Apple's plan for total world domination
Monday, August 29, 2005
I’m now a huge fan of PBS' Robert X. Cringely. Every column he has written lately has been deviously predicting an Apple coup-de-tat in the PC world. Well, he did it again. Check out this week’s interesting viewpoint, beginning with Microsoft’s obsessive attentions to competing with Google. 
I’ve always thought the iPod would make an excellent bootable disk for a computer. Think about it: you’d have your “computer” with you all the time. Just dock it via USB 2.0 or FireWire 400/800, and boot the host computer with the iPod as the drive. Fan-freakin’-tastic, I say. With Apple moving to Intel CPUs, any generic Intel PC can be the “host.”
|
Counting and sorting sheep
Friday, August 26, 2005
Senior pastors from the evangelical ranks fret about Sunday morning church attendance. I speak from personal experience as a pastor’s child and a former elder board member of a church plant. Often other forms of church expression and ministry live or die by the perceived impact (for better or worse) they will have on the attendance board (last week’s performance data) posted on the sanctuary wall next to the pulpit. I question this.
Children of mother necessity
We’ve all heard the church referred to as all of the followers of Jesus—the church universal, as it were (this also is the definition of the word “Catholic”). In practice, however, actively being the church required the gathering together of local bodies of believers to learn, edify and serve one another [Hebrews 10:24-25]. To do that logistically required some fragmentation. First, among the earliest churches by town or community. Then, in the Roman Catholic empire, bodies were organized along both geographic and political lines of empire. Post reformation, fragmentation was aided by divergent theologies and worldviews within the realm of the Christian faith. Still, the sheer logistics of gathering together believers still made it necessary to divide up people into subgroups geographically. Fast forward to the present, we find layers of locally dispersed church bodies, overlapping and largely unconnected with each other (and individuals from other congregations) on a local level. Instead, local church bodies are connected (if at all) to a centralized bureaucratic body (denominational leadership) that itself is overlapped by other similar, yet different organizations of faith that make up present Christendom.
A footnote in “A Generous Orthodoxy” by Brian McLaren gives an even better 30 second overview of this aspect of church history: “Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism officially split in about 1000 AD, which was roughly speaking an East-West split. Protestants in Northern Europe (including Anabaptists) split off from Roman Catholics in Southern Europe in about 1500 AD. Liberal and Conservative Protestants began to diverge in the 1800s, and Pentecostals arose from within Conservative Protestants--also called Evangelicals--about 1900. These latter divergences were conceptual, without geographic correlates." (Page 56, note 25.)
Of course, this is no earth-shattering observation. None of this comment required any in-depth research to surmise. And there is a ton of important and instructive church history that gets brushed aside in what I just said. For the sake of making a specific point, however, I want to only focus on the heretofore necessary fragmentation of local church bodies.
Today’s model expression of the church is rooted in the necessary practice of forming individualized and contained church bodies, which has become institutionalized over the course of the past 2,000 years.
There might be a tendency to see this approach as an ideal expression of the church. And in large degree it has been fruitful and effective in advancing the kingdom over time, despite the setback of theological disunity among the universal community of faith (division over some important and some trivial matters). In a pre-digital, pre-wired, (pre-modern and modern) world this really was the only path. One can argue over the detrimental impact of denominationalism, but other necessary fragmentation would unavoidably remain. There are millions of Christ’s followers—we can’t all attend the same worship service or bible study—occupy the same local space-time community in person even if we are one bride, one universal body.
So I don’t assail the traditional and necessary form of church organization we see today, only the idea that it is the best expression of the body of Christ (or the best we can aspire to). As other forms begin to emerge for fulfilling life together as a community of faith, we must be willing to see the former for what they truly are—forms borne out of necessity, not necessarily the last or only word.
Fragmented bodies of believers also bear the necessary burden of labels. To keep track of categories and classifications, humans label things (by type, locale, social caste, race, etc.)—and this is especially true of our church bodies. You are a Catholic, or a Lutheran, or an Adventist or a Baptist. Or you go to the First Baptist Church in Springfield, or attend Prince of Peace Lutheran in Cedarvale. The danger with labels is that they can supplant real meaning with presuppositions that de-personalize and marginalize. Kierkegaard noted, “Once you label me, you negate me.” Or in other words, once you label someone, you lose all understanding of them. A word to the wise.
Beyond counting and sorting sheep
"Pastors need to redefine success. The popular model of success involves the ABCs - attendance, buildings, and cash. Instead of counting Christians, we need to weigh them. We weigh them by focusing on the most important kind of growth - love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, kindness, and so on - fruit in keeping with the Gospel and the kingdom." (Dallas Willard, Leadership Journal, "The Apprentices," Summer 2005)
We need to begin to consider alternatives to the conventional wisdom that “church growth” is only evidenced and measured by the invitational growth model of our traditional, geographically-based and categorized congregations. The expanding kingdom of God has room for a multitude of varied expressions which fit into the pattern given in scripture. At the risk of sounding crass, counting the butts in the seats on a Sunday morning only measures one dimension of effectiveness for the traditional (and not ideal) approach. I would go so far as to say that the numbers on the old attendance board hold little meaning beyond their face value.
It is really in this vein that I am currently engaging in an exploration of God’s direction for me and my family—integrating the church body in new ways, seeking to move beyond institutionalized fragmentation toward a new form of unity. I’m quite certain that no particular approach is the “ideal.” But my inclination is that, taken together, a multiplicity of expressions of the bride of Christ can become more and more ideal and true as time passes.
Six degrees of Brian McLaren
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Great sessions by the way--all included with Cornerstone admission. The article, posted on the Evangelical Covenant website, is a good (very brief) overview of McLaren's current work and thoughts. Here's a quote that definitely had me thinking:
"You can be sterile and right, but you have to be fertile to be good. I think this is where the kingdom of God exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees. The Pharisees' view of righteousness was basically summed up in the idea of 'Do no wrong.' Jesus's was summed up in 'Let your good works shine.' I think this is one of the deeper challenges we face. Christianity has practice in being a civil religion, a custodial religion, in being isolated or persecuted. We don't have enough practice in being a positive and constructive force."
Bride of Frankenstein revisited
Sunday, August 21, 2005
For those left wondering about what the Bride of Frankenstein has to do with the body of Christ 
Strange love: How we learned to stop worrying and love the bride
Thursday, August 18, 2005
In our ongoing saga of reevaluating our church community, Dawnshelle and I have come to a decision point (for this season of our lives). It stems from a further unpacking of our issues, our emerging calling and a providentially timed message from our pastor a week ago.
"Yee Haw!" Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove (I couldn’t resist the inference).
You will recall my last post about the Bride of Frankenstein, which hints at an area we feel some kind of calling to. We’ve come full circle on what this may mean for us and how we might be able to see God bring it to fruition. He seems to be calling us to first try to do this where we are now—stay put instead of head for the hills (inside joke intentional)—take a step of faith and see what He does.
Where this comes from is a growing recognition that, however imperfect, as a part of our church community, we are what WE are (just as God is the I Am that I Am). Let me explain. I’ve oft overdone my critique of the institutional church (the church as a place or external body) and readily included our local body in this, when in reality I am a part of the bride of Christ by default. It’s fascinating that I let myself get the most frustrated with how the church acts toward the outside world, while Paul writes in Romans 7:19, “What I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing." [NIV] All those personal pronouns make me nervous. The finger-pointing has to include me. I have to be personally accountable, and I can’t do that by cutting myself off from the body and looking back. There is no out-of-body experience here. We ARE the bride, and the weaknesses of the church are reflections of individual weaknesses—that means me, buddy! Change must begin inside of myself AND within the community context of the body. Nothing can truly live and grow in the love of the Bridegroom apart from the body of the bride. We are commanded to love God, love ourselves and love each other—that’s beyond dispute (Mark 12:28-34). In light of scripture I conclude we cannot really love ourselves if we don’t love each other. Such love amounts to narcissism, lust, ego.
So we are being called to minister out of our love for the bride and bring about change from within. What that change is and what it looks like are subjects for another time (and more unpacking and praying needs to be done before I can open up more on that). For now, God is calling us to act in faith. We may be politely rejected or grossly misunderstood or both. We may even be forced deep underground. Or, we may be embraced and supported by our local church community. Regardless, God will be faithful to us and lead us onward if we only trust him and act.
-Todd
Pamplona in Henrico County, no bull
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
You gotta eat your Wheaties if you want to get an Apple iBook for 50 bucks.
What flavor of crazy is this? Glad nobody was gored.
-Todd
The church is like the bride of Frankenstein
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Take it as a compliment.
Romans 12:5 [The Message]
"The body we're talking about is Christ's body of chosen people. Each of us finds our meaning and function as a part of his body. But as a chopped-off finger or cut-off toe we wouldn't amount to much, would we?"
Revelation 19:7-8 [NIV]
"Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear."
Let's face it, with thousands of strands of believers divided along ideological, political and theological lines, the Bride is a broken, chopped up mess. Yet scripture seems to point towards a future with a Bride made ready for her Bridegroom. As we work to expand the kingdom, how do we reconcile present reality with this future revelation? What would be able to change how we now are? Some miracle?
I submit that the re-animation of the bride, and the grafting together of the separate and broken pieces may begin to happen in a different place: on the computer network (the Internet). Now before you write me off as living in some kind of 1999 pre-millennial denial (not the eschatological pre-millennial, but the pre dot-com bust sort), hear me out. While we may not be interconnecting very well with the rest of the body (bride) in our present brick and mortar congregations, this interconnecting may be happening digitally (via written communication). For some, it already is happening.
Think about it. Can the internet have a church split? Not really. People will always be able to isolate themselves from others, both on and offline. But without our institutions of identity to exist within, the church (at large) interacting with one another in a global and local online community starts to look a whole lot like a unified whole--those being spiritually formed, moving toward and into the kingdom of the Bridegroom.
Recently I ran across some thought-provoking words along these lines which I cannot do justice to in a short article. But consider the Frankenstein's bride metaphor and the scripture above as my small addition to the conversation. To get a real thorough picture of what is happening, link over to this Blog and read the attached paper, "We know more than our pastors." Don't let the title throw you. It's no anti-pastoral rant--it's brain food. In addition, check out the online version of the "Cluetrain Manifesto" and try applying all the ideas that describe corporations to the church and church leadership. Mind-blowing. Then comment on this here and let's talk about it.
I think the bride is kinda pretty--always have.
Okay, end of metaphor.
Why would you leave the perfect church?
Saturday, August 06, 2005
In the limited conversations I have had with friends and family about our recent re-evaluation of our choice of church home, I think some might too easily pigeon-hole what it is we are looking for in a congregation/community of faith. From the outside looking in, the emerging church movement may give the impression that it is all about making improvements and modifications to "how we do church." Adding in the ancient and the modern--pursuing some kind of post-modern chic. If it is that at all, it is the very least of it. What has been going on in my soul is more akin to some kind of reformation of faith. And this decision is to find and become a part of a community of believers that are experiencing the same kind of reformation in their own lives. It is about the kingdom of God and what that should look like. To me, that looks less and less like where we are right now. I'm driven to find the heart of it and reside there.To help in understanding, please check out this fine article in Christianity Today by Brian McLaren. I especially like the quote he copped from Dallas Willard (and I think Willard copped it from Andy Grove or someone else from Intel): "Our system [in this case, the evangelical church] is perfectly designed to deliver the results we are now getting." If you look at the recent research on the expansion of the church by body count from Barna Research, that is nil. All the Willow Creek molded plants, 40 days of purpose programs and seeker-sensitive "Sunday as the superbowl of God" services have built some nice, big churches (and I'm not going to critique any of these things) --perfect by design. But what do the numbers show us? And what is this evangelical juggernaut in America known for, its love or its politics?
So this shift in direction for me is both inward and outward: inward in continuing to develop my own faith, and outward in the type of missional community I'm being called to be a part of going forward. It is a reformation level event for me.
As an aside, it's been a blessing to be in complete sync with my mate on this. Having unity and knowing we are in this together has helped propel me forward. This is not to say we have made a decision yet. We are still very much in flux--but in it up to our ears together. And that's nice.
Summer reading list
Saturday, August 06, 2005
I've been reading again, and I thought I'd recommend a couple of recent works:
What's next? In no particular order: Escaping the Matrix (Thanks Derek & Rebekah), The Sacred Romance (Eldridge), True Faced (thanks Doug), A New Kind of Christian & A Generous Orthodoxy (MacLaren). Bring it on!