Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
Is your Starbucks watered down?
Check out a memo from the Chairman of Starbucks, Howard Schultz. He is addressing the "watering down of the Starbucks experience."
I just hope this doesn't translate into me doing more work :-)!
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Power, Difference and Community
One of the classes I am taking this semester is called Essential Community. The purpose of the class is to consider core relational categories that must be engaged to become a community. Our main text for the class is Miroslav Volf's book Exclusion and Embrace.
Yesterday in class we had four guests come visit with us. They sat in on our discussion groups as we worked through different case studies of conflict. Our visitors included an Eastern Orthodox Christian, an African American who pastors an inner city church, an Asian woman, and a Fuller Seminary graduate who works for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, he is a Christian and he also self identifies as a homosexual. It was a valuable experience as we conversed together as a class and with our guests.
The general consensus of the class is that we all desire community. And to a certain extent we desire to have community with people that are different than ourselves. We have hope that love, humility, and open and frank conversation can tear down walls of division and ignorance and bring about community. One of the things that was apparent was that (to use the example of dining together) to dine with each other at the table, everyone needs to be able to have a voice. Everyone should be able to say who they are, what they think and feel, and what their desires are. If there are voices at the table that are silent, then violence is taking place, and people are being excluded.
It is easy for me as an educated white male to come to the table. (At least at a place like Mars Hill Graduate School, and in most church settings, especially Evangelical churches.) To a certain extent I do not fear offering my voice at the table. I believe that I will be taken seriously to a certain degree.
So again it is easy for me to say, "Everyone should have a voice." The problem is, is that in reality not every one's voice has equal power. At the table there could be people who are in decision making positions. There could be people at the table who have been victimized, marginalized, and suppressed. So how does the dinner continue with some people having more power than others? Will those with the more powerful voices ultimately silence people at the table? Will the less powerful have to sacrifice who they are to stay at the table? Will the less powerful have to leave the table and sit at another table?
Yesterday we experienced an example of this. At the end of our time together our four guests gathered around a table together to talk about their experiences of our class and of each other. It became apparent that the African American pastor (Joe)and the man who works for the Gates Foundation (Ron) disagreed on some things. Now the powerful and the powerless is not clear in this example (as it is in most examples). But within the church Joe sits in a place of power, he is a pastor. I do not know Ron's entire story, but it seemed like at one time he wanted to be a pastor, but he in his denomination he is not allowed. Could our four guests remain at the table together? Could Ron remain at the table with Joe and continue to be true to who Ron is? Could Joe remain at the table with Ron and continue to be who Joe is? Is that even a violent modern dichotomy that continues the myth of the isolated individual that leads to genocidal violence? These are the questions I walked away with last night.
Is community with people of significant difference possible? There is very little in our experience that tells us that it is possible. Walls are built on borders, new churches are built everyday, genocidal wars continue to be waged.
I guess what I am saying is that power needs to be addressed and discussed. Difference is not going away. Our time on earth will continue to be marked with people of different religions, ethnicity, sexuality, socio-economic status, etc... The power that these different groups have will sway.
So my initial thoughts on power:
One, power must be recognized. It is naive and it can be terribly abusive to not acknowledge the power one has.
Two, power is not going away.
Three, I think (I could be wrong) power prevents community more than difference.
Four, What does Jesus have to say concerning power? Jesus actively (not passively) submitted himself to power to overcome it. (I say this with the utmost sensitivity to people who find themselves in abusive relationships. For instance Jesus does not encourage women to submit themselves to spousal abuse.)
Five, continuing off of point four, in a post a long time back, I suggested that the role of the church is to not be in charge. How does a pacifist vision of church speak to power?
Six, what might it look like for "the ones not in charge" at the table to remain at the table? Could they do it in a way that is not self-destructing? Could they do it in a way that would humble the powerful? That is the foolishness of the cross isn't it? The greatest among us, is the servant of all.
Yesterday in class we had four guests come visit with us. They sat in on our discussion groups as we worked through different case studies of conflict. Our visitors included an Eastern Orthodox Christian, an African American who pastors an inner city church, an Asian woman, and a Fuller Seminary graduate who works for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, he is a Christian and he also self identifies as a homosexual. It was a valuable experience as we conversed together as a class and with our guests.
The general consensus of the class is that we all desire community. And to a certain extent we desire to have community with people that are different than ourselves. We have hope that love, humility, and open and frank conversation can tear down walls of division and ignorance and bring about community. One of the things that was apparent was that (to use the example of dining together) to dine with each other at the table, everyone needs to be able to have a voice. Everyone should be able to say who they are, what they think and feel, and what their desires are. If there are voices at the table that are silent, then violence is taking place, and people are being excluded.
It is easy for me as an educated white male to come to the table. (At least at a place like Mars Hill Graduate School, and in most church settings, especially Evangelical churches.) To a certain extent I do not fear offering my voice at the table. I believe that I will be taken seriously to a certain degree.
So again it is easy for me to say, "Everyone should have a voice." The problem is, is that in reality not every one's voice has equal power. At the table there could be people who are in decision making positions. There could be people at the table who have been victimized, marginalized, and suppressed. So how does the dinner continue with some people having more power than others? Will those with the more powerful voices ultimately silence people at the table? Will the less powerful have to sacrifice who they are to stay at the table? Will the less powerful have to leave the table and sit at another table?
Yesterday we experienced an example of this. At the end of our time together our four guests gathered around a table together to talk about their experiences of our class and of each other. It became apparent that the African American pastor (Joe)and the man who works for the Gates Foundation (Ron) disagreed on some things. Now the powerful and the powerless is not clear in this example (as it is in most examples). But within the church Joe sits in a place of power, he is a pastor. I do not know Ron's entire story, but it seemed like at one time he wanted to be a pastor, but he in his denomination he is not allowed. Could our four guests remain at the table together? Could Ron remain at the table with Joe and continue to be true to who Ron is? Could Joe remain at the table with Ron and continue to be who Joe is? Is that even a violent modern dichotomy that continues the myth of the isolated individual that leads to genocidal violence? These are the questions I walked away with last night.
Is community with people of significant difference possible? There is very little in our experience that tells us that it is possible. Walls are built on borders, new churches are built everyday, genocidal wars continue to be waged.
I guess what I am saying is that power needs to be addressed and discussed. Difference is not going away. Our time on earth will continue to be marked with people of different religions, ethnicity, sexuality, socio-economic status, etc... The power that these different groups have will sway.
So my initial thoughts on power:
One, power must be recognized. It is naive and it can be terribly abusive to not acknowledge the power one has.
Two, power is not going away.
Three, I think (I could be wrong) power prevents community more than difference.
Four, What does Jesus have to say concerning power? Jesus actively (not passively) submitted himself to power to overcome it. (I say this with the utmost sensitivity to people who find themselves in abusive relationships. For instance Jesus does not encourage women to submit themselves to spousal abuse.)
Five, continuing off of point four, in a post a long time back, I suggested that the role of the church is to not be in charge. How does a pacifist vision of church speak to power?
Six, what might it look like for "the ones not in charge" at the table to remain at the table? Could they do it in a way that is not self-destructing? Could they do it in a way that would humble the powerful? That is the foolishness of the cross isn't it? The greatest among us, is the servant of all.
Surprise!!!!
So last Thursday I turned 25. Due to our hectic schedules the celebration was postponed till last night (though Kate did make me dinner on my birthday). The plan was to meet some friends at a bar and then head back to our place for some cake.
So yesterday at around four I went with my friend Steve to cash in on my birthday present. Kate had bought me a traditional hot lather shave. I have always said one of the things that I would do if I ever had money would be to indulge in a straight edge shave every once in awhile. So it was a nice treat. So as Steve and I were leaving the place to go to Pesos, Kate called me and told me she forgot her ID so I would need to stop by our apartment and pick it up. Kate can be a little forgetful sometimes, so that really didn't seem odd. So Steve dropped me off and I ran in to grab the ID. I opened the door to quite the surprise, all of our friends, streamers, etc... It was quite a treat.
Kate had been planning this for weeks and I hadn't suspected a thing. She even had six Girodano's deep dish pizzas flown in for my eating pleasure (I shared a few slices with our friends). We ate, drank, and we were merry. It was such a good day for me. Thanks to my wife Kate for throwing me such a celebration, and thanks to all our friends who came and partook. All of you are such a blessing to me. Thanks again.
So yesterday at around four I went with my friend Steve to cash in on my birthday present. Kate had bought me a traditional hot lather shave. I have always said one of the things that I would do if I ever had money would be to indulge in a straight edge shave every once in awhile. So it was a nice treat. So as Steve and I were leaving the place to go to Pesos, Kate called me and told me she forgot her ID so I would need to stop by our apartment and pick it up. Kate can be a little forgetful sometimes, so that really didn't seem odd. So Steve dropped me off and I ran in to grab the ID. I opened the door to quite the surprise, all of our friends, streamers, etc... It was quite a treat.
Kate had been planning this for weeks and I hadn't suspected a thing. She even had six Girodano's deep dish pizzas flown in for my eating pleasure (I shared a few slices with our friends). We ate, drank, and we were merry. It was such a good day for me. Thanks to my wife Kate for throwing me such a celebration, and thanks to all our friends who came and partook. All of you are such a blessing to me. Thanks again.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Hopes, Dreams and Disapointments
Here in America the ideology of progress runs deep through our veins (at least from my middle to upper class veins). It is ingrained in our culture that whatever we put our hands to it can be made better, more efficient, and ultimately will better the entire world. Obviously much can be said about what type of progress has been made in our society and world. But for my blogging purposes it is sufficient to state that as Americans we are trained to believe in progress.
My question is how does that mindset line up with the Gospel? Did Jesus come to bring progress? And if he did, to what extent?
I study at MHGS, and many of us here have come to re-imagine what the gospel is in our present context. Many of us who come from an evangelical background have found that the evangelical goals: preach the gospel, win converts, build churches fails to encompass the totality of the gospel (that of course is a horribly generalized description of evangelicalism, I recognize that, but also recognize that there is certain measure of truth in it). My evangelical dreams died when I returned from my second trip to Africa. My mind and body broke under the weight of the responsibility of "reaching the world for Jesus."
You see I grew up in the age of the youth rally. A context where the American ideology of progress was fused with the Christian call to mission. I was told that my generation would be the one to reach the world for Christ. So myself like so many other young people went to foreign lands to share our good news. We came home (and I say we, because I am not the only one who has been deconstructed by overseas mission) changed, confused, and to a certain extent disappointed. There are too many "who haven't heard." There is such immense suffering?! Is God good? Is there even a God? Have I just participated in the Americanization of the world? Have I participated in the destruction of local cultures in the name of my American God of progress?
So then, where do I find myself now. What is Christian mission? What is the gospel? If we fail in our mission and if we preach the wrong gospel is the world doomed? Is heaven the reward for getting it right (I guess we don't have to worry, we are the saved?!)?
I have come to believe that approaching mission and gospel is not about determining who is in and who is out. Christian mission is not about riding around in a life-raft pulling in whoever you can.
God in Christ has eternally committed Godself to the world and to humanity. God became human, forever signifying God's solidarity with us. God has forever put to rest the question of who is in and who is out.
So what is Christian mission: committing ourselves to the world and to humanity. But we do it from a different vantage point than God. God had to put on flesh to establish solidarity with humanity. As humans we are already in solidarity with all humanity. God is the other, not our neighbor.
So we do as Christ did, we offer our lives to our neighbor. Are we promised social progress if we do so? Are we promised that we will establish peace on earth? We are not. Miroslav Volf, in Exclusion and Embrace, refers to this as the scandal of the Gospel. He writes, "The ultimate scandal of the cross is the all too frequent failure of self donation to bear positive fruit" (26). I.e. when you turn your other cheek, most often you will be struck again. But he continues on, and what he writes next I think is the heart of the gospel (he is speaking of the experience of the disciples),
"Precisely in the scandal, they have discovered a promise. In serving and giving themselves for others, in lamenting and protesting before the dark face of God, they found themselves in the company of the Crucified. In his empty tomb they saw proof that the cry of desperation will turn into a song of joy and that the face of God will eventually 'shine' upon a redeemed world" (27).
The experience of the gospel is to find oneself in the company of the crucified. To pour out love and grace and be returned with violence. And yet to have the audacity to hope that God will eventually shine upon a redeemed world.
My question is how does that mindset line up with the Gospel? Did Jesus come to bring progress? And if he did, to what extent?
I study at MHGS, and many of us here have come to re-imagine what the gospel is in our present context. Many of us who come from an evangelical background have found that the evangelical goals: preach the gospel, win converts, build churches fails to encompass the totality of the gospel (that of course is a horribly generalized description of evangelicalism, I recognize that, but also recognize that there is certain measure of truth in it). My evangelical dreams died when I returned from my second trip to Africa. My mind and body broke under the weight of the responsibility of "reaching the world for Jesus."
You see I grew up in the age of the youth rally. A context where the American ideology of progress was fused with the Christian call to mission. I was told that my generation would be the one to reach the world for Christ. So myself like so many other young people went to foreign lands to share our good news. We came home (and I say we, because I am not the only one who has been deconstructed by overseas mission) changed, confused, and to a certain extent disappointed. There are too many "who haven't heard." There is such immense suffering?! Is God good? Is there even a God? Have I just participated in the Americanization of the world? Have I participated in the destruction of local cultures in the name of my American God of progress?
So then, where do I find myself now. What is Christian mission? What is the gospel? If we fail in our mission and if we preach the wrong gospel is the world doomed? Is heaven the reward for getting it right (I guess we don't have to worry, we are the saved?!)?
I have come to believe that approaching mission and gospel is not about determining who is in and who is out. Christian mission is not about riding around in a life-raft pulling in whoever you can.
God in Christ has eternally committed Godself to the world and to humanity. God became human, forever signifying God's solidarity with us. God has forever put to rest the question of who is in and who is out.
So what is Christian mission: committing ourselves to the world and to humanity. But we do it from a different vantage point than God. God had to put on flesh to establish solidarity with humanity. As humans we are already in solidarity with all humanity. God is the other, not our neighbor.
So we do as Christ did, we offer our lives to our neighbor. Are we promised social progress if we do so? Are we promised that we will establish peace on earth? We are not. Miroslav Volf, in Exclusion and Embrace, refers to this as the scandal of the Gospel. He writes, "The ultimate scandal of the cross is the all too frequent failure of self donation to bear positive fruit" (26). I.e. when you turn your other cheek, most often you will be struck again. But he continues on, and what he writes next I think is the heart of the gospel (he is speaking of the experience of the disciples),
"Precisely in the scandal, they have discovered a promise. In serving and giving themselves for others, in lamenting and protesting before the dark face of God, they found themselves in the company of the Crucified. In his empty tomb they saw proof that the cry of desperation will turn into a song of joy and that the face of God will eventually 'shine' upon a redeemed world" (27).
The experience of the gospel is to find oneself in the company of the crucified. To pour out love and grace and be returned with violence. And yet to have the audacity to hope that God will eventually shine upon a redeemed world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
