reyes-chow :: FAITH

First reading and now this?

Thanks to Kristen's prompting, last year Eldest participated in the Young Writer's Program of the National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo).  She didn't quite get done as we were just getting settled into our new place, but she gave it a valiant effort.  She has been scribbling notes down, writing on google docs and generally developing this story - which she has not shown to the parents who brought her into this world - for about six months now.  Well . . . she saw me working with my MacSpeech Dictate and her typing problems were solved*.  Here she is adding to her novel.  She thinks this is just too cool.

* Don't worry, she will still work on proper typing, but at this point her mind is moving far faster than her fingers can.

Reflections on the homeschool decision

So if you have not heard, a recent court ruling puts into jeopardy those who choose to homeschool their children in California by making it illegal to teach homeschool w/o a teaching credential.

Yesterday while listening to NPR's Forum as they talked about this decision  [MP3] and as I heard people give valid reasons why one should or should not choose public, private or homeschool for their and everyone else's children, I could only think about worship*.

Yes, Worship.    Stay with me.

When I was serving my first church, I was kind of a jerk when it came to worship ideas.  I knew the best way, the only way and the most faithful way to worship God.  Worship could only be done with THIS kind of music, THIS style of preaching or THIS way of interacting.  And while I certainly had valid reasons why these ideas could be true, my arrogance was based on two very dangerous assumptions:

• there is only one - MY - way to connect to God.
• if you didn't like MY way, you are clearly NOT connecting to God.

What I learned through some very gracious people at the church and after many years of reflecting back on all the ways I was not very helpful, was this: EVERYONE FINDS THEIR CONNECTIONS TO GOD IN DIFFERENT WAYS.  Sure there can be some overlap, but when it comes right down to it, in most settings, worship allows folks to connect with the divine in ways that no other aspects of life can offer. What I failed to understand was that when I invalidated particular methods that people chose to worship God, I was saying they there very relationship with God was invalid. 

No one should take that crap.
And we should not dole it out.

As we talk about educational choices about our children, I think the same dangers are present.  I say this because, religious or not, child-raising is a connection to the divine that is not offered in any other way.  If we begin to invalidate choices that people make about educating their child, we are in essence saying that they have made poor choices in how they handle their relationship with God.

Not kind.

I have felt this judgment and disrespect when people critique our choice to have our three daughters enrolled in public school and I know my friends have felt it when people critique their decisions about private or homeschool.  It is a visceral reaction.  People may simply be making sweeping generalization or expressing opinion, but people lets think about the impact of our words.  Because in many ways you are insinuating that we have made bad choices for our children, when in reality we have only made different ones.

Each child and family is different and will - and should? - live this out in different ways.

When it comes to this debate about education, while I certainly have reasons why I think public school is the best option for our children and our family, I certainly do not feel like we should limit the choices that parents have in this arena.  While there are certainly blind spots for every parent about their children, we do know what is best for our kids most of the time. And even if/when we do not, we are the ones who are to make the decisions.  Short of situations of emotional or social abuse, in the end, every child is different and their educational lives must be chosen in order to best help them grow into who God hopes them to be. 

So the next time you engage in this conversation remember a couple of things:

• we are all trying to do what we think is best for our child and our family;
• questions on inquiry are more often better than statements of fact;
• raising children is a spiritual and holy privilege and responsibility;
• your truth and choices are not the only or best for everyone just because you made them;
• generally speaking, if you are engaged in this debate with any amount of passion and commitment, odds are that your kids are going to be okay no matter what choices you make;
• there are no guarantees;
• parents have feelings too, so be compassionate and kind in your anger, sarcasm and misjudged ;-)

Be well folks and remember to give the little one a hug.

MORE INFO:

• Kristen's promised series on the court ruling
  
• Forum on NPR, March 11, 2008 - On the Homeschooling Decision [MP3]

* Even though I am making allusions to the religious world, I do know that choices about education are not always made on the basis of religious beliefs.

Ideas for 2008 continuing education events?

As part of a grant from the Lilly Foundation's Sustaining Pastoral Excellence program a group of us have to think through individual projects for the year.  This year I am going to try and do some interesting continuing education events. 

So my blogging friends . . . what events, conferences or other experiences should I think about this year and why?  What I am looking for is something that will stretch me a bit outside of some of my natural boundaries of pastoral work or to revisit some foundational studies.

Some possible areas of study/experience:

• Intensive Bible Study
• Silent Retreat
• International Plunge
• Leadership Retreats
• Spiritual Practices
• Exegesis Practicum
• Service/Mission Experience
• "Create-my-own" thing

I have two weeks to play with and a good chunk of $$ so the possibilities are pretty wide open.  Not really looking for things about blogging, techie or anything emergent-esque, but if you think there is something that is really super-fantabulous in these areas, please feel free to make your case.

[image: Daily Clip Art]

Book Review: Cities and the Creative Class

UPDATE 4/29: Richard Florida's Blog picked this up HERE. Might be some interesting conversations over there.

Book Review: Cities and the Creative Class
Bruce Reyes-Chow, 2007

Introduction and Rational
Richard Florida, Hirst Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University has attempted over the years to define the cultural and economic realities of who he has coined, the “Creative Class.”  Also known as the “Cultural Creatives” and/or “Bobos” this is a segment of society that I am focusing on as part of my Doctor of Ministry Program, specifically around the mainline church response to this group as well as the impact on pastoral leadership.

A follow-up to his first book, The Rise of the Creative Class which details the economic impact of this group Cities and the Creative Class takes a closer look at the relationship between the Creative Class and their economic and social impact on urban enclaves.  He names San Francisco, along with other cities such as Seattle, Boston, Chicago and Minneapolis, as major cultural centers where this particular culture has produced great economic and cultural growth.

His focus on the urban Creative Class culture in general and San Francisco specially is particularly compelling because about 90% of the congregation I serve would fit into the Creative Class culture.

Who are the Creative Class
One critique of this book is that there are some assumptions about the reader, mainly that they understand clearly who makes up the Creative Class and have mostly likely read The Rise of the Creative Class.  Still, he does offer some help in the area by defining his “3 T’s” of Economic Growth” (37) as Technology, Talent and Tolerance.  Creative centers have high concentrations of people who express greater level of competence and instances of these three areas.  In regard to these area he says,

“Creativity and the members of the Creative Class take root in places that possess all three of these critical factors.  Each is a necessary, but by itself insufficient condition.  To attract creative people, generate innovation and stimulate economic development, a place must have all three.  I define tolerance as openness, inclusiveness and diversity of all ethnicities, races and walks of life.  Talent is defined as those with a bachelor’s degree and above.  And technology is a function of both innovation and high technology concentrations in a region.” (37)

While there are clearly cultural issues that are open to critique regarding this particular community, I believe that one of the reasons mainline urban churches have lost a meaningful connection with this segment of the population is that we have not acknowledged that we have failed to maintain the same level of creativity and innovation that this community requires and experiences as their cultural norm.

Book Summary
The book is divided into three main subject areas: Talent, Tolerance and Place.  Each areas uses research to illustrate the differences between major urban areas as well as some suburban and rural settings.  Each chapter is focused on trying to determine why each of the cities, named as Cultural Centers, were or are economically successful.

Part I, the Talent portion of the book compares various studies to determine the rankings of cities in regard to technology, environment, regional issues, etc.  Basically he draws some conclusion as to why more talented people are drawn to particular areas,

“In other words, talent does not simply show up in a region; rather, certain regional factors appear to play a role in creating an environment or habitat that can produce, attract, and retain talent or human capitol.” (109)

Part II, the Tolerance portion of the book – and my favorite – focuses on the idea that the Creative Class is attracted to environments that have a high level of tolerance. 

“Our theory is that a connection exists between a metropolitan area’s level of tolerance for a range of people, its ethnic and social diversity, and its success in attracting talented people, including high-technology workers.  People in technology businesses are drawn to places known for diversity of thought and open-mindedness . . .” (130)

Of note in this section, as well as throughout the book, is that Florida considers the gay population, or lack thereof, a major determiner of an areas level of creativity and tolerance. 

Part III, the Place section, Florida takes on university settings and New York, post 9/11.  He challenges universities not to lean on the natural draw of the intellectually advanced and talented, but to also understand than the setting and culture are also important to drawing those who are both creative and talented.  When he write about New York City in general and Lower Manhattan in particular he affirms the city’s focus on building a cultural “node” in the midst of a creative city.

Lastly he posits some of the concerns of the urbanization of the Creative Class, namely that economic inequality is a major concern. In this regard, San Francisco is his main example of economic inequality.  He also lists other issues that the urban creative class must confront (172): Housing affordability, Uneven regional development, Sprawl and ecological decay, Mounting stress and anxiety and Political polarization.

Translating to Church
After reading this book for about the fourth time, it has become painfully obvious that there are clear correlations between Florida’s explanation of urban economic success and the possibilities for mainline congregational physical and spiritual vitality.  I believe that in the end mainline urban congregations see themselves as possessing all characteristics of urban Creative Centers.  But, I also believe there is often a large chasm between how a congregation sees itself and the realities of who they are.  More specifically, this book brings to light three areas where there may be a difference between self-perception and reality.

Tolerance and Diversity: In this case, I suspect that most congregations at any location on the political/theological spectrum claim to hold tolerance and diversity as important.  More often than not however, this is not lived out beyond tokenism or superficial markers of diversity.  Florida argues, and I would agree, tolerance must be more than numbers, it must also be a way of life.  Just as universities will fail to attract the Creative Class because they pay diversity superficial lip service, highly concentrated areas of the Creative Class will not simply tolerate difference, but will truly appreciate what diversity brings to the larger community.  The church needs to take on the approach as well if we hope, not just attract this particular group of people, but to actually live into the idea that tolerance and diversity matter.

Creativity and Innovation: Unlike tolerance and diversity, I am not sure that all congregations value creativity and innovation.  Again, however we should, that is if we take one of our core values of the church reformed, always reforming seriously.  I suspect that this is one more difficult characteristic for an established church to do after developing great history and traditions.  Still, without these attributes, liberal or conservative, we will remain mired in a particular time and context without even knowing it and will again, fail to live into who we claim to be.

Introspection and Evaluation: Florida models one aspect of this culture that is often underappreciated, this group engages in critical self-reflection.  I think this is an intrinsic aspect of the Creative Class’ ability to innovate and appreciate diverse worldviews, that is no one is complete or isolated, so by default we are in the process of discovering who we are to become.  If that is not the church, not sure what is?  Unfortunately however, this way of being too often produces reactions of defensiveness and resistance rather than self-reflection and transformation

And while I would severely critique mainline churches regarding these three areas, I firmly believe that because we hold these three areas up as ideals – which not all communities do – we have the greatest potential being transformed into communities that are not just succeeding, but thriving.

Lastly, if I had the research chops to do something like this, I think this book could easily be done in the form of something like “City Churches and the Creative Class” and I would suspect that we would find very similar characteristics in healthy and thriving urban congregations.  This book, in terms of my particular project will provide the documentation and analysis to support my theory that mainline churches are equipped to, and if freed to, will attract this unique cultural community.

Doctor of Ministry: Failure or Success?

Yesterday I had one of those "God" moments as I took a walk down this path near the Bay in Emeryville.

" Failure" and/or "Success" is always about perspective.

As an oldest child, Enneagram 3, task-driven, achievement-oriented kind of guy, success or failure is usually tied up not just in the completion of a goal, but a job well done and acknowledged.  As much as I strive to be about the process and journey of discovery, over the past week I have been reminded in subtle ways how much I have let "the man" - okay, my ego, achievement needs and blindness - guide me into starting this new adventure called grad school.  "Dr." before 40, acceptance by some ambiguous institution, validation by who knows who, etc.

No more I say . . . I have failed, and that's okay.  I have decided not to continue in the Doctor of Ministry Program that I just began this semester.  Yes, it just started, but since the first day, there as been this nagging feeling that this was not a good fit.  Discernment, prayer and a good couple of smacks in the head tell me that that "feeling" was God telling me that this is not the time, nor the place.

Because God works in percentages, why I have made this decision:

• 10% - Arrogance about the best way for me to grow;
• 10% - Naivety about the possibilities of the program/institution;
• 5% - Time, curses to only 7 days in the week;
• 75% - The "Still Small Voice" is now using a bullhorn;

I REALLY should have known better.  Not only is it a huge amount of time, but I think I had a false sense of what I could get out of it.  Why did I think that I could learn about the kind of church I think needs to take shape VIA taking classes that for the most part teach us how to thrive in the way the church is now? 

My original intent for entering the Doctor of Ministry program was not for any financial or professional advancement, but for pure personal and pastoral growth . . . okay and the whole "Dr." thing.   More specifically, I wanted to stretch in my understanding of what it means to pastor a postmodern/emergent congregation in an urban setting like San Francisco.  What I have found is that I feel like Joey on Friends.  He talks, people smile and nod, even love him, but basically they think he is a moron.  A well-intentioned and good-hearted moron, but a moron nonetheless.   I say that not because I feel unable to keep up with the academics and intellectual discourse, but because that exercise in itself is not fulfilling or particularly life-giving for me.   In fact most of the conversations that I have had around my areas of interested have been, one, defending against those who dismiss any inferences to the emergent or postmodern church or, two, explaining and informing people about this "thing that have heard of".  Okay, a little harsh, but you get what I mean.  These has been ZERO opportunity to expand the understanding of my context, because the context in which I serve, for good or bad, is not here.   And while this kind of discourse is overall positive and helpful, this can happen - and does - in other places besides a graduate theological class setting.   I say this not to dismiss the validity of theological academia, but because my ministry needs have shifted since I was in seminary some 12 years ago.  Because the discovery and articulation of my own postmodern worldview has reshaped my place, expectations and understanding of the dominant church culture; the graduate theological setting is not the place where I feel like I can venture out and grow in that ways I had hoped . . . bummer.

I am slow, but a few conversations/interactions over the past few weeks have been formative in this decision.  I can boil them down to two basic perceptions of and reflections upon doing graduate work around the urban, emergent and postmodern church.

from the institution //
Looks and words that basically say, "Bruce, what the heck are you talking about?" or "These things of which you speak - blogging, technology, creatives, emergent, etc. - these are not 'real' church or ministry."

from those on the edges of my ministry //
"Why again are you trying to stretch your understanding of how you think/live ministry in a place that upholds a worldview so different than and is even dismissive of your own?"  "Are you looking for affirmation/verification of what you think or do you need to be challenged in the trenches on the validity of what you claim is effective ministry?"

So  . . . I have not given up on the whole personal and pastoral growth thing, but the focus will be different.  I am still going to carve out some hours a week to tackle some wacky ideas that have been rolling around in my head.  These possible movements in my own growth and the release of this overwhelming sense that this was not a good place to be, have me again feeling blessed about the possibilities.

Who knows what the future holds, maybe in another time, another program, another universe or even an honorary Doctorate from the University of "Oh Good my Daddy can Quit being such a Downer." Ahhhhhhhh a place of chaos and ambiguity, now that feels like home.

Thanks be to God.