scribblings

« December 2004 | Main | February 2005 »

January 17, 2005

blogs: not the healthiest forum

there was an article in newsweek a number of weeks back that cited the trend of blogging as a reflection of rich campus life at many colleges. they even noted that "blog" had made it into the dictionary this year as online journaling or something. for once, it seemed someone had something good to say about what happens at colleges beyond abuses of alcohol, time, resources, sex, etc. and for the most part, i'm still convinced that they are right (i suppose i wouldn't be writing this otherwise). but i do have a concern.

i remember in my time in santa cruz bolivia that working with spanish always felt like a bit of a code. day in and day out i would go through everything as normal, understanding well what was happening, but i felt like words were external for me. in church, i never felt like i could connect with prayer/worship as i do in my native language. i imagine that given a number of years more i may have acquired a sense of the weight that words carry and connected better with what i heard and said at a deeper level.

one of the areas that this made a difference was in the area of colorful langauge or even sharp comments. i remember the kids i worked with who would swear a lot, and in correcting them it felt funny because the word really held no weight for me, but for those around them it certainly did. it was sad to see some north americans say some pretty harsh things sometimes to locals that i couldn't imagine them saying in english, and i wondered if the reason could have been partly that there was this disconnect between langauge and meaning.

how this translates to blog journaling (that includes xangas, livejournals, etc.) is that i think sometimes the disconnectedness of posting something digital out there gives people more space to speak. space to speak is good, but the question is where. i feel like i've been able to vent some this blog at times, but have i considered who is my audience (of which i'm really not sure if anyone more than my girlfriend reads this) and how might the material be taken?

blogs may have a place for starting some thoughts, but maybe not for how the discussion is continued. once again, i think i find myself advocating highly real interaction, face to face, and in english if that is what works best. and when there exists a language difference of any sort, let's be careful.

Posted by Derrick at 08:21 AM | Comments (1)

January 14, 2005

signs

"while i feel we shouldn't seek out signs, there is something wrong if there are none." in my frusteration with charismatic or experience-seeking christianity, these were exactly the words i needed to hear in order to keep my faith tied together. it was suggested that acts as much as the gospels has a greater scheme, the bigger story was the coming together of peoples, the reconciliation or the new jubilee community possiblity. and part of that were these signs and miracles that point to the bigger miracle of the restoring of dynamic right relationship between God and human community.

there still is something to learn from the charasmatic movement. there is something going on with this that apparently hasn't died out yet, instead is growing signficantly in the world. but at the same time, we keep in mind how we can be complete followers of jesus, keeping in mind the big picture.

what are the signs in our community? if we are living dramatically different lives that point to the gospel/kingdom of God, i believe signs will follow. but am i living a dramatically different life from the average joe american? i was just through this with the economic sustainability issue. it was proposed to give up 5 shirts to gift and thrift this morning at bible study. sounds like a simple way to start.

Posted by Derrick at 02:01 PM | Comments (0)

January 07, 2005

sustainable economies and enough

i was reading in rick yoder, vernon jantzi and cal redekop's book on development, and i've only looked at one chapter so far (and it happened to be one somewhere in the middle) but it already has me thinking. the challenge in this chapter was to begin thinking in a new direction. the interest or concern of the future should not be so much thinking about how the rich countries of the world should help the poorer countries develop as much as thinking about how the rich countries must reconsider how we might have a more sustainable economy. as it is now, we use much more than our share of the world's resources, and at the current pace we are running the earth toward the exhaustion of its resources.

the point is made that the church should be at the forefront of this economic shalom, the harmonious use of world resources. as it is right now, i know that i have more than my share of things and i'm not sure if i really use any less water, electric, transportation, etc. than any other average american consumer. what kinds of things could we do to be a more explicit witness for a lifestyle of enough?

Posted by Derrick at 04:11 AM | Comments (0)

January 03, 2005

church questions

the last few weeks have left me everywhere between being completely careless and completely consumed with church conflict. it's not unusual for me to react to questions by swinging to the other extreme, in many ways rejecting everything remotely connected with what those i am disagreeing with. but in the church that i've been a part of since i arrived in this world, i am caught in trying to find the balance. but now the balance that i've always struggled for seems to be viewed as unacceptable. now i'm told there is "no comprimise." now i am torn in reevaluating what church is, what church does, what role church leaders play, and at what point do we leave our the exausting struggle for unity. so here are a few points that i am considering.

first, some things that i am behind. i agree that God does not necessarily use the trained leaders. i believe that preaching should not merely tickle listeners' ears with what is comfortable or the watered down gospel so that it is no longer the piercing radical truth that it is. we do need to hear from people who have been with Jesus. i agree that the spirit of acedemia can nurture doubt and tear a person apart until they are reduced to a multitude of clauses. i believe that a person may say things like "i've heard from the Lord that..." or "i feel like the Lord is saying..." and that one should be entirely convinced that it is in fact the Lord that is saying such a thing before claiming it.

leaders have a role. they take on an important role that keeps the church alive, functioning, and healthy. jesus, paul, and others in the early church did act and teach in ways that set them apart or even at conflict with others because of their what they did.

church, or the people of the jesus' movement, should be characterized by dynamic interaction within the body and God. they should be flexible and ready to act and respond.

BUT...

leading is listening. i saw this on a billboard-- if that could only be understood in the church. if i were a pastor or a church leader, i would be next to paralyzed in fear of acting wrongly for all that the bible has to say about distracted religion or warning of religious leaders who are taking people off track (Mk 12:38-40, Amos 5:18-24 just for example). gifts are for the common good, and the head is Christ who is for the whole body (1 Cor:4-7,12, Eph 4:15,16). there is no one in the church or outside of the church or whereever who's story has any less value or weight. "apostolic leadership" must be in all forms self-sacrificing, for the body and as an authentic light to others. the mockery of this term is to usurp power and claim God's leading as most faithful and committed ones are silenced. this is the most direct form of misusing the Lord's name! (Ex. 20:7)

conflict is not best managed in indirect sermons that support alterior motives or lengthy prayers that manipulate or preach to their hearers. "thank you for allowing us to have trained ears to hear your voice" and "Lord you know my heart and that i didn't share anything to exalt who I am" may be fine statements, but context is everything, and they look to judge saints and sinners. when there is conflict, let's not try to fake it and sing happy songs together or even listen to a message together. i think that's the time to say enough of "church," put your bulletins away, and let's get in groups or in one big group or something and talk and listen together before anything else. just because people do blow up or because we don't always talk about things eloquently or without mistakes when we go to discuss critically important matters doesn't mean we shouldn't practice it or try and does not justify handling everything in such an indirect manner or canceling "listening meetings."

people are hurt in all directions. the leaders are hurt when people don't give them the freedom to make mistakes. and ordinary people are hurt when leaders push them down the church hierarchy and limit their participation and voice. and these can both be violences. we must abandon our pride and beg forgiveness for our wrongs. but who do "apostolic" leaders listen to? they preach, we listen and aparently they're right and we need to follow. and if we don't want to follow, they "bless us and release us."

so on the questions...

when does unity become an idol? can unity become an idol? "I... beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." (Eph 4:1-2)

what is church? is church the group that challenges us in the path we are in? to the path to which we must follow? the group we are with? a group that we try to change or impact? a group that works similarily and efficiently in the kingdom work? what is it that makes us a reflection of the coming reign of God-- our worship, service work, community, engagement with the world's need... what does it take to be a people that does that? or is it more important to try to do that than it is to actually acheive doing that?

how important is the extraordinary? ...always pushing to be "more in Christ" there must be a balance between looking to grow and improve and recognizing the extraordinaryness of ordinary faithful living.

again the first and last question, what is the point where a church body is more unhealthy than its worth or causing more pain to all "sides" as all push against each other just because they are under the same roof but no longer work like "church"? when is this an call to an "impossible task" and when is it time to pick up and move on?

Posted by Derrick at 12:50 PM | Comments (0)