Bible Study is starting

Ok, so I have a bible study beginning--very fabulous--and I want to basically use this time with people to reintroduce the bible to them. I want to hear (if they wish to share) everybody's understanding/experience with the bible. We all pretty much have one, even if it isn't much. I am curious because people have many different ideas about what the bible is and what it should be. For some, their experience of the Scriptures has been fabulous, life-changing and powerful. For others, this book has been nothing more than a weapon to discriminate against those who might be different. Remember that movie, Saved? Well, there's a scene in there when, during a heated argument, one girl throws the bible at another (who is in the process of walking away) and hits her in the back with it, all the while screaming about the love of Jesus. Yeah, for some, it's kinda like that. Fortunately, most of us don't believe in bible-throwing.

However, what I've been running into in my conversations with people is an understanding or outside perception, that the bible exists to tell people how to live. I think most of us have had or now have this take on the good book. Hence, when they read it (if they ever do) it reads flat, like reading a phone book. This means then that engagement with the bible is one-dimensional meaning then that it is there to provide information that should go into our heads and stay there. We have to then believe what the bible tells us like we believe what we read in a social studies book. I have one thing to say about this: NO. NO NO NO NO NO NO! This is not what the bible does or is.

The bible is a story--a narrative of a people and their experience of God in the world. In being a story, the bible is then capable of engaging us as whole persons and not just our minds. It is meant to engage our minds and our emotions: our loves, our fears, our anger, or even our utter despair. This means a few things. 1) We can't read it in tiny little verses. Chopping up the bible and taking meaning from a single line of text is like taking a symphony, killing off all the musicians save for one triangle player and having her play, and only her. What's left? Nothing except that one little tinkle of sound which has been robbed of the richness of the composition that would be surrounding it if only the symphony was still around to accompany. The bible is too wonderful to be broken up this way, and far too complicated. 2) It would help to spend some time with the bible, without reading it. It may be that for some, they need to hear the bible read out loud, in its various translations so as to let the story come to life. This may mean acting out part of the story if that's what it takes. 3) The bible is authoritative, but as a story and not as a lawbook. Tricky concept, but doable.

Ok, enough for today!

San Joaquin

Well, the Diocese of San Joaquin has voted to leave the Episcopal Church. Like you do. While I don't know much about this particular diocese, I've always known it was "one of those dioceses:" conservative, not so open to the women priests, and certainly not to the gays. At least, this is what I think I know about the diocese of San Joaquin--it's what I've heard. And while the recent action of said diocese appears to only confirm this perception, I still really don't know these people; given the recent decision, my likelyhood of ever getting to know them is diminished. They have opted to sever their relationship with the Episcopal Church and thus with people like me. My first reaction is to say "Fine, go. You're wrong (and nasty to boot)." But at the same time, I am sad about this. Believe it or not, I feel that we need these people to remain with us even more (not necessarily the attitude, but the people). While I strongly disagree with their action and their interpretation of Christianity, I also need them to remain with me, and hold me accountable and stretch me in my daily faith life.

I am a church planter, I have a particular openness to people who aren't comfortable with many things that the "traditional" church holds to be "true." (humor me while I abuse quotation marks) I also hold a particular understanding of faith that resonates with what these people are telling me on a day to day basis. So far, the people I have gotten involved in my ministry here often hold similar views to my own. But I don't necessarily want this, because I want to avoid my own hypocrisy. I want to be faithful, not right. I want the community i am a part of to be radically open--open in the way that answers with love the inhospility we have all experienced at some point or another. I want it to be open, not merely another exclusive place singing the same old tune, just in a different key. A community, a church, needs to be the model of reconciliation that recognizes differences yet commits to remaining one. It is easy to leave each other, the hard work is remaining in a kind of relationship (notice I am speaking of relationship in a very broad sense.) I don't think Jesus' work made him the most "correct" teacher, the smartest or the most believable. I think his work showed him to be present, showed him committing to breaking bread even with those who would betray him, In remaining linked to all people, Jesus showed us that salvation is not escape to a place like heaven, or even the "church." It is doing the hard work of staying in at-one-ment with each other. I think this might just be eternal life.

Is it Christmas yet?

A friend of mine recently found a website dedicated to answering the question: Is it Christmas yet?

Bible Study/Heresy

I just finished a Bishop Spong book which questions pretty much everything that could be considered a pillar of Christian faith. It was titled Why Christianity Must Change Or Die. You know, subtle. For those who don't know, Bishop John Shelby Spong is well known in Christian circles and particularly in the Episcopal Church where he served as bishop of the Diocese of Newark for many years. What makes him special is his ability to deconstruct traditional Christian understandings of oh, say, the Nicene Creed (problematic), the Trinity (doesn't exist?) or the Divinity of Christ (oh, yeah--he was a guy). Since this blog is not a book review, I'll leave it to the reader to go dig up Why Christianity Must Change for themselves. However, I will say that Spong doesn't embrace any kind of literal understanding of these things, rather he roughly reinterprets these doctrines in a manner so as to allow them to have meaning in his life. As one might guess, this approach usually doesn't fly so well with many people (think modern day heretic burning which usually involves denouncement, pouting, and dramatic exits on the part of those offended). At the same time, he argues that he is speaking to and for a large section of the population who feel and believe in the same manner as he.

So let me add myself to the pyre. I had never read a Spong book (and there are several); however, I was surprised to find that the questions he poses are very similar to the questions and assumptions I run into in my daily conversations with people (I know, bear with me, I've been in Seminary for three years...). Not only that, but I found that often I was on the same page as he was with his questioning of such doctrines as well as in his concern for those with similar perspectives. This is not to say that I hold his ideas exactly, but there is a commonality; furthermore, and more importantly, he is concerned about the faith of individuals who cannot hold the same "literal" beliefs of the traditional church but still possess a spiritual life (which is indeed an aspect of being human). His concern is that the church is not speaking to these individuals and by doing so, only works to futher marginalize itself from the world when it should be in the world, calling it into a new kind of being. I worry about this too. And certainly theology in the church has not always remained static, right? So, yeah, I like what he had to say.

Isn't this precisely what the emerging church is doing as well? Working to seek to speak to a new understanding of reality, in a new generation, that is meaningful to that community, generation, etc? In an effort to begin doing this, I'm going to be meeting with others for bible study, and meet head-on one of the most loved and contested works in the world: Holy Scripture. How does this ancient narrative speak to us today in a way that is neither dismissive nor paralyzing? I'm gonna find out...

What is the Emerging Church?????

Hi everyone! Now that I have returned from the wonderful New York City, I can refocus on those looming questions that I had set aside. Much of what I have been reading over the last three months has fallen under the label (yes, it kinda is a label) of Emerging Church (I have to use something, so let me shamelessly employ this current buzzword--though I am trying not to taint it). One thing I haven't really tackled is offering all you lovely people an overview of what Emerging Church is. To remedy this, I found a nice and concise overview of what might make up an emerging church. Nanette Sawyer, who pastors Wicker Park Grace, an Emerging community in Wicker Park Chicago, posted on her blog a summary of Marcus Borg's understanding of "emerging."
This is by no means an exhaustive overview--there are many manifestations of what it means to be emergent. And this is ok, because each community, each church, has its own context--its own culture. For some people, this aspect of emerging may be threatening; I do not find it so. God is much bigger that one faith tradition, one approach. What I feel emerging does is remind us of the larger truth that is out there, but which we alone cannot fully grasp. We need each other and each other's little holds on truth in order to start approach the whole of what is actually true (of what is God). This is both humbling and empowering and for many of these communities, is uncharted territory.
Is this a different approach from the kind of church you grew up in?

Going' to NYC

Well folks, I'll be off the radar for a few days while I head to the big apple to catch up with some old friends and enjoy the bright city lights. It is a kind of pause in my life right now and a chance to let my head clear and my hair down. I've been processing a lot over the last few months and I have a new question that I wonder if anyone can help me with. In my studies of the emerging church, several "names" have been given to group the various kinds of people that might be involved in a non-traditional church. From what I can remember, they are un-churched (never having been part of any Christian community or formation) de-churched (people for whom traditional church structures are no longer working) and then you have your regular church people (ok, ok, there's no such thing as a "regular" church person, I know...). While these are helpful designations, I want to add a third group that I believe I have run into that may or may not stand on its own, or be more of a sub-group of the de-churched population. For now I would call this group the nominally-churched people. People who have grown up with some kind of Christian background, but seem to lack any kind of consistant exposure to the faith. What I hear when I talk to people who fall into this sub-category is a willingness to talk about God, but difficulty in articulating an experiential sense of God, or understanding of where God might be in his or her life.
A pattern that seems to be emerging is that while there is an understanding of the existence God, and a deeply held sense of who God is to the individual, there does not seem to be a relationship there that goes beyond the thinking part (which is probably a hang-over from the modern church). There is also no sense of community either--like a sense that their relationship with God could or should have an affect on all their other relationships. Now, I don't want anyone to think that I am judging these people to be bad or lost or stupid or anything really negative like that. My question is really more along the lines of how one can bring these individuals, who are very sincerely and really quite interested in God, into a conversation where one can begin to sort through perceptions and misconceptions without leaving these individuals feeliing as if something is being taken away from them or that they are being force-fed theology. Because it seems to me to be one thing to share Christianity with someone unfamiliar with it, and quite another to chat with someone who has a little knowledge, but not enough to have, shall we say, a personal faith narrative?

I don't know exactly, but I ask these things because I want to have these important conversations with people, not be threatening, and figure out how to work into a world that, theologically speaking, is very different from the seminary world I have inhabited for the last three (nearly four) years.

Church Planting

So, how does one plant a church? Ah, the million dollar question... It actually should be asked like this: "How does one tell someone about the Good News of the Kingdom of God and have it transform his or her life?" This is a contextual question, with no one way to answer it. Still, from what I have been reading, it seems that a church planter should use the simplest methods available. I've recently been reading Fr. Vincent Donovan's "Christianity Rediscovered" and his account of evangelizing the Masai people of Africa for the Roman Catholic Church. Now, I have to be honest, I've had a problem with missionary work because of its distinct ties to colonial imperialism and the utter destruction of indigenous culture and community. However, this is not the approach Fr. Vincent uses; instead he simply tells each community he visits the story of Jesus Christ in as simple and as culturally relevant terms as possible. From there he allows these people to form their own understanding of what church is by allowing their culture to inform what church looks like. Fr. Vincent allowed for an authentic response from these communities and by allowing this to happen, the Masai "got it" without loosing their way of life, their dignity or their humanity. What Fr. Vincent did was let go of all that he had come to understand as church: the priesthood, and the sacraments. He did this ot to lose these things, but to enhance them--to become more thus allowing the individuals engaging in them to also become more. What he presented them with was the essential good news of the Bible--he did not spend time trying to explain doctrine or church history, he simply told them the Story. And it was enough.

Church is not about conforming to a particular doctrine, set of values, or type of people: church is an authentic response to the presence of God among us, and the good news she has shared with us. It is experiencing tranformation, participating in it, and inviting others to share the mystery of God with us. God isn't asking us to go to church, she is asking us to BE THE CHURCH.

So, I've been running into a lot of people lately who, unlike the Masai, have had an experience of Christianity and Jesus. I would love for my non-readers to share with me their understanding of Jesus--good or bad.