to walk with the outsider

Peter Rollins visited the emergent village community in my city this week. i went and observed and listened to the things that were said. Peter told a parable that he said a friend of his had dreamed. it went something like this.

the friend died. as he was walking up to the pearly gates, he had to walk past a bunch of people who he knew. they were his friends on earth, people he'd met in the pub, people he spent time with, people he loved. he walked up to St. Peter, and Peter found his name in the book of life. "You can enter," Peter said. the friend asked, "what about these people?" and pointed to all his friends and acquaintances. "They have to stay out here," Peter said. and the friend replied, "well, then, i think i'd rather stay out here too." the friend awoke, and as he did, he swore he saw St. Peter smiling, and heard him saying, "finally, someone gets it."

Peter speaks of this parable as a great picture of what it means that the church is supposed to run after the poor, the forgotten, the neglected, the outsiders. but most of the time, the church exists only to perpetuate itself.

as Peter shared this story and his commentary with the group, there were a lot of interested faces. a lot of murmurs of agreement or exclamations that this is a good picture, that these are good thoughts. but as the parable was discussed, there was no talk of action. we did not ask how to run after the outsiders, how to reflect the incarnation in our own churches, in our own communities, in our own families, or even within the emergent community. instead, we engaged the idea at an intellectual level and left it there, where it was safe and warm and harmless.

a little more than a year ago, i left the church. and this is the reason why. in the new testament, church looks a lot more like a refuge for people who are worn down and weary from their interaction and engagement with the world. instead, we have turned it into something that exists for ourselves, for our own growth, for our own spiritual edification, for our own comfort, for the education of our children, or for our intellectual development. it is not a place that we come to be equipped with God's armor so that when we leave to enter the world we have the strength of the body surrounding us.

but we have been called to love our neighbors. to love neighbors who don't know God. to love neighbors who do love God. to love prisoners and orphans and widows. to love single parents and welfare families and drug dealers and pimps. to love the homeless mentally ill man who walks down the street asking for our spare change. we have been called to love the outsider and the one who is alone.

i left the church because there is no longer any place for me within those walls. in pursuing my calling to pursue and love the outsider, i actually became an outsider.

if only that hadn't been necessary. if only there existed a body of believers that exists, not to perpetuate a system or an institution, but to encourage the members of the group in their pursuits of mission and redemption in the world. maybe someday there will be. but it will not happen until we cease to engage at only an intellectual level the idea of mission and begin to put our hands and feet to work in the world.

until then, that's where you'll find me--putting my own hands and feet to work in loving and pursuing the outsider.

the weight of suffering

i carry the weight of others' suffering deep within me. at times i think i carry it deeper than they themselves may feel or recognize.

i don't really know how it happens, i only know that it has always been so. my parents tell stories of me entering a room where other babies were, and if others were crying, i would cry too. i have been reading about a portion of the population that has a highly sensitive nervous system and is simply in tune with more of the non-verbal, subconscious cues that everyone recognizes at some level. these people tend, as i do, to reflect very deeply on those things they pick up.

this carrying of burdens does not happen with everyone i meet. i do not carry all burdens for all people. but there have been countless times when i have been in a person's life, at the right time and place, and have walked with them in their suffering for a while, taking on some portion of it. i think that maybe this is one of those things that i have been put on earth for.

but for whatever reason, i find myself here again tonight. carrying a burden that is not mine, simply because God's love compels me to love another. and it is a heaviness of spirit that i cannot walk away from. it is an unrest that drives me to pray and cry out to God for healing and hope and forgiveness. it is a waiting and preparation for the time when i can speak words of truth and healing and hope and forgiveness into that life.

sometimes i wonder if there is a purpose for this burden-carrying. i have learned not to think myself a savior. i have learned to think and weigh the need before asking to be allowed to carry part of someone else's suffering. it takes so much out of me.

i guess i do think there is a purpose: if nothing else a purpose of reflecting the God who carries the burden of our suffering, who holds it deeply to his heart, who reaches out to touch us in our pain.

and so i wait, again, until the time is right to listen and to speak.

atheism

on facebook i found one of the girls i used to teach in sunday school. each person on facebook has the opportunity to say a little bit about themselves. so on her "about me" she defines herself as anti-God. her whole identity is wrapped up in the fact that she doesn't believe in God. she grew up in the church, was disillusioned, i think by her family and by the church, and so now her entire identity hinges on how she does not believe God is real.

then i was flipping through channels this week, and saw a cable program called "athiests speak" or something like that. basically it was a bunch of athiests sitting around talking about how God does not exist. what was really interesting to me though, is what they said. the only things they were talking about were the hypocrisy of the church, and the way it doesn't make sense when Christians talk about how God intervened in their lives in a miraculous way, while right next door someone is suffering and devastated.

they didn't claim that it is scientifically impossible that God exists. they didn't bring up philosophy, or argue that God is not necessary. the only thing they focused on was how the people who call themselves Christ followers have impacted their perception of God.

so i don't know. i am just reminded at the importance of my own actions. i am reminded that i really am Christ's ambassador. if i call myself a follower of Christ, then i need to live like he did. and i need to be very careful of what i say, and what i claim about God. my misunderstanding of God's character or Christ's teaching can become the false reality that someone reacts to.

my dilemma

so i've really taken to heart the fact that i'm in school and am surrounded by people. i know that sounds strange. but for the first couple of years of law school i was in my own world. part of it was the commuting, part of it was the figuring out how to survive, and part of it was the fact that my life outside of law school was full.

so all those things have changed now, and i have classes with several people over and over, and i'm actually getting to know them. i've taken to hanging out after class with them at the bars. i'm not really a drinker, so i'm the girl that sits there with water or a coke, but i'm there all the same.

it's been really fun--it's fun to get to know people, to see them outside of class, to listen to their stories. but i find that i am really terrible about small talk. i don't do things that create small talk topics. i might watch movies & tv, but that's about it, and i don't really care to talk about it.

all i ever want to talk about are things that are important to me. i'd talk about school, i'd talk about spiritual things, i'd talk about justice. honestly i really like to problem-solve, so my favorite conversations are analytical conversations. but i think that only 2 percent of the world's population are really interested in conversations like that.

truth is, i really want to get to know my classmates, and to do that, i have to talk about shallow things for a while. because the normal person does not just open up about everything quickly--it just doesn't happen. somehow there's this period of time where you have to talk about nothing before you can start to talk about something.

so i've got to work on finding some more nothing-topics to talk about. there's got to be some intermediate topics out there--things that would be semi-interesting to me but that wouldn't freak people out. because right now i'm mainly just going and listening to people. and i don't mind that, except that then they aren't really getting to know me either.

so that's my dilemma.

moments of clarity

so after i left Urbana, i was really thinking that i need to try to actively reach out to students next year. and i still really think that. but it's not next year yet.

through a couple of different conversations, my eyes are finally open to all the people who are around me right now, in my life at school. prior to now, i didn't really know anyone at my school well, except for the few i car-pooled with. but a real sense of community is forming now that we've got the campuses all straightened out, and i'm actually seeing some people in more than one class. so i'm really excited about it. i'm actually in a position to have more than one spiritual friendship, and that jazzes me like nothing else.

so in the midst of all my crazy research & studying (and there is a ton of that this semester), i'm going to be praying that God will bless my new friends and help me to see where he is already working in their lives.

and there are only 12 weeks to go until law school ends for me... woohoo!

a big question

many people are talking about the processness of evangelism. they speak of the need to have intentional, spiritual friendships, where we become a part of the process, and sometimes guide the seeker toward encountering God. (see, e.g. Rick Richardson, Reimagining Evangelism (2006); Fred Peatross, Evangelism is Another Animal--Not the One We Thought, no. 97 Next-Wave Ezine (Jan. 2007), available at this site.

but here is a question that we are not yet asking--how do we (the church) equip a post-modern person to be such a friend and sometimes guide? those of us who are older, who grew up in the modern sunday school classes--we got a big-picture view of the story. we got the details of all the little stories. we have often had bible college or seminary training. we can do the work of translating these fundamental truths to make sense to younger, more post-modern thinkers.

donald miller is a prime example. he has a spectacular, innate ability to tell the story in a relevant, poetic, story-like way. rob bell is another example of a great communicator of these truths.

but as i sat in a group of college students who were listening to donald miller speak, i looked around the room. the students were in awe--here was the gospel story, again relevant to their lives. but these same students had no clue how to speak the same poetry into the lives of their peers.

donald miller, rob bell, and probably many more of the emerging voices have recieved much training--modern training, even. i would venture to guess that they are avid readers, and always avid thinkers.

but.

in a world of podcasts and instant messages, how is the next generation going to be equipped to put words around the truths that they've experienced?

i think the answer must come in the form of relationship, community. but what will that look like? and is anyone out there talking about this? more importantly, is anyone living it?

the good news is that the bible comes in story form, and the poetry that hits home today seems closer to the bible's culture than our old modern culture. so there must be a way. i pray that the Spirit will help us to find it.

and i intend to spend the next few years praying about it and living it and seeking his answer.

social consciousness

another thing that i was thinking about this week at Urbana is the whole idea of living as though i am aware of the oppression in this world.

our country is so materialistic and consumeristic, that we believe that we are owed material comfort. and it is so easily available to us--all we have to do is go to the store and buy whatever we need. there is almost nothing that is unavailable because of cost or scarcity.

and this availability to us is built on the exploitation of people and resources in other nations.

this is a difficult thing. because in some places, sweatshops, though they require a lot of hours, pay much better and provide much better working environments than people could get elsewhere in that country. so i have always strongly believed that the answer to this kind of oppression is not to simply get rid of these places altogether. boycotting the products made there also does not appear to be the best solution. but i'm not sure what else to do--how do i live like it matters to me that these people are working where they're working in conditions that would never be acceptable to me? i don't know. but as i become more knowledgeable about the culture in which i live, i believe that i must think about this issue and live in response to it--somehow. it is that kind of principled living that is going to lend authenticity to the message of the gospel.

and what about money? at Urbana college students gave around $1.25 million to the cause of missions. unbelievable. we have so much expendable cash that put together, really can make a huge difference in the lives of people around the world. i am convinced that simple living is another essential value. and i know that i live more simply than most people here, but i still have too much. i spend my money too easily on my own comfort and entertainment when there is much that could be done with it elsewhere. but where is the line that allows me to use my money to keep myself sane (by doing artistic things, relaxing, etc)? it is true that if i want to be able to give to others i have to protect my own mental health by giving myself these kinds of outlets. but what about all the people who live in horrible conditions and do not have those options? i don't know.

i just come away knowing that i have to think about it. i have to take the time to make principled decisions instead of just accepting the fact that this is the way things are. i don't have to buy a new house, a new car, or new clothes. i can make choices. i guess i just want them to be informed and intelligent. i don't want to settle for what is easy and comes naturally, because a lot of times that's not really the best thing.

the Christian mind

about a year ago my friend Cathy & I went to hear Donald Miller speak (author of Blue Like Jazz...). he was speaking to a group of college students. i was blown away by his ability to share the story of the gospel like a poet would--and his audience was captivated. i turned to Cathy & remarked on this, and we wondered together how the college students were themselves going to be able to learn that skill.

there is a generation of us that grew up with much modern teaching--orthodox beliefs, apologetics. we were a literate generation--less literate than our parents, perhaps, but we still grew up in the era of network television and without mtv. we grew up without the internet, without many electronics. our imaginations were stimulated by mere words, and our past time was often reading or imaginative games that we created ourselves--because those were the only options we had.

but the generation that comes after us--the mtv, IM, podcast generations, these are the generations of the illiterate. yes, they can read, but most do not read to learn, to explore, to expand their minds. they read only when they have to, and are very disengaged at that. if you doubt it, ask any educator who's been working over the last 10 years. even at my law school, the professors have seen a dramatic drop in reading and comprehension abilities. and we haven't even touched on the lack of an attention span!

so Cathy and I asked ourselves who is going to come up with a way to teach this generation what they need to know to really share the gospel--really interact with their peers, based on the foundation of orthodox faith and doctrine, yet able to communicate on the post-modern level, able to tell the story of God.

today i went to a session about apologetics for the post-modern person by James Emery White. amazing scholar. his solution to post-modern apologetics is what he calls a "Christian mind." a mind that is literate in culture and ideas, a mind submitted to God and educated in the origins of western thought. he claims, along with others before him, that the battle for culture and souls is fought in the marketplace of ideas.

and i just sat there thinking that surely all is lost then. if literacy is all we have as an option, then we have already lost this generation to a spirituality that does not have anything to do with God. because this generation will not read. sure, there may be some who choose to educate themselves and enter the upper eschelons of educated society, and influence culture on a meta-scale. but by and large, this generation will go to their graves without knowledge of the living God because their peers will not do the work of developing a "Christian mind."

so what should the church do, then? is all lost because this Christian mind was not developed in our Christian families, in our churches, even in our Christian educational institutions?

i don't know. i don't have another solution to this problem yet. i want to believe that the story of Christ and his blood can be told, a person can answer the "so what?!" question to the Christian story, and this generation can come to Christ. but how?

what other options do we have?

social justice

today's students seem to be incredibly socially aware--educating themselves about AIDS, poverty, global warming, & other environmental concerns. and probably as with just about anything else, more students are talking about it than are actually doing anything.

still, i think it's safe to say that students are aware of these issues. maybe it's true that the entire generation has this awareness, and not just the students. at any rate, i think that it's safe to say that the church/followers of Christ will not be respected if they do not care about these issues. put another way, a group of Christ-followers that is involved in doing something about social issues will gain immediate respect and will have a voice in today's culture.

social justice will never replace sharing the message of the gospel. but social justice lends authenticity to this message. it brings the love & live of God to that incarnational level--meeting people where they are at. it puts skin on the values and character traits that God possesses. it becomes the platform or the common ground from which we are able to speak.

but let us be wise as we begin to enter in. let us choose to seek the underlying problems, & not just the symptoms. let us educate ourselves, and use the innovation that is unique to our culture. but let us also not forget to act within relationships. let us not forget to enter cultures and problems first as observers and learners. and let us always seek to be led by the Spirit in all things.

inductive study

one really interesting connection between law and faith is inductive study. when i started law school i couldn't believe how my practice in hermeneutics & inductive study helped me to learn to read cases. and now that i've been inductively reading cases for a couple of years, i have learned a lot about how to inductively study the Bible.

this morning we sat in a room of almost 200 students and did inductive Bible study together. we did it in a big group and in small groups. we were encouraged to observe, then ask questions, then try to answer them, and always to apply what we'd read & learned. the teacher didn't give a lecture, but led us through the process of reading and studying the scripture to learn what it says for ourselves. it was great. and people were engaged. and he didn't just let anyone give an opinion that was wrong, and let that fly... we weren't making the passage say just anything. when a student said something that was clearly deductive--a reading of his own opinion into the text--that student was corrected. so i think that the dangers that are often seen in small group studies as opposed to lecture can be worked around.

i think it's easier to go from inductive study to application than from lecture to application. if it's true that the point of gaining knowledge about God is to apply what we know, then that's important. when people inductively study and are involved in the process, then they are already active. it's way easier to go from that to asking "how does this apply to my life?" and then to actually apply it. at least it's easier for me.

i've got to be honest, i spend so much of my life listening to lecture, that i disengage when i'm there. i don't listen to sermons. part of it is just that i am inundated with noise and information from all sides all the time. it is not an effective way for me to learn or to be challenged to grow. but i love to study, i love to use my mind to draw conclusions, i love to make the jump from knowledge from application.

i suppose that someone might say that that's just me--that i'm built mentally to do that kind of work, but that not everyone is. and that may be true. but how many of our churches are made up of educated people, people who are more than capable of understanding the process of inductive study? and how many of us, with just a little help, could learn to use the vast resources that are available to us?

wouldn't it be better then, to teach that way in our churches? to equip people to actually learn and grow on their own and in smaller communities where there is accountability & space and time to learn and grow?

i don't know. but as i re-imagine church for our emergent service, and as i think ahead toward being involved in church development and discipleship, i want to remember that this is an option. i want to remember that because of the education level of the church in the US, because of the access to information, we can do community learning in ways other than one person getting up to speak every Sunday. in fact, it just might be more effective for the younger generations.

remembering mission

there is a whole generation who waits--they are waiting to leave their mark and to see the word change. they are waiting and looking for a wold that bears the mark of the impact of God--of his Spirit. And they see beyond borders, nationalities, ethnicities, philosophies.

and why not? they are the first generation to grow up where those things that separated the generations before became irrelevant. air travel, technology, the internet... we truly live in a global village.

i got on a bus this morning to travel to the Urbana student missions convention with a bus full of college students. i was amazed to hear how many of them live with mission, seeking to change the world for the kingdom of God. unfettered by life's mistakes, and even adult responsibilities, their futures stand open before them, pages yet to be written.

and i am amazed. in my small corner of adult life, in a religious town where few have vision beyond their own backyards, i forget.

i forget that i am not the only one who sees a whole big world out there. i forget that i am not alone in believing that God wants to reach the world with the hope and truth of his love.

and i remember. i remember that what seems impossible and impassible for one person--one Christian even--is more than possible with God, if only we can see each other and work together.

and i am stunned, again, at the enormous potential that this generation possesses to change the world. and i want to be a part of it.

and that's why i am at urbana again. i am not willing to leave behind the idealism and mission i found in my youth. i am not willing to resign myself to believing and living like my corner of the world is the only one there is, or that the small insignificant details of life are all that life adds up to.

and so i'll pray again for God to move in me--to show me what he wants me to do, where he wants me to go, and who he wants me to be. i'll remember mission, and i will recommit my life to it, so that in this time of decisions, i will not settle for less.

stranded

so i was in the airport last night, trying to get on my flight. i got up to the security checkpoint and discovered that the power was out throughout the entire airport. i wasn't going anywhere soon. as the minutes crept by, the people around me were getting more and more anxious. and then suddenly, everyone was on their cell phones. they were calling friends and family to reschedule plans. they were calling assistants to try to get information on whether planes were taking off without us. they were calling the airlines to try to reschedule flights.

and i just stood there. i don't have a cell phone. there was no one for me to call anyway. there was nothing i could do.

and so i observed. it was so interesting. first, we have very busy lives. i had scheduled a full day--thursday night i had class, so i couldn't leave on thursday. so friday morning i got on a plane, made one connection, and then arrived at my destination a little before noon. i had an interview at 2pm, and then i was to get back on the plane on friday around 5. i should have returned by 8. i had a test this morning an hour away from my house that i had to get back for.

why in the world do i believe that i can arrange my life like that? i can fly 800 miles round trip in one day, and sandwich in an interview between a night class and a morning test. why do i arrange my life like that? because i can. but should i? really?

what about time for people, relationships, family, church? is our life, technically advanced as it is, really better than the days that people lived in one place, traveled less, and actually had time to live life? i don't know what to conclude about that. i just know that when i fill up my life with things--just because i can--i end up feeling like i'm not really living.

second, it was really interesting to me that people wouldn't just stand there in line, waiting. we americans can't stand to wait. this situation was vastly beyond our control. the electricity was either going to come on, or it wasn't. the planes were leaving, or they were waiting for us. there was absolutely nothing that any of us could do. but i was amazed at how people did what they could to fix the situations that they were in. for the most part, all their efforts were in vain. but at least people felt like they were doing something about the situation. no one could stand to just wait.

and i wondered how that translates to our spiritual lives. the lack of an ability to wait seems to be a cultural phenomenon. we want things done right, and we want those things to happen right now. but i don't think that in the spritual realm things always happen that way. there are times when waiting is necessary, when God asks us to simply wait on him and trust. and there's something within us that doesn't want to do that. we want to fix it--to make things happen--to get ourselves out of the situation.

i think we have to work on that. i know that i have to work on it. i like for things to be settled and sure. if they're not that way, i'm not terribly patient while i work to make them that way. but there are times when i have to just wait. i'm kind of in one of them now, as i explore and try to hear God's direction for my future.

the good news is that the power came on again after about an hour & a half. a wonderful ticket agent got me on a flight with a different airline and i made it home just a couple hours late. i actually made it to my test this morning and was awake enough to take it.

free flowing

i'm trying to get lots of feedback on our new service at my church. i asked a guy that i know what he thought after his first visit. he had come in about 10 minutes late to the service, so he didn't hear all the explanations or instructions.

we have kind of a free-flowing thing going, with options for how involved you want to be. that probably doesn't make sense. we've been trying to communicate that people are welcome to participate to the level they are comfortable, recognizing that people are at different stages & might want more or less participation, and also recognizing that people worship in different ways. so there are options for response at the end of the service, options to pray, to continue singing, to be creative, or even to leave.

so anyway, this guy was saying how he was a little lost and confused. he seemed like he kind of wanted to be told what to do.

and i can understand that. but.

but when i go to church a lot of times i just check out mentally. people tell you what to do, you sing, stand, sit, listen (or zone out), etc. to me i think that having choices of how to respond means i have to actually be engaged. does that cause some discomfort? maybe. will it take getting used to if you've spent all your life going to church where there's procedure all mapped out for you? definitely.

but i kind of like it. i like the idea that you are forced to be engaged. even if you get through the first portion of the meeting as a passive person, a choice is set before you to get involved at the end and actually respond in a meaningful way. that's cool. really cool.

but i guess we can work on the communication aspect of things--making sure that people know what they're choosing. and there will be times when we do more strongly directed group activities.

and another thought--how do we keep a unity within the diversity of response? there is a purpose & a benefit to having some measure of order. i don't think things have been out of control up to this point. but it would be good if we could keep a balance so that it doesn't get there.

so... interesting things to think about.

culture matters

tomorrow's the big meeting/run through for the new service my church is starting to reach the "emergent" generation. we're going to talk the interested people in our church through our vision and strategy for this ministry. it appears that i'm going to be saying something about why such a thing is even necessary.

so i've been thinking about this--actually since last Sunday when i was in church. i've been thinking about the peace child. since the apostle Paul, Christians have entered cultures and tried to communicate the message of the Gospel. Paul looked around & pointed to the unknown god, and said that's my God--let me tell you about him. the missionary in the peace child went and lived among a people group for a really long time, studying the language and the culture, and eventually he saw something that they did that was a picture of what God did. so he pointed to their ritual of the peace child, and said let me tell you about my God, who sent his own peace child to earth to restore all mankind's relationship to him through that child.

and i think--how powerful.

did the message of the gospel change between Paul and the peace child?
no.
did the truth of God's word change?
no.
did the truth of God and his character change?
no.

but the way that message is communicated changed--it had to change.

so often we trip over language and culture when we try to communicate who God is and what he has done in us. it takes a student of culture to learn the words and the pictures that are already present in a culture to accurately communicate those truths to that culture. if we don't, then we can speak the truth, but who will hear us? who will understand?

culture is. it exists. it's not good, it's not bad, it just is. we communicate within the context of culture. we have to understand culture in order to truly communicate cross-culturally. if we don't, we're just saying words that don't make sense to anyone.

so that's what's behind our new ministry. we need to learn how to communicate to the heart language of the post-modern/emergent/emerging culture. we are not experimenting with the truth. we are not leaving the faith. we seek only to effectively communicate the message of Christ to a new generation.

scripture's authenticity

so i've started, or thought about writing, several posts about my experiences in my job this summer. but i'm not sure how much i can share and still protect the confidentiality of the clients, so i've opted for caution--no need to ruin my legal career before it starts.

i had a great meeting with my pastor this week regarding the new ministry we're starting at our church. we talked a little bit more about the content of the messages and the focus of our body. so here's one thought.

one of the major issues that the modern church has with post-modern people is about their use of and respect for scripture. there is a great concern in the modern church about the sanctity and reliability of scripture. there is absolute truth that can be known. this truth is found in the Bible. you can trust what the Bible says because of how it came into being and how it has been used by the church over the centuries. there is life in the Word that is not found in other books.

but for the post-modern person, the sanctity and reliability of scripture is relatively unimportant. this is because spiritual truths will be confirmed and validated by the lives people live rather than the words printed on the page. it matters little what the Bible says if you aren't living what you say it says. if you live scripturally and i can see a difference in your life that is positive, then maybe i'll listen to what you say. but even if the documents are proved reliable scientifically, i don't care unless it affects the way you live your life. scripture and truth is authenticated by the lives of the believers who live it. to the post-modern person, the reliability of scripture will never be validated unless living by scripture produces the fruits of the spirit.

is that really so wrong? i honestly think that if you look at the teachings of Jesus, he too focused on how knowledge is translated to action. a person never really knows the truth until he or she puts it into action. at all times in history the Bible has been called into question because of the inconsistent lives of those who call themselves believers. i'm not saying that there aren't proofs to show that the Bible is reliable and can be trusted. i'm only saying that for the post-modern person, that whole discussion misses the point. this is because it's only when the post-modern person interacts with a beliver who lives what the Bible says that the Bible is authenticated and given credibility.

emerging thoughts

i've been reading up on the emergent church during this break, and had some great conversations this weekend about what's going on and where we should be headed. i've many thoughts going through my mind right now, but i'll just talk about one thing for this post.

one interesting thing about the emergent church in the US is that it's mostly made up of Christians who have been hurt in more modern churches. many times these injuries come from misunderstandings & miscommunication between the generation. these hurt people have left their churches, often staying away from church for a long time. when and if they come back to church, they're looking for a place where they will be accepted for who they are - even though they drink or smoke or just generally live a life that's not perfect from the outside looking in (as defined by the common churchgoer).

it does not appear that the emergent church is made up of new believers - the post-modern thinkers who are becomming Christians. one wonders if post-modern thinkers are becoming believers at all. if they were, initially it doesn't seem like it would matter where they went to church. this is simply because the post-modern person will likely never believe apart from a relationship with a genuine Christian living an authentic & consistent & grace-filled Christian life and would probably be content to attend any kind of service. however, as time passes, it is almost certain that the cultural and philosopical differences would begin to hinder communication and community and cause injury to new Christians just as has happened with many post-modern people who are already Christian.

it seems like something must be done about this. either modern churches need to learn to speak the language of the post-modern person, or post-modern persons have to have another option. unfortunately, most of the books i am reading by emergent theologians are written in such a way that they threaten the very foundations of the modern person's faith. as a result, people are spending more time arguing about these issues than learning from one another and working together at some sort of solution--a way to make the church a place for both modern & post-modern thinkers.

i really do think that it's possible for a post-modern person to follow Jesus. though trained in modern thinking as a soon-to-be-lawyer, i would consider myself more postmodern than modern, and i am a follower of Jesus. and as much as the modern church in many ways is judging the post-modern mindset and saying that post-modernity is unbiblical and is a threat to Christianity, post-modernity is a cultural phenomenon, a world-view, and one which will be with us for a while. i do think it's time that the conversation turned toward working together to reach the post-modern thinker. i hope that we will move in that direction.

secrets

you may have noticed the link to postsecret on the right side of this blog. it's a link to a blog where people send postcards of their secrets--secrets they've never told anyone before. the guy who runs the blog picks 10-20 every week to post on his site.

so what is it that draws people to send their secrets in to a total stranger? why do they want their secrets to be known? what need is this site meeting in peoples' lives? because it is meeting a need. the man who manages the blog is inundated with postcards daily. people are reading them all the time, and many people make a connection with the cards that are posted.

i've got to believe that part of the draw is that there are very few places in our society where it is safe to be human--to be imperfect--to have issues. at work we are expected to produce with an eye only to monetary gain. our homes are so busy that there is little time to make deep enough connection to be concerned with enabling those around us to learn and grow. and there is little grace. in the christian world there is often an expectation of perfection... you don't bring your problems to church. in the secular world there is more of an acceptance of non-perfection, and yet there is little concern with reaching outside of onseself to meet the needs of others, especially those who are mere acquaintances.

so my question is this... is this a need that the church should be meeting? is there a way that the church could become a community of grace and connection in such a disconnected society?

i can tell you for sure that it will never happen in a program-oriented environment. and it will not happen if the only thing that happens at church is the normal singing/preaching worship service. not that these things are bad in themselves, and not that they are not necessary for some purposes.

but somehow the world has changed so much that people no longer have true community. gone are the days (in most places) where people walk next door to borrow a cup of sugar. people don't know each other. at all. you can go into a social setting and be whoever you want to be, and come home & be someone completely different. you can be whoever you want to on the internet and make lots of internet friends who see only a one-dimensional picture of who you are.

but there is still a deep longing for connection, a desire to be known and loved unconditionally. i firmly believe that if we can figure out how to make the church that community of grace and connection, the church will be able to reach this generation. how to do so while maintaining a commitment to discipleship and a grounded theology is the challenge we now face.

how evidence taught me grace

my evidence class and a talk with a friend taught me a little bit about grace this week.

the federal rules of evidence don't really allow you to discuss a person's character during trial, with just a few exceptions. usually you can't bring up past actions (like a prior conviction for robbing a bank) to show that someone has a propensity to do something (like robbing in general), to show that they did something specific (like robbing the 7-11). we don't want someone convicted of a crime because he's a bad person - we want him convicted because there's enough evidence that he did it.

a friend and i did something to upset one of our best friends about a year ago. not a huge deal, only we live such a long distance from one another that it's been hard to reconnect. so she was visiting again for several weeks over Christmas, and i discovered that i wasn't really emotionally connecting with her. and so i tried to figure out why. eventually i discovered it was because i wasn't really sure what she thought of me anymore. she's a pretty emotional person. i'm a pretty sensitive person. she had responded in frustration in a way that made me wonder what she thought of me.

and that's where evidence comes in. i realized that i believed that she'd taken my negative action and made a negative inference about me. i believed that she no longer believed in me. and i don't know how to be real and vulnerable with someone who has known me deeply, yet stopped believing in me.

then i thought about grace - maybe that's what grace is. it's seeing the negative things that a person does, but not drawing a negative inference about them. it's allowing people to make mistakes, to be human, but to reserve judgment and keep thinking the best of them. and that really is how God sees us. he looks at us and does see the bad things that we do. but he doesn't infer bad things about us. in fact - he goes further and sees us through Christ's work on the cross. he is able to see the good in us, in spite of the bad things we do.

the reason the testimony about prior bad acts is kept out of court is because it's highly prejudicial. juries tend to give great weight to prior bad acts in determining current guilt. i think that's because that's the way we are in life too. we all to often see the bad acts and make the inference about bad character and then basically expect the person to keep doing bad things.

but i want to see the best in people. and i want people to believe the best about me, even when i do stupid things. is that what it means to always protect, always hope, always trust, and always persevere in love?

i kind of think it does.

on giving

i've been thinking some about giving, during this Christmas season. i find myself without close family nearby for the holidays, and it's been interesting to try to figure out what i'm going to do with my time.

i've had some random offers to spend time with people - from strangers at my church, to people i half-know, to one of my best friends from school. and as i've considered who i would be most comfortable taking from, it's definitely the people i have relationships with. i don't really want to interrupt a holiday celebration of someone i don't know. but i'm a little more comfortable intruding on the kindness of people who know and love me already.

then i compare that to how many people traditionally give during this season. one of my classes, actually, got together to adopt a family through the United Way & buy them gifts, household items, and a Christmas meal. we pooled our money, sent out representatives to buy, and i'm sure overwhelmed them with the amount of stuff that we brought to them.

but as i read my professor's description of the visit on our school website, i was immediately uncomfortable. besides the fact that his descriptions made the law students sound like knights arriving on white horses to bring salvation to a family living in a hovel, really our giving was void of relationship. we had no relationship with the woman and her children when we gave her these gifts. so what did our gifts communicate to her? how did our presentation of those gifts make her feel?

it is possible to give in a way that dehumanizes people. it's possible to give thinking only of the wonderful tingly feeling you get when you give something to another person, or thinking of what a wonderful person you are. it's possible to give in a way that's hurtful to others.

and this brings me to the whole idea of charity and welfare, the church's role and the government's role. i saw many things while working with at-risk youth, and one of my observations was what happens to people who receive welfare. many people who get welfare really would rather be working - they would rather be out there earning their own money than just taking from the government. in many ways, allowing them to just take the money each month dehumanizes them in the same way that some giving dehumanizes the receiver. we are meant to work, to contribute to our families, our societies, to be a part of procuring the things we need for ourselves. though many of us cannot do that on our own, and need help from our communities, we still need to have an active role.

so one of the problems i see with our current governmental welfare system (and the more socialistic welfare systems of other nations), is that we put people into a position where they are allowed to become dehumanized, so that they are no longer even able to contribute to society. i understand that to try to tie welfare in with people and relationships makes it a lot more difficult, and the bureaucracies of our government probably can't handle it. but really, are we helping people? is this an outcome that is intended? if not, what might we be able to do about it?

that, i think, is where faith-based programs could really be effective. with these kinds of programs, at least you have the option of making the giving and receiving somewhat relational. additionally, people can receive not only monetary assistance, but also find a community support system, which is another thing that's essential, but often lacking.

i'm really not sure that handing out just money is the right thing to do.

stealing christmas?

i'm just not sure what to think about all this controversy over calling "Christmas" trees "holiday" trees. my gut reaction is that it really doesn't matter - i mean, the meaning of Christmas has absolutely nothing to do with the Christmas tree. in fact, if i remember correctly, the Christmas tree was actually part of pagan festivals around the end/first of the year that Christians sort of took over and made part of the Christmas celebration.

but really - what does the tree have to do with Christmas anyway? it really is sort of representative of the holiday season as a whole. no one is taking the manger, and calling it a "holiday manger." no one is taking the cross and calling it a "holiday cross." if i were going to live and die for some symbols of faith, i think those would be more likely.

however, i know that there is a deeper issue here, and that's the question of whether our society will become void of religion. how much are children allowed to talk about their religious beliefs at school? how much are adults allowed to practice or communicate about their faith at work? how much are governmental leaders allowed to speak about prayer? are athiests really so much in the minority politically, that they need to be protected by taking "in God we trust" out of our money?

the quesiton is, what kind of society do we want to become? in truth, the founders of the country were religious to some extent. our whole ideology is founded on judeo-christian values of working hard, forgiveness, ethics, etc. not all of these values are espoused in a "Christian" way, and not all of them really reflect the values and the principles of God's character as he communicates it in Scripture. but to deny that those things were part of the foundation of our nation - i don't know. we can re-write history, if we want to... but at what cost?

separation of church and state is probably a pretty good idea. but we've gone way beyond that, i think, when we don't allow people to live lives of faith that encompass their whole being. if we have the expectation that people will dichotomize their faith from their public lives - well... i don't think it's going to work. there is a segment of people in any religion who believe that faith is supposed to transform and be central to their lives. they will not dichotomize no matter what anyone tells them.

i find this whole discussion completely fascinating. there is a real ideological conflict going on - much of it in the courts - and there is no assurance of which ideology will win. it will be really interesting to see how the "in God we trust" case makes it through the 9th circuit (though the disposition of that case in that circuit may be fairly predictable), and then if the Supreme Court sees fit to hear the case. the history of religious rights and freedoms in our nation has been fairly convoluted, and the Court has not held a consistent position throughout the years. very interesting stuff...