Moving Church Past Contracts

Many of you have likely read Seth Godin’s most recent manifesto, “Stop Stealing Dreams” where he tackles the question of education in his typical blog-thought style. The whole 33,000 words are free for download if you want to give it a read.

In section 26, Godin talks about the contract of adhesion. Here’s how he describes it:

Friedrich Kessler, writing in 1943 in the Columbia Law Review, articulated a new kind of contract, one for the industrial age. Rather than being individually negotiated with each party, a contract of adhesion is a take-it-or-leave-it mass deal. The industrialist says, use this car or this software or this telephone, and merely by using it, you are agreeing to our terms and conditions. With a hat tip to Doc Searls (tk link), here’s what Kessler wrote:  ’The development of large scale enterprise with its mass production and mass distribution made a new type of contract inevitable—the standardized mass contract. A standardized contract, once its contents have been formulated by a business firm, is used in every bargain dealing with the same product or service. The individuality of the parties which so frequently gave color to the old type of contract has disappeared. The stereotyped contract of today reflects the impersonality of the market….

I am wondering if this same kind of contract of adhesion is at work in our denominations and church bodies. As we’ve seen with the public school system, what began as a beneficial move toward democratizing knowledge and creating cultural congruity has now become a relic of industrialization that does little to prepare our students for the world in which they will live and work. Similarly, denominations came about in order to create collective shared identity around principles and values a group deemed worth- the priesthood of believers, or sola scriptura. Nowadays I’d argue we see this same trend in non-denominational churches, who rally around inerrancy or a particular view of the family or something of that nature. But those same structures which were once helpful in uniting us are now, I’d argue, holding us back from the true work of being God’s faithful and creative people in the world. And while it is necessary for any organization to find a shared focus, there does seem to be a significant value difference between truly shared vision and a contract of adhesion. Do we really need a committee to write our shared vision on a piece of paper and sign it for it to be normative for us as a group? And does our contract really need to be mass produced across the world, to create other groups with values just like ours?

I’d venture most of us would say no. So why are so many of our ecclesial bodies organized as if the answer were yes?

What if, instead of a denomination giving seed money only to a group of people who want to look and speak and sound and act just like all the other groups, they were willing to hand some resources to some innovators interested in creating a culture specific to location, place, and the unique move of the Spirit? If we truly believe that God is doing a new thing, why on earth do we emphasize standardized mass contract churches? Put more bluntly, why does a new church need to put a denominational logo on their website in order for said denomination to find a reason for relationship, resourcing and respect? If discipleship and not standardization is the game, then we’re not playing it right.

To extract the ideas from our rich heritage of church reformers and place them in a straightjacket of take-it-or-leave-it mass systematization seems a great waste of resources in a world so in need of creative faithfulness.

Phantom Deity Disorder

The other day while having dinner with friends I subconsciously reached my hand toward the attractive woman seated next to me. It was an effort to steal a private moment of affection with my wife by a brief grasp of her hand. Everything was perfect except for the fact that the woman sitting next to me was not my wife nor was she of any romantic interest at all. To her, my flaccid and foreign gesture would have seemed like an invitation to bow our heads and say grace.  Fortunately, just as I was about to employ my ill-directed  “love squeeze,” I realize what I was doing. Instead of delivering a loving caress, my hand paused and then gave her knuckle a playful flick.

You see, my marriage ended over 3 years ago. How odd is it that after all of this time that I would still reach out to share a moment of physical comfort from someone who is not really there? Well not too strange I guess, since many of us do the very same thing with God.

We reach toward what we know in full expectation of confirmation… only to find ourselves alone and left to our own wits to figure it all out.

By now many of us are aware of the “vibranxiety” that is caused by “Phantom Vibration Syndrome,” that sensation that our phone is ringing in our pockets when in fact it is sitting in front of us. Somehow there’s disconnect from what is real and what we want to be real.

How so it is with God.
We reach out in hopes that God reaches back.
Now there’s nothing wrong with that, after all we trust in the promise that if we draw nigh to God that God will draw nigh to us.
But too often we have an expectation about the way God should reach back. We reach out with our understanding and predetermined comprehension of God and fully anticipate that God will respond this way every time.  Is it no wonder we’re disappointed when we metaphorically return empty handed?

Now I’m not suggesting that the ways God embraces us in this life are necessarily stingy, quite the contrary, actually. More so, I think it may be us who are stingy or even greedy in how we demand God’s interaction with us to be played out in our lives.

It’s been said before, but I think it deserves repeating, that it shouldn’t be in the certitude of God that we should draw our comfort, but rather it’s in the unsearchableness of God. The easy answer does nothing to move us closer to a more vibrant relationship with the universe. Rather it is in the searching of faith and in the wrestling with life that we find genuine fulfillment and hope.

The creator draws no more pride in our blind obedience to our ideals as he does in our earnest seeking.

In the book “The Life of Pi,” despite a lengthy and artfully detailed description of Hinduism’s importance in his life, Pi cautions against clinging too tightly to your own understanding of God and warns against fundamentalism and literalists.  To prove his point, he tells the story of Krishna the shepherd and the milk maids:

“Every night he invites the milk maids to come and dance with him in the forest.  They come and they dance. The night is dark and the fire in their midst roars and crackles, the beat of the music gets ever faster — the girls dance and dance and dance with their sweet lord who has made himself so abundant as to be in the arms of each and every girl. But the moment the girls become possessive, the moment each one imagines that Krishna is her partner alone, he vanishes.  So it is that we should not be jealous with God.”

How ironic would it be if it were God who was reaching out to us? But not to embrace us in our loneliness or to kiss us for our goodness, but to playfully deliver a flick. A loving gesture to remind us that he is indeed there but we should hold lightly to what we believe about the mystery that is God.

Conversation with John Shelby Spong on Re-Claiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World

Here is my conversation with Bishop John Shelby Spong on his book “Re-Claiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World” from my Radio Show.

In the conversation I ask John why people are not hearing from him the point he is trying to make, that the Bible is important to our lives and we should fully engage with it, and rather they hear him and others saying they want to get rid of the Bible?

In the second video I ask him what we should do as an alternative to a simplistic literal reading of the Bible or ignoring it all together.

YouTube Preview Image YouTube Preview Image

Wisdom From Kierkegaard

This Quote by Kierkegaard is rocking my world the last few weeks.

The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we as Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.”

-Soren Kierkegaard

This dude could bring it!