Monday, September 28, 2015

Pope Francis

I appreciate Pope Francis. In his recent visit to the United States, he demonstrated the kind of humility, service-orientation, care of creation and Christ-centered practicality that has seemed to be so lacking in the modern day Church. One might be so bold as to suggest that he is the perfect Progressive-age Pope.

 In a climate that is filled with radicalized religious anger and vitriol, the Pope speaks and acts with kindness, mercy and grace. He embraces those who have been traditionally placed on the outside, those who are left looking in, their faces pressed hard against the glass of exclusion and rejection. He eats with the homeless. He sleeps with crowds of commoners. He shuns the power politics of amazing influence and walks humbly with the struggling and suffering.

Pope Francis' importance does not end with Catholicism.The Pope is saying what the Progressive Church Movement has been saying for the past thirty or so years. That is, the Church that bears his name must stand with Christ in service to those who are least well off, those who are victimized by the systems under which we live, those who we have rejected and excluded as "not like us." If we are to be faithful to Christ, the Church must be inclusive, welcoming, accepting, gracious and merciful. It must not be afraid of those who practice other religions, who come from other places, who are differently gendered, who are other races and other national origins. It must respect and honor every persons as a brother and sister, as an occasion to speak and act from the hope of God's will and God's reign.

The message is universal. It spans the chasm that separates Protestants from Catholics, Christians from Muslims, Jews from Pagans, each of us from each and every other. To walk with Christ means to embrace those values and practice those virtues that we know to be in cooperation with and reflections of the archetype of Crucifixion/Resurrection. Hellenists might refer to them as the "heavenly virtues." Jews might think of them as the cause behind the laws. Buddhists might refer to these virtues as Nirvana or Enlightenment. The world's religions, and every faction within and around them, are unified by the core of each of those traditions. We do and speak what is best to meet the needs of those who struggle and suffer.

The Progressive Movement has been looking for a voice, one that can compete in the media-driven gravitational pull with the radical voices of extremists. Could it be that Pope Francis is that voice? Could it be that he speaks for all of us? I certainly believe that he has spoken for Christ in his recent visit to the United States. He has spoken for me.

I appreciate Pope Francis. What do you think?    

Monday, September 21, 2015

The Healthy Church

A colleague, with whom I share a regular breakfast meeting, informed me this morning that he was seriously thinking of leaving the ministry.

This is sad news. My friend is a skilled minister and a caring guy. His loss in the profession will not help the church in any way.

In the midst of the discussion, he pointed out that the churches that he had served were interested in and motivated by things that are contrary to Christ Jesus.Those contrary motivations and interests had led those congregations into all sorts of pathological practices and unhealthy situations. So, we dreamed together about what a healthy Church of Jesus Christ might look like.

Its primary concern would be the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ. The healthy congregation would ground itself on his self-sacrificing work of salvation, without concern for dollars and numbers and brand marketing. It would be a place where hospitality and welcome were a normal part of congregational life. It would question and assess continually how what it is doing meets the needs of the community and neighborhood of the congregation. It would not be focused primarily on the needs of the membership or the opinions, desires, stances of beliefs of those who had been there the longest or who give the most money or who yell the loudest.

The healthy congregation of Christ Jesus would function fairly and justly, working for the inclusion of all persons and ensuring that every person had equal voice and opportunity. It would not exclude others through the use of secret language or clandestine practice. There would be no "right way" of doing any particular thing. There may well be his way, her way, even their way, but there is no exclusionary "wrong way." Money would not determine ministry. Energy and calling would.

It is sad and tragic when the organizational church works at excluding some for the sake of those who have been there the longest, have the most money, can amass the more significant power block or who scare others. It is contrary to Christ that personalities dictate action, that personal pathologies limit what can be allowed or accepted, that bias and prejudice determine who can be considered in or out.

A healthy church follows Christ Jesus. It is both humble and determined. It is focused and consistent. It knows whereof it speaks and acts and is not afraid to defend its behavior as that which is faithful to Christ Jesus. A healthy congregation overcomes its challenges by working harder together to achieve its calling, despite the difficulties. A healthy church supports, builds, undergirds with positive words and actions. The infrastructure is constructed of mutual respect, honor and integrity.

My colleague has not had experience with such a church. He has seen plenty of the contrary.

It occurs to me that there may yet be no ideal Church of Jesus Christ. Perhaps every one wavers between Christ and the contrary, just as every person does. At least there is an ideal toward which we may, together, work. There is a health that we can pursue. For the sake of the Church, my colleagues and myself, I hope that every congregation strives for that ideal.

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

Words

Prompted by last week's lectionary text from James, some discussion groups with whom I work began to investigate the power of words. The text was from James 3:5b-10:

How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire! And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell. For every species of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be and has been tamed by the human species, but no one can tame the tongue - a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and curse. My brothers and sisters, this ought not to be so.

Wow.

In preparation for this past Sunday's three worship services at Shiloh Church, both Bible studies and two discussion groups that I lead dealt with this text. At several of them, we asked what became an important question. We asked, "Can you recall when someone said something that stung you, scarred you, or hurt you more deeply than you thought that words could?" In those settings, every person had a story.

One such story touched us all. A woman at Thursday's Bible study recounted this story: During her teenage years, while in high school, a girl walked with a friend of hers into an event. Her friend was thin and cute. A young man, who stood around the door, was a popular person in the student body. He said to this woman's young friend, "Well, hello, sexy!" He then turned to this young lady and said, "And hello, sexless." As she recounted the story, tears welled up in her eyes and spilled over, running down her cheeks. Even after sixty or more years, that hurt her more than words should be able.

Who has not been wounded by the careless, insesnsitive words of another? Even if they are meant in jest, words cut deeply and result in long-lasting scars. Each of us has been affected.

How often have we considered that what we say may wound others, however? One would think that awareness of the hurtful potential of words would make us more sensitive, more careful, more resistent to speak in ways that might damage others. Since every person has a story about the hurt caused by what others had said to each of us, one would assume that we would become more conscious of the damage that we might do by what we say.

If we are to live like Christ, embracing and embodying the archetype of his Crucifixion and Resurrection, then we are to build others up by sacrificing ourselves. We exalt others by serving them, as a function of our own sacrificial service. This is diametrically opposed to the ways that many of us speak and live. All too often, we seek, instead, to exalt ourselves by insulting, criticizing, making fun of, laughing at the misfortune of, name-calling, epithet sharing and outright cruel and damaging language. Oh, we call it humor or sarcasm. But the bottom line is that we do others damage in order to make ourselves more popular, better liked, more respected, more fun at parties and gatherings. Others laugh. But those about whom comments are made do not laugh. All too often, they are deeply wounded.

In Christ, we are called to use words that build up others - all others. Political correctness is not just empty language that is meant to appease every special interest. It is intentional embodiment of the archetype of Christ, building up persons who have been wounded by ignorant, uncaring, insensitive words.

Take this challenge. Spend a day attending intentionally to the words that we speak. Let no words do harm. Speak only that which builds up those to whom and about whom we speak. Refuse to be critical, to laugh at others, to say unkind things about or to them. See is it does not change the way we feel and think, even about ourselves.

Tuesday, September 08, 2015

Religious Evolution of Weddings

On June 26 of this year the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) publicized a ruling that said that States could no longer constitutionally restrict the marriage rights of same-gender couple. That ruling opened the door for same-gender couples to overcome ages of discrimination, both legal and social, and freed them to engage in the full rights of marriage.

Since that date, I have presided over three same-gender weddings and have a fourth scheduled for later this month. In the mix have been three differently-gendered weddings, with another two scheduled for this month. Here is just part of my preliminary finding.

Firstly, there is no difference in a wedding ceremony for persons of the same or different genders. Aside from some variations in wording, the ceremony works the same. In fact, I find that persons of same genders spend more time in consideration of there parts of a wedding ceremony than do couples of the different genders. This may be a religious and social incident that will, in time, correct itself. For now, however, it is fun to work with couples who seriously consider what the wording of the wedding ceremony means and what impact changes in language may make.

Secondly, the same gender couples with whom I have worked, and will work yet this season, have been in relationship for an average of twenty-two years. One couple has been together for more than thirty years, yet had no marriage rights under the previous law. I met this couple when one member suffered a heart attack. Because I knew them socially, I was asked to intercede with the family to allow the other member of the couple to visit while his partner was hospitalized. Because of their new status under the law, they now have rights that are equal to that of any married couple. These relationships are long-term and stable. Now they share equal rights under the law. Each couple appreciates the equal status that is now granted their commitment and understands their role as first-generation same gender marriages.

Thirdly, we have seen just the tip of the social and religious iceberg that the legalization of same-gender marriage represents. There is a new culture afoot, one that embraces diversity and accepts the differences that humans exhibit. The rules about those who are "in" and those who are "out" are swiftly changing. In fact, the changes have caught much of the religious world off balance. If there is one thing that religious, and social, institutions savor, it is stasis. Institutions and traditions are most comfortable when things are left as they had been. Change throws question on the assumptions upon which those practices, procedures and beliefs were based. When things are left alone, no institution need question its assumptions. Equal marriage rights upset the stasis, both religious and social.

The evolutionary cultural context in which we find ourselves is expressed clearly in SCOTUS' decision. It is expressed in how the institutions, religious and social, embrace the change so demonstrated. It is also marked by those who would seek stasis over progress, those who seek traditional configurations over new avenues and new approaches.

I hope that the weddings that I am doing this season, both those of same gender and differently-gendered couples, exhibit a new course for culture and the Church. I sincerely hope that we are able to embrace the changing culture with openness and enthusiasm, as such change offers the opportunity for religious and social evolution as well.