There's a church nearby that bothers me. On the surface, it's seemingly simply aesthetic reasons, but the particular aesthetics are symbols of deeper problems--and while the aesthetics are certainly not aesthetically pleasing, the realities that they symbolise are somewhat more unpalatable. But really, it's the combination of meaning and the symbol used to represent that meaning, that bothers me most of all.
My problem with this church is with its garish purple doors. Now, normally, I have no problem with purple. I mean, I prefer certain colours to others, and I prefer not to wear certain colours, but every colour can be beautiful in the proper setting. Aesthetically, purple doors are not a good combination on a 100-odd year old brown-brick, black roofed church. As I said above, it's rather garish. I doubt anyone but the severely colour-blind (or the utterly blind), could find this combination pleasing. As soon as the paint job was applied, it offended my artistic sensibilities.
Obviously, the purple paint was not for simple aesthetics. This is further illustrated by the rainbow flag flying right beside the white flag with the blue square in the upper left corner, with a red cross in it. It was to make a statement. And, this being the Centenary United Church, that statement is that Homosexuality is Okay. This United Church not only is "welcoming" to those who struggle with same-sex attraction (as all churches should be), it openly proclaims that same-sex attraction is not sinful, but a perfectly natural sexual orientation. In order to proclaim this, they must reinterpret the Bible and ignore 2000 years of Christian tradition, giving into the zeitgeist which itself makes anyone who appeals to the Bible, Christian tradition, or even Natural Law and common sense, narrow-minded bigots in league with "pastor" Fred Phelps.
Now, it's bad enough that a church can reject its mission to call sin, sin, and people to repentance (even if that sin happens to be a rather popular one these days). But it seems to me that if one sin is now okay, then mustn't all sins become so labeled? After all, if homosexual acts are fine, then on what grounds can we decry theft, adultery, or even murder? If one serious sin is no longer serious, nor even sinful, then on what standard does this church call anything good or anything sinful?
Now, as much as all that bothers me, as it sends something of a mixed message to the world about what true Christianity is--and could be said to fulfil those Scriptures warning that in the latter days, perilous times will come when people will not listen to sound doctrine, but with itching ears will heap up teachers unto themselves (cf. 2 Timothy 4:3-4)--what bothers me even more seems to be the "Gay Agenda"'s very choice of symbolism to define themselves: Namely purple and rainbows (because it's not bad enough that they choose one colour to define themselves, they have to actually take them all!). My problem with their appropriation of these symbols are the Christian meaning of these symbols. It could be argued that the vast non-Christian homosexual community was unaware of the Christian meaning behind their new icons, but for a church to brandish them in such a fashion truly indicates to me a defiance to historical Christianity and a definite separation--though still claiming to be Christian (again, as 2 Timothy warns [3:4-5], "they will be treacherous and reckless and demented by pride, preferring their own pleasure to God. They will keep up the outward appearance of religion but will have rejected the inner power of it").
Why do I say this regarding their choice of symbols?
First, Purple has been used in the Church for ages as a liturgical colour denoting Repentance. It is the seasonal colour of both Advent and Lent, the first preparing our souls for the Coming of Christ, and the second to prepare us to participate in His Passion and Resurrection. Purple as a colour is a reminder to turn from our sins to the Life of Christ. But now it is being used to define a particular sin, and to say repentance and change is not necessary. What should serve to remind us to repent of sin now serves to celebrate it.
Second, the Rainbow has meant, from times even more ancient than the Church, the sign of God's Covenant Love. After He punished the earth with the Flood, he showed Noah the Rainbow as His promise to never destroy the earth again in like manner. Thus, the rainbow symbolises God's mercy and His faithfulness--though also His justice. But for Centenary United Church and the Homosexual Community as a whole, the rainbow celebrates their "diversity" and the "beauty" inherent in their lifestyle. The church, in particular, seems to want to celebrate God's Love while denying His holy Justice.
Thus, a group of people will, on the one hand, demand tolerance and acceptance from the "narrow-minded, bigoted" Church, on the other hand slaps that same Church, and the God she serves, in the face.
"Keep away from people like that" (2 Tim 3:5) indeed!
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Monday, August 25, 2008
But Do Stop Thinking
%231%23.JPG)
In an effort to help Christians gain a better awareness of consumer impact on the environment, authors Claire Foster and David Shreeve have published a 176 page book.That's right: some corporate cheese-head somewhere down in South America has just been justified a little more in his efforts to rape the land of its trees, underpay his workers, and sell his yield at a questionable premium to the international market. Ships will cross oceans, leaking bits of nasty fuels and particulate matter; trucks will suck up petrol and burn exhaust into the air, wear their tires thin and contribute a little more to the slow degradation of the hiways; factories will process the newly arrived trees and belch a little more filth into the sky and waterways as they cut, grind, pound, bleach, and dye the pretty little papers that will eventually form a book on environmental awareness. Then the printing runs will begin, the mass distribution and all the fuels that uses, the receipts from purchasing of the book, shipping overseas...
And all for Christians, nonetheless. As if we needed a separate venue for awareness. But I suppose that's beside the point, isn't it? Or is it?
So, after all that imprinting on the environment, Christian congregations can have a little ditty that corales them into a year-long effort at reducing their carbon footprint.
“A new guide from the Church of England offers church leaders a template for a year-long programme of practical action to reduce their congregations’ carbon footprints, as energy prices head upwards.”
Good. So after a year, then what? Return to your normally scheduled, anti-Kyoto, neglectful, disillusioned, disaffected, and otherwise irresponsible consumer life? Or just change the date and repeat as necessary? Why target a year? As if a plastic-ware package of time and a trendy charge into a church-wide back-patting session can really compete with a philosophic responsibility to life as a whole!
Is there any reason why this contrary effort couldn't have been more responsible itself? Say, by e-publishing? Or would that require a separate paperback publication to bolster Christian awareness of the internet?
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Signs of the Times
I remember, growing up, when my family would drive to church, or otherwise take trips from Waterdown, ON, to Burlington, ON, we'd pass a Christian Reform church on the way into town, at the top of Highway 5. Didn't know much about the CRC or anything. All I really knew about that church was that it was perhaps the first church to have a sign out front on which it would post the now clichéed quotes and quips that are seen ubiquitously out front of churches. What now seems to be all the rage, they've been doing for some 15 years or more. And, honestly, they still seem to do it best. It's rather rare that I'll drive by, even these days, and have to groan (too loudly) at some lame pun or horribly theologically-incorrect statement. Good on them.
Other churches' signs that I've seen--not so much.
Usually these signs are not much more than annoying groaners such as I'm used to hearing from several of my friends anyway (I even jokingly wrote a paper in my Pastoral Theology class arguing that such "punning" was a sure sign of the Pastor-Teacher gift in Ephesians 4:11). But every so often, I see a sign that really bothers me--because the sign says something illogical, and sometimes even contrary to the Christian faith.
Such was the case of the sign out front of the Baptist church around the corner from my house. To their credit, they try to change the sign once a week (though summer got a little slow), and more, they try to find a quote that fits with the sermon subject for the following Sunday. On the left half of the sign, they have worship time details, and the Sermon Title. On the right half of the sign, they have a quote that perhaps acts as a summation of the sermon--though in this particular case, I hope not--or else an announcement of some special event.
Well, this past week, this church has announced that the pastor will be giving a sermon entitled "Shine." Accompanying this one-word title is the quote that's got me all buggered up, and wondering just what they're teaching at this Baptist church:
Now, at first glance, I assume that the pastor is going to be addressing his congregation regarding being light to the world, and letting our light so shine before men that they would see our good works and glorify God in Heaven. He perhaps is encouraging his congregation to live the good life even as the darkness around us seems to deepen, and so he is trying to inspire them with the notion that their bright lights will shine even more noticeably because the darkness is so dark. And those are good thoughts, to be sure. However, the statement, as it stands, takes those thoughts a step or two further.
First of all, it declares that darkness is, in fact, something. It claims that darkness has an objective reality of its own, that is in conflict with the light, and yet, not entirely in conflict, but, like Yin and Yang, it is symbiotic with the light--each causing the other to exist. After all, what else can a statement mean that says "In order for the light to shine the darkness must be present"?
So our first problem seems to be with our definition of darkness, and the description of it as present, and as necessary. Darkness, both scientifically and philosophically, is not a "thing" possessing its own substance or essence. Rather, it is only something which is not. Darkness is the absence of light. It is the quality of lightlessness. It is not a substance, but the privation of a substance. That is our first problem, and, understanding it, I hope that all our other problems are made clear.
The second problem, then, flowing directly from the first, is apparently an equally unsatisfactory definition of Light. To say that the light can only shine if it is dark is self-contradictory. If darkness is the privation of light, then if there is darkness, it means, quite literally, that the light isn't as bright as it could be! Thus, the statement on this church sign seems to want us to believe that light, which, by definition, shines, can only do what it must do by its very essence, if it is not doing what it does to its fullest capacity. Or, put another way, light only shines when it's not really shining all that well.
Light is substance. It can be measured and calculated. Apparently, science tells us, it is composed of subatomic particles, called photons, that travel at a determined speed in a vacuum (186,000 miles per second, if my high school science hasn't failed me), but that these photons can be slowed down, or change their course, when they are interfered with by various atmospheres and objects. On the other hand, there is no "speed of darkness". Darkness is nothing. It is simply the state of things when there aren't any photons whizzing around.
Thus, on a purely physical, scientific, academic level, we find that the statement on this church's sign makes utterly no sense. That, in my mind, is bad enough. But when the statement is applied to theology, as one might expect it to be in a sermon, suddenly things go from bad to worse--from illogical nightlights to manichean dualism. That is, biblically, Light is synonymous with Good. And more, it is often used as a descriptor of God Himself. "All that is good, all that is perfect, is given us from above; it comes down from the Father of all light..." (James 1:17). Thus, if light can only shine when the darkness is present, as X Baptist Church would have you believe, then God, it seems, cannot be God unless there is darkness present. I suppose that leaves one of two conclusions: Either darkness is fundamental to God's make-up--that is, privation--imperfection--belongs to God as something proper to Himself; or this privation is itself actually a tangible essence in symbiotic competition with God: a dark god, an evil god, co-existing with the God of Light. Those seem to be the two options according to the Sign.
As to the first option, that darkness is itself part of who God is, the passage I quoted from James continues: "...the Father of all light; with Him there is no such thing as an alteration, no shadow caused by change." Or, to be even more explicitly clear, St. John writes in his first Epistle, "God is light, and there is no darkness in Him at all" (1 John 1:5). So we see quite clearly that there is no darkness in God. Indeed, for the One who is Perfect, there can be no privation.
So what of the second option, that the darkness exists as a separate, necessary corollary to God? We must reason, after all, that if God is light, and that light needs darkness in order to shine--and light that doesn't shine is not light--then God needs darkness in order to be God. But how can God need anything? Once again, that would indicate some privation in God. Furthermore, it again indicates that darkness is more than simply a privation, but a substance or essence unto itself--and one that is co-eternal to God, and which God needs in some way. An infintite being with a need, must therefore have an infinite need, and so the darkness must be as infinite as God. Therefore, we would have to postulate that some dark god is necessary for God, as is often believed in many pagan religions, most notably, as I said above, in the Manichean religion of the 4th and 5th centuries AD.
However, as St. Thomas point out in his Summa, there can only be one infinite being, since the infinity of its being would necessarily end where the other infinite being's began, thus making neither one infinite, since each has an end and a beginning. Moreover, Scripture affirms that "The Lord your God is One God" (Deut. 6:5), and, as we said, darkness is not something, but nothing. Sure wish that more people would read Aquinas, and stop recycling old errors.
God does not need anything in order to be God, and light does not need darkness in order to shine. Ultimately, the Light will eradicate the darkness once and for all. On that day, we will not cease to exist in some sort of nihilistic nirvana, but will forever shine like the Son, realising fully who we were meant to be as partakers of His glory!
Other churches' signs that I've seen--not so much.
"It wasn't the Apple, it was the Pair"I'll stop, I promise. But I could go on. I've got about 365 of 'em. (Someone 'thoughtfully' bought me a desktop day calendar featuring a glib little quote for every day of the year. Awww....)
"Patience is a virtue with a lot of wait"
Usually these signs are not much more than annoying groaners such as I'm used to hearing from several of my friends anyway (I even jokingly wrote a paper in my Pastoral Theology class arguing that such "punning" was a sure sign of the Pastor-Teacher gift in Ephesians 4:11). But every so often, I see a sign that really bothers me--because the sign says something illogical, and sometimes even contrary to the Christian faith.
Such was the case of the sign out front of the Baptist church around the corner from my house. To their credit, they try to change the sign once a week (though summer got a little slow), and more, they try to find a quote that fits with the sermon subject for the following Sunday. On the left half of the sign, they have worship time details, and the Sermon Title. On the right half of the sign, they have a quote that perhaps acts as a summation of the sermon--though in this particular case, I hope not--or else an announcement of some special event.
Well, this past week, this church has announced that the pastor will be giving a sermon entitled "Shine." Accompanying this one-word title is the quote that's got me all buggered up, and wondering just what they're teaching at this Baptist church:
"In order for the light to shine, the darkness must be present."There's so much to take issue with in this dualistic statement that it made my head spin (and actually kept me up at night!), but fear not, true believer. I'll try to address it all.
Now, at first glance, I assume that the pastor is going to be addressing his congregation regarding being light to the world, and letting our light so shine before men that they would see our good works and glorify God in Heaven. He perhaps is encouraging his congregation to live the good life even as the darkness around us seems to deepen, and so he is trying to inspire them with the notion that their bright lights will shine even more noticeably because the darkness is so dark. And those are good thoughts, to be sure. However, the statement, as it stands, takes those thoughts a step or two further.
First of all, it declares that darkness is, in fact, something. It claims that darkness has an objective reality of its own, that is in conflict with the light, and yet, not entirely in conflict, but, like Yin and Yang, it is symbiotic with the light--each causing the other to exist. After all, what else can a statement mean that says "In order for the light to shine the darkness must be present"?
So our first problem seems to be with our definition of darkness, and the description of it as present, and as necessary. Darkness, both scientifically and philosophically, is not a "thing" possessing its own substance or essence. Rather, it is only something which is not. Darkness is the absence of light. It is the quality of lightlessness. It is not a substance, but the privation of a substance. That is our first problem, and, understanding it, I hope that all our other problems are made clear.
The second problem, then, flowing directly from the first, is apparently an equally unsatisfactory definition of Light. To say that the light can only shine if it is dark is self-contradictory. If darkness is the privation of light, then if there is darkness, it means, quite literally, that the light isn't as bright as it could be! Thus, the statement on this church sign seems to want us to believe that light, which, by definition, shines, can only do what it must do by its very essence, if it is not doing what it does to its fullest capacity. Or, put another way, light only shines when it's not really shining all that well.
Light is substance. It can be measured and calculated. Apparently, science tells us, it is composed of subatomic particles, called photons, that travel at a determined speed in a vacuum (186,000 miles per second, if my high school science hasn't failed me), but that these photons can be slowed down, or change their course, when they are interfered with by various atmospheres and objects. On the other hand, there is no "speed of darkness". Darkness is nothing. It is simply the state of things when there aren't any photons whizzing around.
Thus, on a purely physical, scientific, academic level, we find that the statement on this church's sign makes utterly no sense. That, in my mind, is bad enough. But when the statement is applied to theology, as one might expect it to be in a sermon, suddenly things go from bad to worse--from illogical nightlights to manichean dualism. That is, biblically, Light is synonymous with Good. And more, it is often used as a descriptor of God Himself. "All that is good, all that is perfect, is given us from above; it comes down from the Father of all light..." (James 1:17). Thus, if light can only shine when the darkness is present, as X Baptist Church would have you believe, then God, it seems, cannot be God unless there is darkness present. I suppose that leaves one of two conclusions: Either darkness is fundamental to God's make-up--that is, privation--imperfection--belongs to God as something proper to Himself; or this privation is itself actually a tangible essence in symbiotic competition with God: a dark god, an evil god, co-existing with the God of Light. Those seem to be the two options according to the Sign.
As to the first option, that darkness is itself part of who God is, the passage I quoted from James continues: "...the Father of all light; with Him there is no such thing as an alteration, no shadow caused by change." Or, to be even more explicitly clear, St. John writes in his first Epistle, "God is light, and there is no darkness in Him at all" (1 John 1:5). So we see quite clearly that there is no darkness in God. Indeed, for the One who is Perfect, there can be no privation.
So what of the second option, that the darkness exists as a separate, necessary corollary to God? We must reason, after all, that if God is light, and that light needs darkness in order to shine--and light that doesn't shine is not light--then God needs darkness in order to be God. But how can God need anything? Once again, that would indicate some privation in God. Furthermore, it again indicates that darkness is more than simply a privation, but a substance or essence unto itself--and one that is co-eternal to God, and which God needs in some way. An infintite being with a need, must therefore have an infinite need, and so the darkness must be as infinite as God. Therefore, we would have to postulate that some dark god is necessary for God, as is often believed in many pagan religions, most notably, as I said above, in the Manichean religion of the 4th and 5th centuries AD.
However, as St. Thomas point out in his Summa, there can only be one infinite being, since the infinity of its being would necessarily end where the other infinite being's began, thus making neither one infinite, since each has an end and a beginning. Moreover, Scripture affirms that "The Lord your God is One God" (Deut. 6:5), and, as we said, darkness is not something, but nothing. Sure wish that more people would read Aquinas, and stop recycling old errors.
God does not need anything in order to be God, and light does not need darkness in order to shine. Ultimately, the Light will eradicate the darkness once and for all. On that day, we will not cease to exist in some sort of nihilistic nirvana, but will forever shine like the Son, realising fully who we were meant to be as partakers of His glory!
Cynical?
I'm not sure where to start. There's been so much that's gone on in my life it's a wonder I'm even here. My parents thought I'd end up in jail, or dead. I guess in some metaphorical ways I did. I'm sure we could agree that never being allowed to express your emotions is like living in a prison – you're always tethered to your fears of rejection, incarcerated by the knowledge that who you are is not welcome beyond your appearance. When you live that way long enough, you start to wonder if you ever have any impact on anyone around you, if they even know you have value.
Is that like being dead? Feels that way. At least to me.
I don't wish that on anyone. I mean, in some ways it's helped me to be a more insightful person I can spot an underdog as if he's a celebrity; others' emotions appear as text in their eyes, or in the way they carry themselves. It's heightened my sense of empathy. From that perspective, a guy like me can avoid the cliché, “a cynic knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.” Instead, I can empathize. I can look about and understand that there's not much value in being cynical; the price is too high. You've got to be willing to be an intellectual sloth to maintain a cynical attitude, especially when you can do better than what you were handed in life.
Take me, for example: I admitted already that things were pretty dark growing up. And if they weren't dark then I was just invisible. Maybe that makes things easier to understand. I don't know. In any case, by whatever turn of fortune, I was able to see, able to grasp that I don't have to give people the treatment (or lack thereof) that was given me. I don't have to refuse them passage into how I'm feeling. I don't have to treat them in some disaffected way such that their best efforts to relate to me – on whatever level – are met with empty stares, or off-handed remarks. I can greet every person I meet with a confident smile, a sturdy handshake, and a heartfelt desire to ensure their value, affirm their worth. I guess you could say that it's possible, if you pay attention, to come out of the dark and into the light; to be visible if for no other reason than because you're valuable. Inherently.
But knowing that isn't a fool-proof combination, unfortunately. Knowing something doesn't elevate you beyond the common platform of humanity, or 'being human'. There are all sorts of things that can interrupt, even break your confidence, make you question your worth all over again. Falling in love and having your heart broken; that's a pretty common experience for people. And it's certainly something that rocks your world to its foundations when it happens.
I remember when it happened to me. There was so much health, so much security and joy when I found myself breathing affection, and pulsating her name. It's just not true that 'all that glitters is not gold' when you're in love. I mean, love is the gold and all it can do is glitter, right?
No. Like everything else, it can tarnish, too. That's what happened to me. Time, exposure, misunderstandings, shortcomings, words spoken in haste... It all adds up. It's a slow but desperate accretion of pain and helplessness. Your feelings tumble our of control, and all the energy you once had flowing out of you to that other special someone now stabs inward like an unstoppable spear of hate. That darkness, so familiar to your life, robs you of the light again, envelops you and turns you invisible once more.
But you know what? Enough of that. I don't need to re-hash how I – or anyone else, for that matter – can get out of that darkness. Let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that there is such a thing as hope. You know, a real, substantial, palpable, better way of being that can make a difference in the way you relate to the world; or sometimes even the way the world relates to you.
That's something to be grateful for, right? That despite all the dross that can grow out of the human condition, there's still enough dignity in each one of us that we can softly, gently, ever so quietly and humbly hope our way into a continuous love for others.
I think it's pretty basic, really. Think about it: if you relate to anything I've just said, you probably understand that, at your core, you just want to be loved and accepted. It's that same need for love and acceptance that I'm getting at here. We all need it. We all crave it on some level. So it would seem the best way to get it is to give it, right? I mean, when it stops being passed around, when it stops being given, that's when nobody's getting it.
So keeping hope alive, keeping the darkness back, keeping things light, visible, dignified and valuable sometimes means giving our love, and rejoicing in 'the other', even when it's easier to just be cynical. Isn't that what being alive should be about?
Is that like being dead? Feels that way. At least to me.
I don't wish that on anyone. I mean, in some ways it's helped me to be a more insightful person I can spot an underdog as if he's a celebrity; others' emotions appear as text in their eyes, or in the way they carry themselves. It's heightened my sense of empathy. From that perspective, a guy like me can avoid the cliché, “a cynic knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.” Instead, I can empathize. I can look about and understand that there's not much value in being cynical; the price is too high. You've got to be willing to be an intellectual sloth to maintain a cynical attitude, especially when you can do better than what you were handed in life.
Take me, for example: I admitted already that things were pretty dark growing up. And if they weren't dark then I was just invisible. Maybe that makes things easier to understand. I don't know. In any case, by whatever turn of fortune, I was able to see, able to grasp that I don't have to give people the treatment (or lack thereof) that was given me. I don't have to refuse them passage into how I'm feeling. I don't have to treat them in some disaffected way such that their best efforts to relate to me – on whatever level – are met with empty stares, or off-handed remarks. I can greet every person I meet with a confident smile, a sturdy handshake, and a heartfelt desire to ensure their value, affirm their worth. I guess you could say that it's possible, if you pay attention, to come out of the dark and into the light; to be visible if for no other reason than because you're valuable. Inherently.
But knowing that isn't a fool-proof combination, unfortunately. Knowing something doesn't elevate you beyond the common platform of humanity, or 'being human'. There are all sorts of things that can interrupt, even break your confidence, make you question your worth all over again. Falling in love and having your heart broken; that's a pretty common experience for people. And it's certainly something that rocks your world to its foundations when it happens.
I remember when it happened to me. There was so much health, so much security and joy when I found myself breathing affection, and pulsating her name. It's just not true that 'all that glitters is not gold' when you're in love. I mean, love is the gold and all it can do is glitter, right?
No. Like everything else, it can tarnish, too. That's what happened to me. Time, exposure, misunderstandings, shortcomings, words spoken in haste... It all adds up. It's a slow but desperate accretion of pain and helplessness. Your feelings tumble our of control, and all the energy you once had flowing out of you to that other special someone now stabs inward like an unstoppable spear of hate. That darkness, so familiar to your life, robs you of the light again, envelops you and turns you invisible once more.
But you know what? Enough of that. I don't need to re-hash how I – or anyone else, for that matter – can get out of that darkness. Let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that there is such a thing as hope. You know, a real, substantial, palpable, better way of being that can make a difference in the way you relate to the world; or sometimes even the way the world relates to you.
That's something to be grateful for, right? That despite all the dross that can grow out of the human condition, there's still enough dignity in each one of us that we can softly, gently, ever so quietly and humbly hope our way into a continuous love for others.
I think it's pretty basic, really. Think about it: if you relate to anything I've just said, you probably understand that, at your core, you just want to be loved and accepted. It's that same need for love and acceptance that I'm getting at here. We all need it. We all crave it on some level. So it would seem the best way to get it is to give it, right? I mean, when it stops being passed around, when it stops being given, that's when nobody's getting it.
So keeping hope alive, keeping the darkness back, keeping things light, visible, dignified and valuable sometimes means giving our love, and rejoicing in 'the other', even when it's easier to just be cynical. Isn't that what being alive should be about?
Saturday, August 23, 2008
The Groeschelian 'It'
There was that whole Willow Creek Leadership Summit thing a while back. I offered some opinions on the event here. And here. Now there's this.
Emphasizing the teachings he provided at the Summit, Craig Groeschel is placarding the nation with his theory of 'It'. That is, some non-descript, essential quality that leaders should posses if they want to forge ahead in their efforts to wow their congregations into a more fulfilling church life, and life under God. And why? Because after Groeschel's paucious two-car garage gatherings exploded into an online 'community' of believers, LifeChurch.tv, it was a logical next step to write a book encapsulating just how that happened.
“After seeing his church grow from a two-car garage worship experience to services at 13 different campuses across six states in the US, a TV ministry, and international book sales, Groeschel talks about a transformational agent he calls 'It' in his new book It: How Churches and Leaders Can Get It and Keep It.
"We didn't have a nice building. We didn't have our own office. We didn't have a church phone number ... What did we have? We had a few people ... We had enough Bibles to go around. And we had 'It'," Groeschel writes in the first chapter of his book, on the humble beginnings of his church 12 years ago.”
But when asked the very insightful question, “what is 'It'?” Groeschel responded,
"'The answer is 'don't know', Groeschel said as he addressed thousands of leaders at Willow Creek Community Church. 'Honestly, I'm not totally sure.'
“'It' has a lot to do with the Holy Spirit, Groeschel believes, but that is not everything.”
Oh. Well, that's helpful. I mean, thanks for your honesty and all, but is it entirely honest of you to write a book about a topic, or reality you admit you 'don't know', and that you cannot define? Are you relying, Mr. Groeschel, on the gullibility of Christians to just follow you about as you try and figure out what you're trying to say and teach? Did you think about how your not knowing this thing you're talking about is paying your bills and taking money out of other peoples' pockets? And might it have been a waste of peoples' time to listen to your section of the Leadership Summit? I mean, you don't really know what you're talking about, afterall. Is that honest?
No doubt the anecdotal references in Groeschel's book will reninforce his speculations that 'It' must have something to do with God. That said,
"What he does know is that organisations that do have 'It' possess seven qualities. They include a 'laser focus', the ability to see opportunity where others see obstacles, having a willingness to fail, being led by people who have 'It', and having unmistakable camaraderie."
Let's see here... First, Groeschel doesn't know what 'It' is (honestly, of course) but that 'It' has a lot to do with the Holy Spirit. Second, even though Groeschel is a self-admitted 'It' agnostic, he's managed to delineate seven qualities that 'It' possesses. For example, when 'It' is present people seem to have good concentrative abilities, optimism, realistic self-appraisals, and leaders in their midst full of the enigmatic 'It'. Oh, yeah! And the people themselves get on well with each other.
Well, that's nice and all, but doesn't it sound a little like Groeschel is stirring the ingredients for common decency into a nice batch of Churchiness? What has Groeschel identified that church-goers haven't experienced in various times and places over the past 2000+ years? Or how 'bout any group of people that have ever purposed to get along well, and not bash each other with, say, garden shovels? Given Groeschel's admission, he probably doesn't know. But he's written a book about it. And he's spoken to 50,000+ people about it commissioning leaders to get 'It' and make sure they keep 'It'.
So we should listen to Groeschel tell us about this thing he doesn't know, and then do what he says so we can have 'It'. 'Cause if we don't, we're not good enough leaders. Which is why we need to dedicate a portion of a multi-million dollar Summit to have Groeschel tell us how we can ply God's favour a little more, get those leadership 'skills' all good and sharpened up, and take part in the ethereal 'It'. We'll be better leaders if we do what Groeschel does to get and keep 'It', so let's put the plan in place and go for 'It'! But wait!
"Moreover, 'It' is not a system or model, nor is 'It' something that can be created, copied or manufactured, he says. God makes 'It' happen.
And when churches have 'It', they see transformed lives but at the same time, those churches with 'It' attract critics, many of whom misunderstand what they are all about."
Now I'm confused. So, Groeschel doesn't know what 'It' is, but he can delineate 'It', write a book about 'It', speak at major public venues about 'It', and all for the hope that people will get 'It' and keep 'It'. Even though – and this is the clincher – 'It' cannot “be created, copied or manufactured”. So why write a how-to manual about 'It' then?
In any case, if there's no way for me to make 'It' come into being, and I have to wait on God to make 'It' happen, then until He does, I must be a poor leader, a sub-standard Christian, less fulfilled due to my It-lessness. But then again, I may just have 'It' because 'It' has something to do with the Holy Spirit.
Whatever the situation, I'm one of those critics Groeschel has mentioned misunderstands what 'It' churches are all about. But that's as it should be since even Groeschel, the It man himself, doesn't understand what 'It' is all about, much less the people who have 'It'. He does know though, that even in uniform settings 'It' remains elusive, and unmanageable. Says Groeschel,
"'All of our campuses were under the same leadership. The buildings were similar. The worship pastors were unique but had consistent styles. The kids’ curriculum never varied from campus to campus. All were experiencing exactly the same weekend teaching. But some campuses had it. And some didn’t,' writes Groeschel, although 'It' is still a growing idea, he adds.”
Sound a little creepy to you? A little cultish? A little like a compound: singular leadership, similar buildings, unvarrying curriculums, etc? It's creepy to me. In any case, there were those who had 'It' and those that didn't. The haves and the have-nots. Too bad. Maybe they should've been chasing after God, and not 'It'. Might've saved them some time and integrity. Might have resulted in people not placing their faith in the off-chance of experiencing the Groeschelian 'It' and, instead, situating their faith in Christ alone. I suppose that's as it should be. I mean, really: the Catholics have Mary, so naturally, the hyper-evangelicals should have 'It'. But somehow, even if you disagree with Catholics, Mary does seem a little more sensible than a vague 'It'.
As it is, masses of people, under the 'leadership' of Groeschel, have thrown their lot in with a “growing idea” concerning something no-one really understands, or can adequately define. Doesn't sound that promising to me. But it's just the sort of thing these neo-evangelicals, and their so-called 'innovative leaders' are wont to do: pitch an idea at a crowd and hope for a grand-$lam as their return. The emphasis isn't so much on the rightness or wrongness of what's being taught but on what works. Thus Groeschel can't figure out what he's talking about but can sell-out to an all-too-eager crowd. Now enter the repetition of the pre-Reformation emphasis on works-righteousness. And hence the overlap from secular morality: if it works and no-one's being hurt then what's the problem? Indeed, if what you lead people to is some malformed meme, and not Christ, if it works and no-one is overtly hurt in the process, then what exactly is the problem? Well, the answer's in the question: 'It' is a malformed meme, and not Christ.
And that's probably why Groeschel, while he may be a well-meaning (well-meme-ing?) guy, can displace the central message of Scripture for the Gospel According to 'It', and pray that whatever it takes, God will sprinkle your life with a touch of insomnia until you get 'It' and keep 'It'.
"Some of you, it’s time to let God break your heart again," Groeschel told leaders. "I pray you don’t sleep until you get 'It' and fall in love with Jesus again."
Emphasizing the teachings he provided at the Summit, Craig Groeschel is placarding the nation with his theory of 'It'. That is, some non-descript, essential quality that leaders should posses if they want to forge ahead in their efforts to wow their congregations into a more fulfilling church life, and life under God. And why? Because after Groeschel's paucious two-car garage gatherings exploded into an online 'community' of believers, LifeChurch.tv, it was a logical next step to write a book encapsulating just how that happened.“After seeing his church grow from a two-car garage worship experience to services at 13 different campuses across six states in the US, a TV ministry, and international book sales, Groeschel talks about a transformational agent he calls 'It' in his new book It: How Churches and Leaders Can Get It and Keep It.
"We didn't have a nice building. We didn't have our own office. We didn't have a church phone number ... What did we have? We had a few people ... We had enough Bibles to go around. And we had 'It'," Groeschel writes in the first chapter of his book, on the humble beginnings of his church 12 years ago.”
But when asked the very insightful question, “what is 'It'?” Groeschel responded,
"'The answer is 'don't know', Groeschel said as he addressed thousands of leaders at Willow Creek Community Church. 'Honestly, I'm not totally sure.'
“'It' has a lot to do with the Holy Spirit, Groeschel believes, but that is not everything.”
Oh. Well, that's helpful. I mean, thanks for your honesty and all, but is it entirely honest of you to write a book about a topic, or reality you admit you 'don't know', and that you cannot define? Are you relying, Mr. Groeschel, on the gullibility of Christians to just follow you about as you try and figure out what you're trying to say and teach? Did you think about how your not knowing this thing you're talking about is paying your bills and taking money out of other peoples' pockets? And might it have been a waste of peoples' time to listen to your section of the Leadership Summit? I mean, you don't really know what you're talking about, afterall. Is that honest?
No doubt the anecdotal references in Groeschel's book will reninforce his speculations that 'It' must have something to do with God. That said,"What he does know is that organisations that do have 'It' possess seven qualities. They include a 'laser focus', the ability to see opportunity where others see obstacles, having a willingness to fail, being led by people who have 'It', and having unmistakable camaraderie."
Let's see here... First, Groeschel doesn't know what 'It' is (honestly, of course) but that 'It' has a lot to do with the Holy Spirit. Second, even though Groeschel is a self-admitted 'It' agnostic, he's managed to delineate seven qualities that 'It' possesses. For example, when 'It' is present people seem to have good concentrative abilities, optimism, realistic self-appraisals, and leaders in their midst full of the enigmatic 'It'. Oh, yeah! And the people themselves get on well with each other.
Well, that's nice and all, but doesn't it sound a little like Groeschel is stirring the ingredients for common decency into a nice batch of Churchiness? What has Groeschel identified that church-goers haven't experienced in various times and places over the past 2000+ years? Or how 'bout any group of people that have ever purposed to get along well, and not bash each other with, say, garden shovels? Given Groeschel's admission, he probably doesn't know. But he's written a book about it. And he's spoken to 50,000+ people about it commissioning leaders to get 'It' and make sure they keep 'It'.
So we should listen to Groeschel tell us about this thing he doesn't know, and then do what he says so we can have 'It'. 'Cause if we don't, we're not good enough leaders. Which is why we need to dedicate a portion of a multi-million dollar Summit to have Groeschel tell us how we can ply God's favour a little more, get those leadership 'skills' all good and sharpened up, and take part in the ethereal 'It'. We'll be better leaders if we do what Groeschel does to get and keep 'It', so let's put the plan in place and go for 'It'! But wait!
"Moreover, 'It' is not a system or model, nor is 'It' something that can be created, copied or manufactured, he says. God makes 'It' happen.
And when churches have 'It', they see transformed lives but at the same time, those churches with 'It' attract critics, many of whom misunderstand what they are all about."
Now I'm confused. So, Groeschel doesn't know what 'It' is, but he can delineate 'It', write a book about 'It', speak at major public venues about 'It', and all for the hope that people will get 'It' and keep 'It'. Even though – and this is the clincher – 'It' cannot “be created, copied or manufactured”. So why write a how-to manual about 'It' then?
In any case, if there's no way for me to make 'It' come into being, and I have to wait on God to make 'It' happen, then until He does, I must be a poor leader, a sub-standard Christian, less fulfilled due to my It-lessness. But then again, I may just have 'It' because 'It' has something to do with the Holy Spirit.
Whatever the situation, I'm one of those critics Groeschel has mentioned misunderstands what 'It' churches are all about. But that's as it should be since even Groeschel, the It man himself, doesn't understand what 'It' is all about, much less the people who have 'It'. He does know though, that even in uniform settings 'It' remains elusive, and unmanageable. Says Groeschel,
"'All of our campuses were under the same leadership. The buildings were similar. The worship pastors were unique but had consistent styles. The kids’ curriculum never varied from campus to campus. All were experiencing exactly the same weekend teaching. But some campuses had it. And some didn’t,' writes Groeschel, although 'It' is still a growing idea, he adds.”
Sound a little creepy to you? A little cultish? A little like a compound: singular leadership, similar buildings, unvarrying curriculums, etc? It's creepy to me. In any case, there were those who had 'It' and those that didn't. The haves and the have-nots. Too bad. Maybe they should've been chasing after God, and not 'It'. Might've saved them some time and integrity. Might have resulted in people not placing their faith in the off-chance of experiencing the Groeschelian 'It' and, instead, situating their faith in Christ alone. I suppose that's as it should be. I mean, really: the Catholics have Mary, so naturally, the hyper-evangelicals should have 'It'. But somehow, even if you disagree with Catholics, Mary does seem a little more sensible than a vague 'It'.
As it is, masses of people, under the 'leadership' of Groeschel, have thrown their lot in with a “growing idea” concerning something no-one really understands, or can adequately define. Doesn't sound that promising to me. But it's just the sort of thing these neo-evangelicals, and their so-called 'innovative leaders' are wont to do: pitch an idea at a crowd and hope for a grand-$lam as their return. The emphasis isn't so much on the rightness or wrongness of what's being taught but on what works. Thus Groeschel can't figure out what he's talking about but can sell-out to an all-too-eager crowd. Now enter the repetition of the pre-Reformation emphasis on works-righteousness. And hence the overlap from secular morality: if it works and no-one's being hurt then what's the problem? Indeed, if what you lead people to is some malformed meme, and not Christ, if it works and no-one is overtly hurt in the process, then what exactly is the problem? Well, the answer's in the question: 'It' is a malformed meme, and not Christ.
And that's probably why Groeschel, while he may be a well-meaning (well-meme-ing?) guy, can displace the central message of Scripture for the Gospel According to 'It', and pray that whatever it takes, God will sprinkle your life with a touch of insomnia until you get 'It' and keep 'It'.
"Some of you, it’s time to let God break your heart again," Groeschel told leaders. "I pray you don’t sleep until you get 'It' and fall in love with Jesus again."
Scripture has a lot to say about messages like 'It', and their resultant emotional fuzzies. Most emphatically:
"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions... (2 Timothy 4:3, ESV)"
Enough said.
Church and State
For the first time in a long time, most Americans -- on either side of the Republican/Democrat divide -- agree that the Church should stay out of politics.
Given the past 8 years of the Bush administration, I can't imagine why. Might it have something to do with the vast incompetence of the most powerful man in the world to represent the Christian beliefs he professes with any type of clarity, consistency, fairness, decency, love and respect? Might it have to do something with the complete and utter disparity between loving your neighbour and invading their countries?
Given the past 8 years of the Bush administration, I can't imagine why. Might it have something to do with the vast incompetence of the most powerful man in the world to represent the Christian beliefs he professes with any type of clarity, consistency, fairness, decency, love and respect? Might it have to do something with the complete and utter disparity between loving your neighbour and invading their countries?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)