Chris Smith and friends are hosting the Slow Church Conference here in Indy this week, and I know at least one faithful Internet Monk reader who will be attending. I hope to catch up with David, author of yesterday’s post, for some conversation on Saturday. At any rate, Chris’s book will be coming out this summer, but it’s getting some good buzz already.
First, an article at RNS and the Washington Postdiscussed it. The piece discusses how the authors are worried about the “McDonaldization” of the church, noting that: “Instead, Smith and Pattison advocate for “slow church” — an approach to ministry that stresses local context and creativity over pre-packaged programs.” Good read.
Second, IVP has just released a free online sampler with two chapters from the book, including the introduction.
While you’re participating in today’s Internet Monk Open Forum (below), you might want to take a break to read or download this sample and get a taste of what slow church all about.
The other day we invited everyone to the table here at iMonk and set down some simple guidelines for interaction. Today we’ll give you room to have your own conversations.
An Open Forum means you get to talk about what is interesting you at the moment. This is your chance to get together with others and bring up topics you would like to discuss, rather than being forced to respond to my blab and bluster.
Please remember what we said Monday —
Know that you are welcome here. You don’t have to agree.
Be respectful of others.
Be concise and clear in your comments.
Stay on topic. (doesn’t apply in quite the same way today, obviously)
Don’t dominate the discussion.
Please listen.
All good things must come to an end. You got to know when to hold ’em and know when to fold ’em, if you know what I mean.
The table’s yours today. Enjoy God’s gift of conversation.
Moving beyond the obvious, have you given serious thought as to why we have children? What difference does it make that we are Christian? Did you and your spouse discuss this ahead of time? What part in your decision did, or will, the Church make? Does your specific church have any teachings about this, and if so, do you know what they are, and do they make any sense in contemporary culture?
Fifteen months after Marge and I exchanged vows and were united in marriage in a Methodist church, our first child was born. Her birth was not an accident. But we had not planned it. I cannot remember a relevant discussion, other than the fact that we wanted kids.
When we were given pre-marital counseling, I cannot remember anything at all being discussed about children. In fact, I can remember very little about the counseling session.
However in the Christian college we attended, in the same year we met each other, we were together in Marriage and Family class. And —as fate would have it, our professor was Reverend Harry Hitch, and ordained Methodist minister. Later he assisted the pastor of the church in the actual wedding ceremony.
I can remember very little about the specifics of the class, whether it was from a Christian point of view or not. In a general way, of course it was. The college was both conservative, and Christian. Professor Hitch always started with prayer, and sermonette. But the book we used, and the class itself seemed very secular in its approach, being the sociology of family and marriage. In other words it was a soundly rational “American” approach. But putting this rationality aside, the one point I remember Professor Hitch being adamant about, was that Marge and I were somehow meant for each other. Since then I have seldom debated that point.
This was in the mid 1950’s, so as we all know this was the “perfect” era for the American family. Father was the breadwinner, and mother stayed home keeping house and preparing meals so the smiling children would grow up to be breadwinner fathers and pretty mothers staying home to make more cute, perfect children. On Sunday the smiling family would go to the local church, with little girls wearing pretty dresses and the boys clip-on bow ties. Then, when arriving back home, mom would hurry to finish up Sunday dinner, which being the big meal of the week was delicious. Sometimes grandma and grandpa would come and join the meal. And everyone would sit at the table and happily discuss the pastor’s fine sermon.
Today I would like discuss some ideas and positions found in the writings of Harmon L. Smith, Stanley Hauerwas, and William Willimon. Smith is an Episcopal priest and has taught at Duke Divinity School and University. His book is Where two or three Are Gathered; Liturgy and the Moral Life. Hauerwas taught at Notre Dame and Duke for many years. And Willimon is an ordained United Methodist minister, and a retired bishop. He and Hauerwas together wrote the book Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony.
Whenever two people come together and their behavior affects one another, you have etiquette.
– Emily Post
* * *
Welcome to Internet Monk. This blog, started by Michael Spencer many moons ago, began as a way for Michael to write and express his thoughts about religion, culture, politics, and his own journey, which would take him through the post-evangelical wilderness toward a Jesus-shaped spirituality.
At a certain point, he began to allow comments on the blog. In the early days, one had to subscribe to the site in order to comment. It was like a private club.
Then he decided to open up Internet Monk and it became a public discussion site. However, Michael did not tolerate fools gladly, and he enforced a strict moderation policy. You can still see what his approach was on the FAQ/Rules page of IM.
When I first started participating at IM, I contributed comments that Mike deleted. That hurt because I thought I was saying something that pertained to the post. Didn’t matter. If Michael didn’t like a comment or thought it failed to advance the discussion, he would scratch it without explanation or apology. Those who became oppositional might find themselves on the banned commenters list (yes, there is one).
When Michael became sick and asked me to keep the blog going, there were days when he would email me, instructing me to cut off discussion on a certain post because he thought the conversation had run its course.
And then Michael graciously asked Jeff Dunn and me to carry on Internet Monk. It was soon apparent that I had a lot to learn about moderating a daily blog. On that same FAQ page and on a previous post, you can also see the updated policy that I, Chaplain Mike, wrote back in 2010.
I never have been as tough as Michael Spencer was when it comes to moderating this blog. There are a few reasons for that. First, there is a practical reason. My work schedule is different than his was. Whereas he had time after teaching classes to follow the conversation and moderate, I have a job that requires me to work all day and sometimes into the evening. There are extended times when I can barely follow the discussion at all, and on the days I can, it happens in bits and pieces as I travel from place to place with a primary focus on my work. And guess what? I go to bed at night. Whether it’s good or not, I’m not glued to Internet Monk 24/7.
Second, I think the blog itself has continued to expand into a broader discussion that allows for more diversity of opinion and interaction. We are also dealing with different issues than Michael faced. For example, he went through a period when he was trying to process his thoughts as his wife was becoming a Roman Catholic. As he wrote about Roman Catholicism and his own Reformation convictions, he engaged both Calvinist readers who considered Rome an apostate institution and Catholics who were bent on converting him too. Michael sometimes felt like he was refereeing the Reformation all over again. Stricter moderation was essential.
Third, though Michael and I share a lot in common, we do not share the same personality. In person he was shy, but on IM he could be direct, even gruff. His approach was honed in classrooms where he was regularly confronted with challenges from non-Christians. He lived and worked in an intentional Christian community set in the rugged hills of Kentucky and was schooled among the Southern Baptists.
And now it’s hospice chaplainMike who is the lead writer on this blog and the one who oversees the comments. My vocation calls me day in and day out to be a listener and not to judge. My role on the hospice team is to be a calming presence, a pastoral companion with a listening ear, a soothing voice, a gentle touch. Do you think it’s possible that I might approach moderating comments with a different style?
For all these reasons, Internet Monk is more on the honor system now than it was in years past. Unless I warn you ahead of time, I do not actively moderate daily discussions in the sense that I regularly edit or delete comments. Of course I try to keep track of the conversation to make sure nothing gets out of hand. Occasionally someone will complain that his or her comment didn’t show up and I try to track it down and restore it (BTW — this will happen less frequently now that we are using a more reliable web host). But I am not in the habit of keeping a heavy hand on the conversation.
With this in mind, I think it would be wise to review a few “table manners” for participating in the discussions here at Internet Monk:
Know that you are welcome here. We invite a variety of opinions and perspectives. Disagreement won’t cause you to lose your place at the table — good conversation should be challenging and stretching.
Be respectful of others. Lively conversation and passionate opinion is one thing. Disrespect and rudeness is another. Please remember the difference and don’t cross the line.
Be concise and clear in your comments. The fact is, long comments aren’t as effective. Yes, some people need to work through their thoughts, so we’ll be understanding. But remember that the conversation will improve as we clarify our communication. If you need to make an article-length comment, it might be better to post it on your blog and send us a link.
Stay on topic. Remember, at this table we choose the topic (unless it’s an open thread). The occasional side conversation or rabbit trail is okay, but the form doesn’t lend itself to multiple discussions at the same time. That’s where the “table” analogy breaks down.
Don’t dominate the discussion. As in most conversations, some participants will be more talkative than others. That’s natural and to be expected. If you are more verbose, that’s okay. Just be courteous enough to recognize your tendency, and leave space for others.
Please listen. A conversation is not just about saying what you want, it’s about give and take. You might want to read the post or that person’s comment again before you fire off a passionate response. If there’s a type of comment I’m prone to moderate it is one that gives evidence of someone who is hellbent to make a point without any consideration of what others are saying.
All good things come to an end. On occasion, the moderator may determine that the conversation has reached a place where we should stop. For one reason or another. Please respect that decision. As my pastor friend used to say, “To be continued…” We’ll live to talk again another day.
Oh, and one more practical piece of advice: using links in your comment increases the chances it will be held for moderation by the site itself. That’s the way the system is set up. It protects us against spam.
* * *
We get thousands of visitors to Internet Monk every day. Only a small percentage comment. We are committed to trying to make the discussion among the few as interesting, challenging, and helpful as the pieces we post, so that the many who read will be encouraged and find that they may want to join us at the table too.
9 But we don’t need to write to you about the importance of loving each other, for God himself has taught you to love one another. 10 Indeed, you already show your love for all the believers throughout Macedonia. Even so, dear brothers and sisters, we urge you to love them even more.
11 Make it your goal to live a quiet life, minding your own business and working with your hands, just as we instructed you before. 12 Then people who are not Christians will respect the way you live, and you will not need to depend on others.
– 1Thessalonians 4:9-12, NLT
* * *
The end of this past week was hard for me here at IM. I’ve mentioned a few times before that I don’t like to write about contentious cultural issues like homosexuality. I always feel like I’m getting tongue-tied and not saying what I really mean. The discussion moves beyond my ability to control it quickly. It’s so easy to be misunderstood when talking about volatile issues and entire conversations can get unhinged and go haywire in a second.
I apologize if I offended anyone. I think some of the comments we received were out of order too. I have a much more lenient moderating policy than Michael used to have, and I’m sure he would have been riding the delete button this week much more strongly than I did.
I sincerely hope that the wild and woolly place this becomes sometimes hasn’t scared too many more reserved and timid readers away.
So today I thought it would be good to do a reset.
Let me share with you what I’m really all about. Allow me to open the curtains and let you see inside the window of my heart of hearts. Let’s set aside our wrangling and wrestling over issues for a moment and review a fundamental perspective that I hope will always remain at the center of who I am and what this blog tries to be.
My life and witness as a Christian is to be lived out primarily
in a way that is local, quiet, and pastoral.
One of the most neglected yet sorely needed texts in the New Testament for our day is 1Thessalonians 4:9-12 (above). Note two simple observations about it:
The subject is how to excel in love for other Christians (v. 9-10) and how to win the respect of those outside the faith (v. 12).
The instruction about how to do this is clearly delineated in verse 11: “Make it your goal to live a quiet life, minding your own business and working with your hands, just as we instructed you before.”
According to 1Thessalonians 2, this was not only the instruction that Paul and the other apostles gave their friends in Thessalonica, but also the example they set for them personally (see especially 2:7-12).
Many of us find this harder to do in the media-soaked, illusory age in which we live.
We think the great issues of our day are what we hear about from public media. Without downplaying the importance of our civic responsibilities, I want to assure you that they are not. And even if many of these issues and concerns do carry great weight (on a certain level, of course they do), they are beyond the ability of most of us to affect unless we devote ourselves to a lifetime of engagement through public service of some kind. We will all have opinions about such matters, and we may be involved in trying to bring about change in relatively small ways, but the vast majority of people will focus their lives around their families, work, communities, and personal interests.
This, therefore, is the primary context for Jesus-shaped spirituality.
Not the latest “news” from the liberals and conservatives on cable news networks.
Not the latest issues trending on social media.
Not the grave culture war issues being promoted by Christian organizations and spokespersons on the left and right.
Not what’s happening in Washington, Hollywood, the Vatican, or in any of the seats of power and influence around the world.
Not the political “world,” the entertainment “world,” the sports “world,” or any other “world” out there that fights to get our attention and our dollars.
Congregation Leaving the Reformed Church in Nuenen, Van Gogh
Too many of us have allowed voices from these “worlds” to infiltrate our worlds and convince us that they represent realms of real life that everyone should consider immediately relevant, think about, talk about, blog about, tweet about, update our statuses about, discuss at work, check constantly on our smart phones, and watch on other flickering screens 24/7.
Friends, this is not my life. This is not your life.
My life is the one I live with my family. My life is the one in which I do my daily work. My life is the one I live among my neighbors, my friends, in my community, with the people in my congregation and at the ball field. Because I’m a writer, the context of my life includes Internet Monk and the people I meet through participating in these daily discussions.
No matter how hard it is, I have to fight every day to keep the main thing the main thing, to recognize real life for what it is, and to let Christ live in and through me in that context.
To help me, I have clear apostolic instruction. Paul’s words to me are:
Be a quiet person, a person of peace.
Don’t stick your nose in places where it doesn’t belong.
Work hard.
Focus on the people you know and excel in love toward them.
Local, quiet, pastoral.
It’s the apostolic way.
It’s Jesus-shaped.
How much healthier would I be, would you be, would the Church be if 1Thessalonians 4:9-12 defined our life and witness?
Hello, imonk family. I hope it is starting to get warm wherever you live. Several of the imonk writers (myself, Chaplain Mike, Lisa Dye, Damaris Zehner and Joe the Plumber) were let out the asylum long enough to meet for breakfast this week. And Pope Francis met with President Obama this week. Of course, the liberal media covered only one of those meetings…
POTUS was also scheduled to meet King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia on Friday. Perhaps they can discuss the Saudi textbooks which teach eighth graders that “God will punish any Muslim who does not literally obey God just as God punished some Jews by turning them into pigs and monkeys.” Or the tenth grade text saying that gay people should be burned, stoned to death or thrown from high places and also instructs, “kill the person who changes their religion”. Christians, pagans and Jews are described as “the worst of creatures” who “will dwell in hellfire”. All this from a reportordered by the U.S. state department. The report also notes the textbooks report conspiracy theories as if they were fact, “gave elevated praise to violence against non-Muslims”, and “made direct calls to violence”. The Daily Beast helpfully notes, “Saudi textbooks are not only used in Saudi schools, but they are also sent free of charge toMuslim schools all over the world, including in the U.S.” Great.
March madness is in full swing (go Michigan!). Did you know nine of the 68 tourney schools are Catholic? Five of these are Jesuit. And this is no fluke. Seven Jesuit schools made the tournament in 2007. A full eighth of the field was Jesuit in 2012. Not bad, considering that of the 351 schools that play Division I basketball, only 20 are Jesuit. What gives? Michael Schulson argues it is a combination of the Irish potato famine, American nativism and 20th-century Italian demographics. Who knew?
Did you hear about the UC Santa Barbara Professorwho took a sign from, and allegedly assaulted a pro-life protestor at her college? In the police report, the prof argues that her actions were “in defense of her students and her own safety.” Because someone exercising the wrong opinion is very dangerous. The school president responded with a letter, in which he neither named the professor or directly criticized her behavior. He did, however, spend the first two paragraphs complaining about “outsiders” and “evangelical types” who “create discord” and “promote personal causes and agendas.” Besides the dismissive language, what is one to make of the claim that arguing for a pro-life cause is a “personal cause or agenda”? How could advocating for policies which protect unborn others possibly be construed as a “personal cause”? Would the good president refer in the same way to those advocating for the other side of the issue?
Let me be clear. This post is not about homosexuality. This post is not about what the Bible does or does not say about the topic. This post is not about the rightness or wrongness of the decision of World Vision USA to open up employment to those in same-sex marriages. This post is not about the rightness or wrongness of their sudden reversal forty-eight hours later. So if you want to go to any of these areas with your comments, don’t be surprised if your comments disappear.
What this post is about is the response of so many in the evangelical community. Quite frankly, I am ashamed. More about this later in my rant.
David Hayward’s cartoon depicts my first thoughts quite well. Those who would deprive children of their means of sustenance because of an organization’s hiring policy, while at the same time purchasing their groceries from a store that has similar hiring policies are hypocrites. Hypocrites. Making children suffer because you disagree with World Vision is disgusting. These children simply can’t join another program. They have no options. You are taking away their basic necessities of life: food, clothing, and shelter.
Note: This post contains frank content of a sexual nature.
Note 2: This week, the Christian world has been abuzz about the World Vision decision and the reversal of that decision. Tomorrow, Mike Bell will address that issue specifically. Today’s post grows out of some self-examination that came as I thought about various articles and comments I read about the WV situation, which were often strongly worded and even inflammatory. Why do Christians seem to be so obsessed with this issue of homosexuality?
* * *
“Gay” and “homosexual” are polite terms for an ugly practice. They are euphemisms. In all the politeness, we’ve actually stopped talking about the things that lie at the heart of the issue–sexual promiscuity of an abominable sort. … And I think it would be a good thing if more people were gagging on the reality of the sexual behavior that is now becoming public law, protected, and even promoted in public schools.
The most basic reason many Christians and other cultural conservatives are opposed to homosexuality is not because the Bible teaches it, because they have high moral standards or an exalted view of marriage. At its root, their disapproval is not about ideas. It is not first about values, family or otherwise. It is not primarily about social concern or the welfare of children.
These are the things people talk about. These are the reasons people give. These are the talking points in the debates and articles. But they are secondary to the real issue.
The real issue, the one no one wants to talk about, is that many Christians and moral conservatives are repulsed by gay sex. It’s a visceral thing, not an intellectual thing. It’s about what they feel in their gut, not what they find in their Bibles. When they say it’s an “abomination,” what they mean is not that homosexual practice is worthy of judgment, they mean it makes them gag. When they say it is “unnatural,” they are not advancing a natural law argument, they are saying “Yuck!” They find gay sex repugnant, sickening, gross.
Note from CM: Today we welcome Rob Grayson, one of our readers from across the pond. Rob is a freelance translator living in the middle of England. He finally pulled his finger out and began blogging last year, and since then he’s barely looked back. He writes on theology and faith in an attempt to strip away layers of Christian culture and find the truth embodied in Jesus. Other than writing, his hobbies include playing the piano and guitar and buying more theological books than he can possibly read.
I’m looking forward to a good discussion on Rob’s post today — in which he sets forth some interesting and challenging ideas about the Cross, which of course is a central theme in this Lenten season.
* * *
Sacrificial religion and violent power have been close allies since time immemorial.
By sacrificial religion, I mean the belief that God must be appeased through blood sacrifices. And by violent power, I mean the enforcement of one’s will through coercive means. Each of these on its own is problematic; put them together and place them in the hands not only of individuals but of nations and empires, and they wreak havoc.
In the Bible, we first see them come together when Cain kills Abel. The same old story is then re-enacted in myriad ways and forms down the centuries: violent power is used to impose the will of a people group, a nation or an empire on others, and sacrifices are offered to various Gods – including Israel’s God Yahweh – to keep them happy.
Fast-forward to first century Palestine. The ingredients are in place: a religious machine geared towards maintaining an almost unending flow of blood to keep God happy, and a mighty occupying force determined to keep the people under its heel. And notice how the occupying power is quite happy to collude with the religious system, and vice versa, if it is expedient for both of them to do so.
And so we have it: sacrificial religion sentences Jesus to death, and violent power supplies the apparatus of execution and supervises the gruesome proceedings. It’s the perfect marriage: Caiaphas and Pilate working together to murder the Son of God. No doubt they congratulated themselves on the neatness of their solution: for Caiaphas, it was expedient that one man should die for the people, and for Pilate, the life of one wandering Galilean was an inconsequential price to pay to keep those troublesome Jews from rising up and making trouble. Job done, everyone happy, the world rolls on.
But watch now: what neither Caiaphas nor Pilate realise is that their own lust for power and control will be their undoing; one might say they are hoist by their own petard. They think that, by violently taking Jesus’ life, they are protecting their interests and keeping the well-oiled machine working. But God is ahead of the game; He gets inside their plans and uses their own evil schemes and deeds to expose and rip apart the very system they are bent on protecting.
In short, God makes a brilliant, subversive and game-changing move. Neither Caiaphas nor Pilate took Jesus’ life; the blameless Lamb of God laid it down in the supreme act of self-giving sacrifice. And three days later came the crowning move, the pièce de résistance in God’s master plan. In rising from the grave, Jesus made a public spectacle of the principalities and powers: he exposed the sham of sacrificial religion and showed up violent power for what it was – the broad road that always and without fail leads to destruction.
Jesus did not die because God had an anger problem and needed to be appeased. God does not change; as He is about reconciliation now, so He always has been about reconciliation. No, Jesus died to take on the effects of our malice, rivalry and self-centredness and reflect them back at us in all their undisguised ugliness. He died because it was the only way to expose the inescapable fact that the wages of sin is death.
In short, God did not have an anger problem; we had a violence problem.
Sacrificial religion and violent power might look impressive and keep society’s winners and losers in place for a time, but they are both ultimately antichrist and lead to death. Those who live by the sword die by the sword, and those who swear by sacrificial religion might just end up being the ones lying dead on the altar one day.
God did not kill Jesus; Jesus’ death was the result of our sins sinned into him at Calvary. Let us not make the mistake of thinking that, had we been in Jerusalem that fateful day, we would have clung to the foot of the cross like the beloved John, faithful to the end. Much more likely, you and I would have been in the crowd baying for blood and shouting Crucify him!
What Jesus did was to show and make possible a new way in which the only sacrifice is self-sacrifice and the only power is the weak power that chooses to lay down its life. Of course, to those entrenched in sacrificial religion and violent power, this new way makes about as much sense as a quiet picnic in the forest does to a warring street gang. But the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
Here are a few of the pictures I took at Gethsemani Abbey last weekend. I will be working on putting up some full gallery pages in days to come. Click on thumbnails to see larger images.
Chris Smith and friends are hosting the Slow Church Conference here in Indy this week, and I know at least one faithful Internet Monk reader who will be attending. I hope to catch up with David, author of yesterday’s post, for some conversation on Saturday. At any rate, Chris’s book will be coming out this summer, but it’s getting some good buzz already.
.
The Internet Monk Archives 