When mystery and revealed truth are held in tension

Bob’s recent post on the level-headed nuance of a faith that admits to having both questions and answers still has me clapping my hands a few days later.

I so strongly want to echo his sentiment here in Seattle, where in the last year I’ve realized the spiritual landscape is dominated by people who “know” that Jonathan Edwards’ wrath-god gives us cancer and predestines those He hates for hell, and some folks who read about five pages of Derrida, wet themselves, and are now convinced that we can’t accept any of Jesus’ claims and expectations as normative.

The only difference between these groups, I suppose, is that the latter group will at least admit that they are only loosely affiliated with Christ and his Way.

Is it really a mystery why so few people in Seattle follow Christ when those who claim to be Christians spout such sub-Christian views on life and faith? Is there any room for nuance between extremes in a city that is said to be well educated and literate?

Without sounding like too much of a martryr, I should note that there are others (like these friends) who are trying to make Christ’s Way known in this city — not settling for wrath-god or feeble wallowing in uncertainty — but too often it feels like it’s the sub-gospels that dictate the spiritual climate in this city, and the rest of us are left to play by crooked rules.

All that to say I’m thankful and refreshed by Bob’s words, and hope that the dynamic that exists within Evergreen in Portland would find deep roots in several faith communities here in Seattle.

Video venues and the Spirit’s movement

This isn’t going to be a long or eloquent post, but I wanted to toss out there why I think that the video venue route of church growth hinders church from their potential in ministry.

I know Bob has continuously made some great points about the video venue franchising of large churches, which results in a handful of pastors really being the pastors of the entire American church as they their message into numerous markets. Get excited: the celebrity pastor is coming to a city near you! It creates a church climate in which these celebrity pastors are indispensable. He recently had a good post about how a notorious Seattle pastor’s teaching is making its way down to Portland by way of video venue franchising, and why he’s less supportive of said video venue than other Portland-area church plants. (I agree with his point, even if my ecclesiological issues with this Seattle pastor are so greatly overshadowed by my theological concerns that they hardly seem to matter.)

The idea of church on a screen seems so antithetical to what Portland’s all about in terms of the city’s personality. (Again my larger concerns are on the theological end, but I think I don’t even know if that methodology works in a place like Portland. Then again, the sort of PDXers who would buy the theology probably aren’t entirely connected to city’s general personality.) Portland just doesn’t seem like a celebrity pastor type of city.

On the one hand, I contend that the celebrity pastor issue isn’t entirely attached to the video venue sensation. Even pastors put themselves at the feet of a few persons of influence (a lot of pastors’ teaching is only as good as those from whom they’re gleaning). NT Wright isn’t exactly using loads of new media to spread his teaching, yet tons of people “follow” him (myself included). But I’ll counter my own point and note that Wright is a biblical scholar and not known for any teaching toward a local flock. (I think it makes sense for pastors to be quasi-attached to Wright, because I think pastors need to have a good enough grip on biblical studies to know why they’re utilizing particular biblical scholars. Until we figure out how to create 30-hour days, I think that’s the extent to which the local pastor should wear her biblical scholar hat.)

I think the point that Bob makes (and makes it well) is that there’s something to be said for the locality of preaching – a teaching pastor who knows the lives and stories of those to whom she is preaching. I also believe the video venue model stifles the identification and development of ministry giftings within the Church. While I agree with that concern, I have another concern that is of even greater importance to me, probably because of the quasi-charismatic component of my theology and practice: video venues make it difficult to identify and respond to locality of the Holy Spirit’s movement.

Again, I understand that if someone is coming from a non- or anti-charismatic place, then this doesn’t make sense. But it’s my reservation nonetheless. The video venue format for church growth hinders a church’s main campus (with live teaching) as well as the extension campuses because the opportunity to alter a service itinerary in response to the Spirit’s prompting is so greatly reduced.

Whether we’re singing, preaching, praying, or whatever, there are times when the Spirit is nudging us into something different (better, I’m guessing) than what we have planned. There’s a difference between gathering to pursue God and gathering to perform the actions of people who are pursuing God (playing church). I believe that the former can happen in churches of all different kinds of churches with their varying liturgical tendencies, but it requires remaining flexible to the locality and immediacy of the Spirit’s work to some extent.

If I’m leading musical worship at the main campus of a video venue, then I need to get through my songs in a certain amount of time because Pastor X needs to hit the stage at 11:45AM so that he can be seen and heard in each of the burbs. There’s not a whole lot of pausing to remain in prayer, or continuing with music when it appears that the Spirit is up to something unique. Instead, one of my foremost concerns at worship leader is watching the clock. Well a church in this format isn’t necessarily just going through the motions, you can see why such a church would be much more likely to regress into a performance mindset.

If I’m preaching, there might be a day when the Spirit nudges me to re-route my sermon – something as simple as elaborating on a particular point, or stopping early because I perceive that the Spirit wants to minister differently. Does this happen all the time? Nope. But it can (and should, I think) happen more often in a setting where the ministers are live and in-person, rather than the franchised video venue.

The assumption is that the Spirit is moving in the exact same way in each of the fourteen video campuses. The insinuation is that, in terms of specifics, the Spirit actually isn’t directing much at all.

I realize that what I see as the stifling of the work of God in our “worship” settings is the result of more than franchised churches and celebrity pastors. There are plenty of “organic” churches that, for a variety of reasons, could have the same itinerary-first approaching to pursuing God corporately. In both settings, church gatherings become more about accomplishing items such as music and preaching than an aching, desperate pursuit of God.  But the video venue thing scares me because choosing to go to that method of church growth is a big financial, emotional, and strategic commitment. I’m not saying there would no going back once you chose to go down that path, but it wouldn’t be easy.

But these are just the thoughts of one opinionated young pastor who believes the Spirit is willing to move in the midst of us more than we allow.

Why are you so mad about Facebook and Twitter?

Reading the Relevant website today, I came across an article from Brett McCracken titled “The Death of Facebook,” in which McCracken blasts the recent chain-post “25 Random Things” that blazed Facebook in recent weeks. He believes that the utter lameness of the 25 things phenomenon will propel Facebook into cultural faux pas and irrelevance.

In other words, he thinks Facebook is about to go MySpace on us.

It’s really clear that the author is not a fan of social networking of this type. Not in the least. But I wonder if his description of how and why social networking sites are used really shines light on why the average person (or at least the average person of legal adulthood) uses such sites. 

Here’s the climax of the article:

I feel like I have false notions of so many people, just because I know them only or primarily through the Internet. It’s so much more interesting and enlightening to get to know someone in reality, without all that. I like being able to discover things about people by asking them, hearing from them, having mysteries and encountering little discoveries along the way. I like seeing the dissonance between someone’s facial expression and or body language and what they are saying. When we all have control over what we look like and how we define ourselves on the Internet, it removes that mystery. And it turns “friendship” into something that has less to do with knowing people deeply than just knowing whatever bits and pieces of them they want to reveal (which happens in real-world relationships too, but moreso on the Internet).  

Human beings are far, far more complex and wonderful than their status updates and “ingredient listing” profile pages. And it is far more rewarding and profound to get to know someone in an unsafe, slightly uncertain and awkward way than to rigorously research them and pretend to know them via all the accumulated Internet data on them.  

So let’s take a step back from “25 Things” and think about this. Do we really think that sending out mass notes with carefully selected tidbits about ourselves is making anyone more known? Who are we kidding? As a mindless diversion and exercise in classic facebook self-love, it’s fine. But as a commentary on the uses and practices of online social networking (which I think it pretty much is), “25 Things” is nothing if not a warning sign that the end is near. 

I think the author’s points are interesting (not to mention articulate, which I appreciate). But I generally disagree with his conclusions, and want to point out a few reasons why. (I’m not even going to get into the fact that Relevant thrives on the culture he’s bashing; it’s like Sports Illustrated running a piece about how sports are dull and and we should all be more interesting in knitting.)

1) All mediums of communication suffer from the shortcomings this article attributes to Twitter, Facebook, and the like. If anything, this validates Facebook and other forms of online social networking. Have you ever said anything super embarrassing over the phone? How many “sacred” face-to-face conversations do you make it through without saying something you regret?

If people look back on the “25 things” (which I didn’t participate in, by the way, so I’m not writing out of some deep wound or bias) and say to themselves, “That was so lame of me,” so what? Does that invalidate Facebook as a medium for communication? Or is it actually the other way around?

2.) The Internet is reality, as much as a face-to-face conversation is reality. If we’re going to have a big old philosophical conversation of reality and its ontology, I think we’ll find that poking someone on Facebook is “real” in that it happens. Is it significant? I don’t think it is. If it’s meaning we’re after, then let’s identify that. But people create reality that is not significant (think: reality television) all the time, and many of the face-to-face interactions we have are just as shallow. All of that to say I think people are enthralled with the idea that they can create reality (even if that reality is not significant to most of us).

3.) Social networking is probably used to maintain relationships far more often than it is used to create relationships. Most of the criticisms of Facebook and Twitter are knocks on their ability to help us get to know someone. (Which in itself is a questionable point because we carry such a strong facade on the phone or sitting across a table over coffee. I’m not deconstructing this to the point of saying it is impossible to truly know another person. I’m just saying that I don’t observe a lop-sided impact of insincerity and facade in one particular medium of communication.) 

Facade aside, I think there’s something to be said of shared experience as a relationship-builder. And it’s more difficult to share experiences online than in person, I think. My guess is that most of us don’t attempt to do that, however. There are already people in our life with whom we’ve built shared experience and story, and we use things like Facebook to maintain the relationships beyond and in addition to those shared experiences.

Which leads to my next point.

4.) We are scattered. In the past six years, I’ve lived in Cleveland, Boston, and Seattle while having short stints (but building very cool relationships) in Chicago and Portland. There are so many incredible people I’ve met in each of those stops, and I want to continue those relationships still. 

Psychologist Malcolm Gladwell says in his book The Tipping Point that human beings, on average, have the capacity to maintain between 12 and 13 close relationships. I think my personal capacity might even be below that average. At the same time, I absolutely love people I’ve met along my different stops. So while I don’t think it’d be healthy for my entire 12 to consist of people outside of Seattle (where I am now), I think it’d be weird if there weren’t 3 or 4 people on my list from places like Cleveland and Boston. I see integrity in that.

Not only do I want part of my 12 to reflect the other points along my pilgrimage, but I would like to think that people outside my 12 aren’t dead to me. I would like to think that I could maintain relationships with the occasional Facebook “How are you?” or by reading up on what my friend is up to these days.

It’s a much-improved version of the Christmas card relationships of our parents’ generation. 

I use examples from my own story, but I believe that most people are in a similar position to my own. If anything, I think people (especially folks who are 10-15 years older than me) are more traveled and connected than I am. Globalization is not simply an economic term; it’s something that happens to us as people more and more with each passing year.

I don’t want to be punished relationally for having relocated a few times. Nor do I want to stick it to my friends who’ve done the same. Why should globalization cause us to fracture friendships and familial relationships? It makes no sense.

Is the “25 random things” phenomenon going to cause Facebook to shed it’s hip factor? I doubt it. But even if that did happen, there would come a new social networking site. Because millions of people are looking to utilize such sites to preserve connections around the world.

How ready are we to dismiss that as shallow?

Even when a networking site becomes lame and goes by the wayside, our maintained friendships tend to shift over to the next “in” site (how many of us have Facebook friends today that we’ve preserved from MySpace and Friendster days?). I don’t think we’re necessarily shallow. I think we’re learning how to navigate relationally through increasing globalization.

Because friends are friends, and we have them all over the place.

Intro to the NBA season

The 2008-2009 season is underway as of tonight. The Boston Celtics are looking to turn last season’s title into a mini-legacy by winning again this year. In the Western Conference, the Los Angeles Lakers look to rebound after getting dropped by the Celts in last year’s Finals, while younger teams (Portland and New Orleans) look to leap past perennial playoff squads like Phoenix and San Antonio.

It’s only October, but here’s how I think things will shake down by June.

(* for playoff teams)

EASTERN CONFERENCE

Atlantic Division: *Boston, *Toronto, *Philadelphia, New Jersey, New York

Central Division: *Cleveland, *Milwaukee, *Detroit, Chicago, Indiana

Southeast Division: *Orlando, *Miami, Atlanta, Washington, Charlotte

WESTERN CONFERENCE

Southwest Division: *New Orleans, *Houston, *Dallas, *San Antonio, Memphis

Northwest Division: *Portland, *Utah, Oklahoma City, Denver, Minneapolis

Pacific Division: *Los Angeles Lakers, *Phoenix, Golden State, Los Angeles Clippers, Sacramento

Eastern Conference Finals: Boston over Cleveland

Western Conference Finals: Houston over Portland

NBA Finals: Boston over Houston

MVP: LeBron James, Cleveland

ROY: Greg Oden, Portland

COY: Nate McMillan, Portland

Damien Jurado’s new listens

I’m posting these just because I so enjoy Damien Jurado’s music, and the new songs are right in line with the good work he’s been doing for some time now.

If you’re someone who has listened to Jurado for awhile, then this first track might bring you back to the days of I Break Chairs. The guitar tone in this one is great – a real warm crunch on the chorus. “Go First” (there’s no video to it, just the album cover):

This other video is of “Last Rights,” and it was taken at a show Jurado played last month in Portland.

I agree with Evergreen

Just as I finished up my last post regarding faith and politics, I did a little web-surfing and came into a great thread on the discussion board at The Evergreen Community in Portland, a church with whom Julie and I spent the past few months during our Portland stay (which looks to be coming to an end all too soon with our Seattle transition).

In the most transparent way (the online forum is freely posted to be seen by members, visitors, considerers and naysayers alike), and with more humility than I sometimes exhibit, the good folks at Evergreen touch on some of the pressing questions for Christians to ask themselves in this election cycle.

Since the forum is public anyway, I’m going to take the liberty of calling attention to this thread because I think it’s an example of critical thought as well as the way that church members should relate with one another.

To Seattle

Personal note: Julie and I are moving up to Seattle – hopefully moved in by the middle of September. Long story short, we moved to Portland to go through graduate program at George Fox, but after moving across the country we found that Fox’s program wasn’t financially viable (in other words, their financial aid package was such that we’d be better ministers by not going through their program, rather than incurring the expense they were charging).

Portland is a great city, though. I sure wouldn’t mind moving back someday. The cost of living is low for a city of its size. People are friendly. Roads aren’t clogged with traffic. Stores are accessible. Though I didn’t have time to build the sort of friendships I had in Boston, Portland, in three months, was starting to feel more like “home” than Boston did over four years, in terms of feeling comfortable in an area. So we’ll have to come back to visit, drink Stumptown, and buy some good reads at Powell’s.

But now we drive north. (It’s less than 200 miles, so not a big move by any stretch.) Julie is going to be working in the University Ministries department at Seattle Pacific University, a school we’ve admired for quite awhile now. The hope is that both of us will have the chance to pastorally meet the needs of students at that school and the others around it.

We’ll see what develops.

So if you have any great connections on tasteful and affordable housing close to Seattle’s Queen Anne neighborhood (or along a bus line that travels there), you know who to call.

New city equals a new blog.

Julie and I landed in Portland last week, completing our personal Oregon Trail from Boston. The trip included visits to both sides of the family, terrible Mexican food establishments across the Great Plains and Mountain West, narrowly averting a tornadic experience, and a lackluster arrival at our destination.

 

When we settled the “wagon” in the place where we were planning to live, we discovered that the landlord and the Craigslist ad had failed to mention the sheer ghettoness factor of it all. After walking around the block for a few hours to make sure we were digesting everything properly – was everything truly as run-down as it seemed? – we strutted on over to the police station to get their expertise, to find out if this neighborhood plays out like an episode of Cops. The officer went as far as to giggle when we mentioned the intersection where we’d planned to settle, and told us this was not a smart decision.

 

We didn’t move across the country to be bystanders (or victims, for that matter) in an episode of Cops. There’s a difference between gentrification and being an idiot.

 

So we crashed in a hotel for yet another night, and scouted some places the next morning. We found a good place with low rent (and it’s on a month-to-month basis, so we can bounce whenever it seems right). And the new place is super close to the seminary, which will be good news come September (when classes start).

——

Observations on Portland to this point:

The people are crazy nice, reaching out to us in the gas station, grocery store, parking lots, etc. Traffic is a total non-factor out here, which is a breath of fresh air after Boston’s crowded ways. Much more of a mellow demeanor out here. (It’s funny, actually, because now I feel like the intense one and the aggressive driver (though I was extremely passive and defensive by Boston standards).

 

The people are also abnormally apologetic. Mind you, this is a really great place out here. But the locals constantly apologize to us for things like weather, cost of living, and traffic – even though those are the areas where we’re sensing the most significant improvement from Boston. 

 

Also, we were told that the area is somewhat liberal/progressive. In Julie’s seminary interview, the interviewing professor was warning her about the “secular” ways of Portland. After being here, I have to laugh. Maybe that professor needs to go out East to learn what secular looks like. Not that I like this, but in Portland they are rocking the Christian radio stations, Christian bookstores, Christian coffee shops, Christian bumper stickers, etc.

 

Sure, Portland might seem progressive because of green causes or gay rights stuff, but it’s totally different than out East. There’s resentment to Jesus out East that I don’t sense here. It’s like “tolerate… or I’ll kill you” there. It’s a different intensity.

 

Portland seems like a good place for a moderate – even the Right-leaning ones. I am excited about all of the green efforts out here.

 

From a theological standpoint, the Christian landscape seems quite different than what we left. New England loves the small mainline churches, Congregational, Presbyterian, and Anglican really draw the bulk of the crowd. Out this way, Christianity seems to come in two main forms – hyper-Evangelical and emergent (or at least sort of emergent).

 

The Evangelical community, as we’re picking up on it, seems very reactionary to the so-called secular culture in Portland, hence all of the Christian-as-adjective products planted throughout the area. The emergent churches are very prominent out here, though some of them are probably casual Evangelical churches dressed in the aesthetics usually associated with emergent communities. When it boils down to theology, Statements of Faith, and whatnot, the churches are still saying, “Women in ministry? Yeah, sure, as long as it’s only toward women and children.” Circular, hyperbolic theologies about Scripture are still present in the doctrinal statements. So while I don’t care to be overtly critical of my Evangelical friends in Christ, I must say that it is difficult to locate a truly emerging community of faith.

 

That said, I am impressed by this one: http://evergreenlife.org

—–

 

Julie and I don’t miss the crowdedness or the ambition-to-the-point-of-sheer-rage nature of life out East, but we do miss the people. For being broke students who scratch to get by, we know that we are wealthy in every way that matters. To move across the country, we had to wave good-bye to some caring, warm, generous, and lifeful friends. We wish we could have just filled the moving truck with them. (We joked about it: “Immigration Vacation.”) It’s not like we won’t see our Boston friends again, but it won’t be often enough. We’re excited to make friends in Portland, and we’re praying that our Boston relationships survive the distance.