eMerging

Staying Theologically Grounded Amid the Nuts and Bolts

2011-08-18T11:26:00.000-04:00

I have been out of seminary for 12 years now, and have served 2 great churches. These churches like all of us as individuals, have their unique traits that can be celebrated, along with the things we wish could be done differently. But they both have one thing in common. They are institutions take work. More on that in a moment.

As a seminary student I was bombarded day in and day out with the task of thinking critically and theologically. It surrounded everything we did which of course was important. I think I have forgotten more about theologians such Moltmann, Niebuhr(Both of them), Schliermacher, and other theologians and Biblical scholars, than I thought I would ever know. But in my educational work to become a pastor, this was the world we lived in. The assumption was when it came to the other stuff, you would learn that in your field placements. However, those placements usually gave you a chance to visit folks, run the church youth group, and preach every now and then. Again all fine things but not the nitty-gritty of life in the church. I am grateful for all I learned (even what I forgotten) but there was something missing.

All the theology in the world does not help you run a building campaign, deal with people who think the custodian isn't doing their job, deal with the leaky faucet in the kitchen, or deal with the kitchen licensing inspector. Theology has no regard for meeting with an engineer along with your board of trustees to go over plans for a new parking lot project. All the theology in the world won't help you find a creative approach to getting more money to keep from reducing the rest of your staff.

The great secret that nobody tells you in seminary or as you prepare to go to seminary is that about half of your pastoral work will be occupied with administration. As I say to some of my folks when they ask me a budget question or a statistical question that calls me to crunch numbers quickly: "I went in to ministry thinking their would be very little math. Yeah that wasn't true." The danger for us is it can be easy to administer our life away and not focus on the real reason we went into this vocation, which is our relationship with God. So what do we do?

First: Prayer is vital. Without prayer, however you do it, (my best prayer times are usually as I'm getting ready in the morning) our focus for our work is incomplete at best, and unfounded at worst. Be in prayer every day even about the small stuff. Prayer reminds us that we are still developing our relationship with God, even as we try to help others do the same.

Second: Know your Mission. Ask yourself and for that matter your board chairs and staff how in everything that we do are we fulfilling our mission of the church. Even letting an employee go can be a mission fulfilling experience. Not a pleasant one but if it is necessary to move forward with the mission, it counts. I ask everyday, how does our parking lot project, fixing the broken doors, dealing with issues regarding a parishioners last will, filing court documents for said will, and filing reports,meet the mission of the church. There needs to be a way for them to fulfill the mission of your church. If not then look at how and why you are doing what your doing.

Third: Stay connected. Jesus withdrew for rest and renewal, but his ministry mattered because he stayed connected. He connected with his disciples, those he taught, the miracles he demonstrated kept them connected to him and ultimately through him, connected to God. Seek the counsel of colleagues and friends, but also stay connected with the people God has called you to serve. Any church meeting can be a spiritual fulfilling event if we all stay connected to one another.

I'm sure there are others that one could add to the list, but those are the 3 things I do to stay grounded with my theological training amidst the seemingly mundane work in the church. Take what you learned and use it. It's all about God in the end.

On the Death of Bin Laden

2011-05-02T15:28:00.001-04:00

We awaited for about an hour for the President to finally come and tell the American people what we already knew. Thanks to Twitter which both alerted me to the speech, and then swirled with reports that the President would announce that Osama Bin Laden had been captured or killed.

My immediate reaction was "good." And then I wondered why I felt good. Part was a sense of relief and closure that many American and especially 9-11 victims were longing for. I'm glad for this but I am also troubled and conflicted. My pacifist side says that I should not rejoice at his death and that he should have been brought to trial. My just war side says, well if he was resisting to the death, then so be it. But in either case I don't think any of us should rejoice over death. Especially as we follow the One who came to conquer death.

Reflecting in this Easter season, and in talking with confirmands, I have often talked about the meaning of Jesus crucifixion and death. I have come to the conclusion that Jesus plan originally wasn't to die, but our failure to follow him lead to that being the only way Jesus could reconcile the world to God. In the end it was necessary but could not be called right.

When we kill or execute someone who is our enemy, (whom we are called to love by Jesus) the initial satisfaction is there but then what happens next. Can we truly say justice has been served. Does Bin Ladens death make up for the thousands that he had a hand in killing? Maybe for some. Was justice served? I think Jesus exemplified that there is little justice in redemptive violence.

I think my only conclusion at this time can be that I'm glad he is no longer a threat. Perhaps his death was necessary, perhaps it provided closure for some, but I don't think it can be called right.

Win Or Loose, Butler Is Relevant. Are We?

2011-04-04T23:28:00.000-04:00

Tonight, the Butler University Bulldogs will again take on a powerhouse basketball program the University of Connecticut Huskies for the Division 1 College Basketball Championship. Now after loosing last year to my Duke Blue Devils, I was in the minority of most of the nation who was pulling for them. Now I find myself pulling for them too. Because other than when you play my guys, I like a good underdog story.

But after 2 consecutive appearances in the championship game, win or loose, Butler has now made itself known as a competitor. We pay attention to them now because we have seen that they matter. They may be a smaller school from a smaller conference, but they have made their presence known. They took some risks, had some setbacks this season, but in the end came out willing to risk it all, for the sake of winning it all, even if they may not make it all the way.

I got to thinking about our churches in this day in age. As I think about this. Is our slow but steady decline in the United Methodist Church happening because we are willing to take all kinds of risks, and simply loosing. Unfortunately I don't think so. Instead many of our churches play it safe, catering to our own needs unwilling to adapt to a changing world and a changing society. Too many are unwilling to step out and not just welcome, but invite new people who can bring the gifts and graces God has blessed them with and bring the good news of Jesus Christ to a world that needs to see we are willing to root for them, and that they too can win.

When teams get out to a lead, sometimes they play it safe and try to protect their lead. I have seen it happen time and again, that when they do this teams can end up loosing or come very close to loosing. Usually when this happens it is because they are trying to simply protect what they have (their lead) instead of focusing on continuing to do the things that got them there. We have been protecting our lead, but even since we have lost it, we are still trying to protect what we have, instead of getting back to the things we have done well.

Butler has adapted to their environment and put out a winning team. Will the United Methodist Church do the same? Will Jesus continue to call on us to bring his message if we aren't willing to adapt and take new risks for his sake?

March 1st Epistle

2011-03-24T15:34:00.002-04:00

March has come and the season of Lent is upon us. A couple of years ago I wrote about how inconvenient it was that Easter was so early in March. In fact then, it fell on March 23rd and by the dating formula, it could only possibly be one day earlier. Well that was then this is now.

This year Easter is an entire month later on April 24th. This time in the calendar cycle Easter can only possibly be one day later. So we have a little more time. But it is still not the most convenient of dates. Many of us on the staff have been talking about how it seems like we are missing something, that we feel we should be working on something besides what we normally do. It’s throwing us off and makes us feel uneasy.

What I have found is that in the same way the early date was inconvenient, so is the later. We like our schedules as a people and we like to be able to control and predict how things are going to happen. But as we start this Lenten journey we are reminded, that for Jesus and his disciples things didn’t go the way they wanted them to happen. In Jesus going to the cross and in his death, he accomplished something far greater than anything we could have predicted to happen with his resurrection.

The overall point is this: sometimes Jesus moves us along very quickly, other times Jesus calls us to wait patiently. But Jesus is always calling us, not necessarily to make things into what we want, but to transform our hearts and minds and to transform the world, in the way he would have them be. This Lent, be patient, listen for Jesus calling as we discipline ourselves toward a more holy life, and discover the wonders that God has given us, as we walk and wait along the road with him.

Peace and Prayers

Exercising Your Rights

2011-02-21T11:21:00.000-05:00

As I write this, thousands of protesters continue to assemble at the State Capitol in Madison, Wisconsin. They are making their voice heard in response to the new Governors attempt to not only strip public employees of their benefits, but of their right to collective bargaining itself. While I could go on about how these rights have shaped our modern world, and how those who would quickly dismiss unions as unnecessary today would do well to remember that we owe the fact that most people work an 8 hour day, overtime, health benefits, and vacation time are all a result of strong unions advocating for such things to promote a healthy and stable work force. These benefits are offered to non union employees today because unions helped make them the norm. But there is a major political shift in the right wing that is seeking to strip those away, to place more profits in the hands of CEO's and leading us back to the dark ages of the late 19th and early 20th century. But I'm not going to write about that.

Instead, I want to talk about exercising your rights. I'm glad the the protesters are making their voice heard and exercising their 1st Amendment right to peacefully assemble and petition their government for the redress of grievances. This is an important right but in the end will only be symbolic. Eventually the legislature will more than likely enact these measures. A year from now they all may have to face the consequences of that as Wisconsinites will more than likely lead a recall effort against the Governor and said legislators. But that is a year from now.

All of the protesters only a few month's ago, had an opportunity to prevent this from happening. I think it would be fair to say that many of them and many who are not protesting but support them, did not vote. Voter turnout on average in the last election that put these new hard right Republicans into office, was estimated to be at just a little over 40 percent. Really? In the worlds supposedly greatest democracy, only 40 percent bothered to vote. Voting is the greatest right and responsibility that many could have. Yet sadly many Democrats and independents, stayed home last November, for many reasons. Some were mad that they didn't get everything they wanted from the last election (perhaps justifiably so), while others didn't like either candidate, or some take the negative attitude, that they are all crooks so they don't deserve my vote.

What has resulted in Wisconsin and in other states as well is the non-voters are seeing the chickens coming home to roost. Failure to engage in the democratic process, means that you get the leaders you get even if they are not qualified, because that is who was voted in. Now we are seeing what kind of leaders that they are and it is scary. I hate to say I told ya so but...

Suffice it to say voting matters. Staying informed matters, and engaging your leaders matters. Everyone in this next election cycle needs to lay down their apathy, or even their single issues, and look toward the betterment of the whole. Otherwise, we get the kind of leaders and government that we get.

Preaching in the 21st Century

2010-09-23T11:11:00.005-04:00

I was inspired to write today when I read an article about preaching from a colleague of mine Rev. Sondra Willobee, which was published in Worship Arts magazine.

Her article was about the importance of editing your sermon. On the whole I agree, that if one is going to be preaching from a text, it is always important to go back over it for the sake of clarity. I also agree that things that might read well on paper do not always translate well in oratory.

Where I disagreed was with a particular example of editing that was used. I am paraphrasing because I confess, I passed the magazine on to someone else, but the point of it was she used a particular example from her life as an illustration, but on reading it again she remembered a seminary professor saying never to make yourself the hero or the victim in your sermons so she took it out. Now while I agree that all preachers walk a thin line of being self-aggrandizing, I also believe that this is an example of one of those shifts that many mainline churches have failed to grasp, the need for authenticity.

In the 20th century, it was frowned upon for the pastor to indicate that they may have any flaws in their personal life. Preaching was mostly Biblical exhortation that was meant to inspire belief. Today, things are much different with the new generation. People under thirty are looking for authenticity from the church, which is far different from their experience of church growing up. That is also why so many are not in the church today. When a pastor shares their own personal struggles, and their own personal discoveries on their journey of faith, that communicates something. Instead of taking away credibility as was thought in the modern era, in post-modernity, this actually gives the sermon and the pastor more credibility with those who are seeking.

For the millennial generation if pastors are not able to demonstrate their authenticity, then they have no time for them. They do not assume that pastors have the perfect life, the evidence is too overwhelming to believe otherwise. But when we share a bit of ourselves, then we as pastors demonstrate that we have struggled, we have failed, but we were also supported and came out on the other side of the struggle. This generation will identify with and see that as followers of Jesus we can teach them something. I have learned to share a bit more of myself, and it has shown.

Now again we must be cautious not to pat ourselves on the back or call for a pity party for poor ole' me. But at the same time, when we show our authenticity, others can also feel free to share their struggles and see that Christians including pastors are not perfect, but forgiven and striving after a more full relationship with God by following Jesus. Even if we never fully achieve it. What better example of God's grace is there? Preach on.

What It Says About Us

2010-08-04T10:57:00.002-04:00

This weekend, another class of football greats will be enshrined in the pro football hall of fame. Many greats that I watched play such as Emmit Smith, Jerry Rice, and John Randle will be enshrined. They deserve it of course. Thier accomplishments speak for themselves. Other such as Broncos running back Floyd Little, and Lions cornerback, now Steelers defensive coordinator Dick LeBeau are also finally being honored this weekend. I never saw any of them play, I was too young and I am 37.

As I have listened to these folks being interviewed the question was asked of Floyd Little, why do think it took so long, are you upset this didn't happen sooner? Little responded appropriately that there is never a bad time to go into the Hall of Fame as long as you get there. While that is the right answer it does beg the question, why now and not then?

When Don Sutton was finally elected to the baseball hall of fame, he answered the question a little more honestly saying that he didn't know why now and not before. He hadn't thrown another strike out, his ERA has not lowered, but here he is now so he would take it. In the case of LeBeau, he has been retired longer than I have been alive (38 years). He has not had a single interception, or tackle, or forced fumble, or return for a touchdown. But now 38 years after he is done playing, the committee is recognizing his performance as a player.

I once read an article that said any attempt to rate the presidents of the United States, really says more about us than it does about them. It reflects our current bias and cultural preference as opposed to the issues they faced when they had to govern. That is probably true when it comes to deciding what is a Hall of Fame career as well. Good for this current group who finally recognized these players, abilities and contributions to the game. Perhaps it says something about us that we can recognize what they have done as opposed to those in the past who couldn't. In the end perhaps Little is right. No matter if you have been in for 38 years or newly inducted yesterday, everyone calls you the same thing, a Hall Of Famer.

Numbers! Number!s Numbers!

2010-06-03T12:32:00.007-04:00

To start off, I love Will Willimon. I studied under him at Duke, I respect many of his opinions. He has showed in the past that there is a different way to do and be church. Yet occasionally the Bishop does show his age, and that he like many of his contemporaries, still cannot see the transformation that has occurred in society. As a result he demonstrates the inability of leadership to effectively be in church in this new age. This is one of those cases.

In an article published by United Methodist News Service, Willimon insists that the measure of clergy effectiveness can be told simply by counting the numbers. The North Alabama Conference even has a dashboard on their website where churches report their attendance each week, how many baptisms, and new members they have received. Now I believe that numbers can be an indicator of some things however, I also believe there is a story behind every story. Even behind the numbers we see, there is a story that needs to be told.

In my context we have several stories behind the numbers. I have people who give all of their lives and of themselves for the mission and ministry of this church. But they are not members for various reasons and will not be. I have had new people come to the church, and even make a financial commitment to support the mission and ministries among other things, but they will not come to a new member group. The reasons are varied. For the Boomers it is because they were raised Catholic, or Lutheran, or even RLDS, and "for moms sake" or even conscious, they choose not to become a member. For the Gen X and millennial group, membership means something different than it did for people even 20 years ago. For them to join means making a full commitment that in their mind they may not be able to uphold. They take these vows so seriously that if they cannot fulfill in their mind even one of them, then that would be failure. So they come each week, help out with our missions and programs, serve in various positions in the church, but are not members. I respect all of that. This is their church. God is speaking to them through this particular part of the body of Christ and they have chosen to be a part of it. It may not show up on a stat sheet but meaningful ministry is happening through them.

As for me I would rather have a congregation of 150 committed followers of Jesus than 1000 members who simply come to the God box on Sunday morning. So rather than looking only at the numbers Bishop, let us look at the effectiveness of the body of Christ from top down. How is mission and ministry happening in the communities where we are? How is the leadership from the episcopacy on down enabling pastors and congregations to effectively reach those communities? That is the measure of true effectiveness.

Until our leadership realizes that the way we have always done things (counting in this case) will not be effective in the 21st century, our overall numbers will go down, but with that our continued decline in fulfilling the mission will also go down, because we are so worried about numbers instead of the people Jesus calls us to serve.

Remembering Ernie

2010-05-05T11:36:00.002-04:00

Yesterday evening, Detroit Tigers fans, really all of baseball, lost a long time friend. Ernie Harwell the, voice of the Tigers for over 40 years, succumbed to cancer at the age of 92. Not only is it a loss for Detroit, and the organization, but it is a loss for many of us who grew up listening to him calling the games on those summer days and evenings.

Back when most home games were not televised, we would look forward on those days to hearing his partner Paul Carey say "and now with the play-by-play, here is the voice of the Tigers, Ernie Harwell." The greeting was always the same "Thank ya Paul, and good afternoon/evening Tiger fans." You knew all was well even when the team was lousy, because he Ernie was at the mic.

Many will remember how gracious he was and that he was one of the good guys when it came to sports and life. No one could find a negative thing to say about him.

I will remember his phrases, for a called third strike where he would say, "He stood there like a house by the side of the road." Of course any home run hit by the Tigers be it a 400 foot blast or one that barely made it over the fence was always "Looong Gone!"

What also stood out for me were his what we call "shout outs" today not only to the metro Detroit area but the state of Michigan. When a foul ball would go into the stands at home games he would always say that "A lucky fan from (whatever city or even neighborhood in Detroit) got that ball." He of course had no way of knowing, but he not only made the broadcast interesting that way but also showed his support for the region and the state.

That legacy lives on as I have played whiffle ball with my sons. I say the same thing when a foul ball is hit. Then when watching a Tigers game on TV, my 9 year old who is too young to remember ever hearing him broadcast, saw a foul ball go into the stands and asked "who got that one dad."

Ernie's legend will live on and will still shape the lives of millions of Tigers fans, and baseball fans for years to come. Well done Ernie, you will be missed but never forgotten.

What is Understood.

2010-02-25T11:58:00.005-05:00

I laughed out loud (lol) when I saw a friend of mines posting of a link to The Onion web site. The Onion is a satirical news site that pokes fun at some of our headlines, and takes a sarcastic look at world events all in good humor. The headline said that on this day in history, Cy Young was elected to the baseball Hall of Fame despite not winning a single Cy Young Award.

What is ironic is that while this is obviously a humorous point, many seem to use these same type of arguments to justify their position. Bill Bauknight in his article in the January/February Confessing Movement newsletter does exactly that. In his critique of the United Methodist Bishops statement on Gods Renewed Creation: A Call to Hope and Action, Bauknight uses this opportunity not to critique the position of the UMC and our Bishops on the environment and climate change, but rather once again to spit out the same rhetoric that is causing division in the first place.

It would seem that his primary problem is that it is "Bible Light" and "Gospel deficient." Yet in the opening paragraphs our bishops begin with the assumption stating this is Gods creation, God invites us to renewal despite what we may have done to contribute to the problem, and that "Christ's resurrection assures us that death and destruction do not have the last word." There is your premise for the entire argument Mr. Bauknight. You say it is Gospel deficient, I say that they have very clearly laid out with that statement that the Gospel is the foundation for the entirety of the statement. Bauknight says "The bishops offer a recipe for dealing with all the problems of the world, though this recipe is not distinctively biblical." Yet in the letter itself both the Apostle Paul's letters and the Prophets are cited to ground the letter as based on the scripture. It would appear that instead of wanting a statement from our Bishops that is founded on scripture and Jesus as the basis for addressing the problem of global climate change as well as nuclear proliferation, and good use of Gods creation, they would have simply been more satisfied had they just put together a document of nothing but Bible quotations. What is understood need not be discussed.

It would also appear that Bauknight has trouble with the notion that our Bishops feel that the Gospel of Jesus Christ calls us to such responsibility."Indeed, if one removes from it the few references to Scripture and Jesus Christ, the letter could have been issued by the United Nations or the Sierra Club." Firstly so what! If the United Nations and the Sierra club see the creation in the same way as we in the church do, then thanks be to God! Secondly and I think most importantly, you cannot remove the references to scripture, God and Jesus Christ, because they were written intentionally as the basis of a Christian/United Methodist argument for protecting the creation that we have been charged with by God. As much as you may like to take it out to basically disagree with our bishops for the sake of disagreeing, you cannot challenge the credibility or integrity of the faith of our episcopal leaders, by picking and choosing. But I think you know that already.

Finally Mr.Bauknight misses the point all together. "Furthermore, the letter
fails to address the central problems of The United Methodist Church." Mr. Bauknight you are right. It does not do that because that is not the subject. The intent is to talk about the call that God through Jesus Christ has on our lives for the care of Gods creation and our failure as a church to take seriously this charge. Our Bishops have spoken about some of the central problems the church has faced. I am inspired how our Bishops, through the Four areas of Focus, are taking the lead in addressing the internal problems of the church as well as how to grow externally. But that is a discussion for another time and place. One way to address that however is to take a stand, and that stand is that God will not allow us to sit idly by while Gods creation continues to be destroyed, and that we desire to be the instruments of Christ Jesus by which Gods creation may be renewed.

Bauknight concludes by saying in the next issue, he will lay out what the Confessing movement wishes the bishops would have said. I'll be curious to see what that is, but if it is anything like the critique, it may be better served being posted on The Onion, much like the Cy Young comment or better yet, a critique of the Sermon on the Mount, for Jesus failing to mention himself repeatedly and that it is based more on Hammurabi's code instead of the Gospel. What is understood need not be discussed.

The bishops statement can be downloaded here

The Confessing movement article can be downloaded from here.

The Missing and Forgotten Generation

2010-01-19T15:46:00.007-05:00

The buzz around mainline denominational circles and specifically United Methodist Circles since that is my context is about how old we are. The average age of a United Methodist is 58 according to the latest research. The denomination has set a goal of lowering the average age to 48 by 2012. This is an admirable goal. However, I continue to question the means by which we are going about it. There have been many excellent articles about how to connect, reinvent church for the millennial generation. They are all coming of age now and this is certainly something the church needs to be ready for. But there is another demographic that seems to be lost in all of this. The people this decline started with in the first place. My generation. Generation X.

Not to sound like "what about me?" But what about me! or more appropriately us! There are millions of Gen x-rs in their 30's & 40's and, depending if you define the generation being born starting in 1961 or not, some approaching 50. What happened to us?

Well the first problem is that Gen X does not have numbers on it's side. There are only 46 million of us compared to 80 million boomers and 78 million millennial's. So in advertising you go where your biggest demographic is, I get that. The second thing is that our Silent and Boomer parent's have tended to, for some reason, not value our opinions. Most research that was conducted about 10 years ago referred to Gen X as generally whiners and complainers and lacking any initiative, but that there was not enough data to give a complete picture yet. Well ten years later it seems that that data has been neglected for the more populous millennial generation. So still Gen X is forgotten and pushed to the side. When we ask why, the message is the same, quit complaining.

Here is the problem in all of this. The forgotten 46 million of Generation X have so much to give to the church, but because their ideas were relegating to foolishness and youthful inexperience, many have long since fled from the existing mainline church (present company excluded). Many who stayed like myself have since left and have founded thriving ministries of their own outside the mainline denominations. As people who grew up along with the evolution the personal computer, cable/satellite TV, the Internet, and cell phones, but also remember what life was like without them, Generation X can build an important bridge in the church for the Millennial Generation. But there must be a concerted effort among boomers in particular to recognize God's gifts that are evident in them, value their opinions and to listen to them, and let new ministries flourish that builds bridges between all 3 generations.

Interpreter Magazine just published an excellent article to help people understand the Millennial Generation. It is a good read. However, Generation X, while not completely ignored, was referred to in passing as generally being pessimistic, and victims of the break up of traditional marriage. In another place it said that we used technology as tools, as opposed to Millennial's for whom it is an integral part of their lives. The problem with that line of thinking is this: the X-rs are the one's who developed this stuff in the first place.

In summary, if mainline church's do not recognize the Gifts for ministry that God has blessed them with, giving serious consideration to the role Generation X can and should play in the church, they do so at their own peril. Generation X will continue to go off on their own and start new churches that will attract both groups away from the main-liners.

Us and Them. Where is the We?

2009-11-09T16:46:00.002-05:00

At this past two Detroit Annual Conference sessions, I was struck by something, the use of “us” and “they” language. Many people were probably not even aware that they (no pun) were doing it, but it was there. It was only upon reflection that I realized it myself. But there it was like us not being able to see the forest for the trees.

After hearing a great Lay Leader reports which reminded the laity that it was time to claim their ministry for Making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world, instead of expecting the pastor to do it all for the laity, we were reminded of our shared and mutual ministry.

Our cabinet deans reports gave us another reminder of the perception that young adults and those outside of the church view the church these days. Again they were a call for inclusivity and breaking down those barriers that would separate us, living authentic lives for Christ.

We heard a great address from the Conference Young Adults about new ways of being in ministry. While clearly this made an impact on those members in attendance, I was still struck by the language that was used. We were reminded by one member that many in attendance have gray hair and that old people resist change. It is the young people who are the future of the church. This may be true.

Even our bishop in an attempt to acknowledge the contribution of the young adult age persons there, said and pardon me if the quote is not exact “it is so great to have you young people here with all of us old folks.”

All the while we continued to acknowledge the declining membership of the UMC and what can be done. I believe that we completely miss the point. It is not intentional but is present none the less. Rather than acknowledging the important role that the young adult ministry plays in the life of our church and how it is one more tool that enables us to make disciples of Jesus Christ, we separated it as something extraordinary, rather than ordinary. That is the problem of the United Methodist Church. We have become such an established structure that we cannot see beyond it anymore.

Dangerous Territory

2009-10-08T16:32:00.000-04:00

I remember a comedian several years ago, doing a bit about about the "new" (this was the 80's) shops that were offering glasses that are ready in one hour. "I'm sorry," he said "but some things should take a couple of days. Like I want some guy staring at the clock rushing to finish my specs in 59 minutes and 59 seconds and rushing up to the counter and saying 'Here!" You have to see it to grasp the true humor.

The point is of course for something as important as seeing, you want experts who take their time, know what they are doing, and make sure that they get it right. Now I learn about a group at conservapedia.com, a conservative site fashioned after Wikipedia, that is working on their own translation of the Bible "without corruption of liberal bias." This will be an online effort which can be edited by any person who logs on to their site, much like Wikipedia does for other information.

Now I say this realizing that I approach the Bible with my own bias as we all do when we read it. Some things we like, some we wrestle with, and others, we just don't understand anymore because of our context. My reading of scripture is always through the lenses of a 21st century white male in the United States, from a mainline protestant tradition. I own that.

All that being said I find this project appalling. No matter whether we are liberals, conservatives, or anything in between, conforming the Bible to say what we want it to say for our own political agenda is outrageous. Bible translations throughout the centuries have, with some exceptions, been about capturing the meaning of the original manuscripts while preserving that meaning as they are translated into our modern language. In that approach, we acknowledge that we always lose something in translation. However, the approach is always from a theological,scholarly perspective to capture it's meaning. Not from promoting one political ideology.

For example the site says they will seek to "identify terms that have lost their original meaning, such as "word" in the beginning of the Gospel of John, and suggest replacements, such as "truth." Actually it is "word" and it has not lost it's meaning, but is rooted in the story of creation from Genesis 1 where God speaks the world into existence as we now know it. It has nothing to do with what is true and what is not, but about the nature, existence, and being, of Christ himself.

There are other examples of removing such socialist terms as "laborer" and replacing them with "volunteer." Well that has two problems. One is that when the word is mentioned, they are talking about paid or slave labor, not volunteers. Second is that Jesus did not ask for volunteers to follow him, he asked for disciples.

I could go on. Now again we all have our biases. I am no different. However, when we seek to manipulate our sacred scriptures to fit into our own narrative, rather than conforming our lives to the narrative that scriptures as translated, have been to us by God. We have major problems.

What is the Model Church

2009-10-05T10:16:00.006-04:00

Recently my denomination sponsored a successful (depending on your definition of success) pastor, to lead a training seminar for other churches. Now there is nothing wrong with this, we can all learn from each other. The things that were shared specifically about the look and feel of church buildings, has value. However, in the back of my growing cynical mind, questions keep popping up. Not about improving ourselves, we always need to be doing that, but about what our mission should be.

Usually these speakers and presenters are pastors of mega style churches. Again there is nothing wrong with those, but the subtle message seems to be "we are bringing these people in to show you how to do ministry the right way, and their church is the model your church should aspire to be." Again that is never explicitly said, but the vibe usually surrounds the event.

Then we get the resume about how the church started 20-30 years ago with the pastor and their family and 5 people in their basement, or a school classroom, and now they have 10,000 members and a huge building. Or when so and so became pastor of this church, it was a dying congregation of less than 50 people, a mere shadow of it's former self. But now it has 10,000 people in worship 2 satellite campuses etc.

Again there is nothing wrong with these churches themselves. In fact with the right pastoral leadership, they were destined to grow in those ways. New church starts are able to reach new people who embrace a common mission, and in the process write their own history as they go along. Once prominent urban churches that have dwindled down to almost nothing are also again with the right leadership, destined to grow. It is fight or flight for them. The old mission wasn't working and they faced literally life and death. When faced with death the people remaining will do almost anything to survive, including embracing a whole new model.

However, there are a lot of churches who are not like this. They may not be growing, they may not be declining, but going through peaks and valleys. These churches have sometimes over 100 years of history and tradition to pass on. I would argue, the models for ministry that tend to be touted today may not be the best people to be speaking to those churches for 2 reasons, which I will explain.

First, these churches are established. They do not have a sense of urgency like the previous models do. They have been around this long and they have survived and even thrived during much worse, times. A new church start has to grow or it will fail. For the most part everyone must have total buy in to the mission and focus and move in that direction. And they must have total buy in with the pastoral leadership or it will fall apart. However in established churches, many missions and themes have come and gone. Many pastors have come and gone. Some were better gifted to minister in the communities context than others. Some lasted longer than others. But through it all the one constant remained the church itself. If people have a buy in with who they are as a congregation, then there is nothing wrong with that.

Second, these successful churches usually are strategically located in such areas where there is growth. New houses, in developing communities. People and families are looking for a new start in a new community. So a new church plant firs right along with that same ethos. However, that characteristics of communities that make for these "successful" church's do not necessarily translate as a universal truth for all churches. Ministry occurs in context. What works in urban areas, does not always work in rural areas. Suburban churches will have a different way than churches in a large city. The list can go on. The point is that many churches which may have only 300 members but have roughly sustained those numbers for a great many years, are doing well. Why then do we continue to point to something bigger and say this is better? perhaps we can look at the context and say for where you are, you are doing well?

So in the end, I think in our mainline protestant traditions desperate attempt to stymie our ever dwindling membership numbers (that is another matter), we tend to grab onto something that is growing and say "here is the answer to reversing our decline." Instead perhaps what will reverse these trends is to not force congregations to be something they are not meant to be, but instead to recognize the that each congregation has something to offer that is unique.

That is not to say that we should be complacent. That is what makes the 300 member church dwindle to 50. Nor am I saying that we should not celebrate new churches that experience exponential growth, and seek to plant new ones as well. I am saying let's not hold these up as the models only, but realize that there are many models, and support them in the ways that are appropriate. I heard this parable and do not know it's source, but I think it applies. If you judge a fish on it's ability to swim, the fish will always excel in what it was meant to do. If you judge a fish on it's ability to climb a tree, it will never be good enough no matter how well it swims.

A New Church Vision

2009-07-15T11:53:00.002-04:00

About a year or so ago, someone asked a blanket question that if we were to start a new church, what would it look like? My response was very cryptic but honest, “probably nothing like anything we would see now.” The response of the person back was “that tells me NOTHING!” True! Which was the point. I don’t think it would look like anything that exists now. At least not in the current United Methodist System.

What it would look like I don’t know still, but I think I have a better idea. Mostly I think I can define it by what it would not look like. It would not involve a building, at least not at first. Too many places including where I serve now, the church is defined as a building. But in reality, the church is the people gathered together, the ecclesia, so any new church would start with people. Buildings tend to get in the way and cause problems. When we begin to think of the church as the building, then we get sentimental, and attached, and we too often forsake the ministry of the church (the people) for the preservation of the building. Jesus himself, wasn’t too big on buildings or monuments. Instead he was about building the kingdom of God, which was and should be through building relationships with people. If eventually there arose a need for a building, the intention of the church would be that it is a tool for ministry, and not a thing to be worshipped. Then when the building has served it’s purpose and has lived out it’s usefulness, something new may be built or shared as a tool for ministry, so the church may thrive and succeed.

A new church would also not look like anything that is currently structured. One of the things that has happened in the church is we are more concerned with the structure than we are with what the structure is supposed to enable us to do. Go out and be in mission. It has been said by many that God so loved the world that he did not give it a committee. This becomes truer for me each and every day. Current church structures from Annual Conferences on down to local Congregations have fallen into a trap of meeting for the sake of meeting. We talk a lot, but don’t do a whole lot, yet we can convince ourselves that simply by meeting, we have done something. Meanwhile, the homeless have not been sheltered, the hungry have not been fed, the naked have not been clothed, because we just don’t know how we can squeeze that in, among all the meetings we have.

Committees when they are at their best are for enablement of ministry. At their worst, they are about getting together and arguing. Usually, they tend to fall into the middle of these two extremes, where we talk about ministry, yet we don’t know how to do it, and we talk about how we don’t know how to do it so much that we are convinced that we need another meeting to talk over these same issues of not knowing how again. We really do know how, we are just afraid to try for the most part.

A new church would also not be about styles of worship, in fact perhaps a new church would not have anything like a worship service, at least not in terms of current paradigms, either traditional, contemporary, modern etc. Perhaps these may evolve over time as a part of our life together, but no one-worship style should define a church. The work of Christ should define the church, and our worship should be about connecting with Christ for enablement to serve. Sometimes that may mean we will express it with organs, sometimes with piano’s sometimes with guitars, sometimes with no music at all. Too many churches think that by going to worship on Sunday morning, they have “done church.” No in fact all you have done, is listened to (but mostly ignored) the call that Jesus has on your life to be in ministry, that is issued in worship. Worship and liturgy, in whatever form it comes in, is about the work of the people. Therefore whatever we hear say and do together on Sunday, or Wednesday or whatever day it is, the primary focus cannot be on music, or even in what dialect one says the Lord’s prayer (i.e. King James English, modern English, using the word “trespasses” “sins” or “debts”) rather on how Jesus inspires, calls, and enables us to do the work of ministry which we have been called to do.

I finally Did It.

2009-07-09T15:40:00.003-04:00

While I have been blogging sporadically in a official capacity, I have often said, I wanted my own blog, to express some things more freely. Not that I would do it that often but it is there if people want to see.

I finally did. And the reason is I was reading a post from someone who tweeted their latest blog entry. It was on "getting a new pastor without going through the bishop." And I was highly offended. I was going to write about why here. I won't do that specifically other than to say that I believe that we should judge others unless we are willing to be judged ourselves. And that those of us who take Acts chapter 4 seriously (look it up) should not have to apologize for social advocacy. It is at the foundation and heart of the Christian faith.

I hope to use this blog to share about faith politics entertainment and whatever else is on my mind, but mostly as a place for discussion. So let's discuss.