Those 40 Questions

Well I had a fun afternoon! A good friend of mine sent me a link to a blog that asks 40 questions of Christians who are supportive of marriage equality. She asked me if I might have a chance to answer them. Since I’m currently on a spiritual renewal leave, I had time to fill and so I tackled the list today.

Now, I know that some of you are kind of done talking about all this. If you are, then by all means stop reading right now. That’s completely cool with me. I get it. Plus, this is really, really long so you may get a bit bored by the end. I had to look up “TLDR” but now that I know what it means I use it all the time.

However, I actually found that these questions were really pretty good ways to kind of sharpen my own beliefs. And at the end of the list, I have added ten questions of my own, that I think ought to be answered as well.

And so, for your reading pleasure, I offer my answers to those 40 questions. Here we go:

1. How long have you believed that gay marriage is something to be celebrated?

Since my Junior year of High School.                 

2. What Bible verses led you to change your mind?

I never really changed my mind. Or to be precise, I never believed gay marriage was not something to be celebrated. I just never thought about it, and then when I did, it was fine.

3. How would you make a positive case from Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing to be celebrated?

I wouldn’t. Every example of sexual activity between two persons of the same gender in Scripture is either rape, child abuse, or idolatry. A loving, respectful, grace-filled relationship between two adults of the same gender is never described in the Bible.

4. What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex can adequately depict Christ and the church?

I wish I could ask you, before I answer, why you believe this is an important enough question to be #4 on your list. I’ll go ahead and assume that you are referring to Ephesians 5, which many interpret as you do, that a marriage is supposed to “depict” the relationship between Christ and the church. That interpretation is all well and good (though it isn’t the one I make - I have some serious questions about the power dynamic implied), and yet it really has no implication on same-sex marriages, does it? That interpretation is instructive for husbands and wives. It says to them, “Your marriage is supposed to look like Christ and the church.”

Since there was no such thing as marriage between two people of the same gender in Paul’s day, as there is in America today, it hardly makes sense that he would use it as a depiction of Christ and the church, does it?

5. Do you think Jesus would have been okay with homosexual behavior between consenting adults in a committed relationship?

Yes.

6. If so, why did he reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman?

He quoted Genesis in order to respond to a question about divorce.

In Genesis, the quote is, “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” It starts with “therefore” because it is preceded by God taking a rib out of the man in order to create the woman. There are many various interpretations of this passage, including the one you have implied in your question. It won’t surprise you, probably, to learn that I do not interpret this passage as a “Genesis definition of marriage.” I interpret it as a theological statement about the unity of humanity.

7. When Jesus spoke against porneia what sins do you think he was forbidding?

He was forbidding sexual immorality.

8. If some homosexual behavior is acceptable, how do you understand the sinful “exchange” Paul highlights in Romans 1?

Paul is condemning the idolatry of the people, who have forgotten that God ought to be first and foremost in their lives. Instead, they are consumed with passion for each other, worship of the creature rather than the creator, envy, gossip, boastfulness, and so on. Chapter one of Romans sets the stage for the entire book, which is a powerful and vivid letter about sin and salvation. The “degrading,” “unnatural,” and “shameless” acts of passion that are condemned here are not specifically defined (Paul leaves the specifics to our own interpretation), but I for one am glad that Paul condemns them. All people should remember that God is, was, and always will be at the center of our relationships.

9. Do you believe that passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Revelation 21:8 teach that sexual immorality can keep you out of heaven?

So, by “keep you out of heaven,” you mean “inherit the kingdom of God,” right? That’s what 1 Corinthians says. And Revelation 21 is a completely different kind of passage than 1 Corinthians 6, so it is really rather peculiar that you group them together like this. We probably mean different things when we are talking about the kingdom of God or “heaven,” I imagine. You probably mean something like “where you go when you die” and I mean something more like “as intimate a relationship with God as is possible.” And so I can unequivocally say that sexual immorality keeps you out of heaven, if we mean it interferes with your relationship with God.

As to what happens when you die, well none of us truly knows that, do we? If we claim to, we are getting really close to saying that we know the mind of God, which I am definitely not wanting to do!

10. What sexual sins do you think they were referring to?

In my study of the Greek text, I understand the 1 Corinthians 6:9 passage (and 1 Timothy 1:10) as referring to adult men who hire young boys for sex. In other words, child abuse. I also understand that not everyone interprets this verse the same way, but that’s mine. And further, it should be noted that it is very difficult to translate the two words in question, arsenokoites and malakos. Their translations have observably evolved over time. In short, no matter what you think these two verses really refer to, you are making an interpretation.

11. As you think about the long history of the church and the near universal disapproval of same-sex sexual activity, what do you think you understand about the Bible that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther failed to grasp?

Nothing. Those dudes were smart! Just because I understand and interpret it differently doesn’t mean that anyone “failed to grasp” the meaning. It just means we have different perspectives. In the case of the theologians you mention, our perspectives are different not only by the places where we live(d), but the distance of hundreds of years. So it kind of just makes sense that we would see things differently.

12. What arguments would you use to explain to Christians in Africa, Asia, and South America that their understanding of homosexuality is biblically incorrect and your new understanding of homosexuality is not culturally conditioned?

Again with the “incorrect” language. Why are you so concerned with “correct” and “incorrect” and “failed to grasp.” It seems to be very important to you that you know who is “right” and “wrong” rather than a simple acknowledgement of mystery and uncertainty. And I’m not entirely sure where this entire question is coming from, in the first place. Why would I explain my understanding differently to someone from Africa, Asia, or South America? I would explain it the same way I would to someone from my hometown.

13. Do you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were motivated by personal animus and bigotry when they, for almost all of their lives, defined marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman?

No.

14. Do you think children do best with a mother and a father?

Most of the time, yes, although your question is poorly worded. Do you mean “as opposed to a single parent” or “as opposed to a same-sex couple.” Regardless, there cannot be a blanket rule that automatically applies to all families. Some of our foster kids have come from a home with both a mother and father, and it would be very difficult to make the case that the presence of a mom and dad automatically made their life better. And some of the most amazing kids I know were raised by a single parent.

15. If not, what research would you point to in support of that conclusion?

N/A

16. If yes, does the church or the state have any role to play in promoting or privileging the arrangement that puts children with a mom and a dad?

There are simply not enough people who feel called to provide foster/adoptive care to even consider that question. Our counties are desperate for foster homes. The lists of kids awaiting adoption are painfully long. We need stable homes in which kids are cared for, fed, clothed, encouraged, loved. These are the priorities, not the gender composition of the responsible adults in the home.

17. Does the end and purpose of marriage point to something more than an adult’s emotional and sexual fulfillment?

Yes.

18. How would you define marriage?

The loving, grace-filled, mutually respectful covenant relationship between two adults in which they make sacred vows to be life partners for ever, no matter what happens.

19. Do you think close family members should be allowed to get married?

No.

20. Should marriage be limited to only two people?

Yes.

21. On what basis, if any, would you prevent consenting adults of any relation and of any number from getting married?

Asked and answered.

22. Should there be an age requirement in this country for obtaining a marriage license?

Yes.

23. Does equality entail that anyone wanting to be married should be able to have any meaningful relationship defined as marriage?

No.

24. If not, why not?

Asked and answered - close family members, age, more than two.

25. Should your brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with homosexual practice be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs without fear of punishment, retribution, or coercion?

Yes. And yet here I will add that discrimination is not a religious belief. It is discrimination. Unless you are forming a new religion, or distorting an existing one.

26. Will you speak up for your fellow Christians when their jobs, their accreditation, their reputation, and their freedoms are threatened because of this issue?

Yes.

27. Will you speak out against shaming and bullying of all kinds, whether against gays and lesbians or against Evangelicals and Catholics?

Yes. And gay Evangelicals, and lesbian Catholics, and every possible combination thereof.

28. Since the evangelical church has often failed to take unbiblical divorces and other sexual sins seriously, what steps will you take to ensure that gay marriages are healthy and accord with Scriptural principles?

A curious question, with a curious term: “unbiblical divorces.” (Are there “biblical divorces?”) And I’m not sure I agree with the premise that the church doesn’t take divorce seriously.

Still, in response to the substance of the question, I’ll say: the same steps I take to ensure that EVERY marriage is healthy and in accord with Scriptural principles. As a pastor I do pre-marital counseling in which we talk about the issues that so frequently arise in marriages, trying to anticipate issues and equip the couple to deal with them. And when married couples come to me with problems to talk about them, we often discover that the problem isn’t related to the content itself, but rather in the way they are communicating.

29. Should gay couples in open relationships be subject to church discipline?

I’m sorry, but this question needs a lot more information for me to be able to answer it. I don’t want to assume that I know what you are talking about.

30. Is it a sin for LGBT persons to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage?

Yes.

31. What will open and affirming churches do to speak prophetically against divorce, fornication, pornography, and adultery wherever they are found?

Well, that’s a big question. I’m not responsible for every church’s prophetic action, of course. But I’m assuming that they will continue to do what they are already doing? You stumped me on this one, dude!

32. If “love wins,” how would you define love?

To love someone is “to desire and pursue their happiness as sincerely and steadily as your own.” That’s one way that John Wesley defined love, and it is very meaningful to me.

33. What verses would you use to establish that definition?

Oh my goodness there are so many! One of the clear overarching themes of all Scripture is the love of God and the loving response of humanity, created in God’s image, and called to care for one another and all of creation in loving acts. Genesis 1. Psalm 103. Micah 6. Matthew 25. John 15. 1 Corinthians 13. 1 John 4. It goes on and on!

34. How should obedience to God’s commands shape our understanding of love?

Obeying God’s command is liberating. Obedience to God sets us free to love as Christ loves - unconditionally and in abundance. We could never love as Christ loves on our own; God’s grace equips and empowers us to do so.

35. Do you believe it is possible to love someone and disagree with important decisions they make?

Yes.

36. If supporting gay marriage is a change for you, has anything else changed in your understanding of faith?

It isn’t a change for me, however I should say that a lot of things have changed over my 44 years of life with regard to how I understand God. I appreciate what Paul has to say on the matter, when he talks about followers of Jesus maturing in their faith. Or John Wesley’s teaching about sanctification, or growing closer and closer to God, deepening our knowledge and love of Christ as we practice our faith.

37. As an evangelical, how has your support for gay marriage helped you become more passionate about traditional evangelical distinctives like a focus on being born again, the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the total trustworthiness of the Bible, and the urgent need to evangelize the lost?

You are not defining “evangelical” the same way I do. I suppose you would therefore want to say that one of us is “wrong.” But again, I don’t see it that way; we’re just different. I am an evangelical because I believe with all my heart that an individual’s personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ empowered by the Holy Spirit is vitally important. The particular doctrines you mention are a part of what I know as “fundamentalism,” which is a very different thing than being evangelical.

38. What open and affirming churches would you point to where people are being converted to orthodox Christianity, sinners are being warned of judgment and called to repentance, and missionaries are being sent out to plant churches among unreached peoples?

Well, as a pastor I am not really familiar with a bunch of other churches. But I can say that I rarely “warn” people in my sermons; I guess I don’t really see sermons as vehicles of warning, more as proclamations of the good news. We include prayers of repentance and calls to discipleship in every service, and our Conference is planting churches all the time. But I don’t know your qualifications for the designation of “open and affirming,” so I’m not sure if I’m answering your question directly.

39. Do you hope to be more committed to the church, more committed to Christ, and more committed to the Scriptures in the years ahead?

Yes.

40. When Paul at the end of Romans 1 rebukes “those who practice such things” and those who “give approval to those who practice them,” what sins do you think he has in mind?

As I said in my answer to question 8 above, chapter one of Romans really sets up the rest of the book. The “such things” are listed by Paul in the verses that precede, and each illuminate the sin of idolatry, or not acknowledging God as the ultimate authority in life. But you really can’t just read chapter one of the book and then stop, can you? There’s a lot more to the story; there are 15 more chapters to the book!

I would ask a few questions of my own, in particular for Christians who oppose marriage equality:

41. If a gay couple moved in next door to you, what would it change about your own marriage? If they had kids, how would it directly impact your parenting style?

42. If your marriage or your parenting would change in reaction to the proximity of a gay couple, to what do you ascribe the power that one couple has over you?

43. What are the practical implications in your life of the Scriptural claim that “in Christ there is … no male or female, for all are one in Christ Jesus?”

44. You likely know the story in which Jesus says to an angry crowd, “Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.” How do you live out this Christian teaching in your life?

45. Matthew 7:12 is known as the “Golden Rule.” Why do you suppose these words are so universally known?

46. How is using the Bible against LGBT people different than using the Bible to promote slavery? How is it similar?

47. Should divorcees who do not believe divorce is a sin be allowed to remarry? What Scriptures do you use to support your belief?

48. What Scriptures do you cite to support your belief that people of various races are permitted to marry?

49. How do you hope your grandchildren remember you, especially when they think about your religious beliefs?

50. The numbers on the decline of the church in the world are alarming. What might be done to spread God’s love even wider, so that the church truly can be the body of Christ in all its wonder and glory?

There are a couple of other responses to the 40 questions out there, and I encourage you to check them out. These are mine, and if you made it all the way to this paragraph, big time props.

I don’t know if answering these questions does anyone any good. But it did some good for me. I don’t really think anything new has been offered in the conversation around homosexuality for a number of years. To many people it feels like just going around and around in circles.

But injustice and discrimination is wrong, no matter what. And until there is true justice, we have some things we need to do. And in order to get those things done, we have some things we need to discuss. So asking and answering questions is a necessary means to the end of justice for all of God’s people.

No Longer Teeth Grinding, But Still Reading... Part 3

A light bulb went on as I read “Breaking the Missional Code” yesterday. It helps explain a lot of my reactions to the book. On page 79, the authors reveal that both of them “grew up in non-Christian homes,” and then one describes the significant experience he had in beginning his relationship with Jesus.

In other words, for both of them, there is a time in their life that they were not in a relationship with Jesus, and they remember the moment it began. Their moment of justification is of the type that is a clear reorientation from “no Jesus” to “know Jesus.” I think this is what leads them to eschew tradition, nuance, and complexity in favor of making new converts.

I think they are projecting too much of their own personal experience into their book without acknowledging that it comes from their own personal experience.

Because my own faith journey does not include such a moment, I am feeling as though my experience is being belittled and minimized. As if, because I grew up in church, my spiritual life doesn’t count somehow, and I have to discount all of it in order to be truly faithful. So I confess that I am projecting my own personal experience into my reading of this book, and allowing that to influence my perception of their ideas.

Because my passion is for reaching people who have either been wounded by the church or for whom the church has ceased to be meaningful, and not necessarily for introducing the church to people for the first time, I envision the Missio Dei differently than these authors do. I affirm that their approach is a very important part of what the church is supposed to be doing, but I cannot go as far as they do, and claim that it is the only thing the church is supposed to be doing.

And so I flatly reject their notion that “either the lost like you or the satisfied religious crowd likes you” (p. 80), and I find it unhelpful that they make such simplistic, sweeping claims like this as if they are unassailable truth. But maybe they aren’t doing that; maybe their main idea is less narrow than I am perceiving it. Maybe they aren’t really saying that the stuff we’re supposed to be doing is an either/or proposition, rather than a both/and. But to me, it sure seems like that’s what they’re saying.

However, since I made this realization about the authors’ backgrounds, I have been able to process the book differently. There is a lot of overlap in their particular interpretation of mission and/or evangelism (I still am having trouble figuring out their distinction) and mine.

For example, I love what they do with the idea of “spiritual warfare.” Calling much of what is available on spiritual warfare “odd,” both in books on the subject as well as in Scripture, they reconstruct the notion to include some of my favorite "demons" to "battle" – things like apathy, consumerism, and image. It is these “strongholds” that we must address to fulfill the mission at hand, they say.

But on the other hand, I do not appreciate their characterization of “deeper” theology as “minutia” (p. 80). And I wonder what they mean when they indicate that the kind of people they are talking about “can and do go deeper” later on in that section. What do they mean by “deeper,” then? I have spent 40 years (almost) exploring Christianity, and I feel as though I have only the tiniest hint of what it is all about.

Through six chapters of “Breaking,” I have reacted with a mix of agreement and disagreement. But now at least I have a fuller appreciation for the authors’ perspectives. I kind of wish they had mentioned that earlier in the book.

If you’ve read this, thanks for sticking with me. One of the reasons I’m digging into this is to prime my writing pump, and it’s primed, baby! So I’m going to finish up this book and write about it all along the way. On to chapter seven!




Part 1 - Part 2

Teeth-Grinding Reading, Part Two

Well, the book (“Breaking the Missional Code”) is getting better in that there is less teeth grinding going on as I read it. Though I suppose that could mean that my mood has changed and the book has stayed the same. I have read through chapter 5 now, and have read some helpful things. However…

When the authors define the Gospel, they seem to leave a whole lot out. Drawing from Luke 24:46-48, they write, “Here is the message – ‘repentance and forgiveness of sins to be preached in his name to all nations.’ When it becomes something other than repentance and forgiveness, then the gospel itself is lost in the process” (p. 39).

In selecting this one thought to focus on, their definition neglects much of Scripture. I personally believe that there is much more to the Gospel than repentance and forgiveness. As significant as these two ideas are, it just seems to me that there is more.

I suppose my theology is offended by such a narrow definition of what God is doing. Of course I include repentance and forgiveness in my understanding of the Missio Dei, the Mission of God, but do not limit it to just that. And that brings me to another observation about “Breaking the Missional Code,” the respective definitions of “mission” and “evangelism.”

“Evangelism is telling people about Jesus; missions involves understanding them before we tell them,” they wrote in the introduction (p. 3). I actually had to read the sentence three times to make sure they had said what I first thought they said. See, I happen to believe that evangelism also involves understanding the people with whom we share Christ; in fact evangelism is impossible if it doesn’t. And I have a deeper understanding of missions altogether.

Their definitions do not stay consistent, however, and they contradict themselves, or so it seems, later when they say things like, “…leaders that break the code are recognizing that ‘nonrelational evangelism’ is a contradiction” (p. 65). I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, but it makes me wonder about their previously stated distinction between “evangelism” and “missions.”

Are the two now synonyms?

See, when I think “evangelism,” I think “sharing my faith with another person.” When I think “missions,” I think “rectifying a situation that is not as God desires.” (It just so happens that when I am working to rectify a situation that is not as God desires, I am sharing my faith with another person, since my faith is what teaches me to do so.)

Take, for example, this quote from the book: “A truly biblical church will ask, ‘What will it take to transform this community by the power of the gospel?’” (p. 51). Which is a GREAT sentence, isn’t it? To “transform the community” is a mission to get behind, and why stop there? The church exists to change the world, for God’s sake!

NOT SO FAST – apparently we are supposed “to be on mission where God has placed us … not thirty miles away, not three hundred miles away, not three thousand miles away” (p. 31). Apparently the Gospel is not as far-reaching as we were led to believe!

So you know all those mission trips you have planned to the Gulf Coast or Haiti or Guatemala or Mozambique? Don’t worry about them; just stay put where you are and work on breaking down your own community. I guess those other places will just take care of themselves or something.

Seriously though, in my opinion, the Missio Dei calls us to an awareness of global interconnectedness that is so much bigger than what this book is asking.

And furthermore, even when it comes to undertaking God’s mission in one’s own local community, I still take exception to the notion that “they” are speaking a code that “we” have to break. (“They” being people in the community and “we” being the church.) My theology really isn’t able to make such a harsh divide between “us” and “them.” In my mind, it’s all “us.”

Is it not a bit arrogant, self-centered, and proud of “us” to think of “us” as having the power to break “them” so that “they” can understand the message “we” have to give “them”?

As great a concept as community transformation is, every single example in the book, through five chapters, mentions nothing at all about the transformation of communities. The specific citations of churches that understand this new “missional” reality are only of churches that have increased in size, even as the authors say specific things like, “For us, the size of our churches is less important than the transformation of community, nation, and world…” (p. 68) (Except for that part back on page 31 where they told us not to go anywhere except your own local community, but I digress.)

It may very well be true that the authors value community transformation over church growth, but so far in every one of the stories told as examples, success has been defined by increasing numbers of people in the church, which as we well know may or may not translate to actually transforming the community.

Okay, so I’m going to get started on chapter six, and see if maybe some of the good stuff starts outweighing the not so good stuff. Onward!


This is the second post in a series responding to my reading of “Breaking the Missional Code.”

Some Teeth-Grinding Reading Observations

I am reading a book that is really making me angry. Contributing to this is, undoubtedly, the series of difficult ministry issues that have happened over the last month, which already had me in a rather grumpy disposition. (And, incidentally, have prevented me from writing anything as well.)

So I re-enter the endeavor of writing by engaging this book, and exploring with you who care to read along just exactly how it is ticking me off. I’ve read the introduction and the first two chapters of “Breaking the Missional Code” so far, and the ideas presented up to this point have been clichéd, redundant, and even archaic. Here’s three:

1 - Page 2, still in the introduction, we encounter this thought: “Missions history is filled with stories of great revivals because missionaries were able to ‘break the code,’ and the church exploded in their community.”

Wow. So many things to say about that.

Missions history is actually filled with stories about cultural pillage in which arrogant Europeans basically destroyed beautiful communities in the name of Jesus. To ignore this is irresponsible. (Perhaps the authors will address it later in the book.) When missionaries, for example, forced Native American children to wear shoes and sit on hard wooden desks learning English, they were not “breaking a code” for the sake of offering a relationship with God. It was cruel, it was horrifying, and we need to say that out loud. We also need to say that to talk about the church “exploding” is probably not the best way to describe a history with a lot of violence.

2 - Page 5, to set the tone for the whole book, we read that Christians need to “…break through the resistance” to “the church and the gospel message.”

Wow. Where do these guys live?

There’s just not that much “resistance” to the church anymore that needs “breaking.” We are not at war with anyone here. This approach makes the church sound like enhanced interrogators working over a prisoner or something – yuck! The prevalent attitude in our communities is apathy, not antagonism. If we go about this process with the mindset of countering resistance, we are tilting windmills. There’s nothing noble about fighting against something that is not present. We call those tantrums, and they are never pretty. Apathy is very different than resistance, and the church needs to realize that before deciding how to share the love of God.

3 - Chapter 2 lists seven pastors that comprise a “new breed” of pastors that understand the new reality and the authors want us to see as examples. A good idea, but here’s the kicker – every single one of them is a white man.

Along with this subtle narrow-mindedness, the authors actually affirm that uniform sameness is a strength of the congregations they highlight. “We have discovered that when the growing core of leaders, the pastoral leadership, and the community are from the same tribe, then the potential for impact is significant.” Well, so much for diversity. Although they do say that it is okay if different congregations look different from each other. “Churches should function differently from location to location. When it comes to the kingdom of God, uniformity is not a value.” I wonder what the authors think about the common lament that Sunday morning is the most segregated hour of the week. Their thesis seems to be, one church can look different from the next, but people in a church should all look the same. I’m sorry, but I just can’t go there.

Those are three ideas from the first three sections of the book that made me grit my teeth a bit as I read them. And I fully intend to read the entire book, so I may need a mouthguard. But maybe it will get better as we go along.

There was one good idea I read: “We value technique, and sometimes it keeps us from hearing God’s voice and vision regarding our church.” Amen to that! There is far too much emphasis on “technique” in church leadership training these days, and far too little theology. Yes, that may be an attempt to compensate for years of too much theology and not enough technique. But I feel there has been an over-reaction, and completely agree with the authors’ assertion. So there, it’s not all bad!

If you’ve actually cared enough to read this far, I commend you. Engaging this book is my way to get my writing momentum back again, so I crave your indulgence for a few posts as I do so. Thanks!

Stuff Swirling

The only things I have written in the past ten days have been emails and newsletter articles. Even my sermon last Sunday was unwritten; I had the outline in my mind, a few key transition phrases, and that was about it. It has been a very active couple of weeks. Here's the things, in no particular order:

A major staff transition is underway. I had to call the child abuse/neglect hotline after speaking with a friend about a very upsetting situation. I was in charge of setting up and facilitating an online meeting held Thursday morning for a group of ministers across the state. An inspiration struck me and I started writing a Christmas musical for children. Our niece and nephews were in town for a few days’ visit and we went to Silver Dollar City during the day Friday. I had my 20th High School Reunion on Friday evening and Saturday. And then I went to a wedding Saturday late afternoon.

It was an unbelievable week.

So I didn't write anything. But if I had, it was going to be about the responses I got to two questions I posed on my Facebook status last week. Tuesday I asked, "Does the fact that different Gospels tell the story of Jesus differently bug you?" Wednesday I asked, "Does the fact that today, different Christians interpret the story of Jesus differently bug you?"

(Thursday, Clayton asked, "Does the fact that today, Andy Bryan did not pose a new "bug you" question, bug you?" Which I thought was very helpful, thank you Clayton.)


The responses were fascinating. It definitely elicited some thoughts, and some people wrote at length. My initial impetus for asking the questions was preparing for a sermon about Holy Communion using the Gospel According to John as the text, which is a bit odd because John doesn't mention the "Last Supper" in the way that the synoptics do.

But that moment passed and I don't really have anything interesting to say about that.

Now I have a lot of other stuff swirling in my brain and way too much to say about any of it.

I could write about what happens when you tell people with whom you graduated 20 years ago that you are a pastor. I could write about re-envisioning children's ministry in a time of transition. I could write about the relief of hearing that a child I thought may be in danger is in a safe place. I could write about the impulse to create something, how it hits you and what you have to do to scratch the itch when it comes because it simply will not be ignored.

Or I could just write about all the things I might possible write about and actually say nothing. Which is what I have done. And that's all there is to that.

Nice Is In

Great news everyone! Apparently use of the word "idiot" in blog posts is down by nearly 50% in the last 6 months.

The New York Times opinion piece where I read this fun fact is saying that it is now "in" to be nice. Actors like Paul Rudd, advertisements like the latest Volkswagen campaign, and websites like Operation Nice dot com are evidence of our new found era of niceness, according to the piece.

There is a critique, however, offered by Professor Eric G. Wilson of Wake Forest University. Niceness, he thinks, results in mediocrity. The attempt to be agreeable and polite leads us down "predictable and vaguely reassuring" paths like "easy listening radio or greeting card sunrises or Tom Hanks." (When asked for comment, Hanks reportedly said, "What an idiot.")

On the other hand, I happen to think that we can be nice without drifting into mediocre fluffiness. I do not see the two as mutually exclusive, I guess. Being nice to one another doesn't preclude disagreement, dialogue, and even argument.

So I for one applaud the social trend toward niceness. Especially as so much of what is happening in the world seems to trend toward fear, tension, and suspicion, simply being nice to one another can lighten the atmosphere considerably. A smile, a heartfelt handshake, a hug, holding the door open for someone, allowing another person into the line ahead of you - simple gestures of kindness can convey a lot.

I love watching what happens to a foul ball hit into the stands. People get pretty excited about it, and it's fun to see their celebrations. But what I love most is that inevitably, if a grown up catches the ball and a kid is nearby, the grown up gives the ball to the kid. Nice! In fact, if the grown-up doesn't do so, there are almost always a few "boos" from the crowd. Being nice to the kid is the norm, and keeping the ball for yourself is socially unacceptable.

It's easier to be nice than mean, anyway. Being mean sucks too much energy. Being nice somehow seems to generate energy of its own. Being nice to one another makes everyone feel a little bit better, including you.

So be nice - everyone's doing it.

Have a nice day.

Why "Why I Stay" ? - A Metho-blogo-trendo?

The first page of a Google search for "why i stay methodist" turns up these hits:

Jenny Smith (picked up by UM Portal)
Guy Williams
Matt Kelley
Andy Bartel
Paul Gravely
JAy
Ashle Alley
Paul G.
Jayson Dobney
Kevin O'Neill (a Beliefnet thread)
The Thief

These are each really good posts. There may be more on this theme. If you know of any off the top of your head, let me know in the comments.

The question on my mind has been, why are there so many blog posts on the subject of staying in the United Methodist Church? Of course, given that there are a whole heck of a lot of blogs in the world, I know that this represents a pretty small sampling. But the topic seems to have been on people's minds lately, to say the least.

The question has been around for a while, too. I remember my dad talking about the question years and years ago. (He's old.) Old school social justice people have answered the "why I stay" question among themselves with some variation of "because I want to change the system from within" for a couple of decades now.

To answer a question about why you stay in a group means that there is a reason one might leave. There may be anecdotal evidence, perhaps even statistical evidence that people ARE leaving. You may have good friends who have left, or know people who have made the decision to leave for one reason or another.

I do.
+ I know people who have left because of the way the denomination treats people who are homosexual, bisexual, or transgendered.
+I know people who have left because of the way the denominational ordination process had ground them up and left them behind.
+I know people who have left because a pastor has abused his or her power in a way that is demeaning, abusive, or disrespectful.
+I know people who have left because they believe the itenerancy to be outdated and unfair.
+I know people who have left because the church down the street has a cooler band (etc.).

And so it goes.

However, the anecdotes of people leaving and the statistics that show denominational decline are describing two different phenomena. The denomination is in numerical decline not primarily because people are leaving, but rather because people aren't coming in. It is, as Bishop Schnase says a lot, not a back door problem, but a front door problem.

Granted, there is a "given that..." inferred in a "why I stay" response. Given that the denomination is in decline .... or ... Given that the denomination does not marry people who are gay ... or ... Given that the ordination process is so long ... or ... Given that there aren't any young people in the church ... why do you stay? Or something.

But I do not think there is a correlation between the denomination-wide decline in membership and the individual stories of people leaving. The denomination is in decline because people in it are dying much more quickly that people are joining. (Not to put too fine a point on it.) Children of members are not joining the churches their parents belong to, but are looking for their own places to be. People with no church relationship are finding life meaning in other places. And they don't care if the place is Methodist or not.

And so here's what I'm thinking - the "Why I Stay" trend in the Methoblogosphere is another symptom of the panic that is setting in across the denomination. It is the same panic causing the whole "young clergy will save the day" attitude. It is the same panic causing us to define effective churches merely as those whose numbers are trending dramatically upward.

We seem to feel this urge to defend our decision to stay when in fact the question hasn't really come up. Except for other United Methodists, no one really cares why people stay. I'm not saying this to disrespect my fellow bloggers, because I myself have written and talked about it from my own perspective. So I include myself when I say that talking about "why I stay" is just a sophisticated form of navel gazing.

Instead, our response should be to claim the distinctive identity of the Methodist movement. I think this is what the "why I stay" posts are trying to do, but are coming at it from the flipside. I think we're all trying to describe the feeling of resonance that we sense when we read John Wesley or attend a connectional event or receive communion around an open table. But we somehow struggle to talk about it without seeming a bit defensive.

It's shouldn't be "why I stay," but rather "why I am." (Or maybe "why we are.")

I'd like for us to write articles and have conversations and design events that help us think about "Why I am a Methodist." (I know that Bishop Willimon has a book with that title, almost 20 years old, and I'd like to see us reclaim that kind of language.) I'd much rather think about church as a description of who we are rather than of what we do.

See, "staying in the church" doesn't make sense when church is more about identity than activity. The church is not a club we join, then decide to quit, or stay in, as if having our name on a list of members is all that "being the church" is comprised of. The church is who we are, and the denomination is a particular manifestation of that identity. Our congregation, then, is a local expression of that identity.

And as I've written before, if we as the church are faithful to being the church, if the church is the herald of the gospel it is called to be, if the church is the body of Christ, if the church is the realization of the reign of God in the world, then we'll have no need to write any more "why I stay" posts.

The 500th Post - Enjoyment!

This is my 500th Enter the Rainbow post. Click here to read the first.

In January of 2005, when I started this blog, it was still a fairly new thing. It's funny to think of something that's only four years old as being old, but it feels that way. So it goes.

Why blog? What's the point? Why do I do it? Four years, 500 posts - there must be some purpose there, mustn't there?

Well, I'm reading Philip K. Dick's novel "Valis" at the moment and there's a line that really caught my attention toward the beginning of chapter 6. "Fat had no concept of enjoyment; he knew only meaning." ("Fat" is the hero of the book, Horselover Fat.)

So I've been thinking about that a lot, the relationship between enjoyment and meaning. And I think that sometimes in the search for meaning we forget to enjoy. Maybe we're so obsessed about being purpose driven that we forget to simply have a good time.

Another book I'm reading at the moment, called "Simple Church" advocates adopting a simple disciple-making process and then "abandoning" everything else that your church does. The softball team? The Wednesday night knitters? The arthritis excercise class? Really? Where's the fun in that?

I'm not sure I dig the idea that everything you do, individually or as a community, has to fall within the boundaries of a narrowly focused mission. I don't even think everything you do has to actually mean something. That's just exhausting.

And so there is no purpose for my blog. There is no meaning or mission statement or overarching vision.

I just enjoy it. I have for 500 posts, and I'll keep doing it until I don't enjoy it anymore. I hope you enjoy reading it; I really enjoy reading your comments. I enjoy the back-and-forth, hearing a bunch of different ideas. I enjoy seeing my ideas on screen and seeing how they have changed over time. I enjoy writing about the church, about my favorite sports teams, about theology, about my kids, about foster parenting, about social issues, about politics, and about nonsense.

I write this blog because I enjoy it. That's all. Thanks for reading!

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?

Emptying My Head

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life Moves, Baby

Hi!

To say that the last two weeks have been busy would not even begin to convey the level of activity, the amount of stress, the roller coaster of emotion, and the sheer physical / spiritual / mental / emotional exertion we have experienced.

Here's a little synopsis:
- Our foster daughter transitioned back to her mother's house.
- Erin and I helped lead, and Cori and Wes participated in Vacation Bible School in North Kansas City.
- Erin filled in at the Day Care at First UMC, North KC for two weeks.
- Cori and Wes were in summer school every day.- I had an all day meeting of the Board of Managers' of Missouri Ministers' School in Columbia Tuesday before last.
- We packed.
- We had our last weekend at the church in Northtown, with all of the love and "good-byes" that entailed.
- We watched three guys load all our stuff onto a big orange truck.
- We drove to Springfield, Missouri.
- We spent the night with some great friends.
- Two of the three guys met us at our new house and proceeded to unload all the stuff they had previously loaded.
- We began opening boxes, unpacking stuff, arranging furniture, opening more boxes, looking for the pots and pans, and so forth.
- Cori articulated our feeling that "Stuff is evil."
- A wonderful woman, a member of Campbell, died on Tuesday and I'll have the privilege of leading her memorial service along with the Visitation Pastor, Rev. Joe Lightner this Saturday.
- I started getting my church office all set up and the first thing I did was steal the office furniture of the Associate Pastor, Rev. Melissa Dodd. (Not really, she actually very graciously offered it to me!)
- We began meeting some wonderful, friendly, warm and welcoming people who go to Campbell UMC, where I start as the pastor this coming Sunday morning.

Whew - I'm tired just writing about it! Although there's more that has been happening, that pretty much hits the highlights. We've managed to have some fun, too. We went to the neighborhood swimming pool; we chased fireflies; Dad came down to help and we had a good visit. And the staff here at Campbell is so wonderful and helpful and just generally cool people to be around.

So, when I "officially" begin here as the pastor next week, and things begin to get into a groove again, I'll be back blogging with more regularity. I've got a lot on my mind, building up over this little "moving" hiatus. Who knows what may come spewing forth when I finally sit down next week to do a real post?

Blog Lesson & the Salvation/Discipleship Distinction

First, a lesson I learned from my last post. I wrote a line (this line: "...salvation, which precedes discipleship both temporally and spiritually") by which I was attempting to make a distinction between salvation and discipleship. This line was not my focus, not the main point of the post, and I did not give it much of a thought.

Here's the lesson: There is no such thing as a "throw-away line" when it is posted on the internet! The two comments and a few personal conversations I've had about the post have zeroed in on that line and challenged me to clarify the relationship between salvation and discipleship as I see it. And so a line that I saw as no more than a transition into what I really wanted to write about discipleship became the place that generated the most dialogue, and no one mentioned anything about what I saw as the main point, that discipleship is hard work.

Secondly, to clarify my own theology, I do not separate discipleship and salvation at all. The two are complexly interwoven, to be sure. I use the word "precede" to describe salvation's relationship to discipleship in order to affirm God as the initiator of the process. I believe that discipleship is a human response to God's initiation, at every point. Prior to conversion, God is at work before we are aware. Prior to justification, God makes the invitation. Prior to the journey of sanctification, God's grace is luring, inviting, calling, pulling, urging us onward. All that we do as disciples is in response to what God does to save us.

And that's what I mean by "...salvation, which precedes discipleship both temporally and spiritually." I hope that makes sense, and I thank those of you who commented online and in person for the reminder that every word counts!


Update: Also posted here.

Blogging Etiquette: Code of Conduct Proposals

There is a lot of buzz about online etiquette and maintaining civility in the blogoshpere. We had a little flare up a few posts ago here at Enter the Rainbow, in fact.

Today, Bill Tammaeus led me to an article (login required) about Tim O'Reilly that proposes a blogging code of conduct. (Aside: His blog is called O'Reilly Radar - love it!) Here is the checklist version:

1) Take responsibility not just for your own words, but for the comments you allow on your blog.
2) Label your tolerance level for abusive comments.
3) Consider eliminating anonymous comments.
4) Ignore the trolls.
5) Take the conversation offline, and talk directly, or find an intermediary who can do so.
6) If you know someone who is behaving badly, tell them so.
7) Don't say anything online that you wouldn't say in person.

Here's the full post.

BlogHer.org has a code of conduct that is worth checking out, too.

And Jimmy Wales at wikia.com is soliciting bloggers' comments to see about coming to some kind of consensus.

Interesting ideas, huh? This could be a really good moment for blogging, or it could be the "jump the shark" episode. I hope the blogosphere doesn't get institutionalized; I am drawn to the wide-open, emerging, rough-and-tumble feeling of it. But on the other hand, it does tick me off when comments get nasty, and I try to be civil as much as possible.

I'm interested to hear your perspectives. Is blog etiquette something that is unspoken and assumed, or should we make a list? Should the Methoblog community endorse these guidelines? Should we come up with our own "official" list?

Post 300 - A Look Back Through the Rainbow

This post is post number 300 for me on Enter the Rainbow!
I put together a small smattering of remembrances:

- This whole thing started on January 17, 2005 with a post called “Enter the Rainbow.”
- I shared my personal frustrations with the anti-denim agenda on May 16, 2005.
- I have written a bunch about changing the tone of public conversation, including this three part post on October 25, 26, and 29, 2005, and I followed that up with a post about foxes and hedgehogs on January 6, 2006.
- Occasionally I have had a chance to wax political, like on March 9, 2006 and a few days later on March 14, too. (I must have been in a political mood that month!)
- One of my personal favorite images is the “Dancing Tomato at a Busy Intersection,” from a post on March 21, 2006.
- There was a series called “Truth in the Bible” that I posted on July 12, 15, and 18 of 2006 that led to some good conversation.
- We had a good little discussion about the church in the world on August 26, 2006.
- On September 7, 2006 I wrote my own version of the Barmen Declaration.
- I reflected out loud about my calling to ministry on December 19 and 29, 2007.
- There was an intense conversation on my post about panhandling in Kansas City that led into another good conversation about blogging etiquette on February 15 and 16, 2007.

I have written about immigration, posted some of my ordination papers, commented on the goings on in the United Methodist Church, reflected on the lectionary texts, shared stories about my kids, and prattled on about a slew of other topics, too. I hope that, all in all, the things I have written have been true to my calling of “realizing the diversity of God’s vision for creation,” a phrase I included in the initial description of Enter the Rainbow.

In celebration of this 300th post, I have decided to change Enter the Rainbow’s template! Hooray! Throw a party, everyone! … Okay, so maybe it’s more exciting for me than anyone else, but still.

And finally, thank you to y’all for taking a bit of time to read my stuff. And a special thanks to you who leave comments, email me about a post, or give me a call to talk more about a particular subject. I love the conversation, and I’m looking forward to more!