Since my upcoming thoughts are rooted entirely in my theology of worship, I should start by providing some background on what I believe is going on in worship. Trying to keep it brief, when we gather as a community, we gather so God can act graciously and we can respond.

So, God acts by showing up, we respond. God acts by announcing forgiveness, we respond. God acts by speaking to us in his Word, we respond. God acts by giving us the body and blood, we respond. God acts by blessing us in the benediction (and hopefully we respond in our lives when we leave the church building).

Now, as I've planned various alternative worship of services with this general understanding of worship, I've always leaned towards having a single narrative that was aimed at telling this story of God's action and our response ... although, most of the time, that also demands a pre-story to point out why God has to act. So, when I plan, the music, the Scripture readings, the preaching, and everything else all weave together into a single story, so, when I saw this approach, I freaked a bit, because there is no way for the music to faithfully point into our out of the preaching portion of the worship narrative because they've been divided and the story is now broken up.

However, then I began to think about the traditional Lutheran liturgical setting where this pattern of acting and responding happens repeatedly, or, in the case of this unconventional idea, it could happen twice, once in preaching and once in music. What do you think, given my theology of worship, could that be a functional approach to something like this?

The third of my top talent sounds a bit more like what you'd expect in a list of talents ... I'm strategic. The basic gist of this is that, where other see complexity, I can see patterns. As a result, I'm able to play out a variety possible scenarios and determine what route is best for a group to take. Similarly, I'm able to look ahead, see potential obstacles, and avert them.

However, while the idea of strategic sounds more like what you'd expect on a talent list, I can't help but see it in light of the first two, connectedness and ideation. After all, connectedness means I see the big picture, ideation helps me understand how the elements of the picture connect, and strategic helps me figure out where to go next.

The other thing that strikes me is that all of these talents (and the two I've yet to explore) are all very cerebral and abstract, which explains why, with the exception of the elemental life and other projects that require a study, think, tell approach, if left to my own devices, I rarely get anything done. On the positive side, this is good for ministry when it comes to preaching and teaching, as well as things like writing.

In addition, I could excel in a setting where I cast vision, assuming I have a team of people behind me who are gifted in ways that they can take my abstract thoughts and make them reality. Feeding from this, how do you see your talents working in concert with others?

Advertisement:

Ideation is another one of those talents that sounds a bit odd, but, especially when considered in light of how it weaves together with connectedness, it makes more sense. According to the folks at Strengths Finder, among other things, "an idea is a connection" and my mind is "intrigued when seemingly disparate phenomena can be linked by an obscure connection."

So, if, as my connectedness talent suggests, I see everything in systems, then it's the ideation that help me connect all of the pieces of the system together and understand, in a rather simple way, the very complex process that's in place. It's what allows me to look at things from a variety of different perspectives. The folks at Strengths Finder say that this is why people label me as "creative or original or conceptual or even smart."

Outside of the areas I already identified with connectedness, I'm not really sure how else ideation proves helpful. They just seem so intertwined to me. Perhaps it's not just knowing that we're connected but seeing it, and thus having an ability to explain to others? I know this has been a regular occurrence in preaching and teaching, where somehow I can just link things together for people in ways that others haven't.

Anyone out there an ideation person without being a connectedness person? How do they separate in your life?

It sounds a bit odd to describe my top talent as a talent, but according to the strengths finder, my dominant talent is connectedness. So, what does that mean? Basically it means that I'm a systems theory kind of guy who doesn't see the individual parts, but rather how all of the parts work together.

There are a few places where this has come in handy for ministry. One is systematic theology, which, in turn, really help in the writing of the elemental life which is, essentially, a basic, life application, systematic.

It's also been quite helpful in hermeneutics because, when I read a passage of Scripture, I can't help but think of it in light of the entire Biblical story. Of course, the primary place I use the interpretation of Scripture is preaching and the 27-Hour Service on the fshbwl.

For me, the biggest challenges with having this talent comes when talking with people who don't have any sense of the butterfly effect. People who see commonalities amongst various cultures, things like religion, marriage, and laws, not as a sign of some distant common story, but as nothing more than coincidentally matching cultural constructs. The same could be said for people who have no sense of responsibility towards others and or feel a overarching human imperative to love our neighbors.

Since this is so foundational in the way I see and understand the world, it's the place I naturally start from when talking about faith. At the same time, when people don't see things this way, it can be a blast to help connect the dots. In many ways, this is what I've been doing in ongoing conversations with people in downtown Denver.

So, does anyone else out there see things this way? What other ministry benefits do you see? What other challenges come to mind?

I just booked plane tickets for Anita, Robbie, and I to head back to Windsor, CA where I used to serve as a Director of Christian Education. While the primary purpose behind the trip is to attend my brother-in-laws wedding, it's also fairly standard for me to preach at the church where I used to serve when I'm in town and, since the eLife is now out, I'm also going to do a book signing.

In the past, preaching there has always been odd because I've changed a lot since I left town 6 years ago. As a result, I always feel like my sermon there has been one huge, "I'm really sorry for most of the crap I taught back then." I typically don't put it that way, but it's certainly what is going through my mind the whole time.

You see, at the time, I was really buying into a pop-evangelical theology that could be summarized with the "My Heart, Christ's Home" mentality. I taught that Jesus has saved you and now you better get your crap together and make him the Lord of your life. This was combined with seeing the Bible as an instruction book for living out the Christian life.

The problem with this is that, beyond making grace something like a fast cash store where it's free now but you're going to get slammed with exorbitant payments later, is that it puts the impetus for spiritual growth on the person (as opposed to the work of the Spirit) and, as a result, anybody who isn't growing must not be trying hard enough. This leads to all kinds of judgment within the church. In addition, as we've seen with so many spiritual leaders who have fallen, this really encourages those who are Christian to hide their sin and put on a whole stigma of self-righteousness (something I haven't been immune to in my lifetime).

Of course, this time, things are even more odd because of the eLife and the introduction to the book where I talk about my engagement to Anita, some of the choices we made in an attempt to live out my theology at the time, and how it gave us a rough foundation for our marriage ... something we're still reworking almost 7 years later. I mean, I've always felt like I've been apologizing before, but now, there it is, in print, for whomever to read.

Of course, I'm sure I'll say the same thing about something I wrote in the eLife in another 6 years.