As a life long member of churches of Christ, I grew up with a cappella music. It has always been a part of my life. At the same time, I also love the NBC Comedy Scrubs, particularly "Ted's Band" or "The Blanks" as they're known in the real world.
The creator of Scrubs loves The Blanks, though many folks don't understand why anyone would be interested in music without instruments. The Blanks are an actually group -- and existed before Scrubs began. At one point they were known as "The Worthless Peons."
Anyway, I'm glad that my appreciation of a cappella music and Scrubs frequently comes together when Ted's Band is on the show. Check out their website at www.theblankswebsite.com
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Scrubs Teds Band -- Great Music. Great Fun.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Things I Shouldn't Say (don't think less of me).
For the sake of integrity, I feel that every now and then I should share my spiritual weaknesses with you all. It's true. I am not perfect. There are many areas in life in which I struggle. One of those areas is coveting.And you better believe that after watching Steve Jobs' keynote at MacExpo this week, I am in full coveting mode over the new iPhone. Now you should know, the "iPhone" name won't stick. My best information is that another company does, and has for a while, own the trademark name "iPhone."
But who cares what it's called? This phone is the most amazing device I've ever seen and I want one NOW! My coveting is so deep that I actually thanked God that I had already decided to switch my cell service to Cingular in June when my contract with another carrier is over. I truly felt that the end of my contract, the fact that I was going to buy a new iPod this summer and the release of the iPhone all in June was providential. How crazy is that?
And on a lighter side, I usually detest celebrity news but I'm loving the Trump vs Rosie feud. Before Rosie got off her blasts against Trump and his hair (which she released simply because he gave a troubled girl a second chance) I never really cared for either, but I've gotta say, "I'm loving The Donald right now." Rosie picked a fight that she can't win. She thought she was being funny by making fun of Trump for no real reason and he unleashed a brutal attack on her. The smack that he is laying on her - and Barbara Walters now too - has been classic. She showed up for a gunfight with a rubber knife and she's getting her clock cleaned. Yesterday Trump called her a "third-rate comedian" and that Barbara said, "working with her was like a living hell."Wow!
Now, I'm not on Donald's side because of the mean things he's said (things that shouldn't have beens said about anyone), but rather because Rosie has a history of shooting off her mouth, saying hateful and hurtful things about people. It was just a few weeks ago that for no reason at all she called Kelly Ripa homophobic . And apparently, I'm not the only person who thinks that Rosie has created this herself. I'm not saying that she deserves this or that getting torn up in the media is good. But it seems like the majority of Americans might.
We live in a politically correct culture where anyone who called someone else "fat, ugly, disgusting, etc..." would hear from every circle that he or she needed to apologize--and they would need to. But in this case there's been no calls to apologize. No one has said anything. Why? Because it's Rosie. The majority response has been the sound of one hand clapping. It's almost like people are saying, "Yeah, that's Rosie!" If Trump had called anyone else "disgusting" he would have had serious consequences, yet in this case, everyone just seems to be happy to watch the daily furor.
I think there's a lesson here about being a person who speaks words of grace about and to others. When you become known for attacking other people simply because you don't like them or you don't like their perspective or politics (and Rosie has launched vicious attacks on people who stand opposed to her politics) then there aren't going to be a lot of people in line to defend you. And when you dishonor people, some people will dishonor you in return.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Peace Keeping 3
Even though every sermon any of us have ever heard about peace—particularly if that sermon originates from Galatians—has told us that peace is not the absence of conflict. The idea here is that we can be people of peace, and have communal and individual peace even when everything around us is in the midst of tumult. This is a Biblical view of peace, but in reality the way we practice peace in the church is about trying to get to a place of peace as the absence of conflict.
This often comes when a church is looking to replace or hire a new staff member. Churches are replete with stories about one minister being too active or too controversial then leaving for another church or being fired and the very next minister being the most uninspiring, milk-toast, oatmeal talking person ever. Churches tend to swing from one side of the pendulum to the other. In this example, the new pastor comes in and gives the church what it wants in terms on not upsetting or challenging anyone, then the next thing you know, the church looks up and wonders why nothing is going on, why they’re not growing and why no new strides are being made. The reason is peace as the absence of conflict.
Some in the church have bought into the idea that peace, as the absence of conflict is always good. I seriously question that proposition. Like I said before, the transformative process by nature is not peaceful.
The church is supposed to call people away from the kingdoms of this world. Those kingdoms are the very air we breathe. We are bathed in it. We can’t escape it. That’s why the church cannot afford the absence of conflict. This, I think, is what Jesus meant when He said that He came not to bring peace, but a sword. The Savior is not interested in senseless violence, but rather He knows that to live as He is calling us to live, we would naturally be set apart—and set at odds—from the kingdoms of this world.
For example, white churches in the south repeated implored Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement to simple wait for equality and not cause domestic disturbance. This—as the absence of conflict—is peace. Yet, their position was not right. If someone had gone into a southern white church in the 1950’s and said, “Hey, we should everything we can to bring about equality for all races,” then he or she would probably have been run out of town. Yet it is the process of disrupting the peace that advanced the kingdom of God and made both the society and the church a truer reflection of the heart of God.
Peacekeeping is often opposition to God.
This often comes when a church is looking to replace or hire a new staff member. Churches are replete with stories about one minister being too active or too controversial then leaving for another church or being fired and the very next minister being the most uninspiring, milk-toast, oatmeal talking person ever. Churches tend to swing from one side of the pendulum to the other. In this example, the new pastor comes in and gives the church what it wants in terms on not upsetting or challenging anyone, then the next thing you know, the church looks up and wonders why nothing is going on, why they’re not growing and why no new strides are being made. The reason is peace as the absence of conflict.
Some in the church have bought into the idea that peace, as the absence of conflict is always good. I seriously question that proposition. Like I said before, the transformative process by nature is not peaceful.
The church is supposed to call people away from the kingdoms of this world. Those kingdoms are the very air we breathe. We are bathed in it. We can’t escape it. That’s why the church cannot afford the absence of conflict. This, I think, is what Jesus meant when He said that He came not to bring peace, but a sword. The Savior is not interested in senseless violence, but rather He knows that to live as He is calling us to live, we would naturally be set apart—and set at odds—from the kingdoms of this world.
For example, white churches in the south repeated implored Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement to simple wait for equality and not cause domestic disturbance. This—as the absence of conflict—is peace. Yet, their position was not right. If someone had gone into a southern white church in the 1950’s and said, “Hey, we should everything we can to bring about equality for all races,” then he or she would probably have been run out of town. Yet it is the process of disrupting the peace that advanced the kingdom of God and made both the society and the church a truer reflection of the heart of God.
Peacekeeping is often opposition to God.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Peace Keeping --2
Peace is a good thing. Don’t get me wrong, I like peace and think that the church above all people groups should work for peace. What I’m aiming at is spiritual cowardice and poor leadership being masqueraded as “peace keeping.”
Here’s a typical example: A church I know was considering making some changes in terms of the use of women in worship. Many church members had been patiently asking for an open study of the issue. Church leadership decided to pursue it, but then—before the first Bible had been opened—the leaders responded to the backlash and opted not to broach the subject at all. The reason they gave was that it would cause division in the church. Clearly this was not a decision made out of conviction; either conviction to honor honest seekers with genuine questions nor conviction to make decisions based on an earnest examination of Scripture. My point here is not that this particular community needed to make some kind of change, but rather that the illusion of maintaining peace trumped what Christians should be doing—searching the Scriptures.
Yet this is frequently the way the church approaches things. This, I think, is what the pastor from the previous post was speaking to. Churches, to be healthy and a reflection of the heart of God must maneuver from a place of conviction and earnest belief. Anything less is other than what the ministry of Jesus indicated. Was Jesus concerned about peace keeping? I’m sure he was, but that took a back seat when he rebuked the religious leaders, chased the moneychangers out of the temple, and consistently provoked the Pharisees. Jesus comes to earth as a revolutionary and his ministry reflects it. He is a truth-teller and whatever comes from that telling is what comes. In fact, Jesus is so bad at keeping the peace that he upsets enough people that they eventually kill him.
What Jesus did do was call God-seekers to a higher ideal. He called them to Kingdom living that surpassed what they were already doing and he called them to a vision of the world that was different than what they had been taught. He called them to re-orient their lives, which is naturally tumultuous! Transformation, by nature, contains upheaval and disorientation, which people, by nature, do not like. Transformation is not a peaceful experience! Therefore, if church leaders focus on peace, when we know that upheaval and disorientation are part of the transformational process, then we are curtailing opportunities of growth for those under our care. While we think we are being Godly, in truth we are keeping people from experiencing the nature processes of spiritual formation and development. It’s what Erwin McManus refers to as “excessive nurture.” What McManus means is that churches are often so concerned with nurture—and peace is part and parcel with nurture—that they fail to mature and develop people. Where insufficient nurture leaves the back door of the church open, excessive nurture creates a logjam at the front door—to use McManus’ words. In short, sometimes the peace we wish to keep is the thing keeping us from becoming the people God wants us to become.
Here’s a typical example: A church I know was considering making some changes in terms of the use of women in worship. Many church members had been patiently asking for an open study of the issue. Church leadership decided to pursue it, but then—before the first Bible had been opened—the leaders responded to the backlash and opted not to broach the subject at all. The reason they gave was that it would cause division in the church. Clearly this was not a decision made out of conviction; either conviction to honor honest seekers with genuine questions nor conviction to make decisions based on an earnest examination of Scripture. My point here is not that this particular community needed to make some kind of change, but rather that the illusion of maintaining peace trumped what Christians should be doing—searching the Scriptures.
Yet this is frequently the way the church approaches things. This, I think, is what the pastor from the previous post was speaking to. Churches, to be healthy and a reflection of the heart of God must maneuver from a place of conviction and earnest belief. Anything less is other than what the ministry of Jesus indicated. Was Jesus concerned about peace keeping? I’m sure he was, but that took a back seat when he rebuked the religious leaders, chased the moneychangers out of the temple, and consistently provoked the Pharisees. Jesus comes to earth as a revolutionary and his ministry reflects it. He is a truth-teller and whatever comes from that telling is what comes. In fact, Jesus is so bad at keeping the peace that he upsets enough people that they eventually kill him.
What Jesus did do was call God-seekers to a higher ideal. He called them to Kingdom living that surpassed what they were already doing and he called them to a vision of the world that was different than what they had been taught. He called them to re-orient their lives, which is naturally tumultuous! Transformation, by nature, contains upheaval and disorientation, which people, by nature, do not like. Transformation is not a peaceful experience! Therefore, if church leaders focus on peace, when we know that upheaval and disorientation are part of the transformational process, then we are curtailing opportunities of growth for those under our care. While we think we are being Godly, in truth we are keeping people from experiencing the nature processes of spiritual formation and development. It’s what Erwin McManus refers to as “excessive nurture.” What McManus means is that churches are often so concerned with nurture—and peace is part and parcel with nurture—that they fail to mature and develop people. Where insufficient nurture leaves the back door of the church open, excessive nurture creates a logjam at the front door—to use McManus’ words. In short, sometimes the peace we wish to keep is the thing keeping us from becoming the people God wants us to become.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
