:The Tangible Kingdom:

So I wanted to share a bit of a review that I wrote on a book a little bit back. We read this book as a church a couple years ago, and then I had to read it again more recently for a class I'm taking. It's a great book--I highly recommend reading it and engaging with the things the authors speak about. I would be curious to see/hear thoughts from others on this book, too!

The book's called "The Tangible Kingdom", and it's written by Hugh Halter and Mat Smay. You can check it out here, and the cover looks something like this:

At any rate, here are my quick, nutshell-type thoughts.

Book Reading & Response:

The Tangible Kingdom by Hugh Halter & Matt Smay

In a nutshell, this book is about the church living out the kingdom of God in tangible, relatable, practical ways in the culture we live in, as well as what that might look like in our day-to-day lives. It’s full of examples of God’s kingdom breaking through in tangible ways, and spends a lot of time talking about how we can create this kind of “Incarnational community” in our own churches and neighbourhoods. To me, it was a book that really pushed for and encouraged us to learn what it means to live not only in a Christlike manner as it relates to God’s Kingdom coming on earth, but also as we see the early church do at the beginning of Acts—where they were all as one family, sharing as the other had need, and counting nothing as their own. It’s not as if Halter & Smay say that we should all go back to functioning as some gigantic commune where no one owns anything, but there is a definite sense of something that my parents always pushed when we were growing up: “it’s not yours, anyway”. God’s given us all we have as a gift. We’re called to share our gifts with those around us. So if someone has a need, and we can fill it, it should be our automatic response. To me, this book was an encouragment in this direction, and a challenge to push forward to continue to see God’s kingdom breaking through the fabric of our world in powerful (though sometimes simple, and quiet) ways.

As far as things I agree/disagree with, I think I’d have to say I definitely agree with this book on the whole. When we went through it as a church a little over a year (or was it two?) ago, it really hit home. It was neat reading through it again and exploring these concepts that we’ve been really trying to live out in our own lives and in the lives of The Well as a church. I’ll take a look at some of the things I underlined while reading, and take it from there.

I think one of the most powerful statements in the book for me was one that I’ve always had a pretty strong conviction about myself. On page 12, the authors write: “We need to start by doing some things that we haven’t been doing, and we must stop doing some things that we have been doing”. To me, this has been the question in my life and faith quite often. What am I doing that needs to keep going? What am I doing that needs to change? It’s not always an easy question, but I think it’s ESSENTIAL to walking the Christian life in particular. We’re on a journey, we’re changing and growing. If we stay the same the whole time, we’re likely not alive…we’re dead (I actually preached on this once… so it’s something that’s heavy on my heart)… the question that this has always posed to me is: WHY are we doing WHAT we are doing, and WHERE is it going? If we don’t have answers to these questions, why are we doing it? We need to, as they say on page 24, “…pick what to take, what is absolutely necessary, and leave behind some things that have been important to us”. It’s a constant process—and maybe we’d see that better if we remembered that God’s kingdom is breaking through… it’s coming. It’s growing here on earth. It’s a process. So it can’t be a stagnant thing!

I love what the authors highlight on page 30: “Church must not be the goal of the gospel anymore…church should be what ends up happening as a natural response to people wanting to follow us, be with us, and be like us as we are following the way of Christ.” Reading the book of Acts, it becomes VERY painfully obvious that the early Christians were NOT about putting people into programs, or organized worship times, or anything really that we might classify today as “church”. They were about getting people to SEE CHRIST and SEE THE KINGDOM as they broke into their lives in tangible ways. We need to make this the focus of what we’re doing. It all boils down to us going out and embodying the Kingdom of God and the love of Christ to those around us, both inside and outside the church. Those distinctions shouldn’t matter to us—what counts is that they are people, and just as much in need of the Kingdom and God’s love breaking into their lives as any of us are.

I think as far as pretty well everything in the book is concerned, I agree with the authors due to several things. First, the concepts that they present in this book ring true to me as I read through scripture. Secondly, the concepts presented in the book ring true for me as I have seen and experienced the kingdom of God at work in my own life. In essence, when it all boils down to it, it just makes sense.

I found it to be like the majority of good books that I have read—in the sense that there may have been minor points that I disagreed with, but there was nothing major that jumped out at me and made me go “wait a second, what on EARTH are you saying there?”

Now comes the application part. This is an interesting part of this response to write, because of the church culture I’ve grown up in, as well as the one I’ve been immersed in being a leader in for the past 4 years.

So the answer to the question on the assignments sheet is as follows: the teaching of this book would/will affect my views of/work in churches by encouraging me to continue to live life with a kingdom focus (or the “eternal perspective”, as my Mom always put it) in whatever ways possible. I fully believe that we are part of ushering in the kingdom that Christ preached and exampled for us during his time here on earth. I fully believe that this kingdom is both here, and not fully here yet… that we live in this awesome, yet difficult season of “birthing pains”, where we se the kingdom break through all around us (if we have our eyes open to see it), and yet we live in the reality of a still-broken and not-yet-restored earth. So what is our task? What is my task? To live out God’s kingdom here on earth. To be intentional in my life so as to help others peek through those holes into this new reality that God so desperately wants us to live as a part of. To live to provide glimpses and tastes of the restoration project that we’re all a part of. To invite others to join in on it so that they, too, can be a part of what is ultimately the largest renovation project the world has ever seen—the ultimate home makeover.

My work in churches is, therefore, similarly, not actually to “get people in the door”, but to provide them with a place where they can meet with Jesus Christ and experience that kingdom in a very real way, wherever they are at in life. Beyond that, it’s to live out and encourage others to live out the kingdom so that church becomes, in everyone’s minds, not a PLACE to go, but a PEOPLE to BELONG to. God’s kingdom isn’t defined by our geographic locations. So why do we act like it can be confined to a building? It’s a matter of living out my life as if Christ is alive, like we talked about last session. If Christ is indeed alive, that means he is still at work. And we’re called and commanded to do this same work, in bringing about the kingdom in the world around us. Therefore my primary task is not in “church” on Sunday morning (i.e. the place), but in “church” every day of my life, with each person I interact with on a day-to-day basis (i.e. the people). Call it “being the hands and feet of Jesus”. Call it “random acts of kindness”. Call it “intentional relationship”, Call it “incarnational ministry”. Whatever it’s called, the point is the same. Are we living Christ out, day-to-day, in a way that screams “He’s ALIVE, and his KINGDOM is HERE!” ?

--Sam

:Chores:

Just another little something I wrote as an exercise for a self-taught writing class last year...

What can match that feeling of dread when faced with a brontosaurial pile of cast-off clothing?
An everestine stack of lasagnian dishes?
An endless stretch of crumb-bespeckled carpet?
The draining depths of a stagnant bathroom?
Or the blurred reflection of a finger-printed mirror?

It's the sigh of relief and the knowledge that you have slayed the brontosaur,
conquered everest,
combined the carpet,
plumbed the depths,
and come to see yourself clearly again through the clutter.
It's the breath that knows "I'm done"...

...it's the gnawing thought that next week...or tomorrow...it all begins again.

--Sam

:Definition--Worry:

I wanted to share something that I wrote a year ago about worrying. It's kinda fun reading back over stuff I've written in the past... and this was something that I felt really hit it on the head (note: if you can read it all in one breath--or close to it--you'll get the feeling of it even better!)

Worrying: Definition: thinking ahead to the things that might go wrong if everything goes the way you expect it to, which it never does, but it always pays to be prepared anyway, just in case this time it actually happens to occur something along the lines of what it seems could happen if all of your worst fears come true, which aso never happens, but if it did it would be horrible, so it's best to think about it all right now, so that you're ready for it if it ever comes, and if it doesn't, then you can move on to the next thing, which is how much you missed out on accomplishing and now have to tackle because you spent too much time worrying over what may or may not have happened and couldn't be fixed or prevented by thinking endlessly in circles about anyway.

But you did it, and here you are.


Yet I still worry... man, I think my blood pressure goes up just reading that...

=P

--Hobbes

:Book Review:

Just wanted to share a review I had to write for a course I'm taking on a book that was assigned to us. I found the book VERY interesting, and would encourage everyone to read it, if they have the chance. There's lots of good stuff to wrestle with and think through--and it's one of those books that challenges you in different ways to think about things differently. 

Anyway, the book's called "Flickering Pixels" by Shane Hipps. Check it out!

...and here's the review.

Book Reading & Response

“Flickering Pixels” by Shane Hipps

            Shane Hipps’ book, Flickering Pixels, was a very intriguing read for me. It is definitely one of those books that I will likely be reading again in the near future, just to wrestle with it further. In it, Hipps basic premise is that the medium by which a message is delivered (i.e. television, radio, written word, etc) has an effect on us, regardless of the message it carries. Whether a positive or negative message, the medium will always have its own effect on the receiver of said message. Hipps also suggests that every medium can, does, and, (if not handled correctly), will “reverse” on itself—that is to say, something that started out as a positive influence, will eventually reverse on itself and become a negative influence, if not handled in a wise manner. One major example of this, to Hipps, is the cell phone—what was meant to connect people and make people accessible has in many ways made the people right in front of us LESS accessible than ever before, because their lives are run by every beep emanating from the little black box on their hip. Hipps speaks fairly in-depth about how our faith is a “communicated faith”—how from the beginning, it was passed on through oral tradition, then written down, and passed on that way. He speaks of how Jesus and Paul and others throughout scripture taught using the spoken word, and how this shaped their listeners—how (Hipps argues) the message changed depending on those they were speaking to (i.e. Jesus presented a different message than Paul did, due to speaking to Jews instead of Gentiles). He uses the example that certain passages in scripture will mean one thing to a rich businessman, and another thing to someone living under a communist regime. When it all boils down to it, Hipps’ main argument is that, to some degree, the medium IS the message. The medium we use affects the message we are presenting.

            Insofar as the effectiveness of this argument is concerned, I think that Hipps presents his argument well. He seems to tackle things in a well-though-out way, and covers all his angles well. I’m not so sure as to whether or not he presents it in such a way that would convince all readers, though. I know I, for one, still take issue with some of his points, and because of such, if we’re measuring the argument’s effectiveness on the basis of whether or not it’s convincing, I’d have to say that it is not completely convincing, depending on your own convictions and beliefs. One of the main arguments in his book was actually one that I took issue with. As I said above, Hipps argues that the message changed, depending on who someone was speaking to. He continues this line of reasoning by stating that the message does change, depending on the medium, and that our message needs to change along with our mediums. I’m not sure that I agree. Paul and Jesus may have presented the message differently, but the gist of the message was the same—believe in Jesus, and you will be saved (Paul uses those words, and Jesus talked about how he was the ONLY way to the Father). The heart of the message didn’t change—their presentation did. So I would argue that the way our message LOOKS may change, the methods we use to communicate that message might change, but the heart of the message itself does not (or maybe should not) change. Our message is still (or should be) the gospel of Jesus Christ that we see through the pages of scripture. I don’t know if I agree that whether we use video or music or printed word to communicate it changes the message. I agree with his argument that the medium speak their own message, and that they affect us in their own unique ways (completely separate from the message they are carrying), but I simply don’t see eye-to-eye with him on the fact that the message itself changes (perhaps, though, when it all boils down to it, this is more an argument of semantics—i.e. the meaning of the word ‘message’ in this context—rather than actually not seeing eye-to-eye).

            As far as it affects my thinking, life, and ministry, I think that there was plenty of good food for thought in the book, and lots to pull from that was (and is) very important to keep in mind when working with and incorporating technology into our lives and ministries. I think that Hipps’ argument about technologies reversing on themselves is a very valid one, and proves the whole concept that anything taken too far can become something negative. The challenge we’re up against, I think, as individuals and churches, is learning where that line of “too far” is. It’s also a challenge of ensuring that our congregations are educated as to the influences of technology (now, as to how we would go about doing that, I don’t know… but I think many of society’s—and the churches—issues stem from a lack of education on the part of many people toward certain things). The trick is to learn and understand the power of the particular medium you are working with, and then to use that medium wisely, without allowing it to use you, or without using it to manipulate in a wrong manner. I’m not sure that it changed my thinking, per se, to read this book, but I know it definitely brought to the forefront some things that I felt convinced of, at least to some degree, already. I know that I will (and already have made) make more conscious choices and decisions regarding my use and the level of inundation of technology in my life—these are tools, not things designed to use me as their tool.

In the end, though, isn’t it fascinating how much power a medium holds? Think about the communication tools we’ve got available—and how incredibly powerful they are! Is it any small wonder to us that, when used incorrectly, or pushed too far, they become a powerfully destructive force as well?

--Sam