exiting, rethinking, or compulsions

At the ccda conference (which I recently attended), they offer many wonderful sessions [seminars] varying in topics from urban youth programs to understanding poverty culture. There are multiple sessions occurring simultaneously which makes it difficult to choose which one would be the most beneficial.

This was my conundrum. There was a session that I knew that I should attend:

The Case: Telling Your Story to Get Funded: "The Case" is the first essential ingredient in effectively communicating an organization's needs to its constituents, and includes the mission and vision of the organization, its values, and the reasons why it is vital to the community. This workshop provides participants with resources and tools to tell their story to potential funders effectively and consistently.

I got to the door of this session and there was a tension raging inside of me. On one hand, this would very beneficial for my job as an executive director of a parachurch non-profit, but on the other hand, it seems to go directly against the way of Jesus (at least directly against my understanding of the way of Jesus).

Do I go in and participate and learn how to get funds?

A friend, who attended the conference with me, and I had this conversation about "the kingdom not being funded." [Actually, he says emphatically, the kingdom will not be funded.] Why is it that we seem to go opposite of what Jesus says when he sends out his disciples to go and spread the good news and do good works? He tells them not to take money, extra clothes, etc.

I'm at that point in my life where I didn't go into the session. (this isn't to put down the session, I have no opinions on the actual session.) Instead, I attended this one:

Practical Bridges Toward the Gay and Lesbian Community: What happens when Bible-believing Christians get together with gay and lesbians - or gay Christians? Can something peaceful and productive happen for the Kingdom or must the relationship center around the same old fights, arguments and debates?

This workshop was led by Andrew Marin who has published the book "Love is an Orientation."

This seems to be more of where I am these days. Conversations that hinge on love and acceptance - Not monologues that hinge on agendas (hidden or obvious) for funding.

ccda, quotes, or sharing the word

here are some of my favorite quotes that I've heard from the ccda conference:

John Perkins:
A church based on race is a heresy.
We are to develop a post-racist generation.

Love the sinner, hate the sin in you - Tony Campolo

Barbara Williams-Skinner - the old camp is done, it's time to move on.

Soong-Chan Rah - If you are a white community developer and you don't have a mentor of a different color, then leave what you are doing, it's called colonialism.

If you are doing community development but you aren't giving up power, then you aren't doing it right.

Bart Campolo - There are some people you can't fix, many you can't help, people you can't serve but there's no body you can't love.

who I am, who we are, ramblings 2

So, I've been thinking more about who I am (and in that being shaped by community and helping shape others in community, therefore, who we are). As I've thought about it, I have come to a perplexing questions: If somehow, I cannot genuinely be who I am because of some sort of restraints (real or perceived) from employment, extended family, etc. then, can I truly be authentic with myself or my community or my family.

One of the things that I have heard at a conference that I'm attending (www.ccda.org), is the need to take risks and alleviate fear. Is it fear to think that being who I am might cause strife at my job or extended family or is it just logical reality? Are these restraints that I feel (again real or perceived) prohibiting some sort of success that otherwise I could have? What would happen if I took these risks and jumped into who I am or do I owe it to someone(s) to hold back? If identity is important (and I believe it is part of the gospel narrative), then shouldn't I embrace who I am freely without restraint? If one of the relationships that needs to be reconciled is with self (the others being God, community and creation), then am I not fully living or completely whole?

Thoughts?

blessings: good or bad, give me less, or blaming God

I'd like to employ one of Paul's arguments found in Romans 7 where Paul talks about Torah (or the Law or Covenant) to talk about something else.

In Romans 7, Paul wrestles (I think that he really is struggling) to talk about the Torah (and its present validity). I read recently one Rabbi who said that "Torah is home." What does it do to a zealous Pharisaical Jew who as Paul says finds importance in the new Law of Spirit (Romans 7:6) (or as James says "the Law of liberty - James 2:12)?

So Paul is fighting the idea question of whether or not the Torah (or Covenant or the Law) is corrupt or if the Torah is to blame for corrupting. How can this be true if it is from God when ever Jew knows that what is from God is holy (or different or other)?

Paul's writing goes something like this: The Law is given to the covenant people, but its not until it is given that they know that they are doing wrong. This is a double-edged sword:

1. It's purpose is to be the way, the truth and the life. The Law was to provide "eternal life" to those who followed it and also make that person a city on a hill to those watching.

2. However, in trying to set people on the right path, the Law reveals the wrong path. For Paul, it is this revealing with which he struggles. He didn't know what coveting was until the Law told him not to do it, which makes him in some sort of odd way, want to covet. (Romans 7:7)

So Paul laments in Romans 7:13 - "did what is good (since God gave it), then, bring death to me?" How could the giver of all good things give something that was possibly inherently bad? Paul works this out eventually by saying it wasn't/isn't the Law that is to blame, but rather Paul, himself that is corrupt.

So to sum up, you can't blame good because it ended in bad, but what we have to acknowledge is that there still is bad. (Law is given for good, but results in bad, but its not God's fault).

So, we take this argument and the deductive reasoning behind it and apply it to "blessings" in the western world. (At this point, someone might say, well real blessings aren't material items, I would disagree. No matter how we try and twist this, we are blessed with things.)

I'm going to admit that I like hot showers. I like to conveniently own two vehicles. I like owning my house (so that Dacia can paint it whatever color suits her fancy whenever she wants). I don't have a lot but compared to those in absolute poverty, I'm blessed.

But, we have to acknowledge that we've gone too far in our culture with blessings. We rape other countries resources so that we can have cheap stuff to buy. We use way too much fossil fuels in order to run our multi-cars. We've gotten fat and selfish and lazy.

Isn't it possible to look at what these "blessings" (given from God) have done to perpetuate selfishness, greed, apathy, gluttony, addictions, ... and to go down the same line of thoughts that Paul did in Romans 7?


1. We can blame God. You gave it and it was bad (or as Paul would say "it corrupts"), therefore God is to blame (and therefore bad).
2. We can blame the blessings. Blessings were thought to be good, but in retrospect they are evil, therefore we should sanitize ourselves from these blessings. We shouldn't use shampoo anymore or go to the gym, etc. We can all move into the dessert and live in absolute poverty.
3. or we could say that God gave the blessings and because of that, they are inherently good, but rather it is our fault. It is our consuming personalities that grab and hoard and store up treasures here on earth rather than heaven.

It's not that the blessings are/were inherently bad or evil. They are given for good. They are given so that those blessed can share and be the light of the world. To show those watching that God is good and makes it rain on the good and bad, but expects those following the way, the truth and the life to give to those with no rain at all.

(I wrote this quickly today off of the cuff so there are probably numerous grammatical/editing errors. I will try and come back and review later.)

who I am, who we are, ramblings

Who are you?
or maybe better asked
who are we?

can you describe yourself by what you give your time toward? if the answer is yes, then maybe this would suffice (not necessarily in this order):
member of the Ekklesia BG community,
director of a non-profit,
student minister,
TaeKwonDo Assistant Instructor,
dad,
husband,
part of a worldwide dream

can we describe ourselves by what we are interested in or what we invest ourselves into? if the answer is yes, then maybe this would suffice (not necessarily in this order):

inadequately musing about life, love and the divine.
attempting to wrap my mind/life around a path of salvation.
gritting my teeth through the present foggy mirrors but envisioning a day of knowing fully.
how does one become an impassioned servant of everyone in their habitat?
how do you raise kids who question everything, but have a strong foundation?
can you be a peaceful warrior and what would this look like?

can we describe ourselves by where we've been or who we once were? if the answer is yes, then maybe this would suffice (not necessarily in this order):

born to teenagers
born a twin
born in poverty
college graduate
military personnel
evangelical member
civil engineer tech
student minister

how do we define ourselves?
how do we have conversations that include understanding our presents/pasts and even understand our future dreams?
can we find those who understand us and our baggage and our longings?
can we be uncritical of others opinions because we truly don't know them?

I am who I have become sometimes not voluntarily, but other times on purpose. I am who I am due to those around me (thank goodness and oh God).

identity, character, circumstances, coherence, distinctiveness, existence, identification, integrity, ipseity, name, oneness, particularity, personality, self, selfdom, selfhood, selfness, singleness, singularity, status, uniqueness

Carter, Women, & Losing My Religion

Read Jimmy Carter's letter to the Southern Baptist Convention.

Exhaustive Revelation, Final Authority and Today

Some people assume that revelation ended with the writing of the New Testament. As if what we think/believe/know to be true was written 2,000+/- years ago. This assumption is the foundation for statements like: "bible believing church," "apostolic church," or "we just teach the Bible." I've come to see these thoughts as ridiculous and a non-admittance that interpretation

Some acknowledge that there has been a revealing of understanding that has developed at some point since the writing of the New Testament. For instance, the Amish and Mennonite community. For these communities, a revelation was given later (as in the 1600's) that was so complete and final in authority, that they live as if nothing has changed since the time of the unveiling of knowledge given to their leader(s).

Most of the churches in my geographical area feel that revelation was given during the time known as the Reformation. This revelation consisted of doctrinal teachings (how the Scriptures are to be interpreted), orders of worship (how worship is to be conducted), and policies for living within the church community.

Some churches claim a final revelation as late as the late 1800's and early 1900's (i.e. Churches of Christ and all the Campbellite churches as well as the Pentecostal movements).

Some churches follow a contemporary leader of their autonomous churches as if that person has been given a revelation worth granting their allegiance. This person leads and supposedly God speaks to them in a special way like a modern day prophet. (This has much to say about our sociological perspective on individualism and how we read the Scriptures.)

In thinking about all of this recently, many questions come to mind:

Can our interpretations today have as much validity to them as those previous understandings?
Can our lives match the value of those previously?
Was the interpretations of early communities just that, interpretations for that time and that community?
When did these earlier ideas become exhaustive and maintained as authoritative? Who claimed that? Why have we acknowledged these earlier interpretations as exhaustive?
We have more knowledge now than the Reformers did of the First Century Church and Second Temple Judaism, can we claim a better understanding?
Is sola scriptura really enough?
Can we use earlier interpretations to develop our own but not see them as authoritative?
Do individuals really receive revelation or is it community based revelation as life is lived?

Can we admit that men (and who were those women) like Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, Francis of Assisi, many Catholic leaders, and many Orthodox leaders, etc. were sincere in their approaches, respect their teachings, build upon all the revelation before (accepting and rejecting as we see fit) and live our lives together and let our lives interpret Scriptures for us?