what i would look like if all you knew was my spam folder

have you ever wondered what people would think about you if all they could see was your spam folder? think about that, if all we had was your spam folder what would we think about you?

ok, granted - i am bored. i am sitting in my fav cafe [la boca, in sacramento], watching soccer, while watching all the interactions of the people - and it got me thinking [right after i dumped over 1,500 emails from just one spam folder from one email account] what would people think of me if they simply read my spam folder? i mean, how would i come across? granted, i do not have much control of what comes via email into spam - but still, what would others think? if, 1,000 years from now, some futures indiana jones finds a copy of my spam folder, what would they write about me? here is what i think "future indy" would write about me:

"the subject sought to save hundreds of dollars on his car insurance, while seeking the best rates to finance and refinance his just purchased foreclosed home in the neighborhood of his dreams. He seemed to have done this while spending two free night in vegas, popping viagra and "natural male enhancement" pills he received via cheap canadian pharmacies, purchased with his free online credit card with a low introductory rate [while seeking to eliminate credit card debt]. It seems he spends his evening with special people he "hooked-up" with via the net, which he connected to using his free "powerful" laptop - all that between colon cleaning and weight loss. it is amazing that he found the time to receive his "cheap" online degrees in criminal justice, physiology and ministry, while striving to retire in three years."

if all people knew about you was what was in your span folder, what would you look like? what if people judged you via your spam folder? well, that seems unfair to ask, because in reality most of us do judge people by their "spam folder" - we judge people on what they look like, their past actions and the "spam" that fills their lives from others - we do it all the time - but, what if you knew what others thought of you - would that change your mind? being defined by our spam folders seems harsh, but so does judging people by what others have to say, or their past actions - hmmm, what does your spam folder say about you?

were do we find common ground?

before i start, i want to explain that i believe Jesus is my Lord and Savior - while i have never had an issue with that, i have to say i am very uncomfortable thinking i need to say that before i go on - and why is that? because i am going to write about "common grounds" between christianity and islam - and i know, if i did not "qualify my words" some would take them out of context - and that is the scary part. there are some who would refuse to dialog, and i pray for them all.

recently i came upon a site called "a common word" where some 250 islamic leaders [originaly 139 signed and more were added] signed an open letter to the christian church seeking dialog between us and them - and that is very cool. they sought to open the dialog with what we hold in common - our belief in one God and our love for others. this excited me because i saw it as a way of being able to stand and talk - to come to the table with two core, common realities and start a dialog of peace - peace between the two major religious groups of the world - because if we are not at peace with each other, the world will never be at peace. but i wonder if it is really possible? not on the islamic end, but on the christain end.

as i read through the site i was impressed with the words of many of our "christian leaders" - but not overly impressed; there was subtance but very little "let's have a cup of coffee and talk" stuff happening. we can do more - how? easy. as local church leaders we can open dialog and friendships with local islamic leaders; we can go and have a cup of coffee - we can start this at a grass roots level, where our voices are not heard on a national stage, but in the hearts of local people, where it counts. while i am encouraged over the voices of the "leaders" i am reminded that for us, Jesus is the head of the church [the true leader] and we are representatives of Jesus on earth - so we, the local church people [pastors and all], should be taking the actions to speak to the hearts and minds of islamic followers in our communities - not to convert, but to have an open, honest and meaningful dialog on what we hold in common -

let's be honest, it is too easy to find the differences, and to be honest i think it is cheap to find them - what costs more, what drives our hearts, should be the desire to find a common ground - a common word - where we can stand and stop the killing in the name of religion - if not, if we are unwilling to take that step we will soon find the world at war, based on the misconceptions we hold about each other and that would be very sad.

changing the world

do we as followers have a faith that can change the world? i often wonder, because if i hear many evangelicals right, our faith is not enough to change us - never mind the world we live in. if, our faith is unable to cause in us a new life, what makes us think we can make a new world? what makes us think we can bring something to the world that will change the direction? if, our faith just "saves us" but does not "change us" what value is it? what value is a faith that does not change our walk, direction or journey?

i was wondering this today as i sit in my favorite coffee shop sucking on my chai latte - what value is a faith that does not change us at a core? if all we can say is "i am saved" but not changed, are we truly saved? it seems to me that we have a great deal more to think about when it comes to the words of Jesus and paul - that when we decide to follow Jesus we are changed, we become a new person - we no longer desire the things we did before - we become "children of God" and in that we seek to live a life of love and forgiveness. we search for ways to unite and not divide; we strive to know others and love them - because we are told we must. if, we are not changed and if we are not seeking out a path of love and forgiveness we can not claim to be followers on a journey of faith where Jesus is the lead.

that may sound harsh, but i am tired of hearing "followers" claiming to love others and yet not wanting to truly love them - people who claim forgiveness, but who do not forgive. i desire to be connected with people who truly desire to live a changed life and seek out the kingdom of God on earth - by loving others and truly forgiving those who have done us wrong - consider it a "christian sanity" where when we strive to be "sane" we know we are to follow the teachings of Christ, even the hard ones.

check out these passages [click here]

bad churches - the liers

the background:
some time at the end of may, beginning of june, i received a email from a bud telling me they heard of a church in the sacramento area that was looking for a pastor - he sent me a email address, but no web link [cornerstone christian church in el dorado hills does not have a website - recently i did find out it was formally "el dorado hills baptist church - in el dorado hills; which i had no idea about at the time i sent my resume] - and a short note saying, "they want to go in a new direction" - well, i am not keen on that [as i will explain later] but he was a friend so i send an email anyway saying:

"i received a email from a friend telling me that you were looking for a pastor, if that is the case i would be interested in sending a resume" -

that was it, the gist of the email - short and sweet; you see, i try not to send a resume just to send a resume - it is kind of a "test." you see, i have found that most churches are not caring enough to send a reply to an email asking for information, and that is the kind of church i have no desire to team with in ministry. i desire to open a dialog and ask questions about the church long before i send a resume. let me be honest, i can be a rather "radical" individual and as a pastor i truly expect those in "overseer" roles to actually do something and be an example of faith ["boards" are stiff and are only useful if they are walked on, or to build boxes with - and in either case i am not comfortable] - so i know i can be a pain in the ass, but i believe to walk in the light of christ requires us to stop talking and start doing, but i digress.

i send that email on june 5th, and as my test proves more times then not i never received a reply back; i figured they just "blew me off" [as most churches will do] - and that is not a big deal, because the more i thought about it the idea of "wanting to go in a new direction" should have caused me to not even think of sending an email - because in "church speak" "wanting to go in a new direction" always means "we got pissed at our old pastor and fired his boney little ass because he would not listen to a thing we told him to do - so, we are looking for a pastor with no balls to come in and do as we demand; keeping in mind that if what we tell him to do does not work we will still blame him for the failure and kick his boney little ass out on the streets with his family - like we did the last pastor." i should have known, but i sent anyway - why? i have no idea.

the "red flag"
the more i think about it, the more i realize the "want to go in a new direction" and the no website thing are two very large "red flags." you see in my world if the church does not have a website it is not in the 21st century - and that speaks volumes to "wanting to go in a new direction." now, at the time i had no idea the church was with the southern baptist church [another red flag], but that seems to be the the "norm" for southern baptist churches in the sacramento area, of all the southern baptist churches in the association less then 30% have a website, and just over 60% have an email address. maybe i was caught at a weak moment and thought, "well a friend said it was ok" - i have no idea, all i know is that it all came back this morning.

i got a reply:
this morning i opened my email and received a email from the "cornerstone christian church" - almost 3 months later - saying this:

"Thank you for your interest in the Lead Pastor position at Cornerstone Christian Church. We received over 130 applicants and, after much deliberation and prayer, we have narrowed our search to five individuals. We regret to inform you that at this time, we are no longer considering your application for this position.

May God guide you as you continue to seek his will and direction."

the lie - and the reaction:
what caused me some "concern" was that i never sent them an application - so what did they give "much deliberation and prayer" over? of the 130, mine was not in the mix - so, what were they praying over with my "application" [the one they did not recieve]? you see, to me, this is a lie - the church lied - it never received an application, so it could have never consider it at any point in time - but that is par for the course.

this little adventure reenfources my feelings twords the church and is just another reason why i do not like organized religion, and why i find most - if not all - churches to be a place of "questionable morals" at best - what i have found oer my years of dealing with churchesmis that, almost all the churches i have emailed and asked for information have either not answered my email at all, or if they did answer my email they simply referred me to their website for answers - and they never answer any questions i have had - why?

cornerstone christian church lied - now, i am sure that may seem harsh for some to here - and i am sure others will put it back on me saying things like "well, we all lie" - but i expect much more from a church - think about that for a sec, if the church lies about something how can i believe what they say about anything? if they lie about receiving a resume [which may seem small] how do i know they are not lying to me when they say they will love and care for me and my family? when does a church, or christian, cross the line between "little white lie" and "big bold black lie?" at what point does the church say, "it is ok for us [the church] to lie, but it is not ok for others to lie?" if i were to lie in the church would i be asked to leave? why should we view what they do as a "mistake" and what others do as a "lie?"

cornerstone christian church does not care - hard to grasp? but that is exactly what it tells me by not responding to my email for almost three months, and then replying with a message that does not apply to me at all - think about that - the church, as i have experienced it, treats people applying for a position with less dignity and honor then corporate america - i have been treated much better when i apply for a non-church position then when i apply for a church position - my questions are answered and my calls are returned.

solution:
churches need to be above what the world expects - they need to care, be honest and gracious in replying to emails - they need to be above what others expect from corporate america, and they need to show that people come before anything else - churches need to get rid of the corporate mentality and start to treat people with honor and dignity - they need to go beyond lip service and truly express the desires of christ - because the words of christ guides us, not the laws of man - hard to grasp? maybe, but until it changes, many people like me will not step foot into a church because we are tired of being hurt, insulted, belittled and thought of as something less then a child of God

critics of the emerging/evolving

i am always amazed at the critics of the emerging/evolving conversation. not because they seem to miss the boat on so many points, but because they desire to talk more to themselves and less to us. they would rather "talk about us, then talk to us." while they claim to have a "deep care" for us, i am not sure i am "feeling the love" they claim to be sending our way. it seems that they desire to do is make fun of us and twist our words to find fault in what they think we say. over years i have known many, myself, spencer burke, doug pagitt, tony jones and many more who have posted [or tried to post] on blogs with a deep "anti-emerging/evolving bias." most of the times our posts are ignored, and in the case of some they are filtered out and never posted at all. they claim they would love open dialog with us, but whenever anyone in the emerging/evolving extends a hand in friendship we get it slapped, as if we were trying to take a cookie without permission. their desire to speak about us, but never with us, is getting very old. they believe they are right, but they are unwilling to hear our side of reality, and in that they ignore what we hold dear, and open conversation. our critics are quick to join our forums, our gatherings, our boards and our communities to "help fix us." but we are not interested in such actions, we desire conversation and they desire confrontation, which makes us wonder where their hearts are in all this.

here are some of the misguided things i believe many who desire to be our critics say about us. keep in mind, many who want to be critical to us do so not knowing about us. they may have read something about us by another and think they know all there is to know about the emerging/evolving conversation.

you claim we have a highly questionable and ambiguous handling of truth: yes and no [a completely ambiguous answer, for sure] but i am not 100% certain i agree with their point because i think definitions are in order. you see, i need to know what they mean by "questionable," "truth," and "ambiguous" to truly get a grip on what they mean. but when we ask for the definitions they say, "see, you just do not want to discuss the facts" - well, we need to know "the facts." define what you mean by "truth" - a baptist truth? a methodist truth? a catholic truth? whose truth? what truth? define truth? when jesus says "i am the truth, the way and the light" the word "truth" that jesus uses is "aletheia" is that the "truth" you speak of? cool, because that idea of "truth"contains a large amount of subjective reality to what it means as "truth" - if the word was "asphaleia" i would have to say that there would be more of an "objective" truth to what jesus was saying - because "aletheia" means "exact truth." which still implies a small subjective part, not a large subjective part. so, we are not very ambiguous about truth, we just want to know what you mean when you say "truth" - because what we have found in the past is that what most mean by "truth" is actually that we must believe what you believe. truth us determined by what you believe, and hold as "truth."

for many, we think in terms of what is real and not in terms of what is "truth." all our lives we are told that there is a "truth" and yet those same people who share that there is a "truth" lie and twist that "truth" to meet their own agenda. all our heroes have fallen, and all of them have "lied" and claimed it to be "truth." so, when we are told "this is true" we think in terms of "this is true for you." we seek to know what is real, and for many of us jesus is very real. for me, jesus is as real as it gets. i seek to walk in that reality, and express my faith in terms of what i find real about jesus. to simply claim jesus as "truth" takes away from me my feelings and expression of christ in my reality.

you claim we have a quasi-universalistic view of salvation: i love the way spencer burke puts in his book "heretic's guide" [a must read] about "opting out." the idea is, that everyone is born into a relationship with God and at some point we "opt out" instead of "opting in." the idea, as i see it, comes into reality when people select to walk away from who God is and seek another path. but the reality [us seeking what is real] is most people of faith feel this exact way. for example, if you ask any person in the church if a baby dies does it go to hell? the answer is "NO." for some reason babies are give a "get out of hell free card" in the game. to "fix" the theological hole they created in their "opt in" game many add that the idea of salvation for a child is based on the "age of consent" - and the funny thing is that "the age of consent" is not a biblical reality. there is no "age of consent" in scripture. it is a made up doctrine based on a human desire to create a "opt in" faith. it is a biblical reality.

you claim we think that "salvation by osmosis" is the way to go, and that we have little or no conversation about "evangelism" or "saving lost souls:" funny, one of the things we in the emerging find interesting about the evangelical movement is that they have raised and spent billions of dollars [that's "billion" with a "b"] for evangelism over the past fifteen years and the evangelical church has declined in members of over 50% during that same time frame. given that, i am wondering why they are thinking we are the ones not sharing the message of christ? they mistake our desire to make honest and real friendships with new people as something "evil" and "wrong." you see, we desire to get to know a person and to honestly seek to be their friend before we go in to share our faith. the reality is, if you want to know me to "get me in your church" then you are not interested in me, you are interested in your church, or your "numbers." there is a big difference between getting to know someone for who God made them to be, and demanding that they become something others want them to be. know me, be real with me, show me your life, touch my hurts, kiss my wounds, bandage my cuts, hold my hand when i hurt, rest my head on your should when i cry, let me get sick in your car. when you do all that, you can share with me who christ is in your life, what makes him real to you - until then, you do not know me and all you desire is a notch on your bible.

when you speak in terms of how it is your call to "save the lost" keep in mind, you have nothing to do with the salvation story, jesus did it all. your claim that "you must save the lost" is not based on scripture; at best all we can do is tell people why jesus is real to us, the holy spirit does the rest. we believe we are called to share our faith. but, i do not believe i or anyone can "save a lost soul" - that is up to God and to even think we have any part in that seems a bit over the top for my tastes.

you claim we place personal experience [revelations] over an appreciation for biblical authority: whose "authority?" who gets to claim what is and is not "authority" in the scriptures? my personal experience [reality] with people claiming to want me to "walk in biblical authority" has always pointed to them wanting to be that "authority." when people claim "authority" i always ask who gave them that authority - and 99% of the time they tell me "scripture" or "God." if and when i submit to a denomination, i will submit to their authority, not because the will demand it of me but because i will willingly see them as my authority.

the problem with the idea of "authority" is also found in the fact that when i read scripture i am not allowed to question the interpretations of those who determined what the meaning of that scripture is - according to most [if not all] in the evangelical movement, all scripture is defined and has existing meaning. but when i read something, i must read it in light of my life, in the light of how the spirit is guiding me, and if i question it i am called back and told to "accept the authority" or others. but that is not authority, that is control. many in the emerging/evolving conversation seek to have "authority" in relationships with each other. i remember talking with a baptist pastor who told me that "you do not get to pick who has authority over you." and i wondered, does that mean the baptist church is not willing to accept the authority of the pope in rome? does that mean a baptist pastor needs to recognize the "authority" of the presiding bishop of the episcopal church?

you claim we openly question "key" historical doctrines of the church, such as the trinity, sin, salvation and more: ok, you got us on that one; this i agree with that, we do. sometimes we come to the same conclusions and sometimes we do not. we question; we question everything. i have never denied that we question everything. but, if the doctrine is "real" then our questioning it, and wondering how it came to be should never bring fear to the eyes of others. if it is real, it will uphold and stand anything we can say or do. it is when we are told we can not question something, we get the desire to question it even deeper.

you claim we read scripture with a "prejudicial" eye on a social gospel: ok, you got us again, and what is the problem with such a view? could it be that it seems "unamerican" more then it seems "unchristian?" here is something to think about, so did jesus. when you say we have a "social gospel" do you think you are insulting us? do you think we will run in the other direction and cry, "oh, no" - not even close. if you ask, "do you care about the way people treat other?" we will answer with a "collective" [as "collective as the emerging/evolving conversation will allow] "YES." if you ask, "do we care about how people treat the planet we live on?" there again we will add a "collective" "YES" to the question. is it a "socialist" and "bad" thing to love others? to forgive others? to welcome others? to share food with others? to want justice? to place people over profit? why are those wrong? our understanding of our walk with christ means we care for those in need and we speak out against injustice. i would rather view scripture with an eye to the social gospel, then look to scripture with an eye to a capitalist gospel. you see, in my view jesus was neither a democrat nor a republican, jesus was a radical social mover who desire to transform the world, one person at a time.

you claim we have an unbridled cynicism towards conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalism: yea, we do - but then again we are rather cynical about everything. you see, i would think that the way i see scripture is very fundamental - not, i will admit that my view is not a "fundamentalist" view. you see, i am certain many in the emerging/evolving conversation would see their views as very basic, very fundamental to the core of christianity. many in the conversation call themselves "post-evangelicals" but i do not call myself that, because i have never been "evangelical" so i can never be "post" what i never was. i would say that those who have had a "unbridled" view of conservative evangelicalism come from that background and see the silliness such a view can bring about in a church, the control, the hurt and the pain.

closing:
maybe it is the way i view the world. maybe it is the way i read scripture. maybe it is the way i see people. maybe it is the way i undersatand my faith journey. maybe it is the way i was raised. what ever it was, what ever it is, i am certian that many in the mainline evangelical church would disagree with a great much of what i have to say. i am ok with that. but i think that many in the church would listen to me, and then say they understood what i had to share. you see, traditional christianity, evangelical christianity, fundamental christianity, "old line" christianity just do not address the issues facing us in the 21C. for that, for us to address the issues facing us today we need to look at scripture with new eyes, a new view a fresh idea towards what God is telling us in the greatest book ever put together by a collection of people.