Loneliness Is More Than Begin Alone
1 week ago
Saturday, February 25, 2006
The Grammar of Confession, Part 2
In my last post, I wrote about pronoun selection when confessing one’s sins. I gave my rationale for using first person pronouns rather than second or third. Confessions should be “I” statements, not “you” statements. But what is the distinction between first person singular and first person plural? When should I confess “my” sins, and when should I confess “our” sins?
When I was a choir director in my previous life (before seminary), there was an ongoing debate in the choir about corporate prayers of confession. During worship, the prayer often had a line that went something like, “We have not been an obedient church, we have not done your will, we have broken your law, etc.” One bass in particular was upset every time we prayed this prayer because, as he put it, “I never did any of that stuff!”
One of the altos would inevitably chime in, “I’m not upset by that; I get upset because, when we confess together, I never get a chance to confess my own sins, only our group sins.”
And then a soprano would say something amusing like, “Well, I never sin so I don’t have anything to say, anyway” and then the whole choir would think that was just so funny and all start laughing and I would work to get everyone refocused on the actual choir rehearsal. (We were nothing if not predictable.)
The question at hand is this: When to say “I’m sorry” and when to say “we’re sorry”? Maybe the answer has something to do with the specificity of the sin. If I say, “We have failed to be an obedient church,” that is different from saying, “We have gone down to the gambling boat and blown $500 at the poker table.” The general confession leaves room for individuals to supply their own specifics; the more particular confession may very well exclude some people. But then what does it mean to live together as the body of Christ? If one member of the body gambles, is it not proper to say that “we” as the body of Christ have sinned? Of course that is true to a certain extent. When one part of the body hurts, the entire body suffers. So, on the other hand, it is right and good to be specific in our corporate confession, even if certain individuals do not feel the confession applies specifically to them.
But a bigger problem arises when the sin I am confessing on behalf of the group is not perceived to be a sin at all by some individuals in the group. More so than just feeling the confession doesn’t apply, they believe that the confession need not be confessed at all. (This is the core of the conflict over homosexuality: one group believes it to be a sin, another group believes it is not.) In such cases, a body comprised of a diverse group of individuals would do well to dwell in the abundance of God’s grace and allow space for each person to confess before God by couching corporate prayers in more general language.
Err on the side of grace, I say. Rather than haggle together over what is or is not a sin, perhaps we can come to an understanding that all sin is at its core some version of idolatry – that commandment number one is, “There is one God and only one.” And the good news is that, whenever we forget that, God’s grace is there to remind us again and again. Every prayer of confession is therefore some variation of, "Oops, sorry. We forgot that you were God."
When I was a choir director in my previous life (before seminary), there was an ongoing debate in the choir about corporate prayers of confession. During worship, the prayer often had a line that went something like, “We have not been an obedient church, we have not done your will, we have broken your law, etc.” One bass in particular was upset every time we prayed this prayer because, as he put it, “I never did any of that stuff!”
One of the altos would inevitably chime in, “I’m not upset by that; I get upset because, when we confess together, I never get a chance to confess my own sins, only our group sins.”
And then a soprano would say something amusing like, “Well, I never sin so I don’t have anything to say, anyway” and then the whole choir would think that was just so funny and all start laughing and I would work to get everyone refocused on the actual choir rehearsal. (We were nothing if not predictable.)
The question at hand is this: When to say “I’m sorry” and when to say “we’re sorry”? Maybe the answer has something to do with the specificity of the sin. If I say, “We have failed to be an obedient church,” that is different from saying, “We have gone down to the gambling boat and blown $500 at the poker table.” The general confession leaves room for individuals to supply their own specifics; the more particular confession may very well exclude some people. But then what does it mean to live together as the body of Christ? If one member of the body gambles, is it not proper to say that “we” as the body of Christ have sinned? Of course that is true to a certain extent. When one part of the body hurts, the entire body suffers. So, on the other hand, it is right and good to be specific in our corporate confession, even if certain individuals do not feel the confession applies specifically to them.
But a bigger problem arises when the sin I am confessing on behalf of the group is not perceived to be a sin at all by some individuals in the group. More so than just feeling the confession doesn’t apply, they believe that the confession need not be confessed at all. (This is the core of the conflict over homosexuality: one group believes it to be a sin, another group believes it is not.) In such cases, a body comprised of a diverse group of individuals would do well to dwell in the abundance of God’s grace and allow space for each person to confess before God by couching corporate prayers in more general language.
Err on the side of grace, I say. Rather than haggle together over what is or is not a sin, perhaps we can come to an understanding that all sin is at its core some version of idolatry – that commandment number one is, “There is one God and only one.” And the good news is that, whenever we forget that, God’s grace is there to remind us again and again. Every prayer of confession is therefore some variation of, "Oops, sorry. We forgot that you were God."
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Considering the Grammar of Confession
The Institute of Religion and Democracy (IRD) is all upset again (still) – this time about a confessional letter, read at a World Council of Churches (WCC) assembly. The letter asks God for forgiveness for the United States’ policies on war, the environment, and poverty.
In an email press release, IRD president Alan Wisdom complained, “This penitence is false. These church leaders are not confessing their own sins; they are trying to confess the sins of George W. Bush, who never asked them to perform that service for him. Nor did the members of their own churches ask them to make this kind of statement on their behalf. This letter is a blatant political abuse of the sacred Christian rite of confession.” Later, he said, “Of course, confession of sin is a duty for all Christians, but it is our own sins that we should confess – not the sins for which we wish to fault our political opponents.” (Emphasis mine.)
So, the IRD is upset because someone is trying to confess other people’s sins on their behalf. Or are they actually upset because the alleged sins being confessed are not something they consider to be a sin? Either way, the IRD has no trouble at all calling some behavior sin, even when it is not their own. Granted, I have never heard the IRD offer to actually confess another person’s sin on their behalf, but they have no problems whatsoever in naming other people’s sins for them.
So the theological questions at hand are these:
“Who has the right to name and then to confess sins, the sinner or another person?”
“What is the role of corporate confession of sin, and in what context should it be used?”
“Do we all have to agree that an act is sinful in order for it to be sinful, especially the sinner involved? Or is it enough for just a percentage of people to name something is a sin for it to be one?”
These big questions can be simplified into this one:
“What pronoun should be used in confession, ‘I,’ ‘we,’ ‘you,’ or ‘they’”?
I tend to stick pretty much with the first person and not so much with the second and third. When I use a first person pronoun, I am actually confessing. Using second or third person seems more like condemning. The WCC letter mentioned above uses all first person pronouns, and is as such a proper confession, whether the IRD likes it or not.
Later, I’ll write a little bit about issues that arise in using singular pronouns versus plural. (Don’t you just love grammar? :)
In an email press release, IRD president Alan Wisdom complained, “This penitence is false. These church leaders are not confessing their own sins; they are trying to confess the sins of George W. Bush, who never asked them to perform that service for him. Nor did the members of their own churches ask them to make this kind of statement on their behalf. This letter is a blatant political abuse of the sacred Christian rite of confession.” Later, he said, “Of course, confession of sin is a duty for all Christians, but it is our own sins that we should confess – not the sins for which we wish to fault our political opponents.” (Emphasis mine.)
So, the IRD is upset because someone is trying to confess other people’s sins on their behalf. Or are they actually upset because the alleged sins being confessed are not something they consider to be a sin? Either way, the IRD has no trouble at all calling some behavior sin, even when it is not their own. Granted, I have never heard the IRD offer to actually confess another person’s sin on their behalf, but they have no problems whatsoever in naming other people’s sins for them.
So the theological questions at hand are these:
“Who has the right to name and then to confess sins, the sinner or another person?”
“What is the role of corporate confession of sin, and in what context should it be used?”
“Do we all have to agree that an act is sinful in order for it to be sinful, especially the sinner involved? Or is it enough for just a percentage of people to name something is a sin for it to be one?”
These big questions can be simplified into this one:
“What pronoun should be used in confession, ‘I,’ ‘we,’ ‘you,’ or ‘they’”?
I tend to stick pretty much with the first person and not so much with the second and third. When I use a first person pronoun, I am actually confessing. Using second or third person seems more like condemning. The WCC letter mentioned above uses all first person pronouns, and is as such a proper confession, whether the IRD likes it or not.
Later, I’ll write a little bit about issues that arise in using singular pronouns versus plural. (Don’t you just love grammar? :)
Monday, February 20, 2006
Pastoral Care - What a Week!
Wow. I didn't realize until today how long it had been since I last posted. It has been a remarkable week. For me, the theme of the past week has been pastoral care. It is interesting that days can pass, even a week or more, when no one at all comes in to talk. Then a week like last week, and I have three or four pastoral issues per day.
Pastoral care is true "in the trenches" ministry. And it can get messy. There is such pain, such sadness in the world. The despair of loneliness is sometimes too deep to climb out of. The hopeless feeling of alienation can paralyze. The pain of grief can cut more sharply than any knife. In the midst of all that, people come to the pastor for help.
I had been an Associate Pastor for one week when a young woman came into my office with suicidal thoughts, needing someone to talk with. As if ten days of "School for Licensing of Local Pastors" had prepared me for that! Yeah, I was licensed. Sure, I was the Associate Pastor of the congregation. But the only thing that gave me any sort of credibility to provide care for her was the authority and trust she herself invested in me. That, and the grace of God.
In the five and a half years since that first pastoral care conversation, I believe I have grown and learned a lot about what it means to be called "pastor." And I have to say, the prospect of providing pastoral care no longer terrifies me quite as much as it once did! Four years of seminary, studying with Dr. Jeanne Hoeft, taking a unit of Clinical Pastoral Education with Rev. Jackie Thomas, and a lot of good "on-the-job training" have given me a set of care-giving tools I am learning to use with confidence. But still, a week like last week really exhausts me, even while providing a satisfying sense of fulfillment. It is, as mom always said, "A good kind of tired."
I am so thankful that I have a caring and supportive church with an active and healthy Stephen Ministry. I am thankful to be a part of a loving, honest, and mutually accountable covenant group. I am so thankful that the church has dedicated, talented, and passionate staff that I can rely on when there is a rough week or two. And I am indescribably thankful for the care and support of my family, without whom I cannot imagine how I would possibly maintain my emotional balance.
All things considered, I am pretty happy to call myself a pastor. At least this week ... ;)
Pastoral care is true "in the trenches" ministry. And it can get messy. There is such pain, such sadness in the world. The despair of loneliness is sometimes too deep to climb out of. The hopeless feeling of alienation can paralyze. The pain of grief can cut more sharply than any knife. In the midst of all that, people come to the pastor for help.
I had been an Associate Pastor for one week when a young woman came into my office with suicidal thoughts, needing someone to talk with. As if ten days of "School for Licensing of Local Pastors" had prepared me for that! Yeah, I was licensed. Sure, I was the Associate Pastor of the congregation. But the only thing that gave me any sort of credibility to provide care for her was the authority and trust she herself invested in me. That, and the grace of God.
In the five and a half years since that first pastoral care conversation, I believe I have grown and learned a lot about what it means to be called "pastor." And I have to say, the prospect of providing pastoral care no longer terrifies me quite as much as it once did! Four years of seminary, studying with Dr. Jeanne Hoeft, taking a unit of Clinical Pastoral Education with Rev. Jackie Thomas, and a lot of good "on-the-job training" have given me a set of care-giving tools I am learning to use with confidence. But still, a week like last week really exhausts me, even while providing a satisfying sense of fulfillment. It is, as mom always said, "A good kind of tired."
I am so thankful that I have a caring and supportive church with an active and healthy Stephen Ministry. I am thankful to be a part of a loving, honest, and mutually accountable covenant group. I am so thankful that the church has dedicated, talented, and passionate staff that I can rely on when there is a rough week or two. And I am indescribably thankful for the care and support of my family, without whom I cannot imagine how I would possibly maintain my emotional balance.
All things considered, I am pretty happy to call myself a pastor. At least this week ... ;)
Friday, February 10, 2006
The Federal Budget is Just a Bunch of Oreo Cookies
This little video clip makes so much sense to me that it is either a stroke of genius or a gross over-simplification. Click here to see for yourself.
The Institue of Religion and Democracy - Just a TAD Hypocrital
According to an email press release I got yesterday, the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) is opposed to legislation dealing with global warming. And just listen to their reasoning (You’re gonna love this!):
"It would be unwise for evangelical churches to repeat the mistakes of liberal-led mainline denominations by adopting specific assessments - usually the most alarmist assessments - of the environmental situation and then lending their blessing to particular policy prescriptions - often statist and costly prescriptions. Churches should be reluctant to attach the name of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to contemporary political agendas that lack a clear scriptural mandate and consensus among the faithful."
So says IRD interim president, the ironically named Alan Wisdom.
Furthermore, apparently the IRD has determined that the science of global warming is a little fuzzy. They don’t see global warming as a “consensus issue,” because of the ongoing debate as to its “causes and origins.” And since we don’t know for sure, the church shouldn’t take a stand one way or another. To do so would be to “politicize” the Gospel, which IRD thinks is a bad thing.
Now, any of you who have read Enter the Rainbow for any length of time know where I am going with this - straight at the heart of IRD’s hypocrisy. For this little exercise, global warming will be the issue on the one hand and homosexual rights will be the issue on the other hand. Okay, ready? Let’s play.
- On the one hand, we should not adopt specific alarmist assessments of the environmental situation. On the other hand, IRD’s assessment is that gay marriage is such a dangerous threat to straight marriage that it must be immediately banned.
- On the one hand, we should avoid blessing particular policies, especially “statist” (what in the world?) and expensive ones. On the other hand, IRD is actively campaigning to amend state constitutions all over our nation to limit the rights of homosexual people, and spending a lot of money in the process.
- On the one hand, we should hesitate to associate the Gospel of Jesus Christ with a political agenda regarding the environment. On the other hand, IRD has built its entire anti-homosexual political agenda around the notion that the Gospel of Jesus Christ condemns same-sex relationships.
- On the one hand, a stance against global warming lacks a clear scriptural mandate. On the other hand, a smattering of tangential Bible verses will suffice to support the vehement anti-homosexual ideology.
- On the one hand, the church needs to refrain from taking a stand on the environmental issue until the science behind it is worked out. On the other hand, IRD takes its unambiguous anti-gay stance in spite of the fact that science cannot now and will never be able to fully explain the intricacies of sexual attraction.
Mmmm … I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning! It may be that I am comparing apples with oranges here, but that is not the larger point of my argument. I think the IRD blew it on this one. If they were to apply the same reasoning they are using for their global warming position to the issue of homosexual rights, then they would be forced to take a non-stand on that issue, also. But their stand on homosexual rights is crystal clear. (Hint: they are not favorable). I sure hope somebody with more clout than me calls them on this.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Okay, Okay - So I Was Tagged
Every now and then a blogger "tags" another blogger. I have been tagged by both Adam Caldwell and Adam Mustoe, which means I have to answer the questions that they put to me. And I have to admit, though I went into it with my shoulders shrugged in exasperation, I had a pretty good time actually answering the questions. So here, Adams, are my responses. Enjoy, everyone!
Four jobs I've had in my life:
Grocery Sacker
Telemarketer
Choir Director
Pastor
Four Movies I could watch repeatedly (and have):
Any of Star Wars I-VI
Life is Beautiful
Bruce Almighty
The Pianist
Four Places I have lived:
Kirksville, MO
Galesburg, IL
Warrensburg, MO
Kansas City, MO
Four TV shows I love to watch:
A College Basketball game
A Professional Football game
The Daily Show
Home Movies
Four Places I have been on Vacation:
Glacier National Park
Yellowstone National Park
The Black Hills, SD
Orlando, FL
Four Websites I visit daily:
http://locustsandhoney.blogspot.com/
http://billtammeus.typepad.com/
http://seamhead86.blogspot.com/
http://beliefnet.com/
Four Favorite Restaurant Foods:
Barbecue Veggie Sandwich from Planet Sub
A Fish Burger from Ruby Tuesday
Alfredo Pizza from Kelso’s
A Chocolate Shake from Hardee’s
Four Places I'd Rather Be Right Now:
Anywhere with my wife and kids
On a trail
Camping
Drinking coffee on a balcony/veranda somewhere overlooking the mountains
Four People I'm tagging:
(I am refraining from tagging anyone else, since I believe that human beings are all given the gift of free will and make our own choices, so far be it from me to force anyone to do anything they do not want to. However, should anyone feel called to participate in this little game, feel free to use the comment feature of my blog to do so. Thank you for your support.)
Four jobs I've had in my life:
Grocery Sacker
Telemarketer
Choir Director
Pastor
Four Movies I could watch repeatedly (and have):
Any of Star Wars I-VI
Life is Beautiful
Bruce Almighty
The Pianist
Four Places I have lived:
Kirksville, MO
Galesburg, IL
Warrensburg, MO
Kansas City, MO
Four TV shows I love to watch:
A College Basketball game
A Professional Football game
The Daily Show
Home Movies
Four Places I have been on Vacation:
Glacier National Park
Yellowstone National Park
The Black Hills, SD
Orlando, FL
Four Websites I visit daily:
http://locustsandhoney.blogspot.com/
http://billtammeus.typepad.com/
http://seamhead86.blogspot.com/
http://beliefnet.com/
Four Favorite Restaurant Foods:
Barbecue Veggie Sandwich from Planet Sub
A Fish Burger from Ruby Tuesday
Alfredo Pizza from Kelso’s
A Chocolate Shake from Hardee’s
Four Places I'd Rather Be Right Now:
Anywhere with my wife and kids
On a trail
Camping
Drinking coffee on a balcony/veranda somewhere overlooking the mountains
Four People I'm tagging:
(I am refraining from tagging anyone else, since I believe that human beings are all given the gift of free will and make our own choices, so far be it from me to force anyone to do anything they do not want to. However, should anyone feel called to participate in this little game, feel free to use the comment feature of my blog to do so. Thank you for your support.)
Monday, February 06, 2006
I Am Wesleyan, Hear Me Roar!
We are not perfect yet, but we're getting better every day!
I'm in the middle of teaching an adult Sunday School class studying the doctrine of Christian Perfection, a distinctly Wesleyan idea. We are using the resource A Perfect Love: Understanding John Wesley's 'A Plain Account of Christian Perfection' and are just over half way through.
In this resource, Steve Manskar has "translated" the 18th century Wesley-ese into more contemporary language which we have found very easy to understand. Marjorie Suchocki has written a very helpful, insightful, and relevant theological reflection on the text. The study guide provided in the text has not been particularly helpful, but occasionally provided us some ideas for how to proceed.
It has been very good to be so Wesleyan for these past few weeks. I am remembering all over again just what attracted me to his theology in the first place. The "Way of Salvation," the strength afforded God's grace in Christ Jesus, having the image of God stamped a fresh on your heart, the emphasis on the process of the Christian life and the hope that we can and will be better people than we find ourselves presently to be - Yahoo! This is good stuff.
With that said, I cringe when I hear people say that we need to "get back to Wesley," or some such sentiment. That is the wrong metaphor, and not at all Wesleyan in and of itself. Granted, Wesley was influenced by the early church, but he did not want Methodists to simply live like they did "way back when." And so he probably would shudder at the thought that present day Methodists were trying to regress into an 18th century mindset and theology.
Rather, I hope that we energetically and creatively bring Wesley into the 21st century. Let's talk about a postmodern Wesleyanism that would include spiritual disciplines, an openness to the working of grace, the idea of salvation as a process/journey, etc. ... but translated into a language that 21st century people can hear and understand. In fact, I think that is what Manskar was trying to do with A Perfect Love.
We cannot spread scriptural holiness through0ut the land by simply replicating everything John and Charles did more than 200 years ago. But there is too much to learn from what they did and who they were to simply ignore them. We are Methodists; let's learn what that means, embrace it, and take the next step together toward perfection in love.
More Wesleyan thoughts to come soon ...
I'm in the middle of teaching an adult Sunday School class studying the doctrine of Christian Perfection, a distinctly Wesleyan idea. We are using the resource A Perfect Love: Understanding John Wesley's 'A Plain Account of Christian Perfection' and are just over half way through.
In this resource, Steve Manskar has "translated" the 18th century Wesley-ese into more contemporary language which we have found very easy to understand. Marjorie Suchocki has written a very helpful, insightful, and relevant theological reflection on the text. The study guide provided in the text has not been particularly helpful, but occasionally provided us some ideas for how to proceed.
It has been very good to be so Wesleyan for these past few weeks. I am remembering all over again just what attracted me to his theology in the first place. The "Way of Salvation," the strength afforded God's grace in Christ Jesus, having the image of God stamped a fresh on your heart, the emphasis on the process of the Christian life and the hope that we can and will be better people than we find ourselves presently to be - Yahoo! This is good stuff.
With that said, I cringe when I hear people say that we need to "get back to Wesley," or some such sentiment. That is the wrong metaphor, and not at all Wesleyan in and of itself. Granted, Wesley was influenced by the early church, but he did not want Methodists to simply live like they did "way back when." And so he probably would shudder at the thought that present day Methodists were trying to regress into an 18th century mindset and theology.
Rather, I hope that we energetically and creatively bring Wesley into the 21st century. Let's talk about a postmodern Wesleyanism that would include spiritual disciplines, an openness to the working of grace, the idea of salvation as a process/journey, etc. ... but translated into a language that 21st century people can hear and understand. In fact, I think that is what Manskar was trying to do with A Perfect Love.
We cannot spread scriptural holiness through0ut the land by simply replicating everything John and Charles did more than 200 years ago. But there is too much to learn from what they did and who they were to simply ignore them. We are Methodists; let's learn what that means, embrace it, and take the next step together toward perfection in love.
More Wesleyan thoughts to come soon ...
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
The Ministry OF Young Adults: Workshop Recap
The past four days have been in the category of “insanely busy” for me. I can barely even begin to convey the amount of activity that I have experienced. Curse this sunny weather, what I need is a couple of snow days! You know, sixteen inches of snow on top of an inch of ice with temperatures in the low teens – stuck at home, darn it, and no possible way to get out to do anything.
Anyway, enough with the “Oh, I’m so busy” schtick …
One of the things occupying my time these last few days was our district’s Lay Leadership Training event, at which I was leading a workshop titled “The Ministry of Young Adults.” (See my two previous posts for some more info.) Overall the workshop went really well, I thought. There were twelve people in my workshop (over 200 attended the event), representing five different churches.
The first thing we tried to do was get past thinking of young adults as objects, rather than subjects. We talked about the dangers of using terms like ministry “to” young adults or “for” young adults or even “with” young adults, since this thinking artificially separates young adults from the church and makes the church the primary actor and the young adult the passive recipient. Instead we thought about ministry “of” young adults, which is a mindset that affirms that young adults themselves are the church and not a separate animal, and that we have inherent gifts and graces for ministry.
Using a set of four case studies, we tried to expand our idea of what “church” is. We tried to avoid any gimmicky, “Easy button” style ministry. It was good to see that most people have abandoned thinking, “If we could only get the right curriculum, we would have young adults here” or “If we only had a guitar player…” or “If we could just get a big screen in our sanctuary…” etc. etc. Making the church vital for young adults involves a shift in thinking, not the addition of a new program.
Here are some other insights of the workshop:
- Most people think of young adults as younger versions of themselves, when in reality young adults are a diverse group: different ethnically, racially, socio-economically, children or not, married or not, in school or working or not, etc. So when a church seeks to enhance the ministry of young adults, it is a much broader endeavor than most churches are envisioning.
- Young adults respond to authentic relationships more than fancy programs. If a church has passion and energy, if a church “keeps it real,” if a church allows people to participate together in something they can take home with them with some relevance to their lives, then the struggle to engage in young adult ministry will not be such a struggle.
- It is not a matter so much of getting more young adults into the church. It is a matter of re-thinking what church is such that young adults know that they are the church, wherever they happen to be.
- Saying, “We have always done it that way, so we are not changing,” is not faithful to the commandment to love your neighbor, since reaching out to new neighbors may involve changing things. Saying, “We have to change or we are going to die,” is not faithful to the commandment to love God, since it is focused purely on self-preservation and maintaining the bare minimum, rather than participating in the abundant life to which God calls us. Rather than either of these, we need to think of this call as, “Change as an act of faith.” In other words, we must change, but not in order to preserve the church. Rather, we must change because God is calling us to do so.
Although there was more we discussed, these are the most fundamental things we talked about for that hour and a half last Sunday. I hope that some good happened, some seeds were planted. I know that I really got a lot out of it, and learned a bunch from the people there. I just want the church to be a place where all people, young and old, feel like they can encounter the living presence of God and form meaning for their lives.
According to our Conference definition, I have but one more year to be a “young adult.” After that, I’m not sure exactly what I will be; I guess I’ll have to grow up or something. ;)
Anyway, enough with the “Oh, I’m so busy” schtick …
One of the things occupying my time these last few days was our district’s Lay Leadership Training event, at which I was leading a workshop titled “The Ministry of Young Adults.” (See my two previous posts for some more info.) Overall the workshop went really well, I thought. There were twelve people in my workshop (over 200 attended the event), representing five different churches.
The first thing we tried to do was get past thinking of young adults as objects, rather than subjects. We talked about the dangers of using terms like ministry “to” young adults or “for” young adults or even “with” young adults, since this thinking artificially separates young adults from the church and makes the church the primary actor and the young adult the passive recipient. Instead we thought about ministry “of” young adults, which is a mindset that affirms that young adults themselves are the church and not a separate animal, and that we have inherent gifts and graces for ministry.
Using a set of four case studies, we tried to expand our idea of what “church” is. We tried to avoid any gimmicky, “Easy button” style ministry. It was good to see that most people have abandoned thinking, “If we could only get the right curriculum, we would have young adults here” or “If we only had a guitar player…” or “If we could just get a big screen in our sanctuary…” etc. etc. Making the church vital for young adults involves a shift in thinking, not the addition of a new program.Here are some other insights of the workshop:
- Most people think of young adults as younger versions of themselves, when in reality young adults are a diverse group: different ethnically, racially, socio-economically, children or not, married or not, in school or working or not, etc. So when a church seeks to enhance the ministry of young adults, it is a much broader endeavor than most churches are envisioning.
- Young adults respond to authentic relationships more than fancy programs. If a church has passion and energy, if a church “keeps it real,” if a church allows people to participate together in something they can take home with them with some relevance to their lives, then the struggle to engage in young adult ministry will not be such a struggle.
- It is not a matter so much of getting more young adults into the church. It is a matter of re-thinking what church is such that young adults know that they are the church, wherever they happen to be.
- Saying, “We have always done it that way, so we are not changing,” is not faithful to the commandment to love your neighbor, since reaching out to new neighbors may involve changing things. Saying, “We have to change or we are going to die,” is not faithful to the commandment to love God, since it is focused purely on self-preservation and maintaining the bare minimum, rather than participating in the abundant life to which God calls us. Rather than either of these, we need to think of this call as, “Change as an act of faith.” In other words, we must change, but not in order to preserve the church. Rather, we must change because God is calling us to do so.
Although there was more we discussed, these are the most fundamental things we talked about for that hour and a half last Sunday. I hope that some good happened, some seeds were planted. I know that I really got a lot out of it, and learned a bunch from the people there. I just want the church to be a place where all people, young and old, feel like they can encounter the living presence of God and form meaning for their lives.
According to our Conference definition, I have but one more year to be a “young adult.” After that, I’m not sure exactly what I will be; I guess I’ll have to grow up or something. ;)
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Young Adults and the Church: Themes
Thanks for the comments on my last post about the Young Adult workshop I'm leading. I am going to utilize many of your thoughts tomorrow afternoon. I'll be sure to give full credit where it is due ;)
Seems that one important theme is to beware of thinking that the latest gadget, worship trend, or other gimmick is going to fix everything. Adam M. said, "it's authentic relationships that keep the church growing, not smoke and mirror 'modern' worship." Similarly, Adam C. wrote, "The last thing I want to do is cater to the consumer lifestyle by adding a guitar just because I think that is going to get young people." Authenticity and relevance are values that young adults hold in high regard.
Another important theme is to promote an outward focus rather than inward. Kyle asks, "[Young adults] have moved into our community but is knocking on doors or leaving a brochure the best method now?" Dave's practical suggestion was to "take them out into the world and go see a concert, go bowling, see a movie, etc." Before starting any ministry at all, Brad says, "The first question any church should ask is who's our audience. Who's in our community?" In other words, the issue is to reframe the situation from "bringing more young adults into the church" to "taking the church into your community and into the world."
The third theme I hope to be able to communicate tomorrow is that young adults are individuals living in community, not a homogenous generation. For example, Mike pointed out a key difference between young adults who are parents and those who are not. Dave wrote, "[Young adults] are ready to think for themsleves, and find out who they are." Kansas Bob notes that people want a church that helps them "experience God's presence and actually brings them closer to the Lord." And the reality is that each person does that in a way that is personally unique to who they are created to become.
I am going to use scripture, the Book of Discipline, the thoughts of Bishop Schnase, a few case studies, and hopefully a whole lot of group discussion during the session tomorrow. Keep me in your prayers. I'll let you know how it turns out!
Seems that one important theme is to beware of thinking that the latest gadget, worship trend, or other gimmick is going to fix everything. Adam M. said, "it's authentic relationships that keep the church growing, not smoke and mirror 'modern' worship." Similarly, Adam C. wrote, "The last thing I want to do is cater to the consumer lifestyle by adding a guitar just because I think that is going to get young people." Authenticity and relevance are values that young adults hold in high regard.
Another important theme is to promote an outward focus rather than inward. Kyle asks, "[Young adults] have moved into our community but is knocking on doors or leaving a brochure the best method now?" Dave's practical suggestion was to "take them out into the world and go see a concert, go bowling, see a movie, etc." Before starting any ministry at all, Brad says, "The first question any church should ask is who's our audience. Who's in our community?" In other words, the issue is to reframe the situation from "bringing more young adults into the church" to "taking the church into your community and into the world."
The third theme I hope to be able to communicate tomorrow is that young adults are individuals living in community, not a homogenous generation. For example, Mike pointed out a key difference between young adults who are parents and those who are not. Dave wrote, "[Young adults] are ready to think for themsleves, and find out who they are." Kansas Bob notes that people want a church that helps them "experience God's presence and actually brings them closer to the Lord." And the reality is that each person does that in a way that is personally unique to who they are created to become.
I am going to use scripture, the Book of Discipline, the thoughts of Bishop Schnase, a few case studies, and hopefully a whole lot of group discussion during the session tomorrow. Keep me in your prayers. I'll let you know how it turns out!
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Young Adults Workshop
I'm leading a workshop on Sunday afternoon called "Ministry of Young Adults." It is a part of our District Lay Leadership Training event.
In the workshop, I am going to refer to the remarks of Missouri's Bishop Robert Schnase that he has posted on the Missouri Conference website. Here is a bit of what he says.
And more...
Finally...
Do these thoughts ring true for you? I am happy to say that the average age of the new members we recieved here last year is 35. (And that includes one 95 year old woman in the mix!) But the reality to which Bishop Schnase points is alarming, indeed. Speaking in a sweeping, possibly unfair, but nonetheless-containing-a-kernel-of-truth generalization, people in their 20s and 30s talk, look, and think differently than older people. How is the church responding?
So I ask, if you were leading a workshop on "Ministry of Young Adults," what would you say? Or perhaps, if you were attending a workshop on the topic, what would you like to hear?
In the workshop, I am going to refer to the remarks of Missouri's Bishop Robert Schnase that he has posted on the Missouri Conference website. Here is a bit of what he says.
The average age in our conference is 57, the average age in our society is 33.
Each generation speaks a different language.
And more...
A hundred years ago you might have had three generations in church that shared the same preference in worship style, music and entertainment. Now you may have four generations, each with their own distinctive preferences.
Finally...
In 20 years, we’ve lost 40,000 by simple attrition, but haven’t replaced them. It’s not that everyone just up and left. It’s a front door problem, not a back door problem. The older generations are being asked to do what is so hard: to support music and worship styles that are foreign to them. But we must understand we have to reach these younger generations and there is a limited time to do that.
Do these thoughts ring true for you? I am happy to say that the average age of the new members we recieved here last year is 35. (And that includes one 95 year old woman in the mix!) But the reality to which Bishop Schnase points is alarming, indeed. Speaking in a sweeping, possibly unfair, but nonetheless-containing-a-kernel-of-truth generalization, people in their 20s and 30s talk, look, and think differently than older people. How is the church responding?
So I ask, if you were leading a workshop on "Ministry of Young Adults," what would you say? Or perhaps, if you were attending a workshop on the topic, what would you like to hear?
Monday, January 23, 2006
The Preaching Art
The painter had stepped away for a few moments, leaving the work to sit in the air. Her representation of reality was exposed to anyone who happened to walk by with a camera. The expression of her artist's eye, the most personal of gifts given by her Creator, a manifestation of the intimate inner-workings of her creative impulse: laid bare for the casualest observer's intrusion. I felt a bit like an interloper, an invading force, a violator of a private space. But I also felt a great sense of wonder at the vulnerability of the painter away from her easel. Was she not frightened that her creation would be vandalized, or perhaps knocked over by a sudden strong gust of wind? What a risk she took! What trust; what strength of character! She had put her idea out there in the middle of the sidewalk and then stepped away, allowing anyone at all to make anything they wanted out of it.
Kind of like a preacher, isn't it? A preacher pours out the innermost depth of her soul into every phrase of her sermon. A preacher studies, looks, prays, listens, studies some more, then lays bare her representation of reality for the congregation who has come to worship. Bold colors, subtle brush strokes, the interplay of light and shadow, all are painted onto the sermon's canvas with the skill and passion of a creative mind and an artist's eye. The most personal gift given by the preacher's Creator, exposed to the casualest of observers.
Then she steps away. Tired and sweating, she leaves the sermon there in the middle of the sidewalk, where malicious vandal or errant gust of wind may find it. What a risk she took! What trust! The preacher cannot guard with jealousy every jot and tittle of sermonic pronouncement. She must step away, and allow the words to sit in the air.
Maybe someone will come by with a camera.
Then again, maybe not.
Then the painting is gone, and the preacher gets started on the next.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Happy Birthday Me!
Well, everyone, Enter the Rainbow is one year old as of this week. Click here to read the first post I wrote.
Disciple Making - Leave Your Nets!
For two weeks now, the lectionary has led us to consider stories of people being called to follow Christ. Last week it was John 1:43-51, where Philip and Nathanael get the call. This week we are reading Mark 1:14-20, in which Simon, Andrew, James, and John are invited to follow. It is one of the functions of the church to continue this ministry of making disciples of Jesus Christ. What does that look like in today's world?
Too often, deciding to "follow Jesus" merely involves quitting all of your bad habits and adopting new, good habits. When we die to our old life in order to be born anew in Christ, we tend to consider that old life as comprised of all the nasty stuff we want to eliminate - partying all night, smoking, sleeping around, cursing, drinking too much, etc. We leave that stuff behind and give ourselves to Jesus, as if Jesus is some divinely sanctioned self-help program.
But what was so bad about the lives of Philip, Nathanael, and the four fishermen? It is likely that they had a few bad habits, to be sure, but the scripture does not mention this. No, these are not examples of quitting the bad stuff in order to start living right. The disciples are invited to leave their perfectly fine, good, healthy lives and follow Jesus. Nathanael is affirmed as a person "in whom there is no deceit." He is a good person who is invited to leave it behind. Simon and Andrew are fishing, like they did every day, and they leave their nets (not their bad habits, notice), to follow him. James and John are working the family business with Zebedee, whom they leave behind (their own FATHER) in order to follow Jesus.
The point is not that we just give up the BAD stuff to follow Jesus; the point is to give up the GOOD stuff, too! Let's not minimize the demands of Christian discipleship by reducing it to a method for personal improvement. Accepting Christ into your life CAN eliminate all that "bad stuff," but the person who comes to Jesus based on that foundation has built a shaky house, indeed. The moment the temptation and opportunity to engage in that "bad stuff" arise again, Jesus leaves the scene.
John Wesley encouraged Methodists to pray as a part of the renewal of the covenant,
"I am no longer my own, but thine....
Let me be employed by thee or laid aside for thee,
exalted for thee or brought low for thee.
Let me be full, let me be empty.
Let me have all things, let me have nothing.
I freely and heartily yield all things to thy pleasure and disposal."
The point being, give it ALL over to God, not just the "bad stuff." I'm not sure the church is doing such a great job in communicating that message to the world. "And immediately they left their nets and followed him." All of us are at heart just regular folks trying to live our lives as best as possible. It is into these regular lives of these regular folks that Jesus comes and says, "Follow me."
P.S. - (This little extra bit seems to fit in somewhere, but I couldn't make it flow into the rhythm of the post above. Enjoy this bonus material at no extra charge!):
I think U2 is onto something with their song "Walk On." On the journey into life, "the only baggage you can bring is all that you can't leave behind." And then there is a list of all of the things that you can and should leave behind: "All that you fashion. All that you make. All that you build. All that you break. All that you measure. All that you steal. All this you can leave behind. All that you reason. All that you sense. All that you speak. All that you dress up. All that you scheme..." That doesn't leave very much, does it?
Too often, deciding to "follow Jesus" merely involves quitting all of your bad habits and adopting new, good habits. When we die to our old life in order to be born anew in Christ, we tend to consider that old life as comprised of all the nasty stuff we want to eliminate - partying all night, smoking, sleeping around, cursing, drinking too much, etc. We leave that stuff behind and give ourselves to Jesus, as if Jesus is some divinely sanctioned self-help program.
But what was so bad about the lives of Philip, Nathanael, and the four fishermen? It is likely that they had a few bad habits, to be sure, but the scripture does not mention this. No, these are not examples of quitting the bad stuff in order to start living right. The disciples are invited to leave their perfectly fine, good, healthy lives and follow Jesus. Nathanael is affirmed as a person "in whom there is no deceit." He is a good person who is invited to leave it behind. Simon and Andrew are fishing, like they did every day, and they leave their nets (not their bad habits, notice), to follow him. James and John are working the family business with Zebedee, whom they leave behind (their own FATHER) in order to follow Jesus.
The point is not that we just give up the BAD stuff to follow Jesus; the point is to give up the GOOD stuff, too! Let's not minimize the demands of Christian discipleship by reducing it to a method for personal improvement. Accepting Christ into your life CAN eliminate all that "bad stuff," but the person who comes to Jesus based on that foundation has built a shaky house, indeed. The moment the temptation and opportunity to engage in that "bad stuff" arise again, Jesus leaves the scene.
John Wesley encouraged Methodists to pray as a part of the renewal of the covenant,
"I am no longer my own, but thine....
Let me be employed by thee or laid aside for thee,
exalted for thee or brought low for thee.
Let me be full, let me be empty.
Let me have all things, let me have nothing.
I freely and heartily yield all things to thy pleasure and disposal."
The point being, give it ALL over to God, not just the "bad stuff." I'm not sure the church is doing such a great job in communicating that message to the world. "And immediately they left their nets and followed him." All of us are at heart just regular folks trying to live our lives as best as possible. It is into these regular lives of these regular folks that Jesus comes and says, "Follow me."
P.S. - (This little extra bit seems to fit in somewhere, but I couldn't make it flow into the rhythm of the post above. Enjoy this bonus material at no extra charge!):
I think U2 is onto something with their song "Walk On." On the journey into life, "the only baggage you can bring is all that you can't leave behind." And then there is a list of all of the things that you can and should leave behind: "All that you fashion. All that you make. All that you build. All that you break. All that you measure. All that you steal. All this you can leave behind. All that you reason. All that you sense. All that you speak. All that you dress up. All that you scheme..." That doesn't leave very much, does it?
Monday, January 16, 2006
Martin Luther King's Legacy: Brownback Doesn't Quite Get It
Senator Sam Brownback wrote a guest column in the Kansas City Star today giving homage to Martin Luther King, Jr. (This, by the way, is the new definition of irony.)
Brownback writes, "King dedicated his life to the advancement of individuals in need," (italics mine)
But I say, the advancement of individuals in need is hardly what King was dedicated to. Oh, he was in favor of it, to be sure. But he was dedicated to nothing less that the transformation of society and the establishment of justice for all people in America and throughout the world. Brownback makes King sound like he ran a local food bank. Running a food bank is an awesome ministry, and worthy of much gratitude, but King was about something more fundamental and communal than that. There is a difference between doing the works of justice that King did and doing the works of mercy that happen in food banks every day.
Brownback writes, "King’s commitment to the advancement of those in need not only transformed our once oppressive society into a symbol of freedom and democracy, but he also ushered in a new consciousness of the importance of charity toward each another." (italics mine)
But I say, oppression in our society is not a thing of the past. The way Brownback writes, you would think that King's dream is realized and there is no more work to do. There has never been a more noticeable difference between rich and poor in the United States. Prejudice against women and minorities is alive and well. The very young and the very old in our society are systemically devalued. No, there is still plenty of work to do before our country attains the high ideals King attempted to hold us to.
More Brownback: "We most truly live up to the legacy of King when we help others."
But I say, we most truly live up to the legacy of King when we unflinchingly stare injustice and oppression in the face and insist that things must be different than they are, in spite of the threat or even the act of violence perpetrated against us. King would not have received death threats and eventually been assasinated if all he had wanted was for us to "help others," like Senator Brownback seems to think. The legacy King left the world was much more profound than offering a helping hand to a neighbor in need.
I applaud the good Senator's effort to highlight the importance of acts of mercy, or helping people in need. We do those acts every day here in Northtown. But to blunt the force of Martin Luther King's impact on our society by trying to make him just another social worker doing good things is an offense to the truth. King was an extremist, and demanded that we all be, as well. In his letter from Birmingham City Jail he wrote, "So the question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice - or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?"
And read this closely, from the same letter: "The contemporary church is so often a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. It is so often the arch-supporter of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the Church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the Church's silent and often vocal sanction of things as they are." *Sigh* There is still so very much work to be done. And honoring the legacy of Martin Luther King is more that closing the Post Office and writing a check to mail to the food pantry. As King put it, "If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands."
Brownback writes, "King dedicated his life to the advancement of individuals in need," (italics mine)
But I say, the advancement of individuals in need is hardly what King was dedicated to. Oh, he was in favor of it, to be sure. But he was dedicated to nothing less that the transformation of society and the establishment of justice for all people in America and throughout the world. Brownback makes King sound like he ran a local food bank. Running a food bank is an awesome ministry, and worthy of much gratitude, but King was about something more fundamental and communal than that. There is a difference between doing the works of justice that King did and doing the works of mercy that happen in food banks every day.
Brownback writes, "King’s commitment to the advancement of those in need not only transformed our once oppressive society into a symbol of freedom and democracy, but he also ushered in a new consciousness of the importance of charity toward each another." (italics mine)
But I say, oppression in our society is not a thing of the past. The way Brownback writes, you would think that King's dream is realized and there is no more work to do. There has never been a more noticeable difference between rich and poor in the United States. Prejudice against women and minorities is alive and well. The very young and the very old in our society are systemically devalued. No, there is still plenty of work to do before our country attains the high ideals King attempted to hold us to.
More Brownback: "We most truly live up to the legacy of King when we help others."
But I say, we most truly live up to the legacy of King when we unflinchingly stare injustice and oppression in the face and insist that things must be different than they are, in spite of the threat or even the act of violence perpetrated against us. King would not have received death threats and eventually been assasinated if all he had wanted was for us to "help others," like Senator Brownback seems to think. The legacy King left the world was much more profound than offering a helping hand to a neighbor in need.
I applaud the good Senator's effort to highlight the importance of acts of mercy, or helping people in need. We do those acts every day here in Northtown. But to blunt the force of Martin Luther King's impact on our society by trying to make him just another social worker doing good things is an offense to the truth. King was an extremist, and demanded that we all be, as well. In his letter from Birmingham City Jail he wrote, "So the question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice - or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?"
And read this closely, from the same letter: "The contemporary church is so often a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. It is so often the arch-supporter of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the Church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the Church's silent and often vocal sanction of things as they are." *Sigh* There is still so very much work to be done. And honoring the legacy of Martin Luther King is more that closing the Post Office and writing a check to mail to the food pantry. As King put it, "If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands."
Friday, January 13, 2006
Missouri Ministers' School - Reconciliation 101
I have been away for a week at Missouri Ministers' School, an annual continuing education event for the United Methodist clergy in the Missouri Annual Conference. This year, our faculty included Willie Jennings, Ruth Duck, and Philip Wogaman. The theme of the conference was reconciliation, with the title, "Can Holy Ground Be Common Ground?" The conference was really good, but I think it was a little heavy on the "theory" and kind of light on the "practice." There were some excellent theological conversations that left me asking the "So what?" question. In other words, how exactly is the church supposed to live this out in our "ministry of reconciliation" in the world today?
Another observation, our faculty this year were obviously somewhere on the left side of the theological sphere, and espouse ideas that might be labelled "liberal" or "progressive." They basically agreed with each other the whole time. (And, I must say, I basically agreed with them the whole time, too!) However there was no counterpoint offered. There was no one whom we might label "conservative" there to offer another perspective of reconciliation.
So it leads me to wonder, what does the ministry of reconciliation look like to people with a different theological perspective than Phil Wogaman et al? Is it as simplistic as saying, "Reconciliation implies assimilation and homogeneity"? In other words, in order to be
reconciled with "us" you must become like "us"? Surely not. That sounds like the Borg, not the Church. And yet, to me, that is how it seems. Please correct the error of my thinking here if I am wrong, but a lot of contemporary Christianity seems to think that reconciliation means we can be together as long as the group with less power becomes like the group with more power. (And that seems to apply to independent churches as well as mainline protestantism, I am sad to say.)This last week, even without a healthy counterpoint, the faculty of the Missouri Ministers' School sketched a picture of reconciliation that shows us living together in Christ even in spite of our differences. And I wonder, had a more conservative lecturer been there, what would she or he have had to say about that?
Thinking Like a Diamond
Vinny commented on my last post: "Man, get beyond this one-dimensional thinking." I'm not completely sure if he was commenting to me or one of the commentors, since he used the salutation "Man," which I assume is a generic "Hey you," and could referred to anyone. Nonetheless, in responding to his remark, I would like to just say "Amen" and I hope no one interprets my own thinking as one-dimensional.
Phil Wogaman talks about the metaphor of a diamond cut into multiple facets. Every facet of the diamond allows us to get a glimpse of the center of the jewel, but from a different angle and with a different resultant sparkle. The "truth" is the center of the diamond; our individual perspectives are the facets.
I like it! I've got my facet, you have yours. Now let's talk about our facets and how they illuminate the truth for us, with the faith that, at the core, it is the same truth that is being illuminated.
Phil Wogaman talks about the metaphor of a diamond cut into multiple facets. Every facet of the diamond allows us to get a glimpse of the center of the jewel, but from a different angle and with a different resultant sparkle. The "truth" is the center of the diamond; our individual perspectives are the facets.
I like it! I've got my facet, you have yours. Now let's talk about our facets and how they illuminate the truth for us, with the faith that, at the core, it is the same truth that is being illuminated.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Beyond the Labels
Back in October, I wrote about the difficulties of dialogue. I offered the observation that the real difference in our society is not between "liberals" and "conservatives" but rather between "idealogues" and "contextualizers." There are right-wing and left-wing idealogues, and they are pretty busy bashing each other over the head with their respective perspective. Most of us, however, are contextualizers, able to see that the different circumstances of our lives have shaped us into who we are and what we believe. Contextualizers may disagree with one another, but at least we can talk together.
(Unfortunately, you have to be an idealogue to make headlines.)
Enter a wonderful column by Ellen Goodman in Wednesday's paper. Goodman draws from Philip Tetlock's book, which in turn uses Isaiah Berlin's essay. (Got that?) Anyway, Berlin uses the characters of the hedgehog and the fox to describe the way people think. Quoting Goodman, "The close-minded hedgehogs are those who know 'one big thing' and relate everything to that single, central vision. The open-minded foxes 'know many little things' and accept ambiguity and contradictions." In public discourse, what we hear most are hedgehogs battling; there is no air time for foxes.
The church has hedgehogs, too. The church is filled with people who believe one big thing, and any evidence to the contrary is minimized or ignored altogether. For example, I would say that a Christian who believes the church is only a social justice agency and minimizes or denies any personal salvific relationship with Jesus is a hedgehog. In addition, a Christian who believes that once you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior everything will be fine and if all the poor, hungry, homeless people would just accept Him too their lives would be better, is also a hedgehog. The question is not whether you are liberal or conservative; the question is whether you are a hedgehog or a fox.
Of course, if the idea in which you stake your belief is big and vague enough, you can make the case that being a hedgehog is a good thing. Like for example, you could say, "The one big thing I believe is that God is love, and everything else is related to that." Or your "one big thing" might be that Jesus is Lord or that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is reaching out to touch the world with his noodly appendage. But if you make your "one big thing" too broad, it misses the point of the metaphor at hand.
God's world is a wonderfully diverse and ever changing mix of differences, contrasts, and tensions. Each of us chooses how we deal with that reality. Either curl up and put out your spines like a hedgehog, effectively defending yourself against all threat but blind to any goodness. Or engage the ambiguity and difference with cunning and cleverness like a fox, so that your nose might get stuck a time or two but you will grow better from your life experiences.
(Unfortunately, you have to be an idealogue to make headlines.)
Enter a wonderful column by Ellen Goodman in Wednesday's paper. Goodman draws from Philip Tetlock's book, which in turn uses Isaiah Berlin's essay. (Got that?) Anyway, Berlin uses the characters of the hedgehog and the fox to describe the way people think. Quoting Goodman, "The close-minded hedgehogs are those who know 'one big thing' and relate everything to that single, central vision. The open-minded foxes 'know many little things' and accept ambiguity and contradictions." In public discourse, what we hear most are hedgehogs battling; there is no air time for foxes.
The church has hedgehogs, too. The church is filled with people who believe one big thing, and any evidence to the contrary is minimized or ignored altogether. For example, I would say that a Christian who believes the church is only a social justice agency and minimizes or denies any personal salvific relationship with Jesus is a hedgehog. In addition, a Christian who believes that once you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior everything will be fine and if all the poor, hungry, homeless people would just accept Him too their lives would be better, is also a hedgehog. The question is not whether you are liberal or conservative; the question is whether you are a hedgehog or a fox.
Of course, if the idea in which you stake your belief is big and vague enough, you can make the case that being a hedgehog is a good thing. Like for example, you could say, "The one big thing I believe is that God is love, and everything else is related to that." Or your "one big thing" might be that Jesus is Lord or that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is reaching out to touch the world with his noodly appendage. But if you make your "one big thing" too broad, it misses the point of the metaphor at hand.
God's world is a wonderfully diverse and ever changing mix of differences, contrasts, and tensions. Each of us chooses how we deal with that reality. Either curl up and put out your spines like a hedgehog, effectively defending yourself against all threat but blind to any goodness. Or engage the ambiguity and difference with cunning and cleverness like a fox, so that your nose might get stuck a time or two but you will grow better from your life experiences.
Pat Poll
I just want to ask y'all, about Pat Robertson, on a scale of 1 to 10 (where 1 = "ignore him because he is an irrelevant joke" and 10 = "actively seek his downfall because he is doing great harm to Christianity") what do you think we should do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
