To be a Prophet - voice, action and space

David Bazan and David Dark (author of the book, The Sacredness of Questioning Everything) conducted a discussion where they cover our perceptions of God on the Q Website.  You can listen to it here.  In the discussion they mention an Allen Ginsberg quote.  He (Allen) was asked, "how do you become a prophet?" He answered, "tell your secrets."

I have been instructed by good men and women that in order to build my credibility in a world where one's ease of life, respect and income depends heavily on one's credibility, that I need to do so through shrewdness.  I'm coming to the point where it's hard to accept that this is the way for me to live.  We each have a way to live and some are called to different journeys, journeys that others would never take or ever be able to take.

I don't want to be so tactful that I lose the ability to have a prophetic voice, but I don't want to be so tactless that I lose my voice.  Either way, becoming so tactful that one's personality convolutes to the point of not having one, can only end badly.  So with this, I want to talk about what it means to live prophetically.




One's prophetic identity is primarily retroactive - one can only know they have been so by looking backwards. Grinsberg's above quote is a bit of a contradiction - purposefully of course. We don't try to become a prophet, we live out our convictions honestly and candidly and bear our secrets instead of relying on shrewdness for the sake of credibility. Prophets could be shrewd but never to the point that their audience missed the point. A prophet, as I understand it, just lives and bears the weight of one's own life without secrets - only then will you  be heard, sometimes heeded but mostly unwanted as most prophets were.

A prophet lives as the cutting (s)word, but most people want half-pint prophets it seems. We want a word that is cutting but only if our hand is on the hilt. Many are drawn to conferences and speeches by the people whom they've dismembered to endure the verbal tirade and accept nominal responsibility only to return to our comfortable clamor. The prophet requires no attendance at their conference, because they usually come to you in living color and they don't allow you to return, because a true prophet strips us of our comfortable clamor by their near and compelling presence.

We have three choices it seems.  We can move away to avoid the prophet, only to be found again.  We can throw the prophet out or kill him/her or we can stay long enough for their presence to cut us deep enough for real substantive change. Prophecy is as much about presence as it is about the spoken word; a complete lack of it or a hyper version of it- either way, the space that they fill or don't fill cannot be ignored.


A prophet steps outside of the community to see differently that which needs to be seen.  In effect they are actually joining the margins.  They smell compromise and though they might participate to some degree, eventually they blow the whistle.  Standing on the margins allows them to never completely leave and by default, their presence remains prophetic.  The community throws stairs and stones and the tirade begins....trying with increasing effort and annoyance to push the prophet out completely.  


It's important to realize that prophecy is not just for "bad" people, it is for those who's insecurities rule their decision making power too often, who have forgotten to know themselves well enough to name and confess their secrets.  Parents, bosses, older brothers, school administrators, day-to-day dictators, the recluse - each and every one of us, given the power, will encounter insecurities, that without restraint, will cause us to need the prophetic in our lives.  


Sadly though, the community doesn't want the prophet to belong to them or their margins - they just want the prophet gone or quiet.  His or her words or actions are not the only problem - it is the presence of the prophet.  If a prophet tells his secrets, those that have their own are thrown off by the prophet's mere presence.  Someone who tells their secrets may tell yours.  The prophet's presence is a witness of the truth because a prophet who tells his or her own secrets is living out the truth of their own story so robustly that it can only compel some to do the same or repel others to do everything to avoid the path of honesty - even to the point of doing whatever it takes to mute the prophet.


Many times the prophet is killed or maimed by the community as they throw their tirades and dysfunction towards the prophet.  The energy and dynamics invested in this process actually pulls the community towards the prophetic voice.  The desire to repel the prophet only ends up pulling the community closer to the space the prophet inhabits.  Ultimately, the prophet is absorbed into the community along with the prophet's voice of witness and truth.  


Sometimes the prophet is absorbed by a mob rushing to kill him or her and at other times, the prophet's words and life take years to move the community towards him or herself.  After a time they are absorbed and the community is forever transformed eventually into what the prophet said, lived and inhabited many years earlier.  Prophetic voice, prophetic action and prophetic space - these elements will either compel us or repel us, as the prophet lives through them, whether they know they are or not.


To be prophetic, tell your secrets and inhabit the space God has given you - the rest will follow.

Integral Life for Christians

Coming Home: Leslie's Introduction from Integral Life on Vimeo.

Coming Home | Part 2: How Full is the Christian Path? from Integral Life on Vimeo.

How Gaming Can Make a Better World

3 Must Read Non-Christian Authors for Christians

1. Rene Girard



2. Daniel Quinn



3. Joseph Campbell

New Film About Myths and Joseph Campbell

Joseph Campbell's book, The Hero With A Thousand Faces, is one of the most landmark texts of the last century.  Many have seen their faith enriched through this text while others have found "freedom" from their faith through it while still others have seen their faith made more robust through his work.  Many of the most famous cult films have drawn their story lines from his well, including Star Wars, The Matrix and many others.

This new film displays the incredible and sometimes controversial gifts that Campbell gave us through his work.  If you have never read or heard of him, please watch this film and check out his books.  Whatever your view on Campbell, he has been one of the most influential men of the last century, not only for his own work but for how he influenced the work of so many others.  Please enjoy this film and if you get a chance this Christmas, I highly suggest going to watch it.  Happy Advent!


Finding Joe - Trailer V.7 from pat solomon on Vimeo.

William Blake on Thanksgiving

"I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man's"

Awaken to Your Divine Dignity, Don't try to Achieve it.

Watch Richard Rohr on PBS. See more from RELIGION & ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY.

“We cannot achieve our inherent dignity—our divine sonship and our divine daughterhood. All we can do is awaken to it and start drawing upon it, appreciating it, reveling in it. We live with an inherent dignity by reason of our creation, a dignity that no one has given to us and no one can take from us.

And it has nothing to do with our race or religion. Hindus have it and Buddhists have it and pagans in Africa have it. They are just as much children of God as we are. Objectively. Theologically. Eternally. Where else do you think they came from? Did some other god create them, except THE GOD? Their divine DNA is the same as ours. We deny our supposed monotheism if we believe anything else.”  - Richard Rohr

Leonard Cohen on How To Preach a Sermon

"What is the expression which the age demands?  The age demands no expression whatever.  We have seen photographs of bereaved Asian mothers. We are not interested in the agony of your fumbled organs. There is nothing you can show on your face that can match the horror of this time. Do not even try.

You will only hold yourself up to the scorn of  those who have felt things deeply. We have seen newsreels of humans in the extremes of pain and dislocation. Everyone  knows you are eating well and even being paid to stand up there. You are playing to people who have experienced a catastrophe. This should make you very quiet. Speak the words, convey the data, and step aside.


Everyone knows you are in pain. You cannot tell the audience everything you know about love in every line of love you speak. Step aside and they will know what you know because they know it already. You have nothing to teach them. You are not more beautiful than they are. You are not wiser. Do not shout at them."  - Leonard Cohen, "How to Speak Poetry"

The Colossian Forum: All Things Hold Together in Science and Faith

More Light, Less Heat from The Colossian Forum on Vimeo.

TCF's introduction:

"The Colossian Forum takes its name and inspiration from Paul’s stunning proclamation in Colossians 1:17: “All things hold together in Christ.


Today, in a time of deep divisions between science, culture and Christian faith, Paul’s six simple words change everything. They reveal that all reality is ultimately united in Jesus—and therefore all divisions and animosities are reconciled in Him. We’re dedicated to reclaiming that liberating truth and proclaiming it to all who suffer from divisions unreconciled.


Once we get a glimpse of our unity as the Body of Jesus. And we discover the reality that all things, including science and faith, hold together in Christ, we can begin talking about hard issues and creating space for the riskiest of questions. Come Join the Conversation."

Bucky Fuller Restored Pangea and Preached Jubilee

‘You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.’

- Richard Buckminster Fuller

‘If you want truly to understand something, try to change it.’     

-Kurt Lewin

‘There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order to things.’

-Niccolo Machiavelli

"Explore the assumptions of the person asking the question." 

-Daniel Quinn


"The best critique of the bad is the practice of the better." 

-Richard Rohr

Billy Graham & Woody Allen - Classic

Insurrection - Taking a shot at Peter Rollins' book...

The Other Journal and the Church and Pomo blog have been doing a series on Peter Rollins's new book, Insurrection: To Believe is Human, To Doubt, Divine.
There are a number of responses to his material there so be sure to check it out. Some critique, confusion  and some affirmation.  Peter should also be coming to Grand Rapids soon and we're hoping for some more developments regarding his work then.  

Slavoj Zizek, Cornell West & C.S. Lewis take on OWS

Today, listened to a fantastic interview (thanks to Nic Babarskis) featuring Slavoj Zizek and Cornell West about Occupy Wall Street.  Throughout the interview Slavoj was making some remarkable statements.  I thought I'd capture some of them here for you and then follow it up with a response.  Enjoy!



"We know what we don't want, we definitely do not yet know what we do want." - Slavoj Zizek (comment on Occupy Wall Street about the history of failed attempts at Socialism)

‎"It's clear now that a more radical re-thinking of our entire way of life, mode of life, not just individual, but collective, is necessary." - Slavoj Zizek

‎"Small level lifestyle ecologism - Because it makes you feel good, it prevents you from asking for more radical changes...The problem is not, do you recycle the coke of can, the problem is our entire economic system." -Slavoj Zizek (Starbucks Syndrome = 1% charity attached to our consumerism excuses the need to do more substantial changes)

‎"True capitalism is a perverted religion...the true evil is egotism plus envy...the important thing is not for me to win, but for the other guy to lose." - Slavoj Zizek


‎"Did you notice how today, brief sexual adventures are ok, but people are afraid to fall in love...love is a fall, but a beautiful fall." - Slavoj Zizek


‎"'Time to outsource your dating...we will enable you to find yourself in love, without the fall'..But for me the fall is the authentic moment. Fall means when you are traumatized in a good sense by another person... we don't want to take the risk to open ourselves to the neighbor." - Slavoj Zizek


And now a little bit from Clive Staples Lewis...


"The better stuff a creature is made of - the cleverer and stronger and freer it is - then the better it will be if it goes right, but also the worse it will be if it goes wrong." - C.S. Lewis




OWS represents a similar dynamic that took place in the 18th century revivals that overtook New England.  Cornell and Slavoj highlight that most demonstrations and protests have been single issue protests.  The interesting characteristic that OWS has against those other historic movements is that it is a multi-issue protest.  For many that undermines the entire approach and purpose behind the protests but for Zizek that actually gives OWS credibility.  A multi-issue protest means that there is much more that needs to change than a single issue, a deeper angst than most of us are willing to acknowledge all at once which means a deeper problem that needs to be solved.  The solutions being proposed are thus many but all acknowledge a better way of life for all is needed and access to that better way of life is going to require some radical re-determining of how power is distributed in our society.  

This was true in the revivals. The Revivalists didn't have a better approach that they were promoting over and against the old approach that had steps or a three year program for change - they just lived the better approach and did it because they found that it was better. By living it, they pissed off the establishment and elated the crowds. Religion was no longer to be controlled and administered by ordained, situated, white, male clergy - it could be done outdoors, in a field, by the untrained, by men and women, by slaves, by children, by disenfranchised and marginalized malcontents, by criminals, etc. All of these partook in the Revival and the spiritual manifestations that took place - but they were rarely or never allowed to participate in spiritual communities or activities prior.

This meant that God's Spirit was available to all and as such - all that God had given to mankind was available to all - even spiritual leadership, responsibility and gifts. This had always been the case, but society had hid religious life and leadership so far back into a white and male dominated corner that God needed to break out and so He did and he did so with the least of the least and by breaking the power structures and social expectations that had been established in the social religious setting.

These dynamics are exactly (to me) what Wall Street has done with the power and responsibility of our economic system and now it's time for it to break out. Liberal Democratic Capitalism has a shelf life and the rot has begun to stink long enough. It seems that's why the transition and change is necessary as it was in the Revival time. Revivals aren't necessarily good, they're just necessary because of the mess that precedes them. That's why transitions like the one being fought for at OWS are so important - they demand change even if it's going to be messy - because the mess (corruption) that precedes the revival - though organized - is much worse than the mess that comes with change.

With the transitions of the Revivals came the upending of many social norms as well as mass confusion on a lot of important issues. That's just the nature of change at this level. If it were more organized it wouldn't be a movement, because movements aren't signed up for - they begin by resonating at a deep place within the soul of humanity, so much so that there is an eventual breakthrough and uprising of some sort, and there is usually a cost that is paid in both economic and cultural capacities, even to the point of death for many.

Corruption doesn't go away without a fight so change agents need to get to a point where they are willing to pay the price that corruption demands of them. I'm not sure if we are at that point yet with OWS, but it does seem close.

Am I redeemed because I'm created or created to be redeemed?

‎"I'm not valuable because God redeemed me, I'm redeemed because God values me." 

Jesus feeding 5000 = Socialism?

I know, I know, miraculous charity is different than socialism - but the feeding of the 5000 was a long overdue declaration of the goodness of the Year of Jubilee and a reprimand for its neglect - and if Jubilee wasn't a form of socialism - I don't know what is.








Now my brother had a great clarifying question regarding this.  He asked, 


"It would only be socialism if you also adopt a theocracy, right?"


The reason that this is a great question is that the commands surrounding the redistribution of land (wealth) and the freedom for slaves in the O.T. - the year of Jubilee - were directly connected to the fact that for Israel, the land did not belong to them to begin with.  


Leviticus 25:10
Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you - and you shall return every man unto his own clan, you shall return every man to his family.


Leviticus 25:23
The land must not be sold permanently, for the land belongs to me. You are only foreigners, my tenant farmers.


So the issue is the idea of "ownership" or the ability for a human being to own something in creation.  There existed in Israel, a very sophisticated system of redistribution and reciprocity for every inhabitant  and it was all based on the allotments they received based upon their tribal affiliation.  One was allowed to sell their property to another and allow oneself to be enslaved for financial reasons, among others.  But in the back of everyone's mind and during any transaction there was an understanding that this would all be reversed at least once in their lifetime.  The problem began when the people of Israel discontinued this practice - a violation that the prophets of Israel denounced them for time and time again.  Along with the "spiritual" denouncements for their idolatry, there were social and economic denouncements that went hand-in-hand with the spiritual ones.  In fact, they weren't seen as different.


Now back to my brother's question - "It would only be socialism if you also adopt a theocracy, right?"


The answer to this is a resounding YES - but yes because they didn't separate government from spirituality and judicial regulations from worship of God.  The reason for that is that all people's at that time had some form of a theocracy.  That understanding of government was as much a contextual choice as it was a God-ordained choice.  No Ancient Near Eastern country or people group functioned outside of a theocratic reign.  All believed that their god(s) ran their country and was ruling over them.  For Israel to have a theocratic form of government was not unique.  


What was unique was the way in which Yahweh, compared to other gods, called them to treat each other with equality, to forgive debts and to free slaves based on a calendar and then to redistribute wealth and land.  Every fiftieth year - everything was reset!  That was the unprecedented aspect of Israel's God who provided them with instructions for a very sophisticated form of "socialism."  


So the question is what would change if God acted in a different context or time - the form of government or the "socialistic" actions taken?  


Either way, Israel was called and designed by God to be a microcosm of the eventual macro-cosmic or global reign of God.  What carries over for us today is the understanding that everything in the earth is the Lord's and that he is a God who cares much more for how we steward what we've been entrusted with rather than how well we own things.  If it's all his and continues to be his, what does that do to ownership when others are in need and it is in our power to give?  But our hearts don't like to give, at least consistently enough to meet the real needs of people all around us?  This broken dynamic requires some sort of regulative body who will help us to not exploit our opportunities for our own gain without considering the consequence it deals out to the "other."  


If we don't do this and lean on ownership, it ends up being an excuse for selfishness, rather than an aspect of how God has entrusted us to steward "his" stuff.  Left to ourselves, we will always take care of ourselves more often than others (with a few great exceptions) and anything we do to redistribute still wrests the power in our hands.  Socialism isn't just about redistribution of resources but also of power.   


So, to finish, it seems that in the O.T. and in the early church (Acts) - God was much more of a fan of a socialistic form of community governance than what we experience in America today.  So, is Jesus a socialist - probably not in the strict sense, but I think it would be safe to argue that he was definitely not a capitalist, in whatever sense we could conjure.  

Africa's biblical canon within the canon | The Christian Century

Africa's biblical canon within the canon | The Christian Century

The Books in the Bible that Luther questioned, didn't like and argued for their removal from the Canon end up being the most important to African Christians and theologians.  What this tells us about the Western tradition of Christianity, is that it may not be enough for the rest of the world.  Helpful, yes.  Necessary, sure. Complete and Primary - Not even close!

There are too many gifts that the world of Christian dialogue and indigenous theology have to offer us.  There are so many more insights waiting to be unearthed in Scripture once other nations and cultures around the globe get a strong handle on it.  Their time is coming and ours has quite possibly peaked, if not already begun its decline.  

Paul Heibert explained it best - Theology is like a blueprint and each tradition, era of history, ethnicity, global location and historical-cultural context has something to offer to illuminate the truths of Scripture.  We are not finished with that history, we have not heard the last word and there are too many other nationalities and cultures who need to sit at the table and speak their piece while we listen.  After doing so, we are to incorporate these gifts into the long tradition of God's revelation that began with Abraham and continues still today.  

I honestly just think it's great that African Christians "especially" esteem the books that Luther almost threw out.  What other gifts do they have for the rest of us to discover? I can't wait.

Why I like Al Mohler

At 7:00 p.m., Central Time, on October 27th, 2011, Al Mohler and Jim Wallis went head to head with this question - Is Social Justice part of the Mission of the Church?

 I have never been more endeared to Al Mohler than I was this night.

 Don't get me wrong - I completely disagree with his position in the argument and by default agree more with Jim Wallis, whom I shared living quarters with in grad school - albeit decades apart. What endeared me to Al last night was his posture. I have had a harder time appreciating him and his opinions in the past - as you can see in one of my discussions I posted almost a year ago to the day.

In this past discussion, Al is describing what a proper Christian, who happens to be part of the Neo-Reformed movement, would actually look like.  In the discussion video I posted, he basically sums up what a young Christian should look like and that there aren't any other options, at least good ones, than what he's laid out.  He of course thinks that being a young Reformed Christian is the best and eventual path that any good Christian would end up on.  I couldn't have disagreed more and was quite honestly very upset with him for saying this - but I was missing something.  Last night, during the debate, I saw it.

Al Mohler is honest, courageous and an engaging man who shares his opinions without pride.  Some might say - oh no - he's very prideful - but I don't know.  Opinionated - Yes, but prideful, I don't think so, at least not anymore.  Who am I to comment on his character you might ask?  Good question - I am someone who cares about how we as followers of Christ who have been changed by Him look to a world watching for us to mess up (which we are going to do regardless) and then clean up without any apologies.  Many are waiting to see when we will embrace pride rather than humility,  narrow-mindedness rather than vulnerability and fear rather than courage. Others are hoping to reverse this list and are waiting for humility, vulnerability and courage.  Al Mohler displayed all of these last night and gave us something to be proud of.  Is it still frustrating to deal with the implications of his position - Yes, but at least it was endearing to deal with implications of his posture.

What Al did last night in the debate with Jim was vulnerable, was honest and humble - he gave his opinion and argued his point without any hidden agenda, without anger, without elitism, etc.  He was honest with his fear and he truly engaged the topic, laying out his case clearly and dealing honestly with any rebuttals.  There is no doubt what Al Mohler thinks about justice and the mission of the church.  And for that we need to applaud him.  This morning, I got choked up thinking about it actually because there are few leaders who will be this honest and straightforward with their agenda and their convictions.  He is not one of them. And though I disagree with him, I was engaged his position and how he argued it throughout the debate, precisely because of his posture.  He did not dismiss, demean or set up straw men.  He just gave a great argument for what he's most convinced of.

What he gave to his listeners last night was more than a position, it was a posture of honesty, critical and real engagement and he wasn't bound to the script, yet not without discernment.  In a day when Powers with positions are building moats around their motives, Al Mohler dropped the drawbridge and invited us in to take a good look at what was behind his walls.

"I applaud you Al Mohler because I trust you and I thank you for really engaging the issue and the learning that the debate offered all of us.  You allowed us to understand exactly where you were coming from and actually laid out a provocative argument that was compelling.  At the end, I still disagree with you, but my plea and implore is that you don't stop engaging, dialoguing and restoring dignity to those whom you disagree with."

I will go on being frustrated with his positions and concerned with what he does with his influence but for his courage, for laying his cards on the table and for not giving up on the discussion, I want you to know that these are exactly the reasons why, I like Al Mohler.

CRISIS IN BURMA from Scott Denton on Vimeo.

95 theses for OWS

So we've all got 95 theses 


but no Wittenburg door.


like Christ lying at the table 


as we watch his feet hit the floor
.

We've all got 95 theses 


but no Wittenburg door.


like lying next to the table

while feet are washed by the poor.


We've all got 95 theses


but no Wittenburg door.


Not convinced we're the ones

to nail a notice, to settle a score.


We've all got 95 theses


but no Wittenburg door.

A New Kind of Submission

What if our submission is actually designed to be in spite of poor leadership. The concept of submission should have a healthy dose of reality - that the need to submit, like the need to be content, comes precisely because the curcumstances make it difficult to do so. 


Over the years of being under different leadership paradigms as well being a leader in different capacities, it has become clear that leaders are as broken and in need of grace (if not more) as anyone else. The brokenness a leader manifests comes through their leadership and how they treat and manage the people and responsibilities they've been entrusted with. Without their responsibility to lead, they still have the same problems, though they may be in latent form.  Leadership just brings out what is already there - insecurity, lust, fear, anger, bitterness, laziness, etc.  George Verwer, my mentor, once said that if you took a picture of a leader at the right (or wrong) time, all of them would be disqualified at some point.  They are going to mess up regardless of what position they are given to lead in. How then do people under their leadership navigate the brokenness of their leader? How do they continue supporting and undergirding their leader while at same time keeping the brokenness of the leader in view? The answer is submission. 


I'd like to "submit" a definition of biblical submission...so here goes,


"Submission is the awareness and acceptance of a leader's brokenness balanced with the decision to entrust oneself to them for the sake of Christ."


That balance requires much of the one submitting.  Submission - true submission - requires as much character as true leadership does.  


Submission is a human dynamic, not a religious one, so here it goes for a more generic understanding of submission,


"Submission is the awareness and acceptance of a leader's brokenness balanced with the decision to entrust oneself to them for the sake of whatever purpose holds them together."


I understand that submission is also necessary to make the ship run.  You need a captain and a 1st and 2nd mate with a deck crew and an engine room to make the ship run smoothly and to avoid all out anarchy.  Our present discussion is dealing with leaders who are called to lead people on more than just a practical level, but also at the level of their heart, their character and to honor the God-given dignity of each person in the process of working towards something together.  


So does it work? I know that for me the choice to submit doesn't even feel like submission when the leader is someone who accepts their own brokenness before you have to and also understands that they lead with a limp, but lead nonetheless.