Digging this band, Yellow Ostrich as of late. This track "Whale" in particular is fabulous. If you head over to their site you can download a couple free songs as well.
New Dodos and Pinback singles
via earmilk.com
So, what do you think of the new Dodos and Pinback releases? Digging the Dodos but feeling like Pinback's been a bit of a one-trick pony as of late.
Whaddaya think?
Waiting for the (un)King: Advent Week One
Warhol was right. There is something about the celebration of Advent that makes Christmas.. more exciting! The acknowledgement of this season in our home has made Christmas more special and certainly more centered on Jesus.
Otherwise, in this season many of us simply fall into the fray of the rabid consumerism.
As usual, I'm going to post a few of my reflections each week during Advent this year. It is one of my favorite times of year. As I have before, I use the term "(un)King." Two years ago, I wrote this about the term:
"Why do I call Jesus the (un)King? Because in all but title, he is unlike any human king. As you read the story of his arrival in the Gospels, you will find a very unkingly story; his first cradle a feeding trough, poor farm hands to announce his arrival and so on. "
Isaiah 64:1-9 is one of today's lectionary readings. It speaks of God's silence and the impatience of God's people for him to show up. It seems a short attention span and a lack of patience is more timeless than we might think. But the Isaiah passage, along with the remainder of today's readings, say something about the kind of King we await as Advent begins today. He is a God capable of the incredible but who loves to work in the quiet, in the shadows and in the mundane.The incredible and sensational is certainly what we would desire, as the writer of this passage does, "Oh, that you would rip open the heavens and descend, make the mountains shudder at your presence." Yet it seems that God chooses not go about his redeeming work in the world in such a way most of the time. Why would the maker of the universe work in such humble tones? Because that is where most of us hide. It's where we hide our brokenness, our woundedness, our inability to make the world what we wish it to be. Isaiah writes, "We're all sin-infected, sin-contaminated. Our best efforts are grease-stained rags." Still, it is us he chooses to work with.
In the Isaiah passage, it says, "You meet those who happily do what is right, who keep a good memory of the way you work." As we enter into the Advent season, remember the Story of redemption, of restoration. Let this story drive us to the quiet places and shadows of our own hearts and in the world around us. May we wait there faithfully. God will meet us there. Maybe not in the ways we expect. He has an affection for the humble and broken, for barns, feeding troughs and day laborers. But he does arrive. And the good news is that his arrival is not based on our patience. The happiness of she who Isaiah writes about in the quote above does not find joy in the fact that she does what is good and remembers well but in the confidence that God will arrive no matter what. That, in and of itself, is good news indeed.
missional discernment
A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of speaking at Madison Street Church in Riverside. My friend and mentor, Jeff Wright is the pastor there. It is a wonderful group of people doing some great things in their part of the world. I preached on the subject of discernment and drew from St. Paul's letters, which I've been reading and thinking a lot about lately. No different than any other point in history, Christians today are face with the challenge of discerning how we engage cultures, our place within them, etc. Now, some would say that this is already defined for us in Scripture. Yes, I agree with this in general. But we fall somewhere in between Acts and Revelation and the details have to be worked out in real time. What are we to do with stem cell research or factory farming?Or what about the issue that almost every N. American denomination is deliberating over, sexual orientation? This is where discernment plays into this. How did Paul, and the other church leaders for that matter, know what was permissible and what wasn't as the Gospel touched more and more cultures further away from the Jewish norm of their day? As you read the Epistles I think there are a few rules that run through Paul's writing regarding discerning and making judgments on such issues. Here's what I think he offers:
1. These issues arise due to mission. Are we making judgments on issues because as we embody and proclaim the Gospel among all cultures (and sub-cultures) we are approaching groups that function outside of our norms? If the debate of the issue is our primary engagement are we missing the (biblical) point? Circumcision, food, gender roles, etc. arose for Paul because he was on mission. Not because he was looking for a debate.
2. Discernment requires a grasp of Scripture. Not proof texts. Paul knew his Bible inside and out. He got the over-arching narrative and this shaped his worldview. We ought to be doing the same. What shapes your worldview more? Culture (norms, rituals, practices, news outlets, media, etc.) or Scripture?
3. Our view of Scripture is shaped by Jesus. Paul saw the whole of Scripture through Jesus. Everything he knew of Scripture was now shaped by everything he knew of Jesus. Think of Jesus as the lens through which we read Scripture. Paul would be horrified to hear of someone interpreting Scripture through his writing. To do the work of missional discernment Jesus has to shape how we read the whole of Scripture. Know the Gospels.
4. Missional discernment requires community. Paul was rarely alone and he almost always writes to a community, not individuals. Discernment is a collective process. It happens as we ruminate over Scriptures during meals together, as we worship and pray together, as we laugh and cry together, as we go about God's mission together. I think Paul's letters assume that this kind of together-ness was happening in the churches he wrote to who were approached with such issues.
5. The presence of the Holy Spirit is assumed and engaged. It could be said that Paul is totally dependent on the Holy Spirit. He is confident that the Spirit is with him and with those he addresses. He is therefore confident to say and do the bold and wild things he does. In a pain-adverse and safety-idolizing culture I think it's safe to say that we do not assume the presence of the Holy Spirit. Quite to opposite: we think we're on our own. But Paul made decisions and encouraged discernment in a manner that did not assume that God was simply "watching from on high." Rather, he did so assuming God's presence was immediate.
How does this match up with how we discern the "issues" of our day? Thoughts?
the return of #makesomethingday
Steve Knight and I--and hopefully some others--are trying to see if we can get an online presence for Make Something Day back up and running again. Go "like" the new Facebook page, follow MSD on Twitter and spread the word (use #makesomethingday). A website is in the works. But more important is whatever you choose to do on MSD. I hope you'll share with us what you make.
For those of you wondering, "What is Make Something Day?" The idea came about several years ago. Here's an article I wrote for Sojourners magazine a few years ago that tells the story. (And it looks as though others have had the same idea independent of our endeavors.)
Make Something Day is back!
la posada sin fronteras 2011
It's that time of year again. Fliers for your distribution pleasure below. 
I have so much affection for this simple poster. It's all the memories it represents. I love the line: "Que brille la estrella seguimos pidiendo posada." or "The star still shines the search for shelter continues." What a loaded phrase!?
See you there?
Putting the “Protest” back into Protestant | What Christians could learn from #OWS
In a recent conference call I was asked about my opinions on Occupy Wall Street and the other occupations arising after that. To my surprise, I had a lot more in my head about this than I would have thought. So, here's a bit of a brain dump on the subject.
It has been easy for many to write off what has been happening with the #occupy movement across the world. But are things we could, or should, learn from this phenomenon? I think Christians, or at least Protestants of all stripes, should pay attention to protests. Spiritual, ethical, moral and theological protest is a historical distinction for Protestants within the Christian family. What follows is not an attempt to wholesale validate these “occupations.”Rather, it is simply my reflection on what this movement has exposed.
Naming the problems
JR Woodward has made good points about what the #occupy movement has brought to bear and how it relates to the Christian faith. Wealth inequality is increasing. All of us know more and more people who are struggling or terribly nervous about what lies ahead. Economics and poverty are central themes within Scripture. We ought to be wrestling with these texts and living out what the Scriptures require of us regarding the poor and injustice. As Woodward puts it, “This ought to concern us as Christ followers. Jesus had much to say about wealth inequality, just check out the not so popular Sermon on the Plain in Luke 6.”
Everyone has a voice, everyone has a role
From my perspective, one of the reasons why the Occupy movement is hard to understand for most people has something to do with the fact it does not flow with the typical consumer narrative. There is not a clear leader(s), there is not just one product or agenda and there is not a clear timeline. This is often what happens when everyone has a voice. The occupations have been intriguing in the fact that a multiplicity of gifts and abilities are able to participate. It reminds me a lot of what the punk rock scene was like when I was exposed to it. As Christians, we believe in the “priesthood of all believers.” What can we learn from the creative inclusions of the many in our own work?
It is (for the most part) non-violent
David Fitch has already mentioned this point here. Still, it is my conviction that fundamental and radical convictions that do not require peacemaking and resistance against violence as core aspects of that conviction will ultimately result in violence. For much of Christian history--and in the mind of its thinkers and teachers throughout time--peacemaking has been a central theme. Now, what the occupy movement has displayed is nonresistance or nonviolence, not peacemaking necessarily. That requires more than occupation of public space and more direct exchange with the “powers”. Nonetheless, these occupations have accomplished much without the use of violence. And as Fitch writes, they are “nonviolently opting out of polluted democratic structures”. Where does violence corrupt our work of sharing the good news of God’s love?
Becoming a peculiar people, or being in yet not of the world
The movement has made a clear distinction in its efforts. It internally functions and externally displays something clearly different than the status quo. This is done in great part to make a statement; the statement that the status quo is broken. We, as Christians, often go to great lengths to be culturally relevant and inoffensive. This, in most cases I think, comes from a good conviction. But it is often poorly exercised. We end up being indistinguishable from the rest of the culture we are within. What might we learn about this movement that reminds of our protest-ant roots?
On Movements:
Don’t call it a movement until it’s a movement
I’m increasingly annoyed by folks that call their new Christian work a “movement.” From my perspective, Christians don’t start movements. We believe the Holy Spirit does. The “movement” begun at Pentecost was ignited by the Holy Spirit. Not Peter or the disciples. The other thing that troubles me is that we call things a movement before they really are a movement, something in which the ideals and values of something move beyond its leaders and initial context and become cross-contextual, based on those ideals—not leaders and resources. #Occupy became that. Most “missional movements” are small networks, not movements.
Real movements often have slow starts and quick endings
From a Western perspective, the #occupy movement owes much of its impetus to the work of Adbusters and its founder Kalle Lasn. (BTW, Lasn’s Culture Jam,/em> is a worthwhile read) Adbusters coined the “occupy” term last summer but obviously didn’t see it realized until months later. And the kind of thing now happening with these occupations is something they’ve long imagined in their work. All this to say, that movements frequently have small and long beginnings that suddenly, and unexpectedly, take off with a life of their own. But the opposite is often true of their endings.
What #OWS could learn:
Listen to yet don’t idealize your elders
So much of what is currently happening comes from high ideals. I applaud high ideals. I’m an idealist myself. But high ideals often repeat history. When I look at this movement I want to know what kind of dialog is happening with the previous generation of protestors. Obviously, many of those protesting during the 60’s grew up and became a part of what they were previously protesting. Is the question being asked what to learn from that movement? What can be avoided? Etc. I see the same problem in many progressive, and “emerging” Christian circles. They are doing the same thing that another generation did. Are you sure you want to do that? Visit most mainline churches today and you will find a lot of dying churches. Are you asking what happened, what went wrong and are you willing to be critical enough of yourself to determine whether or not you are taking steps than will commit you to the same errors? That may be happening. I’m just asking because it does not seem evident to me.
Know who you are
Part of the reason why the Civil Rights movement worked in many respects is because they trained, knew what they wanted and went after that. Its so postmodern to have no agenda, but all agendas. (Sorry, that was snarky) But at the end of the day, I don’t know what results will come of that. It’s okay to not let every agenda co-opt a movement. It seems important, to me at least, that folks involved in this to know what they want and how they imagine getting it. Christians, in particular, who find themselves to be a part of this movement need to know when this fits within their understanding of the Christian narrative and when they go separate ways. Its not an easy decision to make. But it still has to be made, in my opinion. Its okay to say, “I’m with you on [fill in the blank] agenda because it aligns with I see the Father doing. But I cannot participate in [fill in the blank] because it does not fit with the Father’s agenda.” In fact, its not just okay. I think we have to do that.
Nonviolence is only half-way to peacemaking
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus didn’t just teach a way to resist non violently, he taught a way to make peace with enemies. I applaud the urge to go about things without violence (where that has been the case). But there is more excluding the option of violence than avoidance. I recommend Glen Stassen’s Just Peacemaking for starters.
“Occupation” means much the same as “colonialism” in many parts of the world
Just a thought, does “occupy” neglect the terms historical implications in many parts of the world? I would not want to live in an territory occupied by someone else. As a Christian, I would not want my enemies to either.
Today, it frequently doesn’t start in the West
It seems to me that is a bit naïve if one were to think that the protests, and revolutions, that arose in the Middle East had nothing to do with the #occupy movement. Locked deep within our Western imaginations we tend to think that everything begins with us. In truth, the marketing and consumerism of the West does have global impact. But due to globalization it’s a two way street now. And it would seem likely to me that much of the imagination of what we now see was sparked by what we saw in the Middle East. Which leads me to my next thought.
We are not the 99%
As a visual shared by Anthony Bradley makes clear, those protesting are not the 99% of the world suffering from abject poverty. This should be taken into consideration. Is this being brought to the forefront simply because the economic crisis is now impacting those of us in the States? Because it has effected many more--mostly in the southern hemisphere--for much longer. How does such an effort as #occupy impact their dire situation? Especially when considering the situation in many other parts of the world, are we grateful for what we do have? This is not to disregard the high unemployment and growing number of those below the poverty line in the States. I am well aware of that as I see the face of homelessness in San Diego change. I simply want to point out that we much more than we often think when we consider the global community. This leads to my last thought.
Protest in the real world
Let me be clear before I make this next point, protestants can, and have been, very impactful. The demonstrations during the Civil Rights movement, for example, were critical to draw attention to the injustice of racism. Yet, the “living protests” of Clarence Jordan and those of the Koinonia Farms was just as critically important as the demonstrations. Why? They envisioned another way to be human after the protest was over. How can the current critique being articulated and demonstrated be shaped into tangible, sustainable ways of living differently?
the ambidextrous organization
The Roman god Janus had two sets of eyes—one pair focusing on what lay behind, the other on what lay ahead. General managers and corporate executives should be able to relate. They, too, must constantly look backward, attending to the products and processes of the past, while also gazing forward, preparing for the innovations that will define the future.
via hbr.org
We're at a point in Church history where much of our classic methodology is highly questioned. I was once one of the young whipper snappers taking cheap shots at the church, easily forgetting that she was my Savior's bride. I've grown more practical but my love for the Church still leaves me to hope for constant improvement
In my studies at Fuller, our cohort has talked, studied and read a ton on ecclesiological issues. The bottom line is this: conversations of change have to take into consideration that such changes impact people, for they, not the institutions, are the Church. When we take this into consideration we quickly realize that there are many that are tightly bound to the legacy, the heritage of any local congregation. The traditions shape them and mold them even as those younger or more entrepreneurial want to move on.
How might we honor the old, while exploring the new? The truth is most experimentation with church forms that are attached to a traditional congregation are not set up to survive without the "mothership." If you "kill it," you lose your resources. So, it isn't in the best interest of many young Christian leaders to burn down the proverbial house. A balance has to be found.
The Harvard Business Review (follow link above) published an article some time back that discussed the "ambidextrous organization." And I think this concept might give some imagination to the conversation of ancient/future church or at least some practical thought-starters. Here's a few principles I draw from the "ambidextrous" idea in the western church context:
- Both the "old" and the "new" must have value to the whole
- There is only a "new" for the sake of mission; not relevance, reaction or whatever else might compel us
- The "old" has value as it holds within it a legacy, a history and a narrative that informs the whole (if not more)
- Mission brings life to all (the HBR article authors talk about "incremental," "architectural," and "discontinuous" innovations or changes)
What are your thoughts?
street art in la
Jason Evans
o: 619-232-7513 x1027
m: 619-808-9985
f: 619-232-8469
fpcsd.org
digitaljasonevans.com
No Such Thing As Atheism - David Foster Wallace
Because here's something else that's weird but true: in the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship--be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles--is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It's the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It's been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness.
Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they're evil or sinful, it's that they're unconscious. They are default settings.
They're the kind of worship you just gradually slip into, day after day, getting more and more selective about what you see and how you measure value without ever being fully aware that that's what you're doing.
And the so-called real world will not discourage you from operating on your default settings, because the so-called real world of men and money and power hums merrily along in a pool of fear and anger and frustration and craving and worship of self. Our own present culture has harnessed these forces in ways that have yielded extraordinary wealth and comfort and personal freedom. The freedom all to be lords of our tiny skull-sized kingdoms, alone at the centre of all creation. This kind of freedom has much to recommend it. But of course there are all different kinds of freedom, and the kind that is most precious you will not hear much talk about much in the great outside world of wanting and achieving.... The really important kind of freedom involves attention and awareness and discipline, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day.
That is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing.
Thoughts?
an external focus...
My buddy, Brian Mavis, has a similar role as mine at First but he works for LifeBridge Christian Church in Colorado. He also runs the Externally Focused Network. Through this network, Brian has just released a free report that profiles some of the best "externally focused ideas" to come out of their network of churches. One of the things I love about this is that it shows the potential when churches determine the assets of both their congregation and community and then work together. Take a look. It's free. And if this is something you're just getting started in considering, Chris Smith's Growing Deeper In Our Church Communities is really helpful in getting you started down this path too (it too is a free download).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)