REAL

“You can't navigate me. I may do mean things, and I may hurt you, and I may run away without your permission, and you may hate me forever, and I know that scares the living shit outta you 'cause you know I'm the only real thing you got.” (Reality Bites)

I just don’t understand what “real” means when referring to authentic ministry. I mean I know what being real means. Being real is when I admit that if I am unsure that anyone likes the pretend me that I work so hard at presenting to people all the time, there is no way that people could like the authentic me that is so broken. Being real is when I feel frustrated between pursuing the destiny that I feel God wants for me and waiting impatiently for Him to make those things come to pass. Being real is engaging people with every part of who I am even though I don’t feel that I have anything to offer or idea how to offer what I might have. But when I hear an institutionalized church talk about getting real I can’t help but think that it is just a well crafted slogan. “Real” for the 21st century Christian is comparable to reality television and social networking. “Real” for the 21st century Christian is comprised of the various random elements that make us who we are. On Facebook someone can easily share their faith with others by “Liking” Jesus while updating their status with social causes and political support. Or someone can visit a church’s blog site for daily devotionals and then tweet about the newest Christian bestseller they are reading. These things, as well as less techno savvy things, are all well and good, but they are not real. The human psychology forces us to define who we are by the things we do and take on. But by discussing these things while occasionally addressing our struggle with them is not “being real”.

One example of a very real experience with God is found in Genesis 22. Below is the text for the story of Abraham taking Isaac to the top of the mountain to sacrifice to God. I saw a cartoon once where it was a picture of Abraham and Isaac walking down from the mountain after Abraham prepared Isaac for the sacrifice and then being released from the call by God to do so. Isaac is looking back at Abraham and says, “What the hell was that all about!” We often discuss the relief of Abraham after learning he didn’t have to sacrifice Isaac. But imagine how terrifying that was for Abraham as he prepared Isaac and how horrifying it would have been for Isaac when he thought his dad was about to kill him. A relationship with God is unpredictable, often terrifying, and never safe. When a church claims that it is real is it claiming the type of real we see in the story below? The real the institutionalized church often presents is just the opposite. It is predictable, exciting, and always safe.

Genesis 22:1-19

1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied.
2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you."

6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?" "Yes, my son?" Abraham replied. "The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"

8 Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together. 9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied. 12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

In Fear and Trembling, Soren Kierkegaard discusses the ethics of Abraham in this story and concludes that true ethics are obedience and require paradox. In Ethics, Dietrich Bonheoffer concluded something similar in that ethics can only go so far. Reality is when we struggle with the complexities of life and realize that there are rarely answers. Reality is when we must walk in obedience when it goes against everything we hold dear. Reality is knowing that the world will, at times, reject us for being the type of Christian that scripture promotes. In fact, if churches really want to grow, they should avoid any mention of reality.

RELEVANT

“Can’t you see you’re not making Christianity better, you’re just making rock and roll worse?” (Hank Hill)

In undoubtedly my favorite King of the Hill episode, Bobby Hill joins a youth group after his parents are concerned about recent bad behavior. To Bobby’s surprise, the kids in the youth group are rock and roll skaters with a tattooed pastor (Pastor K) as their leader. Hank and Peggy are glad that Bobby is involved in a church, but Hank begins to be concerned about Bobby’s cool slant on Christianity. It appears throughout the entire episode that Hank is just annoyed by the hyper-hip Christianity that Bobby is beginning to display. For example, Bobby offers to pray for dinner and ends his prayer with “Peace out”. Hank is conservative and traditional and Bobby sees his dad’s disapproval of his behavior as not understanding how God can be culturally relevant. At a Christian music-fest Hank has had enough of the culturally relevant form of Christianity that Bobby is displaying and tries to take him home. Bobby protests and Pastor K comes to Bobby’s defense. That is when Hank drops the awesome quote above about Pastor K’s version of Christianity. Hank takes Booby home with Bobby indignant. Hank pulls down a box of Bobby’s stuff from the closet and starts showing the items inside to Bobby. Each piece was something that Bobby was into at some point that he had since not cared about. Hank (with more wisdom than one would expect from the creators of Beavis and Butthead) tells Bobby that his concern isn’t about being involved in a cool youth group, but that Bobby appears to just be into the culture of it and not Christ and that he fears that his faith would end up in the box with all the other things Bobby has grown past or given up on.

Christian culture has two forms of relevant. The first is Christian subculture relevant. Christian subculture relevant refers to those things that exist within every culture that help define what the culture is. A blog I follow comments on these issues and has been able to connect with many Christians and non-Christians alike who have felt that the disingenuous Christian culture promoted artificialities, judgmental attitudes, and a disconnect from society. Hr blog is Stuff Christian Culture Likes at http://blog.beliefnet.com/stuffchristianculturelikes/. Both forms of relevancy are often, but not always, motivated by what happens when any group forms. Runners have a certain culture, Trekkies have a culture, and Christians have a culture. Traits about groups evolve as does lingo and subtle attitudes and behaviors. The result in Christian subculture is much more dangerous and often believed by those who participate to be equivalent to truth, but is also very often innocent and trivial. In fact, now that I have been out of the church for as long as I have been, I actually miss some of the culture of the church. This form of cultural relevancy is problematic, but the other form of relevancy, the one that birthed the Christian sub-culture form, is much more theologically motivated.

The second form of relevancy is the attempt to connect with modern society. Not connect with modern people, but modern society. Obviously society is prolific and therefore what is relevant is prolific, but the goal is to connect with society. This is a problem. People are more than society. As industrialization came to a close and people were able to shape their identity with layers of external ingredients it was easy to conclude that people were the sum or even the individual ingredients of their identity. The human condition was nicely compartmentalized within this created identity. Genuine fears, struggles, sin, and hurt was seen not in context of who the person is in the world in which they live, but in context of the world in which they live alone. The advent of relevant ministry gave people the illusion that by connecting to people’s society that they were connecting to people. There is some legitimacy to this of course. But what evolved were messages that exploited the culture for institutional gain. So what we have now is not a relevancy that connects with people, but one that exploits people. Nothing meaningful is being attached to people’s lives, nothing is connecting to a greater picture, and nothing real is happening. Relationships in the institutionalized church are often superficial, service is often isolated, and discipleship is often nothing more than self help, cheap grace, and/ or dogma. Relevancy in the institutionalized church has weakened the mission of the church to a form of consumerism than pits one church against another. Relevancy equates discipleship and ministry to personal and social contentment. It doesn’t call people into greater intimacy with Christ or others. It doesn’t reveal the “move” of the Holy Spirit. And it doesn’t connect with what relevancy should connect with, how Christ is actively working in individuals and in the Kingdom. Far too many Christians have replaced holiness with practicality. The message of relevancy in scripture is vastly different than what is so often preached today.

John 4:9-11

9The Samaritan woman said to him, "You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?" (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.) 10Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water." 11"Sir," the woman said, "you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?"
13Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." 15The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water so that I won't get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water."

This is the message of relevancy. No power point presentations or coffee shops needed. Jesus didn’t give her three easy steps to take to incorporate this into her daily life. He didn’t set up a “Fan of Living Water” page on Facebook to remind her to rely on Jesus. He simply offered her Him. He saw her need and graphically and narratively met her need. It may sound that I don’t like technology, coffee shops, and other modern conveniences and opportunities. That is not the case at all. I simply believe that these are all resources that should improve our quality of life and can be used as resources for sharing Christ. What these things often do, however, is complicate our lives and become a substitute for Christ. Relevancy in the Kingdom is not the same thing as relevancy in the world. Relevancy can be an excellent resource and need to be incorporated into ministry and discipleship, but we can’t simply throw them on top of the old church model and think that we have somehow become relevant. We must hold true to the real relevancy of intimacy and purpose with Christ.

Survey on Church and Culture

A friend and I are in the process of designing a series of structures conversations to explore the relationship between church and culture. As a part of these conversations we wanted to gather insight from those who may have opinions on certain aspects of church and culture to stimulate discussion. Specifically what we want to gather are perceptions about the strengths and weaknesses of the organizational church in the early 21st century.

If you are interested in taking this survey it would be very much appreciated and will only take a few minutes. You may choose to reflect on what you feel are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats before beginning the survey though. If you choose to do so, remember that we are looking for a very specific context: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of church and culture in the early 21st century.

To complete the survey, please copy these questions and paste with your responses in an email to me (craig.morton@ttu.edu). From the date this message is posted, there will be one week to complete the survey. Thanks!!!

Survey of Church and Culture

Just a few demographic questions to start off with…
1. What is your occupation?
2. What city and state do you currently live in?
3. How old are you?

Okay, without going into too much detail and limiting your responses to no more than three each…
4. What are the greatest strengths of the global church?
5. What are the greatest strengths of the local church?
6. What are the most significant weaknesses of the global church?
7. What are the most significant weaknesses of the local church?
8. What opportunities are available for the church for the following areas:
· Better focus
· More coherent purpose
· Better connection with society
· Ethics and integrity
9. What are the greatest threats to the organization of the church?
10. What are the greatest threats to the integrity of the church?
11. What are the greatest threats to the relationship between church and culture?

RELATIONAL

A couple of weeks ago I received my PhD. My family threw me a little party. It wasn’t a surprise, but I wasn’t in on any of the planning or inviting of guests. The party was great. My wife, Shannon, was in charge of identifying my friends while my parents invited a number of other people that have played some role in my life such as an elementary math teacher and my former youth minister. It was really pretty cool. Unfortunately most of my friends were not able to make it. I was a little disappointed in that part. I understood. Being the end of summer it was a hard weekend and a number of my close friends living out of town, but it still would have been nice to have a few more of my buddies there. So I started to think about if I could have the perfect assembly of my friends for the perfect party who I would invite. I feel that I am pretty fortunate to have a lot of friends who at one stage or another I have been pretty close to, but who would I invite to this party? I realized that if there were rings of friendship that I would have about 5 to 10 friends in the inner ring, quite a few more on the third ring, and still even more on the fourth ring, but I couldn’t think of anyone for that second ring of friends. I have a few really close friends, a lot of people that I either have grown up with or I enjoy being around, and a whole lot of people that I like, but no “just good friends.” This is hardly something to complain about and is really understandable considering I have two small children, have been finishing up graduate school, and don’t have any money go do things on. But my perfect party would be limited to those 5 to 10 inner circle of friends. Everyone else that I know, regardless of how much I like them, have in common with them, have history with them, or enjoy being with them are more like “friends” than anything else.

The problem is that I am really introverted. My Myers-Briggs score is off the charts introverted. This means that my personality just doesn’t allow me become good friends with people easily. People like me for the most part, but I will never be mistaken as the life of anyone’s party. Some people have the ability to walk in the room and be best buddies with everyone. Not me. I walk into a room and find the closest wall that I can support. So for me, it isn’t that I don’t have anyone in my second ring of friends, it’s just that the distance between my first ring and second ring is really big and the third and firth ring are promoted. I suspect that even those people who everyone loves and could and would hold a party with 250 of their closest friends actually is in the same situation as I am though. They may enjoy and connect with people more, but their inner circle is pretty small.

So when the replicated church calls itself “relational” what it intend to mean is that the foundation of their ministry is built on relationships more than religion. Forget for a second that many churches throughout history have also been built on the same foundations even if there was a greater religiousness to their approach to faith, but a church claiming to be more relational simply because their programming or formality lends itself to relational ministry just doesn’t line up with what we understand real relationships to look like. Relationships are and should be things that take time such as trust, communication, reconciliation, and vulnerability. It requires mentors, spiritual leaders, teaching, confession, and accountability. It is a noble desire for an organization to strive for relational ministry, but simply claiming it values relational ministry because it encourages friendliness and encourages participation in small groups isn’t the same things.

Then how then does an emerging believer embrace relationship as an element of authentic spiritual formation? How do I apply my own set of personality traits and temperament to biblical standards? How do I incorporate the dynamic interaction of God’s continual revelation to fundamental Christian ethics? I Corinthians gives us some direction. After giving direction in the Christian call to prioritize love, Paul states:

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

The “Love Chapter” seems like a fairly straight forward description of love and appears to give us solid direction in how to be relational. Be sacrificial and obedient to God’s constant voice giving us direction how to relate with those around us. While I agree, that isn’t the thesis of the passage. It isn’t just about how we relate to others or especially the steps we take to love others. Verse 10 reads, “but when perfect comes, the imperfect disappears.” This chapter is describing how God loves, how God relates, how God is authentic. It is telling us that no matter what we do we will never be able to do anything that compares to the way that God loves us. Verse 11 and 12 demonstrate the frustration of Paul as he realizes this truth.

Keeping in mind that I will likely always have a fairly small group of people that I am truly relational with, I can’t be fully authentic in the way I relate with others until I accept the fact that I will never relate to others fully on my own. I doubt that I will ever be able to know myself completely, much less others. The Love chapter of I Corinthians is a call to accept the pure love of Christ. True authentic interaction can never occur until we see the sacred within others. Jesus says in Matthew 25: 35 and 36, “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.” Being relational isn’t about being in some group or a set of rules for how we treat others, it is about seeing God in others and respecting that sacred presence of Christ.

AUTHENIC

"When established identities outworn or unfurnished ones threaten to remain incomplete, special crises compel men to wage holy wars, by the cruelest means, against those who seem to question or threaten their unsafe ideological bases." (Erik Erikson)

Postmodernism is inherently theological, but for those in the church that are shaping the postmodern church culture there seems to be a disconnect between the philosophical precepts of deconstruction and narrative meaning with the institutional church’s ideologies. Postmodernism in the institutional church appears to be driven by catch phrases that may reflect generational values, selected postmodern terminology, and marketing strategies. This is not true for all churches obviously. True emerging communities are birthed out of genuine movements within the congregation or culture. But as contemporary churches watch these emerging communities succeed and look cool doing it they attempt to replicate it. The replicated church has little true emerging values since it wasn’t birthed out of anything more than the desire to succeed. In the process of replicating the emerging church, terminology is developed. As I reflect on the core terminology of the replicated church there is one term that stands out to me: “authentic”. This is amusing since the term is supposed to be reproducible for churches that want to appear more emergent. Most of these churches are anything but authentic since they are birthed out of institutional goals of success and growth. Other terms can be heard in the hallways of postmodern churches: community, intimacy, and purpose are but a few. There is nothing wrong with these words, but again, the problem is not in their meaning, but in their application. However, there are three words that shape the authentic goals of the church that seem to have the greatest impact on church programming: Relational, Relevant, and Real. The replicated church’s desire to act out ministry that is relational, relevant, and real holds the potential for the reconciliation ministry of Christ for those who have been so hurt by the world and church. But despite the strong impetus on practicing authenticity, I worry that the individual understanding of these elements of authenticity make the community practice of authenticity impotent.

However, being relational, relevant, and real are complex issues with various stages of developmental importance. For each person, each term means something unique. To overlie these concepts into a church doctrine when each holds so little understanding for the members of the community then, despite its potential for creating an enthusiasm for the church, accomplishes very little in how people are able to translate the same values to personal spiritual formation. What inevitably happens in these cases is that the members of the church pervert their understanding of what authentic means. Each element of authentic then is devalued. Let’s look at a church that utilizes small group ministry and informal corporate worship to meet the relational aspect of authenticity. Obviously relationship are born out of these experiences, but with little guidance for how to relate to one another, the de facto response is little more than intentional social gatherings with the pressure to appear relational creating deeper feelings of isolation and loneliness for many (myself included). These gatherings have value, but are not the same thing as relational connection. When a church utilizes popular culture or popular Christian sub-culture to demonstrate its relevancy then it is in danger of actually separating individuals from the real world by creating an image of the church that cannot be incorporated into daily life. Being relevant is a dangerous doctrine in and of itself. The intention of the church is to connect with the real life experiences of people, but the danger is when the integrity of the gospel is compromised in order to do so. And finally, when the church claims that it is real then, well I don’t even know because I don’t know what this means for the church. Does it mean presenting the real gospel? Or not putting up pretenses? Or being transparent in its administration? I am afraid that this is a term that sounds better than actually having any “real” meaning. However, I can say that being real means something different to every person. Reality is not an absolute, but an understanding regarding the absolute. For example, every person may respond differently to a traumatic event. Each response is very real and each perspective to that event is very real. The event is a constant, but the individual realities that represent the understanding of that constant are variable.

I also want to be authentic in my relationship with Christ and in my Christian ministry. Assuming still that authentic means relational, relevant, and real, then I must understand what these terms mean to me. As I grow in my understanding of what these mean to me and how Christ is revealing them to me then I will be better prepared to impart these values into the lives of others. So then, what do these terms mean to me? I will spend the next few entries trying to define these words.

It’s Dr. Morton, Damn It

“It's Dr. Evil, I didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called ‘mister,’ thank you very much.” (Austin Powers)

Saturday I will graduate with my Ph.D. in Higher Education. I started five years ago and it has been an obviously significant part of my life and is a major life accomplishment that I am proud of. However, in the process of obtaining the degree I have become disillusioned by it. In fact, obtaining a doctorate is really not much more than proving that you are willing to do it. And for the most part, the only people that really care are those who care. This is not to diminish what it means for me or for anyone else who is or has pursued their doctorate; it is only to point out that, for the most part, the symbolic value of it is more impressive than the actual value of it. The only real benefit of the degree is that it opens opportunities that might have previously been closed. As one who values learning, the process was much more meaningful than the result. Working out ideas, being challenged in new ways, interacting with others who were also working out their own thoughts, clarifying personal values and areas of interest, sharpening skills and developing new ones, understanding personal limitations and competencies, and being able to do things that I love such as research, write, and do some critically thinking were what made it valuable for me. In fact, I am a little uncomfortable with being referred to as Dr. Morton.

The thought of “arriving” is actually pretty distasteful to me in general. When I was a young minister wanting to prove to myself and others that I was worthy of whatever it was that I wanted to prove myself worthy at (which changed constantly) was a constant source of anxiety. At times I wanted the attention and adoration of those who were successful in their ministry endeavors. At other times I wanted the pride that would come with effective implementation of my unique set of spiritual gifting. And often I desired the happiness that appeared to come with spiritual maturity. These ideals were goals to obtain, goals which were praised by the institution. Despite my best efforts though, I never really got anywhere. Now I did get better at looking like I was getting somewhere and I was maturing in my faith, but progressing toward the goals never really occurred. This left me feeling inadequate, insecure, and depressed. The inability to ever arrive was exhausting. My relationship with Christ (the very thing I claimed was central to all my goals) was only there as a refuge when I was unable to succeed at my spiritual goals.

To paint a picture of it, I entered into institutional work to serve that which the institution represents only to be more impressed with what the institution itself could offer me than to grow in and serve Christ. So it is not without obvious irony to me that I have received a doctorate in institutionalism, but I will also commit to not being subject to the anxiety of living up to the institution. I will commit to continue to learn and grow under the disciplines and values of the institution and taking pride in my relationship with it, but I will also reject any notion of arriving.

What I do with this degree with ultimately prove its real worth. As I emerge spiritually I must hold to the same values and convictions about my relationship with the institutional church. I can be a part of the institution but never belong to it. I can love the institution, but never depend on it. I can partner with the institution, but never become subject to it. I can thrive in the institution, but never strive for success in it. And I can experience all that the institution has to offer, but never forget what it can’t offer.

And by the way, I will be available at 9:00 on Saturday to play Words with Friends for about an hour in anyone is interested.