Over the years I have been afforded the opportunity to meet and study under several Anglican ministers and theologians. In total they are a scholarly lot; haven’t met one yet that wasn’t gifted in the brainier aspects of faith; and they look so official in their collars. They refer to themselves as Catholic-Light. One Anglican I’ve never met is the big Anglican himself, the Archbishop of Canterbury. I have the same chance of meeting him as I do of having tea with the Pope. The Archbishop of the worldwide Anglican church, which includes the U.S. Episcipol church, is Rowan Williams. He has the wildest eyebrows I’ve ever seen. I’m guessing it would take a small weed-eater to trim those bushes. He’s also one of the smartest people alive today. Let me add that smart and judicious are not synonomous. He’s made a few outlandish statements during his tenure; but even Billy Graham made a mistake or two. I believe the Archbishop’s faith matches his prodigious eyebrows. He also has the distinction of leading his faith group through a deeply divisive and troubled era. It can’t be easy being the Archbishop of Canterbury these days.
Reverend Williams, also a gifted writer, penned the following words: It is not the church of God that has a mission. It’s the God of mission that has a church. Let those words sink in and you may feel a tingle in your soul. There may also be a twinge or two of guilt as we instinctively invert this principle. Honestly, do we really see the church as part of God’s vastly larger plan? Do we really see our individual faith lives as being part of a global, infinite and inclusive scheme? Hopefully so, but speaking for myself, this is much harder than it might seem. It’s very easy to view the institutional church as the main event. It’s even easier to view our lives as being both front and center. It may hurt to admit it, but it’s true more times than not.
Again, speaking only for myself and my feeble attempts to live in the right order, an evaluative inventory is key. Why do I practice faith? Why do I practice stewardship? What is the goal of my church? If an honest answer doesn’t transcend the here and now, it may not be what the God of mission expects. Loving God for reasons beyond our own salvation, safety and stability is difficult, but necessary for living in the right order. Viewing the church (my church, your church) as existing more for God’s eternal scheme than for us is easy only while in Sunday School, but again, this is absolutely necessary for being God’s church linked-in-mission and in sync with God’s plan.
Sobering words indeed. And to think, it took a prodigiously-eyebrowed Anglican chap to make me understand this. God works in mysterious ways.
Michael McCullar
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Is My Difference Showing?
I drive a truck. It’s actually a hybrid of sorts; one with two full rows of seats and a shorter-than-normal bed length. People who drive “real” trucks snicker when I drive by. I can tell what they’re thinking by the amused looks on their faces: That ain’t a real truck! Well, to me it’s a real truck. There are other people who have said to me, You don’t look like a truck person. My response is normally the same: “What does a truck person look like?” I’m guessing they mean that people of Scottish descent aren’t a truck driving lot. My people ride horses, paint their faces blue, wear kilts and go to war with the imperial Brits… or play a lot of golf. I’m sticking with my truck. I’m allergic to horses.
Contrary to public opinion and practice, scripture counsels us to excel in our uniqueness. We were created as individuals, not as an amalgamation of the corporate whole. This reality provides us the ability to break away from the natural drift to sameness. The gravitational-like pull toward a corporate commonality is not at all scriptural. Was Paul one of his generation’s eager average? James? Peter? No, none of these people seemed content to settle for average, nor did they chose the easiest route through which to navigate life. They stood for something that transcends all cultural norms. History demonstrates that these stances are often lonely and from time to time end with a violent death. It happened to these guys. They lived for something and they died for something. They lived; they died; they raised the bar.
I surmise from this that it is O.K. to be unique. Uniqueness is a major step in the direction of having the inner-strength to take a stand and to not fear the trivial consequences. Please don’t get hung up on the use of trivial. If we are honest we can admit that before one is prepared to die for their convictions one must first be able to withstand being insulted or shunned. Humanity seems to crave the company of people who float along and never rock a boat of any type. Rocking boats is best left to the odd and unique types. Taking a seat is generally preferred to taking a stand.
If you love and follow Jesus you are asked to take stands, merge away from the cultural template; while, remaining firmly attached to culture. It’s a conundrum of epic proportions. We work to be different while remaining in the midst of jillions of people who haven’t yet located their ability to be different. Jesus is the answer for their malady and we are the conduit for the remedy. We could run off with our own kind and dance around celebrating our uniqueness; although, sooner or later our uniqueness would fade. We would simply become a corporate lot that dances around and celebrates excessively. We must be different within the larger scope of humanity. It isn’t easy; it’s often lonely; and people have died for their efforts. Jesus never said it would be easy. Therefore, we must entertain this question from time to time: Is my difference showing? It really is the difference between life and death.
Michael McCullar
Contrary to public opinion and practice, scripture counsels us to excel in our uniqueness. We were created as individuals, not as an amalgamation of the corporate whole. This reality provides us the ability to break away from the natural drift to sameness. The gravitational-like pull toward a corporate commonality is not at all scriptural. Was Paul one of his generation’s eager average? James? Peter? No, none of these people seemed content to settle for average, nor did they chose the easiest route through which to navigate life. They stood for something that transcends all cultural norms. History demonstrates that these stances are often lonely and from time to time end with a violent death. It happened to these guys. They lived for something and they died for something. They lived; they died; they raised the bar.
I surmise from this that it is O.K. to be unique. Uniqueness is a major step in the direction of having the inner-strength to take a stand and to not fear the trivial consequences. Please don’t get hung up on the use of trivial. If we are honest we can admit that before one is prepared to die for their convictions one must first be able to withstand being insulted or shunned. Humanity seems to crave the company of people who float along and never rock a boat of any type. Rocking boats is best left to the odd and unique types. Taking a seat is generally preferred to taking a stand.
If you love and follow Jesus you are asked to take stands, merge away from the cultural template; while, remaining firmly attached to culture. It’s a conundrum of epic proportions. We work to be different while remaining in the midst of jillions of people who haven’t yet located their ability to be different. Jesus is the answer for their malady and we are the conduit for the remedy. We could run off with our own kind and dance around celebrating our uniqueness; although, sooner or later our uniqueness would fade. We would simply become a corporate lot that dances around and celebrates excessively. We must be different within the larger scope of humanity. It isn’t easy; it’s often lonely; and people have died for their efforts. Jesus never said it would be easy. Therefore, we must entertain this question from time to time: Is my difference showing? It really is the difference between life and death.
Michael McCullar
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Why Does It Always have To Be a Baptist?
Isn’t it enough that many in our society see Baptists as dimwitted dinosaurs and serial bigots? Isn’t it bad enough that people tend to believe Baptists handle snakes and play Deliverance music in church? Does it sit well with you that Baptists are thought of as people who do not play nice with the other children of the world? Ask a people group or denomination what they think of Baptists and you may not like the reply.
Is any of this true? Well, Baptists would have to admit that a few odd apples have poisoned the pie from time to time. Baptists would also have to admit that getting along with each other is a true feat; and, Baptists should consider that their longstanding superiority complex, historically exemplified by the many, is not a badge of honor or piety. All of this means that Baptists are human and foible-prone much like other religious groups who have warts and carry heavy baggage. It’s also true that on occasion a genuine nut surfaces that dominates the media attention. Sadly, this is why Baptists tend to be painted with the same broad brush used on the occasional oddball. The majority of Baptists may be compassionate and principled, but the larger society sees only the unique aberration who receives the airtime. It’s the same issue faced by people after a tornado or other natural calamity. It seems the media always chooses to interview a person that least exemplifies the populace: Yep, me and the little missus wuz sittin’ down to a mess of collard greens when a big noise cummed up and next thang I knowed the barn blowed by the winder. And you know whut? It did sound like a freight train.
It only takes a few members of any group to provide an inaccurate picture of the larger body. The Idaho missions team caught taking kids out of Haiti exemplifies this problem for Baptists. These people may have had good intentions, but good intentions never trump the laws of a country. International adoptions are long and arduous affairs that cost great deals of money. I know this because I’ve gone through it twice. It is uniquely horrible for Haitian kids right now but this dubious attempt to save thirty has made things worse for all of the children of Haiti. Today it is difficult to airlift seriously ill children out of the country and honest adoptions are at a standstill. History will show that it all began with a few woefully unprepared Baptists with flawed plans who, even with good intentions, made Haiti an even worse place for children. That’s hard to do. So I can’t help but ask, why did it have to be Baptists?
MM
Is any of this true? Well, Baptists would have to admit that a few odd apples have poisoned the pie from time to time. Baptists would also have to admit that getting along with each other is a true feat; and, Baptists should consider that their longstanding superiority complex, historically exemplified by the many, is not a badge of honor or piety. All of this means that Baptists are human and foible-prone much like other religious groups who have warts and carry heavy baggage. It’s also true that on occasion a genuine nut surfaces that dominates the media attention. Sadly, this is why Baptists tend to be painted with the same broad brush used on the occasional oddball. The majority of Baptists may be compassionate and principled, but the larger society sees only the unique aberration who receives the airtime. It’s the same issue faced by people after a tornado or other natural calamity. It seems the media always chooses to interview a person that least exemplifies the populace: Yep, me and the little missus wuz sittin’ down to a mess of collard greens when a big noise cummed up and next thang I knowed the barn blowed by the winder. And you know whut? It did sound like a freight train.
It only takes a few members of any group to provide an inaccurate picture of the larger body. The Idaho missions team caught taking kids out of Haiti exemplifies this problem for Baptists. These people may have had good intentions, but good intentions never trump the laws of a country. International adoptions are long and arduous affairs that cost great deals of money. I know this because I’ve gone through it twice. It is uniquely horrible for Haitian kids right now but this dubious attempt to save thirty has made things worse for all of the children of Haiti. Today it is difficult to airlift seriously ill children out of the country and honest adoptions are at a standstill. History will show that it all began with a few woefully unprepared Baptists with flawed plans who, even with good intentions, made Haiti an even worse place for children. That’s hard to do. So I can’t help but ask, why did it have to be Baptists?
MM
Monday, February 1, 2010
What to Do with Pat Robertson
Two weeks ago an earthquake literally ripped apart the city of Port-au-Prince, Haiti leaving thousands of already-impoverished people dead, severely injured, homeless and, many children orphaned. It has been reported that this level of destruction and devastation is among the worst in world history. The United States is sending aid workers into the country, as well as military personnel, and relief organizations have people on the ground providing food, medicine and drinking water. Baptists of all stripes, including JCBC, have responded to this crisis, as have other religious groups, which is how it should be as mercy and ministry is inherent in our Biblical mandate. It should be a given for Christians to be among the first to provide support to Haiti. It’s a spiritual D.N.A. thing; an automatic response; a duh, it’s in the instruction manual act of compassion. If that’s true, which I wholeheartedly believe it is, then what’s up with Pat Robertson?
Don’t know of whom I speak? If you have been fortunate and are not acquainted with him allow me to fill in the blanks; but do not hold this against me later. In some cases ignorance is indeed bliss. Pat Robertson founded a college and a television ministry in Virginia. He pontificates daily on the 700 Club; a mish-mash of feel good stories, news and his musings on the world order. There are many people who see him as a step beyond self-delusional and as a person who actually believes he represents Christianity in America. I prefer to think of him as a nutcase. O.K., I just sinned and I’ll admit it. I called a famous preacher and television host a nutcase. Forgive me in lots of twelve Lord ‘cause I’m not finished sinning yet. On his television program he stated that the earthquake in Haiti occurred because Haitians made a pact with the devil in order to be freed from French control. He actually said this and followed with the statement, “true story.” France last held colonial control of Haiti in the early 1800’s. In order to continue control in the late 18th century Napoleon sent in Rochambeau to eliminate opposition forces. He estimated that he would have to kill 30,000 natives to reach his objective and to that end he hung, burned alive and drowned native men and women. On one day in 1802 he had 500 prominent men killed; an act that sealed the fate of France on the island. Opposition forces grew and over a short period of time the French were forced to flee. So tell me again who the bad guys are?
If you do the math, which I’m assuming Mr. Robertson is never allowed to do for the 700 Club, it would suggest that Haiti is paying today for a spurious sin committed over two hundred years ago. Toss out the obvious bad theology in play here and do the math; this earthquake was two hundred years late! Since one has to assume that God sent the earthquake (the bad theology part), then God was quite late on this one. Oh yeah, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day…Silly me. God can take His own sweet time if God wants to “by-dingy.” That last sentence is true but the rest is hooey. God does not send earthquakes; nature does. Port-au-Prince is on a large fault line. Bad events occur within the natural order every day. Sin in the form of bad human choices can lead to tragedy. What happened in Haiti was a combination of corrupt leadership and natural disaster. It was a natural disaster, not a supernatural disaster. God loves the Haitians even if self-inflated bozo’s like Pat Robertson do not. Dang, I’ve sinned again. I just insulted Bozo.
Michael McCullar
Don’t know of whom I speak? If you have been fortunate and are not acquainted with him allow me to fill in the blanks; but do not hold this against me later. In some cases ignorance is indeed bliss. Pat Robertson founded a college and a television ministry in Virginia. He pontificates daily on the 700 Club; a mish-mash of feel good stories, news and his musings on the world order. There are many people who see him as a step beyond self-delusional and as a person who actually believes he represents Christianity in America. I prefer to think of him as a nutcase. O.K., I just sinned and I’ll admit it. I called a famous preacher and television host a nutcase. Forgive me in lots of twelve Lord ‘cause I’m not finished sinning yet. On his television program he stated that the earthquake in Haiti occurred because Haitians made a pact with the devil in order to be freed from French control. He actually said this and followed with the statement, “true story.” France last held colonial control of Haiti in the early 1800’s. In order to continue control in the late 18th century Napoleon sent in Rochambeau to eliminate opposition forces. He estimated that he would have to kill 30,000 natives to reach his objective and to that end he hung, burned alive and drowned native men and women. On one day in 1802 he had 500 prominent men killed; an act that sealed the fate of France on the island. Opposition forces grew and over a short period of time the French were forced to flee. So tell me again who the bad guys are?
If you do the math, which I’m assuming Mr. Robertson is never allowed to do for the 700 Club, it would suggest that Haiti is paying today for a spurious sin committed over two hundred years ago. Toss out the obvious bad theology in play here and do the math; this earthquake was two hundred years late! Since one has to assume that God sent the earthquake (the bad theology part), then God was quite late on this one. Oh yeah, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day…Silly me. God can take His own sweet time if God wants to “by-dingy.” That last sentence is true but the rest is hooey. God does not send earthquakes; nature does. Port-au-Prince is on a large fault line. Bad events occur within the natural order every day. Sin in the form of bad human choices can lead to tragedy. What happened in Haiti was a combination of corrupt leadership and natural disaster. It was a natural disaster, not a supernatural disaster. God loves the Haitians even if self-inflated bozo’s like Pat Robertson do not. Dang, I’ve sinned again. I just insulted Bozo.
Michael McCullar
Thursday, December 10, 2009
You Can Handle the Truth
One of the best movie lines of all-time is Jack Nicholson’s response to Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men: “You can’t handle the truth.” Premiere Magazine has it rated 92nd on their Top 100 Movie Lines list. They didn’t ask for my views so I won’t quibble, but come on, 92nd? These are the same people who listed Bond. James Bond as 51st. I rest my case. Obviously they couldn’t handle the truth either. Speaking of truth, what is it exactly? Who is the arbiter of truth? Is truth relative to humanity? Is it possible to answer these questions without first completing two advanced degrees in philosophy? This is an arena that few people tread with success. Even Jesus chose to not answer Pilate’s direct question: What is the truth? (John 18:38).
I am a huge fan of Jesus so I will admit bias at this point. I believe Jesus knew the answer to the question. I also believe Jesus could have avoided a horrible death by providing an answer that would have made it easier for Pilate to reject the capital intentions of the Hebrew leaders. The silence of Jesus had a purpose, although it’s anyone’s guess as to what that purpose was. The most quoted guess focuses on the necessity of Jesus’ death for the salvation of humankind. That could be filed under the category of “lowest possible hanging fruit.” Surely Jesus was silent for reasons other than his impending death. A hypothesis put forth by N.T. Wright is intriguing. It is his belief that the silence of Jesus was meant to highlight the collision of postmodernity (truth) and empire. Since Bishop Wright and I exist on different intellectual planets it was necessary to read his text multiple times and to finagle (most certainly a word Wright would never use) with his meaning of Postmodern. Once you get past that, it’s downhill all the way (right)!
Wright defines postmodernity as the question: “What is truth?” He sees the quest for truth as both colliding and colluding with the established world order that depicted itself as the true hope of humanity. He pits Rome as the personification of the “perfect world order” against Jesus as truth that transcends even the greatest plans of humankind. Rome saw itself as the ultimate prescription for the world. Many Hebrews bought into this possibility and as a result further distanced themselves from truth. This suggests Jesus was silent before Pilate in order to signify the absolute transcendent power of truth. Thus, truth is inherently spiritual and cannot be controlled or dispensed by humans, even if their intentions are pure. On that same note, hope cannot be placed in the instruments of empire if it is to survive. The lesson is actually simple: Great empirical intentions ultimately fail. Does this make them wrong? No, in many ways the world is a better place as a result of empires. On its best day, however, the Roman Empire was never the truth. Truth stood before them, they just couldn’t handle it.
MM (handling the truth since 1964)
I am a huge fan of Jesus so I will admit bias at this point. I believe Jesus knew the answer to the question. I also believe Jesus could have avoided a horrible death by providing an answer that would have made it easier for Pilate to reject the capital intentions of the Hebrew leaders. The silence of Jesus had a purpose, although it’s anyone’s guess as to what that purpose was. The most quoted guess focuses on the necessity of Jesus’ death for the salvation of humankind. That could be filed under the category of “lowest possible hanging fruit.” Surely Jesus was silent for reasons other than his impending death. A hypothesis put forth by N.T. Wright is intriguing. It is his belief that the silence of Jesus was meant to highlight the collision of postmodernity (truth) and empire. Since Bishop Wright and I exist on different intellectual planets it was necessary to read his text multiple times and to finagle (most certainly a word Wright would never use) with his meaning of Postmodern. Once you get past that, it’s downhill all the way (right)!
Wright defines postmodernity as the question: “What is truth?” He sees the quest for truth as both colliding and colluding with the established world order that depicted itself as the true hope of humanity. He pits Rome as the personification of the “perfect world order” against Jesus as truth that transcends even the greatest plans of humankind. Rome saw itself as the ultimate prescription for the world. Many Hebrews bought into this possibility and as a result further distanced themselves from truth. This suggests Jesus was silent before Pilate in order to signify the absolute transcendent power of truth. Thus, truth is inherently spiritual and cannot be controlled or dispensed by humans, even if their intentions are pure. On that same note, hope cannot be placed in the instruments of empire if it is to survive. The lesson is actually simple: Great empirical intentions ultimately fail. Does this make them wrong? No, in many ways the world is a better place as a result of empires. On its best day, however, the Roman Empire was never the truth. Truth stood before them, they just couldn’t handle it.
MM (handling the truth since 1964)
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
I Can't Hear What You're Saying for What You're Saying
It is common to hear psychologists and counselors state that the primary obstacle to healthy and wholesome relationships is poor communication. It would be hard to argue with that premise, especially when one remembers that communication is more than the use of words. This must be a fabric in the mosaic of human DNA as the New Testament regularly mentions toxic speech practices and subsequent damage. Read James and you’ll have a sudden urge to use mouthwash; and he was writing to Christians! Of course, if your mother washed your mouth out with soap you already know that bad language has consequences. That happened to me so many times that I regularly blew bubbles when I coughed or sneezed. If you’ve ever been hurt by words you know firsthand the power of the tongue. Chances are you have also inflicted damage upon someone else with careless talk. Sadly, words go in both directions with ease. Words may seem to be free and easy but in reality they are neither.
Kathlyn and Gay Hendricks are psychologists who have published seventeen books on communication and relationships. The following is a distillation of their seven keys to great communication:
- Listen generously (like James wrote, “be quick to listen and slow to talk”)
- Speak unarguably (use statements of fact rather than assigning blame)
- Appreciation (there needs to be a 5-1 ratio of appreciation to complaint)
- Turn complaints into requests
- Admit that you may also be part of the problem
- Pick your battles wisely
- Never invalidate someone’s feelings just because you don’t share them
It’s hard to argue that listening more and speaking less is a plus; or with seeking the positives in people rather than taking the easy option of pointing out their shortcomings; but the biggest lesson might be in not invalidating someone’s feelings. A feeling is what it is and refuting its reality won’t make it magically disappear. A kind word of appreciative affirmation might do the trick, however. So if you ever reach a communication quandary, ask WWJD (What Would James Do)? The answer will be simple: shut up and listen; always be nice; don’t complain; and if all else fails, shut up and listen. Sounds like a plan to me.
MM
Monday, November 9, 2009
Jesus Loves You, But I'm His Favorite
There is a t-shirt design that reads Jesus Loves You, But I’m His Favorite. I know this because I own one and wear it from time to time. I have yet to wear it without receiving a comment from someone I don’t know. Sadly, most of the comments have been voiced from the “who do you think you are” side of the aisle. Apparently many Christians don’t believe that I am Jesus’ favorite human. My response is always the same: “Hey, what can I say, the truth often hurts.” The conversation normally ends at that point, but the irony persists. I’m not vain and I’m not a theological nutcase. I know that Jesus loves everyone equally (let’s all sing along now, red and yellow, black and white…) but I am also convinced that Jesus loves each of us in a way that is so personal, so intimate, so individualistic, that it’s possible for each of us to feel we are His favorite and all be correct.
I wear the t-shirt mainly to elicit conversation with seekers, the almost-interested and assorted other levels of non-faith persons. I prefer to talk about matters of faith with people who haven’t yet found their place or their purpose in life. If I get to choose between an encounter with a born-again, Bible-believing, “washed in the blood” Christian and a “lost” person, give me the not-yet-found guy every time. I like to exist in a “no church words” environment and many Christians cannot resist using a minimum of three in every sentence. Sharing one’s faith is not about talking about religion or using church words, it’s about telling your unique story. If a t-shirt like mine throws you into a tizzy, you aren’t likely to tell a compelling story about personal faith. If my t-shirt leads someone to ask, “Dude, are you really his favorite,” a door opens to a conversation about God’s love. People need to know that God loves them and has a purpose for their life; they do not need to be told about a list of rules that must be followed. Grace isn’t about rules…it’s about freedom and peace. That would make for a great t-shirt design!
MM
I wear the t-shirt mainly to elicit conversation with seekers, the almost-interested and assorted other levels of non-faith persons. I prefer to talk about matters of faith with people who haven’t yet found their place or their purpose in life. If I get to choose between an encounter with a born-again, Bible-believing, “washed in the blood” Christian and a “lost” person, give me the not-yet-found guy every time. I like to exist in a “no church words” environment and many Christians cannot resist using a minimum of three in every sentence. Sharing one’s faith is not about talking about religion or using church words, it’s about telling your unique story. If a t-shirt like mine throws you into a tizzy, you aren’t likely to tell a compelling story about personal faith. If my t-shirt leads someone to ask, “Dude, are you really his favorite,” a door opens to a conversation about God’s love. People need to know that God loves them and has a purpose for their life; they do not need to be told about a list of rules that must be followed. Grace isn’t about rules…it’s about freedom and peace. That would make for a great t-shirt design!
MM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)