Rules of improv and Church

Tina Fey has a book out she titled, Bossypants which is amazingly funny and fantastic.  I recommend it.

In that book Fey shares that the rules of improv dovetail nicely not only as rules for comedy but also as rules for living and leadership.  I share the improv rules here as a way to encourage some thought and perhaps add a little thinking of my own.

Start with yes
Say yes, and
Make statements do not ask questions all the time
There are no mistakes, only opportunities 

In the church I have encountered the violation of the first rule more often than any other rule (or commandment). When there is anything in the church, from decisions to change a ministry name to let a ministry die to unorthodox teaching, few people begin with yes.  But this is not anyone's fault, it is the nature of institutions.  Brian McLaren shared that institutions are there to preserve the progress made by movements.  As such, institutions tend to look at new things as a potential threat to that which the institution is created to preserve.  I get it.  But it is not helpful to move forward in light of the numbers that point to the UMC has about 18 years left before we start loosing a great number of people (Boomers) to death.  Is the church willing or even able to start with yes?

Maybe it is because I do not hear most church leaders begin with yes that I do not hear the phrase, "yes and" but that is a very uncommon statement as well.  It is not unheard of, but uncommon in my experience.  It drives me nuts.  In a session when we are talking about ideas for a new way to connect with people in worship, any idea that is thrown out there is usually shot down if it is not thought out all the way through.  It violates all the rules of brainstorming there are, but churches seem to be excel at horrible brainstorming.  How can we help people brainstorm in the church, or is by nature of institutions to fear brainstorming as a potential threat to that which it was created to preserve?

Church leaders, myself included, are wonderful at asking a lot of questions, however that really can kill motivation of others to learn and participate.  Fey has this example in her book,


Bad improv:  Who are you?  Where are we?  What are we doing here?  What’s in that box?
(This puts pressure on the other actor to come up with all the answers.)
Good improv: Here we are in Spain, Dracula.

The problem with making statements is that it makes you vulnerable.  When a church leader makes statements they can become the scorn of the Church (see Rob Bell or Pat Roberson for examples).  To protect ourselves, church leaders ask a lot of questions.  Questions can be helpful for spiritual development but questions are also difficult to get people motivated to help create the culture of God.  Can you imagine if MLK's said, "I have a dream?"

Finally, Fey comments that there are no mistakes only opportunities.  This is a difficult mantra and outlook that is difficult for all of us.  We all have heard this, but we all have some sort of fear of failure. 

So improv and the Church.  Sure it can work.  It worked for Jesus.  

 

Why is Bill Maher doing better at talking about Christians than Christians?

In case you have not seen this little bit from Real Time with Bill Maher, be warned that it is a bit raunchy and the part that related to this post begins around 2:30.  (Thank you to Adam and Neil for sharing this with me.)

I want to know why is it that Maher, who is not a professed Christian, doing the work of the Christian minister?

Maher, despite the language and crassness, gets the non-violence of Jesus in a way that many Christians do not.

How is this possible?  How has the church failed the followers of Christ so much that we have not been able to stand up as one voice and say, NO! to violence?

How is it possible that the Church is debating about issues but missing the point of violence?

Is this what Christians are known for?  Violence?

Do we believe in love up to a point?  That is to say do we think that we start with love and if that does not work then do we use violence because it "works" for some things?

If we believe that, in the end violence is a viable option, then do we really believe that Love has the final say?

I have heard Christians say, "Oh I have hope there will be peace, but I know that there will always be war."

Really?  Always?

Have we read the Bible?

Did we miss the part in which we proclaim that in the end Peace and Grace have the final word?

Did we miss Easter?

My believe in peace and the message of Jesus informs me that it is not a matter of "if" humans will stop fighting but "when" will we stop?

We can stop right now.  Or we can stop in the future.  But the Bible I read and the Jesus I follow teach of a trust that in the end, ultimately, war and violence will end.

We can have that end come right now if we want.

Or we can keep on fighting.

Thank goodness that Maher gets the Christian message.  I am not sure he believes it, but he at least gets it.  In his articulation of the non-violence of Christ he has shown me that we in the Church may have missed a big part of sharing the message of Jesus to the world.

Thank you Bill Maher for using your platform for the message of Christ.

Jesus and Zen

There is a story in the Gospel of John in which Jesus tells the disciples that he is going to prepare a place for them. Jesus goes on to say, "And you know the way to the place where I am going." 

To which Thomas says, "Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?"

Jesus says, the a very misused line these days, "I am the way."

Many people understand this text to be one that tells us the way to heaven is only through Jesus. That is to say if you want to see heaven, follow Jesus.

When we think like this, we split our attention. We have one eye on heaven and the other eye on Jesus.  Which sounds like a good thing, but this is really not the point of what Jesus is talking about.  Jesus wants his disciples to not focus on the destination, because they know where Jesus is going, rather Jesus wants the disciples to focus on the way. 

Which reminds me of a Zen teaching, which I think speaks just as much Truth as Jesus is talking about in John.

A young, but earnest Zen student approached his teacher, and asked the Master, “If I work very hard and diligently, how long will it take for me to find Zen? The Master thought about this, then replied, “Ten years . .”

The student then said, “But what if I work very, very hard and really apply myself to learn fast — How long then?”

Replied the Master, “Well, twenty years.”

“But, if I really, really work at it, how long then?” asked the student.

“Thirty years,” replied the Master.

“But, I do not understand,” said the disappointed student. “At each time that I say I will work harder, you say it will take me longer. Why do you say that?”

Replied the Master, “When you have one eye on the goal, you only have one eye on the path.”

Christians can learn a great deal from this. What would it look like if we took Jesus' words seriously. We know where he is going, so stop worrying or thinking or trying to see it. 

Rather focus on the path, the Way, Jesus and trust that it takes you where Jesus is.