ZEAL

Here's a question. In the attempt to find middle ground so much of the time, have we neglected zeal? Have we become too conciliatory, even complacent?

And then, in a "Screwtape" kind of twist, have we called our complacency good by affirming the importance of grace-filled, respectful dialogue to the detriment of zealous pursuit of God's mission in the world?

I know, I know. Just read the description of my blog in the header above this post and you'll realize that dialogue is important to me. The conversation really does matter, this I believe. I just wonder sometimes, at what price?

In John 2, the scripture for this week, Jesus marches into the Temple and makes a whip with which he scares away the animals being sold for sacrifice. He then overturns the tables of the people exchanging their money for Temple currency with which to buy the animals, now driven away by Jesus's zeal for God's house. Essentially, Jesus is pissed off! And by putting this story at the beginning of his version of the Gospel, John emphasizes that Jesus's entire ministry is motivated by his passion for God, for God's house, for God's people, and for God's way.

There is no respectful, grace-filled dialogue in this story.

See, I think maybe we shouldn't look for middle ground all the time. And furthermore, I think that when we disagree, we can do so with zeal and passion without worrying about violating some unwritten rule about not offending another person. There are times when another person needs to be offended, and I may just be the one to do the offending!

But maybe, just maybe this isn't an either/or proposition. Perhaps we can have respectful, grace-filled AND zealous, passionate dialogue, all at the same time! It is fear that keeps us from this pursuit. We are afraid of losing favor by expressing our zeal to it utmost. At our core, most of us just want people to like us. And there's really nothing wrong with that.

And what's more, we are afraid of the attacks that may come. Blogging has taught me a lot about the difference between expressing an opinion with zeal and being a jerk. One of the biggest issues with blogging is the freedom allowed by anonymity, which allows many people to disguise simple jerkiness with a veil of zeal. But it is a thin veil indeed, and very easy to penetrate.

But if we zealously confront that which is counter to God's mission in the world with righteous energy and restlessness for what is right, we can do so without being a jerk about it. Public figures who are trying to spout off sound-byte worthy phrases do not have zeal, they are being jerks. But, in another twist that "dear Wormwood" ought to try some time, the jerks plead zeal for their cause as an excuse for their atrocious behavior, making admirers and millions of dollars along the way.

So I would really like to reclaim zeal as a good thing, and especially within the context of respectful, grace-filled dialogue. Enough with the artificial middle ground; enough with being a jerk in zealous clothing. Let's really be "Christlike" again and show a bit of zeal for what really matters to God.

So I'll ask you - What are you zealous for? What fires you up? What really grinds your gears (and not in a Peter Griffin kind of way, but really)?

For what would you be willing to make a metaphorical whip of cords and drive some metaphorical sheep out of the metaphorical Temple?

U2 on Letterman

No offense to Sting intended, I'm sure.

Crowds, Disciples, and Pharisees, Oh My!

In the Gospels, there are groups of people who seem to represent different facets of Jesus’ ministry. I resist categorization, and try to avoid labeling people. But for the sake of conversation, here are a few.

LABELS:
There are “crowds.” The crowd is the generic. There’s nothing particularly bad or particularly good about the crowd. Jesus teaches the crowds, and feeds them. The crowds come to see healing miracles. The crowd is kind of the nameless backdrop for the action.

From the crowd come “disciples.” Men and women who choose to follow Jesus step out of the crowd and become students and adherents of his teachings. Disciples pattern their lives after Jesus’ life. Jesus has special relationships with them, and many of them are named. Mary, Martha, and Lazarus come to mind, for example.

From the disciples Jesus calls the 12 “apostles.” The twelve have a particular mission in Jesus’ ministry, and he appoints them to various tasks. In some cases they are imbued with divine power for miraculous healing. They comprise a kind of “inner circle” of disciples, and their names are listed specifically.

Two other groups are present throughout the story, one of which is a target of Jesus’ anger, and one of which evokes particular compassion.

The “scribes and Pharisees” are the purveyors of hypocrisy and corruption, and incur Jesus’ condemnation on several occasions. They are the powerful minority in Jerusalem, who unjustly control both religious and civil life for all the people. They are propped up by the might of the Roman Empire, which has granted them limited temporal control of the people to the local authorities, until such time as their armies are needed.

And then there are the “outcasts,” the people that no one else cares about. They are people whom the “crowd” shuns, people at the outer margins of the social structure. It seems as though Jesus has a particular compassion for this group of people, often reaching out to an outcast in spite of the criticism it frequently invokes. Healing people with leprosy, sharing a meal with “tax collectors and sinners,” or defending a woman caught in adultery all illuminate Jesus’ special compassion for outcasts.

MOVEMENT:
Sometimes people move from group to group, and most often this movement is from a group to become a “disciple” – an outcast named Mary Magdalene, a Pharisee named Jairus. Maybe a crowd member even becomes an apostle – like Bartholomew (what did he ever do?). Sometimes even an outcast becomes an apostle, like Matthew the tax collector. But rarely does anyone move the other direction. It might be argued that Judas was the noteworthy exception.

The movement we witness most of the time then, is from “farther away from Jesus” in the direction of “closer to Jesus.”

If we think about evangelism as “something that our lives, as disciple of Jesus Christ, exude as a way of being vehicles of God's love-filled grace” (Adam Gordon), then the goal of evangelism must be people moving closer to Jesus. How much of what the church does is effectively working toward that goal? What are we sharing with the “crowd” that will help us move closer to Jesus? How are we in ministry with the “outcasts” so that justice and mercy will come to bear? What are we saying to the “scribes and Pharisees” of our day that will challenge and illuminate God’s will?

IT’S ME, O LORD:
Of course, the question that precedes ALL of those is, “How am I myself moving ever closer to Jesus?” It’s all too easy to label someone as an “outcast” and think that we privileged Christians need to get her moving closer to Jesus. To tell the truth, there have been many people I have known that may have been labeled “outcast” by someone who have helped me move closer to Jesus than I can describe.

Furthermore, it is all too easy to stand in the “crowd” and consider myself a “disciple,” or even an “apostle” called by God to a particular mission. This condition is perhaps even more pervasive, and quite insidious in contemporary Christianity. Our congregations are filled with gigantic crowds of self-professed disciples. And remember, there’s nothing wrong with being in the “crowd;” Jesus loves the crowd, too! But it’s not discipleship.

I need to remind myself always that Jesus is the one doing the inviting, and I’m just acting as his ambassador. And at the same time, I must stay open to receive from others the Christian invitation to a life of grace myself. Evangelism is relationship, relationship is invitational, invitation is mutually shared among all.

Evangelism / Invitation Question -

In yesterday's long boring post I said, "When did we decide to substitute “invitation” for “evangelism”? These words are not synonyms, and yet many of us treat them as though they were."

Here's my question, then. Do you think of evangelism as invitation, or is there something else to it? If so, what?

Evangelism and Invitation

Here’s my newsfeed article for the week:

He called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” (Mark 8:34)

Jesus invited. He called out to people and asked them to follow him. He went to people in their “natural habitat” and asked them to enter into a new life, a life in relationship with God. Jesus did not wait for people to discover him, he went directly to people and extended the invitation personally.

There is a beautiful worship song called The Summons that asks, “Will you come and follow me if I but call your name? Will you go where you don’t know and never be the same? Will you let my love be shown, will you let my name be known, will let my life be grown in you and you in me?”

Have you ever asked yourself how you would respond to Jesus if this very minute he walked into the room where you are and invited you to follow him? Would you go? Would you politely offer him a Dr. Pepper and try to make small talk? Would you phone 911 and announce an intruder in your
home?

Take your self-examination a step further: How are you allowing the invitational attitude of Jesus shape your own discipleship? When is the last time you
invited someone to attend worship with you? How long has it been since you talked about your faith with a friend in a casual conversation? When is the last time you shared the love of Christ with a stranger?

Invitation is a multi-layered concept. We are invited by Christ to follow, and following Christ includes inviting others, as well. Invitation is one of the facets of discipleship, and one that we need continual encouragement to undertake. To be like Jesus, we ought not simply wait for people to come, but go out into the “natural habitat” and invite people in.

Inviting people to church is different from inviting people to God. Ultimately, it is the latter emphasis that is our priority. Inviting people to church is simply a means by which we invite them to God. However, it is much easier for us to invite people to church than to invite them to God. And anyway, if we will invite them to church, maybe we could trust God to do the rest!

Jesus invited – And so should we.

Btw, it is also posted here.

The more I think about invitation, the more perplexed I become. Here’s my question:

When did we decide to substitute “invitation” for “evangelism”?

These words are not synonyms, and yet many of us treat them as though they were. Inviting someone to church is only one way to do evangelism. Synonymizing (I made that word up) these two words gets us into trouble, and leads us to believe that we’re bad at evangelism, a self-deprecating belief that only feeds into the downward trend many congregations, conferences, and denominations are feeling these days.

The truth is, we are very, very good at evangelism, and we don’t even know it. The problem is that we don’t recognize the things we do as evangelism, because we operate under the false assumption that getting someone to come to church with you is the only way to evangelize. Well, getting someone to church is not the goal of evangelism – getting someone to God is!

Most definitions of evangelism include proclamation of the Gospel, and many mention that this is done with zeal, a word that we do not use often enough in everyday conversation, I believe. So, anytime you energetically share the Gospel you are doing evangelism. That could be offering forgiveness to someone who has hurt you, giving grace to someone in need, loving someone without condition, or providing hope in a situation that is otherwise hopeless. It could also be inviting someone to church.

No church should have an “Evangelism Team,” because every single member of the community should be doing evangelism. There might be a “Publicity Team” whose job is to get the word out about church events. There might be a “Hospitality Team” whose job is to welcome guests and visitors when they arrive. But every single aspect of what a congregation does should be evangelism – sharing the Gospel.

When the ministry of evangelism is relegated to one team, it too quickly becomes all and only about invitation. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with invitation, of course, but as I said earlier, that’s only one part of evangelism. And then, with an “evangelism team,” now operating functionally as an “inviting team,” it is all too easy for church members to shirk the responsibility of evangelism, reasoning that it is “someone else’s job.”

I wrote in the newsfeed article above that “invitation is one of the facets of discipleship.” Discipleship is inherently about evangelism; it would be very hard to think of one without the other. But invitation is only one piece of the whole. It may be a piece that the church is generally pretty bad at, but I cannot go from there all the way to saying that we’re bad at evangelism altogether.

We’re not. We’re good at grace. We’re good at love. We’re good at inclusiveness. We’re good at Christian friendship. (We could be better, I know. I said good, not perfect.) The point being, if we can affirm the good evangelism going on through our congregations, we may feel a bit better about ourselves. Then that spirit will bubble up and out from within the congregation and be inherently attractive to many, many people.



And here’s a random thought that doesn’t quite fit in above -
An attitude of invitation would assume that people will love it, and therefore inviting people to it would be no big deal. It would just happen. But invitation is like the squiggly line in your eye fluid, you can see it but once you focus on it – it drifts away. I think we need to stress out less about invitation and really strive to create churches that people simply cannot stay away from.

Lent - Stop the Madness!!!

The season of Lent begins Wednesday, and can you believe all the hype? Radio stations started playing all the Lent carols weeks ago and I’m so sick of them by now! Entire aisles in the Mega Mart stores have been selling all the Lent decorations at sale prices since the Epiphany! And the kids won’t stop bugging me to go and visit Lenty Claus at the mall, dressed in his purple suit and handing out ash to all the repentant girls and boys.

The commercialization of Lent has got to stop. This is supposed to be a sacred time of preparation and confession, drawing us closer to God as we look forward to Easter and the celebration of resurrection and new birth. And now our schools are cancelling their Lent Breaks, calling them instead some generic term like “Spring Break” or something. I mean, really! We all know that people take that week in order to refocus on the spiritual disciplines, fasting, praying the daily office, and deep study of scripture. Let’s just call it what it is.

It just seems like this time of year is so frantic, all the Lent parties to go to, all the Lent concerts and special events. How are we ever going to get to them all? I’m not even going to have time to go out and buy any new Lent clothes. We also need a new sprig of hyssop to hang in the front hallway. And when are we going to find time to decorate our Lenten Tree? We’re never going to have the house ready for the Holy Week Homes Tour!

Join me in decrying the secularization of Lent! Remember the rationale for the period of time. This year, let’s not give in to the consumeristic pressure we always feel, but rather remember the Lents of days gone by, when times were simpler. Consider home-made Lent cards instead of store-bought gifts. Do you really need to make that fourth dozen of tenebrae cookies, or will three dozen suffice? Remember, Lent isn’t Lent till it happens in your heart.

Spring Training Optimism

Somebody stop me. I'm starting to get an optimimstic feeling in my heart about the Kansas City Royals. I'm starting to get that "every year at this time because it's spring training and anything is possible" feeling. Can it be? From whence comes my hope?

Mike Jacobs, Coco Crisp added to the lineup.

A solid rotation of Meche, Greinke, Bannister, Hochevar, and Davies - not spectacular but strong.

Joakim Soria shutting them down from the bullpen.

I can't help but think Alex Gordon and Billy Butler are going to be better this year with a season more experience behind them.

That adds up to this nagging sense of hope that I just can't seem to shake! Am I setting myself up for a fall? Is this bubble going to be burst at some point over the next six months? I've been a fan so long, I've come to expect disappointment, so as not to be disappointed by it when it comes.

But maybe this year ...

I can't even finish that sentence!!!

Go Royals!

One Hundred Preachers

John Wesley's letter to Alexander Mather on August 6, 1777 (Letters, 6:272):

“No, Aleck, no! The danger of ruin to Methodism does not lie here. It springs from quite a different quarter. Our preachers, many of them, are fallen. They are not spiritual. They are not alive to God. They are soft, enervated, fearful of shame, toil, hardship. They have not the spirit which God gave to Thomas Lee at Pateley Bridge or to you at Boston.
Give me one hundred preachers who fear nothing but sin and desire nothing but God, and I care not a straw whether they be clergymen or laymen, such alone will shake the gates of hell and set up the kingdom of heaven upon earth.”

One hundred preachers.

It’s an intriguing thought, isn’t it? One hundred people who aren’t afraid of anything, completely centered on God, connected together in order to bring heaven to earth… wow!

And how often does the phrase “shake the gates of hell” enter our conversations these days? How would that work in a congregational mission statement?

One hundred preachers – clergy, laity, whatever – whose only passion is the Reign of God and whose only mission is making God’s Reign on Earth a reality. How would things be different with a group like that in operation? How many of us would qualify for that kind of a group?

Wesley’s observation that many preachers in his day were not alive to God, fearful, and what he calls “fallen” is convicting. I don’t want to be that kind of preacher. I try not to be. But I have to confess that I have at times been there. We all have, at some point or another. There are times I am motivated by fear of shame. There are times I take an easier path in order to avoid hard work. There are times I feel myself slipping away from the spiritual and toward more worldly expectations.

It’s important to read what Wesley did not write. It’s not, “Give me one hundred preachers, and I’ll …” “…have a neat-o praise band.” “…have the biggest choir in town.” “…write a pithy catch phrase and call it a mission.” “…color-coordinate the church’s logo with the stained glass windows.” “…make sure we don’t have any coffee in the sanctuary so that the carpet stays looking nice for a long, long time.” And so forth. No, it is much, much more than that. It is harder, it is messier, and it is profoundly more dangerous.

But with that said, I’d like to think that my ideal, the paradigm preacher to which I aspire, would make Wesley’s list. I would like to be one of the one hundred preachers, fearing only sin, motivated by nothing but God, eager to bring heaven to earth in powerful and transformative ways. A preacher who would bring it strong, week in and week out. A preacher that would allow the living Word of God to shape everything I say and do. A preacher who desires for my own identity the very identity of Christ, laying myself aside so that only Christ would live.

And it’s not just about Sunday morning sermons, is it? A preacher is anyone who speaks the Gospel, whether in a formal setting like a worship service or just in day to day ordinary life, using words if necessary. A preacher understands the difference between forming a relationship with a brother or sister in Christ and beating someone up with the Bible. A preacher is someone who will take the time to truly connect with someone who is hurting, sharing their time and God’s love with them freely and without reserve. A preacher is someone who is comfortable with the unconditional inclusivity and love that Jesus proclaimed in his life, and lives that kind of openness and love in her or his own life.

Would there be one hundred such preachers, given fully to proclamation of the Gospel, placing God’s priority utmost over congregation, conference, or denomination, unafraid of earthly consequence, and grabbing hold of Hell’s gates and rattling them back and forth for God’s sake, bringing God’s justice, God’s peace, God’s grace, and God’s love to the world … imagine what might happen!

Give me one hundred preachers … wow.

A Post About Jesus' Bowels

Once (Mark 1:40-45) when a leper came to Jesus to ask for healing, Mark tells that Jesus was “moved with pity.” The NIV, btw, says “compassion” instead of “pity.” The Message says simply, “deeply moved.” The TNIV says, “Jesus was indignant.” That’s pretty cool.

Dig this - the Greek word is splangknidzomai.

Don’t you just love that word? Even the sounds of it, if you can force your mouth into shapes conducive to producing them, are fun! You really need to try it a few times to appreciate it.

There is a Greek word from which this verb comes, the noun splangknon. That means “guts.” Bowels or intestines. No, really. That’s what it means. Look it up in your Brown, Driver, Briggs if you don’t believe me!

So if we were going to be literal with this little vignette, Jesus would have been moved to his bowels for the leper. Of course, the key to interpretation is knowing that, at that time, the bowels were considered the location of the deepest emotion. For the Greeks, your guts were where you felt violent passions – anger and love, for example. But for the Hebrews, guts were for more tender and gentle feelings like compassion and mercy.

Nowadays, we might say that such emotion is “from the heart,” thereby ascribing to another internal organ that for which we really have no explanation. Biologically, emotions come from somewhere in the chemical makeup of your brain, I suppose. But semantically, I’m kind of glad that we’ve moved from the guts to the heart as our metaphor for emotional responses.

What motivated Jesus to heal? He was moved. Deeply moved. (Insert potty joke here). But elementary school humor aside, Jesus was emotionally moved by the leper who came to him asking to be healed. Compassion perhaps. Or maybe Jesus was moved by the leper’s faith. Or both.

The leper (let’s call him Bill) said with certainty, “If you choose, you can make me clean.” There’s not any doubt in Bill’s mind that Jesus can heal him. It’s not a question, “Can you make me clean?” – it is a statement of fact. Bill had been shunned by the rest of society by consequence of his illness, and yet spoke with confidence to a man he was certain had the power within to heal him. And after being healed, defying Jesus’ instructions to silence, he goes around telling everyone what has happened.

It is a miraculous story on so many levels, but at the same paradoxical time, a very human story. Bill is sick man and professes an immense faith – Jesus feels it in his guts and responds with compassion – joy spilling over, Bill cannot help but share with everyone what has happened to him.

It’s a beautiful little story, with a hundred lessons to teach us. And I can feel that in my splangknon.

Go Mizzou!

Are you kidding me?

Missouri 62 - Kansas 60

I don't know what to think about: the 14 point comeback? ...16 points in the first half and 46 in the second? ... JT Tiller hurling himself all over the court with reckless abandon? ... Zaire Taylor's cool clutch shot at the last second? ... Kansas's 26 turnovers forced by the insane defensive pressure of the Tigers? ... DeMarre Carroll's 22 points?

Holy bracket buster!

Go Tigers!

Cursillo Weekend / Foster Kids

Tomorrow I'll be helping with a Cursillo weekend in Kansas City. It's always a wonderful experience, and I love how each weekend I've attended has been a little bit different. I would love to have your prayers for the weekend, especially since we just got two new foster kids this afternoon, and now I'm skipping town for three days leaving Erin to handle it.

So I'm hopeful that I'll be able to be fully present at the Cursillo, but I'm sure I'll be worried about what's going on at home the whole time. One thing that I definitely celebrate is that I do not have to worry about church, because the staff of Campbell is awesome and everything there is going to go perfectly well. And if it doesn't, they can handle it!

Thanks for all your prayers and good vibes sent our way!

Rarity - An Exciting Superbowl!

Most amazing catch - ever!

I was rooting for the Cardinals, and they did not disappoint. What a comeback! But what a Steelers drive, and what a catch!

What a game!

And by the way, the best commercial = the e-trade babies, without a doubt.

Guatemala Criminal Complaints

Click here to read a blurb about Guatemala's government filing charges against people who committed large-scale crimes against the Guatemalan people in the past.

I have mentioned Guatemala in previous posts, but never written much about it. I went to Guatemala while in seminary, way back before I was blogging. Saint Paul School of Theology offers the trip as an Immersion Class, among others. There I was confronted in a powerful way with true injustice, on a scale that I have never known before. And also, more personally than I had even known before.

Sitting and listening to widows tell stories about discovering their husbands' decapitated bodies in the ditch near their home, injustice becomes more than an abstract idea. Putting one's fingers into the bullet holes in the church girder where every man of the village was rounded up and executed by gunmen supported by the government gives human suffering a texture that is hard to truly describe. Discoverning how the United States government and corporations were supporting the Guatemalan government as it carried out these atrocities over the decades impacts a person like a ton of Chiquita bananas being dropped on one's head.

So I read a little news blurb about the Guatemalan government filing charges for these atrocities with more than the typical interest. Or rather, the typical lack thereof. I don't know whether anything will happen with the prosecution of these crimes. Part of me despairs at the immensity of the task. Part of me is skeptical of the authenticity of the prosecution. Part of me, though, is cheering on behalf of the people we met in the Land of Eternal Spring.

And part of me thinks that Bishop Gerardi would be so happy to see this day come.

A Topic on Many Minds

Here's more on the topic of new communication in old churches.

The problem that I see with ... a ton of churches, including my own) is that they don’t dive in. They try to dip their toes in the water and hope they catch a fish. A fisherman gets dirty, gets wet and smells. I love to fish ... but I know that when I fish, I don’t wear my best clothes and I don’t expect to cast once and catch a bass on the first throw. You have to have patience. You have to be committed. You have to think like a fish.

(snip)

My prayer, heart’s desire and encouragement/challenge to you is to WRESTLE with Bill Seaver’s quote: “Simply using the new tools with the old mindset won’t bring about the marketing change you need and want.”

Experimenting with new communication gadgets and expecting great wonderful things to happen without really changing the fundamental way you think about communication is like slapping a screen on your sanctuary wall and expecting great wonderful things without really changing the way you think about worship. It's gimmickry, shallow, and not authentic.

If you sincerely want to learn a new language for the sake of conveying the Gospel, as with learning any new language, the best way is immersion. Dive in!

Confession, Dandruff, and Tweed Sport Coats?

What is the role of confession in your relationship with God? I found a quote this week that said, “Confession is good for the soul only in the sense that a tweed coat is good for dandruff – it is a palliative rather than a remedy,” meaning that confession soothes and comforts, but does not fix or cure.

My experience with confession has been in basically two forms, silent and corporate. When I have prayed prayers of confession, it has either been just between me and God or in the context of a unison prayer in a worship gathering. I don’t remember ever truly confessing anything personal aloud in front of another person.

That’s not to diminish the power of confession in my own spiritual life, though. I have had moments alone with God in which my soul was bared completely and I emptied myself in God’s presence, truly confessing all that I was carrying. There have also been moments in which my heart has been broken by the words of a unison prayer as I experienced the power of speaking someone else’s words aloud together with my sisters and brothers in Christ.

But when it comes to talking about my own personal sin out loud in front of other people, my experience has been rather limited. I have no confessor. I feel like I might be missing something, but I don’t know for sure. The confessor can help give voice to the confession, can listen well and clarify and shape the confession, particularly if there is a deep enough level of trust present. Absent that trust, though, I suppose a confessor might just get in the way.

Of course, another aspect of confession involves confessing to the person who has been wronged. I remember when I was a kid and Mom caught me stealing a Matchbox car from the store. She made me go back in and confess to the manager, which absolutely killed me! But I never stole anything again, let me assure you of that!

When we confess to the person who has been wronged, we are not quite so sure if we will be forgiven as when we confess to God. In that sense, confessing to God is easier in a way; we are certain of God’s grace and forgiveness but are not certain at all of someone else’s. It is “safer” to confess to God than to another person.

But does that cheapen God’s grace, and thereby lessen somehow the act of confession itself? If I know God’s just going to forgive me anyway, I might as well confess, right? “What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it?” (Romans 6:1-2)

I guess the important thing is to remember that confession is only one part of repentance, which itself is only one part of salvation. As such, confession can be deeply liberating. Whether speaking the truth to God alone, corporately, or to another person, confession unbottles what’s going on inside you. It is a pressure relief valve, in a way. It doesn’t take the sin away, but it gets it out there so you are free to heal. It is one part in a process.

I love the line, “He breaks the power of cancelled sin,” in Charles Wesley’s hymn. Sin is cancelled (forgiven) by God’s justifying grace but still has power over us. Over the course of the way of salvation, sin’s power is broken by God’s sanctifying grace as we strive for perfection. Asking for forgiveness means first of all saying that there is something to forgive, in other words, confession.

So I guess I like the dandruff on a tweed sport coat image. You still are going to have to brush the dandruff off your shoulder, but you don't feel as bad as you would if you were wearing a black turtleneck. When you confess, you still have the sin, but you don't feel as bad as you would if you hadn't confessed it.

You know how sometimes when you have an argument with someone, the next time you are with them there’s a kind of tension in the room? The only way to break that tension so you can be in a good relationship with them again is often to address the previous argument, or “name the elephant in the room” as they say.

It’s like that with confession, too, I think. God knows you did it; you know you did it; and to break the awkward tension between you and God might necessitate saying out loud that which both of you already know.

Barack Gets It

This article in the New York Times is worth a read.

But the idea behind [the new organization] — that the traditional ways of communicating with and motivating voters are giving way to new channels built around social networking — is also very evident in the White House’s media strategy.

If we changed this article to be about the church insteand of government, it is exactly the same idea we were trying to get across at this year's Ministers' school. The thesis statement of Ministers' School (if Ministers' School had a thesis statement) could have been a rewritten version of the quote above: "The traditional ways of communicating with and motivating disciples of Jesus are giving way to new channels built around social networking."

The undertaking will require Mr. Obama’s aides to wedge technology that worked for them in the campaign into the infrastructure of the White House, with its relatively older technology and security restrictions.

This quote could be rewritten to say, "The undertaking will require those who want to change the church to wedge technology that works for them into the infrastructure of the institutional church, with its relatively older technology and ecclesial restrictions."

The larger point being, the kind of ground-shifting changes the inaugural address talked about are also happening in the church specifically. It's not just about new technology; it is about a new way to look at the world.

Thoughts on the Role of Criticism

For some reason, probably subliminal I’m sure, criticism has been on my mind lately. It is fascinating to witness how different people respond to honest criticism. I for one do not do well with it, I know! I am such a people-pleaser that I have to work really hard to receive criticism in a helpful way. It is one of the many areas in my life where I still need to grow a lot.

I read Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” early this morning, like I do every year on this day. This year I got caught in the very first paragraph by the words, “Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas.” Nothing like a big serving of irony to start you day off right, huh?

How ironic is it that Dr. King, an adamant critic of the status quo, starts out his letter responding to his own critics by affirming that he gets so much criticism of his work that he rarely even responds to it? But then of course, in this case he responds and proceeds to deliver a letter that contains perhaps some of the harshest criticism he ever conveys. The critic deflects criticism by writing yet another critique. Relentless … and brilliant!

In the stories of Scripture, prophets criticized kings on a regular basis. Jesus criticized “scribes and Pharisees” unequivocally. In Christian history, criticism of the church led to reforms and renewals. The tension created in the pushback against the religious status quo can generate creative energy by which new and powerful endeavors of the Spirit are launched.

John Wesley criticized the Anglican Church of his day, calling for a spiritual renewal that eventually launched the denomination in which I now am granted “all the rights and privileges” granted to an ordained elder. Another delicious bit of irony: the denomination of which I am now a part, the United Methodist Church, is a status quo whose creation was generated with a criticism of a status quo.

I wonder how the present status quo will respond to its critics. When powerful systems are criticized, they tend to flinch. Sometimes they build bunkers. Sometimes the empire strikes back. But sometimes there can be a healthy, faithful dialogue with the critics that leads to wonderful transformative revitalization. How will the UMC respond to our modern day John Wesleys (whoever they may be), who push us for radical change and renewal?

One last batch of questions about criticism – I wonder sometimes whether it is better to criticize a system from within or as an outsider. From within the system, it seems to me that a critic is always aware of systemic repercussions in response to criticism. An outsider is in many ways more free to speak. But an insider may have the advantage of fuller knowledge of the system, and firmer footing on which to stand when offering the critique. An outsider may critic a caricature of the system, or at best be working from limited or anecdotal knowledge.

So it seems to me that systems should create safe places in which critics within the system can speak honestly without fear of reprisal. In other words, every event that takes place cannot be simply “training us to work for the company store,” as one of my colleagues succinctly puts it. If a status quo system makes room for that criticism to happen, listens to that criticism openly, and then engages in truthful dialogue with its critics, wonderful things are bound to happen.

Maybe one of the “rights and privileges” granted thereunto the ordained in the UMC system is the privilege to offer criticism. I don’t know for sure, I have never seen the official list. And of course, these are just my own thoughts and questions – I’m always open to criticism … (well, a little bit, anyway!).

Ministers' School - Wrap up

Ministers' School is over for 2009, and the sky did not fall!

I'm really satisfied with how it went overall. I learned a lot. I had fun. It was flippin' scary. And it is over.

I regret that more people were not able to make the connection that I was trying to establish. I wonder if it was too vague and needed to be more explicitly stated.

For many, there seemed to be two topics that did not coincide, new communication technology and the emergent church. What didn't happen for some people was the realization of how each of these two topics are really two facets of the same jewel.

Social networking, community building, fostering relationships - all of this happens in many different ways on the internet now. And the ways it happens on the internet are a perfect microcosm of how it happens in the emergent church. People think differently about relationship than they used to. People consider different realities to be community than they used to. Words like "friend" and "accept" and "group" and "home" and even "talk to" and "go to" mean such different things now.

You can "accept" someone as your "friend" whom you have never even met face to face. You can "talk to" all the members of your "group" at once via one 140 character message. You can "go to" the "home" of a "group" to which you belong without even leaving your house. All of this translates into the ways that the emergent church is challenging the mainline to think about organization, communication, and community.

In just a small piece of the whole, for example, Tony Jones talked about how the emergent church is about relationships built not around common doctrine, but on the relationships themeselves. The point of the relationships is just to be in relationship. There is no heirarchy, but a network of relationships comprised of hubs with relatively more or less importance. That's how people think (some people anyway) and that's how people communicate (again, some people anyway).

I was hoping that people at Ministers' School would understand the whole event as an exploration of new ways to share the Gospel, that is, to be in relationship with one another. I was hoping that it would provide both some technical insight into how to communicate differently, as well as some theological dialogue about how to be church differently. The point is not to start up a facebook group, the point is to think differently about how people are in relationship with one another. Unfortunately, that connection did not happen for many.

It worked for me, though. I thought it was beautiful, the whole thing! Debra Mason gave a lot of technical information, setting up a new blog before our very eyes! Tony Jones sent his dispatches from the emergent frontier, and many in the room were nodding in resonance with them. Billy Reeder bridged the technical and the ecclesial with a glimpse at how communication is changing and what a profound difference it makes in human relationships.

Many people there will talk about the conversation between Tony Jones and Bishop Schnase that ended the event. It was frank and honest, and even tense at times. Two men who have a passion for the Gospel and yet see things very differently from one another engaged in more than an hour of back-and-forth about those differences. Watching it riled some people up, it made some people mad, and definitely sent us all home thinking. I for one am still processing many of the things that came out of the whole week, and that conversation in particular.

One of the most poignant moments for me was when Bishop Schnase talked about the opportunity that being sent to a place of ministry had given him. As opposed to simply choosing where and with whom to serve, being sent via an itinerant system compelled him to places of discomfort and challenge, through which God worked great things. I feel exactly the same way. There is something holy about yielding myself to being sent into ministry in a place I might not necessarily choose for myself. I am an itinerant preacher to the core.

So the week wasn't perfect, but I liked it. If I hadn't been so stressed out about everything, I probably would have enjoyed it more. Some people thought it was a waste of their time, and said so on their evaluation. Some people said it was a great experience, and the best Ministers' School they had experienced. And that's going to happen with any event that happens.

Finally, I want to say that I really value my friends who have sent me words of support, even though (I suspect) they did not particularly enjoy the week. That is pretty cool, and makes me get all emotional when I think about it. Because I worked hard on this, and they let me know they appreciate that. That's a true friend, you know? Facebook or otherwise.

Ministers' School - Day 2 Begins

The first half-day is done, and I'm pretty happy.

I spent yesterday kind of hovering, waiting for problems to arise. As a result, I wasn't really fully here until the middle of the afternoon. But I was definitely here for Tony Jones' presentation, and he pretty much nailed it.

An hour and a half of Tony talking about the current cultural ethos is pretty cool. My only wish is that he wouldn't confine his dispatches to this nebulous group of people he calls the "emergent people." Sounds like a bad sci-fi movie. I think the dispatches he articulated last night are far more common. When he talks about emergent people as if they are different from other people somehow it makes what he has to say seem less meaningful.

Truth is, his dispatches make sense to a LOT of people, many of whom are sitting in the pews of traditional mainline places - many of whom are in ministry leadership roles in traditional mainlines places.

His dispatches were: Comfort with paradox, suspicion of "tabernacles," ambivalence toward denomination, a mosaic of world Christianity, theological acumen, organizing our church based on our theology, starting churches to save the faith, seeing no ontological difference among people (even ordained people), rejection of left/right politics, and positive witness in the community.

Makes sense to me, and I know it makes sense to a lot of people. But I'm afraid that some will be very quick to say, "OK, that's fine for those 'emergent people' but it won't play in my congregation." For whatever reason. To say this would really be a shame, of course, because they would have missed the point altogether.

Tony used the stories of St. Francis and Martin Luther to describe how the institutional church can either embrace or reject change. He said that both men stood up in front of the church in their day and said, "You are missing the point!" The church made Francis a saint, but excommunicated Luther. It felt like he was using this metaphor to implore (his word) the mainline church not to reject the people who are changing things, the current day reformers.

So all of this is making me thing about reformation and innovation again. Just to get this thought out there, and maybe comment on it later when there is more time - whether it is reformation or innovation, navel-gazing change is not the point. And even more insidious is when navel-gazing change is disguised as transformational change. Bluntly put, trying to get people to notice how cool you are is not a good model for being church.

But like I said, I'll need to think more about that and write more about that later - I've gotta go to morning worship now for Day 2 of Ministers' School.

btw - I'm Twittering now, whatever that means.

Twas the Night Before Ministers' School

I'm at Tan Tar A Resort in Osage Beach, Missouri on Monday night, waiting for Minsters' School to begin tomorrow. I'm nervous about faculty arriving safely and on time. Other than that, I'm not really worried about anything. I think this is going to be a great couple of days.

First thing tomorrow is getting the registration going, and our registrar and assistant registrar are really great and have everything under control. The we have opening worship at 1:00 and the worship team has been here tonight checking sound and set up and everything, so that should go well. Then I give some welcoming remarks as the dean of the school. Then we have a faculty presentation, then supper, then an evening faculty presentation.

That's day 1!

Several board members ate supper together tonight, and we had a really good conversation about future schools and trying to work together with the conference and what topics to cover. But mostly the conversation was about what the overall ethos of the Ministers' School should be.

As for me, I really want it to be a place to slow down and engage in thoughtful conversation with each other that doesn't necessarily involve hearing someone list off the "top ten" ways to do something. I want it to be meaty, edgy. I want Ministers' School to go deep. I want it to be challenging. I think most of the people on the board want that too. I do not want it to be a technical workshop. I want it to be a theological event.

I don't necessarily want to leave Ministers' School with answers. I want a chance to really wrestle with the questions. Am I weird? I mean, if I'm the only one who want an experience like that, I hope someone tells me. There are dozens of technical workshops all over the state, the region, and the country for that matter - all year long. I hope that Ministers' School offers something different. That's the ethos I want.

Well, we will see what 2009's School ends up being. The way we have it pictured, it is going to be a lot of social/theological/cultural reflection with maybe a few practical ideas thrown in here and there. We'll see if that becomes reality, and we'll see how people like it. It's going to be a fun couple of days, to be sure.

Communicating the Gospel - Ministers' School Next Week!

I've been thinking about Missouri Ministers' School this week, because it is coming up next week and I am the Dean of the school this year. Here's what I've been thinking:

It's all communication, isn't it?

When it comes to church, we don't have a product or service to sell to consumers. We're in communications. We have a message, and are supposed to deliver it.

The message is none other than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God can communicate however God chooses to, and one of those ways is to entrust the message to the church. I'm not one to say that the church is the only way that communication happens, though I know there are those who believe so. Rather, I would say maybe that the church is the most significant way. Certainly it can be said that within the church lies the potential for being the most powerful way that message is communicated.

All of which compels the question, "Is the church communicating the Gospel as effectively as we possibly can to those who need to hear it most?"

And along with that, knowing that there are a myriad of means of communication available in the world today, we have to ask the question, "How are individual congregations collaborating with one another to ensure that the communication of the Gospel is a true multi-media event?"

Face it, no single congregation is going to be able to effectively utilize more than a few media. Unless you are a big church with big resources, you probably specialize in two or three. Like maybe Church A has a great choir and a really wonderful mission program. And Church B down the road has a wonderful Sunday morning hospitality program and a killer band. Why should Church A fret about not having a great band, when they should be able to cooperate with Church B in conveying the Gospel through that particular medium? Why should Church B start from scratch in developing a mission program, when Church A could help them out with that one?

Now, I'm not saying that individual congregations should adopt and attitude of "Oh, well" about the things they don't do particularly well. Far from it - I am a pastor serving with Bish Schnay-Z, after all, and I'm all about the 5 Practices being in balance. What I am trying to say is that churches, and especially churches within a connectional system, should understand the ministry of the whole as being a cooperative endeavor, not rugged individualism.

We have a message to share - and the "we" in that sentence is all of us who say we are followers of Christ Jesus, not just me or my congregation or my denomination. The whole body of Christ participates together in conveying the Gospel, which makes it possible to convey in a myriad of ways. The old axiom is true: We can do more together than we could ever do alone.

Whatever the medium - personal visit, worship experience, faith formation event, mission trip, service opportunity, newsletter, newspaper, bulletin, poster, pamphlet, sign, snail mail, website, email, blog, newsfeed, text message, internet social networking group, (and who knows what else) - the Gospel message just begs to be delivered. However, these various media will obviously impact the message itself. No one would ever claim that a text message could mean the same as a personal visit, for example.

Considering how the media we use may impact the message we have to share is going to be a part of next week's Missouri Ministers' School, of which I am the Dean this year. Sometimes I think that we either embrace or avoid new communications technology without taking due time to consider it's impact on the message. I hope next week will give us a little bit of that time.

The church should neither embrace nor avoid a means of communication, just because it is new. We are entrusted with the Gospel, and we ought to do all that we can (all of us together) to share that message with all God's children.

It is all about communication, after all.

Foster Fun: or, Eight is Enough!

If you have read Enter the Rainbow for any length of time, you know that we are a foster family. Here and here and here and here and here are some of the posts I've written about foster care, if you want to read a bit about our experiences.

Well, we have a BIG week this week, to say the least. Two weeks ago, we made arrangements to have two brothers living with us for one week in a "respite care" placement. Then last week, we got a call for a "traditional" placement for two more brothers. Having already said yes to the respite placement, we did not feel like we could back out on it.

And so, that means the Bryan household contains eight people this week - the four Bryans and FOUR foster kids, ages 9 and 5 and 5 and 2. Wahoo!

I'm happy to report that dinner and bedtime went well last night - six kids ate, bathed, brushed teeth, got something like pajamas on their bodies, and had a place to sleep. Wesley, our son, was extra gracious is volunteering his bunk bed for our one-week guests, in favor of an inflatable bed on Cori's bedroom floor; believe me, we have been singing his praises (and Cori's) all weekend for that. And everyone slept all night long, which was nice.

And this morning somehow we got five kids up, breakfasted, dressed, and successfully delivered to four different schools IN TIME, the 2 year old staying home with Erin. Yes, you read that correctly - 5 kids to 4 schools on time!

We'll see how the rest of this week goes. Whatever else it brings, I'm pretty sure this week is going to reaffirm our comittment to taking just two foster kids at a time! It's chaos, but it is beautiful chaos - and it is, most importantly, temporary chaos.

Thanks for your prayers!

Innovation and Reformation - Together At Last

Among people who see a need and want to lead change, there is a philosophical distinction between two approaches. The first, which I’ll call innovation, wants to create new stuff. The second, which I’ll call reformation, wants to do existing stuff differently. These two approaches certainly do not exhaust the options, but for the most part change agents are either innovators or reformers.

In her amazing book, “The Great Emergence,” Phyllis Tickle writes that “the tension toward changing things externally into new forms, as opposed to reworking them internally into what should be, has been a major characteristic of each of our previous hinge times and will continue to be part of our present one” (p. 58). Tickle notes for example that after Martin Luther was pushing outward with the new “Protestant” vision for the church, the Catholic Reformation followed with renewal from within. The result was a “genuine, sincere, and in many ways beneficent” reform.

There is no need to choose either innovation or reform. There is nothing inherently wrong with brand new things, just as there is nothing inherently good about them. Similarly, there is nothing inherently wrong with tradition, just as there is nothing inherently good about it. And both tasks are difficult. It is just as hard to create something from scratch as it is to breathe new life into something ancient. Both approaches are perfectly reasonable, effective ways to lead change.

But too often, innovators and reformers compete with one another instead of cooperating. Some of this competition gets nasty, even. Innovators do not think reformers truly desire change. Reformers see innovators as throwing out the baby with the bath water. It becomes difficult for an innovator and a reformer to even talk together about change sometimes.

“Can you not see how beautiful this tradition is, if we could only do it better?” says the reformer.

“Oh, you’re just saying ‘We’ve always done it this way’ and that kind of thinking never leads us anywhere!” says the innovator.

It degenerates from there quite quickly.

"You have no respect for tradition!" says reformer.

"You old fuddy-duddy!" says innovator.

I am more of a reformer than an innovator, in that I love the ancient forms of the Christian faith and want to breathe new life into them. I loathe stagnancy, and lament when the beautiful liturgy of the church becomes rote and mechanical. And so I want to change things by reforming that which we already have so that it lives again. So I will take an ancient hymn and compose a new tune for it, for example.

And at the same time I do not begrudge innovators who are creating brand new things in the meantime. There is room for both approaches. "I love the unknown, baby!" (as my friend John Schmalzbauer said at a recent Christmas party). Brand new experiences stretch us, make us think, compel us to respond. We grow and learn via new ideas, insights, and encounters.

One of the coolest things trending in churches right now is a reclamation of ancient expressions and practices of faith. An the thing is, people have "grown up on" contemporary church with all of its innovation and new emphases, so now the ancient things seem new and innovative! What an irony, huh? We do a sung liturgy for communion for example, an ancient practice, and people think it is the latest, greatest innovation!

The nutshell is, I believe that the church needs to change in order to stay faithful to God's mission, and I think that change needs to be both innovation and reform. "Because we've never done it that way before" is not a good motivation whether you are in favor of change or opposed!

Food for Liturgical Thought

"It is a scandal within Christianity that Easter can be reduced to a "celebration" that lasts a few hours on one Sunday morning, while Christmas songs are piped into our ears from mid-October on."
- Glenn Pauuw, in this article at Beliefnet.com

iTunes Prayer Book

According to this article, the Pope signs his text messages "BXVI."

I wonder how our Bishop signs his text messages? Hmm...

Christmas Re-Discovered

There's something magical about strolling around the Plaza in Kansas City with my family of origin during Advent. I don't know how many times I've done it over the past 37 Advents, but it's safe to say it has been most of them. Erin and the kids and I drove up to KC Friday afternoon after the funeral and met Mom and Dad, my sister and nephew, my brother and his fiance', and we did our thing.

We went into the bookstore, we ate a really nice dinner, we gave our nephew his birthday presents, we walked to the penguin statues and posed with them, we crossed the bridge and made my brother do his Winston Churchill impersonation, we watched lights and horses pulling carriages and people meeting people, we traded Christmas presents.

And somewhere in between leaving the cemetary after the funeral on Friday afternoon and crashing into bed late late that night, I think I may have re-discovered a bit of Christmas. At least the doorway opened a crack and a bit of light shone through.

And then Sunday morning that door opened further during what Campbell UMC calls the "Nativity Parade." Sort of a mini-Christmas pageant, the Nativity Parade consists of congregational singing of several traditional carols, during which the children of the church walk down the center aisle in costume, ending up posed in the chancel area, depicting the birth of Jesus.

Stars, livestock, shepherds, wise men (and women, in our case), the holy family, angels. The whole cast of characters was there. And I don't know if it was that one small preschool star at the early service coming down the aisle all by himself, or maybe my son Wesley dressed as an angel with a gold garland halo sitting crooked on his head, or my daughter Cori who was representing the Wise Women bearing gifts, or the sight of Shane (our Children's Director's husband) who had dressed in full shepherd regalia in order to lead our littlest cows, sheep, and camels into the room, or the sheer silliness of kids wearing enormous false beards and carrying wooden canes as shepherd crooks, or maybe the buzz of energy in the room as the grown-ups craned their necks to get a glimpse of the wonderful sight and smiled with delight, or what.

I don't know what it was exactly, but all of a sudden the door into Christmas was thrown wide open, and I walked through. All of that stuff from my previous post still happened; it's still there. But I hit the reset button on my perspective, and things look different today. It's not so much that the blues went away, it's that I sang through them, and came out the other side.

We had a nativity parade at all three services, and it happened every time! My spirit is in such a better place today. We hosted an open house at the parsonage last night, and it was truly a joy to welcome the dozens and dozens of people who stopped by, mugs in hand, to enjoy a bit of hot apple cider and a cookie or two, but mostly just to be together and smile and laugh and talk and embrace one another.

Today is Christmas Eve Eve Eve. (My kids have been tracking how many "Eves" for about a week now.) And today I'm smiling easier. Maybe it was the Plaza. Maybe it was the Nativity Parade. Maybe it was all the thoughts and prayers of my family and friends. Maybe it was a little bit of everything. Maybe it was how God moved through all of those things together to (once again) surprise me with such astounding love. Merry Christmas.

Could be the Blues?

This week has included…
…the disruption of our foster daughter.
…presiding at a difficult funeral for a young man.
…my brother’s apartment robbed.
…a dear friend going through a painful divorce.
…and the weather’s not helping much, either.
...[etcetera, etcetera, etcetera]

Yet in thy dark streets shineth the everlasting light,
The hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight.

Yesterday there was a radio guy who encouraged listeners to call my children’s school in order to call them “communist” and “godless” because the parties they have scheduled for this week are being called Winter Parties instead of Christmas Parties. How weak does one’s faith have to be to believe that the birth of Christ is somehow threatened by the name of an elementary school party? And what would motivate someone to disrupt the routine of an elementary school by flooding the office with annoying phone calls? And how would that be a good Christian witness, exactly? ... [rant averted]

No ear may hear his coming, but in this world of sin,
Where meek souls will receive him, still the dear Christ enters in.

Okay, Okay, Okay - - - I get it. Life happens. God is good. Christ is born. All that stuff.
I know that in my head. I suppose that I have been caught in the middle of the juxtaposition of the good news and the real world. When I get stuck in a place like this, the only thing that works for me is to just keep singing.

O morning stars together, proclaim the holy birth,
And praises sing to God the King, and peace to all on earth!

I love "O Little Town of Bethlehem." It covers "hopes AND fears." I've got plenty of both today.

Disruption

With grief and after much, much thought and prayer, we have had to disrupt our foster daughter’s placement with us. She moved out on Friday.

Friday morning Erin and I packed up all of her belongings in boxes. Then that afternoon, her case worker came to the house and we loaded her things into the trunk of the car. We then drove to the school, where we called our own kids out of class to say good-bye, and went to her classroom to pick her up.

The six of us walked out to the parking lot. Then we gave her hugs and told her that we loved her and we would miss her. She got in the back of her worker’s car and we waved good-bye as they drove off.

We were all upset, and there were a few tears. After a few minutes and a few hugs, we walked the kids back into school where they returned to their classes and Erin and I drove home.

We made this decision because her anger had grown to a level we could not handle any more. Her fits of rage were daily, and sometimes multiple per day. Our kids had begun spending more and more time in their rooms, just to be away from her. She had brought them to tears with her hateful words several times. She had begun to hit Erin, threatened to bite, and at one time picked up a pair of scissors in the midst of her fit. She had broken things and done damage to walls and doors and furniture.

In between these fits, she was a very sincere, funny, sometimes even sweet little girl. She had absolutely no trouble at school or church. Her teacher really loved her. People at church are very surprised that we had to have the placement disrupted. She was making great improvements in reading and math, and liked doing homework a lot. She liked to paint and draw, and her favorite subject was big valentine hearts, which she drew on almost everything. Seeing other kids play piano, she liked to sit down and try to pick out tunes for herself sometimes.

But we had started to think of these periods as just time in between tantrums. And we were living in dread of what might trigger her next fit – being told it was bedtime, or that she couldn’t have a third doughnut, or that it wasn’t her turn on computer, or that she had to finish her vegetable before she could have dessert. It could have been just about anything.

It was clear to us that she needed much more care than we could offer.

And so this is better. It is better for us already, and the four of us are kind of coming out of our shell-shocked-ness a little bit these last few days. And we hope it is better for her, too. We hope she is in a place where her anger can be channeled, and where an environment that is a bit more controlled may provide structure that we were unable to give.

But maybe not. Maybe she is going to have an adolescence where she fights everyone she ever meets. Maybe she is going to decide never to let anyone ever love her. Ever. Maybe her life is going to be horrible.

Or maybe there was a seed planted in these last three months. Maybe there was a seed of “this-is-how-a-functional-family-lives” planted in her eight years of dysfunction, anger, and neglect. Who knows?

We feel pretty rotten about this whole deal, to tell you the truth. We feel like we failed. We feel angry at her parents for being really, really crappy parents. We feel relieved that she is gone from our household, and immediately feel guilty for feeling relieved. So we’re pretty mixed up right now, as you can imagine.

We are open to new foster placements, though. In fact, we got a call on the very day before she left, when we knew it was coming but it hadn’t happened yet. That placement ended well when they found a family member that could take the two sisters and our services were not required. We don’t hope for a placement, of course, because that would mean that a kid or kids have been taken out of their home, and that’s never a good thing. Rather, we are open to one, should one come up.

That is the latest in our foster family world. It is a difficult time, but we’ll be okay. We’d love your prayers of support and good thoughts. And if you would, keep all of our foster kids in your prayers, too. We love them all, and we always will.

Away in a Manger Update

Recently, I wrote about the preschoolers here knowing all the words to "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" but none of the words to "Away in a Manger." (click here to read it)

Well, here is a happy update:

Last week, one of our preschool classes went "Christmas Caroling" to the offices around the church building. When they got to my office and kind of clumped around my door, their teacher said, "Are you ready to sing the special song we learned for Pastor Andy?"

"Ye-e-e-e-s," they said in that drawn-out way that little kids do when they are saying something all together. They were very excited. Some of them were actually hopping up and down!

And then they sang for me ... you guessed it ... the first verse of "Away in a Manger."

It was wonderful. I was very moved, both by the kids singing and by the thoughtfulness of the teachers, Liza and Debbie, who had heard my comment the week before and made it a point to take the time to teach their kids Away in a Manger. It was such a beautiful gesture, not soon forgotten.

Reporter Column

The good people of the United Methodist Reporter have published one of my blog posts.

Click here to see it online. Here is the original post.

+++

In other news: frequent commentor here (and my cousin), Patrick, is on his way home from Iraq this week. Prayers for safe travels and a happy, happy reunion when you get home, Patrick!

Still No Room

A party. A concert. A dinner.
A tree. A nutcracker. A strand of lights.
An inflatable snowman. Illuminated.

There’s still no room.

A list. A sale. A door buster.
A parking lot. A shopping center. A mall.
A ribbon. Tape. Disappearing.

There’s still no room.

A song. A radio station. Background noise.
You better watch out. I wanna hippopotamus.
Rudolph the Reindeer. Glowing.

There’s still no room.

A cookie. A pie. A piece of candy.
A turkey dinner. A fruitcake? Eggnog.
A brunch buffet. All-you-can-eat.

There’s still no room.
He’s still headed for the stable.
A manger. A bed of straw. A few shepherds.
Worshiping.

Who’s the innkeeper this year?

Sign me up!

Maybe this summer I'll be looking like this guy.
Question of the day: If you were creating a workout just for pastors, how would it be different from a regular old non-pastory workout?

Nothing Against Santa Claus, but ...

Every other Tuesday morning I lead the preschool chapel service at the church. This past Tuesday, two classes arrived in the sanctuary a bit early, and we were singing some random Christmas songs while we waited for the third class to arrive. The kids were calling out songs and I was playing them on the piano and we were all singing along. It was great.

We sang a couple, and then a kid called out “Better Watch Out!” So we sang “Santa Claus is Coming to Town,” and I must say that they all sang out loud, and many of them seemed to know every word. When we got done there was still time for one more, so I played the intro to “Away in a Manger” and started singing the first verse.
None of the kids – NONE – even recognized the song, let alone knew it well enough to sing. I immediately realized my mission of the season – teach the preschool kids “Away in a Manger.”

I realize that I risk sounding like an old guy complaining about “kids these days,” but it actually kind of upset me that none of the kids even recognized “Away in a Manger,” but knew “Santa Claus is Coming to Town” by heart. There were probably 35 or 40 kids in the room. Surely one of them would have known it. I understand that each kid has experienced at most 4 Christmases in his or her brief life, but I would have thought at least a few of them might have sung “Away in a Manger” a time or two.

But the point is not just that they don’t know many Christmas songs, it is also that they knew the Santa song really, really well. So somehow in their four Christmases on earth they managed to learn that one. I’m not trying to blame anyone for anything here, just to make an observation.

And also to claim a personal mission. Every ordained clergy person in the United Methodist Church makes a promise “to teach the children” wherever we go. So a part of mine is going to be teaching kids sacred Christmas songs every year. I think I’ll start with “Away in a Manger.”

93. MissionCast - Global AIDS Awareness Month

Look for Methodist blogger Adam Gordon in a picture from Mozambique.

Coffee with John the Baptist

I wonder what it would have been like to have a cup of coffee with John the Baptist? I’m sure it would not have been dull. If I could get him to stop asking me to repent long enough, we might have a conversation.

“What’ll it be, John?” I’d ask.
“I’ll take a Double Locust Espresso with a Wild Honey Drizzle,” he would reply.
“Mmm. I’ll just have the Pumpkin Spice, please.”
Coffee ordered, we’d sit at a table far away from the counter. “So John, how’s life treating you these days?” I’d say.
“Well, it’s good. People are coming from all over to listen. I’ve been dunking people in the river right and left. But my camel fur underwear is pretty itchy, and my feet are all pruney. By the way, have you thought about repenting and being baptized? It would be very good for you, you know.”
“Yes, John, I have, thanks for asking. Listen, I could get you some softer clothes, maybe. And a pair of wading shoes might help.”
“No, no. I’m not worthy of that kind of luxury. Besides, it’s not really about me, anyway, is it?”
“What do you …? Oh right, the one coming after you, I remember. What’s up with that again?”
Tapping his hand on the edge of the table nervously, John would say, “You know, you really should give serious consideration to repentance. It would be in your best interest. But yeah, as to that one coming after me who is more powerful than I and I’m not even worthy to untie his shoe, I’m kinda getting people ready for him. By the way, are you?”
“Am I what?”
“Ready for him?”

Are you? Are you ready? Expect a messenger – one who will prepare the way, make the path straight. Sometimes I wonder if we’re even ready for the messenger, much less the one who is being announced.

Are you ready?

The Conversation Matters

A couple of linksies:

First - John from Locusts and Honey has come out of the closet as not opposed to gay marriage. I would commend his post to anyone as a very clear and well-reasoned position of someone who believes that sex between people of the same gender is a sin, but sees no justification for banning marriage. Click here.

Second - one of my favorite bloggers, Shane Raynor, is blogging again. Click here. Shane was one of the first bloggers in the Methodist blog world, and he went away for a bit. I know that he has been back at it for a while, but I just now learned about it. When Shane was writing on his first blog, it was not unusual for him to get 75 comments on any given post. He is the king!

John and Shane are great examples of two people whose ideas I often disagree with, but who have over time become valuable conversation partners for me. It's that odd kind of blog relationship in which I have never actually been face to face with either of them, but have spent so much time reading their thoughts over the last few years, and being able to exchange ideas respectfully with others, no agenda attached, is one of the most beautiful parts of the blogoshpere, I think.

Young Clergy - "Don't Try So Hard"

It has been more than a week since I wrote last – a lot has happened in that week. Last Tuesday and Wednesday I was in Columbia, MO for a conversation among the conference’s younger clergy, Bishop Schnase, and a few of the conference staff (more on that below). Then Thursday and Friday my family drove to Wisconsin for a family funeral. Saturday was a day of rest and Sabbath for us. Then Sunday happened, with all of its activity and hubbub. So I haven’t had much time to sit and write, though I do have a lot of stuff in my noodle that needs to get written down.

+++

I think the Bishop’s conversation with young clergy was really good. I’m pretty sure I was the oldest young clergy there at age 37, and I’m not really sure where the cap is on that category, but I felt like we had a lot of time to talk about a lot of things the conference is dealing with – and not just as token young people, but as conversation partners with the Bishop. The people there were either commissioned or ordained, and they were all Caucasian, and they were almost all men – so there definitely were some people left out of the conversation.

We talked about a LOT of stuff – youth ministry, church camp, blogging, Facebook, worship, apportionments, church planting, training events, Annual Conference. And I had to leave before the group got together to come up with a letter or statement or something for the Bishop to take to the Conference Council meeting the following day. That was the final thing the group did on Wednesday afternoon.

+++

My favorite moment of the two days was the “Don’t try so hard” moment. Bishop Schnase was asking about blogging and how often and what content and should he post pictures and what about Facebook and should he have a profile and … someone said, “Just don’t try so hard.” But I completely understand where he is coming from. Everything he says and does has the extra weight of being said and/or done by a Bishop.

I think I actually saw a light bulb above his head, though, when he realized that being real about who you are and not worrying so much about that extra Episcopal weight is one of the most important values shared by people of younger generations. Authority is carried a lot differently by people in their 20s and 30s than their parents and grandparents.

For example, the Board of Ordained Ministry pushed me on my ideas about pastoral authority back when I was up for my ordination interview. I think the root cause of that point of disagreement was a generational conflict in what “authority” is. I was thinking of authority as an aspect of community and of relationship, something that is earned via trust and respect. That was rubbing up against an idea of authority as an aspect of position and rank, something that is given to an individual through a hierarchical system like the church.

Similarly, I think that Bishop Schnase’s “Don’t try so hard” moment came as he realized that his authority with the people in that room came not because the South Central Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church had elected him Bishop, but because we all like him and trust him and respect him for who he is. So if you have an idea and you want to post it to your blog, post it! If you see a cool thing and you want to share it, take a picture with your fancy new iPhone and share it!

It is better to be authentically who you are than to be overly concerned about what someone else thinks your role should be. That’s what “don’t try so hard” means to me.

+++

My favorite personal moment from the two days was when I offered the suggestion that we needn’t worry so much about high schoolers leaving the church when they go off to college. In fact, I think we should encourage it! We should let them go, and figure out how to be the church for them wherever they land.

There is a lot of anxiety about young people leaving the church – but what better time of life to be going away, cutting the ties of childhood, figuring out who you are going to be in your adult life than the years right after high school? Maybe we should concentrate more on equipping them to be faithful disciples than to be good church members, then when they decide to leave the church, they’ll be more secure in their identity and therefore more likely to one day return.

I do not think that my suggestion was very well received – at least there wasn’t really any further conversation about it.

+++

And my favorite all-around moment of the two days was simply being together with young people in ministry. There is just a different vibe in the room. We hung out, shared some things, disagreed about stuff, laughed a lot, talked about our passions, shared personal stories about families and friends, envisioned ministry as it could/should be, and just generally had a good time together. We got our picture taken by a big fake moose. We went to Jazz for supper and made jokes about Coonass. We reflected on the possible meanings of a bumper sticker claiming, “My Other Car is Made of Meat.”

One informal conversation pondered the viability of a Fantasy Church League where we could choose various ministries from various congregations and accumulate points on a weekly basis, like Fantasy Football except with Church! We’re already tracking attendance, baptism, and mission numbers online, Fantasy Church can’t be too far away.

The future of the United Methodist Church is bright, I think because younger people seem to know better how to get along with one another as colleagues and friends. I hope we never lose that. Somebody smack me if I do. Like this:

Still my favorite.

Earn - Save - Give

I was clicking around Barack Obama's transition website this morning, and found the place where it asks people to share visions for the future of the country. Here's what I contributed:

When it came to money, John Wesley taught early Methodists to "Earn all you can; Save all you can; Give all you can." When I think about the future of the United States of America, I see a place where that basic principle is the norm.
We need a robust capitalist economy that allows everyone to earn all they can, a healthy investment system allows for saving all we can, and an ethos of generosity across the nation in which giving to others is a joy, not an obligation.

Giving is on my mind, because tomorrow it is the topic of my sermon. I am going to try to deconstruct some old ideas about giving to the church and start reshaping generosity so that we think of giving more as an act of discipleship rather than an obligation to support a budget. Giving is a joy, a privilege, and act of grace (2 Corinthians 8-9), and "if the eagerness is there, the gift is acceptable." (8:12)

Eagerness = prothumia. That can mean zeal, spirit, eagerness, inclination, or readiness of mind, according to the Blue Letter Bible site.

Prothumia has been in short supply in recent memory, but it's making a comeback! So much good happens when there is a sense of eagerness, an attitude of expectancy, a feeling that something wonderful is just about to happen. It filters out into everything else, and begins to build upon itself, creating an exponential increase in the positive feelings all over the place.

Finally, all that we earn, all that we spend, all that we save, and all that we give, everything belongs to God. We just receive it as caretakers. When it comes to money, the question "Will this be pleasing to God?" is the true "bottom line."

Starbucks and the Church - A Parable.

I promise I wrote the last post BEFORE Kory showed me this video!

Identity versus Activity?

I’m reading Paul Borden’s “Direct Hit.”

At the same time, I am reading Phyllis Tickle’s “The Great Emergence.”

As a result, my brain is splitting in two.

As much power, depth, and theological complexity as there is from Phyllis Tickle, there is that much over-simplification, repetition, and business jargon from Paul Borden. I get the idea that Borden took a book on how to run a business and changed a few words around to make it sound more like a church book. I get the idea that Tickle is sharing wisdom about the identity of the Church that may very well have global implications.

I think the reason I have so much trouble with Borden, who I know is a very popular author and speaker in church leadership right now, is that his main thing is to take a single verse of Scripture – Matthew 28:19 – and turn it into the church’s business plan. For him, “make disciples” is the ecclesial equivalent of “sell as much as you can of product X.” Everything else that he writes comes from that premise. At least that’s how I see it.

Businesses sell as much as they can of product X in order to make a profit; churches make disciples in order to change our communities and our world. But can we really say that Christian discipleship is just a means to an end like that? I have always thought of discipleship as an individual’s identity upon accepting Christ into their life, not as a set of activities we do in order to attain a goal.

I understand that people like the idea of boiling life down to a series of action items we undertake in order to advance toward an objective (or hit a bull’s eye, if you prefer). The only problem with that is life itself; it happens to be a lot messier than that. Skubalon happens. And when we are exclusively task-oriented, spending all of our time talking about what the church does, we flounder when we find that we can’t do it.

It would be much better to talk about who the church is, to understand our identity as fully as we can. That way, when the messiness of normal life intrudes upon us, we can weather it and even flourish, secure in our identity as the church. When we define a church by what it does, we set it up for decline and eventual death, because there will be times when it cannot do what we have decided it should be doing.

Businesses define themselves by what they do. Starbucks sells coffee. Everything Starbucks does is geared toward selling coffee. If the coffee crop failed one year and there was no coffee available to sell (a horrifying thought, I know), the very identity of Starbucks would vanish. There is no way Starbucks can be faithful to being Starbucks minus the ability to sell coffee.

If churches define themselves by what they do, their identity is at risk when that activity is no longer possible, for whatever reason. So for example if a church is defined by worshiping a certain way, the identity of the church is threatened when it is no longer feasible to worship that way. Or if a church is defined by a particular mission focus, when that mission focus becomes impossible the very identity of the church is at risk.

If, on the other hand, a church would spend as much time praying and thinking together about identity as we tend to do now about activity, a new worship style or a different mission focus would be a very natural thing. Change in the church would be much easier to facilitate as a result, because activities would be almost interchangeable, and no threat at all to the core identity of the church.

Borden is all about change, and I like that. But he is clear about neither what we are changing from nor what he thinks we should change into. And I think that’s because all he has to base his thoughts on is that one-verse business plan – to make disciples. Making disciples very important for the church; it is what happens when a church is clear about its identity. But making disciples is not the church’s identity in and of itself.

In Matthew, Jesus says, “By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.”

What the tree is is a fig tree. What the tree does is bear figs. The fig tree does not have to attend seminars on how to bear figs. New figs are the natural consequence of being a fig tree.

I simply think the church is overly anxious about what the church does and is not asking enough questions about who the church is. And ironically, if we were more certain about who the church is, a lot of the anxiety about what the church does would go away.

And even more ironically, if we were more certain about who the church is, that would be attractive to more and more people who may want to become a part of it, thus helping with the initial cause of all this anxiety in the first place!

P.S. This is one of my favorite topics, apparently.