A Grief Lived

Posted on February 5, 2013 by tyler

Is it possible in the experience of grief that one touches the heart of God?  This past weekend my spiritual dad and friend of the past 16 years passed away.  The weight of grief is crushing.  The sadness is profound.  I’m left questioning not the existence of God but am finding it difficult to accept the world which He has “re-taken.”  Two thousand years ago, Jesus proclaimed a simple message, “Repent (take a second look), the kingdom of heaven is near.  Lost ground was about to be recaptured.  Through Jesus’ death and resurrection, the good news of God’s kingdom in our midst was brought to reality.  We now live under the rule of God, although it is an “already but not yet” reality.  And here is where the tension lies.  The Kingdom is already but not yet.  All wrongs have not yet been righted.  We live in what seems like a shadow of the fullness of this kingdom.  We expect and experience healing and redemption yet still experience loss and chaos.  The fullness of the kingdom is not yet.  The “already” of the kingdom is still weighted with sin and death.  Shared grief is a reality in the shadow.

I’m learning that living in the “already” kingdom is living with the experience of a broken heart.  The experience of life in the “already” kingdom is not always characterized by power and authority.  God doesn’t heal or save everyone nor does he stop the onslaught of sorrow.  He may let our dear friend die and someone we deem less deserving live.  He may heal a sinner and permit a saint to suffer.  But what he did do and does do is stand in the midst of that sorrow and take on the experience of that sorrow through incarnation.  I’m sure God is grieved when experiencing the reality of our existence.  His heart breaks with ours.  Jesus wept at the funeral of a friend and cried over an entire city when contemplating their future.  He suffered at the hands of sorrow and grief in Gethsemane the night before his death.  He was well acquainted with sorrow.  Is it possible in our experience of grief that we enter the very heart of God and drink and shed his tears?  Is it possible that through grief we are better able to stand in the midst of our experience and become an extension of the incarnation of Christ? As we take up our cross, does that mean that we purposefully engage a world that is guaranteed to produce the experience of a broken heart?

In Matthew 5, Jesus says, “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.”  I’ve never understood this until this past week.  Life in the “already” kingdom is lived with a broken heart.  Jesus calls  us into the experience of this broken heart.  Life in the kingdom is an experience of redemptive sorrow, grief, and sadness.  If you are expecting only the “sunny side of life,” you will be disappointed.  Does grief provide new lenses for seeing the world?  Does grief allow us to touch the very heart of God and find comfort amidst the chaos? For we do not grieve alone.  God grieves and “sheds tears” with us.  Does our personal grief  baptize us into the greater pool of human suffering and allow us to taste the experience of the Other? I think it is possible that grief prepares us to live in and amongst human suffering and can be the catalyst that transforms us into agents of hope.  Perhaps in our grief, we are touched by Encounter and our hearts are enlarged with His hope.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Having Sex and Loving it!

Posted on February 29, 2012 by tyler

The pollsters have deliberated and the news is in… over 80% of Christian evangelicals between the age of 18-29 are engaging in pre-marital sexual encounters and 60% of those are presently engaging in ongoing sexual relations.  That’s a lot of illicit sex if your perspective is informed by the Bible.  If not and you don’t profess to follow Jesus than have at it, there’s no reason not to even if you aren’t in love.  But for the Christian, really!?!?!?  Before being accused of being judgmental, I recognize there are mistakes and there is forgiveness available for those who seek it; but what confuses me is the flippancy of this particular segment of the church as it relates to sexual ethics.  Pastoring in a large church context in central Canada, I was continually confronted with individuals in this age group that didn’t view sexual activity outside the confines of marriage as sin, in fact, they suggested that the Biblical sexual ethic is archaic and an opt out reality.

While it is true that the biblical authors did a lot to push for the rights of slaves and women in their social context, this is not the trajectory of Scripture when it comes to sexual ethics.  The social context of the Hellenized Greek culture was one of sexual promiscuity even to the point of allowing for pedophilia as an acceptable practice.  This is the social landscape of the New Testament authors.  If anything, the authors nailed down sexual ethics as it pertains to “Christians” or followers of Jesus.  The New Testament is not libertine as it relates to sexual standards, it in fact would have been perceived as incredibly counter cultural or “repressive” for the time… much like the post 60′s sexual revolution we presently find ourselves living in.  The Bible isn’t archaic as much as it is counter-cultural.  We are called to a higher standard; one not informed by Katy Perry, Madonna, Friends, and Hugh Heffner.

If you don’t like it or agree with it, get a new faith!  Jenga Christianity only goes so far before collapse.  Here are some possible alternatives to the “archaic” Christian worldview.  Relativism is a good starting point.  What is it?  You are the judge, there is no “right” or “wrong.”  “What is right for one person isn’t necessarily right for another person, regardless of the culture in which they live.”  Everything is merely perspective.  Some catch phrases of relativism are tolerance, open mindedness, and being nonjudgmental.  The Bible refers to this as every human being doing that which is right in his or her own eyes.  Relativism firmly plants your feet in mid-air and firmly establishes you as master of your own destiny.  For a faith that firmly establishes you as master of your own destiny, satanism tops the list.  For those who don’t know, satanism is not the worship of a red suited, clown character with a pitch fork. Adherents of satanism are committed to SELF.  Satan is simply a symbol of carnality.  Pretty much take Christianity and either gut or reverse all of its ethical teachings and you have the basic gist behind this faith.  It emphasizes the inclinations and desires of what Christian theology would refer to as fallen humanity.  As it relates to sex, satanism advocates for having the kind of sex you want not simply as much sex as you can handle.  In listening to the young Christian evangelical describe their attitudes about sex, it’s safe to say that they have more in common with relativism and satanism than a Christian worldview as it relates to their sexual ethics. (And to set to the record straight, I’m not saying you are a Satanist if you have sex outside of marriage… only that you would be acting consistently within that worldview)

Dallas Willard suggests, “For good or for evil, the body lies right at the center of the spiritual life… and the body becomes a spiritual barrier to conformity to Christ.  He further suggests, “The body usually hinders people in doing what they know to be good and right.”  Placing ourselves at the center of the universe, human ruin is sure to follow. “The body becomes our primary source of gratification and the chief instrument for getting what we want.  That is a perversion of the role of the body in the life as God intended it; and it results in ‘death’, in alienation from God and the loss of all we will have invested our lives in (Galatians 6:8).”

I agree with Augustine, “If you believe what you like in the Gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.”  There is a lot of this going around at present in our lives and churches.  We have set ourselves over and above God’s revelation in flesh and in print.  We have transferred authority from Jesus and Scripture to ourselves, but unfortunately the human being’s center is not terribly reliable when it comes to discerning what is good and right.  Scriptures tells us the heart is easily deceived and desperately wicked.  As it relates to sex, that which is good and healthy has been lost in favor of that which is quick, easy, and pleasurable.  We are living in sexual substitution and are reaping the consequences in our lives and relationships.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Lose Your Illusion

Posted on February 20, 2012 by tyler

J.R. Saul suggests, “A civilization unable to differentiate between illusion & reality is usually believed to be at the tail end of its existence.”  A civilization is the sum of its parts; the parts in this case being human beings and the societal constructs they create.  We, therefore, could suggest that a person unable to differentiate between illusion and reality is in similar peril of disintegration.

T.S. Eliot made the famous quote, “Humankind cannot handle too much reality.”  As a result, we invite distraction and lose ourselves in these distractions.  We have become a culture of distraction and diversion.  Blaise Pascal puts it succinctly,

The only good thing for men (and women) therefore is to be diverted from thinking of what they are, either by some occupation which takes their mind off it, or by some novel and agreeable passion which keeps them busy, like gambling, hunting, some absorbing show, in short by what is called diversion.

Reality is trumped by the “absorbing show.”  In the past, this show was left to the professionals; however, the new star of the show is YOU!  There is no show more absorbing than the personal one we create and modern technology makes this possible.  Everyone can be a “star” on You tube.  Facebook and other social media sites allow you to be anyone you wish to project. On Twitter, you are your own paparazzi.  We’ve all become stars and self-promoters.  The growing challenge in our technological culture is the blurring taking place between this star illusion and reality.  This blurring is not without personal consequence and may even lead to self-destruction.  In fact some suggest our e-personality is already fostering an increasing discrepancy with our real life persona.  In worse case scenarios, some are opting for virtual life over real life (check out Virtually You by Elias Aboujaoude). And why is this the case?  We enjoy our illusion over reality because it is our social construction in which we are front and center.  We derive our personal sense of worth and significance from these illusions.  In fact, we are coming to believe that our illusion is reality.

Word of caution:  The extension of the human persona is finite and cannot be extended indefinitely.  Is it possible the stretching of a person beyond physical limitations such as proximity and face to face interaction is fostering an unhealthy sense of self? or more specifically, contributing to self-absorption and societal disintegration?  The elevation of the “I” above the “other” has terrible consequences both in the life of an individual and the community of which he or she is apart.  The elevation of the “I” over and above “the other” inevitably leads to a dystopia…or social misery for all involved.

The answer:  There are no easy answers, although awareness is a good first step.  Technology is not a passive medium.  Our personal devices are as much teachers as tools.  Our technologies impose values and new ways of doing life on its user. They re-enforce habits and ethical behavior.  Technological advance is here to stay.  The parameters of human personhood will continue to be stretched into the future for good and for bad.  Unfortunately, this over extension of personhood may further contribute to the deprivation of the soul amongst its users.  We are being shaped by the very tools we employ for better and for worse.  And most importantly, the heart (the human’s core) is easily misguided and seduced for “where your treasure is, there your heart will  be also.” (Matthew 6:21)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Heaven’s flames: An alternative view of heaven

Posted on February 8, 2012 by tyler

Heaven is often characterized as Disneyland for believers in Jesus, but “what if the fires of heaven are hotter than those in the other place.”  When it comes to present thoughts on heaven, images of gold streets, mansions, jewels, angels, and thrones abound and don’t forget the toga parties, for what is heaven without togas and harps.  Eternal bliss is also on the eternal docket.  No more tears, simply white-washed emotional experiences of euphoria and 50 cent smiles await the resurrected.  Reminds me of a non-drug induced Brave New World stupor. And yes, my Sunday school teacher has assured me that we’ll be able to float on clouds and walk through walls.  We may or may not be hungry, but I can’t imagine a place of perfection without food or at least a buckets of wings.

Dallas Willard points out that there persists a theory within western Christianity that passing through death transforms character.  I call this the Cinderella theory:

Salagadoola mechicka boola bibbidi-bobbidi-boo
Put 'em together and what have you got
bippity-boppity-boo

The only problem with this theory is there is no theological or scriptural basis for believing this to be true.  While it is true God will complete what he has started, it isn’t true that this has anything to do with the individual in the context of Philippians 1:6.  This was written to the community of Philippians.  There is simply little proof that a neglected character will be miraculously transformed or perfected at death.

This begs some questions, “What would one do with a debauched character or hate saturated heart in heaven?”  Would one with an debased character or who just “makes it” into heaven by the skin of their teeth actually stand it?  “Whosoever will may come” but “standing it” or living within “the unrestrained presence of the fulness of God “may prove to be incredibly difficult. This is why Willard suggests the fires of heaven may be hotter than those in the other place.  Is it possible that our popular versions of heaven may in fact be woefully ill-informed drawn from television, movies and popular preaching?  “What if death only fixes us as the kind of person we are at death?” I can honestly say that I’ve never thought about this possibility before, although it makes complete sense.  I find myself wanting to apply grace to this question but the problem is there is no support to prove that our characters will be overhauled just for passing death’s door or that what we do in this life has no bearing on the next.  A part of me has always believed that the kind of person I become in this life matters in the next.    If not, than why bother being a disciple, why bother warring against the flesh.  If in the end, it’s all going to be overhauled anyway, so what?  Sadly, this is the reality for many of us who profess to be Christians.  A decision is made at some point in life and  the rest of life is lived with fire insurance in hand.  But we are called to so much more!

What if this life is a training ground for the next?  What if the things done in this life do in fact ripple into eternity?  What if discipleship in the here and now truly matters?  What are we being saved for?  Individuals are not being saved for the sole purpose of personal satisfaction in this life or the next (although this may be a legitimate piece), they are being “enlisted for the reign of God, liberating themselves, their sins, and their entanglements, so that they will be free for God and neighbors.” (David Bosch, Transforming Mission).  John Stott suggests, “An evangelistic invitation oriented toward discipleship will include a call to join the living Lord in the work of His kingdom.”  Following Christ is a call to mission and a call to service.  It’s within this call that kingdom values are honored and cultivated within the life of one professing Christ.  It’s within this call that character is challenged and re-structured through the renewing of the mind.  As one takes on the character of Christ, it is no longer I who lives but Christ living through me.  It may be that those most at home in heaven ultimately will be those that were most at home in the reign of God while alive on earth.  As for the flames of heaven, we may “make it” to heaven by the skin of our teeth, but whether we will “stand it” once there is worth pondering.

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Liberty: a highway to hell?

Posted on February 3, 2012 by tyler

It’s been said, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”  It may be more aptly stated a “Highway to Hell.”  Our present unchallenged commitment to personal liberty maybe one such highway.  I stumbled across the following definition of liberty on the source of all truth (facebook) in recent weeks:  (I can picture a huge symphony playing in the background as James Earl Jones -Darth Vader- reads these words.)

Liberty – The power of choosing, thinking, and acting for oneself; freedom from undue control or restriction; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints.

Many may read this definition and wonder what the problem is, after all, we have all been created by God with a “free” will, right?  I’m just not sure that this is the type of liberty that Jesus and the writers of the Scriptures espouse.  Is this not the form of liberty and freedom that Satan clambered after in his failed revolt in heaven?  “I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly.” (Is 14:13) Can our western ideal of liberty and freedom actually be toxic to those who live and breath its air?  Can liberty and freedom be perverted when lifted up as an ultimate ideal?  Here are a few challenges:

1) There are always restraints in life and restraints are good, right?  Barry Schwartz in his book, The Paradox of Choice, actually suggests that a completely free environment with unlimited choices or unrestrained choice produces psychological complications for living life.  Simply put, too many choices may actually inhibit the chooser from experiencing life to the full.  Limiting choice actually makes for a psychologically “healthier” lifestyle. So while our definition above celebrates living beyond restraints, this type of living may be detrimental to healthy life.

2) Liberty or any ideal for that matter taken independently and elevated above other ideals can bring about a dystopia in quick order. Take for example our definition above and apply it to Hitler and Nazism in Germany in the 30′s and 40′s.  They appropriated this definition of personal and party liberty and used it to justify a holocaust, torture, enslavement, and all manners of social vices. One groups commitment to unrestrained liberty became a world’s nightmare. When defending their actions at the Nuremberg trials they appealed to liberty and national autonomy as a justification for their crimes.  No culture or individual has the right to impose their restraints on another culture or so the argument went and so would the above definition of liberty make provision for.

3) True liberty does not exist in a silo.  Personal liberty must always be understood and lived out with the broader community in mind.  In fact, the apostle Paul suggests it is at times appropriate to lay aside our freedoms when considering the other.  (I Corinthians 8)  I see the best of liberty being played out in community.  The focus on self liberty can and often does lead to narcissism, which in turn leads to the loss of liberty on the part of the narcissist and the other.  One of our most significant challenges of the 21st century in the west is the continued commitment on the part of westerners to the autonomous nature of humanity or hyper-individualism.  We read this individualism into everything and often without conscious awareness to the practical ramifications of doing so.  While it is true we are independent individuals, we have been created for interdependence with God and with others.  Independence without concern for restraint almost always will lead to loss of freedom for all involved.  As it relates to interdependence, I’d go as far to suggest that the failure or success of an individual is in some respects the failure or success of an entire community.

4) Does unrestrained liberty actually exist?  Every decision we make is pre-conditioned or limited by extenuating conditions, such as, social, cultural, religious or non-religious just to name a few.  To say we can make a choice unrestrained or free from control is wishful thinking at best.  I’m not saying that will does not exist, just the notion of an unrestrained one as implied by the definition above.  We have authentic wills and use them regularly.  Authentic will makes allowance for the conditioning mentioned above.  And just for the record… I’m not reformed or a Calvinist.  I see myself securely grounded within the Arminian community.   By the way, Arminians believe that our “free” will is limited as it relates to the Sovereignty of God, that is liberty with restraint applied.

Finally, It may be time to start thinking about taking the next exit as the southbound lanes are little too congested these days.  Look for the road less traveled and whatever you do, don’t trust your GPS.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

When God Goes Dark…

Posted on January 30, 2012 by tyler

Many of us are in need of being healed from our own egoism.  Recently, I’ve been re-reading Dallas Willard’s, The Divine Conspiracy.  In the first chapter of this book, Willard suggests,

“Egoism is a pathological self-obsession, a reaction to anxiety about whether one really    does count.  It is a form of acute self consciousness and  can be prevented and healed only by the experience of being adequately loved.  It is indeed, a desperate response to frustration of the need we all have to count for something and be held to be irreplaceable, without price.”

But what if you are told you are “easily” replaceable as I experienced this past year?  (As an aside, I’m sure this isn’t what was intended to be communicated.)  But what if your contribution is perceived to be so easily dismissed by those in positions of authority?  This unintended undermining of my sense of value revealed to me my “pathological obsession with self.”  I’ve always been a person in search of significance, in search of the God given creative impulse to count in the specific context in which He has placed me; however I am learning that this search is quickly perverted by anxiety and self consciousness.  Egoists are always “the dominant figures in their own field of vision.”  I think we can all relate to moments of self-obsession especially when dealing with the residual anger of a wounded ego.  Willard suggest that “being adequately loved,” is the only prevention and medicine for healing a wounded self-conscious.

Willard’s quotation above raises the question about my experience of being adequately loved.  I believe theoretically that we can only be adequately loved by our Creator.  Spouses, parents, children can love but we are fallen creatures all in possession of very large egos.  It has been said that we often hurt the ones we love the most.  I believe that those in our closest circles of trust can and often do inflict the worst wounds whether intended or not.  But what of God in all this?  What happens when your belief in the One doesn’t correspond with your experience of Him?  If he is the source of adequate love, what happens when your belief that God is love and that he loves your soul doesn’t correspond with a tangible personal experience of this love?  As a confession, I have few answers for this conundrum.  I find myself intellectually committed to the healing powers of God’s love but far removed from the tangible experience of this love and not sure how to connect the two.  I’m convinced that this conundrum is a product of my own spiritual far sightedness and not His unwillingness to provide such love.  I’ve heard the “how to” words and quoted the verses but “I still haven’t found what I’m looking for.”

And what about when God goes dark, when our ego’s shadow eclipses the Son?  When we become the dominant figure in our own field of vision, God is moved to a subsidiary awareness.  The source of potential healing love cannot flow into the recesses of our broken ego because we no longer look to the source but retreat into our own shell as it were and erect fortresses built on anger and disappointment.  “Anger feeds on anger… anger embraced is, accordingly, inherently disintegrative of human personality and life.”  and I would add all relationships starting with God.   We effectively close ourselves of to the prospect of being loved.    We can no longer see the forest through the trees. My advice… Go out and buy the biggest freakin’ chain saw you can find and clear a path.  Confess and start cutting!

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Dark church on a “starry night”

Posted on January 14, 2012 by tyler

There’s an interesting artist in history who has left subsequent generations parts of his soul on canvas.  This individual sold only one painting while living yet his portfolio of paintings is now worth millions of dollars.  He was a missionary turned painter pushed out of mission endeavors for spending too much time identifying with people and not enough time shoring up the institution.  Let’s say he wasn’t a company man.  This same individual suffering from a form of mental illness died before his time at his own hand, although some question the validity of the supposed suicide… Kurt Cobain comes to mind.  Fiercely spiritual, this individual left hints of spirituality through brush strokes on canvas.  Yellow was a favorite color, a color he invested with spiritual significance.  Yellow depicted the radiance of God’s love… God’s presence.

Vincent Van Gogh’s “Starry Night,” was a labor of love.  Much time, energy, and soul went into the creating of this piece.  The night time sky is dominated by exaggerated orbs of yellow light signifying the presence of God’s love in the heavens.  Now take a look at the city scape.  Little dots of yellow light are scattered throughout the depicted village except in one dominate building at the center of the city.  There are no lights in the church.  The presence of God’s love is not found in the building.  It’s scattered throughout the town in the houses of the inhabitants. Was this a simple protest on Van Gogh’s part or was he simply painting good theology? Given his past missionary experience and tormented state of mind, it’s probably safe to assume a simple “yes.”  Was Van Gogh depicting on canvas what he demonstrated he correctly believed in his six month missionary experience that the church is the people not the institution?  Probably…

What if?

What if we came to believe today that we are the church and the presence of God resides in us and not our buildings?  That would mean that wherever we go and whatever we do, the light of God’s presence would be there.

What if we came to believe that we foster sacred space because the sacred dwells in us?

What if we came to believe that establishing the local churches reputation in the city would be better accomplished by people from the local church carrying the light of Christ in and throughout their local sphere of influence?  (Becoming a sending institution rather than strategizing how to become the next gathering mega-institution.)

What if we came to believe that the centering of our activities in the building may be counter productive in being a light to our community? Because as Van Gogh insinuates, the church building only has light in it when the people congregate in the building.

What if we truly believed that establishing movements and campuses is less important than being the hands and feet of Christ in our local community?  Think of the time, money and effort, we could re-capture and re-deploy in service of  proclaiming the present/future kingdom.

2 Corinthians 4:7, 10-11 (NIV)

7 But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us…  10 We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. 11 For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may also be revealed in our mortal body.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

The Sermonator: Re-thinking how we communicate in the 21st century

Posted on December 19, 2011 by tyler

I sat recently in a chapel service and consciously made the decision to become an observer of human behavior as time ticked by in the 40 minute inspirational devotion being shared that morning.  10 minutes in, students were giving it there best to stay with the speaker; as an aside, my leg began to bounce (a sure sign of disconnecting mentally from my environment).  15 minutes in, students began looking at the floor.  20 minutes in, the first smart phone came out.  25 minutes in, texting began.  Inspired by glowing screens, another smart phone opened in the row behind me.  Were these kids tweeting smart and profound statements being communicated from the front?  Alas, I don’t think this was the case.  30 minutes in, the first i-pad made it’s appearance.  I couldn’t quite see what this student was doing but I’m pretty sure it had nothing to do with the present monologue.  35 minutes in, the glazed look and pools of drool began to form at the corners of everyone’s mouth.  The speaker had officially out-communicated the room full of listeners; we were flat-lined as an audience.  I’d suggest we were flat-lined as an audience long before this point in the message. And “no” this individual wasn’t a terrible communicator; he actually spoke clearly and with purpose.

A couple of questions here:

1) Why does a message have to be 35-40 minutes long to be considered legitimate?

2) Why don’t we take seriously the fact that the average person’s attention span is somewhere between 12-15 minutes (being generous) when planning our 35-40 minute monologues?

3) Why don’t we take seriously the need to re-think our present communication models in the 21st century?

“Wait, CTT (Can’t Touch This), bro”…  Don’t even suggest messing with the sermon/preaching/teaching; for the sermon dates back to the book of Acts.  After all, how can we communicate the Gospel without it?  This question excuses the fact that we may be no longer communicating effectively with the traditional 40 minute sermon.  Have we ever thought about the fact that the “sermon” in its present form was birthed in an oral culture, a culture in which people were conditioned by their environment to receive information orally and retain significantly more data in their memory than we do today.  They even devised methodology for helping the mind retain information.    Presently, we are two dramatic shifts away from the oral culture.  The world was changed, turned on its head as it were, by the invention of the printing press.  This invention re-oriented the way people received and remembered information.  Far less had to be remembered because it could be written down.  As a result, memory was diminished… some suggest negatively, but I’d suggest neither negatively or positively, it simply became the new way of being human in the western hemisphere.  The oral tradition was trumped by the new writing tradition.  Community in the traditional sense was no longer necessary for passing information from one generation to the next.  All people needed was a book and a light.

Whether we realize it or not, we are experiencing a new shift as humans being.  The digital explosion is re-orienting our way of receiving and processing information.  Again, it is only negative if you are attempting to preserve the post-printing press culture.  The human mind is evolving once again.  We are being re-shaped by our technological media.  How we receive information is being effected?  Digital media is shortening attention spans.  Few writers on the topic would suggest otherwise.  Disintegration, shallowing, and fragmenting are all words being used to describe the mental shift away from a writing based culture.  While these all sound negative, they are accurately descriptive of  the change afoot in the minds of those exposed to the digital revolution.  This shift is unstoppable.  It is imperative that we become aware of how we are changing and re-tool our communication methodology  (maybe even away from our preferred method) to optimize the communication of our message.

The most difficult challenge for any of us is to attempt to gain a view from outside our perspectives.  It’s called the curse of knowledge.  We assume everyone sees and experiences our environment exactly the way we do and why wouldn’t they, right?  But there is no unbiased view of anything because we are blinded and sometime enlightened by our conscious and unconscious perspectives on how we view the world.  I find this true as I struggle to deal with the changing landscape brought on by new technology.  I prefer the written word and the experience of reading.  I prefer following arguments logically and experiencing a thesis develop over a couple of hundred pages.  I shun most popular advances in technology.  I hold out to preserve my own desired way of thinking, but I’m becoming increasingly aware that many do not receive and process information the way I prefer.  The new generation, weened from the breast of mother technology, is a much different mental human being than I am.  They don’t receive information and process information in the same way I do, my generation does, or the generation that has gone before us has.  The data would suggest this is one of the many reasons that the younger generation (18-29 yrs. old) has chosen to leave the traditional church context at a rate of nearly 90% in the Canadian context.  Could it be that it’s not just what we are communicating that is often irrelevant but how we are communicating it?  Is it possible, we are becoming increasingly archaic in the way we are communicating the Gospel in our present culture?  If the medium is the message than does the medium of the 40 minute sermon communicate something irrelevant to those awash in the change brought on by digital technology, especially in a culture that is used to downloading videos around 4 to 6 minutes in length, skimming and reading around 18% of what is actually written on a digital screen, or watching finely tuned talks that communicate profoundly in 12 to 15 minutes?

Observations:

1) Not only are Ted talks mind blowing, they are mind blowing in 12 to 15 minutes (If you haven’t had a chance to watch one, then do yourself a favor and google “Ted talks”).  What if our teaching at church was formatted in this time frame which happens to correspond to the average attention span?  Would aligning the medium and the message provide a better chance of remembering what was communicated on a Sunday morning?  I’ve always marveled how one can so quickly forget what was spoken with 48 hours of it being spoken.  No where has this been more true than what I’ve observed and experienced in pastoral ministry.  Even in church cultures that elevate and provide quality teaching, the retention of what was taught just after 48 hours is remarkably low, just ask a regular attendee to communicate the key points from Sunday’s message.  Some would object at this point that communicators like Rob Bell can talk for 80 minutes and hold a room captivated for that amount of time.  That is simply citing an exception and saying that’s normative.  The truth is many “professional” communicators of the Gospel message aren’t that interesting and aren’t particularly gifted communicators.  While there will always be Michael Jordan’s in every sport, the truth is that most of us will never make water boy.

2) What I’ve learned from Teds: if it can’t be communicated in 15 minutes, it’s probably not worth communicating.  If you can’t say it in 15 minutes, you probably don’t know your subject well enough.

3) Pastors are the most reluctant and oppositional to having this conversation especially those who like to talk.

4) Congregations are incredible patient with their pastors and deserve medals for enduring years of long winded yet well intentioned monologues.

5) God is capable of salvaging the worst message and communicating via his Spirit into the deepest part of the listener’s heart.  There is a mystery involved as the spoken word becomes God’s words to a receptive soul.  I call this “the redemption of the spoken word.”

6) May it be time for the traditional sermon in its present format to meet someone from the future?

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Buddy Christ

Posted on December 6, 2011 by tyler

Quite a few years back, Dogma was released to the public.  Quickly condemned by the catholic church, this movie went on to be a smashing success, like most movies that have been blacklisted by the Vatican.  Not for the faint of heart, this movie critiques and pokes fun primarily at the catholic church but takes pokes at the Christian faith in general.  Amidst the sacrilege, one scene in this movie has stuck with me for years: the unveiling of the new, hipper icon, the buddy Christ brought in to replace the outdated and more morbid image of the crucifix, the suffering Savior.  The priest in the movie suggests that the swap is necessary to attract individuals back to the Christian faith but putting a happier spin on Jesus and his mission on earth.  Sound ridiculous?  But isn’t there some truth in what the writer of this movie is suggesting in this scene?  Friend language dominates the western church and the message of the western church to those looking in from the culture at large.  While it may be true that Jesus wants to be your friend, it’s probably more accurate to say that He wants to be your Lord.

I’ve been struggling for years to rid myself of this low friendship caricature of Jesus.  Jesus is not my BFF; He is my Lord and Savior.  While it is true that Jesus provides a glimpse of God in human form; it’s imperative to remember that Jesus set aside the use of certain aspects of his deity in becoming human.  He stepped down into human form and made himself a servant.  While Jesus is God in human form, there is a infinite qualitative distinctive that cannot be forgotten.   He is the sovereign creator of the universe, the sustainer of all things, and the giver of life.  He not only walked on the water; he made it.

The older I get the less interested I’ve become in the friendship language spouted around the church.  I long for a higher view of Jesus that preserves his deity and elevates him to his rightful place above all creation.  To be honest, I’m no longer interested in “What a Friend We Have in Jesus.”  While it is true that Jesus is Immanuel (God with us), we need to remember that this same Jesus that came 2,000 years ago has returned to his place at the right hand of the Father.  He is exalted and lifted up above all creation.  In him resides our complete humanity and His full deity.  Yet I fear we have lost our grip on his deity in favoring and celebrating his humanity.  We let go of the fact that Jesus is infinitely qualitatively distinctive from us as it relates to his deity.   We lose sight of the fact that to encounter the risen Christ today in all his glory would bring us to our knees.  We wouldn’t be slapping high fives and fist pumping the Lord.  We would most likely experience what the prophet Isaiah experienced… “woe is me for I am undone…” or the apostle John’s experience of falling down as if dead.

Is it possible that we have domesticated Jesus to the point of reducing him to “my cosmic buddy?”  Remember the doll, “My buddy, My buddy, Where ever he goes, I go….”  Have we so domesticated Jesus that we are left uninspired and demotivated to worship?    Do our churches reflect a high or low view of Jesus?  Does our worship reflect a high or low view of Jesus?  To be honest, I struggle with worship these days.  God created me in his image, and I’ve gone and returned the favor of creating him in mine.  I have domesticated God.  I lack the experience of his transcendence.  Part of this is in part to the Christian environment I’ve grown up in and contributed to that is more concerned with reflecting modern culture in our worship environments than fostering sacredness; however much of the responsibility lies simply with my own indifference and laziness to cultivate a healthy view of God in my day to day existence.

I don’t need faith in viewing God as a cosmic buddy and I think this is part of my struggle.   I need faith in viewing him as the suffering savior, the crucified Lord, for that is the destination that following in the footsteps of Jesus will lead.  These days I’m becoming increasingly interested in cultivating and experiencing Jesus as the “wholly other.”  Having grown up in the protestant church, I’m not sure where to start; for the God of the evangelical protestant world is far too domesticated, predictable and simply uninspiring.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Are you chronically retarded?

Posted on November 9, 2011 by tyler

In french. retarde can be translated “delayed” or “late.”  In English, while it has come to be used more frequently as a slang term, the word retarded traditionally has been defined in relation to it’s French cousin… to be delayed.  So back to my question, are you chronically retarded?  And if so, have you ever thought about what this pattern communicates to those in your circle of influence.

For those who know me well, you know how much I hate being late for anything.  While much of this disdain is wrapped up in personality, this discipline or habit of attempting not to be late has been developed over a long period of intentional and purposeful choice making.  My attention for being on time was also fostered in my first full time employment.  My first boss, who still by the way is one of my heroes, had almost zero tolerance or patience for tardiness.  Over the course of my four year tenure in this organization, I remember fellow employees sheepishly entering a meeting after it had already commenced and receiving the “eye of displeasure” from him.  If looks could melt a soul, then consider the soul vaporized.  He made it very clear from the onset of our employ, that lateness was an unacceptable behaviour because of what lateness fundamentally communicates to others.

Being late happens but when being late becomes a chronic habit; it reveals something fallen.  It reveals a soul focused inward.  Lateness is a habit of narcissism.  It is telling others in your circle of influence that your priorities, your agendas, and your life is more important than others in the room, especially when others are waiting on you.  To force others to wait on your agenda and time table is to disrespect and invalidate them.  We cannot be others focused or God centered when we are self centered.

In our culture, have you ever considered showing up chronically late for work?  Why not?  Maybe because that would be deemed as unacceptable behaviour in the work place and lead to your forced dismissal.  Have you ever considered arriving late for a concert or sporting event?  Why not?  Maybe because we truly value that experience.  Can it be said that we prioritize arriving on time for that which we deem important or is dictated as important by our culture, such as arriving on time for work.

A few days ago, an acquaintance in Australia posted the following:  “The main division in the church no longer over creed or doctrine, but between those who arrive on time & 15 minutes late.”  I responded by wondering what this retarded behaviour actually communicates.  Does it communicate a lack of priority, a devaluing of the “sacred,” and raw narcissism?  While the late person may not be consciously thinking along these lines, what do others who have grown up in our culture interpret from our patterns?  Remember our actions communicate a particular set of beliefs, whether we like it or not.  Does arriving consistently late for formal or informal church gatherings actually communicate a set of unconscious or conscious beliefs about the value we place on community and the particular experience of the community?  Does arriving late communicate that we’ve come to “get” something from the experience rather than “give?”  Does it reveal a consumer, heart attitude?  If it were possible to re-orient our life around giving, would we actually begin showing up on time and validating others and God with our presence?  Probably all worth pondering.

By the way, it’s never too late to apologize for being a retard. Resist the culture of narcissism and the chronically retarded and live more intentionally with this life.  Show up on time for your life because you only have one to live!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 5 Comments