Footprints in the sand, sort of...

There is beloved poem call Footprints. I have never been a fan of that poem. Maybe because I see it everywhere or because it harkens me to a sentimentality that might be helpful for others but is lacking for me. The more that I think about it thought I think my inability to connect with this poem is because of the location of the one walking on the beach in relation to Jesus. Not the part where the walker is being carried by Jesus, but the part where the walker is walking next to Jesus.

I feel called to follow Jesus. He is my leader and model. He is the forerunner of the faith. He is the one who steps first and I am behind him. He leads and I follow.

The poem gives me the impression that the walker is choosing to or has the courage to walk beside Jesus. I have a hard time following someone when I am walking alongside them. Sometimes I turn one way and they turn the other. I never really die to my agenda when I walk along side Jesus, which is why I believe he calls us to follow.

Today, I attempted to do what many have done but I never had. I attempted to literally walk in the footsteps of another person.

There were a set of footprints left in the sand and I began to follow them. Their gait became my gait. Their pacing became my pacing. Their turns and direction became my turn and direction. I had no idea where the steps would take me. All I did was follow.

In the beginning it was somewhat easy to walk step for step. There were no other prints along that stretch of beach and the shoe pattern was distinct and clear. Even though they were easy to see it was a little tricky to walk exactly in their steps. I got off balance sometimes and there were a couple of times I thought they were beginning to turn ever so much in one direction but they did not and I was off on the next footprint by a few inches. With my eyes fixed to the path and very alert to any changes in every step I found my leader began to step into beach that was more traveled.

This was a little more difficult to follow, but not too bad. At this point I had the pacing and spacing of my leaders footprints down. But instead of looking just for the very next step, I had to look up a bit in order to see where the leader was walking. If I focused on just the next step I could not recognize their footprint quickly enough and then I would break stride and become off balance. Additionally, due to the traffic of different prints, there were times I could not see the very next step but only the next step or two after that. In order to make it to the step I could see, I had to walk in faith and trust that I was stepping on the footprints of my leader. I had to walk by faith and not by sight.

The most difficult part of my mimic walking was when the prints turned and now the sun was to my back. This caused my own shadow to be cast right in front of me and washing out the footprints. I could no longer see the little shadows cast in the ridges of the footprint of my leader. The only way I could walk in the footprints of my leader was very slowly and only after I had moved to one side in order to allow the sunshine to reveal the footprints. My own dark side became an obstacle to following in the footprints of my leader.

In the call of Christ we are called to follow. A disciples does not walk in their own path and in their own way, but conforms their walk to that of the master, Jesus. It is cool to forge your own way, and in many ways it is easier than to try to exactly mimic another, but it seems clear the call of Jesus is to follow. Not to lead.

Is online dating affecting the church?

In the view of one of the contributors to the story, online dating is a bit of a game changer in the way we approach relationships. The contributor expresses that it used to be relationships focused on compatibility then attributes. However, online dating has put the focus in relationships on attributes then compatibility. 

How does this affect religion? I don’t know but here is a thought: A person now will church shop for just the right set of attributes they are looking for (children’s ministry, good preaching, small groups, youth program, etc.) then if these attributes are attractive then the person will look to invest in a relationship with the church. This is not an evil but it does put the desires of the individual seeker as primary to the needs of a community.

This approach also gives us all an easy out for committing to a relationship with a church community. If the attributes are not all lined up then the person can disengage with the church with little question. If the person does not like the attribute of the preacher then the person can leave. If the person has a problem with the attribute of their small group then there is no reason for the person to stay engaged in the group to try reconcile. The person can just leave the group and disengage.

This approach also gives the church a marketing strategy. We advertise our attributes. Worship times. Pictures of young people in the pews. Egg hunts. Sermon series. We can create a profile of our churches which others can look at our attributes.

But, like all profiles, there are just some things that you cannot see on a profile. And it seems to me that the things that cannot be seen on a profile are the things that really matter. A church profile can tell me attributes of different programs but it cannot tell me if the people of the church are on the way of Christ. It cannot tell me if there is a deep sense of wonder and trust in the community. It cannot tell me if church talks about God or talks to or talks with God.

It seems to me that it is the things that I cannot see on a profile are the things that really matter to me. This is why Jesus’ call to the disciples are different. Jesus just says, follow me. The disciples don’t ask about the different attributes of Jesus then, after liking what they see, then decide to follow Jesus. Rather they are able to see themselves with Jesus and then over the years learn about the attributes of Jesus.

The call of Jesus is not come and see me, but come and follow. And so should the Church’s.

Aristotle, Plato, Communion and the Internet

A few posts ago there was a mention of our time’s preference to the Aristotelian ideal over the Platonic ideal. That is a fancy way of saying that we put the emphasis on the material (what we can see and measure) over the transcendent. Recently the UMC is engaged in a conversation about the viability of online communion. Online communion is the idea that an elder can invite someone at their home who is participating in worship via online/television to grab some bread and juice and take communion at their home.  

Needless to say people weighing in on the validity of the sacrament via the internet. I wonder if our resistance to online communion is rooted in the idea that what is real is what is material. "Real" community is those who are in the same physical space breathing the same physical air. "Real" community is that gathering of people that can be touched, counted, measured and seen. Could it be that our understanding of community is influenced more by Aristotle's teaching of what is "real"?

In a conversation with my friend Kyle he mentioned that the online communion conversation sounds something like reverse Gnosticism. Whereas Gnosticism elevated the Spirit over the material today we elevate the material over the Spirit. 

Elevating the Material or the Spirit over the other is neither helpful nor loving. 

If the Body of Christ is mystical, if we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, if we are all tied together in the single garment of destiny, then can we really say the sacraments are only valid in the material or the Spirit?