Adventure People, Where Are You?

Do you remember these? I sure do! Fisher Price "Adventure People." I had hours upon hours of creative, non-violent, screenless fun as a kid playing with these sets. I recently found a website that has pictures of all of them. Click here to reminisce.

Am I guilty of a 34 year old's nostalgia? Am I remebering these toys with rose-colored glasses on? I don't think there is anything even remotely as fun, imagination-engaging, and accessible as these wonderful playsets in today's toy market. With a four-year-old and a seven-year-old and Christmas approaching, I am more familiar with today's toy market than I once was. It is not a pretty sight.

With the Adventure People, there were no silly characters. No mind-numbing screens. No attention span shortening computer images. Just people having whatever adventures I decided they would have today.

My safari family, Jim, Mom, Jenny, and Johnny, interacted very nicely with my Star Wars figures, yet they were inherently special to me. They weren't meaningful because they were connected to a movie, a video game, or a Madison Avenue marketing scheme. I just loved the toy itself.

If there is ANYTHING remotely like it on store shelves today, please guide me to it. I have some Christmas shopping to do.

Pat Robertson, Again

Pat Robertson has taken one more step toward making the Church an irrelevant joke. Click here if you want to sigh too deeply for words.

Do people actually still listen to this guy?

You Must Be This Tall to Ride This Church

You know those signs at the front of the roller coaster line? The ones that have a cartoon character holding out his arm and if you can walk under the arm you cannot ride the ride? I remember once my daughter scraped the underside of the sign and was not allowed on the ride. Literally, had she been wearing a different pair of shoes, she would have made it! But the standard was rigid. For good reason, too. Her safety was at stake.

We get into trouble, however, when we attempt to apply such rigid standards to other situations. Take public schools, for instance. The governor of Missouri, Matt Blunt, wants to make a blanket requirement that 65% of the money in each school district is spent in the classroom. Sounds okay as an idea, huh? But then I read that some really excellent school districts are not close to that level. I remember reading that Liberty school district spends about 58% of its money in the classroom, and it is one of the best in the state. To require Liberty to raise their in classroom spending to 65% would require the reduction of some of the other wonderful things they are currently funding - things like arts, sports, or professional clubs, perhaps.

Or take church membership, as another example. There are many who want to put really high standards on becoming a member of a church. For example, you must attend a certain percentage of worship services, or give a certain percentage of your income, or serve in a certain number of outreach opportunities per year, or confess particular sins, etc. These, among other things, are some of the standards that some churches require in order for someone to be a full member. If you cannot agree to meet the standards, you cannot be a member of the church. And I certainly agree that supporting your church with your prayers, presence, gifts, and service, as well as confessing your sin before God, are desirable activities for church members.

But do we go too far? When we assign rigid standards to becoming a church member, what have we done to the meaning of membership? Have we not changed church into something to which we belong rather than something that we are?

If you start a club, you can set your own standards for membership - high sign, secret handshake, whatever. Problem is, church is not a club. People do not "belong to" the church; people ARE the church. Just like that old Sunday School song says - "We are the church together." Church membership is not like joining a club, not a status symbol, not an item on one's resume, not access to a set of privileges denied to non-members. To set rigid standards on church membership is to demean the church by making it just one more club among many.

"High standard" churches tend to have a lot of people in them, however. Surely this fact would tend to lead us toward imposition of such rigid expectations for membership. Yes, if you are using numerical growth as your only assessment tool for "success." It is difficult to measure faithfulness, however. And to say that large membership churches are the only ones that are being faithful is just not truthful, and a gross oversimplification of reality. An incarnate relationship that invokes the presence of Christ requires only 2 or 3 to gather in his name.

The "mystic, sweet communion" that is the Church of Jesus Christ is so much more than artificially imposed standards can reflect. Anywhere, anytime, any group gathers in the name of Christ Jesus, there is the church. To say anything else, it seems to me, is shoddy ecclesiology. Let's take down the "You Must Be This Tall..." signs at our church doorways and start being the church again!

What Could Be Better...

... than a four-year-old boy in the middle of a room full of building blocks?

More of the Gospel According to Cori

I know that my daughter must be a mystic. I'm pretty sure she has some kind of special connection to the Divine, anyway. Cori is seven years old and has a way of saying things that brings God to the surface more readily that almost anyone else I know.

Her latest, "No one is different than everybody."

Here is the context: Cori noticed that I had scratched out the United Methodist slogan, "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors," from my car's bumper sticker and written, "It's the thought that counts" instead. (Say what you will about my own little act of passive/aggressive protest, it's not the point of this post!) Cori then asked my wife Erin why I had done this.

Erin replied, "Because Daddy was sad and angry about a United Methodist pastor in Virginia not letting someone be a member of the church because he was different." Erin chose her words carefully for Cori's seven-year-old ears.

The idea made Cori mad. She has been righteously indignant in the past, and it truly is a sight to behold. This time, she uttered the astonishingly liberative truth: "No one is different than everybody." Knowing this and living one's life shaped by this notion make it very difficult to discriminate. One has a hard time prejudging someone else when starting from this place. I cannot look at a person different from me and make comparative assessment of them using myself as the standard, because, as Cori says, no one is different from everybody.

Fundamentally, all of us are just people trying to live our lives as best we can. In that sense, everyone is like everyone else, although I am not trying to promote "sameness" as a desirable trait. Far from it! I celebrate the diversity of God's creation whenever possible. And it is important to note that "sameness" and "unity" are not synonyms. The church can and should and occasionally does exhibit deep and profound unity in the midst of its wondrous and vibrant diversity.

The yin/yang of diversity and unity is an important affirmation of God's creative power. Preudice is when we tip the balance too far toward unity using our own perspective as the standard of measurement. The miracle of life is that each of us is uniquely valued by God while at the same time living as just one among many in common humanity with one another.

Thanks to Cori for helping me understand this anew. No one is different than everybody yet each of us can know God personally. And that's the Gospel according to Cori.

Council of Bishops - Folks Like Us

Our denomination's Council of Bishops has written this letter to the church. You can read the whole thing by clicking here. In the letter, they write, "While pastors have the responsibility to discern readiness for membership, homosexuality is not a barrier." And they quote our Social Principles, saying, "We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends." Of course, they are responding to this week's Judicial Council decision regarding Rev. Ed Johnson of South Hill UMC in Virginia.

There is a lot of blog chatter about this letter: some bloggers have criticized it; some have supported it; some have just posted it and let it be.

Thing is, my grandfather is a bishop. Monk Bryan, retired from the Nebraska conference and living now in Dallas and in Lake Junaluska, is my grandfather. When I read a letter from the bishops of my church, I am reading a letter from Daddy Monk. The man who loves nothing more than saddling a horse for a ride through the mountains. The man who has a fondness for peaches and vanilla ice cream. The man who taught me that a job is not done until the tools are cleaned and put away. The man who loves to hear me play hymns on the old piano in his living room. The man who loves the church of Jesus Christ more than anyone I have ever known.

Life is not a series of issues to be argued over until someone wins and someone loses. Life is people connecting to people, valuing one another, growing closer to God and neighbor, getting to know the faces of strangers. Sure, the Council of Bishops is a group of the most powerful, respected leaders of our denomination. But it is also Daddy Monk. And Fritz. And Ann. And Robert. And ...

Just a bunch of folks like us.

... Okay, but how do you FEEL?

Erin read my post from yesterday and said, "I'm disappointed in your blog today."
Now, Erin has used a lot of words to describe her reaction to my blog, but "disappointed" was a new one. I therefore asked her to explain.

She said, "That blog entry does not really reflect your true feelings. I saw you yesterday, I talked with you, I know how you feel about these decisions, and you just didn't show it in that blog."

As usual, Erin was right. My entry yesterday was a pathetic attempt at levity, which I was using as a defense mechanism to mask my emotional reaction. Jackie Thomas, my CPE instructor, would not be very happy with me, either. She was always pushing me to express my emotional responses, trying to dig into the shallow facade of "I-have-it-all-together-ness" that I always try to project. And yesterday, I definitely did not have it all together.

To use a trite cliche, my heart is broken. Yesterday, I was convicted of my sin - namely, thinking of homosexuality as an issue that we can somehow discuss and dialogue in order to resolve or not. It is not just an issue that we can get tired of talking about and let drop somewhere. I know now that it is not an issue among issues. It defies comparison to other issues - i.e. slavery, idolatry, hot buttered corn on the cob. It is much more.

The United Methodist Judicial Council decisions of yesterday represent systemic devaluing of people based on arbitrary criteria set by the powerful.

Here it is again:
...systemic devaluing of people based on arbitrary criteria set by the powerful.

I spent a lot of time wrestling with God to come up with that sentence, and I will defend every single word in it.

The term that is likely to cause the most stir is "arbitrary criteria," so I'll just go ahead and take that one on now. "It is not arbitrary, it is the Bible, and if you disagree with me, you are denying the authority of the Bible," is how the argument goes. We have heard it many times before. The problem is, in the "pick and choose" method of naming sins, there is no pattern. There is no discernable method by which the "practice" of same gender sexual contact has been elevated above any of the others on the S list - lawsuits, divorce, not selling all your possessions and giving the money to the poor, etc.
And furthermore, while the Bible is clearly talking about same gender sexual contact, it is most often talking about elevating one's desire for sex above one's desire for God. Either that or child abuse, gang rape, or other "shameful and degrading" sex acts. It is simply not referring to two grown people who are in love with each other expressing their love sexually. Reading every single word of the authoritative Hebrew and Greek texts very closely and delving deeply into the meaning of every line of the text has convinced me of that.

So yes, I am sticking with "arbitrary criteria," and I will until someone convinces me of my error. The United Methodist Judicial Council decisions of yesterday represent systemic devaluing of people based on arbitrary criteria set by the powerful.

I am sorry that I did not emote yesterday. I was trying to put up that mask of levity and I-have-it-all-together-ness. Sometimes I wish I had some of my brother's raw, in your face emotive capacity. But just a little bit. (He scares me sometimes ;) But now I can say, my heart is broken about these decisions. I know that I am not alone, either. And for those of you reading this whose hearts with mine have been smacked around for way to long, please help me. Please help me discern a fitting way to speak the truth in love so that God's will might be done on earth, as it is in heaven. I don't know what's next. So please help me to know. Please God.

I Have An Idea!

It is too late for this year, but I have a great costume idea for next halloween. I am going to go as a homosexual United Methodist, since the prospect of the existence of such a creature seems to be so terrifying for people. I bet I get lots of candy!

Seriously, what is so scary? I have real, honest questions about the "threat" to the institution of marriage allegedly posed by gay couples. Can anyone tell me how my relationship with Erin is threatened because of gay marriages?

And thinking about ordination and membership in the church: Can anyone tell me what greater threat to the body of Christ is posed by people who are gay than say, by people who enter into lawsuits, or maybe by women speaking in church, or perhaps by people who do not sell all their possessions and give them to the poor? All of these issues are specifically addressed in the New Testament, aren't they?

The Judicial Council decisions about Beth Stroud and Ed Johnson (click their names to read the stories) are further evidence of how far from the core Christian values of love and grace our denomination has come. It is a really hard time to be Methodist.

Only by the grace of God will we be able to discern if the Via Media will eventually become reality. In the meantime, we will have to deal with the fear and with the oppression and injustice that result.

For whatever it's worth, I'm sorry.

The Definition of Joy!

Can We Talk? - Part 3: A Via Media

Some people are so tired of talking about homosexuality, they are just ready to stop talking and divide the church. Group all the people who think one way over here; group all the people who think another way over there; now let’s just be two separate churches. A similar thing happened in 1844 in the Methodist church, except the issue at that time was slavery. It took almost 100 years for the two branches to be grafted back together. However, the people who wrote the schism proposal at that time wrote it with foresight, burning no bridges and leaving the pathway open for reuniting at some point in the future. Some think this is the way we should go now.

Some other people want to continue to bash one another over the head over the issue of homosexuality, wielding their various ideologies as weapons with which to seek and destroy those who disagree. Locked and loaded, they head off to Annual, Jurisdictional, and General Conferences bristling and ready for battle. The early church used to have big councils at which the loser of the debate was burned, along with all his writings. Weren’t those proud moments in our Christian heritage? Yet it sometimes seems the church hasn’t come far from those … umm … less gentle days, especially when one witnesses the rhetoric in the air around recent conferences and other denominational events.

You know, I believe with all my heart that there is a third group of people out there. This caucus is not vocal, not very well organized, and has for the most part been silently frustrated at the carryings on of the other two groups. Let’s call this group the Via Media Caucus. They do not want to divide the church, and at the same time they want to be able to honestly disagree in Christian friendship. At the last United Methodist General Conference, the unofficial Via Media group almost got the Book of Discipline changed to read, “Christians disagree on the compatibility of homosexual practice with Christian teaching” instead of the inflammatory, “Homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.”

Here’s the amazing thing: There are people who believe all kinds of different things about the issue in all three of these groups. There are some people in favor of ordination and marriage for homosexual people who want to stop talking and split the church, some who want to keep battling, and some who want to find the middle way. And there are people against ordination/marriage of homosexual people in each group, as well. This is why this particular issue is so astonishingly complicated. There is no “us” and “them.”

The good news is, when there is no “us” and “them” – it’s all us! Everything we do starts with the commonality of the gift of life that has been graciously given by God, the gift of salvation that has been offered to us through Christ, and the gift of God’s reign on earth that is promised by the power of the Holy Spirit. In order to continue to be faithful to the church God is calling us to be, we must start the conversation from this common understanding.

The people who back up their beliefs with, “Because the Bible says so, that’s why,” have got to understand that this reasoning is meaningless without acknowledging the particular context through which their beliefs were formed. The people who try to say, “All perspectives are of equal value,” have got to understand that this simply is not the case, and to stubbornly hold to such a view is an example of the very same rigid ideological thinking they are trying to argue against. Both of these lines of thought throw up roadblocks to any helpful conversation. The Via Media, beginning around our commonality, may just be the only way any more conversation will happen.

These past three blog posts, I have not been trying to persuade anyone as to the sinfulness or not of homosexuality. I have just been trying to answer the question, “Can we talk?” I think the answer is “Yes,” but only if we are willing to first acknowledge our common humanity, open ourselves before God in worship and confession, and go beyond the senseless, mind-numbing diatribe that some people are trying to pass off as conversation these days. We may not be able to ever persuade our conversation partner to our perspective, but the conversation itself can be holy as we gather around God’s table together.

Can We Talk: Part 2 - Connie and Id

Yesterday I began a reflective series on the difficulties of dialogue. Today’s post builds on yesterday’s, so if you haven’t read that one, you might want to pause and read it first.

In an attempt at concision, I am going to name our contextualizer “Connie” and our ideologue “Id.” Okay? Yesterday I posited that Connie and Id have trouble talking with one another, because they end up trying to have two separate conversations at once. Connie wants to start with context; Id wants to start with immutable truth. Their conversations never lead anywhere productive, because they are not starting from common ground. It is as if the Kansas City Chiefs were trying to play the Kansas City Royals in a game, but each in their own respective sports. Doesn’t work.

In order to talk together, Connie and Id each need to give up something. It will not be easy for them to do this, but for the sake of living together in peace without bashing each other’s brains in, it needs to be done. It will call each of them to self-examination and penance, relying on the grace of God all the way along.

Put simply, Connie needs to confess that contextualization is his own ideology; Id needs to confess that she came to her ideology via her context.

Connie is a consensus-builder, and tries really hard to respect everybody’s point of view, because he believes each person is entitled to believe his or her own thing based on individual life context. But Connie goes overboard every so often and thus can’t really disagree with anyone, because he has to say that the other perspective is just as valid as his own. This is the built in weakness to his position. He practices an ideology of acceptance that inflates the importance of not only contrary ideas, but also trivial, even silly ideas to equal footing with more helpful ideas. If Connie sticks unthinkingly to this ideology, conversation falters and eventually gets altogether stuck.

Id is an apologetic*,and tries really hard to defend her perspective, because not only her perspective is at stake, but the immutable truth itself. But Id is a bit naïve if she really thinks that her access to immutable truth has not been mediated via her own life. She came to embrace her ideology thanks to the influence of family, friends, and teachers; music, books, and movies; race, class, and gender; etcetera, etcetera, and etcetera. When Id comes into contact with another, different ideology, she is quick to write it off as false, using the circular reasoning that, since it is not the same as hers and hers is based on the truth, the other ideology therefore must not be. If Id refuses to acknowledge that her ideology is contextually formed, conversation falters and eventually gets altogether stuck.

(Believe me, I can see all of the flaws in the previous two paragraphs. Please feel free to point them out in the comments if you want to. But I have written these two paragraphs this way intentionally to make my larger point.)

And so, in order for their conversation to proceed, Connie must come out of the closet as a self-avowed practicing ideologue and Id must admit that she has a life in the midst of which her ideology was formed.

“That will never happen,” says cynic me. It goes against everything they are to make such confessions. It is not in their DNA. (Or, if you’d rather): It is not how God made them. (Theological excursus: maybe it is how God made them, but after the Fall, they are no longer able to be that way. But we will save that for another time.)

Ah! But here is our common playing field, isn’t it? It ought to be hard to confess our sin! It ought to be the hardest thing we do as children of grace. Still, it seems to me that one of the few things Connie and Id can agree to say in unison is, “God, I am not perfect. Forgive me.” It seems to me that one of the few things Connie and Id can do together is bow in prayer before God to ask for grace. I think therefore, that their dialogue must be preceded by liturgy.

I even have a suggestion. How about a Psalm?

Psalm 51:14-19
Save me from bloodguilt, O God,
the God who saves me,
and my tongue will sing of your righteousness.
O Lord, open my lips,
and my mouth will declare your praise.
You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart,
O God, you will not despise.
In your good pleasure make Zion prosper;
build up the walls of Jerusalem.
Then there will be righteous sacrifices,
whole burnt offerings to delight you;
then bulls will be offered on your altar.

In part 3 (which should be up tomorrow or Friday), I hope to get a little bit specific with regard to the ongoing impasse in the conversation about homosexuality. Stay tuned…

*Serving as or containing a formal justification or defense. (dictionary.com)

Can We Talk? – Part 1: Ideology and Context

I have a thought.
Let’s dispense with the terms “liberal” and “conservative” for a while. They are too divisive, too inflammatory to be helpful. I want to lay those terms aside for the time being, just box them up and put them on the shelf out in the garage so I can reflect for a minute without them getting in the way. Instead of “liberal” and “conservative,” I would like to think about the dichotomy of “ideological” and “contextual.”

Some people put a pretty heavy emphasis on an ideology when they are making decisions about right and wrong, while others put a pretty heavy emphasis on context when making similar decisions. An ideologue will use a deontological approach to living that relies on rules, laws, and universal truths. A contextualizer will use a teleological approach to living that focuses on goals, visions, and particular circumstances.

I have observed that contextualizers and ideologues have a very tough time speaking to each other. See, an ideologue has a plank in his platform that says that his perspective is based on immutable truth. Conversation is therefore a matter of explaining and extolling that immutable truth so that others will see it, too. A contextualizer, on the other hand, has a plank in her platform that says her perspective and all other perspectives are based on variable contexts. Conversation is therefore a matter of trying to understand the contexts of the various conversation partners to discern among the different perspectives.

This works out just great if the contextualizer and the ideologue happen to agree about the issue. The problem comes when they disagree. Take … oh, let’s say … homosexuality, for example.

The ideologue may say, “Homosexuality is a sin. The Bible says it is.”
The contextualizer might reply, “Homosexuality is not a sin. The way I understand the context in which the Bible was written, I understand that what is really being condemned is idolatry. But let me hear more about your perspective.”
“The Bible is God’s Word,” says the ideologue, “It is therefore inerrant and is the ultimate authority in life. Are you denying the inerrant authority of God’s Word?”
“No, I’m not. The Bible is the authority of my life, also. What I am saying is that, when I dig deeply into these scriptures, I discover that the presenting issue was God’s people putting the things of this world ahead of God. I don’t believe it really has anything whatsoever to do with two adults in a mutually supportive, loving relationship, be they of opposite gender or not.”
“There is no sense in denying the words on the page. Homosexual relations are not natural, not how God created us to be. You can tell that with a simple biological assessment; the parts just don’t fit together right. That’s why the Bible condemns same sex relationships as sinful.”

And so on, and so on. I tried in this little excerpt to be true to each of these perspectives. If I have messed up somewhere, let me know. But I want to notice a few things about this little blurb of conversation, which I think is representative.

- This conversation will have no reconciliation, because the two people are not having the same conversation. One is ideological, whereas one is contextual.
- The ideologue does not address the contextualizer’s argument, but rather goes straight to the immutability of the source behind his own argument.
- The contextualizer doesn’t really address the ideologue’s notion of inerrancy.
- It is a part of the contextualizer’s way to try to understand the ideologue, but the attempt is not reciprocated.
- Consistency is important to the ideologue, so he speaks in absolutes.
- Perspective is important to the contextualizer, so he speaks with “I” statements.

It seems that we are stuck. And, to an extent, we are. If we keep trying to have conversations like this, we will be. But perhaps we can find a way to rearrange the conversation so that something more productive will emerge. Stay tuned … part 2 tomorrow.

Open Pulpit Update

For the past several months, we have been trying a new program here at my remarkable congregation, called the "Open Pulpit." It is a program for people with a calling to preach, but not a lot of opportunity. Two or three Saturday nights a month, we have a guest preacher for our "Come-as-you-are Worship Service." (I preach the other two Saturday nights.) The guest preacher signs up for a certain night, prepares a 12 - 15 minute sermon, helps plan the service, delivers the sermon at the service, then we sit down afterwards and I give a little feedback.

So far, we have heard from an associate pastor serving on a church staff, a seminary student, a lay member of our own congregation, the manager of a local Ronald McDonald House, and a college student who is on track toward ordination. We have two people signed up for November and two for January, though none have yet signed up in December. I anticipate that lay speakers, retired clergy, youth and many others would find the opportunity fulfilling.

And let me tell you about my personal reaction - I LOVE IT! Hearing the diversity of preaching styles and theological perspectives is - well that's MY THING, isn't it? And I have a chance to sit and listen, soaking up the word of God for my own spiritual health. It is nice for a preacher to hear a sermon every now and then. It is good for worship leaders to worship.

People in the congregation have responded favorably, also. Many people make an extra effort to greet the guest preachers following the service and thank them for their message. And several have made a point to stop me in order to say how much they like hearing all the different preachers. However, I must say that a couple of the members have expressed to me their disappointment when they learn that it is not me preaching on a given Saturday. But when they say such things, I calmly inform them that one who comes to church because of whom is delivering the sermon is coming to church for the wrong reason, then I smile impishly and take a drink of coffee.

All in all, after three months the Open Pulpit program has been a rousing success. Who'd-a-thunk it? It is nurturing the calling to preach in many people; it opens the congregation to a diversity of preaching perspectives; and it gives me the opportunity to participate in a relatively stress-free worship service a couple of times a month. It's definitely a win-win-win situation!

Troop Withdrawal Supported by GBCS

The United Methodist Church's General Board of Church and Society (GBCS) has issued a statement urging the U.S. government "to develop and implement a plan for the withdrawal of its troops" from Iraq. If you want, you can click here to read the statement in its entirety. The statement also calls for support of the "Homeward Bound Act" in the House (H.J. Res. 55), cooperation with UN in rebuilding Iraq, and prayer for "just, equitable peace" for the people of Iraq.

Now, technically the General Boards of our denomination do not "speak for the church." Only General Conference can officially do that. But their words should carry a lot of weight with United Methodists. The GBCS upholds the Social Principles of the UMC, which say, "We believe war is incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ," and are quite strong in condemning war and the "militarization" of society. Our denominational principles are pretty wishy-washy regarding some issues - but not so with war. I am glad to say that the stance of the Methodist church is staunchly opposed to war.

John Wesley called war an "Inhuman Folly." He wrote, "What must mankind be, before such a thing as war could ever be known or thought of upon earth? How shocking, how inconceivable a want must there have been of common understanding, as well as common humanity, before any two Governors, or any two nations in the universe, could once think of such a method of decision!" I am drawn to Wesley's emphasis on reason here. He seems to say, "Just think about it! It doesn't make any sense at all!"

I like this current GBCS statement, and the Homeward Bound Act. They don't say, "Get them all out immediately," which would lead to unimaginable disaster. They just ask for a plan. A workable plan to withdraw peacefully and turn the country back over to its own people. I think the GBCS has articulated a healthy alternative to both immediate withdrawal and indeterminate occupation.

It's time. I am going to write Sam Graves tomorrow and ask him to support the Homeward Bound Act. I hope that you do the same (except you should probably write your own Representative; Sam Graves is mine). It's time for this war to be over. It's time for our government to have a specific, attainable, measurable plan, the goal of which is withdrawal of "coalition" troops from Iraq and autonomy for that nation's people. It's time for peace.

P.S. The UMC.org website told me that I have to tell you that the Cross and Flame is a registered trademark and the use is supervised by the General Council on Finance and Administration of The United Methodist Church. Permission to use the Cross and Flame must be obtained from the General Council on Finance and Administration of The United Methodist Church - Legal Department, 1000 17th Avenue South Nashville, TN 37212.

A Church in Ministry

In the middle of the afternoon, it hit me. It felt like a ton of bricks, but not violently all at once. More like someone lowering a ton of bricks onto my shoulders very slowly, over the course of let's say five or six minutes. But by the end of that time period, there was little doubt that I had been hit with the metaphorical 2,000 pound load.

See I am in the practice of putting names into my palm pilot, names of people hospitalized, sick, having surgery, going through tough family issues, etc. Basically people who I feel like I need to check up on, keep in touch with, pray for, and visit. My Sony Clie handheld device has a "Memo" feature that I use for this purpose. I can also write notes about each person to remind me of what exactly is going on with each one.

This afternoon when I turned it on and opened up my memo list, I was confronted with no less that twenty-eight names. Twenty-eight! How in the world did we accumulate twenty-eight souls on the pastoral care list? Quickly scanning the list, I identified two people for whom the crisis had passed, and I removed them. But that did little to relieve the weight of bricks on my shoulders. There is no way I could give adequate care to twenty-six different people.

See, here's me: If I could, I would personally visit each one of them. I would spend an hour or two in deep, meaningful conversation with each one about God's presence in the midst of suffering, the joy of having a spiritual home filled with good Christian friends to support you, and the precious gift of life that God so graciously gives all of us. If I could, I would be the pastor about whom they would later say, "And wouldn't you know, Andy came and visited me every single day while I was sick. What a nice person he is!"

But I can't. I can't be with all twenty-six of the people on my list. The physics of time and space make that literally impossible. And I would make myself sick trying. So what is a people pleasing pastor to do?

Here's what happened: When I stopped to think about it, I realized that almost every one of the people on my list has been visited by multiple people in the church already. I know this because they report to me: "I visited with Mary today" or "I sent Ray a card this week" or "I'm bringing Theda a meal this week, she doesn't like the food at her new place." And every time one of those people came to report to me, I affirmed them and thanked them for their compassion. So, I was in effect providing pastoral support for the people who were providing pastoral care for the ones on my list, which is a pretty good thing for a pastor to be able to do, I think.

As I thought about it, the ton of bricks gradually lightened. I called five of the people on my list, and we had some delightful conversations over the phone. And I came home for the day feeling like I had done some good stuff, and once more thanking God for being pastor of such a remarkable congregation. A congregation where that line in the bulletin that reads, "Ministers: All people of the church," really means something!

(By the way, there are pictures of our congregation's Pumpkin Patch over at the newsletter blog: click here to see them.)

What Can You Say? Part 3 – “Those who … speak the truth from their heart”

“O Lord, who may abide in your tent?
Who may dwell on your holy hill?

Those who walk blamelessly, and do what is right,
and speak the truth from their heart;
who do not slander with their tongue,
and do no evil to their friends,
nor take up a reproach against their neighbors;
in whose eyes the wicked are despised,
but who honor those who fear the Lord;
who stand by their oath even to their hurt;
who do not lend money at interest,
and do not take a bribe against the innocent.

Those who do these things shall never be moved.”
(Psalm 15, NRSV)

To start part 3, I’d like to go back to the instigating case from part 1 of this trilogy. Bill Bennett makes a blatantly racist remark, to which people react. Leonard Pitts says, “That is racist.” Andy Bryan says, “That is racist.” When Leonard Pitts says it, it sounds somehow different than when I do. Yes, I know that he is a nationally syndicated columnist who could out-write me with one hand tied behind his computer and I’m just a Midwestern Methodist preacher with internet access. But his reaction sounds different for other reasons, also.

I think it is because he is speaking the truth from his heart, whereas I am speaking the truth without benefit of that resource. I do not have access to Leonard Pitts’ heart. His naming of the racism draws upon the pain and brokenness of his own heart, his own life experience, his own encounter with injustice. And that resource adds depth and power to his testimony.

I, too, am speaking from the heart, but my heart is just not as full as his. My heart has not been broken as often and as personally as his. My heart feels the pain of racism only empathetically. Empathy is an important resource, to be sure. But it doesn’t hold a candle to experience.

Preparing for an immersion trip to Guatemala while a seminary student, my class read books like I, Rigoberta Menchu, and Guatemala: Never Again and The Certainty of Spring by poet Julia Esquivel. The purpose of this exercise was to prepare us for the experience, give a little background of the Guatemalan story, and foster the beginnings of an understanding of the horrifically violent situation in the impoverished, exploited country. I soon learned that reading a book that tells a story about the massacre of an entire village is not the same as sitting in a small house hearing a woman tell the same story from first-hand experience with tears running down her face, the smell of corn tortillas cooking, the sounds of children playing outside, an eternally Spring breeze wafting through the open doors. So when I speak against the injustice that has been a part of Guatemalan life for the past four decades, I can do so with someone’s face in my memory. I speak from a heart that is a little bit fuller, a little bit more broken than it would be had I merely an academic knowledge of the situation.

SO: (and here I am going to attempt to be constructive. Ready?)
The difference is RELATIONSHIP. The best thing I can do with my unrequested, undeserved power and privilege is to be in relationship with those who do not have such. Pick the cliché – get outside of your comfort zone, expand your horizons, think outside of your box, even “enter the rainbow” – whatever you feel better with. The point is (and here I begin preaching to myself, as well) to enter into relationship with people radically other than you, and recognize the inherent worth of all human beings as children of God no matter what their station in life. Sit down with someone, have a meal, talk, be honest, look someone in the eye, shake their hand warmly, smile, laugh, cry, share stories. Especially seek relationship with the powerless, the oppressed, the prisoner, the sick, the outcast, acknowledging (confessing?) all the while the privilege that makes it even possible for you to do so in the first place.

Then, drawing upon the newly discovered resource of relationship, speak the truth from your heart! A heart that is now a little bit fuller, a little bit deeper. Tell the stories you now know. Speak without slander, evil, or reproach. Speak with integrity, respect, and honesty. Speak for God’s justice to be done on earth as it is in heaven. Speak out because your heart is so full that to not speak would cause it to burst. Speak the truth from your heart with the love of God as your guide, and you shall never be moved.

Grace and Peace,
Andy B.

What Can You Say? Part II: The Luke Skywalker Analogy

Yesterday I wrote the first episode of what I hope will be a trilogy of thoughts about the topic of advocating for justice. Thanks for your comments yesterday; I hope today’s thoughts will generate some more. Here is my reflection question of the day:

Do I need a reason to speak out other than justice in the generic sense?
For example:
On the one hand: Why do I want to advocate for marriage and ordination for all people regardless of sexual orientation? Because I believe sexuality is a gift from God, and God’s justice (as articulated in the scriptures and revealed over time to generations upon generations of witnesses) seems to me to demand that all persons be valued as individuals with integrity and sacred worth.
On the other hand: Why does my conversation partner down the street want to advocate for a position contrary to mine? Because he believes same-sex practices are sinful, and God’s justice (as articulated in the scriptures and revealed over time to generations upon generations of witnesses) seems to him to demand that sinners repent of their sin in order to receive forgiveness and live in wholeness as the body of Christ.

I’m not trying to get hung up on homosexuality as an issue, but simply to use it as a case study. I am not gay, yet feel called by God to speak out for justice for those who are. I have no stake in the discussion personally, other than to affirm and advocate for justice. But my conversation partner is not anti-justice, for goodness’ sake! In fact, justice is a big part of his faith. So if justice is all I have, it just comes down to my version of justice versus his, and the conversation goes nowhere. Both of our opinions are informed and reasonable. But nothing gets changed, and we are stuck with the status quo.

But if I had a personal stake in the issue (i.e. if I were gay), things would be different. The justice would be more than just “as articulated in the scriptures and revealed over time to generations upon generations of witnesses,” it would be justice as it impacts my life directly. I know that injustice in one part of the body is injustice for all, but I am talking about a tangible, concrete manifestation of the injustice. (Likewise if I were poor or homeless or physically challenged etc.) My voice would carry more credibility, more authority, maybe more legitimacy.

Use my privilege to advance the cause of justice, you say. Use my unearned and undeserved power, granted to me simply because of the circumstances of my birth, to fight for justice and peace throughout the land, you say. (I have a friend who calls me “Action Figure Andy” in reference to my justice-fighting tendencies.) Yes, I hear all of that, and rest assured that I will continue to do so. That is a choice I am making in response to who God is calling me to become. I am definitely not trying to avoid the obligations of being a disciple of Jesus Christ, namely fighting for God’s justice on earth as it is in heaven. I’m just trying to work out my own salvation with fear and trembling!

Here’s an analogy that may be helpful, may be not. My hero is Luke Skywalker, the reluctant Jedi. Remember him? He becomes a Jedi knight, fighting for the cause of peace and justice throughout the galaxy, only after his own family is killed by the empire. And he is most impassioned about the quest when Han, Leia, and Chewie are in danger. There is energy in Luke’s fight because he has a personal stake in its outcome; his friends, his family, and even his own personal identity are on the line.

All my life, I have been lucky enough to experience injustice only through the lives of others. I’m not proud of that; I’m not “blessed” by that; it just is. But the Galactic Empire never burned down my uncle’s farm on Tatooine. My personal identity is not at stake in this fight. Yet I fight. I fight.

Tomorrow I am planning to write a “Part 3” to this reflection. After two rather deconstructionist posts, hopefully I’ll have some things tomorrow that9 will be more constructive. In the meantime, thank you for the fantastic comments on yesterday’s post, and I hope to see some more on this one.

May The Force Be With You,
Andy B.

What Can You Say?

Bill Bennett's recent racist remarks and Leonard Pitts' column this morning in response have given me some good fuel for reflection. Pitts own experiences of racism directed toward his family in particular gave his remarks a deeper level of credibility. In short, his race (African American) seems to have played a role in the integrity of his remarks. If I were to make similar observations, would my race (European American) somehow detract from them?

Can a white person speak on behalf of a black person? Can a straight person speak out against homophobia? Can a rich person advocate on behalf of the poor? Can a man take a stand against sexism? Can a person who lives in a three-story suburban home and owns two cars be an environmentalist? And so on ...

A seminary friend of mine was rather notorious for speaking on behalf of others whose particular context she did not share. I remember her asking one time, "How does this assignment affect those who do not necessarily believe in the divinity of Jesus?" Since I happened to know that she was 100% in tune with the divinity of Jesus, I was puzzled as to for whom in the room she had chosen to speak this time, and whether or not that person had granted her the authority to do so. It seemed to me that she had crossed a boundary with that one.

Another example: my good friend Roger was in the first Gulf War. I wasn't. We are just about the same age, so it would have been quite possible for me to be there with him. But I wasn't. Now, Roger and I find ourselves of a similar mind with regard to the war in Iraq - both of us are strongly opposed to it. But it just sounds different when Roger speaks out against it than when I do. He was there - I wasn't.

When does advocacy cross the boundary into condescension?

What cause can I (white, male, straight, mainline protestant, rich) honestly claim to advocate without risking hypocritical status?

How much legitimacy does one's own identity lend one's opinions?

Craving Feedback,
Andy B.

To Ordination ... And Beyond!!!

I am not ordained. I graduated from seminary in 2004, and there are three years from that date during which I am a "Resident in Ministry." My class and I are what United Methodists in Missouri used to call "Probationary Members of the Annual Conference" before we realized that was just a silly thing to call us. So now we are "Residents in Ministry" which we will be until June of 2007, when we will be ordained elders and deacons.

There are four components that comprise the residency process; continuing education, mentoring, covenant group, and an annual meeting with the District Superintendent. Upon successful completion of these four components (along with the intensive theological writing assignments and subsequent conferences at the beginning and the end of the process) one is ordained. Wahoo!

Individual reactions to this process are varied. One of my colleague residents this morning complained strenuously about being "forced" to have a mentor and participate in a covenant group. Although I did not see anyone locking a shackle around her ankle to keep here there, I heard a vehement resentment in her voice, as if THE MAN was keeping her down; as if one's Annual Conference actually daring to require something of its Residents in Ministry was Talibanesque oppression or something.

But deeper than my tongue in cheek response to her indignation, that kind of attitude is worrisome. The residency process is designed such that nothing required during the process should be discontinued upon completion thereof. In other words, the process ought to be formative, and instill spiritual disciplines that one will continue into ordained life in order to maintain spiritual health. Who would deny that frequent continuing education experiences, a healthy relationship with a sage mentor, maintaining a covenant relationship with a small accountability group, and ongoing communication with one's D.S. are spiritual disciplines that allow one to remain healthy throughout a life-long career in ministry?

The Annual Conference is not forcing us to do these things, the Conference is equipping us for ministry. One way to view the residency process might be as a series of hoops through which one must jump en route to the goal of ordination. Problem is, ordination is not an intrinsic goal, but rather a waystation of sorts along one's vocational journey. The things we are required to do during residency, rather than hoops, are tools we can continue to use in ordination ... and beyond!

Lectionary for Sunday - Befuddling

Year A: 20th Sunday After Pentecost
Matthew 21:33-46

Verse 43: [Jesus said], "Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruit of the kingdom."

Another round of Jesus versus the Pharisees. This is the middle of three parables in a row hurled without subtlety directly into the faces of the chief priests and elders. But what he lacks here in finesse, Jesus makes up for with sheer blunt force. He is relentless in his barrage against the leaders - the question about authority, the parable of the two sons, the parable of the wicked tenants (this week's text), the parable of the wedding banquet, and his deft rhetorical spar regarding paying taxes to the emperor. Like sledge hammer blows to a concrete wall, Jesus goes to work on the dismantling of the status quo, and he continues right on through the scathing diatribe recorded in chapter 23.

The leaders react. They are afraid of the crowd (21:26, 46) and they are angry enough at Jesus to want to arrest him, to plot against him, to trick him. But ultimately we read that "they were amazed; and they left him and went away" (22:22), and that they were "silenced" (22:34), "nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions" (22:46).

There is a simple word for what Jesus did to those good church people of his time. They were befuddled. I love that word - befuddled. I'm going to try to work it into everyday conversation this week. Just when they think they have it all together, just when they think that the way things have always been is the way things are always going to be, just when they are getting nice and snuggly in the footie pajamas of their privileged position, here comes a rabbi from Galilee with such befuddling words! "The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruit of the kingdom." How befuddling is that?!?!

The Gospel of Jesus Christ was, is, and most certainly should always be the ultimate befuddler of our lives. As soon as we grow complacent, lethargic, content, we can count on a befuddling confrontation with Jesus to reinvigorate our spirits. Like the most beautiful music happens in the space between dissonance and harmony, so too our lives happen in the space between vitality and lethargy, between pain and comfort, between brokenness and health. And most of the time, we are befuddled...

Bash These Banners

After reading the comments on the last post and getting a few emails from curious friends, I have succombed to the pressure and posted a picture of my banner creations. So now, with drumroll, here is a picture of the garage sale curtains that currently hang in the front of our sanctuary.


They are non-traditional. They are abstract. And they have generated quite a fuss. But I hope you don't misunderstand me. I did not put these up to intentionally be ugly. I actually like them! Can you see the golden yarn draped over them, symbolizing the cords of Christ's love which "bind us together" in love? (Click on the picture for a larger view). There are six such strands on each banner, for a total of twelve - the twelve apostles centered on Christ in their midst, perhaps? I mean, these things are deep, man. DEEP!

Anyway, here they are, in all their glory. I hope they don't make you mad. But if they do, cope. Who knows, "garage sale curtain" may be the next big thing in liturgical paraments. We are cutting edge here, dude!

Grace and Peace,
Andy the Banner Man

A New Stragegy for Ministry: Making People Mad

OK, here's the thing:

I have said and done more than a few things that people don't like too much. The most recent event: I changed the banners in the sanctuary last week on my own because I was tired of asking people to do it and then it not getting done. I guess that made some people mad. In fact, just before worship last Sunday morning, someone asked me, "Who put those horrible banners up in the sanctuary? They look like garage sale curtains." The look on her face when I smiled and informed her that the banners were my own artistic endeavor was, shall we say, priceless.

So, I am accustomed to the feeling of having people upset with me. Not that I go out of my way to make people angry, but I tend to speak from my heart and act impulsively, without allowing a lot of that silly "thinking" to get in the way. Better to ask forgiveness than permission, and all that jazz.

Here is the interesting thing, though. More than one person has told me recently, "If you aren't making a few people mad, you are doing something wrong" or some variation thereof. I've been thinking about that sentiment and what it means for ministy. I'm pretty sure some people mean it as a "Comfort the afflicted / Afflict the comfortable" kind of thing. Part of the pastor's job is to shake up the complacency of the elite and re-invigorate congregations trapped in their own lethargic inertia.

But there is another sense of it. If I am making a few people mad, that means I am actually doing SOMETHING. There is activity, energy is flowing, people are engaged. It is my desire as a pastor to equip people to engage in the life of the congregation, even if that means making them angry about something going on. Hey, at least they are paying attention!

So, perhaps the new banners that I spent thirty-one dollars and most of my Thursday afternoon creating will spark those angry people to start up a banner team for our worship services. Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants! I kind of like them, myself. I was going for the "garage sale curtain" look, and apparently I succeeded!

Smile,
Andy B.

The Royals and the Chiefs: Contrasting Attitudes

Now, the Kansas City Royals have been clinging to 99 losses for three games in a row. Each game has given them the opportunity to lose their one-hundredth of the season, but each of the last three games they have managed to avoid triple digits in the loss column. They have another opportunity tonight against Cleveland, so we'll see what happens. I am not overly optimistic.

Now, the Kansas City Chiefs have begun the season with two straight wins. The first game was against a playoff team and the second was on the road agaist a divisional rival, and they looked good in both games - not great, but pretty darn good. Monday night they go to Denver to play the Broncos, another divional road game that they can win. I am stoked!

What is the difference? Well aside from being two different sports and noting that the Royals players are awful whereas the Chiefs have actual talent, there is a different mindset, a different attitude. The Royals are waiting to lose, the Chiefs know they can win. These contrasting attitudes affect how they play their respective games.

I was just at a district committee meeting to consider the health of a recently started church in the area, and that new congregation's proposal to buy a building and some property. In the discussion around the table, I heard some contrasting attitudes about the church. Some were cautious, uncertain if this little start-up congregation should take on such a big risk as this property, which features a large building and 19 acres of land. But some were advocating that the congregation go for it and sell its current assets in order to buy this new property and follow where God's vision was leading them.

In short, some people were playing the game just waiting to lose, while some were playing believing we can win. It is a metaphor, so there is a limit to its effectiveness, but I think it is instructive for how we approach life together as the church. Without delving into the whole"winners and losers" identification, I think we can learn a lot about expectations, attitudes, and self-fulfilling prophecies.

A healthy church is going into each "game" expecting to "win." Drawing on the talent within the congregation, there is excitement and energy flowing, there are new and creative ideas being generated, there is warmth and openness, and people feel good about the team. An unhealthy church is going into each "game" trying to avoid a "loss." Struggling to maintain the status quo, there is rigidity and stubborness, there is that old lethargic "we have always done it this way" mentality, and people wonder why they bother to keep coming week after week except by some sense of duty or obligation.

I am humbled and happy to be a part of a church that expects to win every game we play. This congregation is remarkable, and I am fully aware of how lucky I am to be here. We are definitely a "Kansas City Chiefs" kind of church; we expect to win every game!

Go Chiefs!
Andy B.

Maybe Harps and Tamborines?

Dear Rainbow Readers,

I was privileged to overhear a fascinating theological conversation last Friday morning. I was a chaperone for our son Wesley's preschool field trip, and was driving three preschool boys up to the apple orchard. This profound exchange occurred between Wesley and his buddy Skyler.

It started with Skyler pretending to shoot imaginary "bad guys" out the back window of our car. Wesley said, "Skyler, Miss Spring (their teacher) says no guns."

Skyler repied, "I'm just shooting bad guys." The term "bad guys" as used by preschoolers, it should be noted, is not intended to be a gender-exclusive term. Cruella DeVille, for example, is one of the baddest bad guys there ever has been and ever will be as far as I am concerned. But I digress:

"Miss Spring says 'we don't do that here,'" responded Wesley sanctimoniously.

Skyler was frustrated, but not deterred. "Well, when I get to heaven, I'm going to shoot all the bad guys there!" he announced.

I was puzzled at this assertion, but Wesley did not miss the opportunity to challenge Skyler's eschatology. "There are no bad guys in heaven, Skyler."

This point deserved a little reflection. No bad guys in heaven, Wesley? Do you mean to say that all the bad guys go to a place other than heaven or are you implying that God's grace somehow turns everyone into a "good guy" when they get to heaven? If it is the former, will you explain to me your doctrine of grace, specifically contrasted with the notion of works righteousness? If it is the latter, how exactly is it that the "good guys" and the "bad guys" get along with each other in the midst of God's heavenly realm?

But Skyler took another tack. He does not give up easily, and will make a gifted lawyer or perhaps public official some day. He is creative and clever, and an amazingly articulate three year old. His reply, "If there are no bad guys in heaven, what are we supposed to do with all the guns and weapons and stuff?"

Aha! A good question. To which Wesley had the perfect answer. "There's no weapons there. I think we just get special musical instruments."

And that apparently settled the matter, because Skyler then abruptly changed the subject. I think he started talking about airplanes or something.

Hoping for a French Horn,
Andy B.

Katrina - It's About Empathy

I'm not qualified to assess blame for the failures in the material response to Hurricane Katrina. Was it mayor, governor, senators, representatives, president, FEMA director, homeland security guy, etc. etc.? I just don't know. People who are smarter than me about these things are already well on their way to assessing what went wrong and who is to blame. I am content to let them do that and chuckle at their buffoonery from the comfort of my living room chair.

I have never criticized anyone for their material response, even in my previous post, in which I said, "It’s not just about what they are doing; it’s about how they are acting." I am a local pastor in a mid-sized mid-western United Methodist Church; I have no authority to question material response. That is not where my expertise lies.

My expertise is in theology, scripture, discipleship. You know, churchy stuff. (Also in choral music, but that is neither here nor there for the moment.) I do empathy. I do compassion. I do love, grace, mercy, justice, peace - all those cool God things. And when I see a lack of empathy, I point to it.

Overall, the response of the government up til now has been marked by a lack of empathy for the poor.

Was it the mayor (moved his family to Dallas, Texas), or the governor (deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming semi), or the Louisana legislators (finger muscles strained from pointing at everyone other than themselves), or the homeland security guy (Grand Moff Tarkin), or the FEMA director (dewy eyed horse lover), or the president (looking forward to sitting on Trent Lott's fabulous porch), who was "responsible" for the mistakes of the past two weeks? I don't know, and anyone who tries to make this a political issue is a moron. (I mean that, of course, in the most Christian, loving way possible. ;)

Now, this morning in the paper, President Bush says, "I take responsibility." The buck has stopped, and President Bush is taking it on himself. This is good leadership. Say what you will about timing, this is good leadership. And acknowledging responsibility hints at the beginnings of true empathy for the victims. "Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government," the president said. And the nation nods in empathetic agreement.

When we are able to say, "I am responsible for you," it is natural that we feel empathy. Jesus was God with us and God for us, incarnate on our behalf. Likewise we, as children of God, have a certain responsibility for others that leads us to compassionate empathy when others are hurting, injured, and broken. Who is responsible in this story? President Bush may be taking that weight upon his own shoulders, but in fact we all are responsible for one another as children of God together in God's world.

Please Read This Blog Post

This Monday, I have too much in my head and too much on my heart. It is giving me a headache and a fever, so I am going to take a tylenol and go to sleep.

But before I do, I want to direct you to this blog post - click HERE.

Perspective. Insight. Depth.

The Untied Methodist is my hero.

G'night,
Andy B.

Katrina - Two Very Different Responses

When Barbara Bush saw the victims of Hurricane Katrina in the football stadium, she said, “And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them.”

When my seven year old daughter Cori saw the victims of Hurricane Katrina in the football stadium, she said, “They had to live on a football field for three days with no food or water?!? That’s mean! That’s not fair! Why didn’t they bring them any food or water?” and she promptly burst into anguished tears.

My daughter had seen the current issue of U.S. News & World Report on our coffee table, and Erin, my wife, went through it with her, telling her what the pictures were. Cori wanted to know. She has the sweetest, most compassionate heart of any human being I have ever met, and she wanted to know about the woman crying on the cover, the people sleeping at the football field, the children her own age now homeless and fighting just to sruvive.

Erin did not embellish anything; she told Cori what the pictures were. And the injustice of the situation was so apparent, even my seven year old daughter could see it. Or maybe ESPECIALLY my seven year old daughter could see it. Maybe my seven year old daughter is capable of seeing things that jaded adults cannot see.

President George Bush chuckles about the time he used to spend in New Orleans having “maybe a little too much fun at times” and laments the destruction of Trent Lott’s enormous home; FEMA Director Michael Brown seems to place blame for the huge death toll squarely on the impoverished people who could not afford to get themselves out of the way of the storm; Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff icily deflects responsibility by asserting that no one had predicted such a storm when in fact just about everyone with any knowledge of the situation was predicting disaster.

What gets me is that these are the people in charge, the people with the power, the people who control the resources. And they just don’t get it. It’s not just about what they are doing; it’s about how they are acting: arrogant, defensive, selfish, detached. It makes my heart ache to listen to them.

At a time like this, I have got to put my hope somewhere. And even though it is not fair to her, I am putting my hope squarely in the sweet heart of my daughter Cori. More than anyone else, her response to the hurricane aftermath is the most authentic expression of human empathy I have heard. “That’s mean! That’s not fair!” She knows that living on a football field with hundreds of other people is definitely not “working very well” for anyone. She knows injustice when she sees it. And she knows that it is all right to cry out in anguish when you need to.

Shalom,
Andy B.

Katrina - Dishonoring the Poor

"...and they were working people, poor people, whose money was their strength, the very substance of them, body and soul, the thing by which they lived and for lack of which they died."
- Upton Sinclair, The Jungle

I do not want it to be true, so I am desperate for someone to convince me that it is not. I sincerely desire with all of my heart to be persuaded of its fallacy, but I fear that no one will be able to. Someone please persuade me of the error of this observation:
Many of the victims of hurricane Katrina seem to be in their present unimaginable state simply because they are poor.

It seems to be why a) they could not afford to flee from the storm before it hit, b) the government is being so frustratingly slow in responding to the need, and c) so many are resorting to such desperate, illegal, even violent measures to ensure their own survival and that of their families. I wish that it didn't seem so, but God's honest truth, that's how it looks.

a) If you have a car with gas in it and a bit of money or a credit card, you can flee, and probably have already. The stories of families welcomed into free hotel rooms, church basements, and private homes are really inspiring. But if you have nothing, what then? Even if you decided to get out of the way of Katrina, where would you have gone and how would you have gotten there if you are living paycheck to paycheck, just barely able to feed and clothe your kids?

b) The torrent of the hurricane has been met with a trickle of governmental response, even to the point of putting blame onto the victims themselves for living in a city built below sea level. The bitter, defensive attitude of our government, so familiar to the nation by now, has led them to offer this rather weak excuse: "We couldn't have done any more because the storm just came on too fast." But there is plenty of evidence that the prediction of this disaster was given in plenty of time. I really hate to even ask this question, but it needs to be asked: How would the governement responded differently had a well-to-do area been flattened instead of an impoverished one?

c) The government told the people to go to the Superdome or to the Civic Center, where help would be waiting. They went there, and there was no help. For days and days, there was no help. Armed thugs began to push people around - rape, murder, assault. Honest people began to break into stores simply to get diapers for their babies and water for their families. Police officers and fire fighters have committed suicide in the face of the overwhelming crisis. The situation was described as anarchy by more than one eye witness. The eyes of people interviewed on TV tell stories more horrorific than the actual words uttered. They are exhausted, beaten, ancient eyes. Desperate to survive.

"My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favoritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ? For if a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in, and if you take notice of the one wearing the fine clothes and say, ‘Have a seat here, please,’ while to the one who is poor you say, ‘Stand there,’ or, ‘Sit at my feet,’ have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers and sisters. Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not they who drag you into court? Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you?" (James 2:1-7, NRSV)

Money. "The thing by which they lived and for lack of which they died."

I hope I'm wrong. I fear I'm not.

- Andy B.

There is a lot of information at the UMCOR website. Please do whatever you can.

Change-or-Die Part 2

After reading a couple of comments and having a few conversations with some good people, I would like to clarify something about this Change-or-Die thing from a previous post.

I am not against, afraid of, or otherwise opposed to change per se. Rather, I disagree with the motivation for change that I have heard church leaders lament, namely, that change is necessary in order to prevent the church from dying.

In fact, I think the church most definitely needs to change (we might even say reform), but not just to stay alive. That is a selfish, narrow-minded, and short-sighted motivation. Rather, the church needs to reform in order to stay faithful to the mission to which God is calling it. In order to continue conveying the Gospel, the church must interpret its message into a language that will be understood, and that will require continual and continuing reformation.

When my seminary class on our Brazil trip needed to communicate, Larry served as our "interpreter," not as our "translator." The disctinction is critical. A translator just takes the message word for word and relays it. But an interpreter takes the meaning of the message and conveys it, making sure that the hearer understands. The church can be, and ought to be, the primary interpreter of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So that makes it impossible for me to simply say to someone, "Jesus died for you" without interpreting it so that she or he will understand what that means.

I think the church needs to change the way it interprets the Gospel, so that the meaning (which remains unchanged) in conveyed in a lanugage that will be understood. Some of those changes will include "smaller, more intimate communities of faith that are open, relaxed, and center around experience, encounter, and relationship" rather than the "large, high-intensity organizations that were demanding, strictly organized, and centered around belief, morality, and membership." (Quotes are from my previous post). This is not change for the sake of change; this is not "Change-or-Die"; this is not even about changing in reaction to those nasty mega-churches ;) This is about changing in order to remain faithful to the mission to which God is calling us.

Grace and Peace,
Andy B.

More Katrina Response Options:

One of my good friends, a nurse here in Kansas City, sent me this email:

Andy,
Would you please also pass on the desperate need for blood donors at this time. The increased demand for blood due to injured Katrina victims is minor when compared to the loss in normal collections. Possibly thousands of units of blood and blood products are normally collected in the gulf region. That has stopped and it will be a very long time before they will be approaching normal collection volumes. Also, the rest of the country is understandably distracted by the disaster. Donations nation wide will drop as people make assisting hurricane victims their focus. All of this at a time of the year that is always difficult for maintaining an adequate blood supply. Everyone is getting their kids back to school and going away for Labor day weekend.
People can go to www.kcblood.org for donation sites and information.
Thanks,
Wendy

I got this info today from the Missouri Conference:

Jim Wagner in the Gateway Districts office compiled this list of sites where information is being exchanged about displaced people.
Here’s Jim’s message:
Either you or members of your congregations may be searching for family and/or friends who have been displaced by Hurricane Katrina. The following are websites where information is being exchanged. This information will also be posted on the district website later this morning for anyone who needs it (www.gatewaydistricts.org):

Craigslist - New Orleans
http://neworleans.craigslist.org/ccc/

Missing Persons Forum
http://www.nola.com/forums/searching/

Red Cross and Salvation Army
http://katrinaconnection.com

CNN Katrina Safe List
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/hurricanes/list

Full Circle
http://www.fullcircle.net/Blah.pl?

Katrina: Family - Friends Forum
http://pub11/bravenet.com/forum/875918109

Volunteer database created
Max Marble has created a database of people willing to volunteer time, equipment, space in their homes, etc., to help hurricane refugees. Those wanting to volunteer in any way can go online and fill out the form Max has placed there. Go to http://www.umocm.com/Hurricane%20Katrina.htm.

And this story came through the Missouri Conference email today, also:

Refugees find shelter in Sikeston
The Sikeston community in southeast Missouri is pulling together to assist the dozens of refugees who traveled into Missouri and finally found shelter from Hurricane Katrina in Sikeston. Geoff Posegate, pastor at First UMC in Sikeston, says that they’ve had between 60-100 people seeking refuge each night. On Monday, when they discovered that there were needs, the church organized efforts to feed refugees and provide whatever additional help was needed. Last night, First UMC hosted a meeting with other churches and community members to further organize the efforts. He said they filled their chapel with people who wanted to help, and they plan another coordination meeting tonight. Debbie Austin, a member of the congregation, started the ball rolling, along with Jill Hopson, the church’s small group ministry director, and Kendall Elledge, their children and family ministries director. For more information, or to offer help, call the First UMC in Sikeston at 573-471-3283.

What can you do? Give blood; write a check; make a "flood bucket" to send to UMCOR; open up your home to refugees; pray. God's children are called to response - I urge you to act.

Grace and Peace,
Andy B.