Fulfillment

Well, after wating all Thanksgiving weekend for my professor to send me back my book analysis (which he did but it didn't go through) I got it back today. I received a B+ and a great critique of my syntax and sentance structure (he thinks I might be too wordy and put together to many complex sentences - go figure!). I also did a presentation in class and got an A. I felt very relaxed and in my element as I got an opportuntiy to teach a class (albeit for only 15 minutes - timed). After class we all went to a nearby restaurant and our professor treated us to a burger and a drink. I have now finished with my first PhD seminar (except for the 40 page paper) and I have a few thoughts. Here goes:
1. I'm not the smartest guy in the class but I do belong. I can think, evaluate, integrate complex concepts, and apply what I learn to concepts that can be taught or can be enacted.
2. My age has little to do with how I am viewed or responded to in the class. I am accepted on the merits of my own being and my own thoughts.
3. I relate well to others in a diverse and integrated group. My closest friend is a 30 something African-American father of two who is majoring in ethics. The other person I relate to is another 30 something African-American woman pastor who already has a PhD in another discipline (Public Policy). It's nice to know that your age, gender, and skin color do not limit you to one homogeneous group.
4. This is fun. I love to learn and grow and change.

Now, here are some things for you.
1. You belong. You may not be the smartest, richest, prettiest, most talented, articulate person in your circle of influence, but you can think, evaluate, and integrate things from your area of interest.
2. Accept others on the merits of who they are. Don't pigeonhole others into some calss or group.
3. Be intentional about diversity. If you don't know anyone else who is ethnically, racially different than you, you have the responsibility to make it diverse. Diversity is a good thing but it must be intentional to be real.
4. Changing and growing, becoming and learning can be fun. How have you grown recently? Try it. You might like it.

Anticipation

I turned in my first paper for my Ph.D seminar this week. It was only a six page analysis of a book that I had read (a really interesting book on the preaching of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. entitled, "The Preacher King" - I wrote a blog entry about a while back). It was not a true research paper but a paper designed to interact the themes of the book with one of the major theorists that we have read in class in Practical Theology. If all that sounds too detailed, know this. It was the very first paper I have written academically in around 18 years. Am I nervous? You bet. I turned it in on Monday and got a call from one of the other guys in class that his (and everyone else in the class) had already been graded. So, I went by my profs office to retrieve mine only to find out that he had not graded mine yet. He let me know that, with one exception, everyone else was grading out to be a B. Now, that sounds great except in Ph.D work if you get more than 2 B's as final grades in your seminars, they call you in for an appointment to evaluate whether or not you should continue in the program. So, there is some pressure to excel academically. So, now I get to play the waiting game. For those who know me, it should come as no surprise that I hate the waiting game. If patience is a virtue, I got in the back of the line when they were handing it out. So, I get to anticipate what I got for a grade for the rest of the day.
What are you supposed to do when all you have is anticipation? How do you wait constructively? A few suggestions:

1. Wait don't fixate - the old adage, "a watched pot never boils" is an example of fixating on a problem. It lengthens the problem rather than compressing it. Go on a live life, do your work, go to the movies, do whatever you would normally do. Remember, anticipation does not have to rob you of the lived moment.

2. If you anticipate, imagine all the possibilities not just the negative ones - the real problem with anticipation is that we worry about WCS (worst case scenarios) rather than anticipating good things. For instance, in our home as the boys were growing up anticipation would rise as we got closer to Christmas Day. That kind of anticipation was so positively powerful that the boys did not want to know what presents had been purchased. They would not go into closets or pry into conversations to find out because they knew that reality would be even better than knowing because the anticipation made things more exciting. Now, I realize that anticipating bad news from the doctor or the teacher or the lawyer or the boss has little redeeming value and does not relate to Christmas excitement, except in this way. If you are going to anticipate what news is coming, at least anticipate all the possibilities and all the possible responses. If you think it is going to be bad news, consider the possible positive responses. For instance, the doctor is running tests to see if you need an operation. Consider how this could be a great weight loss program. The teacher is grading your paper - consider how much better you will be next time you have to write one because you will learn so much from the teachers notes about how you wrote this one. You get the point. Everything has a silver lining.
Just remember, anticipation does not have to be a bad thing unless you make it so. I hope I can remember that over the next few hours as I anticipate my paper and I pray you can remember this when you anticipate the news that has you anxious about your life.

Two Ears and One Mouth

I've been thinking about my friend, Patty, today. I talked with her this afternoon and she shared with me her concerns and issues. They are serious and challenging - nothing made up or fluff, just real issues about body, soul, and mind. I wish there was something that I could do to change the circumstances (typical male thinking, I grant you). I want to help or heal or create a significant change in the circumstances that surround her. But, I am hours away and, even if I were minutes away, there is nothing in my own power that I can do to change her situation. Sound familiar? Anyone who cares about another person who is going through a difficult time knows what I mean (and that's most if not all of us). Amazingly, Patty said something that reminded me that there is something that I can do. Toward the end of the conversation as I was lamenting my lack of power over her situation, Patty said, "That's all right. Just talking with you has made a difference."
I continually forget that compassion comes not just in giving a prescription for healing but in the idea of being sympathetic or empathetic. Not all healing comes from pills or surgeries or psychiatric insights or money. Some healing comes just from listening. Compassion is listening with your ears, mind, and heart. Sympathy is more than feeling sorry for another. It is putting yourself in that persons shoes and feeling their pain and dilemma (actually, that's probably more like empathy - though that usually means you have experienced the same thing and know if from the inside out rather than the outside in). Compassion is an ear more than a mouth. Compassion is not telling someone how you feel but is listening and coming to realize what the other person really feels.
The old adage is still true. God gave us two ears and one mouth. Maybe we should get the hint! Well, you have ears to hear. You will be amazed at how many hurting people are looking for someone who will listen (really listen) to them and you will be further amazed at how much healing come come through your ears and not your mouth.

Have Some Chocolate!

We went out last night to a friend's church to support him in a project he has for school. James is taking a course in "Theology of Film" and was required to have a public showing of a film of his choosing and then lead a discussion of the film. For nearly 3 years Joanie and I hosted a group in our home that met once a month to do this very thing, so we were excited to join in the process. The movie James chose was "Chocolate" and it is a very interesting film. Let me tell you a few things about it:

• It takes place in a small French town that is highly repressed due to its' overbearing mayor. He is the enforcer of the rules of the town and the church. He intimidates everyone.
• Moving into the town is a woman with her young child who opens (in the middle of Lent, mind you) a Chocolate Shop. It is scandalous!
• The rest of the picture is the battle between the Mayor (controlling the church, the town, and all morality) vs. the woman who owns the decadent confectionery store and who does not go to church and seems to defy all staid, ultra-conservative ideas.
• Caught in the middle is the town priest who must please the mayor (the head of the deacon board) and still find his way in ministry (he is young and inexperienced in the pastoral ministry)

By the end of the movie people's sins have been exposed and forgiven. Redemption has found its way into the church. The divided loyalties of church members have come together in a wonderful sense of community. And by saying all this I have told you little that will spoil the movie. The question we wrestled with afterwards was if the movie was too harsh on the church. And my answer is: I don't think so. The church in the movie is judgemental, overbearing, hiding all its own dirty laundry and putting up a good front, unloving, unhealthy, and not very fun. While that may or may not be your experience in the church I can guarantee you one thing - it is how those who don't go to church view those of us who do. Unfortunately, we've earned the rep by being isolationist, harsh on those we seek to have come to faith in Christ, and creating an atmosphere of judgement. So, my answer was, "No, its not too hard on the church."
However, I thought the theology of the movie was terrible. It gave the view that hedonism was positive, that the goal of life is to be happy, and that the gospel has no healing or regenerative power whatsoever. That's bad theology. So, how do we bridge the gap between the perception of the church's practice and the reality of God's Word in our midst? Well, it may not be profound, but here are some things I've come to learn:

• You can't separate the practice of the church from the teaching of our theology. If we teach one way and act another, we deny what we teach. If we teach it but don't live it we are hollow voices, noisy gongs, and extremely ineffective.
• Changing the perception of the church begins not by looking at our theology but looking at our practice. If you want things to change, begin a dialogue about the practice of the church first. What are the practices that we are doing? How effective are they? Why are we doing what we are doing? After you ask those questions and gain some footing, then move to theology to see what it says (look at church history, biblical theology, practical theological understandings, systematic theological insights, etc.).
  
• After you learn about all that, then apply what you have learned to the practices you are doing. This is the praxis-theory-praxis model (praxis is a term from ancient Greek philosophy and means, basically, practice) that I have been learning about over the last several months. Maybe applying it can help wherever you are and in whatever state the church may be in.
  

A Celebration

I love celebrations. It's one of the reasons I really love Christmas, Thanksgiving, and holidays in general. It's also why I love worship. I love to party, celebrate, and enjoy being with others. I have the feeling that one of the great parts about being in heaven is that the celebration never ends. I find that appealing.
However, today I am not able to be with someone as they celebrate a milestone in their lives. My father-in-law is a wonderful man that I love dearly and one who has supported me in innumerable ways. Today is his 83rd birthday. He is in good health (some aches and pains, but he manages), in a loving relationship with his second wife (bless you, Tina), and living life to the fullest. I am so proud of him and proud to be a part of his family. He regularly reads this blog and I just wanted to say, "Happy Birthday" to someone whom I love and respect. I only wish that I could be with him on this special day and celebrate it with him (you know, anything for a party!). But I wanted him to know that I was thinking of him today, praying for him always, and, on Sunday while I am celebrating in worship, I will thank God for him. Happy Birthday, Dad. You are loved.

Your Son,

Jeff

God Has Eyes, Even When We Are Blind

The title of this post has an interesting description in it. It's called anthropomorphism. It means assigning to God human qualities and physical traits that give us a frame of reference but really don't describe God literally. For instance, "God has eyes" is an anthropomorphism. God sees us but he does not have a physical appearance as we are so it is not likely that God has eyes. However, it is a way of expressing something about the nature of God (God watches over us; God sees us and knows us; God is looking down upon us; etc.). For instance, I realized to day how much God has been watching over me even when I was walking along in the dark about what to do. Here is how I came to realize this.
Today, I spent the afternoon watching several professors of preaching gather from around the nation to put on DVD their ideas and thoughts about what is called, "Performance Preaching". Before I tell you what that is, let me tell you a little bit of how I got to Fuller in the first place. I applied for a Ph.D program at several seminaries. I wanted to study preaching and had a real interest in narrative based preaching (narrative based preaching is centered in a story telling approach to scripture). As I looked at seminaries, I looked at location, reputation, and application. My goals were simple - get in! Along the way I came to realize that the philosophy of those who teach homiletics (the science of preaching) vary greatly. I interviewed in one place where the ideas I proposed were so offensive to them that I got turned down not on the basis of skill or competency or GPA but on the style of my preaching.
I had applied to Fuller based solely on its reputation. It was considered to be a top notch seminary and getting a degree from here would be prestigious. I had never met the head of the Homiletics Department, Dr. Clay Schmit. We talked briefly on the phone one day and that was it. So, when I got my acceptance, I was elated but also wondering what now? I met Clay and instantly liked him and we both felt this was a relationship that would go well. I have become his R.A. (research assistant) and get paid to help him with projects. One of those is to read and help edit a book that he is helping to put together from a variety of sources on the subject of "Performance Preaching". Today, I got my first exposure to what that means. And it was amazing. Here were all these professors of preaching from around the country talking about the very things that I am most interested in exploring. One was a mime artist and gave an amazing lecture on gestures and how important they can be. Another has an acting background and did some fascinating dramatic scripture readings. The "guru" of this movement was there and he was a wonderful and powerful man who had launched this movement and exemplified it tremendously. Another professor did a lecture (10 minutes) on the power of and the right way to emphasize words in a reading. It was revolutionary. And there was my mentor, Clay Schmit, orchestrating it all and bringing this whole thing to pass.
Here's my point. I had no idea why I should come to Fuller. I came because they accepted me and had a good reputation. I was blind to the importance of the philosophy of the institution and to the ones that would be teaching me. But God has eyes, even when we are blind. And I realized once more, I am where He wants me to be with the people He wanted me to be under doing what He has put in my heart to do. Amazing!

The Dangers of Change

I'm about to give you one of the greatest quotes on leading change that has ever been written. I thought of it tonight as I was reading one of my textbooks for my seminar tomorrow. The book, called, "Leadership on the Line", talks about the problems of leading an organization through change. One of the key issues is that organizations and leaders don't typically understand the difference between technical changes and adaptive challenges. Technical changes, to put it simply, are changes that need to be made for which we already have the expertise or understanding. For instance, if the change you want to make in a church is revamp the C.E./S.S. offerings, you gather together a group of people that have the technical know-how to find out what needs to be offered, what materials are available, and what training needs to be done. The group knows (or can find out) the expertise and procedures that need to be followed to create the change. The other issue is called Adaptive Challenges. For Adaptive Challenges, no one knows or has the expertise to create the change. For instance when paradigm shifts occur, people tend not to be ready to understand how to do what needs to be done in a different or changing atmosphere. Like the Swiss watchmakers who could not adapt to the fact that the latest technology was electronic in nature and didn't have gears and sprockets. They couldn't adapt and lost nearly all of the world's watchmaking business (they went from 90% of market share to barely 10% of the market by failing to adapt). Interesting, huh? The authors of the book I am reading say that the greatest failure of leadership is that leaders typically treat adaptive challenges by assuming they are technical problems. And to that insight I say, Amen! Some of the greatest failures that I have seen the church make and the biggest failures I have done as a pastor have been in the realm of trying to apply technical answers to adaptive changes. I think of my last pastoral charge and can think of numerous ways in which both I as pastor and people in the congregation who wanted change failed because either I as pastor or they as lay leaders or we as a congregation failed to understand that we were being faced with an adaptive challenge and not a technical problem. Oft times I have sought adaptive solutions to technical challenges only to be rebuffed because I did not understand the difference and did not make the case for change in the adaptive mode. As a result, I have faced the quote below and have felt the sting of loss that results from it. Maybe it will help you to understand the difficulty of the atmosphere that you face in trying to create change. If it helps, good. If you find you need more help than just a quote, post a comment and I will give some more insights from "Leadership on the Line" or other resources I am learning about. Here is the quote.

"It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favour; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had the actual experience of it.''

Niccoli Machiavelli

The Prince and The Discourses

Sadness, Politics, and Tony Compolo

It is election time again and the media is having a field day. As always, the media revel in the failures of others. So far, there have been homosexual, alcoholic pedophiles; racist remarks from senators; Playboy Party going senate candidates; a gubernatorial candidate that is accused of rape and has petitioned the courts successfully to have the security tape of the scene released in the hopes that it will revive his candidacy and prove his innocence in the media; and stem cell sufferers who believe that taking life is the way to help save their lives. It is sad - and that is what the media feasts upon. Politics has become less the expression of ideas as it is the measurement of your character by those who are filled with character flaws. The sexual predilections of Rep. Foley become fodder for a party that had Ted Kennedy as one of it's senior leaders. Hmmm. That speaks of dual standards by our vaunted two-party system. Imagine!
Now comes the latest and saddest revelations. The head of the National Association of Evangelicals, Rev. Ted Haggard, a Colorado pastor of a 14,000 member megachurch and a political figure by virtue of his positions, now admits to:
a) Buying meth from a drug dealer
b) Getting a massage from a homosexual prostitute
c) And he is accused by that prostitute of participating in and paying for homosexual sex

Sad. Horribly sad. On a new program today, noted speaker and sociologist Tony Compolo, one of the most controversial and thought provoking voices in the Christian community, spoke to how sad this all is (and I agree). He then made a critique that is becoming a matter of some debate and question in both political and religious circles. It is the wedding of Conservative Christians with the Republican party. Compolo critiqued it as a failed decision that takes the church away from ministry and into the realm of politics. Good critique, huh? Maybe. And maybe not.

I am reading one of the best books on Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. It is a fascinating tale of his theological development and his homiletical (preaching) development. It concentrates in the first half or more of the book with Dr. King's plagiarism in his doctoral dissertation and his "borrowing" of parts or structures of sermons and, eventually, publishing them as his own in a book called, "Strength to Love". It also discusses his disillusionment with liberalism in both theology and politics (things he embraced when he began his ministry but rejected by the end of this life). What does all this mean? It means that Compolo is partially right. Even Martin Luther King, Jr. came to realize that politics and Christianity are a little like oil and water, they don't mix and, if they do, they become flammable. The church has a right to speak out about morals and moral issues but when it embraces a political agenda and PAC philosophy, it gives up the high moral ground and becomes just another political pawn that will be used by one side or the other (or both) for their own purposes. I don't profess to know how, but the church has to stay out of politics and still influence those who make those kinds of policy decisions. When the media begins to focus their lens on the lives and quirks of even the most respected faith leaders, something dark always seems to surface. It is humbling to remember that no matter how high we soar we still cannot approach the lofty heights of heaven. And if we continue to fly higher and higher in the media world, we will come crashing down by the true word or the false accusations of others.