I have been battling a nasty cold the last few days. Yesterday as I lay around the house trying to recover I decided to have some chicken and rice soup for lunch. It would be light, add to my needed fluids, and be comforting in a way that only hot soup can be. It also reminded me of The Chicken Soup Rule.
The Chicken Soup Rule goes like this: Can't Hurt, Might Help, Why Not? You always say it in your best imitation Yiddish accent, of course, trying to sound like the matchmaker in Fiddler on the Roof. I'm not sure, but that movie may be where I first came across the rule itself.
It is a good rule because it has so many applications. You can apply it not only to having soup when you have a cold, but to reminding your children to put on a jacket, or mittens, or comb their hair, or any number of things.
So I had the chicken soup yesterday and today I feel quite a lot better. Cause and Effect? I doubt it, but then again, who knows?
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
The Consumerist Bible
I mentioned recently how consumerism has become ingrained in our lives and our churches and shows itself in the way we view the primary job of our pastors. This consumerist mentality certainly shows itself in the ever-expanding numbers and types of Bibles , offering something to suit everyone including the heretics.
Recently joining the list is The Green Bible. It wonderfully has the passages that seem related to the environment printed in green. Isn't that just precious. So, I did a quick google search on specialty bibles and found quite an abundance. There is a bible for just about all sportsmen (the fisherman's bible, the hunter's bible, the golfer's bible, etc); there are study bibles from any number of tv preachers; there are occupational bibles (the soldier's bible, the fireman's bible, the policeman's bible, the nurse's bible, etc); men's bibles, women's bibles, children's bibles, teen's bibles. On and on it goes. Some of the more ludicrous include the Princess Bible, so your little princess can feel special; one called Da Jesus Book; Hawaiian Pidgin New Testament looks intriguing but somehow I can't take it seriously; we mustn't overlook The Black Bible Chronicles which instead of opening with 'In the beginning....' opens with 'Now when the Almighty was first down with His program...the earth was a fashion misfit, being so uncool and dark...'. So this is what The Living Bible has led to? The old folks warned me about that; after all, if the King James was good enough for the apostle Paul it should be good enough for me.
So I started to wonder if the heretics had gotten into the act and I typed 'gay and lesbian bible' into the google search box, and sure enough there is one. Why am I not surprised? If there is a market for it, someone will sell it. Thomas Jefferson set the example 200 years ago with his own bible, deleting all of Christ's teaching about atonement and salvation, leaving just the moral teaching. If the real Christ doesn't suit you, just find one you can like.
Many of the specialty bibles seem harmless enough, like putting a camoflage cover on the bible for hunters, adding some notes from a bible teacher in the margins and such as that. Others are total heresy, like the gay/lesbian bible. Many are driven by our never ending consumerism, like the Princess Bible. I have to wonder how all of this builds the church. While I agree with our church in its mission statement that we accepting changing methodology but an unchanging message, there is too much of the consumerism message in much of this 'changing method' for my, taste even in most of the seemingly harmless ones. As for the heretics, well, 'these you have with you always' if I may borrow a phrase.
Recently joining the list is The Green Bible. It wonderfully has the passages that seem related to the environment printed in green. Isn't that just precious. So, I did a quick google search on specialty bibles and found quite an abundance. There is a bible for just about all sportsmen (the fisherman's bible, the hunter's bible, the golfer's bible, etc); there are study bibles from any number of tv preachers; there are occupational bibles (the soldier's bible, the fireman's bible, the policeman's bible, the nurse's bible, etc); men's bibles, women's bibles, children's bibles, teen's bibles. On and on it goes. Some of the more ludicrous include the Princess Bible, so your little princess can feel special; one called Da Jesus Book; Hawaiian Pidgin New Testament looks intriguing but somehow I can't take it seriously; we mustn't overlook The Black Bible Chronicles which instead of opening with 'In the beginning....' opens with 'Now when the Almighty was first down with His program...the earth was a fashion misfit, being so uncool and dark...'. So this is what The Living Bible has led to? The old folks warned me about that; after all, if the King James was good enough for the apostle Paul it should be good enough for me.
So I started to wonder if the heretics had gotten into the act and I typed 'gay and lesbian bible' into the google search box, and sure enough there is one. Why am I not surprised? If there is a market for it, someone will sell it. Thomas Jefferson set the example 200 years ago with his own bible, deleting all of Christ's teaching about atonement and salvation, leaving just the moral teaching. If the real Christ doesn't suit you, just find one you can like.
Many of the specialty bibles seem harmless enough, like putting a camoflage cover on the bible for hunters, adding some notes from a bible teacher in the margins and such as that. Others are total heresy, like the gay/lesbian bible. Many are driven by our never ending consumerism, like the Princess Bible. I have to wonder how all of this builds the church. While I agree with our church in its mission statement that we accepting changing methodology but an unchanging message, there is too much of the consumerism message in much of this 'changing method' for my, taste even in most of the seemingly harmless ones. As for the heretics, well, 'these you have with you always' if I may borrow a phrase.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Churches, like companies, cannot disrupt themselves
The current issue of Newsweek magazine includes an article about how GM was unable to allow Saturn to live up to its initial vision of being a totally separate and different kind of car company. This is a terrific case study that illustrates the point made in Christensen's book The Innovator's Solution that companies cannot change in a disruptive manner within existing businesses. The company culture will always treat a disruptive change like a virus and the corporate immune system will attack it. This can only be overcome by setting up a completely separate entity with separate funding, separate management, etc. Saturn had to compete within GM for product development resources, human resources, etc, so the GM immune system attacked it, as did the UAW union immune system. It was doomed from the start by not being a totally separate entity from GM.
This strikes me as similar to what goes on in churches when an existing church tries to make a disruptive change, like moving from a traditional worship approach to contemporary (or vice versa). Unless it does not compete for resources, does not force people to change their style, does not create competition against what was already there, it will be attacked by the immune system. Churches, like companies, cannot disrupt themselves. They can only launch separate entities without creating a cultural crisis.
Should this be? What does this say about the possibility for revival? I think that it is just human nature, and that we should be prepared to launch separate entities or at least separate services for large changes. One of the reasons that America has remained much more religious than Europe is that by not having a state church there have been few barriers to creating new churches or denominations in order to carry out big changes. The Catholic Church is equally (some would say even more so ) unable to disrupt itself and where it is the state church there is no option for disruptive change. So it has just died. But is change necessary in the Church? Isn't the church supposed to be timeless? As our church repeats often, the message is timeless, the methods changable. Nonetheless, human nature doesn't change and disruptive changes in church will continue to be hard to swallow.
For that reason I think it is wrong for a new pastor to come to a church and try to force disruptive changes on a local congregation. If he feels that strongly about a particular approach then he should be prepared to launch a new congregation, not nearly destroy an existing one. To accept the call to a church and then try to disrupt it is not really honest. However, the flip side is that those who refuse to change must be prepared for their congregation to slowly die. In most cases it should be possible to launch new approaches in completely separate services without creating a crisis. It is more work, but it certainly can be done.
The Church is not free from the problems of human nature, but it should be led by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit can revive in either contemporary or traditional settings if we allow it. But new congregations will be needed at times.
This strikes me as similar to what goes on in churches when an existing church tries to make a disruptive change, like moving from a traditional worship approach to contemporary (or vice versa). Unless it does not compete for resources, does not force people to change their style, does not create competition against what was already there, it will be attacked by the immune system. Churches, like companies, cannot disrupt themselves. They can only launch separate entities without creating a cultural crisis.
Should this be? What does this say about the possibility for revival? I think that it is just human nature, and that we should be prepared to launch separate entities or at least separate services for large changes. One of the reasons that America has remained much more religious than Europe is that by not having a state church there have been few barriers to creating new churches or denominations in order to carry out big changes. The Catholic Church is equally (some would say even more so ) unable to disrupt itself and where it is the state church there is no option for disruptive change. So it has just died. But is change necessary in the Church? Isn't the church supposed to be timeless? As our church repeats often, the message is timeless, the methods changable. Nonetheless, human nature doesn't change and disruptive changes in church will continue to be hard to swallow.
For that reason I think it is wrong for a new pastor to come to a church and try to force disruptive changes on a local congregation. If he feels that strongly about a particular approach then he should be prepared to launch a new congregation, not nearly destroy an existing one. To accept the call to a church and then try to disrupt it is not really honest. However, the flip side is that those who refuse to change must be prepared for their congregation to slowly die. In most cases it should be possible to launch new approaches in completely separate services without creating a crisis. It is more work, but it certainly can be done.
The Church is not free from the problems of human nature, but it should be led by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit can revive in either contemporary or traditional settings if we allow it. But new congregations will be needed at times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)