Leave it to the Wesleyans to drag me out of hibernation!
I'm aware I haven't been blogging much as of late. My apologies to anyone who might have been waiting with bated-breath for my next dispatch. (Actually, I should probably apologise to your families, as those folk have certainly croaked from holding their breath so long!) I have a dream that I'll find the free time to update and post more often. I also have a dream that my dissertation will quit running my life. Hopefully one of these dreams will come true in the near future.
Anywho, back to the Methodists….
My friends in the United Methodist denomination seem to be working themselves into a grande-high-tizzy of sorts. The subject driving them all to such a frenzy? Why homosexuality, of course! (What else gets Christian denominations into a frenzy today? Certainly not poverty, human trafficking, education, or other issues…but I digress..) Specifically, we're speaking about the defiance of rules in the Methodist Book of Discipline which prohibit clergy from taking part in GLBT weddings. Making a long story short, the issue seems to be hitting critical mass. While it is always sad to see in-fighting -regardless of the origins- within a spiritual denomination, this situation is just swimming in problems.
On the one hand, we have those calling for the trial and judgement of clergy who have broken Discipline rules. These folks are entirely right. If you're ordained in the Methodist tradition, you pretty much have to live by the Book of Discipline. End of story. Failure to do so is like Presbyterians giving up the Westminster Confession; you can't really be one without the other. If you do give such things up, you've really moved onwards into a grey area where you are neither this nor that. In short order this can make an entire and bloody mess out of a denomination; rendering it all but hen-pecked and ineffective.
On the other hand, there are significant and very real questions from those who have defied the Book of Discipline - What do you do when the Book of Discipline is just gravely wrong? Listening for the still-speaking and prophetic voice of the Infinite God is something which is part and parcel of being involved in ministry. You have to do it. Sometimes that voice requires you to do some pretty crazy and radical things. This can even include defying and standing up to the religious authorities of your day and age in the name of gospel and grace. (Ya' know, like Bonhoeffer, Luther, and…hum…JESUS?)
And so, there we have it: damned if they do and damned if they don't. I do not envy my UM friends at the present. As seems to always be the case with issues of human sexuality and faith -and which drives me 8 shades of crazy- the conversations around these topics have very largely been yelling matches more than they've been substantive discourses. I don't claim to have any answers which will magically fix things for my Wesleyan friends. However, before we reach the point of flying casseroles and canceled pot-lucks, I do have a couple of thoughts.
First, to those pounding the table and steaming at the defiance of the Book of Discipline: You do, as I said previously, have a point. But let me ask this: how far can you take the Book of Discipline? What if this were 50 years previous and you had a Discipline which prohibited the involvement of UMC clergy in inter-racial marriages? What might you be saying then? Would you yourself be willing to defy the Discipline or does it simply rule without question? (The latter would make me, as an outsider, feel VERY uncomfortable, but it's a question YOU have to answer…)
Second: To those defying -sometimes in rather flagrant manners- the Book of Discipline: I can totally get that you feel you're exercising a prophetic voice and coming down on the right side of history. At the same time, remember, neither Christ nor his apostles took the issue of schism lightly. Breaking the Book of Discipline is rather tantamount to being a schismatic; tread this path carefully. You might very well be coming down on the right side of grace and mercy on this issue, but will you destroy a denomination -which has the ability to speak to many more issues, a number of which are far more important- just to make your point?
Again, I don't have any magical answers, but these seem to be some places to start…..
BTW, have I mentioned how glad I am that I'm UCC? ;)
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Dear Exodus....
The Christian world has been quite abuzz the last few days. For those of you who don't reside in that world, I'll try to explain. Exodus International, an organisation which sought to help gay and lesbian persons of faith change their sexual identities, has come out with an apology about its programs and has announced that it is shutting down and seeking to create a more welcoming, inclusive, and dialogue oriented ministry for GLBT persons of faith. For a number of us, this is, in so many ways, a coup de grace. Exodus has, largely, been the face and the driving force behind the reparative therapy movement. If you don't know what reparative therapy is, I suggest Googling it. "Pseudo-scientific mental torture" would be the descriptor I would use, but I'm biased. That Exodus has come forward and said "We're sorry, we were wrong" is really a sign that, guess what, we -who have been demonised for so long- were probably right.
But you'll have to forgive me, as I simply can't celebrate right now.
When I first heard the news, I was thrilled. I thought that this might be the "game changer" that so many of us have hoped, wished, and prayed for. It might very well, in fact, be such a thing, however, instead of being happy, I've moved onwards to a point of anger. Deep, moving, and passionate anger.
As one who's, to no avail, tried the reparative therapy approach.
As a person who has been excluded from a church for their sexuality which would or could not change.
As a person who has both wounded and been wounded by friends and family over the issue of their sexuality.
And as a person who's, from a professional standpoint, seen so many folk be so utterly destroyed by Exodus and the programs they sanctioned, I simply am not at a place where I can be happy.
Let me try to explain this a bit more....
This week has been, to many of us who have been down these and similar roads, a bit like being a rape victim and hearing your attacker say "I'm sorry, I was wrong." I can appreciate the sentiment. I can hope that the words are true. I can even force myself to try and be gracious towards you. However, you'll still have to understand that there's a part of me which, in no uncertain terms, would like to beat the utter shit out of you, Exodus. You hurt me. Not only that, you and your practices caused me to be placed into situations where I was hurtful towards and hurt by those I loved and cared about. Because of you and the beliefs you put forward, I have seen friendships, relationships, and opportunities torn apart and blown away. Mind you, I think I'm pretty happy with where I am now, but I wouldn't wish the road I've walked on anyone. Even you, Exodus. The worst part, however, is that I'm one of those who was strong enough to walk the road and survive. There have been so, so, so many men and women who have not been able to face the road and reality they were on while undergoing reparative therapies. In so many ways, their blood is on your hands. And so, if only for their memories, I refuse to let you off the hook. I can accept your apology, but that doesn't cut it. Not for a damned moment.
Personal thoughts aside, even from a professional standpoint, I can't let you off the hook. Have you given thought to exactly how many folk have watched their systems of faith be shredded beyond repair because they were not able to change themselves? Do you know just how many people I meet who say "Yeah, I grew up as a person of faith....and I will never go back....." These were the people who you told that they might change their "sins" of same-sex attraction, if only they had the proper amount of faith and the tenacity to see things through. Now you tell us that people probably can't change? That's a bit like saying "Whoops, I guess that wonder-drug really did cause cancer!" The damage has already been so thoroughly enacted.
You can say you're sorry about this all you want, but you still need to do some massive accounting.
Exodus, you can say you're sorry and I'll do my best to believe you. However, you need to recognise that you abused us. You spiritually raped us. "Sorry" is only the first step in the process for both of us to find healing. I can say that I really would like to commit to trying to find a way towards a day where I can forgive you. I imagine it will require some penance on both our parts.
So, in sum, "sorry" is a nice place to start and I accept your apology. Hopefully, others will too. However, only when your actions ring true to the words you speak will we truly be able to be at peace...
But you'll have to forgive me, as I simply can't celebrate right now.
When I first heard the news, I was thrilled. I thought that this might be the "game changer" that so many of us have hoped, wished, and prayed for. It might very well, in fact, be such a thing, however, instead of being happy, I've moved onwards to a point of anger. Deep, moving, and passionate anger.
As one who's, to no avail, tried the reparative therapy approach.
As a person who has been excluded from a church for their sexuality which would or could not change.
As a person who has both wounded and been wounded by friends and family over the issue of their sexuality.
And as a person who's, from a professional standpoint, seen so many folk be so utterly destroyed by Exodus and the programs they sanctioned, I simply am not at a place where I can be happy.
Let me try to explain this a bit more....
This week has been, to many of us who have been down these and similar roads, a bit like being a rape victim and hearing your attacker say "I'm sorry, I was wrong." I can appreciate the sentiment. I can hope that the words are true. I can even force myself to try and be gracious towards you. However, you'll still have to understand that there's a part of me which, in no uncertain terms, would like to beat the utter shit out of you, Exodus. You hurt me. Not only that, you and your practices caused me to be placed into situations where I was hurtful towards and hurt by those I loved and cared about. Because of you and the beliefs you put forward, I have seen friendships, relationships, and opportunities torn apart and blown away. Mind you, I think I'm pretty happy with where I am now, but I wouldn't wish the road I've walked on anyone. Even you, Exodus. The worst part, however, is that I'm one of those who was strong enough to walk the road and survive. There have been so, so, so many men and women who have not been able to face the road and reality they were on while undergoing reparative therapies. In so many ways, their blood is on your hands. And so, if only for their memories, I refuse to let you off the hook. I can accept your apology, but that doesn't cut it. Not for a damned moment.
Personal thoughts aside, even from a professional standpoint, I can't let you off the hook. Have you given thought to exactly how many folk have watched their systems of faith be shredded beyond repair because they were not able to change themselves? Do you know just how many people I meet who say "Yeah, I grew up as a person of faith....and I will never go back....." These were the people who you told that they might change their "sins" of same-sex attraction, if only they had the proper amount of faith and the tenacity to see things through. Now you tell us that people probably can't change? That's a bit like saying "Whoops, I guess that wonder-drug really did cause cancer!" The damage has already been so thoroughly enacted.
You can say you're sorry about this all you want, but you still need to do some massive accounting.
Exodus, you can say you're sorry and I'll do my best to believe you. However, you need to recognise that you abused us. You spiritually raped us. "Sorry" is only the first step in the process for both of us to find healing. I can say that I really would like to commit to trying to find a way towards a day where I can forgive you. I imagine it will require some penance on both our parts.
So, in sum, "sorry" is a nice place to start and I accept your apology. Hopefully, others will too. However, only when your actions ring true to the words you speak will we truly be able to be at peace...
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Great Matters and Not So Great Theology.....
If you live in Scotland, you can't have escaped the last few weeks without taking note of the upcoming Church of Scotland General Assembly. This year's assembly has been largely notable as it contains a debate concerning the legality, propriety, and theological standing of clergy who are involved in same-sex relationships. This is, in so many ways, the "great matter" of the kirk today. To say that the build-up to assembly has been contentious, acerbic, and stressful -for all kirk members- would be a great understatement.
Heretofore, I have largely held back my own opinions and understandings from the debate. (Though, I have centred my preaching the last few weeks to focus upon sensitivity to church unity, as I felt that was a great consideration in this issue.) As I am only beginning the process of becoming an official part of the Church of Scotland, I felt interjecting my own thoughts- as something of an interloper- would be a bit inappropriate. Now that the church has come to an agreement, which is largely a functional and workable compromise, I feel a bit more free to speak my own mind.
There are a lot of things I think I could say about this whole situation. However -and perhaps most importantly- I want to say that I have been entirely dismayed by the lack of theological depth from both sides of the debate in this argument.
I don't mean to take away from the hard work of a two-year theological commission, nor do I mean to be rude or flippant about such a serious issue. However, I fully believe that, with regards to this question, the theological conversation in the kirk needs to be re-evaluated and re-focused.
To begin with -and perhaps most over-arching in my own concerns- is the matter of Biblical authority and interpretation.
Both sides of the kirk, in its theological report, seem to have greatly missed the mark on this issue. From the traditional perspective, I have to question just how -or even what- concept of historic Biblical interpretation and translation is present in the arguments. I question how the authors, of this perspective, would engage other concepts which have previously been described, at one point, as Biblically unacceptable, only to be later found as Biblically appropriate and vice-versa. (Women, slavery, secular education, and other themes come to mind.) Mind you, we can't, in many ways, confuse these issues as all being connected. However, we need understand why one theologically contentious issue might evolve with time and location and others might not. In other words, one must develop a consistent and thorough methodology for engaging difficult theological texts if one is to be serious about their own work. The traditional side has largely failed in this, by my view. (And don't even get me started on the fact that only Koine texts were sampled for textual analysis. Want an interesting and different perspective on 1 Corinthians 6:9? Try checking out the writings of Calvin, Bullinger, Beza, and Luther. VERY different from what you would find in today's Bibles! If you aren't familiar with what your founders said about an issue, then just who's revisionist and who's traditional? )
Moreover, for the traditionalists, where was the interaction with important theological work and writings? A number of the arguments put forward seemed to be based off of theology -Gagnon and others- from quite some time ago. This is theology which, if it hasn't been emphatically disproven, has received some SERIOUS theological push-back. Where is the interaction with the critiques of those such as Dale Martin? I would hate to think that these interactions were not present simply because there was no response available which would not undermine the traditional position. (BTW, I don't mean to sound like I'm picking on the traditional side, my students will tell you that I have no larger pet-peeve than failing to engage opposing views in their essays! )
While the traditional side has some serious theological problems with the arguments that have been placed forward thus far, their opponents stand just as guilty of lax theology.
To begin with, who decided it was okay to have the opposition labeled as "revisionist?!" I'm not a PR-guru, but even I know that this is just an incredibly bad move. Personally, I am very supportive of glbt movements in the church, but I am relatively theologically conservative otherwise. I utterly chafe at being called a "revisionist!" At the very least, one would expect the side to protest such a bloody label! Unless, of course, you truly are revisionist...
......which brings me to another point: where the hell does the Bible factor into the revisionist side's argument?! It seems to me that the revisionist side has largely been content to concede the Bible to the side of traditionalists. Dear friends, again, I largely support your side, but if you are planning to build a church without the authority of the Bible, count me out. Certainly, we should listen for God's still-speaking spirit and allow it to guide our thoughts and actions. However, we cannot escape the fact that, if we are who we say we are, the Bible is the most complete and largest guide to understanding God and bringing God's kingdom that we have available to us. Just as with the traditionalist side, there seems to be a very lacking system of Biblical understanding and employment in the revisionist side.
For the record, I can say that there IS in-fact, a way to engage healthy glbt relationships from a Biblical perspective. Don't throw the sodding baby out with the bath-water, folks. (If you want to know more, see my note above about Reformation translations. Better yet, READ them! If/when I ever get this blasted PhD thesis finished/published, it'll hopefully provide one-stop shopping for such, but still, finding these texts on the internet isn't that hard!)
Again, I don't intend to come across too harsh on, what I'm sure, was a very long and arduous reporting process for the kirk's theological commission. Doing my master's and doctoral work in this arena, I can vouch that it's a surprisingly difficult topic and realm once one gets into specifics. (Heck, my own views have been changed and evolved -from multiple directions- over the years!) At the same time, I can't help but feel that one of the reasons we're experiencing such gripping disagreement is that we're engaging a topic to beat around a larger theological issue. I think the issue most at stake, in the kirk's discussion, is not how we view committed same-sex relationships, but how and why we view Biblical authority and its role in the wider church.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't help but feel that the turmoil of the kirk will not end until we can sit down -together- and begin to address the how and why of such things.
Anyone feel like starting this dialogue? First round's on me!
Heretofore, I have largely held back my own opinions and understandings from the debate. (Though, I have centred my preaching the last few weeks to focus upon sensitivity to church unity, as I felt that was a great consideration in this issue.) As I am only beginning the process of becoming an official part of the Church of Scotland, I felt interjecting my own thoughts- as something of an interloper- would be a bit inappropriate. Now that the church has come to an agreement, which is largely a functional and workable compromise, I feel a bit more free to speak my own mind.
There are a lot of things I think I could say about this whole situation. However -and perhaps most importantly- I want to say that I have been entirely dismayed by the lack of theological depth from both sides of the debate in this argument.
I don't mean to take away from the hard work of a two-year theological commission, nor do I mean to be rude or flippant about such a serious issue. However, I fully believe that, with regards to this question, the theological conversation in the kirk needs to be re-evaluated and re-focused.
To begin with -and perhaps most over-arching in my own concerns- is the matter of Biblical authority and interpretation.
Both sides of the kirk, in its theological report, seem to have greatly missed the mark on this issue. From the traditional perspective, I have to question just how -or even what- concept of historic Biblical interpretation and translation is present in the arguments. I question how the authors, of this perspective, would engage other concepts which have previously been described, at one point, as Biblically unacceptable, only to be later found as Biblically appropriate and vice-versa. (Women, slavery, secular education, and other themes come to mind.) Mind you, we can't, in many ways, confuse these issues as all being connected. However, we need understand why one theologically contentious issue might evolve with time and location and others might not. In other words, one must develop a consistent and thorough methodology for engaging difficult theological texts if one is to be serious about their own work. The traditional side has largely failed in this, by my view. (And don't even get me started on the fact that only Koine texts were sampled for textual analysis. Want an interesting and different perspective on 1 Corinthians 6:9? Try checking out the writings of Calvin, Bullinger, Beza, and Luther. VERY different from what you would find in today's Bibles! If you aren't familiar with what your founders said about an issue, then just who's revisionist and who's traditional? )
Moreover, for the traditionalists, where was the interaction with important theological work and writings? A number of the arguments put forward seemed to be based off of theology -Gagnon and others- from quite some time ago. This is theology which, if it hasn't been emphatically disproven, has received some SERIOUS theological push-back. Where is the interaction with the critiques of those such as Dale Martin? I would hate to think that these interactions were not present simply because there was no response available which would not undermine the traditional position. (BTW, I don't mean to sound like I'm picking on the traditional side, my students will tell you that I have no larger pet-peeve than failing to engage opposing views in their essays! )
While the traditional side has some serious theological problems with the arguments that have been placed forward thus far, their opponents stand just as guilty of lax theology.
To begin with, who decided it was okay to have the opposition labeled as "revisionist?!" I'm not a PR-guru, but even I know that this is just an incredibly bad move. Personally, I am very supportive of glbt movements in the church, but I am relatively theologically conservative otherwise. I utterly chafe at being called a "revisionist!" At the very least, one would expect the side to protest such a bloody label! Unless, of course, you truly are revisionist...
......which brings me to another point: where the hell does the Bible factor into the revisionist side's argument?! It seems to me that the revisionist side has largely been content to concede the Bible to the side of traditionalists. Dear friends, again, I largely support your side, but if you are planning to build a church without the authority of the Bible, count me out. Certainly, we should listen for God's still-speaking spirit and allow it to guide our thoughts and actions. However, we cannot escape the fact that, if we are who we say we are, the Bible is the most complete and largest guide to understanding God and bringing God's kingdom that we have available to us. Just as with the traditionalist side, there seems to be a very lacking system of Biblical understanding and employment in the revisionist side.
For the record, I can say that there IS in-fact, a way to engage healthy glbt relationships from a Biblical perspective. Don't throw the sodding baby out with the bath-water, folks. (If you want to know more, see my note above about Reformation translations. Better yet, READ them! If/when I ever get this blasted PhD thesis finished/published, it'll hopefully provide one-stop shopping for such, but still, finding these texts on the internet isn't that hard!)
Again, I don't intend to come across too harsh on, what I'm sure, was a very long and arduous reporting process for the kirk's theological commission. Doing my master's and doctoral work in this arena, I can vouch that it's a surprisingly difficult topic and realm once one gets into specifics. (Heck, my own views have been changed and evolved -from multiple directions- over the years!) At the same time, I can't help but feel that one of the reasons we're experiencing such gripping disagreement is that we're engaging a topic to beat around a larger theological issue. I think the issue most at stake, in the kirk's discussion, is not how we view committed same-sex relationships, but how and why we view Biblical authority and its role in the wider church.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't help but feel that the turmoil of the kirk will not end until we can sit down -together- and begin to address the how and why of such things.
Anyone feel like starting this dialogue? First round's on me!
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Bunnies, Benefits, and Britain.....
It's been quite the interesting week for Christianity in the United Kingdom. Over the weekend, Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, delivered a resound denunciation towards the current government as being "anti-Christianity." Not entirely the message one expects to hear over the Easter weekend and I imagine it took many in Downing Street by shock. If you've read Lord Carey's address, then you might be able to see that he seems less motivated by concern for Christian charity and practice, than he does by his own ideological ideas. Still, none the less, there is a slight irony and truth in this rebuke. The current government, whether by choice or by chance, has placed the nation's Christians -and, really, all faith communities - in a bit of an awkward situation.
Tomorrow, April 1st, is the day that the government's new budget will come into effect. This budget will see a sweeping reduction to public benefits as Britain tries to reign-in its spending figures. I don't intend to debate whether the budget cuts are right or wrong, necessary or unnecessary. That is a conversation for another place and another time. (Though, it is an important one to have!) The fact of the matter is that: tomorrow morning a significant number of folks are going to face some daunting economic factors which they had previously not. For some folks, this will involve a mild pinch in the pocketbook. For others, however, this could mean the difference between having a meal to eat or not. It is not the imposition of these laws which, on its own, places Christians in a conundrum. It is instead the fact that these laws come into effect the day after the world Christian community celebrates Easter; the highest point and happiest day of the Christian year.
Words like "paradox" or "irony" do not even begin to cover the situation.
It is this timing, this juxtaposition of impending financial hardship with the joys of Easter, which places Britain's Christians in an odd spot. If we, in any way, believe the words we said today when we claimed "Christ is risen, he is risen indeed" then we cannot ignore this imposition of cuts. If we truly believe that Christ is risen and alive in us, then we cannot ignore the suffering and needy of this world. If we truly believe that Christ's words are eternal and true for us today, then we cannot forget the "least of these" as they were described so many years ago.
These benefit cuts, harsh though they might be, offer the church, as an institution, a massive opportunity. In this time, the church has the opportunity to make its ministry and charity real to its community and involved in the life of its neighbours. Rather than being a symbol of charity and faith, the church has the opportunity to become charity and faith personified. What do I mean by that?
Many churches are involved with charity works. Many give deeply and generously to wider community groups which do wonderful and necessary works. My advice to churches is: don't stop doing this! However, in addition to your monetary support for these groups, I would offer some ideas which can take part in the actual life and action of the local church as well.
For instance:
Does your church host a food pantry or cupboard for those who are in need? If not, could you?
Does your church offer support to single mothers and fathers? (Help with diapers, child-care, or other items?) If not, could you?
Does your church offer support and community for older folk? Visiting them for community and also to check on their wellbeing? Again, if not, why aren't you?
Is your church offering programs to help folks learn how to manage their monies and their debts? (Which, btw, most folk in debt would like to NOT be in debt, but aren't entirely sure of the options available to them, or even how to make the proper choices to begin to come out of debt!) Is this something your church could organise and host?
Is your church involved with tutoring local children, so that they might be assured of further and better education? (Ps: If you've got lots of retired folk, this might be a great way to network them with younger generations and also to pass on their skills and knowledge!!!)
Finally, could your church host a job-fair/fayre? Could you bring local employers and local job-seekers into your halls to connect for potential jobs or, at the very least, interviews?
Again, if not, what's stopping you? If you proclaim today that "Christ is risen," that means Christ is risen tomorrow as well.....and the next day too! If Christ is eternal and Christ is alive, then so are Christ's words. Loving our neighbour as ourself and caring for the least of these is never an easy thing to do, but, it is, especially at this time an absolute necessity.
Tomorrow, April 1st, is the day that the government's new budget will come into effect. This budget will see a sweeping reduction to public benefits as Britain tries to reign-in its spending figures. I don't intend to debate whether the budget cuts are right or wrong, necessary or unnecessary. That is a conversation for another place and another time. (Though, it is an important one to have!) The fact of the matter is that: tomorrow morning a significant number of folks are going to face some daunting economic factors which they had previously not. For some folks, this will involve a mild pinch in the pocketbook. For others, however, this could mean the difference between having a meal to eat or not. It is not the imposition of these laws which, on its own, places Christians in a conundrum. It is instead the fact that these laws come into effect the day after the world Christian community celebrates Easter; the highest point and happiest day of the Christian year.
Words like "paradox" or "irony" do not even begin to cover the situation.
It is this timing, this juxtaposition of impending financial hardship with the joys of Easter, which places Britain's Christians in an odd spot. If we, in any way, believe the words we said today when we claimed "Christ is risen, he is risen indeed" then we cannot ignore this imposition of cuts. If we truly believe that Christ is risen and alive in us, then we cannot ignore the suffering and needy of this world. If we truly believe that Christ's words are eternal and true for us today, then we cannot forget the "least of these" as they were described so many years ago.
These benefit cuts, harsh though they might be, offer the church, as an institution, a massive opportunity. In this time, the church has the opportunity to make its ministry and charity real to its community and involved in the life of its neighbours. Rather than being a symbol of charity and faith, the church has the opportunity to become charity and faith personified. What do I mean by that?
Many churches are involved with charity works. Many give deeply and generously to wider community groups which do wonderful and necessary works. My advice to churches is: don't stop doing this! However, in addition to your monetary support for these groups, I would offer some ideas which can take part in the actual life and action of the local church as well.
For instance:
Does your church host a food pantry or cupboard for those who are in need? If not, could you?
Does your church offer support to single mothers and fathers? (Help with diapers, child-care, or other items?) If not, could you?
Does your church offer support and community for older folk? Visiting them for community and also to check on their wellbeing? Again, if not, why aren't you?
Is your church offering programs to help folks learn how to manage their monies and their debts? (Which, btw, most folk in debt would like to NOT be in debt, but aren't entirely sure of the options available to them, or even how to make the proper choices to begin to come out of debt!) Is this something your church could organise and host?
Is your church involved with tutoring local children, so that they might be assured of further and better education? (Ps: If you've got lots of retired folk, this might be a great way to network them with younger generations and also to pass on their skills and knowledge!!!)
Finally, could your church host a job-fair/fayre? Could you bring local employers and local job-seekers into your halls to connect for potential jobs or, at the very least, interviews?
Again, if not, what's stopping you? If you proclaim today that "Christ is risen," that means Christ is risen tomorrow as well.....and the next day too! If Christ is eternal and Christ is alive, then so are Christ's words. Loving our neighbour as ourself and caring for the least of these is never an easy thing to do, but, it is, especially at this time an absolute necessity.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Holy Week and Unholy Choices.....
I don't normally post my sermons from church, but I figured as it's Holy Week, I'd do something different. The following is my sermon for Holy Wednesday, or, the Feast of Tenebrae, depending on how you want to title it. The reading, for the night, is John 13: 21-32.
Btw, I promise to return to my normal snark and such next week..... promise......
Btw, I promise to return to my normal snark and such next week..... promise......
Well, we’re smack in the middle of holy week. Which means, the energy and excitement we encountered on Palm Sunday is now, perhaps starting to flag a bit. When you think about it, it’s an interesting thing, this Holy Week of ours. It is, usually, the one time of the year where we might find Protestant churches engaging in daily worship or activity....and it’s also well known as the most tiring week on the church calendar both for clergy and for congregants. Between movies, discussions, services, communion, and the occasional foot washing, there’s quite a bit going on. Not to mention the fact that some sadist in the history of the church decided we should be up and excited for worship on Easter morning at some entirely unholy hours. All in all, this holy week gig can be a bit of a downer, when we think about it. So, perhaps you’ll humour me for a few moments as we ask: what’s the point of holy week?
It’s a fair question. Most of us can see the significance of Easter sunday and maybe even Palm sunday, but what’s the point of this entire week of events and services? Surely, if we wanted to be prepared in our praises for Easter morning, it would be better if we took the week off and rested, meditated, or did something other than showing up at the church every night. To be honest, I think there might be something to that logic. However, there’s also something deeply powerful and deeply meaningful in the action of Holy Week. Some would say this power and meaning might lie in the recreation or remembrance of Christ’s actions 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem. I think we might certainly find some meaning in this, but I don’t think that’s where the true significance of the week comes. You’ll have to forgive me, but I don’t necessarily hold the gospels to be strict historic sources. John tells us one thing, Mark, another, and Luke and Matthew have their own accounts as well. Oh, most certainly there’s significant overlap there, but none the less, we have a bit of a problem if we want to use the gospel texts for historic recreation. Again, I’m not saying we might not find significance and deep meaning in recreating a passover supper or in washing each others’ feet like Christ was reputed to. Instead, however, I would like to offer a different perspective of what makes Holy Week significant.
Holy week, is significant to the Christian church, in that, it encompasses a recapitulation of the whole crux of the human experience within one short week. Now, what do I mean by that? Holy week begins on Palm Sunday with the greatest of joys. It’s a triumphal entry and the promises of a new beginning. Slowly, however, this joy ebbs away and the joy is finally turned into utter terror, frustration, agony, and anger in the horrific events of Good Friday. But that, as we know, is not where the story ends. Out of this fear and horror, in the midst of all the angst and frustration, a new and amazing solution, a salvation, if we might, is born. To paraphrase the philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, in holy week we see God do the absurd but through this absurdity we find salvation moves from ideal to reality. And in this, we find a mimicry of our own human realities, really.
So many times in our lives, we find ourselves presented with wonderful new beginnings and incredible opportunities. However, with time, those opportunities and beginnings can sour. That which we loved and enjoyed becomes upended into that which we fear or that which frustrates us. This comes in many forms. That promotion we’d be just perfect for in the job we love is snatched from us. That person we love and care for, turns out to not love and care for us anymore. And onwards we could make the list. The sum of things is, joy, so often can turn to pain in such a very short time. That which we hope and pray to never happen, so often does. And when it does: we mourn, we grieve, and we wait. But Holy Week reminds us that this time of trouble is not the end- it is only an amazingly uncomfortable mid-point.
It is, we might say, that life is like an artist’s cartoon drawing for a local newspaper. I imagine it’s a rather exciting thing to start such a drawing, though, over time, as coloured dots are being placed here and there, the drawing can seem muddled, jumbled, and to lack focus. This must be especially true from the perspective of the dots of paint on the canvass. From their view, all they can see is a mess of dots and colours, bleeding together and making very little sense. None the less, from the artist’s perspective, things -though messy and mottled from a direct and close-up perspective- are coming together to make a beautiful, funny, and poignant picture. This, is what Holy week, in its entirety reminds us of.
But while we might draw this large comparison, what might we draw from our texts for tonight? If holy week is a re-telling of the whole of human existence, then what might we draw from tonight’s gospel text with regards to our lives? A fair question indeed and one for which there is a potent answer.
In tonight’s gospel text, Christ stands upon a precipice. Christ seems to be able to survey the wider landscape and realise that things are about to get ugly. Getting down and dirty, putting one’s money where one’s mouth is, call it what you want, but it seems Christ is well aware that things, as they say, are about to hit the fan. Big time. I suppose that Christ, by virtue of being Christ and seeing the conundrum ahead of him, might have been able to re-order things or re-set the equation so that such harsh things might be avoided. The fact of the matter is, he didn’t. Instead, he got on with it. I don’t imagine Christ as a masochist, so I doubt he let actions proceed because he was excited for the pain to come. Instead, I imagine he probably realised that this was the way to salvation and so the temporary horrors must be endured for the amazing outcome they’d produce.
While I don’t think any of us have faced something so grandiose, we none the less face times where we know what choices we should make and not only what good they will do, but what pain they will bring in the short term on the way to the greater good. Leaving a relationship with a person who is so abusive and yet one we care so deeply for. Having the courage to speak out against the corporate practices which harm the marginalised of society. Living in truth and honesty of ourselves, with those who would rather we lied. However it appears, we often face situations which are similar to the one we see in tonight’s gospel. Often, we, as Christ perhaps might have, know we might be able to circumvent, change, or ignore these decisions we face. But we’re also well aware of how we’ll miss the true joy and liberation which might come after the hardships of such decisions. And so, we are left with choices -unpalatable though they might be! Though our choices may be unpalatable and be the things we wish least to do, may we, like Christ, find the strength to make the difficult yet necessary decisions in life, knowing that, though the colours may blur, the design may seem wrong, and at times all might seem a wash, we none the less are under the hand of the Infinite Artist, who is using us to bring about the most beautiful of portraits and the most masterful of works.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Church and Business Prt 2: Marketing, Missions, and Making a Mess...
Okay, so, I wasn't planning on taking this long with the second instalment of this bit, but the last few weeks have been entirely sodding hectic! My apologies to the three of you who have been waiting with baited breath for this. :)
If you had told me, ten years ago, that I would ever work as a minister in a missiology focused context, or even with a missiological flavour, I would have told you that you were entirely daft. (And that's putting it nicely.) The main reasons being that I associated "missions" with going to third-world countries where I had to sleep in the dirt and/or encounter things like spiders -which I DO NOT do- or I associated it with randomly approaching someone in a coffee shop and saying "Hi, have you thought about where you'll spend eternity?"
Thankfully, in the time since then, my perspective has changed. I was lucky enough, during my seminary career, to be a part of and serve with a church which had a really ingenious idea for missions. Mission, to this church, was everything we did. Whether it was walking down the street and chatting to our neighbours. Whether it was having a beer -or 5- with a colleague and talking about life. Whatever it was we did, it was "mission," in that we, as followers of the crazy Christian faith were having an opportunity to live out the ancient great commandment and love our neighbours as ourselves. It was, we might say, all about lifestyle and less about specific action.
So what does all this have to do with business and -as the title hints- marketing?
Well, I think a large portion of the Christian world views the concept of "mission" in the way I previously viewed it. Mission involves big trips, big money, lots of gimmicks, and lots of prepared answers or speeches.
Case in point: The other week I was out with some friends. A buddy and I popped into a quick shop for a bite. The following scene went a bit like this:
Lady in front of me: "Oh, you have very beautiful eyes!"
Me: "Uh, thanks?"
Lady: "No, really! They're quite gorgeous!"
Me: "Oh, uh, thank you?"(This is universal code for "Uhm...you are entirely creeping me the heck out, lady.")
-Lady pays for her stovie and leaves-
Friend: "Mate, she just dropped a card in your pocket....I think you got hit on by a prosti!"
Sure enough, the lady had dropped a card in my jacket pocket. However, the card wasn't for adult services, it was, instead, for an Alpha course. (Alpha courses are conservative out-reach/theology courses run by a few churches over here.)
No, I really can't make this up. Sadly, this is what a large section of Christianity -progressive and traditional- view mission to be. <sigh>
So, if the church were a business, what might missions look like?
To begin with, the church would understand that it must look at mission in a macro and micro understanding. Any solid business will have its large marketing and its local marketing. Macro-marketing would be things done in the interest of expanding the business and/or its influence and reach into new or potentially new markets. Micro-marketing would be focused upon building up a solid base to sustain and enable the business in the locations it already inhabited. These two must live in harmony as a macro-dominated marketing plan will never succeed as it doesn't have the foundation to draw upon. A micr-dominated marketing plan will never grow and eventually might even exhaust its local market.
Hopefully, you can draw the parallel here: It's fine to send money, people, or whatever "over there," as part of missions. However, if you can't say how "YOU" personally, are involved with the mission of your faith community and how that mission lives out your ideals locally, then there's a problem. A big problem.
Secondly, in the realm of marketing strategies, there's a bit of a rule: IT MUST BE GENUINE!!!!
Gimmicks, discounts, treats, and other enticers only work for so long.
(ie: You can have the best food in the world at the cheapest prices, but if the service stinks and the restaurant is a dump, folks aren't entirely likely to come back at all, let alone frequent your business and recommend it.)
In other words, what you advertise must be real. If you advertise a family experience, then by golly, it better be a family experience. If you advertise a casual atmosphere, a home-style atmosphere, a foreign atmosphere, IT BETTER DARN BE THAT WAY! Businesses that are gimmicky, fake, or flakey tend to pop up and disappear rather quickly. Businesses that embrace what they are and offer that in the best way possible -be it a restaurant, bank, whatever- last for ages.
Oh, and about the "bait and switch" gimmick? Yeah, that's called "false advertising" and it can land you in an entire world of legal hurt.
Again, I think you can see where I'm going with this. If you're a conservative church, be a conservative church. If you're a progressive church, be a progressive church. If you're seeker oriented, be seeker oriented. If you're focused on families and family groups, then be so to the best of your possible abilities. Whatever it is you feel your church embodies and wants to take out into the world, do it and be genuine about it. No gimmicks, no lies, no fuss.
As a final point, I'll say that, with marketing, there's always an underlying job of bringing your employees to embody the ideals, values, or campaign you're marketing. The best companies in the world are the companies where the employees agree, are on-board with, and live out that company's stated ideals and visions. People notice these things. They appreciate them and it tells a person that "hey, this is a place I should give my business b/c even the people who work here really like it and are passionate about it!"
So, with that said.....are you on-board....or are you offering cheap gimmicks?
If you had told me, ten years ago, that I would ever work as a minister in a missiology focused context, or even with a missiological flavour, I would have told you that you were entirely daft. (And that's putting it nicely.) The main reasons being that I associated "missions" with going to third-world countries where I had to sleep in the dirt and/or encounter things like spiders -which I DO NOT do- or I associated it with randomly approaching someone in a coffee shop and saying "Hi, have you thought about where you'll spend eternity?"
Thankfully, in the time since then, my perspective has changed. I was lucky enough, during my seminary career, to be a part of and serve with a church which had a really ingenious idea for missions. Mission, to this church, was everything we did. Whether it was walking down the street and chatting to our neighbours. Whether it was having a beer -or 5- with a colleague and talking about life. Whatever it was we did, it was "mission," in that we, as followers of the crazy Christian faith were having an opportunity to live out the ancient great commandment and love our neighbours as ourselves. It was, we might say, all about lifestyle and less about specific action.
So what does all this have to do with business and -as the title hints- marketing?
Well, I think a large portion of the Christian world views the concept of "mission" in the way I previously viewed it. Mission involves big trips, big money, lots of gimmicks, and lots of prepared answers or speeches.
Case in point: The other week I was out with some friends. A buddy and I popped into a quick shop for a bite. The following scene went a bit like this:
Lady in front of me: "Oh, you have very beautiful eyes!"
Me: "Uh, thanks?"
Lady: "No, really! They're quite gorgeous!"
Me: "Oh, uh, thank you?"(This is universal code for "Uhm...you are entirely creeping me the heck out, lady.")
-Lady pays for her stovie and leaves-
Friend: "Mate, she just dropped a card in your pocket....I think you got hit on by a prosti!"
Sure enough, the lady had dropped a card in my jacket pocket. However, the card wasn't for adult services, it was, instead, for an Alpha course. (Alpha courses are conservative out-reach/theology courses run by a few churches over here.)
No, I really can't make this up. Sadly, this is what a large section of Christianity -progressive and traditional- view mission to be. <sigh>
So, if the church were a business, what might missions look like?
To begin with, the church would understand that it must look at mission in a macro and micro understanding. Any solid business will have its large marketing and its local marketing. Macro-marketing would be things done in the interest of expanding the business and/or its influence and reach into new or potentially new markets. Micro-marketing would be focused upon building up a solid base to sustain and enable the business in the locations it already inhabited. These two must live in harmony as a macro-dominated marketing plan will never succeed as it doesn't have the foundation to draw upon. A micr-dominated marketing plan will never grow and eventually might even exhaust its local market.
Hopefully, you can draw the parallel here: It's fine to send money, people, or whatever "over there," as part of missions. However, if you can't say how "YOU" personally, are involved with the mission of your faith community and how that mission lives out your ideals locally, then there's a problem. A big problem.
Secondly, in the realm of marketing strategies, there's a bit of a rule: IT MUST BE GENUINE!!!!
Gimmicks, discounts, treats, and other enticers only work for so long.
(ie: You can have the best food in the world at the cheapest prices, but if the service stinks and the restaurant is a dump, folks aren't entirely likely to come back at all, let alone frequent your business and recommend it.)
In other words, what you advertise must be real. If you advertise a family experience, then by golly, it better be a family experience. If you advertise a casual atmosphere, a home-style atmosphere, a foreign atmosphere, IT BETTER DARN BE THAT WAY! Businesses that are gimmicky, fake, or flakey tend to pop up and disappear rather quickly. Businesses that embrace what they are and offer that in the best way possible -be it a restaurant, bank, whatever- last for ages.
Oh, and about the "bait and switch" gimmick? Yeah, that's called "false advertising" and it can land you in an entire world of legal hurt.
Again, I think you can see where I'm going with this. If you're a conservative church, be a conservative church. If you're a progressive church, be a progressive church. If you're seeker oriented, be seeker oriented. If you're focused on families and family groups, then be so to the best of your possible abilities. Whatever it is you feel your church embodies and wants to take out into the world, do it and be genuine about it. No gimmicks, no lies, no fuss.
As a final point, I'll say that, with marketing, there's always an underlying job of bringing your employees to embody the ideals, values, or campaign you're marketing. The best companies in the world are the companies where the employees agree, are on-board with, and live out that company's stated ideals and visions. People notice these things. They appreciate them and it tells a person that "hey, this is a place I should give my business b/c even the people who work here really like it and are passionate about it!"
So, with that said.....are you on-board....or are you offering cheap gimmicks?
Monday, February 25, 2013
If the Church Were a Business.....
I've had this thread bouncing around in my head for a while now. Several years, to be honest. For those of you who don't know, I've spent the past 15 years of life working in the service/food/bar industry. 13 years of that has been spent in a supervisory capacity of some form or another. This includes an 8 year stretch as a general manager or assistant general manager with a variety of concepts. (Volunteer pastoral spots and good intentions don't put food on one's table during college and seminary!)
I won't bore you with all the details of all the seminars and courses I've ever sat, but, suffice it to say, there were A LOT of leadership, management, and business lectures in those years. When I began my seminary journey, I took a course called "Reading Congregations in Context." This course was, in many ways, a ministerial approach to what the business world might call "change management and leadership." This similarity started the wheels in my head spinning. "I wonder what other elements of over-lap there are between the two worlds," I thought. As I've learned more and more about the church corporate and been able to observe the lives and actions of a number of congregations -on both sides of the Atlantic- I've come to realise the answer to my question. The fact is, there's a significant amount of over-lap between the worlds of corporate America and the Christian church.
So, as I've gotten rolling with this blog thing, I figured I might as well start a series with some observations about church and business. Before some of you have an unholy fit, let me assure you: I'm not saying the church should run as a business or that a business should run as a church. Instead, I just want to draw some parallels which I've noticed and, maybe, might be of interest or help to others.
So, with all that said, part 1:
"Worship, Waitresses, and Menu Items"
To begin, if the church were a business, like a restaurant, it wouldn't have such a hang-up about change. It would understand that society, its market of interest, changes with time and so should it. Relevancy is all critical in the business world. Be up to date, be accessible, and be real....or prepare to fade away. Thus there are no hang-ups about new types of building, new styles of service, new items to be tried, or new methods of supervision being tried. In parallel, one doesn't dare mention the "c" word (change) within a church without being prepared for a 5-alarm nuclear event. Perhaps, were the church more like a business, it would understand that everything must always be placed within a realm of constant modernisation and growth to keep it applicable and desirable, to society.
At the same time, the church, like any good restaurant, should identify its core items and maximise their impact and placement within any new changes. Think about this: You can go to any McDonalds, worldwide, and find a huge variety of options to choose from. Locale flairs, promotional items, and even beer appear in McDonalds as experimental items. However, you'll always be able to get a Big Mac, fries, and a milk-shake. No questions.
What, were this actually practised, look like within a church? This church would have no qualms with trying new, different, and inventive things from time to time. These might be limited time offerings, or based on feedback, be things which became common and constant. However, the church would never sacrifice or impede the things which made it what it was and established its place in society.
What does that mean for your church? I don't know, you tell me!
Oh....and about waiters and waitresses......
It's generally considered the height of rudeness and tastelessness to run a server, in a restaurant, like a ragged dog and then stiff them on a tip. Sure, there are varying levels of serving and service and we pay and tip accordingly for those. However, the maxim is generally that we take care of those who take care of us. Now ask yourself, what if your waiter or waitress was a pastor and your restaurant was a church? How equitable would the pay to demand ratio be? "Pastor could you? Pastor we need you to.... Pastor you should...." Church folk, as a group, are pretty good of asking for things from their ministers, but how good are we about reciprocally giving back to our ministers? Sure, ministers get paid a salary, though, if you look at the work to pay ratio for most ministers it's rather paltry. I'm not saying ministers should get a huge raise, but have you ever thought about what you might do to ask less of your minister and allow he or she to enjoy their life AND work a bit more?
Ministers, lest you think you get off easy, I'll explain it to you like I used to explain it to my service teams: "Every person who walks through the door is a person who is paying your light bill, your water bill, your phone bill, etc. So treat them accordingly." Now, I'm not advocating that we strictly see our congregants as dollar signs, though, they do pay the wages which pay our bills. No, instead, I advocate that we see them as the people who will be our spiritual funding. The people who will lead us down spiritual journeys, as we walk beside them and on our own, to places and things we never thought we'd see or experience. These are the people who lead us closer to the Infinite, just as we lead them.
Finally, if the church were a business, you'd never see anyone haggle over a bill of service. "Oh, that costs £20? Well, I've only got a fiver on me, so that's all I can give this week. Sorry, God." Try that approach the next time you go into a McDonalds, let me know how it works for you.....
Be Blessed....
I won't bore you with all the details of all the seminars and courses I've ever sat, but, suffice it to say, there were A LOT of leadership, management, and business lectures in those years. When I began my seminary journey, I took a course called "Reading Congregations in Context." This course was, in many ways, a ministerial approach to what the business world might call "change management and leadership." This similarity started the wheels in my head spinning. "I wonder what other elements of over-lap there are between the two worlds," I thought. As I've learned more and more about the church corporate and been able to observe the lives and actions of a number of congregations -on both sides of the Atlantic- I've come to realise the answer to my question. The fact is, there's a significant amount of over-lap between the worlds of corporate America and the Christian church.
So, as I've gotten rolling with this blog thing, I figured I might as well start a series with some observations about church and business. Before some of you have an unholy fit, let me assure you: I'm not saying the church should run as a business or that a business should run as a church. Instead, I just want to draw some parallels which I've noticed and, maybe, might be of interest or help to others.
So, with all that said, part 1:
"Worship, Waitresses, and Menu Items"
To begin, if the church were a business, like a restaurant, it wouldn't have such a hang-up about change. It would understand that society, its market of interest, changes with time and so should it. Relevancy is all critical in the business world. Be up to date, be accessible, and be real....or prepare to fade away. Thus there are no hang-ups about new types of building, new styles of service, new items to be tried, or new methods of supervision being tried. In parallel, one doesn't dare mention the "c" word (change) within a church without being prepared for a 5-alarm nuclear event. Perhaps, were the church more like a business, it would understand that everything must always be placed within a realm of constant modernisation and growth to keep it applicable and desirable, to society.
At the same time, the church, like any good restaurant, should identify its core items and maximise their impact and placement within any new changes. Think about this: You can go to any McDonalds, worldwide, and find a huge variety of options to choose from. Locale flairs, promotional items, and even beer appear in McDonalds as experimental items. However, you'll always be able to get a Big Mac, fries, and a milk-shake. No questions.
What, were this actually practised, look like within a church? This church would have no qualms with trying new, different, and inventive things from time to time. These might be limited time offerings, or based on feedback, be things which became common and constant. However, the church would never sacrifice or impede the things which made it what it was and established its place in society.
What does that mean for your church? I don't know, you tell me!
Oh....and about waiters and waitresses......
It's generally considered the height of rudeness and tastelessness to run a server, in a restaurant, like a ragged dog and then stiff them on a tip. Sure, there are varying levels of serving and service and we pay and tip accordingly for those. However, the maxim is generally that we take care of those who take care of us. Now ask yourself, what if your waiter or waitress was a pastor and your restaurant was a church? How equitable would the pay to demand ratio be? "Pastor could you? Pastor we need you to.... Pastor you should...." Church folk, as a group, are pretty good of asking for things from their ministers, but how good are we about reciprocally giving back to our ministers? Sure, ministers get paid a salary, though, if you look at the work to pay ratio for most ministers it's rather paltry. I'm not saying ministers should get a huge raise, but have you ever thought about what you might do to ask less of your minister and allow he or she to enjoy their life AND work a bit more?
Ministers, lest you think you get off easy, I'll explain it to you like I used to explain it to my service teams: "Every person who walks through the door is a person who is paying your light bill, your water bill, your phone bill, etc. So treat them accordingly." Now, I'm not advocating that we strictly see our congregants as dollar signs, though, they do pay the wages which pay our bills. No, instead, I advocate that we see them as the people who will be our spiritual funding. The people who will lead us down spiritual journeys, as we walk beside them and on our own, to places and things we never thought we'd see or experience. These are the people who lead us closer to the Infinite, just as we lead them.
Finally, if the church were a business, you'd never see anyone haggle over a bill of service. "Oh, that costs £20? Well, I've only got a fiver on me, so that's all I can give this week. Sorry, God." Try that approach the next time you go into a McDonalds, let me know how it works for you.....
Be Blessed....
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Pray away the.....Prayer?
Prayer is something which has always been a sort of frustration, mystery, and fascination to me. I know I'm probably going to step on more than a few toes with this, but I'd like to briefly chat about prayer.
Think about it, prayer is one of the few religious rituals which virtually all parts of humanity participate in at some point or another. We may pray to different things, in different places, and with different ideals, but, at one point or another, we all pray. Whether we call it prayer is another thing. Calling it "sending vibes" or "thinking of you" is, in my view, virtually the same thing. But this brings us back to the question: what the heck is prayer?
My best answer? I'm not entirely sure. Call it speaking to the Infinite. Call it centring your energies. Call it listening for the still and small voice of the universe. Actually, I think you could call it all of these things and be more than a little correct.
What I can tell you prayer is NOT is that it's not "dial a blessing" nor an opportunity to bend the ear of God to your own desires. Sadly, this seems to be what a large part of society, regardless of religious ideology, has reduced prayer to.
"God if you could just....."
"God could you please...."
"God I need...."
(And I think it fair to say you can substitute your own divinity or universal understanding in for God if you'd like...we all seem to do the same song and dance, no matter who or what we pray to.)
It is as though God has become the ultimate vending machine of blessings for our world. Pop in two prayers and a couple of good deeds and God will give you a miraculous healing or at least get you out of a traffic stop!
Right. Has anyone really thought about this? Here we are, a finite creation, trying to tell the Infinite, in whatever way we look at it, that we're actually more correct about how things should occur than it is. Roll that one around in your head for a while, if you would.......
Seems a bit off-kilter, doesn't it?
Still, though, it's hard not to want to ask the Infinite for favours, isn't it? The sick child. The homeless veteran. The jobless mother. Nobody likes to see them suffer. And, when we do try and be of aid to them -which is another post entirely- there's only so much we can do. So, of course, we reach out to that which is beyond us. I'm not saying this is wrong, per-se. What I am saying is that, maybe we ask for the wrong things.
I'll try and paraphrase St. Augustine of Hippo and say that maybe we shouldn't ask for actions and should instead ask for Spirit. Prayer, to Augustine and a slew of other theologians -from many different traditions and faiths over the centuries- was an opportunity not to get something from the divine, but to be made more like it.
So instead of asking for God to make it all better when we totally mess things up, perhaps we should ask God to help us grow into responsibility so that we don't have to be in such situations to start with.
Instead of asking God to heal our friend or loved one, perhaps we should pray that God would use us as a channel of grace and peace for that person and their friends as they walk through hard times.
Instead of asking God to help that bum get a job, maybe we could ask God to soften our hearts and minds so that we might learn to help them with our resources; educational, spiritual, AND financial.
In sum, maybe we can all try to re-learn prayer as an art which is less about getting and more about becoming.
Just a thought.....
Think about it, prayer is one of the few religious rituals which virtually all parts of humanity participate in at some point or another. We may pray to different things, in different places, and with different ideals, but, at one point or another, we all pray. Whether we call it prayer is another thing. Calling it "sending vibes" or "thinking of you" is, in my view, virtually the same thing. But this brings us back to the question: what the heck is prayer?
My best answer? I'm not entirely sure. Call it speaking to the Infinite. Call it centring your energies. Call it listening for the still and small voice of the universe. Actually, I think you could call it all of these things and be more than a little correct.
What I can tell you prayer is NOT is that it's not "dial a blessing" nor an opportunity to bend the ear of God to your own desires. Sadly, this seems to be what a large part of society, regardless of religious ideology, has reduced prayer to.
"God if you could just....."
"God could you please...."
"God I need...."
(And I think it fair to say you can substitute your own divinity or universal understanding in for God if you'd like...we all seem to do the same song and dance, no matter who or what we pray to.)
It is as though God has become the ultimate vending machine of blessings for our world. Pop in two prayers and a couple of good deeds and God will give you a miraculous healing or at least get you out of a traffic stop!
Right. Has anyone really thought about this? Here we are, a finite creation, trying to tell the Infinite, in whatever way we look at it, that we're actually more correct about how things should occur than it is. Roll that one around in your head for a while, if you would.......
Seems a bit off-kilter, doesn't it?
Still, though, it's hard not to want to ask the Infinite for favours, isn't it? The sick child. The homeless veteran. The jobless mother. Nobody likes to see them suffer. And, when we do try and be of aid to them -which is another post entirely- there's only so much we can do. So, of course, we reach out to that which is beyond us. I'm not saying this is wrong, per-se. What I am saying is that, maybe we ask for the wrong things.
I'll try and paraphrase St. Augustine of Hippo and say that maybe we shouldn't ask for actions and should instead ask for Spirit. Prayer, to Augustine and a slew of other theologians -from many different traditions and faiths over the centuries- was an opportunity not to get something from the divine, but to be made more like it.
So instead of asking for God to make it all better when we totally mess things up, perhaps we should ask God to help us grow into responsibility so that we don't have to be in such situations to start with.
Instead of asking God to heal our friend or loved one, perhaps we should pray that God would use us as a channel of grace and peace for that person and their friends as they walk through hard times.
Instead of asking God to help that bum get a job, maybe we could ask God to soften our hearts and minds so that we might learn to help them with our resources; educational, spiritual, AND financial.
In sum, maybe we can all try to re-learn prayer as an art which is less about getting and more about becoming.
Just a thought.....
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Giving up Lent....for Lent.....
Well, it's Ash Wednesday and we're all smudged and gloomy. Even nature has gotten in on the deal in Aberdeen as it's a rather miserable day here! As the season of Lent has commenced we are, of course, at the point where a large number of folk -irrespective of religious belief, oddly- give up something they enjoy for forty days. To be honest, I just can't wrap my head around this.
Being an historian of the church, its theologies, and practices, I do understand the concept. This is the time of the year where we, faithful or not, proclaim a corporate penance to God as an acknowledgment of the suffering given for our redemption. What I don't understand is why we, in our modern, fractured, ideological, mystic, and largely anti-historical church, still follow the practice of self-denial as an effective form of penance?
Again, the denying of gratification or pleasures isn't anything new in the church. In fact, during the medieval period, folks would go so far as to physically punish themselves as a form of penance. (If you've ever seen the Tom Hanks film "Angels and Demons" you've seen a form of this!) The problem I find, however, is that -since the Protestant Reformation and the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation- this practice has largely fallen out of favour - except during the time of Lent!
Roll this around in your head for a minute, if you would: "Do you really stop to think about the pain, suffering, and misery of the Christ and his sacrifice for you every time you have to stop yourself from eating chocolate, drinking a beer, having a smoke, swearing, drinking Starbucks, etc, etc?"
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that, for the majority of folk, the answer is "No." In fact, I'll wager that your thoughts are, instead, something more along the lines of: "Bloody freaking Lent, I really just want a <insert random item here>."
This seems, to me, to be a bit counterproductive to the season and its meaning, really. Frustration does not equal penance. So what's a faithful person to do?
Here's a thought:
Believe it or not, I'm confirmed as a Roman Catholic. (Though, I think there might be more than a few who wish THAT never had happened....) Anyways, during the year of catechism prior to my confirmation, my fellow confirmands and I obviously encountered Lent. I will always remember what our pastoral associate, a former nun herself, told our group: "Lent is less about giving up in the outside world and more about looking inwards upon ourselves. It's not a time to stop doing x,y, or z which you'll just start up with again after Easter. Instead it's a time to look inside and see what personal issues, flaws, or feelings keep you from bringing the Kingdom of God. These are the things to be worked on during Lent. These are the things which should be left behind by Easter."
Though I play, mostly, on the Protestant side of the field at the moment, I think those words will stay with me for life. Lent isn't about giving up on the outside, it's about giving up on the inside. It's about giving up the bitterness and hate which dog us and make us miserable. It's about giving up our commitment to self. It's about letting the Holy Spirit come at us with an interior redecorating crew.
So how do we go about this?
I can't say I have all the answers, but here are a few thoughts:
Light a candle.
Meditate on what it is that hurts you, troubles you, restricts you and why.
Pray.
Listen. (This is the tricky part as God hasn't exactly gotten with SMS yet. Answers from the Infinite seem to take hours, days, weeks, and yes, even a period of 40 days.)
As always, I can't tell you what to do. However, I do hope you'll join me in experiencing an internal Lent rather than an external one.
Be Blessed!
Being an historian of the church, its theologies, and practices, I do understand the concept. This is the time of the year where we, faithful or not, proclaim a corporate penance to God as an acknowledgment of the suffering given for our redemption. What I don't understand is why we, in our modern, fractured, ideological, mystic, and largely anti-historical church, still follow the practice of self-denial as an effective form of penance?
Again, the denying of gratification or pleasures isn't anything new in the church. In fact, during the medieval period, folks would go so far as to physically punish themselves as a form of penance. (If you've ever seen the Tom Hanks film "Angels and Demons" you've seen a form of this!) The problem I find, however, is that -since the Protestant Reformation and the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation- this practice has largely fallen out of favour - except during the time of Lent!
Roll this around in your head for a minute, if you would: "Do you really stop to think about the pain, suffering, and misery of the Christ and his sacrifice for you every time you have to stop yourself from eating chocolate, drinking a beer, having a smoke, swearing, drinking Starbucks, etc, etc?"
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that, for the majority of folk, the answer is "No." In fact, I'll wager that your thoughts are, instead, something more along the lines of: "Bloody freaking Lent, I really just want a <insert random item here>."
This seems, to me, to be a bit counterproductive to the season and its meaning, really. Frustration does not equal penance. So what's a faithful person to do?
Here's a thought:
Believe it or not, I'm confirmed as a Roman Catholic. (Though, I think there might be more than a few who wish THAT never had happened....) Anyways, during the year of catechism prior to my confirmation, my fellow confirmands and I obviously encountered Lent. I will always remember what our pastoral associate, a former nun herself, told our group: "Lent is less about giving up in the outside world and more about looking inwards upon ourselves. It's not a time to stop doing x,y, or z which you'll just start up with again after Easter. Instead it's a time to look inside and see what personal issues, flaws, or feelings keep you from bringing the Kingdom of God. These are the things to be worked on during Lent. These are the things which should be left behind by Easter."
Though I play, mostly, on the Protestant side of the field at the moment, I think those words will stay with me for life. Lent isn't about giving up on the outside, it's about giving up on the inside. It's about giving up the bitterness and hate which dog us and make us miserable. It's about giving up our commitment to self. It's about letting the Holy Spirit come at us with an interior redecorating crew.
So how do we go about this?
I can't say I have all the answers, but here are a few thoughts:
Light a candle.
Meditate on what it is that hurts you, troubles you, restricts you and why.
Pray.
Listen. (This is the tricky part as God hasn't exactly gotten with SMS yet. Answers from the Infinite seem to take hours, days, weeks, and yes, even a period of 40 days.)
As always, I can't tell you what to do. However, I do hope you'll join me in experiencing an internal Lent rather than an external one.
Be Blessed!
Monday, February 11, 2013
Joey does a bunk.....
Well, I had every intention to only write sporadically, but then the Bishop of Rome got all antsy and well, this is the sort of religious fodder which only happens every few centuries! (Every five centuries, to be exact.)
So what's to say? Honestly, I have no clue.
No, seriously, the last time this happened was in the early 15th century and was only in order to stop the Great Western Schism. So, you'll have to pardon me for being a bit confused as to what caused this to happen, how this happened, or even what the heck WILL happen! (I mean, really, what do you call a retired Holy Father? Grand-Holy-Father?)
Suffice it to say, I would NOT want to be a scholar of cannon-law at this time. I can imagine some seriously long nights ahead of them.
But what does this mean in realtime? Again, I'm really not sure. I doubt we'll ever know why Benedict XVI resigned. What I do know is that this will present the Roman Catholic church with a host of challenges, but also a host of opportunities.
You'll have to forgive me if I seem a bit cynic, but it's not as though we can point to the leadership of the Roman Catholic church as a model of transparency or a paradigm of effectiveness over the last few, uhm, decades? Herein is a grande opportunity to begin writing a new chapter in the Roman Catholic faith, one which respects and understands the historic doctrines of the church, but is flexible enough to be a relevant part of the 21st century.
Where will the next Pope come from? Right, I bet the bookmakers are having a hey-day with this, but here's my guess: Latin America. The European and North American cardinals have, largely, been far too tainted by child-abuse scandals. To elect a pope from one of these corners would seemingly be the height of ineptitude. (Then again.......) The Roman Catholic church in Asia is a far too sensitive subject in international politics for anyone to even THINK of suggesting a pontiff from those regions. This leaves Africa and Latin America. I think both have some valid considerations, but Latin America has turned out far more theologians -and been far more theologically relevant- than Africa in the last century. (Though, I would entirely expect that to change moving forward!)
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right? All I know is that this is one big ecclesiastical crap-shoot!
BTW: I do hope you will join me in praying/thinking/vibe-ing for the Roman Catholic church, both as an institution and as a people. Change is never easy. It's ugly. It's messy. Often times, it's painful. Let's all hope and pray that this transformation takes place in the best way possible, with the least pain, and with the best outcomes.
So what's to say? Honestly, I have no clue.
No, seriously, the last time this happened was in the early 15th century and was only in order to stop the Great Western Schism. So, you'll have to pardon me for being a bit confused as to what caused this to happen, how this happened, or even what the heck WILL happen! (I mean, really, what do you call a retired Holy Father? Grand-Holy-Father?)
Suffice it to say, I would NOT want to be a scholar of cannon-law at this time. I can imagine some seriously long nights ahead of them.
But what does this mean in realtime? Again, I'm really not sure. I doubt we'll ever know why Benedict XVI resigned. What I do know is that this will present the Roman Catholic church with a host of challenges, but also a host of opportunities.
You'll have to forgive me if I seem a bit cynic, but it's not as though we can point to the leadership of the Roman Catholic church as a model of transparency or a paradigm of effectiveness over the last few, uhm, decades? Herein is a grande opportunity to begin writing a new chapter in the Roman Catholic faith, one which respects and understands the historic doctrines of the church, but is flexible enough to be a relevant part of the 21st century.
Where will the next Pope come from? Right, I bet the bookmakers are having a hey-day with this, but here's my guess: Latin America. The European and North American cardinals have, largely, been far too tainted by child-abuse scandals. To elect a pope from one of these corners would seemingly be the height of ineptitude. (Then again.......) The Roman Catholic church in Asia is a far too sensitive subject in international politics for anyone to even THINK of suggesting a pontiff from those regions. This leaves Africa and Latin America. I think both have some valid considerations, but Latin America has turned out far more theologians -and been far more theologically relevant- than Africa in the last century. (Though, I would entirely expect that to change moving forward!)
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right? All I know is that this is one big ecclesiastical crap-shoot!
BTW: I do hope you will join me in praying/thinking/vibe-ing for the Roman Catholic church, both as an institution and as a people. Change is never easy. It's ugly. It's messy. Often times, it's painful. Let's all hope and pray that this transformation takes place in the best way possible, with the least pain, and with the best outcomes.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Taking my toys and.....
As I wrote in the updated "about me" section, I've reached a point in my life, academically and spiritually, where I feel like I should be writing about the things I have been and am learning. For the first entry in this re-vamped blogosphere of mine, I suppose I could tackle something relatively simple - but where's the fun in that, eh?
Instead, I want to speak about churches. Specifically, churches leaving association with other churches due to disagreements. Be it over women in ministry, gays, lesbians, and their roles within the church, or simply for personal reasons; people leave churches and churches leave associations.
This. Drives. Me. Nuts!
I understand disagreements happen. I understand that people are passionate about differing issues and ideals. I understand that it is, at times, very hard to be around -let alone stand before the Infinite- with those you disagree with. I get that. Really, I do. But leaving or disassociating over a difference? That seems entirely childish to me.
A child who does not get his way is usually apt to announce: "Fine, I'm taking my toys and leaving! You can't play with me or my toys anymore!" Sometimes they announce: "I don't like you! You can't hang around with my friends and I anymore until you are more like us!" If only these were habits we grew out of as we aged. Sadly, it seems we only learn to use them in more tactful and powerful ways.
Again, I'm sensitive to the fact that there are a multitude of very passionately held differences in the various churches around with world today. I'm also sensitive to the fact that most folk, be they progressive or traditional, will try to use the Bible to justify their understandings and decisions. I respect that and I agree that the Bible can say multiple things to multiple people in multiple places. This is one of the things which makes the Bible both amazing and maddening. It's also one of the reasons why we, as a people who hold to the Bible, must commit ourselves to dialogue about why we understand and believe one way or the other. (Note: I said "dialogue" not "shouting over one another" as seems to be the growing trend!)
The first century church seemed to understand this rather well. In the Biblical "Acts of the Apostles," chapter 15, we read about the First Council of Jerusalem. Making a very long story short, this was a council where progressive and traditional movements in fledgling Christianity came together for a sit-down. What's most fascinating, however, is that they never really reached a point where they said "Your side is right, my side is wrong." Instead, they reached a point where they agreed to disagree, but respected and valued the opinions of the other side. Moreover, they -and perhaps most critical to we today- they agreed to be warm, open, and respectful to one-another, even though they disagreed. I can't say that I've ever been part of a church which has been threatening to split, leave, or disassociate, but I can't help but wonder where this scripture passage is during those churches' times of consternation?
I also wonder where the scriptural passage which says "do not forsake the assembling of yourselves together" ranks in such churches? Certainly, these churches aren't generally talking of disbanding at all, so this might seem an odd passage to bring up. However, on a pragmatic scale, I think this is critical. Ray Kroc has been attributed as saying "we can accomplish more together than on our own." Though he was a restauranteur, I think Ray's motto fits well with the modern church. We can reach out to more people, provide more relief to the poor, needy, and hurting, and share resources, faith, and fellowship much more readily when we are together in association than when we try to go it alone.
So what am I trying to say with all this? Leaving, be it for progressive or traditional reasons, is never the answer for a church. Stick it out. Speak your piece and your peace. Maybe you ARE the voice crying out in the wilderness, or maybe you're the entire opposite. We can only find out if we agree to share our lives, faith, beliefs, and stories with one another. I imagine, if we actually gave this a go, we might find that we could all rather comfortably meet in the middle with a respectful understanding of our differences, but a unity about our purpose. If the ancient church, in all its messy birth, growth, and immaturity, could do so, how much more should we 2,000 years onwards?
Till then.....
Instead, I want to speak about churches. Specifically, churches leaving association with other churches due to disagreements. Be it over women in ministry, gays, lesbians, and their roles within the church, or simply for personal reasons; people leave churches and churches leave associations.
This. Drives. Me. Nuts!
I understand disagreements happen. I understand that people are passionate about differing issues and ideals. I understand that it is, at times, very hard to be around -let alone stand before the Infinite- with those you disagree with. I get that. Really, I do. But leaving or disassociating over a difference? That seems entirely childish to me.
A child who does not get his way is usually apt to announce: "Fine, I'm taking my toys and leaving! You can't play with me or my toys anymore!" Sometimes they announce: "I don't like you! You can't hang around with my friends and I anymore until you are more like us!" If only these were habits we grew out of as we aged. Sadly, it seems we only learn to use them in more tactful and powerful ways.
Again, I'm sensitive to the fact that there are a multitude of very passionately held differences in the various churches around with world today. I'm also sensitive to the fact that most folk, be they progressive or traditional, will try to use the Bible to justify their understandings and decisions. I respect that and I agree that the Bible can say multiple things to multiple people in multiple places. This is one of the things which makes the Bible both amazing and maddening. It's also one of the reasons why we, as a people who hold to the Bible, must commit ourselves to dialogue about why we understand and believe one way or the other. (Note: I said "dialogue" not "shouting over one another" as seems to be the growing trend!)
The first century church seemed to understand this rather well. In the Biblical "Acts of the Apostles," chapter 15, we read about the First Council of Jerusalem. Making a very long story short, this was a council where progressive and traditional movements in fledgling Christianity came together for a sit-down. What's most fascinating, however, is that they never really reached a point where they said "Your side is right, my side is wrong." Instead, they reached a point where they agreed to disagree, but respected and valued the opinions of the other side. Moreover, they -and perhaps most critical to we today- they agreed to be warm, open, and respectful to one-another, even though they disagreed. I can't say that I've ever been part of a church which has been threatening to split, leave, or disassociate, but I can't help but wonder where this scripture passage is during those churches' times of consternation?
I also wonder where the scriptural passage which says "do not forsake the assembling of yourselves together" ranks in such churches? Certainly, these churches aren't generally talking of disbanding at all, so this might seem an odd passage to bring up. However, on a pragmatic scale, I think this is critical. Ray Kroc has been attributed as saying "we can accomplish more together than on our own." Though he was a restauranteur, I think Ray's motto fits well with the modern church. We can reach out to more people, provide more relief to the poor, needy, and hurting, and share resources, faith, and fellowship much more readily when we are together in association than when we try to go it alone.
So what am I trying to say with all this? Leaving, be it for progressive or traditional reasons, is never the answer for a church. Stick it out. Speak your piece and your peace. Maybe you ARE the voice crying out in the wilderness, or maybe you're the entire opposite. We can only find out if we agree to share our lives, faith, beliefs, and stories with one another. I imagine, if we actually gave this a go, we might find that we could all rather comfortably meet in the middle with a respectful understanding of our differences, but a unity about our purpose. If the ancient church, in all its messy birth, growth, and immaturity, could do so, how much more should we 2,000 years onwards?
Till then.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)