Lisa Colón DeLay

Reading for today:

 John 12:  1 Jesus, therefore, six days before the Passover, came to Bethany where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead.2 So they made Him a supper there, and Martha was serving; but Lazarus was one of those reclining at the table with Him.3 Mary then took a pound of very costly perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.4But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, who was intending to betray Him, said,5“Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and given to poor people?”6 Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it.7 Therefore Jesus said, “Let her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of My burial.

Reflection:

Mary of Bethany wasn’t caught up in the excitement of a political revolution. James and John were gunning for cabinet positions but Mary saw Jesus as Anointed King and sacrificial Lamb of God. In the days before high-flow showers and frequent bathing, this costly fragrance would have lasted for days, and even while he hung on the cross.

Jesus our sweet and lasting fragrance.

Collect:

O’ God,

Give us the fragrance of the anointing of your Holy Spirit. 

Fill our lives with the aroma of grace.

May we understand your sacrifice

And prepare for our own burial

And rebirth with you

Amen.

image found here: http://xpensiveperfume.blogspot.com

This post is related to the hubbub about a alleged artifact from 400 years after Jesus.

Here’s an article of that and some of the new surrounding controversy that will make the validity of such a finding dubious at best. Just when it gets interesting it leaves you with nothing. Much like this whole hullabaloo will.

Discussing that is not the focus of this post.

Also, the image above is not a painting of the first knock-knock joke:

Mary: “Knock-knock”

Voice in tomb: “Who’s there?”

Mary: “Mary…wait…um… you’re not Jesus, you’re an angel. What are you doing in here?!”

Voice in tomb: “Got ‘cha, Mary. Jesus is alive! and he looks a lot like the guy who takes care of this garden.”

The ancient papyrus lines in question (written in Coptic 400 years after Jesus) are in bold below:

The legible lines on the front of the artifact seem to be a conversation between Jesus and his disciples. The fourth line of the text says, “Jesus said to them, my wife.” Line 5 says “… she will be able to be my disciple,” while the line before the “wife” quote has Jesus saying “Mary is worthy of it” and line 7 says, “As for me, I dwell with her in order to …”

So, suppose this scrap contains the actual words of Jesus, could we solve the mystery?

Firstly, for context….remember the “Plank in the eye thing” Jesus said once…well, here’s the thing about that: That was Shtick.

So, maybe this is too.

“Jesus said to them, my wife….I mean, should I forego this dying for humanity stuff, my wife will be a great cook. Ya’ll know I love grilled fish, right?“

or

“…she will be my disciple, and I have a feeling she won’t be as big a pain in the rump as you guys have been.“

or

“Mary is worthy of it. And by “it” I mean R-E-S-P-E-C-T, yo.“

or

“You guys can stay over at Peter’s house, and for my sake, please patch up the roof from the other day. As for me, I dwell with her in order to get some freakin’ peace and quiet. You bicker constantly!“

You probably thought I’d say, “Jesus said to them, my wife…take my wife, please.” right?

NOW—you fill in the blanks. Finish Jesus’ sentences. (It’s not stuff from the Bible, so don’t worry. It’s not sinning if you’re adding text and meaning to a Coptic gag reel.)

Enjoy PART II of my conversation with Blaine Hogan.

For fantastic BONUS VIDEO footage with Blaine on leadership, authenticity, and doing the messy work of healing click here.

One more bonus video piece will be released next week. Get access to this and all upcoming bonus videos and extras, by clicking the contact me tab on your right.

"ugh...typical guy! Idiot."

misandry |misˈandrē|
noun
the hatred of men by women
ORIGIN 1940s: from Greek miso- ‘hating’ + anēr, andr- ‘man,’ on the pattern of misogyny.

As promised, I’m covering the female side of misogyny, which is misandry. I call this type of article a “BOOM post”. You have been warned.

I would be remiss to not admit that sectors of feminism are strongholds of misandry. Feminism, though, as many women think of it, is far more general. It has to do with equitable treatment toward women, in business, home life, society in general, and it hinges on the ability, explicitly or implicitly, to have choice (of many kinds) as a basic unalienable right. A wiser person, female or male, will understand, however, that freedom of choice must be balanced with one’s community, not rooted or executed from a selfish starting point.

It seems to me that troubles for either gender will stem from control issues. For men, it may be that they feel somehow impotent in their life, interactions, career path, health, etc. Perhaps the feeling or appearance of weakness is the pivot point.

For women, it may be that they want to be regarded well, and cherished (and I don’t mean in simply an emotional, or fuzzy way. This is more of a cherished at an essential level of being for (female) human flourishing). They want to not feel objectified (which, is disregard), or to relegated to a small box, i.e. a narrow role, a low ceiling limiting personal or career pursuits, an intellectual prejudice.

I find it interesting that body image plays a powerful role for both men and women. Ill-health, lack of fitness, the effects of aging, being fashionable, and certainly other issues influence personal issues of self-worth, emotionally and bodily. They also influence how each gender reacts to the other. Those things hated, or feared in one’s self will be trigger points and irritations all too glaringly visible in the other gender. Spite develops.

I will cover some ways misandry happens among women. Please note I use the word among purposefully, because there seems to be an execution of misandry in a social capacity more than in any other way. For men, they may both take their misogyny on as a personal war, and they may find strength in numbers, but women may tend towards a “team strategy”.

For women, physical aggression with misandry is not normative. Rather, it is mental, social, and tactical. Bullying of other female by female happens this way as well. The tendency may to manipulate, rather than misogynistic tendency to (in some respect) conquer or master (perhaps with resources, people, money, intellectual pursuits, empire, and including areas of competencies and skills). (I’m speaking quite generally, please bear with me.) Women seem more socially powerful, while men seem more dominant. Perhaps a good analogy is to say influential in contrast to jurisdictional.

For some general information, I will note 6 areas ripe for, or given to misandry. (Please note that these same areas are ones of great good, effectuality, and ministry if they are not perverted by selfishness and sin. Yes, the same goes for males.) Steps should be taken to purify and strength these venues through the Holy Spirit, and his Fruit, not disable or disband them.)

1. Gossip as bonding.
2. “Tribal Culture” (if you will) of malcontent.
3. A “sick clique” (more on this is a later post) It has to do with venting, fault finding, griping. For men, the counterpart might be verbal attacks or passive aggression. But, this also can and does happen with females.
4. Platforming (A leader or leaders pumping up/motivating a like-minded group)
5. Subversion of Systems (rather than negotiation)
6. Rebellion (overt or covert/and sometimes unintentionally) to authority, powerful groups, institutions, concepts, norms in question.

Often man-hating patterns are established in the context of a social group norm. There may be a retaliation tenor, as well. A pecking order type of culture may subtly and socially pressure its affiliates to employ a particular attitude. Acceptance in the group will be linked to the propagation and use of this structure, and its attitudes. Bear in mind, unlike many times with males, this all happens as sub-context, and is almost always implied, not vocalized.

(There are others areas. I welcome your additions, or specific ideas or comments on them.)

To expose the flaws and missteps among women is to set myself up as an enemy of women, and undermine some of the great and vital gains women have made societally to achieve appropriate equality. Quite a few people, whether they will admit it, or not, believe a certain amount of misandry seems justifiable because of humanity’s long history of abuse and antipathy toward the female gender. In recent, postmodern times, the female voice (or story), as well as many other historically-marginalized groups, has been given new validity and attention.

It is not my intent, of course to sabotage any positive and rightful gains for females. I do believe these rectifications have been sorely overdue, and really have not yet been accomplished. And what a sad commentary on the Christian assimilation of the ministry of Christ, and the human expression of the redemptive nature of the gospel.

To women, I say, we can be secure and mature enough to take on and strength whatever weaknesses we may have that are causing injury of harm to the body of Christ. We can work toward a better way, healing, and unity. As for you males, please read this all compassionately, and let it help you understand women’s weaknesses and strengths better. There is responsibility that comes with know more, so I trust you to use this new knowledge for good not evil.

I mention all of this, not to divide any of us from each other, or to give us weapons to beat each other with, but rather to call out areas of potential growth. Then, we can call them into question ourselves (men and women), confess before God, humble ourselves to each other in love and service, and work toward unity, reconciliation, and enacting God’s glorious Kingdom Come. God transcends gender, and our petty hang ups and weaknesses. It is in God’s strength and grace that we may be fashioned as new creatures that reflect God’s good character and nature.

I would have loved to make this whole article somehow more jocose (or humorous at all), because that’s usually how I roll, but I couldn’t switch gears, adapt and integrate that writing style on this one. Don’t expect such seriousness in any following installments on this, or any topic. (There’s only so much of this trajectory I can take, before I have to insert more cheer.) :)

So-weigh in. I’m listening.

Logical argument?

Given that masculine and feminine are opposite, or counterparts.

Then, one must reject what is feminine as a disadvantage, and outrightly negative, to move toward the good.

I have a 75% + male readership, and I know most, if not all the males who hear hyper-masculine rhetoric get, at least, a bit nauseated, or frustrated by the vitriol.

“Most [church] dudes are sort of chicks.” -Mark Driscoll (see video)

Please tell me how promoting hyper-masculinity is not also misogyny?

I think this is a situation of a leader being allowed to run amuck with therapeutic misogyny that comes under the guise of Scriptural authority. This is a perversion of leadership.

Is the movement toward masculinizing the church a seductive trap? What about gender is so super important to spreading God’s love and the message of the gospel? How can men be best mentored/discipled?

What should be done?

If you would like to read about this topic from a man’s perspective: both a theologian and former Mixed Martial Artist (a.k.a. “cage fighter”) I recommend this poignant and potent article: THE CONFESSIONS OF A CAGE FIGHTER: MASCULINITY, MISOGYNY, AND THE FEAR OF LOSING CONTROL -by Matt Morin (Matt is a man anyone can respect, but for none of the reasons that Mark Driscoll cherishes.)

Kudos to Matt. I dub you “awesome”.

In the next post, I’ll explore Christian therapeutic, misandry. It’s real, and it doesn’t happen as overtly aggressively as its male counterpart, but it’s just as destructive to the ministry, message, and sacrifice of Christ, our Savior.

So that we may be one in Christ, we must abandon our old, worn out ways that secular culture has blanketed us with. Men and women are not stereotypes. They are not caricatures of the masculine and the feminine, unless those people are spiritually under-developed and unhealthy emotionally. They are instead God’s image bearers, and God’s vehicle to put the world to rights.

Marks of evil: Scarred Slave.

Evil is a complicated topic. There is much disagreement on the details of it.

I will be attempting to open the topic up to reflection and discussion on April 30th. (Bethesda EC Church, Reedsville, 9:30am)

To learn more or prep yourself for the class, you can read a few posts I’ve already done on the topic, here, or this one on hell here. You can read the information wikipedia has offered, and click here.

I highly recommend N T Wright’s work on the topic. “Evil and the Justice of God”. Really clever stuff!

Here’s a 2:47 minute video promo on the book:

Even more interesting (and NOT a promo piece for the book) is Wright’s response on Hell. About 3:16 minutes.

On April 30th, we’ll encounter “Theodicy”, also known as the topic of why a good God allows evil, and these such questions:

• What or who is evil?

• What is the point of evil?

• Why does God let evil happen?

• What should we do about it?

So, I’m putting those tough questions out to you. Maybe you’ll help me prepare for the class a bit better. What is a “must” to include in my lesson? What bit about “understanding” evil has been most helpful to you?

Thanks for your help.
-Lisa

(2 slides from tomorrow’s class)
Asking for your input on the topic.

When must Culture (we) Adjust?

When culture does not mirror:

• God’s nature

• His actions of grace

Scripture provides the signposts
on our journey within culture.

Two-fold Challenge:

• Self-reflection /criticism
• Notice hidden “influencers”
• Have a Contextually aware gospel proclamation

What are your ideas for redeeming culture without ruining the flavor?

Tomorrow’s post: “Why did Jesus Ride a Baby Donkey?”

I asked my friend, Ed Cyzewski, to guest post this week. I knew the topic on church and culture, in his  book Coffeehouse Theology: Reflecting on God in Everyday Life would make an excellent companion post for the class I’m currently teaching. I urge you to get a copy, by clicking the title above; or read a chapter here. This Sunday, we’ll cover how the influences of culture effect how we enact the Gospel message and walk with God. How do we best navigate this ground?

Let’s hear from Ed.

When We’re Blindsided by the Bible
-Ed Cyzewski

Saying that the church exists in a culture is the kind of obvious statement on par with saying we breath oxygen. But actually knowing what to do about the influence of culture on the Bible and how we interpret it isn’t always as obvious as taking a deep breath.

Growing up in a wonderful Baptist church in the Philly suburbs, one of the most important sermons I ever heard explained the importance of being poor in spirit based on the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the Sermon on the Mount. The Holy Spirit spoke to me about pride festering in my life. I often return to that sermon for guidance.

However, years later I read some books by theologians from South America who had experienced severe poverty and injustice. One particular theologian wrote about the Sermon on the Mount from Luke’s Gospel which says that the poor are blessed. In other words, the poor are blessed just because they are poor.

This was quite jarring for me to read. How had I missed something that jumped off the pages for Christians in Latin America?

I soon realized that I was encountering a cultural perspective on the Bible that was illuminating an angle that I’d neglected. In fact, I was poorly positioned to spot it.

While enjoying the affluence of America, pride can become a significant problem. It’s no mistake that a sermon on being poor in spirit connected. However, I was not prepared to read about God’s concern for the poor.

The more I interacted with theologians from South America, the more I noticed that one of God’s most important concerns throughout the Old Testament is justice and equity for the poor.

Here’s the thing: my reading of Matthew was not wrong. However, it was limited. By interacting from another perspective, I could see more in the Bible than I could have ever found on my own. This is because we read the Bible in a cultural context that can be both friend and foe.

We learn about God and follow Jesus in a cultural context. Certain ideas and metaphors will make more sense to us than others. We approach God from a particular perspective that is shaped by our time in history, our nation’s values, our experiences, our language, and the thousand other things that go into American culture in the 21^st century.

Some folks write about our cultural context as something that is dangerous. As if we need to fight it. If our society says that truth is hard to find, we need to fight that by saying that it’s easy to find. Why, it’s right in the Bible of course!

Others say that our culture is right. We should listen to it. Truth is hard to find, and we’d better not get too attached to anything we read, and nurture our doubts about God and the Bible.

Here’s the thing, a cultural setting shaped the writers of the Bible. They used the cultural tools of their times when they added clarity, such as calling Jesus “The Word” or “logos” in Greek. However, when it came time to confront the Greek pantheon, they declared that there is one God who made heaven and earth, and God proved it by raising Jesus from the dead—resurrection being culturally off the map for Greeks.

The tension of Christianity is one of being in a culture with values, conventions, and experiences that may either make us either more receptive, or combative to the ideas in the Bible. Saying that culture is all good or all bad overlooks important elements in both directions.

We need to remain culturally aware so that we know there is more to God than we could ever find on our own. Our perspective has its limits. We can learn a good deal more about God by interacting with Christians from other denominations, Christians in other nations, and within our traditions. By learning to interact with culture, we won’t be blind to its influence and submit to its every whim.

To read more from Ed, click here.

This year, the Christian calendar begins November 28th. It is the Season of Advent.

Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran and many mainline churches observe the Christian calendar. The topic for each Sunday is predictable. Scripture from the lectionary guides the themes, liturgy, sermon, art, and music of that particular time. Traditional? Yes. Useful? I do believe it is.

It provides congruence. Most Evangelical pastors are accustomed to, more or less, speaking about what’s been on their mind recently. This is carefully referred to as “what God has laid on their heart.” (And you’d be a fool to question the movement of the Spirit, right? Maybe a fool, or maybe a blasphemer…if you spoke your thoughts.)

In general, it’s not a terrible thing to follow the leading of the Spirit. (If that is truly what is happening. But, that’s another post entirely!) But does this unformatted contemporary formula help cinch together the Story of God, the Christian Story, and bring a cohesive message of the Gospel, in history and depth, in a palpably connected way? Or, is the shoot from the Holy hip often more of a “bang here and a bit there,” approach?

I’d like to hear your take on it?

I tend to think a healthy mix of several Christian traditions could be very spiritually useful in contemporary times. We are already malnourished on a sound bite way of life as is it.

Chaplain Mike, a one-time Southern Baptist preacher, who blogs at imonk does the whole topic much more justice than I can. I strongly encourage you to link to his specific post with the link at the bottom, if you’d like.

Witness this poignant quote found there:
(It really hit home with regards to my Christian church experiences.)

“Part of the problem is that evangelicals really don’t have traditions,” said Carter. “Instead, we have these fads that are built on the strengths and talents of individual leaders. … But a real tradition can be handed on to anyone, from generation to generation. It’s hard to hand these evangelical fads down like that, so it seems like we’re always starting over. It’s hard to build something that really lasts.”- Joe Carter as quoted by Terry Mattingly

My main resource for this post and a really helpful article is here at imonk. It is most helpful for Evangelicals, and I challenge you to consider a deeper appreciation for the Christian calendar year, starting this Sunday, November 28th.

Thank you for reading.

Another intriguing post by Scot McKnight! (It’s worth a look)

He notes the issues contained in this book: A review of John Piper, Jesus: The Only Way to God: Must You Hear the Gospel to be Saved? (123 pages, $5.99), by Terrance L. Tiessen.

It brings out important topics like- How do the various views of Hell effect Evangelism and sharing the gospel?

boneYARD, by John O'Keefe

In his new book, boneYARD: creatives will change the way we lead in the church, John O’Keefe tackles an issue rampant in the United States: the overwhelming trend of dying and dead churches. He also speaks to a pet topic of mine: the prevalent misguided practices that give churches supposed membership growth. [What I've called, "Poaching from the Choir".]

You may know of John through his creative project ginkworld.

Here are his interesting answers to 6 questions about the issues discussed in boneYARD. Your comments or questions are welcome.

1. John, you use the terms “industrial church” and “conceptual church”, and so on, referring to eras. Can you briefly explain the terms you use; and -Do you think most churches are caught somewhere in the middle, or have they been fallen behind?

The industrial church is a church that centers on the principles of “Maxwellian Leadership.”  The ideas that grew out of the Industrial Revolution, where there needs to be a “CEO” (Pastor) and “Vice-CEO” (Associate Pastors) to control the organization.  The central motive of this style of leadership is to see the church as a business, and everything the leader does centers on benefiting the organization.  People are seen as assets and they are used to benefit the organization – “what will help the church.”  They are very logical, linear, and focused on profit.  For them, profit is defined in terms of the offering and getting people in the pews.  But, if the attendance is going down, and offerings are going up they do not see a problem.  I read an article earlier where it explained how the Evangelical Lutherans are declining in numbers (most churches are), but that there was no reason to fear because giving was on an increase.

The conceptual church is forming today.  Leadership (if that is even a valid term in a Conceptual Age) focuses on the organism; the organization holds little value.  Everything a conceptual leader does focuses on the person, the organism, and centers on how we relate to others.  In the Conceptual Age we think in terms of personality traits of a conceptual leader; people have personalities, machines have qualities.

While some are in the middle, struggling to find their voice, even fewer are in front of the curve, in my research I have found most churches are far behind the curve.  They are stuck in the idea that they need to keep doing what they have always done, and those outside the church need to change to fit into their world.

2. Do you think it’s apt to say that for a great many churches, an increase in membership has more to do with (as I like to say) “poaching believers from other churches”? (Or poaching from the choir.)

I love the visual of “poaching.”  Sometime back I wrote an article entitled “Three Kinds of Fishing” where I saw the possibilities as pole fishing, net fishing, or tank fishing, but I love the visual of poaching.   I believe most churches are growing because of poaching.  Poaching is easy for the church.  I love churches that advertise on Christian Radio; the question we need to ask is “Who are they trying to reach?”  I don’t know any “non-follower” listening to Christian Radio.  Churches that advertise on Christian Radio prove the point.  Their ads are targeted to those already going to church and say, “Come to our church, our pastor is cooler, our music is better, our service is exciting, and we will not bug you to get involved.”

Some churches even go as far as to count people who come from other traditions as “new believers.”  The Baptists and the Non-Denominational Church of Christ are the ones who do this the best.  I use to attend a church is Las Vegas called Central Christian (Currently about 15,000 people), when it was just over 300 people.  One of my family members was attending the church also and he was required to be “re-baptized” in order to become a leader in the church.  Even though he had been a follower for years before he attended the church.  They counted him as a “new believer.”  Soon, he left Central and started to attend a Southern Baptist Church in the area, and was required to be “re-baptized” and was counted as a “new believer.”  These churches count everyone who was not baptized in their method as a “new believer.”  This inflates numbers, sure – but more than that, it tells everyone who is not “one of them” you are wrong and we are right.

3. What’s the difference between church growth and kingdom growth? and, What is your best nugget of advise for those in ministry regarding church growth and kingdom growth?

Church growth centers on growing an individual church, so taking from another church is seen as an easy form of church growth.  Kingdom growth centers on growing the Kingdom, and sees people in other traditions as part of the church universal.  Kingdom growth centers on not caring what church the person is involved with, but that they understand the love and grace of God.  When I was at 247 we use to have teens coming to all our events, and many times those teens would ask about our services.  I would encourage them to get connected to the churches their parents attended and go as a family.

I think the best thing I can share with churches today is to not concern yourself with growing your church, center on growing God’s Kingdom.  When we focus on growing God’s Kingdom we move out from the walls of the church, and into the communities we are called to serve.  We desire to share the message of hope with people, who need to know the love of God through Christ, and we are avatars of Christ to the world around us – we are the incarnation of Christ to the world.  Our care is more for inviting people into God, and not into our church.

4. There will always be left-brained thinkers. If the new era of leadership is right-brained, as you say, what should these people do?

Change, embrace their right side.  Keep in mind, being right brain dominate does not ignore those who are left brain dominate.  The idea in a Conceptual Age is that right brains will be the dominate side and left brains will play a subordinate role.  In my research I came upon a study I mention in the book that says 98% of us are born right brain dominate and creative, while 2% are born left brain dominate.  Over time, our educational system causes those numbers to flip, causing 2% to be right brain dominate and 98% left brain dominate.  It is amazing that our educational system flips the numbers to left brain dominance.   This is because, in an Industrial Age, we need more left brain thinkers to “oversee” others.

5. In your opinion, does the “bone yard phenomenon” (of vast numbers of churches closing) have anything to do with apprehending church and/or the church building from a materialist and modernist vantage point? And how can we do better?

While I believe it matters little where a community of faith gathers, for the industrial church the building has become an albatross.  Some churches spend more on building upkeep then they do on ministry and care.   Between salaries, mortgage payments, utility bills and upkeep a major part of the budget is spent just to keep things going.  Because of that, the leadership focuses on keeping the building afloat, and less on reaching those who are not followers of Christ.  So, they strive and strive to increase the numbers in their pews to fill their coffers and less on bringing people into a life changing reality that Christ offers all people.  This is one of the reasons I believe the church is comfortable with poaching.  If they are poaching they are attracting givers who will help keep the building going.

6. With all the churches closing, and new ones not meeting the needs, is there any way out of the boneyard?

You bet there is.  I see all the churches closing as a good thing, not a bad thing.  I see the churches failure to reach a new generation as a good thing as well.  Why?  Because it is causing us to wake-up, and move out of the church.  Many churches are waking up to the realization that what they are doing is not working, so they are now open to change.  The only thing that is holding them back is that they do not know how to make the change.  Keep in mind, deciding to change and actually changing are two different things.

Conversation about change is a waste of time, we simply need to change.  The future looks bright for the church willing to make the change and reach a conceptual mindset.  While boneYARD is not a program, I believe it is a good starting point to make those changes.

Thank you, John.

If you would like to try for a free signed copy of boneYARD, leave a comment, and tell us if you’ve seen churches closing in your region, Or, tell us the approximate % of worshipers per Sunday in your church that may be the product of poaching.

Here is the much-anticipated interview with Brett McCracken, author of Hipster Christianity: When Church and Cool Collide. Thank you, Brett! This was fun.

Brett's face in the City

5 Questions for
Brett McCracken

1. Does the hipster Christian phenomenon pivot on the “Be in the world, but not of the World” Scriptural directive?

2. If you could communicate one thing to your readers that they would remember forever (and in so doing, change them forever), what would it be?

3. Every writer has “haters”, what do yours complain about? (Mine complain about nipples, but that’s a rather long story, and this interview is about YOU.)

4. To you, is “cool” more of a state of mind than anything? Why or why not?

5. Have you ever considered offering McDonalds a signature menu item? (For instance, like the McCracken Sandwich: 8 crispy strips of bacon, melted sharp cheddar cheese, and sweet horseradish sauce on crispy, lightly toasted Sourdough bread pocket.) [Seriously, that whole thing came to me in one package like that. It must be a God thing.] If you have not, this could plague your mind, and I’m sorry about that. I too am feeling hungry.

For a signed copy (For beginners, that means eXtra cool) of Brett McCracken’s book, Hipster Christianity: When Church and Cool Collide. You can link over, and leave YOUR comment. YOU might be the lucky winner.

Post here and share any questions, thoughts, comments, etc.

Thanks for reading.

Mass produced factory food, simply re-heat.

I’m not a big fan of prepared foods, like the one you see above.

But, I have to admit, usually when food comes from a factory, it’s quick and simple.

It’s also sealed with cellophane and full of sodium to keep it “fresh”. How long could you keep this “meal” before heating it? …months for sure, maybe a year. It’s a bit of a one-size-fits-all cuisine approach, right?

A frozen meal typically comes tidy, in a divided plate. So, no mess, no worries. There’s no long prep time, no plate, just a piece of plastic flatware is needed-say a “spork”–to cover any food texture. One might not even need a napkin, if one eats it…calmly. But, I think, you’d have to be on the verge of starvation, have non working taste buds, or have little experience with eating delectable food if you wish to devour this quickly. Not too many salivate over or pine for pre-fab food, like only a mother a factory could manufacture.

When people want to “serve up” the love of God, or share the gospel can’t the same thing happen?

Serving up God. yum... ?

Sometimes not only are the workers few, but maybe what workers there are don’t know enough about the richness of the God’s banqueting table. Maybe they’ve been using the spiritual microwave too much. Or maybe they aren’t patient enough to let God into their kitchen and make the meal, and show ‘em how it’s done.

It takes a while, it seems he likes slow-cooker and long roasting recipes. (Ask Moses or Joseph about that one.) Sometimes the longer process of becoming a lot better in the kitchen, and letting God be the Chef de Cuisine, doesn’t seem like the smartest or most efficient move for a ministry. “What, spend long hours in the hot kitchen? Chop vegetables, mince, simmer, sauté, reduce…that could take, well, heck, years! We’re trying to help people, here!”

Well, we might give them something to eat, “really quick,” but how edible is it? Is it healthy or good for them? Will it cause stomach cramps and diarrhea? Will they only be able to serve up the same sort of thing? Will we get to the point of creating and serving the kind of spiritual food that God specializes in–the kind we created with him at his side, just like Abba used to make?

Can we reflect God properly by serving up convenient, ready-made, spiritual fast-food?

I’m doubtful.

What if we tried a sumptuous slow roast?

What if we could mentor (disciple) willing helpers (pilgrims/Jesus followers) and give them a solid, theological, narrative framework (God’s Story) from which to see their reality: God’s present Kingdom, and his Kingdom to come.

What if things marinated, and the juices got savory and settled down deep into the meat, rather than inviting others to dig into some version of pre-fab nosh because, the slow cooker style just won’t suit our time frame and ambitions?

Would we be able to offer something closer to the nature and heart of God the slow cook way?

(For our good and theirs.)

Would we be changed to be more to his likeness in the process of that?

Oh, yes, it’s far messier to prepare, serve, and eat! It takes prep time, long hours of cooking, setting the table nicely. We’ll need plenty of napkins and perhaps a wet washcloth or two. Plus, don’t forget we’re talking about REAL people. There are spills, squirts, and stains. Life is MESSY. Even good relationships are fraught with various difficulties. What about the clean up? A sticky, gooey mess for sure. And maybe dental floss will be handy to keep around. Real meat gets stuck in one’s teeth.

Oh, but there’s this: it’s really satisfying, and tastes fantastic.

Messy, and slow cooked

Add some veggies or a large salad to the slow-cooked entrée you see above, and you have an excellent, tasty, and messy meal many will really enjoy. If the company is good, they might even come back for more.

What do you think about it?

Have you ever been in a situation where it seemed like you had to choose one way or the other?

What happened?

Does the slow-cooker way seem out of reach? (Does this post need a follow up with specifics? Let me know.)

Comments, ideas, responses…

thanks for reading.

ONCE UPON A TIME~

You hear a famous chef will be working his magic at the neighborhood restaurant, so one night you stop by for a sumptuous meal. Inside, you are welcomed by a maitre d’. Curiously, he’s wearing a name tag that reads, “Hello, my name is: Friendly Maitre d’”. His large teeth settle wide and inscrutable, as he motions his branchy arm for you to follow him. A large room decorated in rich browns and warm accent lights and sconces awaits you. A marvelous walnut table yawns out, bare. Below the table is an enormous drop cloth. You sit as directed, and wait.

Gazing around the room, you shiver a bit in your chair, as you notice light and airy music just a bit out of hearing comprehension. A candle might be nice, you daydream.

Out of the blanket of quite three people bustle through the swinging door. One holds a glass of water, another plastic utensils and cocktail napkin, and then the chef brings up the rear with a partitioned plate in his hands.

“Sorry for the wait,” he says. We’ve been planning this for a while, but now that you’re here, we’ve had to step it up a bit. We hope you know that we want you to feel comfortable.”

“Yes. Very, very comfortable,” say the other two together. You spy their name tags. Both read: “Hello, my name is: Casual and non judgmental host (pre-friend).”

The chef doesn’t wear a name tag at all, but his chef hat has “chef de cuisine” embroidered on it, large and flowing. He is sweaty, but cheerful, and a bit out of breath.

“You don’t want to go anywhere else. You feel welcome, and at home here. This is the banqueting table, friend! We don’t want to be pushy. Just, please, enjoy,” he says wiping his top lip, and setting down the steaming plate in front of you.

“Soon after you begin your entree, we should begin with our spontaneous conversation,” says a beaming host.

“We’ve prepared well in advanced to be natural and friendly with you,” says the other.

You look down at your banquet meal. The cocktail napkin is imprinted with, “Psalm 34:8 Taste and see that the LORD is good. Oh, the joys of those who take refuge in him!”

Appetizing Spiritual Food?

to be continued…

(responses are welcome)

I’m thrilled to have John O’Keefe as our featured guest writer. John is at the tail end of finishing his dissertation, and is writing a book about vision for Christian ministry and leadership in this century. Some exciting times are just around the corner, and I do believe John has some valuable insights to share. Below is a brief bio, and then his post. It’s sure to whet your appetite for what’s to come. Feel free to ask him more about it, contribute your thoughts, and give John a shout out.

Bio:

John  is a doctoral candidate at George Fox Seminary, and has been called a “creative futurist ,” by people other than his mom. For 15 years has been an active voice in the emerging/evolving conversation regarding Christian Spirituality. As Senior Pastor and Church Planter with 15 years experience, he is leader, and a dynamic, honest, up front speaker and consultant. 

Besides being the founder of ginkworld, John has written for a number of other ezines: the Ooze , dtour , Next-Wave , and others. John has also written for homiletics and other publications. He likes to take pictures of himself driving, such as you see here.

John O'Keefe

The Conceptual Church: A Vision

-by John O’Keefe

When I was asked by Lisa to be a guest blogger, I was excited.  I was excited because in her request she told me I could share with you what was on my heart and for me, as of late, that has been the idea of leadership in the emerging church.   First, I want to say that I am beyond the term “emerging.”  Not because I see it as a “bad” word, but because I am beyond thinking in terms of “emerging” and think more in terms of being a conceptual church – let me explain.

When we think in terms of “emerging” I think in terms of “coming from.”  That is to say, a flower emerges from the plant.  While the flower “emerges” it is still very much the same as the plant it emerged from, with minor variations in color and size.  The flower will go to seed and produce a plant pretty much the same as the plant it comes from – the cycle continues; even though they emerge they carry the DNA to the next generations.  So I have found with the leadership concepts of the emerging church.  Those in leadership are products of what I call the “industrial church” (what many are still calling the modern church).  Because of this, many emerging churches are simply younger offspring of the industrial church model.  While the church may look different, at its core leadership there is very little difference.  So, what I am calling for is something very different, and something very right brained – something I am calling a “conceptual church” (a church for the 21^st Century).  For the conceptual church we need to develop a “conceptual leader” – a shift from the left brained industrial church to the right brained conceptual church.

I am in the process of writing a book for my doctoral dissertation based on that very reality.  The idea to reach out to a conceptual people we need to develop conceptual churches lead by conceptual leaders.  Right brain thinkers who are creative, empathic, dynamic, and understanding people who see the world with new eyes, and lead in new (yet very ancient) ways.  Without going too deep into the book (not willing to give away the surprise) I will share that one of the keys to understanding a conceptual leader is to see people as people – in the industrial church people are seen as resources and assets and are placed in the “expendable” category when it benefits the organization.  Yet, in a conceptual church people are seen as people and add to the diversity of the of a community of faith.

My prayer is that the book will be ready by the middle of 2010 – let me know what you think.

Today started out rough. It involved seeing my son’s breakfast, before and after it was consumed. The poor boy’s tummy was upset. Sometimes I forget about using this common remedy I have in my refrigerator. I keep it for times such as these. Sure there’s Pepto Bismol, Tums, Gravol people use as over-the-counter medicinal aids, but I have found nothing works better than a few ounces of flat ginger ale. It worked wonderfully this time too. It’s not magical, it’s the ginger.

Now, suppose I wanted everyone to save money, and time, and feel better sooner, like my family and I have, but instead of telling them my experience, and the reasoning behind the remedy, I would first try a tactic to soften them up. Have you noticed this sort of thing used for Christianity?

Maybe asking them reasonable questions would get them to think about the whole thing themselves, and it wouldn’t seem like I was actually trying to shove my beliefs down their throat. I won’t but let’s suppose I would say to them,

“As a human, you would agree that all humans have tummy aches at some point in their lives, right?

The unsuspecting, pre-convert would then reply something like, “Um, what? Um, yeah, I guess, sure.”

Then I could say, “Did you know that you will 100% lose more money, and be more sick without using ginger ale to fix your tummy aches and vomiting?”

They maybe would say, “Um, no. But I’ve never used ginger ale before, and I’m not sure it’ll work for me.”

Maybe then I would say, “Since you haven’t tried it, you really can’t say that. Would you rather risk it, and throw up for days?”

And they might respond, “Well, I’m just not sure if I can see it  your way.”

And I would say, “Listen, you have to take that first step of faith. You have to say you’ll commit to ginger ale. You have to trust it will help you. And then you have to take the steps to implement that into your life. You have to be prepared, because you never know when violent illness will spring on you. It usually comes like a thief in the night! Sounds scary doesn’t it?”

They might say, “Well, I don’t want that to happen.”

(me) “Well, it might happen that way. In fact, it’s an absolute certainty, you will, one day, get very ill.”

(them) “Oh. I never thought of it like that.”

(me) “It is an urgent matter. Would you like to commit, right now, to accepting ginger ale as your stomach’s own personal savior?

I don’t evangelize any good news this way.

I just tell the truth, and share my experience. I don’t try a tactic, trick of technique to corner my prey, I mean, listener. I don’t simply because, anything I really love and enjoy I talk about anyway. It’s not fake. It’s not a sales pitch. It’s not a way to get people to do what I do, or believe what I believe. What they wish to believe is in their control. Besides, I personally can’t stand being manipulated, so why would I subject anyone to that?

What witnessing or evangelism follies have you seen or had tried on you?

Below is the paper I did about world Christianity. The author of the essay I am reflecting on is from Sri Lanka, and I was surprised to find some interesting similarities between American culture and Indian culture.

Missiology Essay Paper 3

about

Essay: God: the Source, the Originator, and the End of Mission

by Ajith Fernando

November 20, 2009

Submitted by Lisa DeLay

Ajith Fernando in his essay, God: the Source, the Originator, and the End of Mission, presents the church as a mirror of the Trinity, and surmises the challenges of missiology in the second half of the 20^th century, and in his current context of Sri Lanka. He first looks at Paul’s epistles as a study of theology to discover a Scriptural missiological telos.

Fernando speaks of fear as a dominant emotion for the world population–whether they are rich of poor. The rich fear economic reversals or harsh business environments, and the poor fear destitution and oppression by demonic forces. For both groups, the power of God in atonement, and the gospel is vitally important to impart to them. These principles include God’s sovereignty, his gloriousness, righteousness, God as the source of revelation and salvation, God’s gift of salvation, God’s will for our lives, and God’s post-salvation blessings to us. Our response to God is met in the acts of belief, worship, commitment and obedience, godliness, and accountability to God.

As Fernando moves into some of the crises of the church in his region, I sense that many of the same issues plague the body of Christ in the U.S.A. in many similar ways–though a unique American twist is apparent. The “magical view of God,” is common for Fernando’s people, where they are used to apprehending God similar to the way they had understood their originally worshiped deities. These prior deities were considered powerful and would do favors for them. Eventually, the people first came to the Almighty God for things like healing from a sickness, for demonic deliverance, or relief in a financial crisis.

Here, in the U.S. many also view God in an immature, or simplistic, light as well. Many may understand him to be something like a magical genie that should comfort them, fix their problems, and help out in crisis. Christian Smith offers a term for American youth, which I believe to aptly to many adults as well. Moralistic Therapeutic Deism consists of beliefs like these:

1. “A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.”

2. “God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.”

3. “The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.”

4. “God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.”

5. “Good people go to heaven when they die.”1

Fernando mentions that to people in Sri Lanka, many times the subjective blessings, rather than the important implications of holiness, are what the Christians are more focused on. I sense a great similarity here, with many American Christians who are stunted in their spiritual formation. The, “what is God doing for me,” mentality, or “what can I do for God so he favors me more,” is a common notion in quite a few Christian circles.

In (his) church, Fernando says prayer requests, and testimonies tend to be about temporal matters or needs. This rings true for my church, as well, and I am sure in many other American churches too. When one reads our church’s prayer listing, requests are most frequently for sickness, physical safety (such as for those in the military, or traveling), or for temporal, or tangible/material needs, (such as finding a job, family stability, fundraising, good weather, or an upcoming event.)  I do not ever remember hearing of a prayer request that included something like, “learning peace and patience during a trial or loss.” I do not remember anyone in my church requesting prayer that his particular suffering would bring him closer to God. Many personal testimonies, as well, or prayer requests revolve around tangible blessings, alleviating personal suffering, meeting temporal needs, or the satisfaction of acquiring personal preferences, (such as healing, or a desired answer to a temporal need.)

(a personal reflection from Gospel Virtues by Jonathan R. Wilson)

Cosmic Hope: For all times, for all places, and all people, and nothing can take it away.

This idea “hope as story” is not sourced in a human story.

It creates the circumstances by which we may endure, and serve each other. (not a will to power)

It is found in community, personally, with Person, and eschatologically.

It is transcendent…

 Strangely enough—It can be started through worship.

How might you define it?

When I first saw this video below, I cried. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr3x_RRJdd4]

It showed me the power of offering connection and love. The largely untapped, healing power of embrace–which connotes acceptance–seems to be too absent today. The distance between us grows, even though technology has supposedly drawn us together.

Luke 15:20 “So he returned home to his father. And while he was still a long way off, his father saw him coming. Filled with love and compassion, he ran to his son, embraced him, and kissed him.”

If you would, please response here, and explain your feelings about embrace, or any reactions you had to this post, the video, or the artwork. Thank you.

An idea for plumbing deeper:

Your challenge-

Bring these pictures to mind the next time you pray, and speak about them to God, honestly. If you have fears, joy, sorrow, gratitude, or other feelings, express them, using this theme as a vehicle to interact in your next intimate time with the Lover of your soul.

1. You find yourself thinking up illnesses that would suffice for excuses for staying home. Sometimes you even invent names like Snufflititus or Schnozatigo: The serious redness and inflammation of the area beneath the nose from too much tissue rubbing. Rx Coffee, remote control, rest, snacks, and tissues with lotion built-in.

2. You suddenly realize how cool, smart, and savvy the early Sunday morning tv shows are, and feel like you might be getting a raw deal but missing them.

3. You feel deeply offended that your church doesn’t care too much that the coffee offered tastes something like armpit, and you start to identify this characteristic with an inherent spiritual problem of your congregation. (perhaps the misusing of the gift of hospitality) 

4. You start to pick apart the pastor’s sermon with a graph, and two columns of hatch marks on your church bulletin, adding up the times he is substituting a self-aggrandizing story instead of using a true parable to teach a point.

5. You find getting tapped for nursery duty a welcomed relief, because you won’t really have to talk to anybody, watch a worship performance you won’t enjoy, or try to not yawn an ungodly amount of times as you try to get through a sermon the pastor must have downloaded from somewhere late Saturday night.

Okay, this was a purposefully whacky list. If you can relate to any of these internal excuses, signs, or avoidance qualities, in some sort of way, then maybe the experience of attending church has grown stale.

It’s normal to have spiritual slumps. It can’t be wise to think of walking with God as a continual emotional high, and when it’s not experienced as such, something is horribly wrong. Like any journey, there will be hills and valleys. Faithfulness demonstrated as a choice done continually, (rather than a feeling-based action) can really see us through times like this. God is always with us, whether we “feel” him or not.

However, I’ll make a different point. There is also a tendency to fall into a consumer mindset, and feel like church-going is like shopping, and picking out something you like. We probably all do it, to an extent. Have you ever walked out of the service on Sunday thinking, “That wasn’t really what I was hoping for,”? Yep. Unmet expectations are common. But, it doesn’t have to wreck the whole bit of it.

Church doesn’t have to delight us every time, and soothe us. Most times it won’t feed us, not in the deep ways we crave. Those times are often found in community that can plumb to greater depths, and do the harder work, but build the stronger bonds that make genuine growth possible. (Think small groups, or spiritual directors, spiritual mentors, and discipleship situations.)

Church isn’t just some way to get recharged for your week, and be poured into. But, have you noticed how easy it is to slip into that bare minimum, and consumerist outlook of it? I have. I’ve been guilty of it way too much.

It’s not about just an experience, nor is it just meant for worshiping God with others. We worship God all the time, whether we do it poorly and unawares, or we tune in and give him our whole selves. We are his creation, our lives lived are a form of worship, like it or not.

Church-going, and the whole of the spiritual walk, are about applying the gospel to our lives in every circumstance and situation, the whole way through. God’s grace and love came down. He draws us to him. He restores. It seems we co-opt and yield to his mighty, gracious work to changing us radically, to be more like him.

Sometimes it just comes down to sucking it up. Sometimes it means you have to change, not your local church.

Have you ever been burned out on church, like I have, at one time or another? What helped you?

Leave any kinds of comments you’d like.

I traveled around 11 countries backpacking in Europe, and I saw scores of beautiful and inspiring cathedrals. As I would enter them, I appreciated the art, the architecture, and their magnificence. It wasn’t something I was used to. Typical buildings of worship I was used to didn’t involve such grander. Spiritually for me, it helped to sharpen the import of my overall faith tradition of Christianity that extends more than 2,000 years. The efforts to build such amazing places to bring glory to God, and reflect his splendor, put me into a state of awe and reverence. But it wasn’t so much for the religious habits of the people involved in those efforts, but because of the character, nature, and vitality of the Creator God we worship and love.

Even though I got to see St Peter’s cathedral at the Vatican, and various places of worship in Florance, and even St. Paul’s in London, my favorite cathedral was, surprisingly, in Praha (Prague). The St. Vitus cathedral was breath-taking. Here are images I found at prague.net.  

Where have you traveled, near or far, grand or simple, that has had a spiritual impact on you, and why? Share a response here. Please enjoy these photos of St Vitus, too, and try to visit one day, you won’t regret it. (click to enlarge)

Jumpy, foolish, and run amuck. That was Tootsie. I didn’t know her name, but when a skittish dog weaved up the center of my street towing a 20 foot chain, I called out to her, and tried to help.

She was friendly, but fearful. She panted and started for me, but when she realized I might end her dash toward total independence, she started to scoot away–her long chain clattered behind her. Instead of heightening my urgency, I scaled it back, and made my tone friendlier. “Come here, it’s okay!” I tapped my leg in what is a sort of international signal for dog to come. She perked up her ears, and darted around, still unsure of her next move. She was going to bolt. The long muddy chain was her foil. I edged after her, and she made a break for it. Then, I stepped on the chain, and used it to reel her in. Once arrested from flight, she was friendly and excited. With a hyper spirit only a very inbred dog exhibits, she jumped, and spun, and zipped about. My daughter was delighted.

Now to find the owner. The last thing I wanted was to keep a dog like this for too long. I sighed relief–her dog tag had a phone number. I phoned–the number was disconnected. She began barking, and jumping, popped two of our plastic balls, and knocked over her new water dish for the fourth time. I hoped there would be a big reward for finding her.

About an hour later, three children who had heard familiar barking came to get her. They said her name was Tootsie. Their gate was open, and they didn’t know how she got away.

I got to thinking about Tootsie, and her recklessness. Her ignorance of her freedom, and the danger she didn’t know she was in apart from her caretakers. The wild look in her eye, and the confusion of being on her own–excited, yet quite lost, and ultimately alone. Until I stepped in, her fate was dubious.

I wonder if we think of people with the same kind companion we do for animals. When someone has lost their way, feels alone, or is out of the watchful care they need, do we hurry to help them? Or do we size up everything first? Do we decide if it’s worth it, or if they are worthy of the work we’ll have to put in?

Maybe it’s easier to help an animal because we assume they are quite helpless, but people can do far better helping themselves. But, the truth is, no one can go it alone. Not Tootsie, not me, not you, not anyone. Reaching out is the only way things genuinely improve. And I don’t mean reaching out just any way, but with true graciousness. Real compassion, and the kind of love we hope is shown to us, or those we love.

How do you feel about it?

And have you ever rescued a person or animal?

Go ahead and talk about it in a comment. :)

Thanks for reading.