oh lord, my god and savior, jesus christ, i keep asking you to give me the grace of conversion. Day and night i hope for only one thing: that you show your mercy to me and let me experience your presence in my heart. Let me come to a genuine act of repentance, to an honest humble prayer, and to a free spontaneous generosity. I see so clearly the road to follow! i understand so well what is necessary for me to come to you. I can speak and teach eloquently about life in you. But my heart hesitates my inner and deepest self still holds back, wanting to bargain, wanting to say "yes, but..."
O lord, do i keep forgetting that you love me, that you are waiting for me with open arms? as a father with tears in his eyes, you see how your son is destroying the very life you gave him. Yet as a father you know, too, that you cannot force me to come back to you. Only when i freely come to you when i freely shake off the false cares and troubles and freely confess my false ways and freely pray for mercy, only then can you freely give me your love.
hear my prayer, o lord, hear my plea, hear my desire to return to you. do not leave me alone in my struggle, free me from bondage and save me from eternal damnation and show me the beauty of your face. Come, lord jesus, come. Amen
~ Henri Nouwen
I love in moments of speechlessness before God when there are those who have come before you and uttered the words you can not find. Thank your dear henri
Monday, March 1, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
"curiosidad mato al gato"
I don’t know what it is but I have always had a deep sense of curiosity. I was and still am that kid who say why…why…why? Last week this curiosity struck again. I kept wonder stupid things like why a butterfly is called a “butter-fly”. (Ps. Don’t look it up you will never look at them the same.) I love etymology of words. To see where they first got their meaning and their root. I love history and what it tells us about our decisions today.
Even the title of this blog struck me as odd when I realized I didn’t know where this came from. So here is an answer for you.
Curiosity killed the cat is a proverb used to warn against being too curious lest one come to harm. A less frequent rejoinder to 'curiosity killed the cat' is 'satisfaction brought it
Origins
The earliest printed reference to the origin of this proverb is attributed to British playwright Ben Jonson in his 1598 play, Every Man in His Humour (performed first by British playwright William Shakespeare).
...Helter skelter, hang sorrow, care will kill a cat, up-tails all, and a pox on the hangman.
In this instance, "care" was defined as "worry" or "sorrow."
Shakespeare used a similar quote in his circa 1599 play, Much Ado About Nothing:
“What, courage man! what though care killed a cat, thou hast mettle enough in thee to kill care”
Usages
Curiosity killed the cat literally means:
Mind your own business. Being nosy and getting yourself involved in unnecessary things can lead to problems.
▪ The proverb remained the same until at least 1898. Ebenezer Cobham Brewer included this definition in his Dictionary of Phrase and Fable:
Care killed the Cat.
It is said that "a cat has nine lives," yet care would wear them all out.
The origin of the modern variation is unknown. The earliest known printed reference that is similar in style and meaning to the current proverb is O. Henry's short story Schools and Schools from 1909:
Curiosity can do more things than kill a cat; and if emotions, well recognized as feminine, are inimical to feline life, then jealousy would soon leave the whole world catless.
▪ The earliest known printed reference to the actual phrase occurred in The Washington Post on 4 March 1916 (page 6):
CURIOSITY KILLED THE CAT.
▪ Four Departments of New York City Government Summoned to Rescue Feline. From the New York World. Curiosity, as you may recall— On the fifth floor of the apartment house at 203 West 130th street lives Miss Mable Godfrey. When she came to the house about seven months ago she brought Blackie, a cat of several years' experience of life. The cat seldom left the apartment. He was a hearth cat, not a fence cat, and did not dearly love to sing. In other respects he was normal and hence curious. Last Tuesday afternoon when Miss Godfrey was out Blackie skipped into the grate fireplace in a rear room. He had done this many times before. But he had not climbed up the flue to the chimney. This he did Tuesday. Blackie there remained, perched on the top of the screen separating the apartment flue from the main chimney, crying for assistance. Miss Godfrey, returning, tried to induce her pet to come down. If you are experienced in felinity, you know that Blackie didn't come down. On Wednesday the cat, curiosity unsatisfied, tried to climb higher—and fell to the first floor. His cries could still be heard by Miss Godfrey; who, to effect Blackie's rescue, communicated with the following departments: 1. Police department. 2. Fire department. 3. Health department. 4. Building department. 5. Washington Heights court. Among them they lowered a rope to Blackie. But it availed neither the cat nor them anything. Thursday morning, just before noon, a plumber opened the rear wall back of the chimney. Blackie was taken out. His fall had injured his back. Ten minutes later Blackie died.
The proverb, though, has been widely attributed to Eugene O'Neill who included the variation, "Curiosity killed a cat!" in his play Diff'rent from 1920:
you feed information to people that revolves around their lives. very intrusive and flattering. but very unwelcoming.
BENNY—(with a wink) Curiosity killed a cat! Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies.
This is what I love most about curiosity, you can actually learn something new everyday. The problem with curiosity is that it can and often does get you in trouble. People and organizations do not like to be asked questions. They don’t want to be held accountable to reason and inspection.
Well enough on that I’m off to kill some more cats ☺
Even the title of this blog struck me as odd when I realized I didn’t know where this came from. So here is an answer for you.
Curiosity killed the cat is a proverb used to warn against being too curious lest one come to harm. A less frequent rejoinder to 'curiosity killed the cat' is 'satisfaction brought it
Origins
The earliest printed reference to the origin of this proverb is attributed to British playwright Ben Jonson in his 1598 play, Every Man in His Humour (performed first by British playwright William Shakespeare).
...Helter skelter, hang sorrow, care will kill a cat, up-tails all, and a pox on the hangman.
In this instance, "care" was defined as "worry" or "sorrow."
Shakespeare used a similar quote in his circa 1599 play, Much Ado About Nothing:
“What, courage man! what though care killed a cat, thou hast mettle enough in thee to kill care”
Usages
Curiosity killed the cat literally means:
Mind your own business. Being nosy and getting yourself involved in unnecessary things can lead to problems.
▪ The proverb remained the same until at least 1898. Ebenezer Cobham Brewer included this definition in his Dictionary of Phrase and Fable:
Care killed the Cat.
It is said that "a cat has nine lives," yet care would wear them all out.
The origin of the modern variation is unknown. The earliest known printed reference that is similar in style and meaning to the current proverb is O. Henry's short story Schools and Schools from 1909:
Curiosity can do more things than kill a cat; and if emotions, well recognized as feminine, are inimical to feline life, then jealousy would soon leave the whole world catless.
▪ The earliest known printed reference to the actual phrase occurred in The Washington Post on 4 March 1916 (page 6):
CURIOSITY KILLED THE CAT.
▪ Four Departments of New York City Government Summoned to Rescue Feline. From the New York World. Curiosity, as you may recall— On the fifth floor of the apartment house at 203 West 130th street lives Miss Mable Godfrey. When she came to the house about seven months ago she brought Blackie, a cat of several years' experience of life. The cat seldom left the apartment. He was a hearth cat, not a fence cat, and did not dearly love to sing. In other respects he was normal and hence curious. Last Tuesday afternoon when Miss Godfrey was out Blackie skipped into the grate fireplace in a rear room. He had done this many times before. But he had not climbed up the flue to the chimney. This he did Tuesday. Blackie there remained, perched on the top of the screen separating the apartment flue from the main chimney, crying for assistance. Miss Godfrey, returning, tried to induce her pet to come down. If you are experienced in felinity, you know that Blackie didn't come down. On Wednesday the cat, curiosity unsatisfied, tried to climb higher—and fell to the first floor. His cries could still be heard by Miss Godfrey; who, to effect Blackie's rescue, communicated with the following departments: 1. Police department. 2. Fire department. 3. Health department. 4. Building department. 5. Washington Heights court. Among them they lowered a rope to Blackie. But it availed neither the cat nor them anything. Thursday morning, just before noon, a plumber opened the rear wall back of the chimney. Blackie was taken out. His fall had injured his back. Ten minutes later Blackie died.
The proverb, though, has been widely attributed to Eugene O'Neill who included the variation, "Curiosity killed a cat!" in his play Diff'rent from 1920:
you feed information to people that revolves around their lives. very intrusive and flattering. but very unwelcoming.
BENNY—(with a wink) Curiosity killed a cat! Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies.
This is what I love most about curiosity, you can actually learn something new everyday. The problem with curiosity is that it can and often does get you in trouble. People and organizations do not like to be asked questions. They don’t want to be held accountable to reason and inspection.
Well enough on that I’m off to kill some more cats ☺
Monday, January 11, 2010
innocence
Christmas more than any other time in our lives seems to pull out the worst in people. I have found myself the last two weeks with a consistently broken heart. I think a deeper understanding and connection to the theology of the imago dei would awaken us to treat our fellow humans better.
(image of God) As a theological term, is applied uniquely to humans, which denotes the symbolical relation between God and humanity. The term has its roots in Genesis 1:27, wherein "God created man in his own image. . ." This scriptural passage does not mean that God is in human form, but rather, that humans are in the image of God in their moral, spiritual, and intellectual nature. Thus, humans mirror God's divinity in their ability to actualize the unique qualities with which they have been endowed, and which make them different than all other creatures: rational structure , complete centeredness, creative freedom, a possibility for self-actualization, and the ability for self-transcendence.
“The term imago Dei refers most fundamentally to two things: first, God's own self-actualization through humankind; and second, God's care for humankind. To say that humans are in the image of God is to recognize the special qualities of human nature which allow God to be made manifest in humans. In other words, for humans to have the conscious recognition of their being in the image of God means that they are the creature through whom God's plans and purposes can be made known and actualized. This also creates a unique connection among humans in their care for one another. If we are all made in God’s image then how we care for one another directly relates to how we understand and care for God. Humans, in this way, can be seen as Created co-creators with God. The moral implications of the doctrine of imago Dei are apparent in the fact that if humans are to love God, then humans must love other humans, as each is an expression of God.. Humans differ from all other creatures because of their rational structure - their capacity for deliberation and free decision-making. This freedom gives the human a centeredness and completeness, which allows the possibility for self-actualization and participation in a sacred reality. However, the freedom which makes the human in God's image is the same freedom which manifests itself in estrangement from God, as the narrative of the Fall (Adam and Eve) exemplifies. According to this narrative, humans can, in their freedom, choose to deny or repress their spiritual and moral likeness to God. The ability and desire to love one's self and others, and therefore, God, can become neglected and even opposed. Striving to bring about the imago Dei in one's life can be seen as the quest for wholeness, or one's "essential" self, as pointed to in Christ's life and teachings.”
At Christmas when we celebrate the coming of God into the world, taking on the fullness of humanity, embodying our status of imago dei status, I am confounded with the image he presents. His image is that of an infant… gentle…full of peace and lacking the capacity to harm another… dependant… and full of innocence. This season may we embody the imago dei!
(image of God) As a theological term, is applied uniquely to humans, which denotes the symbolical relation between God and humanity. The term has its roots in Genesis 1:27, wherein "God created man in his own image. . ." This scriptural passage does not mean that God is in human form, but rather, that humans are in the image of God in their moral, spiritual, and intellectual nature. Thus, humans mirror God's divinity in their ability to actualize the unique qualities with which they have been endowed, and which make them different than all other creatures: rational structure , complete centeredness, creative freedom, a possibility for self-actualization, and the ability for self-transcendence.
“The term imago Dei refers most fundamentally to two things: first, God's own self-actualization through humankind; and second, God's care for humankind. To say that humans are in the image of God is to recognize the special qualities of human nature which allow God to be made manifest in humans. In other words, for humans to have the conscious recognition of their being in the image of God means that they are the creature through whom God's plans and purposes can be made known and actualized. This also creates a unique connection among humans in their care for one another. If we are all made in God’s image then how we care for one another directly relates to how we understand and care for God. Humans, in this way, can be seen as Created co-creators with God. The moral implications of the doctrine of imago Dei are apparent in the fact that if humans are to love God, then humans must love other humans, as each is an expression of God.. Humans differ from all other creatures because of their rational structure - their capacity for deliberation and free decision-making. This freedom gives the human a centeredness and completeness, which allows the possibility for self-actualization and participation in a sacred reality. However, the freedom which makes the human in God's image is the same freedom which manifests itself in estrangement from God, as the narrative of the Fall (Adam and Eve) exemplifies. According to this narrative, humans can, in their freedom, choose to deny or repress their spiritual and moral likeness to God. The ability and desire to love one's self and others, and therefore, God, can become neglected and even opposed. Striving to bring about the imago Dei in one's life can be seen as the quest for wholeness, or one's "essential" self, as pointed to in Christ's life and teachings.”
At Christmas when we celebrate the coming of God into the world, taking on the fullness of humanity, embodying our status of imago dei status, I am confounded with the image he presents. His image is that of an infant… gentle…full of peace and lacking the capacity to harm another… dependant… and full of innocence. This season may we embody the imago dei!
Monday, November 30, 2009
A year and an island
Tomorrow marks an official year since I have been at Bethel. The crazy thing is, it feels like I have been here forever (in a good way) but yet the time has flown by. Heather and I have made great friends and surrogate family more quickly than I ever would have imagined. It is truly amazing to be in this community. I talk about it all the time so I am sure most of you are sick of hearing it. Our community is full of truly amazing people of all walks of life. The diversity is rich: socio-economically, ethnically, sexually, and generationally. The best part of all of this is some how within our differences people have figured out how to have unity. This is the type of community I have longed to be a part of my whole adult life. In a world that is so divided around every issue imaginable. We have found a way to be connected around community, care for the world, and desire to walk in the way of Jesus.
As one of our church members has said, “we are like the island of misfit toys.” To many this may seem offensive; to me it is one of the largest compliments I could ever receive. We all have our damage, our pains, our addictions, and struggles; yet together we have become a whole body. We are a body that needs each other simply to exist. We recognize a similarity, a connection with one another that draws us in, yet at the same time it compels us out. We go out into the world seeking other “misfit toys” to find a place they can call home and connect with others. Bethel is a beautiful place that I am honored to call home….a place of unity through our diversity. Thank you for giving me the honor to serve alongside each of you for the last year. Heather and I look forward to many years to come.
As one of our church members has said, “we are like the island of misfit toys.” To many this may seem offensive; to me it is one of the largest compliments I could ever receive. We all have our damage, our pains, our addictions, and struggles; yet together we have become a whole body. We are a body that needs each other simply to exist. We recognize a similarity, a connection with one another that draws us in, yet at the same time it compels us out. We go out into the world seeking other “misfit toys” to find a place they can call home and connect with others. Bethel is a beautiful place that I am honored to call home….a place of unity through our diversity. Thank you for giving me the honor to serve alongside each of you for the last year. Heather and I look forward to many years to come.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Small church mentality
Small churches are great. The ability to get to know people, the chance to be as involved as you want, the ability to make decisions quickly. But with these great things come with some struggles as well. The struggles are often lumped under the category of small church mentality. In a book called unique dynamics of a small church, Dudley says this...
". . . The small church is the right size for only one function. The members can know each other personally. It is often a single-cell entity with all members somehow involved in the workings of the cell."
Single-cell means one core group, rather than many different organizations and interest groups. Parishioners feel like members of an extended family. For many people the small church can be quite comfortable and fill definite social needs. Members in such a parish tend to like things exactly the way they are.
The small church often makes it difficult for new members to enter because it is frequently subconsciously afraid it will "lose" something by being too open. Most small churches will not grow because they are already as large as they can be in order to remain what they are - a single-cell primary group that offers security with a group of people that can be trusted. Often they are ethnically or culturally oriented, which can be a hindrance to growth. For the above reasons "they also offer the most resistance to those who seek to help the small church to grow, or change, or disappear."
Like in classic science, if a church wants to grow it has to think about cell division. It must break down the small church mentality. each part of the community must begin to open itself up to others, to growth and division. This is where the concept of small groups becomes so vital. the church can divide into interest groups, age groups, value groups, groups with similar passions, etc. the difficult part of this concept is that unlike in a small church everybody won't be at everything in fact they wont even be invited to everything.
one of the struggles becomes how do we not create cliques in the process of creating small groups. i think keeping small groups from become cliques is about keeping a mentality of openness. First, all groups are also open to cell division. second, groups cant become exclusive and pull away from the overall vision and values of the church. Plus attitudes need to be right. Its not about being best or exclusive its about walking out life with others.
So how do we drop the small church mentality? Well this is something I am trying to figure out and help guide our community through. I think first and foremost it’s about extending our vision. It’s not about making people happy. Our goal should never be just to keep the people in the church pleased with what’s inside our space. Our goal should be to get outside of our walls to open ourselves up for cell division to occur. To welcome groups to form by nurturing people’s interests and ideas. We should dream huge dreams not just for our churches but for our communities, states, nation, and world. keeping an expansive vision constantly opens the community up to the vastness of god’s kingdom. Faith and the way of jesus is bigger than just us and our wants its about others…about making a difference… transforming the world…through love…liberation…and grace.
More to come….
". . . The small church is the right size for only one function. The members can know each other personally. It is often a single-cell entity with all members somehow involved in the workings of the cell."
Single-cell means one core group, rather than many different organizations and interest groups. Parishioners feel like members of an extended family. For many people the small church can be quite comfortable and fill definite social needs. Members in such a parish tend to like things exactly the way they are.
The small church often makes it difficult for new members to enter because it is frequently subconsciously afraid it will "lose" something by being too open. Most small churches will not grow because they are already as large as they can be in order to remain what they are - a single-cell primary group that offers security with a group of people that can be trusted. Often they are ethnically or culturally oriented, which can be a hindrance to growth. For the above reasons "they also offer the most resistance to those who seek to help the small church to grow, or change, or disappear."
Like in classic science, if a church wants to grow it has to think about cell division. It must break down the small church mentality. each part of the community must begin to open itself up to others, to growth and division. This is where the concept of small groups becomes so vital. the church can divide into interest groups, age groups, value groups, groups with similar passions, etc. the difficult part of this concept is that unlike in a small church everybody won't be at everything in fact they wont even be invited to everything.
one of the struggles becomes how do we not create cliques in the process of creating small groups. i think keeping small groups from become cliques is about keeping a mentality of openness. First, all groups are also open to cell division. second, groups cant become exclusive and pull away from the overall vision and values of the church. Plus attitudes need to be right. Its not about being best or exclusive its about walking out life with others.
So how do we drop the small church mentality? Well this is something I am trying to figure out and help guide our community through. I think first and foremost it’s about extending our vision. It’s not about making people happy. Our goal should never be just to keep the people in the church pleased with what’s inside our space. Our goal should be to get outside of our walls to open ourselves up for cell division to occur. To welcome groups to form by nurturing people’s interests and ideas. We should dream huge dreams not just for our churches but for our communities, states, nation, and world. keeping an expansive vision constantly opens the community up to the vastness of god’s kingdom. Faith and the way of jesus is bigger than just us and our wants its about others…about making a difference… transforming the world…through love…liberation…and grace.
More to come….
Transforming the Mainline Church: #3 chapter number 3
Chesnut talks about how many of our churches get stuck back in their history. For his church it was in the 1950’s. “Getting stuck in ones history can become a vicious self defeating cycle.” The problem is we go back to the glory days and try to recreate them but the period when those methods worked has changed so we are trying to create and archaic system in a new time. This is destined to fail.
23- “a mature society must make a particular effort to reward its innovators, because its very maturity discourages innovation….It is not so much a question of possessions as of the attitude one takes toward them. If affluent individuals commit themselves unreservedly to the conservation of their resources, affluence can be a deadening force. But if they regard their resources as providing a wide margin within which they can enjoy the luxury of creative experimentation with their environment, affluence can be a blessing…few understand how essential …flexibility is for continuous renewal. Assets committed to the goal of continuous renewal will never be a burden”
“Flexibility, creative experimentation, innovation, risk taking, continuous renewal- sounds sort of entrepreneurial, doesn’t it? Like the parable of the talents, with the same promise and the same warning.”
It is in flexbiltiy freedom and innovation that our communities will continue to exist and thrive.
23- “a mature society must make a particular effort to reward its innovators, because its very maturity discourages innovation….It is not so much a question of possessions as of the attitude one takes toward them. If affluent individuals commit themselves unreservedly to the conservation of their resources, affluence can be a deadening force. But if they regard their resources as providing a wide margin within which they can enjoy the luxury of creative experimentation with their environment, affluence can be a blessing…few understand how essential …flexibility is for continuous renewal. Assets committed to the goal of continuous renewal will never be a burden”
“Flexibility, creative experimentation, innovation, risk taking, continuous renewal- sounds sort of entrepreneurial, doesn’t it? Like the parable of the talents, with the same promise and the same warning.”
It is in flexbiltiy freedom and innovation that our communities will continue to exist and thrive.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Transforming the Mainline Church: #2
Chesnut’s 6 principles on what a city church must do to thrive and survive in a changing environment. (p.1)
‘City churches drawing their membership from the city as a whole, as well as from their immediate neighborhoods, are in a unique position to reach all sorts and conditions of people, to become diverse and inclusive communities of faith”
Churches must be ready to meet the people of their area at the people’s own level of need and understanding. This may mean, as an example, that churches of a more formal tradition of worship would be open to adopting more informal styles, including the use of gospel music and so on.
Churches must extend their outreach through the mass media, advertising, and active promotion of their programs.
Being actively involved with the church’s immediate neighborhood through cooperative, ecumenical mission outreach and community development work.
Offering holistic, seven-day-a-week programming.
Offering the lost and lonely a community of caring and sharing, of solace and healing, of values and vision for a purposeful life.
‘City churches drawing their membership from the city as a whole, as well as from their immediate neighborhoods, are in a unique position to reach all sorts and conditions of people, to become diverse and inclusive communities of faith”
Churches must be ready to meet the people of their area at the people’s own level of need and understanding. This may mean, as an example, that churches of a more formal tradition of worship would be open to adopting more informal styles, including the use of gospel music and so on.
Churches must extend their outreach through the mass media, advertising, and active promotion of their programs.
Being actively involved with the church’s immediate neighborhood through cooperative, ecumenical mission outreach and community development work.
Offering holistic, seven-day-a-week programming.
Offering the lost and lonely a community of caring and sharing, of solace and healing, of values and vision for a purposeful life.
Transforming the Mainline Church: Lessons In Change from Pittsburgh’s Cathedral of Hope Robert A. Chesnut
Books on church transformation and growth tend to be from the perspective of “conservative evangelical” pastors or churches. I believe mainline congregations have a lot to learn from the successes and the failures of these churches. I have read tons of these books and in general they say similar things. Each year a new slant will garner about 100 new books on growth and transformation. At times these texts are annoying to me because having grown up in conservative evangelical churches I have intentionally left their walls for more freedom. While there is conversation about growth I often feel like the only interest of such texts is numerical growth and not growth of the person or the spirit. (I know this is my own bias but this is also my own blog so what can I say) Transforming the Mainline Church is one of the first books that I found that is written from a mainline perspective. Chesnut is a Presbyterian pastor. His book walks you though his glorious and tragic years at East Liberty Presbyterian Church.
One of the things I enjoyed this book was his scholarly perspective. He continually refers to theologians and theological perspectives that influence the decisions we make in our churches. While his book is based in his history it all flows from a paper he wrote in his undergraduate nearly 50 years previous.
Before I go any further let me tell you this is one of the most profound books I have ever read in this genre. While you will see a lot of things I have gleaned from this text in the next few posts what is most transformative for me has been Chestnut’s ability to remain through conflict. It was a few months ago that a mentor pastor (thanks sam) told me that every pastor faces deep conflict in their congregation and while I might not have experienced much of it yet I will. The question is, do you leave when conflict arises? Now I’m not talking about little conflicts that we face every day, I’m talking about the kind of conflict where your character and calling is called into question…The kind of conflict that makes you despise the church…the type of conflict where it would be clearly easier to leave than to stand strong for what is right and just.
I would like to think I would stand but you never know till the time comes…
One thing is certain my father has met this moment and continues to stand. Thanks for good examples pops and sam.
One of the things I enjoyed this book was his scholarly perspective. He continually refers to theologians and theological perspectives that influence the decisions we make in our churches. While his book is based in his history it all flows from a paper he wrote in his undergraduate nearly 50 years previous.
Before I go any further let me tell you this is one of the most profound books I have ever read in this genre. While you will see a lot of things I have gleaned from this text in the next few posts what is most transformative for me has been Chestnut’s ability to remain through conflict. It was a few months ago that a mentor pastor (thanks sam) told me that every pastor faces deep conflict in their congregation and while I might not have experienced much of it yet I will. The question is, do you leave when conflict arises? Now I’m not talking about little conflicts that we face every day, I’m talking about the kind of conflict where your character and calling is called into question…The kind of conflict that makes you despise the church…the type of conflict where it would be clearly easier to leave than to stand strong for what is right and just.
I would like to think I would stand but you never know till the time comes…
One thing is certain my father has met this moment and continues to stand. Thanks for good examples pops and sam.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
mad church disease...
I just finished reading a book called Mad Church Disease: Overcoming the Burnout Epidemic by Anne Jackson. It’s an interesting book because you don’t often find books written about the propensity of pastor or ministerial burnout. It is a taboo subject. Yet I personally know more pastors who have experience burned out than I can count on all my appendages. Having experience burnout and nearly a nervous breakdown myself, I think it is about time we talk about how a pastor’s heart has a propensity to give itself into brokenness.
I appreciate the frankness of this book and the self-help concepts that can be gleaned. Anne herself has experienced burnout so she speaks from experience. The book also utilizes multiple voices. Anne interviews other people at the end of each chapter, which builds on her points.
She starts the book by comparing burnout to mad cow disease.
Mad cow disease has 4 unique characteristics.
1 The disease lies dormant for a given amount of time, going unnoticed. It can be a period of months to a few years before the disease is found.
2 Mad cow disease is cause by a mutated protein that attaches itself to the cow’s central nervous system, thus affecting the cow’s brain and responses (hence the name). Essentially, it turns the cows brain and spinal cord into a spongy-type matter. Slowly, the cow’s mental and physical health begin to deteriorate.
3 Mad cow disease is transmitted by cows eating the suspect protein. Since are often fed the remains of other cattle (something yummy called meat and bone meal), its easy for an entire herd to become infected at once if they share the same food source.
4 Mad cow disease ultimately leads to the infected cow’s death. There is no cure.
Jackson then draws on this compelling metaphor for the burnout she or we experience. By chapter six, she starts talking about getting better, something a cow infected with mad cow disease can not do.
Anne gives 5 principles of recovery
1 Accept responsibility for your decisions: “the effect of the decision you have made over time has led you now to burnout.” We are responsible for the decisions we have made. (The late nights. The double doubles (in and out speak for quick death J, the neglect of study, prayer and meditation, family time etc. These were our decisions ) One of the things I appreciate about this book is that she does take the time to address the exception to all the rules she creates. In this one she takes time out to address those that were physically, sexually, or emotionally abused.
2 Change you purpose: what are you chasing after? Is your purpose messed up? Jackson reiterates that the best purpose is to love God and love neighbor as yourself.
3 Make a plan: it is essential that you make plans to change and then commit to follow through with these plans.
4 Create Boundaries: even Jesus took breaks to rest and rejuvenate. What, you think your better than Jesus? Lol
5 Find accountability: we need others to hold us up, to keep us committed to our goals.
I know this seems pretty basic. The truth is, the book is pretty basic which is nice for such a topic. It gives space to ask questions and to think through her simple process.
The last part of the book she chooses to talk about spiritual, emotion, mental, physical and relational health . I like that she isn’t afraid to speak of the physical health of pastors. I can’t tell you how many overweight (fat) unhealthy pastors I know. Me included. I may not be overweight but I’m definitely not healthy. It’s about time people start talking about that our own lack of health maybe the only thing keeping us from a lifetime of service to god and humanity.
A few years ago, through yoga, I learned to start listening to my body. This has been one of the most profound lessons of my life. I need to just shut up sometimes and listen to my body. It is communicating with me what health looks like.
This is a decent book. The most compelling part is the stories of those who have faced this powerful destruction and came out on the other side. You can check out more of these stories and share your own on her website madchurchdisease.com
I appreciate the frankness of this book and the self-help concepts that can be gleaned. Anne herself has experienced burnout so she speaks from experience. The book also utilizes multiple voices. Anne interviews other people at the end of each chapter, which builds on her points.
She starts the book by comparing burnout to mad cow disease.
Mad cow disease has 4 unique characteristics.
1 The disease lies dormant for a given amount of time, going unnoticed. It can be a period of months to a few years before the disease is found.
2 Mad cow disease is cause by a mutated protein that attaches itself to the cow’s central nervous system, thus affecting the cow’s brain and responses (hence the name). Essentially, it turns the cows brain and spinal cord into a spongy-type matter. Slowly, the cow’s mental and physical health begin to deteriorate.
3 Mad cow disease is transmitted by cows eating the suspect protein. Since are often fed the remains of other cattle (something yummy called meat and bone meal), its easy for an entire herd to become infected at once if they share the same food source.
4 Mad cow disease ultimately leads to the infected cow’s death. There is no cure.
Jackson then draws on this compelling metaphor for the burnout she or we experience. By chapter six, she starts talking about getting better, something a cow infected with mad cow disease can not do.
Anne gives 5 principles of recovery
1 Accept responsibility for your decisions: “the effect of the decision you have made over time has led you now to burnout.” We are responsible for the decisions we have made. (The late nights. The double doubles (in and out speak for quick death J, the neglect of study, prayer and meditation, family time etc. These were our decisions ) One of the things I appreciate about this book is that she does take the time to address the exception to all the rules she creates. In this one she takes time out to address those that were physically, sexually, or emotionally abused.
2 Change you purpose: what are you chasing after? Is your purpose messed up? Jackson reiterates that the best purpose is to love God and love neighbor as yourself.
3 Make a plan: it is essential that you make plans to change and then commit to follow through with these plans.
4 Create Boundaries: even Jesus took breaks to rest and rejuvenate. What, you think your better than Jesus? Lol
5 Find accountability: we need others to hold us up, to keep us committed to our goals.
I know this seems pretty basic. The truth is, the book is pretty basic which is nice for such a topic. It gives space to ask questions and to think through her simple process.
The last part of the book she chooses to talk about spiritual, emotion, mental, physical and relational health . I like that she isn’t afraid to speak of the physical health of pastors. I can’t tell you how many overweight (fat) unhealthy pastors I know. Me included. I may not be overweight but I’m definitely not healthy. It’s about time people start talking about that our own lack of health maybe the only thing keeping us from a lifetime of service to god and humanity.
A few years ago, through yoga, I learned to start listening to my body. This has been one of the most profound lessons of my life. I need to just shut up sometimes and listen to my body. It is communicating with me what health looks like.
This is a decent book. The most compelling part is the stories of those who have faced this powerful destruction and came out on the other side. You can check out more of these stories and share your own on her website madchurchdisease.com
Monday, October 12, 2009
architecture of worship
I’m reading this book on church architecture. It was given to me by a good friend and mentor, named Pr. Sam Platts. It’s a classic book called Architecture for Worship by E.A Sovik
He starts out by suggesting that one of the most important times to analyze in church architecture is the most often over looked: the architecture of the first church. Sovik’s thesis is that “we ought to stop building cultic buildings in favor of better alternatives.”
He states that Jesus didn’t ask his follower to build anything. In fact on the mount of transfiguration he persuaded his disciples to not build shrines that they thought were appropriate. I would argue that what Jesus wanted his followers to build was the kingdom of God here on earth to which, I don’t think Sovik would argue.
Sovik’s principle point is “worship involves persons not places.“ (10) Persons are the new temple Christ came to build. And the universality of the gospel means that the gospel was for all people, jew, gentile, rich, poor, male and female. It was about a faith committed to service not to sacrifice.
Hippolytus wrote in 230 in the Apostolic Tradition: “it is not a place that is called ‘church’ nor a house made of stones and earth…. What then is the church? It is the holy assembly of those who live in righteousness.”
He argues that as Constantine made Christianity the religion of the empire that faith had to accommodate the state. Thus swelling congregations meant that homes and ad hoc locations were no longer adequate.
I love this quote:
“The house of worship is not a shelter for an alter, it is a shelter for people. It is not the table that makes a sacrament; it is the people and what they do. “ Thus church becomes hospital… a concept I really enjoy.
Sovik continues in a vain that I have a bit of an argument with or need some further clarification.
“The place which is ultimately faithful to the Christian vision will be one in which the room is devoid of any explicitly cultic images or furnishings. “ First I am personally leery of anyone who suggest that there is one Christian vision. Second , I would question what he defines as cultic images, does this include crosses, etc. If not why wouldn’t he include those?
He makes the argument the church should be built for use by the community. We are meant to be a people of service so our buildings should be places of service, where our community can use them. I totally agree with this and am often thinking of new ways we can use our space for the benefit of the community.
I think overall this book is a powerful look at how we use the architecture of the church. It reminds us of the intentionality we should have when we think about worship space.
His challenges to connect the community in worship by how we arrange our buildings is a powerful reminder and one I think we often overlook especially in traditional architecture.
On the other hand I think people, The Church, are looking for sanctuary. This can mean a multitude of things but is something that cannot merely be replaced for function. 'Cultic' symbols may actually draw us near to god at times and have a place and purpose. To have our worship spaces look like our living rooms may draw us to worship more as we enter our own living rooms, but it may also do the opposite. I worshiped in places throughout my life that had lost all sense of transcendence. Now that I am in a building that tries to draw people toward transcendence and I see a deep value in the lofty yet simple architecture.
I wonder if there is a balance between the ways of Sovik and the classic church architecture. Is there a third way… A way that embodies usefulness, transcendence, a balance of symbol and service?
I also wonder if he were to write the book today if there would be a section on sustainability. Churches seem to be places of waste when it comes to the electric grid and water. What about the transcendence that nature provides?
He starts out by suggesting that one of the most important times to analyze in church architecture is the most often over looked: the architecture of the first church. Sovik’s thesis is that “we ought to stop building cultic buildings in favor of better alternatives.”
He states that Jesus didn’t ask his follower to build anything. In fact on the mount of transfiguration he persuaded his disciples to not build shrines that they thought were appropriate. I would argue that what Jesus wanted his followers to build was the kingdom of God here on earth to which, I don’t think Sovik would argue.
Sovik’s principle point is “worship involves persons not places.“ (10) Persons are the new temple Christ came to build. And the universality of the gospel means that the gospel was for all people, jew, gentile, rich, poor, male and female. It was about a faith committed to service not to sacrifice.
Hippolytus wrote in 230 in the Apostolic Tradition: “it is not a place that is called ‘church’ nor a house made of stones and earth…. What then is the church? It is the holy assembly of those who live in righteousness.”
He argues that as Constantine made Christianity the religion of the empire that faith had to accommodate the state. Thus swelling congregations meant that homes and ad hoc locations were no longer adequate.
I love this quote:
“The house of worship is not a shelter for an alter, it is a shelter for people. It is not the table that makes a sacrament; it is the people and what they do. “ Thus church becomes hospital… a concept I really enjoy.
Sovik continues in a vain that I have a bit of an argument with or need some further clarification.
“The place which is ultimately faithful to the Christian vision will be one in which the room is devoid of any explicitly cultic images or furnishings. “ First I am personally leery of anyone who suggest that there is one Christian vision. Second , I would question what he defines as cultic images, does this include crosses, etc. If not why wouldn’t he include those?
He makes the argument the church should be built for use by the community. We are meant to be a people of service so our buildings should be places of service, where our community can use them. I totally agree with this and am often thinking of new ways we can use our space for the benefit of the community.
I think overall this book is a powerful look at how we use the architecture of the church. It reminds us of the intentionality we should have when we think about worship space.
His challenges to connect the community in worship by how we arrange our buildings is a powerful reminder and one I think we often overlook especially in traditional architecture.
On the other hand I think people, The Church, are looking for sanctuary. This can mean a multitude of things but is something that cannot merely be replaced for function. 'Cultic' symbols may actually draw us near to god at times and have a place and purpose. To have our worship spaces look like our living rooms may draw us to worship more as we enter our own living rooms, but it may also do the opposite. I worshiped in places throughout my life that had lost all sense of transcendence. Now that I am in a building that tries to draw people toward transcendence and I see a deep value in the lofty yet simple architecture.
I wonder if there is a balance between the ways of Sovik and the classic church architecture. Is there a third way… A way that embodies usefulness, transcendence, a balance of symbol and service?
I also wonder if he were to write the book today if there would be a section on sustainability. Churches seem to be places of waste when it comes to the electric grid and water. What about the transcendence that nature provides?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)