The "where" question may help us with other questions. Thinking in terms of the Christian faith, I wonder where people were standing when Jesus made his way to the banks of the Jordan river seeking his cousin, John. Where, for instance, was his mother standing? Maybe in town, maybe some miles away . Where was Simon, soon to be renamed "Peter" standing? Where was Andrew standing?
Were some people who became important to Jesus crowding right up front? Others who became important to Jesus mixed into the crowd? Way to the back. Some, maybe, sort of interested but part of some other crowd or interest?
Where were you standing when questions of faith began to pester you? Where are you standing now? Have you been standing since questions of faith began, or have you been moving, shifting, walking, leaping, shifting positions?
It's not enough to ask, "Where do you stand?" in fact, that's a particularly useless question. It implies stasis, death, stagnation. Where were you standing implies history, and implies that you might not be standing there now. Where ARE you standing suggests a point on your pilgrimage, but not the final goal of a life well lived.
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
What if . . . Three
What if the First Something Church of Somewhere sent people on their way with a blessing, making no attempt to recruit, or raise funds, or in any way "snag" them? Two positive caveats come to mind.
First, most of us need a positive community for our faith to grow, our hope to endure tough times, our love to mature.
Second, the community won't be there for the next person, or next generation, or need if some folks don't stick around to create a positive, vigorous base. That next person might be a spouse, that next generation might be children of the seeker, that next need might be in a friend.
So, there is some reason to recruit people whose particular search has met with success.
On the other hand, there are a couple of abusive caveats to consider.
One, folks already in the community or on the staff of the First Something Church may be stuck in a felt need to maintain the institution. William Stringfellow once said in my hearing that whenever a church seeks justice, hope, or other positive outcome and succeeds it should celebrate for two weeks and then begin opposing whatever the success is. Because, he said, the success gets institutionalized and becomes part of the "principalities" that are demonic death-carriers. Most successful churches need not apply. They are already there.
Second, institutions lose sight of the mission to offer hope, spiritual value, opportunities to explore and begin to tell people how it is and should be. They fail to evoke growth and try to force growth.
Yes, there is a place for recruiting, but the intent can be deadly.
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
First, most of us need a positive community for our faith to grow, our hope to endure tough times, our love to mature.
Second, the community won't be there for the next person, or next generation, or need if some folks don't stick around to create a positive, vigorous base. That next person might be a spouse, that next generation might be children of the seeker, that next need might be in a friend.
So, there is some reason to recruit people whose particular search has met with success.
On the other hand, there are a couple of abusive caveats to consider.
One, folks already in the community or on the staff of the First Something Church may be stuck in a felt need to maintain the institution. William Stringfellow once said in my hearing that whenever a church seeks justice, hope, or other positive outcome and succeeds it should celebrate for two weeks and then begin opposing whatever the success is. Because, he said, the success gets institutionalized and becomes part of the "principalities" that are demonic death-carriers. Most successful churches need not apply. They are already there.
Second, institutions lose sight of the mission to offer hope, spiritual value, opportunities to explore and begin to tell people how it is and should be. They fail to evoke growth and try to force growth.
Yes, there is a place for recruiting, but the intent can be deadly.
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
What If . . . Two
Suppose the First Church of Something realized that some people only come to find hope, or faith. That's all.
Suppose the First Church of Something checked in with attendees, and found ways to learn if they had found what they came for. It would mean a process quite different from singing three hymns, learning what the liturgical year colors are, and listening to someone speak.
[My God! Al. Don't tell me you want these attendees to say anything to anyone! What are you thinking?]
But suppose. . . suppose that John or Mary or Achmed found hope and thus had no further perceived need to keep attending. Suppose the First Church of Something found a way to send him or her on the way with a blessing and a sense of fulfillment. The church had done it's job.
No financial pleas. No attempt to recruit. Just acceptance and respect.
Would that be enough? Wat it enough for Jesus to walk through towns healing and teaching and then moving on?
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
Suppose the First Church of Something checked in with attendees, and found ways to learn if they had found what they came for. It would mean a process quite different from singing three hymns, learning what the liturgical year colors are, and listening to someone speak.
[My God! Al. Don't tell me you want these attendees to say anything to anyone! What are you thinking?]
But suppose. . . suppose that John or Mary or Achmed found hope and thus had no further perceived need to keep attending. Suppose the First Church of Something found a way to send him or her on the way with a blessing and a sense of fulfillment. The church had done it's job.
No financial pleas. No attempt to recruit. Just acceptance and respect.
Would that be enough? Wat it enough for Jesus to walk through towns healing and teaching and then moving on?
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
What If Church. . .
What if a church organization like, say, the First Something Church of Somewhere, came to a realization that some folks come to find faith. Or to find a relationship with God. Or to find hope. Or to begin a relationship with Jesus.
What if a church realized that when John meets Mary, or Abu meets Miriam, or whoever, they do not usually attend the place they met every week so they can develop and deepen their relationship. Stay with me here. Suppose Achmed meets Miriam at a family gathering of some sort. Their eyes meet, they are interested in each other. They live in the United States of America, or France, or somewhere in England. They arrange to get together and get acquainted. Do they always meet at a gathering of that family?
No, not usually. They may meet in one of their homes, or go to a movie together, or join friends and go dancing. They are not "stuck" with always meeting, once a week, or twice a week, at the place they first met.
Still with me? Suppose John or Achmed or Miriam comes to the First Something Church of Somewhere and meets God, or meets Jesus. Must this person keep coming back to church to get acquainted with God? Is this the only location where the relationship can develop?
Of course not. So, suppose instead of trying to gather more givers, the First Church of Something regularly sent people out to develop their relationships? Suppose instead of trying to get bigger, the church tried to do its work, even at the risk of fading away?
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
What if a church realized that when John meets Mary, or Abu meets Miriam, or whoever, they do not usually attend the place they met every week so they can develop and deepen their relationship. Stay with me here. Suppose Achmed meets Miriam at a family gathering of some sort. Their eyes meet, they are interested in each other. They live in the United States of America, or France, or somewhere in England. They arrange to get together and get acquainted. Do they always meet at a gathering of that family?
No, not usually. They may meet in one of their homes, or go to a movie together, or join friends and go dancing. They are not "stuck" with always meeting, once a week, or twice a week, at the place they first met.
Still with me? Suppose John or Achmed or Miriam comes to the First Something Church of Somewhere and meets God, or meets Jesus. Must this person keep coming back to church to get acquainted with God? Is this the only location where the relationship can develop?
Of course not. So, suppose instead of trying to gather more givers, the First Church of Something regularly sent people out to develop their relationships? Suppose instead of trying to get bigger, the church tried to do its work, even at the risk of fading away?
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
What if Jesus Trusts Us?
In my last post I wondered with you: 'Did Jesus Cop Out?' Today I'd like to think about one way of understanding his stance.
Marx and Lenin tried. The monastic movement tried, at least for awhile. So far no workable solution to widespread poverty has been found. Even our capitalistic experiment in the United States of America has failed, although for awhile it breached various boundaries between classes, giving people a chance at a better economic life. The crazies on the right are destroying that today, in late 2012, however. The cheaters on the left destroy trust, and without trust capitalism cannot function for long.
What if Jesus trusts us in every generation, every economic setting, every weather-related catastrophe, to devise methods that work for awhile.
What if his comment, "The poor you shall have with you always" simply recognizes an ongoing problem, assigns no blame, and leaves you and me to find solutions again and again throughout history?
What if we live up to his trust in us and do our part?
Leave a comment and let us know what you think.
Marx and Lenin tried. The monastic movement tried, at least for awhile. So far no workable solution to widespread poverty has been found. Even our capitalistic experiment in the United States of America has failed, although for awhile it breached various boundaries between classes, giving people a chance at a better economic life. The crazies on the right are destroying that today, in late 2012, however. The cheaters on the left destroy trust, and without trust capitalism cannot function for long.
What if Jesus trusts us in every generation, every economic setting, every weather-related catastrophe, to devise methods that work for awhile.
What if his comment, "The poor you shall have with you always" simply recognizes an ongoing problem, assigns no blame, and leaves you and me to find solutions again and again throughout history?
What if we live up to his trust in us and do our part?
Leave a comment and let us know what you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)