Comments (2)

By Richard Hamilton, November 7, 2008 10:33 pm

Amazing, funny (in a sad-but-way-too-true kinda way) video from Richard Reising’s beyondrelevance.com.

Not personally a huge fan of Starbucks. Something about mediocre burnt coffee served in a cookie cutter environment that doesn’t do it for me. But, it’s hard to argue with their market share, and the point still proves true. Christians have a long way to go in their way they present package their faith. I don’t think there is anything wrong with the “product”.

Comments (5)

By Richard Hamilton, October 24, 2008 2:59 pm

On September 1, Andrew Jones (aka Tall Skinny Kiwi) hosted a poll in which 60.8% of respondents said it was time to dump the term “emergent.” A month or so back I read a post by Dan Kimball about the changing definition of emergent and the move by some to dump the term in favor of something more apt. Andrew continued the discussion later that month with two interesting posts, one of which was an international (yet still English speaking) perspective piece.

The discussion centers around whether or not emerging accurately describes the state of this movement [of churches/theologians/thinkers/etc.] who are exploring Christianity beyond Western Modernity. Maybe terms like Post-Modern or Post-Colonial are more familiar to you than emergent, but both (all three for that matter) imply simultaneously a movement from and a reliance on the Modern (Colonial). Some, myself included, have embraced terms like missional, for it’s ability to stand on its own and act descriptively rather than adescriptive. Missional is however limited in its usefulness. This term serves no benefit in describing the broader philosophical and social threads at play in the “emergent” movement.

Is there a solution to this “dilemma”? Who knows.

This caused me to think. “Why do we insist on labeling everything?”

Why do these terms break down? Because they are no longer allowed to serve as descriptions, but are forced beyond their inherent limitations into becoming titles. When did the word “emergent” become the word “Emergent”? According to emergentvillage.com, “In English, the word ‘emergent’ is normally an adjective meaning coming into view, arising from, occurring unexpectedly, requiring immediate action (hence its relation to ‘emergency’), characterized by evolutionary emergence, or crossing a boundary (as between water and air).” What happens when the Emergent Movement stops emerging? What happens when it itself becomes a system? (I would argue that in many ways, it has. A notable example to me was when the website emergentvillage.com’s primary function was no longer to serve as a discussion board for those wrestling with nagging, unanswered questions of faith and became a sounding board for the new found expertise of the likes of Brian McLauren.) People begin to question the use of the term “Emergent” in search of a suitable title to slap on their movement, much like what we see today.

Another example of this, which may only be appreciated by those of my particular faith tradition, is that of the “Restoration Movement.” Sometime back, a group of disenchanted American Christians broke free from denominational restraints in an effort to “restore” the ancient (New Testament) church. With the book of Acts as their model, they made great strides in going, in many ways, well beyond their reforming predecessors. Today, you do not hear the term “Restoration Movement” very often. I would argue that this is not because restoring is no longer needed, but rather because this is not what this movement is doing. One might even argue that the term “movement” is not appropriate. More common terms today are Church of Christ/Christian Churches, or independent Christian Churches. Some have even adopted the title “Stone-Campbell” in memory of some early pioneers in this movement. I don’t like that term, but it, in many ways, is a more accurate description of these churches than “Restoration Movement.”

Why do we insist on titling everything?

I believe this tendency even effects our reading of Christian texts. The ancient church was known as the Way and we assume they made signs and had t-shirts printed. They were first called Christians in Antioch. Someone in Antioch as really clever with marketing.

Is it possible, this type of language was intended to be descriptive exclusively? I think so. And I’m not sure that calling them Christians was intended to be flattering. What about the word “church” or the term “church of Christ”? Other ecclesiastic terms like “deacon,” “elder,” “pastor,” and “evangelist” come to mind.

I’m not sure what, if any, ramifications this might have on theology. I do think however, we have put way too much stock in language. Words, in and of themselves, are not capable of truly capturing the life of something like spiritual movements.

Comments (1)

By Richard Hamilton, May 30, 2008 3:03 pm

As many of you know, I am looking for a new ministry. I am parting ways with the church I have worked with the past 4 1/2 years. They are having a lot of problems meeting budget and have decided to cut my position. In my search, I came across a non-instrumental church on the West Coast looking for a youth minister. I know it was a long shot, but Sarah and I really liked the area and the church was very ethnically diverse, which appealed to us, so I sent in my resume. Here’s the thing, they actually called me for a phone interview, and it went well. They arranged for a second phone interview and I thought it might really work out.

I guess maybe at this point I should give some background for those of you who are like, “What does he mean ‘non-instrumental.’” Actually, Wikipedia does an adequate job on that front. Check out the wiki on churches of Christ. For our purposes, it’s sufficient to know that they are independent churches from the Restoration Movement which broke fellowship with other churches of Christ/Christian churches during the American Civil War partially in rejection of using instruments in their worship gatherings. My background is in the churches that use instruments (among other things) in our gatherings.

Anyway, I had a second interview and it did not go as well. They interviewer spent 1 1/2 hours trying to convince me that instrumental music in worship was sinful. I assumed this meant I didn’t get the job, and I was right. Here is the e-mail I got a week later (the names have been changed to protect those involved, except mine of course):
__________

Dear Richard,

I want to thank you for interest in the “City which shares its name with a well-known Mexican adult beverage” Church of Christ. It appears to me that you are a sincere and committed individual who will be an asset to any organization that you choose to serve. As for us with the church of Christ in “City which shares its name with a well-known Mexican adult beverage,” we have decided to continue our search for a Youth Minister in other candidates because we can not reconcile the doctrinal differences in regard to instrumental music that exist between us. We believe that the “sacrifice of praise” like all sacrifices must be offered as specified by God, if they are to be acceptable to Him. In this case, God has specified “the fruit of our lips” (Heb 13:15), thereby excluding the use of instrumental music.

Again thank you for your interest in us. I encourage you to continue to your study in all matters pertaining to God’s goodness, power, and will for our lives.

May God bless you in your efforts to serve him,
“John Doe”,
“City which shares its name with a well-known Mexican adult beverage” church of Christ
__________

I see two big problems with the non-instrumental way of thinking (besides the fact that they won’t hire me, oh yeah, and they butcher/mis-use texts of the Bible).

One. There is an idea they have that if we aren’t explicitly told it is okay, its not. The guy just flat out says that in the e-mail. “God has specified ‘the fruit of our lips’ (Heb 13:15), thereby excluding the use of instrumental music.” I think you need to explain that one. Let’s assume this verse is telling us to sing. Let’s also assume this verse is about corporate worship gatherings (which is a stretch). How does this verse forbid Christians from using instruments? If the use of instruments was so wrong, don’t you think Paul would have jotted down a “I do not permit the use of the harp, lyre, cymbal or trumpet” somewhere? Christianity is the Law of Liberty. The words of Jesus about some particularly religious people come to mind. “They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.” Most of these churches are so inconsistent. They own property, have Sunday School, hire youth ministers and utilize PA systems. None of these are explicitly commanded in the Bible. If you were to carry this principle to its extreme, most of what they do as a group would not be allowed.

Two. All this energy is spent on one of the most insignificant parts of the Christian life, music. I know. Some of you are stunned because Rich Mullins and DC Talk were essential to your conversion. Here’s the deal. The early church was dedicated to some things, namely the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer, and music didn’t make the list. I love music. I always have it on. I never leave home without my IPod. But, music is not worship. A transformed life and a renewed mind, that’s worship. A life of sacrifice, that’s worship. Spirit and truth, that’s worship. Music can be part of worshiping God, but it cannot become more important than worshiping God.

Comments (0)

By Richard Hamilton, December 8, 2007 2:56 pm

Christmas is fast approaching and it is easy to lose sight of what is important over the holiday season. It seems to be that more and more people are spending more and more money earlier and earlier in the year. I heard on the radio the other week that Americans spent 8% more this year on “Black Friday” then they did last year. It seems some people even go into debt to give the “perfect” gift. I wonder what our world would be like if people decided to spend less money on Christmas gifts and invest more time in the people around them.

I was in San Diego for the National Outreach Convention in November and got a chance to hear Rick McKinley from the Imago Dei Community speak. One thing he mentioned was the Advent Conspiracy. The basic idea is people spend less on Christmas, give relational gifts, and give their money to a good cause (in this case, making clean water available to those in need around the world).

Maybe instead of giving useless junk, no one needs as gifts this year; we can be a little more thoughtful and come up with meaningful ways to give.

Comments (0)

By Richard Hamilton, April 27, 2007 10:45 pm

After a winter of enduring the painful and humorous auditions of thousands of Americans and after the trimming process of Hollywood, the hype of American Idol has reached a fever as pitch. The field has been cut down to the ten contestants who will tour the nation this summer. Tonight, contestants will stride out onto the stage and be judged on their appearance, song selection, stage presence, and most importantly, the quality of the vocal. The chosen ten seek the votes of the masses and know they will sweat out the elimination the following night. It is all a very slick package.

There are times when a church gathering is treated like an American Idol show. The judges roll in, give their initial responses in their facial expressions and then give their comments on the way out the door. Did the service start on time? How was the song selection? Too many hymns or praise songs? Were the right instruments used with their volumes at the correct level? How long was the sermon? Was there enough humor? Did the speaker make eye contact with all parts of the audience equally? Was that video clip or drama necessary and appropriate? All that we want to avoid are the words, “First of all preacher, I really like your outfit”

Churches should seek to be prepared and orderly in their cooperate worship. The issue is when someone who should be coming as a participating worshipper instead comes to a worship gathering expecting to be entertained, patted on the back, and fed. The Bible does give us a metaphor in which leaders “feed the flock,” but it is not the only metaphor. The Bible also mentions disciples growing from spiritual infancy, moving from liquids to solid food. My niece is 16 months old and has been feeding herself for months, yet there are some “long-time Christians” who still complain about not being fed. This sort of attitude accentuates the age-old gap between clergy and laity, between those on the stage and those who aren’t. This is simply a tentacle of a beast (some of you need to calm down and think scary squid, not prophecy in Revelation and Daniel) that thinks of church as a place and an activity when it is a group of people committed to transforming the world. The church is not a place or activity; it is a group of people.

The church is called to be the united body of Christ; this cannot be a reality if we come to be judge or to be a minority coming to perform and then be judged. So enjoy American Idol and let’s all hope Sanjaya gets voted off, but realize that the judge hat is put away when we are seeking to be the church.

Quick Hints:

It still shocks me how people are “famous for being famous” in our society. All it takes to be a celebrity is to be on a reality show or have bank. It is no wonder with the excessive amount of entertainment news. The question is why America has such a hunger for stars?

Isn’t it sad how physical appearance dictates so much in our society? There have been several times I have been watching Idol and wonder how a person is still in the competition. They are getting the hormonally charged adolescent vote despite being the worst contestant in terms of talent.

Comments (0)

By Richard Hamilton, April 15, 2007 10:47 pm

American churches have certainly done their share of global missionizing. Chances are, if you are part of a church, it supports some international ministry, churches, church planting organizations, benevolent humanitarian work. I wonder, however, what we are hoping to accomplish with these efforts. Don’t misunderstand me, I am not belittling cross-cultural evangelism, nor am I questioning the intentions of missionaries. I am, however, questioning American Christian expectations of these works. I wonder if we are evangelizing for Christ or for western American culture. Are we hoping people will encounter Christ or conform to our culture? Here are a few trends that concern me:

American cultural and social values are enforced internationally. Venerating American traditions is bad enough here in the states, but I’ve heard of churches that celebrate the 4th of July in Europe.

American educational models of discipleship dominate many missionary works. One simply needs to look at the failings of our public education system to see the problem with this.

American political structures have become the international model for church polity. Does anyone really believe that we have perfected church governance by mixing pseudo-biblical principles and the 7 habits of highly effective people?

Cheesy American “praise” music has found its way into churches world-wide. Someone along the way was able to convince missionaries that translating the words was as good as translating the culture.

Here’s the deal, Americans (especially religious ones) think its all about them us. This is reflected in left-behind pop-Christian end times theology, “seeker sensitivity”, the “worship war(s),” the list goes on. The American Christian colonization must end, but until we take the focus off of us and return it to Christ, I’m afraid it won’t.

Comments (0)

By Richard Hamilton, March 23, 2007 10:40 pm

Here are a few things to keep in mind (I must admit, these are not original):

People need a spiritual friend not a spiritual adversary. Think back to when you became a Christian. For many of you, there was a person or a group of people you credit for their involvement in your becoming a Christian. Maybe they cared for you in ways you had not experienced before. Maybe they were there for you when you needed them. If we were listening, we would hear people talking about spiritual things, often ever deep spiritual things, at work, around the house, in the coffee shop or at the grocery store. Sometimes the best thing we can do is just be there to listen to them and their concerns and struggles. Most people are looking for meaningful friendship.

People need honest conversation not easy answers. I do not know about you, but it is my tendency to want to answer everyone’s questions, often before they even finish asking. I find myself plotting my response while they are talking. The result: I do not hear what they are actually saying. Even worse is the fact that, in many cases, they are not even looking for an answer but I am shoving one down their throats. People are not looking for Christians to be “Bible Answer Man.” They are looking for someone to be real with them. Someone to sympathize with them and not belittle their doubts…doubts that often lead seekers to faith. Evangelists need to be involved with open and honest dialogue.

People need to see Christ modeled. Read through one of the Gospels sometime and check out what Jesus did and said. He healed even when it was socially unacceptable. He embraced the outcasts. He shared life. Sadly, most Christians (myself included) cannot say they same about themselves.

Matthew 28:18-20, is quoted by many Christians as their evangelizing mantra. Matthew 28:16-17 are however a little less known. A some years back, I heard the late Mike Yaconelli talking about this passage and it has stuck with me to this day. Not that his words were profound or that I agreed with what he was saying. I just think it was the first time I had taken the time to notice these verses. “But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.” Did you catch that? Some were doubtful. Doubt?!? These people had been with him since the beginning. They had seen the miracles; they were standing on a mountain with the resurrected Jesus and some doubted. Instead of calming their fears or answering their doubts, Jesus makes them his representatives. He sends them out. How is this possible? Evangelism, in Jesus’ estimation, must have been something other than what we have made it.

Comments (0)

By Richard Hamilton, March 22, 2007 10:38 pm

Because most people do not feel up to entering the debate arena, many Christians retreated to what I call “hit and run” evangelism. Christian bookstores are full of products to help these endeavors. My favorite product: the “Testamints.” Maybe you have seen them. Admittedly, I have even eaten a few. They are the mints, usually located by the register, that are wrapped with a Bible verse. Christians who do not feel qualified or prepared to debate can simply leave a punily named mint with a morsel of God’s Word for their unsuspecting friend or coworker to discover. This type of evangelism, although well intended, lacks the genuine connection many people are seeking. A church I once worked with decided to get groups together on a weekday evening to go visit people in the community. As a gesture of goodwill and with the intention of being friendly, they made sand-art cookie jars. Attached to the jars were usually a Bible verse and the contact info for the church. I thought it was a great idea. This small southern community was still very open to people coming to their homes and the combination of cookies and art was genius. The first night I showed up, we grabbed a few cookie jars and headed on our way. When I read the tags, I was stunned. A few of the jars had something like “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. -Luke 13:3″ written on the card. With some tweaking, the visits proved to be very successful for that church, but it makes me wonder what these well-intentioned people were hoping to accomplish. I think we hope that if we leave tidbits of faith around, we will not have to win over our friends with eloquent arguments and we will have still done our evangelistic duty.

Evangelism does not have to be like this. In fact, these approaches usually are not very effective because they do not take into account what people really need.

Comments (0)

By Richard Hamilton, March 21, 2007 10:37 pm

I often wonder what thoughts enter people’s minds when they hear the word “evangelism.” Often, evangelism is a thing of dread and terror. It causes many Christians to break out into cold sweats. To feel nauseous. To get all tongue-tied. Maybe a more important question is what thoughts enter the minds of those on the receiving end of Christian evangelist efforts. It’s quite likely they have been on the receiving end of a failed evangelistic attempt more than once. Often, the very thought of someone talking to them about Jesus makes them want to run for the hills.

Why is this? Why has evangelism become such a negative idea for so many people?

I believe it is partly because of what we [Christians] have made evangelism. Usually when churches “teach” evangelism, they teach how to debate and argue their points. “Be sure and cover this list.” “Argue this point.” “Throw in this Bible verse here.” “And never admit you don’t know or you were wrong.” Even the language we use brings to mind Court TV (“apologetics” and “evidence that demands a verdict”). Do not misunderstand me. There are times to defend Christian faith. There are times to discuss and even debate, but in many cases, debate is the only evangelism people know. I see two problems with this. First, a debate is a win-lose situation. When we enter a debate over faith and religion, it is with the unspoken understanding that someone will lose. Evangelism should be win-win. Second, debating takes a certain set of skills and a lot of prep-time. In High School I was on the debate team for a year. My event was called “Congress.” Each student submitted their legislation in advance and we came together to debate each document’s merit at competitions. At my first debate match, I came with a printout of each bill neatly tucked in a file folder, assured I was well prepared. As I passed through the classroom door, into the room where the debate was to be held, I noticed that everyone there had boxes upon boxes of material. Newspaper clippings. Computer printouts. Books. Magazines. Statistics. Analysis. Boxes and boxes of debate prep. Then, the debates started. High School students would stand behind a podium and rattle off quotes and statistics a mile a minute, all the while judges as stern as Simon Cowell (although luckily for me their criticisms were written not verbalized) critiqued your every word. I learned something that day: formal debate is for a select few. This is may be why many Christians leave evangelism to the “professionals”: paid church staff.