I’ll never forget the fortune cookie prophesy a friend of mine once taped to the side of his camera, “Talent does what it can. Genius does what it must.” This speaks to the degree of obsession required to channel creativity at an almost alien level. Talent tends to emulate what has gone before – genius shatters previous preconceptions about a medium and opens new vistas of understanding.

This distinction became personal to me when I realized that, though a professional musician, I could not “make music.” I could regurgitate music on the printed page – after considerable effort. I could even add my own “voice” to that music. I could not, however, take my instrument and create my own music. I have many musician friends who amaze me with their ability to do so.

In my experience, the consummate artist becomes slightly annoyed with those who sing their praises. They are energized by interactions with peers they respect – seeking a community that both encourages and provides constructive criticism.

Even in this environment discouragement takes hold. There is always a higher peak to climb, always another whose work evinces some deficiency in their own – always a critic whose indictment of their work cannot be dismissed as ignorance or misunderstanding.

“I’m not good enough.”

The inner voice that speaks like the toll of the bell as the coffin of your career is laid to rest. The last rejection letter, placed on a pile of rejection letters.

Be of good cheer. I come to proclaim:

You are ABSOLUTELY NOT good enough.

Never were – never will be.

Once you realize that, you can be unshackled to create at a whole new level – the level where you are not preoccupied with what others think – the level where you no longer serve yourself, but the One who sent you. The great lie in worldly wisdom is, “No one knows you like you do.” “Follow your heart.”
“To thine own self be true.” I believe this to be utter nonsense. In my experience, I know myself least of all. I certainly have very little capacity to see myself as others see me. Furthermore, the Creator – the architect of my soul is much more intimately knowledgeable regarding my inner workings than I could ever hope to be. So though I may not be good enough – the One who created me is.

When you seek His direction – your ability to produce reflects His plan instead of yours – a plan not dependent on ability but availability. Career breaks often come when you are at peace with abject failure. Contentment comes with His success through you – when you forsake the need to be known by others for the need to be known by Him.

We are all faulty vessels. Avoid the pretension, “It wasn’t me, it was the Lord.”

A true friend once noted, “Oh really? I didn’t think it was that good.”

I would mislead you if I did not balance what would appear as a highly individualistic approach to spirituality with the exhortation that the practice of hearing and obeying MUST occur within a spiritual community.

I join the growing number of Christian leaders who share the vision for a church lauded not for how big it is, rather, how intimate its participants are with God and one another. How can we espouse personal intimacy with God and NOT model that intimacy with one another?

I have served with leaders who were deeply wounded as a consequence of risking true personal intimacy. I believe these wounds are the result of allowing spiritual fruit found in others to rot on the vine. The most basic carnal desire is to keep those we have come to love close to us. Unfortunately, this directly contradicts the example we have in Christ. His great commission was for us to “Go into the World” not to “Stay here with me.” When we neglect this command, the pain that results from people under compulsion to stay is far greater than the sadness that occurs seeing them go.

When we master true intimacy with one another and are equally facile at recognizing the time when that intimacy must end – we (the church) will again become a potent force for world change.

My vision for church:

-          Begins with foundational discipleship (knowing who we are in Christ and what we believe as Christians)

-          Builds an overarching trust in God’s ability to personally direct each of us as the consequence of deep and substantive intimacy with one another

-          Is mission focused to support – not resist – identifying and compelling one another to obey His individual call to be sent forth as ambassadors, replicating this process wherever He leads.

-          Recognizes those who are spiritually mature without embracing a hierarchy that equates maturity with superiority, giving both the mature and novice equal freedom to fail without judgment.

“Deep and substantive intimacy with one another” cannot be obtained in large groups. I cannot participate in an institutional model that has grown beyond the means to support and sustain a true knowledge of the life, character and sensibilities of its participants.

Given this context, the exhortation to “hear and obey” God’s voice is not an invitation to an individualistic spiritual pursuit, rather, a reminder that this should be the goal of deep relationship within a spiritual community – a community passionate about multiplication not retention.

In conclusion you may wonder, “Why has he not quoted God’s Word to support his assertions?” I have many good friends and spiritual mentors highly adept at placing God’s word in proper context and using it judiciously to support their points. My aim, however, is to practically demonstrate how serious I am about turning you back to God’s Word and your relational sphere for true understanding. The selective quotation of scripture can be, in the hands of those less scrupulous, a manipulation designed to reinforce spiritual dependence on a personality. If you are intimately acquainted with God’s word your understanding will either affirm or refute my assertions. If you are not intimately familiar with His word and in deep relationship with a spiritual community, what business do you have spending your time reading what I am writing? First pursue God’s voice through meaningful relationship with others, not an author you have no personal relationship with. Devote yourself to exploring God’s word for yourself, not trusting another’s interpretation.  God’s voice will manifest as a product of intimacy with Him and be affirmed by intimacy with one another.

A distinctive of post-reformation Christianity is the belief in a personal relationship with God. To many, the belief one can understand the intimate thoughts of God is presumptuous at best, at worst – heretical insanity.

Make no mistake, mental illness can manifest as delusional voices often ascribed to the voice of God. For this reason, spiritual leaders are understandably reticent about pushing people towards the logical conclusion of their initial invitation – that is – a truly intimate connection to the Most High.

I must ask why the church has been so reluctant to embrace this key component of discipleship. Could avoiding the simplicity of hearing and obeying God’s voice stem from our innate fear of what the consequence might be?

I would submit we can scarcely do worse than the spiritual abuse already ascribed to “God’s Will.” Letting go of hierarchical leadership models in favor of spiritual self discovery will no doubt yield unpredictable results. My faith is in God’s sovereign ability to reveal himself to affect His will and resist ours.

Once the foundations of faith are established in the lives of Christians, our goal should be to push believers towards their individual calling imparted directly by God, not bind them to ourselves.

Since the time of Martin Luther’s reformation movement, religious institutions have organized, divided, and re-organized along the same hierarchical structure. The 20^th century brought the advent of mass communication and a new form of uniquely American Christianity distinguished by brokering spiritual insight as an economic endeavor with strong nationalistic identification. This nationalism views our “superpower” status as a tacit endorsement by God. The result is a religion that is passionate about identification with Christ but dismisses the need to partake in His sufferings. This monetized spiritual model succeeds only by leveraging a cultural fixation on charismatic personalities (the spiritual celebrity) to attract followers.

American Evangelical Christianity depends on making followers dependent on charismatic personalities to sustain the inward flow of resources required to build self-sustaining spiritual activities. The irony is that instead of conducting effective evangelism by launching legions of impassioned Disciples of Christ into the spiritual marketplace – they instead retain individuals to serve the needs of the institution. For this reason there is cyclical division as individuals emerge with spiritual passion and are then constrained to serve the institution rather than their call. Evangelistic efforts are muted and suffer regular setbacks when charismatic personalities fail. This cycle of expansion and division has led to society’s marginalization of organized religion due to its failed attempts at self-preservation. Future posts to this blog will focus on the creative freedom we have when unshackled from what I call “celebrity Christianity.”  While there is no doubt Christ was a celebrity when He walked the earth, He consistently pushed people towards the Father. His actions consistently resisted attracting followers.

Part I

In 20 years of ministry the question I most often encounter among those beginning their spiritual exploration is, “How can I know the voice of God?”

The promise of a personal relationship with God was our original motivation to lead people to Christ, so quite naturally some are curious about what that relationship involves.

There is no formula for recognizing God’s voice in your life. His ability to form relationship with you is unique. It would be foolish of me to presume He will work the same with you as He has with me.

I offer the following as guidelines based on my experience with hearing God’s voice:

• The ability to hear God’s voice often occurs after dismissing your own desires and being devoted entirely to worshiping Him for an indeterminate amount of time. Meditation purposed to quiet your own thoughts after a period of worship often ushers in His presence.

• God speaks using a familiar voice, normally your own.
• Although He may use your own voice, the content of the instructions frequently contradict your presumptions and desires. He will consistently challenge you to do what you fear the most. He consistently invites you to an activity that may make you feel uncomfortable or fear what others might think. His plans typically involve risk, challenge your sense of security and desire for self-preservation.
• His voice focuses on your needs, not the needs of others.
• His voice provides loving affirmation, where your voice speaks condemnation.
• His spoken word is always harmonious with His written word.
• Others will affirm that what He tells you is consistent with His nature.

Finally, I am persuaded humility dictates I never claim “God says” but rather, “I perceive God says…”

The act of obedience is simply doing what God’s voice says to do, as He is faithful to impart detailed knowledge beyond our limited understanding. God rewards obedience to His Word by offering even more detailed instructions about your life.

The same may be said for our news intake. Granted, some wisely avoid news and current events. I recently fasted from all news media for 40 days. I found my stress level was reduced and I think I was generally a happier person. When the 40 days were up, I quickly returned to my news junkie ways. Curiosity got the better of me. I have an innate need to know what’s going on – to be “in the loop.”

One of the lessons learned from journalism school is the importance of factoring sources into the information equation. Consider the food parallel further: The more “processed” the product, the more likely it will contain ingredients that don’t have any nutritional value, but merely make the product taste good and have an appealing appearance.

So it is with news information – the lines between entertainment and an objective presentation of the facts have become so blurred, it is hard to find any original information that hasn’t already been spun, skewed, and processed so the facts lend themselves to what we like to consume.

Unfortunately, this bodes poorly for the truth.

No matter what your political persuasion, you owe yourself a balanced diet. Ask yourself, “Do I only listen to news outlets that reinforce what I already believe?” If so – kiss the truth goodbye. Left or right, you have closed the door to understanding original information when consumed from only one source. It is no surprise both extremes of the political spectrum have an innate mistrust of the media – and instruct their followers to exercise that mistrust by listening only to what their “approved” outlets offer as “information.” This tactic is the oldest trick in the propagandist’s playbook. By getting everyone on board with the presumption what everyone else says is wrong, you can begin to spin the most fabulous lies that will be understood as gospel.

How much time do you spend listening to (and by listening I mean actually trying to understand) a perspective that differs from your own? By modifying your news diet to include some “roughage” – points of view you may not like but that provide balance to what you’ve been hearing – you can actually form your own opinion. Make no mistake – nothing is more dangerous to power brokers than people who actually think for themselves. Nothing is more vital to a democracy than a well informed citizenry. The choices we make about our information diet determine whether our mind, like our food, contain all the necessary nutrients for proper function.

No surprise our society has become so dysfunctional. The information diet reflects the natural diet – highly processed junk news that titillates our senses and is designed only for taste not nutrition. Using predetermined conclusions, thought is not necessary. Our opinions have been provided for us.

Do you consider yourself a truth seeker?  Someone who resists being spoon fed? Get a balanced diet of information and make your own conclusions. The consequence of a good news diet is the failure to fit neatly into a label.  Shock your friends. Become both liberal AND conservative – or neither liberal nor conservative, whichever you prefer. The time has come to elevate the conversation beyond labels and begin actually listening to one another. A balanced diet of information does much to build bridges of mutual respect. The way we treat each other when we disagree reveals the strength or weakness of our relationships.

I confess to the guilty pleasure of tweaking people’s preconceptions about conventional wisdom, no matter whose conventions I may be upsetting. To liberals, I enjoy being a conservative – to conservatives, I become a liberal. I am entertained by challenging the presumptions of others. My children do an amazing job of confronting the presumptions I make about them.

Debate is our family love language. We prefer thoughtful disagreement to blind obedience.

Think of it as intellectual roughage.

I’m no academic. Yes, I took the film theory courses required for my degree, but I was a film production student with not much patience for theory.

I watch a ton of movies though. I bet you do too. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be where you are.

Throughout the 20th century, your peers did not shy away from tackling all the weighty issues – war, sexuality, racism, politics, heck even the prospect of being colonized by space aliens. May I humbly submit that there is a gaping blind spot in the subjects you choose to produce? You don’t have to be an intellectual cinematic guru to realize something has been missing for a long time.

Faith.

Where is the inclusion of religion – not as the extraordinary – but ordinary?

Forget the preachy evangelism among “Christian” film makers (“Facing the Giants”). Forget the high minded studies of a protagonist torn between his “calling” and his flesh (“The Apostle”). No, I’m talking about a film that treats spirituality on an equal footing with other pedestrian narrative devices, like shopping in the market, flying in an airplane, or working in an office.

Sure, there have been film makers who tried to make amends in this area. Mel Gibson’s “We Were Soldiers” has a scene showing him pray with his kids at bedtime and joining a fellow soldier for prayer at church before deployment. This brings to mind a related observation: Why have Catholics and Jews faired far better (or worse) for cinematic inclusion than Protestants and (God Forbid) Evangelicals and Muslims?

Keep in mind I’m not talking about films that include religious figures as warped hypocritical monsters. You guys have done a GREAT job with that.

No, I’m talking about a realistic inclusion of faith with all the conflict, ambiguity and fervor found in the actual lives of the faithful – which according to some studies includes up to 80% of our population. Sure, beat up on religious passion if you must, but please don’t make a balanced perspective taboo. As a consumer of cinema, I am HUNGRY for a character who can handle their spirituality as well as their sexuality.  Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of films that have an unspoken spirituality. They number as my all time favorites (is Captain John H. Miller in “Saving Private Ryan” a Christ figure, or what?) While I could be almost persuaded that that’s good enough – I have the naïve ideal that cinema should be a mirror on society and am not satisfied with how horribly warped that mirror is.

If you are a writer, producer or director, please let me know why this topic is such a minefield? Why have all other taboos been broached fearlessly except this one? Is it the money? If so, help me understand why a movie like “Fireproof” can gross almost $33.5 mil? Seems to me if that many people want A LOT of religion in a so-so movie, how many more will be OK with a little religion in a GREAT film?

Oh, and forgive me for yet another “indictment of Hollywood” treatise. I stand in a long line of complainants. After all, being society’s moral mirror is not an easy cross to bear.

Music Trade Review, June 13, 1914:

==========================
ARE MUSICIANS “FREAKS?”

Dr. Paul Sohn, the German Scientist, Says They Are, So Far as Their Physical
Appearances Go.

That all musicians are “freaks,” so far as their physical appearances go, is the
opinion of Dr. Paul Sohn, the German scientist. Not only this, but he finds
that, regardless of their race or nationality, all persons of marked musical
ability show a close resemblance to one another in the shape of their heads and
faces. The head and countenance of the typical musician often looks very much
like those of the lion or the sphinx.

The peculiar shape of a musician’s head is due, Dr. Sohn believes, to the
gradual expansion of the sound-center of his brain and the consequent change in
the conformation of his skull. This is why the heads of Beethoven, Wagner,
Robert Schumann, Richard Strauss and other great musicians all have an
eccentric, abnormal and sometimes fantastic appearance.

A musician’s sound-center develops abnormally because it is there that
everything in his life finds its motive. The musical head and face are of a
primitive type, because musical genius is a reversion to the time when men
communicated their ideas by means of more or less inarticulate sounds. But
although the musician’s physical appearance is barbarous in its lack of beauty
and regularity, it contains no hint of degeneracy.

The typical musical head is characterized by the horizontal breadth of the
forehead, the broad nose and chin and the wide, extremely mobile mouth. The brow
often overhangs greatly, as was so notably the case with Beethoven. The eyes as
lustrous but bear a separated, dreamy expression. The hands are broad and
strong.

“Musicians,” says Dr. Sohn, “are absolute slaves to their sense of sound, and it
is this that not only affects their physical appearances, but makes them
mentally so nervous and excitable. The main feature of the musical intellect is
that mental excitement seeks a different outlet than in the case of ordinary
men.”

Written in 1926 by Sinclair Lewis (not to be confused with C.S. Lewis) this book rocked the religious world and was banned in more than a few cities largely because of the fictional character the book was named for.

Though quite popular and controversial as a book, it was the 1960 film that was among the few movies I remember my grandfather, J.R. Watkins, talking about.

J.R. spent much of his life, over 60 years in fact, as a Methodist preacher. His father was a Methodist preacher, as was his father’s father, and his father’s father’s father; four consecutive generations of pastors dating back to the founding of our country.

That’s a long time for a family to tread the path of ministry.

J.R. spent much of his ministry in Kansas.

Elmer Gantry was from Kansas, but I think there was more that piqued J.R.’s interest in the film. Elmer Gantry, like my grandfather, was a Methodist preacher. Yes, maybe that was it. They were both Methodist preachers in Kansas.

Methodist ministers in the early 20^th century were known for their fire and brimstone preaching, not the wishy washy liberal theology that has overrun the denomination in more recent years. Many Methodists ministers before 1950 had a passion that would exceed most Charismatic leaders today.

Elmer Gantry was the first depiction of a preacher who was also a complete scoundrel. The portrayal won Burt Lancaster an Oscar for Best Actor. These days it’s hard to imagine a tradition in cinema where all clergy weren’t scoundrels. In 1960, however, Elmer Gantry marked the end of religious leaders portrayed in a positive light. The cinematic slander of clergy in films that followed was swift and stunning.

I watched the film for the first time, recalling how my grandfather was amused – not threatened- amused by the story. A story loosely based on the life of Aimee Semple McPherson.

Aimee Semple McPherson was America’s first radio evangelist. “Sister Aimee’s” charismatic oration won her throngs of followers. Her career became tarnished by dubious claims of having been kidnapped, drugged and tortured then being left for dead in the Mexican desert. Many suspected she concocted the story to conceal having run off with her radio program engineer, Kenneth Ormiston.

Instead of a radio engineer, Sinclair Lewis casts the character of Elmer Gantry as a shameless con man and philanderer. Elmer dabbles in preaching, not out of spiritual conviction, but material gain – and to pursue the Aimee-like character named Sharon Falconer. The film was, well, racy, in its portrayal of the sexual misconduct; controversial not only for the sexuality, but suggested hypocrisy of institutional religion.

I mention my grandfather in connection with this film because he never lived to see the repeated and unfortunate downfall of the televangelist’s of my generation. Nor did he live to experience the culture wars that have pitted religious conservatives, much like those depicted in the film with God forsaken liberals (what the film called “modernists.”)

Watching Elmer Gantry was captivating, confirming the wisdom of Solomon in Ecclesiastes. There IS truly “nothing new under the sun.”

Imagine a movie made in 1960 that accurately depicts a brewing “culture war.” Exposes contradictions within organized religion, then, get this, portrays a bona fide miracle!  The hard drinking, womanizing Elmer Gantry, as it turns out, ends up making one of the most profound defenses for the truth of scripture in a debate with a cynical newspaper editor (yes, they were the “Godless media” back then too).

The impact this film had on me was, I imagine, the same as for my grandfather. The story decried a “feel good” Christianity and begged for something more, something real, something worth dying for.

In my thirteen years as an associate pastor, I don’t recall a single class or sermon devoted to examining our own history and role in America as conservative evangelical Christians. I find the culture of evangelical Christianity curiously lacking interest in self-reflection.

This kind of self-assuredness does a disservice to our call and our cause. Even Christ showed pause prior to His embracing the cross as he asked the Father to “take this cup from me” (Mark 14:36). In our efforts to reach those who don’t have a personal relationship with Christ, Satan is well served by those who think they have all the answers and presume to know the mind of Christ in all things social and political.

The world can smell this kind of religious arrogance a mile away.

Pointing fingers without self-appraisal will only produce more Elmer Gantry’s.

One such clip was an interview with the former classmates at Lee Harvey Oswald’s junior high school in New Orleans.  The reporter set up his interview with the comment that went something like, “Lee Harvey Oswald was a poor student whose best grades were in Art.  We know artists are often non-conformists, dressing and acting in a way that is often outside the norms of society, was this the Lee Harvey Oswald you knew?”

Three young ladies (former high school classmates), offered their views on the future assassin, “He seemed bookish and to himself.”  “He was nice enough back then.”  “He was kind of quirky.  Like a know it all.”

Thanks to the Lee Harvey Oswald’s of this world, non-conformists have always been suspect.  The horrific massacre at Columbine High School revealed a plot hatched by bullied social misfits.

Even those who are able to channel their non-conforming ways into something of societal value are often kept at arms length.  An uncomfortable position that breeds insecurity.  For the non-conformist, daily living offers a thousand little reminders they see things differently.

Yes, the non-conformist has occupied both ends of the social spectrum; the very best and very worst of humanity.  Society tends to institutionalize the non-conformist who is found at either end.

If judged simply insane, commitment to a mental institution so the rest of the world might remain safe.

If judged genius, the formation of a social institution.  Perhaps a University or Academy, a Church or even an entire denomination…devoted to preserving and promoting the accomplishments of our most revered non-conformists.  All doomed to failure at one level or another:

“Those who think like we do, UNITE!”

Can the non-conformist ever be fully replicated in an environment of conformity?  Yet conformity is exactly what institutions require to survive. This has been the great conundrum of leadership.  How do we foster submission and obedience without also demanding conformity?

Moreover, how do we work together in unity while yet protecting the unconventional and innovative?

I began to grasp challenge of our mission to bring Christ to artistic communities when I watched this news reporter from the mid-1960’s search for a connection between someone who does well in an Art class and someone who would shoot the president.  I reflected on why I was selected for this assignment.

I won’t bore you with my life story.  I will say that I was born into a family of thinkers.  We were encouraged to question authority.  To do the hard work of digging for the truth ourselves, instead of letting someone else hand it to us for unquestioned consumption.  We were musicians, artists, teachers, and yes, we had all the hallmarks of a rebel tribe.

We could also be arrogant jerks.

My tribe, and there are many like us, pose a challenge for the faith community.  In my case, I was smart enough to excel in certain areas of my life, while troubled enough to become a drug addict.  The mess I got myself into led me to make a decision to follow the life of Christ.

Imagine then the irony in my mind between the life of Jesus Christ we read in the Bible, and the role organized religion plays today in conveying his life to the unconverted.

Jesus Christ of the Bible:  The ultimate non-conformist.  Misunderstood, misinterpreted, but clearly viewed by religious leaders of the time as a very present danger to their hallowed institutions.  Someone who must be eliminated.

Jesus Christ today:  The flagship of organized religion.  The icon of our hallowed social institution, the church.  Jesus Christ:  Whose emblems we were like a badge of honor:  The fish.  The cross.  The WWJD bracelet.

On the surface, it would appear the Jesus Christ of today stands as a symbol of the status quo.  A threat to the non-conformist.

However, for the non-conformist brave enough to examine the life of Christ for himself, he becomes a fresh call to question the conventional wisdom of the day.

Friends, the church fails when it becomes the persecutor instead of the persecuted.   The persecuted church is Christ’s closest companion.  Persecution comes when you threaten the status-quo, when you question either religious authority OR cultural conventional wisdom. This form of radical Christianity always has, and always will be, attractive to those hungry for creative cultural transformation.  This is the brand of Christianity an artistic community can get excited about.