The Church is People…

A provocative quote from Belfast pastor of Ikon, Peter Rollins.  What do you think?

“Paradoxically, I say, Ikon doesn’t care about you. Ikon doesn’t give a crap if you are going through a divorce. The only person who cares is the person sitting beside you, and if that person doesn’t care, you’re stuffed. People will say, ‘I left the church because they didn’t phone me when my dad died, and that was really hurtful.’ But the problem is not that the church didn’t phone but that it promised to phone. I say, ‘Ikon ain’t ever gonna phone ya.’ Pete Rollins might. But if he does, it will be as Pete Rollins and not as a representative of Ikon. Ikon will never notice if you don’t come. But if you’ve made a connection with the person sitting next to you, that person might.
Ikon is like the people who run a pub. It’s not their responsibility to help the patrons become friends. But they create a space in which people can actually encounter each other.”

I feel Farrah’s loss more…

Is it just me or does it seem like Farrah’s death is somewhat lost in the media buzz surrounding Michael Jackson? I realize Michael is the “King of Pop” (whatever that means), but I feel inclined to publicly state that between the two of them, Farrah Fawcett meant much more to me.  I never liked Michael Jackson as an artist.  That’s a huge statement considering I was in high school when the Thriller video was first released.  I can honestly state, however, that I always considered Michael a bit cheezy, and his music always reminded me more of show tunes than anything resembling rock & roll.

Farrah, however…

I remember telling the kids in my Indian Creek Elementary School cafeteria that Farrah Fawcett and Lee Majors bought a house in my neighborhood – it was the closest form of intimacy my pre-puberty imagination would allow me to have with her.  From posters on my 6th grade wall to anticipating new episodes of Charlie’s Angels, Farrah Fawcett played a significant – if minor – role in shaping my adolescent self…for better or worse.

Have You Ever Felt Like an Investment?

One thing I mentioned Sunday as we continue to  press and deconstruct the idea of “Relational Ministry” is that our language truly reflects our meaning and intentions…even when we’re not aware of it.  One of the words I’ve always used and heard used in teaching, training, and discussing ministry is a form of the word “investment”.  

“I’m going to invest in him.”  

“We’re investing in kids this summer”.  

“I really want to invest in you.”

The word “investment” is a financial term that comes from the world of finances and banking (it’s always a warning sign when we flippantly use financial metaphors to discuss human relationships).  Investment specifically refer to getting a return on something we put in.  We invest when we expect something in return.    

What do we mean when we say we’re going to “invest” in a person?  Usually we mean that we’re willing to pour a certain amount of time and energy into a person with the expectation that we will see a certain result from our efforts.  We often justify this because the return we’re going for is something good (i.e. accepting Jesus, etc).  Maybe the return is good – but is this truly relationship?  Is this a healthy practice?  Is this what God does with us? 

As I mentioned Sunday, I don’t know if I’ve ever had a relationship with a church or para-church organization when I didn’t feel like an investment of sorts/”invested in”.  I am invited into relationship but only with the understanding that the relationship will provide a certain return.  Although having people “invest” in you often feels affirming and strokes the ego (”you think enough of my potential that you’re willing to pour into me?”), it inevitably leaves us feeling rather used and abandoned.  

Is investment what happened through the incarnation?

I offer the following quote to provoke the imagination and discussion:

“The incarnation is not about influence but about accompaniment”  (Andrew Root)

Small Groups & Discipleship…hmmm….

I commented Sunday that according to my observations most churches are structured in a way in which small groups equal discipleship.  In other words, everyone agrees that discipleship is important and, it seems, most agree that the best way to become a disciple (apprentice to Jesus) is through small groups.  Sunday I simply asked the question, is this true?  What’s the link here?  I confess…after experiencing countless small groups in my evangelical life, I have to pause and grapple with the two concepts and try to connect them.  

The best answer I can come up with which justifies the linking of discipleship and small groups is that a small group is a community where you can’t remain anonymous.  In other words, you have to engage – you have to know and be known.  The New Testament – especially the epistles – are jammed with instruction and commentary on how we are to live together.  Small groups provide a very hands-on format/structure to begin practicing the disciplines involved in loving one another (forgiveness, sharing burdens, humility, etc).  

All well and good in theory.  Here are my “push backs” in practice:

Almost every small group I have experienced or witnessed falls into one of two categories:

• They are successful and last a long time primarily because they are largely made of people in similar life stages and experiences who share a lot of natural affinity for one another.  These people like each other and find it relatively easy and comforting to be together.  Their group often functions as a sort of “safe harbor” from the daily grind of life in the world.  Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with this.  In fact, these groups are often very helpful and healthy.  My point is simply that the epistles are specifically written to communities comprised of wildly different people – the kind of people who normally (culturally and sometimes legally) would have nothing to do with one another.  The real “discipleship” component comes from doing the hard work of loving people you don’t naturally like.  Which leads into the second kind of small group…
• People who don’t have natural affinity for each other and find it somewhat taxing to give an extra night of the week to the group.  Ironically, in many cases, these folks are set-up to actually begin practicing a serious form of discipleship, but they find it hard and quit.  

I have to conclude with my conviction that true discipleship is about following Jesus in bringing wholeness to a broken world.  Healing is needed in our relationship with the world, with ourselves, and with each other.  No doubt small groups can play an important role in this, but some thought is needed to make the link between discipleship and all spheres of life.

Continuing the Conversation

We need metaphors as we talk about and try to imagine our future and the consummation of our story.  It’s like looking into a midst and describing what we see…none of us knows fully.  Sunday we spent a little time with four metaphors Scripture gives us:

Seedtime/Harvest: The promise (especially when talking of Jesus as “first-fruit”) that there is more to come…

Citizenship: Living in colony and spreading the influence of our country rather than waiting to go back…

Birth Pangs: Bringing about/waiting for new creation may be painful and slow…

Marriage: God’s creation and God’s new creation one day wedding…made for each other as male and female…

 

How do these metaphors provoke your imagination?

Thoughts on New Stadium…

I checked my son out of school Thursday, and together we went to see the Royals play an afternoon game against the Mariners.  Great day.  The Royals won – six in a row (and counting).  I’m happy and enthused by the Royals so far – please keep that in mind.  

This was my first trip to the new stadium and I’ve been desiring to record my thoughts.

Overall – it’s pretty much what I expected – a stadium that primarily exudes a “family fun center” ethos.  It’s not that I’m against family fun centers, or that I think they did a poor job executing a design, etc.  It’s just that the new stadium embodies one of my frustrations with the Royals marketing branch for generations…

 

…They refuse to understand that baseball can sell itself.  

 

If you market baseball in an authentic and honest way, the sport can sell itself – it’s that unique.  It’s that beautiful.  I have traveled to many stadiums, and other organizations seem to get that (take a trip to Texas and see how well baseball can sell itself in Arlington by going to one game at the Ballpark).  

The Royals organization however (marketing) downplays baseball in favor of trying to create a day at an amusement park (your thrills will be catored to you – you do nothing and invest nothing).  I’m not sure they even employ anyone with an understanding of and love of the game.  If so, the “stadium” experience would feel a little more historical – a little less Party Deck, etc.  

Here’s a brief list of my complaints (and suggestions) this year and throughout the years:

• Why call this a “stadium”?  Stadiums are for football and concerts.  Baseball is about “Parks” and “Fields”.  We had the perfect opportunity to rename this place, “Kauffman Field”, “Kauffman Park”, or even “Kauffman Yards” – all of which evoke baseball.  Not “Stadium”.  
• Related to the above – why take the only good part of our park’s name (”Kauffman”) and reduce it to “the K”?  Are we ashamed of the name Kauffman?  Or is it just easier to say “K”?  (I’m sure the Party Cove leftovers on the “Party Deck” approve).  What about the logo for “the K”?  Is it just me, or does it evoke images of an all-night convenience store?  One must ask – who is the target of this marketing ploy?  Who reduces one of the great baseball names in Kansas City to a “fun-filled” letter and thinks that is more likely to sell tickets?  
• I am appalled when I go to a baseball game and am treated like I’m going to a youth group/Young Life event.  I’ve always felt like the Royals organization is trying to shape the game into a kids’ club experience (let’s play the song “Another One Bites the Dust” when an opposing pitcher is taken out.  Get it…get it???).  The new stadium has ratchet up the youth group cheese element – a ton.  Now between innings, our club leader/mc for the day travels around different sections asking fans to play silly games and do silly things.  I couldn’t believe we didn’t see a fan stick as many marshmallows in their mouth as possible…that’s coming soon, I’m sure.  

I love the Royals and want to love the game experience.  Every time I go to a Royals game (at the K!!) I leave feeling more and more, however, like I don’t belong in this town and need to move to the east coast.  (By the way, can you see Royals marketing men during a seventh inning stretch at Fenway?  ”Why are they playing Sweet Caroline?  Is the pitcher’s name Caroline?  Why are the fans singing so wholeheartedly?  There’s no bouncing ball and mascot telling them to?)

I want my son to love the Royals and I’m working on that (turns out, it’s not hard…he loves them).  But to foster his love of baseball I’ll have to take him to Arlington (or just about any other baseball city – not Arizona…we have a lot in common with them…), and that makes me sad.

Continuing the Conversation

Our conversation Sunday was framed around the question, “why this – why now?”  In other words, Paul has just written one of his longest letters (1 Corinthians) which whole-heartedly concentrates on the issue of congregational behavior.  His entire letter has been grounded in a “thesis” statement of sorts found in 1:10 when Paul urges the church to “get rid of divisions and be united in mind and thought”.  At first glance, it seems rather odd that Paul would end this letter with an extensive dissertation on the importance of Jesus’ resurrection.  Wouldn’t it make more sense to end this letter in chapter 13 with an exhortation to “love one another”?  Why not write a separate letter about the resurrection and its significance?  

It almost seems as if Paul is suggesting that our faith in the resurrection is intimately linked with our communal behavior.  Hmmmmm………

Fun and encouraging conversation Sunday.  Thanks everyone!  And a special “thank you” to those of you who reassured me that I’m not the only one who has grown somewhat hesitant to use the phrase “saved” in its various evangelical shapes (i.e. Jesus Saves, We’ve been Saved, etc.).

Continuing the Conversation

What a posture our faith places us in!  We recognize the reality of evil, and we don’t deny the presence of suffering, grief, and pain.  Yet we are also a people characterized by hope.  Sunday we reflected on the question, where does this hope come from?  The answer to this question is the core of the Easter message…

Contrary to Western Enlightenment thinking, our hope does not lie in the “Myth of Progress”.  We aren’t hopeful because we believe in humanity’s power to achieve and move the human experience forward.

Our hope also does not lie in Platonic dualism.  In other words, we aren’t hopeful because Jesus Christ has promised to simply save us from this evil world.  We don’t cling to a doctrine of “escapism”.  

Our hope lies in the resurrection of Jesus.  We believe and hope that God will do for us and all creation what he did for Jesus on Easter morning – make a whole new creation.

Royals Opening Day ‘09

AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

Bond is Back?

In light of the dvd release of Quantum of Solace I would like to take up a conversation that securely places me in nerdom but, nevertheless, keeps me up at night.  As a James Bond fan and enthusiast, I am somewhat conflicted about the direction of the latest Bond films.  I’m not suggesting any conclusions – I’m just taking the opportunity to voice thoughts and invite further discussion.  

In general, I’m sympathetic with the need to reinvent, and I’m aware of the dangers involved in formulas becoming stale and irrelevant.  Although I have a stubbornly conservative streak regarding change, I acknowledge that reinvention was probably needed (on some level) for the Bond series to maintain relevancy in a post 9/11 culture.  Truly, I applaud the efforts of reinvention.

Having said that, the Bond formula has always been one of the things I love about Bond movies.  Whereas usually I am somewhat repulsed by anything formulaic, in Bond moves the formula has always been strangely attractive.  The familiarity – knowing the rhythm – anticipating the one liners – visiting familiar characters – even knowing how it all ends before it begins – is like a kind of warm sanctuary for me.  I detest predictability in other movies, but Bond movies have always been the exception.  Indeed, it’s part of their lure.  

So perhaps the question is this: have the new Daniel Craig films effectively reinvented Bond to make him more relevent while maintaining enough of the old school/proven formula so that they’re still recognizable as Bond films?  

I have to say – I’m not sure.  

Thank God they haven’t done away with opening scenes that lead into traditional credit sequence set to pop theme songs.  Illiminating that would be heresy.  Thank goodness there’s still M (although I miss Q).    

Admitting that it may sound trivial, I have to say – I hate the fact that the movies don’t open with the traditional “dot”/gun barrel scooting across the screen to the classic James Bond theme.  I’m somewhat scandalized that’s missing.  It almost seems arrogant to remove it.  I know the last movie showed the dot at the end – but whatever – don’t throw me a bone…

I miss the Bond music/theme interwoven throughout the film.

I also miss the fun.  Don’t get me wrong – like any real Bond fan I cringe at Roger Moore silliness, and I totally appreciate a serious tone to the movies, but…

I watched From Russia With Love last weekend (for probably the tenth time), and I realized that even when Connery was at his best there was still a lot of tongue in cheek humor and a spirit of frivolity in the films.  Is it good to have a Bond that’s sooooo melancholy?  

Perhaps relevant to the conversation: I think it’s interesting to re-evaluate Pierce Brosnan’s Bond and observe how it stands the test of time.  I remember how enthused the public was for his turn as Bond, and it’s curious how quickly his movies have become rather irrelevant and dismissible.  Perhaps one reason for this is that Brosnan’s movies were religiously true to the old school Bond formula.  They didn’t just tip the hat to Bond’s heritage, they revelled in it (examples: Bond’s flirting with Moneypenney went from subtle fun to way over the top sexual innuendos, Bond’s gadgetry stretched the imagination farther than the healthiest imagination can be stretched – invisible cars for crying out loud, etc).  

Perhaps Brosnan’s movies make the biggest argument for the need of and goodness of reinvention.