What a week for LeBron’s brand. I just hope he remembers to wipe the blood off the knife after he pulls it from Cleveland’s back.” -Bill Simmons (full article here)

I love Bill Simmons’ column on ESPN as do most other sports fans. And I hope LeBron stays in Cleveland. I know many people who say, “So what, it’s the NBA.” The NBA is the easiest sport to hate these days, but I love basketball, any way I can get it. Sure the NCAA is better and nothing tops the tournament, but for me basketball is basketball. Anyway this week or so has been epic and disgusting in so many ways, just for the very reason that Simmons names above. So here’s to LeBron staying in Cleveland…should the sports gods be so kind for a change.

I was seriously tempted to make that my status update the other day, but decided against it. I have friends on both sides of the debate that I didn’t want to demean, but I do mean it. I’m not going to create a group or anything, but my frustration over this divisive issue gave me reason to pause and reflect.

I think the reason why these groups frustrate me so much is that I can easily join both groups. Of course the thoughtless and polarizing remarks that are posted on the walls of each these groups is reason enough get me angry, but there isn’t much I can do about irrational people. But, how can I justify being both in approval and disapproval of the recent health care reform bill?

I APPROVE of the recent health care bill because a) insurance companies are going to be held accountable b) more people will have access to moderately good health care c) people cannot be denied health insurance.

Explanation: I have not had health insurance much of my adult life, so I do not have much personal experience with getting treated unfairly by insurance companies. A number of my friends, colleagues, and family members however, have. In fact, I heard another story today of a man with leukemia who was dropped by his insurance company and now has to pay around $24,000 a year in health bills. Essentially he is being penalized for surviving cancer. How can any sane person possibly think this kind of behavior by an insurance company is justified. Fortunately most people agree that this isn’t fair. On the second point, a larger chunk of people, including people like me will have a better shot at getting good health care. Not great, but adequate. Only the rich will continue to be the most healthy, and therefore stay a couple steps ahead of the game. Lastly, and I believe the most important piece of this bill is that people with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage (nor can people be dropped because they actually have to use the coverage they are paying for). The way that insurance companies treated sick people was simple discrimination. I’m sure there will be new ways to discriminate, but hopefully it will be minimal at best. A dear friend of mine with a condition she has had since she was a child will finally get to hear a company tell her that she is covered. Over the past few years, I had tried to nudged her to move to move to Europe so at least she could get the care she needed. And she would have, no question about it, no matter how much rhetoric we might hear from the conservatives about how poor the European system is. But now, she’ll have access to the treatment she needs to live a fuller life.

I DISAPPROVE of the recent health care because a) I think that it is unconstitutional (not to mention unjust) to make people pay for health care b) the vote shows politics is all about making deals and not for the people c) the bill simply did not go far enough.

Explanation: On this point of making people pay for health insurance, I think I agree with the conservatives. I don’t think it is right to make people buy anything, even something as essential as health insurance. But the conservatives better be careful in their lawsuits and fight on this point, because it may force our government into a free public option unintentionally, which of course I’d be okay with. I should also note that when I use the term ‘free’ I understand that nothing is free. In the same way that our pre-college education, public libraries, mail service, etc is free to us (comes to us via our taxes), our health care should be public. More on that in a moment. My second reason for disapproving of the bill is, a little weak and judgmental I admit, but I am so sick of politics as usual. “I’ll scratch your back, if you scratch mine.” Why don’t politicians own their own convictions (backscratchers) and make decisions based on what the people want. I understand that there are politicians who basically gave away their position with their recent vote, but overall I remain suspicious of the entire system of cutting deals and selling out.

The last point again is the most significant for me. I hear the lines from President Obama that it basically the best, but it’s a start. How about not letting everyone off the hook. Bottom line is that this bill is not good enough. It is not universal health care and therefore it did not go far enough. I get the arguments about waiting in lines, and quality of care going down with a socialized health plan. But can we not learn from our friends to the North and across the pond and create an even better universal health care system. Our nation’s leaders and die hard patriots are always yammering on about being the best. Best armed forces, best economy, best democracy, best education (all of which we are not), but never have I heard “Let’s be the healthiest nation in the world.” Why? Under this system, the poorest people in America will still be the least healthy and the richest will be the most healthy. The is not good enough President, Senators, Representatives, Governors, Council members, etc. You could have done better and should have done better. But yeah it was a start, but I’m skeptical as to how it will get finished, if it ever does.

So, I’ll (not) join your facebook groups, but not for the reasons you want me to. I can (dis)approve of the new health care bill. Please fix it as soon as possible.

cutting my dreadlocks p1
cutting my dreadlocks p2
cutting my dreadlocks p3
cutting my dreadlocks p4

It is a journey story and those kinds of stories always lend themselves to discussions of faith and meaning.  In this case though all I could think of was sitting in a room with a couple thinking of making the ultimate commitment to get married.  In the film, marriage is a topic of interest because as a couple that is six month’s pregnant, one wants to get married while the other does not.  Both individuals are quite committed to their position, but instead of leading to a paralyzing ambivalence, they go on a journey to find themselves and a community in which to most healthily raise their little girl.

My thoughts are that as a pastor, if I ever/when I get to engage with a couple entering the process for themselves of covenanting together, I will likely make watching this film and having a conversation about it a required assignment.   There are many important themes in the film that Marie and I have found to re-occuring in our own life together, which would have been nice to explore earlier in our marriage.

1. Individual identity (self-differentiation in relationship)
2. Community (it takes a village to raise a child)
3. Shared values (sharing language, ideals, hopes, dreams)
4. Finding Home (the aggregate of the 3 previous items)

As someone who does not feel called to ‘marry’ people, but is very interested in fostering healthy relationships, I find this film very helpful for starting these very important conversations.  Break-ups, divorce, bearing children, adopting, foster care are all important decisions as are determining where you want to live (urban, sub-urban, rural), how close you want to be to family, and what kind of social, political, and religious norms you want to live by.  This film raises all of those issues as well as more than I can encapsulate in this post.

The goal, as it is in the film, is to find home.  I am reminded of a great book by Steven Bouma-Prediger and Brian Walsh, Beyond Homelessness: Christian Faith in a Culture of Displacement.  In places like the US, Canada, and most of Europe, a feeling of displacement has become a burdensome yoke that we have in some cases created and in others have been thrust into.  This kind of cultural displacement wreaks havoc on individuality and relationships and raising children in a world of displacement is proving to be difficult for many.  Thus finding home is the journey of my generation and will be for generations to follow.  Home used to be a given, but that is no longer the case.  Nomadic people in the world today and in ages past have understood this journey, but usually are in community when making it.  Our nomadic search is often done alone or with one other person.  This search for meaning puts enormous weight and strain on our relationships.

It seems to me that one of the primary concerns of those who counsel those in relationships is to walk along the journey to discovering home.  To be at home within ourselves and to find a place in the world to be at home.

PBR was a beer that had, at one point in time, a decent share of the beverage market in the US.  But a slow, steady decline in sales over a number years made PBR irrelevant as the Budwheisers, Coors, and Miller’s of the world out advertised all their competitors.  PBR was relegated to the margins of the market.  Then a funny thing happened.  Microbrews elevated in popularity, partly as a response to the dominance of the major beers that were being sold to American’s on their TV and Radio signals.  Microbrews are known for having more flavor than the typical Bud or Miller High Life (apologies to my friend Matt) but also for being a local brew.  You would think that this added layer would completely cripple a beer like PBR, which is now competing against the popularity and flavor of the microbrew and the big money companies out of Colorado and St. Louis.

But this is what nobody expected, especially the folks at PBR, young people in Portland, OR revolted against the kitchiness of and expensive microbrew and the slick advertising of the big beer companies.  These young people turned to PBR as their beer of choice in protest to high prices and big money advertising.  PBR became the “anti-brand” brand beer.  This fascinating phenomenon has spread up to Seattle and around the Pacific NW and possibly to other parts of the country.  The result is that PBR’s sales have spiked dramatically and they are now a force in the market again.  But why PBR?  Why not Icehouse or some other marginal, cheap beer?  PBR is made in Portland.  For the young people of Portland to revolt, PBR was the perfect choice because it was local and affordable and it was anti-advertising.

So, what does PBR do now?  They didn’t cause this to happen.  This phenomena happened to them and they needed to understand what happened and catch the wave themselves.  PBR is now being served in kitchy gastropubs all around Portland and Seattle as an alternative tap alongside the heavier and more expensive microbrews.  Should PBR advertise now that it is competitive again.  Or should they do nothing and ride the wave as long and as far as it will carry them?  I becomes a very complex question for marketing, which is why the man on NPR says he calls this phenomena “merketing” because it is merky in terms of who is actually in control.  Does PBR have any agency in their own product?  This kind of merketing seems to have a significant connections with a world dominated by Facebook, Twitter, and Wikipedia.  We are becoming more in control of the news and of the information humanity needs to know.

So what does this have to do with the Episcopal Church (or any other mainline denomination)?  It seems a similar trajectory to PBR has been taken.  Once a proud tradition with a major voice in the public square, TEC has seen steady decline over a number of years.  The mainliners, especially those left of center, have been beaten out of the public sector by the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists  in ways not too unlike the Coors, Millers, and Budwheiser’s.  Slick advertising, a lot of money, and simple but powerful message has given the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists the largest share of the church ‘market.’   But then a funny thing has happened.

Some Evangelicals have gotten tired of the game.  And just like the curious case of PBR, the Episcopal church is seeing a small wave of people who are fleeing their Evangelical (and even Roman Catholic backgrounds) many of whom are women who feel called to vocational ministry.  Has the Episcopal church become the “anti-church” church?  It certainly did for me.  What is the Episcopal response going to be?  Brian McClaren has gone as far as to say this moment in history is an “Episcopal moment.”  To be the “anti-brand” is a powerful place to hold, but it is also tricky to know how to move forward, especially in the midst of current challenges of folks splitting away from the church over political and theological issues.

So how similar is our story to that of PBR?  I think there are many parallels, but so far PBR has rode the wave and allowed a kind of grassroots movement take them forward.  Will the Episcopal church have room for that kind of grassroots movement to rise up?  So far, I haven’t found much hope that it will, but that doesn’t mean I, and others, aren’t trying.

Intuitive Leadership by Tim Keel

“If I were called upon to state in a few words the essence of everything I was trying to say both as a novelist and a preacher, it would be something like this: Listen to your life.  See it for the fathomless mystery that it is.  In the boredom and pain of it no less than in the excitement and gladness: touch, taste, smell your way to the holy and hidden heart of it because in the last analysis all moments are key moments, and life itself is grace.”  -Frederick Buechner from Now and Then

I read this in the beginning of one of the chapters in Tim Keel’s book Intuitive Leadership several weeks ago, and it has been a mantra reverberating in my mind and in my soul ever since.  It’s like a tune that gets stuck in my head and I can’t let it go.  If you haven’t bought Tim’s book yet, please do, because it’s good and you will be glad you did, but if not then I hope this quote resonates with you as well.

the area of struggle for me is with amy plantiga pauw’s assertion that there is a gap between beliefs and practices.  she admits quickly that there is a false dichotomy  between the two, but then continues on to point out the disparity between what one believes about god and how one practices this belief.  my struggle is primarily semantic, for it seems as if the dichotomy is false, then the gap should not exist.  in fact it cannot exist.  a belief is a practice and a practice is a belief, especially considering bass and dykstra’s comprehensive understanding of a practice.  so why not try a more analytical or intellectual term like theology, or theory instead of belief.  but i question whether or not i have done the same thing that i am accusing the author of doing.  is there as much distinction between intellect and practice/belief as i would make it out to be?  my reason for choosing this is because plantiga pauw seems to define belief as more intellectual than not, so i’m just trying to find a more intellectual word because i want to assert that ‘belief’ is more pragmatic in its nature.  because when it comes down to it, we only do what we believe and we only really believe what we do, but my overactive brain can always reason my way out of or into something other than what i believe/practice.

so why focus on ordination?  simply put, for selfish reasons.  i am in a season of my life where i want to know if i should be seeking ordination, and if so, where.   i grew up a united methodist, and my family history is tied to that church.  i love most methodist theology and doctrinally i agree with most of what they stand for.  but, they have  a system that allows bishops to tell their clergy where they are going to serve next.  on the one hand this can be a beautiful and spiritual way of doing things, but on the other hand, i don’t want a bishop who doesn’t know me telling me where to live and what kind of church to pastor.  i do not believe the holy spirit to be that contrived or controlling.  so is my only other option to go free church style and start my own thing and network with friends and friends of friends in order to gain the kind of support i would receive from an established denomination?  this seems equally as dangerous and difficult.  so what are the options, or are these really the only two?  it really bites, if the latter is true.  but ultimately the question is economics right?  the question is, how am i going to eat, and sleep, and live sustainably?  do i really need a piece of paper to tell me that bread and wine are blessed when i pray over them serve them?  i think not.  do i need a community who gathers around the table under a common understanding of what that act holds for them.  absolutely.  as a baptized believer, i can baptize anyone with or with out the guy in the funny hat telling me i can.  so is the question of ordination really about theology, or is it about getting paid?  i’m afraid i know the answer to that question already.

for pannenberg the church is a sign for the world/society/political figures to look at for direction.   he says that, “if christians succeed in solving the problems of their own pluralism, they may be able to produce a model combining pluralism and the widest moral unity which will also be valid for political life”  this is a lofty goal indeed and he says further, “as the body of christ the church is the eschatological people of god gathered out of all peoples, and thus it is a sign of reconciliation for a future unity of a renewed humanity in the kingdom of god.”  the church is a sign that points beyond itself toward unity under god.  interesting, considering that this past weekend, barack obama brought his message of hope and unity to washington state and beat hilary clinton by a wide margin, as well as dominating in virginia, maryland, and the district of columbia.  but i digress.

according to karkkainen, moltmann characterizes his theology as having a biblical foundation, an eschatological orientation, and a political responsibility.  moltmann’s ecclesiology is also understood as an anticipation of reign of god. where moltmann seems to divert away from pannenberg is that he simply says that political involvement is a necessary part of the church’s ministry to the world.  everything that the church is about is for the sake of the world.  for moltmann, the charismata are distributed, not for the church’s sake, but for the world’s.  prophecy is more likely to be about bringing political or social change, for justice, than for declaring god’s judgement on the church or for predicting the future.

again, it is not lost on me, the significance of this upcoming presidential election, with all of the primaries happening right now, and reading these two men’s ecclesiologies.  both of their approaches are full and comprehensive and in no way am i trying to pigeon-hole either of them into political activists, but they are that in many ways.  would they agree with the way in which christianity was linked up with the politics of rome in centuries of old?  likely not.  would they agree with the way a certain portion of american christianity is lined up with a certain political agenda?  absolutely not.  pannenberg would be quick to say that no individual christian or community unreservedly identify themselves with any model of political order.  and it is also painfully clear, that all of this is contingent on whether or not the church is actually something that can be pointed to as a hope for the world.  currently, in my context, i cannot say that i would stake any claim in that, but i still hope and have committed my life bringing that hope to reality.

Daniel Migliore and Veli-Matti Karkkainen offer very good introductions to the issue of ecclesiology. Karkkainen’s is quite broad, and does a really good job of trying to broaden the types of ecclesiologies (Luthern, Free Church, Pentecostal, Ecumenical, etc) while Migliore works off of Avery Dulle’s models of church. When I first read Dulle’s work a few years ago, I was fascinated, especially with the Mystical Communion model. This particular model is good interms of having a spiritually centered community, but as Migliore rightly points out, the focus can become insular and self-oriented. What is lost is the missio dei and the role the church plays in that. So Migliore, after listing the pros and cons of each of Dulles’s models, rounds out his chapter on ecclesiology developing both the communion and the mission sides of the church and begins to imagine what those pieces might look like in a local church.

Migliore states, “…the nature of the church as essentially the beginning of new life in communion. Human life comes to completion by participation in and reflection of the triune love of God. As it participates in the love of God through Christ in the Spirit, the church becomes a sign and a provisional realization of the destiny of humanity and indeed of the entire creation.” This very much sounds like ‘kingdom of God’ speak to me, but he goes on to say that this is not meant to be identical to the reign of God, but merely be a witness to it. I’m am not sure I can buy this apparent ability to divorce our witness from our being, but Migliore also does what Dulles does not and that is tie in the mission of God as the other side of being the church. Toward the end of the chapter, he makes a case that mission of the church will take special care to recognize and care for the poor, which makes me believe is where he really wants to spend his time, which is unfortunate that he did not, because I think he is spot on. If this new community that he wants to us to realize is mystical and missional communion, but does not have a place for the poor in its life, then it is essentially useless.

An aside. Veli-Matti Karkkainen’s An Introduction to Ecclesiology is looking like a really good introduction to ecclesiology. If read with Avery Dulles’s Models of Church, you could have the makings of a really good beginning to studying the church. Are there any other good works out there that I should know about?

Up next:

Karkainen Part Two  and Placher’s Essentials of Christian Theology Ch. 6