To both my relief, and dismay, I have discovered that there is indeed a pattern. My relief is the result of having detected a pattern, but my dismay is the result of discovering that this pattern is pretty complex.

To demonstrate, I am going to use the following (fictional) scenario as an example:

1. Someone calls me a “dummy”.

2. I react by feeling hurt, sad, angry, and confused.

3. My hurt feelings give rise to one or more of the following responses: I snap back with an insult of my own, I wander off feeling sorry for myself and trying to figure out why that person doesn’t like me, I begin to wonder if that person is going to try and turn others against me. . .and so on.

Notice that my responses (which take up the bulk of my time and energy) are not directly the result of being called dumb, but are instead in response to my hurt feelings. My responses are only secondarily connected to the situation: The time and energy that I invest in my responsive actions is primarily connected to my emotional reaction, not the incident itself.

This is a hard pattern to challenge and change, so lately I have been just trying to pay attention to this process.  I’m trying to catch myself between my emotional reactions and my continued response. I’d like to think that eventually I can get enough distance between the emotion and my response so as to figure out whether I am making an appropriate investment.

I’ll keep trying, anyway.

A few weeks ago I read this post by Kathy Escobar. I found the post disturbing, and needed to take some time and reflect on both my reaction to it and what I truly wanted to say about it.

Kathy is the co-pastor of The Refuge. I don’t know much about this church, but I get the idea that they minister to a lot of “the least of these“: Folks who are  “high need”. From what she has described in her post, it sounds like the “high need” people may outnumber the “normals” at The Refuge.

Because of this skewed demographic, Kathy gets a lot of pats on the back (and probably the head) for her good work, but not so much in the way of practical support (i.e. people who are willing to become part of The Refuge’s community). Mind you, there are plenty of folks who are willing to send folks to The Refuge: They just don’t want to join them there.

When Kathy has asked folks why they don’t join the fellowship of The Refuge, she gets answers like these:

““we just want to be around less broken people”

“i don’t have the issues these people have”

“we just don’t feel comfortable” ”

I have alluded to my discomfort with the poor in previous posts. So when I read this post, I felt rather, um. . .challenged? I don’t live anywhere near The Refuge, so participating isn’t an option for me, but I still felt this need to justify why I wouldn’t participate if I was a local.

To my chagrin, my responses were identical to those listed by Kathy. In fact, I began feeling a bit helpless, thinking that if I were to become involved in a community such as Kathy’s, I’d probably implode with so many demands on my time, so many broken people wanting to be my friend, so many things and people that I’d have to “fix”. It was just too much, and I shrugged and said “Sorry God, I just couldn’t do all that.”

It was then that I heard the still, small voice say:  “Who asked you to?”

Stunned, I had to sit back and think. I realized that what was making me so uncomfortable about participating in a community like Kathy’s had less to do with what would like be expected of me by the church community, and more of what I was expecting of myself.

The arrogance of my thinking and the largeness of my ego actually got me to laugh harder at myself than I have for a very long time: Here I was thinking that if I were to join such a church, I would be expected to meet needs, solve problems, and make friends with needy people. Never mind that:

1. I have a fair number of needs myself right now, and not a lot of resources (personal, emotional, spiritual, or material) to share with others.

2. While I might think of myself as SuperLainie, the fact is that neither I, nor anyone else, can “solve” other people’s problems.

3. These “needy people” just might have their own friends. And maybe they wouldn’t like me all that much anyway.

In other words, I was willing to withhold my presence from a community where I likely would have been welcomed and loved, all because I was worried that I wouldn’t be able to live up to my own (not the church’s, not the pastors’, not God’s) expectations about what I “needed to do for them”.

(Kind of silly, eh?)

While I was reading Kathy’s post, I got the sense that the only expectation that she had of others was a willingness to be present: For her, for the church leadership, and for the church community. Yet I had to admit that, if I were local to The Refuge, I would have been reluctant to offer that simple thing because of my “whole-r than thou” attitude.

Of course, I am not everybody, and others may have different reasons for not participating in The Refuge (or churches like it. But I’d encourage those who have the same “uncomfortable” reaction to consider why they feel so squeamish. Is it because they are truly afraid of not getting their own needs met? Or are they laboring under a heavy burden of unreasonable self-expectation?

And if the later is true, are they willing to surrender that burden for a lighter one?

(Am I?)

]]> http://www.lainiepetersen.com/2008/10/12/who-asked-you-to-the-arrogance-of-self-expectation/feed/ 0 http://www.lainiepetersen.com/2008/08/01/mission-mess-ups/ http://www.lainiepetersen.com/2008/08/01/mission-mess-ups/#comments Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:19:30 +0000 admin http://www.lainiepetersen.com/?p=117

(Please note: An addendum/clarification to this post is available here.)

About ten years ago, my mom was a youth group leader at her church. The church was located in a very affluent community, and the kids in the group were very privileged indeed. The youth leaders decided that the kids needed to learn about the “less fortunate” and asked them if they would like to cook and serve a meal at an inner-city soup kitchen.

The kids were less than delighted at the prospect.

Finally, after a fair amount of cajoling, nagging (and probably tears on my mother’s part), the group decided to play along. They were serving a meal at the soup kitchen when a fight broke out between two of the diners. Things escalated when one of the combatants ran into the kitchen to find a knife. (The youth group girls huddled in a corner, crying hysterically, while all this commotion was taking place.)

After the day’s disastrous events, my mom asked my understandably-traumatized sister (who was in the youth group, and is now a very socially-conscious and kind-hearted adult) if she had learned anything that day. My sister nodded and said:

“I learned that I don’t like poor people.”

This story came to mind when I read a recent post by Pastor Pat Spelling over at Shades of Gray. She posted on well-intended “short term missions”, including a provocative article from the Washington Post entitled “Churches Retool Mission Trips“. The points that both Pastor Spelling and the Post article are good ones:

1. Short-term mission trips are often poorly conceived and executed by those organizing the trips. Youth groups are sent to “help” a community with no real understanding of that community’s needs or culture: In some cases the “help” offered is simply redundant (such as multiple groups painting and repainting a church over the course of the summer), but in other cases it is actually harmful to the community (i.e. putting local laborers out of work).

2. These trips are not cost effective: Participants are usually required to “raise funds” from church members, family and to cover their expenses, which can easy run from $1000-$3000. Thus a ten person youth group (plus chaperones) could easily spend $12 ,000-$30,000 to build a house or a hospital that, in the economy of many third-world countries, might only cost $2000-$10,000 if local labor was employed.

3. Most disturbing of all, however, is the attitude among many that even if such trips aren’t particularly cost-effective (or even necessary to those being “served”) they are justified because, after all, middle -class teenagers need to “learn” about their privilege and about the “less fortunate”. (Apparently the “less fortunate” are to endure these assaults upon their communities and local economies so that privileged youths can get an education. In other words, the poor get to be used as object lessons so that the privileged can engage in a course of self-improvement.)

Um, I don’t think so.

When it comes to serious, systemic poverty (and not just in the third world), “short-term” anything is pointless. Poverty, true poverty, is extremely complex, and people don’t “get it” just by going out and building a house or serving a meal at a homeless shelter. At best, kids on these trips are going to come back with “an appreciation of what they have” (but no real understanding of why they have it or how they got it or why other folks don’t have it), at worst, with attitudes like my sister’s after her visit to the soup kitchen.

If young people truly want to address poverty and its ills, they need to understand that going on an expensive working vacation is not the answer. Ironically, they would do best to take advantage of their privilege and the benefits that it affords them: They could use their social networks to raise cash, not for mission trips, but to send directly to long-standing aid agencies in third world countries. They could go to university to become doctors and nurses and engineers and agriculturalists and then visit a third world country to teach, train, solve problems, and generally do the sorts of specialist work that is actually needed. They could also work to transform social and foreign policy in their own countries or house and befriend students from third-world countries who are trying to bring new knowledge and skills back home.

But none of the above strategies sound as good as “My Johnny just went on a mission trip to help those poor people in South America!”. I just wonder what the “less fortunate” being “missioned” have to say to their friends after each group leaves for home.

]]> http://www.lainiepetersen.com/2008/08/01/mission-mess-ups/feed/ 2 http://www.lainiepetersen.com/2008/04/08/ministry-resource-western-institute-for-intercultural-studies/ http://www.lainiepetersen.com/2008/04/08/ministry-resource-western-institute-for-intercultural-studies/#comments Wed, 09 Apr 2008 00:09:42 +0000 admin http://www.lainiepetersen.com/?p=40 My friend and fellow blogger, John Morehead, has recently announced the formation of the Western Institute for Intercultural Studies. This new ministry “. . .exists not only to educate but also to equip individuals, congregations, and Christian academics to communicate the Christian faith to adherents of new religious movements with understanding and sensitivity.”

The organization offers trainings, education, and will be sponsoring conferences. I encourage my readers to learn about and support this new ministry.

Several years ago, a friend took his mother to dinner at a Chinese restaurant. His mother, a somewhat difficult woman, ordered thusly:

“I want General Tso’s Chicken, but I don’t want it breaded or deep fried, and I don’t want it to be spicy.”

Now General Tso’s Chicken is, by definition, breaded and deep fried chicken in a spicy sauce. But this waiter knew better than to argue. He took the order without comment and headed back to the kitchen.

Ten minutes later he returned to the table with their food. With great dignity, he placed a dish of chicken and vegetable stir-fry in front of my friend’s mother, pronouncing it “General Tso’s Chicken”.

And she was happy.

************************************

I’ve normally told this story to illustrate both good customer service and the wisdom of carefully picking one’s battles. But after telling this story to a friend, he suggested that it is also a parable.

According to my friend, this story serves as a warning to those of us who are engaged in missional and cross-cultural ministry. While being responsive to people’s needs and context is important, there is also a risk of giving people something that is wholly different from what we seek to offer (i.e. The Gospel). In doing this, we both undermine our mission and do our targets no favors.

Take General Tso’s Chicken, for example. There are several variations on the dish, and most restaurants are glad to accommodate customer whims and needs. But when someone demands that chicken stir-fry be presented as “General Tso’s Chicken”, it is clear that the customer neither wants, nor even understands, General Tso’s Chicken.

Like the waiter in this story, we are left with a choice: We can either participate in a charade or we can stand our ground. By sending in for the Gospel what our missional target thinks they desire, we are allowing people to remain ignorant even while we undermine our own mission.

The second choice is more nuanced: We do indeed risk displeasing our target, but we also are allowing them to reject the Gospel from a position of knowledge, rather than ignorance. More importantly, we have not compromised our mission as prescribed by a holy God.

In closing, I would suggest that the parable of General Tso’s Chicken brings up some important questions:

Do you think that missional/emergent folks occasionally participate in the charade similar to what is described in the story? Do you even think it is a fair comparison?

How much customization can be done to a recipe before it is an entirely different dish? In other words, how much contextualization can take place before “The Gospel” becomes “another gospel”?

What are the risks of customization/contextualization? What are the benefits?

Is there any way to make General Tso’s Chicken such that the breading doesn’t get soggy whilst it is in transit from the restaurant to one’s home?

As always, inquiring minds want to know.

Like most children, I learned the rules of etiquette in stages. My parents began with the basics: Don’t make faces, don’t bite, say “please”, and never, ever refer to your private parts in public. After these niceties were mastered, the more specialized nuances were taught: Table manners, forms of address. But most importantly, I learned the Golden Rule of middle-class white suburbia: Never, ever, ever discuss money.

I learned that while money was a very good thing to have (and that one ought to spend much of one’s life in the pursuit of it), it was bad form to ask someone what his/her possessions cost, to inquire about another’s bank balance, or to reveal one’s salary. (In fact, our family’s business had a policy of immediate termination for anyone who discussed their compensation with a colleague.).

As I got older, I realized that the middle class issues with money were even more complex than my parent’s hard-and-fast rules. I learned that people were reluctant to lend money to others, not because they couldn’t afford to extend the loan (or even absorb the non-repayment of same) but because people were uncomfortable with asking for their money back. I also learned that even robust organizations/groups could and would fall apart over money issues (particularly if someone, but not everyone, was getting compensated for their time and effort). Mind you, nobody ever discussed the money issues in these groups, but tempers would rise and members would withdraw as a result of these unspoken resentments.

So here we are in the missional/emergent movements, both enclaves of middle-class ideology (even if we want to think that we are edgy and hip), and everyone is ticked off about money. Some people think that they should be paid for the ministry work that they do. Other people think that they shouldn’t have to pay anyone for the ministry work that they do. So some people get burnt out because they are working a “secular” job while engaging in ministry, while others have to rely on an understanding (but not-so-secretly annoyed) spouse to bring in the bulk of the family income. Meanwhile, the folks who resist financially supporting those that minister get to boast about how cutting edge it is not to have a paid ministry in their “movement”.

And because we are all following the example that our parents set for us, people are often reluctant to actually say anything about this conflict.

So I am going to disobey my parents and throw my upbringing back in their faces. I am going to talk about money. I invite discussion on these four observations about money matters in the missional/emergent movements:

1. Our discomfort with money matters has been shaped by the values of middle-class USA suburbia. These are not Christian values and they are a hindrance to our mission. We need to start having frank discussions about finances, particularly in the area of compensation for those in ministry (even, and especially, those in non-traditional ministries).
2. We are ambivalent about financially compensating those in ministry because we don’t really value ministry work as much as we do the work that produces tangible, “secular” goods and services. (I recently spoke to a hard-working but utterly impoverished missional leader about his dire circumstances. I expressed my frustration and noted that nobody would be debating whether he should be paid if he was a plumber, doctor, or accountant. He glumly replied that they wouldn’t be debating compensation even if he were working as a porn star.)
3. The ambivalence about paying missional leaders has less to do with a desire for “good stewardship” or “obeying scripture” than it does with resentment against those folks who “get to have all the fun” by being in ministry. (Which hearkens back to point #2: We tend to see ministry as being “fun”, instead of seeing it as genuine labor.)
4. The missional/emergent movement has enough money to support our leaders, our members, and our mission. We just haven’t yet figured out how to manage/distribute our finances so that needs get met, and we won’t, until we are willing to start bringing finances into the “conversation”.

What do you think?

Check out the rest of the synchroblog by visiting the links below:

The Check That Controls at Igneous Quill
Pushing The Camel: Why there might be more rich people in Heaven than in your local Church at Fernando’s desk
Trusting God – A New Perspective at Eternal Echoes
Silver and Gold Have We – Oops! Subversive Influence
Lord, Won’t You Buy Me a Mercedes Benz at Hello Said Jenelle
Walking With the Camels at Calacirian
Zaque at Johnny Beloved
Greed and Bitterness: Why Nobody’s Got it Right About Money and The Church at Phil Wyman’s Square No More
Kirk Bartha at Theocity
Money and the Church: A Fulltime Story at The Pursuit
But I Gave at Church at The Assembling of the Church
Moving Out of Jesus Neighborhood at Be the Revolution
Money and the Church: why the big fuss? at Mike’s Musings
Coffee Hour Morality at One Hand Clapping
Bling Bling in the Holy of Holies at In Reba’s World
Magazinial Outreach at Decompressing Faith
Money’s too tight to mention at Out of the Cocoon
Bullshit at The Agent B Files
The Bourgeois Elephant in the Missional/Emergent Living Room at Headspace
When the Church Gives at Payneful Memories
Who, or What, Do You Worship at at Charis Shalom
Tithe Scmithe at Discombobula
The Church and Money at Khanya
Greed at Hollow Again

Then it hit me. Laundromats would make an ideal “third place” where Christians (and non-Christians) could enter into relationships and conversation with each other. Think about it:

1. People tend to really resent the time they spend in laundromats because the time is seen as “wasted”. By encouraging groups of people to get together while doing laundry, this previously “wasted” time becomes productive and enjoyable.

2. While most laundromats do not offer food and drink (generally a requirement for a third place) I’ve never encountered a laundromat that forbade its consumption. People can bring in food from a local restaurant or, even more fun, snacks could be prepared at home and shared with the group.

3. I am really big on church planting/missional work being done locally. Laundromats are very local places. Nobody wants to schlep their laundry across town. Folks that meet in a laundromat are going to be neighbors, as are interested others who might be curious about the group.

4. Because there is another, necessary, activity going on while the “meeting” is taking place, the success of the meeting is not so dependent on attendance. Two people can fellowship whilst doing a load of colors just as easily as seven people can.

5. Because the activity is taking place in a public space, the opportunities for missional outreach can be considerable.

Of course, laundromats, like all third places, have a few drawbacks:

1. Most laundromats’ seating isn’t conducive to conversation, though it is possible to find laundromats with seating that allows for face-to-face interaction. Another option is for someone who has a car to bring a few folding chairs.

2. Many laundromats have a television set, which can be distracting.

If I didn’t have laundry in my building, I’d start a laundry club of my own. I’d love to hear from anyone who does this (or who has done this). How did/does it work for you?

Rich Wagner was kind enough to mention my Top Ten Ways to Fail at Being Missional on his blog. In the comments that ensued, Franklin offered a gentle critique which noted that missional/emergent types tend to be more deconstructive than constructive. In other words, while my “top ten” list may be on-target, it still focuses on what we should not do, rather than what we should be doing. I agree with Franklin, and I very much appreciate him taking the time to call me on it.

So Franklin, this is for you:

Top Ten Missional Bee-Attitudes

10. Be Grateful: The opportunity to participate in God’s story is an awesome privilege. Be grateful for all that he calls you to do for the sake of the Kingdom.

9. Be Useful: People who channel their skills and abilities into something productive are appreciated and welcomed by others. This is true in almost all contexts, no matter what personal foibles you have. Trust me on this.

8. Be Trustworthy: Keep confidences and commitments. Let your “yes mean yes” and “no mean no”. (James 5:12)

7. Be Observant: Look for opportunities to be of service. Look for opportunities for missional interactions. Look for needs to be met. Examine cultural contexts closely to discover ways in which the gospel can be presented.

6. Be Real: People can spot a poser from a mile away. You can and should be yourself even as you work to learn and understand and interact with different cultures and subcultures.

5. Be Daring: Have more faith in your abilities than your limitations. (In fact, have more faith in God’s abilities than your limitations!)

4. Be Respectful: Learn and practice appropriate cultural etiquette. Take the time to listen before speaking. Learn to assume that people are well-intentioned until proven otherwise.

3. Be Generous: With your time, your talents, your resources, and your love. God loves a cheerful giver, and so do most people.

2. Be Humble: I think that Luke 10:20 “However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”, pretty much says it all.

1. Be Holy: We have been created in Christ Jesus for good works (Ephesians 2:10), and to be salt and light to the world (Matthew 5:13-16). Don’t lose your savor or hide your light: Let others see God’s grace working in you so that they may know, and have it, too.

9. Don’t bother becoming a “regular” at local businesses. Just shop/dine/get- your-clothes-drycleaned at whatever place has the best sales that week. If, by some unfortunate coincidence, you do become a regular at a local business, don’t get to know the owner, employees, or other patrons.

8. Fixate on the quality of your missional targets: Focus on the local Unitarian Universalist minister, Mormon bishop, and Wiccan high priestess (who also owns your town’s only occult bookstore). Don’t give a second thought to that rather ordinary looking lady who you see every morning on the train. She doesn’t have a large enough sphere of influence.

7. If you see a problem in your community, don’t bother to check out what other organizations or individuals are doing about it. Just start your own project: You’ll get a lot more accomplished if you are in charge!

6. Don’t waste your time reading the blogs of other missional folk. So what if they share their own struggles, hurts, joys, and ideas freely? You take all your instruction from God, directly.

5. Never, ever, check out primary source materials produced by representatives of other cultures, subcultures, and religions. Christians have already written all you need to know about those unbelievers, and besides, cult members will have a bias that you want to avoid.

4. Avoid being “unequally yoked” with unbelievers by not engaging them in conversation, learning about their families, having lunch with them, inviting them to your home (or accepting a similar invitation), or working together to address community issues of common interest.

3. Be sure to email (from your work account, while at work) your “unsaved” work colleagues (especially those that you don’t normally interact with) with regular invitations to your church and its activities.

2. Never consider offering financial or material support to other folks engaged in missional work. After all, you need all your spare cash for your own personal ministry. Besides, most of them don’t have their own 501 (c) 3 corporation, and not getting a tax deduction would be poor stewardship on your part.

1. Learn every evangelistic technique, theory, and strategy out there, and work hard to perfect your practice of them, even to the neglect of other areas of your spiritual life. What does the Holy Spirit have to do with drawing people to God, anyway?

It was a dark and cold night, and I was standing outside a restaurant, looking at the menu in the window. Suddenly I heard a  voice say “Miss?”? I turned around and saw a man, probably in his late thirties or early forties. He was stocky and plain. He continued,  “Miss, I know this sounds like an odd request, but can I take you to dinner?”  My heart nearly broke as I smiled and told him “no”. He looked dissappointed but not surprised, and then I added: “I appreciate the invitation, but I don’t think my husband would feel the same way.”  He smiled sadly,  nodded and turned away.

This man didn’t seem to be disordered or dangerous: I honestly think that he was just a lonely man who was hoping for some company for the evening, and he was so desperate for it it that he was willing to risk humiliation by asking random women to dinner.  In fact, I would imagine that a lot of women could tell stories of men who approached them with the same level of desperation, men who just couldn’t bear their loneliness anymore.

I’ve observed that men, particularly single men, can have a difficult time of making (and keeping) new friends.  They may have “buddies” from the office or at the local bar, but these “buddies” aren’t people that they can share their feelings with or rely on in times of trouble.  It isn’t surprising, then, that men’s rates of suicide, criminal activity, and substance abuse are higher than those of women. When someone lacks a supportive social network, this lack of a “safety net” can drive them to despair and self-destructive behavior.

I believe that unless a man can maintain friendships from his school days, his chances of developing true friends in adulthood are slim. Women have a much easier time making connections with other people (men and women), which probably has something to do with opportunity (men can’t very well say to a work colleague “Hey, there is a shoe sale going on, let’s go there during lunch!”) as well as social conventions that allow women to be more open and vulnerable with others. I think that movements like Promise Keepers tried to address this issue by encouraging men to accountability and mutual support, but I am not sure that a “programmed” response to the crisis of men’s relationships is the answer.

I see this serious, but often overlooked, issue as one area in which a missional approach is desperately needed. When the missional church enters into “third spaces” (bars,parks,softball leagues, bowling alleys, cafes, etc), the potential for engaging men in true friendship grows significantly. Instead of the “attractional” approach (i.e. men’s rallies, prayer breakfasts, and “accountability groups”), a desire to interact with men who don’t have significant relationships in their lives by being where they are offers much promise in addressing a very real social need.