With deep grief I have watched the events surrounding the Ferguson, MO, case and the Eric Garner case. I grieve over the loss of life, regardless of circumstance. I grieve over those who responded with violence, regardless of reason. I grieve over the angry divisiveness, heartlessness, and bitter words exchanged in the streets and online. I grieve that, no matter how you look at these stories, race is still an open-wound issue in our time.

I'm not going to tell you who I think is right or wrong, and I won't tell you who you should think is right or wrong, because that would reduce what you should think down to a single idea. The issues are complex, and I would hope that every one of us has a complex, even conflicting set of thoughts about them.

In all this, I have observed that people responded to the same set of facts based on how they were already bent. In other words, if I knew your socio-political leanings before these events occurred, I could have quite accurately predicted your responses to them. The facts of the case are the facts of the case, but how people responded to those facts was overwhelmingly conditioned by what they already believed before the facts were presented.

In other words, the facts matter less than our preconceived narratives. We all have agendas - things we want to happen, ways we want to be followed, structures we want in place. We have a narrative in our minds of how things have been and ought to be. Sadly, the real lives of the real people involved in real events are merely props to affirm the narratives in our minds. We're using them ... and their tragedies ... to affirm what we already believe. It doesn't matter which side of these issues people are on; I observe the same phenomenon in both directions.

Facts should change us, not vice versa. But we're letting it happen. How else could our differing responses be so easily predictable before the facts even came to light? The facts could have been different, but our respective conclusions would have been the same! And we're pretty angry about these "facts" - even though they don't really matter.

It's not just these two events. The same thing happens daily with politics, religion, international relations, and of course sports. It's not just them who do this; it's us. No sense in pointing fingers - both sides of every issue are filled with rhetoric that could be scripted without looking at a single fact.

Jesus once said that even if a man rose from the dead and warned people, they wouldn't listen. Facts don't matter - they just get repurposed. Therefore, the facts of your life don't matter, either, because my narrative is already set. I'll twist your story to fit my narrative, so you don't really matter.

The only way I can be different than this is to allow people to mess up my narrative.

When I was a young kid, we didn't have any pets. Somehow, I had it in my mind that dogs and cats were the same animal, but that dogs were the boys and cats were the girls. (To save my own life, I will not explain how that conclusion actually makes made some sense.) Our neighbors had a cat and a dog ... but the cat was male and the dog was female! That totally messed up my young narrative! I fought it, but eventually I allowed reality to change my narrative. The only way I could retain my narrative would have been to slander the reputations those two animals. (Sound familiar?)

Allowing your narrative to be changed doesn't mean you have to put your core beliefs on the chopping block. Whatever core beliefs are true need not change, even when the narratives must. Even though I have discovered halfway decent people who graduated from KU, I don't have to abandon my core belief in the absolute superiority of Mizzou. They changed my narrative, but not my core belief!

This is especially crucial when we consider our kids, who encounter narrative-busting people every day. If our narrative fails to accommodate the variety of lifestories they eat lunch with and study algebra together with, they will abandon the narrative - they will not abandon the busters. And if they abandon the narrative, they are far more likely to abandon the core beliefs you want to pass on.

Banned for Life

This week, Donald Sterling, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team, was banned for life from participating in the NBA. A recorded phone conversation between him and his mistress was made public, which revealed blatantly racist comments. Public reaction was swift and strong, overwhelmingly critical of his comments. His own team silently protested in a recent playoff game by wearing their shirts inside out during the introductions.

The comments he made were undeniably racist and are indefensible. I'm not going to argue whether or not a lifelong ban is appropriate for ugly racism. But I am struck by the severity of the reaction. Banned for life, not for racist actions but for racist thoughts. Yes, once public, those words inflict damage to the league, and if the reaction were just for that, there's a good argument that the severity is justified. My impression, however, is that they are not reacting to the actual damage done, but for how much they don't like those thoughts.

I don't like those thoughts, either. Not one bit. They are entirely repugnant. And the league has every right to ban someone for public comments that directly damage their organization. But I'm still brewing on the possibility of a lifelong ban because of what someone thinks.

Other examples are becoming more common. Scientists denied work if they believe the universe originates with God, restaurant owners being denied business licenses if they hold a personal belief about the boundaries of marriage (or shaggy men losing their TV show), CEOs ousted by popular demand for personally supporting a particular bill, and so on. Because of what they think, ugly or not, even if they never treat people unequally, they are banned from engaging in commerce.

I'm not writing a piece on American free speech rights. I'm not writing an alarmist article to incite people to hunker down for a fight. Rather, in the face of increasing, severe, and potentially expensive consequences for holding a view deemed unacceptable by a vocal crowd, Christians have a decision to make now.

We must decide in this moment that we're willing to be banned for life for what we believe - banned from a league, from a job, from an industry, from a community. Before the heat comes, before the crowd gets vocal, we must have already established that we would rather be banned than abandon our beliefs. After the heat comes, the temptation to falter is stronger, and for anyone unprepared, resisting will be all the harder. The "heat" may be mild or sizzling hot, but it seems clear that the temperature is rising. We must settle this while it's still relatively cool.

A word of warning: It's crucial that we're sure which beliefs are core and which ones aren't. Put a gun to my head, and I won't deny that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, but I'm not going to insist on a mid-tribulation, pre-millennial eschatology! Burn me at the stake over the Trinity, but it's not even worth breaking a sweat over determining which political party has the most avarice. Fire me for believing God made everything, but it's not important to me that we agree on how long He took to do it.

Be willing to be banned for life over the Gospel. Because others will be banned for eternal life without it.

Why Swap Pulpits?

Last Sunday, Grace Fellowship Church and Bridge of Hope Church had another "pulpit swap." Pastor Luther of BoH came to Grace to teach here, and I went to BoH to teach there. A suburban church and an urban core church being taught by pastors who are easily identified with their sending churches.

Why do we do this? It interrupts the flow and makes it a little more difficult for the worship teams and the administrative staff. So, why go through the trouble?

First, perspective. Every pastor, no matter how experienced, has blind spots. I have them, Luther has them, every pastor I've ever known has them. A congregation that hears only from one pastor is going to hear very little from those areas occluded by the pastor's blind spots. No matter how good or how varied a pastor's teaching is, his blind spots will inadvertently keep his congregation from certain, important teaching and perspective. A pulpit swap brings in someone with different blind spots, giving the congregation a broader perspective of biblical theology and discipleship. Furthermore, the pastor's perspective broadens because he is faced with a new set of challenges and needs.

Second, partnership. Bridge of Hope and Grace Fellowship have been developing a very strong partnership in many areas - youth group, outreach events, small groups, retreats, and ministry. A pulpit swap helps forges that partnership, so that each congregation gets to know the partner church's pastor more deeply. We get to understand each other better, we develop better personal relationships, and we get more of the heartbeat of each church. As a result, our partnership works more effectively.

Third, proving that the pastor is replaceable. We don't want any church to have an unhealthy dependency on the pastor. The pastor should be a strong factor in the church, but a healthy church should be able to thrive without him or when someone else is fulfilling the responsibilities. Furthermore, the pastor should never feel like he's irreplaceable. A pulpit swap proves to both the congregations and the pastors that it's not about the pastor. The church can go on just fine with a different man in the pulpit. The church is about Jesus Christ, not about the pastor.

Fourth, the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Getting out of our routines and exploring new avenues of ministry create openings for the work of the Holy Spirit. We can get into ruts, and ruts can become substitutes for the Spirit's work. Shaking it up makes for fresh opportunities for the Spirit. Last Sunday, I saw the Spirit at work in some amazing ways, and I heard that He also was busily at work through Luther's ministry here. The artificial props are removed, we are more apt to rely on the Spirit, and we see Him move in refreshing ways.

Pastor Luther and I plan on making this a periodic habit. I pray that we will continue to see fruit produced through serving one another's congregation.

Thanks to all of you who make him feel so welcome when he comes. I feel the same from the church family at Bridge of Hope.

Innercity and Innercity

Yesterday, I had lunch with Pastor Luther Eatman of Bridge of Hope Church in downtown KCK. Next week, I'm having lunch with Pastor Bill Gorman of Christ Community Downtown Church in KCMO. Both men are good friends to have; both are serving in downtown churches; both are building churches from the ground up. But their experiences are quite different. (And the difference is not related to which side of the state line they are on, but "Go Tigers!" nonetheless.)

Bridge of Hope is in a rough, older neighborhood. This congregation is comprised primarily of lower-income folks, many of whom will freely tell you of their pasts in drug addiction, crime, incarceration, prostitution, and violence. In fact, Pastor Luther will tell you about many of those same things in his own past. The congregation cannot afford to support a pastor, and many cannot afford rent, utilities, and three meals a day. Many are brand new believers, and are pouring their lives into getting their lives on a good, strong path.

Christ Community Downtown is in the revitalized North end, where new lofts have been going in. This congregation is mostly comprised of middle- to upper-income professionals. There may still be histories of drug abuse, crime, or promiscuity, but from a worldly perspective, their external lives are well put together. The congregation can afford their pastor (they are small in numbers now, but as they grow, a pastor's salary will not be their problem). They pay high rents and have disposable income for travel and entertainment. Although there are brand new believers, Pastor Bill has a core group of believers to help him get this congregation launched.

They have different situations, and the types of problems they face will have a lot of differences on the surface. But most of what they will be facing is exactly the same: getting a congregation started and achieving momentum, broken lives that have been empty without Christ, anxiety, insecurity, false pursuits, priorities out of alignment, doubts, pressure to go along with the world's way of thinking, marital stress, and so on.

They have the same basic solutions, too: pursuing the Kingdom of God first, trusting while in the midst of adversity, drawing strength from the community of believers, and drawing strength from God's Spirit and from His Word.

Both ministries are hard. They have different situations, but both are hard. Ministry here in the 'burbs is hard, too. The money is tighter in the urban core, but people are also much more willing to acknowledge their brokenness. Which is harder to minister to - people without many resources or people who are less likely to admit they don't have it all put together? Ministry is just hard, no matter the circumstances.

Both churches are part of our denomination, the Evangelical Free Church of America. Both have the same core doctrine. Both need your prayer and support. Both would welcome any assistance you'd like to provide. Both pastors have my utmost respect. Please add both churches to your prayer list.