I think the heading says it all. I've realized that my life works so much better when there is regiment and structure to it. So, if I am going to write on this blog, I had better do it on a schedule. More to come.
bp
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
A Prayer of Optimism
I am not a generally optimistic person. I see things as they are and I see them how they could potentially go wrong. Or, I am annoyed by things that go on and I see how those annoyances disrupt my peace and well being. In short, you could say that I look at the world with dung-colored glasses.
Perhaps one of the most ironic parts of my negative outlook on life and on the world is that my blood type is B+. And my brother always reminds me that this type is for optimists. ("Remember to be positive just like your blood," he tells me. Give me a break!
The most recent diagnosis of this pathology of pessimism was pronounced when family came to visit for Kasey's graduation (by the way, she is now Kasey M. Price, Ed.D.). When I was taking my parents around town, I found myself complaining about the city in which I live, its traffic, its residents, etc. And I realized that I do not have a very positive outlook on the world around me.
Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the beauty of nature. Kasey and I go hiking in trails near our house, and I love the rays of sunlight that pierce through the trees and illuminate the ground cover. I marvel at the way the torrential rains wash away the dirt and leave intricate carvings into the ground. I love the smell of the outdoors, even though my allergies flared up and knocked me down for a few days (oops, there's that pessimism). So, I do appreciate the world around me. But I do not appreciate the physical and social setting of my current city.
Perhaps the reason that I have such a negative opinion of my city is that I do not consider myself a resident of this town. Kasey and I have been here for three years. We arrived to go to school. We have not enjoyed parts of what this town has to offer either because we were absorbed in our studies or because we were attempting to save money. Kasey has graduated, and she is now looking for a job. That means there is a good chance we will not be living here by the end of the summer. So, I guess I look at this town with some disdain because I am ready to leave it. I have emotionally severed ties to this city because I know that I will be leaving soon. One could make the argument that this emotional separation is a wise decision to prepare myself for moving away. Others would say that is defense mechanism. And it is. I guess the downside is that I have less difficulty leaving somewhere that I despise rather than somewhere that I love. But the fact still remains that I choose to have the negative opinion. So, there is a need to correct my outlook.
Here is the problem, as I can best tell: I do not appreciate the saturation of God's presence in His creation.
I got a good sense of this problem when I was reading a couple books on Catholicism and the Catholic worldview. The first is The Seven Storey Mountain by Thomas Merton. Merton was a Catholic Convert who spent nearly 25 years as a monk who lived in silent contemplation about his spirituality. He was a prolific writer, and one who artfully crafted his words. The Seven Storey Mountain is Merton's autobiography. In one place, he wrote about a French town in which he lived as a boy. The quote below shows how Merton did not appreciate his environment and its emphasis on God's presence, but years later reflected on how ever cubic inch of the town pointed to God's glory. Writing about the town of St. Antonin:
Following reading this passage by Merton, I began reading The Catholic Imagination by Andrew Greeley. Greeley's thesis is based on an earlier book by David Tracey called The Analogical Imagination. In the simplest terms let me explain what these two books mean.
1. The Catholic Tradition has maintained a worldview that the relationship between God and His creation, including humans, is best understood as an analogy or metaphor. Therefore, to understand God's love, we can use analogies in human love. Only God's love is more perfect that human love. God is also present in His creation as a way of communicating with humans and expressing His love to them. This explains why Catholics have a high appreciation for the material world and express their love for God through artistic outlets. This also explains why they believe that God is actually present in physical rituals: the sacraments.
2. The Protestant Tradition instituted a new worldview. They feared the superstition of Catholicism and de-emphasized the material world. Instead, people do not relate to God through physical rituals, but through His revealed word: the Bible. God is not actually present in His creation due to the fall of humanity. Nor is He actually present in the rituals of the Church. Instead, he is symbolically present. Protestants understand their relationship with God not in terms of analogies, but as a sort of dialectic. That is, humanity is the antithesis to God's thesis, and salvation and holiness are the syntheses that bring humanity back into harmony with God.
I am not certain I completely buy the thesis here, but it is definitely thought-provoking. It begs the question about liturgically and sacramentally-oriented Protestant traditions like the Lutherans and Anglicans. It would seem that there is a high value placed on the material world as a manifestation of God's glory and on the sacraments as the presence of God. Also, I am not so certain that the Bible actually supports the demystification of the world. David wrote in Psalm 24 that the "Earth is the Lord's and everything in it." Psalm 72:19 says, "Praise be to his glorious name forever; may the whole earth be filled with his glory. Amen and Amen." Habakkuk declared, "For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea" (Habakkuk 2: 14). If we accept the Protestant presupposition of the authority of the Bible over all other sources, then we must nod to the fact that God's Word makes known that He is present in all the earth and His glory is present with us in any environment. So, there is a lesson we could learn from Catholicism about the worldview.
Perhaps one of the most ironic parts of my negative outlook on life and on the world is that my blood type is B+. And my brother always reminds me that this type is for optimists. ("Remember to be positive just like your blood," he tells me. Give me a break!
The most recent diagnosis of this pathology of pessimism was pronounced when family came to visit for Kasey's graduation (by the way, she is now Kasey M. Price, Ed.D.). When I was taking my parents around town, I found myself complaining about the city in which I live, its traffic, its residents, etc. And I realized that I do not have a very positive outlook on the world around me.
Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the beauty of nature. Kasey and I go hiking in trails near our house, and I love the rays of sunlight that pierce through the trees and illuminate the ground cover. I marvel at the way the torrential rains wash away the dirt and leave intricate carvings into the ground. I love the smell of the outdoors, even though my allergies flared up and knocked me down for a few days (oops, there's that pessimism). So, I do appreciate the world around me. But I do not appreciate the physical and social setting of my current city.
Perhaps the reason that I have such a negative opinion of my city is that I do not consider myself a resident of this town. Kasey and I have been here for three years. We arrived to go to school. We have not enjoyed parts of what this town has to offer either because we were absorbed in our studies or because we were attempting to save money. Kasey has graduated, and she is now looking for a job. That means there is a good chance we will not be living here by the end of the summer. So, I guess I look at this town with some disdain because I am ready to leave it. I have emotionally severed ties to this city because I know that I will be leaving soon. One could make the argument that this emotional separation is a wise decision to prepare myself for moving away. Others would say that is defense mechanism. And it is. I guess the downside is that I have less difficulty leaving somewhere that I despise rather than somewhere that I love. But the fact still remains that I choose to have the negative opinion. So, there is a need to correct my outlook.
Here is the problem, as I can best tell: I do not appreciate the saturation of God's presence in His creation.
I got a good sense of this problem when I was reading a couple books on Catholicism and the Catholic worldview. The first is The Seven Storey Mountain by Thomas Merton. Merton was a Catholic Convert who spent nearly 25 years as a monk who lived in silent contemplation about his spirituality. He was a prolific writer, and one who artfully crafted his words. The Seven Storey Mountain is Merton's autobiography. In one place, he wrote about a French town in which he lived as a boy. The quote below shows how Merton did not appreciate his environment and its emphasis on God's presence, but years later reflected on how ever cubic inch of the town pointed to God's glory. Writing about the town of St. Antonin:
Here, in this amazing, ancient town, the very pattern of the place, of the
houses and streets and of nature itself, the circling hills, the cliffs and
trees, all focussed my attention upon the one, important central fact of the
church ans what it contained. Here, everywhere I went, I was forced, by the
disposition of everything around me, to be always at least virtually conscious
of the church. Every street pointed more or less inward to the center of the
town, to the church. Every view of teh town from the exterior hills, centered
upon the long grey building with its high spire. ...
The whole landscape, unified by the church and its heavenward spire, seemed
to say: this is the meaning of all created things: we have been made for no
other purpose than that men may use us in raising themselves to God, and in
proclaiming the glory of God. We have been fashioned, in all our perfections,
each according to his own nature, and all our natures ordered and harmonized
together, that man's reason and his love might fit in this one last element,
this God-given key to the meaning of the whole.
Following reading this passage by Merton, I began reading The Catholic Imagination by Andrew Greeley. Greeley's thesis is based on an earlier book by David Tracey called The Analogical Imagination. In the simplest terms let me explain what these two books mean.
1. The Catholic Tradition has maintained a worldview that the relationship between God and His creation, including humans, is best understood as an analogy or metaphor. Therefore, to understand God's love, we can use analogies in human love. Only God's love is more perfect that human love. God is also present in His creation as a way of communicating with humans and expressing His love to them. This explains why Catholics have a high appreciation for the material world and express their love for God through artistic outlets. This also explains why they believe that God is actually present in physical rituals: the sacraments.
2. The Protestant Tradition instituted a new worldview. They feared the superstition of Catholicism and de-emphasized the material world. Instead, people do not relate to God through physical rituals, but through His revealed word: the Bible. God is not actually present in His creation due to the fall of humanity. Nor is He actually present in the rituals of the Church. Instead, he is symbolically present. Protestants understand their relationship with God not in terms of analogies, but as a sort of dialectic. That is, humanity is the antithesis to God's thesis, and salvation and holiness are the syntheses that bring humanity back into harmony with God.
I am not certain I completely buy the thesis here, but it is definitely thought-provoking. It begs the question about liturgically and sacramentally-oriented Protestant traditions like the Lutherans and Anglicans. It would seem that there is a high value placed on the material world as a manifestation of God's glory and on the sacraments as the presence of God. Also, I am not so certain that the Bible actually supports the demystification of the world. David wrote in Psalm 24 that the "Earth is the Lord's and everything in it." Psalm 72:19 says, "Praise be to his glorious name forever; may the whole earth be filled with his glory. Amen and Amen." Habakkuk declared, "For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea" (Habakkuk 2: 14). If we accept the Protestant presupposition of the authority of the Bible over all other sources, then we must nod to the fact that God's Word makes known that He is present in all the earth and His glory is present with us in any environment. So, there is a lesson we could learn from Catholicism about the worldview.
I find myself encouraged by these observations. The world is fallen and corrupt as a result of human sinfulness, but that does not mean that God is absent from this world. Instead, He has allowed his creation to point us to Him. We must, therefore, search for the good in this world and how He is present with us.
What does this outlook mean in practicality? I am not certain about all of this, but let me take a stab.
1. Appreciate the beauty of God's creation and the glory present in it.
2. Appreciate the image and likeness of God in humanity.
3. Find what is redeeming and redeemable in the world and in humanity.
Let me share a prayer for myself and for others as we meditate on these ideas and attempt to put them into practice.
Father, help us to see the world around us as you see it. Help us to see the world as a banquet of your glory, love, and grace. Help us to see how it is a reflection of you and guide to seek after you. Help us to see what is redeeming in your creation. And help us to see what is redeemable and where you seek to work out that redemption. And finally help us to be your presence in this world, through Christ your Son. Amen.
Be blessed. And be positive.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Starting to write again
So, this afternoon I have a meeting about my dissertation (hopefully the topic gets approved). I figure to get back into the mood for writing, I will start writing again. Maybe get some creative juices flowing. Besides, I have some things to say.
bp
bp
Monday, June 25, 2007
"Dating" a Church--Terms 1
The following list is humbly submitted for your contemplation and entertainment. Please feel free to comment on any of the definitions.
Dating: When you are casually dating a church, you are doing just that. You are spending time with the congregation and getting to know it. Sure, you can date around, play the field. But do not get so close to one congregation that you end up breaking their hearts. You may find that the first church you date is "the one." This happened to me when I began attending Westview Wesleyan. Be careful with "making out" with the church.
Making Out: We all can remember in youth group when we had our "purity talks" about not making out with someone you are just casually dating. Unless the both of you are down with NCMOS (non-committal make out sessions), introducing a physical aspect of a burgeoning friendship can complicate the whole thing. So how do you make out with a church? I think it is by participating in extra fellowship times outside of the normal morning worship. It forces you to become more acquainted with the people in the congregation, building closer relationships. If you are not yet committed to going to this church, then it could become very difficult to leave if you want to play the field elsewhere. Kasey and I have "made out" with the current church we are attending for the past few dates. We have gone to lunch with couples, gone to a cookout, ate at a potluck, went for ice cream with the pastor and his family, and tonight we are going to have dinner at a couple's house. Some of these are non-committals. Some are not. In this case, we have not been the aggressors at all. We continually get invited to join in on the fellowship and the food (and since we would otherwise be eating tater-tots, we gladly jump at the chance to eat a real home-cooked meal or go to a restaurant). But now we feel as though opting to date another church would be to abandon some of the relationships we are building there. In short, making out is fun but forces you to DTR (define the relationship).
Going Steady: Once you have DTR, you can move forward in participating in other avenues of the church. We think that attending Sunday School is like going steady with a church. A lot of churchgoers just attend morning worship (sing some songs, listen to the sermon, drop the kids off in children's' church for an hour or more). But to get up that extra hour to hour and a half and show up for the intimate time of Sunday School is a big commitment. It means you are willing to put forth the effort to make this relationship blossom. A Sunday School class is usually comprised of people who have been at the church for some time and know each other pretty well. By joining the class, it says that you want to be that close with them. Usually Kasey and I do not attend Sunday School. We didn't when we went to the FWB church in Johnston City, and we aren't right now in Tallahassee. We did by accident our first Sunday at the Nazarene church. The next week we passed on Sunday School and were told we were "missed." We probably were. But we were not ready yet on just the second date to go that far. Being part of a Sunday School class is an important part of your participation in a church, but best to do when you have chosen a home church with which you want to go steady.
Note: I suppose a mid-week small group may fall in this category. I will discuss that later.
Dating: When you are casually dating a church, you are doing just that. You are spending time with the congregation and getting to know it. Sure, you can date around, play the field. But do not get so close to one congregation that you end up breaking their hearts. You may find that the first church you date is "the one." This happened to me when I began attending Westview Wesleyan. Be careful with "making out" with the church.
Making Out: We all can remember in youth group when we had our "purity talks" about not making out with someone you are just casually dating. Unless the both of you are down with NCMOS (non-committal make out sessions), introducing a physical aspect of a burgeoning friendship can complicate the whole thing. So how do you make out with a church? I think it is by participating in extra fellowship times outside of the normal morning worship. It forces you to become more acquainted with the people in the congregation, building closer relationships. If you are not yet committed to going to this church, then it could become very difficult to leave if you want to play the field elsewhere. Kasey and I have "made out" with the current church we are attending for the past few dates. We have gone to lunch with couples, gone to a cookout, ate at a potluck, went for ice cream with the pastor and his family, and tonight we are going to have dinner at a couple's house. Some of these are non-committals. Some are not. In this case, we have not been the aggressors at all. We continually get invited to join in on the fellowship and the food (and since we would otherwise be eating tater-tots, we gladly jump at the chance to eat a real home-cooked meal or go to a restaurant). But now we feel as though opting to date another church would be to abandon some of the relationships we are building there. In short, making out is fun but forces you to DTR (define the relationship).
Going Steady: Once you have DTR, you can move forward in participating in other avenues of the church. We think that attending Sunday School is like going steady with a church. A lot of churchgoers just attend morning worship (sing some songs, listen to the sermon, drop the kids off in children's' church for an hour or more). But to get up that extra hour to hour and a half and show up for the intimate time of Sunday School is a big commitment. It means you are willing to put forth the effort to make this relationship blossom. A Sunday School class is usually comprised of people who have been at the church for some time and know each other pretty well. By joining the class, it says that you want to be that close with them. Usually Kasey and I do not attend Sunday School. We didn't when we went to the FWB church in Johnston City, and we aren't right now in Tallahassee. We did by accident our first Sunday at the Nazarene church. The next week we passed on Sunday School and were told we were "missed." We probably were. But we were not ready yet on just the second date to go that far. Being part of a Sunday School class is an important part of your participation in a church, but best to do when you have chosen a home church with which you want to go steady.
Note: I suppose a mid-week small group may fall in this category. I will discuss that later.
Rules to "Dating" a Church--Choose your "Type"
This is the first installment of a few columns on how to "date" a church. Kasey and I have moved a substantial number of times in the 2 1/2 years we have been married. We have moved almost as frequently as a church-hopping youth pastor. However, we do not pastor churches (never have, maybe will someday... don't know). We are academics. And moving to Carbondale, IL for two years and now to Tallahassee, FL has cause us to consider what we are looking for in a church. Admittedly, we did not attend church the first year we lived in Carbondale. Perhaps it was the atmosphere of moving away from the "home church" that we had known for so long. Perhaps it was the overwhelming feelings we had from grad school. Equally, it could have been that the only churches in town that were catered in any fashion to our age group did not meet what we wanted in a church. Therefore, when we moved to Tallahassee, we decided to make finding a new home church a top priority. We realized that finding a home church is a lot like courting or dating a potential spouse. We have come up with set of stages in a relationship to explain how one becomes a part of a church (later column[s]). But first, you should know your type.
Here I should preface that I do not believe in using the words "shopping" or "hunting" to describe our quest for a home church. A congregation is not a conquest that validates one's identity. Nor is it a commodity that necessitates a market competing for our attendance, service, and tithes. Church is a relationship. It is you belonging to portion of God's family. Therefore, think of your quest for a church in relational terms. Dating, or courting, seem to work very well for me.
I believe that the only way to truly know what type of person you want in your mate is by also deciding what you do not want in a mate. Therefore, I am very much in support of casual dating to get to know personalities and how you interact with those personalities. The same is true of looking for a church. Go to a few different churches. The only way to know if you do or do not like certain aspects of a church is to go there and experience it first hand. Without further ado, here are some tips:
1. Worship is not everything, but it should be something. It is funny how many people do not chose a church or leave a church because of the worship arts. I have been affiliated with roughly 5 local churches who have battled because of generational quibbles over music. The older crowd wishes to uphold the traditions of the hymns (which in their time were often radical departures from established worship styles). The younger crowd wants modern choruses and praise songs to keep themselves and the youth/children interested. Not to mention seekers and "suitors" might be looking for this type of music too. The pastor struggles to find the middle ground. Sadly, I have seen pastors leave their posts over this issue. Perhaps we take the worship style too seriously. Why do we need a rock show or high church liturgy anyway? Lest we forget, some of the greatest religious movements in history started with simple prayer meetings. If a church you visit doesn't pray, there is a problem. Remember, Jesus said his Father's house would be one of prayer. Anyway, the worship style should factor into your decision somewhat. But it should be like your preference in looks of a date.
When I was in youth group, I loved the rock-out praise music. So did Kasey. Then we lost a lot of that when we heard it every other day in chapel at IWU. I really love high church liturgy. Kasey does not at all. We visited an Anglican Church in Tallahassee a few weeks ago (separated from Episcopal Church, this congregation is part of the Nigerian "diocese"). I liked the service. Kasey was ... ok with it. We looked for a happy medium somewhere else. We like a mix of hymns, choruses, praise music, readings, and prayers. What do you like?
2. Look for a church with diversity in demographics, but some other people like you. I cannot stress enough how important diversity is in a local congregation. If everyone was a cookie-cutter of another, then we would have too much head-butting (sound familiar?). No, we would not be in one accord. However, you should not be the sole representative of your demographic. Kasey and I have been part of churches where we were the only dating couple in the collegians, then the only young married couple without kids, then the youngest married couple. Let's face it, the twenty-somethings are pretty absent from most churches. However, find a place where you can interact with people in similar stages of life as you. Remember, you need to make strong relationships with your brothers and sisters in Christ. What type of friends do you need?
3. Establish good rapport with the ministry staff. I am one of those defunct ministry majors who chose the academic life instead of the local church ministry. As such, I always feel I need to establish some rapport with the pastors. Too often, we want to lift pastors up on a pedestal. I don't like that. Establish a friendship with the pastor as co-equals. Kasey and I were part of a church in Johnston City, IL where the pastor and I became friends before we ever set foot in his church (he was one of my students). Sometimes I came to him for pastoral counsel, other times I talked to him as a colleague. Still other times we just chatted like buddies. The other night I was musing over my decision to abandon pastoral ministry. Kasey reminded me of my relationship with Pastor Matt and other friends I have who are ministers or out-of-work ministers. She suggested that maybe my calling is to minister to ministers with my friendship. I like the idea of that. What contribution can you be to the life and ministry of your pastor?
4. Find opportunities for involvement/service. Years ago I moved to Michigan for a summer. In a letter to friends and colleagues, I wrote that I was looking for a church where I could worship, serve, and be fed for the few months I was there. Dr. Keith Drury responded that I should worship, worship worship, and then listed "serve" 17 times. He explained that being fed would come from the first two. He was right. I have never found more fulfillment from a church than when I could be part of the life of that church. That is not to say that I took every leadership role and then I got burnout. Kasey and I love being part of small groups, building very tight chords of intimacy with people our own age with our own interests. Likewise, we volunteer for little things, often this helps us to know people better. And in the process, we find people who genuinely pray for us, support us, and help us. WOW! Talk about being fed. Whatever happened to the simple spiritual gifts of encouragement, intercession, and helps? I am convinced that my responsibility in a church right now (until the Lord calls me to do otherwise) is to be a contributing lay person in a local congregation. What is your calling for serving the local church?
5. Denominational loyalty ... Whatever. When we moved to Carbondale, IL and to Tallahassee, FL we considered finding a nearby Wesleyan Church. But that meant 39 miles from our apartment in Carbondale and 38 miles from our home in Tallahassee. It just seems too far to drive to go to church, since it would take nearly an hour, given city driving. We wanted to be within 10 minutes drive time. In Illinois, we drove 29 miles (35 minutes) to a Free Will Baptist Church. Yeah, that was a bit of a distance, but we were friends with the pastor. In Tallahassee, we wanted to be closer. We are currently "dating" a Nazarene Church 5 minutes from the house. We like the FWB church. They had a lot of the same values as the Wesleyans. The same is true with the Nazarenes. Oddly enough, there are a lot of refugee Wesleyans who attend the Nazarene church because they moved here from the Midwest or from around Bartlesville, OK. If you know anything about the South, you know that Southern Baptists are a dime a dozen (2-3 pages in the phone book in Tallahassee). It seems that the Nazarene church (40 years old) is closest to these Wesleyans' preferences. So far, we like this church.
Kasey's grandmother (the wife of a retired Wesleyan preacher, who has 1 son and 2 sons-in-law who are/were Wesleyan pastors) is convinced that since we keep moving to where there are no Wesleyan churches that this is a sign that God is calling us to plant one. I guess here in Tallahassee, we would have some Wesleyans as our start-up community. Although, I do not see a need to break up what seems to be a good thing happening at this Nazarene church. No, we will not be attending a Wesleyan church while in Florida. Who knows, we might transfer membership someday if we feel led to. Right now, a healthy Bible-believing, prayful community of Christians is more important to us than that "Wesleyan" label. I am sorry if I offended any of my Wesleyan brothers and sisters. Is denominational loyalty important to you?
Conclusion. These are just a few suggestions of how to determine your ideal type in a church. Remember, finding a church is often more of an introspective process. You should ask yourself how you can be part of the life of the church. Don't just focus on what the church can give to you but also what you can give to the church (J. F. Kennedy). Please feel free to respond.
Here I should preface that I do not believe in using the words "shopping" or "hunting" to describe our quest for a home church. A congregation is not a conquest that validates one's identity. Nor is it a commodity that necessitates a market competing for our attendance, service, and tithes. Church is a relationship. It is you belonging to portion of God's family. Therefore, think of your quest for a church in relational terms. Dating, or courting, seem to work very well for me.
I believe that the only way to truly know what type of person you want in your mate is by also deciding what you do not want in a mate. Therefore, I am very much in support of casual dating to get to know personalities and how you interact with those personalities. The same is true of looking for a church. Go to a few different churches. The only way to know if you do or do not like certain aspects of a church is to go there and experience it first hand. Without further ado, here are some tips:
1. Worship is not everything, but it should be something. It is funny how many people do not chose a church or leave a church because of the worship arts. I have been affiliated with roughly 5 local churches who have battled because of generational quibbles over music. The older crowd wishes to uphold the traditions of the hymns (which in their time were often radical departures from established worship styles). The younger crowd wants modern choruses and praise songs to keep themselves and the youth/children interested. Not to mention seekers and "suitors" might be looking for this type of music too. The pastor struggles to find the middle ground. Sadly, I have seen pastors leave their posts over this issue. Perhaps we take the worship style too seriously. Why do we need a rock show or high church liturgy anyway? Lest we forget, some of the greatest religious movements in history started with simple prayer meetings. If a church you visit doesn't pray, there is a problem. Remember, Jesus said his Father's house would be one of prayer. Anyway, the worship style should factor into your decision somewhat. But it should be like your preference in looks of a date.
When I was in youth group, I loved the rock-out praise music. So did Kasey. Then we lost a lot of that when we heard it every other day in chapel at IWU. I really love high church liturgy. Kasey does not at all. We visited an Anglican Church in Tallahassee a few weeks ago (separated from Episcopal Church, this congregation is part of the Nigerian "diocese"). I liked the service. Kasey was ... ok with it. We looked for a happy medium somewhere else. We like a mix of hymns, choruses, praise music, readings, and prayers. What do you like?
2. Look for a church with diversity in demographics, but some other people like you. I cannot stress enough how important diversity is in a local congregation. If everyone was a cookie-cutter of another, then we would have too much head-butting (sound familiar?). No, we would not be in one accord. However, you should not be the sole representative of your demographic. Kasey and I have been part of churches where we were the only dating couple in the collegians, then the only young married couple without kids, then the youngest married couple. Let's face it, the twenty-somethings are pretty absent from most churches. However, find a place where you can interact with people in similar stages of life as you. Remember, you need to make strong relationships with your brothers and sisters in Christ. What type of friends do you need?
3. Establish good rapport with the ministry staff. I am one of those defunct ministry majors who chose the academic life instead of the local church ministry. As such, I always feel I need to establish some rapport with the pastors. Too often, we want to lift pastors up on a pedestal. I don't like that. Establish a friendship with the pastor as co-equals. Kasey and I were part of a church in Johnston City, IL where the pastor and I became friends before we ever set foot in his church (he was one of my students). Sometimes I came to him for pastoral counsel, other times I talked to him as a colleague. Still other times we just chatted like buddies. The other night I was musing over my decision to abandon pastoral ministry. Kasey reminded me of my relationship with Pastor Matt and other friends I have who are ministers or out-of-work ministers. She suggested that maybe my calling is to minister to ministers with my friendship. I like the idea of that. What contribution can you be to the life and ministry of your pastor?
4. Find opportunities for involvement/service. Years ago I moved to Michigan for a summer. In a letter to friends and colleagues, I wrote that I was looking for a church where I could worship, serve, and be fed for the few months I was there. Dr. Keith Drury responded that I should worship, worship worship, and then listed "serve" 17 times. He explained that being fed would come from the first two. He was right. I have never found more fulfillment from a church than when I could be part of the life of that church. That is not to say that I took every leadership role and then I got burnout. Kasey and I love being part of small groups, building very tight chords of intimacy with people our own age with our own interests. Likewise, we volunteer for little things, often this helps us to know people better. And in the process, we find people who genuinely pray for us, support us, and help us. WOW! Talk about being fed. Whatever happened to the simple spiritual gifts of encouragement, intercession, and helps? I am convinced that my responsibility in a church right now (until the Lord calls me to do otherwise) is to be a contributing lay person in a local congregation. What is your calling for serving the local church?
5. Denominational loyalty ... Whatever. When we moved to Carbondale, IL and to Tallahassee, FL we considered finding a nearby Wesleyan Church. But that meant 39 miles from our apartment in Carbondale and 38 miles from our home in Tallahassee. It just seems too far to drive to go to church, since it would take nearly an hour, given city driving. We wanted to be within 10 minutes drive time. In Illinois, we drove 29 miles (35 minutes) to a Free Will Baptist Church. Yeah, that was a bit of a distance, but we were friends with the pastor. In Tallahassee, we wanted to be closer. We are currently "dating" a Nazarene Church 5 minutes from the house. We like the FWB church. They had a lot of the same values as the Wesleyans. The same is true with the Nazarenes. Oddly enough, there are a lot of refugee Wesleyans who attend the Nazarene church because they moved here from the Midwest or from around Bartlesville, OK. If you know anything about the South, you know that Southern Baptists are a dime a dozen (2-3 pages in the phone book in Tallahassee). It seems that the Nazarene church (40 years old) is closest to these Wesleyans' preferences. So far, we like this church.
Kasey's grandmother (the wife of a retired Wesleyan preacher, who has 1 son and 2 sons-in-law who are/were Wesleyan pastors) is convinced that since we keep moving to where there are no Wesleyan churches that this is a sign that God is calling us to plant one. I guess here in Tallahassee, we would have some Wesleyans as our start-up community. Although, I do not see a need to break up what seems to be a good thing happening at this Nazarene church. No, we will not be attending a Wesleyan church while in Florida. Who knows, we might transfer membership someday if we feel led to. Right now, a healthy Bible-believing, prayful community of Christians is more important to us than that "Wesleyan" label. I am sorry if I offended any of my Wesleyan brothers and sisters. Is denominational loyalty important to you?
Conclusion. These are just a few suggestions of how to determine your ideal type in a church. Remember, finding a church is often more of an introspective process. You should ask yourself how you can be part of the life of the church. Don't just focus on what the church can give to you but also what you can give to the church (J. F. Kennedy). Please feel free to respond.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
A Devilish Cancer in our Church
Salem Village, Massachusetts, 1692. After a round of "fits" by a group of young girls, the villagers began to suspect that something much more sinister was at work. Fearing that the underlining cause of all the raucous behavior was the demonic influence of witchcraft, the villagers set about to determine who had consorted with the devil. The final result is that nearly no one in the village was safe from such accusation, and twenty people were executed for being unrepentant "witches," including one minister. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SALEM.HTM
Most people know this story from Arthur Miller's classic play The Crucible from the 1950s. Others might only know the play through the film based on the play starring Winona Ryder (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115988/). Nevertheless, the story is as compelling as it is enigmatic, perhaps why it is so compelling. We are drawn to look at it, like a train wreck--or a shorn, rehab-hopping Brintney Spears. We do not know why we are so fascinated by its macabre characteristics, but we are. And the saddest part of all, to me at least, is that when looking at the Salem trials, we are in actuality looking at ourselves in costume but are too blind to realize it.
In preparation for my comprehensive exam in Early United States' History, I read a fascinating study of the Salem witchcraft trials by Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum entitled Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/BOYSAX.html). In this book, Boyer and Nissenbaum argue that the reason that the accusations of witchcraft were so high is that the lower class villagers were exercising their means of gaining social equality with the more wealthy villagers. Interesting thesis, nonetheless. But the most interesting notes that the authors make is their comparison between the Salem witchcraft trials and the Northampton revivals under Jonathan Edwards that supposedly started the "First Great Awakening" (if there was such a thing, don't get me started). In both instances, a groups of youth experience enthusiastic "spiritual" encounters. Whereas Edwards took this and ran with it to preach that God was stirring the young hearts of Northampton, Salem villagers feared what such a young crowd could do to disrupt the social order. In the process of the trials, villagers focused their energies in pointing the finger at everyone else and less at inspecting their own lives. Please allow me to insert a lengthy quote from Boyer and Nissenbaum's book:
"Public confession--the attendance of the community was crucial--was a ceremony through which a deviant individual might be transformed, forgive, and reintegrated into the community. The offense of witchcraft was certainly too serious to premit confession alone to stand for justice. Still, whenever it was possible in 1692--whenever an accused witch confessed in the course of the public examination--this ritual was attempted, and it seems to have had some temporary therapeutic value for everybody concerned. In 1692, if we are correct, this familiar ritual would have taken on a particular resonance for the accusers and on-lokers, since the confession they had drawn from the mouths of the accused was surely one that on some level they themselves longed to make. By first projecting upon others the unacknowledged impulses which lay within themselves, and then absolving those they had accused, the accusers could bring such impulses into the open air, gain at least temporary mastery over them [the impulses], and thereby affirm their commitment to social values in which they very much wanted to believe. It is surely no coincidence that not one of the confessing witches was hanged." (p. 215)
Thus Boyer and Nissenbaum (to be sure, they are not Christians) recognized that the most important part of social healing was that each person recognize his or her own feelings of ill will and to apologize to the community.
Why can we not do this even today? We look back in time and cast judgment on the Salem Puritans, but to a lesser degree we are still pointing our fingers at others who have hurt us without looking at how our bitterness is hurting others. I heard and interesting story about Tasmanian devils a few weeks ago. Thousands of Tasmanian devils are dying of ravenous cancer that infects the devils' mouths. For a long time, scientists could not figure out why the cancer was spreading so quickly. They they learned. When Tasmanian devils fight, they bare their teeth chomp into one another's faces. In the process, cancer spreads from a bitten devil to his assailant. The aggressor in turn is infected with the cancer. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0227_060227_tasmanian.html
I think on some level we all have a little Tasmanian devil in us. The only thing is that our anger at one another is a cancerous sin. When we attack a backslider in our church or a spokesperson for an opposing view than our own regarding church affairs, we bare our teeth and sink them right into his or her sin. In return, we sin because of how we are so quick to judge or to hate. I make it my prayer that I never bare my teeth in sin at someone else. Instead, I hope to be that confessor who comes before my church, my family, and my God and repents of the ill feelings I have harbored against someone else. I hope that is your prayer also.
Most people know this story from Arthur Miller's classic play The Crucible from the 1950s. Others might only know the play through the film based on the play starring Winona Ryder (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115988/). Nevertheless, the story is as compelling as it is enigmatic, perhaps why it is so compelling. We are drawn to look at it, like a train wreck--or a shorn, rehab-hopping Brintney Spears. We do not know why we are so fascinated by its macabre characteristics, but we are. And the saddest part of all, to me at least, is that when looking at the Salem trials, we are in actuality looking at ourselves in costume but are too blind to realize it.
In preparation for my comprehensive exam in Early United States' History, I read a fascinating study of the Salem witchcraft trials by Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum entitled Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/BOYSAX.html). In this book, Boyer and Nissenbaum argue that the reason that the accusations of witchcraft were so high is that the lower class villagers were exercising their means of gaining social equality with the more wealthy villagers. Interesting thesis, nonetheless. But the most interesting notes that the authors make is their comparison between the Salem witchcraft trials and the Northampton revivals under Jonathan Edwards that supposedly started the "First Great Awakening" (if there was such a thing, don't get me started). In both instances, a groups of youth experience enthusiastic "spiritual" encounters. Whereas Edwards took this and ran with it to preach that God was stirring the young hearts of Northampton, Salem villagers feared what such a young crowd could do to disrupt the social order. In the process of the trials, villagers focused their energies in pointing the finger at everyone else and less at inspecting their own lives. Please allow me to insert a lengthy quote from Boyer and Nissenbaum's book:
"Public confession--the attendance of the community was crucial--was a ceremony through which a deviant individual might be transformed, forgive, and reintegrated into the community. The offense of witchcraft was certainly too serious to premit confession alone to stand for justice. Still, whenever it was possible in 1692--whenever an accused witch confessed in the course of the public examination--this ritual was attempted, and it seems to have had some temporary therapeutic value for everybody concerned. In 1692, if we are correct, this familiar ritual would have taken on a particular resonance for the accusers and on-lokers, since the confession they had drawn from the mouths of the accused was surely one that on some level they themselves longed to make. By first projecting upon others the unacknowledged impulses which lay within themselves, and then absolving those they had accused, the accusers could bring such impulses into the open air, gain at least temporary mastery over them [the impulses], and thereby affirm their commitment to social values in which they very much wanted to believe. It is surely no coincidence that not one of the confessing witches was hanged." (p. 215)
Thus Boyer and Nissenbaum (to be sure, they are not Christians) recognized that the most important part of social healing was that each person recognize his or her own feelings of ill will and to apologize to the community.
Why can we not do this even today? We look back in time and cast judgment on the Salem Puritans, but to a lesser degree we are still pointing our fingers at others who have hurt us without looking at how our bitterness is hurting others. I heard and interesting story about Tasmanian devils a few weeks ago. Thousands of Tasmanian devils are dying of ravenous cancer that infects the devils' mouths. For a long time, scientists could not figure out why the cancer was spreading so quickly. They they learned. When Tasmanian devils fight, they bare their teeth chomp into one another's faces. In the process, cancer spreads from a bitten devil to his assailant. The aggressor in turn is infected with the cancer. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0227_060227_tasmanian.html
I think on some level we all have a little Tasmanian devil in us. The only thing is that our anger at one another is a cancerous sin. When we attack a backslider in our church or a spokesperson for an opposing view than our own regarding church affairs, we bare our teeth and sink them right into his or her sin. In return, we sin because of how we are so quick to judge or to hate. I make it my prayer that I never bare my teeth in sin at someone else. Instead, I hope to be that confessor who comes before my church, my family, and my God and repents of the ill feelings I have harbored against someone else. I hope that is your prayer also.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
A Letter to Justin Gentry
In response to Mr. Gentry's comment to my thoughts in "de punkum et postmodernum"
Justin:
I was thinking of Jacques Derrida (1930-2004), Michel Foucault (1926-1984), and Edward Said (1935-2003). Derrida and Foucault you may find interesting in their studies on literary criticism. They are some of the foremost on deconstruction (a word has an idea constructed behind it and a critic can 'undo' or deconstruct that meaning, kind of like word studies in IBS). In addition to deconstructing meanings authors had on words, Derrida and Foucault also advocated post-structuralism. This is your run-of-the-mill postmod relativism of meanings. With respect to exegesis, it becomes a matter of 'how do you interpret it' or 'what do you take from the text.' Edward Said is a singularly interesting case. My understanding is that he draws on Foucault's deconstruction theories. His best know work is Orientalism that seeks to deconstruct European notions of the Middle Eastern "Orient." This really ushered in the post-colonial historiography of the latter 20th century. If you want to read up on things, just go to wikipedia.org.
Si erro, monet me. (SEMM)
(Pardon the poor latin in the title of the previous post, the nouns should be in the ablative case and not the accusative. Dr. Schenck, if you are reading, I apologize.)
Justin:
I was thinking of Jacques Derrida (1930-2004), Michel Foucault (1926-1984), and Edward Said (1935-2003). Derrida and Foucault you may find interesting in their studies on literary criticism. They are some of the foremost on deconstruction (a word has an idea constructed behind it and a critic can 'undo' or deconstruct that meaning, kind of like word studies in IBS). In addition to deconstructing meanings authors had on words, Derrida and Foucault also advocated post-structuralism. This is your run-of-the-mill postmod relativism of meanings. With respect to exegesis, it becomes a matter of 'how do you interpret it' or 'what do you take from the text.' Edward Said is a singularly interesting case. My understanding is that he draws on Foucault's deconstruction theories. His best know work is Orientalism that seeks to deconstruct European notions of the Middle Eastern "Orient." This really ushered in the post-colonial historiography of the latter 20th century. If you want to read up on things, just go to wikipedia.org.
Si erro, monet me. (SEMM)
(Pardon the poor latin in the title of the previous post, the nouns should be in the ablative case and not the accusative. Dr. Schenck, if you are reading, I apologize.)
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
De Punkum et Postmodernum
In Response to Justin Gentry's comments to my installment: "Postmodernism, What a Trip!: The Reflective Journey of a Graduate Student in the Postmodern Age."
Gentry: Interesting thoughts, I am wondering if Postmodernism is going to suffer from the same issues that music did in the early '90s. It wasn't the '80s and we were proud of that but when it comes down to it it really had no definition and died in infancy. Now glamrock (or fashion core) is back and grunge is only a pleasant memory. Postmodernism is not modernism but we really don't know what it is. Without some definition I think it might go the way of the flannel shirt and bib overalls. Keep searching, Justin.
Price: Very interesting metaphorical insights. To continue the metaphor, I liken Postmodernism to punk music. In its infancy it was raw and new, a complete departure from the set form of rock music (e.g. Sex Pistols, see also Sonic Youth). Yet as time went on, punk incorporated more raggae (ska, e.g. NOFX), more 80s pop (new wave, e.g. Blondie, Talking Heads, later The Clash), or simply became more mainstream such that bands like Green Day, Yellowcard, Simple Plan, Relient K, etc. are the heart-throbs of jr. high girls in your youth group. Of course, punk has also transitioned into Emo, a truly postmod phenom (e.g. Dashboard). Likewise, Postmodernism is due for adaptation and assimilation into the mainstream of scholarship. In a lot of ways it already has. Punk music, which has developed in the postmodern age, is a microcosm of the maturation Postmodernism has experienced.
You are right in your analysis of early '90s music. Nirvana had its roots in punk but adapted into grunge and then found themselves as the representatives of a music genre that had no clear definition and to which they could not completely identify. Then in 1994, with the death of Cobain, grunge itself died. Sure there were other great Seattle bands such as Pearl Jam, but Pearl Jam itself reverted to Neil Young (see Mirrorball) that influenced their later works (see especially No Code). Grunge was dead, giving way to the Indie sounds of the early-mid '90s (e.g. Toadies) and the ska sounds (e.g. No Doubt, Reel Big Fish, Big Bad Voodoo Daddy, Gold Finger). But these ska sounds then gave way to the revival of swing (e.g. Cherry Poppin' Daddies, Brian Setzer Orchestra [a new, and less tasteful, dose of Stray Cats]; see also the semi-ska, semi-swing East Coast Punk). But the question of where punk fit proved to be very problematic. If punk did not die with Kurt Cobain like Grunge did, it was certainly diagnosed with a terminal disease (I also blame MTV, as I do for a number of other social ills). The death of punk music has been slow and has relegated the genre into a dichotomy of either being a mainstream pale image of what it could be or being a nascent, raw musical force that will again redefine itself. Yet these two streams are continually becoming polarized.
What does this mean for Postmodernism? There is the possibility that with the deaths of leading postmod scholars Postmodernism could dichotomize into the mainstream scholarship and into the clandestine method of study that is "just too theoretical" for scholars to take seriously. If this is the case, I shall err on the side of mainstream Postmodernism just so I can get/keep a job. But I shall always keep an eye on those other methods and subtle employ them.
Keep questioning me.
Gentry: Interesting thoughts, I am wondering if Postmodernism is going to suffer from the same issues that music did in the early '90s. It wasn't the '80s and we were proud of that but when it comes down to it it really had no definition and died in infancy. Now glamrock (or fashion core) is back and grunge is only a pleasant memory. Postmodernism is not modernism but we really don't know what it is. Without some definition I think it might go the way of the flannel shirt and bib overalls. Keep searching, Justin.
Price: Very interesting metaphorical insights. To continue the metaphor, I liken Postmodernism to punk music. In its infancy it was raw and new, a complete departure from the set form of rock music (e.g. Sex Pistols, see also Sonic Youth). Yet as time went on, punk incorporated more raggae (ska, e.g. NOFX), more 80s pop (new wave, e.g. Blondie, Talking Heads, later The Clash), or simply became more mainstream such that bands like Green Day, Yellowcard, Simple Plan, Relient K, etc. are the heart-throbs of jr. high girls in your youth group. Of course, punk has also transitioned into Emo, a truly postmod phenom (e.g. Dashboard). Likewise, Postmodernism is due for adaptation and assimilation into the mainstream of scholarship. In a lot of ways it already has. Punk music, which has developed in the postmodern age, is a microcosm of the maturation Postmodernism has experienced.
You are right in your analysis of early '90s music. Nirvana had its roots in punk but adapted into grunge and then found themselves as the representatives of a music genre that had no clear definition and to which they could not completely identify. Then in 1994, with the death of Cobain, grunge itself died. Sure there were other great Seattle bands such as Pearl Jam, but Pearl Jam itself reverted to Neil Young (see Mirrorball) that influenced their later works (see especially No Code). Grunge was dead, giving way to the Indie sounds of the early-mid '90s (e.g. Toadies) and the ska sounds (e.g. No Doubt, Reel Big Fish, Big Bad Voodoo Daddy, Gold Finger). But these ska sounds then gave way to the revival of swing (e.g. Cherry Poppin' Daddies, Brian Setzer Orchestra [a new, and less tasteful, dose of Stray Cats]; see also the semi-ska, semi-swing East Coast Punk). But the question of where punk fit proved to be very problematic. If punk did not die with Kurt Cobain like Grunge did, it was certainly diagnosed with a terminal disease (I also blame MTV, as I do for a number of other social ills). The death of punk music has been slow and has relegated the genre into a dichotomy of either being a mainstream pale image of what it could be or being a nascent, raw musical force that will again redefine itself. Yet these two streams are continually becoming polarized.
What does this mean for Postmodernism? There is the possibility that with the deaths of leading postmod scholars Postmodernism could dichotomize into the mainstream scholarship and into the clandestine method of study that is "just too theoretical" for scholars to take seriously. If this is the case, I shall err on the side of mainstream Postmodernism just so I can get/keep a job. But I shall always keep an eye on those other methods and subtle employ them.
Keep questioning me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
