parental leave

Well, the best laid plans are laid to waste. Some complications, not emergency, but enough to create havoc with our timetables, have popped up and right now, I need to focus entirely on home and family. So, things here are going to have to be put on hiatus until after the beans arrive and we get settled into family life.

Your prayers, well wishes, and any other help or assistance is welcomed as we scramble to make sure everything is ready before, umm, everything was supposed to be ready. It’s not bad, it’s just not ideal.

Thank you, as always, for reading and for your understanding. I’ll update if I can. In the meantime, feel free to dig through the archives, buy sailerb swag or otherwise visit some of my friends listed under ‘hello, friends’.

Take care. –b.

the great omission

“…[Y]ou will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth.” — Acts 1.8b [NET]

And thus, many foolhardy attempts were undertaken throughout the post-apostolic era to ostensibly fulfill Great Commission 2.0–but in reality were little more than fruitless exercises in self-fulfilling prophecy.

Good news merits sharing. The Christian message is supposed to be good news, hence gospel. And the Christian message merits sharing, because our lives in community with God through Christ are supposed to be full of good fruit, the likes of which Paul refers to in Galatians. Sharing the gospel is missionary work, and missionary work is sharing the gospel. None of this is supposed to be an exercise in bigotry, unfair judgment, sin casting or otherwise dismantling other cultures, only to replace those cultures with a cheap knock-off of the original.

This is but one reason I am fundamentally opposed to Christian missions as currently constituted and understood. And I haven’t yet touched the main thrust of this post.

Great Commission 1.0 is found in the synoptic gospels, at the end of each. Essentially, Jesus charges the disciples–and most tend to extrapolate it out to include the reading audience, because, gee golly willikers, the text absolutely, positively, unquestionably MUST have some form of application to the reader–to go share the gospel with the all the world. It’s a nice notion and, on a certain level, I’m perfectly ok with it. That said, I must insist that this verse in Acts 1 shapes and clarifies the original charge, and it is in the light of Acts 1, Great Commission 2.0, that we must evaluate how we are doing our job as those who partake in the heritage of Christian faith.

Frankly, we’re doing a pretty crappy job.

“You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you.” When ‘power’ got redefined to mean ‘snotty religious cliques without any real sense of religious conviction or social skills’ is beyond me, but I don’t see much in the Western Church that gives me any real sense of potency. In fact, the self-enslavement to the Sunday morning routine and the apparent need to be cool and likable are two tell-tale signs that we are powerless, rather than powerful. No, I’m not calling for some kind of pentecostal revival, and no, I’m not asking us to demand that we call sin sin from our pulpits; the former is typically self-gratification and the latter is typically victim blaming and counter-productive.

The power of the Holy Spirit is largely that of simply learning to speak the language and to be savvy enough to let the Spirit do the Spirit’s work, rather than forcing the issue and being awkward in a futile attempt to be all things to all people. In being present with the world, we learn the pain and struggle of others, we identify with that hurt and alienation and offer reconciliation and healing. People don’t need to be reminded that they’ve failed, they need to be reminded that God still loves them in spite of their failures. In that respect, we Christians could well stand to sit in front of John 3.16 until it sinks in that the point isn’t everlasting life, but that God loves us, even if we are fantastically and pathetically failing in our core responsibility as believers. Remember that Jesus spoke these words to a religious person, not to a ‘heathen’. Ultimately, what’s the difference? With all the clamoring Christians have about secular culture and secular this and Godless that, we forget that, without grace extended and available to all creation, we are all Godless, secular and alienated. There is no distinction between a hurting world’s activities and the Church’s activities, without God’s presence, they are all equally worthless. With God’s compassion for all the world, they are all equally loved, and our task becomes much more clear and much less prick-like.

“You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem.” Here is the crux of the problem: we in the West love to focus on the ‘all nations’ emphasis of the Great Commission. In the minds of most American Christians, the point is to share the gospel with all the world, with the implication that home is good. Last I checked, Jerusalem was broken then and is broken now, a couple thousand years after the fact. America, too, is broken (and broke. I digress.) Only the naive can claim that the Great Commission, in either form, focuses on faraway places, especially when our churches are, by and large, dysfunctional and wretched examples of executing a business plan, much less a worthy example of Christian transformation.

The truth of the matter is that, without taking care of business here at home, we have no business sending anyone anywhere. The fact that we do so is indicative of our greater interest in our hopes of escaping this life–Matthew 24, probably later editing–than in fulfilling any commission. So much of what we treat as sacred and religious is really vulgar and profane and empty ritual, even down to the way we read the Bible. If we want to spread the gospel, we’re better off scattering seed across the street and down the block, rather than using the church as a silo and sending tons of the stuff several time zones away. We are first to transform our world before we are to transform the world, or else we only sow the seeds of eventual destruction.

Let’s be even more frank about this flawed state of affairs: it’s sexy to send missionaries to Africa or South America. It’s exciting to show footage of orphanages in Central America and it was daring and exciting to send missionaries beyond the Iron Curtain (as it is to have missionaries in present day China and Iran, as we currently do.) It’s even thrilling to do work with people with addictions and our insipid–patent pending–”Downtown Syndrome”, the awwww-inducing anecdotes of working with the down and out–typically the homeless, drugged-out or prostitutes, or, in going for the cycle, the homeless, druggie prostitute, in some mythical downtown. Has anyone actually been to a downtown? Have you seen the prices of rent in most downtowns? Do you see what most people look like in a major downtown area? It’s not The Cross and the Switchblade anymore, folks! Urban renewal has left us in the dust!

But to send someone as a missionary to a college campus? To do sacrificial work in the suburbs? The response is typical, and I’ve mentioned it before, while I was trying to do work on a college campus. The conversations would typically look like this:

Pompadoured minister with a bad tie: “So, brother, where do you minister?”

Me: “I’m actually doing campus ministry at [university x].”

PMBT: “Oh, with what church?”

Me: “I’m a campus missionary with [organization x].”

PMBT: “Oh, we have a great college and career ministry at our church. Why aren’t you with a church?”

Me: “Well, I’d love to partner with you so that we can be an effective presence on the campus full-time.”

PMBT: “We have a college and career ministry already. We’ll be praying for you, brother. Which church are you with, again?”

Me: /facepalm

In missiology (yes, there is an academic field now for this type of thing), the mission station model of outreach is very much frowned upon, where a church is built and all the ministry is filtered through that building. It’s outdated, minimally-impactful and ultimately insensitive to the local culture. Yet, what are we doing? Planting churches, expanding facilities and having big-draw events. Local culture in America has passed us by and the best we can do is hope an Easter musical is going to bump our numbers and make sure our worship leaders have skinny jeans and thick-rimmed glasses. Wait, what?

Christ commanded us to be witnesses to Jerusalem, then Judea and Samaria, then the rest of the world. To be a witness to the work of Christ requires interaction with and presence in the world around us. Perhaps we should be more basic: to be a witness to the work of Christ requires us to allow Christ to do work in us in the first place.

Our absence from the world is not making us holier or more sanctified. It is making us like the one who buries the talent and waits for the return of the employer, blindly thinking our fate is going to somehow be different from his.

We are not fulfilling the Great Commission by going all over the world. In neglecting our neighborhoods, our cities and our ZIP codes, we are the Great Omission.

on the absurdity of an occupation

Yesterday was a middling day at work for The Man, for the most part. It alternated between being steady and unusually slow, with the normal troubles and complications of a Monday. In a moment between tasks, I peeked at the day’s headlines, which around midday ended up being a singular headline; nothing more than a tweet from the Boston Globe. Something about an explosion at the Boston Marathon.

By any standard definition, it was a terrorist attack. And I had a job to do.

My prior life in ministry, coupled with a strong philosophical and theological bent toward compassion and justice in times of crisis, made it one of the most uncomfortable afternoons I’ve ever had at work. My heart wanted to see the events unfold, to step away and pray in real-time, to see what I could do to help. Of course, in these circumstances, there is little that can be done away from being experienced in triage or law enforcement. The will to care and the impossibility to care created a most absurd set of circumstances: doing a job when shocking events leave a city thousands of miles away in anguish. To be sure, in my work environment, there wasn’t much contact with the Northeast after that. Things got eerily quiet from the Eastern time zone.

I remember calling my father when 9/11 happened. I don’t know what he did that day, how he could keep working when something devastating happened to our country. More recently, I remember being in full-service hotel management in Kansas City when the hurricane-force tornado obliterated Joplin. I had to keep an eye on that massive system because it began creeping north along US-71 and as the manager on duty, it was up to me to have to engage severe weather procedures if necessary. (Several of our staff served in Joplin in the ensuing weeks after the tornado. Their stories still induce chills.) Be it natural evil or human inhumanity to other humans, that feeling of powerlessness, of helplessness, creates a bizarre state of affairs–or at least it does for me: what am I doing in a job I don’t necessarily love when there is so much work to be done in healing a broken world? Why am I not still doing ministry? Why can’t I serve in a way that brings relief, brings gospel, to a people visibly shaken by a murderous and atrocious act of cowards?

It is here where I think that I think more of myself than I necessarily should.

What we do is our occupation, which is odd, because the word implies that it is what we do to fulfill our time, when in reality, it’s what we do to keep our lights on and families fed. It’s not so much an occupation as it is indentured servanthood, the negotiation we must participate in to be full participants in culture. That’s not a bad thing, per se, but our routine is exposed for the falsehood it ultimately is when bombs go off. Who we are is revealed in these times. It is of no small note that people–public servants and regular citizens alike–rushed to the blast site within moments of the flash-bang, that the citizens of Boston opened their homes to stranded marathoners, that the Red Cross within mere hours of zero hour issued a statement saying that area blood supplies were ample and no additional donations were needed at this time. These things can and should give us hope that we are not entirely doomed as a people and society. (Though the decision to shut off cell service in the area is problematic, both on utilitarian and libertarian ethical planes.)

Our occupation, then, is not what we do with punch cards, but what we do for those for whom we choose to care. We do not occupy our time with our professions, they are what occupy us. We occupy our time with selfless compassion and a rush to provide justice–in this case, critical care and comfort–for those affected by events completely outside of our control. What we do in these circumstances is a direct revelation of who we are. To sit and keep working is not to be purposefully ignorant of the events which transfixed a nation, but it is what I have to do to support my family and maintain a, um, working relationship with work. Penultimate concerns within ultimate concern.

All I can do is ask God to be present with those who mourn and suffer, as the scriptures have promised God will, that those who can help are doing everything within their power, and that those who employ those who can help are supportive and themselves part of the healing process. And that those who have perpetrated this act are brought to account for their actions. Mercy returned for mercy in kind.

In these absurd days, may order be marked with compassion and this be a sobering reminder that we exist for one another, we occupy each others’ space and time, and that when the world comes crashing down, we must stand for those who have fallen under its weight. We all have jobs to do, some menial, some powerful, some go unnoticed while others are done in a fishbowl, but we cannot exist without one another.

When the world crashes down, there is but one job to be done.

Apologies for the mispost earlier. QuickPost isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Happy, umm, tax day.

briefly, thatcher and division problems

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher died today at the age of 87.

I am not getting into the debate over her politics or viewpoints, but she was, regardless of one’s views, a remarkable figure in late 20th Century history. I do, however, strongly object to those who decided the best way to recognize the dead was to mock or make obscene comments. It’s classless and inhuman, and taking the moment to make some kind of ill-advised political ad hominem does nothing but make them, as well as the cause–whatever it may be, because I’m pretty sure they don’t even know–they claim to uphold, look ridiculous. Some of the comments and photos coming out of Britain today have been nothing less than embarrassing.

Then there’s the media coverage.

Many outlets are calling her a divisive figure in political history, some seemed as though they could not be bothered to find another adjective that would perhaps be more flattering or honorific. (In fairness, some of the outlets were overly effusive in kind.) One might well call her politics objectionable, but divisive?

Thatcher won three elections. Elections in a democracy, last I recalled, required a plurality of votes. Thatcher won all three elections pretty convincingly, if my understanding of British election results is somewhere near the target. If anything, by calling her divisive or polarizing, what editorial staffs and media executives are saying is that they are fairly detached from reality. Margaret Thatcher was divisive in the same way Selena Gomez is polarizing because she won at the 2012 Kids’ Choice Awards, which is to say, she’s so polarizing that a minority of voters chose not to vote for her.

Which is to say that, clearly, divisive isn’t the right word for it unless one wants to engage in revisionist history because it didn’t play out the way they wanted it to.

Which is to say, the press and the haters are a considerably butthurt.

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher died today. And a good part of the world couldn’t be bothered to see past their own noses.

libertarian at the stoplight

Returning from taking my long-lost cousin to the airport this morning, I approached the intersection that takes me from primary road A to primary road en route home. Needing to turn left, I was greeted by a left-turn red arrow. It was 6 am. I shared the road with no one.

Now, I tend pretty strongly libertarian–as in, classically liberal, not militias and tin foil and Ron Paul, mind you–and it was traffic that both inspired said viewpoint and continues to reinforce it. In the trade-off for public safety, the answer was to create limits on automotive freedom: stop signs and lights, speed limits, rules of the road. The problem is that, if the speed limit is 35, and everyone goes 35, then everyone is subject to the same stoplight, meaning that the traffic problem is exacerbated and the very safety provisions put in place actually serve to create more risk and problems than they intend to mitigate or solve. Such is the way of governmental meddling: a solution looking for a problem. For the record, slow drivers cause more accidents. Look it up.

This is not to say that I blow every stop sign and light I can, either. Freedom requires personal responsibility, meaning that I shouldn’t need a stop sign to tell me to stop for oncoming traffic; that a yield is not necessary when there’s so much traffic that I couldn’t merge into the other roadway even if I wanted to. I don’t need to go 80 through my neighborhood and I certainly don’t want to run over a child or someone’s dog. I’m certainly not heartless or cruel. I can be safe without needing to be told to do so. My parents did a good job with me (and what I do now is certainly not their fault. Sorry, Freud.)

All of that then culminates with the advent of the red-light camera and surveillance. If no one is present to personally see the incident, how can it be tried? Such rationale caused the Minnesota Supreme Court to declare red-light cameras unconstitutional and, frankly, if there is no one at an intersection, who cares if the light is red?! A yield sign means nothing if there is no oncoming traffic, a school zone speed limit is void if there are no children and it’s July (or January), in the state of Missouri, a work zone is up to the spot where actual work is actually going on for the work zone speed limit to be enforced, thus nullifying their respective law-enforcing capabilities. Should not the same apply within proper contexts to stop signs, no passing zones, red lights and speed limits? Further, should not we be able to determine the context in which such actions would be appropriate? Does the husband with wife in labor get hit with a speeding ticket en route to the hospital, or is that fine rolled into the rest of the zillions of dollars it costs to poop out a baby? (Timely!)

The script was flipped: it’s not liberty with limits put on it, rather, limits with certain liberties, which is to say, it is not liberty at all. We are all checked in to the daycare of the byway, and if the mirrored-glasses, donut-chomping po-po with quota to meet, radar gun in hand and a properly-placed chip on his/her shoulder has his/her way, we will be funding the next effort to create a soon-to-be gently-used skate park on the other end of town. This is the biggest problem with law enforcement and traffic: while the shield might say ‘protect and serve’ or something flowery along the lines of community service, they don’t exist in praxis to uphold public safety or order, but to find new and ingenious ways to balance civic budgets. Actuaries with guns.

And, when married to technology, notions of freedom and liberty are completely buried. If you blow the red light and no one is around, what does it matter? A few days later, a ticket comes in the mail, though no one or no one’s property was harmed, damaged or even under duress. Safety of citizens, or switching up to Taco Bell-grade meat from Kal Kan at the local jail? What is wrong with this country, anyway? This is Jesus country! These people are blue insofar as they’ve got the red, white and blue running through their veins, with apologies to WCW-era Hulk Hogan. Might as well be San Francisco or New York!

When it comes down to it, left, right, red, blue, science, evangelicalism, whatever, it’s not ‘murica they seek to uphold, but power through which they seek to control. From downright laughable federal legislation to local ordinances, from Bloomberg’s soda ban to Bob Jones’ sharing the sidewalk with the opposite sex, the point isn’t anything beyond the fact that they have and they can. Such is the state of the grand American experiment, a pig-boy of which Dr. Krieger would most certainly be proud.

Then the arrow turned green. It didn’t take that long.

crucifixion, resurrection

The crucifixion is not for us. It is and must be for others.

Resurrection is for us. It is and must be, as well, for others.

Last week, I wrote that I have a suspicion that we aren’t faithful to the text if we apply more meaning to the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem than ought to be derived from it; that the only lesson that can be learned from that part of the story is irony. Incidentally, we tend to minimize, if not neglect wholesale, the absolute importance of Resurrection Sunday.

Theologically speaking, death-burial-resurrection is referred to as the Christ-event: a triplicate that says that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Indeed, the resurrection is not possible without something being dead. (I’ve argued the point that ‘revival’ in its commonly misunderstood American religious context makes no sense given that something that is revived must first be dead, making the clamoring for revival to be little more than a masochistic example of self-incrimination.)

The resurrection is not some kind of postscript; it is the perfection of faith, the fulfillment of generations’ longings, hope replaced by confidence in that which happened. That which is, courtesy of the God who is.

Indeed, faith is completed with the empty tomb, replaced by life in the victorious Christ.

You see, we can identify with the triumphal entry: here comes Jesus to kick [insert preferred synonym for the anatomical bottom here] and take names! We like the fiction that Jesus came and died for us–after all, it’s like cashing in that Get Out of Jail free card and rolling a ten to land on Free Parking. (For more on this, here’s an old post on my thoughts on the Passion weekend.)

What we have trouble with, however, is the empty tomb. And we struggle with it because it forces us to react. The death of a person is one thing–people die, people mourn. To rise from death is something which puts us into a position where we have to choose what to do with it. The discomfort comes from the facts that 1) our lives are essentially futile because we are preparing ourselves to be worm’s food; 2) what we do is ultimately gauged according to the standard of a sinless person who got a paycheck for work he didn’t actually do; 3) what is known cannot be unknown. Death can be ignored, it is ultimately not newsworthy. Crucifixion happened on a fairly regular basis in Antiquity. Resurrection, though, is the ultimate example of man biting dog. It’s good news; gospel, literally. There is a way out of the existential morass, and all we need to do is follow Christ. Which, if the gospel narratives are any indicator, is so easy that it’s difficult.

There will undoubtedly be some readers who think I’m going on a fundamentalist evangelistic rant here, but what I’m not suggesting is that you start going to your local church and turn into one of them. Most of these churches and most of these people aren’t worth your time and, if we’re being perfectly honest, they–pastors and laity alike–don’t think you’re worth theirs. American Christian subculture is largely a rat’s nest and a prison of mediocrity, locked from the inside. (CS Lewis posited that if hell is locked, it is locked from the inside. I suggest that hell, then, probably looks a lot like your local evangelical church. Nicely done, Jack. Well played.) The fact of the matter is that the invitation to follow Christ will likely force one to put to death much of that which one has ambition to do or be.

We live to be the crucified Christ for others, so that the power of the resurrection might be realized in another. In turn, they become the crucified Christ for others. Crucifixion, resurrection, crucifixion, resurrection. life, death, Life, death, Life. That generally requires us to not be religious cheeseballs, and in that respect, we’ve largely failed others. If you’re one of others–and that’s perfectly fine by me, by the way–I apologize for the way(s) in which we’ve visibly crapped on a message that could really change your life. We should treat the things that matter with a sense of propriety that extends far beyond Jesus action figures and tone-deaf, pompadoured televangelists who keep hawking a cheap, false gospel.

The power of the message is not in that Jesus died. It is in that, despite death, he lives. Friday doesn’t matter to God anymore. Nor should it matter to us. Why? Because he was resurrected. Telling the story in real-time would dictate something that we’ve long ignored or forgotten. We are a Sunday people with a Sunday message. And instead of convincing people of how completely crappy they are, perhaps we should show them how much we care. Of course, that would require us to care.

Perhaps we religious types are the ones who need to be saved, after all.

I hope you all had a great holiday weekend, whether it was marked by celebrating the resurrection or simply enjoying it with your family and friends. As usual, thank you for reading. –b.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 264 other followers