The Spirituality of Dance.
May the creative and artistic expressions in dance be considered worship? Does dance possess the same type of depth of meaning as other forms of creative production such as music and film?
What’s the saying?… “Dance like nobody is watching?” Or should it be… dance like everyone is watching and allow the lyrical flow of human movement to express the soul and texture of humanity in touch with the divine.
The most meaningful pieces of human struggle, tragedy, creativity, and beauty from So You Think You Can Dance?:
1) The Interplay of Creation: Hok and Jaime as a hummingbird and flower to The Chairman’s Walk from the Memoirs of a Geisha soundtrack.
2) On Confession and Forgiveness: Anya and Danny performing to Apologize by One Republic.
3) Time: Neil and Lacey dance as father and daughter to an emotionally invested Mia Michaels routine. Music by Billy Porter.
4) Commitment and Brokenness: Danced to Bleeding Love by Leona Lewis, Mark’s character commits his life to something other than the bleeding Chelsea.
5) Marriage at Bedtime: Jeanine and Phillip wrestle through anger to Mad by Ne-Yo.
6) Addiction and Freedom: Kayla is controlled by the sinister addiction (Kupono) danced to Gravity by Sara Bareilles.
My Absent Presence at PPP.
I am not at Poets, Prophets, and Preachers (PPP) so I thought I would have a lot to say about it. My friend Matt Rawlings actually offered me a free ticket to the “conference”^ but I was unable to attend for several reasons (in no certain order):
>> I am on an interview committee here at MVNU that is meeting with a Resident Director candidate on Monday morning. >> I have a very busy academic year with more time off in the summer and wanted to set aside more time with my family. >> We are hoping to adopt and possibly purchase a home so I’m crunching down on the spending. Gas, hotel, and food would have been a few dollars.
From the middle of Ohio I have been keeping up with PPP. I’ve been reading all the tweets tagged with the #ppp09 hashtag and checking out a few blogs. I’ve noticed so far that at the first gathering, those commenting publicly all support that which is being discussed at PPP. Nothing that I have read has challenged the intitial teaching by Rob Bell entitled, The Original Guerilla Theatre. The positive perspectives may be fueled by the expectation of those attending. Many hours before the first session many were tweeting about anticipating their arrival in Grand Rapids. Others noted their excitement as they sat in the theater waiting to hear from Rob, who has obviously created a dedicated community of people who value his teaching.
In the Original Guerilla Theatre, Rob discussed the lost primal art form of the religious discourse. Those in attendance all tweeted the same few lines that apparently remained lodged in numerous cerebral cortexes. None of those lines seemed to be earth-shattering to me but centered on the theme that those giving sermons need to be more daring. It is not necessary for a spoken message to be safe and even resolved. Rather, those with ears to hear should be asking questions and talking more with each other in order to continue wrestling with the content. I would suggest additionally that those attending church gatherings seeking answers should alter their perspective. Knowing that the journey of following Jesus is a process of wonder and discovery, couldn’t it be more valuable to expect to leave with more questions? It is only our systems of modernization that make us think otherwise.
^I’m not sure that PPP is actually a conference. Well… I guess technically it is but probably not the typical churchy conference where the Youth Specialties tent is giving away free workbooks entitled something like, “How To Keep Teens Hooked: Staying Relevant for GenY.” JUST FOR THE RECORD: I just made up that title it may be the worst title for a book ever. I’m not sure which word is the worst, “How to,” “Teens,” “Hooked,” “Relevant,” or “GenY.”
Is Independence Day Marxism?
Adapted from a post on July 3, 2008:
I’ll be honest. I’m not a fan of Independence Day. I’m trying to sort through whether that opinion is fueled by the despicable taste in in my mouth when I see red, white, and blue waving as a symbol of national allegiance and empire worship or simply by my struggle to intellectually and philosophically value independence. Freedom is good and necessary but cannot exist through the supposed provision of an earthly empire. Freedom is in the person of Jesus Christ and is quite different from that with which it is quite often confused, “rights.”
My reading on July 3rd proved to be rather timely for the upcoming day celebrated by most citizens of the United States. From Free of Charge by Miroslav Volf:
“Here is roughly how sin works in relation to God the giver. All things are from God and through God, and yet we want to be independent of God, standing on our own two feet, claiming God’s gifts as our own achievement. The young Karl Marx, barely twenty-six years old, put this sentiment as boldly as possible. In a text that remained unpublished during his lifetime, ‘Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts,’ he gave an expression to the heart of his rebellion against God:
‘A being only counts itself as independent when it stands on its own feet and it stands on its own feet as long as it owes its existence to itself. A man who lives by grace of another considers himself a dependent being. But I live completely by grace of another when I owe him not only the maintenance of my life but when he has also created my life, when he is the source of my life. And my life has necessarily such a ground outside itself if it is not my own creation.’
Marx held firmly to human independence. It almost seemed to him a value that lies at the bottom of all values. Because the reality of God as creator is incompatible with human independence, he denied the existence of God.
Most of us, especially the believers among us, won’t deny God’s existence in order to secure our independence. Instead, we think that we can have it both ways. We believe that we can stand on our own two feet, independent of God, and still affirm that God is the creator of everything. But that doesn’t make sense. We can be both dependent on God and free; dependence on God is the source of our being, and therefore, our freedom. But we can’t be created by God and independent; God sustains creatures in being and in freedom. When we assert our independence, when we ascribe to ourselves what comes from God, we wrong God – at least as much as I would wrong an author whose ideas I would peddle as my own. That’s our main sin against God the giver. If, like Raleigh Hays, we see ourselves as more or less honest, hardworking citizens, we may believe that we deserve what we have, and even a bit more because an evil world is cheating us of our proper reward. We might not feel particularly grateful for what we have because we think that, rather than receiving it, we earned it. And we want to dispose of our hard-earned goods the way we please; they become not so much gifts given to us to enjoy and pass on, but rather our exclusive possessions.
Assertion of independence, pride of achievement, sense of entitlement, and absolute right to dispose with our goods – these are the ways in which we live in contradiction to who we actually are in relation to God. And in these ways, we, decent citizens, live as inveterate sinners. To live in sync with who we truly are means to recognize that we are dependent on God for our very breath and are graced with many good things; it means to be grateful to the giver and attentive to the purpose for which the gifts are given.” //
// Miroslav Volf. Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace. pp. 35-6.
What is the church? Who is the church? Where is the church?
Reflecting on my previous post that notes the silent historical framework of the emerging/emergent movement brought to mind some foundational questions on church.
What is the church? What is not the church? What should the church be?
Who is the church? Who is not the church? Who should be the church?
Where is the church? Where is not the church? Where should the church be?
This post is the beginning of a series On Church. I will be publishing a series of posts from contributing authors to provide their reflections on church with a focus on the above questions. Throughout the series I will be posting my own thoughts as well (though my thoughts most likely are not my own and reflect those who have actively been involved in my formative process). If you are interested in contributing, please send an e-mail to tkeller@mvnu.edu and include your contact information.
Is the Nazarene Church an Emerging Church?
The Silent Historical Framework of the Emerging Church
Recovery of Genuine Wesleyan Theology in Postmodern Context
Travis Keller
02.29.08
A Condensed Book Review from a Wesleyan Theological Perspective on
“Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures”
by Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K Bolger
“Common needs often create strange alliances.” Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger begin the preface of their book entitled “Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures” by addressing their seemingly implausible ability to write a book together. Strange alliances, indeed. Many hear the words “Christian community” and “postmodern cultures” used in conjunction with each other and immediately assume that the two are being juxtaposed one against the other. The same may be true for the terms “Wesleyan theology” and “emerging church.” While the connection between the two may never be verbally stated, Wesleyan theology may very well be the silent historical framework of the emerging church.
It is noted in the book that the process of dismantling the modern (referring to a historical era and philosophy) practices of Christianity “is a fragile movement that can be marginalized by denominational leaders and killed with criticism by theological power brokers.” Churches that are “emerging” in their practice are faced with great degrees of resistance. To associate with any certain theological tradition would be suicidal to a hopeful movement. The labeling system within the Emerging Church has caused immense confusion so a further label would arouse criticism growing from its current level of existence into a destructive force from both opponents to the noted tradition and adherents to that tradition. Opponents would continue to oppose that which they already oppose and adherents would defend their tradition in an attempt to preserve it from a supposed threat and distortion. The reality of the shift in church practice, however, is ultimately going to reflect certain roots in the history of the church. The ideas for ecclesiological method offered by Emerging Churches closely align with the thought of John Wesley.
The emerging church is difficult to define. Moderns may desire a clear, definitive statement but as noted by Doug Pagitt, the church is “not necessarily the center of God’s intentions. God is working in the world and the church has the option to join God or not.” By avoiding a precise definition of emerging churches, Gibbs, Bolger, and company allow the church to function as a moving organism whose missional direction is dependent on its own choice. What may be criticized then as a low view of the church is actually the highest view imaginable. The church is dependent on grace when it chooses to follow its own way rather than the way of Jesus. Wesley, an advocate of the free will of humanity trusts in means of grace gifted by God when the church moves in a manner that reveals the imperfect people that it is.
Wesley contends that the church is not to be separatist or divisive. The emerging church is distinctively Wesleyan then in that it does not merely get caught up in argument or exchanging critique with its opponents but rather focuses on the person of Jesus and the love for others that he offers. Gibbs and Bolger note three core church practices from which other practices are created. They are “(1) identifying with the life of Jesus, (2) transforming secular space, and (3) living as community.”
The message of Jesus was not a message about going to heaven. His was a message and demonstration of enacting the Kingdom of God on earth. To live in a manner that reflects the life of Jesus is to truly embrace what Wesley termed “entire sanctification.” The Church is the people who are called out and set apart to enact the Kingdom of God on earth. To do so requires a confrontation with the risk and cost of following Jesus and thereby necessitates a grace that precedes (preveniant) the Church, enabling it to embrace the fullness of the mission of God by entering into that which may be considered “secular” and living in a “sacred” manner. Such living entails relinquishing one’s “unlimited sovereignty over his or her individual person” in order to “create missional communities” that may only exist within the context of love. Wesley states, “By this let all men know whose disciples ye are, because you ‘love one another.’”
Gibbs and Bolger proceed with more practical examples of Emerging Churches that very distinctively reflect Wesleyan theology. Wesley continually references the need for the Church to care for the poor and marginalized. Contrary to the quite exclusive appearance of many church gatherings, Emerging Churches are to be accepting and inclusive. Not only does inclusivity include people from other traditions, cultures, and even faiths but it also extends to the poor who are otherwise considered strangers. Central to the gospel message is that those who “don’t have” are invited to share in the “having.” The stranger is to be invited into the community. He/She is to receive that which is given generously. Hospitality remains a key component of helping others to honestly accept themselves as true members of a community for a generous gift is much more useful, according to Wesley, when it is personally delivered. Giving accompanied by shared relationship is invaluable to the message of Jesus. It removes the thought of needing to receive in return.
Emerging Churches concludes with sections devoted to the concept of the body of Christ producing and creating. There is reference to the same passage in Ephesians that Wesley uses in his address “Of the Church.” In order for a community to function in full health each member must use his/her talents and giftings as he/she has been granted. “Full participation is an alternative to [modern] consumer church” which is founded ultimately on fulfilling a selfish desire. Emerging churches seem to pursue the concept of the priesthood of all believers where all members of the community are contributing. No one is being served any more than he/she is serving.
“Emerging churches are communities that follow Jesus into the kingdom and the far reaches of culture. [They] destroy the Christendom idea that church is a place, a meeting, or a time. Church is a way of life, a rhythm, a community, a movement. Emerging churches dismantle all ideas of church that interfere with the work of the kingdom.” With Gibbs’ and Bolger’s representation of Emerging Churches, Wesley cannot argue. The way of living taught by Wesley and the way of the Emerging Church is the way of Jesus.
Intelligent Consumption?
Intelligent consumption. Is there such a thing? I suppose there must be such a thing. We all consume. Consumption in and of itself is not inherently evil. A human must consume food to live. If one gives, another is consuming that which is given. The basic idea of consumption is not bad even though language in different Christian conversations promotes either excessive consumption based upon a terrible understanding of God’s desire to “bless” humans or the extreme opposite idea that any and all consumption is evil.
How often do we really think about what we buy? What we put into our bodies? What we fill our lives with? Every time I make a purchase I’ve been considering, “How has/does/will this purchase effect those around me? Is anyone being marginalized or hurt do to my purchase?” I may know the name of a country from where a product was manufactured or sown but I don’t know the working conditions of those who helped produce that product. I do not know the process for harvesting the resources that compose a product nor how that process effects the earth and/or other humans positively or negatively. Are my purchases enslaving a worker in terrible conditions or stimulating a nation’s economy and sustainability? In my journey to become a more responsible and good consumer I am going to offer some ideas that I have recently (or not-so-recently) been practicing:
1) Drink water.
It is common for a soda, lemonade, or tea to cost $1.49 – $2.69 when ordered at a restaurant. Order water. Add a lemon. Your two year old daughter might eat the whole thing. Plus, 2 drinks at $3.98 adds $.60-$.80 in tip to your bill.
And don’t drink water from a bottle unless it is a reusable bottle that you fill with tap water. If all the money used for the production and distribution of bottled water was reallocated toward well digging and filtration, clean water could be provided for every human being in the world. I’m glad my daughter doesn’t have to drink disease infested water. Aren’t you (that is, if you have a daughter… or if you love my daughter)?
We all wear shoes. Well, some of us wear shoes. Many in the world need shoes to prevent disease from entering their open sores, blisters, and raw skin that exist due to lack of foot protection. I stopped in the Puma store at Easton a couple of days ago and found out about a program called Souls for Souls. Here’s the deal: Take any used pair of shoes into a Puma store. When you donate those shoes to be distributed to those in need of shoes, you receive 30% off your shoe purchase. I found a very nice Speeder Mesh II shoe for $62 that ended up costing only $46.44 after tax (I refuse to pay more that $50 for a pair of shoes and prefer the $30-$40 range). I am considering taking in an old pair, buying a new pair at 30% off and immediately donating that new pair. Thoughts?
I also have a pair a Toms that I received at a leadership conference. They are very lightweight. Check out tomsshoes.com. For every pair of shoes your purchase, a new pair will be given to a child in need.
3.) Drink Socially Conscious Coffee.
OK. You’re right. The coffee itself is not socially conscious but the means of growth, harvest, trade, transport, and consumption is. I stopped in at Ten Thousand Villages, 
an organization that focuses on friendship with global artisans, to check out their fair trade coffee. I came upon organic, fair trade coffee which is also certified CarbonFree®. The smell of the Sumatra “Telong” from the Aceh province in Sumatra, Indonesia captured me as did the certification that ensures that coffee farmers are working in shaded conditions and receiving fair wages for their work.
I am also trying out Costa Rican Tarrazu from World Market. It is Fair Trade certified and especially useful for any of you who are attempting to complete a M.A.R. in Missional Leadership whilst being a loving husband, devoted father, interactive Resident Director, loyal friend, SGA advisor, adjunct instructor, and compassionate follower of Jesus.
TO BE CONTINUED.
Logo: Sabbath, Apathy, and Peace?
What do you think of the new logo and the subtitle for subversiveREFORMATION.com? What do you think the image means? What are your thoughts on the phrase? Please comment.
What is your preferred form of being church?
Please select up to two (2) answers that best represent(s) your preferred form of being church. You may elect to choose only one option or you may choose two or none. Please be sure to add a comment to either explain your reasoning or state why you believe the survey is grossly inaccurate, mis-worded, and/or impossible to answer well.
Loading ...
There’s Nothing Quite Like…
There’s nothing quite like…
1) A new toothbrush.
2) A freshly weeded garden with tomatoes freshley budding.
3) A steak on the grill seasoned with rosemary.
4) A new pair of socks.
5) A glass of tea with fresh raspberries and slices of orange and lemon.
6) _____________________.
Insert your "there’s nothing quite like" by clicking the "COMMENTS" below.
The Violence of Competition: Gladiators, Guards, & Government.
In a communicative speech given only minutes ago this first day of June, two-thousand nine anno domini, the United States empire’s president Barack Obama stated the government’s defense for the bankruptcy filing by the automobile manufacturer, General Motors. Evident by the majority shares purchase, Obama, his automotive task force, and the Department of the Treasury support the bankruptcy and the suppossed coming rise of a "new, leaner and stronger GM." Obama remarked toward the end of his address that the ultimate end is for American business to compete globally.
So…
If U.S. businesses are intended to "compete globally" then is the U.S. government ultimately seeking to send people who function within the economic system of another nation into the same type of jobless recession that the U.S. is currently experiencing? Is the drive to compete in business fueled by the longing for self-absorbtion, self-fulfillment, and self-gratification while promoting oppression of others? There are those who think that the people of the U.S. "deserve to be on top." Does such a philosophy reveal an ever-present racism?
What ever happened to loyalty? To friendship? To mutual respect and sharing? Why do our lives center around having more and being the best? What ever happened to Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream? Did that only apply to Americans?
And while I’m at it, why are we so dependent on automobiles?
Competition is violent. Just ask the gladiators in the Colosseum. Ask the guards on the offensive line. Ask the economically oppressed nations.
“Much violence is based on the illusion that life is a property to be defended and not to be shared.”
Henri Nouwen
