All we like sheep have gone consuming

Just a rant here . . . nothing profound.

But, first, a note: Just because nothing has been posted to this blog does not mean that I have not been writing. I am hard at work on another project that is not something bloggable. We now return you to the rant ...

So, I, like many others, purchased the limited edition 4-disc DVD set of The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. While I enjoyed and appreciated the movie, I am thoroughly disappointed (so far) with the 3+ discs of limited edition piffle. And this is further evidence of the herd instinct of Christian-dom being manipulated by Hollywood-dom. At least, in my opinion.

Before I detail that claim, allow me to detail a few of the issues with the DVD set.

First, the set arrived without the promised companion guidebook. Some research on the Internet reveals that this was a packaging error and that only certain sets have the book. The Internet rumor mill swears that a simple call to Disney will cause a companion guide to be issued without delay ... except that Disney customer service is closed for an as yet undetermined length of time for the ChristmaHannuKwan Holidays. And probably Boxing Day, too, eh?

Second, the packaging boasts an extended battle sequence, but (so far) I can find no documentation or explanation or insight as to what, exactly, is extended. I think I will be left on my own to do a side-by-side comparison. I did re-watch the battle sequence and was very impressed with it. Far more impressed than I remember being several months ago when I first saw the initial DVD release. But the technical side of me wants to know what scenes were extended by how long and what the reasoning was behind the theatrical edit.

Third, the packaging also boasts an introduction by the director of the film, Andrew-what's-it. When I see that, I expect a gem of insight or warmth from the director as we head into the movie ... at least as good as the introductions I see for classic films on TCM or the like. Instead, some undernourished adolescent pops up, claims his name is Andrew-what's it, and hopes we enjoy the film. That's it. Fade to black and roll the movie. I haven't been that disappointed since Chewbacca showed up in Revenge of the Sith (too bad Chewie couldn't have grabbed Han Solo and saved that sorry film - but that is another topic).

Fourth, I started watching what I thought would be the shining star of the entire package: the hour long biography on C S Lewis. I had only watched a few minutes before life interrupted and I have yet to get back to it ... but that is partly because the first few minutes were not very inspiring. I will withhold final judgment until I have seen the piece in its entirety.

Now, here's the fun part. We were visiting a friend who had the set and had actually received his promised companion guidebook. After perusing this meager paper trinket, I have decided to save Disney the cost and embarrassment of sending of sending me one. It is barely more that what is shown on the back of the box, except that it includes a few minuscule photos that surely would be impressive if they were even as large as a postage stamp.

All of this to say that I am now more convinced than ever that Hollywood gets Christians ... and knows how to get their money. We all know that family friendly movies make more money and have better loyalty for DVD and merchandise sales than your raunchier or mature offerings like Wedding Crashers or Flags of our Fathers. But the loyalty shown is blind (beyond morality beacons pointed out and reinforced by the politically hungry Dr. Dobson and the like). The Chronicles of Narnia extended DVD set is (so far) crap. But it will sell because it is family friendly and pushed to the Christian consumer as being Lord of the Rings type extended edition work when in reality it is, as I have said, crap. So far. So when will Christians be less loyal and more demanding when it comes to quality? Are we simply going to let Disney and whichever-studio-and-production-company that put out the Nativity movie (which I have not see but have heard almost universally is a dud) get away with our money simply because they are making entertainment that the moral guardians say is family friendly?

Prediction: Mel Gibson's Apocolypto is sinking like a Mayan temple stone. He is going to need some cash into his movie business. Look for a sequel or other narrative movie to follow up on the Passion.

Prediction: Disney will not regard the commercial success of Narnia as a reason to start inserting two-parent households into its films. (Even its adaptation of Narnia is introduced with a functioning one parent home.)

Hollywood likes our money and will make products that will get our money ... but only good enough to get our money. I just wish we, as believers, would be a little more demanding of quality rather than comfort.

Rant over. Get back to your day.

Modern Missions III

The last part of my thought about being personally called by God to do something is this: We as humans have a lack of stasis in our lives that often gets interpreted as a pressure to make a decision sooner rather than later in determining the call of God in our lives.

No person’s life is static. You cannot step in the same river twice. What was magical and harmonious and inspiring at one time may not be so at a later time. However, this is a truth that runs through the emotions and soul more frequently than it runs through the physical life. Thus we may consider ourselves “stuck” in a particular situation that we do not like – usually our job – and our emotions and our soul are harkening to a memory of an earlier time when life was more “meaningful” or “fulfilling.”

That is a dangerous trap that runs directly counter to the principles of contentment taught in the scriptures. It creates in us a certain distractedness that prevents us from being alert to the ministry we have before us. Actually, I like the way Yoda says it when coaching young Luke Skywalker: “All his life he has looked away … Never his mind on where he was … On what he was doing. Hmph.” There is a basic truth in life: if you cannot find contentment and purpose where you are right now, then a “change of scenery” will not solve those problems.

So we sense a call by God. It is magnified by our subconscious lack of emotional and spiritual stasis. And we then feel pressured to decide, to act. But the reality is that we have failed to act in our present surroundings. Somehow we can see ourselves acting in a different setting or serving a different audience but we cannot get past the inertia of our present “rut” to begin that process where we are now.

That is highly suspicious to me. I suppose that it could be argued under the umbrella of “God equips the called rather than calls the equipped” but I have a sense that more often than not the call has more to do with dissatisfaction with present circumstances (combined with genuine spiritual desire to serve God) than with a genuine leading to become a minister/missionary.

Modern Missions II

Considering now the other arena of thought: the calling to reach out cross-culturally in the name of Jesus.

When one feels called by God to do anything - and I mean anything - one should be very skeptical until the matter is clear. God may speak in a gentle voice (the "still small voice" of scripture) but his marching orders are almost exclusively revealed in an unmistakeable fashion: whether the angel of the Lord, the buring bush, the pillar of couds, etc., it's hard to miss. And there is this great comfort that is apparent in the subtlety of scripture: God will find someone else if you miss the message. Check out what he said about the rocks crying out in Luke 19:40. If it must be done, God will see it done. You can get over yourself.

So the matter is one of clear signals, and also some intense instrospection. I agree with something I once heard Chuck Swindoll say in the days before he got grouchy. It was something like this: If you think you may be called by God to go into full-time ministry and if you feel like you could also do something else and also be reasonably at peace, then you are probably not called to be in full-time ministry. What he is driving at is that too many people "feel the call" when in they are not called. And the uncalled in ministry really muck it up.

Consider it another way. We are all given the mantle of ministry. It is the evolution of our society that has, for the most part, given rise to the vocation and industry of ministry, including foreign missions. It is now as much a career choice to be a minister/missionary as it is to be a teacher/attorney/architect/computer programmer. That dichotomy is deadly to a much better personal model of ministry. Whatever you are doing, you are a minister/missionary/ambassador of Jesus.

You should absolutely integrate whatever you do with ministry. That is your responsibility as a follower of Jesus. The idea that this must also be vocational pursuit is the product of our societal evolution and has given us a system of ministry/missions that is more like a deptarment store chain than a revolutionary idea to make disciples.

That said, there are times when a supported missionary is just what is needed. Particularly when the intended recipients of practical assistance (and their society) are unable to provide vocational support for the minister/missionary.

But the ones called to such pursuits are, in my experience and opinion, a very rare breed. The passion is present, personal, unmistakable and uncomfortable. Present is self-explanatory. Personal means a passion for the people rather than the country, the adventure, then escape, the challenge, etc. Lots of people have passion but not a passion for a particulare people group. Unmistakeable is a product of the signal and introspection. Uncomfortable is that effect the minister/missionary's passion has on those who are in contact with that person in their home (sending country). You can meet those people and their passion for a particular people group makes you slightly uncomfortable in your secure and orndinary existence. That is a rare passion, but it is really real in the really called.

So that is most of my thought on being called. There is one further distinction that I will address in the next post: The lack of personal stasis juxtaposed with determination of a calling and the resultant and often erroneous pressure to act.

Modern Missions

Thinking a little about the detox/reformation that I am undergoing about the expression and act of church: How does this impact the concept of modern-day missionaries.

The genesis of this reflection is a friend who is seeking and struggling on whether to go overseas as a "full-time missionary."

I guess that my thoughts break into two arenas: the environment of the modern missions industry and the call to reach cross-culturally in the name of Jesus.

Let's start with the environment of the modern missions industry. I have no doubt that the modern day missions organizations are all structured and managed like corporations. (They were when I did some investigation into the process in the early 90s.) They will have a business-model feel to their decision-making, and they will certainly deem themselves governed by budgetary considerations. Too bad, but that's the way it is.

So, if you go to work for one of these organizations, then you will be, in a way, an employee. But, based on my conversations with full-time missionaries, it's not quite like being an employee but rather more like being a franchise. The parent organization still has some control and still has some expectations that are typically expressed in terms of a combination of efforts and cash. But other than that, you are pretty much a trained franchisee. You call the shots (within the business model) and you bear the responsibility of the fincial requirements of your business. You must continually answer to at least 3 parties (besides your ultimate accountability to God): your parent company, your financial supporters and your targeted people group. Like most other ministry, it will be a several large doses of administration and precious little time to actually build relationships and reach out with the ever-needed cup of cold water.

The whole system is crammed full of agendas based on a business model. Supporters, like investors, go away and so new ones must be recruited. Those who stay must feel they are being wise stewards so you must report to them frequently. The parent company probably takes a portion of your support for its work on your behalf. The parent company also expects you to spend some time reaching out to churches in your sending country to raise awareness of the organization as a whole and help generate corporate support. And you just wanted to do good in another country.

But what is a better model? The so-called "tent-making" model of St. Paul in the New Testament is interesting. It shows a vocational skill used to underwrite the cost of the missionary endeavors. But Paul still received gifts from other believers - thus the idea of support is not foreign to the the scriptural model. I like this hybrid approach because it demonstrates some independence but allows for some accountability, too.

Independence in that the vocation skill brings cash directly to the missionary who is then free in his/her conscience to apply it as seems best. No parent company or investors having input and agendas. But the occasional input of cash from a church or other assembly of believers provides the opportunity to have outside inspections done on your progress. A forced introspection, if you will.

Another benefit of the hybrid approach is that a vocational skill gives some useful entry point into the people group you are trying to reach. It will either provide credibility or it will meet needs. Either is far better than some white guy from another country coming to town to tell me how to live.

What about taking the hybrid approach a step further? How about a community approach? How about doing as much as possible to be self-supporting or need-meeting (more on this distinction in a bit) in order to simply live among those you are trying to influence? Become a part of their community and bring the message of hope to them as a neighbor/friend/co-worker ... someone who isn't going away if the support falls below the minimum acceptable level. I think the less agenda you project, the quicker you will be accepted and integrated into the society.

The distinction between self-supporting and need-meeting is like this: Let's be honest, there is a real two-class system in this world. You are either going to serve in a westernized, modern country or you are going to serve in a hell-hole. If you go to a modern country, then you probably have very little to offer them in terms of meeting their needs for basic standard of living items. So you should therefore endeavor to be self-supporting - demonstrating that you are not intending to be a burden on any society (especially theirs). If you serve in a hell-hole then they probably don't give a whit what seminary training you have or how many pastors were in your father's family. They need clean water, medicine, dental care, shelter and - oh yeah - FOOD. You should do everything possible to be a practical difference-maker in their lives.

This distinction is, I think, useful in determining which approach to take. If you go to a modern country, then you should be self-supporting to the highest degree possible. If you go to a hell-hole, then you will probably need to rely on support so that you can meet real needs for those who are in no position to pay you.

Those are some thoughts about the modern mission industry environment.

Thoughts about the call to reach cross-culturally in my next post.

Correcting Corinthian Context

The context of I Corinthians 13 leads me to believe that this discourse about love (which is not, in my opinion, the definitive discourse about love) is given primarily to govern and guide the community of believers in their actions and existence with each other.

I Corinthians 13 is part of a larger passage which we have canonized as chapters 12 – 14. The subject is that of spiritual gifts in the community of believers. I will not press into a detailed discussion of the problems of the Corinthian community, but suffice it to say by way of summation that they were a dysfunctional family. They were not, as Paul taught by illustration, acting as a cohesive body but rather as separate pieces of a body. In the middle of instruction about gifts is set forth the passage under consideration upon the topic of love.

Viewed in this context, and confirmed by remarks immediately preceding and following the passage, this teaching about love is insightful instruction as to how we are to relate to other believers in order to function in community – to be a part of the larger body. If we accept that a partial definition of “church” is the assembly of believers for the purpose of manifestation and administration of spiritual gifts, then it is clear that love is, if you will, the sinews and tendons which hold the various members together and allow the body to function as a larger entity.

With that in mind, I offer the following comments on I Corinthians 13, to wit:

1. If you are desire to advance in stature as a believer by pursuit of your giftedness, then you are in error and there is a superior way to be revealed to you (12:31).
2. Gifts and works without love do not further or validate one’s spiritual stature (13:1-3).
3. Love expresses itself in certain actions, listed as sixteen separate items (to be considered in more detail at another time) which offer practical insight on how to live in community with other believers (13:4-8a).
4. Love has a permanence in its practice and its results whereas spiritual gifts will become irrelevant when Christ returns and, further, love is fully revealed to us now whereas spiritual gifts are only revealed to us in part (13:8b-12).
5. Love is more important than faith and hope (13:13).
6. Love is the pursuit when you desire giftedness (14:1).

Further assistance in the understanding of love may be drawn from other passages, but it remains the context of this passage to assist us in living in community with other believers. I believe that the economy of God is revealed in this passage in some ways that may sound alarming. For instance, in God’s economy, love is what validates the exercise of a spiritual gift. Thus a seemingly gifted individual who does not live out the actions of love may and should be properly regarded as having nothing to contribute to the body of believers. Similarly, in God’s economy, spiritual gifts are a transitory, partial and occasional currency, while the worth of faith, hope and love are abiding, total and permanent. From this we may fairly “rank” the priorities of our communal function. Further insight is gained from the revelation that love is more important than faith and hope. Thus loving our fellow believers in actions aspiring to the standards of I Corinthians 13 should be more highly valued and regarded as more indicative of spiritual stature than any evidences of faith or hope, which are in turn far more favorable than any spiritual gift however manifested.

Having thus clarified the contextual position of I Corinthians 13, we can now bridge toward the examination of the sixteen listed actions of love contained in verses 4 – 8a. That is for another time.

Thinkin' About Church

I have had this particular composition on my computer since May or so but I want to spit it out here and start kicking it around a little. I admit this is pretty rough, but it is first draft . . .

________________________________________

How about a revolution? Are we bold enough to accept the responsibility of a new paradigm for church? If so, march toward the sound of the guns.

Community is best in small body. But a small body cannot equal the resources present in a larger body. With that in mind, it is time to be bluntly honest about what church is and is not.

Church is not a large assembly once a week. Church is not about having a pastor, teacher, deacons and elders present in every single “body.” Church is not about what is accomplished by sheer mass.

Church is about following Christ not only as an individual, but in a committed and communal relationship with others. Assembling together is a key component to church. The size, format and elements of the assembling together are merely tradition and comfort.

So how about this as a model for central Indiana:

1. Effective immediately: you are not expected to be in your church this Sunday (or Saturday or whatever day you typically assimilate at a massive building).

2. Effective immediately: you are expected to find 2 other families of Christ-followers with whom you will begin to interact regularly in order to develop community.

2.a Your assembling together in small community will include the elements, style and format that are fitting for your assembly.

3. Pastors and other church staff are encouraged, if possible, to embrace this change and to see their roles as truly reaching the lost and administering to the needs of the larger assembly (as outlined below).

3.a Pastors and other church staff who desire to reach the lost may need to be re-trained in order to be comfortable with the concept of leaving their buildings in order to find the lost.

3.b Pastors and other church staff are encouraged to follow the scriptural principle of seeking vocational employment.

3.c Pastors and other church staff who are not comfortable with this paradigm are free to leave town. Today. By sunset.

4. At a few locations, large church buildings will be converted to administrative centers/fellowship halls/secure havens (let’s call these Anchor Centers, for now).

4.a Locations are chosen according to geographic centrality.

4.b All other assets of the church shall be converted to cash in order to assist in ministry or utilized as shelters or food pantries or the like.

5. Anchor Centers

5.a . . . shall serve as places where small assemblies occasionally gather together into larger assemblies for the purpose of encouragement, Q&A, concerts, etc.

5.b . . . shall be open 24/7 as a haven for any person.

5.c . . . shall contain staff that will administer the offerings of the small assemblies for the good of the larger body.

5.d . . . thus more fully leveraging the resources of the smaller assemblies for the needs of the body or ministry or to assist Christ-followers with needs that cannot be met by the small assembly.

5.e . . . shall provide a place for “regional” elders, deacons, pastors and apostles to meet.

6. Elders and Deacons shall be chosen to serve their “region” of small assemblies.

6.a They shall meet together as needed

6.b They shall be involved in their own small assemblies

6.c They shall be available to other small assemblies in order to assist with questions, discipline and administrative issues

7. Pastors and apostles shall be few in number, shall travel among the small assemblies and shall be primarily concerned with answering the call for education and teaching.

8. Small assemblies are expected to reach out to the lost in practical acts of love.

9. Any individual who feels withdrawal from the traditional corporate church to be uncomfortable shall be referred to any of several radio stations or any of several thousand internet sites where exists an extensive archive of traditional corporate church services and sermons on any topic imaginable.

Viva la Revolution

Pulse

Very busy lately.

But I have found time to thoroughly enjoy the new Pink Floyd DVD,Pulse. I relished the CD version of this concert. The set list on the DVD is different for disc 1, but disc 2 remains in tact ... Dark Side of the Moon in its entirety along with encores of Wish You Were Here, Comfortably Numb and Run.

It is excellent sound-wise and the video portion makes me remember the Delicate Sound of Thunder tour which I was privileged to see.

When one is busy, worn out from work and too mentally drained to read or write ... it is good to see some music of this caliber. I must try the sync with Pulse DVD playing the soundtrack for the Wizard of Oz.

Dark Side of the Rainbow - Live.

I wonder if the encores sync up?

W W J D is O K

Small rant here . . .

I tire of hearing the nit-picking crowd weigh in on WWJD. In case you've been excluded from the universe of marketing for WWJD, it stands for What Would Jesus Do? which is a catch phrase from an older but recently repopular book called In His Steps by Sheldon (I think).

In the book a minister challenges his congregation to walk in the steps of Christ's example (from a text in the book of Philippians). He sums it up by saying something along the lines of, "When you are faced with a decision, ask yourself 'What would Jesus do?'" The book then goes on to relate the story of a changed behavior in light of this check and guidance on the actions of the congregation. The book is definitely dated and uses some examples that seem alien to our culture today ... but the point is made.

So now there is a new-found popularity for this notion in the form of the WWJD movement (which is settled in now, hardly revolutionary any more). But I still occasionally hear someone snipe at WWJD, usually along the lines of, "It's not 'What would Jesus do?' but 'What would Jesus want me to do?'"

Yawn.

Drive-by-nit-picking-underread-overpreached-
nonthinking-crusty-traditionalists.

Don't get me wrong. I am typically suspicious of anything that is popular and trendy ... like cell phones and interstate highways. But let's at least have a criticism that is based in reason.

The entire point of WWJD is to ascertain how to make decisions or take actions in a way that is attempting to imitate Jesus. To take the sniper comments to heart, WWJD stands for the idea of daydreaming what Jesus would do and say if he were here without any compunction to follow that example.

It seems to me that if discipleship is a real pursuit and not simply a lip-serviced idealism, then WWJD is a fine habit of reflection. Maybe if we spent a few weeks practing the questioning of our decisions with WWJD we would come to understand better the walk of our faith. And maybe it would help our instinctive reactions, too, so that even when we don't have time for reflection we are more prone to behave in a way that is imitative of the impression we have of Jesus.

If you want to follow Jesus, then just do it. Oops ... that's probably trademarked at the least and offensive use of jargon at the worst.

Swoosh, brothers.