To Give Away a Dream of Church

Sometimes there's a man. Yes, sometimes there's a man—and I'm talking about Stuart Hayes here—who is given an idea. A bit of truth, a piece of eternity. And the man becomes so taken with it, so transfixed and transformed by this piece of divine wisdom that it shapes who he is and in turn, contagiously shapes every person who comes to know him. Sometimes this man is so selfless, so courageous that he commits to give years upon years of his life telling others about the truth he has been given. And when that happens, little places no one would have expected (crowded, leaky basements and rural Southern towns) become outposts of God's kingdom, where this truth becomes so infectious that it births a community where lives are remade. People come to this to community and only stay a short while, but in that time they catch a piece of the glory of God that stays with them, somewhere deep, deep in them and it bubbles out long after they move away.

Stuart Hayes is such a man. And the idea he found fifteen years ago was that church is something far greater than we were told. Not a building, nor an organization, nor an event. No, church is a people, thirsty for God, living the gospel together. It's the "together" that makes all the difference.

Sometimes, if the man is so lucky, there is a woman who believes this truth too. Over years they create a home together that becomes a headquarters, a frontier where love is lived and God's truth is shared with passion and humility and mercy and conviction. They don't do everything right. But God is with them, and their door is always open. They love deeply, they hold loosely, they walk humbly with their God.

I can still feel myself sitting there some eight years ago now, across that worn dining room table which had seen so many young men and women before me and would see so many after, having the character of God kneaded into me. It changed what it means to be me. Because of what God did through Stuart and Shannon Hayes, I am not who I was. I am more of the man I was made to be.

Last weekend Erin and I drove to Clemson, SC to join some of our dearest friends in celebrating the Hayes family, who are saying goodbye to the church they helped create after fifteen years. One evening we sat reading some church questionnaires which had been filled out years ago. In them I found one completed by Stuart which asked, "What are your hopes/expectations for the coming year?" Stuart answered: "To give away a dream of church."

To give away a dream of church. A dream of a people, working together, to redeem the busted places on our streets and in each other. Few men and women have given as much as I've seen Stuart and Shannon give to such a dream. And through them God made this dream into an unlikely community that held such love, such truth, such beauty, such family, and such faith I doubt I'll ever see another one like it.

Oh how deeply I miss it; I can feel that solid lump rising in my throat as I type this. But Sunday, as I heard the Hayes family pass the peace of Christ to me for what will be the last time for a long time, I felt the truth of God echoing in me: that we are never alone, that folks like Stuart and Shannon live as stewards of a dream God has given us all, and wants us to share.

So may God's name be worshiped, may his kingdom come, may his family live in pursuit of redemption. Together. Amen.

Image: Erin Scott Photography

A Break from the Circus

I haven't written about politics lately. Politics have been the prevailing topic on this blog since I moved to DC—until recently.

The reason is the debt ceiling debate that's going on right now in Washington. I am so intensely frustrated and disappointed by the actions of the Republicans in the House that I just don't want to write about it anymore. Our government's finances are broken; we've racked up an enormous debt and made plans which require us to incur even more. For decades the Republican Party has had a commitment to balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, a commitment they have not always honored but often have. And now, in a moment when our country needs this commitment most, the party isn't here.

Even though everyone knows the debt ceiling will eventually be raised, the Democrats are on the ropes; they know the American people are worried about the deficit and want change. They've offered the Republicans trillions of dollars in spending cuts and put the runaway entitlement programs on the table. All that's necessary is for the Republican party to accept modest tax increases, at a time when taxes are at their lowest levels in decades. This is a balanced approach. This is compromise. This is politics.

But the GOP won't take it. The House Republicans, many of them freshmen supported by the Tea Party, are putting themselves before the good of the country. They are willing to cut the deficit LESS than what the Democrats are offering if it means not having to agree to tax increases. This could be the party's shining moment, a time when they broker a difficult deal that would be hard and fast evidence they are more interested in saving America than themselves.

But they won't. It's irresponsible, and I'm sick of it. I have lost faith that the pragmatic, centrist, intellectual wing of the GOP is going to win what I believe will be the defining issue of the next two decades.

So I'm going on a break from politics for a while. I'm going to write about other things. Perhaps I'll come back when the 2012 primaries kick into gear (I do love election season).

In the meantime, I would strongly encourage you to read these two editorials by my op-ed hero, David Brooks. They explain the situation perfectly.
The Road Not Taken
The Mother of All No-Brainers

Image: truthout.org

Responses to a Few Words on Driscoll

Last week I posted an open letter to Mark Driscoll in response to some offensive comments he made regarding worship leaders he finds effeminate. Driscoll has not chosen to apologize for his remarks, but has posted a retraction of sorts, calling his remarks "flippant" while taking the opportunity to promote his new sermon series, website, and book.

I received a wealth of thoughtful, wise responses to my post through various avenues, and some of them were so thought-provoking to me I wanted to post them here. I hope you find them as compelling as I did.

I think it's important not to become distracted by [Driscoll's] view of masculinity. The real issue is his Christology or his view of Christ as a model of strength. He seems to view Christ as some sort of uberman who reveals how power is the essence of a genuine humanity. This is my initial impression just from reading quotes from him—so I may be off here. But if this is his view, then his understanding of Christ is, oddly enough, more like Nietzsche's prophet Zarathustra (in Nietzsche's classic little book Thus Spoke Zarathustra) who reveals that the goal of humankind is the will to power. The best sort of therapy for Christians repulsed by Driscoll's confusion of Christ with brute force and power (and the implication that men ought to emulate this uberman-Christ) is to read Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra and the Gospel of John (especially chapter thirteen with the washing of the disciples' feet) side by side and compare these two very different prophets. One prophet reveals the truth that God is nonviolent reconciliatory and infinite love (demonstrated perfectly by Christ's virtues of mercy and humility... Aquinas says God's power is God's goodness); the other reveals that truth is the will to power. Matt

From a male children's minister and elementary school educator, thank you for this post. My mouth filled with a bitter taste at the words of Mr. Driscoll. The fruit of the Spirit has been edited, the good parts redacted. Ridicule for love, mocking for joy, provocation for peace, bigotry for kindness, thin words for goodness, self-worship for faithfulness, a harsh tongue for gentleness and Facebook for self-control.

I think I let comments like this hurt me more than I should. I am bothered by them, shaken. I feel a bit broken and a bit beaten up despite a good voice whispering strongly in my ear that I am doing good and being faithful and that I am loved. Ryan

The whole thing just infuriates me; makes me sad at the same time.

Those statements that he makes are not in line with my experience within the community of Mars Hill. There is strong community. Great teaching. Love for this city of Seattle. Hundreds of people coming to know Christ.

People make mistakes. Mark says some stupid things from time to time. Very stupid things. However, they do not (in my opinion) represent the sum of his understanding and teachings of who Christ is and was. Nor do they seem to represent the church's opinion or theological understanding of women. I want the rest of the country to see what I see. There are so many good things about Mars Hill. It sucks that these things are all people hear about.

I may be wrong in this, but I think the heart of many of those infuriating statements is this: men need to step up and take on some responsibility in their families, communities, and cities. The West Coast idea of laid back guys who just play all day is often not far from the truth. And this needs to be said.

To be honest, all his statements you quoted make my blood boil. Not only his calculations of what Jesus is like, but his references to feminine attributes. Using the beauty and uniqueness of women as a negative makes me see red.

The truth is this: Jesus was God, a man who I view as being well balanced. One ready to fight if need be, but preferred not to. A man who worked hard calluses into hands yet spoke like a poet. He was not a singular stereotype like a "pacifist" or a "warrior." He was so much more. He was something we should strive to be. Someone balanced. The straight and narrow never made sense to me till I understood this.

We are a culture of extremes. Left or right. Black or white. War or peace. We like things simplified. Tangible. We group in the extremes. That is why the narrow path is so hard. It defies our natural inclination to choose an extreme. It forces us to think because things are not always simple as this or that.

Christ was not this way and is hard for us to wrap or heads around that. Often we exaggerate the aspects of Christ we feel culture has forgotten about. And this is dangerous. Jared

Image: Dean Ayres

Google Plus: The Social Network for Grownups

A year ago I wrote a hopeful post about Google's rumored social network saving us from Facebook. In the time since I've become pessimistic about Google's chances, after watching the crash and burn failure of Google Buzz and Wave. I found myself nodding in agreement when I read this hilarious and pointed article by one of my favorite tech writers about how Google should give up on social; it's just not who they are.

But now Google's social network, Google+, is here and I'm in. Here's what I think.

The Overview
For those who haven't tried Google+, it's very similar (perhaps too similar) to Facebook. You have a profile, friends, and a news feed ("stream," in Google parlance). Users can chat and share photos . You can find out more here. If you'd like an invite, just let me know (I'll need an email address).

The Good
The smartest thing Google has done with Google+ is to address user privacy from the ground up. The primary reason I and many folks I know dislike Facebook is their cavalier actions with our privacy. Facebook's privacy controls require a physics degree to understand, and as soon as you figure them out Facebook changes everything and tells your work friends and all of Facebook's corporate buddies about your Magic the Gathering obsession. Mark Zuckerberg has said on many occasions that Facebook's vision is for everyone to lead completely public lives. Privacy controls go against their corporate ethos.

Google has obviously recognized this and tried very hard not to repeat the privacy debacle of the Google Buzz launch (which ended in a lot of angry users and a class action settlement). Google+ is designed around "circles," groups of friends who you select each time you share something, ensuring that only those folks see what you're sharing. Almost everything in Google+ can be configured to be visible only to the circles you select. Facebook has "friends lists," which are similar of course, but they are an afterthought, hard to find and hard to use, in accordance with Facebook's agenda. Circles are the Google+ special sauce.

Google+ appears to be more interested in helping you connect with the small group of people you care about the most, as opposed to Facebook, which is geared toward helping you put your life online and connect with the masses. I think this is particularly clever because I think this is how most people use Facebook anyway.

Google+ is also more grown up. There is no poking. There are no apps, which means no Farmville, no Ninja vs. Zombie invitations, no Harry Potter quizzes. There are no pages or groups, which means no "This pickle has more fans than Nickleback" and no corporations mining your data (well, besides Google). Of course, Facebook didn't have most of this stuff when it started either. It came later, in part because they needed to monetize.

There are a bunch of other minor things that are great about Google+. You can edit posts in your stream. Google+'s mobile app actually works (Facebook's is a piece of junk). The whole site is crisper, cleaner, simpler, faster, and more intuitive than the mess that is Facebook (particularly the photo section).

Then there's always Google+'s number-one feature: it's not Facebook.

The Bad
My primary problem with Google+ centers around how it interacts with other services.

Google+ is obviously geared toward sharing things with others (which I'm sure will help Google figure out what's important for its search results), but Google+ does not allow you to import any other feeds into your stream, such as your your blog or your Twitter feed or your Google Reader shared items. There's also no bookmarklet for sharing things while you're out and about on the web.

It is possible to import other feeds into Google Buzz (which doesn't have a bookmarklet either), but Buzz only shows up as a tab on your Google+ profile, and there's all the headaches of dealing with Buzz. Google's "+1" feature (which I plan to discuss in a later post) has a bookmarklet, but it only shows up as a tab as well.

It seems counter-intuitive to me for Google to build a product around sharing stuff with your friends and then make it so difficult to do. Updating multiple services is a pain. Google+ also has no equivalent of the Facebook wall.

Then there's all the other ways Google+ could be integrated into other Google products, which will hopefully happen in the future. Google Calendar could be used to plan social events through Google+ like Facebook events. People could choose to follow Blogger blogs through Google+ (integrating Google Friend Connect). The possibilities are endless, really. Maybe these things will come later.

And seriously, why not call it "Google Me?"

The Bottom Line
The bottom line is Google+ is great, it's almost everything I love about Facebook minus everything I hate. But the trouble of course is this won't matter if the small circle of people I care about most don't make the switch. I'm willing to shut down my Facebook account and head for Google+, but only if they're coming with me. Nobody wants to update two nearly identical social networks.

I think Google+ has the potential to succeed. It's not going to take down Facebook, but I don't think that's the point. Google+ is geared toward a specific demographic: upper/middle class, tech-literate, post-college folks who want to connect with a small group of people online and are protective of their privacy. The kind of people who are already inclined to use Google products (Gmail, Reader, Google Calendar, Docs, etc).

I don't think we'll really know how successful Google+ will be until it goes completely public (which I've read could be before the end of the month). As for now, I still have hope for life without Facebook.

Update 7/15/11: This post originally stated there was no way to send only one person a message on Google+, which is incorrect. You can do this by sharing something with one person, as opposed to a circle.

A Few Words to Mark Driscoll from an Effeminate Worship Leader

See here's the thing, Mark. I've been to your church. I listened to you preach, and your words were thoughtful, knowledgeable, memorable, and inspiring. They encouraged me to consider new ways to emulate Christ in my life. I have close friends who after a long struggle with organized religion found life, love, truth, and family in your community.

But I live on the East Coast, Mark. And their stories don't make it over here. What makes it over here is stuff (or other words for "stuff") like this:

There is a strong drift toward the hard theological left. Some emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in his hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down his leg, a sword in his hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up. I fear some are becoming more cultural than Christian, and without a big Jesus who has authority and hates sin as revealed in the Bible, we will have less and less Christians, and more and more confused, spiritually self-righteous blogger critics of Christianity. Mark Driscoll, Relevant Magazine, 2007

At the risk of being a spiritually self-righteous blogger critic, let me just say, what the hell? I mean I know where you're coming from: Jesus's ministry included fashioning a whip and overturning tables and driving out money-changers. But this was one incident in a thirty year ministry that was defined by non-violence. Its climax, the crucifixion, was in part an act of civil disobedience, in which Jesus was the guy getting beaten up, the one made to bleed, the one pierced by a sword. But that's not even my issue here. My issue is the implication that people who you are able beat to a pulp are not worthy of your respect. Which I imagine would include Ghandi, Einstein, and Mr. Rogers. And let me just say, Mark, I think Mr. Rogers deserves your respect. Which brings me to...

I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick, questioning God's sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell which is one hell of a mistake. Mark Driscoll, Resurgence Blog, 2008

But Mark, God is a chick. Or rather, God is a gender-less being who probably doesn't tolerate being referred to using a patronizing word like "chick" as patiently as most women do. What does it say to the women who make up the majority of the Christian community when you deny God's role as both father and mother of creation, the divine being who created gender and thus encompasses and transcends it completely? I've spoken to some of them, and I think it says to them that they're unimportant and ultimately worth less to God than men.

But Mark, this isn't even what really grinds my gut. What makes me so livid I write blog posts like this one (which will probably be taken down or at least heavily edited tomorrow) is when stuff like this finds its way to my inbox, like it did today:

The problem in the church today, it's just a bunch of nice, soft, tender, chick-ified, church boys. Sixty percent of Christians are chicks and the forty percent that are dudes are still sorta chicks. It's just sad. When you walk in it's sea-foam green and fuscia and lemon yellow and the whole architecture and the whole aesthetic is real feminine and the preacher's kinda feminine and the music's kinda emotional and feminine and we're looking around going, "How come we're not innovative?" Cause all the innovative dudes are home watching football. Or they're out making money or climbing a mountain or shootin' a gun or working on their truck. [...] They're gonna get married, make money, make babies, build companies, buy real estate; they're gonna make the culture of the future. If you get the young men you win the war. You get everything; you get the families, the women, the children, the money, the business—you get everything. You don't get the young men you get nothing. [...] Churches that don't have those guys, they can't be innovative, because they don't have innovators. They're just not there. Mark Driscoll, Desiring God interview, 2006

So what story do you have about the most effeminate anatomically male worship leader you've ever personally witnessed? Mark Driscoll, Facebook, July 2011

Ok ok ok look, I get it. Many, if not most churches are not inviting to men who drive pickup trucks and shoot guns. There is a large swath of blue-collar American men who can't connect with the average American church. Yes, it's an important demographic which you and the folks at Mars Hill have done an exceptional job of reaching.

But let me be frank for a minute, Mark. By your standards I am the most effeminate male worship leader I know. I don't drive a truck, I have no interest guns, I haven't climbed many mountains, sports bore me, and I thought Wild at Heart was just okay.

I play the piano. I enjoy theater. I almost always prefer to create than to compete or conquer. And if there's one God-forsaken lie that offends every part of who I am, it is the claim that these things are inconsistent with masculinity. That real men don't become poets or ballet dancers or violin players. These roles do not neuter masculinity, but the idea that they are not a part of masculinity's strength and substance certainly does. How many great artists and thinkers have been cut short by fathers with brutishly narrow views of what is masculine? The church needs those people too.

Honestly, call me chick-ified, but I don't think sitting at home watching football on a Sunday morning is a mark of an innovative thinker. And I fail to understand how only men get married, make money, make babies, build companies, buy real estate, and innovate. Your words say to me that to be feminine is to be backward, future-less, unimportant, and full of nothingness—which is not just misogyny, it is heresy.

But you know what, Mark? I don't think you really think those things, at least not these days. I think you probably recognize that when you look at the whole of church history, it is women, not men, that have been the oppressed, marginalized, and ignored. I would guess you probably have some choice words for the men who have taken advantage of women in churches over the centuries. I've heard you speaking wise words to the generation of man-boys I find myself in, who prefer to live in a state of perpetual adolescence than to take responsibility for their actions and honor the women in their life. I've read about you admonishing men to care for their families and publicly apologizing for making demeaning comments about women. I've even read that you may regret some of the statements I've posted here.

In fact I think you have a good many wise things to say. I've heard some of them. My dear friends who attend your church have heard many of them. So I'm begging you, Mark, to get some of them across the plains. Instead of loading up my browser and reading pot-shots about your perception of my masculinity, I'd love to read about how your church is innovating ways to serve the poor in Seattle. I know it's controversy that drives the bad out here instead of the good. But the bad comes from somewhere, Mark, and I wish it would stop.

Sources not yet linked: Experimental Theology | Seattle Times
Image: Haags Uitburo
Special thanks to the liberated Carolyn Tapie