Lenten Humor

In looking for a do-it-yourself bulletin cover for Ash Wednesday, this one did NOT get staff or worship-team approval. Oh well.

A One-Sided Conversation

I have rarely been this frustrated in my life. My email doesn’t work: I can receive email, but I can’t send it from my Comcast account. I can’t send it from my computer, I can’t send it from my administrative assistant's computer, or my iPhone. I don’t get an error message, it doesn’t say “Server Error” or “Undeliverable.” It says that it’s been sent… but no one gets it. I can’t even send an email to myself. Comcast can’t send email out from my account either. No one seems to know what the problem is.

I really didn’t know how dependent I had become on email as a way of communication. Here I am trying to communicate – but no one can hear.

If we define prayer as communication with God (and I think it is an accurate definition), I wonder how God feels when we do not respond to him? Do we put up a barrier - or, in computer terms, erect a “firewall?” Maybe we’re afraid of what God might move us to do!

My colleague Mike Ripski said this about prayer: “Because prayer centers us in God, it moves us away from other centers. It moves us against the grain. Prayer moves us to be hopeful, patient, and persevering because it enables us to see things from God’s vantage point. It permits our lives to be led in directions we’ve never gone before. Then we are willing to risk unpopularity and even our lives… Be attentive to God for very long, and the eyes and hands and feet will be as involved as the ears and mouth. Prayer will take you someplace.” (from Conversing with God, © 1992, pp. 91-92)

God certainly wants a conversation with us. Let’s be sure we’re allowing Him to get through.

Pax,

Sky+

This Is Just Wrong.

Wrong. Wrong. Absolutely wrong.

Citizenship, Politics, and Christianity

My fellow blogger and U.M. pastor Allen Bevere writes some great blogs. I want to highlight one he wrote at the end of 2009. Here is an excerpt:

Small town journalism is among the best reporting in the country, unlike the national media which continues to be a disgrace. Most journalists in the mainstream media think the square root of pi is coconut cream.

Local politicians are usually better behaved than national ones, probably because they are more accountable to their constituencies (there are, of course, exceptions to this).

Nowhere is the lack of serious and deep thinking more present than in Washington DC.

I do not understand why liberals say they are progressive. There is nothing progressive about wanting more government control over individual lives. There is nothing progressive about believing that government is the answer to most things. FDR believed that and enacted the era of big government. Today's liberals are not forward-looking, but rather nostalgic for earlier times. If 1935 ever returns the Democratic Party is ready.

By the same token, what is so conservative about Republicans? They are big spenders and have become foreign policy activists. There is nothing conservative in that philosophy. And it also appears that they have run out of ideas with no one standing out to lead the party. So much of late that comes out of Republican mouths is embarrassing. When 2012 arrives, the Republican Party will not be ready.

There were those in 2009 talking about the coming evangelical collapse. I disagree. Evangelicalism will not collapse, but it is in the process of being reformed. That is a good thing.

Theological liberalism is in large part repetitive and uninteresting.

Theological fundamentalism is in large part repetitive and uninteresting.

Fundamentalism and liberalism are simply two sides of the same coin.

-from Allen Bevere's, "Brief and Random Thoughts at the End of 2009," 30-Dec-09

Ever since I read Allen's above post, it has provoked a myriad of thoughts. One is that I fear our country will embrace rugged individualism to the point where, "I can do whatever I want," and everyone else be damned. Before you think that's far fetched, consider American Christianity, where you can pretty much believe whatever you damned darned well please.

I really have to do some soul searching occasionally and remember where my allegiances are, and to know that being a good citizen does not negate being a good Christian... and vice versa. I was officiating at a basketball game a few weeks ago at a private high school, and we began with a prayer followed by the singing of the national anthem. Those are really not incompatible things - prayer is our communication with God, and the national anthem is our respect and love for the country in which we live. The test comes in what we do with what God communicates to us, and how we live out our love for our country.

If Christianity is experiencing loss of its spiritual depth in America, I fear that patriotism is equally experiencing loss. Our continued fervor for partisan politics above a politic/policy for the common good is killing America (at least, the America that was founded many years ago). And no - I am not talking about health care. I am talking about politic. Πολιτικά. The affairs of the state. To be honest, I'm tired of what is passing for politics today. My language is atrocious enough without saying what I think today's politics resembles, so I'll stick to a safer and more polite term: self-gratification. We're all about ourselves.

Ultimately, if we are a country that (at least claims to be) Christian, we believe this: God has the last word in all things. We ARE our brother's and sister's keeper. Jesus redeems all things, and that includes justice, peace, and eternal life. It doesn't mean we have to be pacifists, but it certainly means we should at least have the goal of beating swords into plowshares. It doesn't mean we have to adopt Marxist socialistic ways about health care (which don't work anyway), but it doesn't mean we can avoid dealing with those less fortunate than ourselves, either. It doesn't mean that it's wrong to make money - as long as we remember the Source from whom all things come, and that to those who have much given, much is expected. The bottom line: do we trust God? If we don't, we will have a hard time living out the politics of being Christian.

"I Vow to Thee My Country" is a British hymn - and some critics say that it shouldn't even qualify as a hymn - but I think the words are poignant and can fit America as well as Britain. The words are below:

I vow to thee, my country, all earthly things above,
Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love;
The love that asks no question, the love that stands the test,
That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best;
The love that never falters, the love that pays the price,
The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.

And there's another country, I've heard of long ago,
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King;
Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering;
And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,
And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace.

- Words: Sir Cecil Spring-Rice, 1908

Music: Gustav Holst, 1921

If we're American, and we're Christian, we should have no trouble singing either verse. The politics of Jesus and the costs of discipleship require our vow and and our sacrifice. But we do so as a community of faith, not individuals. Love doesn't insist on it's way, but insists on the truth.

Pax,
Sky+

Our Love, Our Hope, Ourselves

I dearly love what I do as an ordained minister, and believe I am called and convicted to it. Indeed, I don't really know what else I would do on this earth.

At the same time, on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, there is a part of me that yearns to be a worshiper instead of a presider. On this one day, I would rather sing hymns than lead them, I would rather hear the Word proclaimed than be the one proclaiming it, I would rather be receiving Christ at the Eucharist as a communicant rather than as presider. My love of Christ and my love of music overwhelms me on this day. I just want to sit in the pew and worship.

I know that's not reality, because my love of the Church outweighs my own selfishness. So for many years I have listened to the international broadcast of Lessons and Carols from King's College, Cambridge - my opportunity to "sit in the pew" and simply worship. This year, schedule and work didn't allow me to listen to it. So, arriving home after our 11 PM Christmas Eve service, I watched several clips from previous years' worship services at King's College. Hearing the scripture readings and the carols sung remind me of the joy of Christmas, why I am Christian, and why I love Christ so.

This carol, "The Shepherd's Carol," is new... and brings tears to my eyes and joy to my heart every time I hear it. Sung from the standpoint of the shepherds to Mary, it captures serenity, humility, wonderment, and the implications of Christ's birth to the world. It is a anonymous poem that gifted British composer Bob Chilcott set to choral setting in 2000. No organ, no piano, no instruments whatsoever - and none needed. (Turn up the volume or get headphones to catch the richness of the voices and harmony)

May we offer to Jesus our love, our hope, and ourselves.

Sky+



We stood on the hills, Lady,
Our day’s work done,
Watching the frosted meadows
That winter had won.

The evening was calm, Lady,
The air so still,
Silence more lovely than music
Folded the hill.

There was a star, Lady,
Shone in the night,
Larger than Venus it was
And bright, so bright.

Oh, a voice from the sky, Lady,
It seemed to us then
Telling of God being born
In the world of men.

And so we have come, Lady,
Our day’s work done,
Our love, our hopes, ourselves
We give to your son.

Christmas and Never Being Alone

Christmas can admittedly be a lonely time for many. While it is a time for families and friends to get together and celebrate, it can also be a painful reminder of the loss of loved ones. My parents’ anniversary was on December 24th, the same day that my grandmother died. I love Christmas, but I miss my mother and grandmother.

I have “inflicted” the writings of Henri Nouwen on you many times. Allow me once again to inflict you, this time with some of his words about Christmas:

God came to us because he wanted to join us on the road, to listen to our story, and to help us realize that we are not walking in circles but moving towards the house of peace and joy. This is the great mystery of Christmas that continues to give us comfort and consolation: we are not alone on our journey. The God of love who gave us life sent his only Son to be with us at all times and in all places, so that we never have to feel lost in our struggles but always can trust that he walks with us.

The challenge is to let God be who he wants to be. A part of us clings to our aloneness and does not allow God to touch us where we are most in pain. Often we hide from him precisely those places in ourselves where we feel guilty, ashamed, confused, and lost. Thus we do not give him a chance to be with us where we feel most alone.

Christmas is the renewed invitation not to be afraid and to let him - whose love is greater than our own hearts and minds can comprehend - be our companion.

- Henri Nouwen, Gracias

Merry Christmas, and God bless us – everyone.

Sky+

Trunk or Treat Pictures from Church

... can be found by clicking here.

Happy All Hallows' Eve to everyone. And Happy All Saints tomorrow!

Mark Tooley: See 4(b)

JERK
Pronunciation: \ˈjərk\
Function: noun
Etymology: probably alteration of yerk
Date: 1575
1 : a single quick motion of short duration
2 a : jolting, bouncing, or thrusting motions b : a tendency to produce spasmodic motions
3 a : an involuntary spasmodic muscular movement due to reflex action b plural : involuntary twitchings due to nervous excitement
4 a : an annoyingly stupid or foolish person b : an unlikable person; especially : one who is cruel, rude, or small-minded
5 : the pushing of a weight from shoulder height to a position overhead in weight lifting

Sometimes, people can give church renewal a bad name.

Since Mark wrote me a letter and addressed it "Dear Sky," I don't have any problems being a bit casual with my remarks. And since I cannot abide "liberals" or "conservatives" who take things out of context, here is his letter in its entirety:

September 18, 2009

Church Officials Start to Acknowledge
Persecution of Christians by Radical Islam

Dear Sky,

Would you believe that liberal church officials are actually starting to speak out about radical Islam and persecution of Christians?

Yes, it’s quite amazing, and good news certainly. The recent ravaging of two Pakistani Christian communities, resulting in scores of burned homes and 7 dead Christians, has sparked distress. A bishop from The Church of Pakistan also recently visited offices in New York for the National Council of Churches, the United Methodist General Board of Global Ministries, and the Episcopal Church, igniting statements of concern from all.

The statement by United Methodist West Ohio Bishop Bruce Ough, as president of Global Ministries, was especially good. Encourage him with a supportive email, thanking him.

And here’s my article, quoting Bishop Ough and others.

This Pakistani bishop especially expressed alarm about his country’s Blasphemy Law, which makes illegal any criticism of Muhammad or the Koran. Angry Islamist mobs exploit the law to create rumors about Christians and then to attack them. Theocratic laws forbidding criticism of Islam are common throughout Muslim majority countries and are often aimed like a knife against vulnerable Christians and other religious minorities.

But typically, left-leaning church officials say nothing about persecution of Christians by Islamists. They prefer to think of Christianity, and the West, especially the U.S., as the persecutor, and Muslims everywhere as only victims. Liberal church officials often prefer apologizing for the Crusades of 1,000 years ago rather than recognizing today’s injustices. The outrages in Pakistan seem to have aroused some new concern. Let’s pray the Holy Spirit will water and grow this concern for persecuted Christians!

Of course, most of the Religious Left will remain silent about persecution of Christians, whether by Islamist or Marxist regimes. The Religious Left prefers its usual political themes, such as attacking capitalism as a cosmic threat to Planet Earth. A group of Presbyterian and Congregationalist theologians from around the world recently convened to issue their denunciation of free markets as the supposed tormentor of the poor. Here’s my article.

Which has sustained more poverty in the world? Free markets and protection of private property, or state control and corruption of markets? Tens of millions of previously poor people in the Global South, especially in India and China, have escaped centuries of poverty and experienced relief thanks to the former. But the Religious Left prefers its own ideology, to reality and traditional Christian thought. Unfortunately, at least if you are a Mainline Protestant, the Religious is often funded by your donations to your local church!

Please continue to pray for our churches, for the persecuted church globally, for our country, and for IRD’s ministry of church reform. Your contribution allows IRD to report and to speak about what is happening in our churches. Your gift of $25 will help us continue. Please easily donate here.

With appreciation,


Mark Tooley
IRD President

It is a weird letter that at best congratulates leadership in a backhanded way while still labeling them and getting in the Talking Head-Like-Jab that seems to be so obligatory these days.

Rude: "Would you believe that liberal church officials are actually starting to speak out about radical Islam and persecution of Christians? Yes, it’s quite amazing, and good news certainly."

Small minded (and broad generalization): "But typically, left-leaning church officials say nothing about persecution of Christians by Islamists. They prefer to think of Christianity, and the West, especially the U.S., as the persecutor, and Muslims everywhere as only victims. Liberal church officials often prefer apologizing for the Crusades of 1,000 years ago rather than recognizing today’s injustices." What a liberal use of generalization, and right out of the Liberal's handbook at that!! Take Stephen King's advice about words like "typically": use adverbs sparingly. (A sense of humor helps too).

Sarcastic: "Of course, most of the Religious Left will remain silent about persecution of Christians, whether by Islamist or Marxist regimes. The Religious Left prefers its usual political themes, such as attacking capitalism as a cosmic threat to Planet Earth." Good grief, give that tired old jab of hyberbole a rest.

Pretty close to a lie: "But the Religious Left prefers its own ideology, to reality and traditional Christian thought. Unfortunately, at least if you are a Mainline Protestant, the Religious is often funded by your donations to your local church!" Just about anyone could refute several parts of that. Better learn some qualifiers, Mark, like "some" or even "most." The problem with generalizations is the same problem when you assume; it definitely makes an "ass" of "u" and "me," Plus, there's a comma splice in there too.

I tried being a liberal - and found it weak on doctrine and continuity of faith. I tried being a conservative - and found the same thing. This power struggle between Left and Right is becoming a game the United Methodist Church cannot afford to play anymore. More to the point: the people in the pews are getting tired of it, and are no longer impressed. We need less liberals and conservatives and more radicals, in the radicalness of Jesus.

Here's a generalization I'll make after attending four General Conferences, one of them as a delegate:

The Left: Lacks a lot on tradition and theological consistency. Bad technology geeks. Great meals and hospitality.
The Right: Holds (selectively) to tradition and theology. Great technology geeks. Bad food, and lacking in hospitality.

If you want to do the cause justice, Mark - encourage good behavior and validate it, rather than mock it. Your tactics have their place and work well for politics and rhetoric and CIA-type deception and propaganda... but I suspect they are suspect when it comes to the Kingdom of God. The ends never justify the means.

In short, Mark, if you want to make a difference, be kind. Be charitable. Don't be a clanging cymbal. Love is never rude or boastful. That goes for all you liberal lefties out there, too... as well as my own self; I know that I can be a jerk too.

God forgive me. And God forgive all of us for making His Kingdom an ideological playground.

Pax,
Sky+

Dividing By Zero

You know, division in the United Methodist Church is, in essence, almost like dividing by zero. In mathematical terms, it is an expression that has no meaning. In practical terms, it cripples us. About 12 years ago, a divide by zero error on board the naval cruiser USS Yorktown (CG-48) computers brought down all the machines on the network, and their propulsion system failed. It stalled out over a weekend while in port.

My Labor Day was pretty quiet until I got a phone call from an old friend regarding something he had read about the United Methodist Church. I told him what our denomination's stance was on the issue and said he must have misread the article. So then I looked it up... and I owed my friend an apology.

For a long time, my denomination has been in a power struggle: left versus right. Or, to use dirty (and now meaningless) words: "Liberal" and "Conservative." Church liberals now want to be called "progressives." I am sure the church conservatives will be thinking up a new label for themselves before too long to keep up.

Every General Conference, we "fight" over homosexuality. And every General Conference, we keep things basically the same (the vote margin is getting maybe a little larger). But neither side ever wants to let it go. More importantly, neither side seems to CARE that while trying to win this argument, the church is hemorrhaging - numerically, spiritually, and financially. In essence, whether intended or not, regardless of what side we stand, we have made homosexuality a juggernaut and idol. Our love for or against the argument has gone from concern to ridiculous. As if we can blame the hemorrhaging of the UMC on homosexuality!

This article has been posted by the General Board of Church and Society. It is entitled "Sex and the Church: Adolescent Sexuality," and while there were certainly some good points in it, there were some that were indefensible. A great point was this:

Parenting style can make a big difference in teenagers’ sexual decisions. In homes where parents talk to their teens about their sexuality values and have regular discussions about sexuality, their children are more likely to delay having sexual intercourse.

And then there is this quote:

More than 15 years ago, I developed a framework for a moral sexual relationship. I believe, based on my more than 30 years as a sexuality educator and now as a minister, that a moral, ethical sexual relationship — whether one is married or single, 16 or 35 or 80, gay, bisexual or straight — is defined by five criteria: It is consensual, non-exploitative, honest, mutually pleasurable and protected, if any type of intercourse occurs.

So if the General Boards don't like what the denomination decides about itself, it'll just stick our noses in what they think is right and rub it in until we get it right? As a pastor who vowed to uphold the Discipline, how can I teach one thing about United Methodism and then have an official agency of the church teach something at variance with it?

Of course, the other side is no better. While not an official agency of the United Methodist Church, one poster of a bulletin board gives the article this moniker: "GBCS - Sex, Church and Rock and Roll." Like a lot of titles this gentleman gives his news articles about the UMC, it's at best a half-truth and more like gossip (I mean, where was the Rock and Roll!?).

If we were to make a movie, I think the Confessing Movement could be played by Fox News and our Boards and Agencies could be played by CNN. Ugh.

Of course, I'm probably contributing to the cause by giving both of these sides any press at all. When faithfulness and honesty won't work, there's always slander, talking heads, and sensationalism. Ever watch or listen to the news? We certainly get our attitudes and strategies to deceive honestly! We can be good at bullying people and try to slam them into submission. It strikes me as odd sometimes that some of those who push inclusivity the hardest seem to be the ones who are the least tolerant of those different from them.

Why does the American Church LOVE to mirror U.S. politics? Why do we pick one side, hate the other - when neither side holds a monopoly on truth nor is free from sin (and picks and chooses their whipping boy sins at that)? It would make a whole lot more sense to be on the Lord's side. But that's just not politically correct - for either side.

Jesus wasn't liberal or conservative: he was radical. That means he *issed just about everyone off around him because he did what God wanted Him to do, not what society or any group expected. I heard a judge once say that when she made a decision of law in court that didn't make either lawyer happy, she knew she'd made the right decision.

Conservatives often (not always) seem to be lacking in grace. Liberals often (not always) seem to be lacking in accountability. Both understand covenant in THEIR terms, but not necessarily in God's terms. Life in the Body of Christ can be wonderful. But it is often messy. I know that my house doesn't clean itself.

From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. - Luke 12:52-53

Jesus didn't come to make us happy or justify "our side." He came to set us free. Why fight it?

Pax,
Sky+

Do We Need to Reconsider Seminary-Trained Clergy?

I learned the other day that a candidate for the ordained ministry in another annual conference was deferred ordination not because he didn't measure up to doctrinal or psychological issues or didn't have the gifts for preaching or teaching; he had too much educational debt (for those of you not United Methodist, ordination candidates are asked, "Are you presently in debt as to embarrass you in your ministry?").

After doing some checking, I discovered that the average student gets out of undergraduate school at a public university with about $21k of debt, a 108% increase from 10 years ago (God only knows what the average debt is from a private school). In looking around at United Methodist related seminaries (the encouraged education of UM clergy), the average seminary debt (3 years of graduate school) is presently running around $30k. That's really not that bad, considering a year's tuition and at Duke Divinity runs $21,640, a year at Emory runs $15,500, a year at Asbury $14,400, and a year at Garrett-Evangelical $15,600 (I didn't include yearly living expenses, which estimates run $11k to $18k a year).

So let's say an ordination candidate gets the minimum education required and comes out of undergraduate and graduate school with "average" educational debt. That will be $51k. The problem is that the minimum salary for seminary graduates ranges from $25k (Rio Grand) to $47k (Western New York). In other words, the debt load (at least from a financial institution's viewpoint) is unacceptable given the income of the individual.

My education has served me well: I have diplomas from the University of Tennessee and Emory University hanging on the wall of my office. My educational debt? $0. I got 1/2 of my undergraduate tuition covered since my father was UT faculty, and I was able to work to pay the other half. I received a fellowship for seminary that paid my tuition and served as a student pastor for a place to live and living expenses. My situation was not - and is not - the norm, I fear.

Are we pricing ourselves out of ministry? One blogger suggests so ("Can We Afford Seminary?"). And more to the point, does the M.Div really serve the Church well? Has it contributed to the life of the Church or exacerbated clericalism? Do we see the role of clergy as "keepers of the faith" or do we see clergy leadership and preaching as part of what the Church does as a whole body?

I am convinced that God doesn't need our M.Div degrees, but I am equally convinced that God does not need our ignorance either. However, we might be better served going back of the very traditional model of local seminaries and apprenticeships as opposed to a professional degree. For one, it's much, much cheaper. For another, the last 50-70 years when M.Div's have become the norm have not seen a marked increase in the number of Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, etc. - in fact, we have gotten smaller.

Perhaps we would be served much better by a work-study type of program, night classes, online study, and the like. Some say this is dumbing down - but the reality is, especially in the United Methodist Church where the "average" church is less than 150 folks, that we probably need fewer M.Div graduates and more folks who are spiritually formed and called. It certainly worked for 1900 years.

The other alternatives are not viable ones: higher clergy salaries are not realistic. Raising church apportionments to cover the total costs of seminary graduates is unrealistic as well. And as a seminary education necessarily takes place in a private university, private education is not cheap. I am just wondering how long this present model will work: we can't require folks to get an education to be qualified and then tell them they are carrying too much educational debt so we won't ordain them.

I think are kidding ourselves if we think this problem will simply go away. If I were 44 years old with a family and felt the call to preach, I don't think I could do it in the United Methodist Church: I couldn't afford it unless a rich uncle paid my way... and I am fairly sure I don't have any rich uncles.

Perhaps a model the General Board of Ministry should consider is a localized seminary option (it worked in the Early Church for a long long time). Maybe we've bought into American consumerism too much and just tried to "buy" what we need instead of doing the hard work ourselves.

Pax,
Sky+

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes

[from Newsletter 8-26-09]

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes (turn and face the strain)

Ch-ch-changes, Oh, look out you rock n rollers

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes (turn and face the strain)

Ch-ch-changes, Pretty soon now you’re gonna get a little older

Time may change me, But I cant trace time

- David Bowie, 1971

No one likes to face the strain of getting older. The first time I heard this song I was in the fourth or fifth grade. Now that I’m realizing that there may be fewer days ahead than there are behind, I understand the song better. David Bowie knew 38 years ago that even “rock n rollers” were going to get older and face the strain of change and getting older.

We all witnessed changes in our sanctuary furniture the past three weeks. I heard people say they liked the new changes. I heard people say that they didn’t. Folks were mad I changed things. Folks were mad that I changed them back. Some didn’t like the way the choir looked. Many liked a central pulpit. Others want a split chancel (pulpit/lectern) with a central table.

The reality is I can make historical, theological, and liturgical cases for each configuration. The split chancel and central altar-table comes from the Roman Catholic tradition (although the pulpit is supposed to be stage right and the lectern stage left – ours are opposite of that). A central or single pulpit (called an ambo) comes from the Protestant tradition. To have the chancel (“stage”) as elevated as we have it at RUMC is really more from the evangelical/free tradition than liturgical tradition. Our choir sits in the very front of the church, which is also from the evangelical/free tradition. If we were following traditional church architecture, the choir should either be split in half facing each other (with the altar/table in the very front of the church) or should be in the balcony.

We obviously are a mixture of all of these – which is neither right nor wrong. It has served us well for many years. My purpose is moving some of the things around was to look at the possibilities for the future. Change is inevitable, and if we want to continue to make disciples for Jesus Christ, we have to be sure we are ready for the everchanging world to communicate the Gospel as clearly and effectively as we can.

One of the things the last Council on Ministries meeting did was to make a recommendation for a new wor-ship chairperson, and empowering the worship committee to explore how we might commission a new worship service to reach out to the younger adults and unchurched of our area. This worship service will no doubt look differently than the two present services that we have. It might result in having a third service. It will take a lot of study and prayer to discern what will work best for us. However, we have a finite amount of space, and a new worship service will necessarily mean flexibility in our present space to accommodate musicians, different modes of preaching and communicating the Word, and other aspects that we have not even considered yet.

Is this different? Yes. Will it mean changes? Yes. Will all of us like them? No. Being the traditionalist that I am, I am quite sure I will not like them either. But I don’t think God cares what we like and what we don’t: he asks us that if we love Him, we will feed his sheep.

Are we willing to make changes to feed the sheep and make disciples? That is something we will have to pray about.

Pax,

Sky+

Church: Ditch “Liberal” and “Conservative.” Let the Politicians Have Them

No one knows what these words mean anymore – we choose one and if people are not like us, then they must be the other and they are bad.

Be forewarned. This is a rant.

Take worship. I think we ought to celebrate Eucharist weekly or actually follow the order of worship as proscribed in the Hymnal and Book of Worship, and when I advocate it, someone envariably tells me, “Some professor espoused that liberal stuff in seminary.” When I point out that our liturgy basically follows the same form as the liturgy of Justin Martyr (ca 155 A.D.), I get a blank stare. And if I am feeling particularly impish, I might even start singing, “Give me that old time religion, give me that old time religion, give me that old time religion, it’s good enough for me.” So really, to NOT worship in this manner is quite liberal, since the Church basically worshiped this way for nearly 1700 years.

And if I get the, “Well, it certainly isn’t Methodist,” I will quickly quote John Wesley from his sermon The Duty of Constant Communion:

Let every one, therefore, who has either any desire to please God, or any love of his own soul, obey God, and consult the good of his own soul, by communicating every time he can; like the first Christians, with whom the Christian sacrifice was a constant part of the Lord's day service. And for several centuries they received it almost every day: Four times a week always, and every saint's day beside. Accordingly, those that joined in the prayers of the faithful never failed to partake of the blessed sacrament. What opinion they had of any who turned his back upon it, we may learn from that ancient canon: "If any believer join in the prayers of the faithful, and go away without receiving the Lord's Supper, let him be excommunicated, as bringing confusion into the church of God."

Receiving communion regularly (i.e., weekly or more) has always been the norm in Christianity. To receive it once a month is quite a liberal notion, historically and theologically!

It’s funny that the folks crying “liberal” in church the most are actually the ones who are the most liberal (in the real sense of the word, anyway). So that’s why these words really aren’t that helpful, much less accurate. The words have been bastardized and politicized into labels.

It also makes Christian orthodoxy more difficult to explain. In United Methodism, we have a Book of Discipline that continues to grow larger and larger and also continues to be ignored more and more. To overgeneralize: “Liberals” often don’t follow the covenant of what the UMC says about homosexuality. “Conservatives” often don’t follow the liturgy and worship resources that all ordained ministers vowed to accept. Neither takes the phrase to “be loyal to The United Methodist Church, accepting its order, liturgy, doctrine, and discipline, defending it against all doctrines contrary to God’s Holy Word” very seriously – we pick and choose what we follow and what we won’t. Our covenant is qualified, not bonafide.

It seems that neither liberals nor conservatives like the Creeds – liberals don’t want to say “born of the Virgin Mary” and conservatives don’t want to say “Catholic Church.” Liberals want to wake us up with United Methodism at Risk in condescending tone and Mark Tooley leads the conservatives with Taking Back the United Methodist Church in a Christian’s-Guide-to-Voting kind of way. The only differences in the books are in ideology; their tones are the same and, in my opinion, unacceptable. So are the results: zilch. In fact, less than zilch – despite the effort, money, and diatribe of both sides, the UMC is still losing members, infrastructure, and witness.

As a pastor for 22 years, my read about people in the pews is this: the fights of the conservatives and the liberals, at least in United Methodism, is a fight that the extremes created to “take control.” It was not the fight of the average Joe and Jane. But they do have a dog in the hunt: while the extremes are fighting over homosexuality and political bent, people in the pews are starving, being abused from neglect, and dying of thirst. The shepherds, both clergy and lay leaders of our denomination, are fighting amongst themselves and allowing the flock to wither. Spiritual maturity has been co-opted by power plays and renewal groups in order that the correct “side” might prevail and finally be in charge. I wonder if there will be a flock left to shepherd when the smoke clears.

We don’t need “conservatives” and “liberals” - and Christ certainly doesn't. We don’t need folks fighting for power. We need radicals in the image of Christ who are willing to yield rather than control. I’m tired of the fighting over homosexuality (for it or against it) under the guise of family values when we haven’t even mastered the basics of living in community yet much less in making disciples; it’s akin to holding an A.A. meeting in a pub. I’m weary over fighting about equality and diversity and tolerance and the value of each human being and what they hold dear, yet we can’t even say the Lord’s Prayer because it might offend someone. We have become so generic in our language in our attempts to be “inclusive” and in the process have rendered ourselves impotent to make change and foster relationships with God our Father and His children (and yes, I said Father rather than some generic and modalistic Creator – I’d rather risk offending someone than risk calling God nothing).

As I’ve said before, Methodism has done a 360° instead of a 180°. We're right back where Wesley started, I think. The Method is great, and I think we tried to improve it instead of follow it. It may be that making things simple makes faith easier to embrace and follow and live, thus giving it strength and power and propheticness.

At a small group study at our church, the question was asked, “How does God redeem all Creation?” One great answer came from a wise older woman, “That’s all on us.” It's such a good statement: it is on us: We either surrender to God or we don’t. We either seek a relationship with Christ AND our brothers and sisters or remain self-serving and individualistic. If we DO seek a relationship with God, we need to be ready to embrace the costs – and the rewards. The question is: are we willing to risk enough to love God as God loves us?

That’s pretty radical, isn’t it?

Pax,

Sky+

Vacation Bible School - Night Four