Got back from Mexico today at 1am…had a blast…got a lot of work done on a playground (to see pics click here) at a home for battered women and their children…spent a lot of time praying for some of the women…my friend Ben got food poisoning…and we had trouble finding the right way across the border because of all the memorial day traffic…so on the whole it was everything one would expect.
The place we worked at was called Casa Esperanza, near Ensenda. As mentioned it is a home for battered women, but slowly it is becoming much more. The vision is that it would be a place not only of safety, but also of inner healing through the Holy Spirit, and vocational training for the women. For more info on the place you can email: casaesperanzamx@yahoo.com
For me, the trip took me to a place I hadn’t been in a long time, namely emotional connection with someone that is deeply hurting. There is so much pain in this world that I just choose to be numb to it all. The opportunity to connect with one of the deeply wounded women I was praying with was a blessing that took my studies out of the classroom and back into the real world…“thank you Holy Spirit”.
May 31, 2005
May 27, 2005
Ten Questions for Brian McLaren
Here are some excerpts from an interview with Brian McLaren, done by Terry L. Heaton, that espically resonated with me.
Click here to read the whole thing.
Brian McLaren is a postmodernist Christian leader, and that makes him a controversial fellow in a religion with roots in absolutism. He's the author of ten books and pastor of Cedar Ridge Community Church, an innovative, nondenominational church in the Baltimore-Washington region. He's one of the leaders of Emergent, a growing generative friendship among Christian leaders. In February, Time Magazine listed him as one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in America...
Q: In a nutshell, what’s your definition of postmodernism?
A: That's a hard question to put into a nutshell. Those who use it usually mean it as something that involves continuity and discontinuity with modernity. It’s not anti-modernism. It’s not the same thing as pre-modernism. It means people who've gone through the modern era and been changed by it, so now they argue its principles in many different ways...
...The church has done exactly what it should do: it has effectively adapted to modernity. It has learned to speak modern language. It has learned to how to engage with modern media. It has learned to use modern technology and all the rest. Now when that happens it’s always likely we'll go too far — that we'll become "of and in the world" instead of "in but not of it." A lot my friends and I, when discussing postmodernity, feel that the church doesn't realize the degree to which it is over-accommodating to modernity...
Q: I'm going to put you on the spot and ask for your thoughts about some conservative Christian organizations, like the Parents Television Council, seeking to pressure the government into censoring television programming. Is this going to work or will it backfire?
A: I think the Christian community is making an extremely dangerous mistake with this. The mistake is we are going from dissatisfaction to legislation and missing the middle step of persuasion. Now you would think, from our beliefs from the Gospels, that God isn't just interested in us being focused on the law, but he actually wants to change our hearts. That’s my understanding of how the Kingdom of God works, but we (the church) don't seem to understand that.
So our first move when we're unhappy about something is to get laws passed about it. To me that is pure Colonialism, Colonialism says change the world, by controlling other people against their will. The work of persuasion would be much harder, and it requires us to change our rhetoric 180 degrees. You can't, you don't, influence people you identify as the other side of the culture war. The language of the culture war is the language of "strength on our side" to dominate the other side. That leads to belief in things like redemptive violence, which is incredibly widespread in the Christian community, and which, I think, needs to be questioned in light of the teachings of Jesus. That discussion you certainly aren't going to hear on religious broadcasting.
So, firstly, I think it’s a gross and foolish mistake of strategy. If we were to take 30 percent of the effort spent on legislation and invest it instead on sensible and palpable persuasion, we would get an awful lot farther.
Secondly, it’s hypocritical, because the conservative religious value always talks about how we want to weaken federal government. They want to weaken the federal government when it talks about the government helping the poor, preserving the environment or doing a lot of other things that I think Christians should care about, and they want to strengthen the government in all these other ways. They ought to at least be honest and say, "We want to strengthen the federal government for our agenda and not somebody else’s." I think it’s incredibly duplicitous to, in one breath, call for weakening the federal government and then try to use it for your advantage. I'm stunned that people who call themselves Christians would practice that kind of duplicity. It's stunning. It feels to me like George Orwell.
Click here to read the whole thing.
Brian McLaren is a postmodernist Christian leader, and that makes him a controversial fellow in a religion with roots in absolutism. He's the author of ten books and pastor of Cedar Ridge Community Church, an innovative, nondenominational church in the Baltimore-Washington region. He's one of the leaders of Emergent, a growing generative friendship among Christian leaders. In February, Time Magazine listed him as one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in America...
Q: In a nutshell, what’s your definition of postmodernism?
A: That's a hard question to put into a nutshell. Those who use it usually mean it as something that involves continuity and discontinuity with modernity. It’s not anti-modernism. It’s not the same thing as pre-modernism. It means people who've gone through the modern era and been changed by it, so now they argue its principles in many different ways...
...The church has done exactly what it should do: it has effectively adapted to modernity. It has learned to speak modern language. It has learned to how to engage with modern media. It has learned to use modern technology and all the rest. Now when that happens it’s always likely we'll go too far — that we'll become "of and in the world" instead of "in but not of it." A lot my friends and I, when discussing postmodernity, feel that the church doesn't realize the degree to which it is over-accommodating to modernity...
Q: I'm going to put you on the spot and ask for your thoughts about some conservative Christian organizations, like the Parents Television Council, seeking to pressure the government into censoring television programming. Is this going to work or will it backfire?
A: I think the Christian community is making an extremely dangerous mistake with this. The mistake is we are going from dissatisfaction to legislation and missing the middle step of persuasion. Now you would think, from our beliefs from the Gospels, that God isn't just interested in us being focused on the law, but he actually wants to change our hearts. That’s my understanding of how the Kingdom of God works, but we (the church) don't seem to understand that.
So our first move when we're unhappy about something is to get laws passed about it. To me that is pure Colonialism, Colonialism says change the world, by controlling other people against their will. The work of persuasion would be much harder, and it requires us to change our rhetoric 180 degrees. You can't, you don't, influence people you identify as the other side of the culture war. The language of the culture war is the language of "strength on our side" to dominate the other side. That leads to belief in things like redemptive violence, which is incredibly widespread in the Christian community, and which, I think, needs to be questioned in light of the teachings of Jesus. That discussion you certainly aren't going to hear on religious broadcasting.
So, firstly, I think it’s a gross and foolish mistake of strategy. If we were to take 30 percent of the effort spent on legislation and invest it instead on sensible and palpable persuasion, we would get an awful lot farther.
Secondly, it’s hypocritical, because the conservative religious value always talks about how we want to weaken federal government. They want to weaken the federal government when it talks about the government helping the poor, preserving the environment or doing a lot of other things that I think Christians should care about, and they want to strengthen the government in all these other ways. They ought to at least be honest and say, "We want to strengthen the federal government for our agenda and not somebody else’s." I think it’s incredibly duplicitous to, in one breath, call for weakening the federal government and then try to use it for your advantage. I'm stunned that people who call themselves Christians would practice that kind of duplicity. It's stunning. It feels to me like George Orwell.
MBI
So right after I posted the previous post I ran across this Master in Business Imagination concept on one of my favorite blogs, one done by Suhit Anantula. The MBI concept, and the reasoning behind it, helps explain why I'm not doing an MDIV much better than I did in the previous post. Suhit got it from the Inovation Weblog which has a good summary of what Jim Carroll had to say on an MBI.
Carroll Says…
“Enough already!”
“Complacency in a time of rapid, disruptive change can be a death sentence – not only for organizations, but for the careers and skills of those who work there! It's time to abandon the thinking that has had you anchored firmly to the past – and to shift your focus to the future, with enthusiasm, motivation and imagination.” click here to keep reading
Any more questions about why I’m not doing the MDIV?
Carroll Says…
“Enough already!”
“Complacency in a time of rapid, disruptive change can be a death sentence – not only for organizations, but for the careers and skills of those who work there! It's time to abandon the thinking that has had you anchored firmly to the past – and to shift your focus to the future, with enthusiasm, motivation and imagination.” click here to keep reading
Any more questions about why I’m not doing the MDIV?
What am I doing at Fuller?
I got a e-mail from a fellow blogger today, he pointed out that I don’t mention what program I’m in here at Fuller, shame on me, and thanks for the catch Kyle. I’m doing a double MA, one in Theology, and another in either Cross-Cultural Studies, or Global Leadership, hopefully the latter.
The reason is that as a pastor, I want to apply missional principles to a North American context. For me, the Master of Divinity is not the way to go. After graduation I wouldn’t really know anything well. A bit of theology, a bit of biblical studies, and a bit of practical stuff…but would I be good at anything? Additionally, as Dr. Gibbs, a very respected professor here at Fuller pointed out, the MDIV was designed in the 80’s based on the 70’s. Anyone else think the world has changed a bit since then? I don’t want to prepare for “professional ministry”; I want to be a culturally sensitive change agent in my community. If the lord leads me to do that as a pastor, and I think he has, that’s great, but I will be just as comfortable taking a “secular” job, because for the most part, I don’t believe in secular/sacred distinctions. (ever hear of “tent making”, ever consider doing it in North America?) I do think there is a need for “sacred” places, but that’s a whole different discussion.
If your thinking about seminary, give serious consideration to what your end goals are. Are you looking to get credentialed, or are you trying to prepare for ministry? If it is the latter will the MDIV do this for you? If not, drop it no matter what the cost!
p.s. if your in “ministry” (I hate that word) take a close look at the MA in Global Leadership
The reason is that as a pastor, I want to apply missional principles to a North American context. For me, the Master of Divinity is not the way to go. After graduation I wouldn’t really know anything well. A bit of theology, a bit of biblical studies, and a bit of practical stuff…but would I be good at anything? Additionally, as Dr. Gibbs, a very respected professor here at Fuller pointed out, the MDIV was designed in the 80’s based on the 70’s. Anyone else think the world has changed a bit since then? I don’t want to prepare for “professional ministry”; I want to be a culturally sensitive change agent in my community. If the lord leads me to do that as a pastor, and I think he has, that’s great, but I will be just as comfortable taking a “secular” job, because for the most part, I don’t believe in secular/sacred distinctions. (ever hear of “tent making”, ever consider doing it in North America?) I do think there is a need for “sacred” places, but that’s a whole different discussion.
If your thinking about seminary, give serious consideration to what your end goals are. Are you looking to get credentialed, or are you trying to prepare for ministry? If it is the latter will the MDIV do this for you? If not, drop it no matter what the cost!
p.s. if your in “ministry” (I hate that word) take a close look at the MA in Global Leadership
Going to Mexico
So I mentioned Mexico the other day. The reason, I’m going down there with my wife and some friends from church. We’re going to put up a fence and do some other work to complete a playground at a home for battered women and their children. It’s just a short trip, five hour drive, leave on sat, come home on sun, no big deal. It will be fun though, more when I get back.
Mobile Home Disaster
I watched a knock off of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, tonight. A show called Mobile Home Disaster, which from what I can tell is still in the test phase. Not a bad show, stinking hilarious, and it helps out people a little farther down in life, people who can’t afford a house. (I wish a network would do a renters makeover show. That would really help the poor.) The television show dose tend to perpetuate some negative stereotypes, but having lived in a trailer myself, I would call the majority of it good harmless fun. Tonight’s show had a family of eight, three kids of each gender, all living in a sieve of a place. (and it wasn’t a double wide) The amazing thing was that they had a reputation for being the nicest and most helpful people in the trailer park. Overall, good show. I hope it becomes a regular on the WB, so that more people can benefit some from the coffers of corporate America.
May 25, 2005
Day at the Office
Pretty normal day at the office, walked to school while listening to some worship tunes, attended my Church in Mission class. Now I’m sitting in the library where I’m supposed to be studying, instead am writing this post. Latter I have my Christ and Culture philosophy class with Dr. Mouw. It’s pretty good. He tells a lot of stories, I’m not sure if the stories are the best part, or the worst part of the class, but regardless they usually illustrate a good point. I don’t have worship team practice tonight because I’ll be in Mexico this weekend. More on that latter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)