The Idea behind Rethink Conspiracy
Kyle Roberson is the founder of RethinkConspiracy.org and the director of online discipleship at White's Chapel UMC in Southlake, Texas. Every week, Kyle publishes an online newspaper which you can subscribe and read by clicking the red bar on the box to the right. Below, Kyle writes about what it means to Rethink Conspiracy.
_____________________
_____________________
conspire: verb, to act or work together toward the same result or goal.
Dan Brown, author of The DaVinci Code, once said, "Everyone loves a conspiracy." I happen to agree with Brown on this observation regarding conspiracy, but I would submit a follow-up question, "Does everyone know what a conspiracy is?" A conspiracy, by my definition is a living, breathing organism made up of many members operating outside of public attention for a purpose. The three most predominant qualities of a conspiracy are that it is close, quiet, and quick.
CLOSE
The root of the word conspiracy is conspire, whose root is the latin conspirare, literally to breathe together (con: with, spirare: to breathe [as in respiratory or respirate]). To breathe together, to be in that close of proximity with another, brings to mind an organism made up of members in unity with one another so closely they breathe in and out together. Breath, very life itself, shared amongst members to keep the organism (community, organization, etc.) alive.
QUIET
A conspiracy acts in secrecy, outside the attention of the public, its' plans secret from the general population until it is ready to act out. Secrets can be a valuable resource. When things are done in secret by an organization or community, often no one member can claim sole responsibility.
QUICK
This secrecy, coupled with the tight-knit nature means a conspiracy can act quickly and efficiently with very little attention placed upon itself while individual members can continue to function without disruption to their own daily life, schedule, or responsibilities.
Conspiracies, however, traditionally have been associated with the purpose of disruption or disobedience, sometimes violent in nature. What if we organized a conspiracy around the purpose of taking care of our neighbors by working secretly to better our local, national, and global communities? Could we redeem "conspiracy" to become some highly mobilized and effective group of people acting for good out of love of neighbor? Could we embrace the secret nature of conspiracy as a therapeutic means of putting aside our pride and need for fame to explore humility? Could we do more than individual random acts of kindness? Could we combine our collective power to do more good together than we could on our own?
Whatever your reason: Altruism, conviction, faith, desire to "pay it forward", would you join this conspiracy?
How the church could talk about every hot button issue of all time
In case you have not read the last post, I would encourage you to do so not only to see where this post is coming from but also to see a bit of the irony laced within it.
When preachers preach sermons designed to fill a need, like the best ways to "invite people to church" or "have a conversation with an atheist", preachers are ultimately doing the congregation a disservice.
What these sermons are really doing is providing fish for people to eat, which will fill them up and make us feel good for a time, but when we grow hungry again we come back to the source (the preacher) for more food. You may have heard it said, "Sunday is where I get fed" or "Worship is where I am filled up." The concern is that these words are really too true.
Are we setting up sermons to be places where people come to be fed? Is the sermon nothing more than a dish that is prepared by the preacher only to be served up on Sunday morning?
Rather than preaching sermons that fill a need, preachers need to preach so that people walk away with a fishing pole and bait, not just another fish for the day.
Take for instance the idea that preachers preach about the homosexuality issue. This is a specific issue, so specific in fact that once the church decides on what the "answer" is to the debate, the answer they come up with will not help in any other conversation.
The church may preach they are against homosexuality for a set of reasons - they understand scripture in this way or "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" sort of argument. The church then can check that issue off the board as now they have the answer to the homosexual conversation.
But then there is a new conversation - what about transgender people or people who are born one sex physically but are another sex mentally? The "answers" from the homosexual conversation are not helpful in this new issue/conversation and the church must start a new conversation. Thus the problem with application preaching.
However, if the church were to preach their understanding of, say Anthropology, then the answers that come into focus can be applicable to other questions.
If the church understood that in Christianity, all people are created in the image of God and all people matter to God and that God called all creation very good. If we focus on how Christianity and Anthropology intersect, then we not only come up with answers to the homosexual conversation but also to the transgender conversation.
Anthropology is not something that is easily "applied" into our lives through three points and a poem. When we preach to these larger ideas then we give the congregation a bit of credit for actually having the brain to think through their own answers to specific issues. When we preach to the larger ideas we are teaching people how to fish.
The church may preach they are against homosexuality for a set of reasons - they understand scripture in this way or "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" sort of argument. The church then can check that issue off the board as now they have the answer to the homosexual conversation.
But then there is a new conversation - what about transgender people or people who are born one sex physically but are another sex mentally? The "answers" from the homosexual conversation are not helpful in this new issue/conversation and the church must start a new conversation. Thus the problem with application preaching.However, if the church were to preach their understanding of, say Anthropology, then the answers that come into focus can be applicable to other questions.
If the church understood that in Christianity, all people are created in the image of God and all people matter to God and that God called all creation very good. If we focus on how Christianity and Anthropology intersect, then we not only come up with answers to the homosexual conversation but also to the transgender conversation.
Anthropology is not something that is easily "applied" into our lives through three points and a poem. When we preach to these larger ideas then we give the congregation a bit of credit for actually having the brain to think through their own answers to specific issues. When we preach to the larger ideas we are teaching people how to fish.
3 keys to manage you money and becomes more attractive to the opposite sex - sort of.
There is a lot of focus these days on what is being called "application preaching". That is preaching that focuses on things to apply into your life, such as three keys to healthy relationships or ways to manage money or any other how to sermon series you can imagine.
The thought is, and it is not a bad one, preachers need to say something that is relevant and something that people can walk away with and implement it into their lives. And because everyone has access to information through the internet, preachers do not need to focus on sharing information but how to apply that information.
According to Bob Farr and Kay Kotan in their book, Renovate or Die: 10 Ways to Focus Your Church on Mission, application preaching begins with the need of the congregation rather than a prescribed scripture (often called the lectionary).
Here is the rub that I have. Starting with a need and then giving the solution sounds a lot like an infomercial.
Preachers can then find needs that need to be filled. Yes, it gives people something they can walk away with, but it also creates a co-dependency that is really unhealthy in the long run.
The preacher gives you the solution to a need in your life, then when you have another need we then turn to the preacher and ask them to teach a series on that new need. It works for preachers too because then people will return looking to have their needs meet.
You have heard that when you give someone a fish they can eat for a day. Giving people fish everyday creates a co-dependency. You need me for fish, I need you to make me feel like I am doing good in the world.
I thought preachers are supposed to teach people to fish? I thought we are called to liberate break unhealthy co-dependent relationships? I though we are called to empower people and give them the tools to figure out how to address their own needs?
Martin Luther was angry at the Church for a number of reasons and one of those reasons was people had an unhealthy co-dependency with the church. The church was the only place where you could hear the Bible and it was read in a language you may not understand so you had to listen to the priest tell you what it said.
To combat this co-dependent way of doing church, Luther decided to translate the Bible into German and print the thing on the press for all to have.
If preachers are preaching to fill the needs in your life, then how are we doing anything different? I would propose that preaching is different. It is not a sales pitch in order for you to come back next week.
That is what blogs are for.
So come back in two days and I will submit a response to "application preaching".
(Hows that for co-dependent!)
The thought is, and it is not a bad one, preachers need to say something that is relevant and something that people can walk away with and implement it into their lives. And because everyone has access to information through the internet, preachers do not need to focus on sharing information but how to apply that information.
According to Bob Farr and Kay Kotan in their book, Renovate or Die: 10 Ways to Focus Your Church on Mission, application preaching begins with the need of the congregation rather than a prescribed scripture (often called the lectionary).
Here is the rub that I have. Starting with a need and then giving the solution sounds a lot like an infomercial.
Preachers can then find needs that need to be filled. Yes, it gives people something they can walk away with, but it also creates a co-dependency that is really unhealthy in the long run.
The preacher gives you the solution to a need in your life, then when you have another need we then turn to the preacher and ask them to teach a series on that new need. It works for preachers too because then people will return looking to have their needs meet.You have heard that when you give someone a fish they can eat for a day. Giving people fish everyday creates a co-dependency. You need me for fish, I need you to make me feel like I am doing good in the world.
I thought preachers are supposed to teach people to fish? I thought we are called to liberate break unhealthy co-dependent relationships? I though we are called to empower people and give them the tools to figure out how to address their own needs?
Martin Luther was angry at the Church for a number of reasons and one of those reasons was people had an unhealthy co-dependency with the church. The church was the only place where you could hear the Bible and it was read in a language you may not understand so you had to listen to the priest tell you what it said.
To combat this co-dependent way of doing church, Luther decided to translate the Bible into German and print the thing on the press for all to have.
If preachers are preaching to fill the needs in your life, then how are we doing anything different? I would propose that preaching is different. It is not a sales pitch in order for you to come back next week.
That is what blogs are for.
So come back in two days and I will submit a response to "application preaching".
(Hows that for co-dependent!)
Be the change by Jason Valendy is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.