my deepest apologies...

I'm probably mostly apologizing to myself right now, because I'm not sure if my somewhat random thoughts are read or appreciated by those who stop by for a sec to check out what's going through my head, but man! I haven't written for a while here because of end-of-semester craziness at seminary. I don't want to be "that guy" who posts once a month or quarterly about whatever my mood is at the time or the fact that the buzzing light in my kitchen bothers me. I want to be a person of substance (who, admittedly, doesn't ignore the small things in life like that incessant buzzing of the fluorescent bulb), and I promise to be more regular. And if this is only read by myself and my invisible friend Harry, then at least it's therapeutic for me.




Thanks, Harry, I appreciate you too.


p.s. I've changed my opinion somewhat on Anne Lamott... I just finished the book I commented on several posts down, and my thoughts on her approach to spirituality are a bit more positive now. I'll try to nuance my position a bit here in the next couple days. I'm trying to be more systematic here in working towards my sermon on Sunday.

p.s.s. (or is it p.p.s.?) I get to be a part of dedicating two children this Sunday, maybe another next Sunday, and baptizing five beautiful people making a public commitment to Christ the next Sunday! Now, I admit I may be stuck in my own little world some of the time, but I think each of these events is totally sweet, while also being a call to continued, consistent unconditional love that needs to be expressed on the part of our church community as we seek to be faithful to Christ. The beauty of the journey of following Christ starts somewhere, and is tremendously helped by a community to be accountable to; one where challenge and growth are pursued with all that we are.

Boldness vs, Triumphalism: there's a difference!

First things first. What's triumphalism? Look it up. Dictionary.com It's a sweet word. Then maybe a couple of my random musings here will make sense. Second, why pics of Seabiscuit and Stephen Baldwin? Be patient, my child, be patient.

I was puttering around on the Next Wave e-zine just a little while ago, and happened to be intrigued by an open letter to Stephen Baldwin upon his conversion to following Christ: you can find it here. I've been torn between joy at Stephen's life change stemming from his housekeeper having the guts to share out of the foundation of their relationship the reality of transformation in Christ and disenchantment with the people Stephen's aligned himself with following.

The author of this open letter has much to say about effective evangelism all-around that any of us could apply in our daily lives. As I mentioned several days ago in a little glimpse at Walter Brueggemann's book, evangelism for many of us has carried the image of standing up for the truth, and sharing that truth, and if others don't accept our truth; well, we hope they enjoy roasting. The rigidity and triumphalism in this view is extremely distasteful to me, and I'd even suggest the people who participate in such "evangelism" carry that distaste however thinly veiled in their subconscious. One of my friends says straight-out, "I am who I am and I don't change for people. I will not stray from my beliefs. I am thoroughly dogmatic. If you don't like me or what I stand for, get behind me." On the one hand, there's something very appealing about that; that he's making the claim to be the same person no matter who he's around. On the other hand, this statement certainly doesn't invite conversation on why he is who is, or give any room for dissenting opinion. I say all this because in the open letter up above, the writer, in talking about true boldness, makes what I consider to be an excellent point.

He says,
"I would hate to see you make the mistake that so many Christians make when they first become Christians. They become hot-heads; judging and trying to tell everyone in their path how wrong and sinful they are and how Jesus can save them. Always in somebody's face trying to embarrass and corner them. That is not boldness; that is foolishness...It requires more boldness to be separate from the crowd than yelling at the crowd. True Boldness is seen in the young person at high school or college who, despite ostracization from friends, will choose a life of holiness. You are not bold by trying to corner and judge everybody you encounter. Be Bold through your lifestyle. Let your life be your message."

I would add to that statement that true boldness is being able to live with friends who have dissenting opinions and truly listening to where they're coming from. As Christians, we're supposed to be claiming that our lives are defined by a journey; that we are in pursuit of the truth that is represented in Christ...we are not a complete story; we have not reached the finish line. Too many folks claim that because of their life transformation, they represent the truth. This is not at all the message Jesus conveyed to those who sought to follow Him.

So, an appeal from me.
1. Effective evangelism will involve a willingness to listen to others' lives. They matter to God. Big time. They should matter to you and me.
2. View others as an end, instead of a means. Too many folks in today's society know they are simply being used by everyone and everything as a means to an end, as opposed to being an end. Wal-mart doesn't care about your life, and quite honestly, neither do most people. Christians should be defined by the high value we place on the lives of others. In order for them to know that, we need to be in a trustworthy relationship with them. In order for a relationship to exist that makes such opportunities possible, we need to lose the pride, cockiness, and "I have the truth, now knuckle under and listen to what I have to say" attitude.

If God values my life enough to let me screw up and rebel against him time and again, form my own opinions and maintain them for extended periods of time, and yet through life, relationships, and conversations shows a willingness to go one-on-one and never gives up on me; why should I treat others any differently?

Besides, me thinking I hold the absolute truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth should be called what it is. First word? Seabiscuit is a _______ . The second? What's in the porta-potty sitting behind the ChatterBus in Waynesboro? I think you know what I'm saying. Yeah, you do.

Googling your name never, I mean NEVER; gets old! :)

Albany Symphony Orchestra Revisits Classic Spirituals

Three Yaddo Composers Part of Black History Month Tribute

Nathan Myers, Baritone

Work by three Yaddo composers - David Del Tredici, George Tsontakis, and Carolyn Yarnell - will be featured in an Albany Symphony Orchestra concert to be presented February 19-20 in Saratoga Springs and Troy, New York, in celebration of Black History Month.

The Spirituals Project, new arrangements of traditional spirituals by contemporary American composers, will include pieces by composers Bun-Ching Lam, John Harbison, Michael Woods, and Daniel Roumain, in addition to the three Yaddo composers. David Alan Miller, the orchestra's music director and conductor, said the intent of the project was to "rediscover and reinvent" a classic American art form that is not as universally recognized as it deserves to be. When looking for composers to commission for the project, Mr. Miller purposely overlooked folk composers and sought "interesting and compelling" composers representing a wide variety of backgrounds and interests, he said. Baritone Nathan Myers will be the guest soloist for The Spirituals Project presentation, which will include the following songs:

David Del Tredici	Fantasy on "Nobody Knows"
John Harbison	Ain't Goin to Study War No Mo'
Bun-Ching Lam	Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child
Daniel Roumain	Sinner Please Doan Let Dis Harve' Pass
George Tsontakis	De Gospel Train
Michael Woods	Swing Low Sweet Chariot
Carolyn Yarnell	Weepin' Mary

Walter B and the Goals we are calling each other to...

So I'm reading this book these days by Walter Brueggemann (isn't that a sweet last name? I'm seriously considering changing my last name to Brueggemann. Ok, I'm not. But Belteshazzar's always been an fun name to bounce around inside one's head to change one's name to as well, if I must confess. Plus, if you ever want your kid to get railed in the elementary school playground, name them one of those great Old Testament names: Mephibosheth, Sabachthani, or Zophar the Naamathite or something like that. Or, if you're a real sadist, name your daughter Dorcas. She'll never make it out of first grade alive. Seriously.) Moving on...

Brueggemann's book quite obviously focuses on evangelism, which is an extremely live issue right now, considering that we hear about it a lot and most of us are averse to the methods in which it is typically defined. I mean, really, why is much of evangelism defined as door-to-door or parking lot accosting in the pattern of Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons? Don't we hate it when we get visits from them? Then why in the heck do we think it's any different when someone gets piled on like this at the entrance of his home? Oh, because we're talking about Christ, and this is what we should be doing? Brueggemann will bust your thinking about evangelism out of this either/or mold right away; don't let the chintzy cover fool you.

Anyways, returning back to one of the points of conversation with the fellow in my class from last week, Brueggemann makes an incredible point while talking about typical expectations of both boys and girls growing up in terms of stages of development and prevailing messages. Check this out.

"I suggest that the moral nurture of our children as it is concretely practiced tends to be excessively idealistic when they are young, and excessively calculating when they are older, but both the idealism and the calculation miss the main claims of anything like a (God-driven) ethic. It is our habit to teach only our very young the radical moral dimension of our faith, because we know they are powerless to enact any of that radicality. As soon as our young are old enough to enact (that) vision, we induct them into a quite different ethical practice of calculating pragmatism." pg 110

This relates well, it seems to me, to the endgoal the church most often holds before those who claim the name of "Christians" of establishing a good moral foundation. When we're kids, it's vogue for adults to tell us we should love our enemies (and we immediately think of the playground bully) or share freely (b/c it's only a peanut butter sandwich, or Fruit by the Foot), etc. But as we get older, we are taught to be more and more pragmatic, so eventually loving our enemies is replaced by a utilitarian concept of love (what's best for the most people), and sharing freely means we should give to United Way some, and at least every other Sunday drop ten bucks in the offering plate. Because a good moral foundation is the goal, the radical commandments of Christ are dropped in favor of maintaining the status quo and allowing us to walk on the same path others in our society walk; and in the process, our lives speak no more than the Unitarian Universalist, or Bah'ai, or Buddhist down the street.

Brueggemann goes further;
"I suspect that traditionally, young women have been kept longer within the idealistic mode, but clearly that is because they were longer kept powerless to enact those claims in any significant way. It is clear that in conventional nurture and education, young men are given a sort of "rite of passage" into the cynical world of conflict and competition, and away from any visionary radicality. This is in part accomplished through athletics...By contrast...at the time when young men are being transposed away from radicalness into "realism," young women are intentionally nurtured into domestication (withdrawal), and tilted away from anything that smacks of ethical radicalness, or anything else radical that touches the real world. As women gain access to real power, conversely, they are brought more fully and quickly into a practice of calculating pragmatism." (same page)

The more I think about this issue and the lifestyle we hold up as the endgoal for the Christian life, more often than not I'm recognizing how much we've domesticated the gospel (or allowed the gospel to be domesticated incrementally without our knowing). Jesus' life shouts from a mountaintop that this life is defined by a radical commitment to a lifestyle in the Way God is calling us to, but we mute those teachings b/c they "don't make sense." The Sermon on the Mount today is a disconnected batch of teachings that only have to do with something going on inside us as opposed to Jesus calling us to engage in practices of: radical forgiveness, radical love, radical faithfulness, radical pursuit of righteousness, radical sharing, etc etc. And in case we had any room to make the move we've made with these teachings, he hammers the point home in Matthew 7 at the end, saying, "Therefore, everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like the wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, but it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rains came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

I guess this is where I stand up on my soapbox and plead with those around me. When we're sharing the truth of Christ in both our words and life, we cannot allow ourselves to settle for goals less than those we are commanded to set up as goals by God. A solid moral foundation will flow from a heart transformed by Christ, but our lives are meant to represent so much more! When we lose the radical nature of a life in the pattern of Christ, we've lost the core reality of what God is shaping us into as His people, and we're essentially no different than Religion A, B, or C just down the street.

Somehow words from Jeremiah about cracked cisterns in a dry land are haunting me right now. Do we want the God of the Bible, the God of history, and a transformed people? Or would you and I rather settle for a deistic, disconnected God, a faith defined by an inner reality that doesn't manifest itself outwardly, and other authorities having the ultimate claim on our lives? We're faced with that choice every day.

Maybe some people will run for the exits when I talk of potential little Nates running around in the world, but I'm convinced my (future) kid needs to know from the very beginning how counter-cultural the lifestyle of a Christian should be, and how big the dreams of God are for his/her life. May we never settle for less than the best.

p.s. read the brueggemann book, if you value your life. :) ( but skip the first 60 pages, b/c they were so boring I seriously felt my life ebbing from my veins. Literally. Then come back after the last bit fires you up) It'll change the way you think about evangelism.

What is "authentic" spirituality? And why such a following for Anne Lamott?

Ok, so I've been reading Anne Lamott's book Plan B: Further Thoughts on Faith here recently, which I'm assuming is supposed to be the rousing, critically acclaimed Traveling Mercies Jr that everyones raves about and gives their kid when they go off to college. I'm not impressed. Well, let me qualify that a little; Anne has some very insightful things to say about the reality of life. However, in terms of her thoughts on spirituality (in which her voice is considered "prophetic" by many), Anne strikes me as a relativist in search of meaning. Nothing more, nothing less.

To commence with the discussion going on inside my head (don't be taken aback, I have these kinds of discussions with myself often. I hope that doesn't mean I'm narcissistic; though open to suggestions I am)...

Anne has an uncanny ability to nail down the "blah" times that happen in all our lives and deal with them in an incredibly straightforward fashion. The glimpse she gives us into her interactions with her son are hilarious, and her willingness to be candid that she quite honestly can't stand him sometimes are refreshing (They should be to her son, too...he's now free to say, "Mom, I really don't want to be around you right now because I want to be alone...plus, I feel like I really want to deck you right now, but I won't because I love you too much...and Mom, give me a little leash here; it's getting suffocating around here.") If in every parent/child relationship, more freedom existed in conversation to unload emotions each carries in more of their initial stages(with limits, of course), I'd imagine you'd have a lot less roiling, messy stuff going on under the surface which ultimately explodes in nasty episodes and deep wounds. My father and I struggled deeply with this in my adolescence. As a result, I pushed him away for the duration of my college years (at least emotionally). Thankfully today I wouldn't trade my relationship with my father for anything as we're learning to be much more open with one another and trust one another more, which is leading to the willingness to be more vulnerable and share each other's burdens.

Back to the original line of thought; you know what really bothers me? How everyone around me loooooooves writers that can be "spiritual" while swearing like a Navy sailor; and on top of that, hold them up as examples of an "authentic spirituality" we should all strive to be like. Honestly, I think that's a load of horse pitooty. It bothers me greatly when folks like Tony Campolo and Stanley Hauerwas (two writers and followers of Christ whose writings have impacted me greatly) pop off and swear just to mix an audience up a little bit, be irreverant, and have those who always wanted to be irreverent swoon on their every word.

The classic one, if you'll allow me to be a hypocrite for the sake of an example, was when Campolo was speaking, and this is what he said (paraphrasing).

"You know, the reality is that millions of people in Africa are starving and dying right now, and you don't give a shit about it. And the worst thing is, you're more upset about me saying shit than the people dying in Africa."

Sooooooooo many people at seminary swoon over this phrase, and I hear it come out every two months or so. What's the point? Why? Does it give us street cred? Do we feel like this is the pinnacle of spirituality; that we can spit out of our mouths anything we want, as long as we love Jesus? Lamott's writing is chock full of f-bombs, s-bombs, and whatever other bombs you can think of, and the masses are applauding her to virtual popedom. I'm sorry, I don't want to hold up traits like this as something to aspire towards. I don't deny that Campolo, Hauerwas, and Lamott are trying to be provocative, but I have a newsflash for them. You don't have to spit out certain words to make following Christ provocative...the gospel is inherently provocative. No, I'm not talking about the "Roman Road," "Will you accept Jesus Christ as your PERSONAL Lord and Savior," gospel that our culture says, "Meh" to. Not the domesticated Christianity that has dominated for 1,500 yrs now that has a prevailing message of love, yet adherents that are willing to kill you if the country labels you as "evil" or the "enemy." Not the domesticated Christianity that enjoys an unholy marriage to the state; where instead of holding leaders accountable to Christ, we lower the goalposts enough that we can call leaders "Christians."
No, the last time I checked, the gospel for the early church consisted of one core proclamation; "Trust and believe in Jesus Christ, whom God has made Lord and Messiah."

Early Christians knew two key things regarding this proclamation:

1) There is no Lord but Jesus...if I am asked by the government of the state of which I am a part to carry out any action that runs counter to my commitment to Christ, that government can expect me to disobey that order. Whether they'll kill me for it or not.

2) In order to believe in Jesus, you need to know what the life of Christ represented as an example here on earth in order to follow that example. So they relied on first-hand accounts, and collections of teachings and example of Jesus that circulated through the church and eventually turned into the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. More than anything else, the prevailing pictures of Jesus' life were humility, servanthood, and a willingness to go to any lengths so that others would know their lives were valued and important to God, even to die for the sake of them knowing it (sacrificial love). The early church understood this. The church today (at least in the West); doesn't.

Sometimes I am sickened, pessimistic, and cynical that the church here in America has any hope of being faithful. But then, if I open my eyes and focus beyond my cynicism at the prevailing message, I see more and more wonderful people around me who aren't toeing the line of the status quo of what "Christianity" has become to live exemplary lives of radical love. Tom Fox is one of those, along with a few I could tick off that I see day-in, day-out who carry this same ideal. The Bible is ultimately a revolutionary document of a dream of God that his people would live without artificial barriers, share their lives with one another, and serve as an example of humility, servanthood, and boundless love to those around them. Now THAT'S love.

This is why I say openly to Lamott, Campolo, Hauerwas, and whoever else thinks it's trendy to swear openly and without remorse for the sake of being provocative;
I'm disappointed that you couldn't devote yourself to thinking deeper than you did for the sake of what you consider an 'authentic' spirituality. Hold yourself to a higher standard, because Christ does. And (more specifically for Campolo and Hauerwas), keep publishing your books like Adventures in Missing the Point and Resident Aliens that are deeply faithful and deeply provocative in all the right ways.

Resident Aliens called me out of the lackadaisical approach to following Christ I had to ask myself and others hard questions about faithfulness.

And to Lamott;
It's time to leave the 60's, where you and I could carry a surface spirituality, live and speak the way we wanted (often a contradicition to our stated spirituality), and have people laud us for it. The Hare Krishna movement is a joke, following Christ isn't...you can go deeper than dropping the f-bomb. And please, please, work on the distrust of authority.

I guess I'm more disappointed than upset with the three aforementioned writers because I think they have such great potential, an audience that appreciates their perspective on life, and a commitment to boundless love for others. I just have the feeling that their words get in the way of their message; harming its impact. We need more folks like them, and someone to hold these folks accountable ultimately to Christ.

Now THAT's off my chest. Feel free to shred me for taking this stance...I like a good, rousing conversation!