Conferencing

Charge Conference, the annual meeting of the congregation, has come and gone. We prayed together, we sang together, we heard from Church Council chair, I gave the ten reasons that “everything is going to be okay,” and our District Superintendent received our reports and offered a few thoughts of his own. Then we prayed again, sang again, and we were done.

Whew!

What a very Methodist thing to do, “Conference.” That’s one noun that I am happy to make into a verb! It is so good to sit down with a group of friends, look into one another’s eyes, and ask “How are you doing?” Not in the beer commercial way – “Howyadoin?” and not really expecting a response, but genuinely asking about how things are.

How are we doing? I know that we can overanalyze things, but “the unexamined life is not worth living,” as Socrates said. It is good to stop and take a very close look at things every so often. Not too often, so that the over-examined life becomes no life at all, but often enough that we stay fully aware of the moment, fully grounded in reality. Envisioning the future is much easier to do when one has a realistic picture of the present.

Charge Conference is a congregation’s opportunity to ask, “How are we doing?” And it just so happened that this year’s Charge Conference corresponded with two other events that answered the question pretty effectively – a Volunteer Appreciation Gala and a Ministry Fair. The energy, the people, the excitement, the displays of discipleship – all were wonderful and all said, “We’re doing pretty good, actually!”

Some churches schedule Charge Conferences as if they are penalties to be paid for being a part of the United Methodist Connection. That’s too bad, really. They miss a beautiful opportunity to do something distinctly Methodist. To Conference together to pray, examine, and support one another in Christian love and encouragement is a wonderful practice. It happens at the levels of denomination, jurisdiction, annual, district, charge, class, and even personal.

Who do you conference with? Who looks you in the eye and asks you “how are you doing?” and really means it? And who do you have the privilege of asking the same?

Or Maybe We Didn't ...

Voting Machines Elect One Of Their Own As President


Hat tip

Yes We Did

I feel odd. Nothing has changed and yet nothing will ever be the same.

I can’t think of any other word than ‘unbelievable.’ This is unbelievable.

I feel like I can tell my children they can be president if they want to and mean it this time more than ever.

I feel like the words, “the content of his character” mean something today that they never have before.

I can’t stop singing “Do You Hear the People Sing” in my mind. “The music of a people who will not be slaves again…”

My cousin in Spain says that international opinion about the United States has changed literally overnight.

I don’t ever remember being inspired by a losing candidate’s concession speech before last night – McCain was wonderful.

I actually heard the announcement from John Stewart on his live show just before 10:00 central time.

That’s right, I learned that our nation had made history from The Daily Show. Perfect!

Barack Obama said that his victory alone is not the change we seek, but only the chance to make that change. I happen to believe that his victory is a symptom of the change that is already happening.

This morning, everything has changed. I am just amazed by what we are witnesses to. We live in a country that actually had to amend its constitution to affirm that black people were worth more than three-fifths of a person, and now a man of mixed race is going to be the president.

Unbelievable. That’s all I’ve got – unbelievable.

Yes, I Saw Barack, Too!

Happy Election Day Eve, everybody!

First of all, I'd just like to say congratulations to "saggy" for posting all those comments on the last post from the PHONE! Amazing! Your thumbs must be buff!

Secondly, I was mistaken in the last post when I implied that the U.S. was fighting in the second World War at the time of Roosevelt's speech. World War II was being fought, but the U.S. did not officially join it until after Pearl Harbor was attacked in December of 1941. Roosevelt's speech was in January 1941.

Thirdly, Yes, I did go to see Barack Obama on Saturday night here in Springfield at a rally held at JFK Stadium, a High School football field. So now I have seen Governor Sarah Palin and Senator Barack Obama live - either the first woman ever elected to be Vice President or the first African-American ever elected President. I can say that I've been a part of history, and that's pretty cool, no matter whose little box you check tomorrow!

I arrived in the area and parked my car on a side street, then hiked a mile to the end of the unbelievably long line. There was a lot less political conversation in this line, I noticed. But that may have been just the people I was standing by. We walked by only a handful of protesters, but they were very nasty ones - a sign that said "Hitler drew big crowds, too" and one that said "Obama doesn't just want change, he wants all your money." We were called "morons" by one particularly angry guy. I am so grateful that the handful of really mean people there are most definitely not representative of McCain supporters in general.

The rally was an impressive sight - the estimates I read were 30,000 people. I stood at about the 20 yard line and the stage was set up in the opposite end zone. Because I'm tall, I had a clear view of Claire McCaskill, who introduced Michelle Obama, who introduced Barack Obama. Jay Nixon was also present, but he didn't speak.

After a little glitch with the sound system, McCaskill started her part by saying, "I'm confused. Somebody told me there weren't any Democrats in Southwest Missouri." Well, of course that got a huge reaction, and set the tone for the rest of the rally. There was a lot of cheering and it was generally an upbeat mood all around.

Obama gave a pretty standard stump speech, and there wasn't anything particularly new or different than normal, with one exception. He made a big deal about Dick Cheney saying he would "be delighted" to have McCain as president. Obama thanked Cheney for his endorsement, in fact, and said that it was proof that McCain would just do the same things that the current administration is doing.

But other than that, it was the standard Obama speech, using lines that he has been using for the past few days now on issues of economy, war, education, health care, energy, the environment. (Though he did get in a pretty good zinger when he said that "99.9% of all plumbers make less than $250,000 a year.") He seemed energetic and his voice was strong, though I can't imagine how exhausted he must be - how all of them must be actually! What a gruelling process this is. Is this really the best way to do this?

Two moments of the rally were most profound for me. The first was when he looked out at the crowd and said he wanted to take a quick poll. He guessed that there were about 40,000 people present and he asked everyone in the crowd making less that $250,000 a year to raise our hands. Well obviously, everyone raised their hands - at least everyone I could see. Then he said, "Those of you with your hands up, your taxes are not going to go up." And then he proceeded to give the info on his tax increase affecting only 5% of the country, and so forth. I'm sure you've heard those details before. (btw - Greene County had a median income of $41,162.)

The second moment was when he was contrasting one of his positions with McCain's position, and the crowd started booing. He kind of cut us off, saying, "You don't need to boo, just go vote." I had read about him saying that before, but to experience it made an impact on me. The crowd did not boo any more after that. By way of comparison and for what it's worth, Governor Palin did not stop the crowd at her rally from booing.

I have decided for whom I am going to vote tomorrow, and I hope that you have too. I hope that if you are planning to vote for a different person than I am, we can still be friends. I hope that if you are voting for the same person I am, we can still be friends, too! I hope that the United States will join together in support of whatever leaders are elected tomorrow, and work together to ensure that our national future is prosperous, safe, and free.

But I have got to say, along with the apostle Paul, that my biggest hope is that we who are Christian affirm the belief that "our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ" (Philippians 3:20). That means that whatever tomorrow's election results are, our primary allegiance is to God. Whoever we elect tomorrow to lead us in earthly, temporal matters, our leader in all matters is Christ.

I'd like to close with a prayer that I'll be praying tomorrow.

God of all that is,
we thank you for this day of opportunity.
Every day is a day of opportunity,
because you give it to us.
Our nation is electing leaders today, and the process so far
has been gruelling
and tedious
and sometimes bitter
and even angry.
Forgive us, we pray.
Forgive us for relying on ourselves instead of you.
Forgive us for prioritizing earthly concerns ahead of you.
Forgive us the animosity we have at times felt
against our brothers and our sisters - your beloved children of this world.
Please send your spirit to be with those we elect
and those whom we do not elect,
to give guidance, to encourage,
to give peace, to comfort.
Whatever leaders we choose this day,
remind us again and again of your presence
over us, within us, around us, underneath us.
And through us, Holy God,
we pray that your love and grace
would be made known
throughout all of your wonderful creation.
In the name of Christ Jesus - Amen.

Sharing the Wealth = Freedom from Want

President Franklin Roosevelt famously talked about four freedoms in his address to congress in January of 1941. Freedom of expression - Freedom of religion - Freedom from want - Freedom from fear. In Roosevelt's speech, he spoke of these freedoms as the central values for which we were fighting the second world war.

I heard these freedoms mentioned again on NPR this week, and I've been pondering over it since then. It was stated in the interview that you might not be overly concerned with the first two freedoms if the second two are being violated. In other words, when you are hungry, freedom of speech is not at the top of your priority list. When you are scared about losing your job, you don't really care as much about everyone's right to worship as they want.

I think that these four freedoms have to be in balance across a society in order for the society to flourish. When one of them is out of whack, the whole system is affected. And I see (granted, from my own personal perspective on things) that we are not a society that is free from want. Poverty is a global issue, and I think it is the priority of our time.

Secondarily, we are not a sociaty that is free from fear. But I think that our fearfulness is at least in part a result of our poverty. When resources are limited, people start to be afraid, and start to act out of that fear.

Look, I understand that each of us has a particular perspective, and that each of us views the world "through our own lens." I do it all the time, I know that. I am grateful for the many regular readers of Enter the Rainbow who respectfully share their own, contrasting perspectives, too. (Diana, Joseph, Larry B, John, Kansas Bob, I'm looking at you!)

With that said, my perspective includes a preference toward compassion for others, and a priority toward eliminating poverty. I did not pull that perspective out of mid-air, but lived into it - in prayer, through study of scripture, in my experience with the foster care system, working with the immigrant community in Kansas City, and growing up in a family that taught me to live a certain way.

Starting from this perspective, I nevertheless want to learn as much as I can about others'. Which prompted my question in my previous post. All of your answers were very helpful - thanks.

Here's my next observation/question, then:

I understand a perspective that says, "I want to share with others, but would rather do it on my own than entrust the government to do it for me." But is that really what the emotional reaction I witnessed at the Palin rally saying? I kind of think it was more like, "It's my money and I'm keeping it for myself." In short, I do not think the reaction was against the idea of the government spreading the wealth, but against the very idea of spreading the wealth at all. I don't know, maybe y'all can help me out with that one, too.

Ensuring our nation's freedom from want will inevitably make our nation stronger. That's my perspective as a citizen of the United States.

Ensuring our world's freedom from want will hopefully help God's creation to flourish. That's my perspective as a child of God.

Yes, I Saw Sarah

Yes, I went to see Sarah Palin here in Springfield last Friday. It was fun, to tell the truth. I rode my bike to Bass Pro Shop from my house – about a 45 minute ride – chained my bike to a street sign and walked around the block, through the parking lot of a next door shopping center, and almost ¾ of the way around the next block to get to the end of the line.

Standing in line for a couple of hours with Palin supporters was an interesting experience. I overheard most of the standard Republican talking points, plus a lot of the misinformation spread by those viral emails, but there were a few notable comments. Like the guy who would “really like to see his birth certificate” just to make sure Obama is really a U.S. citizen, or the guy whose solution to the gambling thing is to just get “the poor people” to make better decisions with their money, or the lady who said of Obama that you could put lipstick on a donkey but he would still be an ass. But mostly it was just people standing in line, chatting about small talk and trying to stay warm.

After a couple hours, the line began to move steadily and we filed into the area through a gauntlet of security people from several different agencies. No metal detectors or individual searches, though. I made my way into a spot where a 6’2” person might stand on tiptoe and periodically catch a glimpse of the stage. There was as gospel quartet singing at the time. They were followed by a glimpse of a guy who might have been Kenny Hulsof, then representative Roy Blunt delivered a standard stump speech, then there was a long pause … and we kind of started shuffling around. Finally a voice announced, “Ladies and gentlemen, here she is – Naomi Judd.”

The whole crowd kind of chuckled because the build up had prepared us for Palin, but we got Naomi Judd instead. I was actually kind of surprised by what she said, because she talked about her own personal sorrow that Sarah Palin was being criticized so much by so many people. About how unfair it is that “because she is a woman” she is being held to a different standard of scrutiny. Which was odd because I kind of thought the McCain campaign was trying to stay away from the whole “victim” topic. But there it was, and it got a big crowd response.

Well, then Naomi introduced Palin and she came out with her two daughters, who sat on the stage with Naomi Judd as their mom talked. She was really upbeat and had a lot of energy, apologizing for keeping us waiting because she didn’t want to leave Bass Pro Shop which reminded her of home. In her speech, she really didn’t say anything new, though she focused a lot on her passion for families with children with special needs. Mostly though it was just the routine stuff.

I noticed that by far the strongest reactions came when she talked about spreading the wealth. The crowd was very energetic, with “boos” and “no way” and a lot of other negative stuff all around me. It was very strong, the energy was very high – probably the most intense moment of her speech.

We are doing a series at church about discipleship that uses this scripture as a part of the foundation:

2 Corinthians 8:13-15 - I do not mean that there should be relief for others and pressure on you, but it is a question of a fair balance between your present abundance and their need, so that their abundance may be for your need, in order that there may be a fair balance. As it is written,‘The one who had much did not have too much, and the one who had little did not have too little.’

…and so I’ve been thinking a lot about sharing the wealth. Now, far be it from me to proof-text something like that, but I do think it is kind of a foundational idea in scripture – it is the basis of a lot more than just this one passage. So I am a bit confused about how some people are reconciling these ideas – on the one hand the scriptural admonition to share resources with one’s neighbor, and on the other hand the apparent aversion to doing so.

(I’m sure that someone reading this can leave a comment to help me to figure it out. And I’m not trying to stir up anything, I honestly just want to know the reasoning here.)

So anyway, she spoke for a half an hour or so, and it was pretty exciting. I saw John McCain in 2000 when he stopped at a small rally in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart in Galesburg, Illinois. And it was exciting then, too. It is exciting to participate in the process of government. We live in one of the few countries in the world where the people are free to do so, and it is a shame that many U.S. citizens take that fact for granted.

That’s one of the coolest things about the whole Obama-meets-“Joe the Plumber” incident, an idea that gets overlooked in the campaign rhetoric. A U.S. Senator, running for president, took the time to stop and talk to an ordinary citizen. It was not a passing comment, but a real conversation about real concerns. It was not a supporter, either, but a man with whom the candidate disagreed, and they said so. An ordinary person expressed disagreement with a sitting Senator and presidential candidate, out in the open, on the street in front of TV cameras and other witnesses, for a significant amount of time.

That is truly amazing, when you really think about it. And that’s why I went to see Sarah Palin – not that I support her or not but that I support the process in which she is participating. The people we vote for and the issues we vote on really do impact our lives, and it is very important that all of us participate, learning as much as we can about each candidate and each issue, and voting thoughtfully and intelligently.

So when she got done speaking, the rally was over. Palin walked off the stage and shook hands with the people who had the advance tickets up front, but most of us in the crowd kind of just wandered off. I hiked back to where my bike was and pedaled back home again. Nothing that happened Friday is going to change the way I vote next week, but it was still pretty cool to be there.

Proposition A Thoughts

This is a tricky one, I have to admit. I am "thinking out loud" here, so bear with me...

On the ballot here in Missouri, Proposition A does a few things:


- raises taxes on casinos in Missouri, from 20% to 21%,
- caps the number of casinos in Missouri at the present number (I think there are 12),
- eliminates the loss limit, which currently is $500 per two hours,
- designates the revenue generated will go toward education.


Ameristar Casinos and Pinnacle Entertainment are the two big sponsors of the proposition, and have put in over 6 million dollars combined in their effort to get it passed.

Hmm ...

Given that gambling is a bad thing, and given that education is a good thing, what should we do about Proposition A? Increasing taxes on casinos would be good. Eliminating the loss limit would be bad. And capping the number of casinos in the state would be good on the one hand because there wouldn't be any more casinos, but bad on the other hand because the existing casinos would benefit from the lack of competition.

More money for education is good, but funding schools using money that comes from gambling losses seems a wee bit unethical to me. And I'm not so sure that this plan actually increases overall funding for education (more on that below). Plus it kind of seems like the casino industry is trying to use the feel-good issue of education to get legislation passed that will really help them a lot. It just feels like we might be getting played on this one.

Take the loss limit itself. Right now you can only lose $500 every two hours, maximum. But Proposition A says, "The commission shall regulate the wagering structure for gambling excursions [including providing a maximum loss of five hundred dollars per individual player per gambling excursion], provided that the commission shall not establish any regulations or policies that limit the amount of wagers, losses, or buy in amounts." To me, that sounds like a contradiction. A maximum loss of $500 per player per trip, but no regulations to limit on the amount of losses? What? Having cake and eating it?

There's something fishy in there, and I think it ends up favoring the casino at the expense of the individual, and the family. Without a loss limit, a compulsive gambler could lose the family's house in a few hours. And the casino feels really bad about that all the way to the bank.

Now, a few years back, when Missouri voted to allow gambling at all, we were told that the money would go to education. But it ended up replacing money that had come from the general revenue rather than supplementing it. The language of the current proposition seems to say that won't happen this time, but color me skeptical.

The proposition says, "The schools first elementary and secondary education improvement fund shall be state revenues collected from gaming activities for purposes of Article III, Section 39(d) of the Constitution. Moneys in the schools first elementary and secondary education improvement fund shall be kept separate from the general revenue fund as well as any other funds or accounts in the state treasury."

Okay, that seems legit. But there is no way to guarantee that future state budgets will not lower the amount budgeted to schools from the general revenue fund, rationalizing that since there is all this new money in this new "Schools First" fund, there doesn't need to be as much from the general fund. It doesn't matter if the money is "kept separate" if the amount from the general fund is lowered - the end result is the same. Casinos make even more money than they are, and schools get the same level of support they always have.

At the moment, I just can't see how Proposition A is a good thing.



For more info:
Here is a website in favor. Here is a website against. What do you think?

Wikicommentary

Go Rays!

I'm at a loss. First the Missouri Tigers lost on Saturday. Then the Kansas City Chiefs got crushed on Sunday. My fantasy football team, the Pulpit Pounders, lost big. Football really let me down this weekend.

So, let's see what else is on ...

hmm ...

What the?!?!? They're still playing baseball? Well, I guess I'll check it out.

Now wait a minute - who's in the World Series now? Tampa Bay? Are you kidding me? The flippin' Tampa Bay Rays are in the World Series?

Truthfully, I'm pretty pumped for the World Series. You know why I've gotta root for the Rays, don't you? The fifth smallest market in Major League Baseball (Milwaukee, Kansas City, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh are smaller); the fifth youngest team in Major League Baseball (Oakland, Washington, Texas, and Florida are younger); ended last season with the worst record in baseball - and they are in the World Series. Who doesn't love a story like this?

For those of us who work in churches, trying to do miraculous things with limited resources is a situation to which we can really relate! And you gotta love it when a group who puts a priority on talent over experience succeeds at this level. Then you add in the whole "worst t0 first" dynamic, and I just can't help rooting for these guys - worst record in baseball in 2007 and then, undaunted, focused on their common goal, they keep on playing and come back the very next year to make it to the Series!

Come on, people. Let's hear it - Go Rays!

A New Mission - Part 2

I could not agree more with Richard Hamm when he writes, "True enough, new members are necessary if a congregation is going to be there for future generations. But such a maintenance-oriented church will not attract younger people: they will be attracted by a congregation's sincere desire to live and share the gospel and to meet the needs of people." (Recreating the Church, p. 64).

I actually think that the reason a lot of people stay away from the church is because of the perceived disconnect from what the church says it is and what people actually see the church doing. Here are 5 Fruitful Examples drawn in part from Bishop Schnase's book:

- The church says it is practicing hospitality, but they love each other so much that the church is actually "impenetrable" to any guests who may want to be a part of it.

- The church says that it offers transformative worship, but the most noticable sign in the sanctuary is the one that says "NO FOOD OR DRINK," the services are mostly routine, and everyone just sits passively and never expects anything wonderful to happen.

- The church says that faith development is important, but does not offer small group meetings at times and places when and where it would be most convenient for people to gather.

- The church says that mission and service are important, but only offers sanitized opportunities that are pretty much guaranteed to be safe, the outcome is fairly certain, and no personal investment other than a little money and a little time are required.

- The church says that discipleship is what it's all about, but then spends the whole stewardship campaign talking about money and the church budget.

Those are just 5, off the top of my head examples. I know that there are more. Gertrude Stein once said about Oakland, her home town, "There is no there there." And this has become the root issue for the church, especially in the mainline. We invite people to churches that look like the town they built at the end of Blazing Saddles - all facade with nothing behind them.

The point is not to focus on invitation alone, but rather to focus on the substance of what it is we are inviting people to.

Hamm uses a good analogy - a grease factory with no shipping department. It didn't need a shipping department because all the grease they made there was used to lubricate the grease-making machinery. (p. 67)

Whatever it may have meant at one time, the mission statement "To make disciples of Jesus Christ" is insufficient now. It is perceived as having to do only with increasing numbers, and that is a self-serving and therefore self-defeating mission. Susan Cox-Johnson has a post up about mission and in it she writes that churches do not have a mission, churches are the mission. In other words, in the way a church lives, in its liturgy, in its polity, in its community service, in its very being, a church is its own mission.

This means that when the pithy mission statement on the website doesn't reflect what actually happens when the church gathers together, you've got trouble. Big trouble. Not the kind of trouble that drives people away, but the kind of trouble that does absolutely nothing to attract anyone. As Bishop Schnase says, it is not a back door problem, but a front door problem.

I don't feel bad about any of this, either. This is an absolutely amazing time to be serving in a mainline church! It is an opportune time to "live and share the gospel." The emerging spiritual ethos, the spirit of renewal and recreation, the waves of change that are crashing all around us, all create a milieu in which some beautiful things are happening.

It is a bit chaotic, and a bit uncertain, a bit mysterious. And that's okay! Actually, that's kind of the point.

As Susan says, "I don't know, friends, but I guess I miss the mystery somehow." I guess I do too.

A New Mission for the Local Church - Part 1

I'm reading "Recreating the Church" by Richard L. Hamm.


He writes about organizational patterns, following common wisdom that organizations start out as dynamic movements, become institutionalized, then bureaucratized, then typically begin to decline. The reason for the decline, he says, is that the "bureaus" of the bureaucracy "become less concerned about the work of the organization than they are about 'life inside the box'." (p. 28)

In other words, the bureaucracy becomes focused on "self-service and survival" instead of the mission of the organization.

Herein lies the church's inherent tension. When the church defines its mission as "making disciples" and making disciples is defined in terms of increasing attendance and membership numbers, we get caught in that self-service loop. The bureacracy wants to turn from internal to external in order to revitalize the organization, but that turn is itself defined in terms that are focused internally.

Using Hamm's language, when the church tries to transform the way our bureaucracy functions, we correctly say that we need to be driven more by mission than survival. However, when the mission is subsequently defined in terms that sound like survival, nothing really has changed and we are right back where we started again. It actually perpetuates the problem to define the mission of the church in self-service terms.

So I think we need a new mission.

There, I said it. Whew! I feel so much better with that out there! But really, I think that a church whose mission is exclusively drawn from Matthew 28:19 is missing something. Surely there is more that disciples of Jesus are supposed to be doing that making more of us. When the institutional crisis is defined as shrinking numbers and the institutional mission is defined as growing numbers, you've got a big mission problem.

I don't think the church's problem is an organizational problem or a relevance problem or a generational problem. (Sorry, all those experts who are way smarter than me.) It is not a problem of a lack of clarity in mission, either. I think the problem is that the mission we are trying to be so clear about is actually counterproductive to the attempt to stem the decline of the institution.

(I'll write more next time about the reasons I think the church is in decline, which are in fact much more ingrained and may be more difficult to address.)

A new mission is needed. Different than, "...to make disciples." I have a few ideas. How about, "The mission of the local church is...
- ...to be disciples of Christ in all nations."
- ...to love God and love neighbor."
- ...to bring good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor."
- ...to announce and embody God's reign on earth."
- ...to make the world a better place."

Mission foci like these would give people something to be disciples of. Imagine this conversation.

Church person: Please come to church with me!
NonChurch person: Hmm. Why?
Church: Because our mission is to make disciples, and so that's what I'm doing.
NonChurch: So what would I do when I get there?
Church: You would make disciples, too.
NonChurch: So you are inviting me to church so that I'll invite people to church?
Church: Yes.
NonChurch: Sorry, I think I'll go to Starbucks.

See, the point of Starbucks is coffee, not getting people to come to Starbucks. People come to Starbucks for an actual reason - to drink coffee. I guess I'm saying that I think people need a better "actual reason" to come to church.

+++
I've got more; I'm saving it for my next post. But I'm still working on it so I'll have it up in a few days. And I hope that all of you reading this understand this is all me thinking here, just working ideas out onscreen. I am hopeful that any comments you might have will help me processing my thoughts, and I look forward to reading them!

On the Nature of Pastors

On the MMPI test, pastors usually get about a 90% NAR score. NAR measures the "Need for Affirmation and Reinforcement."

We usually score from 90 - 95% on the PAS scale. PAS stands for "Paranoid Subtle" - it is a measure of perceived specialness.

And then there is the OH number, which runs on average from 85-90%. OH is "Over-controlled Hostility."

So basically that means we get really upset about the one person out of one hundred who didn't like the sermon that God obviously inspired us to preach, but we pretend it doesn't bother us at all. We're just a bunch of insecure divas with anger management issues, when you get down to it.

But honestly, why do these psychological test numbers tend to line up in this direction for pastors? Do these inherent personality traits make someone pastoral? Or does being a pastor tend to make someone this way?

A lot of pastors joke about our psychological assessment as a test to see if we are crazy enough to be a pastor! (ha, ha - very funny.)

Personally, it never fails but that for the 99 people who got something out of the sermon, I will fret over the 1 who complains. I like to make a decision that makes people happy. I line up pretty well with the NAR score, I've gotta confess.

And I have been known to talk about how God called me into this ministry. How much more special might I think I am, for goodness sake? So yep, I've got your PAS, right here!

I would talk about my OH level, but that would just make me mad so I'm not going to.

All of this stuff is instructive for a couple of reasons. First of all, pastors are people who need a trusted friendship with someone who neither has power over the pastor nor over whom the pastor has power. Not another pastor of the same denomination who is or may one day be a supervisor. Not a parishioner. Someone to talk to with complete trust and openness, in order to process and deal with life, to express emotion and vent the tension.

Secondly, a lot of pastors just need to get over ourselves! Unpuff your ego for a minute and just be okay with the fact that you are a fallible human being who can't make everyone happy all the time. By the way, I think one way to do this would be to fail on purpose! You know, like preach a real stinker of a sermon or make a really inane suggestion at a board meeting or something - "I was thinking of designating this coming Sunday as 'bring a rutabega to church Sunday' - what do you think?"

I'm not trying to make light of anything, but maybe some of the pressure on pastors comes from pastors' own expectations of ourselves, moreso than our perceptions of what our congregations expect of us. I'd venture to guess that the most important thing for a congregation is just to know and get along with their pastor. In other words, just be friendly. Be nice. Smile.

People in the congregation know that the pastor is a real person, and do not expect perfection. Relax - be yourself - have fun! I don't know if our NAR, PAS, and OH scores would go down any, but we'd probably be a lot happier.


(I learned all of those numbers from Rev. Jerry DeSobe of the Krist Samaritan Center in Houston.)

Big Church

Here's some of what I brought home from the conference for first-time pastors of large churches in Houston last weekend. I went in with some preconceived notions, and I came home much more realistic ...

Preconceived notion = in big churches it's all about the money.
Reality = big churches are engaged in some of the most transformative ministry I've seen.

Preconceived notion = all big churches are comprised of conservative evangelicals.
Reality = big churches are wonderfully diverse.

Preconceived notion = there is one right way to organize a big church.
Reality = big churches are just as contextual as small churches.

Preconceived notion = big churches are all contemporary in worship style.
Reality = from high church to rock and roll and everything in between and all around.

Preconceived notion = the bigger the church, the less personal contact between people.
Reality = no matter what size of congregation, human psychology indicates that you will have close associations with about the same number of people. Small groups are the key for any size congregation, once you get past the idea that you have to know everybody.

Preconceived notion = pastors of big churches flash large, impressive numbers to convey "success" in a boastful tone.
Reality = some do, but most are more interested in boasting about the ministries happening, and the people participating in them, using numbers simply to describe them.

Preconceived notion = big churches are more businesslike.
Reality = churches can/should be more churchlike, no matter what size they are.

Preconceived notion = serving a bigger church would be hard for me.
Reality = it is!

Nonetheless, this past weekend liberated me to understand the task in a new way, assuring me that I can do this with my own personality and approach, that I do not have to fit into someone else's mold of "big church pastor" in order to flourish in this role, and encouraging me to claim my identity and my place in the church. I do not have to compromise who I am in order to do this. In fact, I'll undoubtably have more success in this appointment if I don't.

I'm a pastor in a big church, and that's okay with me!

What I Am Learning ...

I am in Houston Texas this weekend, at a conference for pastors who are serving large membership churches for the first time. We are meeting at Memorial Drive UMC, where two of the pastors are leading us through conversations about vision, staff, money, administration, and that kind of stuff.

On my mind a lot is this statement: You are not a pastor any more; you are a leader.

The point being made was that the person-to-person interaction with the congregation is going to be greatly lessened in a large membership church. Rather, more time would be spent in discernment and articulation of the congregation's vision, and nurturing the spiritual health of the staff and other leaders so that they in turn can engage that person-to-person ineraction.

Okay. But I don't know if that means I'm not a pastor anymore. I don't want to be not a pastor anymore. I want to be a pastor in a different congregation, and subsequently change my approach to pastoring. But I'm still going to be a pastor. I think the statement was intended as a rhetorical device to make a larger point, but it kind of ruffled my feathers a bit.

On my mind a lot is this statement, too: When trust is up, speed is up and costs are down. When trust is down, speed is down and costs are up.

Bingo! Almost worth the price of admission in and of itself, this statement is what needs to come from me back to Campbell over the next few months. Trust is very low right now, as is evident in a variety of ways. And guess what? It also takes us a lot of time to get anything done, and it also is very financially tenuous right about now.

And so to become more flexible and to cut our expenses, we have to raise the trust level all around. Which means that I have to model that trust (going to Houston for the weekend and inviting Melissa to take the pulpit) in everything I say and do. It gives me a focus that I think we can latch on to - TRUST. It will come slowly, as all change does in large congregations, but we have to get there.

I have a lot of other thoughts on my mind as a result of this conference, and we still have a day and a half to go! But I have to split now and get over there for worship. More later...

Maverick for President

Apparently now one of the criteria for president is being a maverick. But that is just begging the question, which maverick?


So please cast your vote to the right - and in the comment section below include the rationale behind it. Which maverick would make a better president?

a) Brett Maverick
b) Lt. Pete 'Maverick' Mitchell
c) A Ford Maverick
d) Dirk Nowitzki

Reporter Column

If anybody happens to read the paper version of my latest post that the United Methodist Reporter has reprinted and notices that it begins with a reference to something that happened "last Sunday," rest assured that it did not. It actually happened months ago, in June, and I posted about it then.

I emailed Amy at the Reporter about it, and she changed the online version to "recently" so that's cool, thank you Amy. But the print version is out there, and I just don't want anybody thinking something happened yesterday at church and they missed it!




Update - The Dallas Morning News website has linked to the online version of this UM Reporter column that started out as this blog post. And the dish ran away with the spoon.

Hip - Contemporary - Evangelical = Apparently Not

My stomach hurts. In an article at STLtoday.com, I read this sentence.

Set in a field amongst the St. Charles sprawl, Morning Star Church is part of the United Methodist Church, but it looks and feels more like a hip, contemporary evangelical congregation.

The underlying assumption? That a United Methodist Church couldn't possibly be "hip, contemporary," or "evangelical." It's as if the very idea that a mainline church could be doing something like Morning Star is doing in their worship services was just too mind-boggling for the writer to comprehend.

If you read the whole article, you'll see that it is about a really cool practice they have at Morning Star UMC. People are encouraged to send text messages to the church's cell phone during the sermon. These messages are screened and sent within seconds to the preacher's laptop computer. Mike then reads the questions and addresses some of them in his message. LOVE IT! Completely cool idea!

What makes my stomach hurt is the surprise expressed by the article - as in, "Y'all aren't going to believe this, but this is happening in a United Methodist congregation! Crazy, huh?" Since when is it so shocking that Methodists are evangelical? Arghh!

Is there anyone reading this who is still unconvinced that the public image of the mainline church is very seriously damaged? There are thousands and thousands of people who wouldn't even think of a denominational church as a place where their spiritual thirst might be quenched - not because of any animosity, but just because of simple ambivalence. It's not that they hate the church, it's just that they don't really care about it.

And without seeing the irony, it seems to many of us that the mainline is still doing battle to "win people" into their congregation. I can't even count how many times I've heard someone use the expression "win people for Christ." "Win people"? What? Evangelism isn't a fight anymore. We are not battling for people's souls; their souls are just fine, thank you. It's not really a fight when nobody is fighting against you, it's just a tantrum. You can't "fight against" ambivalence because people who are ambivalent ... um ... are ambivalent! This, incidentally, is another reason that my stomach hurts.

Morningstar UMC's innovations are exciting and definitely will help to convey the gospel in a language in which it can be heard. And in doing so they stand firmly in the Wesleyan evangelical tradition of "becoming more vile" in order to communicate the love and grace of God through Jesus Christ. (That's how John Wesley described the innovation of preaching on the street in his day, btw.)

I long for the day when the fact that a United Methodist Congregation is doing such creative, cool stuff does not result in "Crazy, huh?" but rather "There they go again!"


(btw - if you read the article, be sure to peruse the comments that people have left. There are some pretty interesting critiques of the practice that are worth reading.)

Change Like a Tiger

I root for the Kansas City Chiefs.

HEY - I hear you snickering! Watch it!

Anyway, as I was saying, I root for the Kansas City Chiefs. And they are terrible. The game last week between the Raiders and the Chiefs may have been the ugliest football game I have ever seen. They stink.

But I know them. They are my guys. And I'd rather root for a horrible team that I know than try to find another team to root for that might be better. I could root for a team that would be fun to watch, a team for whom there was a sliver of hope, a team that could run a wider variety of plays than Kansas City, whose offense seems to consist of running Larry Johnson into a huge pile of linemen three times and then punting.

But to do that, I'd have to learn about a-whole-nother team - players, colors, logos, coaches, everything. All of that change and then I wouldn't even be 100% sure that they would win the Superbowl, anyway. So I stick with the hapless Chiefs, who as I have mentioned before, stink.

I wonder if that's what the Hebrew people were feeling when they got hungry in the wilderness and complained to Moses in chapter 17. Their complaint was that in Egypt, at least they had food. But out here in the wilderness, there's just nothing! In other words, they knew Egypt. Bad as it was, at least they knew it. The wilderness was new, and despite Moses' leadership up to this point, they saw no hope that things would get better any time soon.

What's that expression? Better the devil you know...

Now add to this that I also root for the Missouri Tigers. This is also a team that I feel like I know. These are also my guys.

And they pretty much kick butt.

Number one offense in the NCAA, two legit Heisman Trophy candidates, hands-down favorite in the Big 12 North and some say the Big 12 championship game. In the past few years, they have completely transformed their offensive scheme and recruited a ton of really talented players to run it. And I must say that it is a lot more fun to root for a team both that I know and is also really, really good! I'm sure not about to change to rooting for a different college team; it's not even on my mind to do so.

So, speaking of changing the church -

Is there a way that transforming the church can be more of a Missouri Tigers than a Kansas City Chiefs experience?

A lot of people in the church seem to me to be reluctant to change because we prefer the church that we know to the unknown future church that might be. Even if the church we know may be stagnant, irrelevant, lethargic, it is at its core ours - or so we like to think. (Yes, I could drop in an argument at this point that the church is really God's, but for the sake of this discussion bracket that out for the time being.)

But maybe transformation of the church could involve both a sense of hope and also a sense of "ours." To infuse that which we already know with a new energy, to revive that which is familiar, to rejuvenate that which for so long has been obligatory and routine - this is the kind of change that I would like to witness in the church.

The Tigers didn't change their team colors, fire Truman the Tiger, remove the big "M" from behind the north end zone of Faurot Field, stop playing football, scoring touchdowns, making tackles. But the Tigers completely transformed their identity as a football team, which meant they completely transformed the way they play football. So they are still "our team" and also they are exciting to watch.

To be sure, I believe that the church needs to change - or better said, that the church is changing before our very eyes. But I really and truly do not think it has to change to the point where we don't even recognize it anymore. I'm going to root for the church, because it is "my team" and more seriously because I am called by God to serve through the church as a pastor. But I'd rather be rooting for a church that not only is "my team" but also in which I witness a sense of hope, energy, and excitement.

Emptying My Head

It's funny how many things can take priority over writing for my blog. Things like

1) Getting to know a seven year old foster daughter who has been placed in your care,
2) Parenting two sensitve, tender-hearted children into a new school year at a new school in a whole different town,
3) Getting ready to teach 17 of your peers in a brand new, never done that before continuing ed experience,
4) Preparing to lead a Bible study in a congregation that you are still learning about,
5) Day-by-day, moment-to-moment pastoring stuff.

So I haven't written in a week, but that doesn't mean I have't had thoughts, ideas, blog-worthy things popping into my mind. (My friend Dave is always trying to say something "blog-worthy" when we're together, in hopes that I'll include him. Hi, Dave!) Make no mistake, my not posting for a week does not indicate that I have nothing to say. Actually I never have anything to say, and that rarely ever stops me from writing anyway. My mind seems to continual fill and refill with thoughts, 98% of which are completely random and absolutely unhelpful!

When I have other things that crowd out writing time, I can feel it. It's almost like writing out my thoughts for Enter the Rainbow is exercise, and when I don't exercise, I get a bit stiff. Yesterday in fact I was actually grouchy, my thoughts were scattered, and I had a killer headache, and I think it was because I hadn't written in a while. Today is better. Today I have found a moment to write.

And so, my thoughts travel from mind to hand to screen to blogosphere. Catharsis. Release. Ideas no longer contained in my head, but "out there" for all to read. Like I have turned a valve and released pressure, I can feel myself stretching out, warming up, breaking a metaphorical sweat. This post isn't even about anything; it just is. And even so I feel better after writing. Nobody's life will be changed reading this post. And yet I continue to write it, even so.

You want some content? Check out Tony Jones latest about the limits of religion. Or Bill Tammeus writing about how religion can be a downer. Or take a read on what Brad Bryan has to say about the ordination process.

As for me, I'm just writing to empty out my head.

Foster Family Again

Foster care is on my mind this week. Those who read the Rainbow regularly know that we are a foster family, and we see that as a big part of fulfilling our calling. And as of this week we have officially transferred our license to Greene County, having moved here a couple of months ago.

Within hours of having our name "out there" as an available foster care family, we had received two calls. Literally. Less than one day. If that doesn't say something about the need for foster and adoptive families, nothing does. So as of this afternoon, we will be a family of five for a while as we welcome our new foster daughter into our home!

Now along with that, I read a news story within the past couple of days (though now I can't remember where) about a move to try to make adoption and foster care more difficult, if not outlaw it altogether, for single adults. I'm sure I do not need to go into much detail about why I would think this is a colossally stupid idea.

We need MORE foster care, not less. The training for being a foster parent is rigorous - 30 hours of classwork, certification in CPR, first aid, and medication, 15 hours a year of continuing ed to keep up with new trends, not to mention the meticulous requirements of the household itself - insurance, fire escape plan, electrical outlets covered. They even make sure your pet licenses are up to date!

It is already pretty hard to become a foster parent, and by the time you get licensed, married OR single, you have been through a process of discernment and reflection that is designed to make sure both 1) the system wants you and 2) you want to be in the system. The bottom line is, being a foster care family must be a vocation or you won't be able to do it. If it is not truly a life calling, you will be frustrated by it.

Those who would make it impossible for single people to be foster parents are implying that they would rather have kids put into residential facilities than private homes. I have nothing whatsoever against residential facilities, but I cannot see how that would be better for the kid in any way, shape, or form.

Anyway, we are back into the foster family world, after a few months of adjustment as a result of our moving. We ask you all for your prayers and good thoughts sent our direction. And if you are thinking that God might want you to be a foster family, too - give us a call! We'll get you pointed in the right direction to make that happen.

Pastoring Without Preaching

I find myself with a week ahead of me that does not contain within it the expectation of a sermon at the end of it. Rev. Melissa Dodd is preaching Sunday morning, and I will be serving as the worship leader.

And may I just say, "Ahh."

It feels really good to have this week in which maybe 12 - 15 hours of time is freed up by what would have been sermon prep. And now it can be ... well, it can be whatever I want it to be, can't it? Visits, reading, writing, planning, working on Ministers' School, preparing for the PLD class I'm co-teaching, taking communion to some of our homebound folks ... pretty much sky's the limit!

I would not feel this way if not for the presence of my gifted colleague in ministry, Melissa Dodd. I am free to have a week like this because I know that I do not have to worry about this Sunday at all. She is an excellent preacher, engaging and challenging, and I can't wait to hear her preach.

(As an aside, I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to wish Melissa a wonderful birthday today. Out of respect for her privacy, I will not share with you all exactly which birthday this is, but there is a zero at the end of it and it is not thirty.)

The other thing that having a week like this does for me is make my own preaching better. I think that he key to better sermons is to preach less often. I heard that years ago at a Ministers' School, and I've never forgotten it. It gives me more time and energy to focus on the sermons I preach, the weekly preparations become less of a grind and the sense of joy is renewed. Plus I have a chance to listen to a good sermon, which fills my soul and stretches me spiritually.

And so ... "ahh" ... I'm ready for a wonderful week of pastoring without preaching.

Pulpit Pounders - 2008 Lineup

I've writte such frivolous, silly posts lately, I thought I would do something a little more serious. Here's the lineup for my 2008 Fantasy Football team - the Pulpit Pounders.

Quarterback - Peyton Manning

Running backs - Marion Barber and Darren McFadden

Wide receivers - Marques Colston, Marvin Harrison, Anquan Boldin


Tight end - Donald Lee

Defense / Special Team - Philadelphia Eagles

Kicker - Adam Vinatieri

With this line-up, I see nothing other than complete domination all season long. Let the pounding begin.

Changing the Tone - a Political Opinion ...

Spoiler alert: I am about to express a political opinion. For those of you who do not feel it is appropriate for pastors to have, or at least to express political opinions, you may want to skip on ahead to another blog. You have been warned ...

I've been watching the political conventions, and all four presidential and vice-presidential candidates say that they want to change our government. They all say, essentially, that the government isn't working like it should and one of the main things they all want to do is change it. McCain's line is "Washington is broken." Obama's line is, "Yes we can."

Additionally, in order to give evidence for the need of change, they all list off many of the same symptoms - high gas prices, the ubiquitous but poignant "single mother" story, unattainable health insurance, the ongoing war in Iraq, jobs being sent to foreign countries, deteriorating relationships with our global partners, and so forth. Both conventions featured litanies that were remarkably similar.

But there is at least one very stark difference between the two campaigns in how they talk about changing things.

Obama says, We are going to change things but they are not. Whereas McCain says, We both are going to change things, but ours will be 'good change' whereas theirs would be 'bad change.' This is a pretty big philosophical difference. I like McCain's approach better, because at least he is acknowledging that Obama has some new ideas. He just doesn't like them. Obama is just saying that McCain just has old ideas, and would offer nothing new. I don't think that's fair.

Actually, what I truly believe is that neither one of them is going to change things all that much. The two-party bureaucracy that is the U.S. federal government is so entrenched, so ingrained, things are going to pretty much function as they have been for a while, and a new president is not going to make that much of a practical, policy level, this-is-how-we-get-things-done kind of way. I mean, the checks and balances of our system of government are there for a reason, right? I remember high school civics class - the president just doesn't have unlimited power.

How the president can change things, in my opinion, is by the tone that is set, the atmosphere in which the government operates. Truly great leaders motivate the people around them by creating an atmosphere of enthusiasm, support, and encouragement. This atmosphere is contrasted with bitterness, selfishness, and just downright meanness that can cripple any environment in which people work together - a business, a church, or a government.

So I'm going to be listening to the two campaigns very closely over the next few weeks, to hear the tone that is being set. Because if they talk about change in a bitter, selfish, and mean tone - that's really no change at all. That's how Washington is now; it's what McCain means when he says it is broken. How ironic it would be if they talked about changing things using the exact same tone that they are trying to change! That just wouldn't work.

But, if they talk about change with enthusiasm, support, encouragement, and (dare I say it without sounding partisan) hope, then they will be modelling the change they would bring. I believe that politicians lead like they campaign, and if you campaign with bitter name calling and mean attacks on your opponents, that's probably how you will lead, too. If you campaign by saying, I'm going to force my agenda through, no matter what others think, that's probably how you will lead, too.

And on the flipside, if you campaign by saying, I'm going to work together with many different people, try to bring together many different sides of every issue for dialogue, and listen to as much information as possible from all sides before making a decision, well that's probably how you will lead as well.

And in my opinion, that would be a pretty good change.

So Barack, John, Sarah, and Joe, if you read this, here's what I want to hear from you. I want to hear respect and hope and open mindedness and willingness to admit you are wrong and the ability to compromise and thoughtfulness and integrity and good humor and humility.

And here's what I don't want to hear from you. I don't want to hear what your oppenent is or is not going to do - I want to hear what YOU are going to do. I don't want to hear about your opponent's experience or lack thereof - I want to hear about YOURS. I don't want to hear any details about your opponent's personal life including their kids, their spouse, their faith, their beverage of choice, and so forth - I want to hear about YOU, as much as you are willing to share.

Don't tell me why I shouldn't vote for the other one, tell me why I should vote for you. Tell me how YOU will change the tone of our government.

Or better yet - show me!

Ritual and Event

In preparing next Sunday's sermon, something caught my attention that hadn't before. In Exodus 12, the description of the Passover ritual precedes the event itself, and then in fact, when the actual events of that night are described, it is with just a few sentences, almost in passing.

There is a huge build up, and then ... fffwwip ... it is gone.

God first describes the ritual to Moses and Aaron - they in turn give that description to the people - and it is reported that "the Israelites went and did just as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron." (12:28) The ritual descriptions are elaborate and detailed, and many commentators say they represent fragments of a few different versions of the story. And then the actual enactment of the instructions is only briefly mentioned.

This has made me think about the relationship between ritual and event. In my mind, if a ritual is a prescribed procedure or a specific patterned behavior, an event is just any ol' thing that happens. So a ritual is an event but not every event is a ritual.

Rituals bring the meaning and power of events into the given moment. As Terence Fretheim puts it in the Exodus commentary of Interpretation series, "The reenactment is as much salvific event as the original enactment." So it makes sense that at this point in the Exodus story, the redactor of the book of Exodus is divinely inspired to record this chapter as an ancient worship planner.

So basically Exodus 12 is a set of liturgical instructions for a ritual designed to reenact an event that, in the sequence of the book of Exodus, hasn't happened yet. That in and of itself gives great power and meaning to subsequent reenactments of the event. It is as if the ritual, in a sense, is the event.

This idea gets more wonderful when you think in terms of baptism and holy communion. The baptism ritual is more than empty words and a splash of water. Holy Communion is more than going through the motions of a meal together. Each of these rituals convey power in that they reenact and thus are an event of history brought fully into the present moment, both in rememberance of the past and also in anticipation of the future.

And here's my final thought: we need not equate ritual with rigidity. Ritual is not just a fancy way to say "the way we've always done it." Ritual is alive and moves and changes as we change. Ritual is the structure of life like ice crystals are the structure of a cloud. We need to repeat ritual exactly in order for it to retain it's power. What is important is that it retain it's power, not the form in which that power is conveyed.

I wonder if that's why the Passover ritual has a moment when the children are to ask, "What do you mean by this observance?" (12:26) What a wonderful moment! If you can't answer a child when they ask, "Why are we doing this, again?" you should probably stop doing it. Because then your ritual will have become a rut.

Counting Houses

I am not very naïve. A little bit, probably, but not too much. I know that big-time politicians are rich people, and most have more than one home. So I’m not naïve; I understand how a person who is smart enough, influential enough, and ambitious enough to become a well known politician – say, a U.S. Senator, for example – would naturally end up being pretty rich.

But I am trying really, really hard to get my mind around being so rich that you lose track of how many homes you own. I mean, really? It seems like it would be an easy question, doesn’t it? “How many homes do you own, Senator McCain?” Even just taking a few moments to think about it and then replying would have been better than, “I’ll have my staff get back to you on that.”

So then that adds a layer. I now have to get my mind around being rich enough to have a staff that you could pay to count your homes for you for the purposes of answering the question of how many homes you have. By the way, do you think he asked one person, or did he appoint a task force? Was it, “Hey Joe, do me a favor and count my homes, would ya?”

Like I said, I’m not naïve, so I know that Senator Obama is rich, too. He probably owns a few homes himself. He’s smart, influential, and ambitious enough to be elected Senator and nominated for president, which means he’s probably loaded up a bit of cash along his way.

How out of touch with median-income-$50,000-citizen are you when you actually lose track of how many homes you own, and have to defer the question until your staff can do some fact-checking? In what world must you live, and how in the heck are you going to make sure the working poor can afford health care by the way, when you have to use more than one hand to count your homes?

I’m not saying that being extremely wealthy automatically disqualifies someone from leading the country, either. But it would be nice if someone would remind me of the distinction between a republic and a plutocracy again. The line seems to have grown a bit fuzzy.

Bolt

Usain Bolt is a fast man. He runs faster than any human being alive and for that matter - any human being who has ever lived. He not only won the Olympic sprints, he made the other runners, who also happen to be very, very fast people, look slow.

And not only is Bolt fast, he runs so easily that it actually looks like he's running slow, kind of jogging along. I know he's not, but it just shouldn't look so easy, you know? If he is going to crush the competition into oblivion, at least he should make it look like he's working at it.

Not only is Bolt fast, and not only does he make it look easy, he has a really good time while he's doing it, and it shows. He's out there posing, mugging the camera, dancing, taking off his shoes, messing around with other runners - he's having fun. He's 22 years old, the fastest human on earth, and he's having fun.

Which, apparently, is not okay with the Olympic people. "That's not the way we perceive being a champion," said Jacques Rogge, the International Olympic Committee president, and confirmed stick in the mud. It seems Bolt's behavior might be perceived as disrespectful to the other runners, and not fitting for an Olympic champion.

Never mind the thousands of people screaming their lungs out in the bird's nest for him

or the other runners obvious admiration for his accomplishment, saying things like, "I love watching him when he does his thing" and calling him names like "Superman 2."

But the sight of a young man thumping on his chest and throwing out his arms at the end of a race is just too much for the IOC, or at least for its president. He said, "He might have interpreted that in another way, but the way it was perceived was 'catch me if you can.' You don't do that. But he'll learn. He's still a young man."

I think it's that "You don't do that" line that gets under my skin. Because when Rogge says "you don't do that" of course what he means is "I don't do that." Obviously, Usain Bolt does do that, and Rogge just thinks it is somehow not reflective of the Olympic attitude or something.

And because "he's still a young man" that means obviously he just doesn't know what's appropriate. The corollary being, if he were older he would therefore know what was appropriate and then act ... well, ... appropriately. But it doesn't cross Rogge's mind that Bolt might, in fact, know exactly what Rogge thinks would be appropriate and has another idea altogether about what "appropriate" really is.

AS USUAL, I see something here that the church might learn. (You knew I'd get to it eventually, didn't you?)

Here's the question: How often do church people say "You don't do that in church" when what they really mean is "I don't do that in church"?

And further, how much do church people say, "The young people might be a bit ... 'energetic' ... now, but they're young and they'll learn how to act more appropriately when they grow up" or something along those lines? As if being energetic in church is something we should grow out of over time.

MAYBE, JUST MAYBE the people in church who are doing things differently know exactly what all those "church people" think would be more appropriate, and have their own ideas about what makes something appropriate.

And maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't expect the young people in our churches to one day grow up to be just like all us old folks. Maybe we should just let everybody be who we are and figure out how to be okay with that.

Usain Bolt says, "I do not compare myself to other people, I am just trying to be myself." And I for one love watching him be who he is.

Update: Pink hair in Springfield schools: Disruptive? Apparently, "You don't do that" also applies to hair coloring. I hope Springfield School administrators are rooting out all those teachers who are hiding their grey!

Blog Post In Print

Hey - what do you know? My"Distinctly Methodist" post has been picked up and published by the United Methodist Reporter.

click here

Yikes!

Vacations are Fun

Two week vacations are good things! I highly recommend them. Here was ours:

Chapter one: Springfield, Mo.
- Springfield Cardinals game, Silver Dollar City, Discovery Center, Dickerson Park Zoo









Chapter two: Osage Beach, Mo.- Swimming in the lake, Swimming in the pool, Hiking at Ha-Ha Tonka State Park, more swimming in both lake and pool, mini-golf at Pirate's Cove, general hanging out and being lazy, watching the opening ceremony of the Olympics, and did I mention there was swimming?













Interlude: Columbia, Mo.
- Getting together with Bryan family, worship together at Missouri United Methodist Church, singing with my wife and kids, baptism of nephew Braeden, hearing my brother Brad preach.









Chapter three: Trout Lodge (YMCA of the Ozarks)
- Three-plus days of family reunion with Bryans from Dallas, TX; Valencia, Spain; Frankfurt, Germany; Stoughton, WI; Milwaukee, WI; Vancouver, British Columbia; Columbia, MO; Kansas City, MO; St. Joseph, MO; and Springfield, MO. (Did I forget anyone?)
- More swimming, paddle boats, canoes, rope swing, water slide, mini-golf, hiking, horses, hay ride, barn dance, camp fire, zip line, frisbee, washers, ladder golf, Elephant Rocks State Park, and general hanging out and relaxing - it was truly wonderful!



And now we are back in Springfield, ready to get rolling again. The kids have a week until school starts, and so that's on our minds. We're getting our house ready to receive foster kids, maybe in a month or so. We're enjoying the last few days of summer with sunny skies and delightful, air-conditioner-free temperatures. And we're starting a series on the book of Exodus at church, plus getting things set to go for fall programming.

Oh, yeah, one more thing - we are completely addicted to the Olympics, as a lot of people are. Go world!

A Little Tony J Love

Tony Jones, who is coming to Missouri Ministers' School in January, is currently doing what he is calling the Church Basement Roadshow.

Take a look at it - click here.

On the website, the Roadshow is identified as "A Rollin' Gospel Revival is rumbling across the U.S. this summer, bringing good fun and good news to anyone who will listen."

I gotta tell you, watching this video, reading his book, and keeping track of his blog, I am more and more excited about his presence at Ministers' School this year. And I confess that I love seeing "Missouri Ministers' School" listed on his speaking schedule!

It may sound a bit like I have a little bit of a clergy-crush on Tony, a guy I've never met but only communicated with via email. Maybe a little bit, ... yeah, I guess I do. But he writes things like this:

...for this group, the message of the gospel is unchanging - it's been figured out, once and for all, never to be reconsidered.
But to another group, the methods and the message of Christianity are bound to be reconceived over time. Indeed, if one changes the methods, one will inevitably change the message.
Another way of saying this is that the Christian gospel is always enculturated, always articulated by a certain people in a certain time and place. To try to freeze one particular articulation of the gospel, to make it timeless and universally applicable, actually does an injustice to the gospel. (New Christians, p. 96)

We could spend all three days of Ministers' School talking about this one idea (and I am hopeful that we will!). What's the difference between saying "the Christian gospel is always enculturated" and "the Christian gospel has been co-opted by culture"? And whose culture are we talking about, by the way? Suburban middle class? Rural poor? Urban inner city? And so forth ... ?

Anyway, I'm really excited about meeting and working with Tony, and I'm hoping the 2009 Ministers' School turns out to be a pretty cool event.