"No Guns = No Money"

Yesterday, Sunday January 29, just before the 10:30 service of worship, I was handed a business card. It came from a member of the congregation, one who is actively involved in the life of the church. The card has made me rather sad, and I want to share it with you.

In bold white letters, in a large font, across the bottom, against a stark red background, read these words: "No Guns = No Money" On the right side of the card was the now-familiar "no guns" sign that we have seen posted at public buildings throughout our communities. Printed from the left side of the card, the bulk of its message read: "Your 'no gun' sign prevents me from patronizing your business. So I, my family, and other gun owners will spend our money with your competitors." Then it read: "Look on the back to see why you should remove your sign," with an arrow that directed me to reverse the card.

On the reverse, the card bore a symbol from Buckeye Firearms Foundation, with an email address: www.BuckeyeFirearms.org The reverse side of the card read, "Your 'no gun' sign is bad for business. It does nothing to make you safer. It simply tells criminals you're an easy target and drives away good customers with a concealed carry license."

It continued, "Unlike most people, license holders have passed a criminal background check. Statistics show we are far more law-abiding than the general public. Our numbers are growing every day. We are ideal customers and will patronize your business if you let us. Remove your sign and I, my family, and many other gun owners will gladly return."

Really?

I am incredulous!

You want the Church of Jesus Christ to allow you to carry weapons to worship and public activities? You want the Church to condone the presence of guns? You are willing to practice blatant extortion to bring about your political ends? And you want churches and pastors to capitulate?

I know nothing whatsoever about the Buckeye Firearms Foundation. I am disgusted by their practices, however. I do know about the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ. I can tell you with every confidence that firearms have no place in worship, ministry or mission that bears Christ's name. His ministry is about peace and love and compassion. His mission is the extension of grace. Worship in his name must take place without the threat of violence or coercion.

In my opinion, firearms have no place in the Church. The matter is theological. It is about the integrity of the Church. If we dare to bear the name of Christ Jesus, then we simply cannot allow the presence of firearms. If that means that you take your "business" elsewhere, so be it.

The Church is a place of God's empowerment. It is the training ground for ministries of peace and harmony. It is about education in the mission fields of God's grace and love. No guns. No way. If the Church gives in to this kind of pressure, then it isn't the Church at all.  

Can the Church Make a Difference?

I have listened carefully over the past few weeks to the language of the political "Primary Season." There is something very strange going on here.

Except for one particular candidate, those with concrete proposals are gone already from the process. Most of the language of the campaigns, as far as I am able to ascertain, is combative, polemical, reactive and argumentative. There is little being proposed of any genuine value. Little hope of improvement of the situation of those who struggle and suffer is being offered. Even within political parties, the language of campaigns is no longer ideological or philosophical but personal and judgmental.

What is happening here? What is the current political campaign atmosphere saying about who we are as a culture and a people? More to the point, is there anything that the Church can do about the situation? Do those of faith have a role to play in political discourse?

Political discourse is being reduced to the lowest common denominator of human interest. Like the popular television production of a type of program that we have come to call, "Reality Shows," the political process now hinges upon personal behavior, scandal, innuendo, whispered accusations that fly beyond the scope of reason, name-calling, anger, hatred and violence. Ironically, the public seems to be accepting the degradation of the political process. It is possible even that the public relishes it, embraces it, loves it.

This is not right! Something here is broken! The patient is sick, and we have to begin to wonder what any physician might do to make us well again.

Our culture is ill. One need look no further than the current political process to see it. One need only to listen for a moment to the hyperbole. One need only watch for a short while the realm of entertainment, sports, or social networking to understand that there is a shared disease of our life and times.

Of course politics replies to the lowest common denominator of our culture. Certainly entertainment and sports reflect our communal disease. Social networking is a perfect reflection of who we have become and what is wrong with us.

Might I be so bold as to suggest that the Church is being called to be our culture's physician? Is it possible that the Church would, for once, separate itself from its culture and stand over and against the illness of our age? Can the Church teach people to live together in love, acceptance, integrity and compassion?

I believe that the Church has a distinct role in curing the ills of our culture. The medication, in abundant store, is the love of Christ. Application is the work of the Spirit in the Church of Jesus Christ. It is time for persons of faith - no matter which or what we call ourselves - to embrace the core of our spiritual lives and live from the foundations of that which we are called to practice. It is time for us to be less religious and more faithful, to be more socially engaged and more communally active.

Culture has no physician other than its people of faith, who could be courageous and honest enough to call the illnesses of our culture by name, to address their root causes, and to seek their treatment. But we have to get out of our churches, synagogues, mosques, covens and places of worship and begin the work of curing our social ills. Only if we are able to so engage ourselves will we mean anything to the culture in which we live. If we fail, we will continue to disappear as a meaningless and irrelevant product of the past.

  

Political Rhetoric

When Barack Obama wrote The Audacity of Hope, and when , from across the aisle, John Danforth wrote Faith and Politics, I was hopeful of transformation on the political front. Both books argued for an end to the broken political process of partisanship, a rejection of the kind of rhetoric that resulted in a widening of the chasm between the competing points of view, and closure to the influence of the religious right.

In short, both politicians, one Democrat and the other a Republican, argued for a new kind of political approach, one that diminished partisanship through focus on the common good. Danforth and Obama painted a rosy picture of a dawning new day. Both promised action. Both made perfect sense.

Unfortunately, contemporary history has not proven the advent of a new political day. Be certain that I am not supporting in this article any particular political point of view. I am not promoting any issue, cause or politician. In fact, I refuse to do so. The system is so broken that it has ceased to work for the common good, and all those within it, though good intentioned, are caught up in a wheel that will not spin.

The art of politics is no longer (if it ever truly was) improvement of shared life. Politics is now about being properly positioned in order that one be electable or re-electable. The process is about power and influence that may be traded for votes on bills of competing importance. The question is far less often how voting on a particular bill serves the public good than how one's vote positions one within that person's party or with the media. The process has diminished to the point of sound bites and posturing.

I am disappointed in those who could have acted to repair the process. I am even more disappointed in the rhetoric that has been used to protect the old partisan system from transformation. The words have been ugly, childish and judgmental. Like children on a third grade playground, the process is to tear others down in order to build up one's self. The name calling and innuendo are ridiculous.

The question is whether or not the citizenry can act to change anything. Will it help to vote out all incumbents? Is the system so inexorably broken that it would taint any who would dare or aspire to enter it? Can we do no better?

I would love to hear from readers of The Shiloh Insider about what actions we might take. What are we to do to put into place a working political system, one that functions for the benefit of all of its citizens and serves as a light to the nations of the world? Is there a reasonable and practical course of action? Can we change anything?

Music and the Message

A can of worms, once opened, is difficult to close again, especially neatly.

I made a comment at the beginning of yesterday's 10:30 message and again during the discussions at the 7:00 service that there was a disconnect between the message and the service music. The disconnect took place in the difference between the theology of spiritual baptism - what happened to Jesus after he exited the waters of ritualized baptism - and baptism by water, which was highlighted in almost all of the service music.

Was Jesus baptized by the ritual of John the Baptist? Was he subjected to a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins?

I believe that he was. I also happen to believe that such a baptism as part of the Jesus narrative, especially in Mark, is beside the point. The point of the story, I think, is that, once he emerges from the waters of ritualized purification, Jesus' genuine baptism takes place. It is a baptism performed by God. It is not performed by John. In Mark, Jesus' spiritual baptism enables him to fulfill the ministry to which God calls him. Without it, if he would have been baptized with water alone, Jesus would not have been able to faithfully and perfectly perform the ministry to which he had been called.

In Mark's baptism, the ritualized water rite of purification is transformed into a spiritual experience, one over which God presides and one for which only God provides.God pours out God's Spirit. God allows that Spirit to be embodied in Jesus. Jesus becomes the Spirit's incarnation. The entire message highlighted the fact that the spiritual baptism by God is far superior to the human rites of water purification.

So why did the music celebrate water? If Jesus' spiritual baptism eclipses the significance of John's water purification, why did we sing about gathering at the river, or about entering the waters? The topic is of particular interest when readers of The Shiloh Insider recognize that I am part of the group that sits and selects hymns and music for our worship services. How in the world could such a disconnect be allowed to take place?

The answer is both simple and dangerous. I made the comments at both 10:30 and 7:00 in order to draw attention to the main issue. Most hymnody, whether traditional or contemporary, embraces the imagery of water for baptism. There is little available for the Church to sing of and celebrate the spiritual aspects of baptism. Now, there are plenty of hymns/songs about the power of the Spirit. Few of them have a direct link to baptism, however. (I am well aware that there are a few of these examples in contemporary praise music, but, even in those cases, the spiritual side of Jesus' baptism is diminished.)

Did the disconnect between service music and the message make any difference? Unfortunately, probably not. Like the community that came to John in the Jordan, we have grown accustomed to rote ritual and familiar practices. Few would have noticed the disconnect had it not been mentioned as theme for the day.

All the more reason to mention it. The comments about there being a disconnect challenge the notion that we should take for granted what we sing, play, hear, say or preach. Those elements of worship which tend to become rote, unconscious recitation, meaningless traditions with no clear or reasonable purpose behind them need to be challenged. Especially in Epiphany, we could be aware of all that we do in worship. Worship can be an intentional exercise of praise and preparation instead of a cuddly recitation of familiar, traditional rites and liturgies.

So, there was a disconnect between the message and the music this past week. That disconnect gave us occasion to challenge our complacency. Until some amazingly creative folk write new hymns and service music (hint, hint), that situation will not improve. At least we can be aware of it and take it as a serious call for reform. This, after all, is Epiphany.

See You Sunday!   

Happy New Year!

Welcome to 2012!

I will readily admit that, at my age, the turning of another year is a mixed blessing. While a new year invites each of us into new opportunities and new adventures, it is also a sign that time moves more swiftly as the years pass. One would think that the quickened passage of time might encourage those of additional years to hasten the process of change. Oddly enough, I find the opposite to be the case.

The older I become, the more entrenched I seem to get. The gravitational pull of increasing age has settled me in some very particular ways. I am more certain than ever of the desperate state of the Church of Jesus Christ. I am more convinced than ever that, if what used to be the Mainline Church is to survive the current cultural shifts, it will have to change drastically. I thought that I would take this issue of The Shiloh Insider to highlight just a few changes that I am convinced that the Church must make if it is to survive.

1. The Church must be about God and Christ: The Church is not about its members. It is not present in order that those who are members might be served by it. Instead, the mission of the Church must direct its efforts outward, into the neighborhoods and communities that the Church might serve. The Church is to be a light to nations, a lamp whose light may not be hidden, the salt which retains its taste. It is present to represent Christ Jesus to the world.

2. Members are servants: Church members must therefore see themselves as servants who are equipped, inspired and sent out by God's Holy Spirit. Energies, talents and time of church members must be directed toward service to others. Membership on congregation boards and committees does not necessarily equate to outward service. There are cases in which boards and committees can lead persons to wider service, but service to the organization of the Church is not automatically the service to which God calls us.

3. Service takes place within context. To serve Christ Jesus in the church's communities and neighborhoods means that most excellent service takes place within simple contexts. Instead of engaging in support of things far away, from which we are isolated, persons must learn to engage in the mission of Jesus Christ in the everyday course of life. Christian service is more about the way we live, day in and day out, than what missions and ministries we support. How do we serve those whom we encounter in the course of our most common days? How do we treat others? What do we do for them?

4. Faithfulness is measured by ethics. Faithfulness of those who might be considered as practitioners of Christianity is tied to the ethic of Christ Jesus. We are called upon, and equipped by God's Holy Spirit, to live as Christ lived. Because he sacrificed himself in service to others, we are to sacrifice ourselves. Because Christ Jesus treated with kindness those of low social, economic and political standing, the Church must join him in working for their benefit. That ethic must translate to everyday practice and social decision-making. While the issues are not economic or political, faithfulness must inform political, economic and social decision-making.

5. The purpose of the Church is empowering servants. The Church therefore has the obligation of motivating and equipping persons for practicing the ethic of Christ Jesus. The educational efforts of the church must be geared to personal spiritual calling. Its fellowship must be molded by the necessity of unity in vision and mission. The Church must be consistent in everything that it does to equip persons for practicing the ethic of Christ Jesus. The Church is not an institution of membership hatch, match and dispatch, but of community transformation through personal spirituality.

May this be the focus of Shiloh's 2012. May it be the purpose of the Church of Jesus Christ. I am more convinced than ever that this is the form in which the Church will survive...and thrive.

See You Sunday!