The Pool Party
Jim, Megan, Eli, Esther, Eden and Olive
22 October 2007
Two Dads ...
So today at lunch Eli declares, "I wish I had two dads. You could go to work and then I'd have another dad who'd stay at home with me all day and night." Very funny. I'm choosing to neither take this as an insult, nor as a sign I'm working way too much, but rather that Eli likes me and wishes I could be around more.
07 October 2007
15 More ...
Okay, so its pretty crazy. I roll up to church this morning and as I'm parking I get a call from the worship leader making sure the team has arrived. I'm not totally sure, because I can't see them, but what I do see is the Satellite Van! That's right, Fox 2 News is on scene, unannounced, wanting to do a live interview an hour before our service. Pretty funny. Watch my second 15 seconds of fame here. Needless to say, the church got a great kick out of it all!
06 October 2007
05 October 2007
Extra, Extra, Watch All About It
Well, they tell me I'm gonna be famous. Okay, not really, but apparently I will be on TV this dinner hour (that's 5:30PM), talking, of all things, well, about porn. Channel 2 (that's Fox News) rolled on down Royal Oak today looking for pastors to interview about this Sunday's "National Porn Day" - an event sponsored by XXXChurch. XXX Church's mission is to raise awareness and accountability and healing in the church and society about the devastating effects of porn. So they came up with this National Porn Day idea to help churches create a venue to talk about this issue, with help from their experience (via their National Porn Day church kit).
So Channel 2 News wanted to see what I thought. I told him we talk about porn regularly on Sunday, that church should be a great place to talk about it, and that while I think XXX Church is doing a great thing, their Porn Kit was overpriced and I wouldn't feel comfortable identifying my church with such a singular issue (important as it is). When asked why I think people might not want to talk about this in church ... well, you'll have to watch the news.
So Channel 2 News wanted to see what I thought. I told him we talk about porn regularly on Sunday, that church should be a great place to talk about it, and that while I think XXX Church is doing a great thing, their Porn Kit was overpriced and I wouldn't feel comfortable identifying my church with such a singular issue (important as it is). When asked why I think people might not want to talk about this in church ... well, you'll have to watch the news.
02 October 2007
Commenting on the Jena 6
I went to a preaching seminar a few years back. One of the speakers vamped for an hour on a pet topic - truth in preaching. He had everyone close their eyes and then asked the non-pastors present (roughly 12 of 100) how many of them had heard a sermon illustration told in the first person by more than one preacher (in other words, two different preachers telling the same story as if it happened to them). When he had us open our eyes and told us that at least half the non-pastors had experienced this, a chuckle went through the room. That is, until the speaker rebuked us. Total silence. In no uncertain terms he warned us that this was not funny at all - that how can the members of our congregation believe we preach the truth if our stories aren't even true. That has always stuck with me and I try to live by it.
This past Sunday I shared a story about the Jena 6. I hadn't really planned on doing so. It was a note in the margins of my sermon. I only expanded on it when, after making a brief mention of it in passing, I noticed that all of my black brothers and sisters knew exactly what I was talking about, while very few of my white brothers and sisters knew anything about it at all. But as soon as I started talking, I knew I was in trouble because I had done no extra research after having read about it two weeks previous, from stories that were two months old. So find some additional research below:
A general overview of the time line of events is available here, from a local paper in Louisiana.
One of the better accounts of the story, as it is commonly told, is available here, from NPR.
Another version of the story, with some alternate versions of reported facts (see the second half of the article) and lots of snippets from local citizens, is available here, from an AP story posted on Yahoo News.
Finally, for some perspective from an emerging voice in racial reconciliation, check the comments on this blog here.
And with all that in mind, I'd like to clarify a thing or two. Some of the facts that I shared on Sunday are in dispute, I've learned, so I share these things for your review because I have a responsibility to the truth. (Besides, I'm in good company ... it is said John Wimber used to have to clarify all the time.) Thanks to those who've pointed me to these sources. Probably the truth (of the facts) can be pieced together from these various sources (and others like them). Now, I shared the story about the Jena 6 in support of my point coming from Isaiah 54:17, that there are weapons of injustice formed against us in our society. Even with disputed facts, I stand by this. Let me comment further.
No one disputes that nooses were hung from the school tree the day after that rally. Whether 2 or 3 doesn't matter and neither does it matter whether it was done in hate or as a prank. In fact, it is almost worse if it were a prank. Let's be clear: there is no confusion in the Deep South as to what a noose hung from a tree means. And if some students thought it would be funny - funny! - to send such a message - in 2007! - then that is a sure sign we're facing injustice in our culture - that the black students of Jena High existed in a world where white students thought it would be funny to remind them that their grandparents actually had to fear real threats of lynching.
Equally, no one disputes that the loudest voice in support of the Jena 6 is calling for the total dropping of all charges. Jena was a racially charged environment and allegedly there were racial epithets flying around, but, nonetheless, these six students made a choice to beat the other student up and they should have to face the consequences. If all charges were dropped against these students, that would also be an injustice in our culture. It would be an injustice to train our young people to think that just because it is hard, you shouldn't have to face the consequences of your actions. Reduce the charges, sure - as has been done for at least 5 of the 6 - but not dropped altogether.
What's interesting is that so many of the people interviewed commented on how Jena wasn't really that different from everywhere else. "Sure, we have our race problems," they say, "but so do lots of places." "We're not that special." That's probably the thing that saddens me the most, because I think they're right. And that's why I stand behind my pronouncement that the Jena 6 are a sign of injustice.
This past Sunday I shared a story about the Jena 6. I hadn't really planned on doing so. It was a note in the margins of my sermon. I only expanded on it when, after making a brief mention of it in passing, I noticed that all of my black brothers and sisters knew exactly what I was talking about, while very few of my white brothers and sisters knew anything about it at all. But as soon as I started talking, I knew I was in trouble because I had done no extra research after having read about it two weeks previous, from stories that were two months old. So find some additional research below:
A general overview of the time line of events is available here, from a local paper in Louisiana.
One of the better accounts of the story, as it is commonly told, is available here, from NPR.
Another version of the story, with some alternate versions of reported facts (see the second half of the article) and lots of snippets from local citizens, is available here, from an AP story posted on Yahoo News.
Finally, for some perspective from an emerging voice in racial reconciliation, check the comments on this blog here.
And with all that in mind, I'd like to clarify a thing or two. Some of the facts that I shared on Sunday are in dispute, I've learned, so I share these things for your review because I have a responsibility to the truth. (Besides, I'm in good company ... it is said John Wimber used to have to clarify all the time.) Thanks to those who've pointed me to these sources. Probably the truth (of the facts) can be pieced together from these various sources (and others like them). Now, I shared the story about the Jena 6 in support of my point coming from Isaiah 54:17, that there are weapons of injustice formed against us in our society. Even with disputed facts, I stand by this. Let me comment further.
No one disputes that nooses were hung from the school tree the day after that rally. Whether 2 or 3 doesn't matter and neither does it matter whether it was done in hate or as a prank. In fact, it is almost worse if it were a prank. Let's be clear: there is no confusion in the Deep South as to what a noose hung from a tree means. And if some students thought it would be funny - funny! - to send such a message - in 2007! - then that is a sure sign we're facing injustice in our culture - that the black students of Jena High existed in a world where white students thought it would be funny to remind them that their grandparents actually had to fear real threats of lynching.
Equally, no one disputes that the loudest voice in support of the Jena 6 is calling for the total dropping of all charges. Jena was a racially charged environment and allegedly there were racial epithets flying around, but, nonetheless, these six students made a choice to beat the other student up and they should have to face the consequences. If all charges were dropped against these students, that would also be an injustice in our culture. It would be an injustice to train our young people to think that just because it is hard, you shouldn't have to face the consequences of your actions. Reduce the charges, sure - as has been done for at least 5 of the 6 - but not dropped altogether.
What's interesting is that so many of the people interviewed commented on how Jena wasn't really that different from everywhere else. "Sure, we have our race problems," they say, "but so do lots of places." "We're not that special." That's probably the thing that saddens me the most, because I think they're right. And that's why I stand behind my pronouncement that the Jena 6 are a sign of injustice.
01 October 2007
not wild about Wild At Heart nor enchanted with Captivating
Now, I'm about to engage in a fairly dangerous activity. I'm about to comment on books that I've only read portions of. So maybe, with that caveat made, you'll want to just skip this post. But if you're willing, read on ...
Maybe you're familiar with the mega-hit books "Wild At Heart" and "Captivating." I think John & Stasi Eldredge are really on to something. I agree with a great deal of what they have to say. I think their fundamental message emphasizing emotional honesty, appreciation for and connection with the outdoors, inner healing, deliverance, authentic relationships, engagement with the Church Fathers, and geographical community are all very good. To the average overworked man or woman overcome with ennui living in large, flattened, atopic suburban landscapes plagued with plazas filled with cookie-cutter combinations of the same national chains and underused sidewalks, this is good news. What Eldredge is talking about closely resembles what, as a Vineyard pastor, I'd call the "Kingdom ministry of Jesus."
I like all these things. A great deal. In fact, I share these concerns. But I'm still suspicious of the books and their ministry. Here's why: they seem to have abandoned the Church. Maybe that's too strong. Perhaps the better way of saying it is that there is a strong (under?)tone of criticism of the Church in their books, and it seems that they feel they're just sort of "past" the Church, as if they've found something better. Now I can appreciate that so much of what they're talking about is awesome, even necessary, but criticizing the Church is just about the easiest thing in the world to do. Far easier even than making fun of Dan Quayle or Dubya.
My perspective is that the privilege of authoring carries with it the responsibility to speak well of others, including the Church (the Church Jesus loves, even with its flaws!), even while disagreeing with them or holding them to task. That's what I think. Just talking in critical tones about the Body of Christ (the very Body that made their faith possible), without clarifying or resolving things, is simply irresponsible. But hey, maybe I'm biased; I am a pastor.
Maybe you're familiar with the mega-hit books "Wild At Heart" and "Captivating." I think John & Stasi Eldredge are really on to something. I agree with a great deal of what they have to say. I think their fundamental message emphasizing emotional honesty, appreciation for and connection with the outdoors, inner healing, deliverance, authentic relationships, engagement with the Church Fathers, and geographical community are all very good. To the average overworked man or woman overcome with ennui living in large, flattened, atopic suburban landscapes plagued with plazas filled with cookie-cutter combinations of the same national chains and underused sidewalks, this is good news. What Eldredge is talking about closely resembles what, as a Vineyard pastor, I'd call the "Kingdom ministry of Jesus."
I like all these things. A great deal. In fact, I share these concerns. But I'm still suspicious of the books and their ministry. Here's why: they seem to have abandoned the Church. Maybe that's too strong. Perhaps the better way of saying it is that there is a strong (under?)tone of criticism of the Church in their books, and it seems that they feel they're just sort of "past" the Church, as if they've found something better. Now I can appreciate that so much of what they're talking about is awesome, even necessary, but criticizing the Church is just about the easiest thing in the world to do. Far easier even than making fun of Dan Quayle or Dubya.
My perspective is that the privilege of authoring carries with it the responsibility to speak well of others, including the Church (the Church Jesus loves, even with its flaws!), even while disagreeing with them or holding them to task. That's what I think. Just talking in critical tones about the Body of Christ (the very Body that made their faith possible), without clarifying or resolving things, is simply irresponsible. But hey, maybe I'm biased; I am a pastor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)