Stu's Blog

The Macedonians were not well off. The Corinthians were affluent. The Macedonians were free to be generous, even though poor, because “they gave themselves first to the Lord” (5). According to Paul, they experienced great joy, so much so that they were “begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints” (4). The Corinthians were in a much better position to contribute to the relief offering, but they struggled with stinginess. Paul didn’t confront their unwillingness with authority, command, and control (8), but with pastoral concern, teaching, and encouragement. Paul’s theology of giving is grounded in Christ’s self-giving, who “though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you bu his poverty might become rich” (9). His pastoral approach helped the Corinthians remember their past desire and willingness to cooperate (10), prompted their repentance and follow through (11), included motivational speech: “as you excel in everything-in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in our love for you-see that you excel in this act of grace also” (7), and reminded the Corinthians that they were part of the larger fellowship of humanity, any of whom may find themselves at any time either in need or with ability to supply the need of others (14-15). Paul brought to bear the witness of Scripture by citing Ex 16:18, the exemplary example of Christ, the reminder of the Corinthian’s past, the good example of the Macedonian brothers, the doctrinal truth that joy comes from giving rather than collecting, and the courage of a pastor cashing in some chips and speaking truth in love to confront a culture of stinginess that was taking root in the hearts of the Corinthians. What is the key to freedom in giving? Why was giving easy for the Macedonians and hard for the Corinthians? It is true that generosity results in joy but you will never become generous by seeking joy. The key is in verse 5: “they gave themselves first to the Lord.” See 2 Cor 8:1-15.

The June 6, 2011 issue of eWEEK contained the article “IBM: 100 Years of Innovation.” The article preceded the 100 year anniversary of IBM later this month, which in the world of tech translates to at least a millennium (think dog years). Whatever you think of IBM (devil personified, inspiration for the rogue computer HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey, other?), they have had a remarkable run. A defining ethos has to do with character, values, and principles.

I recall reading the book Father, Son & Co: My Life at IBM and Beyond a number of years ago and the one thing I remember most was a story of the younger Watson learning a life lesson from his dad. They had just used the restroom at a hotel and after washing their hands, dad wiped down the splashes on the sink that junior had left. Dad said (near as I can recall), “You always want to leave the place better than you found it.”

Thomas J. Watson Sr., the guy who started it all, built the company on a few core values. From an new book, Making the World Work Better: The Ideas That Shaped a Century and a Company comes this quote: “Since its early days, IBM has been operated based on a set of core beliefs. IBM would distinguish itself with its respect for the individual, its pursuit of excellence in all things and its commitment to providing the best customer service. These values were baked into the core DNA by Thomas Watson Sr., who built the near-failing organization of 1914 into an industrial giant with staying power. And that DNA has taken hold in millions of employees over the course of 100 years.”

IBM has had its ups and downs, made big bets some of which paid off hugely, experienced near-death in the late 1980′s, had a succession of CEO’s, and is still going strong.

IBM seemed to lose its way in the 80′s under John F. Akers. This was their near-death era. They brought in Louis V. Gerstner Jr. who “quickly slashed headcount and spending, and reset the company’s focus on the customer.” Gerstner was not there for too many years. It reminds me a bit of when a church loses its way, is seriously heading downhill, and a turn-around interim comes in and does the necessary surgery. There may be blood on the walls, upset and angry people, but the patient (church) is saved from bleeding to death. Someone has to have the courage to make the hard decisions (and a few enemies), and that takes some character.

Next up was Samuel J. Palmisano, who continues to be the chairman and CEO since his appointment in 2002. He came on board and quickly established several values that have defined IBM for this era: “dedication to every client’s success; innovation that matters-for our company and for the world; and trust and personal responsibility in all relationships.”

My point is that character and values matter. IBM is no church (well, some might beg to differ) but at least some of its leaders led in a principled manner and IBM is still here and still strong.

One of the hardest things for older churches is to have the courage to act on their principles in the face of decline and/or opposition. It kills me to see leaders hesitate to act on what they are convinced is right. We of all people should be fearless. Or maybe we lost sight of the hope we once held. Then, losing our way, we lost our character too.

I watched the movie Becket recently. The story is strong and the acting compelling. Burton and O’Toole were both up for best actor. An amazing story indeed. Thomas Becket, murdered December 29, 1170, was a most unlikely candidate for Archbishop. It was a political appointment that backfired on King Henry II. Becket is portrayed in the movie as finding his purpose in life not in political power and privilege but in defending the glory of God. The movie is a study of the transformation of Becket’s values and character. He became a man willing and able to stand up to the king and paid for his convictions with his life. Four years later the king submitted himself to public humiliation at the demand of the pope, being whipped by the monks of Canterbury as penance for the part he played in the Becket’s murder. Based on a true tail, though retold with a degree of historical liberty, the movie is a reminder that character matters.

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is not the promised land, it’s just New Jersey…

The phrase “Jesus Freak” generally catches my attention. I always thought it to be a modern term referring to the radicals of the 1960′s or so who found Jesus and “freaked out” on this new way of life that is every bit as counter cultural as whatever they might have been pursuing. Having grown up in that era and experiencing the ultimate freak out of finding Jesus, or perhaps being found by Jesus, in my quest for the newest and best and most exciting and most fulfilling freak out, I tend to notice this phrase. I was reading about Count Zinzendorf this morning and read this:

Scholar George Forell put it more succinctly: Zinzendorf was “the noble Jesus freak.”¹

Imagine my surprise to find this terminology used and applied to someone from so long ago. I have not been able to find the actual citation even though the quote is often repeated. Since Forell wrote throughout the era of modern day Jesus Freaks, the phrase is not so surprising after all. But why apply it to Zinzendorf? Probably because of his commitment to community and rejection of church as institution. Zinzendorf was more interested in people living together well than people agreeing on how to think.

Zinzendorf was first a nobleman and politician and for a time took up government service. After about a year of this, he decided to abandon the life of the elite and rather build a community where people were free to worship God without the trappings of institutional structure. He hoped that people could live together well without hierarchy and without focusing on doctrinal division. His emphasis on relationships and genuine concern for the well being of others provoked a response to a converted slave’s request that someone go and preach the gospel to slaves in the West Indies. A movement of missionaries was born.

The idea of living well together, as a community, and caring enough about others to go and tell of the good news, were characteristics of many of the Jesus Freaks of the era I grew up in. Of course Zinzendorf was not the first “Jesus Freak” but he does stand in that tradition and leaves us an important testimony about “religion of the heart.”

You never know what might happen if you engage the culture. I’ve been thinking a lot about why evangelical conservative Christians don’t engage the culture more. I think there’s a lot of fear that holds us back. It might be dangerous. Others might disapprove. We might have been trained to avoid possible morally compromising situations. We were taught to “abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22). The NIV renders it “avoid every kind of evil,” KJV says “abstain from all appearance of evil,” and for some of us it has morphed to “avoid every appearance of evil,” or “flee from the appearance of evil.” This is what I was taught. The last two are not a proper translation as far as I know, but none the less became guiding principles for many of us. The meaning becomes: “The world is a dangerous place. Stay away.” From this it’s an easy step to: “Come into the church. It’s safe here.” The only problem is that it’s pretty hard to be missional if you’re bound tightly to the institution of the church. You actually have to get out and engage the culture.

I’ve been making forays into the culture. It might look a bit wild to those inside the Christian sub culture. See this video of an evening on the terrace at University of Madison.

The fellow dancing is one of the professors at the university. He was not a hippie nor was he at all inebriated. He was definatly having a good time. We had a nice chat after the set. I also chatted with another professor, a hair stylist who enjoys hang gliding and sky diving, and a bunch of other people who I’d never meet inside a church. There were about 1500 people out on the terrace that night. I’m thinking more and more about how I must be more missional and must therefore intentionally make forays into the culture. By the way, it was a lovely evening.

I am currently reading “Imitation of Christ” and “They Like Jesus But Not The Church”¹during my morning routine and I wish I could get Dan Kimball and Thomas à Kempis in the same room and be a fly on the wall. “Imitation of Christ” is a classic and much about spiritual growth through devotion and discipline. “They Like Jesus” is a contemporary work dealing with the disconnect between church and culture. Kimball narrates his journey of breaking out of the “bubble” while Kempis seeks to enter more deeply. This paragraph from Kempis prompted this post:

If we were to uproot only one vice each year, we should soon become perfect. The contrary, however, is often the case—we feel that we were better and purer in the first fervor of our conversion than we are after many years in the practice of our faith. Our fervor and progress ought to increase day by day; yet it is now considered noteworthy if a man can retain even a part of his first fervor.²

I believe in discipline. I have a morning routine that is such a fundamental part of my life that on the rare occasion that I don’t go through my morning ritual (fodder for another post perhaps), I suffer anxiety about getting my reading done before the day is over, for time is unfortunately unrenewable. Use it or lose it. The above quote is nonetheless disturbing. There’s an old saying that only a fool will continue to do the same thing hoping for different results. Make no mistake, Kempis is no fool. If anything, he seems to be highlighting the fact that personal devotion and discipline is not enough or all there is. Kimball is helping us to see why we shouldn’t isolate ourselves from humanity in general and non-Christians in particular. Kempis is too concerned with avoiding spiritual contamination: “We should enjoy much peace if we did not concern ourselves with what others say and do, for these are no concern of ours.”³ How shall we ever love others if we are more concerned with our own peace than their concerns? Do your devotions and disciplines and then get out in the world and mix it up.

A symptom of the “bubble” is the gradual inclusion of CCL (Christian Code Language) in everyday conversation such that we become increasingly incomprehensible to the mainstream community. Dan Kimball, in “They Like Jesus But Not The Church” says: “We find ourselves regularly using Christian words and cliches, such as backsliding, prayer warrior, fellowship, quiet time, traveling mercies, ‘I have a check in my spirit.’ … The transformation is complete. We have become citizens of the bubble.”¹ Theologians often use technical language to talk about God because they can’t figure out how to say what they want to say in simple language. At least they are intentional. We often coin and use Christianese because it distinguishes us from “normal” people. It’s kewl to know the secret lingo. There are websites for those who need to study up – google Christianese. Some other goodies: “when I used to be in the world,” “bless his heart,” “she caused me to stumble,” “I don’t mean to judge, but the truth is,” “truthfully,” “Lord willing.” I have a few questions for you: 1. Are you in the habit of using Christianese? 2. Do you care that non-Christians have no idea what you’re talking about when you use Christianese? Actually, they will have an idea, but it’s probably not what you intended. 3. Should you care? 4. Why should you care? 5. Did you notice that Jesus, though at times hard to understand, didn’t coin new language to talk about God but used familiar language about things that grow, losing and finding stuff, fighting, working, loving, families, friends, enemies and such?

Warning! Don’t take this too seriously!

I know it’s hard to believe… You too could become a target!