Sometimes Its Nice to be Needed

I’m moving on from the last two posts. This one will actually be a positive post. No rants. Really.

First I want to plug this link to a website put together by one of the kids in the church I serve. It is about bullying in Rhode Island and sets a good example for others to consider in their own state. Unless you are pro-bullying (i.e. capitalist?) then you should support such an endeavor.

Second, I attended a Christian Unity service at the CopticOrthodox Church of St. Mary and St. Mena sponsored by the Rhode Island StateCouncil of Churches. Really neat form of worship. We were vividly reminded about the persecution of Christians in Egypt. It is not a good thing and we need to tell others about these atrocities; we need to spread awareness.

Finally, I read a good article from Alban, one that surprised. The article seemed to be about church growth and elicited a loud grown from me. Everyone in the coffee shop stopped what they were doing, stared at me in wonder, and I looked back and said:

Do you have a problem?

One more advancement for Christianity in the world.

Anyway, as I read more of the article I was pleasantly surprised. In this article the author talks about his efforts to prepare one particular church for a time with no pastor. He was looking at the dearth of youngish pastors and the abundance of pastors in their early 60s and saw that it there would be a time when there would not be enough pastors for churches. So he began to prepare his church. That is positive thinking at its best.

What he found was that the spirituality of the congregation grew through these efforts. Nice!

I think there is something to be said for a congregation that can provide spiritual guidance, minister to each other, be present for each other, and exist without a pastor. Now I would argue that there would always be a spiritual need for a pastor, for someone who believes he or she has been called by God to preach, pastor, and lead the congregation. I’m not just thinking of my own sense of job security, but thinking of ecclesiology – this may be something for another post.

Yet we want churches to be healthy and not dependent on one leader. We want churches that can walk aside the pastor, and even lead the pastor from time to time (we are human after all). Perhaps what people in my profession should be working towards is a day when his or her presence is not necessary on some levels and then is appreciated on a deeper level.

So I guess I should start to try to work myself out of a job. Don’t tell my wife or children.

What I Meant to Say Was...

It is now confirmed that not everyone likes me… or at least the stuff that I write. I think this is good because the conversation generates better thoughts and articulation of those thoughts. Here are some of the things people said in response to my last article:

Mock, malign and marginalize the spiritual but not religious all you want. They're our fish. They've had spirituality commoditized for them and need to see that a) spirituality involves work and b) that work bears amazing fruit (b before a, really).

Sorry, but I completely disagree with this essay. You're equating lazy with not doing what Christianity and other organized religions prescribe. To me, that kind of logic is lazy and elitist.

Spirituality comes in all forms.

You can read two other comments on my blog.

It seems that some see my previous post as a big ole’ push for organized religion. Granted that is my bread and butter, but it wasn’t my intent. Based on the way I wrote the entry I can see how many reached that conclusion – I really could have said things in a different and maybe more positive way, but then I wouldn’t be so much fun, would I?

I think what I meant to say was that it is important to find and be a part of a community however that looks. Last week’s podcast of Philosophy Bites featured Alain de Botton speaking about Atheism 2.0. He spoke about the importance of a community as a place where not only morals are taught and carried on, but also as a place where ideas of importance, values are tested, shared, and celebrated. De Botton stressed that it was not faith so much that was important (as an atheist that would be weird for him to celebrate faith in God) but the rituals and liturgy of the community stressing the values and morals of a community.

I am not suggesting that Atheists form a church with a liturgy and all that. I don’t even know what that would look like. It is the community that is important and the type of community.

Those who get together on a regular basis have rituals and liturgy and in large part rituals and liturgy express the ideals and values of that group of people – even if it is a group of people gathering around to talk about God over beer, or to talk about beer over God.

It is the individualist spiritual person that I was railing against and I will add to this the individualist Christian, the individualist Jew, the individualist Muslim, and on and on (I’m not attacking groups of people, just individuals). A community requires work. It is work to learn the “grammar” of the community and to participate in that grammar. It is work to share yourself and to share in the life and struggles of others. It is a lot easier to just go to church, say the words proscribed, and then go home without any connection with the people there or any investment in the rituals. It is a lot easier to say you are spiritual but do nothing that considers, expresses, or deepens that spirituality. That is what I meant by selfish spirituality.

For those who are searching – keep searching – that is part of the work. For those who have a community be it an organized religion or not, engage and immerse yourself into that community and push the community to deepen its experience of spirituality however that may be expressed. I guess that is what I meant by being religious – being deliberate about your spirituality.

Of course I really appreciate all of the comments. Well, I kinda appreciate all of the comments – it took me about a week of crying in the shower to find the nerve to write a response. Now I look like a giant white raisin.

Topic closed? Can I move on and blog about Red Letter Bibles and churches with pastors?

Spirituality = Laziness

Today I had a for real “coffee shop” conversation. I was sitting, minding my own business, looking mousey, when someone asked me if I was a writer. If I was smart, I would have said, “yes,” but I’m still slow to the uptick and said, “nope, I’m a minister.” I even think I felt proud about this declaration. In response, this person told me how he is very spiritual, leaning towards the Zen side of faith and views everyone religious as prophets on equal ground. Yawn.

To be fair, this individual seemed to really know his stuff, knew what he was talking about so he may be the exception to the rule. The rules are:

1. When someone says, “I am spiritual” that person does not put any real time or energy into his or her own faith and wants to avoid any sense of guilt for sleeping in on Sunday mornings. 
2. When someone says, “I like Zen” (or any other Eastern religion) it means that he or she wants to seem radical, enlightened, or beyond Christianity but still spirituality grounded to some kind of tradition. Again, it is most likely to avoid the guilt thing.

I want to stress one more time that the person I was talking to seemed to take his stance kind of seriously (or I may just be writing this in case he happened to be reading this right now and I can’t bear the thought of someone not liking me). Yet by in large the rules tend to stand. Why is this a problem? For me it is the same as saying, “I like Italian food” and only eating Chef boyardee or only eating out at Olive Garden. Or saying, “I’m into art” and stocking their house with all of the five dollar artwork that is sold at local auctions (what I term ‘Hotel Art’) or Thomas Kinkade (I am holding the vomit back as I write those words).

First, if you are into Buddhism, Zen or not, then really be into it. Meaning, join a community, go to regular worship, and become fully immersed into the tradition. It only works if you are fully into it and make a commitment. This is actually true of all reputable faith traditions – you have to go all in or don’t go at all.

Second, try to get a clue what “spiritual” means because I really have no idea and think you (the universal you, that is) don’t have an idea as well. If it means finding peace in nature than read some of the transcendentalists, hug a tree, and go to a Unitarian Universalist church. After all, you can’t have enough Emerson and Thoreau in your life.

If being “spiritual” means seeing good in everyone, then join the Optimist club if they even still exist. I doubt that they do.

If being “spiritual” means believing in Jesus, believing in God, but rejecting the church and all that it stands for then you are a hypocrite (ha!). If you really believe in Jesus and follow him, and if you really believe in the God that Jesus represents then you will realize that God/Christ calls for relationships and community. You can’t be a believer or follower without being a part of a community or you are rejecting the relational aspect of God. Yup, pretty harsh, but there it is.

So, get your lazy, “spiritual” a** off the sofa and do something, get involved, even if it means joining a Unitarian Universalist church. Shudder.

Its All About Me!

I’ll admit that the last two posts were kinda lame – what I have watched and what I have read? Really? Who cares?

They were just easy posts to write, compiling data from the past year, but now it is back to business – no more slacking off, no more fluff, no more …  I guess no more of what I usually write.

I have recently been sloughing through War and Peace (I’ve finally gotten past page 1,000 but still have about 700 pages to go). I have to admit it is a very good book that really captures a great deal of the horrors of war and the indifference of the upper echelon of society (among about a billion other things). While a great battle is waged just outside of Moscow, a married woman is flirting with two men, promises to marry both of them, and becomes Catholic in order that she can have her marriage annulled. How’s that for a twist? Become Catholic to end a marriage. In the book the whole scenario is very interesting for many people – it is the gossip of Moscow and Petersburg.

I think the connection between tabloid entertainment and the horrors of reality is obvious. News is made when McDonald’s re-releases the McRibb or when someone’s marriage doesn’t last very long but not when people starve to death, etc. This is fluff, bread and circus kind of entertainment that appeases the masses so as to avoid the festering wounds of society. Yuck.

However, no one likes a dour, sour-puss kind of person. This is the person who is so involved in all of the suffering of the world that just to be in their presence is its own kind of suffering. Know anyone like that?

Activists, tree-hugging kind of Christians (and other do-gooders) again and again remind us that we need to consider the other (in a Lacanian, Buber kind of way). I agree that if we are only focused on ourselves then we are not fully living. Yet I don’t think I would argue that those who focus on pulp news are not focusing on themselves. We have a lot of distractions, crappy, enamoring distractions that keep us from knowing ourselves. So then the guilt comes that we need to help others and we don’t even know who we are and all we have to talk about is the soft-core snuff that passes for television.

Take some time to figure out who you are. Take care of yourself, get to know yourself in a substantial way and then start to consider others. Go for a walk. Read a book. Bake a cake. Etc, etc. This is a selfishness that isn’t so bad and may actually lead to something good. Hmm, maybe it is time for me to think more about myself…

Book Reports!

Well, I've listed the movies I watched and now the books that I read in the past year. I have to be honest, I am a little disappointed that I did not read more. Twenty-two books, 6,586 pages does not seem like a lot. This year I will see if I can do better - it doesn't help that I am only on page 631 in War and Peace and I keep reading a lot of journal articles.


A Fortunate Life - A.B. Facey
The Wizard of Oz and other Narcissists - Elanor D. Payson
Dishwasher - Pete Jordan
The Foucault Reader - ed. by Paul Rabinow
The Art of Reading Scripture - ed. by E. Davis and R. Hays
The Coming of the Body - Herve Juvin
A Layman's Guide to Protestant Theology - William Hordern
The Secret of Overcoming Verbal Abuse - Albert Ellis and Marcia Grad Powers
Middlemarch - George Eliot
The Magician's Nephew - C.S. Lewis
Freakonomics - S. Levitt and S. Dubner
A Bief History of Christian Worship - James F. White
The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe - C.S. Lewis
Children of the Self-Absorbed - Nina W. Brown
After Virtue - Alasdair MacIntyre
Prize Stories 1993: The O. Henry Awards - ed. by William Abrahams
Autism, Asperger Syndrome and Pervasive Developmental Disorder - Barbara Quinn and Anthony     Malone
The Nature and Purpose of the Church - World Council of Churches, Faith and Order Commission
The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History - John M. Barry
Revisioning Christian Unity: The Global Christian Forum - Hubert van Beek
The Girard Reader - ed. by James G. WIlliams
Fusion: Turning First-Time Guests into Fully Engaged Members of Your Church - Nelson Searcy with      Jennifer Dykes
Twilight of the Idols - Friedrich Nietzsche

Whatca Watching?

It is a new year, so it is a time for lists. I only have two lists (this year, but watch out next year!), so I will make it two blog posts. First, the movies I watched this year.

A little bit of background. I have been trying to watch everything that has been nominated for an Oscar of any kind (even best costume). I started with the most current, which was 2010 at the time, and then added the 2011 list when it came out. Near the end of the year when I finished the 2010 list I started the 2009 list of Oscar nominees.

I have also been re-watching the AFI 100 best films of century (both the original list and the updated list). I finished this list a while ago, so am re-watching them and finding that things are really great the second time around.

Finally, sometimes I just like to watch crap. Deal.

Here is the list in the order that I watched them, more or less:

Movies of 2011

The Imagination of Dr. Parnassus

True Grit

Lost Boys

Nine (the musical)

An Education

The Fugitive

Citizen Kane

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer Stone

The Last Airbender

IP Man

Il Divo

The Door (a short film)

The Kids are Alright

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkahban

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Casablanca

The Messenger

The Princess and the Frog

Coraline

The Fighter

The Godfather (part I)

Invictus

The Other Guys

How to Train Your Dragon

Gangs of New York

Megamind

A Serious Man

French Roast (animated short)

Kick Ass

Gone With the Wind

Julie and Julia

Black Swan

Milk of Sorrow

X-Men First Class

Just Go With It

Lawrence of Arabia

Iron Man 2

Food Inc.

Knockaround Guys

IP Man 2

Biutiful

Hot Tub Time Machine

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1

The White Ribbon

The Wizard of Oz

I Love You Philip Morris

The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Elsberg

The King’s Speech

Rise of the Planets of the Apes

Silverado

Twelve Angry Men

Sherlock Holmes

Analyze This

The Graduate

In the Loop

Office Space

Alice in Wonderland (2010)

Instead of Abracadabra (short film)

Granny O’Grimm’s Sleeping Beauty (animated short)

On the Waterfront

Paris 36

Inception

Mr. Popper’s Penguins

Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon

The Zookeeper

Bad Teacher

Green Lantern

Bridesmaids

I Love You Beth Cooper

Wanted

Pirates of the Caribbean – Stranger Tides

The Secret of Kells

Schindler’s List

The Lovely Bones

I Am Love

The Warrior’s Way

The Princess Bride

The Prophet (or A Prophet)

Singing in the Rain

Coco Before Chanel

The Social Network

The One

Romeo Must Die

Exit Through the Gift Shop

It’s a Wonderful Life

Bah Humbug

I should write something about all of the people who aren't going to church this upcoming Sunday because it is Christmas. Does that sound as backwards as I think it sounds... and we are worried about a war on Christmas. When people make parties, get-togethers, and other traditions more important than going to church the seldom times Christmas falls on a Sunday then we lost the war on Christmas. It is now a secular holiday.

"But I have family coming over." Bring them to church.
"But we have so much going on and I have to get ready." I refer you to the story of Mary and Martha. Who chose the better thing?

I usually don't get upset over people's schedules and decisions to not attend worship. I get it. People are very busy and need to take care of themselves. But this is Christmas, one of the most holy days of our Christian calendar and it doesn't always fall on a Sunday. So on the days when it does shouldn't we make the effort.

If Easter didn't fall on a Sunday would people still attend church on that day?

Someone suggested to me that perhaps the quiet, simple time in the morning with the family is an appropriate way to honor and celebrate the birth of Jesus. It sounds good, but wouldn't it also be good to gather with your church family to honor the birth of Jesus?

Surrender the claim for titles. Surrender the demand that the pagan tree be called a "Christmas tree" because it has religious significance. I don't think people really care about the religious significance or they would be in church on Sunday. Surrender the idea that the reason for the season is the birth of Christ. Surrender it all because we have lost, Christmas is a secular holiday. Joy to the world.

Well, that was a whole lot of cheer.

A Naked Critique

I just read this interesting article from the Alban institute:

Basically the author, N. Graham Standish is arguing that the reason why a majority of churches are dying is because they have stopped listening to God. He claims that every "thriving" church he has attended are all open to the presence of God in their community. I don't know what he means by "thriving," but we'll assume it means they have more than 200 people a Sunday and really good donuts.

He claims that all of those other, apostate churches are mired in rational functionalism which is rooted in the idea, "that we can uncover the mysteries of life and the universe mainly through rational thought and disciplined investigation. It is the tendency of denominations, their congregations, and their leaders to subscribe to a view of faith and church rooted in a restrictive, logic-bound theology that ignores the possibility of spiritual experiences and miraculous events."


Sermons are basically academic papers. Churches are run like a rote institution. They are cold, vapid, and basically dead.


Those "thriving" churches are "open to God at its core." That is basically all Standish says about those "thriving" churches.


Mr. Standish (or is it Rev. Standish, or Dr. Standish?) I am calling you naked. Well, I'm not actually calling you naked but your theory naked. It is weak, hypercritical, and groundless. I think that is the nice way to put it.

It is very easy to go to almost any church and say, "well, since you are doing things that I don't like you must not be listening to God, you heathen, bastard church."

It is just as easy to say, "this church is doing well because it is doing the things that I think are exciting and important. They must be listening to God. Let the angels sing and rejoice."

Basically Standish is saying, "if you can't see what I see then you are Godless and doomed to failure." If you can't see the fine clothes on the emperor, then you must be a fool.

But I will call out the emperor's nakedness. Standish's critique and claim is nothing but putting up a false facade of spirituality and making other struggling churches feel like crap. There may be some value to the critiques he makes, but the package stinks. Thanks N. Graham Standish. Thanks a lot.