Take It Down a Notch for Jesus
Rachel Held Evans, author of the brilliant Evolving in Monkey Town
No more flippant dismissals of other Christians. (“Farewell, Rob Bell.”) No more demonizing. No more assumptions that I/we have all the answers because I/we am “just trying to follow God’s word.
In honor of this rally, I’m repeating an earlier post I called “The One Egg Special”:
- – - -
The One Egg Special.
For fourteen years, I’ve been having breakfast most Wednesday mornings at the infamous Towne Crier. It’s been a wonderful time to be with preachers from other churches in town.
As members have drifted back and forth from one church to another over “major differences,” we’ve just smiled, enjoyed our friendship and remembered that what goes around comes around.
It’s rare for anyone to order anything other than the One Egg Special. (Yes, it may remind you of the Blue Plate Special that Barney used to order at the diner in Mayberry.)
One egg, meat, and bread. It’s $2.19 for the breakfast. Yes, those of you in Manhattan, you read that correctly. It’s less than you pay for a gallon of gas. (I know there’s an easy response based on double-entendre, but don’t go there.)
We get the same thing. But we order it SO differently!
I’m the “normal” one egg special guy: one egg over medium, bacon, and a biscuit — with water. No bells and whistles. Just pass me the strawberry jam.
Eddie orders the same thing, except that he has iced tea. That’s right: iced tea for breakfast. When the waitresses see him coming, they know it’s time to pour the tea.
Terry’s one egg special goes like this: one egg scrambled, bacon, and a pancake (believe it or not, they’ll substitute a pancake for the biscuit). Water.
Don’s order adds an interesting twist: “I’d like the one egg special with an extra egg.” Now I’m not Einstein, but wouldn’t that be a two egg special? Apparently not. Coffee.
Phil is Mr. Atkins. He asks for extra bacon instead of the biscuit. Bring on the protein; hold the carbs. Diet Dr. Pepper to drink.
So there you have it. We place five “one egg special” orders. But they look very different.
It’s funny to us that some of our members probably think our churches are vastly different. But we’re all just one egg specials. One may be low carb, one may have the extra egg, and another is downing iced tea.
But we’re way more similar than most people suspect. In small worlds, minuscule differences can look VERY LARGE.
Can you imagine how much energy is burned in many communities by members of various churches talking in outrage about what another church is teaching or doing?
I’d like to think that in those communities, one morning a week the ministers are getting together for a bit of Towne Crier Koinonia: a one egg special, trust, deep concern, and a little humor.
Now that is what I mean by unity. Gathered around a meal. Sharing lives. Even though our plates may be slightly different. I’m onboard for the rally.
I love the photos that Rachel has on her site. Thanks for the link. I suppose we can make our own signs and send them in.
Yes. She’s counting on it. You can find more photos on Facebook here: http://www.facebook.com/restoreunity?sk=wall
I like this. In the time since I’ve been a member and now deacon of my church, we’ve done more than a bit of this. Just this Easter, for instance, we shared a sunrise service with St. Paul’s UMC from across the street, after which we all ate breakfast in our fellowship hall. Ecumenical actions are not anathema. It’s good to remember sometimes that while we disagree on some things, we do all serve the same God and live for the same risen saviour. There are bigger woes to conquer in the world than which Bible translation to use.
I’ve been following Rachel’s blog and will be reading her book. I am immensely thankful for frank, open voices like hers to declare a ‘loving, not judging’ manner in engaging other Christians. ~ You both are “good eggs.”
~ Mel
Mike I really appreciate what you are saying, but I can’t help but think of the manner in which you seemed to just dismiss Mac Lyon a couple of years ago on your blog. Are the conservative members of Christianity worthy of respect? I have a friend who is an Episcopal Priest who has been all but banished from any leadership positions in the diocese. He has been pushed into a corner by people who preach tolerance, but in reality it is tolerance only for those who agree with there positions.
One of my facebook friends posted something from Rumi’s “Moses and the Shepherd” that I like (is this the first 13th century Persian mystic poet comment here?) In the story Moses has just griped at a shepherd who was praying by the side of the road. God responds:
You have separated me from one of my own.
Did you come as a prophet to unite or to sever?
I have given each being a separate and unique way
of seeing and knowing and saying that knowledge.
What seems wrong to you is right for him.
What is poison to one is honey to someone else.
Purity and impurity, sloth and diligence in worship,
these mean nothing to me. I am apart from all that.
Ways of worshipping are not to be ranked as better
or worse. Hindus do Hindu things. The Dravidian
Muslims in India do what they do. It’s all praise,
and it’s all right. I am not glorified in acts
of worship. It’s the worshippers! I don’t hear
the words they say. I look inside at the humility.
That broken-open lowliness is the reality.
Pretty funny when you block people who don’t agree with you. It’s your blog so you can block any & all that you don’t want but it does show that you talk the talk but don’t walk it.
I commented on a post a month or so ago & wasn’t being mean, just offered a differing opinion so was surprised at first to find my next comment blocked. The second time I realized what was going on. Very enlightening.
Sometimes people confuse disagreement with failure to respect.
And I haven’t blocked anyone. Could be you put a link in your post that got caught in a filter?
I just checked the spam folder—something I haven’t looked at in months—and I found a few comments (whose IP address matches the same city and state as yours) that I immediately released. I can tell by your fake email address that you think I’m a farce and a hypocrite (whatafarceyouare@urahypocrite.com). Fine. But I didn’t intentionally block your comment. Glad you’re amused, though.
WordPress tends to filter out comments with lots of links, trying to protect the site from spam.
whatafarceyouare@urahypocrite.com?
Goodness, how stupid, cowardly, and juvenile is that?
I agree with Richard. I have never ever had even one post blocked even though I disagree from time to time.
Long time reader. First time commenter.
I’m just the opposite of Amused. Through the years, I’ve wondered how you keep your cool, how you keep from blocking idiotic comments, how you answer people without calling bs, and how you often let their criticisms stand without answering. In these regards, this blog, now apparently eight years old, stands apart from almost every other blog I’ve looked at.
At times I hear people complaining that commenters here have called out some of the old conservative stuff. They talk about it like it’s in the past. But trust me: small-minded, legalistic, guilt-inducing teaching is everywhere. And it often comes from the mouths of people who talk quietly, smile big, and are described as “the kindest man I know” (or woman). They are kind like a boa wrapped around someone. Kind until they squeeze you to death.
I can’t help but recall that Paul called out legalists. Guessing many of the commenters here, who have tried for years to set your “politeness meter,” wouldn’t like Paul’s language in, say, Galatians.
Now carry on.
Two other things:
1. I notice that you don’t stay plugged into the blog like you did several years ago. Good for you. On behalf of one loyal reader, if you need to turn loose of it, go ahead. Or if you like posting just a time or two a week, wonderful.
2. I did a search on this blog of the name LC mentioned. Nothing came up.
I can’t help but recall the one time someone did something a long time ago that makes me remember today that the person that did that something a long time ago should be associated with a certain type of character of someone who does that something repeatedly.
P.S. We should have a monthly listing of the fake e-mail addresses people use — that would be hilarious.
jdd, Mike did not mention him by name, but I knew by a little investigation of my own who he was talking about. I am sorry if I left the impression that Mike was calling this person out by name. I believe Mike is a classy guy, but I just disagree with him sometimes. I also agree with you that the type of legalism of which you speak is still around, but I also believe that there are an equal number of people who seem to be tolerant until someone disagrees with them.
I’m sure he appreciates you doing some investigation so you can publicly name someone he chose NOT to name.
On Good Friday I was walking home and I passed a church of a tradition that I normally consider very different from my own. I heard them singing and I stopped a second to listen. I realized the song was “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross,” which is one of my favorite hymns! It was a beautiful moment for me; I sang along as they finished up the verse and thought about how we worship the same God and call on the same Savior, even though we might look a lot different in other ways. What amazing things we could accomplish if we attacked evil in the world (like poverty and injustice) with the same tenacity we usually reserve for each other.
“Love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my life, my all.”
The post is from September of 2007. The investigation was to simply read that there was a television show speaking for Churches of Christ. If you know anything about Churches of Christ it was pretty simple to conclude who he was talking about. Here is the post.
All right. You’ve got the money — you’re free to put whatever you want on radio or television or in the newspaper. But I so often wish that groups wouldn’t say that this is from “Churches of Christ.”
There’s a television program that comes on here that’s associated with Churches of Christ. This past week the speaker kindly explained why women have to keep their mouths shut in church.
And that’s a message from Churches of Christ? Or just faithful Churches of Christ? Maybe a list needs to run of those who are faithful enough to support the message.
I couldn’t disagree more with his message. And yet people in Abilene hear that it’s from Churches of Christ.
This post isn’t about the issue of women and gifts, per se. Time will take care of this, anyway. Churches will realize they were wrong — just as on the issue of race.
It’s about presenting yourself as representing a whole denomination. (I know, I know, we’re not a denomination!) It would be like me presenting this on the internet as a message from Churches of Christ. It’s not! it’s my ramblings. It’s what I observe . . . what I believe.
THAT is the post you were saying was dismissive of a person (whom Mike chose not to name but whom you named for the public)? Everything in that sounds fair. And needs to be said. Very hard for one individual to say, “This is what our denomination believes”—at least for a denomination so loosely organized. Clearly that is NOT what many in Churches of Christ or several churches believe.
If you can’t take that, then you don’t understand unity in diversity. Is your understanding of unity that we just “play sweet” and never challenge anything?
First, the speaker never said that women had to “kept their mouths shut.” That is dismissive and in my opinion shows a lack of respect for a man who simply spoke his convictions, and second to just pronounce that people who might disagree with you are wrong and will change in time is also dismissive and doesn’t leave much room for disagreement. I am always willing to challenge and be challenged. I also agree with Mike most of the time and have great personal respect for him. I also have no problem with you calling me out on anything. God bless.
we can try and fit God into the cultural mindset of pluralism, but it just wont work. Jesus established one church not multiple churches the pattern of their organization, behavior, worship and roles is clearly defined to move away from what we see in the NT is a violation of God’s law.
That’s what I love about Tres Dias (and Walk To Emmaus in Abilene before that). We come from so many different understandings. We manage to sit around a table with each other and share our differing understandings. Yet the encouragement to be in the word is always there. Often I am challenged to know why I believe what I believe. We all work as hard as we can to accomplish what the weekend is about – side by side. It’s great!
LC, yes it is a bit similar to politics isn’t it? We are tolerant of more liberal ideas, but if you happen to be of a more conservative slant you are ignorant, backwards and narrow-minded and in religious circles you are not only all of the above you are legalistic, denying grace and are considered “unchristian” and right up there with the slave owners of the 19th century.
THANK YOU!
I needed to read this today. Every bit of it was nourishment for my soul. From the memories of the Towne Crier to the acknowledgment that someone else was also disappointed by the “Farewell, Rob Bell” tweet.
I would be happy to commune with you sometime over a one-egg special (done my way for me of course).
Nothing more predictable on this blog than conservatives whining about how conservatives are treated. Give it up. Grow up. Just because people express disagreement doesn’t mean they (a) don’t like you; (b) don’t respect you; (c) don’t think you are a true believer. Your threadworn whining lecture about tolerance is getting really old.
Hmm I think that post just proved my point.
“As members have drifted back and forth from one church to another over “major differences,” we’ve just smiled, enjoyed our friendship and remembered that what goes around comes around.”
I’m confused as to who the phrase “what goes around comes around” applies to. Does it apply to the member who left? Does it apply to the former congregation? Or, does it apply to the preacher of the church that was left? My best guess is that this phrase was intended to apply to the member who left. If so, I think the sentiment is misplaced. I think this phrase is better suited for the former church and preacher. I know of several churches who have changed course in midstream and lost many members due to “major differences” who are struggling to stay afloat, much less meet their budget.
In these cases, the financial consequenses are far outweighed by the possible sprirtual ones. The problem lies in the fact that not everyone who leaves a church lands in another congregation. Some of them simply give up and withdraw from the assembly altogether. Still worse, some withdraw from God completely.
Next time ya”ll get together at the Towne Crier, instead of trusting in karma to make things right, you might consider bringing a list of current members and comparing those list to find the individuals that have not survived your latest enlightenment. Then GET THEM BACK!
Just as I think yours proved mine.
“…if you happen to be of a more conservative slant you are ignorant, backwards and narrow-minded and in religious circles you are not only all of the above you are legalistic, denying grace and are considered “unchristian” and right up there with the slave owners of the 19th century.” (Anne)
I don’t know, Anne. I’m kind of amused when people imply that I’m guilty of racism simply because I’m theologically conservative. But I’m easily amused.
Terry, maybe I’ll grow to that point!! I just get a little frustrated by the hypocrisy of it all, especially in political circles. The cry for unity is always a veiled “agree with my thoughts, but I will not agree with your beliefs because they are just wrong.” The political far left are always touting tolerance, but I’ve noticed that they have shown so much tolerance for President Bush, VP Cheney and especially Sarah Palin. I find it frustrating that they will show more tolerance for dictators and terrorists than their own leaders or law-abiding citizens just because they are of a conservative slant.
And I think you can draw a corelation in religious circles, that SOME, not all have an attitude of the Pharisee standing on the corner beating their chest and praying that I’m glad” I’m not as narrow-minded as those conservative church of Christ people.” And to the other side there are some on the conservative side that also have that same haughty attitude.
I enjoy having my beliefs challenged by someone who may see things differently than I do. I enjoy a good debate on ideas, because I think it challenges my thinking and makes look at why I believe what I do believe. And contrary to the thinking of some there are many wonderful conservative Christians out there who do grow in their beliefs and are very kind and compassionate. And for the most part people in Christian circles can debate their ideas in a Christian manner.
And it seems that LC does have a point along these same lines. If you are going to claim inclusivity for all then why can’t churches of Christ advertise their beliefs and say that they are the church of Christ? Or we only inclusive to those who believe as we do?
I clicked on your link, Terry and was very interested in your work there in Tulsa. We are involved in a ministry that I think you could categorize as inner city. I am going to look more at the Contact website to see what ministries you are involved in.
Again, Anne. You misunderstand, I believe.
By “tolerate” you seem to mean “agree.” I’m assuming that liberals and conservatives will not agree on things. They’ll in fact disagree vehemently at times.
By “tolerate” I mean: the maintenance of friendship and fellowship.
When I hear liberals touting tolerance, I hear them saying that we should be able to have unity, even with great diversity. It doesn’t mean everyone has to kiss each other, hold hands, and say, “Because I respect you I’ve decided to agree with you.”
When I hear conservatives whining about how liberals want tolerance with everyone but conservatives, they’ve switched the meaning of tolerance.
Should we respect each other, befriend each other, fellowship each other—even with disagreements on the table? Absolutely. “Some of my best friends are conservatives.”
Does this mean we have to agree? Absolutely not.
Have you noticed that on this blog through the years but liberals and conservatives are allowed to speak and are treated with respect? (That doesn’t always imply agreement.)
Robert, no I think there is a difference between tolerance and unity. To me, to tolerate is to disagree, but to be civil towards one another and unity is to act in one accord. I can be tolerant of another’s beliefs that I don’t agree with in that I am not going to belittle their belief, but at the same time I’m not going to be marching in the street proclaiming it with them. To be unified is to agree. Now that can be tempered by the fact that we do not have to agree on all points, but I would think to be in unity you must agree in major beliefs? What would we have to agree on? I think that can be a deep question.
The only point I was trying to make is that sometimes those who proclaim tolerance the loudest are sometimes the most intolerant. I see that mostly in political circles, but I have seen it in religious circles as well, in that we belittle and make fun of fundamental Christians or other conservative Christians because they are not as “enlightened” as us. We won’t “tolerate” them, but we will be “unified” with other groups. It just seems a little confusing at times.
I’m definitely not too accustomed to this subject but I do wish to stop by blogs for layout ideas and fascinating topics. You basically described a subject that I usually do not care much about and created it extraordinarily fascinating. This is a nice weblog that I will pay attention to. I currently bookmarked it for long term reference. Lung Cancer Symptoms