Neither Young Nor Old

One of my favorite passages of Scripture is, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28, NRSV).

And if I could edit the Bible (wouldn’t we all like to do THAT from time to time?), I would add “there is no longer young or old.” Though we cannot edit Scripture, it is clear to me that the idea I would insert is indeed present, if not explicitly stated.

In “earthly” terms, we talk about old people and young people all the time. The church’s latest institutional lament is how we are aging, soon to be dying off, and in desperate need of young people who will save the church.

My practical response to this lament is, That’s an awful lot of pressure to put on “young people,” and a pretty ineffective invitational strategy, anyway. “Hey there, young person! Come and be a part of this church, we are starting to panic about whether or not we will survive as an institution and we just know that you are going to be our salvation!” Um … no thanks.

My theological response to this lament is, In the Church there is no longer young or old, for all are one in Christ Jesus. It makes me a bit uncomfortable, as an old person, to surrender any evangelical capacity I might have to the younger generations. Why should I be allowed to yield my missional responsibility, just because I’m not in the designated demographic?

The church is a multi-generational body, and the truth is that all who follow Jesus, no matter what age, must faithfully pattern our lives in discipleship, including reaching out to invite others to be a part of the abundant life made known in Christ Jesus and made manifest in the church.

It is true that we old folks need the younger ones; it is equally true that the younger folks need us old fogies. This is not an either-or proposition, for “all are one in Christ Jesus.” 

What About Joy?

Over on UM Insight, my most recent blog elicited this comment from a reader:

I agree that something has to be done about the way that the UMC is heading. I don't think that this is the way to do it. What if what a local church wants is to not pay apportionments and be free to discriminate? (Perhaps that is what some want now.) The question is how do we retain the ability to act and speak as a denomination and yet have a lot less "top down" governance. How do we give more authority to the local church without becoming the "rope of sand" bemoned (sic) by Whitfield? And if the real thrust of what we are doing is to give more power to the local church what does that say about the episcopacy and the superintendency? What did the study commissioned by the Council of Bishops say about the effect of apportionments on the local church? Is the general church here to serve the local church or is it the other way round? Not having been at GC I can only ask questions as someone outside looking in. All I can say is, we are better than this. Rather than scapegoating some while holding others sacred we need to continue to do the work of the Great Commission while working together on solutions.

This comment was posted by “John Wesley.” I was flattered.

I commented back to Mr. Wesley:

Mr. Wesley, While I am indeed honored that you have commented on my humble blog, allow me to ask you to go ahead and answer your own question. What if a congregation doesn't pay apportionments? What if a congregation or a pastor discriminates? (My answer - the GC responds to a congregation acting thusly in the same manner a congregation responds to a church member who is.)
But then answer mine - What if they don't? What if UM congregations are so excited by what is happening in the denomination they simply can't wait to pay 110% of their apportionment? What if UM congregations are so fired up by the ethos of grace that they begin to truly welcome all people fully?
If you'll forgive me, since I know you only by reading your sermons and a few of your journal entries, Mr. Wesley, thinking "What if something goes wrong?" is exactly the kind of thinking that is stifling our denomination.
We need to start asking, "What if everything exceeds our wildest imagination?"

Then I read an article today about withholding apportionments as a way to affect change in the denomination. The article is a litany of negativism and hopelessness that really harshes my buzz, man. And it is only one in a long list of laments written in response to the 2012 meeting of the General Conference.

The majority of responses that I have read have been either pity parties or gripe sessions or angry diatribes. We are angry, we are upset, we are afraid. And those of us who aren’t are taking an attitude that says the 2012 General Conference was a harbinger of rebirth and radical transformation; in other words, it was awful - but better things are surely coming.

Why do we United Methodists seem to be unable to ask any question other than, “What if something goes wrong?" or "What if we die?" We use terms that are designed to elicit fear and despair, and then we wonder why everybody is so afraid and gloomy. Um … duh.

We are asking, “What if something goes wrong,” and “What if our denomination splits,” and “What if we run out of money,” and “What if our structure collapses,” as if these questions have anything whatsoever to do with the way the world is being transformed in spite of us.

Yes, the world is changing, has changed, is forever different than it was a generation ago. And we’re missing it as we engage in denominational hand-wringing.

Okay, look - our General Boards are going to restructure, but now it will be because they are forced to rather than because the General Conference did so proactively. They are just going to run out of money and not be able to function as they currently do. I wish we would have been able to anticipate and preempt this, but we didn’t. Now it will happen reactively instead.

But even that’s not the point.

All of this negativity around this year’s General Conference is misplaced and not the least bit helpful. We expend so much organizational energy being anxious about the “What ifs” that our fear not only paralyzes us, it also distracts us from all of the wonderful stuff, changing stuff, transformational stuff, stuff that we can celebrate.

What we miss is the joy. What about joy? There is so much to rejoice over, and we can’t even see it because we’re so afraid.

Do we remember? We follow a Teacher who told a story once about leaving behind 99 perfectly flocked sheep in order to find one that was lost, and then rejoiced when it was found. One sheep. Call the neighbors, throw a party - Rejoice!

Have we forgotten how to rejoice?

Personally, in small groups, in congregations, and percolating upward from there, we need to remember how to rejoice. We need to stop asking, What if we die?

What we need to be asking is - What if we live?

General Conference Could be Our "Facebook"

I feel like I used to when Mom would tell me to clean my room. I knew it had to be done but I really didn’t want to.

Okay, I’ll do a wrap-up blog on General Conference 2012, geez. (*Picture rolling eyes and stomping off to my computer with an exasperated sigh*)

See, I thought all the General Conference stuff was going to be … just fine. I didn’t think anything amazing was going to happen and nothing amazing did. It wasn’t awful; it wasn’t great. It did exactly what it is designed to do, and now it’s over. It was just fine.

I really feel bad for all of the wonderful people who worked so hard for such a long time only to have all their hard work rejected by the committee or tabled by the conference or just ignored altogether. I respect them for their work, their dedication, and faithfulness. Thank you!

Specifically …

- I think the restructure would have been a good thing, and it will be when it eventually happens, either because we choose it or we’re forced to do it because we literally can’t afford not to.

- I think the Hamilton/Slaughter amendment was brilliant, and I hope Annual Conferences will consider endorsing it this year as a way to encourage local congregations to meaningful, grace-filled, and respectful dialogue about homosexuality.

- I hope the end of the guaranteed appointment doesn’t regress us back to a day when prejudice was common enough to really need it, and I really don’t think it will with all the accountability built into the system.

- I love being in full communion across the spectrum of our Methodist cousin denominations!

- I wish we had divested from the companies that profit from Israel’s military; I understand the argument of those who want to influence things by staying invested, although I am skeptical that we actually will do so.

But really, I am more than ever before convinced that the change necessary for the United Methodist Church cannot be legislated in the current General Conference structure. We are fooling ourselves if we think it can. And GC 2012 did a lot to reinforce this idea.

AsI’ve written before, my ideal model for an Annual Conference would be as a kind of “Google” for local congregations. Well, what if the General Conference could be “Facebook” for the denomination as a whole?

Facebook is a social network that connects people, coordinates groups, promotes ideas, and pools resources. Isn’t that what General Conference at its best ought to do?

We are a global connection whose coordinated focus is to promote the mission of God in communities all around the world. Couldn’t General Conference be our Facebook? We wouldn’t have General Boards and Agencies, we would have groups and pages! We could send “friend requests” to churches all around the world through the General Conference. We could create events like Imagine No Malaria and Nothing But Nets, and contribute via our denominational PayPal accounts to make them happen.

The fundamental shift that needs to happen at the General level is from old-school, hierarchical authority to postmodern, flattened-out collaboration. If we actually believe that the most impact happens at the local congregation level, then everything we did as a broader connection would have to be geared toward equipping and empowering the church in local communities around the world.

The General Conference would stop telling local churches what they can and cannot do, and start asking local churches what they actually want to do - how they feel God is uniquely calling them to fulfill the mission – and then the Conference would work to make it happen.

I know, I know – dream on. Come to think of it, I used to daydream a lot when Mom sent me to clean my room, too!

Confirmation Sensation

A year ago at this time, right after the Confirmation Worship Service of 2011, a dad came up to our Youth Director to ask a question. He wanted to know when the Confirmation Service was going to be set for 2012.

His son was going to be confirmed, and he wanted to make sure they kept the weekend clear.

A year ahead.

And yesterday, his son was among the twenty-one young people who were confirmed in an amazing worship celebration at Campbell United Methodist Church. Ten of those young people were baptized, and six family members joined the church along with their confirmand.

Nobody has to become a member of a church. It is not required for salvation. Neither pastors nor parents can force anyone to join a church. It is a choice, freely made by the individual. It is a public declaration of faithfulness and discipleship. It is a declaration that you are going to Live, Grow, and Share as an active part of the church.

Joining a church is saying out loud, “YES! I am a follower of Jesus and I am going to live my pattern of discipleship as a part of this congregation.” It is something that you say to God, witnessed by the congregation, and fulfilled in your own life.

At the “Talking Box” on Sunday, the kids were given party favors and made a joyful noise in celebration of this year’s confirmation class. After the confirmation liturgy, members of the class served the congregation the sacrament of Holy Communion. The service ended with “Praise ye the Lord, Alleluia! Everybody praise the Lord!” accompanied by organ and praise band together, and the rafters practically shook with the singing of the people!

It was an amazing worship service, and a fitting celebration for the congregation’s confirmation service. And so this year’s fifth graders might want to start making plans now for your Sunday next year, because you know it’s going to be quite a party!

The Flipside of Accountability: The End of the “Guaranteed Appointment”

            The General Conference has decided to end what is commonly called the “guaranteed appointment” for ordained elders in our denomination. The over-simplified nutshell explanation is that clergy who are judged to be ineffective no longer must be given an appointment. The first waves of reaction are coming from a kind of suspicion of authority common to so many these days. And I find it ironic.

            Irony is rife in this decision, and in the reaction. One of the emphases of the UMC is attracting more young people, and the best way that happens is through vital and vibrant congregations. Young people are in general rather postmodern in their thinking. Postmodern people are (stereo)typically wary of big, institutional authority. So, some of the postmoderns who are already in the church, who are similarly prone to suspicion of authority, are reacting to the effort to bring new young people into the church by voicing their suspicion of authority, authority that is being wielded by the institution in an effort to bring more suspicious young people into the church by creating vital local congregations! Ha! I love it!

             More seriously, though, the question that many clergy are asking is, “What definition of ‘effectiveness’ will be applied to me?” There is a fear that, even though I may believe that I am working faithfully, proclaiming the gospel, and bearing fruit for the kingdom, my DS or Bishop might not see it that way. And now that I am not guaranteed an appointment they may apply their different definition of effectiveness to my ministry and ask that I consider another vocation.

            Another perspective might call this “accountability,” in that pastors are being held accountable with more purpose than before. There was a process by which ordained elders could be removed from service before this decision was made. Now however, the accountability piece is closer to the surface.

            Look, it’s all going to be fine. It will require pastors to effectively describe the fruitfulness within their particular context, and continue to maintain a healthy relationship with their DS. That’s all. No need to panic, everybody. It’s all good. Just be ready at a moment’s notice to lay down the dozen or more most fruitful moments that have happened in the last month, and share them with as many people as you possibly can.

            No, the conference isn’t going to guarantee your appointment anymore - you are going to have to guarantee your own.

            What I haven’t heard so much about is the flipside of accountability. I have heard an awful lot about how conferences will deal with ineffective pastors; I haven’t heard a bunch about how conferences are going to be supporting the effective ones. What new things will the conferences be doing now to support, encourage, inspire, refresh, renew, and affirm pastors who ARE effective?

            Accountability has a flipside, and that’s where I’d like us to focus.

+If an ineffective pastor is going to be encouraged to another vocation, how is an effective pastor going to be encouraged?

+Should our Annual Conferences expend all their time and energy concentrating on what isn’t working well and just leave “well enough” alone?

+Should the primary task of Conference staff be to guide ineffective pastors out of ministry and just assume that the effective pastors are doing fine?

            I don’t fear the end of the guaranteed appointment. I’m going to preach the gospel, serve God faithfully, and work to change the world for God’s sake. I will have eyes that are open to notice fruitfulness in all of its diverse varieties. And I’ll be able to describe them to anyone who asks. I’m just wondering now, what will accountability look like from the flipside?

            Not that I need an “Effective Pastor” plaque to hang on my wall or anything. I am an itinerant preacher in the United Methodist Church because I believe that’s what God wants me to be, not so that someone will pat me on the back and say “Good job, dude.” That’s not my point.

            My point is simply that accountability is more than just addressing what isn’t working well. Accountability also means supporting what is.  



UPDATE: Cross-posted at Ministry Matters - Click this.

To Z and G, From Daddy Andy

I went to look at the ducks without you guys this morning.


It’s raining. I don’t see any. You would have gotten bored really fast, anyway.

We used to come here every two weeks on Monday mornings, to spend some time together before I would take you to school. To be honest with you, it was more about keeping you buckled in than actually looking at ducks, but I’m pretty sure you never realized that. Maybe you did, though, you are very smart.

One time when we were here, during the time you were potty training, Z, you suddenly had to go potty. I drove the car over to the building, parked, went around and got baby G out, went around again and got you out (see, I couldn’t have gotten you out before getting G out because you would have made a run for it), then holding G in one arm and your hand in the other, we somehow made it into the bathroom. I helped you get all situated, using my one free hand and trying not to drop your brother with the other. Then … you didn’t go.

I see a bird. It’s not a duck, but it’s walking in the water right next to the shore. See it? It would have held your attention for a few seconds. Maybe.

Then you would have shouted at it to get it to fly away.

Or maybe reached over to take G’s sock off. Or hit him, even.

G loves you, Z. He loves you as purely as any person has ever loved another. We can see it in his face when he looks at you. You need him, to connect with, to attach, to love. He needs you, too. He’s your baby brother, and most of the time baby brothers get taken care of by their big sisters. But he needs to be protected from his sometimes.

It’s not your fault. It’s just that your love is out of whack. Your attachments don’t connect like other people’s. You will be gentle and sweet one second, tenderly stroking G’s head and cooing “It’s okay” to him, and the very next second something makes you push him over, or poke him in the eye, or dig your fingers into his head, or hit him.

You did that to us a lot, too. And it was really, really hard for us when you did.

One time you showed your worker your pretty picture you had colored at school. When she told you how pretty it was and what a good job you did, you tore it up.

It’s raining pretty hard now. I wonder if sitting and listening to the rain, watching it splash in the lake, if that would hold your attention for a few more tenuous moments.

We called you Pinball sometimes, Z, because you bounced from naughty thing to naughty thing so quickly. Grab the cell phone - touch the TV - run with the juice - back to the cell phone again. You were very frustrating. You made us very angry a lot of the time. Because we loved you, you see. We didn’t want to be angry, and we’re pretty sure you didn’t want to make us angry, it’s just that you couldn’t really figure out how not to. And we could never figure out how to make it so that you didn’t always try to. We did our best, but I guess we kind of failed you on that one.

We called you Pinball, also because you could barely stand up sometimes. Your balance, or your legs, your hips maybe - nobody could really figure out what was going on with that, even the big shots at Children’s Mercy. So you had casts for a while to try to bend your legs into shape, then braces. We called them your “boots” and they had Disney princesses on them, so you would think they were fun. You didn’t. You really liked to take them off and be barefoot.

Actually, you really liked to take all your clothes off and put different ones on - flannel pajamas in the backyard on an 80 degree day was not uncommon. Or a nightgown for a shirt and leggings for pants, with a fleece sweater over the top for good measure.

“Daddy may I fwing me on de fwing,” you said. When I gave you a “thumbs up,” you would put your pointer finger up and it made me smile.

Z, you lived with us for 21 months. And we loved you for every single moment of that time. We loved you anyway.

Our longest one.

Our hardest one.

Our wild one.

Not you G. You lived with us your whole life, all 11 months of it. As rough as your sister was, that’s how sweet you were. You were even sweet there in the NICU where you spent the first few days of your life. We came to see you there, we held you, we rocked you, we sang to you. We loved you from the very start. You were a giant compared to the other babies there!

We were scared of having a newborn baby again, a little bit. But you made it so easy. You slept, you ate, you pooped, you slept again. Easy.

Once you learned how to smile, G, it’s like you never stopped. You smiled with your whole body - your face beamed, your eyes danced, your head shook, your hands waved. Every time you smiled, everyone with you smiled too.

You loved to shake your head back and forth, mouth open, saying “ahh” in a silly voice, and get people to laugh at you. You even liked doing this for the other babies in your daycare class. Class clown already. And you can clap, too, which was also fun because everybody said “YEA” whenever you did it.

Sometimes Z would come up to you and get up in your face and say, “It’s bl-bl-bl time!” (I don’t know how to spell the sound she was making, flicking her tongue in and out of her mouth.) You don’t know the term “unconditional love” yet, but you know exactly what it means, because it’s how you love your sister. When she was in the room, your eyes tracked her every move.

You had a bunch of expressions, G. And the one that completely killed us was your “saddest face ever” expression. It was the lower lip out, mouth curled down, eyes filling with tears expression that just absolutely melted us down into blubbering lumps. It was like what an artist would draw to create a caricature of a sad baby face. You owned it!

And listen - you learned stuff at you own pace, G. You are not on anyone else’s timeframe, and don’t ever think you have to be. You were going to sit up when you were ready to, and not any sooner than that. We would prop you up on your hands and knees and rock you back and forth to try to teach you about how to crawl, and you would collapse in a heap.

But you did it. You figured it out. And now you are a crawler.

And you will, too. You will figure it out. It will be by your own time frame and in your own way, but you’ll figure it all out.

Hey, there’s a goose. It’s just swimming by, right there. See it? That’s right, the goose says, “haw haw.”

It’s weird without you guys. It’s quieter. I hate it. I love it. It’s weird.

We really miss being so angry at you, Z.

We really miss you wiping your snotty drool all over our clothes, G.

That’s right. It’s wonderful. It’s awful.

It’s love.

Your Daddy S gave me a hug when I dropped you off. He told me thank you for taking such good care of you. Your Mommy C did too, and she said that she wants us to stay in touch, so that we can still be a part of your lives somehow. That would be nice.

The rain stopped. Still no ducks. It’s time to go.

Homosexuality, Honestly?

In the conversation about homosexuality in the church, nothing new has been said in years. I have heard and read and understand the positions of those who speak from all of the various perspectives in the issues. And honestly it has become so boring that I hardly pay attention any more.

The General Conference has an opportunity to speak the truth, as it does every four years. And the truth is that there is a lack of consensus in the United Methodist Church with regard to the compatibility of homosexuality with Christian teaching. That’s the truth. And that’s what the General Conference should say.

Because here’s the deal - we have got to stop arguing about this. The inter-denominational argument is hindering the mission of the church, and making it increasingly difficult to make disciples of Jesus Christ. It is ugly; it is bitter; it is hateful. And it has to stop.

We have shamefully proof-texted the question until you’d think all that we knew of scripture were those little snippets that we hurl relentlessly at one another to prove our point.

We have accused one another of not loving God or of not loving neighbor with such ferocity as we willfully ignore the inherent irony of our words.

We obsess over this one issue with a kind of ghastly fascination that is in no way appealing or attractive or missional or faithful to who we are supposed to be as the Church.

We must stop; and we must tell the truth. And then, we have to be okay with the ambiguity of the truth. This is not a simple issue. There are multiple distinct positions on the question, and there is simply no consensus in the United Methodist denomination, and the General Conference should say that out loud.

Of course, I understand how unpopular my perspective is. There will be, “But it’s a sin and we should say it’s a sin” and there will be, “But the status quo is unjust and so we have to change it.” These responses will come from the either/or people on all sides of the question.

But this is not an either/or question, and so it shouldn’t have an either/or answer. The question for General Conference is not “Is homosexuality a sin” - the question is “What should the United Methodist denomination say about it.” It would not be truthful to say, “The UMC thinks homosexuality is a sin.” It would not be truthful to say, “The UMC thinks homosexuality is not a sin.”

The honest thing to say, the missional thing to say, the faithful thing to say is just the truth. Some of us think it is, some of us don’t; some think it’s a choice, some do not; some of us are legitimately homophobic, most are not; some think it is a sin but that doesn’t mean we should exclude, some do; and on and on and on. There is no consensus, and we needn’t pretend there is.

Now, can we please focus on the business of helping people become disciples of Jesus Christ who are changing the world, for God’s sake?

(Full disclosure: My personal belief, which is no secret, is that being gay is not a sin. I do not believe the Bible ever describes a mutually loving and respectful covenant relationship between two people of the same gender. Such a relationship is neither affirmed nor condemned anywhere in Scripture. I am hopeful that the United Methodist Church will be fully inclusive. However, I am not intending to write today about my personal theology, but rather what position I feel the General Conference should take.)

This post is also up at Ministry Matters - CLICK HERE TO SEE!

Describe Your Fruitfulness

One of the sources of the anxiety that many are feeling in reaction to the “Call to Action” recommendations is the lack of clarity as to what comprises effective pastoral performance. It is unclear how exactly the indicators that assess effectiveness will be applied, and even what those indicators will exactly be.

From the Call to Action website:
1. Performance of Clergy
• Adopt updated performance qualities and vital indicators for clergy.
• Bishops lead in requiring that assessments are used consistently in every annual conference on an annual basis.
• Focus training and continuing education efforts to enhance performance of new and experienced clergy in relevant competencies based on assessments.
• Appointments should be made based on proven performance and potential for achieving the desired outcome.

I love the ideas of updating the definition of pastoral effectiveness and training pastors in “relevant competencies,” but am wary of the second point in this list, specifically the requirement of “…assessments that are used consistently in every annual conference.” I find it inconsistent with the idea of training pastors on “relevant competencies” to apply denomination-wide standards for pastoral effectiveness. What is a “relevant competency” in one place may not be in another.

In fact, I am wary even of assessments that are used consistently across an Annual Conference, or even an assessment that is the same for one congregation as the one just across town. Each community is unique, and each congregation responds in unique ways to impact the communities in which we serve.

This highlights the importance of conceptualizing the practices of a congregation as a framework upon which the local church can create ministry unique to the context. As Bishop Schnase writes in his worship chapter, “Passionate Worship is contextual, an expression of the unique culture of a congregation. Communities have their own distinct patterns, voice, and language for loving God authentically.” (Five Practices, p. 42) This idea can be applied to each practice of ministry.

To be sure, there is a framework, and it includes worship, study, fellowship, hospitality, service, and generosity (or whichever words you have attached to those practices in your context), but upon that framework, each congregation is relatively free.

And so it becomes critical to describe your fruitfulness. Individual congregations must make it a priority to share stories of ministry success regularly, and with as many audiences as possible.

Share and celebrate within the congregation, to the district office, through the conference communication channels, and most importantly, in the community itself. Any given pastor should be constantly ready with a dozen or so stories to tell about something amazing that has happened in and through the congregation.

Congregational vitality is about so much more than counting; if it were just about the numbers, Bishop Schnase’s book would have been a pamphlet. But describing fruitfulness is harder than measuring it. It requires purposeful and regular communication, and we must confess that we often get so involved with doing the good stuff that we don’t remember to describe it to others.

Too often, we settle for counting the easiest things to count (worship attendance, offering, small group participants, etc.) and call that “fruitfulness.” A pastor thinks that all he or she needs to do is count stuff and ka-pow - you are “effective” (or not).

It’s easy to count; it’s harder to describe. But it is absolutely vital to do so. Describing your fruitfulness generates excitement and energy that bubbles up and becomes even more fruitful ministry, which you then describe and use the energy generated to launch another … and so on.

I do not lament the lack of a clear, uniform definition of pastoral effectiveness from the “Call to Action;” I’m actually glad there isn’t one. Yes, there’s a framework, a starting point - and we’ll take it from there. And then describe our fruitfulness for anyone who will listen!


- This article has also been posted on Ministry Matters - click this - Thank you!

More "Third Option" Thoughts

There were two different Christian opinion pieces in the Springfield News-Leader today. (Here's one - Here's one). Reading the two pieces side-by-side reinforces the perception that there are only two options when it comes to following Jesus.

Crassly put, it feels like you’re either an evangelical or a progressive, and there’s an unspoken pressure to “declare yourself” on or the other. However, this is a false dichotomy. There is a third way - a “still more excellent way,” if you prefer.

Easter is not either a past sacrificial event or a metaphor for a better life now. I find neither of those theologies inherently compelling on their own. Both approaches void Easter of its power, intensity, and urgency - though in different ways.

If we minimize Easter to a single historical event, we imply that one must believe that single historical event is all there is to it. If you believe that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead 2,000 years ago, then you are good to go. It negates the living presence of Jesus in our midst right here and now, and denies the efficacy of grace apart from human activation.

If on the other hand we minimize Easter to a metaphor that helps us through life’s difficult times, we imply that the Christian faith is no more than a glorified self-help group. If someone treats you poorly, it’s okay because God overcomes death itself so surely you can overcome your issue. It negates the transformative power of God to act with cosmic and eternal implication, not only 2,000 years ago but also in the present day.

I cannot believe that the mystery of the resurrection is a simple either/or proposition. It’s more than just a past event; it’s more than just a life metaphor; in truth it’s more than we could ever possibly describe. However, I am working on a sermon for Sunday that I hope will at least partially begin to describe it!

In the meantime, I really hope we can somehow stop ourselves from thinking in “either/or” terms. Not all Christians are conservative, not all liberals are atheists. "Social justice" and "evangelical" are not opposites, and it’s high time we stop pretending that they are.

Answers To My Bishop Question

Last weekend I was a part of a set of interviews in which our Jurisdictional Conference delegation was asking questions of the candidates for bishop. When I asked my question, the responses fell into 3 categories.

The question was something like, “Considering the new and always emerging ways that people connect these days - new communication tools, social networking, online relationships, etc. - is the way that people think about ‘church’ being transformed? And will the metrics we use to assess congregational vitality be transformed as a result?”

Category 1 was basically:
Yes. I get it. The world is changing, relationships are changing, the definition of community is changing, and the church needs to recognize and be a part of that change. In fact, here are a few ways that I myself have transformed my own communication …

Category 2 was basically:
Yes. I hear that it is, but I don’t really get it. My kids do it, but I haven’t really gotten into it. I think the church should do some stuff too, but I really don’t know what that might be.

And category 3 was basically:
Yes. And isn’t it a shame. It’s a good thing the church can still be there to offer people a “real” relationship,” considering all the pretend ones they have on their computers and such.

You realize that I am paraphrasing, of course. None of the candidates is quoted, except the phrase “real relationship.” But my paraphrases represent a summary of what I heard in the interviews, and clearly include my bias. You probably also realize that the people who answered in a “category 1” kind of answer are the ones that I would tend to support.

I think some may dismiss the question as just a technology question. It is not. The development of technology vs. the transformation of community is kind of a “chicken and egg” kind of question. Technology changes as community is transformed; community is transformed as technology changes.

And as more and more people redefine community through a whole host of new technologies, the question is not whether the church should change, too. The question is how.

The Annual Conference as "Google"

In our episcopal interviews, one of our scripted “first three” questions was about Annual Conference structure. The core of the question was: What is the ideal Annual Conference structure?

For me the answer is simple - Google.

Google is a noun. It is the name of a website through which people can access a seemingly unlimited amount of information on just about anything they want to know about.

But google has become a verb. It means “what you do in order to access that information.” If you don’t know something and you want to know it, you just google it.

Whereas “google” is a noun that has been verbified, it feels like the word “conference” is a United Methodist verb that has been nounified.

Conference is actually a verb, in the Methodist lingo. In one sense, it means “google,” what we do in order to access information, resources, equipment for ministry.

But it seems “conference” has become only a noun, it means the group of people itself, or even the meeting of this group of people. I’d like for it to be verbified again.

The United Methodist Church is uniquely structured to resonate with the way people connect with each other. We even call ourselves a “connection,” or a “connexion,” if you prefer the British version. In order to realized the potential of that connection, we need to verbify the conference.

Not sure what resource to use for VBS this year? Conference it.

Need an idea for a new worship song on the theme of hospitality? You could conference it.

Need an architectural concept to make your building more hospitable? Hey, why not conference it.

And as other needs emerge, they could be conferenced in order to crowdsource potential solutions.

The sole mission of the conference staff would be gathering and updating and providing access to ideas, resources, and guidance. Conferencing would connect congregations in ways that multiply their impact on communities. Conferencing would equip congregations to change people’s lives in ways they would not necessarily be able to do alone.

And we are already basically structured to operate this way, which is pretty cool. We are not a congregationally based system (and I hope we never are). We are a connectional system, but the problem is that we have nounified it, and in doing so our structure has become burdensome.

I envision a denomination that is a robust yet flexible network of congregations that transcends the regional thinking by which we are still geographically imprisoned. The Conference App on your smart phone would be the portal through which every Methodist around the world could access the connection with all of its resources for mission and ministry.

Just Conference it.

Structure But No Life (A Long, Churchy Post)

God breathed the breath of life into Adam’s nostrils.

Ezekiel prophesied to the breath to bring life to the dry bones.

Jesus breathed on his disciples and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”

In each of the three scriptural moments above, there is structure but no life. In Genesis 2, a man has been formed out of the dust of the earth, but has yet to live. In Ezekiel 37, the bones have been knit together with tissue and flesh, but they were not yet alive. In John 20, the group of disciples was together, but was not empowered to go and share the Gospel.

Structure but no life.

That kind of sounds like John Wesley’s motivation for what he did, doesn’t it? In his beloved church, he saw structure but no life. His desire was to breathe life into the Church of England, not to separate from it. By creating Methodist societies within the Church, Wesley hoped to revitalize the faith of the people while remaining a part of the structure that he so respected.

Working within that structure, he nevertheless pushed right up to the edge of it. In many minds, he transgressed the boundary. Eventually those who comprised the structure would not allow him to continue within it. The momentum of the Methodist movement carried it out of the Church of England and it flourished on its own.

Come to think of it, “structure but no life” is how many would describe the United Methodist Church of 2012, also. And in many ways, the “Call to Action” and the “Plan B” recommendations that will be considered by this year’s United Methodist General Conference are an attempt to breathe life into an old, top-heavy structure.

But the present recommendations differ from Wesley’s movement in two significant ways. First, Wesley worked from the ground up, and these recommendations are being made from the top down (a General Conference decision being the “top” and implementation in local churches the “down”). Secondly (and significantly), Wesley was responding to a powerful new spiritual movement taking place, and the present proposals are responding to a declining denomination.

Wesley created technical changes (societies, bands, classes) that resonated with the immense adaptive change that was taking place all around him (the “First Great Awakening”). Starting small, the movement expanded up and out, and ultimately “outgrew” the Church of England.

Wesley was brilliant. He discerned the historical moment and realized the church structure of his day was insufficient to contain it, and in his wisdom and immense capacity for detail, caught the leading edge of the wave, dramatically transforming the way people of his day did church.

I am not opposed to the Call to Action recommendations. Not at all. Let’s do it; make the changes and see how they fly.

What bugs me, though, is that we are making all these technical changes that are motivated by the decline of our denomination, and we are pretending that they are actually adaptive changes that are going to transform the culture in our congregations. They aren’t adaptive changes, in my opinion. They may be changes that are intended to bring about adaptive change, but the proposals as listed and discussed are technical changes.

The reason that this bugs me is that I think we are missing the actual adaptive changes that are already happening all around us. There is a significant spiritual movement taking place in the world, and we are already too late to catch the leading edge of it, as Wesley did so long ago. The best we can hope for at this point is to jump into it in the middle somewhere.

The technical changes the denomination needs to address are related to the tools we use to assess congregational vitality. For example, we are still trying to get our heads around the impact that new means of communication, social media, and other online interaction is having on the way people connect faith and life.

A person can watch their congregation’s worship service live online from just about any place in the world. Instant, hand-held access to more information than a person could ever hope to process has forever transformed how we learn, including how we learn about God. Facebook alone has fundamentally altered the way people feel about how well we know one another. Awareness of injustice is instantaneously Tweeted to millions whose resources can be mobilized to respond in just days, if not hours.

How do we assess congregational fruitfulness in a world that looks so different than it did 20 years ago? (Even 10, even 5 …)

This is the pressing technical question for our denomination, as I see it. But I believe the United Methodist Church needs to undergo some deep adaptive changes, as well.

The adaptive changes that need to be made in the United Methodist Church, in my opinion, are theological. Stated simply (and borrowing a term), we must immediately purge the “moralistic therapeutic deism” that pervades the church and allow the mystery of the triune God to empower us to realize the reign of God on earth by fully patterning our lives after the life of Christ, however that may look. I could go on and on about this, but that is going to have to be content for another post.

This is a long one. If you are still reading by this point, an extra gold star for you! I want to make clear that I am not opposed to change, I do not fear change, this is not an anti-change thing. I say let’s give the “Call to Action” recommendations a go, and see what happens.

All I’m saying is I want answers to questions like, “Our congregation’s Facebook group has 211 ‘likes’ and last week it had 209. Is that fruitful?”

A United Methodist "Buffet Effect"?

So what would it be like if “the Buffet effect” swept through the church?

Wouldn’t the clergy equivalent of Betty White be a hoot in the pulpit every week?

Who is the Paul McCartney of pastors, still innovating as he approaches age 70?

The United Methodist Church, like so much of culture, has become youth-obsessed. In our panic to save the denomination, we have objectified young people as a “target demographic” that, if sufficiently engaged, will swoop into our churches and save us from oblivion.

I understand all the stats - our congregations are decades older than the communities around them; we’re just a couple generations away from extinction; the structures, styles, and systems we utilize are archaic - I understand the reasons for the panic. I respect the work that Lovett Weems and others have done about the age trends in our denomination.

But we have overcompensated, I think. We have negated much of what is good about being Methodist, while doing very little that actually means anything to younger people. In fact, the church’s sudden discovery of young people and subsequent obsession with them is kind of freaking people out.

Kenda Creasy Dean says it better than anyone: “To treat adolescents as a separate species instead of as less experienced members of our own was one of the twentieth century’s largest category errors. Teenagers, obviously, are people too, and youth ministry is as much about being the church as it is about working with adolescents.” (Almost Christian : What the Faith of Our Teenagers is Telling the American Church - p. 24)

And a sorry side effect of treating young people as separate from “us” is the perception that older people just don’t matter any more. Ministry is “about being the church” for youth, young adults, middling adults, and the really old ones, as well. And if there’s a place to point in order to explain the decline of the church it is at our ineptitude at “being the church” - period.

As Diana Butler Bass puts it, “Between business-as-usual church, internal stresses, external scandals, and rank hypocrisy, finally compounded by economic crisis, American Christianity is in a mess.” (Christianity After Religion: The End of Church and the Birth of a New Spiritual Awakening - p. 83)

The point is, of course the situation is driving young people away. That’s because it is driving everyone away.

You want to get young people to come back to church? Be a better church.

Which brings me back to my initial thought - Where are our pastoral Warren Buffets, Betty Whites, and Paul McCartneys? What are they doing? Are we relegating them to museum display identities that we smile at and applaud, but don’t really listen to?

Or are we engaging the wisdom, passion, and experience of such as these to provide vision, purpose, and integrity so that we can be as good a church as we possibly can?

Obviously, there is a lot of room for mulling over these questions. I am still in mid-mull myself. But I read two articles almost back to back this morning that started this mull, and I encourage you to give them a read also.

This one was a business piece in Newsweek. (Where the term "Buffet Effect" came from.)

This one was a column on the UMPortal.

I’m eager to read your mulling ... let's mull together!

Jesus is Overturning Tables Again

As John tells it, the cleansing of the Temple is a story about how people tend to create rules for how to do something, and then allow the rules to become more important than the something they were intended to do.

John omits the phrase “den of thieves” from his version of the story, and John never does anything by accident. Every word counts. “Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!” (NRSV) This marketplace was a house of commerce in which the transactions necessary to worship according to the rules of the Temple were accomplished.

The rules were there, in scripture. Following the rules was equivalent to being faithful. The system very well may have been corrupted, as Matthew, Mark, and Luke seem to indicate with their “den of thieves” quip. But John isn’t focused there. He is focused on the rules themselves, rules which have taken priority over the very thing they were intended to facilitate, namely an encounter with the Divine.

We miss the point when we think this story is about selling stuff in church. It’s way more than that. This story is about how the church tends to allow the rules (or norms, or customs, or standards, or …) to become a higher priority than encountering God.

Every church has rules. They are rarely explicit.

In some churches…
- Young people must act like older people.
- Hair must not be a peculiar color or shape.
- Only ears may be pierced, only on women, and only one time each.
- Gay couples must not hold hands.
- Clothing must not reveal too much skin.
- The skin that is revealed must not be inked.
- Scruffy looking clothing will not be tolerated.

And in some churches …
- Old people are just awful.
- “Traditional” sucks.
- Suits and ties are stuffy, and people who wear them are automatically hypocrites.
- Un-inked, un-pierced, un-dyed = loser.
- All gay people are liberals.
- It has to be loud to be worship.
- Scruffy looking clothing is cool, but only the expensive scruffy looking clothing that is designed that way and supposed to look scruffy in order to make a statement.

I hope that you read the above lists with a sense of tongue-in-cheek, and don’t take offense at either one. And please, I know that the temptation will be to do the whole “not in MY church” thing. Right, okay - go ahead and get that out of your system.

My point is simply to say that there are “rules” in every church (as well as in every neighborhood, in every office, in every town, etc.). And those rules are there in order to serve a greater purpose. And people will gradually but inevitably forget the greater purpose and just follow the rules.

Which is exactly what was happening in the Temple, and what John wanted to illuminate in the way he told the cleansing story.

So, the cleansing of the Temple wasn’t just to get rid of the “bad” stuff, it was to get rid of everything that had be prioritized ahead of God, good AND bad.

There is more going on spiritually in the world today than just the stuff contained in the specific, superficial lists of rules I poked at earlier. There are deeper and more profound shifts happening when it comes to the way people encounter God these days. Authors like Diana Butler Bass, Brian McClaren, and Phyllis Tickle (among others) have taken note and written about it.

Old rules are being challenged, though these rules are broader, and more difficult to extract.

Here’s a pretty simple example:
- A person has to become a member of a congregation in order to follow Jesus.
The category of “member” is in such a state of flux right now that it is nearly unrecognizable by the older standards. Being a member of Sam’s Club often has more meaning for people than being a member of a congregation.

Here’s one:
- People have to attend worship every week in order to feel connected to a congregation.
It does not seem to diminish one’s feeling of connectedness in the slightest to be only infrequently face-to-face with others in the congregation, and with God for that matter. Online social networks and new digital communication tools have altered forever the ways we connect.

And how about this one:
- Never borrow anything, beliefs or practices or anything, from non-Christian religious traditions.
Post-modernity has flattened the earth and made us aware of our global community in unprecedented ways. We (meaning people all around the world) routinely adopt that which seems helpful from other cultures and traditions into our own. Yoga, anyone?

Remember, Jesus wasn’t overturning the tables because the tables were inherently bad. He was overturning them because they had become more important than God. So the spiritual shifts taking place in our world today, call it a “Great Emergence” or another “Great Awakening” or “A New Kind of Christianity” or something else, are not taking place because the old way is bad.

They are taking place because Jesus is overturning tables again.

Therefore, nobody needs feel threatened by these shifts. Nobody needs to panic. And definitely nobody needs to figure out ways to make the old rules fit into the new reality. They don’t. They won’t. Ever again.

There will be congregations that will cease to be. There will be denominations that will simply dissolve. 80 years from now “church” will be unrecognizable by today’s standards. And I for one see that as a wonderful, miraculous, God-inspired and Spirit-led possibility.

The Call to Action in the UMC - My thoughts

The United Methodist Church is preparing for our 2012 General Conference, at which delegates will vote on the proposals contained in the “Call to Action.” There are some specific changes being proposed, which you can read about at the Call to Action website.

I have a couple of questions. First one: Who is against these proposals? Is there any organized opposition to them, anywhere? I have read a couple of articles that expressed disappointment with the lack of young adult representation in the process and one or two that express the thought that this is a “power grab” by the Council of Bishops. But is there a group actively mobilizing to lobby General Conference delegates to vote down these proposals?

If so, please illuminate me, because I am unaware of them.

If not, then who in the world are we trying to convince with all the hub-bub about the changes? Why all the talk about “there’s no need to fear change” and “we’ve got to take some risks” and “sometimes change hurts” and so forth? Who exactly needs convincing? The denomination doth protest too much, methinks.

My second question: Why have we framed the Call to Action recommendations as necessary to save the United Methodist Church from dying? As I see it, the Call to Action recommendations are necessary, but not to save the denomination. What is recommended is necessary for no less than being faithful to what it means to be the church of Jesus Christ in the world today.

Now, if we revitalize congregations in the way that the Call to Action predicts, one of the attractive side effects may be that the United Methodist Church ceases withering away. But surely that’s not our goal, is it? I love the United Methodist Church as much as any seventh generation ordained Methodist preacher does, but my goal is not the survival of my beloved denomination.

My goal is to share the love of Jesus Christ with others so that that the world is completely transformed into the realization of the reign of God, and to inspire others to do so, as well. If the United Methodist Church survives that transformation process … bonus!

All of the language about what motivated the Call to Action’s proposed changes is great. Stuff like … creating vital congregations … a more nimble infrastructure … clarity of mission …hopefulness for the future … and so on. Everything Bishop Schnase (aka Bish Schnay-Z) writes about in his article on the subject.

But I’ll be hesitant to do any of that stuff if the goal is to save the denomination. Why can’t we just leave saving the denomination out of the picture?

Again, to be clear, I believe that if we do what the Call to Action recommends, we actually may end up saving the denomination. But that will be because our denomination is being as faithful an expression of church as it can be, not because our attempts to save our institution have been successful.

Actually I have a specific critique of the Call to Action recommendations. My biggest concern is that we do not have a consensus definition for pastoral effectiveness. I do not see how we possibly could. It will be a subjective call, no matter how you slice it.

I might think that I’m not effective because I’m not seeing worship attendance increase dramatically, while someone else might think I am being effective because there have been more than 50 professions of faith over the past two years. But still another person may think that 50 professions of faith is not effective, thinking that it comes nowhere close to the potential in our community.

What’s left is a subjective decision - which, by the way, I trust completely. I am Methodist, an itinerant preacher, and I will go where I am sent - even if that is into another occupation. But there’s no getting around the fact that pastoral effectiveness is ultimately a subjective decision. Let’s just be honest about that and proceed.

I hope the Call to Action recommendations pass General Conference, and revitalized, vibrant congregations become the norm rather than the exception. I too see a new church in the future, and am very hopeful about what God is up to these days. I just want us to stop lamenting dying churches and dying conferences and dying denominations, and start remembering what we are supposed to be about.

If we do, we may very well find that we actually have nothing to lament, and everything to celebrate!

Online Communication - What "counts"?

Facebook has changed the way people communicate. At Campbell, we have guidelines for how staff relates with people online, similar to the United Methodist “Safe Sanctuaries” guidelines for face-to-face communication.

Because the landscape is always changing, we are continually discussing the implications of new means of communication. So, it is not a static policy; it must remain fluid in order to respond to rapid changes in the virtual world.

Our latest conversation pertains to notifying “the church” when someone has a need (an illness, surgery, the death of a loved one, etc.). Put rather crassly, the question is what should “count” for notifying the church.

If a staff member happens to read an update on someone’s timeline that says, “Surgery set for tomorrow,” or something similar, does that indicate that the person wants a pastor to show up for prayer and so the staff member should contact a pastor to make sure that happens?

If a pastor reads someone’s tweet indicating a need, but does not respond, is that a failure of pastoral obligation? What if a pastor reads the tweet and DOES respond, but the individual didn’t actually want a personal response?

Currently, we have the guideline that a Facebook post (or a Tweet, or any online posting) does not constitute an “official contact.” A phone call, email, or text message does. The reasoning is that those three are directed communications, rather than public announcements. As such, we do not do a pastoral visit for something we only learn about online.

On the flipside, someone on staff may contact a person individually to respond to something learned online, and in that conversation the staff member needs to ask, “Would you like this concern included in the prayer list?” and/or “Would you like a pastor to visit?” and/or “Could we arrange some meals for you while you recover?” or something like that, depending on the situation. Then, the church responds “officially” to the need.

Even as I re-read that paragraph, it sounds silly. But it is where we are at the moment. And so we’d like some input. What are your thoughts on these questions? And what guidelines, if any, does your church follow regarding social network posts? What should those guidelines be?

Thanks in advance for your comments!

Oh, Church!

The latest religious trend seems to go like this.

Step 1 - Have a negative experience or experiences with a person or a group of people who happen to be Christian.

Step 2 - Universalize that experience.

Step 3 - Create a definition of “church” that depends only on that universalized negative experience.

Step 4 - Mercilessly attack the definition of church that you just created.

Step 5 - Construct a new (and groovier) definition of church that you are okay with.

Step 6 - Never, ever call that new definition “church” or anything sounding even remotely religious.

Step 7 - Post it online.

Hypocrisy, greed, selfishness, prejudice, hatefulness, anti-intellectualism, and all the rest of the things that comprise “step 1” in this process are bad things, and rightly to be criticized. I have done my fair share of leveling criticism against these things, inside the church as well as out. Judeo-Christian history is replete with prophetic voices who call people of faith to repent and reform.

But to “hate the church” as a result? Sorry, but we wouldn’t even know who Jesus is except for the church. There is no organization in the world that has done as much good in as many places as the church. It is through the church that God’s love has been offered, grace extended, justice sought, forgiveness invited, and so on and so on … for generation upon generation, hundreds and hundreds of years before our time.

There are people within the church who are hypocrites. Indeed. There are people within the church who are suspicious of science. Yep. And selfish ones and homophobic ones and greedy ones and hateful ones and all the rest.

And you know what? There always have been. History is also replete with people such as these. And more than likely, there always will be. Our unwritten future history will be, alas, similarly imperfect.

Call for reform. Point out the hypocrisy. Confront the hatred. By all means speak up in the presence of injustice, oppression, and hatred. Name it, point to it, and do what you can to make sure it never happens again.

The church has a word for those things: “sin.”

The church also has a message to deliver in response to those things: “grace.”

As it turns out, the church also has a command to guide what happens next: “Go and sin no more.”

And the guy who said that originally, the one whose body in the world today is called the “church,” that guy Jesus, God incarnate, you know the one? Well I happen to love that guy a whole lot. And I happen to love the church, too - fallible, messy, ugly, beautiful, complicated, perfect, flawed, chaotic, diverse, one, holy, universal, apostolic - the church.

I do not begrudge anyone a new expression of church. Actually, I love new expressions of church! Always reforming, always contextualized, always adapting, always creating; the church has been expressing herself in new and wonderful ways for a couple thousand years now and that’s great. So that’s not my point.

My point is this: Please don’t condemn such a broad and diverse group because you have had bad experiences with some people within that group. Do your thing. Love Jesus in the way that makes sense to you. Create your church, by all means. But don’t insult the rest of us by saying that what you are doing isn’t church. Of course it is. It’s just your expression of it.

I love Jesus. I love the church. And I hope that you do, too.

The Mystery of Death

I have prayed the prayer
literally hundreds of times
and I will pray it hundreds more.

“Give to us now your grace, that as
we shrink before the mystery of death,
we may see the light of eternity.”

We shrink.
Before the mystery.
Of death.

We shrink. God grows.

We are finite.
God is eternal.

Is it only as we shrink
that we gain the perspective
which allows us to see
the flicker of eternal light?

We shrink. The mystery.
Death.

Thoughts on the Payday Loan Ballot Initiative

I just sent the following letter to the Springfield News-Leader:


"I am hopeful that Missourians will learn as much as possible about the "payday loan issue" currently in discussion in many venues around our state. There are valid points to consider on all sides of the issue, and it is important that we give full consideration to the question.

"I believe that I have heard and fully understand the opposition’s point of view, and I remain convinced that 400% interest rates are too high. Simply put, there is no compelling case to be made that charging a struggling family 400% interest (and even higher at times) should be legal. It is time for Missouri to cap those rates.

"Businesses that practice ethical lending need not fear the proposed cap. It does nothing to limit competition among lenders. In fact, it makes the competitive playing field level in that Missouri would no longer be inundated with predatory lenders, and ethical lending companies would therefore have an equal opportunity to do business.

"Most convincing for me is the damage done to families caught up in the cycle of debt, exacerbated by the practices of lending companies that charge triple digit interest rates. The hopelessness in the eyes of parents who literally fear for the health of their children can be quite compelling.

"Please learn as much as possible about this issue, and make an informed choice. Not to decide is a decision in favor of the status quo. And I truly believe the status quo is unjust and must be changed."


I hope that you might visit these sites:

Missourians for Responsible Lending website and Facebook page.

The ballot initiaive summary is here and the full text is here.

Thanks!

Correction: It's WAY Worse Than That

I made a mistake in last Sunday’s sermon. (My only one of the year, of course.)

In making a point about how we are often overwhelmed by all that is “wrong” with the world, I drew an analogy from the category of “sports” - kind of “current events,” too. I mentioned the newly signed contract between one Mr. Albert Pujols and the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, which for some reason is on everyone’s minds around here these days.

Turns out my calculations were off. Way off!

Allow me to clarify.

According to the whiz-bang mathematical minds of the Campbell UMC staff, Pujols’ salary breaks down thusly:

+ $254 million over 10 years
+ $25.4 million per year
+ MINUS 45% for taxes and agent fees
+ $13,970,000 per year
+ 162 games in the regular season
+ $86,234.57 per game
+ 4 at bats per game
+ $21,558.64 per at bat

For further review:
(if only 3 at bats, he’ll earn $28,744.86 per at bat)
(if out of the lineup, he’ll earn $9,581.62 for every inning he warms the bench)

So, my figure yesterday was far, far too low.

The figure from Sunday’s sermon that IS accurate, though, is that it takes $300 per year to send a child to secondary school in Kenya, and a part of what the New Hope Initiative is trying to do is send kids from the Kibera slum in Nairobi on to get their secondary education with full scholarships, provided they pass the entrance exams.

And so, every time Albert Pujols comes to the plate next season, 71 children could receive these scholarships with the money he makes.

Seventy-one. With some spare change. Even if he strikes out.

Please understand that I am not bashing Albert Pujols personally. I’m sure he’s a very nice man. The intent is to point out just how out of whack our societal priorities are these days.

When the education of 71 kids living in one of the world’s biggest slums is equal to one single at bat of a Major League Baseball player, we have a problem. A global problem. A theological problem.

He has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty. (Luke 1:53)

So somebody tell me, how are we supposed to make sense of all this?