Thursday, December 11, 2008

Passion of the Parking Lot

I wrote this with the help of my main dawg, Linear Dog.. We wrote it for our worship service at Chapel here at LTS. Nancy and I redid it to fit Trinity, here's that skit:

Luke: Wow, the sanctuary looks great today… I love all the advent decorations and the theme for this season of the church year. What are we doing next?

Nancy: The call to confession… and no better to lead it than a man who needs to confess himself.

Luke: What do you mean by that?

Nancy:I saw you two Sunday’s ago after service – in the parking lot... you looked pretty steamed.

Luke: Yeah dude, Dave Burns cut me off! I couldn't freaking believe it! It's like he didn't even see me! I was SO mad because I had places to go and people to see!

NANCY: Well, if I remember correctly, the sermon that day was turning the other cheek...part of the Ten Days for Peace thing? Remember??

LUKE:I was about to turn his cheek (punches hand).

NANCY: Well that wouldn't have been very nice. You know, next time you come to church, you don't have to leave Jesus inside it, he's supposed to accompany you for the whole week.

LUKE: WHA.... Uhhh.... Yeah, but excuse me!! Last week when we were out making homebound visits and stopped for a coffee – weren’t YOU the one who got so mad at the woman in front of us – remember?? When you said you couldn't believe how long she was taking, asking the ingredients to everything only to find out later she's got a peanut allergy and is diabetic. Way to go there “Christ-follower – Pastor Person”

NANCY: Yeah... about that...

LUKE: Wasn't there something in the bible about the splinter in your neighbor’s eye and the.. uhh... what do you call it... THE LOG CABIN in yours??

NANCY: I think that might be a SLIGHT exaggeration – but I get your point. I’m sorry for that outburst in the coffee shop – and I’m also sorry for criticizing you in front of the whole congregation.. I was just very concerned at your anger and wanted to help. I didn't mean to cause any embarrassment -- I was wrong to call you out here.

LUKE: But you only did it cause you were concerned about my welfare... right? And you know, you're right. Sorry to respond so defensively. I was way out of line. So really – thanks for the correction. It’s occurring to me that onfessing our faults is hard work.

NANCY: Yes, but that's what we're called to do. Jesus even said that before we can offer up our prayers to God, we should reconcile to each other.. So c'mere you! (HUG!)

LUKE: We now invite you to reconcile with your neighbors

NANCY: Or simply greet one another in the name of Christ this morning.

LUKE: Or we could just do that.. yeah!


Anonymous said...

It would be really great if it could work this way. And maybe it can. The churches that I have been a part of were places where you had to have your nice happy face on all the time while wearing your best clothes and talked about this kind of stuff as a nice idea but with no serious intention to actually act this way. I got so tired of church being a place where you had to get half-way cleaned up in order to even show up. The missional and more emergent style very small church of which we are now a part more closely mirros your skit but still has a long way to go. How does anybody get there? It is so risky to bare yourself knowing you may get trampled by swine.

Luke said...


yeah, the pearls before swine syndrome. it's hard to be vulnerable... but there is still a balance of maintaining boundaries.

it helps that i'm an extrovert, but what about the introverts? have you taken a Myers-Brigg's? i'd be interested to see what your type is... as well as the rest of the Canon!

here's a sample quiz:

love to hear what you came out!

Anonymous said...

Your Type is ENFJ: Extraverted (33) Intuitive (50) Feeling (12) Judging (44)

You are:
moderately expressed extravert

moderately expressed intuitive personality

slightly expressed feeling personality

moderately expressed judging personality

What the fudge does this mean?

Luke said...

hey SVS.. i thought this would happen.. we're pretty similar as i'm an ENTP, what this means is:

Extroverted vs. Introverted you can express your feelings openly vs. being more reserved.

iNtutition vs. Sensing is that you can see the forest before the trees vs. having to look at each individual tree to understand you're outside in the forest.

Thinking vs. Feeling means you tend to process more in your head and go by reason vs. going more on feeling and emotion.

Judgings vs. Perception means you're more structured and on time vs. no structure and rarely on time.

we are on a spectrum between these two. for example i'm 1 point into P.. meaning that i'm on time 9 times out of 10 and i allow more flexability in systems and schedules than a J person would.

the full deal can be found:

that's pretty accurate. each type and formula has a certain methodology and Jungian significance. here's your particular combo:

compared to mine:

so i'm Alexander the Great to your Ronald Reagan/Abe Lincoln. pretty strong leaders there!

we had to take these for seminary to get our types... what this illustrate is what Freestyle brought up in "How does anybody get there?" my answer then is that we're already there! these types show where our boundaries are and how we tend to balance things in our lives. so this skit could only come from a pretty strongly expressed Extrovert who would say "ouch" within that situation.. compared to a mild extrovert who may say something later... or an introvert who may hold onto that encounter for years!

i think freestyle maybe an introvert due to his fear of being trampled by swine.. i think that's an introvert's concern. hopefully we can get to a place where not only do we have the courage to say "ouch" but we also have the strength to understand and reconsile when those situations occur.

i took the long way around.. but is it clear? did you find it helpful or do you feel like you did a lot of homework with no payoff?

Chris E said...

This is COMPLETELY unrelated, but I knew you would appreciate it.


Anonymous said...

Luke. I have done Myers-Brigs, several times actually, and it is cool at the time, but I never hold onto it and use it for very long. What does that say about me? I did the quiz on the link and I am an INTJ. I do recall having this same score in the past. And I would say that the sentence from the description link that I most identify with is this: "Masterminds do not feel bound by established rules and procedures, and traditional authority does not impress them, nor do slogans or catchwords. Only ideas that make sense to them are adopted; those that don't, aren't, no matter who thought of them. Remember, their aim is always maximum efficiency." I think the entire description nails me fairly well.

"i think freestyle maybe an introvert due to his fear of being trampled by swine.. i think that's an introvert's concern: (Luke). I don't know that I am fearful of being trampled by swine. Instead, I think it is a waste of my time for me to put myself out there if someone isn't going to take me seriously which probably fits in well with the efficiency part of INTJ. I definitely am introverted, but I don't think it is out of fear. Talking too much just seems like an awful lot of work that doesn't get me anywhere unless, again, I know that I will be taken seriously. Again an efficiency thing. Chit-chatting at a party is not that at all. Blogging I like much better.

Luke said...

"Instead, I think it is a waste of my time for me to put myself out there if someone isn't going to take me seriously which probably fits in well with the efficiency part of INTJ. I definitely am introverted, but I don't think it is out of fear."

exactly what i was going for! wonderful articulation! i would say that would be both your I and your J at play.

What i'm after though is how can we get the church, which is full of all Myers-Briggs types, to function as a cohesive whole? one way is not to come as something you aren't (as you put it "get half-way cleaned up..."). just come as you are! if that means dressing up, do it! if that means jeans and t-shirts... that'd be my ideal!

i think Myers-Briggs is a helpful way to understand why we act the way we do. so far 3/5ths of the Canon doesn't like tradition and won't accept things as they are. makes sense for you, me and SVS posting about what we post about...

the best way for the church to function, is to be risky and put yourself out there... be vulnerable but not a door mat.. in otherwords, "be as innocent as doves but as wise as serpents" (Matt 10:16). be who you are, say you don't know something or "ouch" when someone says something that sounds offensive.

truth shall set us free! sounds simple, and it is, but what problems do you see? i think it's courage to say what we mean for fear of rejection.. but i could be way off base. your thoughts?

Anonymous said...

Luke. I think you are right on actually. We do have to risk being exactly who we are, but we have to do it with grace. I have to be courageous enough to be the real transparent me, but on the flipside I have to be willing to let others be who they are and be what works for them, even if that means that what works for them is a neat little package of theology, coat and tie, old hymns with organ music, choirs with shiny robes, and fire and brimstone. That is probably the hardest for all of us, accepting wholeheartedly our differences without condemnation. It really is the same stuff Yael is talking about with her inter-faith dialogue theme. Our intra-faith dialogue can be just a vicious at times which shuts the whole being real thing down before it even starts. As I said a few weeks ago, I love asking questions from outside of the box in order to get different answers from outside of the box, but there are plenty of people who just love the box. So let me pose a question back to you. Do you think it best for us to try and put all our different boxes together at the same church, or does that cause enough discord that it is best to have one dominant box at each church? I can see benefits of having it both ways.

Luke said...

" Do you think it best for us to try and put all our different boxes together at the same church, or does that cause enough discord that it is best to have one dominant box at each church?"

there is a Myers-Briggs for theology too! it's called the Theological Worlds test.

everyone has all 5 worlds at play at any given time. it's my theory that vital churches have all 5 at play too. granted there's a lot of benefit to just focusing on one or two worlds, but to truly be a church of diversity and substance, i would gun for putting all the boxes together in one church.

the last thing i'm interested in is a sectarian community that that only has insular concerns. i think lots of people get in trouble for this... jim jones, mormons, etc ;-)

i jest... kinda... it's my theology that to truly bring the kingdom of God into the world, that doesn't involve shedding things, it involves taking more on! God is a God of diversity. we need all God's people.

where do you come down on the issue? you said you saw the benefit of both, which way are you leaning?

Anonymous said...

This is a big can of worms when talking to a certain crowd. I have lived this can of worms. I suspect you and I will agree for the most part however.

I think there ought to be room for everyone at the same table, all the boxes at the same table. The trouble is getting them all there. More established churches that are full of traditionalists seem extremely reluctant to do anything different. Any thinking that ventures too far away from the line that has been towed for the last 75 years is labeled as heresy. If you decide to stay in that environment as an agent of something different it is an uphill battle all the way. By chance, if you succeed in bringing about something different, the traditionalists then feel the place is going to hell and leave. So most that are interested in looking at things in a different way end of leaving to find a place that accepts them. Well, at those places there are no traditionalists. So we all, in the end, sit at different tables, and there is this generational cycle because the dividing lines of thought tend to fall along certain lines of age.