agree/disagree: derek webb

I'm not fully on board with all of Derek Webb's thoughts, but there are some that I absolutely find myself "amening" (if that is even a real word). Here's a slice off of a recent Relevant Magazine interview.

Where I disagree with Derek Webb...

When you visited the RELEVANT offices a while back, you said you align yourself with the Libertarian party. What drew you to that ideology?

I think that the Libertarian party, at this point, represents what I have always believed that the Conservative party was supposed to represent. And that is truly small government—government that basically leaves the governing of morality and some other really hugely important areas to bodies better equipped to govern those areas and really wants to stay out of the lives of the citizens.

I think the federal government has amassed so much power. It was supposed to be a government by the people for the people. This is not the government—I don't believe—that our founding fathers dreamed about. The power has really gotten out of hand. What I like about the Libertarian platform on the whole is that it seems to really want to dismantle some of that structure of power and decentralize it to some extent, and I think that's such a good idea.

Now do I believe that's ever going to happen? No. But I want to see the day coming where we will finally have the government that we were made for and that we ultimately long for, which is our King in our kingdom. It's King Jesus on the throne rightfully pronouncing judgment over all. That's the government we're made for. And while democracy is great, it's not that.

I don't think that having the right guy in the White House is going to solve any problems that we have in the world. I do think we should be participating, and we should be working, holding that man accountable—whoever is there. But I'm not pinning all my hopes on one day the right guy getting in there. I definitely try to be thoughtful about elections, but I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Okay... those last paragraphs were more agreeable than the first two. But here's where I more clearly agree with Derek webb...

For the average person who is passionate about the idea of "Thy kingdom come," what's your suggestion to enact change in cultural thinking about Christ in the Church?

Honestly, I would say discern the way you're gifted. What are your resources? What are your gifts? What are the things you're interested in? And then, discern the ways that your resources and your gifts meet up with the needs of people. It's really as simple as that.

What's going to change the world, and ultimately what's going to usher in the day coming when there will be no more disease, no more war, no more poverty, no more sickness, no more tears is individuals loving individuals in communities. If you really want to make the world a better place, don't go to some voting website and learn the senate voting record of three guys. Walk out your front door and get to know the people in proximity to your house, the two to your left and right and the three across the street from you. Learn what their needs are and see if you've got the gifts or resources to meet those needs.

What's going to change things—really change things—is individuals loving their neighbors, using their gifts and resources to meet the needs of people.

Your thoughts?

agree/disagree: a barbaric YAWP

An article on Relevant Magazine's web site shares some thoughts from Erwin McManus, pastor of Mosaic church and author of The Barbarian Way (among other books).

A quote of his I agree with:

I have so much confidence in the reality of Jesus that I feel no pressure to try to make people act or be a certain way. I’m banking everything on the fact that God actually changes people. For me, I don’t do what I do because I have to. As well, I don’t make my life choices because I worried about judgment or anything like that. For me, my whole motivation in life is love. And ironically, I know a lot of people think that to be irreligious means that they cuss a lot or drink a lot, and that’s where we are finding our freedom. But actually, what is happening is we’re finding safe ways to be risky. If you really want to be risky, do something that is genuinely valuable and risky at the same time. I don’t need to smoke a cigar to feel fully alive. I felt fully alive when I was in the middle of the Hezbollah.

A quote of his I disagree with:

I don’t have much value for religion. I don’t feel any need to defend Christianity. I think Christianity is the same as Buddhism and Hinduism—whenever a religion begins to say that these are the things you have to do to be loved by God, you have a religion...

The irony is that we cannot have Christianity without religion and relationship. Christianity at its beatiful core is a supernatural relationship; our religion is the way we interact with that relationship on a human level. I'm not fond of the latter reality myself, but I'm striving towards the purity of the former. Until heaven, though, we have to settle for the fact that we are all reaching out toward the supernatural in the best way we know how... and thankfully, God is reaching back through Jesus Christ. Once anything becomes a religion it can easily become legalistic ("Here's what you do to manipulate life and eternity") or fatalistic ("You can do nothing to change anything because God is sovereign."). Being a Christ-follower means somehow peacefully living in the tension of the middle.

But here's where I agree with Erwin McManus again:

The defining difference is not that you have to do these things to be loved by God, it’s that God loves you, and if you would just turn around, you’d run right into His love. The Scriptures tell us that we are unconditionally loved, and we cannot lose that love. That’s a huge risk because now God can’t motivate us through fear, or judgment, or wrath—I mean He has actually leveraged everything where He believes in the power of love to change us. That’s a huge risk.

Your thoughts?

agree/disagree: location, location, location

On Dan Kimball's blog, he recently posted about how the way we sit in a church service can affect our view of God and Christianity. I couldn't agree more.

Sort of.

Dan said:

How we sit when we gather as a church does change the way we function.... I have found more research on church architecture throughout history which convinces me all the more how pews and seating do change how we worship weekly as churches which in turn shapes how people view and think of "worship". The seating does reflect and change what we can do in a worship meeting. I will share more, but I read a quote in the Oxford History of Christian Worship which shared how worship drastically changed when pews were brought in. One quote said:

"For a thousand years and more, they had been on their feet; now their attention was fixed in a single direction. The nave [the main place where seats and pews now are] which had been entirely movement space, now was mostly seating with movement limited to the aisles. Such acts of prostration [praying laying or bowing down] were no longer feasible".

We moved from the intimacy of a home, to standing and still seeing each other and relating to one another and able to bow down and pray or even lay flat and pray prostrate, to sitting in seats all looking at the front. Most of our church architecture today was either adapted from the Roman Basilica (the law court) which is the way most long rectangular church buildings with pews and raised stage and pulpit are - or the 17th Century Theater as churches adopted seating and layout like contemporary theaters.

It's interesting, because while I agree that the seating environment in a church service or the posture we find ourselves in is important I also believe you can push past it.

For instance, whenever I have a chance to speak in environments that have static seating (meaning you can't move it) or fixed lighting (meaning I can't move out of a certain area), I find that there is usually someone who assumes the role of gatekeeper to be sure I don't cross the imaginary line. Whenever that is the case, I make it a point to still cross that line every time. Not to be a rebel, mind you, but because I find that when people expect a speaker to do certain things and be limited in where/how he or she presents then they begin to attribute that same sort of thinking to God. In other words, if in our brain a church service seems predictable then suddenly God seems predectable... which he is absolutely not.

Perhaps that's why I like to break out of the lighting scheme a bit when I talk about how we tend to hide from God. Or maybe this is the reason I will walk off of a stage and commune among the people as I share about how God is nearer than we think. Then there was that one time I didn't speak at all for a whole sermon when we dealt with the issue of God being silent.

Or when I'm sitting in a worship service, I find that I don't really care if people around me are standing or sitting. Likewise, if there is an outline to fill out from a speaker I like to take my own notes instead. If it's a place I visit often, I will try to sit in different places... anything I can do shake it up.

So I agree with Dan Kimball... and yet I disagree. You can play with any room you're in - whether you're the speaker or the listener (and hopefully you're always both).

All of that to ask... if you are a part of a form of worship (in any particular religion) how do you feel the posture or positioning of your body tends to impact your faith and/or perception of God?