Not quite Jesus, not quite justice, but the simple act of giving.

We’re taught, in order to hold the spirit of Christmas true, we must be happy and give willingly. We seem to have missed the point… or rather; we seem to have failed to complete the thought.

I listened to a children’s play today in which the actors discover the true meaning of Christmas is giving. This revelation happens, of course, after they break down into a fight over who gets to do what and so forth (a representation of our greed during the Christmas Season). This play exemplified the underlying theme that we continue to drive home to each successive generation: The act of giving is simply enough. It also continues the cycle of Bad Theology spreading down to our children.

I remember, during Christmas’s past, being given money so that I could then buy gifts for my family. The idea starts as a gesture of “love” and “appreciation” with the gift exemplifying the heart of the giver, but in the end, the gift given was simply something un-needed by the receiver, and probably cast away in a pile of Junk that grows with each successive season. My wife accurately described Christmas (at least within the circles we run in) as “A season that celebrates the accumulation of (choice word).”

The end result of our current ideal, that we should give, and give freely, has turned into an act in which we continue to attain more Junk. We are simply expected to give gifts; it is no matter what the gifts are, as long as they are given. Any attempt to give meaningful gifts is often met with resistance, and any attempt not to give gifts, as the receiver has no need for a gift within your financial ability, is seen as an act of hostility. These feelings, that we must give gifts, continue to place us in a cycle of debt and cause a continual feeling of dread, when you have very little money to devote to the purchase of Junk.

To what end does the cycle lead us? Our we truly celebrating the birth of Christ, or are we celebrating our ability to purchase (an ability that we are fast losing, yet refuse to give up) We seem to have confused two separate stories into one, the story of the Birth of Christ, and the story of St. Nicholas. In the end this confusion causes considerable hurt towards the heart of both stories.

I’ll not lay out the details of each story right now, for that would be a better post for another day (and has already been done by others), instead I will pass this wish, or perhaps better stated this blessing over the gift giving this Christmas season:
May you bestow gifts with no expectation of return, for that is the true meaning of gift.
May you accept gifts with no guilt towards repayment, for that is the best gift to the giver.
May any gifts you give be meaningful, for the world has enough junk.
May any gifts you receive be put towards good use, for again, we have too much junk.
May you keep at heart both stories we celebrate during this season, for they both have much to speak to our hearts.

Grace and Peace

Shameless shopportunism or shamelessly taking advantage of someone? We decry the business that take advantage of consumers, yet applaud heartily when a consumer takes advantage of a business. I realize that this ideal comes from the desire to “stick it to the man,” and in many cases the man needs to be stuck in order to gain attention to an issue. The real issue here comes from our desire for cheaper goods hurting individuals.

This is the same sort of problem we encounter when shopping at Walmart. (Documented here, albeit with a large amount of bias) We have the American desire for a deal causing cutbacks in business that supply Walmart, enabling practices like sweatshops and so forth. I’m not isolating Walmart here, lets remember the Immokolee tomato pickers and the issues that plagued them (poor working conditions, low pay, etc) from Fast Food companies such as McDonalds and Taco Bell trying to cut costs in order to win consumers.

So what, then, does the “Caring Consumer” do? Well… change our buying habits would be the obvious answer, but my honest answer is “I don’t know.” The only way to get attention from these companies is by “voting with our dollars” but the problem is that then hurts the little guys in the company long before it hurts the big guys. Sure, simply buying fair trade only would send a message, but the cost (not fiscal cost, but cost in terms of other peoples livelihoods) would be tremendous.

The “Caring Consumer,” should carefully consider then implications of the purchases they’re making. Questioning the reason behind the purchase, and if this purchase will cause harm to others, would do us all some good. Take some time to think about if we are scoring a deal, or if we are taking advantage of a situation to the detriment of others.

One other note: I realize that I’m able to make this sort of post because of my affluence. I have “purchasing power” beyond that of, say, a minimum wage earner. I realize that not everyone has the ability to change their purchasing behaviors due to financial constraints.

The book (Pagan Christianity) has apparently been a bit of a controversial deal on the blogosphere, it seems that every time it’s mentioned there are both proponents and opponents that are vocal about their support/dissent. Any time you have this sort of discourse then the time must be taken to understand both sides of the argument.

The common theme I am hearing is that Reimagining Church, puts in place a new construct after PC tore the old one down. I, however, have a problem with this concept from the start. Pete Rollins in a podcast with Josh Case from The Nick and Josh Podcast (now the Josh and Josh podcast, as Nick’s gallivanting the globe) discussed the idea of deconstruction ending with reconstruction, and said (paraphrased here) “Deconstruction is the lava that keeps the flow of ideas moving, we should never stop deconstructing.” I completely agree with Rollins here, and I hesitate whenever I hear the word “reconstruct.”

The reason far my tepid outlook on reconstruction is the fear that what we reconstruct will simply become another monstrosity of “orthopraxy” (I say orthopraxy in the term of right practice in regards to how we do church) that must again be torn down. When we reconstruct we make the assumption that we have found the “right” way of doing things, which seems to be an arrogant statement in light of how long we (Christians) have been chasing the idea of orthopraxy.

I’m not saying that any reconstruction is bad, in fact we will certainly reconstruct as we go, but we need to keep the urgency of deconstruction with us at all times, lest whatever practices we build, to better engage in our (post)modern culture, become standardized and passed down to later generations in which they will have little (or no) effect.

That being said, I will indeed read Reimagining Church, if for no other reason than I’ve now been told by several people that I should do so.

I have also been told that I misunderstood the intent of Viola/Barna in Pagan Christianity. From the e-mail I received:

you seemed to have missed the point. Barna and Viola are NOT arguing to go back to a biblical blueprintism. They are instead tracing where the protestant traditions came from and raising questions. Frank’s new book REIMAGINING CHURCH — the constructive follow-up to PAGAN CHRISTIANITY –deals with the very issues you address, like contextualization.

While this may be true, I still feel that I what was being laid out in PC was this ideal of “Biblical Blueprintism” (good phrase by the way), and I don’t think I’m the only one who was under that impression.

One final statement: This book, regardless of whether or not those who read it agree or disagree with it, has sparked a great deal of conversation in regards to how we “do church,” and if for nothing other than that fact the authors need to be commended.

I’m reminded of the story that Pete Rollins tells in one of his books (I think it’s Fidelity of Betrayal, but it could be How (not) to Speak of God), about the Rabbi who ties the cat to the tree because the cat screeches while the Rabbi is trying to teach. After the Rabbi dies the community continues to tie the cat to the tree, as the act has now become habit. That cat dies and the community, now having moved habit into tradition finds another cat to replace the original, and the line continues until the tying of a cat to a tree becomes orthodoxical for services. What was once done out of  the expediency of the moment has become a cumbersome system complete with it’s own rituals and requirements.

In this same way, if we were to do certain things simply because they Early Church did them that way (I guess I should state I’m speaking only in regards to how we conduct our assemblies services) then we fill ourselves with cumbersome material which actually inhibits our understanding. For example, the practice of only meeting in the homes of other members is nowhere mandated by the Bible, yet it was a practice committed (According to V/B) during the Early Church years. (On a side note, I have heard it also stated that early assemblies met in catacombs and in synagogues, so I’m not sure about V/B’s historical account here). If we were to only hold our assemblies in the homes of members today, when other space is available more suiting to the needs of the community, then we encumber ourselves with needless ritual.

On the other hand, with a practice such as the Lords Supper, an embrace of Early Church forms and rituals would be most beneficial. As V/B state, the historical Lords Supper, or at least during the Early Church years, was actually a feast in which the poor and the rich would dine together in a common bond of Christ. Having forgotten that the Bible is in fact a book written for the oppressed and (**mostly) by the oppressed, the insistence that the Lords Feast be shared by all would likely do the Church a fair amount of good.

The largest issue we’re presented with is a cultural chage from the first several centuries AD (or CE if you’d prefer) to the current age. While practices committed in the Early Church indeed made sense for them, in many cases blindly clinging to such practices today would be detrimental to the health of the Church. The key is not in simply doing things the way the Early Church did them, but instead understanding why the Early Church did them in such ways.

This same understanding should in turn be applied to each incarnation of the church throughout the centuries. A fundamentalist would do well in understanding why (s)he does things the way (s)he does, instead of simply doing them because that is how they have been done. In that same way, those who would state that we must do things the way the Early Church did them should take a look at the whys, lest they practice a form of fundamentalism themselves. A decent heaping of deconstruction would do us all a fair load of good when it comes to the way we do things, as well as a cultural understanding of how things need to be tweaked in order to better affect the world in which we find ourselves.

The understanding of cultural shifts, and the need to adjust in order to best work (both) within (and without) those shifts is imperative to the effectiveness of the Church. It is this same thought process in which Emergent (and to a larger extent the emerging church) must operate. So, again, I am lead to disagree with the underlying statement in Pagan Christianity which would lead us to this quasi-fundamentalism.

But today, this glorious day of December the 5th, I found I had made it to page one.

That’s right, I’m on stinkin’ page one baby!

Pagan Christianity By Frank Viola and George Barna

I found that I actually enjoyed Pagan Christianity more than I thought I would originally. I think there is a largely mixed bag of reviews out there about the book, so I was rather hesitant before actually purchasing it (the poor selection of books at the store I was in helped out a bit). A little backstory on the authors, if you didn’t know, Frank Viola is a big house church proponent and loosely affiliated with the Emerging movement, and George Barna is and evangelical and the creator of the Barna Group, which has put out some pretty controversial poll findings.

The reason I enjoyed the book is the large amount of history presented in the text. Being somewhat of a history nerd (or you could probably just say I’m a nerd in general) the amount of facts (I hesitate in using that word) presented. Everything is well sourced out, so if you find yourself doubting any of the presented information (not the opinions) they make it quite easy to find where they are pulling from.

Viola and Barna (henceforth V/B) break the book out into smaller sections that deal with things from the Eucharist to Pastoral Leadership to the very setup of our church buildings. They use the historical information to describe how we have gone from the Early Church practices to what we have today, and follow that with their opinion on how the previously mentioned changes are harmful to the health of the Church today.

I think it’s in the statement of their opinions on why exactly these things are wrong that V/B start to lose their audience (as they did with me at times). The general theme seems to be “If it’s not how the Early Church did it, we should have no part in it.” Had V/B stopped at showing how certain things cause damage if overused/used wrongly, but aren’t necessarily bad practices in and of themselves, as well as pointing out that requiring all to follow these (new…ish) practices as “The way church needs to be done” is nothing more than a colonialist façade. (That last part reminds me of a story, during my younger years (12/13 years old) my pastor said that he worried for the church health of any assembly that did not have a steeple.)

I would have no qualms with recommending the book, I think it’s a beneficial read, but needs to be taken with a grain of salt. If you’re the kind of person who is able to come to their own conclusions based of the facts given and not wholly influenced by the opinions also given, then you’ll be able to get through the book all right. If you’re the kind of person who gets frustrated when someone is stating facts contrary to what you believe to be the right way of doing things… you might want to pass it up.

One final note I should mention, Viola recently published Reimagining Church, where he may have corrected his approach from Pagan Christianity, and if you want to read a good review of it head over to Andrew Martin’s blog post here.

When do we have the form without the power of religion?

When we develop church growth strategies that target the middle class instead of the poor and marginalized, then we have the form without the power.

When we spend more of our resources on constructing and maintaining Church buildings and property than we do on feeding the hungry, then we have the form without the power.

When we spend more on pastor’s salaries, benefits, and pensions, than we do on clothing the naked and sheltering the homeless, then we have the form without the power.

When we turn stewardship into financial campaigns for the Church, rather than sacrifice for the poor, then we have the form but not the power.

When we blame poverty on the sloth of the poor rather than the avarice of the prosperous and the indifference of the comfortable, then we have the form but not the power.

When we furnish our sanctuaries and social halls in such a way as to make the prosperous comfortable rather than make the indigent welcome, then we have the form but not the power.

When we dedicate Methodist institutions like universities and hospitals and retirement homes to the needs of the affluent rather than the needs of the impoverished, then we have the form but not the power.

When we preach a grace which saves us without changing us, then we have the form but not the power.

Above all whenever and however we make of Methodism a preferential option for the middle class, we have the form but not the power of religion.

Powerful, this.

I must look over this list and ponder, how often I’ve missed the point, and how in by missing the point I’ve done more damage to the power of ressurection than I’d like to admit.

I think if I could add to this list (and make it somewhat more personal) I’d throw something out there like:

When we blog about the resurrection of mankind, without going out and actively being that resurrection, we have the form but not the power of religion.

What would you add?

Kind of sad…

So thats why I’ve been silent over the past few days. I’m working on a prop-8 post and the next tradition post, but it may be a few days before we get anything up.

-

In other news I’m probably going to get to see Pete Rollins when he swings into town this upcoming week. I’m looking forward to that greatly, I might walk away talking in brogue, which would straight up rock.

Oh… and there’s the whole brilliance of the postmodern philosopher that will hopefully rub off. (I’d take the accent if that’s all I could get.)

I’m addicted to lattes. I go to starbucks almost every morning, so much so that they know my name.

“Triple venti caramel latte please.”

“Ok Matt, drive around.”

Then onetime I sent someone else to get my latte, they asked her if it was for me and wrote “hey matt!!” on my cup.

I have a problem…

(true story, but I wrote it to test out a mobile publishing app on the iphone)

Each group has but one primary purpose—to carry its message to the
alcoholic who still suffers.

One primary purpose… one reason for meeting… to help the alcoholic who still suffers. Does the church exist to help the human who still suffers?

Lets skip over the fact that must assemblies actually cause more suffering to their people then they do good, and look instead at the heart of “church.”

Why do we exist?

When you go to an assembly (of “believers”), normally, it’s to get “fed,” to recieve that spiritual insight that you missed out on yourself. I’m not stating that teaching in assemblies is a bad idea, in fact I quite support it, but often times I wonder if this teaching is the central goal of an assembly. I know that the reformers were large fans of preaching, I believe it was Calvin who said that the church should never assemble without preaching and praying, but should that truly be our central goal.

If we are to, as Andrew said, simply make “Following Christ” our central goal, how would that look when we took on this tradition as our own? Would we state something along the lines of “Each assembly exists for one primary purpose–to carry it’s message to the human who still suffers.” And, if we stated such an ideal, how well would we go about carrying it out?

Would we move from assemblies where we are preached at to assemblies where we actually build caring relationships? Relationships that could then lend a hand to their members when one gets hurt? Relationships that would offer the hope of Christ rather than the condemnation of sin?

Would we learn to better spot suffering, or even, daresay, open our eyes to the suffering closest to us? Would we be willing to part with our money, our time, and perhaps even our safety, to carry the message of hope to those that still suffer?