Gay-Okay

As I said in my previous post, this escalating debate of "Church vs. LGBT" may be, in it's own weird way, a really good thing. And I only realized that after reading about former pastor Rob Bell's interview where he sided with marriage equality. Here are his words:

"I am for marriage. I am for fidelity. I am for love, whether it's a man and woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man. I think the ship has sailed and I think the church needs...I think this is the world we are living in and we need to affirm people where they are."

Rob Bell, author of What We Talk About When We Talk About God

I've read some articles referring to this apparent change in doctrinal stance an "evolution" in the church/society, but I think the word "evolution" is infers improvement, when what our society really does is just change. For instance, on the same page where I read this article, I linked over to another article about a teenage boy convicted of triple homicide who, in his hearing, wore a t-shirt with the word "KILLER" written on it, then against the counsel of his attorney, flipped off and insulted the parents of his victims in the courtroom. Ever heard of that happening before? Our society is changing, not evolving.

What I'm not implying is this: a man loving a man is the same as a man killing three innocent people and reveling in it. 

What I am saying is this: It is not an adequate religious/moral response to judge the values expressed in our society based on the filter statement "this is the world we're living in and we need to affirm people where they are."

Our world is a mixed bag of great innovations, horrendous actions, good intentions, unseen kindnesses, bared feelings. It is diverse, and it has the capacity to hold good and evil right against each other in the same blue and green container. Everything in it is not the same, and treating it as such would be a far more apt description of foolishness than it would be of tolerance. "Affirm people where they are." What a vague thing to say.

So yes, I disagree with Rob, but I'm not in control of what he believes and I don't need to be.

The Christian and LGBT communities have been defined through their battle by this one common ignorance: they have sought to control each other. That's why it's a "debate" and not a conversation. That's why it's a "fight" and not a disagreement. As an American, I'm confused that we're warring about this at all inside of the context of democracy. Gay marriage is in its state of acceptance/rejection by the people's vote, and do any of us ever feel any more than only partial representation by the people's vote? Personally, I've joined a line of Christian thought that wonders why the government has forced us all into this crucible in the first place, because the marriage issue is different from the disagreement issue and it has given birth to the control issue.

So how in the world is this all a good thing for anybody?

Well it's been good for the church and here's why.

Most of the growing we do in life is thrust upon us. We learn how to study by the shock of failing an exam. We learn how to raise kids by the surprise of having them (before we could read all the books about it.) The church is learning how to mesh responses that are at once Biblical, and loving, and true by stumbling through a period where "outsiders" have breached our doctrinal walls and actually demanded explanations about why we believe what we believe. We are thrust from our monologue into dialogue and we're growing because of that. Because it's important to push through this time and learn how to do it right. We're growing because it's hard, and plenty of people are willingly vocal about reminding us of this.

What a good thing that we're not going to be able to just sweep this one under the rug. That our answer has to be thought-out, not just thought-up.

^{Galatians 1:6} I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— ⁷ not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. ⁸ But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

When I read this, I think about how Rob's words have weight for him and how mine do for me. How important the Church's response is to tough questions, and how easy it is for those answers to go fifty different directions because we're also so influenced by our feelings and personal desires.

I believe people will answer for who they have chosen to be before God. And for me to say that is not followed by a sneer for some preacher that I don't see eye-to-eye with nor a wag of the finger towards people who I'm convinced are sinning and either don't know or don't care or don't agree. It's a conviction about me. In fact it's the very thing that convinces me that I need to grow by loving the people who are very different from me, the ones I disagree with the most. And that I can be okay with "loving you" and "affirming you wherever you're at" not being the same thing.

So when I talk about putting the Christ's Gospel and Kingdom ahead of my personal agenda...

Now that's what I'm talking about.


___________
There is simply not room for all the disclaimers I would have liked to add to this post. So I'll just say thanks for reading. I hope it adds to the conversation and makes you think, and that you know that if you disagree, that's ok. Because you don't have to explain me to anyone. Except you, mom and dad...you have a ton of explaining to do.

What we talk about when we talk about "What We Talk About When We Talk About God"

I saw my first Nooma video by Rob Bell when I was 16 at a church camp, and since then, I feel like I have sort of grown up with him. Through college, and as a young pastor, he's been a very influential character in the shaping of my ministry, of my priorities, and of how I see God. Even before publishing his latest work: What We Talk About When We Talk About God.

Read my review for WWTAG

Just last week, while touring to promote WWTAG, Rob was interviewed by a reporter in San Francisco about his thoughts about gay marriage. The response of this ever-controversial spiritual leader was unapologetically for!

There are a lot of people saying a lot of things about all of this, so I'm not publishing this to be unique, but because of how personal my journey with Rob has been, and because even though I disagree with the man at times, I think what he has said, and all the controversy around him, and around this bigger incendiary debate: Christians vs. LGBT has been really good for me. And really good for the church.

Bell gained a lot of critics and lost a lot of followers with his last book, Love Wins, which questioned the existence of Hell. Then pretty much answered that question with the word "nope." Just more subtly. As a result, at least seven books were published in response to Love Wins. This requires Belline emphasis.

Seven.

Books.

(That I'm aware of.)

I hate to think that a lot of Christians will start WWTAG out jaded, or never read this at all because of how they felt about his last book, Love Wins. In the end, Rob's book are important chances for us to challenge our beliefs, to be critical of ourselves and our interaction with our church or our world, to know who we are and not feel obligated to explain him.

And that last thing, it's the most essential part. It's something that I had to wrestle my way to through my own dissent about Love Wins. I don't have to explain Rob.

You don't have to explain me or apologize to anyone because I say something stupid or offensive or wrong. Not even if I write it down. Not if I say it on record in an interview. But we get really upset about this stuff, right? We feel obligated to explain it all, right? I mean if not, why did everyone tar and feather Rob for writing Love Wins?

It was sad to see that happen. I watched and ached and sympathized for this guy I disagreed with as people spewed resentment and voiced displeasure against this man because they disagreed with him. I think Rob was really hurt by that. I think he should be. I think it comes out in some uncharacteristically cautious statements in WWTAG, but I'm really grateful that he went through it because in its own weird way, it was a really good thing. From it I learned this lesson: I'm in control of me. Rob is in control of Rob. You're in control of you. And that's it. 

Earlier I said Rob has influenced my priorities, not that he determined them.

For a nation without slavery, we really like exerting control over each other. And control is really the issue here. It's what gets us upset and at each other's throats. And it's how we find ourselves in this boxing match between the church and the LGBT community, which in its own weird way, may be a really good thing.

As you'll see in my next blog.

Help Yourself.

It's not my fault.

I think most people agree with that statement, at least through the consistency of their actions. Last night our Presidential election came to an end, re-electing President Barack Obama for a second term. As expected, social media this morning is flooded with articles and posts about their feelings on the election. For the most part what you'll see is people dissatisfied and disappointed, spewing accusation at all those who voted opposite them and "ruined our country," and it's what you would have seen from a different set of people in the case of a different result. The only aid I can offer for those who are filled with disappointment or anger is to say this: It's your fault.

After the polls were in and Romney had conceded to Obama, news anchors began to weigh in on the present failures and the future strategies of the Republican Party. They said they had failed to secure the Mexican vote. That they needed to be more sensitive to the 54% of female voters out there. They only appealed to "white working Americans." When considering who the next candidates should be in 2016, there was a lot of energy spent determining who would appeal to certain key demographics and be able to secure voters from particular states. Ironically, nothing was mentioned regarding potential candidates who have noble character, who have the capacity to lead our country out of dark days, or who champion causes of actual importance. We only need to know who is likely to get votes.

Demographics are not sinful, but in elections, they represent the word that is most synonymous to sinfulness: selfishness. Why would it bother you that campaigns can successfully target a demographic by siding on an issue that represents them, and subsequently win their votes? Well, what bothers me is that we predictably vote for what is good for us before we vote for what is good for our country, or our state, or simply some other people who are just not us. Teachers are going to vote for schools. Latinos are going to vote for immigration. Rich people are going to vote for tax brackets. It's not mere irony if you vote in a way that helps your job, your family, your wallet, and when you get a vote that can help someone and you help yourself. This is how politicians get elected not for their character, but for their appeal. We instinctively villainize them because they've taken advantage of us, when maybe they just know us.

In the words of V, "If you're looking for someone to blame, you need only look in a mirror."

When Jesus showed up as the Messiah, everyone wanted him to change their nation to give them more freedom, give them more authority; with every question and favor that asked of Jesus, they were voting to help themselves. And as a paraphrased summary to Jesus' reply, he told them "You don't need to change your nation, you need to change yourselves." We don't like that kind of advice any more than they did, but as I look at our country, fragmented and largely dissatisfied, I hope that we'll understand that we're not discontent because our country reflects our values too little, but because it reflects them too much.

It's not our nation that desperately needs to change. It's us.

Why superhero films are so serious

This weekend, The Dark Knight Rises opened in theaters, concluding a darker, more brutal, and simply more real-life rendition of the Batman saga that has ever been seen. Nolan's final film, like the sequel, depicts some pretty realistic violence, madness, and anarchy.

So, is it too brutal?

The tragic (some would say ironic) shooting in a CO theatrical premiere of The Dark Knight Rises has, not surprisingly resulted in the film industry being expected to answer for the crimes of a real-life madman. My thoughts on this must be rooted in two concepts I hold to be universally true: First, that humans are impressionable, especially to the suggestions of digital media. Second: our responses to tragedy are often too soon, too irrational, and usually crippled by paranoia.

How can the on-screen violence be explained in the wake of the actual crime? Is it culprit or coincidence?

What I find interesting is that the worlds of superheroes are merging with ours. It says a lot about us and our desires when you watch the transformation that Batman has made from Adam West's tame WHAM-POW 1960's Caped Crusader, to a crime-focused cartoon series of the early 90's, and now a thinly veiled commentary of our modern society's ills in the Dark Knight saga. Perhaps you could make a case for basing this on the degradation of American culture between now and then, or that the change has been fueled primarily by a technological revolution that has taken us from cartoonish onomatopoeia to Operation Sky Hook. But I don't think either of those things are the reason we are here.

We see the worlds of Superheroes merging with our own, not as much because we want to corrupt the digital universe, but because we want to bring heroes to our own. Perhaps it's no coincidence that movies are starting to look like our front-page headlines. At least in movies, Bruce Wayne is there to do something about all the evil and destruction. I think we make movies like this because we can create and interact in a world that is actually corrupt, quite like our own, but where people capably stand in the gap between the evil and the innocent. Even if it takes superpowers and bat-arsenals to do it.

We already know how messed up our world is. Movies help us to think that there is a brighter future to our own dark days. And the darker the days are in our films, the more real the hope seems.

It can't hurt people to start buying into this idea that they need a savior. Maybe it will help them to adapt when they realize they've got one.

Nothing New - Emergence and Ecclesiastes

After talking to my friend on the phone, I noticed a very common thread weaving its way through our conversation about church work, God's work, and work satisfaction. In three full-time years of youth ministry, I've experienced a pretty broad spectrum of the combination of those three things, and seen some significant change in my disposition as a result.

Clearly, every pastor wants God's work to be done. Every Christian wants that, and it satisfies them to see it happen. So as a pastor doing church work, seeing it divinely touched as God's work brings a great deal of work satisfaction. Of course, it is no surprise to anyone of faith that this is not always the case, and is often quite contrary to the reality of many Pastors and church workers. The "emergent church" has gorged on the plentiful bounty born out of the frustration brought on by this, and has become discontent with discontent. The church is frustrated that God isn't dropping pillars of fire out of the sky or moving their mountains. The pastor is frustrated that the church isn't picking up their Bibles or moving their feet. And so all of them in one accord decide to abandon all of the problems inherited through their tradition and their doctrine and head to greener pastures. Or greener pastors.

One thing that really excited me about going to college was outfits. Glorious, mismatching, eclectic outfits. As a high schooler, I remember seeing college students wearing a bizarre mishmash of mismatching clothes that they pulled out of their closet and put on with the confidence and abandon that just made it work. You can imagine my elation when I graduated from the shackles of prep/jock/skater cookie-cutter molds of pre-collegiate expectation and evolved into a realm of wardrobe nirvana where "unique" is in, and "conformity" is out. I could finally be cool on my own terms. It was utopia.

Then I graduated again.

As adults, we all have a fairly firm grasp (with the exception of Phil Dunphy) that we're really not cool, and there's nothing we can wear to change that. Because of this, my wardrobe has defaulted to conformity. What I wear now is no longer rooted in defiance, nor in conformity, nor in coolness. Reality has reduced me to such a man who may be found buying plain, printless t-shirts. Style is not my primary concern; I am content to be clothed. All of the textile pioneering I accomplished in college is now negated by the inevitable constraints of age.

Typical to a youth of the emergent generation, I have had my qualms with the church. I have had my dreams of change. And for the most part, as with my wardrobe, I have ended up right where I began.

Emergence has held up the apostolic church as a symbol of perfection, and even pre-emergence, it was popular to idolize Acts 2 and all the remarkable things the Holy Spirit was doing in the church in that moment. Despite having such a limited glimpse into that spectacular ecosystem, that snapshot has sparked thousands of dreams of church leaders and Jesus-followers who want "the real thing" and think they've found the formula for it. This image enlightens us that we've messed it all up, need to hit the reset button, and finally get it right like they did, (also, replacing antiquated word-ingredients like "transgression" and "born-again" and "saved" with fresh word-ingredients like "doing life" and "narrative" and "conversation" seems to help.) 

All the while, we ignore that in Acts 2, people are just about 20 years from getting it all wrong again.

About 55 AD, probably less than a decade after Jesus died and the Holy Spirit reinvented religion as the world knew it, the apostle Paul penned out some letters that are now canonized under the names Galatians and Corinthians (just to select a few.) His primary concern in these letters is to address the mess that people have made of the Gospel, and how in need of his wise leadership, and more importantly, God's Spirit and direction, they really are. Other epistles share the same theme. As it turns out, people in the celebrated churches of historic spiritual inception really messed things up and made each other unhappy. Now being past the honeymoon phase of modern "emergence," many "pioneers" are realizing the same thing. They're seeing that they left "the system" to create...a system...that is starting to become..."the system."

I distinctly noticed the real irony of my collegiate clothing adventures when I returned to a college campus a few weeks ago and noticed so many students reliving this distinct phase of wardrobe liberation just as I had done, only now being able to comprehend what is in store for them. I wanted to reach out and draw them into a fatherly embrace and peacefully whisper in their ear "you don't have to try. It's all going to be ok." (In retrospect, it's probably best that I didn't as a series of predictable misunderstandings would have required someone to post bail for me.)

So my question for the spiritually discontent is this: What is it you are trying to reinvent? No doubt some systems function better than others, but are you convinced that there is anything under the sun that is not doomed to the failure of the human touch? I had to graduate a few times in my faith before I really felt at peace with some of the scars on the face of the church that are so obvious, only a Father could love her. Yet I am certain He still does. So whether you're a part of a messed up church, or whether you're dreaming of and creating something new that is going to eventually become a messed up church, I hope the Father's love of you and your messed up self and your messed up system gives you peace. 

Even after you've graduated enough times to find that there is nothing new under the sun.