« June 2005 | Main | August 2005 »
July 31, 2005
Reflections on Bonhoeffer's, "Life Together"/ #1
Bonhoeffer in a concentration camp
For anyone who knows me even just a little bit. Then you know how much I love reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I think he was one of the greatest theological minds to have ever lived, and yet he died at such an early age (hung at 39), that he left much work to be finished.
But I have recently been re-reading his book, Life Together which he wrote from 1935 and following, when he moved into Finkenwalde. For those who don't know Bonhoeffer's life that well, here is a short excerpt about him from a biography about him.
After the Confessing Church was organized in May 1934 at Barmen, Germany, Bonhoeffer returned from England in the spring of 1935 to assume leadership of the Confessing Church's seminary at Zingst by the Baltic Sea--a school relocated later that year to Finkenwalde in Pomerania. Out of the experiences at Finkenwalde emerged his two well-known books, The Cost of Discipleship and Life Together, as well as his lesser known writings on pastoral ministry such as Spiritual Care.
This is the context out of which Life Together came. And it is this book that has helped me understand, and more influentially shape my views on community.
As I began reading yesterday, I came across this statement on the opening page. Bonhoeffer says,
It is not simply to be taken for granted that the Christian has the privilege of living among other Christians. Jesus Christ lived in the midst of his enemies. At the end all his disciples deserted him. On the Cross he was utterly alone, surrounded by evildoers and mockers. For this cause he had come, to bring peace to the enemies of God. So the Christian, too, belongs not in the seclusion of a cloistered life but in the thick of foes. There is his commission, his work........
It is grace, nothing but grace, that we are allowed to live in community with Christian brethen........
The measure with which God bestows the gift of a visible community is varied........
This is something that I need to reflect on a for a little while, and that I need others to reflect on as well. Especially those that I am in community with, and those that are in community with one another at The Quest.
Because in our scramble and attempt to create community, I think we take it for granted that community is our right. That living among other Christians is always granted us. In our attempts at creating community, we forget that a visible sign of community is always an outpouring of God's grace upon us. Maybe that is why Paul begins so many letters with grace and peace to you. It was a reminder to the churches then, and it is a reminder to us, that our visible gathering is because of God's grace. It is not anything that we have manufactured, or can manufacture for that matter.
In fact, I will reflect on later the idea as Bonhoeffer puts it, that community is really a divine reality, not an ideal reality. Community exists because of God's divine grace, rather than our wishful thinking, or attempts to create it.
Posted by rhett at 05:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Hmmm...
Phillip Johnson, over at Pyromaniac had this to say about me on Friday, July 29th.
Rhett Smith is the very model of a postmodern college minister. It's interesting to watch him wrestle with evangelical faddism from the paradigm of a young emerging church leader.
Hmmmmmm. I will need to discuss this further with Phil. I would normally take that as a compliment, but since I am postmodern, than I will need to deconstruct the context from which he wrote it. Just kidding Phil. We could begin some interesting blogging conversations. Thanks for the link.
Posted by rhett at 05:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 29, 2005
Reading Lists
Mike DeVries, over at Awakening, has posted a very extensive reading list on the Kingdom of God and The Roman Empire, as well as a Jewish Reading List.
Good stuff. I have noticed that more and more people have been diving into Jewish texts, and I think a lot of that has to do with the influence of pastor, author, Rob Bell, who is the head of NOOMA, and the author of the new book, Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith.
Posted by rhett at 02:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
This is a fascinating post...that's all I can say
I love this post by Evangelical Outpost. I'm going to have to think on this issue more, before I respond. I'm listening more now...remember.
Posted by rhett at 02:11 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
The Three R's of Missions
Tod Bolsinger, who is a great author, and the pastor down at San Clemente Presbyterian Church, has been doing a great series on missions, and looking at what he considers to be the three R's: Relationship, Reflection, Reintegration. This is an important series, and I have been thinking about these things a lot as I have done many mission trips myself, and as I currently have about 20 students overseas on mission trips. What can I do as their pastor to make these trips more fulfilling? Where can I lead them, or point them to? What is my role?
Tod has done a great job at looking at these things.
Posted by rhett at 02:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Childhood Game of MASH
Former student of mine, Ashley Alexander having a cup of coffee....
I love this post by Ashley today, entitled *M*A*S*H*. Ashley reminds us all of that wonderful game we used to play on paper growing up, and all the plans we would make for ourself. She apparently came across a finished game at her church, and she reminds us of our own plans that we make for our lives...juxtaposed against the reality of our lives and how the Lord provides. I loved playing this game in church during the sermon time...sorry dad (he was the preacher!).
Ashley has a great blog, and is doing some great things after graduation over in Hawaii. Mission work is tough in Hawaii, but someone has got to do it. Just kidding Ashley. You are in our prayers.
For more thoughts on the game MASH, check out the blog I posted back in March in response to an article on Relevant Magazine.
Posted by rhett at 01:52 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
It seems that there are far too many people saying too much too quickly. This is one danger of rapid mass-communication. May we all resist the inevitable temptation to speak too soon.
The above was a quote taken from Cameron Jorgenson, over at Summa Aesthetica. Cameron, in his piece, On Chafer and having something to say, responds to my piece Theological Education: Is it important? And Barth vs. Chafer.
Cameron's piece has really got me thinking about speaking too quickly. It reminds me of the quote by Silvan Engel, It is better to be silent, and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. I'm afraid I've probably removed a lot a doubt from people's minds at times. When you have a profession that is based upon speaking, there is some danger in that, because you don't always have the most time to think about things, or become experts in things. I speak for a living. That is not all I do, and I do have preparation time, but between preaching every week, doing bible studies, counseling, etc., there is a lot of speaking going on, and sometimes not a lot of listening. I will have to become better at this as I'm going to enter a master's program in marital and family therapy in the Fall.
Cameron is right, sometimes there are a lot of people entering into the conversation, when they have no understanding of the topic, or have not spent the proper time researching it. He uses the Emergent Church conversation as one example of something he would like to talk more about, but feels inadequate to do so at this point. Wow! If Cameron is inadequate, than I definitely am.
Maybe the Emergent Church has been trying to keep it a conversation, so that there would be a lot more dialogue, a lot more listening, instead of constant talking and criticism.
I can probably speak average on a lot of topics, and really well on a few. Maybe it is time that I do some more listening.
Posted by rhett at 01:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 28, 2005
Another photo from June 18...
Posted by rhett at 02:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Fads and Trends in Church and Evangelicalism
Evangelical Outpost has an interesting blog entry today, referring to another series of blog entries by Phil Johnson.
There seems to be a discussion going on over what they consider to be fads and trends in evangelicalism, or I would say the Church as a whole. They both come up with interesting lists, but I'm not sure what I think about the whole thing. I agree that there are many fads and trends within the Church, and especially within evangelicalism.
I tend to think that evangelicalism for the most part, at least how it is carried out in American suburbia life, has been hijacked by a consumer mentality that is not healthy at all. It is something that I struggle against in my own spiritual life, and it is something that I struggle against in the ministry that I have been placed in. Because bottom line, I like to consume. I have resonated with the article in Christianity Today from 2003, titled Suburban Spirituality.
But for me to say that the American Church has been hijacked by consumerism is a broad generalization. It may have some truth in it, or a lot of truth in it, but it doesn't paint, explain, or diagnose the real issue, or what is the issues that truly undergird the overarching problems within evangelicalism. I can point my fingers at a lot of things, or a lot of people. That's easy to do, and doing it in the blogosphere is like a drive by shooting, where we pull up, point our fingers at someone, and take off without so much of a discussion most of the time. And we all do it. I did it earlier this week when I used Karl Barth in comparison to Lewis Sperry Chafer. But I'm thinking, that doesn't help out much of anything.
So after looking at the two above bloggers, I can probably agree with some of their lists, and some of their thoughts. But there are a lot of things I disagree with. And I'm not exactly sure if those fads, trends, or people they mention are the problems. Maybe the problems lie within us. Maybe we are the problem, and we need to look at ourselves, and not point our fingers at everyone else.
I too was pretty disappointed with this list as well, and I thought a lot of really, really important people were left off of it. But maybe that's a good thing. Maybe the really important things that are happening in the Church, or evangelicalism, are being done by people we don't even know, or have never even heard of. Not that great things aren't happening with the people on those list, but maybe celebrity status doesn't equal certain things.
I'm pretty judgemental myself at times, but I have to believe and think that God is using all kinds of people, and all kinds of movements, fads, and trends to bring people closer to Him. And maybe what we consider a trend or fad is really our own perception of things. I mean, Evangelical Outpost, Phil Johnson, and myself could probably not be more different when it comes to our education, theological beliefs, and the church we attend. So we are all coming at these things with our own skewed vision. The one thing that we can probably all agree on though, is that sometime we don't always present, or live out Christianity in the proper way. But we will keep moving forward, making mistakes, and hopefully try to head in the right direction.
I agree with one of my professor in that he says it is not the church of the past, or even the present that we are hoping for, or wanting, but it is really the church that is coming out of the future. It is the church at the end of time, not the church in the 1st century that we are aiming for. So I have hope that the Church, the Church that will be there when God returns is continuing to emerge and take shape.
Feel free to comment, because I would like to hear your feeback on these articles. I'm afraid myself, that I have been inconsisent, and one who likes to point fingers as well. I wouldn't be surprised if I come up with my own list of fads and trends. Hmmmmm. In a predicament.
Posted by rhett at 02:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A couple new articles and a book on sex...
Christianity Today has a couple of interesting new articles on the topic of sex.
Both articles are written by Lauren F. Winner, who has just published
Real Sex: The Naked Truth About Chastity.
The Brave New Case for Chastity
Posted by rhett at 01:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 27, 2005
Recommended book for marriage, or those interested in it...
The Mystery of Marriage: Meditations on the Miracle
This is a book that I read probably back in 1999, or 2000, after I was required to do a book report for one of my family counseling classes in seminary. This book was a handful of books recommended by my professor, and I thought, well, I'm interested in marriage, at least at some point in my life, so I might as well start reading now.
What attracted me initially to the book was the title. It wasn't a self-help style book, or here is seven steps to a great marriage, or the ten things you better do before you say I do, or else your marriage is doomed...type of book. Instead it was simple:
The Mystery of Marriage
I liked that, because for all I knew from experience was that women were definitely a mystery at times, as men can be as well, and if God could bring two people together in marriage, it was definitely a mystery that could not be reduced to simple steps. It was also a miracle, hence why Mike Mason meditates on it. Meditation conjures up the idea of something that takes patience, work, concentration, etc...you don't think of ten easy steps, or eight sure fail rules, when the word meditation is in the mix.
And his table of contents was very different than any table of contents I have ever read concerning books on marriage. Short. Simple. Mysterious. Here is the table of contents.
Foreword
Preface
Prologue
Otherness
Love
Intimacy
Vows
Sex
Submission
Death
Epilogue
The Lover's Hermitage
Six weeks into marriage, and with a little hindsight, I think this was the best book of all the books I have read on this topic. It is beautifully written, and Mason does a great job of exploring difficult themes in marriage, while maintaining a sense of mystery, and not talking things to death, or laying them out in steps. So if you aren't into easy steps, this is a great book for you.
And for my students who think or know they are light years away from marriage, I found this book to be a great prepping tool before marriage. Mason gives great insight into the single mind, and the struggle one has, and the desire one has to be single, yet also to be married. It is a great read.
Expect a few more things like this now that I'm married.
Posted by rhett at 05:59 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
July 26, 2005
Theological Education: Is it important? And Barth vs. Chafer
Karl Barth
VS.
Lewis Sperry Chafer
This below comparison was taken from Bernard Ramm's book, After Fundamentalism, and can be found at this website.
Chafer spent three years at Oberlin College and then left to teach in a school for boys that D. L. Moody had founded. That was the sum total of Chafer's formal education.
Barth studied in the universities of Bern, Marberg, Berlin, and Tubingen. He studied under such men as Adolph von Harnack, Reinhold Seeberg, Julis Kaftan, Herman Gunkel, Theodor Häring, Wilhelm Herrmann, Johannes Weiss, and Adolph Jülicher. In philosophy, he studied under the famous neo-Kantians Hermann Cohen and Paul Natorp. In addition, Barth eventually was honored with eleven doctorates from substantial universities and collected a number of prizes and awards.
Having no formal theological education, Chafer also had no linguistic training. It is apparent from his Systematic Theology that he is always working with secondary sources, whether in the biblical languages or theological literature.
Having gone through the typical Swiss gymnasium (a sort of high school in Germany and Switzerland to prepare students for university), Barth was taught Latin, Greek, and French. When he came to the Scripture, he worked with both the Hebrew and Greek Testaments, and when he cites the church fathers he sites the original Greek or Latin. In addition, he could speak the modern languages of Swiss German, German, English, French, and Italian, and complained of his poor ability in Dutch.
Reading Chafer's theology, it is apparent that he is not at home at all in philosophy. He makes rare references to philosophers, and in most cases Chafer is citing some other sources and not the philosopher directly.
Barth learned philosophy from Cohen and Natorp. His writings show that he is totally competent in philosophy, having written technical interpretations of such philosophers as Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Jaspers, and Sarte. Wherever he does get into philosophical territory, he handles the matters with competence. Naturally he knew well the philosophy of Anselm and Thomas Aquinas.
Chafer's coverage of historical theology is minimal. Altough he sites Augustine, Calvin, Edwards and others, he does so almost uniformly from a secondary source. Judging from his published theology, he had rarely read the original works of the great theologians.
Bath's coverage of historical theology is monumental. Furthermore, he always cites them in their original language. It is generally conceded that if Barth has chosen to specialize in historical theology he would have written the most definitive book in the history of theology. As the Church Dogmatics now stands, its many sections of historical theology make the reading of the text valuable alone for that reason. If one has no use for Barth's theology, there is still great worth in reading it for the historical theology.
Chafer's citation of Scripture's is modest. There are not more than 800 references in the index.
Barth's citation of Scripture is the greatest in the history of theology--15,000. Furthermore, there are 2,000 long and short exegetical sections in the Church Dogmatics, showing Barth's intense occupation with the text of the Scripture. And in addition to that are all the concept concordances of Scriptural texts scattered throughout the Church Dogmatics. Even master's these and doctrinal dissertations on Barth never give the proper impression of Barth's vast knowledge of Holy Scripture, his incessant citing of it, and the numerous exegetical inserts.
I came across this comparison a couple of years back, and I recently have begun to think more about that comparison. Why? I think mainly because I have been thinking about the role of education, and its importance in ministry, church, theology, etc. I run in circles where theological education is not looked upon very highly, but more as a path that clouds one's judgements, and gives them a skewed view of God and Scripture. And I also run in very formally educated circles, where people spend years in theological education, and where they believe education and that path it takes you down can only lead to a better understanding of God and Scripture. I happen to be more at home in that latter circle since I think education of any kind is a good thing, and I enjoyed my own. And if you think this isn't a relevant or debated topic, then you must read Tony Campolo's and Brian Maclaren's book, Adventures in Missing the Point: How The Culture Controlled Church Neutered the Gospel, where they devote an entire chapter to this issue.
I think my attendance at Fuller Theological Seminary from January of 1998 to June of 2003 can attest to that. I graduated with a Master of Divinity (yeah, I know. It took me five years instead of 3...but hey, full-time work can slow down the process) in 2003, with a desire to pursue another 4-5 years of Ph.D work. But somewhere along the process I decided to put that on the backburner, as I have really enjoyed full-time ministry. But I do miss seminary, and being in a classroom, and thinking about things theologically. That is probably why I am headed back to school this September to continue more graduate work in the Marital and Family Therapy program at Fuller. If it sounds like I am tooting my own horn, I hope that is not the case, but I felt like full-disclosure was important so that you know my own biases.
I know many with or without formal theological education who are doing amazing jobs in ministry and in theology, and vice-versa. I am not concerned per-se about theological training, and either the experience in it, or lack of it. What I am concerned about is some of the name calling I see going on at times, or the mudslinging against those who either have it, or don't have it. And what concerns me more, are those who sling mud at theologians, or ideas, when they have not read the people themselves. All they have done is read someone else's work, and what that person has to say about someone. Well, if you want to know what C.S. Lewis says, then read him. Don't read what someone else says about him. If you want to know what John Calvin said, then read him, don't read just what someone tells you about him.
This type of discussion has been emerging (for lack of a better word) lately. I have seen all types of people question those associated with the emergent movement, though they have probably never read any book by anyone in that movement. This comes from the other side as well, as I have seen people slam fundamentalists without reading any works by some of their authors.
I have had people tell me I'm a liberal because I went to Fuller, and I have had others tell me I'm a conservative because I went to Fuller...all within the same day. I had an undergrad professor tell me not to go to Fuller because I would graduate, and no longer know what I believed. And I had other professors tell me go to Fuller, and steer away from these other seminaries.
Well, I did graduate from Fuller, and I'm confident of what I believe, though that doesn't mean my inquiring nature is diminished, nor do I think I have all the answers, or no room to grow. There is a fear that formal theological education will corrupt, and one will cling to any heretical doctrine that blows in the wind. But I have found that to be untrue in my theological training. Rather, it has prepared me to study and critically think through serious theological issues, while having the training of Greek, Hebrew, research methods, etc., so that I can wade through Scripture and first-hand writings and resources that I wouldn't have been able to without it. One does not need this to study God's word, and to be in ministry, but it has been an asset to me.
I just came across a quote from the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, Lewis Sperry Chafer. He says, "The very fact that I did not study a prescribed course in theology made it possible for me to approach the subject with an unprejudiced mind to be concerned only with what the Bible was actually teaches." Interesting quote I thought, especially since he commonly references the research and thoughts of formal theologians in his Four Volume Systematic Theology. One of the theologians that he wrote against was Karl Barth, who is probably best known for his 14 Volume Church Dogmatics.
None of us come to a subject with an unprejudiced mind, whether we have formal training in that area or not, whether it be theology, philosophy, economics, etc. We all come to something with our own ideas, whether we received them through experience, training, family rearing, social influence, etc.
Both Chafer and Barth have something to offer us, whether we agree theologically with them. I have just become more concerned at those who email me, wondering why I have a Barth link on my site. But after further dialogue, it becomes apparent they have never read Barth themself, but only the critique of others.
So maybe you think formal theological education is a good thing, or maybe you think it is a bad thing. I think both can be true at times, but I have found it to be a good thing.
Posted by rhett at 10:41 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
July 25, 2005
What is an athlete? Is cycling a sport? Is Lance the greatest ever? Well, I'm pretty sure that the Apostle Paul, if living today, would have been blogging about this, and drawing analogies from it to compare to the Christian faith.
What is an athlete? This is a question I have been thinking a lot about these last few weeks, mainly because it is a question that a lot of people are raising. Every year it seems, without fail, after Lance Armstrong claims another Tour de France victory, the debate rages on whether or not cycling is a sport, and if Lance is a great athlete, or one of the greatest athletes ever. And you get those couch potato guys calling in on the radio station on the afternoon drive home saying, "I can ride a bike. How hard is it to ride a bike?" Which makes me want to reach through the phone and....then my better Christian self gets a hold of me instead. Yeah, I can ride a bike too. I can ride my beach cruiser like 3 miles to the grocery store and back in an hour. I'm not riding for three straight weeks, over 21 stages, for thousands of miles, uphill, through the French mountains, with crazy fans yelling and screaming at me. Oh yeah...then there are the hundreds of bikers you are competing against, sometimes up to speeds of 60 plus miles an hour, downhill, in the rain. Yeah buddy, I'm sure you can ride a bike!
Athletics is a broad thing, and it is unfair at times to try and compare. Is Tiger Woods the greatest golfer ever? Well, I don't know, but he's the best we have now? Would the 1962 Yankees beat the 2000 Yankees? Could Michael Jordan in his prime defeat Magic Johnson in his prime? And on and on and on it goes, with really no definitive answer. It's good stuff for armchair quarterbacks and fanstasy leaguers, but it seems to be a waste of time. Can't we just appreciate an athlete, or a sport for what it is, without comparison?
Full disclosure: I'm about as amateur an athlete as you can get. I grew up playing soccer, and in high school I switched over to football and track. Your pretty traditional sports. I can tell you from some experience what I think is a hard sport, event, or what a great athlete looks like.
I think the 400 Meter Sprint is one of the hardest sporting events out there. It isn't just about speed, but about calculation, endurance, stamina, focus and mental clarity. Add hurdles to that, and wow!
I think the 800 meters is nuts. Two times around a track at sprint speed. This is the type of event that your average football player says, I can do that. Yeah right. Maybe in about 5 minutes time.
I think a quarterback, moving a team down a field in less than two minutes takes skill, speed, determination.
I think Pele taking the soccer ball from one goal to the other by himself is something only he could do. Yeah I know...little Johnny did that in his 3-6 age bracket in the AYSO.
I think Michael Jordan had the amazing combination of mental prowess, physical domination, and great finesse.
And I think Lance Armstrong, winning the tour for 7 straight years, after beating back cancer is unbelievable. I am a traditional sports kind of guy. But I have so much respect for the amount of physical strength, and mental capabilities that goes into this event.
So we can go on and on. It is, it isn't a sport. He is, he isn't a great athlete. But why? Why compare? It is what it is? He is a tremendous athlete, and I am now a fan of a sport I was not a fan of before.
We are surrounded in a culture that is obsessed with athletics, training, exercise, etc. This is nothing new, and athletics has always been a great visual analogy for our lives, especially our spiritual lives. The Greek word for athlete, athleo, appears in II Timothy 2:5, where Paul says, "If anyone competes as an athlete, he does not win the prize unless he competes according to the rules." Paul, using the visual imagery of the day of an athlete competing in a contest, probably in an arena. In I Timothy 4:7-8, Paul uses the Greek word gumnasia, where we get our word gymnasium. "rather, train yourself to be godly. For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things holding promise for both the present life and the life to come." Something for me to keep in mind, especially when I tend to make sure I get in my workout at the gym, even if it means skipping my Bible reading. Yikes.
In I Corinthians 9:24-27, Paul uses lots of imagery from the Olympic games when he says, "Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. And everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. There I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; but I buffet my body and make it my slave, lets possibly after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified."
I think sports is a great thing, and I hope to be able to be active to a very old age. But sports is not just about physical prowess, strength, speed, coordination, or luck. It is a combination of many things, and a great athlete is someone who embodies all facets of athleticism. I think this is why I was so impressed with Lance Armstrong, his Discovery Team, and the Tour De France, overall.
I know they are out there, but I am hard pressed to find a sport, or an event, that is more about multi-faceted athleticism than this event. The self-control, the servant-slave mentality, which is the role of the domestique, that word can preach alone for hours. The combination of sheer strength, stamina, mental toughness, clarity, teamwork, community, etc. Oh, and did I mention the sheer selflessness of team members...yeah, that's hard to find in some sports.
Watching the Tour De France reminded me a lot, and taught me a lot about Christian community. Too bad that it was cycling that was teaching me things, and not Christian community. But I guess things have not changed. If the Apostle Paul was blogging in 2005, he would probably draw on the Tour De France as a major sporting analogy that compares to our Christian lives.
Did you learn anything by watching the tour? Has it taught anything to you about the Christian faith? Or is cycling just not a sport, and Lance just not an athlete? I mean...you too can ride a bike, right? How hard is that?
Posted by rhett at 02:17 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
July 22, 2005
Podcasting and my future in radio...
For those of you who know me, you know that I'm addicted to blogging....and I can ramble for hours as well. So it seems like podcasting is the thing for me. And it's a good thing that they have the Dummies version as you can see. I was content with just blogging, but then I had about an hour in studio with Hugh Hewitt back in May. Now that wasn't my finest hour if you heard the radio that day. When Hugh gave me the opportunity to talk, it didn't exactly come out like I would have liked. But I did walk away that day with more of a fascination with talk radio than ever before. I mean, who wouldn't like to have their own show every day for about 3 hours. And thank God that we all don't have what we wish for though. What terrible radio that would make.
So unless Hugh allows me my own weekly spot on his show (ha ha), then maybe podcasting is what I, and the Quest ministry should be looking into. The possibilities are endless.
Check out the latest article in Relevant Magazine about podcasting.
Posted by rhett at 02:22 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
July 21, 2005
Hmmmmm....blogging ethics.....and sanitizing things for our people.
Are there ethics in blogging? I'm sure there are, though probably not stated anywhere, or in any formal document. Hugh Hewitt talks about the various issues regarding blogging, and he discusses these things on his show, his blog, and in his book BLOG.
Why do I bring this up? Because the issue of what is PC, appropriate, etc, has come up a lot recently. This issue is mainly in regards to types of humor, some of the language used, etc., that is found in some blogs. I mean, one could hit a number of blogging sites within a matter of minutes, going from one extreme to the next. You may find yourself on the site of a pastor (which I am), where the language is clean, most things are PC in some circles, and the only really "edgey" topics that are covered are those usually relating to certain sermon topics I preach on such as sex. Mention sex, and your blog traffic really increases...trust me. Or you may find yourself on some political or advocate site, or some student, and the language may tend to be more off color, sexual in nature, etc. You may also find a lot of innuendos and inside jokes that are often lost if one is not friends with the blogger. This can create a lot of confusion in the interpretation process.
So what do you do about bloggers in your community who have great material, but tend to be more off color, etc.? I'm asking this in terms of a pastor who is linking people. My own thought is that every reader takes responsibility for what they click on and read. But that doesn't mean I don't screen some things. Sometimes I will link people where I might not like some of the off color content, and others I will stay away from if the content is too off color for someone like me who is in a position of ministry, and employed by a church.
Well, I tend to go ahead and link all the bloggers in my community because they are great people, and we function and live our lives together in this community. I don't bring this up because I have found something innappropriate, but rather, because I have heard a couple of students say that they felt pressure to clean some things up a little when I linked them on my blog. And when I say clean up....we are talking about nothing severe, but the inside, un PC humor that flows back and forth between friends. Not some raunch fest.
But sometimes I wonder if we sanitize a lot of things in the church for our people, afraid that if we don't protect them, they will fall into the traps of Satan and culture. Now I'm not saying we don't provide wisdom and counsel, but rather, this fear even keeps us from talking about serious issues in our church such as sex, drugs, death, genocide, etc. We want to make sure we clean things up and hand over the PG version.
So I hope my students who read this know that we can be truthful with one another. I will be honest with them, and them with me. That in our ministry we won't sugarcoat or sanitize the struggles of life from each other, but we will continue to give good wisdom, guidance and discernment, daily seeking it from the Lord. And sometimes we will clean up some things in order to protect people from struggling.
What brought all this rambling, and tangent up? I read perhaps, one of the funniest blog entries that I have ever read in my life. But I'm trying to decided if I will post this particular one today. I think it has great insight, and wonderful humor, though a tad off color. The funny thing is, I will send it to my friends, but I somehow find myself in a weird position since I am in leadership of a college ministry, and how I act, what I say, and what I link, somehow will be judged on whether or not I am an effective pastor, and seriously following the Lord.
Hmmmmmm....what to do? Am I just way off in left-field today, or does this make sense to anyone?
Need help!
Posted by rhett at 02:53 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
July 20, 2005
What a swarm of bees in my backyard taught me about the Holy Spirit and churches that have a fortress mentality.
It is sometimes interesting how God reveals things to you. Within the last couple of days I have been reading voraciously a yet to be published book by a friend. In this book, he deals a lot with the Holy Spirit, and It's role within the Church, the community, and its people. He makes the argument that a church, or the Church, can quench the working and movement of the Holy Spirit when it becomes too self-focused, too concerned about its own needs, and too concerned about programming, buildings, and focuses on building up a fortress mentality. When a Church, or church, slips into this mentality, it often becomes numb to the outside world, and fails to grasp its mission as a community of believers. It fails to be the Church.
Well, this reading coincided with a great swarm of bees that has been buzzing around our backyard wall that we share with our neighbor (the above photo is not from our house). Apparently, the bees have been returning to this spot the last couple of years, so our neighbors had the cracks in the wall patched up and the bees fumigated. Apparently that wasn't enough though. They are apparently able to smell the honey inside the wall, and thinking the Queen is still in there, they have been gathering in great numbers, trying to get in. It's pretty much a horror scene in our backyard as about 5,000 bees or so clumped on our backyard wall all day, until they finally dispersed at about 6pm. I guess they had to be somewhere. Well last night was different. This time they didn't leave, and it was a little unnerving. So my neighbor comes over to spray them with water and soap, and I'm thinking, "are you nuts" and should I stand inside the house and watch you.
But I was amazed at how docile the bees were as they had clumped together for warmth, and for sleep for the rest of the night. He casually sprayed the whole swarm until they were all dead. And to confirm that, I came out this morning, only to find thousands of bees dead on the ground and the wall. Interesting sight.
This made me think of the Holy Spirit, and churches that go into fortress mentality. When a church only becomes concerned about itself, and wants to protect itself, and its numbers, and growth and money, it moves into a me, me, me phase. The community swarms around each other for protection, and slowly lulls itself into a docile community because it has failed to move outward into mission and community, and is only concerned about the inside. When a church does this, they fail to embrace the moving of the Spirit, and lull themselves to sleep until it is too late. They wake up sooner or later and realize that they are spiritually dead. They might have programs, and job titles, and small groups, and great worship, but all in the form of religion only. A religion without the Spirit.
I hope that as a community we embrace the outward mission that the Holy Spirit is calling us to, rather than boarding up our community so that we can hold down the fort and protect what we have. Because if we do that, it might be too late.
Posted by rhett at 06:31 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
July 19, 2005
Tour De France
I was reminded today after reading Tod Bolsinger's Blog just how amazing the Tour De France is, and what spiritual principles one can extract from such an event. Tod says:
I have also been completely absorbed in watching Lance Armstrong utterly dominate the Tour De France field. It is frankly the greatest sporting achievement ever. Lance, a cancer survivor, is poised to win the Tour (a 21-day bike race through the Alps, the Pyrennes and the French Countryside where competitors average 100 miles of riding per day) for the SEVENTH CONSECUTIVE TIME. (The previous record before him was five.)
If you haven't watched any of it yet, by all means try to see some in this final week. (It is being shown on OLN.) This is more amazing than Babe crushing a baseball, Michael dropping three pointers, Tiger at the PGA cruising to a 21 shot lead.
Then yesterday, faithful sidekick, George Hincapie wins his first stage in the tour ever. Teammates like Hincapie are called "domestiques" (the French word for "servant") and their selflessness is a wonderful example of selfless teamwork. It was a great story.
If I was in charge of the world everybody would get the month of July off every year to do nothing but watch the Tour and then go for a bike ride. And since today is my day off I am going to do just that....
I too am totally in awe of this event, and I am amazed at the selflessness of teammates, and even rivals, as they work together to conquer a mountain. I preached last year on the term domestique, and just how important that concept is in Christianity, and in ministry. Servants. Serving one another. If you haven't watched the race yet, you definitely need to.
Posted by rhett at 04:38 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Putting On Your Sunday Best: What we wear, and where we wear it. How important is it? And what does it say about us?
If you haven't been paying attention to the news today, then you don't know how controversial this photo has been. Why is it controversial? I someone doing something innapropriately in the photo? Is some girl wearing something scandalous? No! Girls are wearing flip-flops to the White House. Now, I probably would not have noticed this unless it was brought to the media's attention, but now that it has, it raises some interesting questions. If you are wondering whether or not I made up this issue, check out this news article, which is one of many.
Now, when I was growing up in Phoenix, AZ, my brother and I used to get up every Sunday morning, and get ready for church. When we were younger, and our parents dressed us, we were usually matching, and we wore suits and ties to church, and dress shirts, ties and shorts in the summer time. I mean, it's difficult to wear a suit when it's a 120 degrees in the summer, let alone to keep it intact on an active little boy.
When I became older and was usually able to dress myself, I tended to get a little more casual, but I still knew it was important to look somewhat nice at church. Which for me, that usually meant, button up shirts, or courderoy pants, or slacks, sometimes ties, etc. So it was somewhat of a shock when I was sophomore in college and my college roommate from Santa Cruz, CA was wearing Reef flip-flops to the Sunday service. I was somewhat shocked by this type of dress, but was assurred by him that it was quite normal to wear to church where he came from. Eventually he got me into some Reef flip-flops, and I started wearing them to church. And now....well, that's about all you will see me in these days.
How did I go from someone who usually dressed up to church, to someone who rarely dresses up? Now the usual wear is jeans, button up shirt, and flip-flops. That seems to be the typical wear at my church, and in my community. And I don't know what is happening? Because now that I'm here in CA, the typical church dress is nothing like it was in AZ where I grew up. But now when I go home, it seems that CA is influencing them more and more. Then I go to church at times in my birthstate of Texas, and the dress is a little more formal.
Is it geography? Is it an age/stage thing? I mean, if you come to the 9am service at my church, most people will be in suits, ties, dresses, etc. But if you come to the 11am or 6pm service, you might be shocked at what people wear. In fact, I would be safe in saying, that you might see more skin on Sunday at my church, then you would any other day of the week. But it seems to be typical, and the dress seems to be a little more risque in the summer.
Everyone has got their positions though. Flip-flops don't bother me, and it seems like everyone wears them. But sometimes I see someone in a ripped t-shirt, and some girl is showing more clevage than the cover of a beauty magazine. Is this okay dress for church? Are we being judgmental when we look at someone's dress? Is it how we were raised? Is where we live? Is it based on our community?
Some would say that the decline in proper, and classy dress on Sundays is indicative of the rest of the decline in our culture. That was the gist I got from the dialogue on the Dennis Prager show this morning. What do you think?
I've been to the White House when the President spoke, and I was very conscious about wearing a suit and tie. Not wanting to be improperly dressed in that situation. But I don't think about this when I go to church. Should I? Should I not preach in jeans and a t-shirt, sometimes with a hat on?
I went to a seminary where dress was not an issue, even when I preached. And I have friends who go to other seminaries who are required to wear suits, ties, etc, especially when they preach. There is this issue about the Word of God and the respect you give it by the way you dress. I just don't know if God is that concerned about it, or is He?
I do know this though. I will wear something different to church here in Los Angeles, than when I go home to Arizona, or when I go visit my brother in Washington D.C. Each culture, and each community has its own rules about what is and isn't acceptable, and sometimes I wonder if what is acceptable is declining more and more, even though I tend to take advantage of it myself.
What's your take on this issue?
Posted by rhett at 03:32 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
July 15, 2005
Aslan
I just read this,
07/13/05
Liam Neeson is reportedly stepping in to voice Aslan. (Film Force)
over at Movies.com
Posted by rhett at 04:38 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Which Fantasy/ScFi Character Are You?
Yes, I have hit "nerd" status with my last survey (which theologian I was), and now this one. Well, if I can get over being a woman, then I'm glad to have the qualities of Galadriel.
I know you want to take the survey, don't pretend like you don't want to.
Posted by rhett at 04:07 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
A proposition thus emerges, perhaps controversial, but central to my own thinking: Ministry necessarily precedes theology, but is eventually monitored and disciplined by that theology.....Dennis B. Guernsey
As I was perusing through the massive Google hemisphere today, looking for some information on one of my favorite Fuller professors, Dr. Ray Anderson, I came across an article from Direction Journal.
The article was from Spring 1990, and was titled, Family Ministry and a Theology of the Family: A Personal Journey by Dennis B. Guernsey, who was a former faculty at Fuller, but is now deceased.
Now it wasn't the article title itself that grabbed my attention, but the highlighted phrase in the article that said, The theology of the family is emerging.
That word emerging, or emergent, seems to be everywhere these days, but I was intrigued by the fact that this article is from the Spring of 1990. So what, you say? And you are right. That word is not a new word, and the idea of something merging out of one thing and into another, is definitely not anything new.
But I continued reading the article and came across this phrase:
Since our first search of the literature and after ten years of personal reflection, I have concluded that the theology of the family is emerging much as other areas of theology have emerged.
And I thought to myself. Interesting? We seem to be content (not everyone of course) with the emerging of family ministry from what it was in the 1950's to where it is now. We seem to be content (not everyone of course) with aspects of the contemporary worship movement that emerged in the 1980's, 1990's and continues to emerge in new directions. What about the emerging of Jr. High and High School ministry to the status it now receives? Okay.
So I continued reading and came across this:
A proposition thus emerges, perhaps controversial, but central to my own thinking: Ministry necessarily precedes theology, but is eventually monitored and disciplined by that theology.
Controversial proposition for sure. Of course, that's not very controversial in some camps, and others it is considered highly dangerous. Which camp are you in will determine that? I was exposed to this view a few years back during seminary, so that's not what got my attention. Okay.
So I continued reading and came across this statement:
It is the practitioners, especially the social and behavioral scientists, who are on the cutting edges of both family ministry and a theology of the family.
Interesting I thought. Sometimes those sitting in the "ivory towers" are not on the so called "cutting edge" or tend to be out of the loop. They have the academic skills, but lack the pracital ones. This can be the case in reverse as well. Someone can have the practical skills, but lack any academic sense. And our goal is not trying to be cutting edge, but faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ. But cutting edge here has implications for the intersection of theology and ministry, or practical theology. Okay.
I continued to read more and came across this:
So also a theology of the family is emerging, just as other theologies have emerged. Those who have the greatest {5} need have the most to gain from a particular theology. These who have the greatest need are those who are doing the ministry in the area relevant to that theology.
Interesting thoughts all the way around. So if you think that I am going nowhere, and off my rocker (which I might be), let me say this.
It seems that in the emerging theology of the family movement, you saw the practitioners in the field, leading the way, then returning to develop a better understanding of it theologically. It is the practitioners in the field, doing the work that had the most at stake. They were not the ones in classrooms and research offices, but were in the field, day in and day out, working with families. In their view, ministry preceeded much of the theological thinking in their burgeoning area.
Is this not happening right now? That is my question. In the emerging, or emergent church movement you have a lot of practitioners (pastors/directors, etc.), who have an invested interest, because they are the ones doing the work of ministry in churches, schools, etc. Their sense of ministry at times is preceeding their theological understanding of something, hence their desire to be in conversation and progress slowly. And while they are doing this, you have those who are saying, no, theology always preceeds ministry. Therefore there is this schism that is created. Those in the emergent camps claiming that there needs to be a more practical understanding of how we do ministry in a certain context. The theology has to have traction. While the other camp is arguing for more disciplined theology.
This is not an all encompassing sketch, but is some of what I see going on. But what this article stirred up in me was that nothing new is under the sun. Didn't Solomon tell us that in Ecclesiastes? Things are always emerging, and developing, and most likely, when I am old and feeble, some form of ministry will exist that did not exist when I was younger. Things are always emerging, but the problem arises when one camp feels threatened by the emerging of something new. Threatened that their power may wane. Threatened that their complete dominance in a ministry may wane. Threatened that they are no longer the cool, and cutting edge ministry or theology that they were in their time.
Maybe emergent, or emerging churches are just really a re-visitation of what has happened in the past, only it's dressed up in different garb. Its changed its small group clothes for something new. Its changed its church growth clothes for something new. Its changed its we are going to break away from mainline denominations, and become independent Bible churches clothes, for something new. Its changed its seeker sensitive clothes for something new. And now, maybe since we are the ones that's clothes are being changed out, for something new...we don't like it...or are unsure of it.
Posted by rhett at 02:11 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
July 14, 2005
My favorite new website for the moment...
This is a good website to know, especially if people are as good as my friends in doctoring photos with Photoshop.
I came into work today as was trying to be convinced that this crazy photo of a shark trying to swallow a Navy Diver was real, and was the National Geographic photo of the year.
Well.....with Snopes I was able to figure out pretty quickly if that was true or not. It wasn't.
So any urban legends, stories, or photos that you are not sure about, check out this site and found out the real truth. Warning: It's addicting.
Posted by rhett at 03:09 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Response from the Lark "news" comment...And new ways of doing church.
One of my students (she just graduated) but I think I will always refer to them as my students), Ashley Alexander, over Random Reflections Via Ashley posted a good blog in response to the satirical comments of the Lark "news" article which I posted on a few days ago.
How to do church has been a big question for every generation and it's going to continue to always be that way. Being on staff of a church puts you smack dab in the middle of that battle, as I am able to watch the struggle of each different generation trying to hang onto how they have always done church, while the new generation tries to establish their own ways. Sometimes these differences can co-exist in the same church, and sometimes even in the same service. Other times, it can split ministries, churches, friendships and more.
I'm not too much of a stickler on how one wants to do church, and I see it being done in many effective ways. I'm trying to figure out these questions as we journey along in the college ministry here at Bel Air Presbyterian Church. I am thankful that I am surrounded by a bunch of staff members, congregants and students who allow me a lot of room to experiment, struggle, fail, and hopefully succeed at times as well.
In fact....tell me if you think I'm wrong. But the Emergent movement is simply a different generation trying to figure out how to do church. And its main opponents, or criticisms come from figures or leaders in the "evangelical movement", especially those from non-denominational bible churches. Which is interesting. Because these non-denominational bible church leaders were criticized decades ago for breaking away from the mainline denominations and trying to do church their own way.
There is always a new group, usually in a yonger generation who wants to do church differently. And then there is the group that wants to oppose them, though they found themselves in the same position years before.
This is obviously a very simplistic explanation, and there are many reasons why groups oppose other groups ideas of how to do church. Maybe it's the fear of losing power? Or clout? Who knows?
But I am continually thankful for those who push the boundaries, and ask new questions. This seems to be something that we as Protestants are thankful for. If I recall correctly....Jon Hus, John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, John Calvin and others pushed the boundaries of traditional thought, and asked new questions. But hundreds of years later, we probably take that for granted.
So thank you to my students who continue to ask new questions....who continue to come up with fresh ideas on how to do church...who continue to have new ideas for musical worship...who continue to have new ideas for evangelism and outreach. You help keep me, and everyone else on our toes, and in good dialogue.
Because some day. My own children are going to have different worship music than I listen to, or maybe even like. They are going to want to do church their own way. And when I'm in my fifties, I will desperately plead with them and try to convince that I was cool like them one day. That when I was in my 20's, I was with a group of people who knew how to do church. And they just might believe me. Hopefully though....each generation can respect the previous generation, as well as the newer generation...each movement can learn something from another movement. Maybe we learn what not to do. And maybe we learn something new.
My grandma is probably not keen on electric guitars in the worship service, but I give her a lot of credit for not questioning the legitimacy of a new generation and their way of doing church. Though it may not be what she grew up listening to, she figures she has something to offer as an older member of her congregation. Make that the oldest member probably.
Posted by rhett at 08:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 13, 2005
World's Ugliest Dog: True?
With photoshop these days, not everyone believed that this was a real picture, of a real dog. But it appears that this isn't any urban legend, but the real thing. Yikes.
Posted by rhett at 05:11 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
I just can't keep up with the Jones's...
We are working on this for the college ministry, especially for our Wednesday night services: podcasting
Posted by rhett at 05:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 12, 2005
Too funny, if it were not so true...
The article below was from Lark News which is an online satirical newspaper.
LARK STORY
Edgy church breaks old rules, insists on new ones
ROCHESTER, Minn. — At The Circle, a young, innovative church which meets in a renovated bus depot, there is no pulpit, platform or pastor, as such. The congregation rejects the labels "Christian" and "congregation," preferring "followers of Jesus" and "friendship community."
There are no ushers, but rather "helpers."
There is no worship team, but rather "God artists."
And woe to anyone who affixes traditional church labels to any of it.
"God's doing a new thing here," says Mitch Townsend, the leader of the church. He shuns the "pastor" label and insists people call him, "Hey, man," or simply "Dude." If someone slips and calls him "pastor," he bristles and gently rebukes them.
"We got rid of all those old labels," he says. "There's no going back."
At the church office, which they never call a church office but rather "the Hub," secretaries, or "community action facilitators" as they are called here, tap-tap on computers (which they still call computers) and take calls.
When a visitor slips up and refers to The Circle's "sanctuary," Dude Townsend cuts him short.
"Listen, it's not a sanctuary, it's a meeting place, a gathering place," he says, flushing red.
"Sorry, pastor," the visitor says.
"Not pastor," says Townsend. "Dude, or friend. Or just hey, Mitch."
"Sorry, Dude Mitch," the visitor says uncomfortably, and slinks away. Mitch quickly goes to him and hugs him.
"We're all about love and freedom here," he says. "I know it's hard to get used to."
At a Sunday morning "gathering," as services must be called, people sit in chairs arranged in circle around a "focal point" (not a platform) and listen to the team of God-artists play instruments and sing "songs of adoration and devotion to the Creator," as opposed to praise and worship music. The gathered "posse of Jesus followers" is free to sing along and to express themselves in any way that seems "real and authentic."
"We strive to be genuine here," says non-pastor "Hey, Jim" Richards, who in another setting might be called an associate pastor. "It's about being who you are, not fitting into a pre-determined box."
Before Dude Mitch's personal sharing time (which markedly resembles a sermon), one visitor raises her hand and says, "Is there going to be an altar call? Because I really want to give my life to Jesus today."
Dude Mitch answers quickly, "We don't have altar calls here; we have 'God moments' or 'Creator re-connects.' And we don't say 'give your life to Jesus,' but you may begin a lifelong love relationship with the Creator-Friend, if you like. But please wait until we are done with sharing time."
After the service, "new friends" join in the "kick-back hall" for refreshments and conversation with the Dudes and other Hub personnel. They may also join a mid-week "hang-out crew" of 10-12 people which meets in a home, and which is steadfastly not referred to as a "small group."
"Anyone who wants a break from normal, rigid church life is welcome at The Circle," says Townsend. •
All content © 2004 LarkNews.com, Joel Kilpatrick. All rights reserved. | DISCLAIMER |
Posted by rhett at 06:07 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Short-Term Mission Trips? Are they good stewardship?
This is an interesting article for someone who has been on countless short term-mission trips around the world, and as someone who has sent countless teams of students around the world on mission trips.
I know that this has been a question that has been asked by many churches and people for quite a while. Is it worth our money, and a good use of our money to send a student overseas, or is it better to just send the money to a Christian organization there? Why spend $3,000 on a short term-mission trip to pay for student's aifare, food, indidentals, etc., when the whole amount could be sent overseas for use by the local missionaries? These are some of the questions that people are now asking.
Christianity Today just published an email exchange/article tackling this very issue. Some current research has been done on this topic, and it is worth a look. Are Short-Term Missions Good Stewardship.
In my own opinion, I do think that short term-mission trips are a great thing. And I do think that one of the best ways we can be good stewards of our money is to support someone on such an endeavor. I know that my life has been changed in many ways by my travels, and experiences, as well as the lives of my students. Do these trips always yield all the results we want...maybe not.
I know when I told people last year that I was going to Fiji on a mission trip with the high school department and YWAM, there were quite a lot of laughs in the room. Fiji? Wow, tough trip laying on the beach. Well, that's not what we did, and I saw high school student's lives transformed by their experience in the local villages. Will those experiences have staying power? Maybe, maybe not. But I think the money was well spent. And I think that the 20 plus students that I have sent on short-term missions this year would say the same thing.
Posted by rhett at 10:48 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
July 11, 2005
New book by Donald Miller on its way
It looks like Donald Miller has a new book that you can get a glimpse of over at Blue Like Jazz. You can also pre-order Through Painted Deserts: Light, God and Beauty on the Open Road over at Amazon.
Posted by rhett at 04:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Are guys confused about who to be, or what?
Found this hilarious post from one of my students, Aaron Torchio, over at What It Is That Makes Me Me. I thought this was a great post, and pretty much sums up the conversations I have with guys all the time.
Posted by rhett at 04:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Blog satire...some recommendations.
I think that one of the hardest things about writing a blog is coming up with decent stuff, day in and day out. Though some of you might wish I would come up with just some decent stuff, forget the day in and day out thing. The difficult task is communicating something that sounds good in your mind, but can be misconstrued in the process. That's why I probably don't write satire. And why should I, when there are some amazing writers out there.
Someone that I have been reading as of late is my good friend, Blake Kimzey, over at The Everglades. I almost always laugh out loud when I read his stuff. He reminds me of...ummm...almost every guy in my college group. Blake also just started writing for the online magainze My Geek In The House, in which he has a funny article in there now on online dating.
Definitely a little more off color humor then you will find at my blog....you know....the off color humor doesn't go well in pastoral circles....so read at your own risk. I hesitate to say this, because Blake will probably post some long satirical blog tomorrow on reading at your own risk. Great...just what I need.
And then there are a couple of my students who crack me up, such as Troy Masters, over at Dungeon of Akwardness, or Aaron Torchio over at What It Is That Makes Me Me.
These are some pretty funny guys.
Posted by rhett at 03:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
What the Tour de France is teaching me about community
Peloton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The peloton (from French, literally meaning ball and related to the English word platoon) or bunch is the large main group in a road bicycle race. Riders in a group save energy by riding close (drafting or slipstreaming) near (particularly behind) other riders. The peloton travels as an integrated unit, like birds flying in formation, each rider making slight adjustments in response to the riders around them (particularly the one in front of each).
The peleton. This group of riders is what kept me riveted to my couch over the weekend, as I nervously watched the chess match between the riders in the group, especially as one rider after the next worked together to tire out Lance Armstrong. As you can read from the definition, the peleton is that large group of riders, that moves seamlessly through the race together. I was told by one of my friends, what an amazing experience it is to be standing on the French roadside as the peleton whips by you almost instantaneously and its power overcomes you as a spectator on the side of the road.
On Saturday, Lance found himself in a little bit of trouble as he and his teammates struggled their first day in the mountains and he found himself all alone in the peleton without any of his Team Discovery teammates.
It is easy to watch the sport of cycling, and to think of it as an individual sport, which is what I did for many years. But the more and more I watch it, the more I realize how important teamwork is. Lance could not have won the previous 6 Tour de France's alone, and he is not going to be able to win this one alone either.
So as I watch this event, I am amazed at a couple of things. One, I am amazed at the teamwork that takes place in the peleton. The negotiating, the exchaning and sharing of skills, and more...and these are with people you are trying to beat. Two, I am amazed at the selfishness that takes place among the individual teams. Lance's Team, Team Discovery...their only goal is to get Lance another victory. This team has great riders on it, but their whole goal, is to sacrifice their goals and achievements for the greater good. And in doing that, it requires everyone to use their unique gifts, for the greater good.
In I Corinthians 12, Paul writes on the importance of gifts, and the working together of everyone, for the greater good. In 12:12, Paul says, For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.
My close viewing of the Tour de France has reminded me of these important spiritual truths. In our cities there are many ministries, but it is important for us to work together as a team, like the peleton, to accomplish our goals, otherwise, none of us are making it over the mountains. And in our own ministries, it is important that all of us come together, with the unique gifts God has given us, and to be able to sacrifice our goals, our desires, for the greater good of the ministry, and of Christ.
The churches in Los Angeles will only be as successful in bringing the good news of Jesus Christ to the people of LA, if they are working together as a team to accomplish this goal. And our ministry here in the college group at Bel Air, is only as successful as each member and individual, using their gifts, and sacrificing their own goals, for the goals of the group.
I love watching the Tour de France, and it gave me chills to see the peleton push through the mountains together, as team after team, sacrificed and worked to accomplish their goals. And though we get glimpses of it, I hope that we see more and more of that teamwork and passion taking place in our churches.
Thank you to the college ministry team, who sacrificed their time, their lives, their agendas, and used their gifts, to accomplish the greater good of the group this year.
Posted by rhett at 03:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 08, 2005
another wedding photo...
Posted by rhett at 05:13 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Something that I'm sure will stir up some pastors and teachers....
Mike Devries over at awakening has some notes on a satellite simulcast with pastor and author, Rob Bell, who is at Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Here is the excerpt: of the simulcast.
And for more reading on Rob Bell, here is an article on The Subversive Art in Leadership Journal.
And his soon to be released book that everyone seems to be waiting for.
Posted by rhett at 04:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Two-Part PBS Series on the Emerging Church
If you haven't heard yet, or read the multiple stories on some of the blogs, PBS is going to do a Two-Part Series on the Emerging Church.
Posted by rhett at 04:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
My student's venting on marriage....
One of my very dear, former students, who just graduated, Ashley Alexander has a post on marriage. Actually, it's more like a rant, or a venting, as she titles the entry, "ventage on marriage."
Please read the post...good post by the way. And then you will more fully understand my comments. But the main "vent", is that once people get married, they drop off the face of the planet.
I used to think that was true as well, when I was single. Because when you are single, you do as you please. You go to bed when you want to, you get up when you want to, you lay around, and there is no one else you are accountable to for your time. Not even your parents anymore. And not your friends. But just yourself. Being single allows one to be as selfish as they like. And I say that from my own experience, though you may disagree. But that is not the case when you are married. This is not a long, thought-out response, but rather some general observations about this thought.
When I was single, I used to get mad at my married friends for disappearing as well. And don't get me wrong, some couples do a better job of maintaining friends, etc. But now that I am only about three weeks into this marriage thing, I have now crossed over to the other side, and I now see things from a completely different perspective.
First, I am no longer just on my own, accountable to only myself. Even when you are dating, you still feel on your own. But entering into marriage is a huge thing, and you are now living, two people as one, in this great mystery that God has created, and priorities radically shift. You now have someone else who you are accountable to. You now have someone else who depends on you for certain things. When I was single, I could spend all day reading, and not do a thing. Let the dishes go. Let the laundry sit another week. Let the bills sit a few more days. Keep the fridge empty. But now I can't live that way anymore. Or really...I don't want to live that way anymore. My wife and I both have things to do, and we have helped take on each other's responsibilities as well. I can't imagine what life is like when a kid comes along.
Second, living in Los Angeles makes the shift from single life, to married life look even that much more radical. Los Angeles seems like a culture whose growth has been stunted, and wishes to live in eternal singleness, where one's sole goal is to please themselves and do what they want. Now that's a total generalization, and I'm not speaking about most people. But face it. Where else in the United States are people as shocked as they are here, if you happened to get married at 22, or 25. How appalling that is to some people. While in other regions, marriage is just the next step into maturity and growing up. I'm 30 years old. And I'm pretty positive that if I did not leave AZ, I would have married at a much earlier age. But coming to California alleviated the pressures of that social norm. So I think that what we view as a radical departure into another phase of life, young adults living in Los Angeles see it as a totally shocking, and a non-stop slide into less freedom.
Third, what about those opposite sex friends? This seems to be Ashley's main complaint. And I understand it, since I used to be a guy with a lot of female friends. But now that I have moved through dating, engagement and marriage, I better understand boundary issues. Having friends of the opposite sex is very normal, and healthy. But I do think that there needs to be healthy boundaries between men and women when one moves into a serious relationship, and into marriage. In fact, I would say for myself, that the female friends I have now are those who are friends with my wife and I, co-workers, and those in my ministry. But they are friends, and not people that I develop a serious relationship with, or maintain some type of separate friendship with outside of my relationship with my wife.
I would say, that many people who don't develop healthy relationships with their same sex, and have an overabundance of opposite sex friends, are the ones who most misunderstand the boundary issues involved. They are the ones who are most upset when their opposite sex friend gets married, and no longer wants to spend that alone time with them.
Though many would see the pulling away of their opposite sex friends as not being fair, and rude, etc., I would say it's a good step, and natural one to setting up proper boundaries, and protecting one's marriage.
Fourth, I think we live in a culture where more and more people are hanging out in groups, and less and less are willing to take the risk of asking someone else out. I think groups are great. But I see all around me where young adults only hang out in groups...guys and girls together...and they don't know how to take that next step, and move into a new phase of a relationship. They are already getting the best of both worlds. Dating people, but still having all these people around them. So when it comes time to get more serious and set better boundaries, they often don't want to. I mean...honestly...what guy, who is able to hang out with 4-5 girls a night, is really going to want to settle down with one girl in a relationship. That's a hard transition for many people. So that guy is content dating a girl who will let him hang out with other female friends, but is she wants something more serious, then he thinks she is being unfair. Again, I'm generalizing, but I see this all the time, and talk with people all the time who are struggling with this.
Fifth, I think marriage helps us appreciate our same sex friends more than ever. I see this with my friends who are married, and beginning in my own marriage. Marriage is a key transition in life, that helps one live in this beautiful mystery of marriage with someone of the opposite sex, while developing amazing friendships with those of the same sex. I appreciate my guy friends now, more than ever, and what they bring to my personal life, and to my marriage.
In closing, I hope to be in a marriage where my wife and I develo