Page 1503 – Christianity Today (2024)

The hydra is a freshwater animal, just a few millimeters long. It acts like an upside-down sedentary jellyfish, collecting food with tentacles. The creature is especially interesting in this: It seems to be immortal. Because the hydra reproduces by budding rather than mating, it uses its stem cells to regenerate aging tissue. Scientists have discovered that the same gene responsible for the hydra's continual use of stem cells could allow human bodies to better repair themselves and potentially live healthier and longer.

The discovery is only the latest scientific breakthrough to make very real the possibility that we will, sooner or later, extend the human life span.

But should we? Gilbert Meilaender, a professor of theology at Valparaiso University and former member of the President's Council on Bioethics, takes up this question in Should We Live Forever? The Ethical Ambiguities of Aging (Eerdmans). At a time when millions die without access to basic medical care, extending the life span of a few might seem morally dubious. But Meilaender leaves aside many related ethical questions, such as the problem of ensuring equitable access, for rich and poor alike, to these prospective fountains of youth. Instead, he zeroes in on the issue of whether, in and of itself, it would be good to pursue longer life.

Meilaender doesn't categorically reject extending life. If life is good, he argues, it very well may be good to have more of it. But there are costs, and that is the crux of the dilemma.

By seeking more life, we change what a human life is, and inevitably lose aspects that make it desirable. There is especially a tradeoff between life extension and reproduction. One life extension method—calorie restriction—works in part by shutting down the reproductive system, while another method prevents puberty. Living longer, it seems, will pit the generations against each other. At the same time, seeking longer life in order to love others, Meilaender admits, "makes me hesitant … to dismiss too quickly the desire to retard aging."

Meilaender examines several other life-extending methods, like "downloading" our minds, removing us from our bodies, in order to live on as machines. What, he asks, are the possible consequences for future generations?

With each difficulty raised, Meilaender circles his subject, examining it from the perspective of one hoping to live forever, then from the view of someone who believes life is good in the shape and form we now enjoy. "Were those our only alternatives," he writes, "we might be hard pressed to say which is more to be desired."

Meilaender solves this dilemma with a Christian perspective. While sympathizing with our love of life and desire for more, he ultimately hopes not for life extension but life divine.

Life without aging, he argues, "may … begin to look more destructive than creative. That is why the qualitatively different life for which Christian believers have hoped has not been thought to be in any sense simply an extension of this life—or the product of human ingenuity. As the gift of God, a new creation, it means being drawn into the life shared by Father, Son, and Spirit."

We naturally desire more of the life we enjoy on earth, but it should point us elsewhere. "That longing," Meilaender says in the afterword, "could not possibly come from more of this life … not because this life is not good, but because it cannot finally bring the completion needed for us truly to flourish."

Rob Moll is a CT editor at large and author of The Art of Dying: Living Fully into the Life to Come (InterVarsity Press).

Phil is stuck in Disney World without Skye or Christian (poor Phil!). Instead, he goes solo with an extended excerpt from his recent comedy show dealing with, appropriately, Disney World and everyone’s favorite Easter candy, marshmallow peeps!

Download here.

Subscribe here.

Some of the most interesting movie news from the past few days:

• The Croods (our review) dominated the box office this weekend, taking the number one spot with $44.7 million. In a surprise move, however, Olympus Has Fallen outperformed and pushed Oz: The Great and Powerful to third place (our review). Read more box office results here.
• Good news for all fans of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost: The World’s End, the final film in the unofficial trilogy of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, is now opening on August 23rd, two months earlier than intended. Read more about the film, and see some teaser photos, here.
• Robert Redford is in talks to join the Captain America sequel. If it works out, this will be the film icon’s first role in a comic book movie. Redford's character will fill a mentor role as an older member of S.H.I.E.L.D. Read more here.
• Seth Rogen is officially signed on to direct and star in The Interview, a film about a talk show host and his producer who get mixed up in a plot to assassinate the prime minister of North Korea. James Franco is rumored as co-star. Read more here.
• Kate Winslet is joining the cast of Divergent, Summit Entertainment’s upcoming action film, based on the popular YA series, about a dystopian future where “divergent” personality types are persecuted by the government. The film will open March 21, 2014.

Update (Mar. 27): Lawmakers voted yesterday to override the governor’s veto.

Will the legal back and forth make any difference? As the Associated Press reports, “Wayne State University law professor Christopher Lund reviewed the effects of 16 state religious freedom laws, finding they’ve largely been unused and that people who did claim religious infringement in those states lost more often than they won.”

––-

Update (Mar. 26): Southern Baptist leaders in Kentucky are strongly protesting the veto and urge lawmakers to override it.

––-

A religious freedom bill recently passed by the Kentucky state legislature received the stamp of disapproval from Gov. Steve Beshear.

Last Friday, Beshear vetoed Kentucky House Bill 279, which prevented the government from “substantially burdening” citizens’ rights to “act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief.”

According to Beshear, the vaguely worded protections outlined in the bill would cause more harm–and unnecessary litigation–than good.

“Imprecise legal standards lead to unforeseen consequences,” Beshear said in a statement. “This bill, as written, while well intended, is undermined by precarious legal wording.”

The Louisville Courier-Journal reports that “advocates from the state’s two largest religious denominations—Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists—have been supporting the bill.” Yet, critics say its heightened protections are unnecessary since both federal and state constitutions already guarantee freedom of religion to all citizens.

The bill passed by overwhelming margins in both the House and Senate, which plans to override the veto, according to the Richmond Register.

Kentucky recently addressed religious freedom cases involving safety requirements for Amish buggies and placement of church billboards, the Courier-Journal wrote, and in both instances, the government was able to present a compelling interest that would require the religious plaintiffs to obey state laws.

CT previously has reported on the topic of religious freedom, as well as on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a federal law that prohibits the government from “substantially burdening” citizens’ freedom of religion. In January, CT reported that most Americans are concerned over religious freedom, but can’t agree on how to apply it.

Update (April 22): ChinaAid reports that a house church raid in Henan province, China, has resulted in the arrest of U.S. church leader Dennis Balcombe, a Hong Kong Revival Chinese Ministries International pastor. Seven other Chinese house church leaders also were arrested.

CT previously interviewed Balcombe in 2004.

Morning Star News offers more details on the Henan raids.

––-

ChinaAid reported in February the Chinese government’s plan to eradicate all unofficial Protestant churches across the country. Now, that plan appears to have been set in motion.

“The ruling Chinese Communist Party’s ideological agency in Jiaozhou city called on township Party committees and neighborhood panels to investigate fully all unofficial venues of worship on their territory,” according to a report from Radio Free Asia.

Pastor Zhan Gang, who leads the local Protestant Chinese House Church Alliance in Jiaozhou, said all of the houses in his district already have been investigated.

That could signal the start of a broader, country-wide campaign, as pastors in Shenzhen and Guangzhou provinces report similar directives issued in their areas.

ChinaAid found government persecution of Christians rose 42 percent in 2012, though some experts say the numbers don’t reflect the state of Christianity in China.

China Source president Brent Fulton and Open Doors author Jan Vermeer explained that “Christians are not persecuted simply for being Christians,” but for engaging in political activity.

Fu counters that religious freedom may have increased, but persecution remains very real.

(Editor’s note: This blog has been updated.)

David Poyer’s homage to Melville is a thriller with a twist.

Jeff Chu describes himself as gay, partnered, relatively politically conservative, and a member of a relatively liberal New York City congregation in a relatively conservative denomination (Reformed Church in America). He is far from his Southern Baptist upbringing but, once in a while, finds himself wondering "whether my hom*osexuality is my ticket to hell, whether Jesus would love me but for that, and how good a Christian could I be if I struggle to believe that God loves me at all." For Chu, and for many Christians of all sexual orientations, hom*osexuality is a "spiritual wedge issue," one of those topics or teachings that "gnaw at us and what faith we may have left."

Chu is also a journalist, and the author of Does Jesus Really Love Me? A Gay Christian's Pilgrimage in Search of God in America (Harper Collins). The book chronicles a year-long pilgrimage devoted to exploring hom*osexuality in U.S. churches. On a more personal level, Chu is confronting "the ghosts who still haunt my heart." The book is a unique mix of journalism, memoir, and religious commentary, a style that is sometimes persuasive, but other times confusing, when journalist turns commentator, or spiritual seeker turns interviewer. He visited dozens of churches in various denominations, but all described are Protestant. He misses Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and most (but not all) Protestant mainline groups, favoring a wide variety of evangelical and/or conservative groups and people. He interviewed dozens of people, some of them everyday folk, others more in the public eye, including Ted Haggard, Jennifer Knapp, Mary Glasspool, and even Fred Phelps.

The book is organized in four parts: doubting, struggling, reconciling, and hoping. The first three seem to contain the Christians and churches that display that approach to hom*osexuality. "Reconciling" is clear enough as a category, but "doubting" and "struggling" seemed both to include Christians who find hom*osexuality to be contrary to God's will, and express that theology in various ways. The difference between "doubting" (doubting what?) and "struggling" (struggling with what?) isn't clear. It's also not clear why Westboro Baptist Church and Harding University (a conservative Christian college with a "queer underground") belong in the same category, nor in what respect Fred Phelps and his followers may be described as "doubting" (they express none whatsoever in their interviews with Chu). The fourth section of the book, "hoping", completes the story of Gideon Eads, a young Christian who chronicles his coming out in real time over the course of Chu's pilgrimage.

Different Approaches

Part One describes churches and Christians from Tennessee, Maine, Kansas, and Arkansas, all of them confident that hom*osexuality is against God's will. That belief is expressed very differently, from Fred Phelps's hatred to Harding University's attempts to foster open, civil campus conversation. Chu's declaration of open-hearted spiritual pilgrimage falters here; his personal quest lacks stakes, other than emotional ones. He doesn't seem open to overhauling his theology, sexual orientation, personal life, or church affiliation, especially in response to conservative theology. This is fine, certainly, but the book's title and opening imply a deeper level of questioning than is evidenced in the narrative. This section reads more like a journalistic inquiry than personal pilgrimage, which works well enough; Chu is mostly even-handed in his descriptions of various Christians, and is able to facilitate long interviews and repeated interactions with people whose beliefs and actions are disagreeable or even aggressively offensive. Unfortunately, at times he can't resist referring to conservative beliefs or even individuals as "weird" or "bizarre," labels that he doesn't dole out to the group of "reconciling" churches and people.

Chu begins this section with one major theme: that among people leaving Christianity these days, judgmental behavior is the strongest factor spurring their departures. Secondly, he expresses surprise that Christian theology, even an idea as traditional as "God intends sex only for a marriage between a man and a woman," is expressed in such divergent ways (not to mention the many alterations of tradition). "It's almost as if people are speaking entirely different languages. And it's almost as if people are preaching totally different faiths."

In Part Two ("struggling") he describes Exodus International's approach to hom*osexuality, a mixed-orientation marriage, and the celibacy of a same-sex oriented man. Included here is transcript of an interview with Ted Haggard, who, after some strangely aggressive words at the beginning of the interview, settled down into some thoughtful discussion of his recent years. The accuracy and nuance with which Chu describes Exodus ministries is remarkable, given the organization's rapid changes of late. The story of 57-year-old Kevin Olson, life-long celibate with same-sex attraction, is wonderful. Chu engages Olson's story with Wesley Hill's (Washed and Waiting), raising good questions for Christians who advocate celibacy as the only biblical option other than marriage between a man and a woman. Though Olson is lonely and restrains himself from forbidden intimacy, he also conveys to Chu that celibacy is more than inaction; it's also an active pursuit of eternal joy and contentment in his relationship with God.

Part Three ("reconciling") describes a variety of progressive and/or liberal Christians and churches. Some don't rewrite their theology or view of the Bible; rather, they are shifting their "posture" from judgment to love. For example, David Johnson's ministry in South Carolina focuses on inviting gays and lesbians into a living relationship with God. He sees his role as reminding them that "God loves you no matter what," letting the implications for their sexual lives get worked out over time, rather than predetermining them up front. Others more explicitly alter tradition; Chu visits the Metropolitan Community Church of San Francisco and other locations on the "reconciling" extreme. He describes them as celebrating people more than focused on God, and says some participants even report an "oversexualized atmosphere." His conservative background shines through when he concludes that "by building the church as if it were fundamentally about making ourselves feel better, I wonder if we also totally miss God."

With Westboro Church at one extreme, and MCC-San Francisco at the other (a strategic juxtaposition that inclusion of more mainline churches would have nuanced), Chu finds a happier medium at Highlands Church in Denver. Because he decided to include gays in positive ways in theology and leadership, founding pastor Mark Tidd lost his Christian Reformed Church credentials and his church planting support. Nonetheless, Highlands Church is thriving. Jenny Morgan, co-pastor and partnered lesbian, describes it as "a deeply Christ-centered, deeply biblical church that is okay with the gays." This approach rings true for Chu, who describes it as "progressive evangelicalism," though traditional evangelicals likely wouldn't call it that. Interestingly, Chu says that hom*osexuality isn't, and shouldn't be, the focus of such a church. What most deeply resonates with him is that people are encouraged to "bring their whole selves, not just their sacred stances but also their profane fears and insecurities. They are called to do what is uncommon in the church: question boldly, without fear and in confidence." This ethos, and the Christ-centeredness of the church, seems to impress Chu more than the theological affirmation of hom*osexuality.

An Unfortunate Turn

In Part Four, after describing the coming out of Gideon Eads, a heart-rending narrative that ends on an open-ended note, the book takes an unfortunate turn. The last few pages conclude that "if the church is supposed to be the body of Christ, then what I saw on my trip were our Lord's dismembered and terribly dishonored remains." Chu then describes the reasons for the "diminution" of his faith: pastors (too cowardly), words (used too thoughtlessly), and people (not loving enough). His words might be more powerful if read aloud in a testimony, or written in an op-ed essay or blog post. Positioned at the end of a journalistic inquiry, they come across as a diatribe that undercuts the sincerity of the pilgrimage. (These flaws weren't newly revealed to him during his quest; they were a large part of what distanced him from conservative Christianity many years ago.)

He concludes that God is more important than the church, but takes the "spiritual but not religious" argument to an extreme, stating that a renewed belief in "God—my God" is the most important thing he takes away from his journey. "My God isn't simply the God I believe in but the God I want to believe in and need to believe in." Crafting highly personalized views of God may soothe our church-inflicted wounds, but responding to fracture within the church with personalized gods hardly seems the path toward unity. I wish he had found more hope in the examples of Christians learning, engaging in difficult conversation, and building relationships across perceived chasms of theological, sexual, and other differences.

Does Jesus Love Me? is an essential survey description of hom*osexuality in U.S. churches today that should be read by church members and leaders, and people who care about how U.S. Christians engage with sexual minorities and related issues. No reader could possibly agree with every Christian or church, because such vast variety is described; every reader will be challenged to listen to those with whom they disagree, and recognize their group as one among many in American Christianity today. The stories would make good conversation starters, as points of comparison and contrast to personal and church-wide spiritual journeys.

Jenell Paris is professor of anthropology at Messiah College, and the author of The End of Sexual Identity: Why Sex Is Too Important to Define Who We Are (InterVarsity Press).

Working women are looking to one of the world's top female execs, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, as she dishes out advice on work in her much-written-about, much-talked-about book, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead.

In a world where we expect to have to choose between work and family, Sandberg wants to introduce "and" into a conversation that has mainly been about the "either/or," writes Gayle Tzemach Lemmon in The Atlantic.

For her efforts, Sandberg has been criticized by other women, from Maureen Dowd to Anne-Marie Slaughter, who characterize Sandberg as "looking down" on women who don't have the success she does and offering them a sort of "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" ethic. But Sandberg is fully aware of her privileges, and it seems a little hypocritical for readers to pretend they would be interested in advice from someone without Sandberg's success.

Sandberg focuses on women because she argues that we tend to limit ourselves, rather than enforcing limits on our environment. She encourages women to take on more responsibilities at work while making the demands necessary to make their lives balance.

"In addition to the external barriers erected by society, women are hindered by barriers that exist within ourselves. We hold ourselves back in ways both big and small, by lacking self-confidence, by not raising our hands, and by pulling back when we should be leaning in," Sandberg wrote. This sounds critical, but to me it reads as empowering. Sandberg is urging readers who say "no" to try "yes, but with conditions."

I've been stuck in a workplace where I did plenty of "leaning in," but the culture and other employees did not make it easy to set boundaries or make demands. While Sandberg mainly addresses working moms, those of us without husbands or without kids value commitments to our communities, friends, and churches, and we don't want to sacrifice our lives to work, either.

Sandberg's advice is not exactly revolutionary: Find a mentor; learn negotiation strategies; understand the relative value your field sets on certain skills; be persistent in making requests; know what makes for a reasonable demand and make it. She also suggests women join a "Lean In circle," a small group of professional women, linked to a "global community," that's supposed to meet throughout the year. She advocates that women discuss their careers with each other, because knowing there is precedent when you want to make certain demands can make all the difference.

I agree with Sandberg that we can each take individual responsibility to address "internal barriers," and also that once women reach the top while successfully negotiating their priorities, more women can climb up after. Trailblazing can be a very selfish activity if leaders don't leave a map.

Will Sandberg's advice help all women? No, there will be some who benefit more than others, whether because their company signed on to the campaign, their boss read the book, their spouse is supportive, or because they lay the groundwork before they get married or have kids. Can it help me, a single woman with career goals based more on glorifying God than personal ambition? Absolutely, because I understand her advice is a framework, not a road map.

Because the real danger of Sandberg's movement is that can foster a different kind of fear, and it's one the Bible specifically warns us against: The fear of not having enough (in this case, enough opportunities). But sometimes passing up what seems to be a great opportunity is the right thing, because not all opportunities are right for all of us, whether man or woman. And all the skilled negotiating and persistent asking Sandberg recommends can't guarantee any of us will be happy in a job that's not the right one.

Perhaps Christian women in the workplace need double the encouragement, because if Sandberg is correct about the vast majority of women holding themselves back because they're not sure they can lead, the same is likely true of Christian women who are often told they were created to follow. (I am not tackling that debate here, but that position doesn't encourage a woman to assert herself in the workplace, as Sandberg suggests.)Interestingly, "Lean In circles" sound like Christian women's groups, which begin with an educational lesson, but end up primarily as a place for fellowship and sharing problems. Combining practical business advice and prayer could be a powerful thing, especially when discussed in a group with shared focus and similar priorities.

What I'm describing is the kind of group I would actually join, and frankly, a local church activity with this type of practical purpose and community engagement would fill a gaping hole in my life, and likely the lives of many other Christian career women (yes, we do exist!).

The spirit, if not the content, of Sandberg's "circles" could be a wonderful thing for the Church. Building each other up in practical ways to live as Christ-followers should be the goal of small groups. But also, there is a form of sexism that is more lenient toward stereotypically male priorities than those related to church or children. This is a piece of the glass ceiling that I think—without blaming one another for failing to work hard enough and without characterizing ourselves as victims—we can in good conscience work together to shatter.

I once lived with a Muslim family for two years. It was extremely challenging, but not in the ways I expected it would be.

I lived with the Muslim family in their house near the center square of the capital city of Albania. There were nine of us in a relatively small space. Added to the cramped conditions was the fact that running water flowed only a few hours a day, electricity was intermittent, and food variety was limited. But I found none of this too difficult, even though Albania (Muslim, Balkan, post-Communist, poor, Mediterranean) could not have been more jarring to my affluent, American, “white,” Baptist upbringing.

What I found most challenging was this: They loved me. They loved me not only in a pat-you-on-the-back landlord sort of way. My Muslim family loved me like a son, which included caring for me as their spiritual responsibility.

This took particular force in the person of my hunched and humming Albanian grandmother. She was the first face I saw each morning, and at night she would lovingly touch my shoulder and say “sweet sleep.” She also pastored me. She encouraged me when I was low, blessed me as I went about my work (which, by the way, was Christian missionary work) and she told me about God’s love for me. She challenged my Christian training and my American pragmatism. She was a dawdling, superstitious Muslim. How could I allow her to be God’s voice in my life?

Tough questions

What am I to do? Seriously.

How do I understand all the folks who cross my path and don’t fit my theological categories? As a devout Christian, what am I supposed to do with the non-Christians I have known who are kinder than most Christians, purer than most Christians, and seemingly more connected to God than most Christians? Even more troubling, what am I to do with religious outsiders who are spiritually wise and speak that wisdom into my life? Am I allowed to accept their wisdom or am I required to sit in perpetual suspicion?

I recently had a conversation with Bob. Bob is a very learned and highly regarded scholar and advocate for Christianity. I was telling him about my Albanian grandmother, as well as several other folks in whom I’ve encountered love and wisdom that don’t belong to my faith. Bob was troubled by my words. He asked me repeatedly, “How can you claim that God can speak through anyone and still hold to our Christian dogma?” (I am not exaggerating his word usage; he really did say “dogma.” I didn’t think anybody even said “dogma” anymore.)

Regardless of his word choice, Bob was asking an important question. It is a question that has followed me for most of my adult life. Bob feared that my stories (full of Muslims, Atheists, and drunkards) was dangerous and the product of weak faith.

So, what am I to do? What am I to do with my Albanian grandmother? What am I to believe regarding my wise and spiritually insightful (even faith-filled) agnostic neighbor or my lovely Buddhist housemate or the tipsy advisor sitting next to me at the local pub?

With any question truly worth asking (and I believe these questions are of the highest significance), there are a few foundational things I feel I need to ask myself.

What do I believe about God?

For this, I may need to go back to a Sunday school question: Just how “omni” is God anyway? From my earliest days, I was taught that God is omniscient (all-powerful) and omnipresent (in all places) but is God also “omni-creative?” Is God limited (finite) in God’s capacity to creatively communicate?

When we think about the Transcendent, we need to decide just how transcendent that being is. Whether we view the transcendent as a person (the way that theists do) or if we think of the Transcendent as a “force” like most of my neighbors in Portland do, we need to process whether or not that Being is limited in its creative capacity.

Jesus said that God spoke through lilies and sparrows. The Psalmist says that God cries out through rocks. Once God even spoke through an ass.

So I have to decide for myself, Is God creatively restrained or infinite?

What do I believe about the “other?”

This one is a little trickier for me.

Can anyone be my spiritual teacher?

When I was young, I believed that I had one of two choices when it comes to understanding people as spiritual beings. Option one said that the world is filled by two teams: Christians and non-Christians. The Christians spoke for God and everyone else could not. Option two was to believe that everyone could know spiritual truth. But if that was true, I also had to believe that what one believed didn’t matter and everyone was spiritually the same, regardless of beliefs. I had only two options.

Today, I believe in spiritual identity. I believe that that identity is more than just subjective. The Bible, for instance, uses redeemed and unredeemed categories and links those categories to a person’s destiny.

That being said, I wonder if I have conflated my belief about spiritual identity with my belief about spiritual capacity. To put that another way, maybe I should separate the conversations about identity (whether a person is a Christian or a non-Christian) and capacity (whether or not someone is able to express truth, righteousness and moral goodness.)

In a similar vein, maybe one does not have to be a Christian to recognize and express the ways of God. And if that is true, anyone has the potential to be my spiritual teacher.

What have I witnessed in Jesus?

It only takes a cursory overview to see that Jesus made identity statements that divided people. He referred to nations as “sheep” and “goats” (Matthew 25). He said to some, “you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me (John 10:26-27).”

However, when I observe some of Jesus behaviors, the question of spiritual capacity becomes a bit more complicated. Jesus repeatedly surprises me in his response to the person who is religiously “other.”

In Jesus first sermon, found in Luke 4, Jesus pulls from biblical history. From the hundreds of people Jesus could have chosen, Jesus’ first sermon spotlighted two religious “outsiders” as spiritual heroes: a widow of Sidon and a leper from Syria. Interesting. Jesus also composed many fictional short stories. In one of his most famous, The Good Samaritan, Jesus fabricates his story around a spiritual outsider, a Samaritan, a person that his audience had been trained to distrust simply because of who they were (just like I had been trained to distrust my Albanian grandmother.)

Jesus rarely has complimentary words to say about the faith of the religious teachers and “insiders” of his day. Only once does the Bible say that Jesus marveled at someone and that someone (Matthew 8:10) was a Roman Centurion, a man who was probably a pagan, a pluralist and an idolater. In another rare scene of faith-affirmation, Jesus said to a Canaanite woman (religious outsider), “your faith is great (Matthew 15:28).”

In a related way, Jesus relied on a Samaritan woman to tend to his thirst (John 4), he submitted to a sinner to anoint him with oil (Luke 7:37) and it was an outlaw that he chose to minister to him the rite of baptism (Mark 1:9). In his birth story, Jesus is “saved” by stargazers from Eastern lands (Matthew 2:1-12).

Jesus’ words and behaviors are surprising indeed.

Expecting God’s voice

Can anyone be my spiritual teacher? Can anyone have insight and epiphanies about the ways and values of God, regardless of their religious identity?

In asking this, we are not asking the question, “Is everything that anyone says at any time spiritually helpful or healing?” Of course not. I only have to examine my heart and life to know the answer to that. So much of what comes out of my mouth or is demonstrated by my life is in direct opposition to God’s ways. I am often driven by selfishness, manipulation, arrogance, prejudice and disdain. I can only assume that this is also true of most anybody that I might come across.

However, am I open to the possibility that any person who crosses my path, regardless of creed or background, could be my spiritual teacher? Do I live in perpetual expectation of God’s voice? Do I hope that every person has something to show me about the goodness, truth and beauty of the Kingdom of God?

There is an ancient Christian prayer by St. Patrick.

“Christ, the lowly and the meek,
Christ, the all-powerful
Be in the heart of each to whom I speak
Be in the mouth of each who speaks unto me.”

Does someone have to be an artist to recognize beauty when they see it? Does one have to be a judge to proclaim justice to the world? Does one have to be a doctor to practice healing?

Identity and capacity are not the same thing.

Do I live in perpetual expectation of God’s voice? If not, maybe it is not God who is limited. Maybe just I am.

Tony “The Beat Poet” Kriz is a teacher and speaker on faith and culture. His most recent book is Neighbors and Wise Men: Sacred Encounters in a Portland Pub and Other Unexpected Places (Thomas Nelson, 2012).

Copyright © 2013 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal.Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

There are certain moments in life for which there is no script. Jazz is like that for me.

The words "classical" and "jazz" have become leadership metaphors for me. If you missed my first "Lead Like Jazz" article, let me recap some basic ideas.

In classical music, the musicians play the notes that are placed in front of them. They carefully follow the conductor's direction, and they're expected to play with precision. Paying careful attention to detail is what defines excellence.

Jazz is different. Contrary to what non-jazz lovers may think, jazz is not a talent-less free-for-all. It just requires a different approach to making music. There's no conductor and rarely (if ever) any sheet music. Because the musicians are often improvising and "playing by ear," they need a different set of skill.

I often see other leaders in my organization, regardless of whether or not they've ever picked up an instrument, as musicians that I may get an opportunity to play with. While most people lean more toward one leadership style than another, the ability to move between styles and remain fluid can be a tremendous asset to any team. Ordinary groups can become extraordinary teams as members help each other move between genres. The classical musicians may need some encouragement to play a little jazz to see a challenging situation from a different perspective, while those who naturally play jazz may need to dial it back sometimes to achieve greater focus and clarity.

In jazz, the "groove" created in the moment determines the outcome (sound, emotion, feeling). In classical style, the composer and conductor have predetermined the outcome. When a leader and team find that "leadership groove," where they mesh creatively and challenge the sheet music, they can move into an incredible place of synergistic collaboration.

Finding the groove is a beautiful thing in a great musical performance, but it is even more priceless when a group of individuals become a committed team. As followers of Jesus, we've got to acknowledge up front that he is the ultimate source behind any meaningful groove we could hope to discover. Knowing that he has invited us to join him on this journey, given us spiritual gifts, talents, and creativity, we owe it to him and to ourselves to be wise and faithful stewards of what he has entrusted to us.

But as intuitive as jazz can be, it takes care to make your music worth listening to. To find the leadership groove, you gotta know what song you're trying to play, you gotta know when it's your time to play.

You gotta know what song you're trying to play.

Leaders need vision. We may not always know how we are going to get there, but we do need to know where "there" is. Bill Hybels once said, "A leader's job is to move people from here to there." Andy Stanley described "there" as a "clear mental picture of what could be, fueled by the conviction that it should be." Stephen Covey described "there" as "beginning with the end in mind." While jazz musicians are able to improvise and make things up on the spot, great band leaders are visionary and strategic, always knowing what song they are playing and what song they're going to call next.

You gotta know when it's your time to play.

In music and in leadership, timing is everything. And you can't have that kind of rhythm without listening.

Knowing when to play is easy if you are attentive to what's happening around you. Encourage your team to listen, to ask clarifying questions, to listen a bit more, to make sure you're sensing the groove, to keep pulling the best out of each other, and when you know you've got something to offer, to keep laying it out there. Maybe it falls flat, but maybe it's the game-winning shot.

And because of this dynamic of outward focus, jazz is rarely selfish. Jazz players thrive off of each other; they are patient and rejoice when somebody plays their part well. And as they do, they discover the beauty of synergistic collaboration.

That'll play in leadership.

You gotta know what notes to play.

Unless your name is John Coltrane and you have earned the right to play any darn note you want, then you have to practice. You need to learn the scales, to learn to play in tune, and when to hit the right notes. In leadership this translates into word choice. Few things irritate me more than an immature extrovert that has a lot to say but hasn't learned how to communicate it well. Word choice and timing are a powerful combination in the hands of an emerging leader. Whether young or old we should be committed to helping each other grow as communicators.

Legendary jazz bass player Marcus Miller really gets this whole idea of awareness and synergistic collaboration. I transcribed the following sound bite from a video clip on his website (Please don't over-think his use of the word "spirit"):

You hope that your spirit comes through your music and it resonates with people who are listening to the music (especially when you're doing a lot of improvisation). You don't even know what you're going to play, so you're just counting on your spirit. You're counting on your ability to feel the audience, to feel your band members, and to feel the whole environment and make it come through your instrument. You're counting on the fact that you can translate all this information into something that makes people feel good.

Did you catch it? Can you sense the importance of watching, waiting, and listening for the groove? It's like a surfer catching the perfect wave.

Can you see the tremendous potential that exists when jazz leadership smacks up against the daily grind of your leadership journey? Leading like jazz opens new doors for leaders. There are certain moments in life for which there is no script. Our formal training and preparation can take us far, but sometimes not far enough. Sometimes we just need that extra "something." The ability to apply jazz leadership from time to time can be an incredible addition to you and the people you work with. You can't play the right notes (or make the right strategic moves) unless you're listening to what's going on around you. Healthy teams and dynamic organizations need people who can play classical and jazz.

Your openness to trying a little jazz may help you and your team discover a leadership groove that changes everything.

Here's a creative checklist to get you leading like jazz:

• Download (and listen to) the "John Coltrane: Ballads" album.
• Get a new pair of sunglasses (way cooler than the kind you would normally buy).
• Buy a kazoo (if you're under 40, Google it).
• Find a quiet place, grab your kazoo, close your eyes (but still wear the sunglasses), put your headphones on, and play along with Coltrane—and hope there's nobody in the room when you open your eyes.
• Finally (and seriously), give it a go: show up at your next meeting and try playing a little jazz with your team. See if you can move them from a group of individuals to a dynamic team who just got their first taste of synergistic collaboration.

Scott Olson is President and CEO of International Teams. Follow Scott on Twitter, or email him at president@iteams.org.

Copyright © 2013 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal.Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.