For those of you who don't know much about me I wanted to toss out a few factoids.
I'm a 25 year old graduate student working on his Masters of Divinity at San Francisco Theological Seminary. I got my undergraduate degree from Purdue University in Computer Graphics Technology with an emphasis in Interactive Multi-media Development. Purdue is in West Lafayette Indiana. That is where I grew up, went to high school, met my beautiful wife (Julia), got my bachelors degree, and worked in my first church experiences.
God called me into the Ministry in the last semester of my senior year in college. I had been volunteering at my wife's church, Federated Church of West Lafayette. There I had been working as a mentor to High School guys as part of the youth ministry, and unexpectedly we lost our Youth Pastor. With wisdom beyond my knowledge, the senior pastor asked me to lead the youth group. I at first rejected the idea expressing no interest in working in ministry but God had other plans. God lead me to take the job in Youth Ministry and I fell in love with the teaching and guiding of people on their journey through life. Dealing with examining how one can live out their faith 24/7 365.
Through soul searching and God's leading Julia and I decided it was time for me to get my Masters of Divinity and we found a loving and wonderful community at SFTS. This year at SFTS I look forward to helping with Holy Grounds (an on-campus student ministry of hospitality for the community) and working with Mission Bay Community Church.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Monday, June 05, 2006
Left and Right....Right and Wrong
Check out this post about Emergent called "Is Emergent the New Christian Left"
I think that it is an interesting conversation to talk about emergent as left or right. And please read my comment there (maybe i'll copy it here later). But the one other thing that I want to add is from one of McLaren's book about most people argue about where we fall on a linear path but what Jesus did was change it from being about the line to being about the circle. Jesus is not on the linear path but on a circle above the path.
I also posted a second point which I copied before I posted it. And it says...
“Your conversation is like two people standing on the shore talking about the best way to save the guy drowning in the river. You can't even decide if the guy is really drowning.
I'm diving in.” --Richard Dennis miller on May 25, 2006
First, Richard, I want to make sure that you know that I applaud the fact that you have dove in. I’m swimming too, and I’m part to the emergent community. In fact, pretty much everyone in the conversation I’ve met is swimming. It’s not that the emergent conversation is two people standing on the shore talking about the best way to save the guy who’s drowning; it is more a conversation about what you say to the guy to let you help him out of the river (or another analogy could be that it’s teaching people how to swim). If a drowning man doesn’t trust you to save them and they don’t relax (or you don’t know how to swim fairly well) they will pull you under. Now you have two dead. The point is that the people I know in the emergent community are diving in day after day. I think the point is we all want to figure out how to help the drowning man out of the river. We may just disagree on the way to do it. It is unfair to judge a group of people because they have different opinions about what you should tell the man after you pull him out of the river or what stroke to swim on the way out to him. I believe this was the point Tony was making when he said we know that we need to do something about poverty. Poverty is the river that people are drowning in. We all pretty much agree with need to get them out. Where differences come into play is how to do just that.
To go back to the drowning analogy, if a man is dying of poverty and you walk up to him and tell him to believe in Jesus and he will not be hungry, is he going to accept this? That has not been my experience. That would be like shouting from the river bank saying if you believe in Jesus you won’t sink. The point is still the one that you were making and that is we have to get in the river to help them out. We need to go to areas of poverty and bring them food and supplies (i.e. get them out of the river) before we share with them about Jesus.
It has been my humble pleasure to observe that people I’ve met in the emergent community are diving in on a regular basis (I also want to say I know lots of people who would not consider themselves part of the conversation that are swimming as well).
“I do not believe that a lesbian priest is right in the eyes of God. I can’t help but think I would not be welcome in your Village holding this belief.” --leoskeo at May 26, 2006
Leoskeo, I encourage you to go to the village or to an emergent cohort meeting in your area and find out. I have faith that you will experience, as I have, that you can bring a very different opinion from the majority of the people in attendance and still be lovingly accepted into the community and conversation. I’m not saying that its perfect or that people won’t disagree or argue with you, because they probably will. But I know that if you came to our cohort, that we would welcome you in with open arms.
This issue about the conversation taking a stand needs to be put in the right framework. Emergent does not tell people who participate in the conversation to not take a stand or say definitely what they believe. But at the same time, one person can not speak for all the individuals out there that are part of this conversation; hence the no “Emergent” statement of faith. Would you like me to tell people what you believe? I know I wouldn’t.
I also want to totally applaud you if you are a part of that list of things that you were talking about sending all that money to help all those people in need! That’s so awesome! God is truly at work in those areas.
“What makes some issues more important to Emergent than other issues? What criteria did you use to discern the important from the less important issues? Can these questions be a part of the conversation?”
No issue is truly more important than any other issue. People may be spending a lot of time talking about specific issues but that doesn’t make them more important or others less important. The point is if you want to talk about an issue then we can talk about that issue. I have experience in my cohort that I can bring ANY issue to the table. So to answer your question. YES! Those questions can and are a part of the conversation!
“My frustration with emergent continues to be very simple. I still have no idea what anybody in the movement really believes.”
If you want to know what someone in the movement believes ask them, face to face (especially if you expect someone like Tony or Brian to answer that sort of question). The problem with answering that for the high profile emergent individuals is that when they open their mouth to express themselves they don’t want to cast that shadow on everyone else in the conversation. If you want to know what I believe on any issue feel free to email me, I'll gladly explain my point of view to you.
“They simply mean that biblical condemnations of murder, theft, adultery, homosexuality, which have been authoritatively interpreted by the church for twenty centuries as meaning pretty much what the words say, need not "discussed" or "deconstructed" according to a set of philosophical assumptions that have only recently gained ground.” --Dan at May 26, 2006 05:45 PM
The problem with accepting all those as authoritatively interpreted by the church is the pitfalls that all of us as part of the church have been through before on issues that we thought we had figured out. Take slavery, many within the church used to definitely believe that slavery was made right by the authority of the bible.
What about an eye for an eye? In the biblical day that expression was an extreme movement towards reconciliation because before that if you took someone’s eye they could kill you. God was asking for a change in that behavior. Does that mean that when someone punches me I should punch back? No (as many here would argue that Jesus changed all that).
The point is that the Gospel is lived out differently in different contexts. The emergent conversation is dealing with the postmodern shift (if you argue that the postmodern shift isn’t happening then that’s another argument). The emergent conversation is about discussing and examining how the Gospel can be meaningfully lived out today. But it doesn't stop there, it's about living in relationship with the living God. It's about how do we have a 24/7 365 faith. If you want an emergent bottom line that's about as simple as I can state it.
I think that it is an interesting conversation to talk about emergent as left or right. And please read my comment there (maybe i'll copy it here later). But the one other thing that I want to add is from one of McLaren's book about most people argue about where we fall on a linear path but what Jesus did was change it from being about the line to being about the circle. Jesus is not on the linear path but on a circle above the path.
I also posted a second point which I copied before I posted it. And it says...
“Your conversation is like two people standing on the shore talking about the best way to save the guy drowning in the river. You can't even decide if the guy is really drowning.
I'm diving in.” --Richard Dennis miller on May 25, 2006
First, Richard, I want to make sure that you know that I applaud the fact that you have dove in. I’m swimming too, and I’m part to the emergent community. In fact, pretty much everyone in the conversation I’ve met is swimming. It’s not that the emergent conversation is two people standing on the shore talking about the best way to save the guy who’s drowning; it is more a conversation about what you say to the guy to let you help him out of the river (or another analogy could be that it’s teaching people how to swim). If a drowning man doesn’t trust you to save them and they don’t relax (or you don’t know how to swim fairly well) they will pull you under. Now you have two dead. The point is that the people I know in the emergent community are diving in day after day. I think the point is we all want to figure out how to help the drowning man out of the river. We may just disagree on the way to do it. It is unfair to judge a group of people because they have different opinions about what you should tell the man after you pull him out of the river or what stroke to swim on the way out to him. I believe this was the point Tony was making when he said we know that we need to do something about poverty. Poverty is the river that people are drowning in. We all pretty much agree with need to get them out. Where differences come into play is how to do just that.
To go back to the drowning analogy, if a man is dying of poverty and you walk up to him and tell him to believe in Jesus and he will not be hungry, is he going to accept this? That has not been my experience. That would be like shouting from the river bank saying if you believe in Jesus you won’t sink. The point is still the one that you were making and that is we have to get in the river to help them out. We need to go to areas of poverty and bring them food and supplies (i.e. get them out of the river) before we share with them about Jesus.
It has been my humble pleasure to observe that people I’ve met in the emergent community are diving in on a regular basis (I also want to say I know lots of people who would not consider themselves part of the conversation that are swimming as well).
“I do not believe that a lesbian priest is right in the eyes of God. I can’t help but think I would not be welcome in your Village holding this belief.” --leoskeo at May 26, 2006
Leoskeo, I encourage you to go to the village or to an emergent cohort meeting in your area and find out. I have faith that you will experience, as I have, that you can bring a very different opinion from the majority of the people in attendance and still be lovingly accepted into the community and conversation. I’m not saying that its perfect or that people won’t disagree or argue with you, because they probably will. But I know that if you came to our cohort, that we would welcome you in with open arms.
This issue about the conversation taking a stand needs to be put in the right framework. Emergent does not tell people who participate in the conversation to not take a stand or say definitely what they believe. But at the same time, one person can not speak for all the individuals out there that are part of this conversation; hence the no “Emergent” statement of faith. Would you like me to tell people what you believe? I know I wouldn’t.
I also want to totally applaud you if you are a part of that list of things that you were talking about sending all that money to help all those people in need! That’s so awesome! God is truly at work in those areas.
“What makes some issues more important to Emergent than other issues? What criteria did you use to discern the important from the less important issues? Can these questions be a part of the conversation?”
No issue is truly more important than any other issue. People may be spending a lot of time talking about specific issues but that doesn’t make them more important or others less important. The point is if you want to talk about an issue then we can talk about that issue. I have experience in my cohort that I can bring ANY issue to the table. So to answer your question. YES! Those questions can and are a part of the conversation!
“My frustration with emergent continues to be very simple. I still have no idea what anybody in the movement really believes.”
If you want to know what someone in the movement believes ask them, face to face (especially if you expect someone like Tony or Brian to answer that sort of question). The problem with answering that for the high profile emergent individuals is that when they open their mouth to express themselves they don’t want to cast that shadow on everyone else in the conversation. If you want to know what I believe on any issue feel free to email me, I'll gladly explain my point of view to you.
“They simply mean that biblical condemnations of murder, theft, adultery, homosexuality, which have been authoritatively interpreted by the church for twenty centuries as meaning pretty much what the words say, need not "discussed" or "deconstructed" according to a set of philosophical assumptions that have only recently gained ground.” --Dan at May 26, 2006 05:45 PM
The problem with accepting all those as authoritatively interpreted by the church is the pitfalls that all of us as part of the church have been through before on issues that we thought we had figured out. Take slavery, many within the church used to definitely believe that slavery was made right by the authority of the bible.
What about an eye for an eye? In the biblical day that expression was an extreme movement towards reconciliation because before that if you took someone’s eye they could kill you. God was asking for a change in that behavior. Does that mean that when someone punches me I should punch back? No (as many here would argue that Jesus changed all that).
The point is that the Gospel is lived out differently in different contexts. The emergent conversation is dealing with the postmodern shift (if you argue that the postmodern shift isn’t happening then that’s another argument). The emergent conversation is about discussing and examining how the Gospel can be meaningfully lived out today. But it doesn't stop there, it's about living in relationship with the living God. It's about how do we have a 24/7 365 faith. If you want an emergent bottom line that's about as simple as I can state it.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
value? without no value?
Can something valuable come out of something that is not valuable (or considered less valuable)?
I had coffee with a friend of mine today and we got to talking about authentic community and the issues involved with postmodernism and modernism. He sees major issues with postmodernism (and for that matter modernism as well – but thinks it is better than PM) because he thinks that it eliminates the regions that modernism creates in such a way that makes it so individual that no one can say anything that stems outside of their own context (if you want to argue about if postmodernism says that or not, that’s another argument).
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Evangelism (a few thoughts)
When it comes to evangelism I often feel we act like teenagers stuck in a van for a long road trip when we are trying to decide what CD or radio station to play. When teenagers decide what music to listen to it is typically followed with a series of shouting, ultimatums, and shame-based negotiations. We all talk about the way others do evangelism in the way that teenagers refer to the types of music each other listen too. We often attack and critique the way others do evangelism (or not do evangelism).
Evangelism is both a modern and postmodern issue, but it is imperative that we recognize that we are a part of a postmodern world. We need to work hard to demonstrate the implication of evangelism to our congregations. There are many ways to do evangelism and many definitions of what it means for each of us to be the resident evangel. A definition of evangelism is faith sharing with the unchurched, a way to introduce a person to Christ. The PCUSA defines evangelism as joyfully sharing the good news of the sovereign love of God’s calling people to repentance, to personal faith in Jesus Christ, to active membership in the church, and to obedient service to the world. Each definition brings clarity to evangelism but isn’t limiting it to one idea.
As pastors and leaders we work hard to demonstrate that the severity of the choices that we make in the way that we personally and professionally do evangelism. They affect people and the world. Ways that we do evangelism often stem too much from the entitlement of an entertainment-based society, rather than from any biblical or spiritual mandate. This is not to say that we can or should just drop all the forms of evangelism that represent society but it is important to identify where our motivation or sense of entitlement stems. We have become indoctrinated with the idea that our faith is part of this affluent, consumer driven multi option society and that the answer revolves around finding the right kind of marketing scheme for the good news. It doesn’t. We can’t just participate in this market economy of possibilities providing outlets to suit each preference on how and when evangelism should be done. Evangelism is not about how you choose to share the good news but rather that you do it.
The style of evangelism that we choose is not just a pastor issue but an issue relevant to each congregation in its own unique and context. There is an ongoing debate about which is the best form of evangelism. It is often just banter of philosophies that think they have it figured out. This debate is not a new debate but it is an essential issue. There are many philosophies, principles and values that inform the practice of evangelism in our postmodern world but there is no one model that simple works.
The essence of evangelism is not a well thought out approach, event or path to enlightenment. It is not as simple as implementing and teaching the right technique to the right people in order to grow the church. Better strategies and new styles are not the answer. Our pluralistic postmodern context is not going to be won over based on event savvy churches that are targeting specific audiences. This culture does not need churches that major in offering the right kind of faith or right kind of product for them to join. What this culture desperately needs is to see God’s story and kingdom as a good, plausible, and an embodied reality.
The theology behind our practice of evangelism is the most important part of evangelism (not excluding doing something). Missiologist Bengt says “Theology is, in the last resort, translation. It is an ever-renewed re-interpretation to new generations and peoples of the given-Gospel, a re-interpretation of the will and the way of the one Christ in a dialogue with new thoughts forms and culture patterns.” Our theology is the way that we choose to represent the Gospel in our culture. I believe that evangelism is a part of our theology and is best represented by missio dei (God’s sending of the Son and the Holy Spirit into the world for the healing of creation). God is a missional God who calls the church into being and sends the church into the world on God’s mission of healing. At the end of the day evangelism is about love. As Rob Bell talked about in the Bullhorn Nooma video we watched in class, often the Christian loves people and build relationships in order to convert them to the Christian faith. That’s love with an agenda, and if we think about it, and there is an agenda, then it isn’t really love. Our goal is to then rediscover how to truly love people, because that’s what Jesus teaches us to do. We have to realize that we will never convert them and if they choose to not to become a Christian there is nothing we can do about it. We have to trust God to be at work in that person.
Evangelism is about sharing the good news with people around us; simply put loving God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves. It is not some perfect blueprint or twelve step process. Anne Lamott in Traveling Mercies talks about faith saying “I always imagined when I was a kid that adults had some kind of inner toolbox, full of shinny tools: the saw of discernment, the hammer of wisdom, the sandpaper of patience. But then when I grew up I found that life hands you these rusty bent old tools – friendship, prayer, conscience, honesty – and says, do the best you can with these, they will have to do. And mostly, against all odds, they’re enough.” Evangelism is not a shinny wrench that you apply to a person and they magically twist them into a life of faith. We are left with our tools like friendship and honesty to share our story about how God has affected our lives in such a way that this rusty old tool actually does work and is important.
This still leaves us to figure out how evangelism works in the congregational context. It is important to realize that each context is different. What is a meaningful way to evangelize and love people in one context may not be affective in another. You don’t need to take soup to the millionaire and you don’t need to tell the poor to give up their possessions. Craig Cross has an interesting point of view on this topic. His book The Gutter has made a lasting impression on finding where it is that God is calling us to help. “The gutter can be described in different ways with different terms. Put simply, my gutter is not necessarily your gutter. The gutter is the place where we discover that we need God most.” The goal for evangelism is then to find the gutter in which you can go and where you can help. You need to realize that their really isn’t a big difference between ourselves and the people in the gutter and the biggest mistake is not going to the gutter. We can identify and meet a need there.
The interesting thing is evangelism in this form is not just about the person that we can help, but in some magical way it helps us relate to God. Cross puts it this way “When we go to the gutter, we aren’t just changing gutter-dwellers; they’re changing us. We’re all being changed for the better. Too often we sit through church, and when it’s over, we think we’re done with our work for the week. That is wrong, wrong, wrong. You cannot live out your faith based solely on what other people tell you; you can not be okay with merely consuming information. You must be convicted to take action for God.” Jesus said that what you do for the least of my people, you do for me.
The last portion of evangelism to consider is those who have gone before us and the good/bad that they have done. There has been plenty that was done in the name of Jesus that I’m sure Jesus didn’t want a part of and it’s important to realize that many people have many legitimate reasons for bailing on this whole Christianity thing. That there is a choice involved. But in the same way we have a choice as well, when we encounter a disgruntled individual that has been hurt by Christianity in their past that we can either turn away from them or we can embrace them. I think that most people can identify with the fact that the church has caused some hurt in people’s lives (haven’t we all?). But we have a choice to not become bitter, suspicious, and fed-up, because anybody can do that, we can choose to reclaim the Gospel message as good news, we can insist that the hope is real, and the world can really be changed by it.
It is our job as pastors and evangels to never stop believing that God can and does redeem this world. That Jesus has lived and died for us to have a better way. It’s important to not stop talking about evangelism in terms of the ongoing process that we are still all a part of. Evangelism and faith are not destinations but a journey. And our conversion or our works as an evangel are only road markers along the way. We need to realize that while we may be stuck together in this van that we don’t need to take it out on each other. We can take this thing called evangelism and dust it off. Talk about in real, honest, and loving ways to both those who have Jesus in their lives and those who have yet to recognize his face. The two things that I am absolutely sure of; one, that others out there are capable of thinking about evangelism in ways I haven’t even thought of and two, that God is driving the van.
ps. i stole the kids riding in the van thing (although it wasn't originally about evangelism) from Tim Conder's great book "the church in transition" but it's fair because im a former youth pastor too ;)
Saturday, April 01, 2006
There is Simplicity ...and then there is Simplicity
If you haven't read this yet you should...
Lenten Reflection by Doug Hagler, HAE team, March 31, 2006
There is simplicity...and then there is simplicity.
There is the simplicity of 'us versus them', the simplicity of 'with us or against us'. There is the simplicity of right and wrong, of good and evil, of orthodox and heretical. This sort of simplicity comes naturally to us. It is a way of making the world about the categories we choose, so that we get to determine what is true and what is false. Our ideas of the world, our biases and petty bigotries, become the world. All of us do this, in one way or another. This is the kind of simplicity we practice.
There is another kind of simplicity, and it has to do with who you are, who you choose to be. It is simplicity of the self, paring down to what is essential and letting everything else fall away. It is the radical and countercultural act of saying "enough." This kind of simplicity is a calling. The Dao De Ching says "for the Sage, every day another thing is put aside." Jesus says "give all
you have away to the poor and come follow me."
Something in us truly fears to give up the things that insulate us. We don't need the clutter that chokes our lives. Most of the time, we aren't even sure we want it. For some reason, though, we fear to live without it. When we begin to give things up, when we begin to put things aside, what is left? Only our selves.
This shouldn't frighten us, but it does. How can we face God if we cannot even face ourselves? How can we serve God if we are buried under our own lives?
Singular God, we ask for new life while yet fearing it - give it to us anyway. Shock and surprise us with gifts of true value. Don't listen when we say we can't, or we won't, or we aren't worthy, or we aren't ready. Just listen when we say "thy Kingdom come, thy will be done..." Amen.
Lenten Reflection by Doug Hagler, HAE team, March 31, 2006
There is simplicity...and then there is simplicity.
There is the simplicity of 'us versus them', the simplicity of 'with us or against us'. There is the simplicity of right and wrong, of good and evil, of orthodox and heretical. This sort of simplicity comes naturally to us. It is a way of making the world about the categories we choose, so that we get to determine what is true and what is false. Our ideas of the world, our biases and petty bigotries, become the world. All of us do this, in one way or another. This is the kind of simplicity we practice.
There is another kind of simplicity, and it has to do with who you are, who you choose to be. It is simplicity of the self, paring down to what is essential and letting everything else fall away. It is the radical and countercultural act of saying "enough." This kind of simplicity is a calling. The Dao De Ching says "for the Sage, every day another thing is put aside." Jesus says "give all
you have away to the poor and come follow me."
Something in us truly fears to give up the things that insulate us. We don't need the clutter that chokes our lives. Most of the time, we aren't even sure we want it. For some reason, though, we fear to live without it. When we begin to give things up, when we begin to put things aside, what is left? Only our selves.
This shouldn't frighten us, but it does. How can we face God if we cannot even face ourselves? How can we serve God if we are buried under our own lives?
Singular God, we ask for new life while yet fearing it - give it to us anyway. Shock and surprise us with gifts of true value. Don't listen when we say we can't, or we won't, or we aren't worthy, or we aren't ready. Just listen when we say "thy Kingdom come, thy will be done..." Amen.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
In the beginning...
In the beginning...God said let there be a blog...ok ok, it was just me saying that. Welcome to my random sparatic thoughtful (and less) rambings. I apperciat your reading it. I encourage you to comment and reflect back your own thoughts and feelings.
I would like to thank one of my partners in crime (eman) for generating this name with me. Reflectant was orginally started as a partnership in designing really good websites. We've got mad design skills (speaking of which I have still not designed my own blog template) and like to create some wicked slick designs. Reflectant is what we came up with as our company. But I'm approriating it to my own personal usages.
The intention of REFLECTANT is to be a forum for thoughts generated and then reflected back.
So Enjoy!
.n
I would like to thank one of my partners in crime (eman) for generating this name with me. Reflectant was orginally started as a partnership in designing really good websites. We've got mad design skills (speaking of which I have still not designed my own blog template) and like to create some wicked slick designs. Reflectant is what we came up with as our company. But I'm approriating it to my own personal usages.
The intention of REFLECTANT is to be a forum for thoughts generated and then reflected back.
So Enjoy!
.n
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)