I had a conversation yesterday that was especially gratifying as a pastor. We were reflecting on a meeting we had with our church’s leadership recently that resulted in a few edits to one of our creeds.
Our Sunday morning worship at Pleasant Bay includes reciting a creed together. We often use an ancient creed like the Apostles’ Creed. Some Sundays we use a creed derived from our denomination’s doctrinal statements. And there are creeds that we have written ourselves, like the one we recently edited regarding the purpose of the church. (Many of the creeds we use at Pleasant Bay are available here: http://pleasantbay.cedarpark.org/resource)
My friend explained that these creeds find their way into his conversations from time to time. Someone asked the broad question, “what do you believe?” and the outline of the Apostles’ Creed guided his response (not reciting the creed… that might be weird… but using the creed as mental cue cards). In another conversation the topic of praying for the sick came up, and key phrases of our creed on divine healing peppered the conversation. When opportunity arose to clearly state what he believed, our creeds provided a handy toolbox.
Obviously, I think it is worthwhile to take a moment in each worship service and proclaim together a foundational statement about our beliefs. I’m glad that our congregation has stuck with the discipline, even when most churches of our ilk do not. But when do creeds really matter? Creeds really matter when they apply directly in our day-to-day lives and conversations.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Passive Exclusion
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” (1 Corinthians 12:21)
The ancient Church in Corinth was in trouble. They were divided and confused. One of the ways their founding pastor, the Apostle Paul, helped them correct their errors was to describe the Church in terms of a body. Like our human bodies, they needed unity through diversity (one body, many parts).
After encouraging each and all to press in for their own inclusion, he flipped perspectives to teach that there is no room for exclusion either. In the pursuit of unity through diversity we cannot allow for any of the parts God has brought together to be pushed out.
The way the Apostle describes this is really sort of absurd. He says “The eye cannot say to the hand, I don’t need you!” meaning that such exclusion in the Church is prohibited. But, of course, the eye cannot say anything to the hand; eyes can’t talk. There is no way for an eye to actively exclude the hand. But it is equally true that the eye cannot go on passively as if the hand does not exist.
I suspect that this is the message that most of us church folk need to hear. These days, we are seldom guilty of active exclusion (we are polite folks, no keep-out signs posted at the door; we don’t push people out even when they are not like us). But it is so easy to participate in passive exclusion… not actively excluding, but going along as if we don’t need people who aren’t like us, and not doing anything to actively invite those in, or have concern for those, who are not like us.
Truth is… in the Church, if we are not actively including, we are actually excluding.
The ancient Church in Corinth was in trouble. They were divided and confused. One of the ways their founding pastor, the Apostle Paul, helped them correct their errors was to describe the Church in terms of a body. Like our human bodies, they needed unity through diversity (one body, many parts).
After encouraging each and all to press in for their own inclusion, he flipped perspectives to teach that there is no room for exclusion either. In the pursuit of unity through diversity we cannot allow for any of the parts God has brought together to be pushed out.
The way the Apostle describes this is really sort of absurd. He says “The eye cannot say to the hand, I don’t need you!” meaning that such exclusion in the Church is prohibited. But, of course, the eye cannot say anything to the hand; eyes can’t talk. There is no way for an eye to actively exclude the hand. But it is equally true that the eye cannot go on passively as if the hand does not exist.
I suspect that this is the message that most of us church folk need to hear. These days, we are seldom guilty of active exclusion (we are polite folks, no keep-out signs posted at the door; we don’t push people out even when they are not like us). But it is so easy to participate in passive exclusion… not actively excluding, but going along as if we don’t need people who aren’t like us, and not doing anything to actively invite those in, or have concern for those, who are not like us.
Truth is… in the Church, if we are not actively including, we are actually excluding.
Monday, March 10, 2014
The Smell Test
Today's Daily Mail has an article that references the science behind detecting disease via the sense of smell. Apparently there are devices currently under development, and the article also references specially trained dogs that can identify certain diseases.
It puts me in mind of when our son Donny was receiving chemo in an effort to combat the vasculitis that was ruining his retinas, leaving him blind for a few months in 2012. During chemo, a good friend's dog wouldn’t have anything to do with Donny. The otherwise happy dog, which always looked to Donny for affection, was obviously disturbed by Donny’s presence… growling and hiding until months after the chemo wore off. Our conclusion: the dog could smell that there was something wrong. He didn’t know precisely what was wrong… but he knew that he didn’t like it, so he made himself scarce whenever Donny came around. Donny wasn’t passing the smell test.
Similarly, sometimes churches don’t pass the smell test. People come but they don’t stay… they may not have a clue why, but they can tell something isn’t quite right. Something seems sick or at least unhealthy.
1 Corinthian 12 describes the church in terms of a body (a human body). The church (the Body of Christ) is built like the human body in that it is one body made of many parts… unity through diversity. The text in 1 Corinthians paints word pictures that describe a body with missing parts, or a body that is made up of just one part. With just a little imagination we might picture such a body… which really isn’t a body at all, but more like a monstrosity.
This is the sort of thing that happens when we mistake uniformity for unity (see my post on unity verses uniformity). Rather than pursuing unity through diversity, we pursue the cheap substitute of uniformity. And then we are somehow surprised when outsiders look at our churches, and rather than seeing a beautiful depiction of the Body of Christ, all they see is a monstrosity. Even when they can’t quite identify what is repelling them, outsiders can sense that something is unhealthy and wrong when our churches settle for uniformity rather than pursue God’s designed unity through diversity.
I spoke about this in part of my sermon at Pleasant Bay yesterday; you can access the audio and my notes at http://pleasantbay.cedarpark.org/services
It puts me in mind of when our son Donny was receiving chemo in an effort to combat the vasculitis that was ruining his retinas, leaving him blind for a few months in 2012. During chemo, a good friend's dog wouldn’t have anything to do with Donny. The otherwise happy dog, which always looked to Donny for affection, was obviously disturbed by Donny’s presence… growling and hiding until months after the chemo wore off. Our conclusion: the dog could smell that there was something wrong. He didn’t know precisely what was wrong… but he knew that he didn’t like it, so he made himself scarce whenever Donny came around. Donny wasn’t passing the smell test.
Similarly, sometimes churches don’t pass the smell test. People come but they don’t stay… they may not have a clue why, but they can tell something isn’t quite right. Something seems sick or at least unhealthy.
1 Corinthian 12 describes the church in terms of a body (a human body). The church (the Body of Christ) is built like the human body in that it is one body made of many parts… unity through diversity. The text in 1 Corinthians paints word pictures that describe a body with missing parts, or a body that is made up of just one part. With just a little imagination we might picture such a body… which really isn’t a body at all, but more like a monstrosity.
This is the sort of thing that happens when we mistake uniformity for unity (see my post on unity verses uniformity). Rather than pursuing unity through diversity, we pursue the cheap substitute of uniformity. And then we are somehow surprised when outsiders look at our churches, and rather than seeing a beautiful depiction of the Body of Christ, all they see is a monstrosity. Even when they can’t quite identify what is repelling them, outsiders can sense that something is unhealthy and wrong when our churches settle for uniformity rather than pursue God’s designed unity through diversity.
I spoke about this in part of my sermon at Pleasant Bay yesterday; you can access the audio and my notes at http://pleasantbay.cedarpark.org/services
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Bad Dog?
We probably deal with a minor mess like this about once a week. I think it frustrates me more than anyone else at our house; and I’ve certainly made more of these fake threats of excommunication than anyone else.
Truth is… we know it isn’t only Annie’s fault… maybe not even mostly Annie’s fault. First off, we did a poor job of training her. She not only gets in the garbage, she is awful on a leash, jumps on visitors, and runs off if we don’t watch the doors carefully. All of that is mostly because we have failed to train her and now we have given up, determining that we cannot teach an old dog new tricks (she doesn’t do any tricks either, unless being really really cute is a trick).
So now we are the ones who are trained, conforming our behavior to her’s. So when it comes to the kitchen trash, we put it up where she can’t reach it when we leave the house… except when we forget, like I did today when I was the last one to leave the house this morning.
So we might look at her sternly, shaking our finger, saying “bad dog!” but really these are often cases of “bad humans.”
How often does bad behavior in other aspects of our lives follow the same pattern? Now please don’t accuse me of equating our kids, colleagues, employees, coworkers and such with my poorly trained dog… it is just a loose metaphor. But doesn’t the same sort of thing happen all the time?
People make messes too… and before we react we need to pause and ask questions like “did I provide the training?” or “did I put systems in place to keep this from happening” or “did I fail to hold up my end of the deal?”
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
When Efficiency Eventually Leads to Irrelevance
Some of my most rewarding experiences have been in resourcing or leading or serving-in membership organizations… and some of my most frustrating experiences have been in resourcing or leading or serving-in membership organizations. By membership organizations, I mean those groups in which the governance and productivity of the group comes from the members. So for me these have included committees, boards, churches, and even bands.
Last week I wrote an article contrasting unity and uniformity in which I said “uniformity prizes excellence; unity values broad participation.” When most membership organizations (teams, committees, movements, etc.) form, they not only value broad participation, they have nothing else. They usually come together to get some work done or accomplish something that nobody else is accomplishing. They are certainly not opposed to excellence, but participation is valued more than precision.
Eventually the organization begins to get organized and resourced, and efficiencies are introduced. Early on, these efficiencies usually increase the relevance of the organization to the members. With agendas, policies, procedures, dockets, resources and such, members are equipped and empowered to jump in with their strengths, time, and resources to make a difference. As efficiency increases, relevance to the members increases.
But in my observation, the relation between efficiency and relevance to the members doesn’t produce a simple upward-sloping curve, but rather it is more like a horseshoe. At one end of the scale, efficiencies contribute to relevance and the gains can be dramatic. In the middle, increased efficiencies don’t have a great impact on relevance to the members (increased efficiencies may still be a very good thing, contributing to the impact of the organization… it merely doesn’t impact relevance to the members). And then at the other end of the scale, increased efficiencies actually decrease relevance to the members.
So, for example, an executive committee (or an executive for that matter) may, in the name of efficiency, move from framing the issues for the membership to deciding the matter for the membership, looking to the membership not for deliberation and decision but only ratification. Another example might be a nominating committee that moves from recruiting and qualifying nominees for election by the members, to selecting a single candidate (or a slate of candidates to fill several roles) looking to the membership to merely ratify the selection committee’s work. Each of these examples will very likely increase efficiency, but usually leads the members to conclude that their role is irrelevant… and that leads to the members feeling that the organization is no longer relevant to them. When times are good, members leave or are pushed to the irrelevant margins. But then when times are bad, or there is simply a new challenge and the organization needs the members, the members are either gone or ill-equipped to help.
It seems to me that at one end of the scale, staff and leaders introduce efficiencies in order to serve the members; at the other end of the scale, staff and leaders introduce efficiencies in order to serve themselves, making their work more efficient and their lives easier (I know this because I’ve done it myself… too many times).
Sometimes an organization changes and the relevance of the members is no longer an important value. For example, what started as a membership organization might turn into a regulatory or accrediting body, or maybe it morphs into an organization that primarily provides goods or services. When that is the case, it may simply be time to formally change the governance of the organization.
But if the participation and relevance of the members’ participation continues to be a high value, leaders and members need to be ever vigilant to keep their pursuit of efficiency at that sweet spot of high efficiency and high relevance.
Last week I wrote an article contrasting unity and uniformity in which I said “uniformity prizes excellence; unity values broad participation.” When most membership organizations (teams, committees, movements, etc.) form, they not only value broad participation, they have nothing else. They usually come together to get some work done or accomplish something that nobody else is accomplishing. They are certainly not opposed to excellence, but participation is valued more than precision.
Eventually the organization begins to get organized and resourced, and efficiencies are introduced. Early on, these efficiencies usually increase the relevance of the organization to the members. With agendas, policies, procedures, dockets, resources and such, members are equipped and empowered to jump in with their strengths, time, and resources to make a difference. As efficiency increases, relevance to the members increases.
So, for example, an executive committee (or an executive for that matter) may, in the name of efficiency, move from framing the issues for the membership to deciding the matter for the membership, looking to the membership not for deliberation and decision but only ratification. Another example might be a nominating committee that moves from recruiting and qualifying nominees for election by the members, to selecting a single candidate (or a slate of candidates to fill several roles) looking to the membership to merely ratify the selection committee’s work. Each of these examples will very likely increase efficiency, but usually leads the members to conclude that their role is irrelevant… and that leads to the members feeling that the organization is no longer relevant to them. When times are good, members leave or are pushed to the irrelevant margins. But then when times are bad, or there is simply a new challenge and the organization needs the members, the members are either gone or ill-equipped to help.
It seems to me that at one end of the scale, staff and leaders introduce efficiencies in order to serve the members; at the other end of the scale, staff and leaders introduce efficiencies in order to serve themselves, making their work more efficient and their lives easier (I know this because I’ve done it myself… too many times).
Sometimes an organization changes and the relevance of the members is no longer an important value. For example, what started as a membership organization might turn into a regulatory or accrediting body, or maybe it morphs into an organization that primarily provides goods or services. When that is the case, it may simply be time to formally change the governance of the organization.
But if the participation and relevance of the members’ participation continues to be a high value, leaders and members need to be ever vigilant to keep their pursuit of efficiency at that sweet spot of high efficiency and high relevance.
Monday, March 3, 2014
Learn Something
When it comes to speaking from the pulpit at Pleasant Bay Church, I’m confident that my best sermons are the ones in which I’ve learned the most in my study leading up to preaching. I don’t know if that seems counterintuitive to you; one might think that the best sermons are the ones preached from expertise. That might be true for me when it comes to being a guest speaker, but when it comes to speaking from my home pulpit, it often seems best when we are learning together.
Yesterday was one of those days. I had a lot of positive feedback on a sermon from 1 Corinthians 11 (we’re in a series from 1 Corinthians, the notes and audio are available here).
Now it wasn’t as if I was a newcomer to the text. In fact I’ve probably preached a mini-sermon from 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 most every first-Sunday of the month for the past dozen years. I have the passage memorized, not because I purposefully sat down and committed it to memory, but because I have repeated it so many times before serving Communion.
But the series caused me to dig deeper when it came to this familiar passage as well as the surrounding texts. The series has me rooted in the context like never before, giving me better insight into what the text meant to the original readers. I am also grateful to Gordon Fee and his excellent commentary on 1 Corinthians; he has been an excellent guide in my study through this series.
When it came to this passage, here are a few of the big things I learned:
Yesterday was one of those days. I had a lot of positive feedback on a sermon from 1 Corinthians 11 (we’re in a series from 1 Corinthians, the notes and audio are available here).
Now it wasn’t as if I was a newcomer to the text. In fact I’ve probably preached a mini-sermon from 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 most every first-Sunday of the month for the past dozen years. I have the passage memorized, not because I purposefully sat down and committed it to memory, but because I have repeated it so many times before serving Communion.
But the series caused me to dig deeper when it came to this familiar passage as well as the surrounding texts. The series has me rooted in the context like never before, giving me better insight into what the text meant to the original readers. I am also grateful to Gordon Fee and his excellent commentary on 1 Corinthians; he has been an excellent guide in my study through this series.
When it came to this passage, here are a few of the big things I learned:
- The instructive from 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, that which I usually treat as a standalone passage, was almost certainly a correction of error… likely a correction of a specific error. The Corinthians were abusing each other as the haves and have nots were treated differently (horizontal), and they appeared to have lost track of the fundamental reason for coming to the Lord’s Supper (vertical).
- I have a much better understanding of the term "in an unworthy manner" as it appears in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32. I have generally thought of this in vertical terms, but now I am convinced that this is most certainly a horizontal matter. This may shake up my theology a bit. For example, if this text is about Christians’ relationships with one another (horizontal) then what Biblical basis is there for not welcoming non-believers to join in Communion?
- It energizes the preacher. How can I expect folks to be excited about the sermon if the preacher isn’t excited about the sermon?
- It keeps the content fresh. I know that I’ve repeated myself from time to time over the past dozen years in Pleasant Bay’s pulpit, but I haven’t much. I don’t think this congregation would put up with it for long.
- It encourages discussion and questions (learning together). After Sunday’s sermon, I had folks approach me with additional insight. It appears that they know that I’m open to learning with them and interested in their perspectives.
- It models learning. It is good that folks come to learn… but it is even better when they go to learn too. Sunday should not be their only source; I want folks to be learning in various ways throughout their weeks.
Saturday, March 1, 2014
Don't Hate on the Kiosk
In addition to serving as a pastor and private music teacher, my wife Laurie works a couple of shifts a week, pulling shots at a local Starbucks. Actually… it is a Starbucks kiosk in a Safeway. She wanted to earn a few extra bucks last summer, so she applied for a number of openings and they were the ones that called.
There is a rich coffee culture here in greater Seattle, and there is stratification among the various places one can enjoy the sacred bean.
From my perspective, on the top of the heap, are the local specialty shops; in most cases they roast their own beans… and when they serve a latte there is generally a work of art made with the steamed milk.
My favorites in this category include Storyville, Caffe Ladro, and Zoka.
Then there is Starbucks. Ubiquitous, consistent, and trustworthy… not as fancy as the top-tier places, but one can’t go wrong with Starbucks.
Then there are the kiosks… Starbucks stands found in places like grocery stores and airports. They are not corporate stores; they are mere licensed outlets for the desperate.
Then there are all the others.
I have held a coffee-snob’s attitude about kiosks. I’ve walked right by them (several times) got in my car and then driven to a real Starbucks.
Now I know better. I know that Laurie went through precisely the same rigorous training schedule as all Starbuck’s baristas. The equipment, beans, ingredients, and procedures are all the same. They are audited and supervised for quality like any other Starbucks. In fact, they are doubly scrutinized since in addition to all of the Starbucks inspection, they also are fully managed by Safeway.
It occurs to me that Pleasant Bay Church, since its inception in 2002, has been a sort of kiosk. We started in the chapel on Cedar Park’s campus, and then spent a few years in the chapel on NU’s campus, and now we’re back at Cedar Park. We’re not alone in being a sort of kiosk church. Lots of churches meet in spaces that are primarily something other than their church; sometimes it is another church, or it could be a school, or a theater, or a number of other creative spaces in which to gather and worship.
Just like I didn’t think the Starbuck’s kiosk was a real Starbucks, I know that a lot of folks don’t think a kiosk church is a real church. Maybe we can push the metaphor a bit and learn something; here are a few things that come to mind:
There is a rich coffee culture here in greater Seattle, and there is stratification among the various places one can enjoy the sacred bean.
My favorites in this category include Storyville, Caffe Ladro, and Zoka.
Then there is Starbucks. Ubiquitous, consistent, and trustworthy… not as fancy as the top-tier places, but one can’t go wrong with Starbucks.
Then there are all the others.
I have held a coffee-snob’s attitude about kiosks. I’ve walked right by them (several times) got in my car and then driven to a real Starbucks.
Now I know better. I know that Laurie went through precisely the same rigorous training schedule as all Starbuck’s baristas. The equipment, beans, ingredients, and procedures are all the same. They are audited and supervised for quality like any other Starbucks. In fact, they are doubly scrutinized since in addition to all of the Starbucks inspection, they also are fully managed by Safeway.
It occurs to me that Pleasant Bay Church, since its inception in 2002, has been a sort of kiosk. We started in the chapel on Cedar Park’s campus, and then spent a few years in the chapel on NU’s campus, and now we’re back at Cedar Park. We’re not alone in being a sort of kiosk church. Lots of churches meet in spaces that are primarily something other than their church; sometimes it is another church, or it could be a school, or a theater, or a number of other creative spaces in which to gather and worship.
Just like I didn’t think the Starbuck’s kiosk was a real Starbucks, I know that a lot of folks don’t think a kiosk church is a real church. Maybe we can push the metaphor a bit and learn something; here are a few things that come to mind:
- Be at the right place at the right time. Most often, the best thing about a kiosk is that it is handy. When changing planes, I’ve never given a second thought to taking advantage of a Starbuck’s kiosk; I’m glad to find that cup of coffee right when I need it and where I need it. Kiosk churches need to work hard to make ourselves available. I’ve thought about a physical presence for a church in mall or place of business, but I don’t think that is it (too much like all those empty Christian Science Reading Rooms). For a kiosk church, it is more a matter of habitually finding places to serve in workplaces, markets, places of need, and in the midst of community celebrations.
- Don't lower expectations. It didn’t matter that I approached the kiosk with lower expectations; those pulling the shots were intent on making the grade. In fact, now that I know these folks better, these baristas seem to work even harder to exceed expectations (I know for a fact that Laurie has developed some skills, making the best Starbucks latte I’ve ever had). So it is with us in the kiosk church. Even with fewer resources and lacking exclusive use of permanent space, our commitment to excellence must be fierce.
- Take advantage of the unique location. Sure, you can get a delicious pastry with your coffee at Starbucks. But can you get a chunk of cheese, or a can of tuna, or a Snickers bar? (You can’t ring out your whole grocery order at a kiosk, but they will let you grab a few things to go with your coffee.) We in the kiosk church can sometimes take advantage of our environs. At NU we would make the cafeteria available for lunch, some used the library, and we even made the University the focus of some of our volunteering. At Cedar Park we find ways to plug in with some of their programs and partner in ministry.
- Make it to go. Sure, there may be a few small tables near a coffee kiosk, but a Starbucks kiosk is mostly about taking coffee to go. That is a great thing about a kiosk church; the emphasis must be on faith to go... to go out into our work lives and family lives and rest of our lives away from church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)