On My Mind ...

"Sometimes when an issue is before annual conference, the persons who rush to the microphone are not always the most careful proponents of a point of view. It only takes a few persons to set a tone for a large gathering."

- Hal Knight and Don Saliers, The Conversation Matters, p. 79

Annual Conference Thoughts: The Conversation Matters!

I changed my blog description up there, did you notice? It now says, "I believe that the conversation matters. If in the attempt to realize the reign of God on earth, we cannot engage one another in respectful and grace-filled dialogue, we might as well not even try."


(Yes, I stole the phrase "The Conversation Matters" from the title of the Hal Knight and Don Saliers book, which we read in seminary. Reading this book was the first opportunity I had to think about the idea that it is indeed possible to enter into Christian conversation without needing to agree necessarily with everyone around the table. And you know what? - the sky will not fall.)

I believe that the conversation matters because living a Christlike life is more about the journey than the arrival. A.J. Muste said, "There is no way to peace; peace is the way." Similarly, Jesus called himself "the Way," and early Christians were followers of the way. It's not that we have attained the prize, but we press on to make it our own, as Christ made us his own.

Which brings me to ...

This week is the meeting of Annual Conference here in Missouri, and there are a lot of things going on that I have serious questions about. Here they are, in no particular order:
1) The inordinate power given to an ad hoc task force appointed by the Bishop known as "Pathways" that was supposed to be temporary but shows no signs of stopping soon,
2) the use of numbers alone to define "fruitfulness" in ministry,
3) the elimination of conference support of many community service agencies known as "vital ministries,"
4) the move to close Wesley Foundations on college campuses across the state,
5) the new apportionment formula by which 51% of the congregations in my urban district (including NKC) will see an increase next year whereas in some rural districts that figure is a single digit.

And now...

I wonder how much to push these issues. I wonder how many questions to ask before I get the label of troublemaker. I wonder who the best conversation partners might be. I wonder if every voice on these conversations will be heard. I wonder if I ought to wait until after I am ordained to raise my concerns. I wonder how much good it does to raise the issues on the floor of Conference by which time everything seems pretty much decided already. I wonder if not on the floor of conference, then where and with whom.

I believe the conversation matters. But I've never had so many things I've wanted to talk about at once, so I'm not sure where to start!

Campus Ministry in Missouri: More Thoughts

Recently, the Missouri Annual Conference decided to “shift toward congregationally based ministries with college students,” rather than fund on-campus ministries at colleges and universities across the state. (You can read the resolution here.) My opinion is that this move erodes part of the connection, and moves the conference toward a congregational polity, rather than its distinctive connectional polity. I also believe that it is a move motivated solely by the bottom line – money – and has very little to do with the extravagant, risky, and radical ministry to which Christians are called.

The most common motivation for this move that I have heard is that on-campus ministries cost too much. Wesley Foundations on college campuses are seen by many as wastes of money, or in the gentler language employed these days to smooth over hurt feelings, they are not “bearing good fruit” because the number of students who participate is not commensurate with the resources allocated to them. And to add insult to injury, the Conference is so reluctant to address the issue honestly and openly, the Commission on Higher Education will not even be allowed to make a report at this year’s Annual Conference session, according to a Conference source I spoke with. No chance to grieve, celebrate the many years of good ministry, mourn the loss. In the future, there will be no Commission on Higher Education in the Missouri Annual Conference!

Segue to a story I heard on the NPR program Weekend Edition on Saturday, May 19, 2007. (Listen to it here.) In an interview with retired Marine Lt. Col. Gary Anderson, John Ydstie (say IT-stee) explored the recent kidnapping of three U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Col. Anderson said that every soldier knows that if something happens to him, his buddies are going to come get him or her; no one will be left in the enemy’s control if at all possible. He considers this duty so important he used the word “sacred” to describe it. U.S. soldiers know that they are “not going to be forgotten” and that “[The search] will never be discontinued,” although “…the level of activity may go down” or change focus as circumstances dictate.

Ydstie asked him about the cost, wondering if there ever was a time when the investment of resources in the search would outweigh the dwindling hope of rescuing the prisoners from the enemy. The colonel replied, “It’s not a cost/benefit analysis; it’s, quite as a matter of fact, a moral duty that we feel we have to our troops. Cost at this point and time is I’m sure the farthest thing from the heads of the military commanders that are conducting the operation.”

Of course, sparing no expense to rescue people from the enemy is not only something the military does. Turns out, it is kind of important to Jesus, too. He said, “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.' I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.” (Luke 15:4-7)

I hope we have not come to a time when we do a cost/benefit analysis to determine if we ought to go and seek the lost sheep on college campuses in Missouri. Surely there is someone willing still to leave the 99 behind and throw everything into finding the one. U.S. soldiers know that their brothers in arms will not abandon them to the enemy; should not children of God also be able to rest assured that they will be rescued from “the snare of the fowler,” no matter what the cost?

The truth is, I hope that this change in our conference represents a shift in focus rather than just giving up the search. I pray that congregations in college towns will pick up the mission that the conference is dropping. But that’s a hope right now. The reality is a lot of people connected to campus ministries are feeling abandoned by the Missouri Annual Conference. Rather than investing whatever resources it takes to find the one lost sheep, it feels like the Conference is pretty much tending to the ninety-nine.

Proactive Pastoral Care

Back in seminary, Professor Hoeft taught a lesson about proactive pastoral care. Proactive pastoral care is basically approaching a person without invitation, offering care when they have not expressed a desire or need for it themselves. Visiting nursing home bound people falls into this category. So would calling a person whom you had heard through the grapevine was “having a hard time,” maybe a personal struggle or dealing with a family member’s issues. Calling someone “just to check in” or “see how things are going,” for example.

This kind of unsolicited care can be very meaningful and fruitful ministry. I understand that. The pastor who does a lot of proactive pastoral care is probably well-loved and highly thought of by the congregation. It really is a self-sacrificial kind of ministry, and a truly wonderful calling to fulfill. There are boundaries to observe, certainly, but when done with integrity and respect, it’s all good.

But here’s the rub: Having said all that, I cannot be a proactive pastoral care giver, or at least I haven’t been over the past seven years of my ministry. In truth, there is no way I personally can invest any more time and energy into ministry than I am already doing without coming completely unwound. All of the pastoral care I am able to do is responsive, not proactive. My pastoral care is responding to hospitalizations, people who call, write, or come by my study with issues to discuss, premarital counseling, being present with families upon the death of a loved one, and other situations in which I am contacted with a care request.

I truly treasure these care-giving opportunities as sacred moments of trust and Christian conversation, and I feel my calling to ministry fulfilled when I engage them. But when I add to that the time and energy of worship planning, sermon writing, Bible study prep, Sunday School lesson prep, administrative responsibilities, staff and leader training, etc. my work life is filled to the brim. Then I balance personal spiritual growth and family time into all of that mix, too.

Here’s the way we deal with the situation here in Northtown – we have abandoned the myth that the only person who can do proactive pastoral care is the pastor. Oh, there are some who are still caught in the mindset that says “If the pastor hasn’t visited me, I haven’t been visited.” But by and large this remarkable congregation takes care of one another. We have a dedicated group of Stephen Ministers. We have a compassionate Associate Pastor for Visiting Ministries. We have a Director of Lay Ministries who keeps tabs on things with amazing grace and patience. And, most important, we have a bunch of people who really love each other and know how important it is to care for one another in times of need.

So, there is proactive pastoral care happening, it’s just not me doing it! People are visited, cared for, loved. They stay connected to each other. Sometimes someone “falls through the cracks,” so to speak, meaning that occasionally we lose track of a person who hasn’t been around for a while. But that is definitely the exception, rather than the rule. And how lucky am I to serve a congregation who “gets it” with regard to this issue? I am the “responsive” pastoral care giver; the church themselves are the “proactive” care givers.

That seems to be a pretty healthy arrangement. I wonder if any of you readers have thoughts based on your pastoral care experiences in other congregations. Please feel free to share in the comments.

Ordination Checklist is Shrinking!

Ordination is less than three weeks away! Next month at this time, I will be an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church, a member of the Missouri Annual Conference, and beginning my fourth (how can it be?) year in full-time ministry, my eighth year in pastoral ministry, and my thirteenth year in professional ministry overall, counting my years in music ministry.

The latest step in the process was to choose the two elders to come forward and lay hands on my head as a part of the ordination moment. My bishop and my grandfather (retired bishop) and the ecumenical representative and probably a few others I’m forgetting will all be up there already.

My dad, Rev. Jim Bryan, was choice number one, of course. When Erin and I got married, I did not ask Dad to be in the ceremony, so that he could just be Dad instead of “the pastor.” But this is different. For ordination, he not only comes up as Dad, but also as the pastor who was the first and still the biggest influence on my spiritual life. He was my pastor from age five through eighteen, for goodness sake! And so I invited him, not just as my dad, but as one of my most formative pastoral role models.

With my first choice made, I turned to the decision of whom to invite to be the second elder. (A second elder is not really necessary, but each ordinand is allowed two additional elders to stand with the bishops and other big cheeses up on the dais.) I did what I do every time I have a big decision to make – I made a list. I listed all the pastors I knew growing up, and as a PK, I know plenty! I listed pastors who were helpful in my process of candidacy. I listed pastors I consider mentors. I listed a few pastors I just think are cool!

And then I noticed something about my list – all of the pastors I had written down represent another generation. To be blunt: they were all old. :) I hope no one reading this takes offense, but it is what it is. And so it goes. I value their wisdom and the years of dedicated service they have given God through the church, but what came to mind was that perhaps an elder of my own generation would be appropriate for this role. The more I thought about it, the more that made sense to me – to be ordained by a younger elder, so to speak.

And once I came to that realization, it took me like two seconds to decide whom to invite – my dear friend and colleague, Rev. Sarah Evans. We have worked closely together on Missouri Ministers’ School, and the two of us seem to resonate somehow, thinking alike, communicating easily, working well in harmony with each other. However, there was another little bump in the storyline. When I called to invite her, Sarah said that she was touched and honored, but she also told me that she was not intending to go to conference this year, since she is on maternity leave. She wanted to talk it over with her husband and get back to me.

When she called back, though, they had decided to accept the invitation and be a part of my ordination, and I am so grateful. I am humbled to consider how Sarah and Frank changed their plans so Sarah could make the trek all the way south to Springfield just to put her hands on my head along with a group of other people for a few seconds. Well, she does get to participate in the big Ordination Banquet earlier in the evening, so maybe that’s why she agreed! Whatever the reason, I am truly happy that she is a part of it, not only for what she represents, but also just for who she is.

So, check that off the list. Elders selected – check. Hmm, that list is getting shorter and shorter, isn’t it? Pretty soon my ordination to-do list will be down to: Walk up to the stage. Kneel. Receive.

Wow. I’m going to be ordained … this is really going to happen. I want to be able to express how that makes me feel.

It's just that sometimes words don't quite make it, you know?

Bring Them Home

I want to bring a previous comment thread to the forefront here, so it doesn’t get lost in the shuffle. Responding to my remarks about the Iraq War, Larry B. asked, and was seconded by Joseph, “GW may have made a serious mistake entering war, but how moral is it to make two mistakes?” His question echoes the classic parental admonition, “Two wrongs don’t make a right!”

In response, I wrote

Here's an analogy, Larry B and Joseph (read this in a letter to the editor today): I want my friend to stop gambling, because he is losing money. He says, but if I keep playing, I might win. My desire for him to stop gambling is not because I don't want him to perhaps win eventually, but because I want him to stop losing his money right now.

I think this metaphor is very helpful in explaining my position on Iraq. I want this war over, not because it is my desire that the U.S. “lose” and the region fall into chaos, but rather because the war cannot be “won” in any reasonable sense of the word, and the region is in chaos right now, anyway. Using the analogy, gambling will continue after my friend leaves the boat!

My larger point was (and still is) to decry the culture of deception in our government that says it is okay to change the definition of success to match what is happening now, whatever that might be. As if, when I say to my friend, “You are going to go broke if you keep gambling like this,” my friend responds, “But I am losing fewer quarters than ever before, which means things are getting better!” which is true, but the reality is that he is losing more and more dollars all the time.

It’s like Kansas Bob commented, we are “powerless” in Iraq, and it is time to bring them home.

Hate Crimes Bill: LRP!!! (Long, Ranty Post Warning!)

According to the Traditional Values Coalition, H.R. 1592 is a bad, bad thing. That's what they said in their latest email, at least. And if there's one thing I know, it's that you can always trust everything you read in emails ... hm?

HR 1592, the "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007," (it's so much easier just to type HR 1592, by the way), allows the federal government to assist local and state governments prosecuting hate crimes. In defining a hate crime, the language of the bill says, in part, that "Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--..."

Of course, for the TVC, it is the inclusion of the terms "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" that makes this legislation so bad. They claim the bill would make it so that a preacher who speaks out against homosexuality, thereby inciting a congregant to commit a hate crime against a homosexual person would be held criminally accountable by this bill. Or, as they put it, the House of Representatives "slapped Christians in the face" by passing this bill.

(Ranting begins here):
Never mind that the bill itself would prohibit the very thing they describe. It says, "Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution." In other words, it is no threat whatsoever to free speech. I wonder how the TVC could have overlooked this?

The answer, of course, is that the TVC and others in their general vicinity on this issue are willfully disregarding facts that do not support their cause. They pretend that this is all about freedom of expression, when in reality it is about the promotion of their own anti-gay agenda, cloaked as it is in the guise of faithful Christianity. Give me a break.

Maybe it's just because I'm in a grumpy mood today (end of a busy, stressful day), but it makes me sick to read about a self-described Christian group whose OFFICIAL POSITION is AGAINST prohibiting "willful bodily injury" to another person, whether they think that person is a sinner or NOT! I mean, shouldn't we Christians kind of be against willful bodily injury to another person, considering all that willful bodily injury inflicted on Jesus for our sakes way back when? Or was that only for straight people? At face value, the position of the TVC seems to be that it is okay to commit willful bodily injury against certain groups of people, or at the very least that it is not an issue they see as problematic. I mean, does someone there actually think through these things? I can't imagine that is really how they want to be perceived.

And with regard to this idea that a preacher's hateful sermon may invoke someone to commit a hate crime and that they would then be held criminally accountable, my first reaction is to try to imagine what kind of sermon it would be that would incite such a response. Heckuva preacher! And then I imagine what might happen if that preacher whose sermons were capable of inciting such action preached a sermon about making disciples of Jesus Christ instead, thereby inciting the congregation to actually spread scriptural holiness throughout the land instead of deciding and naming whom to hate.

I, as a preacher, actually like to think that I may be responsible for some of the things the congregation does upon hearing one of my sermons. "Let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good deeds" (Hebrews 10:24) seems to be a pretty fitting motivation for a sermon, don't you think? What are preachers doing if not trying to inspire, provoke, motivate, and invite a spirit-filled, Christ-centered response? Seems to me that some accountability in the process may be a good thing. The worst thing I'll ever inspire from my sermons is lethargy, to be sure, not a hurtful criminal action. And yet I ought to held accountable even when my preaching inspires nothing more than lethargy, rather than love.

Some more level-headed opponents leave the whole nutty-Christian-extreme-right-thing aside and argue that the bill is not necessary, on the grounds that hate crimes are already being prosecuted at the local level. This is what the current occupant is citing to support his intention to veto the bill when it arrives on his desk. Okay, that's a different argument. However, reading the entire bill, I don't find it redundant at all. In fact, the bill authorizes federal asssistance for local prosecution of hate crimes only if
"`(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;
`(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;
`(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or
`(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence."

But my primary rant tonight (I know it's not as ranty as my brother can get at times, but I'm aspiring) has had to do with how a Christian group can twist the faith enough to find the ethical framework from which to actually argue against passing an anti-hate-crime bill. Christians have not been "slapped in the face" with this bill, but all Christians suffer when one nutty group of us makes a claim like that.

(Ranting complete.)

Seriously though, maybe someone can explain for me why a Christian would be against HR 1592 in a way that I can make some sense of. I would welcome that dialogue.

Kansas City Shooting - A Prayer

Living God,
Another one?

Grant them eternal rest
and let perpetual light shine upon them,

also.

It was close to home this time, Lord.
The guy was twenty minutes from my children.
We don't normally shop at that mall,
but we shop.
Some days I feel like just locking the doors
and sitting in our house together, where it's safe.

But we go to school. We go to work. We live.

God, thank you for the training and skills
of the police officers who risk their lives
every day to keep us safe
in the out an about of our daily lives.

I don't understand things sometimes ... well, most of the time, actually.

It is not so much the understanding, but the peace of mind that I desire.

So, if it might be possible,
is there some way I could
feel that peace of mind,
even if I don't understand?

Forgive us, O Lord, for our manifold sins and wickedness which we from time to time most grievously have committed, by thought, word, and deed, against your divine majesty.
Have mercy upon us, have mercy upon us, most merciful God.

In your holy name, Amen.

Increase is Decrease

I haven’t written anything “political” for a while. But this time I couldn’t let it go by. I read a story in the KC Star today that is simply astonishing. If it is accurate, the current administration has been intentionally deceptive about a matter of great importance.

The story, written by Nancy Youssef of McClatchy Newspapers, is that the Bush administration is reporting a decrease in sectarian violence in Iraq as a result of the recent troop increase. Great news, right? They are citing a decline in the number of unidentified bodies dumped in the streets as evidence of this assertion – but they have apparently not been counting victims of car bombings and suicide bombings, which has skewed their numbers to the positive.

There were 323 bombing victims in March, and 365 in April as of the 24th, according to the story. And April, obviously, isn’t over yet.

The current administration has taken hits from smarter people than I with regard to a culture of deception and dishonesty. I don’t want to laundry list that any more than it already has been done. But this time, it sure seems to me that they are just redefining what success means in order to claim that we are achieving it. It is a bizarre, elementary school, “I meant to do that” approach to leadership that leaves me scratching my head in utter confusion. It is positively Orwellian, to insist that there is a decrease in violence when there is an increase. Failure is success! If we just don’t count the bombings, they never happened! Perfect!

President Bush told Charlie Rose, “If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings, we have just handed those who commit suicide bombings a huge victory.” Which means (I think) that if we count the bombings in our figures, that means we are acknowledging the bombers, and to acknowledge the bombers is to give them power, which we do not want to do. However, I am pretty sure that each of the 688 victims of bombings between May 1 and April 24 and all of their families and friends have acknowledged the bombers, big time. What are we communicating to them when the U.S. conveniently leaves out any mention of their deaths?

I don’t like “stay the course” without knowing that the course is actually getting us somewhere. We could “stay the course” for years and years and end up pretty much right where we are now. Should we “stay the course” even if the course is horrible? Sometimes the response is – “To set a date for pullout is to lose the war.” But there are two gigantic questions that response begs to be asked – 1) What are we doing currently, if not losing the war? and 2) What exactly would winning the war look like? First we thought victory would be deposing Saddam Hussein. Then we thought victory would be finding and destroying WMD. Then we thought victory would be setting up a new government, complete with elections and a constitution. Well, check, N/A, and check, respectively – and yet, no victory.

And no sign of an end to violence any time soon, no matter how we try to make it seem. I know that there is anecdotal evidence of progress in Iraq, which is wonderful. But to paint Iraq with such a rosy glow when the reality is so starkly not rosy is dishonest and deceptive. It is not okay to change the definition of success to match our failure.

More Virginia Tech Reflection

My grandfather, Bishop Monk Bryan, posed a question in response to the Virginia Tech shooting that I had never considered.

In an email to my family, he asks, "In pastoral years, I counselled some troubled people; what if I had failed to realize the possibility of a killer?" What if... It gives you pause, doesn't it? Surely we are not to obsess over every single "what if" in the past, but nonetheless, we ask.

In the most intensely poignant response I have heard yet, a VT admissions counselor named Elena Bryant spoke on "All Things Considered" on April 20th. Through her tears, she said

For me it was an apology, to say to the parents, I'm so sorry. We failed you, we didn't mean to but the way circumstances unfolded we know we did. There's no apology ever good enough to say, no words could convey the sincere sense of failure. For me being here it was just a way to say, so sorry, so sorry.

Surely, no one is blaming Elena Bryant for the shooting, but nonetheless, she apologizes.

A vast, sacred, empty space has been opened up by this horrific event, a space in which each of us is given a chance to think, to pray, and to reflect. For some, this reflection space has led to personal introspections. Others have found a renewed commitment to speaking out for peace and justice in this sacred space. For many, profound compassion and empathy have been stirred deep within this hallowed ground.

I hope that we don't waste too much time and energy criticizing other people's responses at this sacred moment. For example, I have heard some pretty strong words used against people who have spoken in favor of gun control in the past week, including some Methoblog responses to the GBCS response. But gun control advocates are just giving voice to their personal reflections in response to a tragedy that has affected different people in different ways. We misplace our focus when we attack each other.

We are all shaken to the core by what happened in Blacksburg. We are all sifting through our responses, trying to figure it out. We are going to come out in different places, with different responses. But for now, we dwell together in the sacred space left in the aftermath, each one of us processing, re-ordering, reflecting. And God is very near, in the midst of it all.

Hey, I'm Art Ruch!

John the Methodist created a very clever quiz, in case you wondered what Methoblogger you most resemble. I am happy to report that I am not one of the choices. (I wouldn't wish that fate on my worst enemy!) But I'm mostly Art Ruch, apparently.

You scored as Art Ruch. You're the only person to score as "Modern Liberal" in the Theological Worldview Quiz. Your prize is a new Volvo. Art Ruch 75% Keith McIlwain 58% Lorna Koskela 50% Jonathon Norman 50% John the Methodist 33% Gavin Richardson 33% Abi Carlisle-Wilke 33% Theresa Coleman 33% Allan Bevere 17% Which Methoblogger Are You? created with QuizFarm.com

United Methodist Presence on VT Campus

The Wesley Foundation on the campus of Virginia Tech has offered a safe place for prayer, comfort, and conversation in recent days. Here's the article.

Hold dear the connection, Methodist friends! Because there is a Wesley Foundation on campus, the United Methodist Church is there. Because I belong to a truly connectional denomination, I am in Blacksburg, praying, crying, offering comfort. Moments such as these bring the beauty and power of the Methodist connection into its fullness.

I am so happy to know that the first response of the United Methodist Church at "ground zero" of this horrific event is one of prayer, community, and support. Thinking about the Methodist students at Virginia Tech grieving, hugging one another, mourning close friends and fellow students, and bringing it all to God through a campus ministry reminds us all of how truly important the connection is. What a powerful witness for us all to see a truly healthy, vital ministry at work for the sake of Christ Jesus.

As we pray, I hope we all remember to offer thanks for the connectional presence that is on the VT campus through the Wesley Foundation and their pastor Rev. Glenn Tyndall, and especially for the living presence of Christ in that place, bringing the hope of resurrection into the midst of the pain and grief of this moment.

(Here's another article about UM responses.)

Blame

The assignment of blame on another person or group has the effect of letting the blamer off the hook. If I blame hip-hop culture for racism, then it’s not my fault. If I blame the NRA for the Virginia Tech shooting, then it’s not my fault. If I blame gays for the erosion of the family, then it’s not my fault. If I blame the White House for global warming, then it’s not my fault. And so forth.

Thank you, Mike Hendricks, for articulating the most humble and level-headed response I have read recently. In his April 18th Kansas City Star column, he says what so desperately needs to be said – it’s our fault. All of us. Together. And thank you, Jenee Osterheldt, whose column on the same date exposes the cultural tendency to blame others as a way to shield one’s self.

Hendricks wrote,

Consider: Why is it that a college student in Virginia can so easily obtain handguns to spray his classmates with deadly bullets?
Because we help make it possible. You and me.
No, we don’t pull the trigger. But we might as well be helping the killers reload by not demanding an end to the easy availability of firearms in this country. We let the NRA have the ears of our politicians, when our voices could be so much louder.

Osterheldt wrote,

Everyone wants to point fingers.
Some say hip-hop is the culprit. Others want to blame George Bush. And then there are the truly hateful who blame homosexuality for all the world’s ills.
But they can say what they want, right? We let people use their right to free speech as a shield, their words as weapons.

To say that assigning blame is simply an attempt to explain a given situation is a smoke screen. There is a big distinction between blaming and explaining. We are in this together, and that is what gives us hope. Only when we deepen our understanding of our individual role in the problems of the community can we work together as a community to eliminate them.

Rest Eternal

Requiem eternam dona eis, Domine,

et lux perpetua luceat eis.

Te decet hymnus, Deus in Sion

et tibi reddetur votum

in Jerusalem.

Exaudi orationem meam,

ad te omnis caro veniet.

Kyrie eleison.

Christe eleison.

Kyrie eleison.

translation

Appointment Season!

The Missouri Conference posts upcoming appointment changes on their website.
Click here.
I'm not moving - yea!

Just curious, how common is this practice? If you would, let me know by leaving me a comment if you are a UM, how does your conference do pre-AC appointment announcing?

Missouri's way saves a lot of unproductive gossip time, that's for sure!

Blogging Etiquette: Code of Conduct Proposals

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

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

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

Here's the full post.

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

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

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

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

Brian McLaren Lecture

I just got back from hearing Brian McLaren lecture on the campus of Saint Paul School of Theology. It was great to hear his voice, see him live and in person, shake his hand, you know, breathe the same air he was breathing. And yes, I did ask him to sign my copy of “A Generous Orthodoxy.” I know, I’m a nerd.

As I shook his hand and handed him the book, I asked, “So, can we do this in the mainline or do we have to start something totally new?” (By “do this,” I meant emerging church, offering a healthy relationship with God through Christ in the church to a generation of people who would not necessarily think of the church first when seeking meaning and purpose in their lives.)

He looked at me and said, “Are you a mainline pastor?”

“Yes, I am United Methodist,” says I.

Then he said basically that he thinks the mainline is a very good place in which to “do this” emerging new thing. He recommended an author to me, whose name I promptly forgot, and mentioned the UMerging conversation. He said, “Um-merging” with a short “u” vowel sound, and since I had never heard anyone actually pronounce it out loud, I asked him if that was how it was supposed to sound. He kind of grinned and said, “Well, I know some people say ‘you-merging’ or whatever, but I say ‘uhm-merging.’” Wasn’t that so very post-modern of him?

The content of the lecture was basically a re-cap of his book, “More Ready Than You Realize,” and he even used the same e-mails from April that he used for the thematic thread of that book. So if you already read that one, you didn’t get many new insights today. There was some stuff that struck me, though.

He said that the 1990’s “church growth” movement was fueled by reaching out to people who love God and like the idea of church, but had a bad experience or three from the past that had driven them away from church. The key to the movement was to remove those barriers in perception, and welcome the people back to church. However, the emerging evangelism that McLaren does is reaching out to a group of people who have no specific negative experience keeping them away from church. There is just a general shoulder shrug about church that precludes their even thinking of church as a place they would find what they are looking for.

For example, in the 90s you said to de-churched people, “We are removing the barriers to church! Come back,” and so they came back. But now, removing the barriers to church is, in McLaren’s analogy, like removing the barriers to playing bridge. “You no longer have to smoke cigarettes to enjoy playing bridge! Come and play.” That doesn’t work for people who don’t like to play bridge. They are not pro-smoking, they just don’t play bridge. The emerging church movement is not about removing barriers to coming to church, it is about giving people a reason to want to come to church in the first place.

That’s pretty good stuff. Former barriers like liturgy and formality and hymns and solemnity and “traditional” are no longer inherently barriers. The trick is to present them with creativity and excellence and energy and life, all undergirded with a desire for an authentic relationship with God and one another. (That’s my own spin on it.)

I also liked his answer to a question about the “essentials” of the faith. The emerging church movement often gets criticized for being all form and no content. He was pressed for time and it was the last question of the morning, so he said pretty quickly that God, who is pure good, created the world and all that is in it. God has a “dream” of how the world ought to look, and humanity, through sin, greed, prejudice, etc. has turned the “dream” into a “nightmare,” messing up the goodness of the world that God intended. And so God sent Jesus Christ as the expression of that dream, to announce it and embody it, and to save creation from the nightmare. He also used the term “Kingdom of God” when talking about God’s dream, or desired state for creation. Following Jesus, therefore, is a decision to realize God’s dream, continue the mission of Christ to announce and embody the Reign of God on earth.

You know, sprinkle in some churchy jargon here and there and that sounds pretty orthodox to me.

There was a bunch more – emphasis on asking good questions, minimizing the language of conquest from religious conversations, pointing out that “modern” evangelism still works if the focus is “modern” people but new ways of doing things are required for “post-moderns,” and so forth. It was a morning well spent. Having read his books, reflected on his ideas, and now inhabited common space, I’m more convinced than ever that McLaren is pretty much right on target with what he has to say about the future of the church.

The Wisdom of Gamaliel - Wait, Who?

Anybody remember Gamaliel?

He is the guy who convinces the council not to kill the apostles in Acts, chapter five. The apostles had defied the Pharisees et al., who ordered them not to teach anyone about Jesus. And so the apostles rebutted by claiming to be speaking in obedience to God’s authority, which clearly trumped the authority of the council. This REALLY ticks them off, and they are ready to execute the whole lot of Jesus’ followers. It was an inter-faith dialogue, ancient near east style!

Enter Gamaliel. Only a lawyer could have come up with his reasoning. He said, in a nutshell, “If their plan is of human origin, it will ultimately fail and so we don’t need to worry about it. But if it really is from God, we won’t win, and what’s more we will be guilty of fighting against God!”

(By the way, for what it’s worth, Gamaliel is also the middle name of the 29th and worst President of the United States, Warren G. Harding. But we digress.)

The rest of the council was convinced by Gamaliel’s wisdom, and so instead of killing the apostles, they just had them flogged and let them go with another order to stop teaching. Needless to say, the apostles continued right on doing what they were doing and the story continued.

Where would we be without the role Gamaliel played in the story? He certainly advanced the plot a scene or two. Actually, as we learn in Acts 22:3, he was Paul’s teacher early on in his life. And tradition says that he was baptized a Christian by Peter and John, but kept his faith a secret so that he could, as a member of the Jerusalem council, provide aid to other followers of the Way.

But what about his logic? Would it convince you? “If they’re just doing their own thing, let ‘em! No skin off our nose! But let’s say for the sake of discussion they really ARE acting by God’s authority: well, we don’t want to mess with that, do we?” Tangentially, there’s a whole lot of fertile ground here to think about the pitfalls of claiming God’s authority (i.e. “God has called me to say …” or “God has put it on my heart …”) in the middle of a dialogue with another person of faith with whom one happens to disagree. (Click here to read more on this topic.)

And that gets me thinking is the application of Gamaliel’s logic to some of our faith conversations today. Peter boldly claimed God’s authority for himself and his colleagues, right in the face of the Jerusalem powerhouses, who also made the claim of God’s authority on their side. The situation could have escalated, but Gamaliel stepped in between and said, “Wait! Let’s see how this thing all shakes out. Give it some time, and clarity will emerge.”

(My friend Teresa has taught me that, given enough time, clarity will emerge.)

What if, instead of arguing with one another over our disagreements, we all just shut up for a while and let clarity emerge? God’s desire for this world will be realized, either in spite of us or because of us. Sometimes we get in God’s way and the best thing we could do would be to move aside for a while and see what happens.

Post 300 - A Look Back Through the Rainbow

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

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

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

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

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

Best Egg Dying Kit - EVER!!!