In the world of education, we are very oriented to thinking about classroom settings and tests at the end to see if people have in their head the facts and the explanations of the particular subject that’s being studied. But network education says that there’s something about building a relationship with the conversation that is going on in a particular area -- through the avenues of the people who are in the conversation, the books that are in the conversation, programs that are part of the conversation. So if you’re asking a question about theology, for example, it’s one thing to take a class and memorize definitions and the basic topics of systematic theology, but it’s another thing to meet a theologian, and to have a relationship with a couple of them and to ask them how they feel about different subjects and how a particular subject affects the way they think about the way the church might be or the way that we might care for broken people. Now you’re making a network connection with a person who’s thinking dynamically as a person, using all their years of training, and you being in the conversation with them means that you are becoming part of the network. And so network education is to enter into those conversations that don’t have conclusions, but they do have connections that help us to move forward, and to have partners in thinking about the situations that will come up for us.
The same thing is true with books, to know that there are books that are important to read -- even if you don't read the whole thing -- to have the books, or to know where they are, to know the table of contents, to know who the important books speak about as mentors. If we can think of a book as something not just to be read, digested, and then to move on, but rather that we need to develop a network relationship with each book that’s important and see what that book is networked with, that in that process our learning is not something that we’re thinking about getting done with, but rather that we’re continuing to build a web structure. That is really what makes the internet work, too; the reason we can learn so much on the internet is because things are networked together. So we can think of engaging in network education as becoming part of the web. But it’s not just that it’s all sitting there; you intentionally engage specific parts of the web. It’s like you’ve set up favorites so that you have the capacity to get the people, the places, the books, the journals – you have gathered all of those things that are related so that you have quick access. You’ve built a sense of what’s trustworthy, what’s not, and where there are questions to be played out. At the end of a period of time, when you have all of your “favorites” in place, one would say that you’ve been networked in to an understanding of a particular subject, not just from one perspective, but in all of its implications in ways that allow for an ongoing conversation. The illustration of coming to a party where conversation is going on, and you listen for awhile and you begin to get a sense of where people have their positions and you reach a point where you start in the conversation, you start responding because you’ve heard enough, or another way of saying that is you’ve been networked in, so now you have something to say, and as you engage in the conversation and carry on something that’s intelligent, there comes a point when you recognize that you need to leave that conversation at least for awhile, but you’re able to be in that conversation now.
And so my sense is that network education is to walk through all of the issues that we want to train people for in theological thinking and in ministry, to be networked in so they have the capacity to come back, to both build and come back to and live within those conversations that make them the unique person with the unique skills and gifts to be able to accomplish things and to create the connections that create communities that make a difference and bring information where information is needed, and bring in people with expertise where that’s needed, and to see that that is the culminating fruit of bringing network education into a livingness in life, a livingness in our ministry contexts, a connectedness in our families, that is a living out of the conversation.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
what are we counting?
Recently I attended the Off the Map conference in Seattle. One idea that stood out to me was put out there by Rich and Rose Swetman: that we count what we care about. That means that if we’re in a church and we’re only counting how much money we bring in each Sunday, how many people are there, then simply the objective sense of those people showing up is what we really care about.
Rich and Rose suggested three c’s that they attempt to work out of in their ministry: conversations, collaborations, and connections. To be able to say, “I had this many conversations with the people in church or the community this week. To say, “We collaborated; I worked with people in the church on these projects, or with people in the community.” To say, “We made connections; we got people together who needed to be connected. We got people who had needs connected in the places where their needs could be met.”
I think all of these are very helpful terms for us to get at what it means to really have our success be about community and creating community that functions well, that builds relationships well, and that lives into the context of where we live in ways where our caring really is about moving people into relationships of meaningful engagement that truly live out the gospel in practical ways in our neighborhoods.
Rich and Rose suggested three c’s that they attempt to work out of in their ministry: conversations, collaborations, and connections. To be able to say, “I had this many conversations with the people in church or the community this week. To say, “We collaborated; I worked with people in the church on these projects, or with people in the community.” To say, “We made connections; we got people together who needed to be connected. We got people who had needs connected in the places where their needs could be met.”
I think all of these are very helpful terms for us to get at what it means to really have our success be about community and creating community that functions well, that builds relationships well, and that lives into the context of where we live in ways where our caring really is about moving people into relationships of meaningful engagement that truly live out the gospel in practical ways in our neighborhoods.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
prosperity or abundance?
Recently I drove north to Vancouver, BC, to attend the Laing Lectures, which this year hosted Walter Brueggemann, a noted Old Testament scholar. Something that stood out to me during his lecture was his response to a question asked about the difference between prosperity, as in prosperity gospels, and what he was saying about the Old Testament envisioning abundance. In response to the question, Dr Brueggemann answered that prosperity as it is used in the contemporary context is about the individual; individuals want to have things for themselves, money for themselves, to feel a sense of self-satisfaction in this world. On the other hand, abundance is a term for a community experience.
Dr Brueggemann gave the illustration of parents with the Christmas tree, that if you give just lots of stuff to kids, then they can become spoiled. But if you give a few well-thought-out things, and if you play with your kids with what they receive, thoughtful gifts can actually be quite simple. When we talk about what it means to give our kids things that involve us in their lives, where they feel a sense that “we may not have had much, but we had a family that cared, and I had parents who knew who I was,” we are talking about abundance. So abundance, then, has this communal sense, and Dr Brueggemann suggested that we actually don’t have to have that much in order to feel abundance, whereas with prosperity, it always seems that we need more.
So I think there’s a helpful distinction here as we think about what it means for us, in our contemporary environment, to be people of abundance and create communities of abundance, which doesn’t mean having lots of stuff. It means taking time; it means having conversations; it means finding ways to work together, and maybe to hear the possible small things that each of needs and to find ways to meet those needs, but to recognize it is in community that we will ultimately feel a sense of abundance.
Dr Brueggemann gave the illustration of parents with the Christmas tree, that if you give just lots of stuff to kids, then they can become spoiled. But if you give a few well-thought-out things, and if you play with your kids with what they receive, thoughtful gifts can actually be quite simple. When we talk about what it means to give our kids things that involve us in their lives, where they feel a sense that “we may not have had much, but we had a family that cared, and I had parents who knew who I was,” we are talking about abundance. So abundance, then, has this communal sense, and Dr Brueggemann suggested that we actually don’t have to have that much in order to feel abundance, whereas with prosperity, it always seems that we need more.
So I think there’s a helpful distinction here as we think about what it means for us, in our contemporary environment, to be people of abundance and create communities of abundance, which doesn’t mean having lots of stuff. It means taking time; it means having conversations; it means finding ways to work together, and maybe to hear the possible small things that each of needs and to find ways to meet those needs, but to recognize it is in community that we will ultimately feel a sense of abundance.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
on Cirque d'Esprit
Last Saturday night I went with my wife and some friends to Cirque du Soleil in Redmond, Washington, for Corteo.
Cirque du Soleil is a circus event, Circus of the Sun -- a very richly layered experience of music, acrobatics, humor, word; the whole thing is a bit of a dreamlike experience, so it allowed everything to be integrated into this whole sense of dying and friends gathering around, and all of the dimensions of angels and friends and other things that are brought in as companions for the experience.
This whole world of Cirque du Soleil has laid a foundation for a title I am giving to the one Sunday a month that Washington Seminary facilitates Sunday5 at Washington Cathedral. Sunday5 is a 1-hour alternative worship service, and we call the one Sunday each month when the seminary runs it “Cirque d'Esprit” – Circus of the Spirit.
The whole nature of Circus of the Spirit is that there’s something about circus that says we’re not playing within the lines. So where you traditionally have a liturgy of song and prayer and spoken word, here we may have spoken word, but it may be in the form of Japanese poetry with flute music playing in the background, and you may experience different scents, from herbs or cinnamon or who knows what, that are integrated into the worship service.
No direct sermon. Stories and exploration of ideas are pieces in the text, but again, wherever possible, to not just have everything be focused on the speaker, but to have other things going on -- whether it’s music or sounds or sights or something -- is what I call a thick experience, a layered experience of multiple things going on that speak to your whole being in different ways than traditional liturgies do, which usually have one person at a time doing their activity. So Cirque d'Esprit is a 1-hour canvas to try and playfully do things that tie in with thoughtful, contemplative ways of being, but in playful and multi-mediumed experiences.
This Sunday is our first Cirque d'Esprit, looking at Acts 8, and I’ll be playing out a piece with crushed herbs being like the early life of the church, the witness of the martyrs, the church growing and being a heavenly scent that will be part of our experience of worship as we inhale those scents and think of those people. The evening will culminate as we take communion with herb bread, that again sees the whole sacrifice that is poured into the bread, which symbolizes the body of Christ.
So I think that the whole sense of circus being laid alongside church helps us to expand in our creativity and to recognize that the Spirit wants to do and say things in new mediums that take us not so much into great acts of physical feats like Cirque du Soleil does, but takes our hearts, minds, and spirits to places that cause us to sit back with wonder and amazement that people can go to these places, that God can take us there by His Spirit, and that we can have what the early church did – a sense of amazement and wonder at the mighty acts of God.
Cirque du Soleil is a circus event, Circus of the Sun -- a very richly layered experience of music, acrobatics, humor, word; the whole thing is a bit of a dreamlike experience, so it allowed everything to be integrated into this whole sense of dying and friends gathering around, and all of the dimensions of angels and friends and other things that are brought in as companions for the experience.
This whole world of Cirque du Soleil has laid a foundation for a title I am giving to the one Sunday a month that Washington Seminary facilitates Sunday5 at Washington Cathedral. Sunday5 is a 1-hour alternative worship service, and we call the one Sunday each month when the seminary runs it “Cirque d'Esprit” – Circus of the Spirit.
The whole nature of Circus of the Spirit is that there’s something about circus that says we’re not playing within the lines. So where you traditionally have a liturgy of song and prayer and spoken word, here we may have spoken word, but it may be in the form of Japanese poetry with flute music playing in the background, and you may experience different scents, from herbs or cinnamon or who knows what, that are integrated into the worship service.
No direct sermon. Stories and exploration of ideas are pieces in the text, but again, wherever possible, to not just have everything be focused on the speaker, but to have other things going on -- whether it’s music or sounds or sights or something -- is what I call a thick experience, a layered experience of multiple things going on that speak to your whole being in different ways than traditional liturgies do, which usually have one person at a time doing their activity. So Cirque d'Esprit is a 1-hour canvas to try and playfully do things that tie in with thoughtful, contemplative ways of being, but in playful and multi-mediumed experiences.
This Sunday is our first Cirque d'Esprit, looking at Acts 8, and I’ll be playing out a piece with crushed herbs being like the early life of the church, the witness of the martyrs, the church growing and being a heavenly scent that will be part of our experience of worship as we inhale those scents and think of those people. The evening will culminate as we take communion with herb bread, that again sees the whole sacrifice that is poured into the bread, which symbolizes the body of Christ.
So I think that the whole sense of circus being laid alongside church helps us to expand in our creativity and to recognize that the Spirit wants to do and say things in new mediums that take us not so much into great acts of physical feats like Cirque du Soleil does, but takes our hearts, minds, and spirits to places that cause us to sit back with wonder and amazement that people can go to these places, that God can take us there by His Spirit, and that we can have what the early church did – a sense of amazement and wonder at the mighty acts of God.
Monday, April 21, 2008
on visiting Disneyland
My family and I visited Disneyland over spring break a few weeks ago. Disneyland is always an interesting adventure to reflect on as a theologian. One of my favorite books, “Jesus in Disneyland,” points out how much Disneyland represents a postmodern world as defined by giving the image of being in all kinds of places -- one moment in Switzerland, another moment in the deep south, another moment in the frontiers of the wild west -- very much the postmodern world, and yet all run by the modern machinery of electrical gadgetry and sophisticated systems of entertainment.
It stood out to me, though, that Disney mentioned that every ride in Disneyland has a story. Part of the nature of what makes a ride complete is not just that it has moments of thrill but that it starts you somewhere, it works through a story, and takes you through to the end of that story. It struck me how much this is like what we do in the world of theology -- bringing the story of God to meet the story of humanity -- and how maybe we need to tell the stories of our communities, the people and events that have shaped the communities in which we live and hope to have influence.
Also, in counseling, the value of the telling of story is to help people get out what it is that’s going on, that it’s not merely diagnosing diseases, but it’s revealing stories that give us access to what’s going on. In a way, Disney captures the heart of American history and the stories of individual characters to touch the hearts and minds of kids and adults.
It also struck me that Disney began his whole project with a desire to give children and adults a place where they could enjoy life together. There is something here about putting multigenerational and enjoyment together that I think is significant for us in the life of the church to notice as well. I remember the first time I went to a Young Life club I was surprised when my Young Life leader, Ed Berg, came running up to me full of enthusiasm. As I left that night, I thought, “Wow, Christianity can be fun.” It’s not quite the same thing as Disneyland, but it did occur to me that there’s something about bringing a vision of what it really means to live life as Christians that is maybe close to Disney’s dream of the relationships between adults and children being shared.
Another aspect of dreams, too, is that whatever we think is history in looking past, just speaking about the lives of those who have gone before us, is not nearly as significant in changing the world as the dreams that we have as we think about what we might do, what we might want, and then act in ways that live out those dreams, which obviously Walt Disney himself did.
There’s also something about the dreamers in the Bible. We can also think about the visions of the kingdom of God and live within the kingdom in ways that change the world. Martin Luther King had a dream, and in many ways that dream is still continuing on.
The nature of who I want to be and who I want Washington Seminary to be is finding the best in telling stories across generations and living our dreams in ways that the gospel becomes incarnated in the places that God puts us.
It stood out to me, though, that Disney mentioned that every ride in Disneyland has a story. Part of the nature of what makes a ride complete is not just that it has moments of thrill but that it starts you somewhere, it works through a story, and takes you through to the end of that story. It struck me how much this is like what we do in the world of theology -- bringing the story of God to meet the story of humanity -- and how maybe we need to tell the stories of our communities, the people and events that have shaped the communities in which we live and hope to have influence.
Also, in counseling, the value of the telling of story is to help people get out what it is that’s going on, that it’s not merely diagnosing diseases, but it’s revealing stories that give us access to what’s going on. In a way, Disney captures the heart of American history and the stories of individual characters to touch the hearts and minds of kids and adults.
It also struck me that Disney began his whole project with a desire to give children and adults a place where they could enjoy life together. There is something here about putting multigenerational and enjoyment together that I think is significant for us in the life of the church to notice as well. I remember the first time I went to a Young Life club I was surprised when my Young Life leader, Ed Berg, came running up to me full of enthusiasm. As I left that night, I thought, “Wow, Christianity can be fun.” It’s not quite the same thing as Disneyland, but it did occur to me that there’s something about bringing a vision of what it really means to live life as Christians that is maybe close to Disney’s dream of the relationships between adults and children being shared.
Another aspect of dreams, too, is that whatever we think is history in looking past, just speaking about the lives of those who have gone before us, is not nearly as significant in changing the world as the dreams that we have as we think about what we might do, what we might want, and then act in ways that live out those dreams, which obviously Walt Disney himself did.
There’s also something about the dreamers in the Bible. We can also think about the visions of the kingdom of God and live within the kingdom in ways that change the world. Martin Luther King had a dream, and in many ways that dream is still continuing on.
The nature of who I want to be and who I want Washington Seminary to be is finding the best in telling stories across generations and living our dreams in ways that the gospel becomes incarnated in the places that God puts us.
Monday, April 7, 2008
on being a walking seminary
Tim Dearborn, who is the founder of the Seattle Association for Theological Studies (its name was changed to the Pacific Association for Theological Studies and KOINOS is the name currently used to describe its ministry), one day described me as a walking seminary. What he meant by this is that I have a huge interest in all of the dimensions of what happens in a seminary, from biblical studies to theological studies to pastoral counseling to church history, and I attempt to integrate them at all times.
I love surveys; I love getting the big picture and then being able to drill down deep later. Some people would call that being a generalist.
My father-in-law began the Family Medicine program for the University of Washington in Spokane. In Spokane they needed generalists who would go out to communities and understand all that was going on, and if necessary to send them to Seattle where specialists are trained. Specialists often aren’t as aware of all that is out there, but they’re the best within the area of their focus.
So, I lean towards being a generalist. I lean towards being somebody who wants to see all the different parts of theological training integrated into all the parts of a person’s life, so to be a counselor who is a theologian is just one of the ways that I bring together that whole sense. And when I train people at Washington Seminary, my concern is that they would end up as those who have a general education that integrates all of these pieces together, but preparing every step of the way to minister in a specialty that brings together the generalities to bear on specific questions. So I don’t think it’s an “either – or” type thing. I think we need generalists who are able to specialize and that we will be best served because those people will be able to go anywhere and to draw on all the fields of thought that need to be drawn on to be equipped to minister. And communities of faith, the families of faith if you will, that are part of the world shaped by God that we currently live in needs leaders who are theologically informed and practically able to strategically make a difference.
I love surveys; I love getting the big picture and then being able to drill down deep later. Some people would call that being a generalist.
My father-in-law began the Family Medicine program for the University of Washington in Spokane. In Spokane they needed generalists who would go out to communities and understand all that was going on, and if necessary to send them to Seattle where specialists are trained. Specialists often aren’t as aware of all that is out there, but they’re the best within the area of their focus.
So, I lean towards being a generalist. I lean towards being somebody who wants to see all the different parts of theological training integrated into all the parts of a person’s life, so to be a counselor who is a theologian is just one of the ways that I bring together that whole sense. And when I train people at Washington Seminary, my concern is that they would end up as those who have a general education that integrates all of these pieces together, but preparing every step of the way to minister in a specialty that brings together the generalities to bear on specific questions. So I don’t think it’s an “either – or” type thing. I think we need generalists who are able to specialize and that we will be best served because those people will be able to go anywhere and to draw on all the fields of thought that need to be drawn on to be equipped to minister. And communities of faith, the families of faith if you will, that are part of the world shaped by God that we currently live in needs leaders who are theologically informed and practically able to strategically make a difference.
Monday, March 31, 2008
on being a bridge person
I consider myself a bridge person. You may ask, “From what to what?”
One of my primary concerns over the years has been to be a bridge between the church and the academy. I spent almost 20 years in higher education; at the same time I was also working in churches -- on staff at four churches during those years, plus volunteer work, as well as working with Young Life. My concern is that the church needs to get its questions to the academy, and the church needs to help the academy to understand that its ultimate value is in finding answers to how the gospel is lived, incarnated, and comes alongside to help the world that God wants to reach.
Being in the church has helped raise those issues for me. I’ve worked in adult ed, youth ministry, and children’s education, and each one has its own value. I think the academy is hugely valuable in finding answers and digging deeply into things, and that the church desperately needs those resources. I’m reminded that in the world of dentistry, for example, there are people who work on people’s teeth every day, and there are also people in the academy who are constantly researching better materials and procedures and techniques, and that the academy doesn’t operate outside of asking how this is ultimately going to shape the world of dental practice. And I would like to see more of that between the church and the academy. So I attempt to bridge the gulf between those. Washington Seminary, where I am the chancellor, is embedded in a church and is also embedding itself in the world of academic discussion. So we are attempting to have a seminary that embodies both of those worlds as well and serves as a bridge.
I also see myself as a bridge between the conservative side of Christianity and the liberal. I think everyone has a general concern to ask, “What does love look like? And what does it mean to be the body of Christ?” There are varying degrees as to how we achieve that. During several school terms I have taught both at Northwest University, which is an Assemblies of God school and to the conservative side, and at Seattle University, which is more to the liberal side. I teach pretty much the same kinds of things -- largely about the Trinity and the life of relationship, and what it means to know others personally and not merely as objects. And I find that people are very open to the idea of relational thinking as a core to where it is that we’re all going, whether from the right or from the left. Both the liberal and the conservative have seemed to be void of trinitarian thinking, so there is a need for someone to come in and see the possibilities of going back to the affirmations of the early church and how those thoughts shape the way that we do ministry in the modern world, and the way we talk about who God is -- that God is a relational community of Father, Son, Spirit that continues in the world in a relational manner that we are invited to share. So again, to be a bridge in theological thinking by providing trinitarian thinking is another dimension of who I am as a bridge person, the way I want to be involved in bridge activities and to see the divergent components within our current contemporary institutions somehow be brought together by persons who embody being bridges.
One of my primary concerns over the years has been to be a bridge between the church and the academy. I spent almost 20 years in higher education; at the same time I was also working in churches -- on staff at four churches during those years, plus volunteer work, as well as working with Young Life. My concern is that the church needs to get its questions to the academy, and the church needs to help the academy to understand that its ultimate value is in finding answers to how the gospel is lived, incarnated, and comes alongside to help the world that God wants to reach.
Being in the church has helped raise those issues for me. I’ve worked in adult ed, youth ministry, and children’s education, and each one has its own value. I think the academy is hugely valuable in finding answers and digging deeply into things, and that the church desperately needs those resources. I’m reminded that in the world of dentistry, for example, there are people who work on people’s teeth every day, and there are also people in the academy who are constantly researching better materials and procedures and techniques, and that the academy doesn’t operate outside of asking how this is ultimately going to shape the world of dental practice. And I would like to see more of that between the church and the academy. So I attempt to bridge the gulf between those. Washington Seminary, where I am the chancellor, is embedded in a church and is also embedding itself in the world of academic discussion. So we are attempting to have a seminary that embodies both of those worlds as well and serves as a bridge.
I also see myself as a bridge between the conservative side of Christianity and the liberal. I think everyone has a general concern to ask, “What does love look like? And what does it mean to be the body of Christ?” There are varying degrees as to how we achieve that. During several school terms I have taught both at Northwest University, which is an Assemblies of God school and to the conservative side, and at Seattle University, which is more to the liberal side. I teach pretty much the same kinds of things -- largely about the Trinity and the life of relationship, and what it means to know others personally and not merely as objects. And I find that people are very open to the idea of relational thinking as a core to where it is that we’re all going, whether from the right or from the left. Both the liberal and the conservative have seemed to be void of trinitarian thinking, so there is a need for someone to come in and see the possibilities of going back to the affirmations of the early church and how those thoughts shape the way that we do ministry in the modern world, and the way we talk about who God is -- that God is a relational community of Father, Son, Spirit that continues in the world in a relational manner that we are invited to share. So again, to be a bridge in theological thinking by providing trinitarian thinking is another dimension of who I am as a bridge person, the way I want to be involved in bridge activities and to see the divergent components within our current contemporary institutions somehow be brought together by persons who embody being bridges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
