pop art: diversity

I set up the following 'pop art installation' at my workplace, to see what kind of reactions it would get. I was particularly interested in seeing what people thought it meant. The label says "pop art: diversity".

The following three reactions occurred at different times:

One colleague to another: "Hey, did you see Rob's pop art?"
Other colleague comes to take a look. Chuckles, and says, "It takes all kinds."

Another colleague reads aloud, "Pop art diversity." Laughs, and says, "Very cute."

Another colleague comes over, points to the upper right hand set with two Diet Lime Cokes, and says, "This one's wrong, though." I look at her with anticipation, thinking that we now finally have some real interaction with the installation. "Oh," she says, pointing to the lower right with the two Pepsi cans, and realizing that I did not mean to have them all the same.
"Pop art," I say, "like Andy Warhol, but not with soup cans or it would be soup art."
She laughs, and says, "You're too funny."

I had been hoping that people might make comments or ask questions related to the title of the display instead of affirming my sense of humour, but none did. Will try again with another variation.

What do you see in this picture? Would love to hear your comments.

bread of light

Jesus is the bread of life and the light of the world — the whole world bar none.

---

(months later:)
Part of the service this Sunday reminded me of this post, the part where the celebrant says,

Send your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts, that all who eat and drink at this table may be one body and one holy people, a living sacrifice in Jesus Christ, our Lord.

May we recognize all those who eat and drink at this table as part of the body.

[us and the other]

Brian McLaren speaks about two dangers:

All of us are poised between two dangers. The obvious one is “The Other.” The subtle one is “Us.” If we defend ourselves against the Other, if we attack the Other, we gain credibility with “Us.” We show that we are loyal, supportive, believers, members of Us, and we are generously rewarded and affirmed. We gain a lot by attacking the Other—in religious circles as well as political ones.

Ironically, Us can be as great a threat to each of us as the other is, probably greater. Us might withdraw its approval of me. It might label me disloyal, unsupportive, unbeliever, unorthodox, liberal, anathema, etc. To be rebuked, marginalized, or excluded by Us is an even greater threat than to be attacked by the Other.

Our fear becomes all the more acute when we venture to do what many of us in this dialogue are doing: we are daring to defend and humanize the Other. We are showing—however feebly and adolescently—a grain of neighborliness and solidarity with the Other. At that moment, we become vulnerable as never before to attacks by Us, i.e. our fellow Christians. In my experience, it takes much more courage to stand up to or apart from Us than it does to stand either against or with the Other…

Brian D. McLaren, pp. 47-48, in Why did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, and Mohammed Cross the Road? Christian Identity in a Multi-Faith World

the death of jesus

Consistent with one way of living, here's what really should have happened:

If Joseph was a faithful, obedient believer and follower of God's word, this would have been a logical, reasonable, and righteous thing for him to do.

See Deuteronomy 22:22-23 and Leviticus 20:10.

Yet he did not.

In a dream, he heard a voice claiming to be an angel telling him:

“Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:20-21 NIV)

Joseph believed this voice and did what it said. No record of him going to talk to the rabbi about it, or asking other believers for confirmation that this was indeed God's will. And there would have been no reason to listen to Mary when she told him about her experience with an angel, as she was a woman and in that culture, her words did not count. However, he listened and believed despite many reasons not to.

And so at Easter, we remember Jesus' death at age 33 rather than as an unborn child.

---

What do you think? Did Joseph do the right thing? What choices did he have? How do you feel about the one he made? How would you feel if someone today made a similar choice where instead of following what the Bible clearly said, they heard God speak to them?

* Thanks to a good friend for the idea of the "Joseph's options" cartoon, which then inspired the top cartoon on "the death of jesus."

[oppositional religious identity]

It's been said that religion is the cause of all violence. However, in his recent book, Brian McLaren gives a more nuanced perspective on this:

The tensions between our conflicted religions arise not from our differences, but from one thing we all hold in common: an oppositional religious identity that derives strength from hostility.

He then goes on to discuss how when a social group (think church or a group of Christians) feels threatened, they suspend the normal rules and daily activities, diverting "attention and energy to hostility" and then focusing that hostility "on a target,—real or imagined, legitimate or manufactured, among them (as a classic enemy) or among us (as an internal scapegoat)."

What he later adds to this, is that this is often done not out of hatred or antagonism but rather, from a "loving defensiveness". In other words, people feel that the values and beliefs they hold and cherish are under attack, and they act to defend these values. This can ironically happen in ways that result in behaviour which normally would be considered antithetical to the person or group's beliefs, but considered necessary for their protection.

no book burning this time

This past week, Rob Bell said the following at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco:

"I am for marriage. I am for fidelity. I am for love, whether it’s a man and woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man. I think the ship has sailed and I think the church needs — I think this is the world we are living in and we need to affirm people wherever they are.”

And he has also endorsed a book called Does Jesus Really Love Me?: A Gay Christian’s Pilgrimage in Search of God in America. From the back of the dust jacket:

“In telling these stories–chief among them his own–Jeff has done an extraordinary thing, showing us all to the God who is big enough and loving enough and true enough to meet all of us exactly where we’re at. This book is moving, inspiring, and much needed.” (Rob Bell, author of What We Talk About When We Talk About God and Love Wins)

Quite astounding, but not surprising. And the reactions cover the full range from agreement and delight to disagreement and rejection (with some "kicking him out of evangelicalism" yet again). Rob Bell is the first high profile North American evangelical leader to be public about such views (Britain's Steven Chalke came out with a similar perspective earlier this year).

---

Hear Rob Bell speak for himself

Read more about what Bell said at Grace Cathedral, including his comments about a dying subculture: Greg Carey at HuffPo

About the cartoon: simply poking fun at the idea of being "progressive" because of recycling paper instead of burning it while at the same time suppressing differences and not being willing to engage in dialogue on important matters.

gospel according to bell

This cartoon isn't really about Rob Bell, though it takes elements of what he said and shows how some members of the public might perceive his message.

It's more about the illogical ways that people think. For example, from what he is saying, it would seem that the man in the picture has or had the idea that even though hell does not exist, that homosexuals are still going there. Of course, this is not really logical -- if hell doesn't exist, no one can go there. But old prejudices die hard, as does black and white thinking and "us and them" thinking.

For example, in response to Rob Bell's recent comments about same-sex marriage, one reader made this comment:

"You're either Christian or gay. Can't be both." Hmm. This would be contradicted by the many LGBT people who are vibrant followers of Jesus.

"Homosexuals aren't going to heaven." Really? I thought Jesus opened the way for all to enter....

"You cannot change God's mind." What buzzbird is really saying here, is that they are set in their ways and won't change their mind. We already know that God "changes his mind" (example).

"You cannot change the bible truths." One thing is for sure, that we often can't agree on what those truths are and which apply today or not.

What do you think?

[Why did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha and Mohammed...]

Brian D. McLaren has written an excellent book Why did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, and Mohammed Cross the Road? Christian Identity in a Multi-Faith World, which I highly recommend.

From the Amazon.ca review:

When four religious leaders walk across the road, it's not the beginning of a joke. It's the start of one of the most important conversations in today's world.

Can you be a committed Christian without having to condemn or convert people of other faiths? Is it possible to affirm other religious traditions without watering down your own?

In his most important book yet, widely acclaimed author and speaker Brian McLaren proposes a new faith alternative, one built on "benevolence and solidarity rather than rivalry and hostility." This way of being Christian is strong but doesn't strong-arm anyone, going beyond mere tolerance to vigorous hospitality toward, interest in, and collaboration with the other.

Blending history, narrative, and brilliant insight, McLaren shows readers step-by-step how to reclaim this strong-benevolent faith, challenging us to stop creating barriers in the name of God and learn how affirming other religions can strengthen our commitment to our own. And in doing so, he invites Christians to become more Christ-like than ever before.

I will be quoting occasionally from this book in future posts. Buy it or borrow it from your local library!

Info: Brian D. McLaren (New York, Jericho Books: 2012)

alpha to omega

Jesus is for everyone. It doesn't matter who you are. He loves you and his arms are open to you.

a brutal unity: personal case study

This post follows up on a previous post on “a brutal unity explored”. I highly recommend that you read it first, as it provides the conceptual background for understanding this case study. The original post talked about brutal unity as an individual might apply it to their situation in a church or community context. This post takes a specific conflict at a real church and provides extensive discussion of how one individual (the author) is applying the concept of brutal unity to the situation, as well as some discussion of how the church in question might apply the concept within the larger denominational context.

the church

St. Pea’s Church, located in a large Canadian city, is part of a mainline denomination. While the whole denomination believes in the gospel and in evangelism, St. Pea’s specifically considers itself evangelical and Bible-believing. The leadership is conservative in its views and holds to a traditional view of marriage. While there is a range of views and perspectives on sexuality among the parishioners, the leadership is not affirming of LGBT people.

the church member

My family and I have been attending this church for the past eight years. I hold a more progressive view and believe in the true equality of LGBT people in the body of Christ. The rest of my family has a range of views which are left of center and would be considered gay-friendly. This belief, or standard, is at variance with that of the leadership and many of the parishioners. I can live with this because the community is good and because conservative views regarding marriage are not a focus of the church. Thus, I let my “standards be suffered” for the sake of the church community. This does not mean that I ignore, give up or deny what I believe. It means that I put these beliefs to the side in order to be in relationship with others who may not share my views on sexuality, but with whom I have much in common as we follow Jesus together.

the synod resolution and decision

Along with the other parishes in this geographical area, St. Pea’s is part of and comes under the authority of the diocese. In the early fall of 2012, the diocese held its synod (assembly), at which Resolution G-3 was presented:

Blessing Same-Gender Committed Unions: That Synod request the Bishop to grant permission to any clergy who may wish to offer prayers of blessing for civilly married same-gender relationships.

brutal unity of the wrong sort

For an exploration of a better kind of "brutal unity," check out my article on a brutal unity explored.

a brutal unity explored

introduction

In this post I want to explore the concept of “brutal unity”, which I came across in Matthew Shedden’s brief review of Ephraim Radner’s A Brutal Unity: The Spiritual Politics of the Christian Church. In his book, Radner writes:

“In this life that is God’s, any Anglican—or Roman Catholic or Methodist or Lutheran—can be a Pentecostal; any Catholic Protestant can be an evangelical Protestant; any member of one church can be a member of another that has separated from the first; any Roman Catholic can be a Protestant. Any Christian can do this not because standards of truth have been cast away but because the standards can be suffered, in their very contradiction by the place where he or she will go with Jesus.” (p. 447, italics added)

unpacking the concept of “the standards can be suffered”

First, what is meant by standards? The term “standards” is used to refer to a range of things believed at a theological or philosophical level: doctrines, statements of faith, liturgical confessions, dogma, religious beliefs, and so on. Moral standards would be included, but as used here, the term does not refer to facts and figures.

Secondly, the term “can be suffered” is not about denying, ignoring or giving up one's standards. Instead, it is about giving the standards second place, laying them down for the sake of one's calling and the community, emptying oneself of the need to hold tightly and insistently to standards as if they are our salvation when they are not. Our salvation is in Jesus Christ who "made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness” (Philippians 2:5-8). Does this mean we change our beliefs or decide that they are irrelevant? No. But we put them second to the greater calling we have, for unity and the community. Because Radner’s use of the word “suffered” is not common, our discussion here will often substitute terms such as “set aside”, “put second”, and so on.

Third, “the place where he or she will go with Jesus” will be understood here as either a calling to a particular church or community, or general involvement with a particular church or community, and will often be referred to as “church” or “community” for the sake of simplicity.

post-baptism blues

Isn't that the question many of us are asking ourselves, with our own particulars incorporated in it? Our difference is not always outwardly noticeable, and we may even attend a church regularly, but we still ask ourselves, "Is there a church which will accept someone like me?"

---

p.s. The answer is yes, while they may be hard to find, there are churches who will accept and embrace you just as you are.


This cartoon is based on the Biblical account of Philip meeting the Ethiopian eunuch, as told in Acts 8:26-40. The eunuch was reading from Isaiah chapter 53. Only a few chapters later, Isaiah has these verses, and one might reasonably expect that the eunuch has also read this:

56 This is what the Lord says:

“Maintain justice
    and do what is right,
for my salvation is close at hand
    and my righteousness will soon be revealed.
2 Blessed is the one who does this—
    the person who holds it fast,
who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it,
    and keeps their hands from doing any evil.”
3 Let no foreigner who is bound to the Lord say,
    “The Lord will surely exclude me from his people.”
And let no eunuch complain,
    “I am only a dry tree.”
4 For this is what the Lord says:

“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
    who choose what pleases me
    and hold fast to my covenant—
5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls
    a memorial and a name
    better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
    that will endure forever.

(Isaiah 56:1-5, NIV)

What might this have communicated to him? Especially at a time when (as is still often the case today) religious groups put great importance on purity and boundaries, he finds foreigners and eunuchs mentioned positively in the Book of Isaiah -- and he is both!

---

Richard Beck has some interesting insights into the Bible and eunuchs.

[hospitality as subversive and countercultural]

Christine Pohl, in Making Room, says this about hospitality:

Although we often think of hospitality as a tame and pleasant practice, Christian hospitality has always had a subversive, countercultural dimension. “Hospitality is resistance,” as one person from the Catholic Worker observed. Especially when the larger society disregards or dishonors certain persons, small acts of respect and welcome are potent far beyond themselves. They point to a different system of valuing and an alternate model of relationships.

Today, some of the most complex political and ethical tensions center around recognizing or treating people as equals. Recognition involves respecting the dignity and equal worth of every person and valuing their contributions, or at least their potential contributions, to the larger community. Struggles over recognition also encompass questions about what it means to value distinctive cultural traditions, especially when a particular tradition has been tied to social disadvantage and exclusion. Central to discussions of recognition and dignity are concerns about basic human rights and identity.

For much of church history, Christians addressed concerns about recognition and human dignity within their discussions and practices of hospitality. Especially in relation to strangers, hospitality was a basic category for dealing with the importance of transcending social differences and breaking social boundaries that excluded certain categories or kinds of people. Hospitality provided a context for recognizing the worth of persons who seemed to have little when assessed by worldly standards.

Because the practice of hospitality is so significant in establishing and reinforcing social relationships and moral bonds, we notice its more subversive character only when socially undervalued persons are welcomed. In contrast to a more tame hospitality that welcomes persons already well situated in the community, hospitality that welcomes “the least” and recognizes their equal value can be an act of resistance and defiance, a challenge to the values and expectations of the larger community.

People view hospitality as quaint and tame partly because they do not understand the power of recognition. When a person who is not valued by society is received by a socially respected person or group as a human being with dignity and worth, small transformations occur. The person’s self-assessment, so often tied to societal assessment, is enhanced. Because such actions are countercultural, they are a witness to the larger community, which is then challenged to reassess its standards and methods of valuing. Many persons who are not valued by the larger community are essentially invisible to it. When people are socially invisible, their needs and concerns are not acknowledged and no one even notices the injustices they suffer. Hospitality can begin a journey toward visibility and respect.

From Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a Christian Tradition

(Christine D. Pohl, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1999), pp. 61-62

darts

It's not that simple or random, is it? But note two things: it's names of minority groups that are put on the dartboard, and the clerics' assumption that they have the right to ostracize....