MBCC Blog

I could use some grace today

I take the idea of grace very literally. And we could all use a little grace around here.

Several years ago, I went with my dance company to spend the day training on the trapeze. The trapeze school was hidden in the Sonoma hills. The wooded site, with gentle folk milling around and hand-lettered signs tacked to trees, had the aura of a hippie fair crossed with a circus encampment.

I was looking forward to the trapeze lesson. In elementary school, I ruled on the playground bars. I could even do the cherry-drop, a maneuver the teachers outlawed after a girl broke her arm attempting it. However, I hadn’t remembered that this trapeze would be six or seven times taller than playground equipment.

The ladder that led to the trapeze platform was about a thousand feet high -- or maybe 50, I couldn’t tell. When I climbed up to the little platform at the top of the ladder, it seemed to creak in the breeze. The instructor helped me hook into a harness, and then demonstrated how to get swinging. Basically, I was to reach out over the now-blurry ground, and when the instructor shouted, “Hup,” catch the bar that was swinging toward me. I was to swing my legs over the bar, and then curl into a ball as I somersaulted into the net below, where I would probably land on my back. “Easy,” the instructor said.

Since the trapeze was built for a taller person, I would have to take a little leap in order to catch the trapeze bar. I’m not usually scared of heights, but the ends of my fingers and toes were tingling. I couldn’t feel my feet.  I was a little dizzy. “Hup,” shouted the instructor. I couldn’t force my arms to move to catch the bar. The instructor re-set the bar and shouted “Hup,” again. My arms moved in slow motion, and I was still too slow to catch it the second, third, and fourth times. Finally, on the fifth “Hup”, I wrenched my hands up, stepped forward and grabbed the bar.

At that moment, the heaviness and tingles disappeared. As I swung, the treetops near the trapeze came into view. I felt a lightness that echoed the momentum of the swing. As I had been instructed, I folded my legs over the bar, let go with my hands, and swung upside down for a few swings. It was a delightful feeling. As the momentum slowed, I disengaged my legs, and -- miraculously -- I rotated in a leisurely back layout flip and landed on my feet. Surprised, I quickly sat down in the net.

I like to think of that moment of physical “grace,” as a very small illustration of God’s more figurative gift of grace. It was totally unexpected and undeserved, and it was in the middle of an unfamiliar, uncomfortable, scary situation where I really had no clue what I was doing. It was just a little gift of coordination that gave me the courage to go through the rest of the trapeze lesson, which continued to be much harder than I had expected it to be.

On a larger scale, when I look at the seemingly intractable problems we face – the war, pollution, political corruption, poverty, family conflicts, traffic jams, (and the rest, large and small, that we can all name) – it seems that we could collectively use some moments of grace to give us some hope that things could be better, and a little courage to make it so.

Triangles and Circles: Continuing the Conversation

Triangle or circle? Triangle or circle? Is it really that simple? No, we all know that life is never as simple as boiling an idea down to two options and then choosing between them. There is always something in between. Sunday's sermon on the Trinity boiled down the understanding of how God lives in community - as three persons yet one God - to two symbols: the triangle and the circle. We discussed how viewing the Trinity as a triangle can lead people to understand God in hierarchical terms, which in turn leads people to view their lives in terms of hieracrhies. As an alternative to that, we discussed how viewing the loving community of the Trinity in terms of a circle might change our understanding of God and therefore our understanding of how we are to live.  As an example I mentioned that Roberts Rules of Order was definitely based on a hierarchical way of thinking, and so it would fall more into the triangle way of thinking, while consensus building decision making processes would fall more into the circle way of thinking. Following the service I was talking with a member who has an architecture background. She mentioned that for her the triangle is a symbol of strength. She pointed out that when we want to shore up a wall that might be starting to fall over, all we have to do is put up braces of some sort on an angle (thus making a triangle) and the wall will stay up. For her, the triangle had good connotations that she didn't want to let go of. And, of course, she is right. We don't want to fall into the old adage of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Neither the triangle nor the circle can be the only way we understand God. God is so much larger than any symbol or idea we can come up with. But that shouldn't stop us from exploring ways of talking about God. Through our exploring we will come to a richer, fuller understanding of who God is and who God wants us to be. So what symbol works for you? Triangle? Circle? Something else?

MBCC Images on Flickr

If you have not wandered over to MBCC Flickr album, please take some time to see some of the pictures that have been taken over the past few months.  There are some great pics from THIS PAST SUNDAY , The last ROCK gathering as well as EASTER SUNDAY.  If you are interested is added to the set, please eMail Bruce for the pertinent info.

Look at me being all topical ...

Or rather, the NYTimes being all topical, with this story about the Hispanic experience of coming to the United States and at the same time, going to church less.  The whole article is pretty good, and reflects many of the same themes that we discussed as a church this morning.

This quote struck me as the most interesting part of the story:

"As a child in Guatemala, Mr. Chilín attended Mass every Sunday. But after immigrating to the United States 25 years ago, he and his family lost the churchgoing habit. “We pray to God when we feel the need to,” he said, “but when we come here to America we don’t feel the need.”"

Without getting too in depth on the state of American culture, it is telling that in our affluent and materialistic society, we often don't feel the need to depend on God, and therefore easily lose touch with religion.  We might also want to look at this as an answer to Bruce's question, "why do you go to church?"  Personally, I identified with parts of Jeff, Katherine and Robin's answers to that question.  Like Jeff, I started going to church because my significant other had such a positive experience there, and I was intrigued.  Like Katherine's experience of being accepted for her artistic nature, part of what kept me going to our church back in Chicago was all the great music, which allowed me to relate to people on a level that I already appreciated and somewhat understood.

Finally, and most relevant here, like Robin mentioned, one big reason I go to church now is so that I don't forget the place that God has in my life.  It is all too easy to live out most of my week while blissfully ignoring God.  In part, that is cultural, because it's not always comfortable to talk about church.  In part, that's my own sinful nature, because doing what God wants me to do is often hard, and doing what I want to do is usually pretty easy.  Often, I "don't feel the need." 

Not that I think "feeling the need" is the solution.  Going to church or praying because we "feel the need" is not a whole lot more rightous than just going out of habit or a sense of duty.  Going to church each week is not supposed to be about making myself happy or satisfying some desire for spirituality that have (though it usually does that too).  That's just a selfish reason, disguised in religious language.  Ideally, I would go to church each week as an expression of my relationship with God and with the Church, which is all of you folks.  That's the goal for me at least.  Good thing we have grace. :)

Easter PODcast

Here is Easter Sunday's PODcast from Bruce called "We can't believe my eyes, or can we?" for the whole sermon series check here.

Cartoons

Kathi's grandfather sent us an email with some rather funny religious cartoons, and I've excerpted some of the best (in my opinion) below.  I believe these will post as links, and you will be able to click on them to see the full size versions.  If not, I may have to get Bruce to help me with the technical aspects of posting these. :)

Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, (2005)

Much of our knowledge about the Bible and many of our modern editions of the text draw(s?) heavily on the practice of ‘textual criticism’ – a technique of analyzing texts developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Misquoting Jesus is an introduction to the techniques of textual criticism, their origins, and some of the possible implications for our understanding of the Bible. It is divided roughly into two parts – first, a history of / introduction to textual criticism and the New Testament and second, an application of textual-critical tools to selected inconsistencies between surviving manuscripts of the New Testament. In homage to the author (who does not shy away from controversy, stating that he thinks the Bible is not the inspired, literal word of God and that the text we have was both accidentally and deliberately changed over the years), I would like to come right out and say that I believe the following:

If you are a Christian, you must read the Bible.
If you ever read or plan to read the Bible you cannot responsibly do so without:
(1) an understanding of how we got the Bible we currently have
(2) thinking (seriously) about the implications of that knowledge for your faith

Ehrman’s book provides a reasonable introduction to (1), and makes an argument about (2) that will not be acceptable to everyone. The book provides a number of examples that justify these as important. One example is the treatment of Mark 16:9-20 (see pages 65-8 of Misquoting Jesus). Read Mark 15 and 16. If (as Ehrman argues and other scholars seem to agree) the story as first written ended at Mark 16:8 (verses 9 to 20 are a later addition), what an amazing change in the original meaning of the gospel!

One of the most important arguments implicit (actually explicit but I’ve forgotten the page #) in the book is that each gospel must be read on its own, as though each was written by a different person (because they were). According to Ehrman, one of the likely sources of deliberate (if well-meaning) changes to the text of the Gospels as they now exist was the desire of scribes to ‘harmonize’ the texts, to iron out small inconsistencies between the four writers. According to Misquoting Jesus, trying to combine the gospels by simple addition into one Über-Gospel that tells the full and complete story of Jesus’s life is a mistake because it erases and effaces significant differences between the perspectives on Christ brought by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Ehrman’s work has not gone without comment – check the internet if you don’t believe me. The heart of the controversy sparked by Misquoting Jesus can be boiled down, I think, to an issue of authority. What is the Bible? What can/can’t we do with it? Ehrman makes a good case that we cannot treat the Bible as a univocal, unequivocal, absolute determinant for proper/improper belief/behavior. This reasoning may be troubling (or not), but I consider myself persuaded (perhaps pre-persuaded – I am not the best devil’s advocate you could find on this book).

No matter how much one reads the Bible, studies, and prays, I don’t believe that one can ever be certain that the answers arrived at are the right ones, only that they are the best ones available at the moment. [If you’ve seen Jesus camp, this is part of why I found the brief moment with the young girl trying to evangelize the old men in lawn chairs so hilarious.] The impossibility of certainty is partly due to the nature of humanity and the limits of our minds (or the inherent twistedness of human reason on account of the Fall, if you’re Augustine). Another important factor, it seems to me, is the limit of the source material we have to work with.

I’ve now successfully sat on this book long enough, having read but not reviewed it, that another book on a similar subject has come to my attention. For another take on how we got the Bible we have (this one rejecting form criticism in favor of cognitive psychology / memory studies / the study of oral traditions) you might look at Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.  I haven't read it, so I can't vouch for it, but it looked interesting.

Nappy-Headed Hos

Bet you'd never see that headline in a church blog, huh?  As you've probably heard, radio shock jock Don Imus used those words to describe the Rutgers women's basketball team.  My question is: what sort of language is beyond the pale, and what is the appropriate reaction to such language?  Earlier today, I listened to the relevant excerpt from his show.  Here it is:

IMUS: That’s some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and –

McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.

IMUS: That’s some nappy-headed hos there. I’m gonna tell you that now, man, that’s some — woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like — kinda like — I don’t know.

McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing.

Now, there's no question that "nappy-headed hos" is offensive language.  It's awfully racist.  But let me ask you something: what if Imus hadn't said that and just agreed with McGuirk's "hard-core hos" remark?  I'm guessing nothing would've happened.  No two-week suspension.  No Al Sharpton interview.  Nothing.  Why?  Does society just not care about the way we talk about young female athletes?  Young women?  Or do we just take that kind of talk as male swagger and give it a pass?  Or is it because women as a group are a lot less organized politically?  There are questions here.

But what I really want to know is why things that are often said in private, and accepted, are excoriated when expressed in public.  Let's be real, a lot of guys, when among other guys and over beers, will use sexist language and even a lot worse.  It's a machismo thing.  Picture a poker game, scotch and a sporting event on the tube and you see where I'm going with this.  Moreover, I have enough rap CDs to know that "nappy-headed hos" is probably one of the least provocative things rappers have to say about black women.  Ok yes, I know Don Imus is not a rapper, is not black, and thus does not have the "pass" that African Americans have when talking about, and to, other African Americans.  We can address that some other time.  Right now I want to focus on the incongruence between what so many people feel and say privately, and the apparent charade of their public lives.  The same people jumping all over Don Imus's back have, at some point in their lives, probably said the words "nappy" and "ho" and a lot of other worse words too.  I am not saying that this language is ok.  My point is that we should condemn this sort of talk from the roots up.  No more hypocrisy.  As followers of Christ, we should always be striving to embrace his teachings all the time, whether in a public forum or privately at home.  We need to purge ourselves of bias and misogyny from the inside-out, and not just to present a "tolerant" face to the outside world.  And, you know what?  If you are a racist or a bigot, out with it!  I'd rather I knew who you really are, so as to engage you in dialogue, then to think everything is hunky dory in your world.  So Don Imus, I'm glad you called those girls "nappy-headed hos."  Now I know how you talk when you're at home.  And I don't like the picture I'm seeing.

SERMON SERIES // Belonging: Answering the Call to Community

The week after Easter we begin a series on COMMUNITY.  The delivery of the message will be shared by the pastoral staff and we will have communion each Sunday.  Below is a brief description of the series.  We hope you can make it!

SERIES THEME SCRIPTURE: Acts 2:42-47 //
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

DATE: 04/15 - You're going to church?!?!?
PREACHER: Bruce Reyes-Chow via Interviews
SCRIPTURE: Acts 2:1-13
FOCUS: Through the telling and sharing os stories we will explore this apparent yearning for community to be part of one's spiritual journey.  What is that about?  What are our expectations?  What makes us take the plunge?  We ready to come and discuss, "Why to you go to church?"

DATE: 04/22 - The Trinity: Troubling Trifle or Terrific Truism?
PREACHER: Leslie Veen
SCRIPTURE: Mark 1:9-11, John 14:23-26
FOCUS: Many preachers avoid the topic of the Trinity. They argue that is it is merely a theological concept engaging only our heads and not really moving our hearts or affecting how we live our lives. But is this really the case? If it is, is this due to the topic or the way it has been addressed in the past? Should worshiping a triune God affect our daily living? We will discuss ways of understanding the Trinity and how these understandings play out in our day-to-day interactions with others.

DATE: 04/29 – The Language of Belonging
PREACHER: Nick Larson
SCRIPTURE: Matthew 8:5-13
FOCUS: We all belong to Jesus in different spaces. The Bible mentions the multitudes, a room full, a crowd of seventy, twelve apostles, the inner circle of Peter, James, and John. All experienced community with Jesus. What does/can this look like at MBCC? Are we comfortable with people belonging to Jesus and the church in ways different than ourselves? What is the best way to talk about community? Can we be a place of significant connections in whatever life stage people may be in?

DATE: 05/06 – Leave Me the BLEEP Alone!
PREACHER: Tiffany Flaming
SCRIPTURE: Ephesians 4:1-16
FOCUS: “How do we do church in an individualistic culture?”

DATE: 05/13 – Every Part Matters
PREACHER: Derrick Weston
SCRIPTURE: I Corinthians 12:4-31
FOCUS: We'll be discussing the need that a community has for active participation from all of its members. Each individual brings a unique skill or gift to the community and without the individual contributions the "body" as whole suffers. We'll discuss how a diversity of talents, passions, and abilities enriches the life of the entire community.

DATE: 05/20 – Called to Serve
PREACHER: Bruce Reyes-Chow via Interviews
SCRIPTURE: 1 Thessalonians 1:2-10
FOCUS: Interviews – “What are best Christian practices for being in the world?”

DATE: 05/27 – PENTECOST: The Birth of the Church
SCRIPTURE: Acts 2:1-13
FOCUS: We will celebrate the gift of Christian community!
AFTER: Stay to break bread, eat, drink and be merry!

Who are the People in Your Neighborhood?

My neighborhood is not picturesque.  We live next to a couple ramshackle auto shops, kitty-corner from the freeway ramp and across from a giant billboard that most recently featured CNN’s Anderson Cooper in a heroic pose, cutting through the jungle with a machete. I tend to just keep the blinds drawn. 

However, my son Seth’s favorite new hobby is to watch the traffic pass by, so we’ve been keeping the curtains up every day.  “Kuck! Kuck! [truck]” he shouts repeatedly.   The open window has allowed me to notice some people who are sometimes hard to really see. 

There’s a homeless man who uses the parking lot opposite as a base of operations.  Every morning he spreads out cardboard and does a series of calisthenics, moving through leg lifts, toe touches, and arm twists.  He has a head of thick grey dreadlocks, which he ties back with a purple scarf.  I’ve seen him digging a hole to hide something in the weeds by the parking lot, and then secreting the shovel in the shrubbery.  He arrives every day on a heavily-laden bicycle.

There’s also a group of City workers who walk by the window each morning to pick up the little trucks that dispense parking tickets.  One woman has short, spiky hair that she’s dyed peroxide blonde.  She carries a chic little purse that contrasts with the heavy lines of her uniform.  Another man carries a miniature stereo into the car.  At the end of the day, the workers are more relaxed, pulling their shirt-tails out of their pants and dropping their hats into their bags. 

It’s been nice to see the individuals behind the dreaded ticket-cars.  Overall, the open window has been a good reminder to me to notice “who the people in my neighborhood” are.