did not find this as so offensive. He believed, as many Protestants still do today, that God placed us in church for a reason. That reason is that the work of the Holy Spirit is frequently done through other Christians. That Christians represent Christ to each other. How does this differ from sacerdotal teaching? Luther’s believed that there need not be a special group of consecrated individuals. Instead, he said that any believer is potentially a priest for any other. Thus, the priesthood was not abolished in Protestantism, but was expanded to include all.

This means that protestants need not go to a priest or even their pastor. All Christians are potentially priests for eachother. We are able to find people we trust and confess privately to them. Likewise, we have the chance to earn the trust of other people in hopes that they will fill free to confess to us.

Two very good things follow from this. If Christians are really “the same time justified and sinner,” then it encourages all Christians to look at each other in this light. Hearing someone’s confession encourages us to develop this kind of attitude. We can develop churches and communities in which the worst of us can feel accepted. If God really wants to work through us then it puts a huge responsibility on our part to do so. Christians know how our behavior affects our reputation with the world, and we protect our reputation with eachother. Would not people want to join our communities more if we developed a reputation for treating each other better than any other community?

At the beginning of this series, I pledged to connect Confession of Sins to authenticity, humility, and community. Already, you can see where all this might be leading. The specifics though, will be the subject of other blogs.

Thanks for keeping reading.

if it was my funeral...

Here goes, it is time to get morbid.

There have been a few funerals around my world recently. I won't mention whose, as anyone reading this can probably guess if they know me. At these funerals, there are some peculiar practices that -if it where mine- I would probably not like. No, I think of something else entirely.

Sometimes, there is a bit sermonizing at funerals. It is usually about the need to accept Jesus so you can get into heaven when you die. Apparently, this is sometimes accompanied by a full on altar call. So after everyone remembers the deceased, there is a need for the minister to make sure everyone is going to get to heaven too. It seems to make sense. If the Gospel is about going to heaven when you die, then what better time than a funeral to make sure everyone gets to heaven when you do?

Now, don't think that this practice is wrong. Yet, if it were my funeral, I think I would resurrect from the dead right then and give the minister an earful. I am not a fan of altar calls in general. Now altar calls at a funeral seem just plain thoughtless. It is as if evangelical ministers do not know how to do much except evangelize, and they only way they know how is via altar calls. It seems a tacky -and perhaps even manipulative- practice.

Christians believe in things other than making everyone Christian, right? We believe things beyond "go and preach the Gospel", right? We have entire traditions of devotions, practices, and above all hope, yes? Wouldn't some of those be more appropriate for a funeral? This leads me to my next thought...

At many funerals there is a lot of talk about heaven. The soul of the deceased is in eternity with God. The deceased may even still be with us in spirit and watching down. I am reminded of the old Family Circus cartoons in which a ghostly apparition of the deceased grandfather happily watches his grand children from the clouds. This hallmark image of heaven is what is so often invoked at a Christian funeral.

In contrast to altar calls, please do think that this is wrong. This is not what the Bible teaches. It is not what Christian hope is. This is not what Christians are supposed to believe about life-after-death. As one blogger put it, this belief is a second rate consolation prize compared to what God really has for us.

Paul speaks of the redemption of the the body (Romans 8:23) and elsewhere he talks of the raising for the dead (1 Corinthians 15). This is not some metaphor for salvation. This means that our bodies, which are now cursed by sin and will die, will be physically raised up and returned to perfection with the rest of God's good creation some day. It is for this reason that early Christians dug catacombs for their dead, rather than burning them. Their bodies were simply to sacred to be burnt on a Roman funeral pyre.

I think of it this way: my last earthly memories of my late grandfather were when he was tired, sick, old and unable to remember our names. He was so weak that he could not swallow applesauce. But when the dead are raised, his body will not suffer anymore and stroke that so damaged his mind will be of no consequence. I do not think of my grandfather as floating on the clouds watching my life right now, but I look forward to telling him all about it when the dead are raised on the last day.

At my funeral, this is what I want people to talk about it. We can forget about an altar call. We can forget about souls floating to heaven. Whenever I die, and am buried in the dirt, I want whoever speaks to emphasize the future bodily resurrection. That is what I look forward to with the entire Christian world.

I guess that wasn't so morbid after all, huh?

A Christian Hipster reflects on G-pack's Liturgy at New Life

I went to a church service in Jesusland* and I liked it.

I am on my final spring break of the combined times of College and Supra-college. I am spending a good chunk of it in Colorado Springs (Jesusland), CO. Since yesterday was Palm Sunday, I knew I was going to be in church. On Sunday morning, I went to an Episcopalian service with an Episcopalian friend. Later, I was spending time with some quality folk that Sunday. This included a few friends from Azusa Pacific.

I wound up going to New Life, for their evening service. It was run by Glenn Packiam -G-pack, if you will- who is incorporating the Book of Common Prayer, the Nicene Creed, and Readings of scripture into the standard, de facto mega-church liturgy. This is a bold move for G-pack, since many people in that tradition consider the "t-word" and the "l-word" the rote incantations of those who don't rely on the Holy Spirit or whatever. G-Pack has written a nice explanation and defense of what he is doing. I applaud him for his efforts and bravery.

The net result of the service was an interesting concoction. For the New-Life regulars, this was an unfamiliar, and strange addition to what they are used to. For me and other high churchgoers it seemed an odd dilution of the order of worship that we are used to. Reciting the Lord's Prayer and the Nicene Creed is not new to me. Those are what I hear every Sunday. It is not the new addition to the service time. It is the heart of the service time.

G-pack read prayers of confession from the Book of Common prayer. Everyone prayed the Lord's Prayer in a Lectio Divina style. This is clearly not normal of a mega-church, and I think it is a good move. Evangelicalism suffers from doctrinal apathy, historical amnesia, and sometimes presumptuous view of the Holy Spirit. What G-pack does will no doubt help with all these maladies. After all, Evangelicals should not have to go to a Christian college to learn where Christology came from.

Alas though, my high church sensibilities still prevented me from taking communion, though it was offered. The Sacrament of communion was still handled according to the standard liturgy of evangelicalism. The bread and the wine where placed on several different tables out at the periphery of the worship center. Everyone wandered out to them and took them on their own. After that, everybody took the sacrament and then listened to G-pack, who stood center stage. This is a very sharp contrast: the Minister in the center under the spotlight, and the bread and wine lurking by the door way in the shadows.

I do not know what G-pack things on this last issue, but this manner of handling communion will always be odd to those of us deeply ingrained and sympathetic to high church liturgy. When we see take the bread and the wine, we do not feel that we are merely doing a remembrance. We feel that we are touching the the literal, physical, presence of Christ. Because of this, it is odd that the literal physical presence of Christ would be literally and physically on the periphery of the Church. If we are going to the Church for the communion, it is odd that a minister's "talk" (what is formally known as a "sermon") would be central with Christ casually placed beyond the back pews. Even if I suspend my commitment to the real presence, it still seems odd that a sacrament could ever play second fiddle to a sermon on the same Sunday.

Please understand, this last bit is not a criticism of G-pack or New Life. If I am not in a church that is committed to the real presence in the bread and wine, I can't very well fault them for not acting like it. Yet still, I feel that Christians that really understand the traditions that G-pack wants to bring to New Life are generally also committed to a very serious and very privileged view of communion. It will be hard, even after many years, to imagine New Life changing in such a way that it can accommodate this aspect of high church liturgy. What G-pack will do is anyone's guess.

For now though. God bless new life and God bless Glenn Packiam.

How Do We Expell the Immoral Brother?

It has been a few weeks since I’ve blogged. I guess, I can do the standard blogger apology now: sorry for being so absent. That’s just the way it works. School has kept me busy and I have been at a loss for inspiration of what to write, until last night.

I have been thinking lately about the following: when is a church justified in excluding someone from fellowship? This means no longer associating with them. It is spiritual and social ostracization of an individual from Christian fellowship. Most of you reading this are Christians who attend a church. What would you have to do that is bad enough to get kicked out? What could someone do in your church that could get them expelled?

The difficulty of this matter is reconciling two passages of scripture. I hate quoting verses in isolation from context, but here goes.

9I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;
10I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.
11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one.
12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
13But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. -1 Cor 5:9-12 NASB

If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. -1 John 1:8-10

The first verse, I never expect to hear when I go into a church service. The second verse, I am used to hearing. It is usually quoted in Lutheran liturgy just before the communal prayer of confession. If I heard that first verse, I would be a little cautious of the church I was in. Here are my concerns:

Most importantly, every person in a Church (including every Christian) is now and will always be a sinner; forgiven sinners, but sinners nonetheless. Every person in a church is already guilty of covetousness and idolatry. Many other –especially those in brother’s recovery ministries- are drunkards and revilers. Everyone is already guilty of being a “so-called brother” as Paul describes in 1 Corinthians.

This creates a serious problem: who is qualified to judge when someone else should be excluded from fellowship? At what point has someone sinned in such a way that he cannot receive the grace of the Christian community? Consider this: I think most Christians will recognize that there is such a thing as “diminished capacity” when it comes to sin. Someone may sin, but this sin may not be out of malice or a purely volitional desire to defy God. Someone may sin due to emotional hardship. The drunkard may be angry over the loss of his job. The swindler may be acting out of his need to get food. Just watch a season of Lost, and you’ll see that people aren’t always fully culpable of their bad behavior.

It is precisely because of this diminished capacity that a priest, when hearing a confession, does not accuse the penitent of sin. The penitent accuses xomself* of sin. Only the sinner can know xois own inner state well enough to know that he is fully culpable of sin. If we are thinking of expelling the immoral brother, than we have a serious problem. We assume that other Christians know the sinner’s state-of-mind well enough that they can exclude xom from fellowship. Wouldn’t there be some hypocrisy in doing so?

I also see a serious and insurmountable interpretative problem with 1 Cor 5:8-12. Anytime we read an epistle, it is important to remember that it was written at a specific time, to a specific audience for specific issues. Paul’s epistles are not some kind of law book that was written yesterday. This doesn’t mean that the epistles have nothing to say to us, but it does mean that if we don’t first get a hold on what they meant to original audience, we will likely distort the message by reading our own world into the letters.

In 1 Cor 5:9-12, Paul refers to the letter he wrote to the Corinthians prior to 1 Corinthians. He refers to a letter he wrote to Corinth, but that we do not have today. Whatever was in that letter, might’ve shed some more light on what was going on in Corinth and who this individual was that was being so immoral. Who was this the immoral brother? What did say and do? How did Paul understand what was transpiring? Did Paul have any personal interactions with him? Did Paul himself recognize the difficultly of one sinner judging the other? That letter is no longer with us, sadly.

It is like reading someone else e-mail conversation, in which two small businesses owners discuss negotiate an important purchase, but we have only the forth and fifth emails. We are completely ignorant of what the deal is and why it is important and possibly who is even selling.

It seems that anytime we even consider that we feel we need to expel the immoral brother, we face at least two problems. How do we know when one person’s sin is enough to make the worthy of expulsion when all Christians do things that are sinful? Also, we have to admit that when reading 1 Cor 5:9-12 there is a significant and likely relevant amount of information that we do not have access to. This makes fully understanding what Paul was insisting on difficult to get a full grasp on. We cannot fully understand the background of the passage.

When and how do we know when we should expel the immoral brother?

=============
*I bemoan the fact that the English language does not have a gender neutral, third person, singular pronoun. I use xo, xom, xois as anyone might use she, her, hers or he, him, his when a gender neutral pronoun is needed.

Spamming for Jesus: A Christian Hipster Pleads for Sanity

When Gutenberg invented the printing press, it had an incredibly wonderful effect on Christianity. Whereas for centuries only a few people could a hold a Bible, after the invention the Bible was then manufactured and distributed at an alarmingly fast rate. It was the original information age. It sparked literacy across Europe. Thank God for the movable type!

Now, centuries later, we are in a new information age with not only the internet, but also with email, cell-phones, twitter, podcasts and everything else. Good? Sure, I'm a blogger. I love it. There is however, a bit of abuse; a dark side to this supra-information age. What happens when many Christians start compulsively sending information to other Christians? When does it reach overkill?

Can we stop the Christian spamming?

Yes Christian spamming comes in many ways. It might be a vaguely spiritual email message. They are forwarded again and again. The headline might read "How has God blessed you today?" or "Twelve Reasons why God loves you." They can also be cause oriented like "Protect Traditional Marriage" or "Pray for Christians in China." They are often accompanied with stirring images, such as a "Precious Moments" doll, Thomas Kincaide painting, or an image of Korean charismatics in prayer ecstasy.

Other types of Christian spamming might pop up in the cell phones or mobile devices. How about a Christian twitter? 144 characters of a reminder to pray or short devotion delivered throughout the day? Maybe a Bible verse from your pastor, small group leader, or such might be shared through iPhone contact list. Even facebook feeds, which are certain kind of spam, have applications reminding us "What God wants us to know" because no Christian, before facebook, was able to discern that. No sir!

Again, I have to say it: Please stop the Christian spamming!

For those you send the text messages, twitters, and emails, I think I can see where you might be coming from. God, through the Holy Spirit, will send you something that you find warm, enlightening, and otherwise insightful. When we find something insightful -especially when it comes to our faith- it is completely natural to want to share it with everyone that we care about. When it comes to the Christian causes, there is no doubt about the urgency of the issues at hand. Again, it is natural to want to share it with everyone.

But try to see it from the world of the people you are spamming. We all come from our own unique backgrounds. We are all already reading our own devotional material. We probably have a stack of Christian literature on our bookshelves. We even have our own lists of blog feeds, email lists, and news articles that we all subscribe to. Because of all this, what will be insightful, warm and fuzzy, to one Christian (the spammer) may not have the same affect on another Christian (the spammee).

It gets annoying sometimes. It can feel invasive, like someone saying, "this beer is so good! You gotta try it!" and then pouring a pint into my empty glass after I'm already full. Because of this, most Christian spam goes straight to the virtual trash-can.

Now I writing a blog here, so I am as much a fan of technology and sharing and communicating things about God through technology as anyone. Probably more so. My point though, is this: there can be "to much of a good thing." Good things need to be presented right way at the right time with the right sensitivity from the presenters. That sensitivity means not sending out spiritual insights as if it were mass-marketing junk mail.

Can we please stop the Christian spamming?

De Fabulas Fidorum

"Concerning the Stories of the Faithful"

If God wills it, I will be helping lead a "guided autobiography" at Mosaic in the near future.

If God wills it.

In any case I have been thinking about personal stories in Christian churches, or as they are commonly referred to as "testimonies." Everyone has one. The new converts have them and the older Christians have them. Whose do we hear more often?

I think, for better or for worse, churches tend to privilege a certain kind of personal story. The personal stories that get told through the projectors or in front of the mic are often the most dramatic. Usually, churches look for stories that follow the following narrative:

1. Before I knew Christ, I felt like a totally unfulfilled loser.
2. Then I met Christ.
3. Now I don't feel like a unfulfilled loser anymore.

Through design or habit the stories are often those who overcame the drug addiction, severe depression, hateful sin, or where the rock bottom losers before they knew Christ. They can be inspiring and hope filled for other people in the congregation. They serve as tangible reminders of God's work in people's lives.

I think there is a small downside though. In privileging personal stories like this, there is a tendency to ignore the personal stories of those who have been faithful their whole lives, or have been Christians for a very long time. The celebration of personal stories tend to be from new converts only, and it is seldom that you hear the stories of those who have not had such a rocky, emotionally shaky, journey to the Christian faith.

How do the long-time Christians see the personal stories of the new converts? Almost always in a positive way, for sure. Older Christians love to listen to these as much as the new converts love to share. Yet I remember something I read in an interview with Christian musician Steven Curtis Chapman years ago. He confessed that he always regretted just a little bit that he, as life-long Christian, did not have the a personal story as dramatic as those of the new converts. I think he speaks for a lot of people.

There are probably two ways to look at this. On one hand, this could be a strange kind of envy. Remember the parable of the prodigal son? Remember the other brother? It is that kind of envy. The other brother was clearly jealous of the prodigal's special treatment when he returned home. Life-long Christians and older Christians need to guard carefully against this. Envy, after all, steals our joy and gives us not even the most vaporous benefit in return.

On the other hand, I think Churches should be careful to listen to the stories of the life-long Christians as well. The personal stories of those who converted long ago or even when they were children may not follow the sought-after narrative, but are important testimonies of God's work as well. They help the church become more self-aware, as these stories might put to light unseen failures or uncelebrated successes. It also ensures that older Christians do not eventually feel marginalized as their struggles and victories do not go unacknowledged by the rest of their churches. Everyone, after all, wants to share their story.

Please understand, I am not saying that we need to cut back on the dramatic, new convert, stories and replace them. I think that there is plenty of room for both. There is no need to think of this as a competition of whose stories are more worthy for celebration.

What's your story?

Why I Will Never Get Away from the Centrality of the Eucharist

In my previous blog, I listed problems when it comes to placing a minister’s sermon as the pinnacle of Sunday worship. I appropriately tagged that blog as an “iconoclasm” since I know that many who may come across this blog consider such a set up as something so fundamental that I might as well be questioning sanctity of scripture itself. Thing is, I think most people who read enough theology know that iconoclasms are necessary from time to time. Every once in a while you have to scratch at metaphorical icon if for no other reason to get people thinking about why it is there in the first place.

But I would be total cliché tool if that is all I did right? Yes, the average 20-something post-evangelical Christian who attended a private Christian college probably does this all the time. Those of who are (sadly) more well-read than many professional ministers have a lot to say about what’s wrong with churches we usually don’t even attend anymore. We’re so cool about bringing hope to the world, that we make sure we segregate ourselves from the rest of Christianity. If you have to ask why, you’ll never know.

So in order to avoid said cliché and in an effort to ensure that my blog is motivated by Christian charity, I have decided that I will always try to follow up an iconoclasm with something positive.

What do I think should take the place of a lengthy sermon? I don’t think I will ever get away from the worship of Christ though the Eucharist. It is difficult to explain why. Much of what Eucharistic worship means is done by doing, not by reading and not by listening. Nonetheless, here are a few reasons why.

Eucharistic worship, is a largely egalitarian “team effort” form of worship. It is ironic to me that a tradition that has some official sacerdotalism behind is still less sacerdotal than sermonizing in many ways. When a church body takes the Eucharist, the minister my still pronounce a few words, there are of necessity people who serve the wine and the bread, but nonetheless Eucharistic worship does not happen unless everyone in the service takes a role in what is happening.

For instance, many traditions precede the serving of the Eucharist with times of recited prayer in which the whole congregation is involved. Everyone is given a part to play, so to speak. In fact, a “script” analogy works great here. If preaching is central, only one person has a part. In the Eucharist, everyone has a role.

Consider the following liturgy taken from the Book of Common Prayer:

MinisterThe Lord be with you.
People And with thy spirit.
Minister Lift up your hearts.
People We lift them up unto the Lord.
Minister Let us give thanks unto our Lord God.
People It is meet and right so to do.
Then, facing the Holy Table, the Celebrant [minister] proceeds
It is very meet, right, and our bounden duty, that we should
at all times, and in all places, give thanks unto thee, O Lord,
holy Father, almighty, everlasting God.
Therefore with Angels and Archangels, and with all the
company of heaven, we laud and magnify thy glorious
Name; evermore praising thee, and saying,
Minster and People
Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Hosts:
Heaven and earth are full of thy glory.
Glory be to thee, O Lord Most High.

This is fairly representative of most “high church” liturgical settings. The minister is more like a guide, rather than authority to be obeyed, or a Prometheus who brings down the fire from heaven.
Furthermore, when the Eucharist is central everyone takes the Eucharist, the minister included. This is good for the minister, as it allows him to get off the pedestal for moment and join his flock in following the God that they all worship.

The Eucharist was instituted by Jesus himself on one of the most important holy days of the Israel’s calendar. Look through the Old Testament and you will find an elaborate list of rituals, customs, special days and other such details down to the tiniest of minutia of how to worship the God of Israel. As Christians, we know that we are no longer bound by such things and that God has given us great liberty in how we worship him (my Eastern Orthodox friends will disagree with that point). Jesus did, however, instruct us to “do this in remembrance of me” on an incredibly important holy day, and on the night just before he was betrayed and crucified.

If Jesus does not demand that we obey the innumerable laws of Old Testament worship propriety, but he does ask this one particular sacred meal. Furthermore, he asks his disciples on very sacred day in an incredibly intimate moment the synoptic Gospel writers sought to make sure we heard about. Does this not indicate a certain kind of gravity to this sacrament? Compared to ancient Israel, the modern day Israel (Christianity) is asked very little. I like to think on this one thing we can get it right.

Christ is physically present through the sacrament. This last point is a point I suspect that most people reading this blog will not share. I do not believe that that Eucharist is only remembrance of Christ’s death and Resurrection, but that Christ is physically present through the sacrament. In other words, I accept the doctrine of “real presence” and it is an important part of devotional life. Because of this, the centrality of the Eucharist has become fairly straight forward for me: if the Eucharist is the presence of God, why would anything other than the presence of God be central?

I realize that this point is clearly a point of contention. I do not have the space to expand on a defense of this point. I really do understand how weird it is to say “I eat the body of Christ on Sundays.” It took me a long time to really get it myself. I can leave my readers with this small thought: is there not a strange silence on John 6 in many evangelical circles? Very, very few times have I heard this passage even addressed –much less exegeted- by people who do not believe in the real presence. When they do, they usually explain what Jesus didn’t mean when he said “I am the bread of life,” but do not explain what they think he did mean and why.

No, I do not expect everyone reading this blog to be persuaded. I admit that scripture is ambiguous on this issue. Nonetheless, John 6 really tipped the scales for me.

In any case, the centrality of the Eucharist is something I will never get away from. Even as I attend Mosaic West LA I must frequently return to a local Lutheran Church or Mountainside Communion to really feel like I worship fully. The truly communal experience and physical, tangible, presence of God are things that can be found there, and is sadly missing in much of Evangelicalism.

Teddy Bears' Picnic Service - 13th September 2009

40+ adults and kids has great fun in worship and a tea. Unadulterated joy. Fantastic!