Confidence or Cowardice?

Last night wasn't as bad as last year - but I continue to be a little confounded by my Church's annual business meeting.

There wasn't anything ground-shaking on the agenda but we did modify our constitution in a couple of spots. And we did this with absolutely no discussion. While the changes weren't substantial they are part of our (very brief) constitution and merited a little discussion. If no one else was - I at least was opposed to the changes and I was curious about the ramifications they might have in terms of our practice. It was pretty clear however that leadership wasn't particularly interested in discussing the changes so we took a vote without discussion and moved on.

It occurred to me that there are two possible reasons not to talk about changes to our constitution. One possible reason is confidence - if our constitution contained inaccurate information and obviously needed to be updated (say our address changed) than we might feel confident enough that the changes are self-evidently necessary and approve them without needing to talk about them at all. And after all our modifications passed by the necessary 2/3 majority - so perhaps it was a case of justified confidence.

But I think that it is cowardice that leads us to silence. Maybe instead of confidence it's a desire not to talk about the path we're on. Maybe nobody wants to talk about this stuff because everybody knows that we're divided and we'd rather not face that fact. It might just be a case of Ignore them and maybe they'll go away

I'm not a psychic, so I can't tell you what motive predominated. But neither explanation is particularly comforting to me. I've spent most of my life out of step with my wider social circle for various reasons (fellow geeks probably understand this without explanation) and I've got that familiar out-of-sync feeling. I'm not confident about our path (Well - I am in the "Stop! You're headed the the wrong way" sense). And I've never been able to understand what you gain by avoiding talking about something that's true and there none-the-less. Whatever the reasons for the way we do our business, it always leaves me unsettled.

Update: I've had a couple of people give me feedback (via comments and email). Thanks! I had one thought I expressed via email that I thought I should drop here as well:

I was thinking reading your note how much of the past we bring to the present. I completely agree (after the fact) that I should have talked about this beforehand, rather than waiting till after. Part of it all, however, is I grew up in a Church that strongly discouraged discussing council meeting business before the meeting (I think the idea was they didn't want to encourage factionalism) but also had a strong tradition of hashing things out in the meeting. We had four council meetings a year so if something needed talking out we could usually just postpone it three months and bring it up again.

I have to say I chafed a bit when I was young at the cultural pressure against talking before the meeting. Now that I've a little more experience, I have to say that the insistence on doing the business of the Church as the Church was well founded.

I guess I express two separate concerns each year after business meeting. One concern is the decisions we make, the other is how we make our decisions. It would go a long ways towards assuaging my second concern if we met more frequently and talked more openly. Maybe I should be talking about transparency and good governance! What we need is a Brethren Tea Party movement! Yeah, that's the ticket...

Boxing and Me Part I

So if you follow me on twitter or facebook you already know that I've been into boxing lately. For the last 4-5 months I've been going to a boxing gym in my neighborhood 2-3 times a week for a couple hours at a time. I wrap my hands, put on gloves and hit a heavy bag for a while, take part in group calisthenics, and do drills or exercises afterwards.

I started because I wanted to get into better shape - particularly aerobic shape. That's definitely happening. The first time I went I nearly passed out during the calisthenics (literally - I stood up turned pale, and had to bend over. Ice cold water on the neck brought me right round) and now I'm able to lead a class and talk while we do a few hundred jumps, a few hundred crunch variations and squats and pushups. I'm sticking with it for the exercise alone and I'm going to be in the best shape of my life by the time the year is out.

Strangely though, I'm also finding the actual boxing side of things... interesting. In fact one of my annual resolutions this year is to work my fitness and skill level up to be able to take part in full speed sparring. This despite, maybe because, I really don't like getting punched so far.

This is also despite the fact that I'm a pacifist. I don't actually like the term but that's what people would call the practical outcome of my beliefs - as a Christian I believe I am called to renounce violence. I reject violence personally as a way of accomplishing things and I cannot participate in the various forms of state violence - the military or law enforcement for example - that are widely seen as moral or ethical.

So what the heck am I doing in a boxing gym contemplating participation in a sport that is - let us not kid ourselves - basically organized violence? How can I justify punching and taking a punch as a regular activity and still say that I reject violence in any meaningful way?

Breaking with my tradition of writing single long posts I'd like to instead write several posts answering those questions. For a hint at some answers, however, you might read Chuck Klosterman's tribute to Norman Mailer.

...his central pugilistic theory, which originally ran in Esquire in October 1993: "[Boxing] arouses two of the deepest anxieties we contain. There is not only the fear of getting hurt, which is profound in more men than will admit to it, but there is the opposite panic, equally unadmitted, of hurting others." This was the inevitable thesis for all of the Hemingway-influenced boxing writers. What made the sport transcendent was its relationship with the base qualities of being alive. There is nothing contextual about hitting another man, and there is nothing metaphysical about getting punched in the face. For most of the twentieth century, people who wanted to write about primordial reality wrote about fighting. But not anymore. It seems we have finally reached the point where modern Americans have no relationship with primordial reality whatsoever.

The Next Bubble

This is another of my hesitant recommendations - anyone hooked on Unqualified Reservations at my instigation knows what I'm talking about.

So - proceed with caution, minors without adult supervision are forbidden and management is not responsible for any sensations of discomfort you may experience - but the Misandry Bubble was a blast to read. Some people, you read and think, this might be right or wrong but it isn't on the same playing field as everyone else!

One graf among many that struck me as exactly right (emphasis mine):

Lastly, the religious 'social conservatives' who continue their empty sermonizing about the 'sanctity of marriage' while doing absolutely nothing about the divorce-incentivizing turn that the laws have taken, have been exposed for their pseudo-moral posturing and willful blindness. What they claim to be of utmost importance to them has been destroyed right under their noses, and they still are too dimwitted to comprehend why. No other interest group in America has been such a total failure at their own stated mission. To be duped into believing that a side-issue like 'gay marriage' is a mortal threat to traditional marriage, yet miss the legal changes that correlate to a rise in divorce rates (divorce being what destroys marriage, rather than a tiny number of gays), is about as egregious an oversight as an astronomer failing to be aware of the existence of the Moon.

Set aside some time and read the whole thing...

Bread in Five Minutes

If you haven't been inspired by my previous post to give easy artisan bread a try go watch the video here - it really is that easy! I've already got several converts! Oh and a hat-tip to the meta-mom for the video!

That's a good question

Recently a commenter on my David Wells and Ecclesiology post asked a great question. I haven't been much help so far and so I turn to you, the reader for help.

In one of your articles or blogs, you mentioned the 4 Spiritual Laws tract as reflecting the inadequate framing of the gospel message by evangelicals.

Recently, my wife and I have become involved in the "Kids Against Hunger" food relief campaign. The suggestion was made to include gospel tracts with the food portions. I was unhappy with the decision to go with "Chick" tracts.

I am contemplating creating a tract that presents the "Christus Victor" idea in a way that would be brief, clear, and universally relevant. Can you help by giving me your ideas of what the basic elements of such a tract should be? Any storyline ideas in which to embed this message? Thanks if you can.

It's a good question and my first response was that somebody with a developed visual sense and familiarity with Christus Victor theology should answer it. I referred bruce to Derek Flood over at sharktacos.com - he's got a great essay on Christus Victor that's been something I return to every so often...

I'm still looking for suggestions though - so I'd like to encourage you to leave your comments. What would a tract look like that communicated the Gospel in some more holistic form than the "If you died tonight, do you know where you would go" style approach?

My own two cents - the good news of the Gospel is not limited to eventual eternal salvation. The recognition that God looked on our condition and came to take part in it and so provide a way to enter into his life now is good news!

I think at all times in history it is possible to look at the world and recognize that it is wrong. Sin is not just personally transgressing God's will in failing to keep moral commands - it is the pervasive condition of life on this planet. Do you see injustice? Do you see war and death, starvation and oppression? And yes - even on a personal level - everyone who is honest recognizes the struggle against whatever moral creed, no matter how basic, that we espouse. We do what we do not want to do and can't see any way of escape! There ain't no rest for the wicked!

The gospel is that this reality is not all there is, that we are not condemned to be slaves to sin but God in Jesus Christ has set us free and is reconciling all things to himself. We can enter now into new life and new creation through the Grace of God, and Jesus is creating for himself a people who should embody that grace in their lives.

How can you tell all that simply and hopefully visually? Well - I'm not talented enough for simple or visual but let me suggest some themes. First clearly the New Testament narrative of Jesus needs to be central. Perhaps start with the hopelessness of life - is this all there is? Does it make sense? The reality of God as loving Father who sent his son to enter into the human condition. That Jesus faithfully followed God in all things in his life - being fully human and yet proclaiming victory over everything that is against us by forgiving sins, healing diseases, eating and drinking with us sinners and for all that he was executed.

I think it's appropriate to depict Satan as the oppressor, the villain of the piece. And from his perspective the cross is his moment of triumph when God in Jesus is beaten by the ultimate weapon of death. And yet because of his faithfulness Jesus' triumphs over death and is resurrected. Real victory is coming, in the meantime the people of God are called to live like Jesus through the Grace of God.

One movie that keeps popping up as I write this is the reality-behind-the-reality of the first Matrix movie - the feeling that this can't be all that there is.

Without the visual element (which I've been assuming - Chick tracts are basically comic books if you've never seen them) - I almost wonder about a tract that did nothing more than present Jesus. That he was God incarnate, lived a life of faithfulness that displayed the liberating power of God, died for us and invites us to follow him! No four step plan of salvation that necessarily is a distillation of theology but rather just the narrative. Here is the man whom I believe to be God - read the Gospels to find out more!

Well - my readers (both of them) doubtless have suggestions. What's the best tract you've seen? Or how would you convey the Gospel in two or three sentences?