new to you friday–tired of not working

The only way this is outdated is that I no longer need to catch up on “Lost”—but my struggle to live out the sabbath continues.

—————————————-
Several years ago, I decided to try the whole sabbath concept of working six days a week and resting from it on Sunday. Some weeks—like this one—that is harder than others, and I find myself writing, answering email, and working on projects much of Saturday so that Sunday can be work-free.

By and large, it’s been a helpful antidote to the overscheduled, multitasking world I live in the rest of the week. Other than 90 minutes with the 4s class each Sunday morning (which isn’t exactly restful, but it is fun), Sundays are mine to do whatever I please.

Which is exactly the problem—facing hours on end in which I’m supposed to be resting just stresses me out.


God designed work to give our days purpose. The most fun days for me are the ones where I accomplish something—or many things—not the days I spend lounging around. Although buying new patio furniture and replanting flowers, cleaning my pit of a kitchen, or organizing my over-stuffed file cabinet are not “restful” activities, if I had spent today doing one or two of those tasks I’d now be looking back on the day with a feeling of satisfaction, and enjoying the flowers or clean kitchen or organized start to a new week. If I’m honest with myself, that feeling of accomplishment is more rewarding, and more restful, than any amount of magazine-reading or napping.

Without “permission” to do these chores today, even in a voluntary, New Testament kind of sabbath, I feel restless and set adrift, overwhelmed with options for “relaxing” activities. Do I start that book, call that friend, take a nap, catch up on Lost, cook from scratch? Whatever I choose, that means choosing not to do something else, and I have to cram all this relaxation into one day and it’s already 8 p.m. and I’m WASTING IT.

Or so the pathology goes. But can you relate?


I understand the reasons God commanded the sabbath for the Israelites, and I understand the physical, psychological, and spiritual benefits that have created a renewed interested in the idea. We all need quiet, we all need to turn the phones off, we all need to connect with other people, light a candle, make a meal. I’m just not sure how to reconcile those ideas with my own temperament. So I’m spending part of my sabbath working on it.

more at stake

There is a perception out there that the Christian Standard avoids the hard issues or publishes a “party line” of predictable opinions. As one leader said, “It is narrowly focused in the ghetto of the Restoration Movement.”


I find this ironic because I also read the many letters and website comments that roll into the CS offices criticizing the topics the editors choose to cover or the positions they take.

Here’s a sampling just from current stuff:

“Anyone who would shun small groups, I believe, is of a legalistic nature and is looking for attention” (in response to Brian Jones’ “Why Churches Should Euthanize Small Groups”).

“I am disappointed that Christian Standard would choose to publish or consider this divisive and false doctrine” (in response to Glen Elliott’s “What Should We Believe About Hell?”).

“Why would you even print such a story? Oh, I know, you want to present all sides of an issue…..This time, perhaps you pushed the envelope just a bit too far” (in response to John Mark Hicks’ “God, I Hate You”).

And that’s before you go back into the last few years’ archives for the many articles on creation care, politics, nationalism, Calvinism, the role of women, racial issues, and theology.

In each of these areas, talented authors have explored a variety of perspectives. In fact, I think many of those who spout the Standard’s “protectionist” tendencies actually haven’t read the thing in years.


But more important than defending the magazine to those who have already made up their minds is finding new ways to lead the discussion. There are issues we could be addressing and discussions we need to be having, and younger leaders (who are already grappling with these ideas) from whom we can learn.

To paraphrase one of my colleagues at a planning meeting last week, we can’t gripe about people not coming to the table if we haven’t set a place for them.

So consider the table set.


In its February 6 issue, Christian Standard will launch “Stake,” an every-other-week part of the magazine dedicated to “credentialing the heretics”—the many Christian risk-takers who have not accepted a party line and are asking the tough questions about faith.

The website is already live and packed with great content from our leader, Brian Mavis, and a team of “Stakeholders” including Vince Antonucci, Jim Tune, Troy Jackson and Mark Moore. We’ll be publishing more new stuff each week (sometimes each day) and we’d love your contributions.

Will we address things that shake up our regular readers? Will we attract some new voices? Yes, if we’re doing our job right. But as Brian says in the first issue, “Stake is not about being hip. This is not a place to rag on the Restoration Movement. This is not about dishonoring or discounting our heritage. Though it may be provocative, it is not about being controversial.”

Instead, the point is to provide that place at the table for anyone interested in asking questions, taking risks, discussing ideas, and pointing to Jesus as the Way. We’ll have roundtable discussions (I’ve already completed two; anyone have the spiritual gift of transcription?), videos, and links to resources.  Occasionally there will be a cheesy Christian illustration for a caption contest.

We’ll be encouraged toward unity and discouraged away from legalism. We’ll probably argue a bit. We’ll be challenged to “turn our theology into biography” (which means Brian will regularly suggest new risks for us to take).


I’m really excited to be part of this—I hope you’ll contribute a blog post or two, comment on at least that many, and join the conversation here. There’s a lot at stake.

new to you friday—book it

This week I was reminded once again that I really need to make more time for reading.


I spent Tuesday through Thursday in sunny Orlando with the Christian Standard contributing editors team (arriving home just in time to scrape an inch of snow off my car at the airport). As always, I was challenged, inspired and encouraged by our time together. As always, I left with the names of six more books I need to read.

As long as I’m updating my list, I’d love to hear your suggestions as well. What magazines and blogs consistently give you new insights? What are the three can’t-miss books from the year we just ended?

—————————————————————–

December always brings lists; Time magazine just released an entire issue devoted to the “top 10 everything of 2008″ and many other magazine and blog authors create their own best-of lists this time of year. These always sell well—with the incredible amount of information available to us, it’s helpful to sort out the events, people, movies, music or activities worth our time.


We also enjoy these lists because they provide new insights into our culture. (This year the top two Yahoo! Searches, ahead of any presidential candidate or news story, were Britney Spears and the wrestling league WWE. No wonder the rest of the world hates us.)

If you haven’t already, you need to check out Christian Standard’s recent list of books that made a difference to our contributing editors this year. They include history, theology, business leadership and current events and I’ve added several to my own must-reads list for 2009. N.T. Wright’s books, of course, were already there, but some others—including Nancy Karpenske’s mention of God Talk: Cautions for Those Who Hear God’s Voice and Doug Priest’s recommendation of Saving God’s Green Earth—are books I will benefit from and wouldn’t have found on my own.

Let me know what books influenced you this year. But if they involve Britney or professional wrestling, keep it to yourself.

re:gifting

Sometimes my experience is different from what the traditional teaching suggests it should be. A few months ago I devoted a week to exploring some examples, partly to process my own thoughts and partly to learn from yours.

So reposition those thinking caps, because I’ve got another one, folks: spiritual gifts.


According to Romans, 1 Corinthians & Ephesians, each Christian has been given a spiritual gift as evidence of the Holy Spirit working in his life, and each of the gifts are to build up and serve the church.

Love that. What I don’t love is that I cannot, for the life of me, figure out my gift.

I’ve done all the tests and they’re inconclusive at best—some say one thing, some say another. It’s entirely possible the tests are flawed, not the principle, or that the problem is with me. Then again, many generations of believers built the church without Scantron sheets, so a person’s gift should be evident without taking some 20-question quiz. And you’d think if God really intended these gifts to make his church more effective, he wouldn’t make it so hard to figure them out. Although the list of things I think God could have given us more clarity on could fuel another blog.

Of the gifts listed in scripture, the one I usually score highest on is administration, but that’s a temperament/talent/workaholic thing, not a gift that suddenly emerged when I became a Christian. I’ve always been able to break huge projects into manageable chunks and balance the big picture and the details. I love to make plans and I live for lists. Does that mean I’m spiritually gifted or just obnoxious?

Of course, there could be additional gifts beyond the ones listed in these passages, or there could be some mentioned in scripture that no longer apply. Again, this is all God’s prerogative but it does make the entire exercise seem rather pointless. And who gets to decide what else makes the list? (I vote for procrastination.)


So we don’t know how many spiritual gifts there are, what the choices are, or how to know if you have one. What do we do with this?

new to you friday–face the music

Since I first posted this, my buddy John (who, interestingly, is a super talented musician) has started monthly gatherings for “This Church,” a church using comedy and conversation in its worship instead of music and singing. I’m so proud of the way he’s trying what God has asked him to try, and I’m interested in hearing your thoughts. Worship is more than music, we say—so what’s our response to a church that doesn’t use any?

————————————————————————————————————–

In Christian circles we like to quote Romans 12 and say worship is a lifestyle and not really about music at all. In fact, my blogging comrade Arron wrote a good post about this last week, and I agree with the points he makes.

However, while we say this, we plan “worship services” which usually include mostly music and a sermon. The budgets for “worship” and the “worship staff” and “worship programs” are often some of the largest in the entire church. And many meetings, conferences, blogs, and books revolve around rehearsing, resourcing, and relevant-izing these 15-30 minutes of music each week.


One of my friends plans to start a church that moves away from this focus. In fact, he plans to include no music in their weekly gatherings at all; instead he’ll include observational and improvisational comedy that he believes will connect more easily and more genuinely with a non-Christian crowd.

He asked me to join a small team for a day-long meeting to brainstorm about this new project, and I’d love to hear your thoughts before I fly to California next week. Why has singing and playing music become the only method for corporate worship? Is it a problem for us to know that worship is an attitude of honoring God in every moment but to talk like it’s singing—preferably with ecstatic emotion—for 20 minutes on the weekend? Are there other, equally biblical ways to “do church”?

american dream

I’m tired of the “Don’t blame me, I voted for…..” bumper stickers. Here are some I’d like to see instead:

“No griping about the welfare state until you’ve mentored a teen mom.”

“Yes, abortion is wrong. How many of those unwanted kids would you like to adopt?”

“I got a good education so I’m tutoring someone who didn’t.”




Last week I had the opportunity to participate in a branding strategy meeting with Matthew Barnett and other leaders of the Dream Center in Los Angeles. In a city where 11,000 people sleep on the streets and 17% of all families live below the poverty line, the Dream Center is making a real difference. Food trucks feed 22,000 people each month. Dorm-style housing provides a place for the addicted to begin again. A mobile medical clinic offers treatment, lab work and pharmacy services to the destitute on Skid Row. (In true California style, the Dream Center even provides free chiropractic services at its headquarters.)

It’s trendy for churches to be involved with “social justice” initiatives, and many of them do a lot of good. But Barnett and his team are more interested in sharing the Gospel (thousands worship at Angelus Temple each week) and social transformation (in the Dream Center’s first four years, local prostitution and gang violence dropped 73%, the homicide rate dropped 28% and rape dropped 53%).


The Dream Center operates under the assumption that the Church—not politics, policy or government programs—is the answer to society’s spiritual and tangible needs. Instead of pointing fingers at dishonest politicians, they focus on restoring wholeness to a city ravaged by the father of lies. Instead of waiting for political hope and change, they’re offering real Hope (and a hot meal) to anyone in need.


I was inspired by my day with them, but also frustrated when I opened Facebook that night to see the usual status updates of context-less Bible verses interspersed with opinions about Obama, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party, Fox News and Sarah Palin. I wondered how many of these friends, across the political spectrum, not only trumpeted their views online but quietly volunteered to improve a specific problem in a specific city.

As Christians, we don’t get to complain because we voted for the other guy. We don’t get to blame everything on the red states or the blue states or sit at home wringing our hands over the state of society. We don’t get to say “the local church is the hope of the world” but be content with community outreach consisting of Upward basketball and scrapbooking.

Instead, we get to partner with God in the restoration of all things. The church can do what politicians cannot, and now I’m dreaming about how to be part of it.

new to you friday–eighth track

After I originally posted this, one reader told me how much he liked it and asked if I had written anything else on “P4.” Two years later I still haven’t, but I see examples each week, across industries, of dysfunction caused by poor processes or miscommunication. So the original track is still on frequent rotation.

————————————————————–

Every person is a CD with recurring “tracks”—comments, opinions or rants they can always be counted on to share when a given topic comes up.

For instance, my mom’s blood starts boiling when the conversation turns to Bible college students (often preaching majors) who think studying literature or anything non-hermeneutical is a waste of time. And it’s a righteous anger, too, because who are these 21 year old kids who have so much life experience and wisdom that they don’t—at the least—need artistic works as sources for sermon illustrations? (Read this for more on that.)

Or there’s my wonderful dad who, two minutes into watching any rerun, even the Cosby Show episodes my brother and I have memorized, will say, “You know, I don’t think I’ve seen this one.” (Hey, there are worse things than regular happy surprises from new-to-you TV.)


And today yet another phone call with yet another leader pushed the button for my own recurring track: Politics and Personalities will always negatively fill the void created by a lack of Processes and Procedure.

Call it “P4,” and think about the organizational dysfunctions you’re involved in—have the leaders made thoughtful, intentional choices about where things are going and how everyone’s going to get there? Have they communicated them? Have they made consistent decisions based on them?

The IT department that never solves your problem but creates plenty of new ones—is a leader developing a help desk system and holding team members accountable?

The blistering friction between sales and marketing—has anyone defined “customer service” and delegated the authority for developing new strategies?

The hours lost forever to phone calls, emails and meetings just to put out fires or resolve misunderstandings among frustrated people—is someone creating a work flow and communication structure to keep the same scenario from playing out again?


It’s not always this simple, of course; there are many other factors (and people) contributing to conflicts. A few systems won’t fix everything, and a focus on policies over mission can backfire.

But we also veer off mission if our people have to navigate chaos or infighting to make progress. And I’ve seen it enough that “P4″ has earned a place on Jen Taylor’s greatest hits.

ditching denominations

My local paper, which is usually as informative about current events as the back of a cereal box, ran an article this past weekend about the huge number of Americans leaving the major Protestant “brands” for nondenominational alternatives.

As is customary with The Tennessean, this is not really news, at least to those of us in the church. But I’m interested in your thoughts.


Do you agree with Pete Wilson—are there no longer any advantages to being part of a bigger group?

Or are we just replacing the traditional denominations with newer ones along newer lines—church planting networks, for instance, or regional alliances?


Does size of church matter—is it easier for bigger, richer churches to do their own thing?

What about the sort-of denominations that grow up around some of these bigger churches, like the Willow Creek Association?

What do we do with legitimate doctrinal differences? How alike do we have to be before we work together to plant a church or start a ministry?

And what does this mean for the independent Christian churches and our nondenominational denomination? More church leaders than ever before might be open to our emphasis on the simple New Testament church. Should we broaden our definitions of who’s in and who’s out—and would anyone like to comment on the irony of needing to?