My new ink
Well sort of.
I have NEVER EVER EVER put a bumper sticker on any of my vehicles, so I guess I am committed ;-)
« Follow-up to Center on Asian American Ministry lunch | Main | Why FB is a great tool for transitioning from a "Pastoral" to a "Program" church »
Well sort of.
I have NEVER EVER EVER put a bumper sticker on any of my vehicles, so I guess I am committed ;-)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/719797/28170418
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference My new ink:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Well...maybe. Do you have a sticker on the back of your helmet? That, my friend, is the true test.
Posted by: David Williams | 2008.04.16 at 08:38 AM
yeah! you have chosen well, oh reverent one.
Posted by: Sarah Glass | 2008.04.16 at 05:18 PM
David - Slow down there.
Sarah - Thanks!
Posted by: Bruce Reyes-Chow | 2008.04.16 at 06:41 PM
I don't do bumper stickers and if I ever did I would probably put some tape on it instead of really sticking that it to the car. Those things are way too hard to get off.
Posted by: SolShine7 | 2008.04.17 at 06:51 AM
I came across your site through the FB group supporting your standing for GA moderator.
I found it interesting to see a candidate for GA moderator so open about his political views, and I'm curious as to how you see this act fitting with your "candidacy" as well as your current role as pastor. Specifically, how do you see this impacting the unity of believers, if at all? Do you think there are people who would be turned off to the gospel message because they don't share your political affiliation or beliefs?
(A little about me: I grew up at First Pres Berkeley and now attend an EPC church on the East Coast.)
Posted by: W Choi | 2008.04.17 at 09:28 AM
W - thanks for the comment. Yeah, herein lies a great difference in how we think about transparency. In the church I serve, it is vital that people know where I am so they can do their own vetting. If I pretend to be neutral, that is not seen as trustworthy because people know that we all have an opinion about everything. Many operate under the idea that if you have a public opinion you cannot be fair, where as some think that if you do not share a public opinion you are hiding something. Folks will know that I am fair precisely by the knowing/seeing where I operate outside of expected allegiances. Hope that helps!
Posted by: Bruce Reyes-Chow | 2008.04.17 at 02:09 PM
Thanks for your response. I understand your what you're saying.
My reaction is that political views need to be treated with care within the church. This is not the same thing as saying that you're an A's fan (I'm a huge one, by the way -- and while typing this I'm also wondering if Harden's bones are made of glass), and then going and reaching out to someone who's an Angel's fan. At the end of the day, it's just sports, and I think 99% of the country would recognize that. Unfortunately for better or for worse, you can't say that about politics -- it's extremely divisive.
So if we accept that it is divisive, and similarly accept that as workers in God's kingdom we are concerned about the unity of believers, why put something like political views out there so prominently? I would suggest that in knowing your "allegiances" some Christians would have a difficult time visiting your church (obviously, true in the other political direction as well). Perhaps it is just their issue and they need to deal with it. But as the church, if we see that it is already so difficult for many people to come to church, why put up additional potential roadblocks when we don't have to?
(I understand your point about needing to be honest -- but I feel there is a difference between being honest if asked directly about a particular issue vs. widely advertising one's political positions.)
I believe the gospel is what we're about, first and foremost. That is where our allegiances lie. We don't have to hide our other allegiances, but if there is any proclaiming, any boasting, it is about Christ alone and his sacrificial work for us.
Just my two cents.
Posted by: W Choi | 2008.04.17 at 05:45 PM
W. - Very helpful. I think, though, that when it comes to pastoring, not everyone will be able to pastor everyone, so my particular skills, perspectives, worldview will reach folks that others would not be able to. And, of course, the other way round, who I am in all those things would hold people back. This is one of the reasons I choose to be Presbyterian, diverse people reaching diverse people for Christ!
And yes, Harden's bones are made of glass ;-)
Posted by: Bruce Reyes-Chow | 2008.04.17 at 05:52 PM
Wow, quick response. Thanks. Alright, forget Harden. Duke's hurt too? Come on.
Fair enough. I agree that not every pastor can pastor everybody (and not everybody benefits in the same way under the ministry of a particular pastor), but I do believe that a pastor should at least be open to ministering to anybody. I'm not sure I see the wisdom in closing off the possibility of ministering to certain people so readily, when we as the church are charged to proclaim the gospel to all peoples.
And in bringing this back to your standing for GA moderator -- is it fair to argue that just as somebody may see your public allegiances and be turned off to your church, somebody could be turned off to your candidacy? What do you offer a presbyter who doesn't share your allegiances that you're not offering to the person who is turned off to your church?
Thanks.
Posted by: W Choi | 2008.04.17 at 06:09 PM
Yes of course. Maybe I was too quick to draw the line there.
I guess, I give people the benefit of the doubt and expect the same from others. We do have people at our church that disgaree with me greatly on issues of politics, social issues, etc and somehow God has made the way. I am still their pastor, they still trust me, etc.
I think that if someone will cross someone off the list solely because they find out they support a particular party or cause, they are drawing the line for the relationship anyway. I actually think most people are more sophisticated that we give them credit.
As far as the church/politics thing, I would not say we bring that "endorsement" to the pulpit. It is a fine line, but one that we must all (open or not about political allegiances) must stay aware of.
As far as the moderator thing goes, folks will find reasons to support or not support me, especially during this pre-GA time. That is one of the reasons that the on-site Questions and Answer time is so powerful, it is just us in a room discerning the spirit.
And back to the important stuff, at least the A's are more exciting than the Giants. They are just sad.
Posted by: Bruce Reyes-Chow | 2008.04.17 at 06:29 PM
Hey Bruce, I may not agree with your choice of candidate, but I applaud your bravery in making a declaration. I love mixing politics with religion. I'm even a regular guest on a weekly radio talk show where politics and religion are constantly being voiced.
Finally, I love what Bishop Desmond Tutu had to say about this: 'Some people say that politics and religion should never mix. I always ask them: "What Bible are you reading?"'
Posted by: Stushie | 2008.08.22 at 07:41 PM