Tag Archives: people

There are always more to help…

19 Thursday Apr 2018

Posted by in Church, Humanity, Theology

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

There will always be someone else who needs help.  We have the potential to spend all day trying to fix others, to solve problems, to deal with emergencies, etc.

And in the process, you won’t be any further along than when you started.  You’ll often be more tired, but feel good about your deeds.

The challenge is this – do we do the short-term fix or do we work with people for long-term change?  Short term feels good.  It requires minimal investment of time and energy.  It requires minimal investment of relationship too.  We can throw money at the “problem” and move on.  But has a person’s life really changed?  Have they been transformed?

Churches receive many requests for “help.”  Some are legitimate and other request are a bit more questionable.  Often requests are in emergency stages – only a day or two away from drastic action being taken.  Things like eviction.  Which always raises questions in my mind – why did this person wait until the last-minute?  What caused them to wait until the situation was desperate?

One of the things I look for is the attitude of a person.  I’m not talking about whether they treat others with respect or show gratitude – those are good things though.  I’m talking about how a person seeks out help.  Does the person really want help, or do they just want the pressure of the situation to be reduced?  The difference is in who is in charge.  If a person really wants help, they are open to seeing that their way is not working.  They are open to change and adaptation in order to improve their situation.

Others just want relief from the situation.  They want you to respond on their terms, on their time frame, with what they want, when they want it, with limited questions.  These folks are interested in improving their lives, just getting rid of the situation.  There is no desire for relationship or community.  There is no openness to change or learning.

The question becomes, do we have an obligation to only provide relief?  Or to just focus on help?  If someone is seeking out resources from a church or anyone else for that matter, are they admitting that their way isn’t working?  Some are not willing to acknowledge this.  Is it tough love to withhold relief from someone who has no desire to change?  Is it cruel to withhold relief to someone who repeatedly finds themself in emergencies?

Awhile back, we had an individual who called the church seeking relief.  They had a couple of days to come up with $500 for back rent or else they would be evicted.  It became an emergency for them.  But there is a difference between urgency and important and who’s problem it is.  We found out from the land lord that this person has been at their location for 44 months and had been late 17 times – That’s almost 40% of the time this person resided at this location.  Providing relief in this instance would do very little to help this person – at least in a meaningful and lasting way.  The person wasn’t interested in building a relationship or being a part of a community – only seeking out resources to provide relief from the pressure of the emergency.

So, do churches have an obligation to provide relief always?  Or is there a different way?  I think there is a different way.  I think we need to ask a few questions.  We need to ask if a person really wants help, or if they only want relief.  And each church needs to decide – are they interested in working with people provide relief, or do they feel called to more and to something deeper.  Help is longer term.  It involves a commitment from the person and from the church.  It involves an intertwining of lives.  It involves getting to know people’s stories and finding the value they bring. It’s about community.  But this is costly and often frustrating.  It’s much cheaper and easier to throw money at a problem – relief.

Having said this, relief has its role – there’s no denying it.  But the church also has an opportunity and a calling to be more than just a relief agency.  We are called to showcase how encounters with Jesus change lives.  We are called to build community and relationships.  We are called for the long-term, not the easy fix.  We are called to respond with grace and mercy and forgiveness and show repentance.  To live the Gospel.

 

Telling it like it is about “telling it like it is…”

03 Tuesday Apr 2018

Posted by in Humanity, Politics, Society, Theology

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , ,

A some-what popular and trendy phrase right now is “telling it like it is.”  There are many who see leaders who “tell it like it is” as a top character trait that they look for in leadership.  Having this as a top trait raises some serious questions.

Typically “telling it like it is” gets translates as being politically incorrect in one’s speech, supposedly in defense of the “truth.”  In reality, the people who “tell it like it is” use it as an excuse to be rude, crude, obnoxious, and inhumane.  In a word – it’s an excuse to be a jerk.

When did it become acceptable to treat people you don’t like or disagree with in a manner that is rude or with little respect?  I can’t pinpoint the exact time, but it preceded the 2016 election.  Maybe it is attached to the reality television and the desire for quick and cheap fame.  Maybe it is tied to the decline of Christendom.  Maybe it’s tied to social media and the easy ability for everyone to have a voice.  Maybe it’s none of these, or all of these.  But really, it needs to stop.  It’s unacceptable.

When did it become acceptable for conspiracy theories to be treated on the same level as the truth?  I recently saw something about the people think that the mass shootings are fake.  Yes, there are people who think these tragedies are staged, with actors, all to advance some kind of a partisan political agenda.  This has the same level of legitimacy as the Flat Earth Society – the people who are convinced that the earth is flat and that there is some kind of conspiracy to hide it.

When did it become acceptable to treat victims of tragedy with disrespect and call their pain into question?  Whether you agree with kids from Parkland High School or not doesn’t matter.  They are human beings who have gone through a tragedy – let them speak if that helps them cope with what they have been through.  Give them room to speak.

When did it become acceptable to be a jerk?  Especially in an age in which society is making a major push to clamp down on bullying in schools.  Yet we have “leaders” who draw attention to themselves and their narcissistic attitudes by “telling it like it is” with their cruel words that don’t point towards the truth, but rather the emptiness of their own soul.

Matthew 15:18 states: “But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles.”

In other words, you shall know a person’s inner attitude and worldview based on the fruit of their words.  Just as a rotten piece of fruit would be thrown out as unhealthy, so should the words that sound like rot.

When “telling it like it is” become the dominant value, humanity and humility suffer and are held at knife or gun point.  We shouldn’t be surprised that the next step is  violence – from one group of people against another who don’t see the humanity in others because of the way they look, talk, think, live, or where they are from, or their sexual orientation.

We shouldn’t be surprised when “telling it like it is” produces a whole society of jerks who think that everyone has to listen to their rot and accept the way they treat people.

We shouldn’t be surprised that “telling it like it is” produces policies that promote Social Darwinism where only the strong survive and the weaker members of society are left to rot and die because they are in the way and they cost money.  We shouldn’t be surprised.

“Telling it like it is” – that’s what the temple leaders could have been described as doing when they said that it is better for one man to die on behalf of the people.  “Telling it like it is” – That’s what the lame and pathetic excuse the crowd hid behind when they shouted “Crucify Him! Crucify Him!”  “Telling it like it is” is just as deadly now as it was nearly 2000 years ago.

If you “tell it like it is,” you shouldn’t be surprised when you receive a negative response.  Nor should you whine and complain about your feelings getting hurt either.

Instead, maybe you should be surprised when followers of Christ actually carry out what they claim to believe – when they turn the other cheek, when they offer words of forgiveness, when they still love you regardless.  That doesn’t mean they are giving you a pass.  This is costly love – a love that stings the giver.  A love that allowed nails to be put into a wrist and feet.  A love that hung on a cross.  The words of this love produce life-giving fruit for all who hear them and take them in.  The words of this love give nourishment.

Let me be clear – “telling it like it is” killed Jesus.  “Telling it like it is” was the excuse that was used to openly mock Jesus as he hung on the cross.  “Telling it like it is” was the excuse given when the plot to kill Jesus was formed.  “Telling it like it is” was the excuse Rome used when it violently killed and destroyed anyone who got in its way.  “Telling it like it is” – this is the excuse that was used to demean and dehumanize others because of their skin color, religious belief, ideology, gender, family status, mental health, economic status, language, sexual orientation, physical ability, and anything else considered outside of the current definition of “normal.”  Good luck washing that blood off your hands if you insist on “telling it like it is.”

Go ahead and keep “telling it like it is” though.  Everyone will know what is in your heart – a bunch of rot.  But where is Christ, the one so many who “tell it like it is” claim to follow?

Scapegoating still happens

02 Friday Mar 2018

Posted by in Church, Humanity, Politics, Society, Theology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Scapegoating is taking the sins of a community and placing them on something or someone and driving that person or thing out of the community.

It’s roots go back to ancient religious practice.

But it is still practiced regularly today.

Scapegoating is used because the community needs to relieve itself of its guilt and sin.  It needs someone or something that it can place all the blame and sin into and onto.  It needs the attention and pressure that is on the community to go somewhere else.  It needs to move the guilt and sin to someone else – someone or something that can be classified as “bad.”

The benefit for the community is that it gets to wash its hand clean from the blame and sin from within.  The most famous example of this is Pontus Pilate washing his hands over the soon to happen crucifixion of Jesus.  Scapegoating means that the community can fool itself into believing that it is not guilty, that it is sinless, and not blameworthy.

Never mind that the object or person being scapegoated is ruined – that’s the point.  Someone or something has to suffer the consequences of the sin.  Someone or something needs to feel the wrath and the community is protecting itself from that.  That isn’t innocent blood anyway – its guilty blood.  Never mind the ripple effect either.  Never mind that people’s lives are ruined.  What is most important is that the community feels better about itself, that it did something, and looked good doing it.

Scapegoating especially happens during highly stressful situations and around highly stressful and difficult “topics” – such as race, sexuality, nationality, poverty, wealth, education, and more.

There are many problems with scapegoating.  The biggest problem is the belief that the community is innocent.  It isn’t.  The people in such a community have skeletons in their closet – things they would rather not talk about or deal with.  It’s too painful for them.  They may be required to acknowledge their own guilt – to consider the blood that is on their own hands because of policies or politicians they supported and the consequences of their policies, allegiances and loyalties they have.  While we may not agree with the policies we are governed by, and in fact we may be very opposed to them, how complicit are we?  How much responsibility do we bear if we continue to swear allegiance and swear our loyalty?  How innocent are we?

The other problem with scapegoating is that it isn’t permanent.  It is only a temporary relief of anxiety and stress.  Our guilt and sin will haunt us again because we have not really dealt with them.  It will rear its ugly head at the most inopportune time.  And we will have to seek out another scapegoat.  It’s easier than examining ourselves and seeing how we are to blame ourselves or make these systems possible or continue to prop them up by the way we live.  It’s easier to relieve the pressure than it is to be honest with ourselves, to repent and seek forgiveness, and make real changes.  It’s easier to kill the scapegoat than to deny ourselves, pick up our cross, and follow God.

Rest in peace scapegoat.  You won’t be lonely for long.  There will be others who will join you.  Just know that you will continue to serve a deeper purpose – to be a painful reminder of the sin of the community.  One that is unresolved.

Words to actions

24 Wednesday Jan 2018

Posted by in Church, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Preaching is very powerful.  And yet, so often it feels as though it is just words.  It’s actually a miracle that faith lives in Christians at all.  Think about this for a moment.  On one side you have someone who is a regular church goer – let’s say they even come every week (even though that is no longer the norm).  They pay attention the entire worship service.  They listen intently to the sermon and the readings and sing all the hymns.  In that amount of time, they are exposed to the Gospel for approximately one hour.  There are other times during the week that a person is also exposed to the Gospel too.  It’s not just worship.

But that same person is exposed to multiple alternate gospel messages.  Messages the focus on division, strife, anger, fear, separation, disbelief, stress, competition, force, might makes right, judgement, violence, death, and more.  These messages inundate a person throughout each day – hour after hour.

Compare these two things – the Gospel versus other gospel messages.  You quickly see that the Gospel doesn’t get nearly the time that other messages do – the Gospel get far less of a person’s attention daily.  Yet, the Gospel takes hold in many people.  Clearly, this is more than just a good sermon.  It’s God’s work.

Which leads to the main point – the words we hear, the Gospel message we hear, are more than just words.  They are transformative and change lives.  I see this when I hear or see someone take the message they receive and start to do something with it.  Words cause action.

Over the last few days I’ve been in discussion with various people of faith about how the words we talk about can turn into action.  The conversations all center around how the words we speak and write are about changing the tone and attitude of our political world, bringing respect and humility into our political discourse – listening if you will.  The conversations talk about how we incorporate faith into the conversations about policy – but in a different way.  Not in a way to manipulate people or policy, but rather in something else.  If I had to define it, I would say affecting the process of how politics is done.  To move away from the divisive nature, arching towards corrupt deals, and more towards transparency and approaching politics with faith.  It starts with one person, but it can’t go anywhere with only one.

What do you think can be done?  What are you willing to do?  Let’s talk and see how our faith can turn into action.  It’s not about advancing either political party.  It’s about living out our faith, living out grace, approaching others as children of God.  I want to talk with you if you are interested.

What is God calling us to?

20 Friday Oct 2017

Posted by in Church

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

This is the key question that many churches ask – or are supposed to ask.  There’s been a ton written about this question and the potential answers that come back.

Here’s another question that is just as important – Who is God calling us to communicate with?  Who is God calling be to a part of our community in the future?  Who is God moving into our lives and our lives into their lives?

But let’s be clear about this – it’s a fun question to consider, but also very dangerous.  It’s not about who is God calling to become just like us.  We aren’t called to reach out to others and make them just like us.  Every time someone new enters a community, that community changes, like a pebble creating ripples in the water.

Who is God calling on us to communicate with and share Good News with?  And how is God calling us to change to reach these people?

When God calls us to something new, there will be change.  There will be uncertainty.  There will be leaving something behind.

But there will also life.  There will be discipleship and letting go.  There will be Jesus.

Community defined

10 Thursday Aug 2017

Posted by in Church

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

How do you define community?

I guess part of the way you answer the question has to do with the context.  How we define community in relation to a community park should be different to how we define community in relation to a church.

in relation to a church, how would you define community?

Here’s some things that I thing relate to what a community is in relation to church – trust, people, commonality, values, direction, respect, value, humanity.

Each of these, of course, has a definition too, but for the sake of not boring you all to death, I’ll stop with the downward spiral into definitions that only a true work nerd would care about.

Instead, here’s my stab at defining community.   A community is build on a foundation of trust.  Sitting on top of that foundation is a group of people who hold values, respect, and a vision in common.  Theses building blocks set guidelines for how the people in a community interact and recognize one another’s humanity.

A bit wordy, I know.

Maybe a simpler version would be – a community is a group of people who recognize others as having value because they care about similar things and also recognize that together, each person gains far more than going it alone.

So what is a church community?  A group of people who have a similar belief system, to band together to support one another in order to carry out the mission of the church – to make more disciples.

How would you define community in relation to church?

 

Changing the world

06 Thursday Jul 2017

Posted by in Humanity, Organizational theory, Theology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Just a quick thought for the day:

Even if you think most people aren’t capable or competent, remember, Jesus did some amazing things and started a movement with a group of uneducated men and women – outcasts in their society.  Because of the people Jesus surrounded himself with and empowered, he changed the course of history and changed the world.  And it is still changing today.

You don’t need only the best and the brightest.  Just like on a sports team – you don’t really want a team of superstars.  It’s a recipe for failure.  Instead, you just need people who are willing and able, and have nothing to lose.  People who make the mission and vision their own and do what they can to move everyone closer to that vision.  With that, you can conquer and/or change the world.

What is church? part 2

27 Thursday Apr 2017

Posted by in Church, Theology

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

Yesterday I took a stab at the question of What is church?  I received some great comments from that post – both in person and online.  Thank you.

Today I saw a beer ad that I think pretty much sums up what church should be like.  It’s an ad for Heineken.  Instead of explaining it, click the link, and scroll down to the video, or you can watch the video directly here:

This is a powerful ad.  And I think very honest too – which makes it powerful.

I can attest to the fact that when you get people who would normally disagree with each other (or worse) to sit down and eat together or have a drink together, something happens.  Food and drinks have a way of leveling equalizing people.  They have a way to drawing people together.  They could have nothing else in common, but the mere fact that two people eat or drink together means that they do have something in common – basic humanity and the needs of living – food and drink.

Church should be like this.  I think there is precedent for this too.  Jesus ate his way through the Gospels.  He ate with Pharisees and with tax collectors and a whole host of other people.  One of most remembered moments is the Last Supper.  Jesus knew the power of bringing people together and sharing a meal with them.

I have pastor friends who have started dinner churches and speak about the amazing things that happen at these gatherings.

When I was in Finland, I used the analogy of going to a bar to describe what the liturgy was all about.  A friend at the University didn’t understand church and what went on, so I explained it this way – we came together looking forward to spending time together in this bar.  That’s the gathering section of the liturgy.  Then we’ve been talking about God and life.  That’s the Word section.  Now we are sharing some drinks and food together.  We don’t agree about everything, yet we’re able to be here together sharing food and enjoying each other’s company.  That’s the Meal portion.  From here we’ll leave looking forward to the next time we can gather.  That’s the Sending.

What we saw in the ad was the liturgy in a very practical form.  What they experienced was God’s grace and without the words being said – forgiveness.  They saw the humanity and the frailty and the guilt in the other person and chose to look past all of that without judgement.  It that’s not what church is all about ultimately, I don’t know what is.

 

The unexpected

30 Thursday Mar 2017

Posted by in Church, Travel

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Longwood Gardens has many unexpected things.

DSCN1464

You know, a tree that looks like it’s made of bananas: (it looked like that to me when I first glanced at it.)

DSCN1465

Lesson for church: things aren’t always the way you expect them to be. Things aren’t always the way you see them the first time either.  True of things and people.  Probably more important that this is true about people.

Control

16 Thursday Mar 2017

Posted by in Church, Politics, Society

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Humans love to be in control.  We love to determine who gets what and how much.  We’re really good at it too – or we should be given how so much of human history is made up about humans squabbling to control land, people, resources, etc.  In reality though we suck at control.

Most of our political battles are about control over something.  Take immigration.  The battle over immigration is about who gets to enter, how much they can get harassed, and how assimilated they need to be.

Same thing with poverty. The battle of control is over who gets what and how.  With poverty, there are assumptions made – that if you are poor you shouldn’t have anything (anything at all) that is “nice.” The assumption is that poor people are supposed to be miserable all the time.  So those that can implement policies that make sure they can control how the poor feel – miserable.

Politicians are big on control.  So are churches so very often.  Politics and organizational religion is often very focused on controlling what you can do and what you must believe and who you can talk with.  It’s been this way for a long time.  Jesus got himself in trouble for doing things that went against the norm, for restating the Law, and for hanging out with the scum of society.

Of course, not all politicians and not all religious leaders or denominations are control freaks.

Here’s the thing with having and using control over others.  Often it becomes subjective.  Those in control get to determine who the good guys are and who the bad guys are, who’s in and who’s out.  The problem comes when you go to a different jurisdiction (somewhere where other people are in control).  There is often a different set of good and bad guys.  They could, in fact, be the exact opposite of what you just experienced.  It’s all based on context and preference.  Mostly it ends up being someone in control determining who’s in and who’s out.  And then lots of people rationalize it to make sense of it.  There must be a reason, don’t you know.

Maybe if we spend less time trying to control people and more time trying to help people, we’d be better off.  But then again, we’d have to admit that we don’t have all the answers.  And then what? We’d have to get along with people.  Scary, isn’t it?  Control offers stability.  Yet, at what price?