reyes-chow :: FAITH

Top three ways you know technology is killing your church

[image: kmevans]

Okay, the title of this post is slightly over the top.  Sorry, just trying to be provocative ;-)  Technology, while it may do some harm in the wrong hands, it will not KILL the church.  We also know that survival is not the main aim of the church or the foundation of our Christian faith.  We can argue about what that foundation is and how it is expressed*, but I think that most will agree that survival for the sake of survival is not it.  Still, it seems that so many of us want to find ways to "save" the church these days.  Not only are we worried about the pure decline in membership numbers  but then we hear of cultural changes such as reported this new study:

So many Americans claim no religion at all (15%, up from 8% in 1990), that this category now outranks every other major U.S. religious group except Catholics and Baptists. In a nation that has long been mostly Christian, "the challenge to Christianity … does not come from other religions but from a rejection of all forms of organized religion," the report concludes.

Ack, we are dying!  We are loosing people not just to other churches with "right doctrine," but they are leaving to join the church of "no religion."  It is no wonder we are struggling to find ways to stop the bleeding, increase membership and NOT die.  I understand, I really do, no one WANTS to die.  At this same time, when it comes to Christian communities, anything we do that is grounded primarily by a need to survive will ultimately lead to our death, physically and spiritually. 

So, naturally, we try to find ways to grow and be healthy.

One of the things that I have noticed in many conversations about the future of the church with folks is the focus and preoccupation with technology.  Perspectives range from mildly ambivalent to wildly receptive and comes from all demographics.  Some people simply will not be open to or acknowledge the importance of technology; and others, quite frankly do not wish to acknowledge the negatives that can come from an over emphasis on technology.  Now obviously I am one that has embraced the transformational impact that technology can have on communities of faith and their lives in the world, but I am also committed to the integration and use of technology that takes seriously the contexts in which we serve and provide leadership.

So while I would enthusiastically support and encourage any and all church folks to seek out and dive into those places where technology and faith converge, there are some dangers to jumping in without some filters.  With this in mind I have come up with three Tech Death Beliefs that we need to be aware of.  Now some of these are pretty basic and some of you may be offended that I would even think that YOU would think such a thing, but all of these come from experiences, conversations and pretty strong examples of technology gone bad.

Try these three on for size. 

TECH DEATH BELIEF #1 - "If we just increase the use of technology, young people will come to church and we will live again!"
This is insidious thought number one when it comes to technology and the church.  For some reason we are caught in this worldview that it we simple discover the right method, we can structure and build our way into new life and growth.  What this does not account for is the contextual realities and integrity that any community must have in order to be a compelling presence.  In short, the use of technology must at least resemble the technical realities of the communities we serve otherwise, we are putting up a false face to the world, sharing not "who we are", but "who we think you want us to be."  Not only does this contaminate the technology that used, but it boils folks down to one simplistic demographic, "likes technology" when in fact if a community is genuine in its use of technology, "likes authenticity" will be the drawing element.

TECH DEATH BELIEF #2  - "I would rather be plugged into Twitter and Facebook, than doing some of the pastoral care duties that the church expects me to do."
Whenever we pastor-types are unsettled in our call, avoiding conflict or otherwise trying trying to NOT engage in activities that we do not want to do, we find and justify ways to do something else.  For some that might be paying attention only to folks who like us, for others it is thinking up new projects to take time and yet for others, we plug in.  Don't get me wrong, I understand the excitement of engaging in new and creative ministries, but for folks in more traditionally populated churches, the only way our "new fangled myface , twitter world" will gain any traction with those who don't quite get it, is if they still know that, no matter what, their pastor's still put them first.

TECH DEATH BELIEF #3  - "I have never seen a widget I didn't like."
A few weeks ago I did a redesign of this blog because it was beginning to look like the widget trolls had vomited all over my design.  We have all seen them, heck, we have all probably helped to deign them.  You know what I mean, websites, blogs and profiles that are just a mess.   We add graphics galore, use twelve fonts, have no color scheme and some of us *gasp* have music that plays every time one visits.**  To take a quote from Spiderman, "With great power, comes great responsibility" or put another way, just because you have the power, it does not mean you have to use it.   Just as you would not welcome folks into your home in a disaster state, we should take the care and time to present a nice look and feel for those interacting with our online presence.  Now of course, while I am clearly being a tad bit judgmental , if the look of your community is joyfully chaotic, eclectic and otherwise wild, then your website/blog should certainly reflect that.  Do not lie about who you are as a community, but do not do anything that will scare folks off at the outset.  In this day in age, the care and thought you put into your only identity will tel folks a great deal about how you might care for them.

Now obviously none of these things exists in pure form or is embraced with malice, but what is so often missing is one crucial understanding of the use of technology: like any other tool for ministry and communication it is only as powerful as the level in which folks use and embrace it.  Context matters as they say.  If the technology is not part of who you or your community is, it will not be effective in helping to create an atmosphere of health and growth.  But . . . if you find that convergence where the technological air that you and those around you breath meet, there you have moments of grace and growth.

Now if you'll excuse me, I must go and twitter this ;-0

*If you want my statement of faith in 140 characters or less, see my Twitter of Faith.

** Unless you are a musical artists or your website is something like musicwillstartnow.com, please, please, please take off any automatic music playing.

1/2 Book Review: The Hip-Hop Generation

I have this really bad habit.  I am sure someone out there can analyze this for me.  I start reading a book and feel like I want others to join in on on the ride.  The good thing is that I really want others to experience something that is compelling.  The bad is that I have no idea where we are heading and might draw you into some catastrophic abyss of nothingness.  Be it church, books, social networks, whatever, my first inclination is, "Come on in, it probably won't kill you and it just might be good for you."

You all are grown-ups.  Jump in if you like.

My latest book adventure is Party Crashing: How the Hip-Hop Generation Declared Political Independence by Keli Goff.  I heard about this book while listing to a Talk of the Nation episode, Barack Obama and the African American Vote.  While the context was the African American community, there were some great thoughts put out.  The two that stood out to me were these:

• One, the cultural shifts in the African American community are between the Civil Rights generation (Boomers) and the Hip Hop Generation (born 1965-85);
• Two, this shift is not happening soley in the African American community, but also in the larger culture.

I am about half-way through this book and I there have been a few really good insights for me. 

• I am more of a HipHop Generation Person than a Generation X person.  I always knew there was something that didn't quite fit for me in the whole GenX world.  Maybe it was music, the city thang, my ethnic realities, whatever it was, I never saw myself as a GenX'er.   I resonate much more with the social and political realities of the HipHop reality.
• I am NOT crazy.  There are times when, in the midst of my ranting about the church needing to drastically shift with culture, I feel like I am really off.  This book reaffirms so much of what many of us have been talking about as of late.
• I just might vote for Jon Stewart/Chris Rock ticket . . . no seriously.

So, take a read of this one.  It is pretty quick and will give an entirely different perspective on the root causes and reactions to cultural shifts.

Just Conservogressive or Progresservative

Some of the hoped for response from my post about my standing for Moderator came from Jim Berkley.  I have met Jim a few times, but we have mostly interacted via online conversations.  Jim is extremely thorough and while it is safe to say that we may land in different places theologically, I have appreciated his willingness to stay in conversations and be bold in what he believes.

One of questions back to me from my post, Adventures in Moderation, PC(USA) Style , was this.

Case #1. You say that "tradition must be embraced and valued, while at the same time radical transformation encouraged and unleashed." What does it mean to embrace and value tradition if what one really wants to do is unleash radical transformation that would wipe out the heritage of tradition? Does that mean to tip one's hat toward ancient but now outmoded customs--kind of a kicky but momentary nostalgia for funny old things (perhaps like boys wearing knickers or playing by rolling hoops down the street?)--while discarding the value of the past in a headlong rush to do something new and supposedly more exciting and relevant? A "conservative" is one who wants to conserve a valuable heritage and sees its worth. A "progressive" is one who seeks "progress" in what is current, new, different, and supposedly superior. It seems to me that you can't claim to be both, and it may be a little disingenuous to imply being both. Or have I missed something?

First sorry for those of you that can't stand neologisms, but I love them.  Sure are a little too "cute" after a while like mixing xxxxxxmergent with everything, but on the whole, who doesn't love "ginormous" as a descriptive word? 

But I digress . . .

Jim brings up some great questions and will be ongoing touch points for the church. Can one REALLY blend tradition and progress?  I say yes!  One of my core beliefs about the shift in church existence from modernity to postmodernity is that the postmodern manifestation of the church cannot be seen as birthed out of nothing.  Post means to flow out of something, so the postmodern church by definition flows from modernity.  In this case the church of the future should not be based on a posture of blanket rejection from all thing past/traditional, but should flow from these realities.   Sure, some churches are built radical destruction of all things past or on "What we are not" but I think those churches will soon find their realities to be that of the seed cast on the shallow soil that grew fast, but were soon withered because they had no roots.  It is my deepest yearning that this is NOT the future of the church I am hoping us to become.

A few very brief responses to concerns raised . . .

• Not all who seek radical transformation also seek the destruction of all that has been in terms of heritage and tradition. I think most of us are actually more interested in engaging in a more intentional approach to discerning what of our tradition/heritage must be kept and lifted up.  We should discard those things have become the object/god/idol of our worship and hold on to those things that are genuine vehicles through which we worship and meet God?
• Most folks are not simply one or the other.  I believe most of us live somewhere on the spectrum between the "change nothing" conservative and the "change everything" progressive.  While there is a role for extremes to play in the defining of community, I think most of us live in the gray and actually do live in both worlds.  The hard part is confronting the realities of living together when looking across the vast middle and attempting to appreciate the other who may lean more towards one side than the other. 
• Our common heritage and traditions that are held onto are most often done with great reverence and respect.  Some traditions may be done with a contextual flavor, style and/or language but in the end I believe most folks honor those faithful movements of the past.  In our particular congregation, when we do join for Confessions, Laying on Hands, Baptisms, Communion, etc. all are done with more than a "tip of the hat" but with a great respect for what has come before and how that builds us up for what may come next.

I cannot stress enough that the church I see in the future is NOT one that is solely based on what is new and the haphazard destruction of what has come before.  At the same time, the church of the future, must be able to discern new ways in which we live out and manifest those aspects of our faith that must be held onto.  A faithful integration of our past is what allows us to best connect with God individually and communally in the future.

New life in Christ is about a realization and acceptance of radical transformation of one's whole self.  When we commit ourself/selves to Christ this does not mean that we simply throw away everything that we were.  Rather we allow ourselves to be rooted in who God has created us to be until that point, grounded in the deep complexities of each of our faith and cultural experiences.  This grounding then gives us solid footing to continuing experience the transformation that is offered in a sustained life in and commitment to Christ.   I would posit that the new church must think about itself in the same way if we hope to be that seed that falls on solid ground.  For I truly believe that if we as a denomination can embrace the best of who have been we will be those seeds who experience new growth, new flowers and new life firmly rooted, grounded and nourished by the soil of our past.

Whirled Peas [Grid::Blog::horizon2107]

Alright, so I am just squeezing in under the deadline to post my contributions to Bob's call to be part of his Horizon Grid Blog 2107*

I think I figured it out right, but in 100 years there is a distinct possibility that in the year 2107, my great-great-grandchildren will be walking around around the age of 20.

Yes, there are some assumptions made: one, that my kids will have kids and B, humanity will not destroy the Earth.  I am going to give humanity the benefit of the doubt and assume that the world will still be here so here are some of my dreams/hopes.

• Family will matter;
• Compassion will reign;
• Cars will fly ala iRobot;
• Countries will generally get along;
• We will each have a teleporter and jet pack;
• ER will FINALLY be canceled.

Turns out I am not very imaginative.

*What is a Grid Blog?

Ordination: Right, Privilege or Delusion?

All people have access to God, but does that mean everyone should be allowed to or is equipped for any role in the church?  And why then ordination?

Seems to me that these are some of the fundamental questions that many today struggle with in today's church.  And while some would accuse some of us mainliners of taking the whole idea of "ordained" clergy way too seriously, I would suggest that this is a modern dilemma that has created a situation where we just have a warped understanding of ordination.

DISCLAIMER: I fully understand that ordination has been used as a way to unjustly keep people out of certain areas of the church: women, GLBT, people of color, etc. And Yes, there are many ordained people - pastors, elders and deacons - who may or may not, in my opinion, exhibit all of the virtues that I or others would like to see in those who hold those offices.  Still . . . I am not ready to say that the concept and practice of ordination should be done away with.

And here are a few thoughts why . . .

Ordination does not mean "holier than anyone else."  Even those who say ordination does not matter have in some way bought into the thinking that there is an inherent higher value and worth in a person because they are ordained.  Yes, clergy must get over ourselves and stop thinking that we know Jesus any better than anyone else, but at the same time laity must stop thinking that we do in fact think we think we know Jesus any better than anyone else.

Ordination in my tradition - Presbyterian - means that a community of people have discerned that particular people have been called to particular roles.  Just because a person is not in that role does not mean that they never will or are not able . . . but it MIGHT!   Despite our human and somewhat American individualist nature, I trust the body to discern better than I who is called to what and when.  Honestly, it scares the CRAP out of me to think about a community where just because one feels called to a particular role in the church, they should just be able to do it.  I think traditions that practice this method of ordination have just messed it all up.   This is one of the major reasons I choose to be Presbyterian and not an independent congregationalist.   I want to know that there has been a process of more than a conversation in your head that has brought you to this place of leadership and activity in the church.   I think one of the roles of community, congregationally and beyond, is to help people discern their gifts for ministry.  This means to help people discover what those gifts are, to nurture those gifts to equip people to use those gifts and when appropriate challenge folks to publicly use those gifts for the work of the Gospel.

Ordination is also not just about Ministers of "Word and Sacrament" but also about Elders and Deacons, all church roles that require different gifts.  Generally Ministers of Word and Sacrament care for the spiritual well-being of a community, Elders to provide sustained congregational leadership and Deacons are to be a healing and reconciling presence.  As you look around the church and get to know folks, is everyone equipped to pastor a church?  Is everyone equipped to be a teacher or to be a nurturer.  Certainly not . . . even if we think we are.  Our personalities, experiences and/or skills all inform our roles in the church community.   That does not mean that we will not grow into that role at some point and time, but it does reinforce the idea that church leadership is NOT a right, but a privilege bestowed upon folks by a community of faith that has said, "we too sense God's calling upon you."

And finally, I don't believe that ordination devalues the Biblical idea of the Priesthood of all believers.  The priestly nature of our faith says that we all have access to God and that one need not have a human mediator in order to know God and experience God.  Of course people may THINK this is the case, but in my role of Ordained Minister of Word and Sacrament . . . I have no delusions that I have any better access to God than anyone else and I think most clergy feel the same way.  Has a community of people said that I may have the gifts and temperament to lead and pastor, sure, but privy to God, nope.

At the end of the day, I actually don't take ordination all that seriously.  Take for instance, the serving of the Lord's Supper.  Does God really care who says the magic words and blows the fairy dust that, in our tradition, publicly acknowledges the presence of Christ in the sharing of the bread and cup?  I think not.  At the same time, should any yahoo be allowed to preside over this holy practice without some permission and confirmation from the community that is being served?  I think so.  Just where those boundaries lie is the dreaded gray area.  Such is life.

So . . . ordination.  It is what it is.  Some will appreciate and value it while others will dismiss it as an institutionally self-inflicted delusion.  Some will shun it while some some will pursue it.  Some will abuse it, while others will bring honor to the office.  Such is the fun of navigating the church as lived out by us ordinary human beings.

Stop hating, Yelp loves Jesus

I won!  I Won!  what did I win you ask?

• Dad of the year?
• Jesus worker of the week?
• Cafe Hanger-Outer of the City?

While all would be bring sweet medals to hang around my neck, alas all pale in comparison to today's [July 26, 2007] Review of the Day from Yelp.  Yes, if you click on over to Yelp today, yours truly has the ROTD for a stunning review of Bruno's Club and Restaurant in the Mission.  Now other than the huge cheese factor and slew of Yelp Complements that accompany this honor, the other thing that happens is that folks interact with the church in new ways.

While some may mock and dismiss some of these new fangled ways that the church may share its presence in the world, I respond with a healthy "Neener neener neener" to you all!  We have seen a great number of people use Yelp when searching for a church.  After all, many of the important things in their lives are found there, why not church. 

Not only are our visitor numbers on the rise, but our website hits mainly come from Yelp along with traditional search engine results.  This unconventional "outreach" happens in two distinct ways:

one, I am a pretty active reviewer so folks who check out my reviews often read my bio and click on my favorite sites.  I often get notes from folks commenting on my job as Pastor so I know that folks are intrigued by the religious tone/content
two, folks write reviews of MBCC and then others click on them to see what all the "hype" is about.  If they may not be looking for a church then, we are now in their conscience.

So I will accept this award on behalf of the one who created us with a word of challenge for you to explore new ways to get the word out about your church.  Find out where people for your context search for and find information such as doctors, eateries, etc. and then get your church plugged it.  If nothing else, go ahead and review it yourself or ask others who have been there to review it for your. And while this is a bigger service in urban settings, getting out in small areas, why not be on the cutting edge?  I even did this with some friend's churches in Pennsylvania and Cleveland among others.

A Christian Perspective on Homosexuality

Not sure why I am entering this discussion as I know I am inviting who knows what into my blog-life.  I am not bored, I am not looking for a fight, I am not looking to hold some kind of banner, I don't really know why.

Maybe . . . it is because I challenged people this Sunday to step up in the face of danger even when we know someone else will [podcast].  I guess, if I can't live it, who am I to challenge folks to?
Maybe . . . it is because a good blog-friend and pastoral colleague is smack dab in the middle of a 250+ comment firestorm around his recent interactions around homosexuality and the church. [Gay Conversation Post].  While we are on different sides of the fence on this one, I appreciate his willingness to engage with deep faith, pastoral care and human civility.
Maybe . . . it is because I am a victim of cultural shifts: right, wrong, conscious, unconscious, enlightened, relativist, whatever. [The Decline of Intolerance of Gays Post]. But aren't we all?
Maybe . . . it is because there are too many people - friends, congregants, family and colleagues, not to mention those I do not even know - whom I love, respect and value so it feels wrong to judge their sexual-orientation as sinful.

I have posted on this before about where I stand personally and pastorally [MBCC Conversations Post]- like I can separate the two - but I wanted to further add expand some of what I think on this particular conversation.

A few disclaimers:

• I realize that I have the privilege of not being the target of the sexual orientation "Debate."  My relative vested interested is purely relational and is some ways intellectual.  I see this not as a reason NOT to engage, but an obligation and responsibility NOT to remain silent. 
• I know that I am in many ways adding to the diverted energies of the church and at some point, we may just  need to get over one another, go our separate ways and hope beyond hope that God uses even diametrically opposed sides of many "issues" to do some good things.
• This is huge and I must believe that most people come to some place of understanding with great faith and integrity and I hope to simply add to the discourse in some small way. 
• I could be wrong and I am OK with sitting in the midst of not always knowing, though my first disclaimer allows me to do this.

Some of what goes on my Bruce's head:

The fundamental dilemma . . . is where one places homosexuality itself.  At the core of the debate is where or not one considered homosexuality a sin or a natural God-created trait.  I obviously hold the latter way of thinking.   Much like race - and this is a huge debate in the brown community - I see sexual orientation as the same created gift as gender and race.  I think as long as it is still seen as a SIN, the "love the sinner, hate the sin" is simply a friendly gesture to maintain some facade of civility.  Yes, you are not screaming for outright violence, but there is still a message of division that is shared.  On the other hand, if one does NOT think homosexuality is a sin, then one engages differently and focuses on what I would consider more shared human areas of brokenness: poverty, oppression, violence, etc.

The Bible is clear as mud . . . on this and a great many aspects of our faith.  I feel that many folks - on both sides - pick and choose what to take as "literal Word of God" and what to approach with "Interpretive license."  Even being the postmodern that I am, I do not think you can have it both ways, or at least do so with any much certainty and integrity.  I think there is too much danger for us to then use the Bible as weapon and proof-texter even more than we already do.  While much more difficult to do the interpretive work around scripture, I think it yields a greater understanding of God when we answer the questions, "Why does God's word say this?" and "What does this mean for us today?"  rather that live with a false certainly of  "God's Word says THIS" so "THIS is the right and only way."  This approach is not a shallow way to explain away things we do not like, but a faithful way to engage with and discover the TRUTH of God as it is communicated to us through the wonderful complexity of the Bible . . . TNIV of course.

Politics and Religion do mix . . . and I have never been able to really understand how we - PC(USA) Statemetns on Sexual Orientation - can stand in solidarity around civil rights, but then in our own house, deny ordination to the very same people.  Again, maybe modern of me, but how can we affirm a group of people at the same level as race, gender, age in a civil setting but then deny this same group the ecclesiastical rights of that very same group?  But yet we do . . .

And on Marriage . . . somewhat related to my approach to scripture, lets make no mistake that marriage "between a man and woman" in the current debate is not about Biblical or historical interpretation, but about a modern day institution that has somehow become the penultimate virtue and goal of the Christian faith.  Not that I am advocating Biblical marriage models such as polygamy, adultery, concubine-holding, etc.  I am simply advocating a more honest approach to this modern-day, legislated, legalistic institution of marriage.  Unless you are Catholic, marriage is NOT a sacrament, clergy perform services on behalf of the state and the church should be more focused on developing and nurturing a couple's spiritual commitment than putting so much energy to deny a couple's legal status.

So there you have it.  Some thoughts for now.  I hope that this helps in the conversation.  If you want to talk more, lets grab coffee!  Also, while there are many many books out there by folks much smarter than I, the one I am suggesting at these days is: Jack Roger's, Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church

The Dark Side of Diversity?!?!?!?

*  I hate to give this guy any more play, but I can't control my RAGE.  While reading this great blog, RACIALICIOUS, I saw a referenced link to an op ed piece by my brother in Christ, Pat Buchanan.  Yes, again, hate to give this guy any more play, but O . . . M . . . G . . . .!

Mr. Buchanan, in his piece, "The Dark Side of Diversity" has, in my opinion, crossed the line yet again, in this case as he responds to the VTech shootings.  First . . . he infers that there is something wrong with having a gun-free university.

Little attention has been paid to the Richmond legislators who voted to make "Hokie Nation," a Middle American campus of 26,000 kids, a gun-free zone where only the madman had a semi-automatic.

I can hear myself in about 8 years, "Yes, Ev, here is your laptop, meal card, clean socks and 9mm Glock!  No have fun in college, and remember be sure to be ready to shoot someone if the situations presents itself. And Jesus loves you!"   Because if we all had guns, gun violence would stop, just like nuclear weapons . . .

He then goes on to not just infer, but to basically say that we should stop immigration because THAT was the reason Seung-Hui Cho (BTW, this Americanized way of using his name is what his family prefers.) committed the atrocities he did.  What the frackin' frack?!?!?!?

Almost no attention has been paid to the fact that Cho Seung-Hui was not an American at all, but an immigrant, an alien. Had this deranged young man who secretly hated us never come here, 32 people would heading home from Blacksburg for summer vacation.
What was Cho doing here? How did he get in?
Cho was among the 864,000 Koreans here as a result of the Immigration Act of 1965, which threw the nation's doors open to the greatest invasion in history, an invasion opposed by a majority of our people. Thirty-six million, almost all from countries whose peoples have never fully assimilated in any Western country, now live in our midst.
Cho was one of them.

Now I understand humanity's need to understand and explain every bad thing that happens in the world, but this is freaking ridiculous.  The logic is not only baffling, but it is downright scary.  As if we can boil this tragedy down to ONE or TWO or THREE reasons for happening.   As we will ever KNOW?!?!?!?

While, I am sure we all do this to some extent, I think this is an incredibly irresponsible and dangerous use of a situation to perpetuate one's own beliefs no matter how illogical.

I would challenge anyone who wants to so easily put the blame of such things squarely on the back of an entire single demographic reality to watch out because who knows when that demographic will be you.

And for those - including myself at times - who think that this stuff doesn't matter, will have no effect or is not worth our energy to fight, I am reminded of the poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller who wrote "First they came . . ."

They came first for the Communists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,

and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,

and by that time no one was left to speak up.

* My favorite picture of my Filipino-side immigrant grandparents, Esteban and Marie (De Los) Reyes

Brain Candy for the Soul: Episode 1

What the?!?!?!?  Yes, pop culture filtered by yours truly.  A waste of time?  The pulse of contemporary culture?   Nope, just weekly rant and reflection about the sites and sounds that have stimulated my brain for good or bad, and now regurgitated for your reading pleasure.

FILM // I MUST BE GETTING OLD
Sunday I went with a couple of folks from church to see the highly anticipated new release of Jamie Kennedy's, Kickin' It Old Skool.  And while there were a few good 80's flashbacks and one incredibly inappropriate BUT HILARIOUS scene that shall remain nameless, this was a little over the top even for me.  Not nearly on the level of such masterpieces - yes, I said masterpieces - of the like-genre movies like Wedding Crashers or Dodge Ball, add it to your Netflix Cue and watch is as background stimulation while you are writing your next sermon . . . on second thought, that could turn out badly. [My Reviews on Flixter]

TV // FAREWELL ADDISON?
Last night on the Grey's Anatomy two-hour extravaganza, they test piloted a spin-off for Addison  [More].  Not only because it would be a beautiful cast to watch, but the ensemble was pretty cool, talented, likable, etc.  Loved seeing Amy Brennemen of Judging Amy back on something as she is a great actress, Tim Daly was charming as the cute, hippy alternative med guy, Taye Diggs is good looking man and well Kate Walsh - stunning as always - glad she is getting away from that Karev character.  My only questions: "A office full of California medical professionals . . . where are the Asian Americans?  Everyone else is kind of playing against stereotype - except for the surfer dude - so I know, Asian American chaplain . . . . hmmmmmmm.

MUSIC  // GUILTY PLEASURE
Wham!  May be a flashback, but oh yeah baby, you know you liked them when they were the thing.  I admit, I saw them in concert way bay in '87 with opening act, Katrina and the Waves, at Oakland Coliseum.  And boy did I look good . . . puffy white jacket, fluorescent t-shirt and white dock shoes, no socks of course.  To help bring back the memories here are a few YouTube Links: Wake Me Up Before You Go Go, Careless Whisper and my personal favorite, Wham Rap.  [My Music on LastFM]

BLOG O' THE WEEK // PA BABY!
Let me introduce you to Ladyburg.  I will take full credit for getting her addicted to this whole blogging thing.  If you know her, she is a wonderful person, pastor and child o' God.  Well worth subscribing to as she also gives some great insights around work, call, family, etc.  Her only downfall is that she and MisterBurg have not yet come to their sense and moved to the great Republic of San Francisco.  They like these things called "seasons" and this stuff they call "snow" . . . whatever. [My Blog Roll]

MYSTERY LINK // CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK
No words to influence your thoughts on this weekly link. Might be very cool or very scary, you make the call!  This week's link, courtesy of Kristen. [CLICK HERE]

Should the church be a trusted "Brand?"

Thanks to LT over at American Born Chinese Pastor for pointing me to this article about Gen Y's Most Trusted Brands.  Got me to thinking about the church.   Shouldn't we be trusted more than In-N-Out?  Now until we consistently serve organic communion, I can understand being ranked below Trader Joe's, but . . .
Now of course I do not expect a church to show up on a marketing survey, but I suspect even if the questions where framed to ask about community spaces, non-profits, etc.  we would not be in the list.

Shouldn't we too be able to exhibit the same kinds of characteristics that invite trust?  It seems that the very things that the church should be are talked about in the survey: real, stripped down, non-adorned, environmentally sound, etc. A few weeks ago in my post "3 Rules of the Naked Pastor" I ranted on this a bit, and this yet again makes me even more convinced that the church, regardless of tradition, needs to be more real.

Over where I hang my pastoral hat we are trying to to this - and occasionally succeed if you read our Yelp Reviews - but every time I begin to believe the hype and our own PR, I fall right back into being the old church guy.  I hide behind catch phrases and church sound bites, I tell folks what I think I want them to hear, I basically reinforce the inauthenticity that is so much part of the institutional church as we know it.  To tell you the truth, when I am in efficient pastor mode, it is easier.  It is much more difficult and scary to be real all the time, during worship, over coffee, online, etc.  This posture of DOING church rather than BEING church is so much a part of me that I don't even know when I do it until it is too late . . . usually after a blank stare or a snarky comment.

But I press on and rely on the GRACE of GOD to comfort me when I know that I was an unhelpful dork or to poke me in the eye when I don't even realize it, but just keep on talking!  Thank you Jesus!

And in case you were wondering here is the list of the The Most Trusted 15 brands of the Gen Y folks.  

1. Apple  
2. Trader Joe's
3. Jet Blue
4. In-N-Out Burger
5. Ben & Jerry's 
6. Whole Foods  
7. Adidas  
8. American Apparel  
9. Target  
10. H & M clothing stores  
11. Levi's
12. Volkswagen
13. Converse
14. Vitamin Water
15. Red Stripe Jamaican beer