Advent - Week One

Advent begins, and it feels familiar.

Comfortable. Traditions renewed.

Familiar garland. Familiar lights.

Familiar songs. Familiar food.

Every year, a sacred season

begins as autumn fades

and winter peeks around into

shortening, darkening days.

Advent begins, and prophets call, “Swords

into shovels! Spears into billhooks!”

And the words flicker into our ears

like a single candle lit against

the oncoming darkness of our hopes and fears.

Every year, the expectations of our

deepest and truest selves

are met, exceeded, extended, transcended

beyond earthly standards and big box shelves

into the music of God,

made known in humility, fragility, infinite capability

and hope.

There is a song in the air, and that song is called hope.

We wait for you, long-expected Jesus. We prepare for your arrival with familiar sights and smells and flavors and sounds. Familiar ... and yet new every year. There is a song in the air, both familiar and new, a song that is and was and ever shall be, Amen.

There's a Song in the Air

“Expect the unexpected.” Have you heard that phrase before? It is ironically common these days, such that we almost expect to hear it uttered in certain surprising circumstances. Which of course, defeats its purpose entirely.

This week we are entering a season rich with traditions. Advent, the four weeks of preparation before the twelve days of the Christmas season begin, is a time during which much is deeply familiar. Heirloom decorations are unpacked, plans for annual gatherings of family and friends are made, and greenery and lights are hung on nails that were driven in years ago.

And of course, the familiar music of the season begins.

No other season has music connected to it quite like this one does. Other holidays have musical associations, but the songs of the Christmas season are deeply imprinted on our hearts. Hearing a favorite Christmas song elicits nostalgia, stirs emotions, and elevates our demeanor.

I really enjoy hearing a familiar song in a new and creative arrangement. It’s “tradition with a twist,” a well-known song with a new harmonization or a well-done countermelody or done in a different style than is usually heard. A good new arrangement of a traditional Christmas song manages to connect to the memories of the past while at the same time being fresh and engaging in the present.

Songs play a significant role in Luke’s version of the birth of Jesus. Mary, Zechariah, John, and Simeon, not to mention the angels themselves, all sing songs of praise and worship as a part of Luke’s account. During Advent at Campbell UMC, we are going to use these songs as our Scriptural focus for our worship services, and maybe by doing so, hear the story in a brand new way. In other words, “expect the unexpected!”

“There’s a Song in the Air!” during Advent this year, and all are welcome to sing along!

Ruth - A Parable for Our Time

How in the world did Ruth, a woman from Moab of all places, get into the genealogy of Jesus?

Being a Moabite was completely incompatible with Jewish teaching. For Israelites, Moabites were irreconcilably deplorable. The tenets of their faith (meaning the Bible) permitted discrimination against Moabites “even to the tenth generation.”

So what is Ruth the Moabite doing there, in the family tree of the Lord and Savior?

Rewind: Moab was the son of Lot, and the story of his conception is definitely rated NC-17. It’s all there in Genesis chapter 19 if you want to read it. It comes right after the Sodom and Gomorrah story, which gets all the attention of course. But the story of how Moab and his half-brother Ben-ammi were conceived is … well let’s just say it’s not going to be the content of next year’s Vacation Bible School curriculum.

Because of this shameful story, the Moabites and the Ammonites were thought to be inferior by the Israelites. Of course, it’s quite possible that it happened the other way around (just sayin’). It could have been that there was animosity between Israel and their neighboring ethnic groups first, and then the story of those groups’ origin was composed to “confirm” that pre-existing animosity. Nevertheless, Israelites and Moabites didn’t hang out together.

So when Naomi and her family journey to Moab to find relief from the famine in Israel, it was an act of desperation. And when her sons married Moabite women, it must have been quite the scandal. And then when her sons died and Naomi returned to Israel with one of those Moabite women with her, her former friends and neighbors must have really flipped out.

But then Ruth gives birth to Obed, who becomes the father of Jesse, who is the father of David, who becomes the King. And in Matthew Chapter 1, there’s Ruth’s name, one of only four women in the whole paternalistic list that traces the birth of Jesus himself all the way back to Abraham.

Ruth the Moabite. “Wrong” in almost every sense of the word. Wrong ethnicity. Wrong religion. Wrong gender. Wrong family background.

But apparently, things that people think count as “wrong” aren’t necessarily what God counts as “wrong.”

By every human consideration Ruth should have been excluded. If a Jewish person would not have been permitted to exclude her, they could have complained about having their religious freedom infringed upon. If someone had referred to Moabites as a “basket of deplorables,” no one would have thought twice about it.

And yet … Ruth the flippin' Moabite. Right there, in Jesus’s family tree.

God just keeps on surprising us, huh?

I wonder what would happen if we just stopped painting one another with such broad brushes, and we actually treated people like people, instead of categories? I wonder...

The Master We Seve

“No one can serve two masters.” - Jesus

The master we serve goes by the name “Emmanuel,” which means “God with us.”

The master we serve is called the “Prince of Peace” and “The Author of Life.”

The master we serve is Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer, the One, Holy, Sovereign God.

We who serve this master know that we are expected to be his ambassadors. Together we claim we are his very body in the world. He has shown us the difference between right and wrong, between justice and oppression, between good and evil. He has demonstrated to what extent we are supposed to love one another. He didn't just tell us that; he showed us.

And because he has taught us so much, when a person is in pain, or grieving, or frightened, or angry … we know what we are supposed to do.

We are to stand with them. We are to listen to them, and acknowledge their pain. We are to encourage, support, and love. To respond any other way is to serve some other master, a master whose realm is earthly rather than of God.

In the past several days, many of our brothers and sisters have expressed pain, grief, fear, and anger, intensely emotional reactions to the election of 2016. We must take care not to dismiss these emotions. And we must take care not to tell them what is "really" wrong.

A Christian knows what to do - We stand with them. We listen to them. We acknowledge their pain. We encourage, support and love them. And we do so because really there is no “them.” There is only “us.” We’re it.

And we are presented a choice: you either serve God or you don’t. There’s not a lot of wiggle room there. It isn't a multiple choice quiz. No one can serve two masters.

A New President - Election Day 2016 Post #6

(Just a warning: I am a pastor, and I’m about to share an opinion that might be considered political. If you don’t think pastors should share political opinions, you might want to stop reading now.)

I did not think he would really run. And he ran.

I did not think he would really be nominated. And he was nominated.

I did not think he would really win the election. And he won.

I do not think he will really be able to implement his campaign promises.  And …

And for me it’s not only about the specific campaign promises he made, it’s about the tone he sets.

I did not think that a majority of voters would approve of that tone. And ... it actually turns out they didn’t.

It was close, but there were just over 200,000 more Americans who voted for Hillary Clinton than voted for Donald Trump (at the time of this writing). So there’s not a decisive victory, no clear mandate to advance his agenda. We are a starkly polarized country, and this election showed that very clearly.

Let me say this before I proceed. Although I did not support his campaign, I will respect his role as President of the United States.

And at the same time, I will hold on to what I know.

I know that bullying is wrong. I know that racism is wrong. I know that misogyny is wrong. I know that discrimination against people who are gay is wrong. I know that allowing fear to motivate your actions leads to terrible results.

I know that God is real. I know that every person is beloved. I know that we are different from one another, but no one is better than anyone. I know that evil, injustice, and oppression exist and need to be confronted. I know that love will always trump hatred.

I also know that not everyone who voted for Donald Trump this year shares his worldview. Far be it from me to use the same kind of prejudiced language about “the Trump voters” as he uses about “the Mexicans” or “the Blacks” or “the Muslims.” But here’s the deal - I’m going to need people in that category to join with me to speak with some pretty loud voices of condemnation if or when President Trump’s worldview impacts his actions as President.

Finally, I’m not lamenting today. I’m actually feeling, like my friend Greg says, “Bolstered.” I mean that sincerely. I can be rather conservative about certain things, but overall I am pretty progressive in my thought, my politics, and my theology. And while that puts me at odds with the prevailing governing authorities of the season, nevertheless I’m in fairly good company.

The way I see it, we are in the midst of an enormous cultural shift, and this year’s election was a sharp, sudden backlash to that shift. But the tide is still turning, this year’s results notwithstanding. This election has illuminated a lot of really dark places in our society, and that’s a really good thing. Now, with those dark places lit up, the fear, prejudice, racism, and other horrible stuff that usually hangs out there has no place to hide.

Every member of every United Methodist Church in America has promised to “resist evil, injustice, and oppression in whatever forms they present themselves” as a part of our membership vows. Well, let’s get to it! We’ve got some work to do.

In the midst of new dimensions, in the face of changing ways.

Who will lead the pilgrim peoples wandering in their separate ways?
God of rainbow, fiery pillar, leading where the eagles soar,

We your people, ours the journey now and ever, now and ever, now and ever more.

Should the threats of dire predictions cause us to withdraw in pain,

May your blazing phoenix spirit, resurrect the church again.

God of rainbow, fiery pillar, leading where the eagles soar,

We your people, ours the journey now and ever, now and ever, now and ever more.

- Rev. Julian Rush, 1985

(I apologize to those who have read this and think it is unseemly for a pastor to have an opinion about things. To be fair, I gave you advance warning!)

Your Vote, Your Voice - Election Day 2016 Post #5

We the people,
in order to
form a more perfect union,
establish justice,
insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare,
and secure the blessings of liberty
to ourselves and our posterity
do ordain and establish
this Constitution of the 
United States of America.

"The Constitution is a glorious liberty document. Read its preamble; consider its purposes."
- Frederick Douglass

It's right there, isn't it? The whole reason for doing this. To "establish justice." To "promote the general welfare." To "secure the blessings of liberty" not just for us, but for "our posterity" far into the future.

That's why this matters so much.

Please don't stay home for this one. Get out there and vote. Don't you dare think your vote doesn't matter. Don't take this amazing right for granted. Don't let anything stop you from casting your vote for the people and the issues that most closely represent your perspective. This is for "ourselves and our posterity." Our "common defense," the very way we live our lives. As Susan B. Anthony said, "Suffrage is the pivotal right."

And then, whatever the results, remember what's most important. On Wednesday morning, November 9th, 2016, here's what you are gonna do:

Hug your kids. Kiss your spouse. Smile at your friends and co-workers. Breathe deeply and celebrate being alive. Pray. Do your work. Help somebody who needs help. Offer someone a word of encouragement. Create something beautiful. Practice a little domestic tranquility. Pursue happiness. Sing a song. Live your life.

Your vote is your voice. Speak.


Election Day 2016 Post #1
Election Day 2016 Post #2
Election Day 2016 Post #3
Election Day 2016 Post #4

Luster Diminished - Election Day 2016 Post #4

Greene County Sheriff's Deputies will be stationed at certain polling places on Tuesday. This is the first time they’ve ever done that, according to an article in our local paper.

I first got this news from a volunteer poll worker, a member of my church, who confided in me that many of the election volunteers are really scared. Which is horrible. Please, let’s keep these dedicated people in our prayers.

In the article, County Clerk Shane Schoeller is quoted as saying, “In this setting, with everything that, in terms of just the emotions around the election, some of the things we've seen happen, we thought it would be good to have a presence. Not on the outside - we don't want anyone to have any intimidation in terms of entering the polling location - but certainly there at the back, as people are coming in, there to assist and be helpful.”

There’s a lot about this that is … let’s just say interesting.

The decision is based on “emotions” and “some of the things we’ve seen happen.” Which is interesting – not based on facts, any real evidence, or things that have actually happened here. (It is also interesting and worth noting that Mr. Schoeller sponsored a voter I.D. bill when he was a Missouri State Representative.)

Secondly, the idea that an officer inside a building is not intimidating, but one outside of a building is…is interesting. So someone who would be intimidated by an officer in the sunlight won’t be if they are illuminated by the fluorescents? What exactly is the difference that makes an indoor officer not intimidating?

Also interesting are some of the reactions online. People on each side are assuming that any trouble that arises would be instigated by the other side. Of course. It’s always someone else’s fault. (Note to self: Never read the comments!)

And most interesting, at least to me, are the unknown criteria being used to determine which polling places will be included. Clerk Schoeller is cited as saying that the Sheriff's department has made those decisions, based in part on the crime rate around the polling place.

Based on the crime rate?  Wait now, what? I’m assuming he meant that a neighborhood with a higher crime rate is more likely to have a deputy assigned to it. So it’s interesting, isn’t it? Is there actually a correlation between crime statistics in a neighborhood and problems at polling places? If so, what is it? If not, seems like a pretty big assumption for them to make, doesn’t it?

Look, I know that I don’t have anything to worry about from a Sheriff’s Deputy at my polling place. And I also know that nobody has anything to worry about if they just go in, stand in line, vote, and leave. It’s only the troublemakers that are going to have any trouble.

But … I have got to try to see things through someone else’s eyes. That's called empathy, and it's an important quality for a follower of Jesus to have. 

What about - someone who has a past history with law enforcement. Someone who gets nervous around cops, for whatever reason. Someone who might see that deputy there and turn around and leave. Someone who might assume that something has happened and doesn’t want to get involved and so they change their mind. Someone who might live in a “high crime area” and so have a relationship with law enforcement that is complicated at best, if not outright antagonistic.

If there are going to be deputies at some polling places, shouldn’t they be at all polling places?

President Ronald Reagan reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 1982. And as he did, he said, “The right to vote is the crown jewel of American liberties, and we will not see its luster diminished.” It seems to me that, if nothing else, law enforcement officers at polling places diminishes the luster of our right to vote.

Citizens, Not Subjects - Election Day 2016 Post #3

Should a Christian voter in the United States use the Bible to inform our election decisions? The first and obvious answer is “Yes,” but I think there is a pretty important distinction to be aware of first.

In the U.S., we are citizens of a Republic. The people of the Bible were subjects in a monarchy or an oligarchy. There is an enormous difference in worldview between these two realities.

We have an ongoing public conversation in our nation about the role of government in our daily lives. We have reduced the conversation to terms like “less” and “more” or “smaller” and “bigger.” Advocates for “less” or “smaller” government are those who believe that government is over-reaching, over-regulating, and needs to be refocused on a smaller set of priorities.

Here’s what is so amazing - We can actually have this conversation in our country!!! Normal people like you and me,because we are citizens and not subjects, can actually talk together about what our government should be doing, and cast our votes accordingly.

See that? Isn’t that remarkable? Let’s not take it for granted. We can tell our government what we think it should be doing. No one in the Bible or in the Bible’s initial audience would have ever dreamed of telling their governing authorities how “big” government should be! It was the governing authorities who let the people know exactly what the government would be doing at any given time.

At Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said that “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” That’s a pretty cool deal if you ask me, and an idea that would have been quite foreign to people we read about in Scripture.

So back to the question: Should a Christian voter in the United States use the Bible to inform our election decisions? Well, yes and no.

It is possible for a Christian in the U.S. to want our society to be more aligned with Scripture (meaning more just, more peaceful, more loving, more like the Kingdom of God) and also think the government is just not the best way to make that happen. That person may vote very differently than a Christian with similar, or even identical desires about our society who does think government is a viable mechanism for making that happen.

In other words, two faithful Christians who each take the Bible seriously and each love Jesus and each think there are some serious injustices in the world that need to be addressed might end up voting for different candidates, or voting differently on various propositions or amendments.

And that’s okay! In fact, it’s really brilliant! Having a wide, diverse array of perspectives among our citizens is a part of what makes our nation go, gives us energy, and keeps us accountable. If we didn’t have it that way, we’d be subjects of a single authority, bound by our coerced allegiance.

What isn’t okay is when we attack as “unfaithful” a perspective that is different than our own or when we arrogantly claim that there’s only one way a follower of Jesus could possibly vote. This is America, and that’s not how we do! Yes, citizenship is messier that subjecthood, but freedom is inherently messy, and just because it’s messy doesn’t mean it has to be ugly.

Polarized, Not Divided - Election Day 2016 Post #2

As we draw closer to the 2016 election, tensions seem to escalate. I am told that here in Greene County, Missouri there will be armed security at every polling place this year, the first time this has happened. Police officers and Sheriff’s deputies will be present at the schools, churches, and other locations where we will vote, just in case.

Just in case … what, exactly? Just in case what? What country do we live in, again?

There surely have been some elections in our history that were this antagonistic, this bitter, this confrontational. Maybe 1968. But I sure don’t remember them in my lifetime. Good, honest disagreement - yes. Rigorous debate - yes. But this? This is scary.

But here’s the thing. I don’t believe our nation is divided; I think it is polarized.

To me, “divided” implies a split between two groups, in which every member of each group shares a common perspective.

To me, the term “polarized” implies a convergence of energy at two extremes, with a large diverse group in between.

I think we are polarized. The loudest voices are on the far edges, and they are getting all the attention. The poles of our society have been empowered in this season, and they are flexing. Hateful language, vilification of political opponents, physically violent confrontations, willful ignorance, an attitude of invincibility - all coming from the poles.

Meanwhile, most of us in the middle majority are able to see nuance and subtlety, to be “conservative” in some areas and “liberal” in others, to hold multiple ideas in our minds simultaneously. The middle majority sees shades of gray rather than a black or white dichotomy. But the middle majority doesn’t get a lot of press. We aren’t newsworthy.

In this election season there aren’t very many candidates at any level who come from this middle majority. Thanks in part to dramatic redistricting in the last few years, politicians often do not have to worry about representing an ideologically diverse group of people. They can shift to the poles without fear, and they have.

The question is then, How can the Church best embody the Gospel in this polarized environment? In many ways the polarization of our society has infiltrated the church itself. We are, after all, people. The church is just the people who are a part of the society, and prone to the same social forces that impact the greater whole.

A truly counter-cultural way of being would be to drain energy from the poles and into the center. That means each of us being okay with the idea that others may not see the world the same way you do.

This means rising above the rhetoric that vilifies a candidate, even a candidate with whom you do not see eye-to-eye on anything.

This means naming and resisting corruption, injustice, and oppression in whatever forms they present themselves, including the systemic injustices embedded in our systems and structures, without attacking people on a personal level.

This means speaking up for all those whose voices have been lost in the cacophony of the 2016 campaign.

This means disagreeing without hating, arguing without yelling, debating without belittling.

If we might model this way of being, Church, things might end up being okay after all. And I’m afraid that if the Church can’t do it, then no one can. The Church is uniquely structured to be just what our polarized world needs at such a time as this. Now if we can only figure out how to actually be what we’re supposed to be!

Election day 2016 - Post #1

In this final week before the Fall 2016 election, many are weary. It has been a long, bitter campaign season, and the anxiety and animosity have just worn us out.

Nevertheless, the right to vote in the United States must not be taken for granted. There are many in our world who do not enjoy this right, and many others for whom voting is not free and fair, but rather undertaken at some personal risk.

And so, as a pastor, I am pondering how to apply the tenets of faith to our U.S. political process. How does our faith intersect with the decisions we make as voters? Should we apply the Gospel? Should we look to Scripture for guidance? Should we ask, “How would Jesus vote?” Or is it better to leave our faith at home on voting day and just think as citizens of a democracy instead of as subjects in God’s Kingdom?

The way I see it, followers of Jesus ought to allow our faith to impact every part of our life, and that would include how we vote on election day. Christianity is a profoundly communal religion, meant to be lived together. The Bible is filled with guidance as to how people are supposed to live together in a way that is pleasing to God, a way of life that is characterized by love and grace, peace and justice, wisdom and truth. On an election day in the United States, we are as a community making important decisions about how we are going to live together, and what role our government will play in how that happens.

But another thought may even be more important for us to remember, especially in 2016.

Followers of Jesus ought to allow our faith to impact the way we treat people who may be voting differently than we do. In other words, “take care [your] spirits were not sharpened against those that voted on the other side” (John Wesley). I have heard hateful things spoken about a number of candidates, many of the statements not only hateful but also false. To say such things is utterly incompatible with the teaching of Jesus. Our words ought to build others up, “give grace to those who hear,” because it is truly “out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks.”

In an especially brutal election cycle, the Church has a definite counter-cultural role to play. It may not be easy to serve as ambassadors of Christ in the current climate, but it is crucial that we do so.

(Note: This week I’ll be sharing more election-related thoughts here as we head toward election day.)

It's Noteworthy: Women in Leadership

I experienced two events over the weekend that I took for granted, but are actually very noteworthy. It is also noteworthy, I think, that I took them for granted. The two events were simple, routine ministry events. I did a wedding and sang at a funeral. That’s it, and the everyday-ness of them is an important part of their significance.

The wedding was held at another United Methodist church, and the pastor of that church graciously extended an invitation to me to preside. The funeral was also held at another United Methodist Church, and the pastor of that church similarly invited me to sing during the service.

(Side note: Neither was a previous church of mine, so we did not violate the UM policy about not returning to previous appointments.)

Here’s what I have realized is noteworthy about those two events – both of the lead pastors in these other congregation happen to be women. Now to me, and to United Methodists in general, this is no big deal. This is take-it-for-granted level stuff. Of course women are in leadership roles, and at every level of the church.

But in the mix of what passes these days for “public discourse” in America, the role of women in leadership happens to be a very big deal indeed. The current presidential campaign is shining a light on the topic, in fact. The sexist double standard that is being applied by many people is overt, easy to spot, and frankly appalling.

I am embarrassed and disgusted when I hear people dismiss derogatory, sexist language as just “locker room talk.” “Boys will be boys” is not a cute expression; it is stereotyping, demeaning, and contributes to a culture that excuses the abhorrent behavior of far too many men, far too often. Words matter, and cannot be minimized as being “only words.” There’s no such thing as “only words.”

Sometimes though, ugly words can yield a positive result. Of all that has happened this summer and autumn of 2016, one of the most profound has been the wave of women who have been empowered to publicly share their story (or stories) of being sexually assaulted. This was the silver lining to the otherwise dark cloud that was a recording of one man bragging to another about sexually assaulting any woman he wanted to at any time. Sexual assault statistics are staggering, and the women’s stories are dragging the issue to the surface, where it can be seen and confronted with honesty and righteous indignation.

What really gets me, though, is how many people are acting as if this phenomenon is a new thing, which is simply not true. Sexism was not invented in 2016. The objectification of women is not an innovation of this campaign season. A double standard has been applied to women in leadership roles for generations; why have so many people only just now discovered it?

I believe that our essential human unity is deeper than gender. I believe Scripture is quite clear about this point, in multiple stories. In fact I believe it is one of the foundational themes of Scripture, that ALL people, regardless of gender, are created in the divine image, loved without condition, and promised an abundant and everlasting life.

Which is why those two every day, ordinary ministry events last weekend were so noteworthy.  I experienced the excellent leadership of two pastors, both of whom happen to be women. There are denominations in which the gifted leadership of Lori and Laura would not be welcomed, simply because they are women. Likewise, there are people in America who think being a woman disqualifies a person from being president. There are people in our fair city who criticize a woman’s appearance when they disagree with her ideas (which rarely (if ever) happens to a man, for some reason).

So I’d like to take a minute to intentionally celebrate the leadership of two strong, gifted, smart, visionary, gracious, and Spirit-filled pastors, colleagues, and friends who just happen to be women. Please know that I would never dare take you for granted. You are awesome!

Maybe one day, after every glass ceiling has been shattered, after women receive equal pay for equal work, after women leaders are the norm rather than the exception ... maybe then it won't be noteworthy any more. But that day has not yet arrived. So everyone take note! 

Let it be known that Reverend Lori Lampert and Reverend Laura Murphy are amazing leaders in the church, and it is humbling to serve with them as a colleague in ministry.

An Opportunity to Change the System

This morning, I submitted the following to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regarding a proposed rule change for the payday/title loan industry:

It is a question of justice, and lives are at stake. People who get caught in the cycle of debt that is perpetrated by the payday/title loan industry are victims of an unjust, unethical, and obviously predatory system. Reform of this system is imperative.
 A “full-payment test” before approving a loan is a common sense rule that would prevent countless numbers of people from entering into the cycle in the first place. I encourage the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to please implement this rule.
 Furthermore, the rules for refinancing existing loans need to be reformed to make that practice much more difficult. Creating the conditions in which a customer has no choice but to refinance or even take out another loan to cover the first is the stated business model for many lending companies. This is, frankly, reprehensible.
 Families caught in the debt trap are driven deeper and deeper into desperate poverty by unethical business practices that are currently legal in our nation. I hope that the CFPB will hear their voices, and act to rectify the situation. It is a question of justice, and lives are at stake.

The public comment period ends October 7th, and I encourage you to add your call for justice to mine.

You may do so by clicking this link - CLICK THIS

You can read a summary of the proposed rule changes here - CLICK THIS

It is a question of justice, and quite literally, lives are at stake.

Who Ya Rootin' For?

I have for the past two years had a team to root for in the MLB playoffs. And this year, I’m happy that my Royals were at least in the mix for a while. But alas, their season is over.

So now, with the Royals and the Cardinals both sitting out the post-season, I’m back to my traditional method of choosing a team to root for - team salaries. When I’m not rooting for a particular team, I have looked at the roster salaries of the playoff teams, and rooted for the one spending the least. (Source: businessinsider.com)

Realizing, of course, that “least” is a relative term. The lowest playoff team salary is (only) $98 million, enough money to feed, clothe, house, and educate … well I don’t know how many but a whole lot of people, and for quite a while.

So with that said, here’s the list:

American League:

Cleveland - $98 million

Toronto - $140.6 million

Baltimore - $147.9 million

Texas - $161.2 million

Boston - $199.9 million

National League:

New York - $130.6 million

Washington - $146.7 million

Chicago - $167.4 million

San Francisco - $171.5 million

Los Angeles - $253.6 million

So basically, I’ll be rooting for Cleveland to beat New York in the World Series this year.

The American League total is $747.6 million. The National League total is $869.8 million. The total payrolls of all ten playoff teams is a staggering 1 billion 617 million 400 thousand dollars. That’s just the PLAYOFF teams, remember.

The Los Angeles Dodgers are spending more on their payroll than Cleveland and New York combined. The Dodgers spent more this year on just position players (meaning: excluding pitchers) than 26 other teams spent on their entire payrolls.

The New York Yankees spent $227.9 million dollars this year (second highest in all baseball), for the privilege of missing the playoffs. The Detroit Tigers spent $199.5 million to do the same.

So it goes.

As usual, whenever I do this little exercise, I end up feeling very conflicted. I love baseball. It is America’s pastime. It is the balance of team and individual, of mental and physical, grace and strength. I love it.

But holy moly, do we ever spend a lot of money on it!

Anyway, go Indians!

Stopping Bible Abuse

A woman in Indianapolis beat her seven year old son with a coat hanger, severely enough to leave thirty-six dark purple bruises striped across his back and a hook-shaped bruise on his cheek. The abuse happened in February 2016. Her kids are safe now. (Story here.)

Legal documents filed in her defense quote Scripture to justify her actions.

Yes, please go back and read that again …

Her lawyer is arguing that something called the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” gives this child abuser permission to abuse children. The child abuser said, “I was worried for my son's salvation with God after he dies,” and “I decided to punish my son to prevent him from hurting my daughter and to help him learn how to behave as God would want him to.” Even leaving aside the completely illogical and ignorant statement that hurting a child will teach them not to hurt another child, the horribly twisted theology ought to appall and anger every person of faith everywhere in the world.

And then, the second layer of the defense plan is to argue that cultural differences caused her to misunderstand the law, since harsh physical abuse is common in the woman’s culture of origin. Which is bullshit. Child abuse is child abuse in Myanmar as well as Indiana. C.S. Lewis wrote, “The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard,” and that standard is “something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men’s behavior, and yet quite definitely real.”

And so, I will confess that a whole lot of emotion came to the surface for me when I read this story this morning. I’ve been working through a lot of that emotion in the back of my head all day as I’ve been working on other stuff. As both a foster dad and also a pastor, this story has kind of captured my attention.

Look, I know that interpreting Scripture to justify horrible things isn’t anything new. It is as old as Scripture itself, actually. As long as the Bible has been around, people have misused it to wage war, keep slaves, oppress women, commit genocide, discriminate against entire categories of people, and on and on.

So if it’s all the same to you, I’d really, really like us to stop doing that. In fact, here’s a list of simple steps that I think we ought to take, that will hopefully help us stop abusing the Bible.

1) If it is hurts another person, don’t do it, even if you believe the Bible says it’s okay.

2) Admit that you do not know everything there is to know about the Bible, much less about God.

3) Stop saying “The Bible says…” and start saying “I understand the Bible to say…”

4) Interpret difficult, ambiguous, or obscure passages in the light of the Bible’s central themes, like love, grace, justice, and peace.

5) And finally, if it hurts another person, even if you believe the Bible says it’s okay, don’t do it.

Just don’t.

The divinely inspired authors of the Holy Book of the church, the scribes who copied their words, the interpreters who took it from Hebrew and Greek and brought it to the world, the editors who so diligently pulled everything together – I’m pretty sure they weren’t doing what they did so that Indiana mom could do what she did.

And by the way, nor so that invading armies could eradicate native populations. Nor so that governments could deny equal rights for people of color. Nor so that husbands could consider wives to be personal property.

And while we're at it, nor so that bakers of cakes could discriminate against gay people. Nor so that a town in Midwestern America could call their event a Christmas parade. Nor so an employer could refuse to pay for healthcare for women employees. And so on.

Let's call it what it is. It is Bible abuse masquerading as religious freedom. It is incompatible with the Gospel. It's wrong, and it needs to stop.

So can we just stop please? It’s hurting people. And so we need to stop.

When Doctrine Hinders Mission

A woman called me a couple days ago. From the sound of her voice I would guess she is an older woman; she said she had attended worship, and she had a question for me about the congregation.

“What does your congregation believe about homosexuality?” she asked.

Earlier in my career, I would have hemmed and hawed a bit, trying awkwardly to figure out where she was coming from with her question. Was she “friend” or “foe?” Was I about to be the target of a homophobic lecture again? Was she going to unfairly associate me with the “official” denominational stance and chastise me for being so unjust?

But the time for hemming and hawing has long past, so I just answered her question honestly.

“I can’t speak for the entire congregation,” I said. “Some people here would like full inclusion of all people, and some think being gay should disqualify you from getting married. It’s a pretty diverse group. But as for me personally, I’m on the ‘full inclusion’ side of things. Meaning, I do not believe a person’s sexual orientation should disqualify them from getting married, or from getting ordained for that matter. And I know that there are quite a few who are on that same page.”

Her response made me smile. “Good,” she said. “I just couldn’t be a part of a church who didn’t include all people. I’ll be back!”

Our mission, church people, is non-negotiable. It is a given that our mission is to make disciples, meaning reaching out to offer people a relationship with God through Jesus as a part of a Spirit-filled congregation. And what is it that those disciples do once made? No less than “transform the world.” However you phrase it, our mission is to help people become followers of Jesus who are changing the world for God’s sake.

And so we talk about “the mission field,” which is a rather impersonal and businesslike way to describe the people I named above. We have other operational words like “unchurched” and “target demographic,” which are also helpful in encouraging us to forget that there are real actual people living real actual lives with whom we are called to live in real actual community. Nevertheless, whatever term you use, we are talking about people who are not a part of a church, for a variety of reasons.

Of that group, the overwhelming majority does not believe that being gay should disqualify you from getting married, not to mention impact how you are treated in the world in general. This isn’t my opinion; poll after poll backs this up. Or said another way, most “unchurched” people are like the woman who called me this week: they simply could not possibly be a part of a church that did not include all people.

So let me say this as clearly as I can. Pastors, congregations, and denominations who are opposed to marriage equality and who do not ordain people who are gay are stumbling blocks to the mission of the church. When the doctrine of the church excludes people based on sexual orientation, it makes it more difficult to accomplish the task given us by God.

Yes, it may very well be that people already in the church are opposed to fully inclusive marriage and ordination, but that isn’t the point, is it? The point is, the people we are supposed to be reaching are not.

I know the counter-arguments. “We would be condoning sin, and we just can’t do that” is one of the most common. The reasoning is this: Yes, all people are sinners, and all are welcome in the church. But we are supposed to stop our sinful ways and live like God wants us to. If we welcome and marry same-sex couples, we are not only not stopping the sin, we are approving of it.

There are a lot of people who believe this, and they are not hateful, they are not homophobic, they are loving and faithful and all that.

(To be sure, there are a lot of Christians who are absolutely hateful and homophobic, but I’m not talking about them today. Nor by the way am I addressing the “Scriptural authority” argument, as I have before.)

Thus for many the issue becomes the visibility of the perceived sin. For many Christians, a same-sex couple is an unavoidably visible representation of what they believe to be a sin, and they just can’t get around it. Of course, it is naive to believe that EVERY sinner stops sinning when they find Jesus, but for most of us you can’t really see it.

And so, the mission of the church is hindered. An enormous stumbling block is placed between thousands of people and a life-giving relationship with God, simply because some Christians are confronted with the evidence of one specific act that they believe to be a sin, and they can’t handle it.

For those of us who do not believe being gay is a sin, this is infuriating. I know how much my relationship with God has meant in my life, and I want more than anything else to share that with others. It makes me angry when something gets in the way of that happening, and it is embarrassing that what is getting in the way also happens to be the official doctrine of my denomination.

How many people are there in close proximity of our church building who are just like the woman who called me this week? Hundreds, no doubt. Thousands, probably. People are seeking a connection with the divine, a connection that fully embraces the whole self, all that makes a person a person, including one’s sexual orientation.

And yet many are never going to seek that divine connection as a part of a church, simply because the church’s mission is being compromised by the church’s doctrine.

But … some will. One did this week, in fact. And when she called, I was honest with her. And she said, “I’ll be back!” Thanks be to God.

What's In a Name?

Within the United Methodist Church exist several unofficial groups, organized for various reasons. Two of these groups are named the “Good News Movement” and the “Reconciling Ministries Network.”

The Good News Movement exists to ensure that people who are gay are not permitted to be ordained or married. The Reconciling Ministries Network exists for exactly the opposite reason, to ensure that people who are gay are permitted to be ordained and married.

So, in our big tent of a denomination, it has become customary to identify people who belong to one or the other of these groups by using the name of the group. And so: “She is a Good News person” and/or “He is a Reconciling person.” Just hearing those words associated in any way with an individual in our denomination seems to immediately color one’s opinion of the person in question, often without even actually knowing them. Which is sad, but so it goes.

I want to talk about those names, strategically chosen to identify these two polar opposite ends of our United Methodist spectrum. “Good news.” “Reconciling.” Have these terms become nothing more to United Methodists than political identifiers?

Truthfully, I am a “Good News” person. And truthfully, I am a “Reconciling” person. And I want to be both of those things without having to explain that I don’t want to carry the bitterly divisive baggage associated with each.

I am a Good News person because I believe the Gospel. I believe God loves the world so much that Christ Jesus laid down his own life so that the world might live an abundant, everlasting life. I believe that the teaching of Jesus, the promise of God, the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit are all inherently good news for all people, as well as for each person uniquely.

I am a Reconciling person because I take very seriously the idea that God has entrusted the church with the ministry of reconciliation. I believe that God’s desire is for unity, for people to be one community, to encourage one another and lift one another up. And I believe that God has called the church to make connections, build bridges, and heal broken relationships.

And I’d like to ask very kindly … can we have our words back, please?

No offense or anything, but I’d like to be able to use the terms without having to explain that I don’t mean either of those groups. (I feel the same way about the world “evangelical,” by the way.) I’d like to claim to be a person of the Good News without people wondering if that means I don’t want gay people to get married. I’d like to claim to be a minister of reconciliation without people wondering if that means I was protesting at General Conference.

And while I’m at it, let me share a couple other things that I’d like to be able to do.

I’d like to be able to claim that one’s sexual orientation should not be a barrier to ordination or marriage, without having my faith questioned, without someone accusing me of disobedience to God, without someone callously observing that I don’t take the Bible seriously, without someone assuming I am breaking covenant with my denomination.

And on the flipside, I’d like to be able to say out loud that change is happening in our church from the bottom up via a movement of the Holy Spirit; and I’d like to be able to affirm that the official legislation is going to catch up to that movement of the Spirit eventually rather than lead it, as it should be. And I’d like to be able to do that without being accused of not wanting justice now, without being compared to a “white moderate” of Dr. King’s day, without someone telling me I have somehow “sold out” and become a part of the system.

What I’m trying to say is that I’m a good news person. I’m a reconciling person. I’m an evangelical person. I’m a progressive person. I’m an orthodox person. I’m a social justice person. I’m a conservative person. I’m a peacemaking person. I’m a Bible-believing person. I’m a truth-seeking person. I’m a Wesleyan person. I’m …

I’m a Jesus person. I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and I try with everything I am to follow him as closely as I possibly can. And I get it wrong as often as I get it right, and I thank God for grace every single day.

I still believe, despite the anxiety in the system, that we can figure out a way to stay together as a denomination. I still believe that some on the edges will end up leaving as a result of the Bishop’s commission’s plan. And I know that some already have, pushed to do so by Bishop Oliveto’selection. Part of me grieves this; and another part of me is resigned to it. So it goes.

Some will say that our unity arises from our doctrine; if we do not ascribe to the same set of teachings, we should not be a united body. Others will say that our unity arises from the Holy Spirit; that we are mysteriously joined together with sacred bonds that transcend doctrine.

I find myself believing the latter; our unity is deeper than our doctrine. I’m a Jesus person, with all that comes along with that. And I trust, hope, and pray that the Jesus people who call ourselves Methodist will figure out a way to become the church that God is calling us to be.

Thoughts on Jurisdictional Conference 2016 - "Terrifying and Wonderful" - #scj16

My goal was to be coming home from Jurisdictional Conference excited about the future of the church.

I don’t know if “excited” is the word that best fits. I am excited / scared / embarrassed / happy / proud / angry / inspired / hopeful. What’s the word for that emotion? It may be "terrifyingly wonderful," but could also be "wonderfully terrifying." You pick.

So this will be kind of rambly, almost stream of consciousness. But somewhere in what follows will be the beginnings of my thoughts about what happened at the 2016 meeting of the South Central Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church. Here goes...

I’ll start with the Missouri Annual Conference’s new bishop, Bishop Bob Farr. Who, at this time last week, was Missouri’s Director of Congregational Excellence. He is a colleague and a friend to many in Missouri, and now he is our bishop. That dynamic is … unusual.

It is extremely rare for a bishop to be elected and immediately assigned to her or his home conference. It is not forbidden in our rule book, but it is hardly ever done. No one on the Missouri delegation could remember it happening before in our Jurisdiction.

I’m excited about Bishop Farr’s election and assignment for two reasons. First of all, it is an unusual situation, a new and different way to organize, and that’s what Missouri is all about! We are not now, nor we ever have been known for doing the same ol’ same ol’. Bishop Farr’s leadership will be innovative, just by its very nature. And secondly, I am excited that the South Central Jurisdiction has finally managed to elect a bishop who is not from the state of Texas. Not that that’s a huge deal, but it was starting to get kind of monotonous.

Bishop Farr is going to continue to focus on local congregations, and equip, encourage, and allow churches to organize for and engage in ministry that makes sense and bears fruit in the wide variety of diverse contexts around our state. He loves the church with all his heart, and loves Jesus just as much. I am happy and proud to call him my bishop.

With that said, I am embarrassed by the lack of diversity among the bishops of the South Central Jurisdiction. There is only one active bishop who is a woman, for example. Rev. Lynn Dyke would be a phenomenal bishop, and I was working to help her election happen until the moment she removed herself from consideration. Furthermore, Rev. David Wilson is a gifted leader, and would have brought a new perspective to the council of bishops, that of a Native American. Neither was elected.

There are ten bishops in the SCJ, and NINE of them are men, and SEVEN of them are white men. This is embarrassing to me, and not at all reflective of who we are as United Methodists. But it should be noted that across our denomination the other Jurisdictions have done a better job of electing bishops who reflect our diversity, including four African-American women.

With THAT said, the voting in the South Central Jurisdiction was neither sexist nor racist. Those making such claims are making some huge assumptions, often without actually being present during the conference. Both Lynn and David were in the thick of it on many ballots; David received over a hundred votes on one (ballot 24).

I am not naive, so I know that there were some individuals likely voting based on gender and/or race. But anyone who claims the final outcome was blatantly sexist or obviously racist would have a lot of explaining to do to back that assumption up. And based on my experience there, there were a myriad of other factors involved with the decisions the delegates made in selecting bishops.

(Um, isn’t that point a contradiction to the previous one?

Yes. Sure seems like it. Are you still wondering why my reaction is so mixed up?)

Next thing: The politicking made me angry. There’s no other way to say it. It makes me angry when a delegation huddles up, then the next ballot has a large number of votes for a random person who had zero on the previous ballot. Or two delegations get together and then on the next ballot one candidate who was running well has dropped while another one has bumped up. Deals are offered, bargains are struck, delegations “fish” for attractive candidates, heels are dug in. People campaign. And it’s politics. And I did it too. I was a part of it, in the mix. It is what it is, and that doesn’t mean I have to like it. If there’s a better way to do it, I’m all for giving it a try.

Then there was this: A surreal moment happened on Friday night. Simultaneously to the election of Bishop Karen Oliveto, we in the South Central Jurisdiction were debating whether or not to send a request to the Judicial Council of the UMC for a ruling on the election and consecration of people who are gay to be bishops in the United Methodist Church. (FYI, Bishop Oliveto is gay).

It was well rehearsed, planned out in advance, and timed exquisitely. As the petition was read from the floor, slides on screen displayed the text. It was pretty obvious that it had been in the works for a while, to be initiated if it looked like a gay bishop was close to election.

The vote was close, but we voted to go ahead and submit the request. People who believe that sexual orientation is not a hinderance to ordination think that this move is an attack on inclusiveness. People who think being gay disqualifies someone from ordination think this move is simply trying to be obedient to the Book of Discipline. So it goes.

And then, immediately after the vote, my friend and fellow Missouri delegate Andrew Ponder Williams went to the microphone and asked that we stand and pray, specifically for all who had been “hurt by what just happened.” I know exactly what he meant, but the way he worded it, he may have meant hurt by Bishop Oliveto’s election OR hurt by the South Central Jurisdiction’s request. After some urging by Justin Coleman, essentially the entire room came and gathered around Andrew, who was by the way standing two feet in front of me. We connected hands on shoulders, hand in hand, reaching for whoever was closest.

And then Andrew prayed. And it was a remarkable prayer. Sensitive, passionate, grace-filled, loving. The Holy Spirit fell upon Andrew in that moment, and he prayed for us. It was amazing, and I will never forget it.

Rob Renfroe has said that the election of Bishop Oliveto has put us on “the brink of schism.” He was sitting just a few feet on the other side of the microphone from which Andrew was speaking. I am sad to say that I did not notice if he stood up to pray with the rest of the group, but I am assuming that he did. If he did, he was literally three or four people away from Andrew.

Several people have asked me what I think about Bishop Oliveto’s election and assignment to the Mountain Sky Area. I don’t know; I’ve never even met her, much less have any thoughts about her potential effectiveness as a bishop. What I do know is that she is an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church, a member of the California-Nevada Annual Conference, she was nominated for bishop by her Annual Conference, and duly elected bishop by the Western Jurisdiction. I trust that process, and the people involved in it, in their discernment of Bishop Oliveto’s call to be a bishop.

And here is another thing of which I am certain. The gender of the person that Bishop Oliveto happens to love has no impact on the gifts and graces that God has given her to serve in ministry. Nor, by the by, does it have an impact on how we are going to do ministry at Campbell UMC in Springfield. I’m not going to obsess over that aspect of her identity, and I hope you won’t either.

One of the inspiring and hopeful parts of Jurisdictional Conference was meeting and getting to know some really cool people from around the South-Central Jurisdiction. It’s all about relationships, making connections with one another, and I had a lot of opportunities to do just that in Wichita. And by the wonder that is social media, it will be so much easier to remain connected.

I love being a part of a connectional church. I love the frustrating, beautiful, messy diversity that comprises our “big tent” denomination. I still don’t know what’s going to happen. People may leave now that we have a gay bishop. Other people may leave if the Judicial Council comes back and rules her election invalid.

I’m not leaving. I am Methodist, through and through. God has called me to serve in the United Methodist Church in this unsettled, uncertain season. The open table, the way of salvation, knowledge joined with piety, personal and social holiness together, grace upon grace upon grace - Methodism has something beautiful to offer people, and I’m all about offering it.

The Holy Spirit is so obviously at work in the church, in the nation, in the world, creating new expressions of church, deconstructing outdated ways of organizing, reviving old forms and practices in new and creative ways, tossing away old wineskins and providing brand new ones. What a truly terrifying and coincidentally wonderful time to be a part of the United Methodist Church!