LOL--Yeah, whatever

It's not a little ironic that those inventions which initially intend to bring people closer ultimately separate us further. Do you remember the old telephone commercial? "Reach out touch some one," they used to say, and then pick up the phone. Who would have thought in those days of rotary phones and party lines,(do you remember those?) that nearly everyone including young people would be carrying cell phones. Of course its aimed at "staying connected." Not only that, we now have text messaging, where a person doesn't even have to talk, he or she can just type words, but not whole words or actual sentences- abbreviations. Whole words, and sentences take too long and require some grammar and spelling expertise. This is an excellent way to chat with your friends while you are otherwise occupied, say at church, or school, or in the grocery check out line. You can even be in a crowd of people (or with your family,)and at the same time "stay in touch" with your friends. Then of course we have the grand daddy of all superficiality, "social networking sites." Where else can you "keep up" with all your "friends" who you never see or talk to? Now you can be "social" from the comfort of your own home, sitting in your pjs on your lazy-boy. You don't even have to comb your hair or brush your teeth.

Which brings me to LOL, or another designation aimed at communicating emotion.:) Have you ever wondered why this is even necessary? I'll help you out here. The printed text is an inefficient, maybe even inadequate medium for human communication. It's fine for text books, dictionaries and encyclopedias, that is, for sharing facts and information. However, for communication between actual human beings, it is woefully inadequate. So when we text or email, we have to give indication of the emotion or inflection that we want to accompany the message. Of course we are limited to a relatively small stock of available emotions, LOL...Human communication, and social interaction is more than just words, or even accompanying pictures. Trying to compress human experience into words, was the challenge of the great literary artists, poets and novelists of former days. They did so by means of the mastery of the language, powerful vocabulary and many words, not abbreviations and emoticons.

I have to admit I was enthralled by some of these new "advances." However the novelty has worn off, and a sense of foreboding has taken its place. They may be useful but I doubt they are good. In effect, the world of text, rather than growing to accommodate human experience, is static, compressing human experience into an increasingly narrow field. The result? superficiality, facade, and surface relationships with no depth. Not only is there the possibility of intentional deception, ( I'm thinking of the country hit..."I'm so much cooler online") but also the tacit deception, that is, the things left unsaid. What your friends via textual media know of you does not even scratch the surface of who you are. It's like the tip of the ice berg. What your friends see by means of facebook, twitter, or TM may be true, but its certainly not the whole truth, and "Relationships" thus upheld bear little resemblance to human friendship. Consequently, while we may be inundated with "friends," it's entirely possible to remain isolated, remote, and alone. We may actually find ourselves losing face to face social skills. Perhaps the most detrimental effect of the multiplication of these superficial contacts, is that they can and do sometimes distract us from the people who are physically present with us, endangering the only real relationships we have. Virtual is virtual. Real is real. Virtual is not real.

I'm reminded that God communicated through the words of the prophets and seers for ages, but to save us, to reveal Himself, and His love, the Word became Flesh. God incarnate, in Jesus Christ. The book, the text on the page was just not adequate.

My advice? The next time you are out with real friends, show them the respect they deserve. Be present with them. Give them your unobstructed attention. Turn off your phone. You can catch up with all your text messages later, from the comfort of your own home.

The Word Became Flesh

My inactivity for the last three months might lead one to suspect one of any number of explanations:
My computer died
I contracted swine flue
I had major surgery involving my hands
I have been on an extended vacation,
Our electricity/internet has been shut off
I've been really busy with other pursuits
I spend too much time facebooking
I just don't have anything to say

The list could go on, but let me just say most of these explanations are false. The truth is that our building project at Christ Community, and then the holidays, absorbed most of the time for blogging that I may have had. Now that Epiphany day is behind us, allow me to share some thoughts from my current pursuits.

I have been reading from the 7 Ecumenical Councils of the Church. If that sounds like exciting reading, it's not really. However, it is enlightening. I have found myself musing, "Who would have thought...hmm. That's interesting." For example, anyone not acknowledging the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary as Mother of God is to be anathema. I know some of you may be thinking to yourself, "Isn't that just a little over the top?" Let me just say it makes perfect sense when you consider what was at stake, and also, consider the effects of the modern tendency to neglect this point.

One of the issues that stands out in all the councils, especially the first 3 is a concern for clarifying the Truth surrounding the person of Jesus Christ, and the Holy Trinity. Issues that were settled once and for all, and articulated in the Nicene and Apostles creeds. These creeds remain the measuring stick for Christian Faith. The fathers were intense about these defining issues. One of the many heresies in this time period (4th/5th centuries) sought to explain the incarnation by dividing Christ into two persons: the Logos (Eternal Word/Deity) and Christ (Jesus of Nazareth). They suggested that Christ was a man just as you and I, filled with the Holy Spirit in a profound and unprecedented way. The Fathers said, no. The Word BECAME flesh. Christ and the Logos were one. No less God, and no less Man. Jesus was not inhabited by God he was/is the incarnate God, the second person of the undivided Holy Trinity. The Fathers were very clear on the point. Theotokos (Mother of God) is not as much a statement about the Blessed Virgin but a statement about Christ. To refuse to acknowledge Mary as the Mother of God is to deny Christ, pure and simple.

So what difference does it make really? Quite a lot actually. The motivation of proponents of the many different heresies in the early days of the Church, was the fundamental distrust, or denigration of the Flesh. At best the flesh was viewed as weak, at its worst intrinsically evil. This line of thinking can be traced back at least as far as Plato. It is not the same as the Christian view of the flesh as fallen, bent or marred. It is difficult for moderns and ancients alike to comprehend how God who is perfect, holy, infinite, could become flesh. Its easier to imagine Him inhabiting flesh and even that is a stretch of faith. Neglect of this point of doctrine regarding the Incarnation of God, has lead to a "spiritualization" of the Christian faith, that likewise neglects the redemption of the flesh. The result being a artificial dichotomy between flesh and Spirit, and a failure to recognize the whole person, both of Christ and human beings generally. We sometimes see it manifested as "spiritual worship," that is to say, worship unhindered by outward forms or rituals. Casual becomes acceptable because reverence is a matter of the heart. Kneeling is unimportant if our spirits are humbled and bowed. Thinking and reasoning is supplanted by feeling and emotion. The hard facts of the Scriptures are set aside for a "spiritual interpretation." In the end, the Scriptural teaching regarding the Church as the visible body of Christ, is abandoned for a notion that justifies the many divisions within the Church.

Worst of all, this "spiritualization" denies our humanity, offering to the people a truncated salvation, rather than Christian wholeness. The Word became Flesh to restore humanity, to the human race. Human beings, severed from God, degenerate into animals, ruled by their carnal appetites and instincts supposing that it is more "natural." For the first time since the Garden of Eden, we see in Christ Jesus what being human really looks like, how we were created to be. He was/is the perfect Man. Salvation and sanctification through Christ, do not separate the spirit/soul from that which is flesh, but rather restore the proper integrity between flesh and spirit. The truly "spiritual" person is not one who stands aloof from that which is material/flesh but rather, one whose outward manner of living (and dying) is a perfect expression of his inward/spiritual life. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. And we beheld his glory...and from His fullness have we all received grace upon grace.

Extraordinary Means

Recently I read an article concerning new Anglican vocations. The point was made that the new Anglican world, (ACNA) would present a need for priests willing to be bi-vocational. This is a new reality that many former Episcopalians are facing. I am thankful, and really not surprised that many young men are willing to go to such extraordinary measures for the sake of the Gospel. There is a long history of such self-sacrifice in Christian Tradition, going all the way back to St. Paul. " I have become all things to all men , that I mighty by all means save some." It was my motivation almost fifteen years ago, and continues to be the driving motive to this day.

However, care must be taken to keep this zeal in its proper perspective. Bi-vocational ministry, while becoming more common, even necessary in many instances, is not normative of Christian ministry. It is the exception rather than the rule, Scripturally and traditionally. St. Paul, by his own testimony, embraced bi vocational ministry as a way of not being a burden to the fledgling congregation at Corinth, but no where does he suggest that all ministers do the same. In fact his council to Timothy, is in stark contrast to his own practice at Corinth. Furthermore, there is no evidence that St. Paul viewed his "tent making" as anything other than a temporary, extraordinary means. It was his "ground for boasting." (1 Cor.9:15)

In this light, bi vocational ministry must be viewed as a personal choice, an offering of self-sacrifice for the sake of the Gospel. For the Church to go beyond this, and to require its ministers to be bi vocational would be a violation of the Gospel. "The Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." (1 Cor. 9:14)

Likewise, bi vocational ministry should be seen as a means to a specific end, not an end in itself. The goal of every bi vocational minister should always be full time vocational ministry. There are a number of reasons for this. First, and foremost, as I stated above, it is against Scripture and Tradition to do otherwise. God has His own reasons why He has always, set aside men dedicated to his service, from the Levites under the Old Covenant to the ministers, bishops priests and deacons of the New. It seems that for the sake of the missionary endeavor, God has allowed exception to this rule, but it is the rule nonetheless. The person considering bi vocational service, needs to be aware of the cost of this compromise. It will cost. We need to count this cost, and be sure that we are able to pay. Bear with me for stating what should be obvious. If bi vocational ministry was the best, most effective way to do ministry, the Lord would have told us.

After nearly fifteen years of bi-vocational ministry, I can testify that it is not "the berries." It's a lot of work, more than people who are not bi vocational can imagine. It is consistently frustrating, because of the limits of time and physical endurance. The quality of service rendered to the parish suffers. Nevertheless, bi vocational ministry enables us to take the Gospel, to plant new churches in areas, that traditional ministry cannot. So I embrace it as an extraordinary means that makes it possible for me to serve the dear people of rural Kentucky now, while reaching out in hope for the day when I will be able to serve the people of my charge without the distraction and drain of a second job.

David and Goliath

Everybody likes the story. Little David against all odds, defeats a giant of a man, Goliath. We love it when the underdog comes out on top. Its a popular theme, in movies, sports, and yes, even politics. Perhaps the reason it is so popular is that so many of us view ourselves as "underdogs," or little guys, and it gives us hope that one day we will come out on top. Now hope is a good thing. Without it people cannot survive. However, we have missed the whole point of the story if we think this is about an underdog.

First, David was not an underdog, and he did not view himself in that way at all. When he stood before the doubtful King Saul, David was far from fearful or weak. He was more like a teenage boy, lacking proper restraint, and judgment. He had killed lions and bears with his own hands, and this Philistine would fall too. Sorry. David was no underdog in his own eyes, although others may view him as such. There were underdogs in the story though. They were the ones standing on the sidelines despairing, scoffing at young David, waiting for a real hero, and the king who sat in safety and sent a young boy to do what he was afraid to do himself. Those are the underdogs in this story.

David was different from the rest. What set him apart was not his strength, fighting skills, or even his experience defeating lions and bears. What distinguished David from the rest was his deep seated confidence in God. David was a man/boy of faith, and a model for all of us in this regard. His faith went beyond mere belief in God. David believed something about God, and this faith permeated his whole life, whether in the fields watching over sheep, or on the battlefield facing a giant. And it is this faith, what David believed about God, that set him apart from the rest of the army in his own day, and from the wannabe heroes, and arm chair quarter backs of today. Of course, David surely believed in God's power, and greatness, His holiness and righteousness, as do we. But David's extraordinary confidence, came from his belief in God's sovereignty and good will toward him and the nation of Israel. Beyond this, David understood himself to be a participant not a spectator in the economy of God's dominion. God's dominion is carried out by the hands of faithful men and women.

We pray "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done..." (Oh, Lord please send somebody) I doubt that David, was in the field one day tending his sheep, when God, "gave him a word " that he was to defeat Goliath. When the lion attacked his sheep, I doubt he took a moment to pray about what he should do in this situation. When he heard Goliath blaspheming the Lord, he knew what needed to be done. King Saul saw these as two entirely different genres. David saw them as one and the same. The God who helped him kill the lion and the bear, would help him defeat Goliath.
It was not an underdog that defeated a giant, it was the Lord's servant David, simply doing his duty, in concert with his Master.

Listen, we as the people of God, have got to stop reveling in our victimization. We are not victims, we are not underdogs. We are servants of the sovereign King of the universe, co-laboring with Him to achieve his Glory in the world. His power is not lessened but perfected in our weakness. Let us therefore take hold of each day, and with the confidence of David, engage our giants. Let us work in our portion of the field that God's will be done-on our watch.

The Economy of Ministry

This was a new one to me. A recent article on Fox News, cited the poor economy, and rocky employment environment, for a recent increase in enrollment in religious education. Pause. When I read this article I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry. It could be that we are experiencing a revival of sorts. The more cynical side of me sees this as a bad omen, a sign that the gospel and ministerial vocations, have been so cheapened that they are viewed as career plan B. "If I can't make it into med school, I can always be a minister." I witnessed this first hand back in college--the student who cannot decide on a major, or cannot cut the academic rigor of his first choice, becomes a religion major.

Then there is the other side, that sees ministry as a lucrative opportunity in hard economic times. People give to the church, even when times are hard. Remember the widow's mite. In some peoples mind I'm sure that this makes ministry an attractive profession. I have to agree that the "opportunities" for service are endless. What ever might be your take on the situation, it seems evident that as a culture, religious careers, have displaced vocations. Compare this article with the fact of declining vocations in the Roman Catholic Church, and you will begin to see my point. What's the difference? Why is one growing and the other declining? It's the difference between "vocation," and career choice. We don't have much room for vocation in our church culture anymore. It's the idea that a person might be chosen, rather than choose. This little difference changes everything. For the person who is called, who receives a vocation, is under obligation, under orders. There is a cost, a sacrifice to be made, obedience fulfilled. It is not a simple matter to "change majors" if things don't seem to be working out. It doesn't matter how well the job pays, or what is happening in the economy. In some cases we who are under orders, have to work a second job, to fulfill our vocation. That is not an appealing proposition to many. Finally the ministerial vocation is a life long vocation, similar to marriage in that it is not to be entered into lightly or unadvisedly. But for those whom God has called it is a price we are more than willing to pay. The promises, the vows you make before God, witnessed by the congregation, and under the hand of your bishop are not a matter of convenience.

How many of these graduate students, pursing ministerial careers, would continue if they considered their vocation in this light?

Rainbows and Promises

I cannot see a rainbow and not be reminded of the promise that God made to Noah, to never again destroy the world with a flood. Everyone likes the promises of God. They encourage us and inspire us with hope for the future-- a future that is not yet. They are given to us in the time in between, the time we are living in. We have promise of everlasting life, that one day God will wipe every tear from our eyes and there will be no more death or sorrow or suffering. But that promise, is not fulfilled yet. Never the less, that promise has its desired effect when it inspires us with hope, and faith, when it encourages us and gives us strength to face the present difficulties.
"In this world, you will have trouble. But be of good cheer! I have overcome the world" --Jesus

On Relevence

It seems to be the new buzz word among church growth guru's these days. It is usually the reason given to justify innovations in the liturgy, for using contemporary music or dispensing with "formalities". It's also the other side of the criticism levied against the traditionalist--irrelevant. But the word seems to be badly misused in either case. In popular usage, no matter what it might mean really, practically it means familiar, or comfortable. Let's face it. Kneeling is uncomfortable business, so is reverence. Singing time worn hymns takes a bit of work. So nowadays, relevance translates into a cup of jo during worship where the minister wears sneakers and jeans and goes by "John." No Pastor John, or certainly not Father John. Such titles are irrelevant. I wonder though, if that is what seekers are looking for or is it what church leaders suppose they are looking for? Perhaps the most relevant question is, "Is that what we/they really need?"

I remember back in Seminary taking a class in cross cultural discipleship. We began with the premise that human beings are religious. This is not theory, its a fact. Even those who are atheists or agnostic, are none the less religious, or rather have religious behaviors. The secular person still reveres his or her weekend, vacation time, or even that one night a week when their favorite show is on TV. Mircea Eliade, Vic Turner and others point out that humans are religious because they need to be religious. Sacred time, sacred spaces serve as interruptions in the ongoing stream of the common or profane. They provide rhythm and order into what would otherwise be an endless chaotic stream of events. It makes me wonder. If a secular person, came to a church, on purpose, actually "seeking," what he or she would be looking for? More of the same? Another support group or affinity club? a coffee shop? Might they actually be looking for a sense of the sacred, the One who is wholly Other? Are they more likely to look for a place that looks like a sports arena or concert hall?

When its all said and done, we may find that the most relevant thing a church can do for the secular person, is be the Church unmixed, undiluted, and unapologetic for its "other-ness."