Change is not welcome. To my personal knowledge, no one likes it. Most of us do nearly anything within our power to resist it. We prefer stasis, reliability, solid foundations upon which we are to store and secure our stuff. When things change, reliability and assumptions fly out the proverbial window. Chaos ensues.There is no control. There is no stability, nothing upon which to safely rely.
There are times, however, when change is good for us and for everyone. This past week's Revised Common Lectionary Gospel text was the Zacchaeus narrative. Zacchaeus knew no grace. He lived a life of demand and supply, collecting taxes for the Roman government in Jericho. He had become rich by collecting more than was owed by the Judaic citizenry. The man cheated others in order to become wealthy. But he was despised. Zacchaeus was a pariah. The mention of his name was accompanied with a sneer, much like the geographically racist term "Samaritan."
When Jesus came through Jericho, on his way to Jerusalem, Zacchaeus was determined to see the embodiment of God's grace. He climbed the now-famous tree. Jesus saw him and called to him. When Zacchaeus ran to Jesus, Jesus embraced him, welcomed him, accepted him. Zacchaeus was not accustomed to such treatment. He encountered grace. As a result, his world changed. Zacchaeus promised, from that moment onward, to give half of everything he owned to the poor and to repay anyone that he had defrauded fourfold. In meeting grace, Zacchaeus becomes grace to, with and in his community.
Apocalyptic works in a similar fashion. Just as Zacchaeus had encountered grace, we begin to corporately and communally imagine a better world, a healthier existence, lives of universal abundance. When we encounter that world as a genuine possibility, we being to shape our behavior according to that world. We change in the process of changing the world in which we live, all in an effort to change the way we live in culture and society.
Zacchaeus changes for the better. He becomes grace in his community. Apocalyptic changes us for the better, compelling us toward a more faithful walk with our Lord. Change can be good. It can be very good!
Which brings me to the point of this week's post. Our culture is in the process of axiomatic change. The old rules no longer apply. The old assumptions no longer hold. The ground upon which we have so reliably stood is shaken and crumbling. According to Phyllis Tickle in her fabulous book, The Great Emergence, such axiomatic cultural shift takes place in human culture every 500 or so years. If the last shift took place in the Great Reformation of the 16th century, then it should come as no surprise to us that one should take place in the 21st.
Since the late 1960's, culture has been shifting. It has been shifting away from authority and power relationships toward egalitarian justice, inclusion, unity and acceptance of diversity. Sectarian kinds, clans, groups, orthodoxies and ilks are being supplanted by the universality of the human condition and the need for mutual support and care. I take this to be a step forward in the cultural evolutionary process, one with which we are uncomfortable still. It pushes us toward sacrifice of privilege and position for the sake of assisting those who lack the power to compete.
In my humble opinion, culture is catching up with Christ. We have evolved to the point of apocalyptic, where we can now exchange one world for the other, where Christ can and may become culture's new reliability and standard for assumption. We can see that such a world is possible. Even though we despise change, we are invited in the process of cultural evolution to embrace it. Maybe it is time that we stop resisting the change and see it as a step forward in our evolution toward Christ.
Monday, October 31, 2016
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Reformation Sunday
This coming Sunday, October 30, is Reformation Sunday. I know. It is just another Sunday in the liturgical calendar that is met with a resounding yawn in our congregations. Who in the world cares about a Reformation that took place in 16th century Europe? What does it matter to us? How does it ease our suffering, calm our pain, or meet our needs?
Perhaps Reformation Sunday is about more than a memory of something that happened long ago, however. Maybe it is an ongoing process, an unfolding evolution, a forest instead of trees. Maybe we can expand our vision and understanding in order to breath new meaning into Reformation Sunday.
The Great Reformation began around 1450, with the invention of the movable type printing press. By the time Martin Luther nailed 95 statements of disagreement with Roman Catholic theology to the doors of a cathedral, in 1517, the die had been cast. People were, for the first time, reading the Bible in the vernacular and would no longer fall for being told that the Bible said things that it simply did not. They were learning to read and interpret it for themselves. Information brought about change. It was change that those who were invested in the Roman Catholic Church despised. Those who protested saw the Reformation as a way out of oppression and into religious liberty.
The time was chaotic. It was upsetting. It shook the foundations of everything about which many were solidly convinced and permanently persuaded. After about a century, the Great Reformation settled into the uncomfortable distinction between Catholic and Protestant. In the Protestant world, denominationalism divided Christian practitioners into schools of arcane orthodoxy and sectarian practice. Some believed some things, while others believed otherwise.
Phyllis Tickle, in her fabulous book, The Great Emergence, saw in the Great Reformation an ongoing cycle of 500 year cataclysmic change. That is, every 500 years, culture had evolved into something other than it had been in the previous 500 years. Her point is, of course, that we are living in the transition of another of those 500 year transitions. We are again evolving, reforming, changing and moving.
The change is uncomfortable for those who have a stake in the configurations of the past 500 years. The term "uncomfortable" is an understatement. The change is uncomfortable like puberty was uncomfortable. The change is akin to having one's chair pulled out from under her or him. It is like building atop a foundation that has shifted, or perhaps one that has disappeared altogether. This next 500 year configuration will undo much of what we had been so completely certain. It will shake our very understandings of the world in which we live.
There is a road map for the transition, however. If we allow ourselves to identify those things of the past 500 year configuration out of which we are transitioning, then we can consciously contemplate their loss. If we can anticipate the new configurations that will shape the coming 500 years, then we can move in those directions. This is Reformation. It is being open to changing the foundations upon which we have relied to ones about which we are uncertain, but hopeful. Reformation is always a move onward from what has been to what is coming.
One additional point. I firmly believe that the cultural evolution in which we have found ourselves since the late 1960's is a positive move toward fulfillment of human spiritual life. The evolutionary process is bringing us nearer blessed, abundant, whole, and healthy human life. It is a step onward in the process of becoming one people under God.
This is Reformation Sunday. Bring it on!
Perhaps Reformation Sunday is about more than a memory of something that happened long ago, however. Maybe it is an ongoing process, an unfolding evolution, a forest instead of trees. Maybe we can expand our vision and understanding in order to breath new meaning into Reformation Sunday.
The Great Reformation began around 1450, with the invention of the movable type printing press. By the time Martin Luther nailed 95 statements of disagreement with Roman Catholic theology to the doors of a cathedral, in 1517, the die had been cast. People were, for the first time, reading the Bible in the vernacular and would no longer fall for being told that the Bible said things that it simply did not. They were learning to read and interpret it for themselves. Information brought about change. It was change that those who were invested in the Roman Catholic Church despised. Those who protested saw the Reformation as a way out of oppression and into religious liberty.
The time was chaotic. It was upsetting. It shook the foundations of everything about which many were solidly convinced and permanently persuaded. After about a century, the Great Reformation settled into the uncomfortable distinction between Catholic and Protestant. In the Protestant world, denominationalism divided Christian practitioners into schools of arcane orthodoxy and sectarian practice. Some believed some things, while others believed otherwise.
Phyllis Tickle, in her fabulous book, The Great Emergence, saw in the Great Reformation an ongoing cycle of 500 year cataclysmic change. That is, every 500 years, culture had evolved into something other than it had been in the previous 500 years. Her point is, of course, that we are living in the transition of another of those 500 year transitions. We are again evolving, reforming, changing and moving.
The change is uncomfortable for those who have a stake in the configurations of the past 500 years. The term "uncomfortable" is an understatement. The change is uncomfortable like puberty was uncomfortable. The change is akin to having one's chair pulled out from under her or him. It is like building atop a foundation that has shifted, or perhaps one that has disappeared altogether. This next 500 year configuration will undo much of what we had been so completely certain. It will shake our very understandings of the world in which we live.
There is a road map for the transition, however. If we allow ourselves to identify those things of the past 500 year configuration out of which we are transitioning, then we can consciously contemplate their loss. If we can anticipate the new configurations that will shape the coming 500 years, then we can move in those directions. This is Reformation. It is being open to changing the foundations upon which we have relied to ones about which we are uncertain, but hopeful. Reformation is always a move onward from what has been to what is coming.
One additional point. I firmly believe that the cultural evolution in which we have found ourselves since the late 1960's is a positive move toward fulfillment of human spiritual life. The evolutionary process is bringing us nearer blessed, abundant, whole, and healthy human life. It is a step onward in the process of becoming one people under God.
This is Reformation Sunday. Bring it on!
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
God Bless America
The most contentious Presidential election of our lifetimes is just days away. After the second Tuesday in November, the electorate will have spoken with its votes. The electoral college will have acted and a new President will have been elected. One might think that the election would signal an end to all the divisiveness and contention. But it may well not do so. The election may only be the beginning of the mess.
If the Obama presidency taught us anything, it might be that the kind of division that we have seen lately between parties, races, genders and economic castes in America can negatively affect the potential of any administration. It does not matter who the President is. If there are powerful segments of Congress and society who are against that President, for whatever reason, the presidency is hampered.
I mean to imply here that the United States is damaged in the divisiveness. It is not just the President who is negatively affected. It is the presidency. It is the Country. Those who are led to so narrow a definition of what it means to be a patriot that they can consider no options outside of their own purview entertain no right outside of their own. Disagreement is not tolerated. Differences are not appreciated, but seen as an attack on one's position. Diversity is not embraced. Those who think, believe, act or look differently are not "us." They are not right. They are wrong. They are bad.
If the American political system is to work, then Americans have to embrace diversity. We have to acknowledge together that no race, gender, economic or political stance, appearance, situation or love life is innately better than any other. Some will have to sacrifice their learned arrogance and positions of power and privilege. Some will have to learn to state their case for the needs of those who have been historically victimized by the systems under which we have lived. The system will not work in any other way.
Therefore, I pray that this election is the beginning of the end of all the vitriol, division, ridiculous and meaningless accusation, media hype, party bias, racial and gender inequality, economic injustice, prejudice and hate. I hope Congress will work effectively with whomever is elected. I hope that we will refer to the person who is elected as either Mr. or Mrs. President. I hope that we will show the incoming President greater respect than we showed Barak Obama. I hope that we will demonstrate a greater sense of our unity than we have over the past eight years.
The analysis of why the past eight years have become so contentious I will leave up to each of you. That is not my issue here. My firm belief is that it simply cannot continue if we are to be a thriving America. So, please, let this election mark an end of our hatred of anything other than our own opinion. Let history show that the period of divisiveness ended with one administration. Let it declare that America learned its lesson and turned itself around to a positive direction.
That miracle begins with each of us. Be conciliatory. Be gracious. Be accepting. Walk a mile in the moccasins of those with whom you might otherwise disagree. Say good and generous things, even when there might be options. Act in ways that build others up, even when we have to go out of our way in doing so. It is this attitude that built America, my friends. And it is this one that will allow us to become the country of our potential.
God Bless America!
If the Obama presidency taught us anything, it might be that the kind of division that we have seen lately between parties, races, genders and economic castes in America can negatively affect the potential of any administration. It does not matter who the President is. If there are powerful segments of Congress and society who are against that President, for whatever reason, the presidency is hampered.
I mean to imply here that the United States is damaged in the divisiveness. It is not just the President who is negatively affected. It is the presidency. It is the Country. Those who are led to so narrow a definition of what it means to be a patriot that they can consider no options outside of their own purview entertain no right outside of their own. Disagreement is not tolerated. Differences are not appreciated, but seen as an attack on one's position. Diversity is not embraced. Those who think, believe, act or look differently are not "us." They are not right. They are wrong. They are bad.
If the American political system is to work, then Americans have to embrace diversity. We have to acknowledge together that no race, gender, economic or political stance, appearance, situation or love life is innately better than any other. Some will have to sacrifice their learned arrogance and positions of power and privilege. Some will have to learn to state their case for the needs of those who have been historically victimized by the systems under which we have lived. The system will not work in any other way.
Therefore, I pray that this election is the beginning of the end of all the vitriol, division, ridiculous and meaningless accusation, media hype, party bias, racial and gender inequality, economic injustice, prejudice and hate. I hope Congress will work effectively with whomever is elected. I hope that we will refer to the person who is elected as either Mr. or Mrs. President. I hope that we will show the incoming President greater respect than we showed Barak Obama. I hope that we will demonstrate a greater sense of our unity than we have over the past eight years.
The analysis of why the past eight years have become so contentious I will leave up to each of you. That is not my issue here. My firm belief is that it simply cannot continue if we are to be a thriving America. So, please, let this election mark an end of our hatred of anything other than our own opinion. Let history show that the period of divisiveness ended with one administration. Let it declare that America learned its lesson and turned itself around to a positive direction.
That miracle begins with each of us. Be conciliatory. Be gracious. Be accepting. Walk a mile in the moccasins of those with whom you might otherwise disagree. Say good and generous things, even when there might be options. Act in ways that build others up, even when we have to go out of our way in doing so. It is this attitude that built America, my friends. And it is this one that will allow us to become the country of our potential.
God Bless America!
Tuesday, October 04, 2016
"antiChrist"
This is less a political statement as it is a spiritual one. However, I imagine the applications may be made in the realm of politics. You will decide and apply for yourselves, as you see fit.
President Obama claimed over the weekend that there are those in the opposing party who think of him as the "antiChrist." I found the term intriguing, especially given the current amount of divisiveness that we are experiencing this season. I thought the term might be an interesting one to examine. What is this "antiChrist?" From whence does the concept come, and how is it to be applied?
The concept of antiChrist comes from the world of apocalyptic literature. Not exclusively biblical in nature, apocalyptic literature promises that the world as we know it will, at some point, be destroyed and a new world, as an improvement to the one that was destroyed, would arise in its place. In biblical apocalyptic, which comprises much of the intertestamental period, between 300 bce and 70 ce, apocalyptic is the realm of an agent, called "Messiah." This Messiah was to usher in an age of ideal human existence, through the process of refinement and purification, where the dross is removed and the valuable fruitfulness of humanity is freed from its base confines.
The agent of apocalyptic destroys what is evil in order to allow the good of humanity to express itself, freely and without opposition. But there is opposition to the world of Messiah. There are those who benefit so greatly from the unjust and inequitable arrangement of the world that they oppose the purification process. They do not want change because they have benefited greatly from present configurations of power and privilege.
In the Christian world, we refer to the agent of apocalyptic with the title, "Christ." The apocalyptic transpires through him and by the actions of those who follow his lead in destroying the injustice, prejudice, greed and hatred of the present age. Those who cling to the systems of advantage, and who work to support those systems, we may then term "antiChrist." These persons wish to retain the evil of the present configuration in order to protect themselves and their interests.
The work of our apocalyptic agent, "Christ," can be defined as the ethical archetype of Crucifixion and Resurrection, where followers seek to embody sacrifice of self in order that others may be exalted. They humble themselves in order to serve others. They work for justice. They strive for equality. They work, tirelessly, for the benefit of all humankind, sacrificing their own benefit in the process.
The antiChrist seeks to protect hegemony, privilege, power advantage, unequal and unfair distributions of goods, position and social bias. The antiChrist cares for himself. (Here I use the male pronoun intentionally, not because all antiChrist characters are male, but because they have enjoyed positions of privilege and power in the current configuration.) The antiChrist sacrifices nothing.
How do apply this short lesson on antiChrist? I leave that up to you. You are very bright. Let me just say that the definition does not apply exclusively to the world of politics or economics. It applies also to relationships, personal and interpersonal. It applies to the ethos that we create in communities, congregations, domestic policies and foreign ones. It is a universal of the human condition.
The bottom line here is obvious, I hope. Human beings can live together in a qualitative condition that reflects the apocalyptic of Christ. We can also live in the social, cultural, interpersonal condition of the antiChrist. It is entirely up to us.So, whether or not we think of President Obama as the antiChrist is irrelevant. It matters whether or not we see ourselves as working for Christ's apocalyptic. It is a matter of choice. What role will we embrace? What title do we embody?
President Obama claimed over the weekend that there are those in the opposing party who think of him as the "antiChrist." I found the term intriguing, especially given the current amount of divisiveness that we are experiencing this season. I thought the term might be an interesting one to examine. What is this "antiChrist?" From whence does the concept come, and how is it to be applied?
The concept of antiChrist comes from the world of apocalyptic literature. Not exclusively biblical in nature, apocalyptic literature promises that the world as we know it will, at some point, be destroyed and a new world, as an improvement to the one that was destroyed, would arise in its place. In biblical apocalyptic, which comprises much of the intertestamental period, between 300 bce and 70 ce, apocalyptic is the realm of an agent, called "Messiah." This Messiah was to usher in an age of ideal human existence, through the process of refinement and purification, where the dross is removed and the valuable fruitfulness of humanity is freed from its base confines.
The agent of apocalyptic destroys what is evil in order to allow the good of humanity to express itself, freely and without opposition. But there is opposition to the world of Messiah. There are those who benefit so greatly from the unjust and inequitable arrangement of the world that they oppose the purification process. They do not want change because they have benefited greatly from present configurations of power and privilege.
In the Christian world, we refer to the agent of apocalyptic with the title, "Christ." The apocalyptic transpires through him and by the actions of those who follow his lead in destroying the injustice, prejudice, greed and hatred of the present age. Those who cling to the systems of advantage, and who work to support those systems, we may then term "antiChrist." These persons wish to retain the evil of the present configuration in order to protect themselves and their interests.
The work of our apocalyptic agent, "Christ," can be defined as the ethical archetype of Crucifixion and Resurrection, where followers seek to embody sacrifice of self in order that others may be exalted. They humble themselves in order to serve others. They work for justice. They strive for equality. They work, tirelessly, for the benefit of all humankind, sacrificing their own benefit in the process.
The antiChrist seeks to protect hegemony, privilege, power advantage, unequal and unfair distributions of goods, position and social bias. The antiChrist cares for himself. (Here I use the male pronoun intentionally, not because all antiChrist characters are male, but because they have enjoyed positions of privilege and power in the current configuration.) The antiChrist sacrifices nothing.
How do apply this short lesson on antiChrist? I leave that up to you. You are very bright. Let me just say that the definition does not apply exclusively to the world of politics or economics. It applies also to relationships, personal and interpersonal. It applies to the ethos that we create in communities, congregations, domestic policies and foreign ones. It is a universal of the human condition.
The bottom line here is obvious, I hope. Human beings can live together in a qualitative condition that reflects the apocalyptic of Christ. We can also live in the social, cultural, interpersonal condition of the antiChrist. It is entirely up to us.So, whether or not we think of President Obama as the antiChrist is irrelevant. It matters whether or not we see ourselves as working for Christ's apocalyptic. It is a matter of choice. What role will we embrace? What title do we embody?
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Spirituality or Politics?
The world of spirituality recognizes the presence of divine spirit in all living things. That world leads to equality, justice and peace.
The world of politics recognizes that one side, one opinion, one set of values and one perspective is right. Any other is wrong. That world leads to divisiveness, degredation, sectarianism and segregation.
Pick in which world you choose to live. Then live in it.
The world of politics recognizes that one side, one opinion, one set of values and one perspective is right. Any other is wrong. That world leads to divisiveness, degredation, sectarianism and segregation.
Pick in which world you choose to live. Then live in it.
Monday, September 19, 2016
Spirituality and Privilege
It was aired on NPR sometime on Sunday, but I cannot be sure of the time or the place that I heard it. I think that I was in the car with my wife, Lisa, driving down to Shiloh's 7:00 p.m. worship service on Sunday evening. It may have been after worship, however. I just can't remember.
I remember the comment, though. It was something like this, "The level of vitriolic anger and rhetorical divisiveness in our culture can be traced to one source. It's white power and privilege being stripped of its hegemony."
Wow! The speaker equates all the anger and divisiveness in our culture with whites who sense that they are losing their advantage over others. What had been taken for granted, claimed as a 'natural' position of privilege, is diminishing. As the culture grows more and more accepting of diversity of every sort, the 'natural' advantage of some over others diminishes and, eventually, disappears. The speaker claimed that this direction is frightening to those who have always held the advantage.
The concept is not new. We have seen the tendency throughout history, even during many of our own lifetimes. As cultures change, there are always factions of the population who see the change as a threat to their privileged position. In my own lifetime, I have seen the religious right (of every religion, by the way) respond negatively to the rise of diversity, acceptance and affirmation of those who differ from the privileged class. Theologies of privilege have grown around the fear of lost position, and culture has been demonized for the diminishing advantage of the former privileged class.
The culture in which we live is changing in ways that alter the foundations upon which some have built position and power. Of course, the changes also affect those who had been victimized by the systems under which we have lived. The course of the developing culture seems to be toward acceptance of diverse races, clans, creeds, religions, sizes, looks, practices and lives. If there had ever been a 'normal' person of power and privilege, that position is now no longer safely grounded in any particular description. The hegemony of certain types, kinds, clans, colors, races, origins, sexual preferences, opinions, values or traditions is disappearing.
The NPR speaker noticed that those who had been privileged are reacting with anger, hatred and violence. The sounds mark the death knell of white privilege and the rise of genuine diversity. It seems to me that this is not far afield of something that the spirituality of Christianity could easily embrace. I think of it as something that we might applaud. This is a positive cultural evolution. The vitriolic anger and rhetorical divisiveness call for cultural reversal. Those voices want the old privilege, position and power back.
Cultural evolution will not be deterred, however. This is becoming a diverse culture, wherein all persons are radically equal in nature. There is no more 'natural' advantage. There is no type, kind, clan or ilk that naturally deserved privileged position.
I believe that we could be celebrating this great good news instead of calling persons names, claiming political correctness run amok, diminishing persons for their opinions or values, or rejecting persons out of hand for their social and political stances. Maybe it has been counter to the presence of God's Spirit all along. Maybe culture is leading our spiritual evolution.
I remember the comment, though. It was something like this, "The level of vitriolic anger and rhetorical divisiveness in our culture can be traced to one source. It's white power and privilege being stripped of its hegemony."
Wow! The speaker equates all the anger and divisiveness in our culture with whites who sense that they are losing their advantage over others. What had been taken for granted, claimed as a 'natural' position of privilege, is diminishing. As the culture grows more and more accepting of diversity of every sort, the 'natural' advantage of some over others diminishes and, eventually, disappears. The speaker claimed that this direction is frightening to those who have always held the advantage.
The concept is not new. We have seen the tendency throughout history, even during many of our own lifetimes. As cultures change, there are always factions of the population who see the change as a threat to their privileged position. In my own lifetime, I have seen the religious right (of every religion, by the way) respond negatively to the rise of diversity, acceptance and affirmation of those who differ from the privileged class. Theologies of privilege have grown around the fear of lost position, and culture has been demonized for the diminishing advantage of the former privileged class.
The culture in which we live is changing in ways that alter the foundations upon which some have built position and power. Of course, the changes also affect those who had been victimized by the systems under which we have lived. The course of the developing culture seems to be toward acceptance of diverse races, clans, creeds, religions, sizes, looks, practices and lives. If there had ever been a 'normal' person of power and privilege, that position is now no longer safely grounded in any particular description. The hegemony of certain types, kinds, clans, colors, races, origins, sexual preferences, opinions, values or traditions is disappearing.
The NPR speaker noticed that those who had been privileged are reacting with anger, hatred and violence. The sounds mark the death knell of white privilege and the rise of genuine diversity. It seems to me that this is not far afield of something that the spirituality of Christianity could easily embrace. I think of it as something that we might applaud. This is a positive cultural evolution. The vitriolic anger and rhetorical divisiveness call for cultural reversal. Those voices want the old privilege, position and power back.
Cultural evolution will not be deterred, however. This is becoming a diverse culture, wherein all persons are radically equal in nature. There is no more 'natural' advantage. There is no type, kind, clan or ilk that naturally deserved privileged position.
I believe that we could be celebrating this great good news instead of calling persons names, claiming political correctness run amok, diminishing persons for their opinions or values, or rejecting persons out of hand for their social and political stances. Maybe it has been counter to the presence of God's Spirit all along. Maybe culture is leading our spiritual evolution.
Monday, September 12, 2016
Mini-Golf Outing
Several times over the past few years, people have asked about an event that runs alongside the Annual Shiloh Church Golf Outing that offers other than golfers an opportunity to participate. My response to these questions has always been the same: Go ahead and plan something. This year, thanks to the leadership of Karyn Sleppy and Casey Sierschula, Shiloh went ahead and did something new, and it was a huge success.
Shiloh's Annual Golf Outing was held in August, raising just over $13,000. Those funds will be used to meet the needs of local families through the upcoming holiday season. In a process that runs through the month of November, families from the community will apply for, be interviewed for, and be awarded funds. Last year, when we raised $10,000, we helped around 80 families. This year, we hope to help somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 families. The business community, personal and family sponsorships, direct contributions, and golfer participation made this kind of support possible.
Karyn and Casey thought that an alternative golf-related activity might allow others to take part in this important community service. Things began to take shape on a Sunday evening, when someone suggested that we do a mini-golf outing. The ladies picked up on the notion and began to make concrete plans. A sign-up sheet was put out, simply to see if people might be interested in participating. More than 50 people registered an interest in such an event. A date was set. Plans were made. Contacts took place. On Saturday, September 10, Shiloh Church held its first annual Mini-Golf Outing.
The event was attended by persons who ranged in age from 4 to over 80. Eleven teams of four persons each played 18 holes of miniature golf at Putter's Par-adise, in Englewood, while others enjoyed chips, dip and pizza on the Patio at T.J. Chumps. Alongside the mini-golf, Karyn and Casey planned a fifty/fifty "guess the number of tees" fund-raiser and an additional opportunity for direct support. The funds raised would join those of our other golf outing to support needy families through the upcoming holidays.
Our winning team, "The Bald and the Beautiful," was made up of Jay, Dawn and Makenzie McMillen, along with the 'uncomfortably coiffed' Todd Fisher. Jay also tied with Bob Schultz for individual medalist honors, completing the course in 45 strokes. Our highest scoring team was "Rawr!" That team featured 4 year old Ora Sherwood, who finished with the greatest individual score. Ora named the team as well.
The success of the event was multi-layered. Everyone had fun in what was a genuinely inter-generational event. A server at Chumps won the fifty/fifty "guess the number of tees" event, and people came to just watch. We actually raised some money. The mini-golf outing will join its $400 plus dollars to the $13,000 from the other golf outing to support needy families, who are the real winners in our outings.
Thanks to the leadership of Karyn and Casey, Shiloh had a great deal of fun and raised funds to support needy families. If you have an idea for a program, project, event or activity at, through or from Shiloh Church, simply float the idea and start planning it. Great things happen when persons answer the call to action by taking initiative for innovative ministries, missions, activities, programs or projects. Let the community help you in answering that call to action.
Shiloh's Annual Golf Outing was held in August, raising just over $13,000. Those funds will be used to meet the needs of local families through the upcoming holiday season. In a process that runs through the month of November, families from the community will apply for, be interviewed for, and be awarded funds. Last year, when we raised $10,000, we helped around 80 families. This year, we hope to help somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 families. The business community, personal and family sponsorships, direct contributions, and golfer participation made this kind of support possible.
Karyn and Casey thought that an alternative golf-related activity might allow others to take part in this important community service. Things began to take shape on a Sunday evening, when someone suggested that we do a mini-golf outing. The ladies picked up on the notion and began to make concrete plans. A sign-up sheet was put out, simply to see if people might be interested in participating. More than 50 people registered an interest in such an event. A date was set. Plans were made. Contacts took place. On Saturday, September 10, Shiloh Church held its first annual Mini-Golf Outing.
The event was attended by persons who ranged in age from 4 to over 80. Eleven teams of four persons each played 18 holes of miniature golf at Putter's Par-adise, in Englewood, while others enjoyed chips, dip and pizza on the Patio at T.J. Chumps. Alongside the mini-golf, Karyn and Casey planned a fifty/fifty "guess the number of tees" fund-raiser and an additional opportunity for direct support. The funds raised would join those of our other golf outing to support needy families through the upcoming holidays.
Our winning team, "The Bald and the Beautiful," was made up of Jay, Dawn and Makenzie McMillen, along with the 'uncomfortably coiffed' Todd Fisher. Jay also tied with Bob Schultz for individual medalist honors, completing the course in 45 strokes. Our highest scoring team was "Rawr!" That team featured 4 year old Ora Sherwood, who finished with the greatest individual score. Ora named the team as well.
The success of the event was multi-layered. Everyone had fun in what was a genuinely inter-generational event. A server at Chumps won the fifty/fifty "guess the number of tees" event, and people came to just watch. We actually raised some money. The mini-golf outing will join its $400 plus dollars to the $13,000 from the other golf outing to support needy families, who are the real winners in our outings.
Thanks to the leadership of Karyn and Casey, Shiloh had a great deal of fun and raised funds to support needy families. If you have an idea for a program, project, event or activity at, through or from Shiloh Church, simply float the idea and start planning it. Great things happen when persons answer the call to action by taking initiative for innovative ministries, missions, activities, programs or projects. Let the community help you in answering that call to action.
Tuesday, September 06, 2016
Language Problems
I received a complaint that followed Sunday's 10:25 message, one that I had heard in a completely unrelated context recently. It seems that some of my language left some people confused and frustrated. I apologized, of course, and tried to explain my use of the terms. But the person who complained was having none of it. She turned and stormed away.
The terms in question were 'discipleship" and "apostleship." The complaint was, "Why do you use terms that no one understands and that, for all anyone knows, mean exactly the same thing?" The other recent complaint was voiced over my use of the term "evangelism" to refer to everything the church does beyond its own doors. I used the term in a proposed judicatory organizational structure. One of my colleagues suggested that the term was too "churchy" and did not carry any connotation of mission or outreach.
Wait. What? Since when does "evangelism" fail to refer to mission or outreach? And since when do "discipleship" and "apostleship" mean the same thing? I work hard to use words carefully, to which even the most ardent protectors of the language can attest. In each case, I believe that I used the terms correctly and with distinct purpose.
Evangelism is everything that those who are called and equipped by God's Holy Spirit do to share the "good news" of Jesus Christ. It includes mission ministries, foreign and domestic, work for justice and peace, prophetic declarations, simple acts of service and assistance, even advertising and marketing. The Church's evangelical work is simply to articulate Christ Jesus in whatever context one finds one's self.
Discipleship is the act of sitting, figuratively at least, at the feet of Jesus, learning, listening, adhering to his teachings. It is letting Jesus care for and about us. It is to be an object of his sacrifice, understanding ourselves as saved by him, led by him, and ever faithful to his example. Through faithful discipleship, we tie ourselves to the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ. It is the Christian indicative. We are disciples of Jesus Christ.
Apostleship is distinct from discipleship. Whereas discipleship is indicative to the Christian identity, apostleship is its imperative. With discipleship, we sit at the feet of Jesus and learn. In our faithful apostleship, we are compelled outward, through the power of God's Holy Spirit, to represent Jesus Christ in what we say and do. We are sent ones, empowered ones, equipped ones, called ones. As communities of called and equipped persons, we represent Jesus Christ in the world.
There is a deeper issue here, however. Religious language, even in its proper and concise usage, is a tremendous problem. The language has been usurped by those who have used the terms as bludgeons or bayonets, to divide the good from the bad, those who are going to Heaven from those who are going to Hell. To use the terms today is risky and open to pretty wide misunderstanding. I find this both sad and challenging. It is sad because we, meaning the alternative Church movement, have allowed some to use our language as weapons against others. It is a challenge because we, again the Progressive Church of Jesus Christ, need to locate and use new terms, in new ways, for very old purposes.
This past Sunday, I attempted to equate discipleship with belief. It remains vital to the practice of the Christian faith. Apostleship, I attempted to say, is the set of actions to which we are called and for which we are empowered. Ironically, perhaps, one can perform faithful apostleship without ever having been a faithful disciples. Discipleship that takes place without an accompanying apostleship is simply philosophy or metaphysics, and accomplishes nothing in the world.
So, what are we called to do in the world? Evangelism, of course.
Rats! There I go again.
We are called to represent Jesus Christ in all that we say and do. I am sorry that the language was confusing. I will continue to work at stating the faith in a more concrete and secular set of terms.
The terms in question were 'discipleship" and "apostleship." The complaint was, "Why do you use terms that no one understands and that, for all anyone knows, mean exactly the same thing?" The other recent complaint was voiced over my use of the term "evangelism" to refer to everything the church does beyond its own doors. I used the term in a proposed judicatory organizational structure. One of my colleagues suggested that the term was too "churchy" and did not carry any connotation of mission or outreach.
Wait. What? Since when does "evangelism" fail to refer to mission or outreach? And since when do "discipleship" and "apostleship" mean the same thing? I work hard to use words carefully, to which even the most ardent protectors of the language can attest. In each case, I believe that I used the terms correctly and with distinct purpose.
Evangelism is everything that those who are called and equipped by God's Holy Spirit do to share the "good news" of Jesus Christ. It includes mission ministries, foreign and domestic, work for justice and peace, prophetic declarations, simple acts of service and assistance, even advertising and marketing. The Church's evangelical work is simply to articulate Christ Jesus in whatever context one finds one's self.
Discipleship is the act of sitting, figuratively at least, at the feet of Jesus, learning, listening, adhering to his teachings. It is letting Jesus care for and about us. It is to be an object of his sacrifice, understanding ourselves as saved by him, led by him, and ever faithful to his example. Through faithful discipleship, we tie ourselves to the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ. It is the Christian indicative. We are disciples of Jesus Christ.
Apostleship is distinct from discipleship. Whereas discipleship is indicative to the Christian identity, apostleship is its imperative. With discipleship, we sit at the feet of Jesus and learn. In our faithful apostleship, we are compelled outward, through the power of God's Holy Spirit, to represent Jesus Christ in what we say and do. We are sent ones, empowered ones, equipped ones, called ones. As communities of called and equipped persons, we represent Jesus Christ in the world.
There is a deeper issue here, however. Religious language, even in its proper and concise usage, is a tremendous problem. The language has been usurped by those who have used the terms as bludgeons or bayonets, to divide the good from the bad, those who are going to Heaven from those who are going to Hell. To use the terms today is risky and open to pretty wide misunderstanding. I find this both sad and challenging. It is sad because we, meaning the alternative Church movement, have allowed some to use our language as weapons against others. It is a challenge because we, again the Progressive Church of Jesus Christ, need to locate and use new terms, in new ways, for very old purposes.
This past Sunday, I attempted to equate discipleship with belief. It remains vital to the practice of the Christian faith. Apostleship, I attempted to say, is the set of actions to which we are called and for which we are empowered. Ironically, perhaps, one can perform faithful apostleship without ever having been a faithful disciples. Discipleship that takes place without an accompanying apostleship is simply philosophy or metaphysics, and accomplishes nothing in the world.
So, what are we called to do in the world? Evangelism, of course.
Rats! There I go again.
We are called to represent Jesus Christ in all that we say and do. I am sorry that the language was confusing. I will continue to work at stating the faith in a more concrete and secular set of terms.
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
Sitting for the Anthem
So, Colin Kaepernick, quaterback of the San Fransisco 49ers, refuses to stand for the playing of the National Anthem, until such a time that the systems under which we live in this country reflect equal protections and securities for people of color. Since refusing to stand, and explaining his actions to the media, Kaepernick has been under brutal attack. People have burned his jersey in a public act of repulsion. He has been called every name in the book - and some that aren't - on social media outlets. Team ownership has been called upon to fire him. Companies have been asked to remove him as an endorsement of their products. Fingers have been pointed at him. Shouts have rung out. Let's all hate Colin Kaepernick.
First things first. I do not agree with Mr. Kaepernick's actions. I do not embrace the act of refusing to stand for the playing of the National Anthem. While I firmly hold that he has a point about racial discrimination as a deeply seeded problem in this country, and while I believe that problem is articulated in nearly every facet of our communal life, I do not believe that Mr. Kaepernick's act will do anything toward resolution. In fact, it has simply driven a wedge.
While I do not believe that Mr. Kaepernick's act will bring positive resolution, and while I see the act as divisive, I defend Mr. Kaepernick's right to make this statement. After all, in that very anthem that Colin Kaepernick decries, we sing "...land of the free and the home of the brave." Firstly, it takes considerable courage for Mr. Keapernick to take this radical stance, or lack of stance, as the case may be. It is a courageous act of social dissidence, whether or not we agree. Secondly, Mr. Kaepernick is well within his rights to respond to the playing of the National Anthem in any way that he sees fit. He is free to do so. He is not free to force anyone else to do as he chooses, of course. Neither, certainly, are we free to demand that he act as we see fit. I have a right to stand in response to the National Anthem, even to place my hand over my heart, if I wish (see previous blog post on Gabby Douglas), but I have no right to demand that others do as I see fit.
I have seen recordings of Colin Kaepernick's act of civil defiance. As I watched him sit through the National Anthem, I took note of his important point. I am convinced that the level of vitriol pointed at Colin Kaepernick reflects a much deeper problem than his simple act of civil demonstration. Racism is a major issue in this country, one with which we must deal openly and frankly. As importantly, however, I think, is the fact that people feel the right and obligation to criticize - even reject - those whose choices differ from their own. If this is the "land of the free," then we have the right to act in the ways that we see fit, but not the right to mandate our ways in the lives of others.
It is ironic, I think, that such hoopla is created in the world of sports. Sports have no intrinsic social or civic value. If we believe that sports teach us team approaches, fairness, honesty, and corporate values and virtues, I would suggest that history has shown as powerfully the exact opposite. The world of sports has taught us privilege, arrogance, dishonesty and lack of virtue as much as it has shown us any positive benefit. Listen to fans of competing teams interact. Be a witness to the way that the world of sports creates a different social stratum, one all-too-often devoid of social responsibility or civic duty. I am aware that there are positive examples as well. It is funny to me, though, that the loudest social statements can be made in the course of an arena so devoid of intrinsic value.
So, before we demand that the 49ers fire Colin Kaepernick, before we demand that his sponsors remove him from endorsing their products, before we burn his jersey in effigy, before we call him names, let's all consider the point(s) that he is making. Let us not extend our own freedoms onto his actions. Let us, instead, put his act of social dissidence into proper perspective, walking a mile in his cleats, watching and listening, even when we might disagree. Perhaps his witness might lead to some new attention being paid to the racial climate in America, the rights of persons to make such bold statements, and the proper place of sports in the national dialogue.
First things first. I do not agree with Mr. Kaepernick's actions. I do not embrace the act of refusing to stand for the playing of the National Anthem. While I firmly hold that he has a point about racial discrimination as a deeply seeded problem in this country, and while I believe that problem is articulated in nearly every facet of our communal life, I do not believe that Mr. Kaepernick's act will do anything toward resolution. In fact, it has simply driven a wedge.
While I do not believe that Mr. Kaepernick's act will bring positive resolution, and while I see the act as divisive, I defend Mr. Kaepernick's right to make this statement. After all, in that very anthem that Colin Kaepernick decries, we sing "...land of the free and the home of the brave." Firstly, it takes considerable courage for Mr. Keapernick to take this radical stance, or lack of stance, as the case may be. It is a courageous act of social dissidence, whether or not we agree. Secondly, Mr. Kaepernick is well within his rights to respond to the playing of the National Anthem in any way that he sees fit. He is free to do so. He is not free to force anyone else to do as he chooses, of course. Neither, certainly, are we free to demand that he act as we see fit. I have a right to stand in response to the National Anthem, even to place my hand over my heart, if I wish (see previous blog post on Gabby Douglas), but I have no right to demand that others do as I see fit.
I have seen recordings of Colin Kaepernick's act of civil defiance. As I watched him sit through the National Anthem, I took note of his important point. I am convinced that the level of vitriol pointed at Colin Kaepernick reflects a much deeper problem than his simple act of civil demonstration. Racism is a major issue in this country, one with which we must deal openly and frankly. As importantly, however, I think, is the fact that people feel the right and obligation to criticize - even reject - those whose choices differ from their own. If this is the "land of the free," then we have the right to act in the ways that we see fit, but not the right to mandate our ways in the lives of others.
It is ironic, I think, that such hoopla is created in the world of sports. Sports have no intrinsic social or civic value. If we believe that sports teach us team approaches, fairness, honesty, and corporate values and virtues, I would suggest that history has shown as powerfully the exact opposite. The world of sports has taught us privilege, arrogance, dishonesty and lack of virtue as much as it has shown us any positive benefit. Listen to fans of competing teams interact. Be a witness to the way that the world of sports creates a different social stratum, one all-too-often devoid of social responsibility or civic duty. I am aware that there are positive examples as well. It is funny to me, though, that the loudest social statements can be made in the course of an arena so devoid of intrinsic value.
So, before we demand that the 49ers fire Colin Kaepernick, before we demand that his sponsors remove him from endorsing their products, before we burn his jersey in effigy, before we call him names, let's all consider the point(s) that he is making. Let us not extend our own freedoms onto his actions. Let us, instead, put his act of social dissidence into proper perspective, walking a mile in his cleats, watching and listening, even when we might disagree. Perhaps his witness might lead to some new attention being paid to the racial climate in America, the rights of persons to make such bold statements, and the proper place of sports in the national dialogue.
Monday, August 22, 2016
Annual Shiloh Golf Outing
It's in the books! Another tremendously successful Golf Outing was held this past Saturday, August 20, at Cassel Hills Golf Club in Vandalia. Despite rains throughout and a 45 minute storm delay, the outing, with a record number of players, was completed before 6:00 p.m. The dinner and auction were held thereafter and were, like the outing itself, a huge success.
Shiloh needs to express its appreciation for the Miami Valley business community, which donated around $5,000 to sponsorships, to members of Shiloh Church, who provided about $4,500 in sponsorships and another $1,500 in direct contributions, for those who attended and took part in the auction, that raised around $1,800, to those who donated, made, or arranged for auction items, and for all who supported the Annual Shiloh Church Golf Outing. Because of your generosity and hard work, more than $13,000 will be dispersed to local needy families through the upcoming holidays. Last year, we raised just over $10,000 and helped about 80 families. This year, we will be able to do even more, maybe providing a holiday blessing to as many as 100 local Miami Valley families.
This is important ministry. It is more important to the families Shiloh assists than it is even to us. The success of the event can be measured by the extent to which we touch the lives of those around us. That is a different measure than money or people or participation. Shiloh directly touches lives through the Shiloh Golf Outing. Each of you touches lives. Your ministry is important to the people who benefit from the Outing.
To ensure the ongoing impact of the Shiloh Golf Outing, your work is just beginning, however. You can continue to lend a hand and increase support for the Outing throughout the year. Here is how. Visit the businesses who support the Shiloh Outing. Tell them that you appreciate their support and that you are there because of their assistance. (A list of supporting businesses appears below.) Thank those who contribute. Let them know that their assistance goes a long way toward the success of the Outing, and is a direct way that Shiloh touches lives. (A list of individual contributors also appears below.)
The mini-golf outing has now been organized as well. On Saturday, September 10, starting at 1:00 p.m. we will gather on the patio at T.J. Chumps in Englewood. From there, teams of four persons will be called to Putter's Par-A-Dise, located behind Chumps, for your tee time. Lowest aggregate team score wins. Pizza and appetizers will be provided. Drinks and other food is at additional cost. Cost of the event is $15.00 per person. All proceeds join those of the Shiloh Golf Outing in support of needy families through the upcoming holidays. We anticipate being done around 4:00 p.m. Sign up now on the Green Table, in teams of four persons. Choose a team name. Then join us on September 10.
A list of those companies that supported the Shiloh Golf Outing:
Johnson Investment Roth and Company
Market Match Dillard Electric
Tony's Italian Kitchen Meijer Englewood
Super Tech Automotive TJ Chumps - Englewood
Diversite' Salon Superior Mechanical
Tobe Lawn Care Copp Integrated Systems
Boord-Henne Insurance Kindred Funeral Home
Architectural Group Sandi's Clothes Encounters
Baker, Hazel & Snider Funeral Home Requarth Lumber
Joseph Airport Toyota Uptown Hair Salon
Beau Townsend Ford The Kid's Institute
Titan Flooring Wings Sports Bar and Grill
Abracadabra Hair Salon Ben Rupp Insurance
TJ Chumps Beavercreek Golf Course
Roosters TGI Fridays
Texas Roadhouse Buffalo Wild Wings - Englewood
Mantra Salon La Fiesta - Clayton
Kroger Marketplace - Englewood Heidelberg Distribution
Outback Steakhouse - Miller Lane BD Mongolian Grill
Republic Services Frickers
Brio Tuscan Grille McCormick & Schmidt's Seafood
Company 7 Barbecue Cincinnati Reds
Old Towne Books Dayton Dragons
Victoria Theater Association Chick-fil-A
Miami Valley Golf Club City of Clayton - Meadowbrook
Pipestone Golf Course Kroger State Liquor Store
North Main Dental
Persons who donated:
Terry Neff and Family Shiloh Church Women's Board
Shelby and Tom Parnell Linda Peterson and Family
Wayne and Bari Bowser Tammy Greenberg & Routson Family
Lou and Dave Tiley Family Women of Shiloh
Tia Smith and Family Kim Hannahan and Family
Connie Neef Randy Zuercher and Family
Carl and Lisa Robinson Laurie Moore
Doris and Tom Murph Lisa and Brian Salata Family
Dale and Jerry Engel Kim and Gary Wachter
Dr. Bob and Zoe Hitner and Family Sue and Roger Cox
Jayne Townsley Ila Ward
Bobbi Harbach Maureen Aukerman
Jeanette and Jim Patton Patti Hines
Judy Peck Casey Sierschula
Ashley Pack Lisa Neff
Marilyn Jones and Family Tom Homes and Family
Jay and Dawn McMillen Matt Weaver and Family
Carl Bomboy Anonymous
A special thanks to Jay McMillen, who did much of the leg work, planning and running of the Annual Shiloh Church Golf Outing. It takes hundreds of small and large investments to make the Outing such a huge success. Thanks to those who golfed. This year's teams scored within nine strokes, ranging from a winning score of 63 and a high number of strokes at 72. Well done, everyone! Shiloh is Living the Word by Serving the World!
Shiloh needs to express its appreciation for the Miami Valley business community, which donated around $5,000 to sponsorships, to members of Shiloh Church, who provided about $4,500 in sponsorships and another $1,500 in direct contributions, for those who attended and took part in the auction, that raised around $1,800, to those who donated, made, or arranged for auction items, and for all who supported the Annual Shiloh Church Golf Outing. Because of your generosity and hard work, more than $13,000 will be dispersed to local needy families through the upcoming holidays. Last year, we raised just over $10,000 and helped about 80 families. This year, we will be able to do even more, maybe providing a holiday blessing to as many as 100 local Miami Valley families.
This is important ministry. It is more important to the families Shiloh assists than it is even to us. The success of the event can be measured by the extent to which we touch the lives of those around us. That is a different measure than money or people or participation. Shiloh directly touches lives through the Shiloh Golf Outing. Each of you touches lives. Your ministry is important to the people who benefit from the Outing.
To ensure the ongoing impact of the Shiloh Golf Outing, your work is just beginning, however. You can continue to lend a hand and increase support for the Outing throughout the year. Here is how. Visit the businesses who support the Shiloh Outing. Tell them that you appreciate their support and that you are there because of their assistance. (A list of supporting businesses appears below.) Thank those who contribute. Let them know that their assistance goes a long way toward the success of the Outing, and is a direct way that Shiloh touches lives. (A list of individual contributors also appears below.)
The mini-golf outing has now been organized as well. On Saturday, September 10, starting at 1:00 p.m. we will gather on the patio at T.J. Chumps in Englewood. From there, teams of four persons will be called to Putter's Par-A-Dise, located behind Chumps, for your tee time. Lowest aggregate team score wins. Pizza and appetizers will be provided. Drinks and other food is at additional cost. Cost of the event is $15.00 per person. All proceeds join those of the Shiloh Golf Outing in support of needy families through the upcoming holidays. We anticipate being done around 4:00 p.m. Sign up now on the Green Table, in teams of four persons. Choose a team name. Then join us on September 10.
A list of those companies that supported the Shiloh Golf Outing:
Johnson Investment Roth and Company
Market Match Dillard Electric
Tony's Italian Kitchen Meijer Englewood
Super Tech Automotive TJ Chumps - Englewood
Diversite' Salon Superior Mechanical
Tobe Lawn Care Copp Integrated Systems
Boord-Henne Insurance Kindred Funeral Home
Architectural Group Sandi's Clothes Encounters
Baker, Hazel & Snider Funeral Home Requarth Lumber
Joseph Airport Toyota Uptown Hair Salon
Beau Townsend Ford The Kid's Institute
Titan Flooring Wings Sports Bar and Grill
Abracadabra Hair Salon Ben Rupp Insurance
TJ Chumps Beavercreek Golf Course
Roosters TGI Fridays
Texas Roadhouse Buffalo Wild Wings - Englewood
Mantra Salon La Fiesta - Clayton
Kroger Marketplace - Englewood Heidelberg Distribution
Outback Steakhouse - Miller Lane BD Mongolian Grill
Republic Services Frickers
Brio Tuscan Grille McCormick & Schmidt's Seafood
Company 7 Barbecue Cincinnati Reds
Old Towne Books Dayton Dragons
Victoria Theater Association Chick-fil-A
Miami Valley Golf Club City of Clayton - Meadowbrook
Pipestone Golf Course Kroger State Liquor Store
North Main Dental
Persons who donated:
Terry Neff and Family Shiloh Church Women's Board
Shelby and Tom Parnell Linda Peterson and Family
Wayne and Bari Bowser Tammy Greenberg & Routson Family
Lou and Dave Tiley Family Women of Shiloh
Tia Smith and Family Kim Hannahan and Family
Connie Neef Randy Zuercher and Family
Carl and Lisa Robinson Laurie Moore
Doris and Tom Murph Lisa and Brian Salata Family
Dale and Jerry Engel Kim and Gary Wachter
Dr. Bob and Zoe Hitner and Family Sue and Roger Cox
Jayne Townsley Ila Ward
Bobbi Harbach Maureen Aukerman
Jeanette and Jim Patton Patti Hines
Judy Peck Casey Sierschula
Ashley Pack Lisa Neff
Marilyn Jones and Family Tom Homes and Family
Jay and Dawn McMillen Matt Weaver and Family
Carl Bomboy Anonymous
A special thanks to Jay McMillen, who did much of the leg work, planning and running of the Annual Shiloh Church Golf Outing. It takes hundreds of small and large investments to make the Outing such a huge success. Thanks to those who golfed. This year's teams scored within nine strokes, ranging from a winning score of 63 and a high number of strokes at 72. Well done, everyone! Shiloh is Living the Word by Serving the World!
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Olympic Bullying
Gabby Douglas represented the United States as a gymnast in the 2012 Summer Olympics. She was accomplished, of course, but, more than that, she was a genuine team player. She appreciated and applauded the accomplishments of every gymnast who competed as a part of her team. Much to the surprise of some who know the gymnastics world, it was something of a shock when Gabby was selected to represent the United States on the 2016 women's gymnastic's team. Her scores were borderline. The determination was made on her attitude, her team approach to gymnastics, and her ability to stand by and support her teammates. To put it bluntly, Gabby Douglas was good for the team.
It is a shame, therefore, that social media critics have recently bullied her. I saw three criticisms. First, after the "Final Five" won the team gold medal, as the National Anthem of the United States was being played, Gabby did not hold her hand over her heart. Her second offense occured while her teammates were competing in all-around and individual event compititions. Apparently, Gabby was not demonstrative enough for her critics. While she applauded her teammates, and while each one claims to have felt her support, people online pitched a fit. The third criticism is simply ridiculous. I mention it here because I saw it on social media. Apparently, Gabby's hair is too straight to please persons in certain communities, yet too "nappy" (their word, not mine) to please others.
For crying out loud. What is wrong with people? Gabby Douglas deserves our respect. Who cares if she placed her hand over her heart during the playing of the National Anthem. This is a free country, folks, and persons can stand and respond however they see fit. It turns out that Gabby comes from a military family, where she had been taught to stand at attention during the playing of the Anthem. She reflected the respect that she had been taught in the way that she had been taught.
Gabby was in the stands and with her team during individual all-around and apparatus competition. Every team member who competed in those events has stated that they received Gabby's support. They knew that she was there and applauding their efforts. I have played team sports and individual ones. Contexts differ and means of support vary. Unless we are in the situation, it is next to impossible to understand its dynamics. I trust that Gabby Douglas, who was on the team, at least in part, because of her ability to compete from a team perspective, supported her teammates in the most appropriate possible manner.
Her hair? Really? The Final Five consisted of two African Americans, a Jewish woman, a woman of Hispanic origin, and a blond, blue-eyed caucasian. The team reflected beautifully what it means to be American. Yet, some will criticize Gabby's hair? Have we not grown up? Can we not accept people for whoever and however they are, especially when they are national heroes? Can we not put aside our biases, judgments, criticisms and negativity even long enough for us to celebrate with all of our gymnastic gold-medal winning team?
While I make these statements in support of Gabby Douglas, I find that they have a far wider scope for application. When given the opportunity to say or write something snarky, choose to refrain from doing so. When gvien the opportunity to tear someone down, in order to support our own opinions, biases, background or prejudices, choose to refrain from doing so. Keep your opinions to yourself. Grow beyond them.
Gabby's mother said in an interview that, in many ways, these attacks have ruined Gabby's Olympic experience. That is shameful! But it is part and parcel of our tendency to criticize, gripe, judge, and tear down other people. I wish we would stop doing that! I apologize to Gabby Douglas, and to all who have had otherwise wonderful experiences destroyed by unreasonable atttitudes and need to write and speak negatively about others. I am embarassed. I am so sorry!
It is a shame, therefore, that social media critics have recently bullied her. I saw three criticisms. First, after the "Final Five" won the team gold medal, as the National Anthem of the United States was being played, Gabby did not hold her hand over her heart. Her second offense occured while her teammates were competing in all-around and individual event compititions. Apparently, Gabby was not demonstrative enough for her critics. While she applauded her teammates, and while each one claims to have felt her support, people online pitched a fit. The third criticism is simply ridiculous. I mention it here because I saw it on social media. Apparently, Gabby's hair is too straight to please persons in certain communities, yet too "nappy" (their word, not mine) to please others.
For crying out loud. What is wrong with people? Gabby Douglas deserves our respect. Who cares if she placed her hand over her heart during the playing of the National Anthem. This is a free country, folks, and persons can stand and respond however they see fit. It turns out that Gabby comes from a military family, where she had been taught to stand at attention during the playing of the Anthem. She reflected the respect that she had been taught in the way that she had been taught.
Gabby was in the stands and with her team during individual all-around and apparatus competition. Every team member who competed in those events has stated that they received Gabby's support. They knew that she was there and applauding their efforts. I have played team sports and individual ones. Contexts differ and means of support vary. Unless we are in the situation, it is next to impossible to understand its dynamics. I trust that Gabby Douglas, who was on the team, at least in part, because of her ability to compete from a team perspective, supported her teammates in the most appropriate possible manner.
Her hair? Really? The Final Five consisted of two African Americans, a Jewish woman, a woman of Hispanic origin, and a blond, blue-eyed caucasian. The team reflected beautifully what it means to be American. Yet, some will criticize Gabby's hair? Have we not grown up? Can we not accept people for whoever and however they are, especially when they are national heroes? Can we not put aside our biases, judgments, criticisms and negativity even long enough for us to celebrate with all of our gymnastic gold-medal winning team?
While I make these statements in support of Gabby Douglas, I find that they have a far wider scope for application. When given the opportunity to say or write something snarky, choose to refrain from doing so. When gvien the opportunity to tear someone down, in order to support our own opinions, biases, background or prejudices, choose to refrain from doing so. Keep your opinions to yourself. Grow beyond them.
Gabby's mother said in an interview that, in many ways, these attacks have ruined Gabby's Olympic experience. That is shameful! But it is part and parcel of our tendency to criticize, gripe, judge, and tear down other people. I wish we would stop doing that! I apologize to Gabby Douglas, and to all who have had otherwise wonderful experiences destroyed by unreasonable atttitudes and need to write and speak negatively about others. I am embarassed. I am so sorry!
Tuesday, August 09, 2016
Evolution of the Kingdom
During the time of the Deuteronomic Old Testament prophets, the people who heard them had been blinded and deafened to God's presence in affluent and comfortable lives. Those people despised the word of God. It attacked their way of life, assaulted their comfort level, and afflicted their compliance with the ways of the world. They did not accept God's will as their way of life. Instead, they clung to empty religious practices that accomplished nothing for those in need but justified their own isolation and insulation from the suffering around them. The people rejected the prophets.
Jesus taught an awakening from the religious practices of his day. Jesus invited followers and authorities to move beyond simple adherence to laws, rules and regulations and invited them to embrace, instead, a new ethic for life. This ethic consisted of intentionally sacrificing one's own advantages and benefits in order that everything a person had may be used to exalt others, particularly those who struggled and suffered. The religious authorities of Jesus' day saw his teachings as attack on their long-held traditions and historical religious identity. Those who sought emancipation from the way life worked, by which they were victimized and because of which they suffered, understood Jesus as a source of liberation. But the typical religious practitioner of Jesus' day hated him and everything for which he stood. The people rejected Jesus.
In the Great Reformation, Luther and others led those who now had the Holy Bible translated into the vernacular to read and study for themselves, and to question the religious authority of their day. The permission created an alternative to authoritarian religious organizations and law-based Christian identity. That authority excluded many. The theology of grace, that Luther and others recovered in the Reformation, seemed like an attack on those who practiced religion from the moral perspective. They hated everything about the Reformation. They were told that it was a threat to their way of life. Those who had a stake in the authoritarian religious traditions rejected the Reformation. Even those who appreciated the theology of grace and the new attitudes toward acceptance and openness carried the Reformation spirit only as far as their organizational roots allowed. They fell beck into denominalism and offered only an alternative brand of orthodox practice. The people rejected the Reformation.
The great societal machine of post-WWII America chugged along fine. Most had a position to fill, a job to do, and roles to play. The roles were sometimes unjust, providing advantage to some while excluding others from its benefits. Then came a stream of literature than seemed to attack life as mid-century America had known it. Books like Brave New World, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, A Clockwork Orange, etc., articulated dissatisfaction with the depersonalizing and unfairness of the great machine. The literature urged readers to dare to step outside of the control and authority, to question and demand the kind of equality and justice that challenged societal structure. Many saw the literature, and the resulting movements, as an attack on "right and proper" ways of living. We are just discovering the lengths to which protectors of 'the establishment' went in defending the systems from those who would dare challenge, question or reject them. Those in power or positions of authority, or those who had a stake in the system, rejected social change.
Since the 1960's, America has joined the rest of the world in what looked like a new cultural evolution. Culture began to move in the direction of acceptance, tolerance, grace, diversity and the rejection of systems and institutions that belonged to the antiquated notions of privilege and sectarian benefit. The world began to change. Black Americans, and others, found their civil rights protected, at least on paper. Equal rights for women have begun to be practiced and protected. Persons who love persons of the same gender were allowed to ratify their relationships in legal marriage. The culture began to work for the benefit of those who had been excluded, rejected or ignored. It began to focus attention on those who had been victimized, disadvantaged or invisible.
The shift has been seen as an attack on people's lives and the 'moral' existence that 'we used to live.' Pockets within religious culture have certainly seen the wider cultural evolutions as attack upon those religious cultures. So much so, in fact, that right wing religious culture, of whatever faith tradition, has tried to pull culture back into a previous articulation. Sometimes, those attempts have been subtle. Sometimes, they have been anything but subtle. Ask the teenage girl who was shot in the head for pursuing education for young girls, or those victimized by extremists. The acts of religious protectionism have been brutal, violent, angry and increasingly wide-spread. There is an increase in name-calling, hatred, and vitriol of every fashion, fueled by attempts to turn culture from the course of its current evolutionary process.
The fact is, we would be better off if we would listen to the Dueteronomic prophets. We would benefit from fully embracing Jesus. Our world would be a different place if we were to seek out the Reformation theology of grace. We would be wise to heed literature that assesses the depersonalization of the great societal machines. We would protect the well being of every person if we could give up the old segregationist practices of the past and press on to the greater virtues of acceptance, toleration, affirmation, compassion and love. If it all seems like an attack on our lives, then maybe we need to spend some time assessing how it is that we fit into the inevitability of cultural evolution, as we move toward the fulfillment of the promise of Jesus Christ as a way of life.
Change is never painless or easy. It is inevitable and positive, however. We are moving toward that kingdom. Let's 'keep on truckin'.'
Jesus taught an awakening from the religious practices of his day. Jesus invited followers and authorities to move beyond simple adherence to laws, rules and regulations and invited them to embrace, instead, a new ethic for life. This ethic consisted of intentionally sacrificing one's own advantages and benefits in order that everything a person had may be used to exalt others, particularly those who struggled and suffered. The religious authorities of Jesus' day saw his teachings as attack on their long-held traditions and historical religious identity. Those who sought emancipation from the way life worked, by which they were victimized and because of which they suffered, understood Jesus as a source of liberation. But the typical religious practitioner of Jesus' day hated him and everything for which he stood. The people rejected Jesus.
In the Great Reformation, Luther and others led those who now had the Holy Bible translated into the vernacular to read and study for themselves, and to question the religious authority of their day. The permission created an alternative to authoritarian religious organizations and law-based Christian identity. That authority excluded many. The theology of grace, that Luther and others recovered in the Reformation, seemed like an attack on those who practiced religion from the moral perspective. They hated everything about the Reformation. They were told that it was a threat to their way of life. Those who had a stake in the authoritarian religious traditions rejected the Reformation. Even those who appreciated the theology of grace and the new attitudes toward acceptance and openness carried the Reformation spirit only as far as their organizational roots allowed. They fell beck into denominalism and offered only an alternative brand of orthodox practice. The people rejected the Reformation.
The great societal machine of post-WWII America chugged along fine. Most had a position to fill, a job to do, and roles to play. The roles were sometimes unjust, providing advantage to some while excluding others from its benefits. Then came a stream of literature than seemed to attack life as mid-century America had known it. Books like Brave New World, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, A Clockwork Orange, etc., articulated dissatisfaction with the depersonalizing and unfairness of the great machine. The literature urged readers to dare to step outside of the control and authority, to question and demand the kind of equality and justice that challenged societal structure. Many saw the literature, and the resulting movements, as an attack on "right and proper" ways of living. We are just discovering the lengths to which protectors of 'the establishment' went in defending the systems from those who would dare challenge, question or reject them. Those in power or positions of authority, or those who had a stake in the system, rejected social change.
Since the 1960's, America has joined the rest of the world in what looked like a new cultural evolution. Culture began to move in the direction of acceptance, tolerance, grace, diversity and the rejection of systems and institutions that belonged to the antiquated notions of privilege and sectarian benefit. The world began to change. Black Americans, and others, found their civil rights protected, at least on paper. Equal rights for women have begun to be practiced and protected. Persons who love persons of the same gender were allowed to ratify their relationships in legal marriage. The culture began to work for the benefit of those who had been excluded, rejected or ignored. It began to focus attention on those who had been victimized, disadvantaged or invisible.
The shift has been seen as an attack on people's lives and the 'moral' existence that 'we used to live.' Pockets within religious culture have certainly seen the wider cultural evolutions as attack upon those religious cultures. So much so, in fact, that right wing religious culture, of whatever faith tradition, has tried to pull culture back into a previous articulation. Sometimes, those attempts have been subtle. Sometimes, they have been anything but subtle. Ask the teenage girl who was shot in the head for pursuing education for young girls, or those victimized by extremists. The acts of religious protectionism have been brutal, violent, angry and increasingly wide-spread. There is an increase in name-calling, hatred, and vitriol of every fashion, fueled by attempts to turn culture from the course of its current evolutionary process.
The fact is, we would be better off if we would listen to the Dueteronomic prophets. We would benefit from fully embracing Jesus. Our world would be a different place if we were to seek out the Reformation theology of grace. We would be wise to heed literature that assesses the depersonalization of the great societal machines. We would protect the well being of every person if we could give up the old segregationist practices of the past and press on to the greater virtues of acceptance, toleration, affirmation, compassion and love. If it all seems like an attack on our lives, then maybe we need to spend some time assessing how it is that we fit into the inevitability of cultural evolution, as we move toward the fulfillment of the promise of Jesus Christ as a way of life.
Change is never painless or easy. It is inevitable and positive, however. We are moving toward that kingdom. Let's 'keep on truckin'.'
Monday, August 01, 2016
The Interface of Persons of Faith and Politics
I whole-heartedly embrace the Constitutional stance on the separation of Church and State. I also believe, however, that the concept may mean something other than how we have applied it to the interface of faith and politics.
As I understand it, the separation of Church and State in the United States Constitution guarantees that there shall be no establishment of an official United States religion, and that no person should be coerced by the government into any particular religion's practices. The American system was founded on religious liberties. Coming, as it had, from a system of religious hegemony, where a particular religion was required by the government, the statement of religious liberty was key to those who formed the American governmental system.
Frankly, I would not want to live in a system that required the practice of any particular religion, even mine. Unfortunately, this is not the way that many have practiced the American separation of Church and State. Some practitioners of my own religious heritage have demanded that the system was created by "Christian men, according to Christian principles." This designation is intended, in its application, to claim that the American Constitutional system favors those who practice Christianity.
Honestly, I do not know the religious status of each of those who might lat claim to being a "founding father." I do know that the system was founded on the philosophies of John Locke, and are intended to remain non-religious in both inception and application. The founding principle was, instead, the ownership and protection of property. Our Constitutional system is economic instead of religious. The American system was founded in such a way that no religion could impact ownership of property and the conduct of authority that accompanied it.
The American system is therefore not Christian. The Constitution guarantees that no such distinction could possibly be intended or inferred. Religious liberty formed the foundation of the separation of Church and State in America. That does not mean, however, that there is no dialogue between persons of faith and the government. Quite the contrary, in fact. The promise of religious liberty, guaranteed by the Constitution, allows every person the right and obligation to apply her or his liberties to the demands and expectations that he or she places on the government that represents her or him. Each persons has the right and obligation to ask that the government reflect the ethics of whatever faith that person practices.
While there is a clear separation of Church and State, guaranteed in the United States Constitution, there is also a protected exercise of the religious liberties that form the ethical basis of interaction between the government and those same religious liberties. Faithful men and women, of whatever faith, are obligated to exercise their religious liberties in interaction with the government. Every faith has equal access and equal voice. No religion has more power or authority than any other. This does not free Americans from the exercise of their religious liberties, however. Each person votes her or his conscience. Each person is permitted to act from the foundations of whatever religious principles drive them.
This is good. While some may consider it an attack on Christian principles, I see it, instead, as permission to act from the religious principles of Christianity in relationship with the government, politics, and the systems under which we live as Americans. Instead of arguing the point of Constitutional Christian hegemony, perhaps we could spend our time asking what ethical principles we might demand of our government, our representatives, our systems and ourselves. Since the ethical core of most, if not all, of the world's religious traditions rests in the sacrifice of the self in service to others, then our government, politics and systems benefit from the interaction, as do those who have previously suffered and struggled against them.
The interface between persons of faith, of whatever faith, and the government, politics and systems under which we live is crucial for those who have been victimized, excluded, rejected, even advantaged, by those same systems. That is what is guaranteed by The United States Constitution, as I understand it. That is what is better for all and each of us in the conduct of the religious liberties, so granted and guaranteed.
As I understand it, the separation of Church and State in the United States Constitution guarantees that there shall be no establishment of an official United States religion, and that no person should be coerced by the government into any particular religion's practices. The American system was founded on religious liberties. Coming, as it had, from a system of religious hegemony, where a particular religion was required by the government, the statement of religious liberty was key to those who formed the American governmental system.
Frankly, I would not want to live in a system that required the practice of any particular religion, even mine. Unfortunately, this is not the way that many have practiced the American separation of Church and State. Some practitioners of my own religious heritage have demanded that the system was created by "Christian men, according to Christian principles." This designation is intended, in its application, to claim that the American Constitutional system favors those who practice Christianity.
Honestly, I do not know the religious status of each of those who might lat claim to being a "founding father." I do know that the system was founded on the philosophies of John Locke, and are intended to remain non-religious in both inception and application. The founding principle was, instead, the ownership and protection of property. Our Constitutional system is economic instead of religious. The American system was founded in such a way that no religion could impact ownership of property and the conduct of authority that accompanied it.
The American system is therefore not Christian. The Constitution guarantees that no such distinction could possibly be intended or inferred. Religious liberty formed the foundation of the separation of Church and State in America. That does not mean, however, that there is no dialogue between persons of faith and the government. Quite the contrary, in fact. The promise of religious liberty, guaranteed by the Constitution, allows every person the right and obligation to apply her or his liberties to the demands and expectations that he or she places on the government that represents her or him. Each persons has the right and obligation to ask that the government reflect the ethics of whatever faith that person practices.
While there is a clear separation of Church and State, guaranteed in the United States Constitution, there is also a protected exercise of the religious liberties that form the ethical basis of interaction between the government and those same religious liberties. Faithful men and women, of whatever faith, are obligated to exercise their religious liberties in interaction with the government. Every faith has equal access and equal voice. No religion has more power or authority than any other. This does not free Americans from the exercise of their religious liberties, however. Each person votes her or his conscience. Each person is permitted to act from the foundations of whatever religious principles drive them.
This is good. While some may consider it an attack on Christian principles, I see it, instead, as permission to act from the religious principles of Christianity in relationship with the government, politics, and the systems under which we live as Americans. Instead of arguing the point of Constitutional Christian hegemony, perhaps we could spend our time asking what ethical principles we might demand of our government, our representatives, our systems and ourselves. Since the ethical core of most, if not all, of the world's religious traditions rests in the sacrifice of the self in service to others, then our government, politics and systems benefit from the interaction, as do those who have previously suffered and struggled against them.
The interface between persons of faith, of whatever faith, and the government, politics and systems under which we live is crucial for those who have been victimized, excluded, rejected, even advantaged, by those same systems. That is what is guaranteed by The United States Constitution, as I understand it. That is what is better for all and each of us in the conduct of the religious liberties, so granted and guaranteed.
Monday, July 25, 2016
Here is What I Don't Get
Here is what I do not get.
Why is the posting of a statement that supports "Black Lives Matter," and a call for eliminating racial bias on our streets, seen as an attack on the lives and safety of first responders? I do not understand the flip-side of that coin either. Why is a statement that supports first responders seen as an attack on black Americans?
I happen to support both those movements. I believe that Black Lives Matter. American culture has shamefully treated black Americans. It had been an historically broken relationship. As a friend of mine recently posted on Facebook: When one goes to a doctor for a broken ulna, it is irrelevant to that situation that all bones are important. It is the ulna that is broken. It alone requires special attention. The treatment of black Americans in our culture currently requires special attention. Black Lives Matter!
That statement does not mean that the lives and safety of first responders, police officers, paramedics, or other care-givers should be imperiled. As a society, we have got to honor those who put their lives on the line to protect us and act to save us from tragedy. Every man or woman who puts him or herself on the line for others is to be honored, respected and highly valued. As a society, we should pay them better and protect them more fully for what they do for us.
I respect and honor first responders. I believe that we can all embrace Black Lives Matter. I do not see one at the exclusion of the other. Interestingly, I think that the divisive and exclusionary emotion is fueled by media, hyperbole, destructive political and economic rhetoric, that is inteded to drive a wedge between the two communities.
Driving a wedge between those who support and protect the lives and safety of first responders and those who claim Black Lives Matter seems like an intentional act of hatred and violence. It is intentionally divisive, destructive, exclusionary and segregationist. To pit one of these statements against the other is unfair, narrow-minded and dogmatic. To pit people who makes these statements against one another is judgmental, critical and destructive.
Who is so passionate about destroying our health as a nation that they divide those who stand for the safety of first responders from those who demand that Black Lives Matter? I, for one, hold that both of those statements are worthy of our attention and dedication. One statement is not made to the exclusion of the other. Why are we being told that they do? Why can we not stand up for both the safety and respect due those who endanger themselves for our communal sake and those who have been historically victimized in our culture?
I stand for the safety and respect of our first responders. I also stand for Black Lives Matter. Do not tell me that I do not support both camps. I do. Those who engage in violence, whether in act or in rhetoric divide, destroy, segregate, and exclude. Why can we not stand for both those truths? Why can we not support both statements? What is wrong with a unified approach that fixes society's wrongs, while upholding those who work hardest to protect us?
The only solution to our societal ills is to be unified in their healing. It does not help the situation to divide ourselves into one camp or the other. In fact, division only begs the violence that further destoys us.
Stop it!
Why is the posting of a statement that supports "Black Lives Matter," and a call for eliminating racial bias on our streets, seen as an attack on the lives and safety of first responders? I do not understand the flip-side of that coin either. Why is a statement that supports first responders seen as an attack on black Americans?
I happen to support both those movements. I believe that Black Lives Matter. American culture has shamefully treated black Americans. It had been an historically broken relationship. As a friend of mine recently posted on Facebook: When one goes to a doctor for a broken ulna, it is irrelevant to that situation that all bones are important. It is the ulna that is broken. It alone requires special attention. The treatment of black Americans in our culture currently requires special attention. Black Lives Matter!
That statement does not mean that the lives and safety of first responders, police officers, paramedics, or other care-givers should be imperiled. As a society, we have got to honor those who put their lives on the line to protect us and act to save us from tragedy. Every man or woman who puts him or herself on the line for others is to be honored, respected and highly valued. As a society, we should pay them better and protect them more fully for what they do for us.
I respect and honor first responders. I believe that we can all embrace Black Lives Matter. I do not see one at the exclusion of the other. Interestingly, I think that the divisive and exclusionary emotion is fueled by media, hyperbole, destructive political and economic rhetoric, that is inteded to drive a wedge between the two communities.
Driving a wedge between those who support and protect the lives and safety of first responders and those who claim Black Lives Matter seems like an intentional act of hatred and violence. It is intentionally divisive, destructive, exclusionary and segregationist. To pit one of these statements against the other is unfair, narrow-minded and dogmatic. To pit people who makes these statements against one another is judgmental, critical and destructive.
Who is so passionate about destroying our health as a nation that they divide those who stand for the safety of first responders from those who demand that Black Lives Matter? I, for one, hold that both of those statements are worthy of our attention and dedication. One statement is not made to the exclusion of the other. Why are we being told that they do? Why can we not stand up for both the safety and respect due those who endanger themselves for our communal sake and those who have been historically victimized in our culture?
I stand for the safety and respect of our first responders. I also stand for Black Lives Matter. Do not tell me that I do not support both camps. I do. Those who engage in violence, whether in act or in rhetoric divide, destroy, segregate, and exclude. Why can we not stand for both those truths? Why can we not support both statements? What is wrong with a unified approach that fixes society's wrongs, while upholding those who work hardest to protect us?
The only solution to our societal ills is to be unified in their healing. It does not help the situation to divide ourselves into one camp or the other. In fact, division only begs the violence that further destoys us.
Stop it!
Monday, July 18, 2016
Representational Incarnation
The concept of 'representational incarnation,' as the cornerstone of progressive church theology, escapes most of us. It is a pretty fancy term, though its underlying conception is sinple. Let me see if I can't put it into more directly applicable terms.
Shiloh's theme for the season after Pentecost this cycle has been "Christian vocation is representational incarnation." Put more bluntly, we are the body of Christ. We are his physical representatives on earth, and our responsibility to him is to represent his faithful sacrifice with our own. We embody him.
The theme immediately begs two questions. Firstly, if we are the body of Christ, responsible for representing Christ in the world. who, then, is "we?"The answer is provided, as most every theological answer we face is, in the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ Jesus. Since Christ's sacrifice is effective and applicable for every person, then Christian vocation belongs to every person as well.Every person is part of the body of Christ, responsible for representing him on earth. Before we run too far afield, wondering if Muslims or Jews or Buddhists are included in the Christian vocation, I suppose that we need to better define that vocation. Christian vocation is to represent what Christ did in our own actions. Now, what Christ did is sacrifice himself for the benefit of every other. I firmly believe this act to be at the core of every world religion. The act of Christ unifies us all, despite the differences in words, practice and applications of our religious heritages. Therefore, the "we" of representational incarnation belongs to each of us. We are all called upon to sacrifice for the benefit of the other.
Secondly, if Christian vocation is representational incarnation, how is it that we come to represent Christ in sacrificing self for the sake of the other? Who would do that? Does not doing so fly in the face of everything that culture teaches us about individuality and personhood? Exactly the point! Working for ourselves has led to divisiveness, segregation, targeted and limited responsibility and sectarian violence, where 'we' protect what is 'ours' from 'those' and 'them,' who seek to make 'ours' theirs.' The only means of correcting the destructive paths of human culture is to embody the self-sacrificial Christ that lies at the core of everything that good spirituality, of whatever religious tradition, might call virtuous.Humanity practices that virtue in the power and presence of God's Spirit. The Spirit empowers, equips and enables us to live according to divine will. The Spirit compels us in self-sacrifice that benefits the other...all others.
Christian vocation is representational incarnation. Every person in empowered, equipped and enabled by God's Holy Spirit to reflect Christ's self-sacrifice in relationship to every other person. It is precisely in this universal vocation that we are unified. It is by it that humanity lives divine will on earth. Two things are necessary: 1. Discovering Christ and discerning opportunities for application of his ethic and, 2. Doing the work by which Christ's self-sacrifice is embodied. It does no one any good whatsoever to accomplish the first without engaging intentionally in the second. It makes as little sense to attempt the second without taking seriously the first. The two tasks must be held in balance, in a constant and continual process of learning and application.
Killings will continue to take place. Violence will continue to be reported. Hate will continue to spread, until we learn to live according to Christ's simple ethic, one that is reflected at the core of every religious tradition. The cure to our societal ills is simple, really, except in application. We, and that is every we, can practice the self-sacrifing vocation shown us in Christ, embodying acts that intentionally benefit every other.
Representational incarnation flies in the face of societal norms. But those norms have led to divisiveness, segregation, sectarian violence, and pocketed hatred, where we have learned to label, exclude, reject, criticize, and judge. It is time for us to embrace our vocation, repairing the damage done by embodying Christ's self-sacrifice. Two steps: 1. Discover Christ and 2. Do Christ's work.
Shiloh's theme for the season after Pentecost this cycle has been "Christian vocation is representational incarnation." Put more bluntly, we are the body of Christ. We are his physical representatives on earth, and our responsibility to him is to represent his faithful sacrifice with our own. We embody him.
The theme immediately begs two questions. Firstly, if we are the body of Christ, responsible for representing Christ in the world. who, then, is "we?"The answer is provided, as most every theological answer we face is, in the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ Jesus. Since Christ's sacrifice is effective and applicable for every person, then Christian vocation belongs to every person as well.Every person is part of the body of Christ, responsible for representing him on earth. Before we run too far afield, wondering if Muslims or Jews or Buddhists are included in the Christian vocation, I suppose that we need to better define that vocation. Christian vocation is to represent what Christ did in our own actions. Now, what Christ did is sacrifice himself for the benefit of every other. I firmly believe this act to be at the core of every world religion. The act of Christ unifies us all, despite the differences in words, practice and applications of our religious heritages. Therefore, the "we" of representational incarnation belongs to each of us. We are all called upon to sacrifice for the benefit of the other.
Secondly, if Christian vocation is representational incarnation, how is it that we come to represent Christ in sacrificing self for the sake of the other? Who would do that? Does not doing so fly in the face of everything that culture teaches us about individuality and personhood? Exactly the point! Working for ourselves has led to divisiveness, segregation, targeted and limited responsibility and sectarian violence, where 'we' protect what is 'ours' from 'those' and 'them,' who seek to make 'ours' theirs.' The only means of correcting the destructive paths of human culture is to embody the self-sacrificial Christ that lies at the core of everything that good spirituality, of whatever religious tradition, might call virtuous.Humanity practices that virtue in the power and presence of God's Spirit. The Spirit empowers, equips and enables us to live according to divine will. The Spirit compels us in self-sacrifice that benefits the other...all others.
Christian vocation is representational incarnation. Every person in empowered, equipped and enabled by God's Holy Spirit to reflect Christ's self-sacrifice in relationship to every other person. It is precisely in this universal vocation that we are unified. It is by it that humanity lives divine will on earth. Two things are necessary: 1. Discovering Christ and discerning opportunities for application of his ethic and, 2. Doing the work by which Christ's self-sacrifice is embodied. It does no one any good whatsoever to accomplish the first without engaging intentionally in the second. It makes as little sense to attempt the second without taking seriously the first. The two tasks must be held in balance, in a constant and continual process of learning and application.
Killings will continue to take place. Violence will continue to be reported. Hate will continue to spread, until we learn to live according to Christ's simple ethic, one that is reflected at the core of every religious tradition. The cure to our societal ills is simple, really, except in application. We, and that is every we, can practice the self-sacrifing vocation shown us in Christ, embodying acts that intentionally benefit every other.
Representational incarnation flies in the face of societal norms. But those norms have led to divisiveness, segregation, sectarian violence, and pocketed hatred, where we have learned to label, exclude, reject, criticize, and judge. It is time for us to embrace our vocation, repairing the damage done by embodying Christ's self-sacrifice. Two steps: 1. Discover Christ and 2. Do Christ's work.
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
What Can We Do?
I have been asked recently, more times than I can count, in response to police violence against black persons, the killing of police officers in Dallas and elsewhere, and the growing racial tensions in our society, "What can we do?" The answer, much to the disappointment of some of my colleagues and friends, is NOT JUST prayer.
Note, please, that I write that the answer lies NOT JUST in prayer. Prayer is important, especially if we ask in it for God's guidance and wisdom, seeking direction and purpose, and shutting up long enough to listen for a divine response. The Spirit in us will direct us, if we are willing to put it to work in accomplishing God's will. So, prayer is important. But it alone will not solve the problems of racial injustice or social discord. In order to impact those social ills, we will have to do far more than just prayer.
When I make this response to the question,"What can we do?" I see disappointment and frustration on the face and body language of those who dare to ask. The truth is that there is no magic elixir, no magical liturgy, no articulate prayer, no hymn, no incantation, no belief system that puts and end to racially motivated social injustice. The only practical response to the social problems that we face are the active practice of their opposites.
Here is the assumption that I make. I assume that much of the violence and hatred that we are experiencing is an unconscious attempt to pull the cultural evolution that has been moving toward acceptance, tolerance, and embrace of diversity, taking place since 1968, or so, back into the prior segregationist, divisive, stratified culture of 1950's America. Fear of the other is disappearing in the developing cultural ethos. Acceptance of persons who live differently is expanding and deepening. Personal and social responsibility for a vast array of persons is becoming commonplace. We are learning to tolerate, affirm, love and accept those who are unlike whatever "us" we claim.
That challenge has proven too large for some who cling to previous models of exclusivity, on both ends of the social spetrum. For some who have been privileged, it has proven to threaten that privilege. For some who have been victimized, it has removed justification for orienting one's self as deserving special treatment or special attention. The response of those few has been hate-filled and violent. They are protecting the way of life that they have come to accept and appreciate.
Notice, please, that I did not claim that all persons of privilege feel or react with hate and violence. Notice also, please, that I did not write that all persons who are victimized have responded with hatred and violence. In both cases, it has been a relatively small population. But the hate-fueled, violent, responses have been so powerful, that they must not be ignored. They must not be justified.
The only real option is for the vast majority of persons to act in such a way that hastens the evolutionary process toward acceptance, toleration, diversity, and mutual responsibility. To put the answer to the question, "What can we do?" more succinctly, we can borrow from recent Common Lectionary scriptures to say "Love your neighbor as yourself." If the vast majority of Americans lived according to this seemingly simple ethic, then the cultural evolution toward peace, compassion, and unity would be promoted. We would hasten the evolutionary process, putting an end to the violence and hate that seek to pull American culture backward.
So, what can we do? We can act according to the core ethic of every world religion and every spiritual principle. We can go out of our way for one another, sacrifing our own claims to "us," and accepting that every person is potentially our neighbor, our brother, our sister, our friend. By doing so, we quite literally and practically change the world in which we live. We engage in transformative ministry. We change lives.
"Do that." Jesus said to the lawyer who had challenged him, "and you will really, truly, completely live."
Note, please, that I write that the answer lies NOT JUST in prayer. Prayer is important, especially if we ask in it for God's guidance and wisdom, seeking direction and purpose, and shutting up long enough to listen for a divine response. The Spirit in us will direct us, if we are willing to put it to work in accomplishing God's will. So, prayer is important. But it alone will not solve the problems of racial injustice or social discord. In order to impact those social ills, we will have to do far more than just prayer.
When I make this response to the question,"What can we do?" I see disappointment and frustration on the face and body language of those who dare to ask. The truth is that there is no magic elixir, no magical liturgy, no articulate prayer, no hymn, no incantation, no belief system that puts and end to racially motivated social injustice. The only practical response to the social problems that we face are the active practice of their opposites.
Here is the assumption that I make. I assume that much of the violence and hatred that we are experiencing is an unconscious attempt to pull the cultural evolution that has been moving toward acceptance, tolerance, and embrace of diversity, taking place since 1968, or so, back into the prior segregationist, divisive, stratified culture of 1950's America. Fear of the other is disappearing in the developing cultural ethos. Acceptance of persons who live differently is expanding and deepening. Personal and social responsibility for a vast array of persons is becoming commonplace. We are learning to tolerate, affirm, love and accept those who are unlike whatever "us" we claim.
That challenge has proven too large for some who cling to previous models of exclusivity, on both ends of the social spetrum. For some who have been privileged, it has proven to threaten that privilege. For some who have been victimized, it has removed justification for orienting one's self as deserving special treatment or special attention. The response of those few has been hate-filled and violent. They are protecting the way of life that they have come to accept and appreciate.
Notice, please, that I did not claim that all persons of privilege feel or react with hate and violence. Notice also, please, that I did not write that all persons who are victimized have responded with hatred and violence. In both cases, it has been a relatively small population. But the hate-fueled, violent, responses have been so powerful, that they must not be ignored. They must not be justified.
The only real option is for the vast majority of persons to act in such a way that hastens the evolutionary process toward acceptance, toleration, diversity, and mutual responsibility. To put the answer to the question, "What can we do?" more succinctly, we can borrow from recent Common Lectionary scriptures to say "Love your neighbor as yourself." If the vast majority of Americans lived according to this seemingly simple ethic, then the cultural evolution toward peace, compassion, and unity would be promoted. We would hasten the evolutionary process, putting an end to the violence and hate that seek to pull American culture backward.
So, what can we do? We can act according to the core ethic of every world religion and every spiritual principle. We can go out of our way for one another, sacrifing our own claims to "us," and accepting that every person is potentially our neighbor, our brother, our sister, our friend. By doing so, we quite literally and practically change the world in which we live. We engage in transformative ministry. We change lives.
"Do that." Jesus said to the lawyer who had challenged him, "and you will really, truly, completely live."
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
God's Plan?
I have heard it more recently than I had for a very long time, variations on the theme, "God has a plan." Some people say that everything happens for a reason. Some claim that they "can see God's hand in it." Some well-intentioned supporters say to those who are struggling and suffering, "God never gives you more than you can handle."
Don't worry, it's all part of God's plan. I heard it recently through the death of a mother's son. In the receiving line at his funeral reception, people were intending support. With the floods in Texas and West Virginia, as well as the fires in California and other western states. Not to worry...God's got this. A young woman friend recently broke up with a boyfriend of two years. No problem. Everything happens for a reason. With the tragic events in Orlando, and its aftermath, some were claiming it as part of God's plan, maybe vengeance.
I find it all a bit facile. It's all part of God's plan. Everything happens for a reason. Don't worry, God's got this. It will all work out in the end. Believe in God. Trust God. Pray this prayer. Offer this incantation. Utter this liturgy. Go to church. Be a good person. God rewards those who do God's will and punishes those who do wrong. What goes around comes around. Karma is a bitch.
I do not know if there is a thing that we can call "God's plan." If there is, we certainly are not in on it. Here is what I do know. It is cruel to say to parents who have just lost their infant child that everything will turn out okay because it is all part of God's plan. It is unkind to say to a mother who has just lost a son that God will fix this in the long run. It is ludicrous to tell those who are victimized by disasters, whether of natural or human origin, that this is all part and parcel of God's unfolding plan for us. It is an injustice to hold that some deserve their mansions while others sleep in squalor or on the streets. It is bias to claim that some deserve a vast majority of society's benefits while others merely survive, bereft of any of the pleasures that others take for granted. None of this can be God's plan, if God's plan is reflected in the ministry and mission of Jesus Christ.
So, what of God's plan? If we cannot believe that everything happens for some divine reason, are we to believe then that God is not in control? Are the tragedies of our lives not part of some spectral conspiracy to make us better people?
To conceive of God so narrowly leads to the kind of deism that had us at one time throwing virgins into volcanoes or burying statues upside down in our yards to sell our homes. It is the kind of mystery religion that equates everything that happens to divine caveat. Divine action can be affected, of course, with the correct magic words or acts, the proper practice of the right religion, but God is capricious and volatile.
Perhaps divine plans run otherwise. Maybe the Spirit is breathed into humankind as potential and possibility for living, each of us and all of us, according to positive virtues, those that serve everyone. Maybe deaths still occur and tragedies still take place, but we recognize the need in each of us to join as communities in coping with them. Maybe God's plan is far simpler that we have assumed. Perhaps it has to do with our unity in spiritual empowerment and mutual accountability. Maybe we are God's plan?!
That might mean that it is incumbent upon each of us, and all of us together, to figure out our spiritually-gifted talents, abilities, energies, responsibilities and accountability to one another. Then, when there is a death, an illness, a disaster, prejudice, injustice or violent act of hatred, we might mobilize those spiritual forces in response instead of offering the empty notion that God will take care of it. Or better, directly assist those who are victimized by any and all of it by offering ourselves as the kind of sacrifice of time, talent, ability, energy, money, and self as we have seen in Christ Jesus. Maybe his presence breathes life, as often as the spirit moves and breathes in and through us.
Maybe that's God's plan. I dunno.
Don't worry, it's all part of God's plan. I heard it recently through the death of a mother's son. In the receiving line at his funeral reception, people were intending support. With the floods in Texas and West Virginia, as well as the fires in California and other western states. Not to worry...God's got this. A young woman friend recently broke up with a boyfriend of two years. No problem. Everything happens for a reason. With the tragic events in Orlando, and its aftermath, some were claiming it as part of God's plan, maybe vengeance.
I find it all a bit facile. It's all part of God's plan. Everything happens for a reason. Don't worry, God's got this. It will all work out in the end. Believe in God. Trust God. Pray this prayer. Offer this incantation. Utter this liturgy. Go to church. Be a good person. God rewards those who do God's will and punishes those who do wrong. What goes around comes around. Karma is a bitch.
I do not know if there is a thing that we can call "God's plan." If there is, we certainly are not in on it. Here is what I do know. It is cruel to say to parents who have just lost their infant child that everything will turn out okay because it is all part of God's plan. It is unkind to say to a mother who has just lost a son that God will fix this in the long run. It is ludicrous to tell those who are victimized by disasters, whether of natural or human origin, that this is all part and parcel of God's unfolding plan for us. It is an injustice to hold that some deserve their mansions while others sleep in squalor or on the streets. It is bias to claim that some deserve a vast majority of society's benefits while others merely survive, bereft of any of the pleasures that others take for granted. None of this can be God's plan, if God's plan is reflected in the ministry and mission of Jesus Christ.
So, what of God's plan? If we cannot believe that everything happens for some divine reason, are we to believe then that God is not in control? Are the tragedies of our lives not part of some spectral conspiracy to make us better people?
To conceive of God so narrowly leads to the kind of deism that had us at one time throwing virgins into volcanoes or burying statues upside down in our yards to sell our homes. It is the kind of mystery religion that equates everything that happens to divine caveat. Divine action can be affected, of course, with the correct magic words or acts, the proper practice of the right religion, but God is capricious and volatile.
Perhaps divine plans run otherwise. Maybe the Spirit is breathed into humankind as potential and possibility for living, each of us and all of us, according to positive virtues, those that serve everyone. Maybe deaths still occur and tragedies still take place, but we recognize the need in each of us to join as communities in coping with them. Maybe God's plan is far simpler that we have assumed. Perhaps it has to do with our unity in spiritual empowerment and mutual accountability. Maybe we are God's plan?!
That might mean that it is incumbent upon each of us, and all of us together, to figure out our spiritually-gifted talents, abilities, energies, responsibilities and accountability to one another. Then, when there is a death, an illness, a disaster, prejudice, injustice or violent act of hatred, we might mobilize those spiritual forces in response instead of offering the empty notion that God will take care of it. Or better, directly assist those who are victimized by any and all of it by offering ourselves as the kind of sacrifice of time, talent, ability, energy, money, and self as we have seen in Christ Jesus. Maybe his presence breathes life, as often as the spirit moves and breathes in and through us.
Maybe that's God's plan. I dunno.
Monday, June 13, 2016
Ohio Structure
It is a discussion long overdue. As most such conversations go, this one is uncomfortable and controversial, rapt with passions on every side. I have been personally inviting the conversation since 2008. Just when I was weary and ready to admit failure, new leadership was forced to make a move that brought the parties to the table. The conversation is now taking place.
The discussion is about structure. More concretely, it is about the structure of the Ohio Conference of the United Church of Christ and its Associations. Let me explain. Ohio is the only Conference within the United Church of Christ that is structured with both free-standing organizational Associations, served by Association staff who are called and hired by the Associations, and a Conference organization that ministers for, across, through and within all five Associations. I suppose the anomaly comes from the original merger of so many Evangelical and Reformed background churches with those that were Congregational Christian. Instead of reaching a compromise structure, those who organized the Ohio United Church of Christ decided that the mixed organization made everyone happy. The E&R folk appreciated the strong Conference presence, while the C/C congregations embraced the regionalized organizations.
The structure worked for a long time, like having two camps within less than 100 miles in the Conference. There came a time, however, when the structure no longer functioned optimally. That time was marked by a decline in membership throughout the church world. As membership declined, so did the dollars. As money grew tighter, churches in Ohio were forced to face the question of judicatory structure, its redundancy, and the efficacy of continuing to be both Associations and a Conference.
I think that everyone, from local church persons to Association and Conference Boards, to members of the national staff, acknowledged a need for change. The old structure, of providing for both the E&R centralized identity and the C/C local expression, was no longer viable. We all know it. But the questioned demands compromise: Should we organize around separate Associations or around the Conference?
I believe that everyone involved in the discussion loves the church and wants to do what is best and most effective. But I also believe that there are voices that remain adament about protecting certain pieces of the organizational pie.
The initial stages of the conversation, with representatives of every articulation of the United Church of Christ at the table, starts on Tuesday, June 14. While the outcome of these discussions is important to Ohio, its churches and the United Church of Christ, the process and our attitude toward one another is even moreso. Let's not be the kind of church that accuses, calls names, wonders at motivations and acts supiciously. We all have a horse in this race. No matter how we end up, though, let's make sure that everyone wins in the process.
The discussion is about structure. More concretely, it is about the structure of the Ohio Conference of the United Church of Christ and its Associations. Let me explain. Ohio is the only Conference within the United Church of Christ that is structured with both free-standing organizational Associations, served by Association staff who are called and hired by the Associations, and a Conference organization that ministers for, across, through and within all five Associations. I suppose the anomaly comes from the original merger of so many Evangelical and Reformed background churches with those that were Congregational Christian. Instead of reaching a compromise structure, those who organized the Ohio United Church of Christ decided that the mixed organization made everyone happy. The E&R folk appreciated the strong Conference presence, while the C/C congregations embraced the regionalized organizations.
The structure worked for a long time, like having two camps within less than 100 miles in the Conference. There came a time, however, when the structure no longer functioned optimally. That time was marked by a decline in membership throughout the church world. As membership declined, so did the dollars. As money grew tighter, churches in Ohio were forced to face the question of judicatory structure, its redundancy, and the efficacy of continuing to be both Associations and a Conference.
I think that everyone, from local church persons to Association and Conference Boards, to members of the national staff, acknowledged a need for change. The old structure, of providing for both the E&R centralized identity and the C/C local expression, was no longer viable. We all know it. But the questioned demands compromise: Should we organize around separate Associations or around the Conference?
I believe that everyone involved in the discussion loves the church and wants to do what is best and most effective. But I also believe that there are voices that remain adament about protecting certain pieces of the organizational pie.
The initial stages of the conversation, with representatives of every articulation of the United Church of Christ at the table, starts on Tuesday, June 14. While the outcome of these discussions is important to Ohio, its churches and the United Church of Christ, the process and our attitude toward one another is even moreso. Let's not be the kind of church that accuses, calls names, wonders at motivations and acts supiciously. We all have a horse in this race. No matter how we end up, though, let's make sure that everyone wins in the process.
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Christian Vocation, reprise
I had been invited by a friend of mine to lead a congregation through the process of intentional revitalization, and was just beginning the opening presentation that I had, clandestinely, entitled, "Toward Christian Vocation." The opening sentences went like this:
In the age of the historical Jesus, and perhaps through the Apostolic age, with Paul, faithful followers of the way of Christ saw it as their vocation-in-life to complete the full realization of God's will on earth. 'Kingdom' was coming imminently, and it was their responsibility to complete its arrival. They did the work to which they had been called, and for which they had been empowered, by intentionally embodying the archetype that had been established in the ministry of Jesus Christ, in his Crucifixion and Resurrection. The Church that resulted, well after a theological shift to a delayed understanding of the coming of God's 'kingdom' on earth, went in a completely alternative ecclesial direction. Christian Vocation was narrowed and lost, except for a few who understood it as their professional calling. It is time that we return to a wider understanding of Christian vocation, embracing once again what it means to be faithful practitioners of the Way of Christ. Only by so doing does the Church of Jesus Christ have a hope of being relevant in the new cultural evolution in which we find ourselves.
I was less than ten minutes into my opening presentation and saw that, already, I had lost the gathered group of some fifteen congregational leaders. Each leader wore on her or his face that tale tell, polite, vacant disinterest that my colleagues and I see so frequently on Sundays. The deal had been struck. They, in patient and tolerant etiquette, would allow me to drone on about issues that they found absolutely no passion for seeing to fruition. Later, they would get to the work of growing their membership roles and balancing their budgets by doing things just differently enough that it would attract those non-churched millennials out there. I saw immediately that my presentation was too distant from their experience, too technical for their interest, and too 'churchy' for their practical needs. So, I began again:
I know that your interest here might well be limited to membership numbers and dollars pledged against a budget. I fully accept that you, as a congregation, are trying to figure out how you can do things that attract the huge population of church alumnae. You anticipate hospitality approaches, programmatic changes, leadership initiatives. You want to know how you might avoid doing the wrong things, those that we have been told pushed people away, and how to do them rightly, in order that we may lure them back. None of it works. Marketing does not work. Advertising does not work. Vacation Bible School or Sunday School curriculum is irrelevant. Worship approaches or hymnody selections do not matter. Style of dress that is tolerated is meaningless. People will tell you that they have left the church because of these. It is not true. People have left the church because there is no passion, no energy, no meaning and purpose. There is no sense of Christian vocation, ladies and gentlemen. If we are going to be relevant in the evolving culture, if we are going to survive at all, then we have got to recover a sense of our calling and empowerment!
There was a little more interest in those who formed the congregation's working group on revitalization. I paused here and welcomed questions. Most were along the lines of one asked by a woman, maybe 40-something, who had been a part of the church since birth. She asked something like this, "You mean that doing things better won't result in more members and more money? Just getting our name out in the community won't help?
Exactly. The entire formulae for being and doing church have to change if we are going to survive. The content of that change lies in the ancient/new recovery of Christianity as vocation instead of religious practice. It is similar, I think, to what some mean by being "spiritual but not religious."
The conversations were off and running. We formed small groups and asked them to discuss what they had tried, what courses they had followed, where they might think 'the problem' lies and how they saw solutions. They realized, of course, that the problem lies in a lack of vocational training and the energy that comes with calling and empowerment.
We were off on the process of recovering Christian Vocation in the congregation! So much fun!
In the age of the historical Jesus, and perhaps through the Apostolic age, with Paul, faithful followers of the way of Christ saw it as their vocation-in-life to complete the full realization of God's will on earth. 'Kingdom' was coming imminently, and it was their responsibility to complete its arrival. They did the work to which they had been called, and for which they had been empowered, by intentionally embodying the archetype that had been established in the ministry of Jesus Christ, in his Crucifixion and Resurrection. The Church that resulted, well after a theological shift to a delayed understanding of the coming of God's 'kingdom' on earth, went in a completely alternative ecclesial direction. Christian Vocation was narrowed and lost, except for a few who understood it as their professional calling. It is time that we return to a wider understanding of Christian vocation, embracing once again what it means to be faithful practitioners of the Way of Christ. Only by so doing does the Church of Jesus Christ have a hope of being relevant in the new cultural evolution in which we find ourselves.
I was less than ten minutes into my opening presentation and saw that, already, I had lost the gathered group of some fifteen congregational leaders. Each leader wore on her or his face that tale tell, polite, vacant disinterest that my colleagues and I see so frequently on Sundays. The deal had been struck. They, in patient and tolerant etiquette, would allow me to drone on about issues that they found absolutely no passion for seeing to fruition. Later, they would get to the work of growing their membership roles and balancing their budgets by doing things just differently enough that it would attract those non-churched millennials out there. I saw immediately that my presentation was too distant from their experience, too technical for their interest, and too 'churchy' for their practical needs. So, I began again:
I know that your interest here might well be limited to membership numbers and dollars pledged against a budget. I fully accept that you, as a congregation, are trying to figure out how you can do things that attract the huge population of church alumnae. You anticipate hospitality approaches, programmatic changes, leadership initiatives. You want to know how you might avoid doing the wrong things, those that we have been told pushed people away, and how to do them rightly, in order that we may lure them back. None of it works. Marketing does not work. Advertising does not work. Vacation Bible School or Sunday School curriculum is irrelevant. Worship approaches or hymnody selections do not matter. Style of dress that is tolerated is meaningless. People will tell you that they have left the church because of these. It is not true. People have left the church because there is no passion, no energy, no meaning and purpose. There is no sense of Christian vocation, ladies and gentlemen. If we are going to be relevant in the evolving culture, if we are going to survive at all, then we have got to recover a sense of our calling and empowerment!
There was a little more interest in those who formed the congregation's working group on revitalization. I paused here and welcomed questions. Most were along the lines of one asked by a woman, maybe 40-something, who had been a part of the church since birth. She asked something like this, "You mean that doing things better won't result in more members and more money? Just getting our name out in the community won't help?
Exactly. The entire formulae for being and doing church have to change if we are going to survive. The content of that change lies in the ancient/new recovery of Christianity as vocation instead of religious practice. It is similar, I think, to what some mean by being "spiritual but not religious."
The conversations were off and running. We formed small groups and asked them to discuss what they had tried, what courses they had followed, where they might think 'the problem' lies and how they saw solutions. They realized, of course, that the problem lies in a lack of vocational training and the energy that comes with calling and empowerment.
We were off on the process of recovering Christian Vocation in the congregation! So much fun!
Monday, May 23, 2016
Christian Vocation
I have recently been engaged in several high-level discussions about the future direction and purpose of the Church of Jesus Christ and have discovered a few things in the process. Some of these discoveries have been surprising to me. Others, well, not so much. A few have been downright shocking, however. This post to the Shiloh Insider highlights what I find to be the single most surprising finding from discussions about the evolving Church.
In each of the discussion settings in which I have found myself, I spoke about the single most dominant dimension that sets Progressive Church Theology apart from its traditional counterpart. In what I take to be traditional church theology, the purpose of the church is to serve its constituency, its membership. The aim of the church is to guarantee the salvation of those who rely on it for mediation or provision of a spiritual program that leads to personal, eternal reward instead of punishment. The Church exists and works for its members. After all, members pay the bills. They expect a product in exchange. That product is their own salvation. Members also expect the service of the Church, especially in times of the BIG THREE...hatch, match and dispatch. Members expect to receive from the Church whatever services they deem necessary to their spiritual well being.
The Church that follows this traditional (practical) principle had been formed through centuries of theological and social development. For a very long time, this is how Church worked. It centered around the needs of its membership and worked to meet those social, spiritual, practical, economic and political requirements. Fellowship groups formed around membership identity groups. Working groups served within congregations to meet the needs of the community of faith. This Church created an entitled and self-serving membership. It gave rise to generations that expected the Church to do something for them, entertain them, socialize them, train them up to be good people.
Through the centuries, the notion of a Church that calls and equips persons in Christian vocation all but disappeared. That theology has been rediscovered in the Progressive Church model. Persons who belong to Progressive churches have a sense of Christian Vocation. They are empowered to perform the work of Christ Jesus in the contemporary setting and called to embody Jesus' work through its own sacrifice and service. I have referred to this recently as our "representational incarnation." We are Christ's ongoing presence and continuing work in the world.
This is Christian Vocation. It is that to which we are called and that for which we are empowered. Persons do not join these congregations to enter into some spiritual quid pro quo, from which they benefit, but to engage, mind, body and soul in the work to which each is called and for which everyone is empowered. Persons live out the "representational incarnation" in the sacrificial ministry that each offers in the world to those whom they might benefit through their effort.It is not for the members, but for those in the community whom the members serve.
But people do not like the term "Christian Vocation." They want something softer and kinder, something that does not seem so very work-related. Yet, that is precisely the point. The ministry to which we are called in our "representational incarnation" is work. It is our life-work. It is that for which we are empowered and that to which we are called.
Progressive Church theology is vocationally oriented. It does not work if the Church fails in its vocational training. Shiloh has a strong grasp on this simple fact of Progressive theology. We know that we are called to serve, to work, to fulfill our representational incarnation by replicating Christ's sacrifice in, to, with, and for the communities that we are called to serve.
In each of the discussion settings in which I have found myself, I spoke about the single most dominant dimension that sets Progressive Church Theology apart from its traditional counterpart. In what I take to be traditional church theology, the purpose of the church is to serve its constituency, its membership. The aim of the church is to guarantee the salvation of those who rely on it for mediation or provision of a spiritual program that leads to personal, eternal reward instead of punishment. The Church exists and works for its members. After all, members pay the bills. They expect a product in exchange. That product is their own salvation. Members also expect the service of the Church, especially in times of the BIG THREE...hatch, match and dispatch. Members expect to receive from the Church whatever services they deem necessary to their spiritual well being.
The Church that follows this traditional (practical) principle had been formed through centuries of theological and social development. For a very long time, this is how Church worked. It centered around the needs of its membership and worked to meet those social, spiritual, practical, economic and political requirements. Fellowship groups formed around membership identity groups. Working groups served within congregations to meet the needs of the community of faith. This Church created an entitled and self-serving membership. It gave rise to generations that expected the Church to do something for them, entertain them, socialize them, train them up to be good people.
Through the centuries, the notion of a Church that calls and equips persons in Christian vocation all but disappeared. That theology has been rediscovered in the Progressive Church model. Persons who belong to Progressive churches have a sense of Christian Vocation. They are empowered to perform the work of Christ Jesus in the contemporary setting and called to embody Jesus' work through its own sacrifice and service. I have referred to this recently as our "representational incarnation." We are Christ's ongoing presence and continuing work in the world.
This is Christian Vocation. It is that to which we are called and that for which we are empowered. Persons do not join these congregations to enter into some spiritual quid pro quo, from which they benefit, but to engage, mind, body and soul in the work to which each is called and for which everyone is empowered. Persons live out the "representational incarnation" in the sacrificial ministry that each offers in the world to those whom they might benefit through their effort.It is not for the members, but for those in the community whom the members serve.
But people do not like the term "Christian Vocation." They want something softer and kinder, something that does not seem so very work-related. Yet, that is precisely the point. The ministry to which we are called in our "representational incarnation" is work. It is our life-work. It is that for which we are empowered and that to which we are called.
Progressive Church theology is vocationally oriented. It does not work if the Church fails in its vocational training. Shiloh has a strong grasp on this simple fact of Progressive theology. We know that we are called to serve, to work, to fulfill our representational incarnation by replicating Christ's sacrifice in, to, with, and for the communities that we are called to serve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)