Share on Facebook

The Possibilities: I’m a pastor.  I like to conceal said identity under other words like ‘curator’ or ‘community developer’ and sometimes for good reason, but this scenario allowed me to be found out, or exposed.  In this situation, one of two things could have happened: 1) someone sees the bag in the station and turns it in, 2) someone sees the bag and takes it with them.  I knew this and it was an opportunity to test my theology.  What do I really believe?  Will I really pray for my bag to be there when I get back to the station?  Do I think people are inherently good?  Or bad?  And so on (I think I’ll save those deeper thoughts for another post).  With the second option, a number of things could follow, but here’s what happened in this scenario: my bag and computer were taken, not turned in, and were returned to me. So, it seems there may have been a third option.

The details:  I realized that my bag was not with me and sitting in the Beacon Hill Light Rail Station as my train was pulling into the International District Station, which is three stops after Beacon Hill.  As soon as I realize this, I hop off the train and get to the other side of the station to catch the next train going south.  As I wait, I call Link Light Rail and they are absolutely no help because no one is stationed at Beacon Hill.  My train arrives and I pull into the Beacon Hill Station to find a man standing in the same spot where my bag was left.  He had been there for about seven minutes and had not seen it.  I talked a security guard, who happens to be one of the lazier ones I’ve encountered as a regular commuter, and he saw nothing.  So the theft happened in a ten to twelve minute time window.  The day passed and I kept my appointment with my friend in Ballard and then another one in the evening at the 9lb Hammer in Georgetown.  But as soon as I knew my computer was gone and there was a decent chance it was stolen, I got out my nifty iPhone 4s and remotely wiped my computer.  As I was having a 9lb Porter with a friend, one of my housemates who I had just passed at the bar sent me a text indicating that my bag had been returned with everything except my computer in it.  The next morning I stepped out onto the front stoop of my 16th Avenue house and on a chair sat my computer bottom facing up with the words, “God did not return your computer.  I did.  Ha!”

Behind the Scene: So, the question is how in the hell did I get this computer back?  And why the note?  Here’s my theory and how I make meaning of this event:  The one/s who took advantage of my stupidity were not malicious people, but more like teenagers who take a car for a joy ride and return it with no intent to steal anything.  I know this because there was an old iPhone, a checkbook and other odds and ends in the bag that was returned sans computer.  I wiped my computer and rendered it useless and essentially off the market.  The taker/s could have made a quick $500-$800, but not with a locked computer that has a passcode and the message, “This computer has been stolen please call…” Apple’s new app for locating your enabled products is incredible and probably is the only reason I really got it back. However, once the computer was useless, there was an opportunity to make light of the situation and me.  Here’s where the part about being a pastor comes in.  In my bag was the book Pedagogy of the Oppressed, a set of prayer beads, a Franciscan Tao necklace, and about thirty event cards for an Urban Retreat that our house is hosting during Advent.  All these symbols and signs, not to mention the page that were likely opened on my web browser, all pointed out that I’m some sort of religious nut and thus available for some level of ridicule (and potentially some guilt on the taker/s part).  So he/she or they got a good last shot in, by reminding me that it was not God who gave me back the computer.  Take that religious guy.  Thank you taker/s.  I will.

Afterword: At the end of things, I’m able to laugh at the situation.  I’m able to laugh at my theology.  I’m not yet able to laugh at leaving a valuable piece of hardware vulnerable.  But, I absolutely love what is written on my computer and am considering getting it etched into the aluminum rather than just in the ink that will eventually rub off.  I hope that I get to meet the taker/s sometime and talk  about the whole thing.  Hopefully we can laugh together.  I wish there had been some courage to knock on my door and give it back to me.  I would have gladly made the invitation to stay for Thanksgiving lunch that was being prepared that morning.

Share on Facebook

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

Share on Facebook

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.

Share on Facebook

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.

Share on Facebook

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.

Share on Facebook

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.

Share on Facebook

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.

Share on Facebook

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.

Share on Facebook