Why Tapestry Setups the Way We Setup – Part #2 The Chairs

Yesterday I started a short series of posts concerning how Tapestry sets up for our Sunday morning worship gatherings. The post yesterday was about the coffee & snack table, something that probably seems an afterthought, but I believe is integral to who we are trying to be. Today I will write concerning the way we set up our chairs.

Rublev’s “Icon of the Trinity”

Let’s use the model of Rublev’s Icon of the Trinity again. Just in case you have forgotten from yesterday what the icon looks like I’ve posted it to the right. Rublev painted the Trinity as the Three being One in a conversation around a table. The Trinity is nigh impossible to describe because it is the mystery of our faith. God is a relationship in and of Himself. He is One in union of Three. I can’t give you a perfect example because this paradox of faith is outside of creation as the Creator is outside of creation. In yesterday’s post I described the desire to setup our worship gatherings similar to this icon (i.e. a divine conversation of love). The way we set up our chairs should reflect that divine conversation.

The hope is for our gathering to be a conversation in our singing, our prayer, and our message. This conversation is why we don’t use the gym stage. I’m not personally opposed to stages if they help the conversation, which they can  do sometimes. If somehow a stage helps the leaders to be more a part of the group, more easily seen or heard in leading, that’s a great thing. It is just that usually stages do the exact opposite, they separate the ones leading from the ones being led. In such cases the stage says “these are the important people.” So Tapestry skips the stage and when I am speaking at other places I try to skip the stage in those places too. Thus we are on the floor in the midst of a slightly widened “C”.

The chairs need to kind of start to engulf whoever is leading us at the moment. My personal hope is that this partial engulfing will help to counteract the fact that we need a few voices to be amplified during the gathering. The microphones are  necessary evil. They help whoever is leading our music (Eric, Heidi, Sarah, Elizabeth, or others) to better lead us. They help me or whoever else is speaking to be better heard in our gym (I have a tendency to kick into a conspiratorial whisper every now and then). Unfortunately they also have the effect of making it seem as though a few voices are the only ones that matter.  Like stages microphones can send then message that “this is the person whose voice matters”. When that is the case it isn’t a conversation but a monologue. So we try to make sure the mic’d people are in the midst of everyone else. They are leading us, not separate from us.

If I had my druthers, we would set up each week’s gathering in the round. What this means is that our chairs would literally setup in a circle where we are facing each other. We would sing with everyone facing each other. I would speak with all of us facing each other. We would pray with all of us facing each other. The times we have done setup in the round it is basically like we are sitting at a round table. The reason that we don’t do this is because, while I love it, being in the round pretty much freaked out most everyone else. I was such a fan of it till a few threads pointed out that if it freaked them out, people who already loved Tapestry, just imagine what it did to someone who was walking in for the very first time. It was also pointed out that the only seats that we typically open when we setup in the round were the front seats and that was not cool for a guest. We try to have the back row free for guests (I just realized that I need to stress this again because it has been awhile since the last time I emphasized this). Hopefully one day I will convince everyone that in the round is the best for the conversation and thus it is super cool.

Tomorrow I will end this short series of posts.

 

Immigration 101

I’m posting Pam‘s and my friend Scott Hick’s Facebook post regarding immigration history and some of the racist thought that has often guided these acts here on my blog primarily so I will know where it is for later. I would recommend reading it, liking it, and sharing it over on his Facebook page.

Here are Scott’s words:

Immigration History 101

Many Americans believe in an immigration mythology that you can simply get on a boat or plane and come to America. They think that immigration even today is like Fievel in An American Tail.

I recently talked to a magistrate, which means she has a law degree and is highly educated, and she was dumbfounded to learn that you can’t just get on a plane and come. Her question, “Are you telling me that say, a professional in Finland can’t just decide he wants to come to America and get on a plane and do that?” The answer under our immigration laws is an emphatic NO. So what is our history?

Until the 1880s there were no Federal laws restricting immigration. You really could just get on a boat and go to America.

But in 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act. This law was explicitly based on racism and was designed to stop any new immigration from China.

In 1907, the U.S. had what has been called the Gentleman’s Agreement with Japan which essentially was an agreement by Japan to end immigration to the U.S.

As racism became more and more entrenched in our laws (i.e. Jim Crow), it fed into distrust and hostility to immigrants as well.

In 1924 (which was also one of the high points of KKK activity in the U.S.), the nativists achieved their crowning victory. Congress passed the 1924 Immigration Act. (This followed on the heels of the 1921 Emergency Quota Act) This Act strictly limited immigration. And, it did so on racist grounds. It accomplished its goal by establishing a strict quota, and limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States as of the 1890 census. In so doing, the Congress was deliberately trying to exclude people they viewed as undesirable. The law was squarely aimed at making immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe excluded. This hit especially hard at Italians, Slavs and Eastern European Jews. In addition, it severely restricted the immigration of Africans and completely banned the immigration of Arabs and Asians.

According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian the purpose of the act was “to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity”.

These quotas survived until the Immigration Act of 1965. This act did away with some of the worst racist features and instead established a system based on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States. However, the system set in place then, which continues to now, still had an annual quota for much of family reunification. (And, the per country limits still apply within these categories, which is why there are extensive waiting lists to legally come even when you have an eligible sponsor) And, by that time, 40 years had passed with no immigration from much of the world. By definition then, there was no one already here from much of the world who could file for family to come and be reunified.

This is why the Diversity Visa Lottery was created. The idea was to allow people to come from countries who traditionally had low numbers of immigrants. So each year, 50,000 of the most educated people in these countries, (a high school degree or equivalent is required, which in much of the world the vast majority of the population could never dream of obtaining that much education) are allowed the chance to file an application to be considered to come.

The current administration wants to abolish much of the 1965 Act on family reunification and also wants to abolish the Diversity Visa. It tells us that this will Make America Great Again.

(I am a lawyer who has focused his practice on immigration law since 1995.)

Why Tapestry Setups the Way We Setup – Part #1 The Coffee & Snack Table

I get the privilege of being a part of one of Marc Martin’s C12 (a business peer and coaching group from a Christian perspective) meetings each month. It is always enjoyable. Sometimes the business specific information he covers relates very well to the pastoring and chaplaining I get the privilege to do and sometimes I just get the chance to take the topic and think of other things (sorry Marc but there wasn’t much I could do with the section a few months ago concerning cyber-security – I don’t have anything to do with CCAs cyber-security and I simply used “password1234” for everything related to the Tapestry 😁)

Today we talked briefly about the struggle to delegate and I confessed how much trouble I have delegating things within Tapestry.  Specifically, that I don’t really have a problem asking someone to do something but then I struggle with them not doing it the way that I think it is important. I am basically the “jack of all trades and master of none” when it comes to setup for our Sunday morning worship gatherings. There isn’t much involved in setup that I am not at least proficient in (other than making the cover – for some reason I really stink at making the coffee). This works well in that I can fill in where every it is needed. It also leads to me being seriously tempted to take over when I see something not setup in a way that I believe reflects the purpose we are aiming for as a church that follows Christ.

Rublev’s “Icon of the Trinity” hangs beside the desk in my study where I write the messages for Tapestry, along with an image of C.S. Lewis’s wardrobe, a hatchet from my dad, and an autographed football form Bart Starr. 

Therefore, I want to write out some of the “why” of our setup for our Sunday morning gatherings. We have a purposeful idea of why we do the things we do and that should be, and ideally is, reflected in the setup of our Sunday morning worship gatherings. I have discussed before (here) why the church is named Tapestry. The short version of that post is that we best bear the image of God (Imago Dei) when we are “woven” into each others’ lives, like a tapestry whose image is created by its threads being woven together. I believe God’s nature as Trinity is the best example of this type of union. I love Andrei Rublev‘s Icon of Trinity for its image of this interwoveness (I may have created a word here). That icon displays God as Trinity as the Three seated at table in conversation.  That is what I believe Tapestry’s Sunday morning worship gatherings should look and feel like – an inviting conversation of people who love each other deeply and are ready to welcome others to that love.

Let’s begin with a drawing of what they looks like in our gym setup.

Now for me to explain what and why that drawing is the way it is. This is going to be long winded so I will do it in several posts.

First, I’ll talk about the most important part of the whole room, the coffee and snack table. I’m really not joking there. Yes our singing is important, yep the message is important (and hopefully I do I decent job of), sure our information table is important, but I personally believe that the coffee and snack table is the place in the room where we make it or break it on displaying a love for each other that comes from God and welcoming others into that love (unless, of course, if you consider setup and tear down – which are my favorite parts of our gatherings). This is where “threads” gather and talk with each other and also do the best job of bringing others into that conversation.  I love that I have a hard time each week getting people away from the table to “start” our gatherings, or at least start the “formal” part of our gatherings. This table isn’t merely about socializing. At its best it is deep interwoveness (I am going to continue using this word because I like it). It is a reflection of the Trinity. It is the followers of Christ letting others know that they are Jesus’s disciples by their love for one another (John 13:35) and welcoming others into that love also. I believe it also hints at the Agape Feasts that were so much a part of the early church, which were basically a weekly potluck that had communion as a part of them.

The importance of this table is why I have thought seriously about its placement. The table used to be where the sound table is now, which is by the entrance to the gym/ The problem was that the crowd that gathered around the table, to enjoy each other’s company, formed a barrier right by the entry and made it rather intimidating for guests to enter the room. Imagine having to walk through a crowd of strangers to enter the room. So we moved the coffee and snack table across the room so that our guests can enter the room easily. Soon after entering some “thread” will see them, start talking with them, and slowly but surely some way or another end up at the coffee & snack table. This is why we keep plenty of open room around the coffee and snack table.

My personal goal for every guest that enters the Washington School gym on a Sunday morning is for them to have 3 significant interactions with someone who is a part of Tapestry (one with me, one with a member of the Leadership Team, and one with another random thread). I see it happen pretty much every time a guest enters the gym. They walk in past the sound table, where I often am and I start a conversation with them. Then a member of the Leadership Team does the same thing. Finally, a random thread comes over and invites them to the coffee and snack table. Bam! “Hey come grab some coffee, a snack, and jump into the conversation.” 

This table is the beginning of the welcoming conversation and it is why the coffee that is made and the snacks that volunteers make each week are so important. When you make these snacks I encourage your to pray over them because God uses the work of your hands (or your purchases if you are running late) to invite our church to live out His image that we bear together as we are woven into each others’ lives. Our snack volunteers are on the front line of us bearing the image of the God described in Rublev’s Icon of the Trinity.

Tomorrow (or the next day), I’ll write about why we setup the chairs the way we do. For now I will leave you with the sound of our “haunted” percolator that sits on the coffee and snack table.

SIDE NOTE – Thanks for making me think about putting this in writing Marc.

Everyday Gnosticism

I was perusing one of a  Christian writer’s books recently when I read this statement:

God created us to be spirit beings temporarily inhabiting a human body.

I seriously try not to be overly picky about words and give people the benefit of the doubt when they are trying to communicate. Therefore, I’m not going to name the author or the book because I respect much of what he has done and said. Just not the above sentence.

Apparently Gnostic jesus looks something like this.

I want to be generous in communication, but this is a sentence and thought that I believe needs to be called out for what it is. And what it is is unChristian. Specifically it is Gnostic thought, one of the first, and still most continually dangerous, heresies that the church faced.

There is a lot to Gnostic thought but I will briefly summarize it with this statement: Spirit = good, matter = evil. There is much more to it than that, but you can usually use the spirit=good, matter=evil as a good rule of thumb for understanding Gnostic thought. Gnostic thought teaches that the goal is to free the divine spark/spiritual from the material emanation. Your goal is to escape the physical. It influences how you act and what you value.

Christian thought, on the other hand,  is that God created the world and all that is in it as “very good“, and yes it and we have fallen, but Jesus has done all that is necessary for it and our redemption, and we are looking forward to the finalization of that redemption.  Thus the Christian goal is to be a part of the redemption of God’s fallen creation.

Gnosticism was considered incredibly dangerous to true Christian faith by the early church (i.e. why it was labeled heresy) because the church knew Gnosticism would lead to a non-incarnate Christ and therefore a faith that was divorced from the real life around it. That is why it still matters that Christians today understand the difference. Knowing and understanding the difference shapes how we respond to life and the world.

An excellent book on modern Gnosticism in Protestantism.

Gnosticism leads to a faith that is merely spiritual and doesn’t affect this world because it is trying to escape this world. Christian faith is an incarnate faith (an en-fleshed faith) that is involved in the world as a part of God’s redemption. The Gnostic Jesus, from what are known as the Gnostic gospels, just talked about spiritual things that would lead to one escaping from the world. Gnostic Jesus makes you feel very spiritual but he doesn’t change anything. There is no need to change anything when you follow Gnostic Jesus because your only goal is to escape.

The REAL Jesus talked about the spiritual and physical in the same breath. He is God incarnate so how could He do otherwise? He preached a kingdom that fed and healed people.

The resurrected Jesus didn’t, and still doesn’t, preach a gospel of bodiless spirituality. Unfortunately many times evangelical Christianity does. Just look and listen and you will see a bunch of bodiless spirituality preached in the name of Christ. The horrible thing is that such teaching leads to a faith that has no impact on this world because it is just trying to escape this world. The message of the incarnate Jesus doesn’t. The incarnate Jesus doesn’t cause us to fly away, but instead He resurrects us to a transformed, redeemed, new heaven and new earth where the new Jerusalem comes down (Revelation 21).

We are not “spirit beings temporarily inhabiting a human body”, we are creatures who bear the Imago Dei who need to be redeemed and resurrected.

Clark Stinks

One of the things that I really appreciate about Clark Howard is how adamant he is about confronting his own errors. He encourages those he works with and those who listen to him to correct him when he is wrong. As a method of doing this he setup a message board with the wonderful url clarkstinks.com for people to discuss when they believe that he has given bad advice. Each week his staff picks some of their favorite “clark stinks” moments and Clark discusses them on his radio show/podcast. This is literally a weekly segment of his show. I love that he is this open to other people’s criticism, rightly or wrongly, to acknowledging when he gives bad advice, or makes a mistake.

I trust Clark Howard much more, rather than less, because of the fact that corrections are regularly a part of his show. Unfortunately for many the exact opposite reaction is the first and only thing that comes to mind. Instead of admitting their failures, mistakes, or mere ignorance they often “puff up” and deny the truth. Even worse sometimes they even blame the one who pointed out the error. Everyone gets things wrong. The people I trust the most admit this fact and don’t hide from their mistakes. Clark Howard is one such person. He is a great example of how to get better by recognizing when you get something wrong.

Topless Sunday?

Every now and then Marc M brings his grandkids to Tapestry and usually asks me if the sermon is going to be G, PG, or PG-13 before bringing them. Reading “The Gospel of Luke” by Joel Green concerning our passage for Sunday, Luke 7:36-50. In describing the actions of the woman Green wrote the following:

Within her cultural context—especially with women readily viewed as temptresses and/or sex objects, and all the more given her apparent reputation as a prostitute—her actions on the whole would have been regarded (at least by men) as erotic. Letting her hair down in this setting would have been on a par with appearing topless in public, for example.

Just making sure here but I assume that it would not be appropriate for me to preach topless Sunday?

#FreeTheNipple #IKnowThatsNotWhatThatHashtagIsAbout #StillItMakesMeLaugh #IAmSoWhiteIWouldBlindPeople

#MarcYouMightNotWantToBringYourGrandkidsSunday 🙂

Stotting

Every so often on my blog I bring up signalling theory. I’ve mentioned it here, here, and a few other times. I am sure that Pam, Adam, and Noah would tell you that I bring up signalling theory as a part of around one third of all my conversations. There may be some truth to this. I am fascinated by the idea of so many of our actions and choices (from what we wear, to what or if we drive, to who we vote for) merely being a means of signalling that we are part of one group or not a part of another group. I am a free will kind of guy, but that doesn’t mean that I believe that the majority of our choices are actually volitional.

Today I listened to a podcast that talked about stotting within the animal kingdom, specifically with gazelles on African savannas. Stotting involves the animal springing high into the air, typically with all four legs in a “relatively stiff position and the back may be arched with the head pointing downward”. There are quit a few possible reasons for this behavior, one of which is what is called an “honest signal“. Honest signals “are traits, including structures and behaviours, that have evolved specifically because they change the behaviour of receivers in ways that benefit the signaller.” In this case, jumping very high says to any predators around that the animal is in good health and will not be an easy target. That is why it is worth it to the prey animal to waste precious time and energy randomly jumping high into the air, in hopes of convincing predators they it isn’t worth their effort to try to capture them.

Years ago Christianity Today came up with this wonderful Beards of Ministry chart.

Of course, we aren’t prey animals on an African savanna. We aren’t trying to signal predators that we will be able to outrun them. Therefore, I believe we need to consider the choices we make and why we are making them. Very often we are extending our limited resources to signal that we are part of one group or not a part of another group, for reasons that aren’t very good. Do I have Apple products because I actually like and/or need Apple products or is it just a way of signaling that I can afford them, even when I can’t? Do I use android products because I prefer them or is it just to signal that I am not one of those Apple people? Did I grow a beard because I wanted to or did I want to grow a beard because I like to think of myself as a neo-reformed evangelicals and beards are an identifying characteristics of neo-reformed evangelicals. Do I home-school my kids because it is best for my particular kids or am I doing this because homeschooling signals the social group to which I belong or signals that I am a “good Christian”? Do I read in coffee shops because I enjoy doing so or do I enjoy doing so because I want to be seen as someone who reads in coffee shops? Why did I buy a vehicle designed for extreme off-road activity when I will never take it off-road for fear that its paint will mess up?

Stotting and signalling are fine and effective for gazelles worried about predators. It can be a very useful expenditure of resources. Unfortunately, for us such expenditures often just put us in holes of our own making and separate us from other people who also bear the image of our Creator.