"The Direction of the Church"

The church staff of the congregation I serve hears a lot of feedback, as do I. By far, the two most common themes in this feedback are: 

“I do not like the direction the church is moving.”

and

“I like the direction the church is moving but it is not moving fast enough.”

For brevity’s sake, I will summarize the two positions as “Please Stop” and “Go Faster.”

So it goes.

It is noteworthy that we hardly ever hear from people who say “I like the direction the church is moving and am perfectly content with the pace at which it is moving there.”

So it goes.

I have a bit of advice for you, if you’d hear me. When you are offering feedback about “the direction the church is moving,” whether that feedback is offered to me, to a church staff member, to another pastor, or to anyone, please be specific. Please say exactly what you mean by “the direction the church is moving.”

For the record, here’s what I mean when I say “the direction the church is moving.” I mean “closer to God.”

I mean in the direction of love. I mean along the way of sanctification. I mean our cooperation with God’s grace that draws us ever closer to being perfected in love in this lifetime. I mean towards fuller inclusion. I mean Exodus, liberation, a direction that takes us toward the Promised Land. I mean drawing the circle wider, ever wider. I mean along the arc of the moral universe, bending inexorably toward justice. I mean the direction of the all-encompassing Gospel of Jesus Christ. I mean outward into the world as ambassadors of reconciliation. When I say “the direction the church is moving” I mean the direction of the Holy Spirit, discerned and embodied in an intentional community of people, all of whom are just trying to do the best we can with what we’ve got.

And if I am serious about moving that direction, I believe that any and all forms of evil, injustice, and oppression must be named so that they can be removed from the way. That’s hard to say, because it includes removing the obstacles that exist within me, also.

So, whether you are a “please stop” person or a “go faster” person, I hope you will be very specific the next time you talk with someone about “the direction the church is moving.” And specifically, if you are in the “please stop” camp and the “direction” you are referring to means working to include more people more fully in the life of the church, please be very specific about what you believe the consequences of that work will be.

Go deeper than just, “I don’t like this.” Go deeper than just, “It breaks the denomination’s rules.” Say out loud what you believe will happen if your beloved sibling in Christ who happens to be gay is allowed to get married in your church. Say out loud what you believe the theological implications are if your dear neighbor whom you love and who is called to ordination and who also happens to be gay is allowed to be ordained.

Be specific. If you really think it’s wrong, claim it. Tell me exactly why you believe that working to truly extend God’s love and grace to all people, rather than just sitting around and talking about it all the time, is not the right direction for the church to go.

I am not being sarcastic. It sounds kind of like I am, but I’m really not. I truly value all perspectives. And if you have a perspective to share, I am inviting you to share it with me. “Please stop” or “go faster,” either one. Don’t make a vague reference to “the direction of the church.” Tell me. I want to listen. I promise I will hear you. I may not change my mind about “the direction of the church” or the pace at which we are moving, but I promise I will hear you.

A National Trigger

The incident at the Lincoln Memorial over the weekend was a national trigger.

What we saw in the widely circulated videos depended on what we were looking for. I have very little interest in conflicting opinions currently being shared about “what really happened.” I have little interest in berating “the media” for bias or decrying viral videos shared on social media. The interactions among three very diverse groups of Americans triggered us, and I have a lot of interest in that.

The malevolent spirit at work in our nation lurks just under the surface, and it doesn’t take very much at all to unleash it. And this surreal malevolence doesn’t care about “what really happened” or the current realities of how we consume our information. The only thing on the agenda for this spirit is to keep us all mad at each other. And this week we got triggered.

This weekend, the malevolent spirit got exactly what it wanted.

By and large our leaders have also succumbed to its influence. At the federal and state level (at least) our elected and appointed leaders seem to do nothing to alleviate our anxiety. Caught up in the bizarre malevolence themselves, they seem to be helpless against its power. Instead of defusing, they add fuel. Instead of compromising, they double down. Instead of seeking common good, they seek reelection.

I have written about this phenomenon before, of course. And yet I am stymied. I continue to believe that the only force at work in the world capable of overcoming this malevolence is love. As I said back in September, “resisting the surreal malevolence at work in the world requires us to announce, advocate for, and embody true love.”

By "true love," I mean “a deep, bold love that is brutal in its honesty and equally brutal in its graciousness. A love that insists on authenticity and vulnerability. A love that is at the same time both pliable and unyielding. A love that is at the same time naked and wearing the full armor of God. A love that is the paradox of the deepest pain and the most ecstatic joy.”

Three diverse groups of people interacted in front of the Lincoln Memorial last weekend, and we were all triggered. As Lincoln gazed on, I wonder what he would have said, how he would have responded. Perhaps with something like…

“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

A Surreal Malevolence

There is a surreal malevolence at work in the world, whose goal is only chaos.

This surreal malevolence cares not for nation, corporation, denomination, family, or tribe. This surreal malevolence uses as its tools anything and everything it can get its corrosive claws on - partisan politics, news outlets, social media - whatever. Even (and especially) those things we would like to think of a good and nice and maybe even fun.

Further, the surreal malevolence does not care who gets elected or is legally able to be married or kneels for their flag (or not) or makes a profit or goes to bed hungry or wins the war. And as long as we are all out of sorts, mad at one another, and anxious, the surreal malevolence is satisfied.

Those who engage in a particular religious worldview know the surreal malevolence as Satan, the Devil, the Tempter, and a dozen other names. He is called Screwtape and Wormwood. She is known as demon or darkness or death. Their name is Legion.

Succumbing to the surreal malevolence is a pandemic, with global proportions. Evidence is ample, recorded on handheld devices and posted to YouTube in a daily deluge. Chaos. Anxiety. Unrest. Lifelong friends now unable to speak. Family members suspicious of one another, openly hostile. Hatred on full, public display. Once orderly systems rife with confusion.

And the surreal malevolence under the surface is relentless, uncaring, unfeeling; laying waste to empathy, respect, humility, integrity, compassion, honesty, common sense, all that once was assumed, now rotting away.

And even so, God whispers, “Do not be afraid.”

Yes indeed, “Fear not.” For there is another force at work in the world. A force more powerful by far. And that force is not only capable of defeating the surreal malevolence, it is quite likely the only thing that can.

To put it into words, that force is known as “true love.”

There is no fear in love, for perfect love casts out fear. And you shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free. True love - a deep, bold love that is brutal in its honesty and equally brutal in its graciousness. A love that insists on authenticity and vulnerability. A love that is at the same time both pliable and unyielding. A love that is at the same time naked and wearing the full armor of God. A love that is the paradox of the deepest pain and the most ecstatic joy.

True love. Love that gazes into your eyes and makes your heart flutter. Love that brings a smile to your lips. Love that embraces without awkwardness, and also knows when to walk away. Love that will calm the storm, but can rock the boat when necessary. True. Love.

To live our lives fully by the tenets of true love is terrifying. It requires us to do things like turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile and give not only our coat but our shirt as well and lay down our life for someone else. It is inherently risky. Not metaphorically risky, actually physically risky to your comfort, your health, your safety. It is unabashedly selfless. It is not for the faint of heart.

To put it simply, resisting the surreal malevolence at work in the world requires us to announce, advocate for, and embody true love. Everything we do, everything we say, even everything we think about, all must come from one source, to the exclusion of any other.

In so doing, we exhume the seeds of chaos and sow instead seeds of grace and peace. The work will require us to lay aside our apathy, our passivity, and our fear. The tools for this work are compassion, empathy, and justice. The harvest may be a long time coming, but it will be plentiful. If we will be patient and work with diligence, we will feast.

I can feel in my guts when I am beginning to succumb to the surreal malevolence. It raises my blood pressure and gives me heartburn. I’m sure you know your own warning signs, you are aware. Do not collapse. Breathe deeply. Take a drink. Back off. Remember what you need, what you have, what you know.

And then re-enter the moment, re-centered on true love. Re-enter re-centered. And get back to work.

The Springfield Swastika Prank

The Springfield police have determined that the swastika spray-painted on the door of an African-American woman’s house was a “prank.” This “prank” also included eggs thrown at the woman’s house and a smashed car windshield, by the way, and similar vandalism at another home on the same street.

Some “prank,” huh?

Okay, so let’s go with that. Let’s assume that it was supposed to be a prank, that the people responsible didn’t mean anything by it, it was a joke, it wasn’t a blatantly racist hate crime. Let’s leave aside that notion for a minute and ask this question:

Does that make it better, or worse?

Some will say, “It was a prank, so it’s all good. No harm done. Moving on."

But I do not share this perspective. In fact, if spray painting a swastika on someone’s door is considered a “prank,” that kind of makes it worse. It means the racism is systematically ingrained, insidious and hidden. And when racism is hidden like that, it’s harder to resist.

Somewhere along the way, the people who vandalized the houses were taught that it is okay to “prank” an acquaintance with a symbol of racist genocide. Somehow in our system, the police are permitted to make a determination that an overt act of racial hatred is a harmless prank. Sometime in our history, we arrived at a point where spray-painted swastikas are no big deal.

I’m sure there are a variety of answers to the where and how and when we got here questions, but there can only be one response: resistance. That is, if we are to take our baptism promises seriously. In baptism, United Methodists promise “to resist evil, injustice, and oppression in whatever forms they present themselves,” and that includes forms that are systemic, hidden and ingrained in our culture.

You can hide racism in an astonishing number of ways, it turns out. And there it lurks, justified and excused, festering until an opportunity to erupt presents itself. And it always does.

Resistance to systemic racism means that, no matter what the intentions of the people in question, we are called to condemn their hateful act. By the technicalities of the law it may not be a “hate crime” as our system defines a “hate crime,” but that makes it no less reprehensible. It is abhorrent, evil, and antithetical to the very identity of God.

My friend Susan Schmalzbauer put it so well when she said, “A swastika is not a whoopee cushion.” No matter what the Springfield Police report says, this was no prank.

"Split the Baby" - Seriously?

In an article in the Springfield News-Leader today, Representative Steve Helms is quoted as saying, "I think we split the baby as best we could." Which is apparently his incredibly bizarre and theologically questionable way to say "compromised," I guess.

In the article, Representative Helms lays out some thoughts about tweaking the regulations around predatory lending practices in the state. Among the ideas are

            - Lowering the number of times a loan can be renewed from six to two,

            - Creating conditional extended payment plans,

            - Lowering the total amount of interest and fees that can be charged from 75% of the loan total to 35% of the loan total.

            - Lowering the licensing fee for a payday loan store from $500 to $300.

Helms is quoted as saying that more regulation that this would put lenders out of business, eliminating a much-needed resource for people who need a short-term cash loan.

Of course, Representative Helms is repeating industry talking points, rather than working for the common good. His bill (HB 2657) may seem on the surface to make meaningful changes, but the reality is that such incremental adjustments will have very little impact. As our legislature continues to be influenced by the predatory lending industry, the working poor in our state continue to suffer.

Notably, North Carolina has enacted very strict regulations on short-term lending, capping the interest rate at 36%, for example. Yes, several companies went out of business as a result, namely companies who were preying on the poor and basing their business models on loan rollovers, exorbitant fees and penalties, and triple digit APRs. I am not mourning their loss. And today it is still possible to get a small, short-term loan in North Carolina. The companies that chose to comply with the regulations are in business.

Representative Helms says he wants to "split the baby" on this issue. He means he wants to both make the corporations happy and also protect people from their predatory practices. He is attempting to cite scripture in making this analogy.

Solomon didn’t split the baby, though. Compassion, love, and justice are crying out to save the baby's life. We must cap the rate; lives are depending on it. May our legislature display the wisdom necessary to do what is right.

HB 2657 (Helms' bill) was read on March 1st, got its second reading on the 5th, and was assigned to committee on the 7th. A well-greased machine.

HB 1541 (which I wrote about yesterday) caps the interest rate at 36%. It was prefiled on December 7, read on January 3rd, got its second reading on January 4th, and HAS YET TO BE ASSIGNED TO COMMITTEE.

What's the hold up, I wonder? I suppose it's that HB 1541 doesn't "split the baby," but rather does everything it can to keep the baby alive, and safe from the deadly cycle of the debt trap on which predatory lenders base their profit margins.

Missouri HB 1541 - MOVE IT!!!

This morning I called the office of Missouri House Speaker Todd Richardson - (573)751-4039 - to ask him to please assign HB 1541 to committee. It really needs to happen THIS WEEK, before the Missouri Legislature adjourns for the season.

My call was a follow-up to the email (todd.richardson@house.mo.gov) I sent last week:

Mr. Speaker,

I am writing today to ask you to please assign HB 1541 to committee as soon as possible. 

As a pastor, I have seen how the exorbitant interest rates of "payday loan" and "title loan" companies can pull families into a cycle of poverty from which it is very difficult to escape. In addition, the companies are by and large out-of-state corporations, and the financial drain to our state is estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, as Missouri families send their hard-earned money out of state to pay off these unjust loans.

HB 1541 sets a limit on these interest rates at 36%, which would align our state with the seventeen other states that cap "payday loan" interest rates at this level or lower.

This policy is good for people, good for families, and good for our state. Please send this bill to committee before the upcoming break. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Andy Bryan, Pastor

Campbell United Methodist Church

Springfield, Missouri

The injustice of predatory lending is rampant. The oppressive system traps people in poverty. In fact the business models on which such lending companies operates is based on forcing people to renew loans over and over again, or face the legal ramifications of defaulting.

Payday loan companies, title loan companies, used car lots that advertise "automatic credit approval," and on an on and on... Such companies are not just "meeting a need," as their supporters would have you think. It us usury, pure and simple. People of faith used to really, really care about usury. And yet somehow we've drifted away from our focus on that horrific injustice, probably from the fear of being "too political" or some such nonsense.

Missouri House Bill 1541, filed by Republican Representative Lynn Morris, has not yet been assigned to committee, which is the exclusive responsibility of Speaker Richardson. I invite and encourage you to call his office today and ask him to assign this bill to committee so it can proceed. 

HB 1541 makes sense, and brings Missouri in line with seventeen other states with interest rate cap laws on the books. If you have any questions about it, I'd be more than happy to talk with you. 

It's time to move the bill!

Work Harder, Preachers

Hey preachers, let me have a moment…

There is a lot of low hanging fruit out there this week. A lot of easy barbs, jabs, pithy snark we might include in our sermons. There is a lot of it, and it’s hanging really, really low.

Work harder. The Word of God needs to be proclaimed this week as powerfully as it ever has been, maybe even more so. Work harder. This coming Sunday’s sermon is crucial; it’s impact will have a lasting effect on those who hear it. Work. Harder.

How many sermons will include the word “shithole” this Sunday? How many times will the line, “Galilee was a shithole country, too” be uttered by how many preachers in how many pulpits?

That’s just too easy, preachers. Work harder.

Don't just negate; create something new. Don’t only deconstruct; let your preaching be constructive. Do not waste vital sermon time reacting; preaching is a proactive moment.

Every one of us needs to invest some significant time this Sunday morning describing the world as God intends it to look and then letting the people know that it is up to us to go out and make it look that way. Creative, constructive, proactive - Preach the Word.

Yes, resisting the evil forces of the world is a significant part of our role, preachers. And yes, we need to name those evil forces. Racism is real, and it is roaring as loudly as it ever has. Bigotry, misogyny, hypocrisy … all on vibrant display in our country this week. Sure, call it out, name it, drag it into the light.

But don’t stop there - work harder!

 Don’t spend your entire precious time slot speaking against something; speak for something. Offer the alternative. Describe God’s preferred reality, and be specific about how we together can bring it to life in the world.

There are dozens and dozens of Biblical descriptions of the world as God intends it to look - the prophet Isaiah, the words of Jesus in Matthew 5-7, the practices of the early church, Paul’s descriptions of unity in diversity. Find them, read them out loud, and then dare people to live like that.

There’s probably a MLK march or rally or event of some kind in your community, right? Whatever it looks like specifically, it is an opportunity to stand in connection with others on behalf of justice and peace and understanding. Tell your congregation to go to it. (Springfield, MO - Click here)

There’s probably a program in your community designed to help people who have immigrated from another country, right? Get the information and put it into the hands of your congregation on Sunday. (Springfield, MO - Click here)

Yes, there is a lot of low hanging fruit this week. Preachers, do not be tempted. To simply negate, deconstruct, and react is antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Create. Construct. Proactively proclaim the Good News. God has an amazing, gracious, love-filled, just, peaceful, vibrant vision for what this world is supposed to look like. Announce it. Proclaim it. Tell them that it is here! Just sitting there, waiting for us to realize it! Waiting for us to enter it … to receive it.

It’s a big Sunday, preachers. Work harder.


(11:15 a.m. - UPDATED with links for Springfield, MO responses)

Trump and the "Malevolent Spirit" of the Nation

Donald Trump himself isn’t the problem.

Please don’t jump to any conclusions about what I mean by that. Jumping to conclusions about what other people mean is actually one of the symptoms of the problem. So please refrain from doing so.

Donald Trump himself isn’t the problem. But Donald Trump sure enough unleashed it.

Kathleen Parker said it as well as anyone, which doesn’t surprise me, since they don’t give Pulitzer Prizes to just any schmuck. In her December 29, 2016 column, she said that “Donald Trump’s election has released a malevolent spirit upon the land.” I’ve been rolling that phrase around in my noodle all morning.

Now, Donald Trump has revealed enough about himself at this point that there can be very little doubt as to the content of his character. Me expressing my opinions about these revelations will do little to advance the conversation. Rather, the larger point I am trying to make is that, in and of himself, Donald Trump is not the problem. To say as much is to give him far too much credit.

This election “has released a malevolent spirit upon the land.” The more I think about it, the more sense that makes. Thank you, Kathleen Parker, for so deftly putting words around my thoughts!

This election has turned people against one another in a way that has rarely been seen. The hateful actions and public tirades that have been recorded and shared online speak for themselves. I’d actually like to mention a different manifestation of the malevolence that Donald Trump has released.

It is a malevolence among friends and within families. And I thought for a while about whether “malevolence” was too strong of a word, but decided to stick with it.  This malevolent spirit is a huge part of “the problem,” at least as I see it. Families avoid speaking, friends argue bitterly, social media explodes with vitriol and antagonism.

It breaks my heart to hear from friends who have been compelled to break off long-held relationships. I grieve when people share with me how they have made to feel devalued by people they love. I get angry when some of the people who voted for Trump cannot seem to honor the anger, pain, and fear of those who are expressing it in response to his election. I lament when unfair assumptions are made about people one has known for a long time, assumptions that frequently lead to poor communication, unhelpful arguments, and hurt feelings.

But even if, somehow or other, Donald Trump poofed out of existence this very moment, this malevolence would be present still. I believe it is out of his control. I don’t even know if he wants to control it, as long as he is the beneficiary. Malevolence has been unleashed, and no small effort will be required to confront it.

And make no mistake, my faith encourages ... no actually my faith REQUIRES me to do so. I am a follower of Jesus, whose work was centered on announcing the presence of the Kingdom of God, confronting evil in the world, healing and feeding, and offering an alternative way to live.

I believe that Jesus was born to embody the love of God in the world, and I believe that good news is intended for everyone. All the people. No exceptions or exclusions. Yes my Democratic friends, Jesus was born to demonstrate just how much God loves Donald Trump and Steve Bannon and all of everyone everywhere.Yes my Republican friends, Jesus was born to demonstrate how much God loves Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and all of everyone everywhere. Yes, even me. Yes, even us.

And so as disciples of Jesus, as Christians, as people who desire to live as God intends us to live, we have to confront the malevolent spirit permeating our world. We have name it, draw it up to the light, and annihilate it. And then we have to offer an alternative way of being, a replacement for the malevolence that will solidify its destruction once and for all.

That alternative way is called “love,” by the way. Love, and everything that comes along with it. Things like hope. And forgiveness. And justice, and peace, and grace, and compassion.

It may well be that we are a divided nation. But it isn’t “right” and “left” anymore. It is those who are feeding the malevolent spirit present in our nation and those who are working to defeat it. Donald Trump fed it throughout the campaign, and has continued to do so even after winning the electoral college. It remains to be seen if he will continue to feed the malevolent spirit that he released even after his inauguration. Frankly, I will not be surprised if he does.

As for me, I pledge to do all that I can to defeat it. As a follower of Jesus, I don’t see how I can do anything less.

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!)

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.

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.

Should Christians "Be Political?"

As a part of my sermon yesterday, I posed the question - Should Christians “be political?”

My response - It depends on how you define “be political.”

If you mean get involved with the endless campaigning, the negativity, the bitterness, the fear and anger, the nonsense of what passes for the political process in our nation today, then my answer is, “That’s up to you.” As for me, I’m not going to. It’s a joke. It’s a farce. It’s a side show.

And it’s not what I mean by “be political.”

What I mean by “political” is more aligned with what the word may have originally meant. Something like “the way people interact in the world,” including organizing power and authority in a community, making community decisions, and deciding what kinds of behavioral boundaries define a community. Now, this may not be what “politics” means these days, but I think still at the heart of it, that’s really what it’s about.

And so it seems to me, if this is how we define “political,” then how in the world can a follower of Jesus NOT “be political?” It seems to me that followers of Jesus ought to be very, very concerned with the way people interact in the world. Of course we should be political.

Of course, it is completely inappropriate (on several levels) for a church to give any kind of official endorsement to any one candidate or any one political party. And I as a pastor would never think of telling anyone how they should vote when it comes time to do so. That’s out of bounds, as far as I’m concerned.

A follower of Jesus has decided to give his or her life to something that transcends the self, seeking first the Kingdom of God, and God’s righteousness. That means re-ordering one’s priorities so that they align with God’s.

God’s priorities are revealed in Scripture, which people are able to access through the interpretive lenses of tradition, reason, and experience. God’s priorities are things like … love. And hope. Peace, justice, salvation, grace. All of which Jesus himself embodied in his life, teaching, death, and resurrection.

Why should we “be political?” Because if we truly have adopted God’s priorities as our own, we cannot help but notice that much in this world, including much in our own lives, is not aligned with God’s priorities. There is a great deal that is not as God intends it to be. For the follower of Jesus, the gap between “things as they are” and “things as God wants them to be” demands to be closed.

Why should Christians care about violence in the world? Because one of God’s priorities is peace.

Why should we care about prejudice, discrimination, and oppression? Because one of God’s priorities is justice.

Why should we care about racism, homophobia, sexism, classism, hatred, fear of the “other?” Because one of God’s priorities is love.

Some will say, “Well, all I can do is take care of myself, make sure my own decisions are right, be as good a person as I can. All I am in control of is myself, and there’s just too much in this world that is out of my control to worry about.” That’s fine. All well and good. Nothing wrong with that. It just isn’t Christian discipleship. To borrow a phrase from Jesus, “Even the Gentiles” think this way.

When you decide to follow Jesus, you are deciding to give your life away to a cause bigger than yourself, the cause of Christ. The Kingdom of God is the goal; Christ is the cause; and the Holy Spirit empowers every step of the journey from here to there.

Take for example, a “political” issue like regulation of predatory lenders. Payday loan companies, title loans, and so forth charge unjust interest rates, engage in deceptive and unethical sales practices, and make their profits by deepening the cycle of poverty, often at the expense of people’s health, families, and even lives.

Christians all around the nation are organizing politically to thwart the predatory lending industry. And why? Because one of God’s priorities is justice. I do not support the political actions to combat predatory lending because predatory lending is my “cause.” I support political action to combat it because my cause is Christ - I follow Jesus, and because I do I have tried to make God’s priorities my own.

This is one example of one "political" issue I could cite. There are many, many more.

The teachings of Jesus are jarring sometimes. Give to everyone who asks. Turn the other cheek. Love your enemies. Do not judge other people. Each of these ideas of Jesus is very political in that they deal with how people are to interact, and honestly they are very challenging. There’s nothing comfortable about any of them.

It’s one thing to do these things on a personal level. It’s another to work with the systems and processes that make them happen more broadly. One is no better or worse than the other. Both the personal actions and the systemic work can be a part of faithful Christian discipleship. It really isn’t an either-or proposition.

So, should Christians be political? I guess I’m saying, if you're a Christian, you pretty much can’t help it.

"To Resist Evil, Injustice, and Oppression"

“Do you accept the freedom and power God gives you to resist evil, injustice, and oppression in whatever forms they present themselves?” (The United Methodist Hymnal, p. 34)

I asked a young couple this question among others as they brought their infant forward for baptism last Sunday. As I asked it, images of “evil, injustice, and oppression” flashed across my mind: images of death and destruction in the streets of Paris, a lifeless toddler lying on a beach in Turkey, infants held by exhausted and desperate mothers in refugee camps, grimy children walking the demolished streets of Damascus, and on and on and on.

Do you accept … no, do I accept the freedom and power God gives … to resist evil … in whatever forms … ?

To resist evil. What does that even mean? And how is it a “freedom” exactly?

Every member of every United Methodist Church has answered that question in the affirmative. We had to, in order to become members. And having answered thusly, now what?

In the simple questions of our church membership, people who are United Methodist have made a solemn vow, witnessed by God and spoken in the midst of the people, to resist evil, however it appears in the world.

If the agenda and actions of the Daesh group are not evil, then I do not know what is. So in the face of such atrocious acts, what does it mean to “resist” evil?

The word “resist” is from the Latin word resistere, which meant “to remain standing.” It means to withstand or strive against or oppose. It means to take a stand against something, to make an effort in opposition.

We use the word frivolously, as in “I just couldn’t resist eating that delicious cupcake.” But I’m pretty sure the baptismal vows do not mean it in such a shallow way. The word is also used to described armed opposition to an occupying force, as in the French resistance to Nazi forces during the 1930s and 40s. Is that more aligned with what is meant in our United Methodist question?

The scripture I’m preaching on this week includes the following advice: “See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all” (1 Thessalonians 5:15). So whatever “resist” means, it seems it cannot mean “repay,” and certainly our response to evil should not involve even more evil. That will get us nowhere fast.

Sometimes, to be honest, I really wish Jesus had included a few escape clauses in the Gospel. Don’t you? Like wouldn’t it have been great if he had said, “Hey guys you should welcome strangers and eat with them, unless of course you think there’s a chance they may hurt you, then you’re totally fine to just keep them as far away from you as possible.” But he didn’t say that. And you know why? Because that’s not just. That’s oppressive. That’s actually kind of evil, in my honest opinion.

We are “to remain standing” in the face of evil, injustice, and oppression. We are to remain standing in the values of the Gospel, the doctrines of love and peace and justice and grace and incarnation and resurrection and everything else that the church is supposed to be about.

Only by “standing” in these places will our response to Daesh and Boko Haram and al-Qaeda and Al Shabaab be grounded in a faithful Christian response. But true resistance must be more than metaphor. To truly resist, we must act.

Only a very few of us who live in the United States can actually go to the places most impacted by the current violence. But by the virtue of our amazing democratic system, we have access to the people who can. We can contact our political leaders and encourage them to stand against evil, to act for justice, to speak with love and compassion for others.

And by the virtue of our amazing connectional church, we are a part of an incarnate Christian presence that is already at work all around the world. We can contribute the United Methodist Committee on Relief, which has a fund designated specifically for refugee response. The full list of projects UMCOR does is impressive.

Resisting evil is global, and also very local. We resist evil every time we take in a foster kid. We resist evil every time we back a food box for a hungry family. We resist evil every time we confront discrimination in our community. We resist evil every time we challenge homophobia and racism and sexism in any of the mealy, insidious forms they show up around us.

And here’s the thing - this resistance is liberating! God has offered us both freedom and power to resist. That means, quite counter-intuitively, that not resisting is actually captivity. Going along to get along is a prison. Allowing evil to continue is a chain, a burden, a weight on our lives that prevents us from becoming who God wants us to be.

In the act of resistance, we are set free.

And so I return to the question. “Do you accept the freedom and power to resist evil, injustice, and oppression in whatever forms they present themselves?” If so, please respond, “I do.”

And if you do, then for God’s sake … do.

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.