New Year's Eve is almost upon us.
It's 2009! An opportunity for new resolutions, a chance to start over, an occasion to set our sights on the future. Right?
Bullshit.
As it currently exists, New Year's Eve is a commercialized, pagan spectacle that affords a rationalization for indulging in base passions like drunkenness and self-indulgent partying. Watch "Dick Clark's Rockin' New Year" (or whatever it's called) and tell me if it is anything more than an expensive, glamorized frat party in Times Square.
Do I sound judgmental? I'm not intending to be.
In fact, I'm trying to interpret this merry-making in some kind of redemptive way. There is obviously some deep need in the human psyche that people are trying to fill with all of this hedonism that exists, not just on New Years' Eve, but all the time in our culture. Are people merely trying to escape the harsh reality of life? Or are they seeking some legitimate pleasure, only through the wrong means?
Once again, I turn to my master C. S. Lewis, and I find this in his "golden sermon," The Weight of Glory:
Nature is mortal; we shall outlive her...We are summoned to pass in through Nature, beyond her, into that splendour which she fitfully reflects. And in there, beyond Nature, we shall eat of the tree of life. At present, if we are reborn in Christ, the spirit in us lives directly on God; but the mind and, still more, the body receives the life from Him at a thousand removes. The faint, far-off results of those energies which God's creative rapture implanted in matter when He made the worlds are now what we call "physical pleasures;" and even thus filtered, they are too much for our present management. What would it be to taste at the fountainhead that stream of which even these lower reaches prove so intoxicating? Yet that, I believe, is what lies before us. The whole man is to drink joy from the fountain of joy. As St. Augustine said, the rapture of the saved soul will "flow over" into the glorified body.
If Lewis is right, and I believe he is, then every physical pleasure in which we now indulge ourselves, even the basest of them, is in some sense a shadow of what we are to experience in Heaven. The medieval saints were wrong in supposing that Heaven is nothing more than a "beatific vision": a detatched, objective gaze at God's essence for all eternity. For Lewis tells us that in Heaven, we will consume God, and be consumed by Him (though without losing our own identities), in the same way (though a million times greater) that people consume and are consumed by the hedonistic pleasures of this life. The merriment of alcohol, the physical joy of dancing and singing, the passionate glory of the sexual act...all of these, in some odd way, point beyond themselves when they are understood and enjoyed correctly. They are hints of a rapturous ecstasy that, God willing, we will one day experience for all eternity.
Our culture sends way too many messages of the pleasures of alcohol, partying, and sex. When people get "taken in" by those messages and indulge those pleasures, we often accuse them of having desires that are too strong. But we are wrong. Their desires are not too strong...they are too weak. They are desiring the shadows, the idols, rather than the Reality...much like a child who would rather remain playing in his sandbox than enjoy a vacation at the beach.
If "Dick Clark's Rockin' New Year" (or whatever it's called) is merely a shadow of the joy and ecstasy that Heaven affords, then I hope and pray that I will live life knowing that even "our present sufferings are not worth comparing to the glory that will be revealed to us" (Romans 8:18).
May we all "imbibe God" through Word, Sacrament, and Obedience in this life, knowing that He is the Consuming Fire who will intoxicate us for all eternity.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
Purpose-Driven Idiots
Because of the flood of annual responsibilities that beset me this December, I haven't been keeping up with the national news as I should. After all, Christmas is the season of "Joy to the World"... Why should I watch the news and become even more depressed than King Herod upon the arrival of the Wise Men?
Anyway, this morning my dad informed me about the latest of several controversies that have surrounded Barack Obama before he has even taken the Oath of Office: Is it his selection of another "moderate" for a cabinet position? Is it his relationship with the corrupt governor and political machine in Chicago? No, nothing so mundane...
Apparently Obama has committed the unpardonable sin by requesting an invocation from Pastor Rick Warren on inauguration day. Gays and lesbians are offended that someone committed to a biblical view of marriage, and who supported the controversial California Proposition 8 restricting legal marriage to heterosexuals only, would be invited to Obama's inauguration...especially when Obama "promised them so much." Some evangelical conservatives are upset that Warren is even associated with Obama. I think all these people need to chill out and listen to a good story:
During my sophomore year in college, my grandfather passed away right before finals. It was a traumatic moment in my life. After I found out, I told a couple of the guys in my dorm. One was a friend who happened to be Jewish. Later that evening, he came to my dorm room, expressed his genuine sympathy, and offered to pray with me.
Now get this: As a Jew, he rejects my fundamental belief that Jesus Christ really was the Son of God and the Savior of all humanity. But I was not about to indulge in self-righteousness or narcissism by pushing aside his prayer. He was a friend. He genuinely cared. And like any person of goodwill, he felt compelled to reach out to me. I don't need to agree with his theology, or anything else for that matter, to appreciate the genuine intent of his heart.
Fast-forward to today: I like Barack Obama immensely for his optimism, I think he is a good husband and father, and I am impressed with his ability to reach out to former rivals like Hillary and McCain for the sake of the country. But I disagree with him on many issues, and I fear that his economic plans will do more long-term harm than good. I think especially that his position on abortion is atrocious. In spite of this, I wish him goodwill and intend on praying for him daily. To those "conservatives" who decry Rick Warren for his association with Obama, I say this: Even if you regard Obama as your enemy, you are under orders from Jesus Christ Himself to pray for him.
As for the gay and lesbian community: We are a nation at war in the Middle East, and the financial situation in this country is worsening. Very few Americans can comprehend the weight that will fall on Obama's shoulders in one short month. The fact that gays and lesbians are complaining about such a petty issue (Rick Warren doing the invocation) at this time shows that they are not motivated by goodwill, but by their own anger and intolerance for anyone who would dare to disagree with them. That makes them just as bad as some of the "evangelicals" that they decry.
Anyway, this morning my dad informed me about the latest of several controversies that have surrounded Barack Obama before he has even taken the Oath of Office: Is it his selection of another "moderate" for a cabinet position? Is it his relationship with the corrupt governor and political machine in Chicago? No, nothing so mundane...
Apparently Obama has committed the unpardonable sin by requesting an invocation from Pastor Rick Warren on inauguration day. Gays and lesbians are offended that someone committed to a biblical view of marriage, and who supported the controversial California Proposition 8 restricting legal marriage to heterosexuals only, would be invited to Obama's inauguration...especially when Obama "promised them so much." Some evangelical conservatives are upset that Warren is even associated with Obama. I think all these people need to chill out and listen to a good story:
During my sophomore year in college, my grandfather passed away right before finals. It was a traumatic moment in my life. After I found out, I told a couple of the guys in my dorm. One was a friend who happened to be Jewish. Later that evening, he came to my dorm room, expressed his genuine sympathy, and offered to pray with me.
Now get this: As a Jew, he rejects my fundamental belief that Jesus Christ really was the Son of God and the Savior of all humanity. But I was not about to indulge in self-righteousness or narcissism by pushing aside his prayer. He was a friend. He genuinely cared. And like any person of goodwill, he felt compelled to reach out to me. I don't need to agree with his theology, or anything else for that matter, to appreciate the genuine intent of his heart.
Fast-forward to today: I like Barack Obama immensely for his optimism, I think he is a good husband and father, and I am impressed with his ability to reach out to former rivals like Hillary and McCain for the sake of the country. But I disagree with him on many issues, and I fear that his economic plans will do more long-term harm than good. I think especially that his position on abortion is atrocious. In spite of this, I wish him goodwill and intend on praying for him daily. To those "conservatives" who decry Rick Warren for his association with Obama, I say this: Even if you regard Obama as your enemy, you are under orders from Jesus Christ Himself to pray for him.
As for the gay and lesbian community: We are a nation at war in the Middle East, and the financial situation in this country is worsening. Very few Americans can comprehend the weight that will fall on Obama's shoulders in one short month. The fact that gays and lesbians are complaining about such a petty issue (Rick Warren doing the invocation) at this time shows that they are not motivated by goodwill, but by their own anger and intolerance for anyone who would dare to disagree with them. That makes them just as bad as some of the "evangelicals" that they decry.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Hail Mary!
As Christmas approaches, I engage in my yearly tradition of meditating on the Nativity narratives found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. For me, the compelling figure of Mary always jumps out of the text.
I was raised a Roman Catholic, a Christian tradition that uplifts the role of Mary to the point of idolatry. Some faithful Catholics argue that Mary is the "co-redemptrix." Utilizing what they call the Eve-Mary parallel, they argue that Mary's role in redemption is just as definitive as Eve's role in damnation. They draw the conclusion that Jesus and Mary participate together in effecting our salvation, that without Mary's crucial yes to God's will, we would have no Jesus and therefore no hope of salvation. With the help of allegorical exegesis, they also argue that Mary is now crowned Queen of Heaven, that she is worshipped along with the Trinity, and that sincere devotion to her is required of any faithful Catholic.
In my move towards Protestantism I shunned much of this dogma, but as I mature in my faith, I have come to realize that Protestants have an equally flawed view of Mary. If Catholics make too much of her, Protestants make far too little of her. They often see her as nothing more than a "vessel" through whom God worked, and they fail to uplift her as one of the greatest models of faith to emanate from the pages of Scripture.
I recently read an article by Scot McKnight, religion prof at North Park University. He examines Mary's wonderful prophetic hymn "The Magnificat" in Luke 1:46-55, and he asks the question: What kind of a woman would speak the words of The Magnificat when Herod the Great was on the throne?
It's an interesting observation: What kind of a woman would say that God will cast down corrupt, demonic rulers from their thrones like King Herod, and exalt a lowly peasant woman like herself? When the Roman empire oppressed the poor anawim (the lost and forgotten common people) with high taxes and struck fear into their hearts through terror, Mary had the boldness to assert that these proud rulers will be scattered by the strength of the almighty. When rich, pagan Greeks took control of their land and squandered the food and other resources, Mary knows that God will send them away empty while giving good things to those who are hungry. And while she is nothing but a teenaged girl, she has the chutzpah to believe that "all generations" will call her blessed.
Certainly Mary was not perfect and sinless, as some Catholics assert. She herself needed a Savior (see Lk 1:47). But Mary was a woman who understood that to be a follower of the one true God is to envision a radically different world, where service and humility are the marks of greatness rather than power and domination. She understood that God's will is not just that we accept His grace in our hearts and then wait patiently for the "sweet by and by," but that our calling is to activity in the world on behalf of the poor, oppressed, and marginalized people like Mary herself.
Even when told that she would be the mother of the Messiah, Mary did not merely sit back and contemplate her own blessing, but she immediately went out to be a blessing to someone else: her relative Elizabeth who was also pregnant. She understood that her calling was to live a life of radical discipleship, regardless of the cost to herself.
And in an age when many church leaders think that we must sell out to the culture in order to be "cool" and "popular," Mary understood that to be associated with Jesus is to endure shame and suffering (see, for example, Matthew 13:53-58), and to accept them as a part of one's earthly discipleship. Indeed, what shame and suffering must she she have endured to stand beneath the cross, witnessing her battered Son draw His final breaths, not for His own sins, but for ours! Much more shame and suffering than most of us would be willing to endure!
If you look at the whole span of Jesus' life, you see Mary at the beginning and at the end, and in both places she is faithful, courageous, and humble. If God truly rewards faithfulness and exalts those of low degree (Lk 1:52), then certainly Mary is exalted in Heaven, and we should exalt her on earth...not as a Savior, but as a model of everything that we should be in following her Son, Jesus Christ.
I was raised a Roman Catholic, a Christian tradition that uplifts the role of Mary to the point of idolatry. Some faithful Catholics argue that Mary is the "co-redemptrix." Utilizing what they call the Eve-Mary parallel, they argue that Mary's role in redemption is just as definitive as Eve's role in damnation. They draw the conclusion that Jesus and Mary participate together in effecting our salvation, that without Mary's crucial yes to God's will, we would have no Jesus and therefore no hope of salvation. With the help of allegorical exegesis, they also argue that Mary is now crowned Queen of Heaven, that she is worshipped along with the Trinity, and that sincere devotion to her is required of any faithful Catholic.
In my move towards Protestantism I shunned much of this dogma, but as I mature in my faith, I have come to realize that Protestants have an equally flawed view of Mary. If Catholics make too much of her, Protestants make far too little of her. They often see her as nothing more than a "vessel" through whom God worked, and they fail to uplift her as one of the greatest models of faith to emanate from the pages of Scripture.
I recently read an article by Scot McKnight, religion prof at North Park University. He examines Mary's wonderful prophetic hymn "The Magnificat" in Luke 1:46-55, and he asks the question: What kind of a woman would speak the words of The Magnificat when Herod the Great was on the throne?
It's an interesting observation: What kind of a woman would say that God will cast down corrupt, demonic rulers from their thrones like King Herod, and exalt a lowly peasant woman like herself? When the Roman empire oppressed the poor anawim (the lost and forgotten common people) with high taxes and struck fear into their hearts through terror, Mary had the boldness to assert that these proud rulers will be scattered by the strength of the almighty. When rich, pagan Greeks took control of their land and squandered the food and other resources, Mary knows that God will send them away empty while giving good things to those who are hungry. And while she is nothing but a teenaged girl, she has the chutzpah to believe that "all generations" will call her blessed.
Certainly Mary was not perfect and sinless, as some Catholics assert. She herself needed a Savior (see Lk 1:47). But Mary was a woman who understood that to be a follower of the one true God is to envision a radically different world, where service and humility are the marks of greatness rather than power and domination. She understood that God's will is not just that we accept His grace in our hearts and then wait patiently for the "sweet by and by," but that our calling is to activity in the world on behalf of the poor, oppressed, and marginalized people like Mary herself.
Even when told that she would be the mother of the Messiah, Mary did not merely sit back and contemplate her own blessing, but she immediately went out to be a blessing to someone else: her relative Elizabeth who was also pregnant. She understood that her calling was to live a life of radical discipleship, regardless of the cost to herself.
And in an age when many church leaders think that we must sell out to the culture in order to be "cool" and "popular," Mary understood that to be associated with Jesus is to endure shame and suffering (see, for example, Matthew 13:53-58), and to accept them as a part of one's earthly discipleship. Indeed, what shame and suffering must she she have endured to stand beneath the cross, witnessing her battered Son draw His final breaths, not for His own sins, but for ours! Much more shame and suffering than most of us would be willing to endure!
If you look at the whole span of Jesus' life, you see Mary at the beginning and at the end, and in both places she is faithful, courageous, and humble. If God truly rewards faithfulness and exalts those of low degree (Lk 1:52), then certainly Mary is exalted in Heaven, and we should exalt her on earth...not as a Savior, but as a model of everything that we should be in following her Son, Jesus Christ.
Friday, December 12, 2008
One Symphonic Voice
So I'm sitting in my office this morning, and the sound of one of my favorite orchestral compositions is emanating from my speakers: Symphony No. 3 by Aaron Copland (arguably the greatest American composer). What makes this piece so compelling for me is that Copland took a very simple musical theme--introduced right at the beginning--and then he weaved that theme intricately through four movements of a diverse cacophony of sounds. The symphony takes you through every expression of human emotion, with the voice of every instrument in the orchestra carrying the lead at different parts. There are moments of irritating dissonance, rhythmic complexity, and triumphant tonality. Yet the discerning listener will not fail to perceive the one voice that speaks through all this diversity. And that--I would argue--is the beauty of the best classical music.
I see the same compelling artistry in that wonderful book we call The Bible. From Genesis to Revelation, there is one redemptive theme clearly intended by the Author...one Voice that speaks. But from its pages leap a rich diversity of narrative, poetry, wisdom teaching, ethics, and doctrinal statements. Its Hero is presented in four distinct portraits (movements?), each with its own particular nuances, but all of which focus on the Cross and Resurrection as the central theme of His life.
Swiss Theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar once wrote that Truth is symphonic. I'm not quite sure how to interpret that statement. I mean...I'm not a relativist. I don't believe that there are multiple ways to Heaven, and I think a huge part of our calling as ministers of the Gospel is to draw a sharp distinction between truth and error.
At the same time, I can't help but think that part of what has made the Bible such a compelling book is that it is shaped with all the complexity of a great symphony...its Author is more like a storyteller, artist, or musician than a philosopher or a dogmatist. Is it possible that, out of the diversity of voices currently present in the Church, God may just be able to craft a beautiful work of art? Is it possible that when we all focus on Jesus Christ and His Cross, which is the theme of Scripture, then we will play in harmony? That even the dissonance that sometimes exists within the Church may be a part of the Composer's greater plan?
May we all play our parts in the Symphony of Triumph, trusting in the Composer's wisdom to make His One Voice heard through us.
I see the same compelling artistry in that wonderful book we call The Bible. From Genesis to Revelation, there is one redemptive theme clearly intended by the Author...one Voice that speaks. But from its pages leap a rich diversity of narrative, poetry, wisdom teaching, ethics, and doctrinal statements. Its Hero is presented in four distinct portraits (movements?), each with its own particular nuances, but all of which focus on the Cross and Resurrection as the central theme of His life.
Swiss Theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar once wrote that Truth is symphonic. I'm not quite sure how to interpret that statement. I mean...I'm not a relativist. I don't believe that there are multiple ways to Heaven, and I think a huge part of our calling as ministers of the Gospel is to draw a sharp distinction between truth and error.
At the same time, I can't help but think that part of what has made the Bible such a compelling book is that it is shaped with all the complexity of a great symphony...its Author is more like a storyteller, artist, or musician than a philosopher or a dogmatist. Is it possible that, out of the diversity of voices currently present in the Church, God may just be able to craft a beautiful work of art? Is it possible that when we all focus on Jesus Christ and His Cross, which is the theme of Scripture, then we will play in harmony? That even the dissonance that sometimes exists within the Church may be a part of the Composer's greater plan?
May we all play our parts in the Symphony of Triumph, trusting in the Composer's wisdom to make His One Voice heard through us.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Let's Talk About Sex, Baby...
Below is another answer that I submitted in my ordination paper, regarding the church's position on human sexuality.
If you want to hear an incredible talk on the Christian teaching of sexuality, go to the following link-- http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/24_sex-in-heaven.htm -- and listen to the thoughts of masterful Christian apologist Peter Kreeft. It's worth the time!
Anyway, here's my own writing on the subject:
Articulate the Evangelical Covenant Church’s position on human sexuality. How does this inform your theology and practice of ministry?
In its stand on human sexuality, the ECC avoids two notions. The first is that the Bible calls for repression of the human sexual drive, that sex is (at worst) the product and proof of original sin or (at best) a necessary evil that is to be indulged only for reproductive purposes. The second notion posits no standards or limits on human sexuality, asserting that individuals alone must decide how to indulge their sexual appetites and that any Biblical injunctions on the subject are archaic, irrelevant, and inconsistent with human freedom.
In contrast to these false visions of sex, the ECC upholds the Biblical teaching that human sexuality is good—in fact, that sexuality is intimately tied to our identities as embodied persons—but that God has ordained a specific covenantal relationship to express human sexuality in a way that reflects His nature as an intimately loving, self-giving Being. That covenantal relationship exists when a specific man and specific woman come together as complementary partners and are united as “one flesh” under God. In this context alone, sex may be expressed in a godly fashion. Outside of that context, an individual must be willing to live a chaste life. Corrupted forms of sexuality are characterized either by the desire to dominate another (rape, molestation, pedophilia) or by a confused understanding of one’s own identity as a person (homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, incest). These perversions do not reflect God’s standards as laid out in both the Old and New Testaments.
Our culture’s current obsession with sex is, in my opinion, a cry of bitter and lonely people longing for intimacy. The way teens (and even adults) dress and treat their own bodies reveals their inability to respect themselves as individuals created in God’s Image. The church must expose these deeper issues and allow struggling individuals to express them in non-sexual ways, such as intimate worship experiences, healing prayer, spiritual direction, and even just authentic friendship. Spiritually mature individuals must model masculinity and femininity in a godly way for others. All Christian leaders must hold fast to God’s standards for sex, both in their teaching and in their personal lives, in order to maintain the integrity of the Church’s witness in the face of our culture’s rebellion and confusion.
If you want to hear an incredible talk on the Christian teaching of sexuality, go to the following link-- http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/24_sex-in-heaven.htm -- and listen to the thoughts of masterful Christian apologist Peter Kreeft. It's worth the time!
Anyway, here's my own writing on the subject:
Articulate the Evangelical Covenant Church’s position on human sexuality. How does this inform your theology and practice of ministry?
In its stand on human sexuality, the ECC avoids two notions. The first is that the Bible calls for repression of the human sexual drive, that sex is (at worst) the product and proof of original sin or (at best) a necessary evil that is to be indulged only for reproductive purposes. The second notion posits no standards or limits on human sexuality, asserting that individuals alone must decide how to indulge their sexual appetites and that any Biblical injunctions on the subject are archaic, irrelevant, and inconsistent with human freedom.
In contrast to these false visions of sex, the ECC upholds the Biblical teaching that human sexuality is good—in fact, that sexuality is intimately tied to our identities as embodied persons—but that God has ordained a specific covenantal relationship to express human sexuality in a way that reflects His nature as an intimately loving, self-giving Being. That covenantal relationship exists when a specific man and specific woman come together as complementary partners and are united as “one flesh” under God. In this context alone, sex may be expressed in a godly fashion. Outside of that context, an individual must be willing to live a chaste life. Corrupted forms of sexuality are characterized either by the desire to dominate another (rape, molestation, pedophilia) or by a confused understanding of one’s own identity as a person (homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, incest). These perversions do not reflect God’s standards as laid out in both the Old and New Testaments.
Our culture’s current obsession with sex is, in my opinion, a cry of bitter and lonely people longing for intimacy. The way teens (and even adults) dress and treat their own bodies reveals their inability to respect themselves as individuals created in God’s Image. The church must expose these deeper issues and allow struggling individuals to express them in non-sexual ways, such as intimate worship experiences, healing prayer, spiritual direction, and even just authentic friendship. Spiritually mature individuals must model masculinity and femininity in a godly way for others. All Christian leaders must hold fast to God’s standards for sex, both in their teaching and in their personal lives, in order to maintain the integrity of the Church’s witness in the face of our culture’s rebellion and confusion.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Can't We All Just Get Along? (Yes, I really mean that!)
I have become increasingly frustrated with the polarizing "blame game" that is taking place in America. Our political leadership, which is supposed to represent civil and honest discourse, is among the most guilty. I am sick of hearing everyone blaming George W. Bush for the problems of this country...or blaming the Democratic Congress...or blaming the "rich"...or the media...etc...
I think the American people are sick of it too.
I'm very disappointed with President Bush, but I don't think any intelligent American can honestly believe that he alone is responsible for America's economic crisis...just as I do not believe that Barack Obama is an unpatriotic Muslim who has been too influenced by people like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers.
But there is a meanness about today's political discourse that has left me bitter.
I am not necessarily sold out on Rick Warren and his style of ministry, but I thought the one bright spot in this political campaign was the debate held at Saddleback Church, when both candidates confined themselves to issues and spoke intelligently, passionately, and admirably. They did not take cheap shots at their opponents, nor did they spend an inordinate amount of time blaming anyone else for America's problems. They focused on solutions, and they spoke and acted like gentlemen.
But aside from that, there has been a meanness and a childishness about this election season that is very unsettling.
Yesterday, I read some words by political pundit Mitch Alborn, and they really articulated what I have been thinking and feeling for a while. I hope you'll take the time to read them and ponder how we might communicate it to our congregations. Here's the link:
http://jewishworldreview.com/1008/albom101308.php3
God bless America!
I think the American people are sick of it too.
I'm very disappointed with President Bush, but I don't think any intelligent American can honestly believe that he alone is responsible for America's economic crisis...just as I do not believe that Barack Obama is an unpatriotic Muslim who has been too influenced by people like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers.
But there is a meanness about today's political discourse that has left me bitter.
I am not necessarily sold out on Rick Warren and his style of ministry, but I thought the one bright spot in this political campaign was the debate held at Saddleback Church, when both candidates confined themselves to issues and spoke intelligently, passionately, and admirably. They did not take cheap shots at their opponents, nor did they spend an inordinate amount of time blaming anyone else for America's problems. They focused on solutions, and they spoke and acted like gentlemen.
But aside from that, there has been a meanness and a childishness about this election season that is very unsettling.
Yesterday, I read some words by political pundit Mitch Alborn, and they really articulated what I have been thinking and feeling for a while. I hope you'll take the time to read them and ponder how we might communicate it to our congregations. Here's the link:
http://jewishworldreview.com/1008/albom101308.php3
God bless America!
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
"The Dundees" - ("The Office" as Ecclesiastical Allegory, take two)
Introductory note:
In my previous post, I attempted to take a humorous jab at the "corporate" situation of the Church by comparing it to the screwball antics of Steve Carell and his cohorts on The Office. Certainly recognizing that there is much good in the institutional church, my intent was to illustrate that all too often, "institution" (the lifeless corporation) becomes prioritized instead of "church" (the living, dynamic, relational, Spirit-led Body of believers).
The Church needs some level of institutional framework in which to function effectively. I acknowledge this. But here's my problem. The institutional framework should be flexible and secondary, and its purpose should be to serve the living, dynamic mission of the Gospel which is primary. (This is the reality that is illustrated in the New Testament, especially in Acts). In the current situation of many denominations we see exactly the opposite happening: The institutional framework is rigid and primary, and the living, dynamic mission of the Gospel is now seen as flexible and made subservient to the ends of the institution. This is not merely bad ecclesiology...it is contrary to God's will for His people and, therefore, sinful.
-------
Now, back to The Office: In one of Michael Scott's (Steve Carell's) many attempts to revitalize the spirit of his underlings, he hosts a yearly award party called "The Dundees." These are awards given to various office staff in dubious categories such as "the longest engagement," "the hottest guy in the office," etc... Here are some "Dundees" that I would give out to people in the Church:
The "Dwight K. Schrutte Award" - Also known as The Assistant (to the) Regional Manager Award - This award goes out to those folks in our congregations who are nice to the Senior Pastor only because of the power they think will come along with the relationship. I'm sure we all have a few people like this who try to snicker up to us, who are undyingly loyal to us and constant "yes-men" (or "yes-women"), but only for the purpose of having a sense of their own power in the church. They are the Jameses and the Johns, who want to sit at Jesus' right and left in committee meetings so they can be seen with the pastor, but who have no desire to truly serve others and meet others' needs in a meaningful way. Plus, they're annoying as hell.
The "Pam Beasley Award" - Pam, the self-effacing secretary at Dunder-Mifflin, who constantly puts on the back-burner her true desire to go into graphic design and art. She's a gem of a person whose artistic talent could probably help Dunder-Mifflin's advertising department immensely, but who is never encouraged to pursue those gifts. This award goes to all those like her in the church who have oodles of modesty, whose "insignificant" work probably goes unnoticed 99% of the time, but who have gifts and talents that are totally underutilized. Perhaps those gifts were never encouraged, because we pastors are too focused on having our own gifts affirmed and we don't stop to look deeper at the hidden gifts of others. So this award goes to all those folks in the congregation who would probably bring new life, creativity, and vitality to our churches, if only we would recognize them and give them a chance.
The "Angela Award" - The anal, judgmental, hypocritical accountant at Dunder-Mifflin. This award goes to all those "church people" whose sole aspiration in life is to feel absolutely morally superior to everyone else, to hide their own faults with ruthless intensity, and to constantly find something wrong with everyone and everything. I know every church has them. I praise God for them. I also think he needs to miraculously remove the sticks from their rear-ends.
The "Jim Halpert Award" - Of all the characters in The Office, I identify with Jim the most: he's sardonic, cynical, and he sees with crystal clarity the failings of Dunder-Mifflin, but he sticks with it because he sees something beautiful there (Pam) that he just can't let go of. Perhaps I'm being a bit prideful in assuming that I'm like Jim. Perhaps I'm more like Angela, Dwight, or even (God forbdid) Michael Scott. That's for God and other people to judge, not for me. I just identify with Jim. I'm sardonic, cynical, and I see with crystal clarity the many inconsistencies and failings of the Church (including my own inconsistencies and failings). But in that Church I see something beautiful that I just can't let go of. I see my wife who reminds me daily of God's unconditional love. I see people like the Inklings, whose Christ-formed minds have made me ever passionate for truth and dialogue. I see saints who have mentored me and guided me through many of my struggles and who were faithful even when I was not. I see the story of Scripture which resonates in my mind and heart with deep truth and wisdom. And more clearly than any of these, I see Jesus Christ, Whose nail-pierced hands beckon me to come and pick up my cross and follow Him.
I pray that you all will stick with this frail corporation we call "The Church," and that you will cling to one promise: that we who have faith in Christ will do even greater things than He did. That's what He said....
In my previous post, I attempted to take a humorous jab at the "corporate" situation of the Church by comparing it to the screwball antics of Steve Carell and his cohorts on The Office. Certainly recognizing that there is much good in the institutional church, my intent was to illustrate that all too often, "institution" (the lifeless corporation) becomes prioritized instead of "church" (the living, dynamic, relational, Spirit-led Body of believers).
The Church needs some level of institutional framework in which to function effectively. I acknowledge this. But here's my problem. The institutional framework should be flexible and secondary, and its purpose should be to serve the living, dynamic mission of the Gospel which is primary. (This is the reality that is illustrated in the New Testament, especially in Acts). In the current situation of many denominations we see exactly the opposite happening: The institutional framework is rigid and primary, and the living, dynamic mission of the Gospel is now seen as flexible and made subservient to the ends of the institution. This is not merely bad ecclesiology...it is contrary to God's will for His people and, therefore, sinful.
-------
Now, back to The Office: In one of Michael Scott's (Steve Carell's) many attempts to revitalize the spirit of his underlings, he hosts a yearly award party called "The Dundees." These are awards given to various office staff in dubious categories such as "the longest engagement," "the hottest guy in the office," etc... Here are some "Dundees" that I would give out to people in the Church:
The "Dwight K. Schrutte Award" - Also known as The Assistant (to the) Regional Manager Award - This award goes out to those folks in our congregations who are nice to the Senior Pastor only because of the power they think will come along with the relationship. I'm sure we all have a few people like this who try to snicker up to us, who are undyingly loyal to us and constant "yes-men" (or "yes-women"), but only for the purpose of having a sense of their own power in the church. They are the Jameses and the Johns, who want to sit at Jesus' right and left in committee meetings so they can be seen with the pastor, but who have no desire to truly serve others and meet others' needs in a meaningful way. Plus, they're annoying as hell.
The "Pam Beasley Award" - Pam, the self-effacing secretary at Dunder-Mifflin, who constantly puts on the back-burner her true desire to go into graphic design and art. She's a gem of a person whose artistic talent could probably help Dunder-Mifflin's advertising department immensely, but who is never encouraged to pursue those gifts. This award goes to all those like her in the church who have oodles of modesty, whose "insignificant" work probably goes unnoticed 99% of the time, but who have gifts and talents that are totally underutilized. Perhaps those gifts were never encouraged, because we pastors are too focused on having our own gifts affirmed and we don't stop to look deeper at the hidden gifts of others. So this award goes to all those folks in the congregation who would probably bring new life, creativity, and vitality to our churches, if only we would recognize them and give them a chance.
The "Angela Award" - The anal, judgmental, hypocritical accountant at Dunder-Mifflin. This award goes to all those "church people" whose sole aspiration in life is to feel absolutely morally superior to everyone else, to hide their own faults with ruthless intensity, and to constantly find something wrong with everyone and everything. I know every church has them. I praise God for them. I also think he needs to miraculously remove the sticks from their rear-ends.
The "Jim Halpert Award" - Of all the characters in The Office, I identify with Jim the most: he's sardonic, cynical, and he sees with crystal clarity the failings of Dunder-Mifflin, but he sticks with it because he sees something beautiful there (Pam) that he just can't let go of. Perhaps I'm being a bit prideful in assuming that I'm like Jim. Perhaps I'm more like Angela, Dwight, or even (God forbdid) Michael Scott. That's for God and other people to judge, not for me. I just identify with Jim. I'm sardonic, cynical, and I see with crystal clarity the many inconsistencies and failings of the Church (including my own inconsistencies and failings). But in that Church I see something beautiful that I just can't let go of. I see my wife who reminds me daily of God's unconditional love. I see people like the Inklings, whose Christ-formed minds have made me ever passionate for truth and dialogue. I see saints who have mentored me and guided me through many of my struggles and who were faithful even when I was not. I see the story of Scripture which resonates in my mind and heart with deep truth and wisdom. And more clearly than any of these, I see Jesus Christ, Whose nail-pierced hands beckon me to come and pick up my cross and follow Him.
I pray that you all will stick with this frail corporation we call "The Church," and that you will cling to one promise: that we who have faith in Christ will do even greater things than He did. That's what He said....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)