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....
Monday, February 25, 2013
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)