chez mon esprit

A Sunday study in contrasts

2009-02-13T16:43:00.001-07:00

As anyone who knows us is aware, Beth, our kids, and I are in the process of finding a new church home. With the closure of the Canopy, we have found ourselves in the awkward stage of life where we are "homeless" when it comes to church. It is truly a new experience for us, and not one we are enjoying very much.

A number of factors are aggravating our search, and more specifically, our actual ability to settle into any particular congregation and call it home. More about that (perhaps) another time.

Last Sunday was an interesting experience for our family, especially when, during lunch, we compared it with Jim and Pam's experience. (For those who don't know, Jim is my best friend, and was the lead pastor at the Canopy - they are walking through a very similar journey as us in trying to find a new church home). I'll start with our experience.

We went to a church in the city where we know the pastor, but no one else. The tone of our visit was set when we arrived. We were just on-time because of my need for coffee combined with horrendous service at the near-by Starbucks. As we pulled into the church's parking lot, I headed up towards the door and arrived just in time for the vehicle ahead of me to take the very last (clearly marked) visitor parking space, right next to the door. I dropped my family off and headed back out into the very icy parking lot, and took a space quite some ways from the door and down a significant hill - did I mention the ice?

I went into the church, found my family (not too difficult, as the service was starting and there were very few people in the foyer) and discovered that the person who had taken that last, precious, visitor space (did I mention that it was clearly marked?) was one of the ushers, obviously arriving late for his post!

Now, all of the above wouldn't mean a whole lot except that, as I stated at the start, it really set the tone, or more acurately, reflected the reality of the rest of our visit. People run late, the service was already starting and one wouldn't exactly be expecting newcomers to be showing up by this point, and it was icy and reasonably cold out, so it's understandable that you would want to let your family out near the door. I can really understand why the tardy usher would be tempted to take the visitor parking spot. And I would have hardly noticed, except that, as visitors, we were as equally ignored as the visitor parking sign had been. And this isn't a large church where you are never sure if someone is a visitor or not...

When we entered the foyer, and started to make our way to the auditorium/sanctuary, I had to go looking for a bulletin (which, ironically, I received from the aforementioned usher, but only after asking). At the end of the sermon, when we were all invited to use a response card which was supposed to be in the bulletin, we discovered that we didn't have one.

The service was ok - the worship team was stronger musically than they were vocally - the sermon was excellent and memorable and practical and the congregational sharing/prayer time left the impression that these folks genuinely cared for one another. But when Beth took our daughter to the kids' church program, she was ignored by the adult (who was busy informing one of the kids there that it wasn't his turn to teach) standing by the door, she was ignored by the adult who literally pushed past her to speak to the teacher, and she was ignored by the teacher until she finally asked, "Is this where my daughter is supposed to be?"

The response? "Oh, yeah, just pick her up here after the service."

After the service, while our son and I waited for Beth to get back, we were spoken to by exactly two people: a lady who invited us to come back some time (no introductions, no other interaction), and an older gentleman who asked my name (not my son's), shook both or our hands, and then walked off, without ever telling us his name! We were completely ignored by everyone else. When my wife arrived and the four of us headed through the foyer towards the door, we walked out of the church un-greeted, un-welcomed, and un-invited to return.

The cumulative effect of all of these little experiences was the distinct impression that nobody cared that we were there and that nobody would care if we ever came back or not.

Oh, yeah, the sermon topic? It was the introductory sermon to a 40 day church-wide focus: 40 Days of Love, and was all about becoming a community, a church, that is known for it's demonstrated love for one another and for those around them. The irony was not lost on us, neither was the need for the focus.

Now, Jim and Pam's experience:

Not having been there, I'll simply paraphrase Jim' recounting of their experience as newcomers at a different church. The church they attended did the best job Jim has ever experienced of greeting them, showing them where they needed to go, directing them to the children's program (the usher accompanied Pam and their kids to the next-door building, walked Pam through the sign-in process, and stayed long enough to ensure that someone there was helping them!), and directing them to where they could sit! The down-side? Jim stated that the sermon felt like "Dr. Phil with some scripture passages thrown in."

Now, are we being overly picky and sensitive? Possibly. Are we looking for a place that will replicate our Canopy experience and setting ourselves up for disappointment? Potentially. Are these representative of our experiences elsewhere? Actually - not really.

But they really stand out because of their antithetical nature. One church had an excellent sermon and one provided an incredible focus on newcomers - oh that they could learn from each other. And at least as importantly, oh that the church we attended (and many, many others) could be as visitor-aware as the church Jim and Pam attended! Hopefully few are as visitor unaware. And hopefully, we caught them on a bad day... though I suspect not.

Maybe we should go back in 40 days and see if anything has changed...

Fired part 3...

2008-09-19T09:35:00.006-06:00

http://valleywag.com/5051860/microsoft-ad-agency-confirms-new-seinfeld-ad-produced-yet-not-running

Ok, so apparently I'm not the only one who thinks that someone otta be fired. Despite the spin from Microsoft's PR machine, the ad company themselves are admitting that MS has put an indefinite hold on ads-about-nothing. Sounds like someone at Crispin Porter & Bogusky might be a little ticked at the idea; why else would you leak the fact that your multi-million dollar client has pulled the plug on a campaign, when they themselves claim it is all part of the advertising strategy??

While I admit and acknowledge the inherent pro-Apple bias of the following article, some of the points made still hold true: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/09/18/microsofts_300_million_ad_campaign_tumbles_with_new_pc_ads.html

Points such as:

Crispin Porter & Bogusky are featured on Apple's website for their use of Mac Minis because of the need for a reliable platform. Interestingly, since that article was written, YESTERDAY, the profile has been pulled from the Apple website! I wonder who squawked? Apple, MS or CP&B - my money is on MS as they have the most to lose...
"The problem of course is that Apple presents the Mac in contrast to PC because it wants to avoid any unnecessary mention of Windows. By copying Apple's line, Microsoft will be spending millions to advertise the PC rather than the Windows brand."
Though "PC" is used interchangeably with "Windows Machine" in the vernacular, PC is a generic term for pretty much any Personal Computer that doesn't run Apple OS (and, arguably, even for those that do - the personal computer I'm writing this on happens to be an iMac...). While it's one thing for Apple to take shots at the ubiquitous "PC" running Vista and compare it to a Mac, thus highlighting the uniqueness of the Apple experience -- which I think is more the line of reasoning in the ads than an avoidance of mentioning Windows -- it is quite another for Microsoft to assume that "I'm a PC" means "MS Windows." It is akin to Kleenex running an ad that refers only to "facial tissues" and NEVER refers to their own brand. Hubris or folly? Only time will tell.
"It's somewhat ironic that Microsoft's upper management, after hiring Crispin Porter + Bogusky to inject some new life in the the (sic) company's brand, hastily decided to yank the ads before they had a chance to go anywhere."
Not only do I completely agree with the above statement, the fact that the next 5 or 6 sentences in the article state pretty much exactly what I said on September 12 only goes to prove the brilliance of Prince McLean. :)

"I've been saying it for years!"

Proverbs 25:2

2008-09-18T11:49:00.000-06:00

I picked a crocus

Through a barb-wire fence

... a scratch

... a velvety flower

Dorothy Scott Shackleton (nee Campbell)

Sept. 18, 1916 - Sept. 14, 2008

Otta get fired, redux...

2008-09-12T15:49:00.000-06:00

Ok - so this one is a little better; I actually chuckled a couple of times, and the ad's content sort of connects with the concept (get it - connects - ha ha).

But it still seems to communicate to me that Microsoft (Gates and, by association, Seinfeld) have to work hard to connect with real people, don't do that very effectively, and have set their sights on unrealistic goals (i.e. goldfish with email and an amobea with a website). It tells me nothing about what Microsoft does or doesn't do, why I should buy Windows instead of their competition (read Apple computers) or even what product(s) Microsoft is trying to sell. It seems to be aimed strictly at brand recognition and customer loyalty: "we're clever enough, cool enough and rich enough to hire Jerry Seinfeld, so stay with us and don't believe all of those things Apple (or anyone else) is saying about Vista."

I don't know; it's still not working for me... now maybe Simon Cowell and Ryan Seacrest arguing about how good Vista is (Cowell: "It's like a really bad Kareeokee performance on a cruise ship!"; Seacrest: "How can you say that? That doesn't even make any sense!"; voiceover: "Windows Vista - not as bad as you think!")
Has more appeal to me than the current campaign. But remember - you heard the idea here first!

Somebody otta get fired!

2008-09-05T15:19:00.003-06:00

The title of this post links to a video (I wasn't able to embed it); watch it and then read - it's the only way this little rant will make any sense!

What a waste of an advertising budget! Reportedly a $300 million campaign, with Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Gates, and this is the best they could do? Really, someone should lose their job over this ad.

Personally, I agree with this quote from Slashdot: "If this is Microsoft's response to the 'I'm a Mac' ads, it should fold up its tent and tell the world to switch to Apple."

Now, if you really want to see a funny ad, go here.

If someone says, "I've been thinking about this for a long time," ask them to think about it a bit longer!

2008-07-02T16:03:00.011-06:00

Why do we find it necessary to do this to one another? How do we convince ourselves that this is somehow helpful to the other person?

I'm talking about the verbal slagging that some people find so easy to unload on someone else. The barrage of verbal grenades, bullets, sticks and stones that often begins with "This has been bothering me for a while now; I really need to make things right between us..."

Over the past few weeks I've witnessed a handful of these "I need to tell you something about yourself" encounters; actually, more accurately, I've witnessed one first-hand, and witnessed the impact of at least two others on the lives of their recipients/victims. And all of these have been set in the context of the church.

I've noticed some commonalities in these events:

The "sharer" is convinced that his or her motives are noble, even Christ-like (and that he or she is innocent in their desire or need to say something);
the concerns are often shared by "several others," "a number of us" who are always unnamed and un-numbered (interestingly, Wikipedia refers to these kinds of phrases as "weasel words," used to try to bolster the authority or significance or what's being said, but without actually offering any real support);
what's being "shared" is a concern that has built up over time in the mind/heart of the "sharer";
the intention is to critique some kind of behavior or activity in hopes of helping the recipient to grow, but most often the "sharing" ends up being an attack ad hominem and does nothing to affirm the value, dignity, motives or character of the victim;
the parties involved have, at most, a superficial relationship - though they know each other, it is much more as acquaintances than as friends
the person doing the sharing only knows part of the story behind their concern
the end result is that the person who "shared their concern" feels like the other person is "unresponsive," "hard-hearted," "unwilling to change," defensive," "misunderstood my motives"...
the person receiving the barrage feels shat upon
and finally, the only thing that changes is the relationship between the two individuals -- what little there was declines to even less.

What is missing in these exchanges? What makes them so destructive and so not redemptive? If we are sharing the truth with one another, isn't that enough?

For certain, one element that is missing is love. I don't mean the generic "brotherly love" that we claim in default for our fellow Christ-follower. At best that is a kindly disposition towards someone we know from across the aisle; at worst, it is only an affinity based on our preferred brand of: theology, worship style, preaching, preacher, church location... It cannot, and should not, be called love. It allows two true injustices in the community we call church: the kind of dignity-shredding attack I'm talking about now, and the kind of soul-killing ambivalence we call "tolerance."

Love is genuine concern for another, over myself. It is true affection, and loyalty, and it causes me to rejoice or suffer with the joy or pain of the other. When love discloses a concern, it does so only as strongly as necessary and always as gently as possible. It weeps with every tear shed, it ferociously guards the other person's dignity, it assumes the worth and value of the person even while addressing the worst and most destructive of their behaviour. And it does address the worst and most destructive of their behaviour. It doesn't shrink back from a painful conversation. But love's goal is restoration: restoration of the relationship, restoration of fellowship, restoration of community.

We need to make room in the church for painful conversations; I need to make allowance in my life to hear painful comments. But we need to make them -- I need to hear them -- in the context of genuine relationship. If I'm not prepared for you to get angry at me for my comments, and then walk through that anger with you until we resolve things, if I don't take every measure to protect and honour you even as I speak to your weaknesses, faults and sins, then I better keep my mouth shut and my "concerns" to myself. Otherwise, what more am I than a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal?

When I first started thinking about this blog, I had the image in my mind of a monkey, at the zoo, flinging its own feces at passersby. In fact, my first thought was to title this entry "Crap flinging monkeys." Obviously, better judgment prevailed. But I can't get away from the image. It strikes me that we would look a whole lot less like crap flinging monkeys if we took the time to think through our criticisms and how best to share them with the ones we love and spent even more time thinking about how to love the ones we feel the need to criticize.

Away for far too long

2008-05-09T09:45:00.003-06:00

I'm actually amazed that bogger hasn't closed my account! It's been nearly TWO YEARS since I posted anything... and yet here it is... still as I left it.

I'm feeling those stirrings again: the need to write some things down. I don't know what, yet, just that I'm feeling the need to write. If you have any suggestions, send them my way... I never know what's going to be the inspiration for a rant :)

I've been tagged!

2006-11-22T10:26:00.000-07:00

So, I've been tagged by David and Jen, and now I'm supposed to reveal my darkest secrets... well, maybe not my darkest ones...

Let's see:

I nearly drowned when I was about 6 years old. As a result, I was in Grade 10 before I'd put my face in the water without feeling panic.
In Grades 11 and 12, I was on the swim team, and competed in the city finals in the 50 and 100 m free.
Beth was my first & last girlfriend, but not my only girlfriend
I got a grade of "1" (out of 9) in an advanced math class at university
I once sliced my brother's arm wide open with a steak knife

And now, my tags:

The Big Jimmer - come on Jim, be a sport!
Jil J
Shari - from Jesus Outside the Box
DL
Nathan C

Have fun!

Who are you advertising for?

2006-11-02T14:29:00.000-07:00

Who are you and how do people know?

Life Under The Canopy: Nathan's new website

2006-08-30T20:28:00.000-06:00

Life Under The Canopy: Nathan's new website is a post worth looking at, if you're into expanding your musical horizons. (No, it's not all about "Christian" music - it's about good music...)

C. S. Lewis quote...

2006-08-15T11:34:00.000-06:00

"Eros will have naked bodies; Friendship naked personalities. "

There's more to this than 8 words... A friend has said that we can only really love someone when we are willing to see the darkness in them and embrace it. That's neither saying "yes" to it, nor winking at it. It's really seeing it, realizing that it is a part of the person, and still choosing to say, "I love you, warts (or worse) and all. I'm not going to (try to) change you (we'll leave that to the Holy Spirit); I'm not going to reject that part of you."

At the Canopy we say, "Come as you are." I really hope people can and do come as they are. I really hope that the Canopy is a safe community. And I really hope that everyone who comes as they are ends up different then they were - not because I've changed them (God forbid - to quote the Apostle Paul) but because the Spirit of Jesus is alive in them.

If the church were to understand this -- and I'm speaking as one who knows the theory, and struggles with the practice -- we might actually grasp what it is to "hate the sin and love the sinner," and we might actually have a real voice with those sinners. Instead, we often hate both sin and sinner, and our voice is nothing more than one more voice shouting condemnation. And we wonder why the gay community hates us so.

One more quick thought - hating the sin. Do we hate a particular sin because it is wrong or do we hate it because of the damage that it has done, is doing and will continue to do to someone we love?

Why does God hate divorce? Because it is the undoing of what he has done in joining two people into one flesh, and thus is an act of rebellion? Or because it is the tearing apart of one flesh into two pieces, and thus is an act of violence against two of his children?

That's not to say that sin isn't rebellion. But is God a loving Daddy or a demanding Ruler? Better check with Jesus before answering that one...

Just a few thoughts stirred up by a great quote.

Back to Applebee's

2006-08-03T12:06:00.000-06:00

I've been thinking about why the quote concerning Applebee's so grabbed my attention. Jim, of course, was right on the mark - Applebee's is about food, and the church is about Jesus.

In the restaurant business there is nothing wrong with striving to never disappoint. In fact, from a bottom-line perspective, it seems like a pretty intelligent goal. People who aren't disappointed become repeat customers, and repeat customers pay the bills and then some.

Striving to inspire, however, is much more risky. Different people's palates are inspired by different things. What is delectable to one is offensive to another (as a person with a growing taste for sushi I've experienced this first hand, many times).

But never disappointing means making some conscious compromises. You don't let your chefs/cooks get too creative; people are less disappointed when the get what they already know, and can be VERY disappointed when what they get offends them for some reason. Never disappointing means being always predictable: not too hot, not too cold, not too spicy, not too bland. And it means that the customer is always right, even when they are wrong.

I have a vivid memory of being at an Applebee's restaurant in Calgary. The customer behind us was making a pretty big fuss about how undercooked his steak was. The waitress was trying to be accommodating, but was having a hard time, because there was almost nothing left of said undercooked steak.

The loud-mouth had eaten almost the entire thing, but was still complaining about how bad it had been. And yes, the waitress had done the 30-sec-after-your-meal-appears-how-is-everything-sir-? check at the start of their meal. Finally the manager came out, apologized for the poor quality of their meal, and offered complimentary dessert. Applebee's - never disappoint. It's good for business - if a little hard on staff retention...

But the more I think about it, the more I think that our churches often slip, (hopefully) unconsciously, into the never disappoint way of doing things. How many leadership decisions are made, or unmade, because of public perception/tastes/complaints? How many sermon ideas never leave the pastor's study because the face of dear saint sour-puss is burned vividly in his or her psyche from the last time the sermon got "too creative?"

"That was an interesting approach this Sunday, Pastor, but I certainly hope it's not the way things are going to be EVERY Sunday." In other words, what the hell were you thinking when you came up with that idea!?!?!

Having been on the receiving end of those kind of comments (as recently as 2 minutes ago during a phone conversation that interrupted this blog post being written; someone has left the Canopy because a guest speaker a while back had a style that didn't suit their taste, and if that's the direction the Canopy is going, then they won't be comfortable with us anymore - I'm not being sarcastic, or demeaning. In fact, I'm genuinely sad to see this person go, I like them a lot) I can honestly tell you that the temptation to compromise is HUGE. People who aren't disappointed stay: they volunteer, they pray, they worship, they give financially, they (sometimes) grow spiritually, they become people I care deeply about. And too often they grumble the next time they are disappointed by something, expecting to be accommodated again.

But people who are inspired... they change the world. People who have seen Jesus, tasted Jesus, been disturbed by Jesus, had their cages rattled by Jesus, are unstoppable. And they tend to put very little stock in being offended. It becomes less of a gauge of whether or not something is true. Sometimes it is even a measure of how they, personally, are doing spiritually: "Am I too easily offended?"

Now, again, Jim is right. The temptation is to confuse entertainment or shock or titillation with inspiration. Ultimately it is the Holy Spirit's job to inspire. It is the Holy Spirit who inflames our hearts with passion, compassion, zeal and tenacity. But I think that as a leader in the church, I have the capacity to cooperate with his inspiring work, or to interfere with it. And I really think that working hard to never disappoint - compromising to alleviate every discomfort or objection voiced - interferes with it. It's called "the fear of man" in some circles, and it's deadly to effective leadership.

So, with regret, I have told my friend that, while not every service is going to be like the one with that particular guest speaker, when we do have guests we will continue to give them a lot of latitude. And now I genuinely hope that this person will change their mind and reconsider their decision. And if not, well maybe Jesus will inspire them in a different community.

I know that none of this takes into consideration truly bad leadership decisions, or unnecessarily offensive things said or done for the sake of creativity. It doesn't weigh the legitimacy of people's concerns, what they are hearing from the Holy Spirit about the direction a church community is going, or whether or not something is inspiring, genuinely offensive, both or neither. All of these are part of the tight-rope walk called leadership. But here's the point: striving to inspire almost guarantees that these lines will sometimes be crossed and that mistakes will be made. Striving to make no mistakes almost guarantees that there will be little room for inspiration.

And I want to strive to inspire, because never disappointing is just too low an aspiration.

Oh, yeah, to finish the Applebee's story... after loud-mouth left, my wife asked our waitress - who just happened to be loud-mouth's waitress - if we could please speak to the manager. You should have seen the look on the poor girl's face! The manager came over, with an expression that screamed, "Now what!?"

My wife proceeded to say, "I just wanted to let you know that our waitress did a very good job of dealing with a very difficult customer, and we are very impressed. She was gracious and polite the entire time, even when he was being belligerent and unreasonable. I wanted you to know that she handled herself very well."

The manager smiled, SAT DOWN IN THE BOOTH WITH US and spent the next 5 to 10 minutes thanking us, telling us how much he appreciated the feedback, promising to commend his waitress (which he did, in front of us, while we were sitting there) and, if I remember correctly, I believe he paid for our desserts, too (I'm a little fuzzy on that detail, but I seem to recall that's what happened).

In all, we weren't disappointed with our Applebee's experience, and we have been repeat customers. But I hope, even that one time, that we left at least one waitress inspired, even a little bit.

And I really hope that the Canopy inspires people, in Jesus, a lot.

I Don't Understand Canadian Movie Ratings

2006-07-28T16:14:00.000-06:00

Or, more correctly, I don't trust them...

Last night Beth and I watched End Game (don't bother, unless you are a huge Cuba Gooding Jr. fan; it's slow, confusing, overacted by Burt Reynolds - as if that's a surprise - confusing, underacted by Angie Harmon - which was disappointing - and, did I mention, confusing!).

Now, often, in Canadian video rentals, there is both the Provincial Rating (or the rating from some other province) and the US's MPAA rating. And sometimes not. Sometimes there is just the provincial rating, sometimes the MPAA and, often, no indication of which it is. Because in this wonderful nation of ours, films are rated by each province - sometimes.

So, for instance, End Game doesn't currently have a rating in Alberta - I checked. But the rating granted by some other unknown province, which was prominently displayed on the case, was PG. In fact, both the display case and the Blockbuster case, said PG. The MPAA's rating, however, was R. I know this because it was printed on the DVD itself, and because Blockbuster, to their credit, had printed on the back of the rental case, "MPAA rating R." (Blockbuster - good on yah!)

Now, I know that there are differences between Canadian and US sensibilities, but PG and R?? Good grief.

So we watched the movie (as disappointing, and did I mention, confusing, as it was). There was one "f-bomb" uttered by Cuba's character, a few other minor obscentities, and LOTS OF VIOLENCE. Shootings, beatings, and one guy hit by an SUV, which was shown with all of it's shocking impact (pun intended). Now, given the state of movie ratings in Canada, I doubt this would have warranted an R rating - but at least a 14A (That's about equivalent to a PG13 in the US) would have made sense.

What's most troubling is that it makes movie watching with my kids a real tricky proposition. My Mom rented the new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and wanted to show it to my kids. Beth and I said we wanted to pre-view it first, because it was rated PG. We didn't know why, what the language was like, etc. We watched it, and my kids watched it. It was a pretty decent family movie.

Now, maybe the point of a rating system is to encourage parents to preview movies by being as vague as possible. But it that's the case, I think it has exactly the opposite effect. I think that parents get tired of trying to guess which PG movies should be PG, which should be G, which really should be 14A (or higher) and just give in. "Oh, yeah, it's PG, it should be fine." And the whole "Parental Guidance" gets chucked out the window.

I can't blame the government for lazy parents - but I can blame them for making my job harder with things that are supposed to be making it a little easier, like movie rating systems. If they don't want to be helpful, then don't rate them at all, and let me do the work. But for heaven's sake, stop making me guess as to what you mean; and stop being so bloody inconsistent!

There, I'm glad I got that off my chest... anybody know a good movie I can watch this weekend?

Quotable...

2006-07-26T08:27:00.000-06:00

I read this today, and it made me stop and go "hmmm."

But now I understood Applebee's, which doesn't strive to inspire — it strives never to disappoint.

It comes from an article on Time's website.

I'm not sure of the application, yet, but I'm pretty sure of this: I want to strive to inspire. Striving to never disappoint seems too attainable, and too dull.

When a song touches your soul

2006-07-21T14:40:00.000-06:00

The song "Faith" by Jason Upton, (from the album Faith) has come to mean an awful lot to me on difficult days.

Here are the lyrics:

Faith
(inspired by the Holy Spirit and sung by Jason Upton)

Let faith arise, oh Lord, let faith arise
In the deepest parts of my being, oh Lord
In the most broken parts of me, oh Lord
When friends have failed me Lord, let my faith arise
When loved ones have failed me Lord, let my faith arise
When heroes have failed me Lord, let my faith arise
Let my faith arise
Let my faith arise
Let my faith arise
Let my faith arise
I say NO to the discouragement that keeps me down
I say NO to the things that keep me back from You
And this broken heart inside of me
Broken in so many pieces
By so many circumstances
I say NO to just letting it stay that way
Because I’m learning to trust that it’s not You that hurt me
I’m learning to believe that it’s not You that deserted me
I’m believing that You still love me
Brokenness and all
I’m believing that You’ve got a plan for me
I’m believing that You will restore me
I believe that You will awaken my soul
And let, let faith arise again, I believe
I believe like a little child again
I’m gonna dance in my trust in You, oh Lord
I’m gonna dance in my love for You, oh Lord
I’m gonna laugh again
I’m gonna cry again
I’m gonna have joy, joy on the inside
Circumstances around me try to pull me down
I’m going to believe in that faith again
‘Cause You’re my Creator
You’re my Comfort
You’re the One that will never desert me
So Daddy, I raise my hands up to You Lord
I raise my hands up to You, oh Lord
And I dance with my feet, I dance with my feet
And I say, come and, come and hold me Lord
‘Cause I’m learning to trust You with the faith of a child
Trust You with the faith of a child
I can have joy again like a child
I’m not going to let it come down
I’m not going to let those bullets come down
Come down and hurt me no more
‘Cause I’m raising up the Shield of Faith
And the Sword of the Lord
I’m believing on your Word Lord
I’m trusting in the Word that You said
And I’m waiting on You
Waiting on You
And I’m rejoicing in the fact that the Bible says
That You are my Victorious Warrior
You’re the one that fights for me
I don’t have to fight anymore
You’re the one that fights for me, oh Lord
My faith is rising, my faith is rising, my faith is rising
I can see You again Lord.
I can see You on the horizon of my life, oh Lord
I can see Your sun, it’s rising up, it’s rising up, it’s rising up
And I don’t have to be discouraged anymore
And I don’t have to fight this loneliness anymore
‘Cause You’re in my life, You’re in my life more than anyone can ever be
Father we’re building a relationship again, just me and You
We’re building a relationship again, just me and You
It’s not about the job I have
It’s not about the friends I have
Its’ not about the house I have or the social status I have
It’s about me and You
We’re building a relationship again, just me and You
You’re building my faith up again

Let faith arise, oh Lord!

They may not rhyme - and they may not seem all that profound, but there is something about this song that touches my spirit every time I listen to it. (In fact, it just played in my iTunes party shuffle - which is what prompted this post...)

Some thoughts on Function over Form

2006-07-18T09:05:00.000-06:00

A recent post and subsequent discussion on Jesus Outside the Box has started me thinking about the church – and the difference between function and form.

It seems to me that form, while important, is largely an issue of pragmatism, whereas function is biblically mandated. That is to say, the way we do church has, in the eyes of God, the ability to flex and change to suit the circumstances, but why we do church is an issue settled in the mind of God.

And, as is often the case, we tend to get it backwards and act like the form is prescribed and the function is a matter of personal need or preference. Church wars and denominational fractures are abundant over issues of who has the authority, what kind, how long and in what format we worship, whether or not we pay the pastor, who can be the pastor, who can be become a member, whether or not there should be members and why there are members, who can take communion, and how we do communion and baptism… the list goes on. And these are all matters of form. They are the how of church.

Whereas the why of church is up to me: I need the fellowship, I require time to heal, I like these people and we get along so well, we all see eye-to-eye, I like the kind of music they (oh, that’s a killer word in the church: “they”) offer (another killer word!), the preacher is so good… so I think I’ll go here. And, yes, I’m well aware that I’ve just over-lapped my two lists; that I’ve put similar things in the how and why columns. I’ve done so because it’s what we do. We confuse and interchange the how and the why of church. We pick and choose why we go (or don't go) somewhere and we fight over how our church does church. All the time missing the fact that church isn't somewhere we go but is who we are!

And a major reason why we fight and quibble and refuse to agree on these issues is because the Bible is: a) silent, b) ambivalent or c) ambiguous on them. So we draw our lines, pull out our favourite proof-texts and interpretations of those texts and hammer away at one another, or (in my humble opinion) even worse, refuse to discuss it any further, and then go our separate ways.

Does the Bible have anything to say about form? Absolutely – sometimes. As you read through Acts, and the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon) and the other portions here and there in the New Testament that address the structure of the earliest church gatherings (bits in Romans, Corinthians, and even hints in the Gospels), you seem to get a hodgepodge of pictures: house churches, large gatherings, bishop led groups, autonomous congregations, pastor/deacon/elder/bishop combinations, lay-led, professional clergy, apostle-driven, spontaneously-started, spirit-led, liturgical… churches. There seems to be a little of everything and nothing specific mandated. In fact, most of the texts seem to assume that there is some sort of structure in place, and then proceed to provide correctives or bring advice on how to continue in a healthy way. I can’t think of any text that says flat-out “You’re doing it the wrong way,” or “You’re missing this or that vital piece.”

But when it comes to function – why does the church exist – the Bible says some pretty pointed, direct things. There are at least two complimentary pictures presented in the Gospels and Epistles that spell out the function of the church. And something that we have mostly missed in the west (or at least, in the US and Canada) is that both pictures are profoundly corporate and only secondarily address the individual believer. Church is who we are as friends and followers of Jesus, not where I go as a believer.

The Church is the Body of Jesus

One of the main paradigms articulated over and over is that the believers gathered constitute the Body of Jesus Christ on the earth, in his physical absence. You are not the incarnation of Jesus, nor am I. But we are. This thought first came to me one time I was reading Ephesians 1:22-23. Paul says that the church is the fullness of him who fills everything. It's the same kind of language Paul uses to describe the relationship between Jesus and his Father in Colossians 1:19-20. It's incarnation language. Paul is saying that the church, you and I together as friends of Jesus, embody him on the earth.

When the world outside of Jesus looks at the friends of Jesus together, they are supposed to see Jesus! I don't incarnate the Son of Man by myself. I'm too sin-stained, too self-centred, too not-divine to accurately portray Jesus to the world. But the redeemed of God together, we're supposed to do just that.

We're supposed to be bearers of the Presence. We're supposed to be ministers of compassion and mercy. We're supposed to walk in unity and love of one another. We're supposed to spur one another on, support, exhort, encourage, bear with, lean on, strengthen, care for one another. All of the things our natural bodies do. Corporate unity and identity shouldn't be such a foreign idea to us: we live it every day in our fleshly bodies. Many parts, one body. It's what we are. And, for the most part, my body's many parts function in inter-dependent unity with each other.

The Body of Christ is why the church exists. It is what calls us to be agents of justice and compassion, just as Jesus embodied the justice and compassion of Father God. It invites us to be Spirit-filled and Spirit-led, just as Jesus walked in complete agreement with the Spirit of our Father. It obliges us to live in unity with one another, and with Jesus, just as Jesus lived in absolute unity with his Father. It is in this context that we receive and function in our spiritual gifts. It is in this context that we celebrate the Lord's Supper and it is to this end that we are baptized.

The Body of Christ is the paradigm that calls the church to everything incarnational in her ministry.

The Church is the Bride of Jesus

The other major paradigm given in the New Testament is that of the Bride. The clear train of thought in the New Testament, brought to it's conclusion in Revelation, is that the Father is creating a worthy Bride for his Son from every nation on the earth. A corporate Bride, and Royal gathered community of the Redeemed that is worthy of her Redeemer.

It is a picture that stretches our understanding of corporate identity. And I think that is why we first get such a clear picture of the corporate Body in scripture. Like I already said, the Body is an image we can at least get our heads around - after all, it's what we are in our fleshly existence.

But we are so much more than that. Corporately we are becoming the spotless Bride. Corporately are called to the ministry of intimacy. The Bride is about worship, about adoration, about holiness and purity. She is why we treat one another with tenderness and gentleness. She is why we pray, and study, why we question and learn, and sing, and dance, and weep and celebrate. Our gatherings are but a shadow of a feast that is coming (sometimes a pretty dim shadow, sometimes almost a reflection).

And, I believe, the Bride is why we evangelize. In Jesus' earthly ministry his Kingdom work was about the incarnation. But his redemptive work, his purchasing men and women for God and his building of an inheritance, was about securing a Bride. It was about capturing the hearts of men and women in the place of intimacy.

So it is with the church.

Our kingdom work is incarnational; we advance the Kingdom of God because we are the Body of Christ. Our redemptive work, our bringing men and women to Jesus and being made holy with them, is about intimacy. It is about filling hearts with passion for Jesus.

There are other pictures used in scripture as well. And some of them do address the individual more specifically. In fact, there are aspects of both the Body and Bride paradigms that speak to us as individual parts of the corporate whole. But the church's function is to be the holy people, the royal priesthood, and it's not a function we can play alone.

How we express that, how we do church, has a lot of latitude. And we would do well to remember that when we are tempted to pick on this expression or that structure; you may do church in a completely different way than I do: your traditions, style, and structure may not look at all like mine. But together we are the church: Jesus' Body on the earth and his beautiful Bride for the age to come.

Any thoughts... ?

An interesting little quiz

2006-07-07T09:01:00.000-06:00

I found this quiz to be rather interesting (theology is a favorite pastime for me... what can I say?) The link was from Jesus Outside the Box

The results were pretty bang-on, probably to the chagrin of my former Seminary profs.

You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan. You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists.

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

64%

Neo orthodox

64%

Emergent/Postmodern

64%

Charismatic/Pentecostal

50%

Reformed Evangelical

50%

Roman Catholic

50%

Fundamentalist

36%

Classical Liberal

36%

Modern Liberal

11%

What's your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com

Family updates

2006-07-06T09:37:00.000-06:00

Here's the goings-on of the Brooks family...

After a highly successful school year, we're ready for the summer holidays! Jonathan and Elisha both did really well in school this year - and Mom and Dad are awfully proud!

The end of the school year was a little nutty, though. Both kids playing soccer, Elisha in dance, and Dad playing soccer meant that we had stuff going on Monday, Tuesday (double booked), Wednesday, Thursday, sometimes Friday evenings and Saturday, sometimes Sunday afternoons. Let's just say that by the end of June, we were occasionally (ok, truth be told, often) praying for rain so that soccer would be postponed.

Both kids had a pretty good soccer season. Jonathan's team only lost about 3 games all season, and ended up being re-tiered half way through the season, 'cause they were creaming the competition! And I had the amazing privilege of helping to coach his team.

Elisha's team got off to a rougher start - they didn't score their first goal until very near the end of the season. And it happened to coincide with their first win (1:0)! I don't know who was more excited, the kids or the parents -- there was actually talk of going down to Whyte Avenue to celebrate (keep in mind, this happened in the middle of the Oilers' Stanley Cup run...) They went on to either win or tie the rest of their games (if only the same could be said of the Oilers...).

Birthday celebrations this year were, well, birthday celebrations... and reminders to both Beth and I that we aren't getting any younger. How is it that the kids are now 10 & 7? When the heck did that happen? The only time I feel like I could actually be old enough to have a 10 year old is the day after one of my soccer matches - then I know for a FACT I'm not 20 anymore!

The summer is shaping up well. We're looking forward to spending time together at Family Camp - a week of someone else cooking, planning, entertaining... it's pretty tough to beat.

We have a few other things on the go, too. Seven weddings - though I'm only performing three of them - will keep us busy. And Jonathan has an amazing August ahead of him, but I'll leave the details for him to write about.

Over all, I am incredibly blessed. I've got the two most amazing kids on the planet (sorry, to all the other parents out there, but your kids just aren't as awesome as mine!!), live in a terrific city, am part of and help lead the most incredible church community, and am married to the same beautiful, amazing, kind, gentle... awe inspiring woman that I married 14 years ago (there's no way our kids can be 10 & 7 - we're far too young for that!).

Life Under The Canopy: Sunday July 2 - Walking & Listening

2006-07-04T14:42:00.000-06:00

Life Under The Canopy: Sunday July 2 - Walking & Listening... is a series of comments from people from the Canopy in response to last Sunday's "experiment."

The First Post

2006-07-04T14:38:00.000-06:00

This is the very first entry in the Brooks' Family Blog (aka Eric's hobby; maybe the rest will join in.)

I want to point out The Canopy's Blog "Life Under the Canopy" (see the next post) mostly 'cause I love the Canopy, and I think the things that are being posted there are worth taking a look at.