What a Quaker, Jersey Shore, and Lord of the Rings have in common
The other day I heard a quote from a Quaker, last name Trueblood, that was shared in a sermon by Bishop Lowey on June 7th. I cannot recall the quote directly but it went something like this:
The nature of the Church is fellowship, that we can agree upon. It is the nature of that fellowship that is vital and up for discussion.
This is a great way to talk about what I have been talking about in my local setting for years now. It is not that I am not against having church so that we can have a "church family" for whom will bring us meals when we are sick or have social time with on the weekends. I am not against that sort of fellowship at all, I just wonder if that is the fellowship of the Church that we ought to be working toward?
I hear many people talk about their church fellowship like one might think of the Brady Bunch, the Odd Couple or even the Jersey Shore. That is a group of people from different backgrounds coming together to try to live together. They have their disagreements and their good times, but ultimately they are just trying to survive and navigate life's ups and downs.
Frankly, I am not that interested in a Brady/Odd/Jersey fellowship. From my perspective, these fellowships serve a function that is very inwardly focused. That is these fellowships are interested in what makes them feel good and what makes them happy. I am not knocking this fellowship type at all, I just am not interested in it. I have areas in my life where I am self centered and seek to fulfill my own happiness as well, but I do not think the Church should be that place.
The Brady/Odd/Jersey fellowship seems to stand in contrast to the fellowship that I feel the Church is called to do and be. One might think of this form of fellowship of The Lord of the Ring. This "fellowship" had a mission and a greater purpose they all worked toward. Some were not so great at it. They were diverse (an elf AND a dwarf!) and they got along as best as they could. There are some relationships there were tighter than others (Sam and Frodo seemed close but not as close as Pip and Merry). Some died. Some lived. Some did not see each other for long stretches of time. There was happy times and not happy times, but they all moved in one accord. They had purpose and meaning greater than themselves.
And while I do not agree that the myth of redemptive violence that is found in the LotR is in line with the nature of the Church, I do believe that LotR better understands the fellowship of the Church that Trueblood was talking about.
The nature of the Church is fellowship, that we can agree upon. It is the nature of that fellowship that is vital and up for discussion.
This is a great way to talk about what I have been talking about in my local setting for years now. It is not that I am not against having church so that we can have a "church family" for whom will bring us meals when we are sick or have social time with on the weekends. I am not against that sort of fellowship at all, I just wonder if that is the fellowship of the Church that we ought to be working toward?
I hear many people talk about their church fellowship like one might think of the Brady Bunch, the Odd Couple or even the Jersey Shore. That is a group of people from different backgrounds coming together to try to live together. They have their disagreements and their good times, but ultimately they are just trying to survive and navigate life's ups and downs. Frankly, I am not that interested in a Brady/Odd/Jersey fellowship. From my perspective, these fellowships serve a function that is very inwardly focused. That is these fellowships are interested in what makes them feel good and what makes them happy. I am not knocking this fellowship type at all, I just am not interested in it. I have areas in my life where I am self centered and seek to fulfill my own happiness as well, but I do not think the Church should be that place.
The Brady/Odd/Jersey fellowship seems to stand in contrast to the fellowship that I feel the Church is called to do and be. One might think of this form of fellowship of The Lord of the Ring. This "fellowship" had a mission and a greater purpose they all worked toward. Some were not so great at it. They were diverse (an elf AND a dwarf!) and they got along as best as they could. There are some relationships there were tighter than others (Sam and Frodo seemed close but not as close as Pip and Merry). Some died. Some lived. Some did not see each other for long stretches of time. There was happy times and not happy times, but they all moved in one accord. They had purpose and meaning greater than themselves.
And while I do not agree that the myth of redemptive violence that is found in the LotR is in line with the nature of the Church, I do believe that LotR better understands the fellowship of the Church that Trueblood was talking about.
What is our mole
My wife and I have radically different tastes in movies. Most of the time we end up watching a period piece about the Tutor family in England, because that is what she likes, and I do not really care. Every now and again, Estee will select a couple of movies she thinks that I will like and then she allows me to pick one. It really is a great gesture and I am thankful. The other day we use this process to "decide" to watch Robin Hood: Men in Tights. Well, we both watch half of it and then remember how much funnier it was when we were younger.
Here is one of the scenes in the movie which I just love, and while the quality is bad, you get the point.
If you do not know, the king's mole moves around his face each scene. It is classic.
It got me thinking about what is the mole on the church that is obvious to everyone else, but we do not have a clue about?
From a clergy position, I can give answers which I think are spot on, but I am sure that I am not even close to correct answers. I say things like - poor theology or ineffective leaders. But I just am not sure that is what others see as the mole in our churches.
So I ask, what is the mole of the UMC? What do others see about the church that we do not know about?
Here is one of the scenes in the movie which I just love, and while the quality is bad, you get the point.
If you do not know, the king's mole moves around his face each scene. It is classic.
It got me thinking about what is the mole on the church that is obvious to everyone else, but we do not have a clue about?
From a clergy position, I can give answers which I think are spot on, but I am sure that I am not even close to correct answers. I say things like - poor theology or ineffective leaders. But I just am not sure that is what others see as the mole in our churches.
So I ask, what is the mole of the UMC? What do others see about the church that we do not know about?
Hello my name is Jason and I am addicted...
I believe that it would be a good thing for all Christians to admit to the world what Church really is.
We are, in part, a support group or people addicted to violence.
There are a number of responses to a situation, but for most people, a real response is a violent response. We are caught up in scapegoating and sacrificing people for the "betterment of the whole" or even for the sake of "justice". But really, it is all a facade.
Humanity is addicted to violence. All of us.
Some of us are not great at controlling our addition. Some of us are.
It has been shared in his autobiography that Gandhi beat his young wife. Even the one whom we might most associate with non-violence, was addicted to violence. He found ways to control his addiction, ans so must we.
This is why I attend church. I identify that I have an addition to violence and am seeking ways to deal with and address my addition.
I do not beat my wife or child, but I do scapegoat people when I am caught up in the mob. I am rather violent toward earth's resources by just the way I live my life.
It is seen as having a weakness if you need a support group or an accountability group here in the West. It goes against the self-made person myth, but I do not care. We all need help with this addiction.
Hello. My name is Jason and I am addicted to violence.
We are, in part, a support group or people addicted to violence.
There are a number of responses to a situation, but for most people, a real response is a violent response. We are caught up in scapegoating and sacrificing people for the "betterment of the whole" or even for the sake of "justice". But really, it is all a facade.
Some of us are not great at controlling our addition. Some of us are.
It has been shared in his autobiography that Gandhi beat his young wife. Even the one whom we might most associate with non-violence, was addicted to violence. He found ways to control his addiction, ans so must we.
This is why I attend church. I identify that I have an addition to violence and am seeking ways to deal with and address my addition.
I do not beat my wife or child, but I do scapegoat people when I am caught up in the mob. I am rather violent toward earth's resources by just the way I live my life.
It is seen as having a weakness if you need a support group or an accountability group here in the West. It goes against the self-made person myth, but I do not care. We all need help with this addiction.
Hello. My name is Jason and I am addicted to violence.
Be the change by Jason Valendy is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.