Technology as Liturgy

  

I was recommended a book the other day, Habits of the Household by Justin Earley.  The friend prefaced the gift with a complement, “after listening to you teach and watching you work for 2 years, this book sounds like you.”  I took it graciously. While waiting for a prescription at the drug store skimmed through it.  She was right, there were many elements that caught my attention and interest.  

 

The following Sunday, I was able to read the book.  In it I found reference to other authors that I have been reading lately - some in my professional life as a psychotherapist and some within the scope of my interest in culture and theology.  I have sense bought multiple copies for friends and family.  Early in the book Justin Early, while discussing the powers of habit to shape our devotion and our loves, suggest seeing technology as liturgy.  That phrase echoed in my mind throughout the rest of the book.  Is that a good way to consider technology? Would this perspective help address the negative impact technology (specifically smart phones and social media) has on relationships, families, and the human mind?

 

Is technology liturgy?  Liturgy is repeated forms expressed individually and corporately that give shape to the expression of worship. These are most easily identified in high church communities.  However, they equally exist in low church communities, even if cloaked in anti-liturgical sentiment. L.M. Sacasas, in Vol 3, No. 15 of The Convivial Society, explains, “Liturgies are predictable patterns and rhythms, as well as common cadences and formulations.” He later states, “These liturgical forms, acknowledged or unacknowledged, exert a powerful formative influence over time as they write themselves not only upon the mind of the worshipper but upon their bodies and, some might say, hearts.”  

 

Liturgies of kneeling, clapping, bowing, eating communion, etcnot only involve knowledge content but engage the body.  In so doing they are whole-person, immersive experiences.  Let me limit our discussion to digital technology for the remainder of this essay.  Our smart phones and its associated software have bodily engagement.  We keep them close to our persons, we check them often, we record in them our plans and our pasts, we consult them for guidance and information, we utilize them to find common connection with other humans. In return, theyecho and extol values (moral, political, economic, esthetic, spiritual, relational).  Digital technology and its associated software are offering a definition of who we and what we should be about - just as liturgy in church offers these definitions.  Whether interesting or disturbing, Justin Early notices how facial recognition software allows us to gaze into our smart phones and they instantly comes to life offering us content with which to feed us answers to all things about life.  

 

Just as church liturgy, formal or informal, can be good or bad, so it seems that technological liturgy functions the same way.  After all, I read several of these articles on my cell phone.  If liturgy (in church and through our smart phone) has the power to shape us; what is being formed? Can’t we just filter out the bad? Maybe, maybe not.  While some habits are intentional, most habits are developed subconsciously.  Habits often form us rather than the other way around. 

 

Justin Early points out that what we do, or practice, is what we worship.   What we worship is what we then learn to love.  This is the opposite of what I thought for many years.  I used to think that what we love is what we worship.  Love precedes worship. I think I was wrong.

 

I became a Christian without the benefits of a Christian home.  I now love God and can’t even conceive of not following him.   This relationship was progressive.  Not having liturgies of worship in my life as a child, I encountered God rather serendipitously (at least from my perspective). If I use the distinction between infatuation and love in romantic relationships as an illustration, I was captivated by God at first – infatuated with him.   There were others, at the same time, that had similar encounters of infatuation.  Many of those no longer claim to be Christian, some are even adamantly opposed to Jesus.  One difference is that I began to practice, through informal liturgy, my understanding of God.   The more I practiced the more I loved.  Another way to look at this is that my infatuation turned to abiding love.  Practice defined my worship.  What I worship became what I loved.  

 

If this is true, this elevates the power of digital practices and what is offered by them.  L.M. Sacasas argues, “The point of taking such a perspective is to perceive the formative power of the practices, habits, and rhythms that emerge from our use of certain technologies, hour by hour, day bey day, month after month, year in and year out.”  I join Sacasas and Justin Earleyin asking the question, are our aspirations for the kinds of people we want to be being thwarted by unnoticed patterns of thought, perception, and action that are prompted by technologically mediated liturgies?   What habits, forms, guides, and outcomes do we want our technologies to foster. What subtle but powerful realities are being seeded? What loves will we let grow through our practice of technological liturgies?

Loss can not be controlled

Loss can not be controlled.  Oh, man thinks it can be.  We have loss control departments in business, even loss management certifications in education.  We study loss, meditate upon it, try to understand it - so we can control it.   But it will not be controlled.  Even when we reduce risk by greater safety measures, more responsible behaviors, and protective precautions loss... still... happens.

When it does, we get mad and search for someone to blame.  Why blame?  Because we believe loss only happens because some body didn't exercise their dominion properly.   Someone didn't control when they should have controlled.  Sometimes I have gotten dizzy as I my mind would spin trying to find the person to blame.  Is it the kids, my wife, my friends, the church, the government? If none of them, is it God?  Finding the person to blame, as an attempt to regain control, almost always ended poorly - broken or stress relationship.  As for blaming God.  It was a waste of the time.  He has no limit of time, so He can always out-wait me. 

There is another internal battle occurring when loss happens - guilt.  Guilt must be blame's twin brother.  If someone is to blame when loss happens, that person might be me.   Control, blame, guilt.  Oh what a poison. 

I find it hard to accept the fact that I can not control loss.  Loss will find its way into my world even when I am the most diligent, the most responsible, or the most prepared.  I just am not in control of the universe.  Now there are other reasons to be diligent, responsible and prepared; the merits of which are lost when I am driven to control. 

So some measure of loss is unavoidable.  It is as if it is built into the created order.   I don't mean the kind of loss where a tree dies and becomes fertilizer and food for other organism.  I mean a kind of loss that is an inconvenience at best and the cause of suffering in the worst.  Whatever my efforts are it can not be driven by trying to beat the unbeatable. 

This reality by experience now must collide with my theology.  I do not believe that God simply created a system called the universe and that it functions independently, void of morality and feeling.  The writers of Hebrews speaks of the universe being held together or "are being sustained" by his very word.  The universe works because God is telling it to every moment that it exist.   So God is orchestrating, not just tolerating, loss.  Some might not want to put the cause of loss in God's hand thinking it challenges his loving character. But,  I just can't envision the creator God running around just trying to keep the universe from falling apart like some cosmic Hans Brinker.  He isn't just barely holding the universe together.

If God is orchestrating at least some loss, does this mean He doesn't love, that He isn't compassionate, that He isn't good?  It definitely strikes a blow at any view of God simply trying to keep humans happy.  I am reminded of how many times I have heard people say "I know God wants me to be happy."   Yet, loss makes us unhappy.

Maybe the God who is running the universe isn't so concerned about us being happy.  Maybe He wants something more for us?

I am confident enough in the truth of Christianity to let God be the God He wants to be rather than the God I might want Him to be.  

where is strength?

"There is more strength in being a committed minority than a confused majority." 

being questioned about evil

Why did she die? 

 repost from my journal - Feb. 2007

Today I sat on the back deck as we left the port of Jamaica. The sun was low in the sky and the breeze was cool, I was reading. Around the corner was the always open ice cream machine. Kathy had gone down to our room to take a nap so I had the table to myself – at least for a short while. Soon the area was filling up with other shipmates wanting to eat their lunch and catch the same view I had found. Because I was the only one at this table a Russian woman, in her late 50’s or early 60’s I imagine, asked to join me. Soon she and he husband had gotten comfortable and started eating.

I sat there pretending to read wondering if I should talk to them. This was 4 days into the cruise and right or wrong, I was tired of making small talk. These conversation usually started with “hi, I am Ken where are you from” then “have you cruised before” , “what have you done today.” Many times the conversation was just to hard to keep going and it would stop. I just couldn’t talk about the weather anymore. If the person was wanting to talk about something more substantial the dialogue would move into what kind of work did we each do. That would be the killer. Most conversations didn’t get past me revealing my line of work – pastor. Things would get tense around the table. People really didn’t know how to talk to me after that.

Several times during the trip I thought of lying or exaggerating one aspect of my job like counseling, speaking, or writing. Anything to avoid that dead space after my pastoral exposure. It’s funny how when things are bad they want that but when things are casual I am and “out of place” guy. Well I decided not to lie. This is who I am take me or leave me. If you leave I have more to read.

Well I could tell during introductions that the husband was not Russian like his wife. He spoke with a texas accent. He has raised in educated in Lubbock Texas and had a good American name – Ed - nothing international about that. His wife had been in the US for only 10 years. She followed he daughter and son-in-law with their first child to America. She made no mention of he first husband, whether she had lost him to death or divorce. With the talk of kids she inquired about my kids. Ah, the next oddity about me – 9 kids. I looked around and thought how different I am from so many people. She asked me if the government paid me for having so many children? I was confused, was she asking me if I took welfare? If I was living off the government and taking cruises. Surely she was not insulting me. Maybe she didn’t know. She seemed elegant, warm, well educated. If you have a large family in America there is a lot of pressure to prove that you can afford to provide for them and that you aren’t dependent on the government for support. It is irresponsible to have a large family and not be the sole provider at least here in the U S of A. Hasn’t she been hear long enough to know that?

It turned out she wasn’t insulting me at all. She began to continue how in Russia the population is declining. No one is having children. Unlike China where birthrates are being controlled, in Russia the government is encouraging childbirth. They want large families – 250,000 rubbles for each child over 4. If you have 10 kids you get the grand prize – a free house from the government. Be fruitful and multiply. The conversation would continue. I thought maybe I would enjoy this.

I had my “Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places” book out on the table with my stuff. Ed asked me if I was a theologian. I liked that more than pastor. So I agreed to that quickly. I touted my masters in theology from seminary. He asked if I wrote and I told him of two essays I was thinking of writing, one on the spiritual discipline of hospitality and the other on the resurgence of monastic life in the American church. It sounded way to sophisticated and I knew that I was overstating myself. Sure those things were true but those were the really defining parts of me. I was much more plain than that. So I added, I am a pastor too. (what an understatement). I added that I also directed a one evangelical monastery. Now I had slipped into bragging. The conversation moved on. In a strong Russian accent this elegant woman shared her love for her country, art, and the Russian orthodox expression of church. I replied back with discussion of the ascetics of beauty and how I thought the American church needed to be more open to beauty that did not get forced into categories of secular and Christian. I talked about my brother-in-law leaving in Bosnia (this made me feel international) and how I wanted to visit Europe and would love to see Russia. We talked of mosaic tile work in the Petersburg church, even Ed jumped in. I couldn’t help but feel somewhat like a “wanta be” Then Ed broke me down.

Ed took the conversation in a whole new direction. He abruptly asked me, “what do you preach?” I sat there somewhat stunned. Why was this a hard question? I preach lots of things, I thought. Which one do I say? What was Ed really asking? Was he exposing my exaggerated sophistication or was he wanting to know my theology? Time to be real. Would this internationally traveled couple write me off as some right winged ignorant Christian. I couldn’t believe I was having such turmoil over this simple question. After all I should welcome this chance to testify, this chance to let the real me be know. Ed seemed to ask sincerely enough. I opened my mouth and gave my answer, if this blew my cover – so what. “I am an evangelical Christian – a conservative Christian, I preach having a personal relationship with Jesus. And in that relationship we have forgiveness for our sins. Ed keep looking intently like he wanted more. So I kept going. “God restores us to his design starting now and further into eternity with him. Ed seemed satisfied. I later would discover that he is a very conservative Baptist.

His wife kept looking at me like she didn’t approve of the “gospel” I preached. The desire to be approved came over me. I started adding stuff that I believed about God hand being seen in all things. I was careful to clarify that I did not believe in pantheism. (did she even know what that was, I wondered). I rambled on about true beauty. I was digging myself a whole. I should have just left it alone. I remembered Paul’s words in Roman’s “I am not ashamed of the gospel.” I asked myself if I was ashamed. I don’t’ want to be.
It was Ed who rescued me. He launched into his story. He had grown up catholic. One day a friend gave him a catholic bible and he started reading it. In its reading he gave his life to Christ when he was 22 and started attending a Dutch reformed church. As his life and career moved him he looked for Christ-centered bible believing churches. He had been in Baptist churches most of that time. I asked where he was attending now. He and his wife were attending a Methodist church. Ed added how the preacher could easily be a Baptist. I laughed. Of course he followed it up with a preacher joke. I don’t really enjoy preacher jokes, but I laughed to be polite.

Ed’s wife (I can’t pronounce her name more less spell it) jumped into the conversation again, this time she began to contrast he experience at Ed’s church verses the Russian Orthodox. I asked if the Russian Orthodox was like the Greek Orthodox and filled with beauty and joy. She said, “No no no! In American church all this singing, clapping, and socializing. In Russian church we don’t go to church to sing, socialize and clap we go to pray. We cover ourselves up, stand up the whole service and pray – sometimes for three hours. We pray.” I was disappointed to here that. I was bold enough to even say that. I explained how I appreciated the desire to engage God directly in worship that seemed to be a part of her Russian Orthodox experience, but that I thought God was a God of joy, beauty, and gladness. I added that to know God is to be part of community and that social or community connection was important. I started to get nervous that I was getting preachy but she seemed interested and continued the conversation. She added that people only go to church when things are bad in Russia, not like here when people go to church all the time. She even admitted that she was getting used to all that singing and clapping. We all laughed some. The laughter would not last long. The conversation was about to take a huge turn into a very uncomfortable place. This classy Russian woman was going to challenge me, not with intellect, not as an adversary, but with her pain.

How it happened I don’t remember. It may have been after switch in conversation to world politics and the current state of Russia. All that I do recall is that I made a comment about how she must be glad to be here in American with her family. She said no she was not that he daughter was gone. At first I thought that she meant they had returned to Russia. So I asked how long had it been since they went back. She corrected, no she is dead. Inside I froze. I thought, OK, be pastoral, don’t be shocked, be polite and warm, acknowledge her pain, be present, go slow. I said, “ I am sorry to hear how very sad. (pause) How long ago was it that she passed away?” This beautiful woman had such pain in her eyes. “Seven years, “ she said.

Ed jumped in with the details. In a freak accident on I-95 a van coming in the other direction lost control and flipped over the median and directly into the lane of his step-daughter and killed her instantly. I wondered if I had heard about this story, it sounded familiar, but how would I have heard? I must be blending it into the many other strange unexplainable accidents I have heard reported. No one else was in the car with her. The son-in-law and granddaughter had returned to Russia under the care of his parents. These other side of the family made it very difficult for my new ship friends to see their granddaughter. I felt we had just jumped into the quicksand of conversation. Was there I a way out of this, some way to redeem the sadness that I had been a part of bringing back to the surface. But it jut got deeper and harder. In her Russian accent and great sadness in her eyes she looked directly at me and asked, “tell me Ken why did God do this to my child? I have asked the church of Ed. When visiting in Russia I asked the Russian Orthodox leader same question. Both say I should not ask such a question. So I ask you, why? My heart just broke, not in any measure to hers. She was not arguing with me, She wasn’t angry, she just wanted to know. She was looking for some peace in knowing that there was some reason for this tragedy. Ed looked uncomfortable. I wondered if it was because he was unable to give his wife the comfort that she so longed for.

Now was not the time for a philosophical or theological discussion of evil in this world. Although this was part of the answer it was not what the Russian woman could hear or needed to hear. I started by acknowledging the validity of her question, of her pleading, and of her doubt of God. God was bigger than her doubt and had compassion for those in pain. Ed quoted some scripture to back that up. In fact he did that for the next thirty minutes. I would talk and Ed would back it up with something from the Bible. I had a feeling that they had this conversation with each other before. What could I possibly add? But she kept inquiring of me.

I shared how God tolerated evil things out of his patience and mercy that more would come to relationship with him. That more would be saved. Ed smiled. My answers were not satisfying her, I knew that. I related that if all the bad things were taken away, there would be nothing left because in some way we are all bad. Real justice would mean total destruction. Suffering may not be desirable but it could play a redemptive role in life as well. I shared how I was glad didn’t stop my early evil deeds, especially those done to others, allowing me the time to come to redemption. In other words, the grace we are grateful is the same grace that allows bad things to continue.

They were weakly formed answers. I didn’t doubt their truth at all but I realized I didn’t have a well-formed response that would meet her need. In my quest to dump cliché’ religious statements I had lost the well thought out response to the spontaneous question. I wanted to give an authentic response to an authentic question. I side argument started in my head about how cliché’s are usually true, maybe overused, but true. How could we communicate these truths without being trite. I definitely didn’t want to tell this woman NOT to ask the question. This time is was the Russian woman that rescued me in an odd way. She said, “I have found the answer from the Buddhist not the church.” The conversation was going to continue. Where it would go I didn’t know.

I asked what she had been told. She asked if I knew much about Buddhism, I said, “more than I know about Russian Orthodox.” We all laughed. I was glad for that moment. She told me of Karma and re-incarnation. How each life had a prescribed plan by God and that her daughter had finished her destiny for this life (that god had planned for her to learn) and that she was going to have a better next life. Ed went from uncomfortable to disturbed. He really didn’t like this non Christ-centered talk. I felt more compassion for his wife and wondered if there was something I could offer.

The grieving Russian mother had obviously selected some Buddhist philosophy to mix in with her Christian world view in order to find some peace of mind. I had flashes of anger that the church had shut her quest down and left her to wonder into a hodge-podge of worldview. “Shame on you Church!’ I muttered under my breath. I decided to dig in. I asked, “What brought you the most comfort,” “Was it the purposefulness in her death or the fact of a life after that would better?” Ed didn’t like me going down this path. He started quoting Hebrews, that it is appointed once for man to die and then face judgment. The conversation switched to the two of them hashing out what obviously was an old argument between the two.

I had opened this last door and needed to at least close it and not leave this two at odds. So I asserted myself and asked again. She said that both comforted her. First that god had a plan. I gently stopped her and shard that Buddhism doesn’t believe in a god. It is a philosophy of life that holds to a few spiritual ideas, like Karma and re-incarnation (among others). She said she had discovered that and that was why she still believed in Jesus. She asserted, much to Ed’s resistance, that maybe all religions would one day merge into one. Ed stiffened and declared, that would be the end of the world just as revelation prophesied. I definitely didn’t want to get into an end-times discussion. So I took another chance. At least it felt like a chance to me.

I suggested that these two parts of the peace she found in Buddhism were not distinct ideas to Buddhism but that they were very much Christian ideas found in scripture. Ed relaxed. She looked intently at me to explain, the sadness stirred up deep in her. I became afraid that I would make this all worse for her rather than better. “Why all these bad things?” She inquired again. I continued, “What would concern me is not just what brings me a peace of mind but what is true. As a parent I can tell me kids something that is not true in any sense of the word and it could bring them a season of peace. But what would that peace really be worth? Would it be worth leading them into a false world?”

I immediately thought of my blogging friend, Royale. He is a… skeptic. Maybe that is the best way to describe him. Sometimes sarcastic, sometimes satirical, sometimes cynical, but he always tries to be logical. He hates inconsistencies, especially in Christianity and politics. A lawyer by profession so details always matter. I can hear his rantings about Christians teaching Santa Claus myths and adopting pagan based practices and calling them Christian. About Christians, especially conservative ones, hating abortion but reveling in war and the death penalty. I am sure he will read this at some point so I wonder if this will flatter him or would he think I have miss-represented him.

What would Royale think of this conversation, what would he think of my answers. I wanted his challenges to surface in my mind. In a strange way if I couldn’t relieve this woman’s pain I would like to know that he would agree my answers. I had already decided I would be compelled to blog this whole event. I was moving me far to much for it to be only a passing conversation. Was this a weakness in me wanting to please someone? I must admit it could be.

I looked her (I hope to find her again on the ship and get the full spelling of her name) in the eye and said, “In the long run a true answer serves our grieving more than made up answer.” I could tell she was not convinced yet. I kept moving forward, hoping Ed would just let me finish. “God does let bad things happen, he just does, this to me is obvious. Sometimes we don’t have the perspective or the information to know why something happened. Was it simply and accident or was it the carelessness of another person. Maybe it was a secret evil intent of one that does harm. Whatever the real reason when it is hidden we just don’t know it. I am sure that God knows it but we don’t. We, our loved ones, our families, and our faith is not served well by making up an answer. We have to be willing to let an unknown be an unknown. But that does not mean we are not without a source of peace. First, God did and does have a plan for your daughter.” Ed jumped in with a quote from Jeremiah about God knowing us in the womb. I agreed with him. “Your daughters life had meaning and purpose, death did not snatch her from that purpose.” I was glad she didn’t ask me how I know that. I really didn’t know how I would make that case on the fly. Secondly, there is an afterlife that can be a better place than this life.” I was glad that she didn’t ask me if her daughter was there. My evangelical belief firmly holds that personal trust in Jesus is necessary for that eternal place to be good and only God is the judge of that. I didn’t want to make a judgment, especially on a life I had never known. “Most importantly, I asserted, is that God promises that He will not remove all evil but work all things together for the good for those who love him and are called according to his purpose.” I thought I was going to get an amen from Ed. But he just shifted in his chair and smiled. I became worried again. I didn’t just want to buster his ever-present arguments that failed this woman. I wanted to offer something or someway new for her. A new possibility that would make a place for her pain, affirm a consistent worldview, and of course affirm what I believed to be true, the message of Jesus.

I asked if she knew the story of Joseph in the bible. She said she did. I quoted the famous Old Testament saying, what the enemy meant for evil, God used for good. I shared how I found comfort in that fact that although God allowed many evils to come to pass and that He often left them unchallenged for a long time (longer than I would) that he did not remain silent or still in the lives of those that listen. Earlier this woman had told me how she had begun to paint in blues, greens, and purples. She had never painted before, but that it just opened up. Ed added how talented she was and that after the death it just turned on. I reminded her of this. “For you art and beauty are very valuable, maybe this sudden creativity and inspiration is reminder of their still being good, joy, and contribution in this world – even after your daughter was taken away.” She perked up and like that comment. “God has not abandoned you. Keep asking whatever questions you feel you need, you may or may not find the true answer. So always keep looking for the other truths that come alongside the unknown.” I tried to recount the sage advice of my favorite religion professor, Dr. Blomberg. “When confronted with the unknown, don’t begin by focusing on what you don’t know, go back and remember what you do know. Then armed with some truth turn back to face the unknown with courage. You will be surprised how much what you already know gives order to what you don’t.” I fumbled through the story of Dr. Blomberg. My thoughts returned again to the fact that my answers were so ill-formed. I was frustrated with myself.

I thought of sharing the horrors of sexual abuse that I had experienced and how God overpowered those experiences with His beauty and His joy. But the conversation was just too heavy and a man sharing his sexual abuse is still received in unpredictable ways. I decided that no matter how relevant to the problem of pain my personal story this was not the appropriate place to share it. I was left with one comfort – the Holy Spirit could do whatever necessary with my words. I had seen this before. People walk up to me after a sermon or teaching and share some great insight they had drawn from my talk. I would be gracious and thank them but know inside me that their insight wasn’t the topic of my teaching. They were listening to God, and God spoke. I just created the space. I am praying that she was listening, I don’t care if all I did was create space.

I do have some after-thoughts. First I want to better equipped to answer the complicated questions of life with some basic truths. Secondly, I don’t ever want to be the give answers just to give peace. What brings peace in one moment, if not true, can lead to distorted worldviews. Third, I need to train future leaders to respond graciously. Forth, I need to let my answers be so much about me. My god, how self-centered can I get. The heart of the Christian ethic is to be other-centered. That inner battle can not be abandoned.

Post-Script: I just saw the Russian woman walking down the hall. I stopped her to introduce her to Kathy. Ed was napping back at the room. She still looked sad. I am left with prayer.

Dreams Cost Money

Passion can be blinding when it comes to love, causing us to see very narrowly. The infatuated couple that have no job, no family support, and are burdened with their own personal baggage are convinced that their love will keep them in this same place of relational bliss, no matter what. Yet, within a short time the constant calls from the creditors, the moody moments each one eventually will experience, and even the simple duties of cleaning the dishes cause the passion to dim. Now they want out. They may even claim that one or both parties have changed in some unfavorable way. But usually neither have really changed. Reality worked its magic, passion waned, now they can see clearly what they were facing the whole time. Now they see what others might have seen from the beginning. The blinders are removed and clarity has come.

The effects of blinding passion can work in other arenas as well. When we set out on a task or a project that we are passionate about, radically underestimating the cost, or when we pursue a career or assignment thinking we know the scope of the project and the players involved only to be surprised that there are more dynamics then we imagined, we fall prey to blinding passion. How much has the dynamic of blinding passion effected church planting in American culture? How much is it creating a mask of delusion over the emergent, post-modern church and its leaders? How much are we missing cultural realities while trying to advance our passion? And all these questions are assuming that our passion is pure.

In my own church planting experience I can identify several areas where I either foolish refused to count the cost or where I just felt so strong about a value that I pushed forward with it at the neglect of other realities. How about the hardest blinding of all to overcome, I denied a real factor of church life because of my passion against its distorted use in the past. There are many points where my passion blinded me from issues about: buildings, children's ministry, fundraising, infrastructures, etc. In my passion to be uncompromisingly pure to my ideals, I missed some important realities.

Those that persevere and succeed are those that are willing to keep in pursuit of their goal after the luster has faded. It is those that are willing to modify their context and to adapt as they build community. In order to fulfill our purpose we must accommodate some realities we would have liked to ignore. One of these realities is the economic factor in a culture or subculture.

Cross cultural missionaries have come to understand this. They don't try to build church buildings or establish structures that cannot be sustained by the local economic condition. If they do then there will have to be a constant flow of assets from outside of that region. And in most cases dependency is considered too significant of a deficit within the faith community to establish a system that requires it.

What I see in the emerging church is small numbers. Yes, great ideas, great values, attention to the what is coming, but for now the numbers are small. In fact the very designs we are framing to express our values limit the number of people that can or will cluster together. It seems we want our cake and eat it too. We want to deconstruct the traditional church to advance our values, but we want the financial freedom of the traditional church to have full time staff members as well as other resources. We will continue to hit a wall if we don't acknowledge the reality of the economics of building and sustaining community in an American culture.

Consider the success of the Methodist circuit rider and the rural Baptist church. These faith groups planted hundreds of churches across America, impacting large percentages of the population for a number of years. In the case of the circuit riders. Their strategy matched the economics of the culture they were reaching. One full time person served multiple communities of faith. Meetings out in the open air were the culturally the norm and so they were used. Buildings came later and they came slowly. The use of tangible assets were minimal so the demand for assets were small. The same is true of the rural Baptist movement. Their design depended heavily on layity and their cultural target had very few resources and required very few material resources.

Yet, here we want to work with small groups of people, with big appetites for resources. We design and desire to have fulltime pastors and fulltime worship leaders. We, and I would add our cultural target, want high tech tools, high quality art, high quality programming. Is our design and our desires ignoring the economics involved? Maybe I am being cynical, but maybe the cloudiness of passion has cleared enough for me to see something that is really there. I believe our passion for our design of church has blinded us to the reality of paying for it. So we either need to change our design or find a sugar daddy that we will leach off of.

I don't really like the sugar daddy idea. So what changes can be made? There are two areas we can attack: our expectations or our cultures expectations. Let's consider our culture first. Can we, and do we want to, train our culture to want less in quality. Can we return to the below average quality of the wide spread kingdom advances of the Methodists and Baptists? Is that possible in our affluent culture? At some point we would have to train them to interact in a different language of culture. Maybe if we were stranded on desert island with no internet connection we could change their cultural language and then get down to the church community. It seems futile. American culture is what American culture is and we need to learn their language. So technology, quality, childcare, and buildings are here to stay.

So what about our expectations? Are we all willing to go get jobs in the marketplace and do church leadership on the side? I know that there are people that strongly advocate abandoning full time Christian workers or leaders. But I think this is neither biblical, historical, or practical. It is nothing but blind passion for an idea. Especially in American culture, I don't know that we can or that we want to. I for one don't want to work at two professions and try to raise my family. For some the bi-vocational arrangement might work, but I think the requirements to serve our faith communities are too demanding. Now, there are rural communities that still function at a slow pace with little demand. There are sub-cultures in America that expect less and could be done part time. But those places and opportunities are shrinking with each passing season.

This is another reason to hammer out the specifics of the multi-congregational campus and the spreading of evangelical monasteries. Both provide a possible solution to the economic realities. Monasteries house workers and foster community. Multi-congregational campuses can offer low cost, high quality overhead. I don't want the reality of economics to slow down the progress of the emergent church.

Gay Marriage - privacy, tolerance, or a moral yes?

Today I watched a news show that discussed the pros and cons of gay marriage. They advocated two positions. Both positions presented included some endorsement of same sex unions. It seems that everyone is shuffling around, trying to find a compromise that will pacify gay couples. The visible voices of our culture are trying to find a solution that does not get entangled in the morality of homosexuality.

Their arguments are strong, especially since we have extended many legal benefits to co-habitating couples. If we are going to let two people just living together have "full benefits" then why not two people of the same sex. It seems so fair.

More than once I have asked why the government is dealing with marriage anyway. Should the government make laws based on moral standards? If they do, then who's morals do we use? Is it right for the government to be telling people what they can do in their private relationships. The rhetoric is all being driven by trying to make a case without appealing to moral standards. We are so afraid of labeling something immoral.

Moral's and values are the very things that form a society. A society without a morality or set of values disintegrates to anarchy or dictatorship. We might totally disagree with a moral standard used to form a society, but non-the-less to remove it is to redesign the society. Morals and values , regardless of their source, are the fabric of culture. It is within the commonly affirmed morals that we find strength and stability of a culture.

The united states of America was formed with certain moral values. Among them are: self-governance, free-speech, free-dissent, the significance of the individual, free expression of religion, power of state governments, free economics, balance of power, rule of law, the insignificance of social classes, personal tolerance and many more. Most of these were specifically articulated in the constitution. Others were left for the legislative branch to form. The law books reflect two centuries of codifying morality.

In our culture we have set up some morals to be higher and to trump other morals. The morality of equality trumped all the laws that had been formed about separation of races. And so it should have. The value of free economy trumps the value of being freedom to make money by establishing monopoly laws. It really is all a mess of morality, one trumping another and contradictory ones living side by side until they come into direct conflict with another. Then a choice has to be made.

Adultery is an example. We value a faithful marriage commitment but at the same time hold a morality of tolerance for those that ignore that commitment. In this case they live side by side. The difference is that one is advanced and one is tolerated. This was the same stance we took with co-habitation. We advanced committed relationships (marriage) but we have tolerated co-habitation. American law was trying to hold all of its morality, not trying to avoid morality.

Our current challenge is gay unions. We already value love and friendship between same sexes. It isn't about the freedom love someone. It is the sexual relationship and having that sexual relationship used as a basis for family that is "out of the norm." The supreme court led us to abandoned laws that restrict same sex sexual behavior. Why? Because we think gay sex is good and right? No, but because we have a value (a moral) of privacy. The moral of privacy trumps the moral of right sexual behavior between consenting adults. In fact that is one of the jobs of the supreme court, to determine which morals trump.

Gay union advocates don't want us to just tolerate their behavior, or let them do what they want in private, they want us to advocate gay unions. They want us to codify the value of homosexual relationships and declare them moral - the good and right ideal.

I am all for tolerating behavior that I disagree with but does not directly effect another person. I can even affirm the privacy of consenting adults. I will advance tolerance and privacy. Upholding these morals. But I also want to advance the morality of the male - female nuclear family. We are not being asked to choose one moral value over another, deciding what trumps what. We are being asked to reshape what we hold as right and good.

Some would argue that we have been doing that for some time. In many ways I would agree that the definition of family has been being pressured to morph for some time. The nuclear family is in shambles in America. There are plenty of problems to make that obvious. Just because the ideal is being abandoned doesn't mean it should not be the ideal. If we remove the ideal what happens when we want to return to the good and right? There has to be a stopping point. There must be a point when we "let others be wrong" but we don't call them right. I believe gay marriage is one of those issue were we say toleration, privacy, but not a re-writing of morality. We will still hold up the ideal.

To do that we have to talk about the issue within the context of morality. Marriage is all about a moral value. What is morally good and right. What moral ideal do we advance, advocate for, endorse, and reward when it comes to relationships? In case you think we should not provide rewards for moral positions. Think again. We do this all the time. We determine what is good and shape systems and benefits for those that follow that system. This reaches as far down as tax breaks for certain businesses or non-profits to extra taxes on vices. Smoking is a good example. We have decided that the ideal is to NOT SMOKE. We are willing to tolerate smokers, but we will not give them financial benefit for choosing this behavior. In fact, just the opposite, we put what could be argued as "unfair" taxes on cigarettes. Why, because we want to discourage the vice and advance our moral position of being smoke free.

Giving marriage status to homosexual unions is not about being fair to other couples that love each other. It is about labeling homosexuality as moral. I do not believe that homosexuality is moral. It is a moral issue. There is no way around that. You need to address the issue as a moral issue. Don't be afraid of thinking about it morally. Don't hesitate to ask is this a morally right.

As I re-read this I heard the challenge coming from myself. "What right do you have to say what is moral?" Good question. According to our culture I have the right to say what is moral because I am a citizen and we have a moral value that says we should be self-governing. I have the same right as the person that wants to claim that homosexual unions are moral. Government by the people and for the people. We say what is moral. We have another moral value that calls for us to freely appeal to our own faith to determine what is moral. The source of our personal conviction is left up to us. These two American morals give us the right to make the determination. How will it play out. By legislative vote and so it must. If we allow the advocates of gay union to use the same tactitics of abortion rights advocates with roe vs wade we will find America locked in a long term battle just as we have seen with the abortion issue.

So turn to your personal convictions and answer the question. Is homosexual sexual unions as the basis for the ideal nuclear family moral? I put forth that it is not and I will say more on that soon. As well, I will respond to a more common compromise I see being considered.