Yes, that's right. At last night's MTV Video Music Awards, Miley Cyrus, the one-time Disney character, Hanna Montana, completely shocked the VMA-watching world. Readers of the Shiloh Insider may or may not be aware that Cyrus ignited controversy at last year's VMA's by twerking all over the Blurred Lines singer, Robin Thicke. Her antics earned her wide attention and a mess of media buzz.
This year's VMA's were different, however. While Cyrus was once again at the center of attention, though she did not perform or act in any way inappropriately, she rocked the awards with a much different display. When Cyrus was awarded the Moonman for video of the year, she allowed that the acceptance speech be made by her date for the night, a previously homeless young man named "Jesse."
Jesse claimed to have lived in many of the local homeless shelters, including "My Friend's Place," where he apparently encountered Cyrus. His speech was brief and eloquent. Among other poignant comments, Jesse said, "I have been an extra in your movies. I have been an extra in your life." Jesse hoped to use the forum to raise funds for "My Friend's Place" and to raise awareness of this country's huge homeless population. He said that information for contributions to fight homelessness could be found on Miley Cyrus' website.
The events of last night's VMA's, and especially the gift that was provided by Miley Cyrus, serves to remind the privileged segments of the population that homelessness is a definite problem in the United States and, if we are to put an end to the embarrassing realization, then we have got to open our hearts, our minds and our ckeckbooks.
This country has proven what a grass roots financial movement looks like with the recent ALS ice water challenge. As of yesterday, ALS had raised more than 70 million dollars, most with $10 or $100 contributions. The ice water challenge has become a social media splash (pun intended) and it is hard to imagine many Americans who have been untouched by the movement.
If we can raise more than $70 million for ALS - which I believe is a very good attempt at stemming the tide of a terrible disease - then I firmly believe that we could do the same in response to Jesse's plea. We can greatly reduce, or perhaps even put an end to, homelessness in America.
Thank you, Jesse. And thank you, Miley Cyrus, for putting the challenge before the American public. Their presence at the VMA's, and their message, gives content to the United Church of Christ motto: No matter who you are or where you have been on life's journey... We can do miracles. We can change the world. We can be the kingdom.
Monday, August 25, 2014
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
Language Problems
As the Shiloh Church Bible study groups work to develop a model for defining Progressive Church theology, the groups have had to constantly struggle with language. The problem is not that our language is either too coarse or too practical. Instead, the language that we have used in attempting to formulate the theological model has been too steeped in the traditional church.
To describe a link between God's will, defined as the archetype that is established in Christ as a way of life, and our commitment and devotion to it, our groups used the term "discipleship." To refer to the link between our devotion to God's will and actions that demonstrate God's will in the world, we used the term "apostleship." Neither term, it seems, is particularly helpful in developing a theology that reaches far beyond the confines of the traditional church. As the theology pushes the traditional church from the safety and security of its traditional patterns, so must the language that we use represent that expansion.
So apostleship and discipleship do not work.
These are not our only linguistic hurdles, however. The model differentiates between a world of law and a world of call. In law, we simply do as directed in the religious models of the past. We are to be obedient and repeat the rituals, orthodoxies and acceptable behavior that the religious institutions have dictated. In call, we are free to interpret for ourselves what God wants of us, listening not to the religious institutions but to the indwelling spirit. Does the secular world embrace or even understand a world of call? Are there not better terms to indicate a life wherein we understand that every person is empowered, equipped, called and sent to achieve God's purpose in the world? Terms like "responsibility" and "duty" do not work. They belong to the world of law and rely on guilt and shame in order to function there.
By the way, there may be a problem with the terms "Progressive Church" or "Progressive Church Theology." Shiloh's Bible study groups have discovered that there is considerable push back, particularly from the traditional church, for the term "progressive." Some find it insulting. They tend to prefer the term "Emerging Church" or "Emerging Church Theology."
I support the use of "Progressive Church" and "Progressive Church Theology" because I firmly believe that the church-that-will-be is currently caught at the cusp of a next-step in the church's spiritual evolutionary process. A step forward in the spiritual evolutionary process if progressive. It moves the church onward and forward...toward. The terms "Emerging Church" or "Emerging Church Theology" lack the evolutionary flavor that the term "Progressive" includes.
If you want to get in on the discussion, helping us to work out the model of Progressive Church theology, I invite you to be a part of Shiloh's Bible @ Boston's program through September. Each Wednesday in September, we will meet at Boston's Bistro and Pub, at the corner or North Main and Dogleg Road from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m., to discuss the developing model.
As most readers of The Shiloh Insider are aware, Shiloh's Bible study groups began with the basic assertion that Faith is fidelity to God's will. We moved from there to define what it is that we mean by God's will. We then discussed our commitment and devotion to that definition of God's will. After deciding that the purpose of the Church is intimately related to fidelity to God's will, we continued by defining faith as acts that reflect that devotion and commitment.
The model is not yet complete, perhaps because it is still taking shape in the needs and demands of the cultural evolution in which we find ourselves. Come to Boston's in September to join the conversation. Or, attend our twice-weekly Bible studies, Tuesdays at 7:00 p.m. and Thursdays at 10:00 a.m.
To describe a link between God's will, defined as the archetype that is established in Christ as a way of life, and our commitment and devotion to it, our groups used the term "discipleship." To refer to the link between our devotion to God's will and actions that demonstrate God's will in the world, we used the term "apostleship." Neither term, it seems, is particularly helpful in developing a theology that reaches far beyond the confines of the traditional church. As the theology pushes the traditional church from the safety and security of its traditional patterns, so must the language that we use represent that expansion.
So apostleship and discipleship do not work.
These are not our only linguistic hurdles, however. The model differentiates between a world of law and a world of call. In law, we simply do as directed in the religious models of the past. We are to be obedient and repeat the rituals, orthodoxies and acceptable behavior that the religious institutions have dictated. In call, we are free to interpret for ourselves what God wants of us, listening not to the religious institutions but to the indwelling spirit. Does the secular world embrace or even understand a world of call? Are there not better terms to indicate a life wherein we understand that every person is empowered, equipped, called and sent to achieve God's purpose in the world? Terms like "responsibility" and "duty" do not work. They belong to the world of law and rely on guilt and shame in order to function there.
By the way, there may be a problem with the terms "Progressive Church" or "Progressive Church Theology." Shiloh's Bible study groups have discovered that there is considerable push back, particularly from the traditional church, for the term "progressive." Some find it insulting. They tend to prefer the term "Emerging Church" or "Emerging Church Theology."
I support the use of "Progressive Church" and "Progressive Church Theology" because I firmly believe that the church-that-will-be is currently caught at the cusp of a next-step in the church's spiritual evolutionary process. A step forward in the spiritual evolutionary process if progressive. It moves the church onward and forward...toward. The terms "Emerging Church" or "Emerging Church Theology" lack the evolutionary flavor that the term "Progressive" includes.
If you want to get in on the discussion, helping us to work out the model of Progressive Church theology, I invite you to be a part of Shiloh's Bible @ Boston's program through September. Each Wednesday in September, we will meet at Boston's Bistro and Pub, at the corner or North Main and Dogleg Road from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m., to discuss the developing model.
As most readers of The Shiloh Insider are aware, Shiloh's Bible study groups began with the basic assertion that Faith is fidelity to God's will. We moved from there to define what it is that we mean by God's will. We then discussed our commitment and devotion to that definition of God's will. After deciding that the purpose of the Church is intimately related to fidelity to God's will, we continued by defining faith as acts that reflect that devotion and commitment.
The model is not yet complete, perhaps because it is still taking shape in the needs and demands of the cultural evolution in which we find ourselves. Come to Boston's in September to join the conversation. Or, attend our twice-weekly Bible studies, Tuesdays at 7:00 p.m. and Thursdays at 10:00 a.m.
Monday, August 11, 2014
Discipleship and Apostleship
In the model that Shiloh's Bible study groups have developed to attempt to better understand the Progressive Church movement theology, it seems that we have fallen into the trap of using terms from traditional church models. This is particularly true of the use of the terms "discipleship" and "apostleship." It is unlikely in the extreme that any progressive church movement would use these terms, especially since they carry such baggage from the traditional church theology.
The Bible study groups have used the terms intentionally, however. "Discipleship" reflects a link between the will of God, as reflected in the archetype of Christ, the shaping of the Christ ethic and the practice of heavenly virtues and our commitment, devotion and loyalty to those qualities. The groups divided the means by which we practice discipleship as being either "Spiritual" or "Religious." Spiritual discipleship is human essential nature, internal, in balance with the spiritual essence of the universe, and descriptive of the frustration and imbalance of human existence. Religious discipleship is external and mechanical practice of accepted rituals and orthodoxies that attempt to correct the flaws that are inherent to human essential nature. (One may rightly claim that spiritual discipleship reflects a positive anthropology while religious discipleship reflects a negative definition of human essential nature.)
The same distinction holds true in apostleship. Apostleship, our Bible study groups have concluded, links our commitment, devotion and loyalty to God's will, as reflected in Christ Jesus, with overt actions and words. That is, if we are faithful to God's will in Christ, then we will do what Christ would have us do, actually, really, concretely. There is a distinction in how we do that discipleship, however, and why. Spiritual discipleship leads to a wisdom-based apostleship. We do not go out sharing orthodoxies, rites or rituals. Instead, we practice openness, hospitality, kindness, mercy and grace. We work for justice, equality and peace. We do so because we are devoted to the work of Christ Jesus. Our fidelity is to his mission and ministry in the world, and strives to be reflective of it. Religious discipleship leads to an obedience-based apostleship, where we demand that others live up to our standards of orthodoxy, belief and obedience, and where we see ourselves as protectors of "the right way." Religious apostleship results in teaching the orthodoxies, rites and rituals of our groups, sects, denominations, types or clans.
Are there better, more readily acceptable terms that we might use to articulate the distinction between spiritual and religious discipleship and wisdom-based or obedience-based apostleship? I think there might be. Is the link between the will of God and our fidelity to it equally well expressed in a term like "integrity?" Another, perhaps more interesting term, may be "ethic." The link is the standard for which we strive and to which we hold ourselves accountable. In the same vein, apostleship may be better reflected in terms like "work" or "moral." Our fidelity to God's will, as reflected in Christ Jesus, results in particular work or moral action.
If fidelity to God's will, as reflected in Christ Jesus, breaks down, or if our commitment is without integrity or ethical standard, then it will not result in the type of moral action or work that reflects Christ. While I like these terms in the place of discipleship and apostleship, we have to admit that they seem a great deal more concrete and practical, perhaps even accusatory or pejorative. For this reason particularly, maybe these terms best reflect the evolutionary process of the culture in which the church today finds itself and the spiritual evolution to which it is calling us.
We will float the terms at this week's Bible study sessions and see if they, like Peter and Jesus, walk on the water. Shiloh's Bible studies are held on Tuesday evenings, from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m. and on Thursday mornings, from 10:00 to 11:30 a.m. in the church's chapel. Use entrance #1. By the way, Shiloh will be offering a new four-week Bible @ Boston's series in September. The topic will be Shiloh's model of Progressive Church theology and practice. Join us on Wednesday evenings, 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. at Boston's Bistro and Pub, at the corner of North Main (48) and Dog Leg Rd. (Westbrook). See you at any of these sessions. Everyone is welcome.
The Bible study groups have used the terms intentionally, however. "Discipleship" reflects a link between the will of God, as reflected in the archetype of Christ, the shaping of the Christ ethic and the practice of heavenly virtues and our commitment, devotion and loyalty to those qualities. The groups divided the means by which we practice discipleship as being either "Spiritual" or "Religious." Spiritual discipleship is human essential nature, internal, in balance with the spiritual essence of the universe, and descriptive of the frustration and imbalance of human existence. Religious discipleship is external and mechanical practice of accepted rituals and orthodoxies that attempt to correct the flaws that are inherent to human essential nature. (One may rightly claim that spiritual discipleship reflects a positive anthropology while religious discipleship reflects a negative definition of human essential nature.)
The same distinction holds true in apostleship. Apostleship, our Bible study groups have concluded, links our commitment, devotion and loyalty to God's will, as reflected in Christ Jesus, with overt actions and words. That is, if we are faithful to God's will in Christ, then we will do what Christ would have us do, actually, really, concretely. There is a distinction in how we do that discipleship, however, and why. Spiritual discipleship leads to a wisdom-based apostleship. We do not go out sharing orthodoxies, rites or rituals. Instead, we practice openness, hospitality, kindness, mercy and grace. We work for justice, equality and peace. We do so because we are devoted to the work of Christ Jesus. Our fidelity is to his mission and ministry in the world, and strives to be reflective of it. Religious discipleship leads to an obedience-based apostleship, where we demand that others live up to our standards of orthodoxy, belief and obedience, and where we see ourselves as protectors of "the right way." Religious apostleship results in teaching the orthodoxies, rites and rituals of our groups, sects, denominations, types or clans.
Are there better, more readily acceptable terms that we might use to articulate the distinction between spiritual and religious discipleship and wisdom-based or obedience-based apostleship? I think there might be. Is the link between the will of God and our fidelity to it equally well expressed in a term like "integrity?" Another, perhaps more interesting term, may be "ethic." The link is the standard for which we strive and to which we hold ourselves accountable. In the same vein, apostleship may be better reflected in terms like "work" or "moral." Our fidelity to God's will, as reflected in Christ Jesus, results in particular work or moral action.
If fidelity to God's will, as reflected in Christ Jesus, breaks down, or if our commitment is without integrity or ethical standard, then it will not result in the type of moral action or work that reflects Christ. While I like these terms in the place of discipleship and apostleship, we have to admit that they seem a great deal more concrete and practical, perhaps even accusatory or pejorative. For this reason particularly, maybe these terms best reflect the evolutionary process of the culture in which the church today finds itself and the spiritual evolution to which it is calling us.
We will float the terms at this week's Bible study sessions and see if they, like Peter and Jesus, walk on the water. Shiloh's Bible studies are held on Tuesday evenings, from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m. and on Thursday mornings, from 10:00 to 11:30 a.m. in the church's chapel. Use entrance #1. By the way, Shiloh will be offering a new four-week Bible @ Boston's series in September. The topic will be Shiloh's model of Progressive Church theology and practice. Join us on Wednesday evenings, 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. at Boston's Bistro and Pub, at the corner of North Main (48) and Dog Leg Rd. (Westbrook). See you at any of these sessions. Everyone is welcome.
Monday, August 04, 2014
Spiritual Discipleship and Faithful Apostleship
As our Bible study groups work to develop a working model of Progressive Church theology, participants have recognized a vital link that, prior to this time, they may have taken for granted.
The model starts with a basic definition of faith: Faith is fidelity to God's will. God's will is that revealed in Christ Jesus and can be referred to in various ways. Whether we think of it as establishment of the archetype of Crucifixion/Resurrection, following the Christ ethic or practice of Heavenly virtues, the core of God's will remains a selfless act that benefits others. Our fidelity, commitment and devotion are to those acts, whether or not they are decidedly "religious." We are called to be like Christ in service to others. We act on faith when we are bold enough to empty ourselves in acts that reflect selflessness as God's will.
Discipleship is the link between God's will and our fidelity to it. We are disciples - students of a particular master - when our commitment and devotion are to the teachings of that master. As we discussed in last week's post to The Shiloh Insider, this allegiance can be either spiritual or religious. That is, discipleship can be either rote, mechanical and external acceptance of some orthodoxy, ritual or practice or an internal, natural, spiritual response to acts of beauty and selflessness. Religion, it turns out, seeks to repair what is innately wrong or lacking in human nature, while spirituality seeks to enliven that which is naturally present in all living things.
This week, we take a further step in providing a model for Progressive Church theology. While the link between God's will and human fidelity to it is discipleship, the link between our fidelity and acts of faith that reflect it is apostleship. Apostleship is simply doing what we say we believe. It is embodiment of our discipleship. While discipleship can be understood as the potential of the Progressive Church, apostleship is its kinetics. (Some readers of The Shiloh Insider may recall a previous post about the nature of Trinity, in which we identified the second activity of Trinity as potential and the third activity as kinetic.) Put differently, apostleship is doing what the Progressive Church does, while discipleship is what it is doing. Discipleship is the noun of faithfulness' sentence and apostleship is its verb. God is object and those the church serves are its subject.
We may be so bold as to claim that faithful apostleship is the outcome of faithful discipleship. If we sit and learn at the feet of Christ as master (Lord), and if our fidelity is to those teachings, then our apostleship will faithfully reflect the message and medium of Christ. We will do as Christ does. We will act out the archetype of Crucifixion/Resurrection, live the ethic of Christ and practice the heavenly virtues.
One further layer remains in establishing our model of Progressive Church theology. Next week, we will differentiate between a "Life of Call" and a "Life of Law." It is not accidental, of course, that this distinction follows closely on the heals of a distinction between religion or spirituality.
Thanks for reading The Shiloh Insider, and thanks for your comments and opinions. Perhaps our growth together can be reflected in the spiritual evolution of the Church of Jesus Christ.
The model starts with a basic definition of faith: Faith is fidelity to God's will. God's will is that revealed in Christ Jesus and can be referred to in various ways. Whether we think of it as establishment of the archetype of Crucifixion/Resurrection, following the Christ ethic or practice of Heavenly virtues, the core of God's will remains a selfless act that benefits others. Our fidelity, commitment and devotion are to those acts, whether or not they are decidedly "religious." We are called to be like Christ in service to others. We act on faith when we are bold enough to empty ourselves in acts that reflect selflessness as God's will.
Discipleship is the link between God's will and our fidelity to it. We are disciples - students of a particular master - when our commitment and devotion are to the teachings of that master. As we discussed in last week's post to The Shiloh Insider, this allegiance can be either spiritual or religious. That is, discipleship can be either rote, mechanical and external acceptance of some orthodoxy, ritual or practice or an internal, natural, spiritual response to acts of beauty and selflessness. Religion, it turns out, seeks to repair what is innately wrong or lacking in human nature, while spirituality seeks to enliven that which is naturally present in all living things.
This week, we take a further step in providing a model for Progressive Church theology. While the link between God's will and human fidelity to it is discipleship, the link between our fidelity and acts of faith that reflect it is apostleship. Apostleship is simply doing what we say we believe. It is embodiment of our discipleship. While discipleship can be understood as the potential of the Progressive Church, apostleship is its kinetics. (Some readers of The Shiloh Insider may recall a previous post about the nature of Trinity, in which we identified the second activity of Trinity as potential and the third activity as kinetic.) Put differently, apostleship is doing what the Progressive Church does, while discipleship is what it is doing. Discipleship is the noun of faithfulness' sentence and apostleship is its verb. God is object and those the church serves are its subject.
We may be so bold as to claim that faithful apostleship is the outcome of faithful discipleship. If we sit and learn at the feet of Christ as master (Lord), and if our fidelity is to those teachings, then our apostleship will faithfully reflect the message and medium of Christ. We will do as Christ does. We will act out the archetype of Crucifixion/Resurrection, live the ethic of Christ and practice the heavenly virtues.
One further layer remains in establishing our model of Progressive Church theology. Next week, we will differentiate between a "Life of Call" and a "Life of Law." It is not accidental, of course, that this distinction follows closely on the heals of a distinction between religion or spirituality.
Thanks for reading The Shiloh Insider, and thanks for your comments and opinions. Perhaps our growth together can be reflected in the spiritual evolution of the Church of Jesus Christ.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Spirituality or Religion?
It happened again over the course of this past weekend. A relative stranger, on discovering that I pastor a church said to me that she was more spiritual than religious. The phrase has spread to be representative of a new cultural trend away from organized religion but toward spiritual practices and beliefs.
What exactly does it mean to be more spiritual than religious?
Shiloh's Bible study groups have been working at deciphering cultural trends that affect the church and have come to some important conclusions. The conversation is an extension of our definition of faith as fidelity to God's will. (See last week's post to The Shiloh Insider for a discussion surrounding this definition.)
If God's will is the Christ archetype, a model of Crucifixion/Resurrection, the Hellenistic Heavenly virtues - or, as Mrs. Keller taught my kindergarten class, "Just be nice." - then our definition of faith calls us to be committed to this description of God's will. Our loyalty and devotion are to that which is revealed in the mission and ministry of Christ Jesus.
Maintaining the link between the will of God and our devotion, commitment and loyalty is either religion or spirituality. While spirituality, as an approach to maintaining God's will, is organic and natural to the relationship, religion, as an approach, is external and mechanical.
Let me try to clarify. In spirituality, we may understand that God's will is, in fact, a function of human essential nature. If life itself is understood as God's Spirit being breathed into otherwise inanimate matter, then human beings are essentially both spirit and flesh. It is no less a function of human essential nature to live according to the higher virtues of the spirit than it is to live according to the desires and hungers of the flesh.
The Spirit, as part of essential human nature, allows that humanity may naturally live out God's will in every relationship and at every moment. To do less is to be less than fully human. Failing human potential leads to disjointedness in the human condition, frustration, dissatisfaction, anger and disillusionment with the ways of the world. Humans who fail to live out their spiritual selves disconnect with the logos of the universe, thus creating division, hatred and self-loathing.
On the other hand, religion is a mechanical and external attempt at maintaining God's will as a function of faith. As Sigmund Freud noted in Totem and Taboo, humanity creates religion for two purposes: 1. To render the mortal immortal and 2. To control the behavior of one's self and others. The religious super ego is seen as over and above human essential nature. In fact, it corrects the flaws of human essential nature by creating moral standards and psycho/social mores. The divine is above. It is other. Religion, then, provides sets of orthodoxies, rituals and beliefs that are prescribed by an external being, with whom humanity forms a contentious relationship.
So, if being more spiritual than religious means that persons are choosing to live out of the spiritual side of human nature instead of giving in to some external control mechanism, then I am more spiritual than religious as well. So, it turns out, are many of those who attend our Tuesday and Thursday Bible studies at Shiloh Church. To be completely honest, I must confess that I see the transition from religion to spirituality in the church as a further step in human spiritual evolution.
Are you spiritual or religious? Can we be both?
What exactly does it mean to be more spiritual than religious?
Shiloh's Bible study groups have been working at deciphering cultural trends that affect the church and have come to some important conclusions. The conversation is an extension of our definition of faith as fidelity to God's will. (See last week's post to The Shiloh Insider for a discussion surrounding this definition.)
If God's will is the Christ archetype, a model of Crucifixion/Resurrection, the Hellenistic Heavenly virtues - or, as Mrs. Keller taught my kindergarten class, "Just be nice." - then our definition of faith calls us to be committed to this description of God's will. Our loyalty and devotion are to that which is revealed in the mission and ministry of Christ Jesus.
Maintaining the link between the will of God and our devotion, commitment and loyalty is either religion or spirituality. While spirituality, as an approach to maintaining God's will, is organic and natural to the relationship, religion, as an approach, is external and mechanical.
Let me try to clarify. In spirituality, we may understand that God's will is, in fact, a function of human essential nature. If life itself is understood as God's Spirit being breathed into otherwise inanimate matter, then human beings are essentially both spirit and flesh. It is no less a function of human essential nature to live according to the higher virtues of the spirit than it is to live according to the desires and hungers of the flesh.
The Spirit, as part of essential human nature, allows that humanity may naturally live out God's will in every relationship and at every moment. To do less is to be less than fully human. Failing human potential leads to disjointedness in the human condition, frustration, dissatisfaction, anger and disillusionment with the ways of the world. Humans who fail to live out their spiritual selves disconnect with the logos of the universe, thus creating division, hatred and self-loathing.
On the other hand, religion is a mechanical and external attempt at maintaining God's will as a function of faith. As Sigmund Freud noted in Totem and Taboo, humanity creates religion for two purposes: 1. To render the mortal immortal and 2. To control the behavior of one's self and others. The religious super ego is seen as over and above human essential nature. In fact, it corrects the flaws of human essential nature by creating moral standards and psycho/social mores. The divine is above. It is other. Religion, then, provides sets of orthodoxies, rituals and beliefs that are prescribed by an external being, with whom humanity forms a contentious relationship.
So, if being more spiritual than religious means that persons are choosing to live out of the spiritual side of human nature instead of giving in to some external control mechanism, then I am more spiritual than religious as well. So, it turns out, are many of those who attend our Tuesday and Thursday Bible studies at Shiloh Church. To be completely honest, I must confess that I see the transition from religion to spirituality in the church as a further step in human spiritual evolution.
Are you spiritual or religious? Can we be both?
Monday, July 14, 2014
Faith as Fidelity to God's Will
In the season after Pentecost, Shiloh's Bible study groups have been working on an alternative definition of what we mean when we say "faith." We have arrived at this preliminary statement:
Faith is fidelity to God's will.
The problem with any such attempted definition is in defining the terms that are used. The Bible study groups have been careful in their considerations. Let's begin with the foundation. What is God's will to which faith is commitment?
God's will, we have concluded together, is best reflected in the ministry and mission of Jesus Christ, though not exclusive to it. There is a Christ ethic that is established in Jesus' earthly ministry and an archetype that is established in his Crucifixion and Resurrection. The Jesus ethic and the archetype of Christ witness to the Hellenistic world's Heavenly virtues. It is always better for humankind when persons go out of their way for their brothers and sisters, sacrificing themselves to serve others. This single belief lies at the core of world religions. It is better to serve others than to provide exclusively for one's self.
God's will is revealed in the Jesus ethic, the Christ archetype, the Heavenly virtues, in simple acts of kindness, generosity, grace and mercy. It is to this will that faith demands fidelity. It demands complete and total commitment, loyalty and devotion. The Jesus ethic is a way of life that reflects God's will for humankind. The Christ archetype is a way of life that witnesses to God's will. The Heavenly virtues are concrete ways of life that articulate a spiritual reality that is over and above the physical and material realm. People of faith are asked to exhibit complete commitment to these ways of life.
Faith, then, is the practice of the will of God as a way of life. Faith, we concluded, is less about belief and more about actions. It is more a verb and less a noun. We do not possess or lack faith. We either do acts of faith or we fail to do them. We either live out of our complete and utter fidelity to God's will or we fall short.
Faith is fidelity to God's will.
This definition of faith is contrary in some important ways from several more traditional alternative definitions. Faith has often been tied to belief systems, to orthodoxies, and they form "isms" or "anities." Post-Reformation denominationalism is the result of this definition of faith. Schism and division result from sometimes minuscule differences of interpretation and tradition. People are divided into "belief camps" by how they were taught about a myriad of aspects of right practice.
Particular definitions of faith have also been used as litmus tests for inclusion. As a Pastor, I have been asked many times whether or not I believe in things like God's six-day Creation, or Jesus' virgin birth, or whether or not Jesus walked on water. If I say I do, I am patted on the back and welcomed into the old buddy club of church tradition. If I say I do not, then I am branded a heretic and ushered out.
Faith as fidelity to God's will rests only on these beliefs: 1. That Jesus Christ reveals God's will and 2. People of faith may dedicate their time, energy, talent and enthusiasm to that which Christ Jesus reflects. Perhaps this seems simplistic. Maybe it seems obvious. Yet, religious groups seem to want to spend a great deal of time and energy on considering aspects of orthodoxy and metaphysics that lead the church away from the practice of God's will, as revealed in Christ and others.
Shiloh's Bible studies are held on Tuesdays at 7:00 p.m. and Thursdays at 10:00 a.m. in the Chapel and are open to anyone. Upon occasion, specialized studies are held at Boston's Bistro and Pub, in a program that Shiloh calls "Bible @ Boston's." Again, everyone is welcome. Join us as we work toward an even deeper understanding of faith as fidelity to God's will.
Faith is fidelity to God's will.
The problem with any such attempted definition is in defining the terms that are used. The Bible study groups have been careful in their considerations. Let's begin with the foundation. What is God's will to which faith is commitment?
God's will, we have concluded together, is best reflected in the ministry and mission of Jesus Christ, though not exclusive to it. There is a Christ ethic that is established in Jesus' earthly ministry and an archetype that is established in his Crucifixion and Resurrection. The Jesus ethic and the archetype of Christ witness to the Hellenistic world's Heavenly virtues. It is always better for humankind when persons go out of their way for their brothers and sisters, sacrificing themselves to serve others. This single belief lies at the core of world religions. It is better to serve others than to provide exclusively for one's self.
God's will is revealed in the Jesus ethic, the Christ archetype, the Heavenly virtues, in simple acts of kindness, generosity, grace and mercy. It is to this will that faith demands fidelity. It demands complete and total commitment, loyalty and devotion. The Jesus ethic is a way of life that reflects God's will for humankind. The Christ archetype is a way of life that witnesses to God's will. The Heavenly virtues are concrete ways of life that articulate a spiritual reality that is over and above the physical and material realm. People of faith are asked to exhibit complete commitment to these ways of life.
Faith, then, is the practice of the will of God as a way of life. Faith, we concluded, is less about belief and more about actions. It is more a verb and less a noun. We do not possess or lack faith. We either do acts of faith or we fail to do them. We either live out of our complete and utter fidelity to God's will or we fall short.
Faith is fidelity to God's will.
This definition of faith is contrary in some important ways from several more traditional alternative definitions. Faith has often been tied to belief systems, to orthodoxies, and they form "isms" or "anities." Post-Reformation denominationalism is the result of this definition of faith. Schism and division result from sometimes minuscule differences of interpretation and tradition. People are divided into "belief camps" by how they were taught about a myriad of aspects of right practice.
Particular definitions of faith have also been used as litmus tests for inclusion. As a Pastor, I have been asked many times whether or not I believe in things like God's six-day Creation, or Jesus' virgin birth, or whether or not Jesus walked on water. If I say I do, I am patted on the back and welcomed into the old buddy club of church tradition. If I say I do not, then I am branded a heretic and ushered out.
Faith as fidelity to God's will rests only on these beliefs: 1. That Jesus Christ reveals God's will and 2. People of faith may dedicate their time, energy, talent and enthusiasm to that which Christ Jesus reflects. Perhaps this seems simplistic. Maybe it seems obvious. Yet, religious groups seem to want to spend a great deal of time and energy on considering aspects of orthodoxy and metaphysics that lead the church away from the practice of God's will, as revealed in Christ and others.
Shiloh's Bible studies are held on Tuesdays at 7:00 p.m. and Thursdays at 10:00 a.m. in the Chapel and are open to anyone. Upon occasion, specialized studies are held at Boston's Bistro and Pub, in a program that Shiloh calls "Bible @ Boston's." Again, everyone is welcome. Join us as we work toward an even deeper understanding of faith as fidelity to God's will.
Monday, July 07, 2014
Universal Condition of Kindness
Lisa and I spent a wonderful July 4th holiday, celebrating both our nation's independence and her birthday, in the St. Louis area. Since Lisa is from the area, and since most of her family resides there still, it was a short family vacation. We stayed with Lisa's sister and brother-in-law, Kristy and Bill Hartman. We lounged by the pool and enjoyed the hot tub, all in the natural environs of country living. It was a great visit.
On Saturday, we attended the Cardinal's baseball game. (Both Lisa and I are long-time Cardinal fans...painful as that may be in Reds nation.) The seats we used were complimentary from Kristy's business, (Some of you are aware of my rant against the money and craze that lies in the professional sports world, though I admit to giving the organization plenty of money.) That rant will come at another time.
At the ballgame, we sat about eleven rows behind first base, in foul ball territory. The couple who sat next to Lisa did not say a word to us. In fact, the woman who sat directly next to my wife spent a few minutes, before the game started, actually clipping her fingernails. No apologies for the one that flew in Lisa's direction and actually hit her arm. In front of us sat a couple from Tennessee, with their very young daughter.We interacted a bit with them during the game, sharing baseball park Swizzlers (it's like licorice, but not quite). The mother spoke no English, and looked to be considerably younger than her husband. It was her first bite of Swizzlers as well.
The young lady who sat on the other end of our foursome knew absolutely everything about Cardinal baseball, and was eager to share information, but did not interact beyond that. The family that sat behind us carried on conversations throughout the game...something about an upcoming trip...but never interacted with anyone around them. In front of us, a family exhibited very close relationships, but only within their small group.
Isn't it interesting that the greatest degree of interaction at the game took place between us and a couple from Tennessee, she of Philippine descent, speaking no English, with her very young daughter, who looked remarkably like her mother, and he a forty-something, outwardly successful and very protective provider. The daughter was a true beauty. She turned and watched us early on, so we began to interact with her. In time, we communicated with the parents, wondering if we could give her some of the Swizzlers that we had purchased. (She and her mother tried some, by the way, but seemingly found the taste a bit overpowering.)
People can be nice even at the ballpark. Even within the maddening 42,000 crush of humanity and the mad rush to traffic jams afterward, people can be kind.
I sincerely hope that the young daughter of the couple in front of us remembers that there are nice people around, and that sometimes they share their Swizzlers. I hope that her experience was made better by interacting with the weird couple who sat behind her and played with her throughout the game. I sincerely hope that it plants a seed and that, years from now, she might share her Swizzlers with a stranger who sits in front of her, heightening the experience of kindness for that stranger. (I should add, by the way, that she repeatedly tried to share from her sippy cup with Lisa, much to the amusement of everyone around us.)
It is interesting, too, how others around treated one another. It was as if walls separated families, couples and persons from one another. There was scant little kindness. People did not, by and large, go out of their way to be nice.
But kindness shone in the face of the little girl in front of us. No matter what language one speaks, or from where persons come, there is always a value to being nice and doing things that are kind. Upset the status quo. Disrupt the usual. Shake the foundations of the walls that divide us. Be nice. Be kind.
On Saturday, we attended the Cardinal's baseball game. (Both Lisa and I are long-time Cardinal fans...painful as that may be in Reds nation.) The seats we used were complimentary from Kristy's business, (Some of you are aware of my rant against the money and craze that lies in the professional sports world, though I admit to giving the organization plenty of money.) That rant will come at another time.
At the ballgame, we sat about eleven rows behind first base, in foul ball territory. The couple who sat next to Lisa did not say a word to us. In fact, the woman who sat directly next to my wife spent a few minutes, before the game started, actually clipping her fingernails. No apologies for the one that flew in Lisa's direction and actually hit her arm. In front of us sat a couple from Tennessee, with their very young daughter.We interacted a bit with them during the game, sharing baseball park Swizzlers (it's like licorice, but not quite). The mother spoke no English, and looked to be considerably younger than her husband. It was her first bite of Swizzlers as well.
The young lady who sat on the other end of our foursome knew absolutely everything about Cardinal baseball, and was eager to share information, but did not interact beyond that. The family that sat behind us carried on conversations throughout the game...something about an upcoming trip...but never interacted with anyone around them. In front of us, a family exhibited very close relationships, but only within their small group.
Isn't it interesting that the greatest degree of interaction at the game took place between us and a couple from Tennessee, she of Philippine descent, speaking no English, with her very young daughter, who looked remarkably like her mother, and he a forty-something, outwardly successful and very protective provider. The daughter was a true beauty. She turned and watched us early on, so we began to interact with her. In time, we communicated with the parents, wondering if we could give her some of the Swizzlers that we had purchased. (She and her mother tried some, by the way, but seemingly found the taste a bit overpowering.)
People can be nice even at the ballpark. Even within the maddening 42,000 crush of humanity and the mad rush to traffic jams afterward, people can be kind.
I sincerely hope that the young daughter of the couple in front of us remembers that there are nice people around, and that sometimes they share their Swizzlers. I hope that her experience was made better by interacting with the weird couple who sat behind her and played with her throughout the game. I sincerely hope that it plants a seed and that, years from now, she might share her Swizzlers with a stranger who sits in front of her, heightening the experience of kindness for that stranger. (I should add, by the way, that she repeatedly tried to share from her sippy cup with Lisa, much to the amusement of everyone around us.)
It is interesting, too, how others around treated one another. It was as if walls separated families, couples and persons from one another. There was scant little kindness. People did not, by and large, go out of their way to be nice.
But kindness shone in the face of the little girl in front of us. No matter what language one speaks, or from where persons come, there is always a value to being nice and doing things that are kind. Upset the status quo. Disrupt the usual. Shake the foundations of the walls that divide us. Be nice. Be kind.
Monday, June 30, 2014
Rally for Ally
Some folks from Shiloh Church participated in, and the congregation co-sponsored, a very important community event this past weekend. It was called the "Rally for Ally." It was held at T.J. Chumps, in Englewood.
The Rally for Ally began with 70 participants in a morning run/walk, breakfast, a bike poker ride in the afternoon, featuring more then 70 riders, and a dinner, raffle and entertainment in the evening. Shiloh provided chairs for the event and the use of the small sound system. We also provided the blessing before the poker run and simply helped out throughout the event.
Rally for Ally supports families whose children are suffering from cancer. Ally is a survivor. Other survivors and sufferers were present and participating in the day's events. The several thousand dollars of funds raised will be utilized through a not-for-profit organization, called We Fight Together, to assist families at Children's Hospital, here in Dayton, whose children have been diagnosed with cancer and who are being treated at Children's. Each family will receive a care bag upon arrival at the hospital. The bags contain more than $150 of direct discount and assistance around and within the hospital. Since most families travel hastily to Children's such support is vital to their care. We fight Together and Rally for Ally are important support ministries within the local Dayton community. I hope you will each find a way to support the effort.
I began setting up the sound system at about 10:00 a.m., outside on a very humid morning. I was sweating quite profusely by the time one of the bikers' who had arrived early for the poker run, asked me if I might need some assistance. I said that I would appreciate his help. We laughed and joked through the remainder of the set up. Afterward, he offered to buy me a beverage. I agreed and we sat, talking, at a table on the patio at T.J. Chumps.
He assumed that I was a d.j. of sorts. We talked about the sound system and how nice it was to have a portable unit. We talked about poker rides and the nature of local fund raising. Less than an hour after our conversation, a few announcements were made. I was then introduced to conduct the blessing of the ride. The gentleman with whom I had sat and shared both beverage and conversation looked quizzically at me from the crowd. Immediately after the blessing, he came up to me and apologized. He did not know that I was a "preacher," he said, and that he was embarrassed by some of his language and by "making" me drink a beer.
Those who know me know that it is not hard work to get me to drink a beer. You likely also know that I am not particularly shocked by any form of language, unless it demonstrates outright prejudice or is unkind.
This gentleman and I then had a conversation about the church's involvement in community fund-raising and social/secular events. His assumption, and he admitted it, was that the church did things only for itself, and that it raised funds only for its own purposes. The church, he said, did not tend to pitch in with other events and help people in the community. (He put that rather more colorfully, but I think that is, in essence, what he meant.)
I told him about Shiloh. I explained that we are a church that sees itself "Living the Word by Serving the World." I even pointed out the church logo, that appeared on the shirts and literature for the event. I told him that we invest our time, talent, treasure and energy in the community, to enhance the lives of those who are in need.
The ride started a few minutes later and he took off on his Harley with the rest of the riders. I hope that our conversation and our brief work together changed his mind about the role of the church in the community. I hope that involvement in events like Rally for Ally, and continued support of organizations like We Fight Together, continue to teach the community about a different kind of church, one that they can again get behind and support.
I know that my new biker friend learned something about us through the event. I hope that we can continue to express a different kind of faith to, within and through our community, that we may, someday, see a resurgence of the church's ministry and service.
The Rally for Ally began with 70 participants in a morning run/walk, breakfast, a bike poker ride in the afternoon, featuring more then 70 riders, and a dinner, raffle and entertainment in the evening. Shiloh provided chairs for the event and the use of the small sound system. We also provided the blessing before the poker run and simply helped out throughout the event.
Rally for Ally supports families whose children are suffering from cancer. Ally is a survivor. Other survivors and sufferers were present and participating in the day's events. The several thousand dollars of funds raised will be utilized through a not-for-profit organization, called We Fight Together, to assist families at Children's Hospital, here in Dayton, whose children have been diagnosed with cancer and who are being treated at Children's. Each family will receive a care bag upon arrival at the hospital. The bags contain more than $150 of direct discount and assistance around and within the hospital. Since most families travel hastily to Children's such support is vital to their care. We fight Together and Rally for Ally are important support ministries within the local Dayton community. I hope you will each find a way to support the effort.
I began setting up the sound system at about 10:00 a.m., outside on a very humid morning. I was sweating quite profusely by the time one of the bikers' who had arrived early for the poker run, asked me if I might need some assistance. I said that I would appreciate his help. We laughed and joked through the remainder of the set up. Afterward, he offered to buy me a beverage. I agreed and we sat, talking, at a table on the patio at T.J. Chumps.
He assumed that I was a d.j. of sorts. We talked about the sound system and how nice it was to have a portable unit. We talked about poker rides and the nature of local fund raising. Less than an hour after our conversation, a few announcements were made. I was then introduced to conduct the blessing of the ride. The gentleman with whom I had sat and shared both beverage and conversation looked quizzically at me from the crowd. Immediately after the blessing, he came up to me and apologized. He did not know that I was a "preacher," he said, and that he was embarrassed by some of his language and by "making" me drink a beer.
Those who know me know that it is not hard work to get me to drink a beer. You likely also know that I am not particularly shocked by any form of language, unless it demonstrates outright prejudice or is unkind.
This gentleman and I then had a conversation about the church's involvement in community fund-raising and social/secular events. His assumption, and he admitted it, was that the church did things only for itself, and that it raised funds only for its own purposes. The church, he said, did not tend to pitch in with other events and help people in the community. (He put that rather more colorfully, but I think that is, in essence, what he meant.)
I told him about Shiloh. I explained that we are a church that sees itself "Living the Word by Serving the World." I even pointed out the church logo, that appeared on the shirts and literature for the event. I told him that we invest our time, talent, treasure and energy in the community, to enhance the lives of those who are in need.
The ride started a few minutes later and he took off on his Harley with the rest of the riders. I hope that our conversation and our brief work together changed his mind about the role of the church in the community. I hope that involvement in events like Rally for Ally, and continued support of organizations like We Fight Together, continue to teach the community about a different kind of church, one that they can again get behind and support.
I know that my new biker friend learned something about us through the event. I hope that we can continue to express a different kind of faith to, within and through our community, that we may, someday, see a resurgence of the church's ministry and service.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Paying the Price of Being Nice
The United Church of Christ Statement of Faith reads, in part:
"God calls us into the Church to accept the cost of joy of discipleship, to be God's servants in the service of others, to proclaim the gospel to all the world and resist the powers of evil, to share in Christ's baptism and to eat at his table, to join him in his passion and victory."
As much as I want to amend the statement to claim that we share in God's call to both discipleship and apostleship, I want to highlight just a portion of this Statement of Faith (Doxological form). I want to underline the notion that, while both discipleship and apostleship involve the joys of faithful ministry and service, those acts necessarily come with costs. We join Christ in both his passion and his victory.
This is contrary to the wishes of many in our congregations, who seemingly want to celebrate the victory of faithfulness without having first suffered the passion. Many seek the joy without the cost.
Put differently, there is a price for being nice. It seems infantile, really, to have to be teaching simple lessons of being nice, of going out of our way for others, of doing what it takes, in every aspect of our personal and communal lives, to exercise fundamental respect and honor.
Perhaps we tend to compartmentalize. Perhaps we have been led to believe that it is appropriate for us in certain, convenient settings, to act from the fundamentals of our faith, but it is not required of us when we are pursuing leisure or in the course of our daily routine. We have been taught that there are times to be nice. There are circumstances in which it is right for us to act kindly. In other circumstances, and at other times, we don't have to do that.
I am dumbfounded when I witness otherwise good people engaging in intentional acts of rejection, exclusion or isolation of those whom they do not particularly like. Being nice is off the table when we reject, exclude or isolate.
There is a difference, of course, between being nice and being polite. Being polite can be accomplished superficially or inauthentically. We can fake it. We can smile and say kind things, even when we do not honestly intend them. Being nice is on a completely different level. It cannot be faked. Being nice requires something of us in a situation that might otherwise result in exclusion, rejection or isolation. It costs us something for the sake of those whom we may include, accept or embrace.
The Church, at its best, is a training ground for those who would be nice in the name of Jesus Christ. It is a place where we learn by watching our founder practicing beyond politeness. It is a place where we join together, supporting one another in the cost of our apostleship, praying for one another's strength and witness. It is a place where we accept, embrace, and include those who may differ from us, because we are called to be nice.
Everything that gets in the way of the Church being a place that practices being nice should be stopped. Everything that promotes the Church being a place that practices being nice should be pursued. (By the way, I happen to believe that this is the case for every religion...that, at it's core, we are taught to go out of our way to be nice.)
So, be nice. Pay the price. Accept the cost of apostleship, in order that others may know its joy.
"God calls us into the Church to accept the cost of joy of discipleship, to be God's servants in the service of others, to proclaim the gospel to all the world and resist the powers of evil, to share in Christ's baptism and to eat at his table, to join him in his passion and victory."
As much as I want to amend the statement to claim that we share in God's call to both discipleship and apostleship, I want to highlight just a portion of this Statement of Faith (Doxological form). I want to underline the notion that, while both discipleship and apostleship involve the joys of faithful ministry and service, those acts necessarily come with costs. We join Christ in both his passion and his victory.
This is contrary to the wishes of many in our congregations, who seemingly want to celebrate the victory of faithfulness without having first suffered the passion. Many seek the joy without the cost.
Put differently, there is a price for being nice. It seems infantile, really, to have to be teaching simple lessons of being nice, of going out of our way for others, of doing what it takes, in every aspect of our personal and communal lives, to exercise fundamental respect and honor.
Perhaps we tend to compartmentalize. Perhaps we have been led to believe that it is appropriate for us in certain, convenient settings, to act from the fundamentals of our faith, but it is not required of us when we are pursuing leisure or in the course of our daily routine. We have been taught that there are times to be nice. There are circumstances in which it is right for us to act kindly. In other circumstances, and at other times, we don't have to do that.
I am dumbfounded when I witness otherwise good people engaging in intentional acts of rejection, exclusion or isolation of those whom they do not particularly like. Being nice is off the table when we reject, exclude or isolate.
There is a difference, of course, between being nice and being polite. Being polite can be accomplished superficially or inauthentically. We can fake it. We can smile and say kind things, even when we do not honestly intend them. Being nice is on a completely different level. It cannot be faked. Being nice requires something of us in a situation that might otherwise result in exclusion, rejection or isolation. It costs us something for the sake of those whom we may include, accept or embrace.
The Church, at its best, is a training ground for those who would be nice in the name of Jesus Christ. It is a place where we learn by watching our founder practicing beyond politeness. It is a place where we join together, supporting one another in the cost of our apostleship, praying for one another's strength and witness. It is a place where we accept, embrace, and include those who may differ from us, because we are called to be nice.
Everything that gets in the way of the Church being a place that practices being nice should be stopped. Everything that promotes the Church being a place that practices being nice should be pursued. (By the way, I happen to believe that this is the case for every religion...that, at it's core, we are taught to go out of our way to be nice.)
So, be nice. Pay the price. Accept the cost of apostleship, in order that others may know its joy.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Creation and Creator
I was always taught that there was a wide gap between God, as Creator, and humanity, as creation. God is holy, I was told, while humanity was essentially sinful, flawed, limited and unworthy. It was therefore the grace of God, and that alone, which bridged the gap between unworthy humanity and sacred divinity. It was God who bent to the weakness of undeserving humankind, mainly because humans are unable to ascend the heights of divine status.
That picture of the relationship between God and God's creation served as a core understanding for a very long time. It rested as a foundational assumption under much of my theological development. God was Creator and humanity was creation, and never the twain shall meet.
The time has come, however, for me to accept a different relationship between God and humankind. This new relationship is based on intimacy and involvement instead of passivity or design of some divine plan or fate. This new relationship rejects the notion that God is "above" or "other." It demands that we see God as within and through, around and among, between and across.
The God of divine status, far above human nature, suggests that we consider a God that, like humans, thinks, acts, judges and emotes. This is a God who wills. But what if God is different than we have thought? What if God is spiritual energy that inhabits neither time nor space? What if God is throughout instead of above? What if all life can be defined as the presence of this divine spiritual energy and death is simply its absence? What if every person, in fact every living thing, deserves divine status, simply by virtue of being a bearer of God's spiritual energy?
If God's spiritual energy is throughout all living things, then all living things are essentially worthy, capable, deserving and radically equal. There is no gap between divinity and humanity. There is instead a unity of all things in the divinity of all life.
Years ago, when I rejected for myself the notion of God as an old man who sat on a throne, high above, and acted capriciously in the course of human history, I discovered the need for an alternative picture of what and who God might be. I unlearned my metaphysical divinity and began looking for an existential God, one who truly impacts human history. I could imagine a God which acted within the course of human affairs instead of above and over them. I began to draw the portrait of a divinity that was in Christ the same way that the same divinity is within us.
From the standpoint of an alternative foundational assumption about God, a whole new theology takes shape. This theology is based on the divine abilities that are part and parcel of human essential nature. By virtue of being alive, after all, humans bear the divine spiritual energy. Each one is worthy of attention, integrity, respect, care and concern. All life is deserving. All life is divine spiritual energy.
So, perhaps there is a gap between divinity and humanity, but the gap rests in its application instead of its essential nature. I relate much better to this divinity. It is much closer, more intimate, more directly applicable to the human endeavor, if we see ourselves as bearers of divine spiritual energy.
That picture of the relationship between God and God's creation served as a core understanding for a very long time. It rested as a foundational assumption under much of my theological development. God was Creator and humanity was creation, and never the twain shall meet.
The time has come, however, for me to accept a different relationship between God and humankind. This new relationship is based on intimacy and involvement instead of passivity or design of some divine plan or fate. This new relationship rejects the notion that God is "above" or "other." It demands that we see God as within and through, around and among, between and across.
The God of divine status, far above human nature, suggests that we consider a God that, like humans, thinks, acts, judges and emotes. This is a God who wills. But what if God is different than we have thought? What if God is spiritual energy that inhabits neither time nor space? What if God is throughout instead of above? What if all life can be defined as the presence of this divine spiritual energy and death is simply its absence? What if every person, in fact every living thing, deserves divine status, simply by virtue of being a bearer of God's spiritual energy?
If God's spiritual energy is throughout all living things, then all living things are essentially worthy, capable, deserving and radically equal. There is no gap between divinity and humanity. There is instead a unity of all things in the divinity of all life.
Years ago, when I rejected for myself the notion of God as an old man who sat on a throne, high above, and acted capriciously in the course of human history, I discovered the need for an alternative picture of what and who God might be. I unlearned my metaphysical divinity and began looking for an existential God, one who truly impacts human history. I could imagine a God which acted within the course of human affairs instead of above and over them. I began to draw the portrait of a divinity that was in Christ the same way that the same divinity is within us.
From the standpoint of an alternative foundational assumption about God, a whole new theology takes shape. This theology is based on the divine abilities that are part and parcel of human essential nature. By virtue of being alive, after all, humans bear the divine spiritual energy. Each one is worthy of attention, integrity, respect, care and concern. All life is deserving. All life is divine spiritual energy.
So, perhaps there is a gap between divinity and humanity, but the gap rests in its application instead of its essential nature. I relate much better to this divinity. It is much closer, more intimate, more directly applicable to the human endeavor, if we see ourselves as bearers of divine spiritual energy.
Monday, June 09, 2014
The Purpose-Driven Church
What if organizations in the life of the church were to organize themselves around a stated purpose, one that distinguishes them from social and fraternal organizations? What would that mean, and what would it look like? It would mean, I think, that every group within the life of the church would be aimed at embodying the will of God in Christ in whatever the groups do.
The church today must acknowledge that, because of trends that were established long ago, there are groups and organizations within our churches that are aimed exclusively at the interests, entertainment and pleasure of those who are a part of them. The purpose of such organizations is to protect the activities, interests and preferences of the group. Change things and current membership will be alienated from a group that has long been important to them.
How do churches help groups that have been guided by personal and group preference to become more closely associated with the purpose of the church of which these groups are a part? How do churches help their groups be involved in the ministry of Christ, which is necessarily directed outwardly, instead of serving themselves?
Over the past ten years or so, I have developed a workshop that is intended to assist groups within the Church of Jesus Christ. It is entitled "The Purpose Driven Organization." The intent of the workshop is to assist churches and other organizations to ensure that every body within the larger institution is working toward the same goals. Since I work primarily with Christian churches, the intent is more direct. Churches have a responsibility to assist groups and organizations within them to be faithful to the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ, even if groups and organizations won't necessarily appreciate the effort. The purpose of every group and organization within the Church of Jesus Christ must be the ministry and mission of Christ.
I am painfully aware that this concept flies directly in the face of what many members of these groups and organizations have been taught. I am fully cognizant of the fact that a purpose-driven organization within the church suggests a path other than the self-service that had been pursued in the social gospel approaches of the 70's and 80's, and even the small group approaches of the 90's and early 2000's. This is about embodying the work of Christ Jesus, not about making people socially or logistically comfortable. It is not about entertaining ourselves, but about serving Christ by serving others.
Churches will encounter opposition to the notion that everything that they do can be Christ-centered and Christ-purposed. Ironic, isn't it? Congregations have to struggle with groups within them to ensure that Christ is served in everything that they do. As the spiritual evolution progresses, moving toward a more authentic Christian purpose for the Church, it will be increasingly difficult for those who have been grounded in former articulations of the Church.
Let's keep our eyes on the ball! Keep moving toward that evolutionary step. Keep becoming the purpose-driven church!
The church today must acknowledge that, because of trends that were established long ago, there are groups and organizations within our churches that are aimed exclusively at the interests, entertainment and pleasure of those who are a part of them. The purpose of such organizations is to protect the activities, interests and preferences of the group. Change things and current membership will be alienated from a group that has long been important to them.
How do churches help groups that have been guided by personal and group preference to become more closely associated with the purpose of the church of which these groups are a part? How do churches help their groups be involved in the ministry of Christ, which is necessarily directed outwardly, instead of serving themselves?
Over the past ten years or so, I have developed a workshop that is intended to assist groups within the Church of Jesus Christ. It is entitled "The Purpose Driven Organization." The intent of the workshop is to assist churches and other organizations to ensure that every body within the larger institution is working toward the same goals. Since I work primarily with Christian churches, the intent is more direct. Churches have a responsibility to assist groups and organizations within them to be faithful to the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ, even if groups and organizations won't necessarily appreciate the effort. The purpose of every group and organization within the Church of Jesus Christ must be the ministry and mission of Christ.
I am painfully aware that this concept flies directly in the face of what many members of these groups and organizations have been taught. I am fully cognizant of the fact that a purpose-driven organization within the church suggests a path other than the self-service that had been pursued in the social gospel approaches of the 70's and 80's, and even the small group approaches of the 90's and early 2000's. This is about embodying the work of Christ Jesus, not about making people socially or logistically comfortable. It is not about entertaining ourselves, but about serving Christ by serving others.
Churches will encounter opposition to the notion that everything that they do can be Christ-centered and Christ-purposed. Ironic, isn't it? Congregations have to struggle with groups within them to ensure that Christ is served in everything that they do. As the spiritual evolution progresses, moving toward a more authentic Christian purpose for the Church, it will be increasingly difficult for those who have been grounded in former articulations of the Church.
Let's keep our eyes on the ball! Keep moving toward that evolutionary step. Keep becoming the purpose-driven church!
Monday, June 02, 2014
Drawing Portraits of God
I was a young teen by the time that I had begun to suspect that something was wrong with the traditional portrait of God that I was being shown. The picture drawn for me was of a God who lurked, unseen and unheard, in wait of wrongdoing. When sinfulness was discovered, this angry, wrathful God would pounce, like a lion in the night, and express righteous rage for the unknowing sinner, tearing the sinner limb from limb. Worse, I was told that God would condemn wrongdoers to hell...forever. Eternal suffering was the fate of all who failed to accept God and do the "right things."
This was a God of condemnation. It was a God of wrath and fear and anger. This was a God who distrusted God's own children, who controlled them and manipulated them with threat of severe and eternal punishment. This was the "Tough Love" God whom I grew to despise. I hid from this God. I distrusted this God's will and certainly rejected this God's people. What good, I wondered, came out of following such a God?
As a teen, I rejected the very notion of deity, since the only portrait that I had been shown was one of condemnation, anger, violence and eternal damnation. Along with rejecting the notion of deity, I necessarily rejected church. I could not be active in a church that taught a deity that I refused to accept or acknowledge. If the church wanted me to believe, then it would have to draw for me a different portrait of God. The one that had been put before me made no sense to me.
Another portrait of God began to gradually emerge. Perhaps it was the result of reading or spiritual and philosophical reflection or life experience, but sometime in my early 20's I began to perceive something entirely different. God need not be understood as condemnation, anger, violence and eternal damnation. God can be drawn differently.
I began to perceive the inverse of the portrait of deity that had been painted in my youth, a gracious God, one who provides the tools necessary for making the world a better place...for every person. This new picture displayed a God who equipped, empowered and enabled, who trusted God's children to utilize the gifts that are given in order to live in healthy and productive ways. This was not a God of division but of unity. This was not a God of anger but kindness. This was not a God of retribution but forgiveness and mercy.
By the time I reached seminary, my theology was fully invested in the inverse of the traditional portrait that I had been shown. What I learned there supported the alternative picture of the God of Jesus Christ. (By the way, I think that this dichotomy exists in all religions. It has little to do with God and a great deal more to do with power, manipulation and control of religious authorities.) I determined then that I would commit myself to a vocation of drawing this alternative vision of God for others.
The ministry of following a gracious God is, ironically, more difficult than a ministry that projects a God of rules, regulations and morals. A Gracious God calls us to be primarily concerned with others, while the legalistic God requires only that I be right with the laws. I have since discovered that it is difficult indeed to unlearn the legalistic, angry God that, apparently, many of us were taught. It is difficult in the extreme to allow persons to believe themselves equipped and empowered for ministry that reflects a gracious deity.
While appropriate words may allude us, and while pedagogy fails us, I hope that all who read The Shiloh Insider will be moved to live into faithfulness to the deity drawn for us in the gracious and merciful acts of Jesus Christ. We are not a completed portrait of a church that lives from the image of a gracious God, but we are working at it. I hope that you will join us.
This was a God of condemnation. It was a God of wrath and fear and anger. This was a God who distrusted God's own children, who controlled them and manipulated them with threat of severe and eternal punishment. This was the "Tough Love" God whom I grew to despise. I hid from this God. I distrusted this God's will and certainly rejected this God's people. What good, I wondered, came out of following such a God?
As a teen, I rejected the very notion of deity, since the only portrait that I had been shown was one of condemnation, anger, violence and eternal damnation. Along with rejecting the notion of deity, I necessarily rejected church. I could not be active in a church that taught a deity that I refused to accept or acknowledge. If the church wanted me to believe, then it would have to draw for me a different portrait of God. The one that had been put before me made no sense to me.
Another portrait of God began to gradually emerge. Perhaps it was the result of reading or spiritual and philosophical reflection or life experience, but sometime in my early 20's I began to perceive something entirely different. God need not be understood as condemnation, anger, violence and eternal damnation. God can be drawn differently.
I began to perceive the inverse of the portrait of deity that had been painted in my youth, a gracious God, one who provides the tools necessary for making the world a better place...for every person. This new picture displayed a God who equipped, empowered and enabled, who trusted God's children to utilize the gifts that are given in order to live in healthy and productive ways. This was not a God of division but of unity. This was not a God of anger but kindness. This was not a God of retribution but forgiveness and mercy.
By the time I reached seminary, my theology was fully invested in the inverse of the traditional portrait that I had been shown. What I learned there supported the alternative picture of the God of Jesus Christ. (By the way, I think that this dichotomy exists in all religions. It has little to do with God and a great deal more to do with power, manipulation and control of religious authorities.) I determined then that I would commit myself to a vocation of drawing this alternative vision of God for others.
The ministry of following a gracious God is, ironically, more difficult than a ministry that projects a God of rules, regulations and morals. A Gracious God calls us to be primarily concerned with others, while the legalistic God requires only that I be right with the laws. I have since discovered that it is difficult indeed to unlearn the legalistic, angry God that, apparently, many of us were taught. It is difficult in the extreme to allow persons to believe themselves equipped and empowered for ministry that reflects a gracious deity.
While appropriate words may allude us, and while pedagogy fails us, I hope that all who read The Shiloh Insider will be moved to live into faithfulness to the deity drawn for us in the gracious and merciful acts of Jesus Christ. We are not a completed portrait of a church that lives from the image of a gracious God, but we are working at it. I hope that you will join us.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Keystone Discussion
On June 8, starting at around 5:00 p.m., the Keystone Club of Shiloh Church will gather for a sessions that had been planned originally for February. That session was postponed due to inclement weather. The purpose for the session remains, however. What is Keystone? What does it do? What is its purpose within the life of the Church? Answers to these questions lie at the core of the present and future direction of the organization, and will, hopefully, formulate for us a whole new way of approaching the activities of the Keystone Club.
I conduct self-studies with quite a range of church-related organizations, some local but many regional or around the country. A careful self-study begins with statements of identity and purpose. Some organizations find such statements next to impossible to make. Most find them difficult. What is the purpose of this organization? How does what the group does reflect its stated purpose? What might we stop doing that lies in opposition to the purpose? What else might we do in cooperation with the stated purpose? How might organizations amend procedures and behaviors to better reflect the purpose for which the organization exists in the first place?
It is sometimes dangerous to ask. Since I work primarily, though not exclusively, with church groups, the first questions that I find myself asking have to do with the ministry and mission of Christ Jesus. How does the stated purpose reflect the ministry and mission of Christ Jesus? Does Christ's ministry and mission determine what this organization does, or is it outside of Christ's scope of interest? If the core purpose reflects Christ's ministry and mission, what can we improve upon? What can we create? What do we dare to stop doing?
The June 8 conversation with Shiloh's Keystone Club is a conversation that I sincerely hope that every group within the life of Shiloh Church would dare to conduct. What is the organization's core purpose? How does it reflect the mission and ministry of Christ Jesus? What can groups do to better conduct themselves according to the stated core purposes? What could they do to better reflect the stated purpose and core values? What can groups stop doing in opposition to that purpose and those values? Can groups amend actions and behaviors to better reflect the ministry and mission of Jesus Christ?
There is no perfect church group. Nor is there any one ideal way of doing things. It is my sincere belief that church groups function best when they have a guiding stated purpose, directly reflecting the ministry and mission of Jesus Christ, and when those groups continually work at better reflecting the ministry and mission of Jesus Christ.
Keystone invites everyone into their conversation, if not as Keystone participants, then as participants in other church groups who may benefit from the process. We will gather for a pot luck meal at 5:00 and the discussion at 6:00 p.m. Cost is $4.00 per person for the meal. Join us!
I conduct self-studies with quite a range of church-related organizations, some local but many regional or around the country. A careful self-study begins with statements of identity and purpose. Some organizations find such statements next to impossible to make. Most find them difficult. What is the purpose of this organization? How does what the group does reflect its stated purpose? What might we stop doing that lies in opposition to the purpose? What else might we do in cooperation with the stated purpose? How might organizations amend procedures and behaviors to better reflect the purpose for which the organization exists in the first place?
It is sometimes dangerous to ask. Since I work primarily, though not exclusively, with church groups, the first questions that I find myself asking have to do with the ministry and mission of Christ Jesus. How does the stated purpose reflect the ministry and mission of Christ Jesus? Does Christ's ministry and mission determine what this organization does, or is it outside of Christ's scope of interest? If the core purpose reflects Christ's ministry and mission, what can we improve upon? What can we create? What do we dare to stop doing?
The June 8 conversation with Shiloh's Keystone Club is a conversation that I sincerely hope that every group within the life of Shiloh Church would dare to conduct. What is the organization's core purpose? How does it reflect the mission and ministry of Christ Jesus? What can groups do to better conduct themselves according to the stated core purposes? What could they do to better reflect the stated purpose and core values? What can groups stop doing in opposition to that purpose and those values? Can groups amend actions and behaviors to better reflect the ministry and mission of Jesus Christ?
There is no perfect church group. Nor is there any one ideal way of doing things. It is my sincere belief that church groups function best when they have a guiding stated purpose, directly reflecting the ministry and mission of Jesus Christ, and when those groups continually work at better reflecting the ministry and mission of Jesus Christ.
Keystone invites everyone into their conversation, if not as Keystone participants, then as participants in other church groups who may benefit from the process. We will gather for a pot luck meal at 5:00 and the discussion at 6:00 p.m. Cost is $4.00 per person for the meal. Join us!
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Memorial Day Recognition
Shiloh Church honors those whose lives were sacrificed in service to our Country and who died in order to protect the freedoms that we enjoy today. A special recognition will take place this coming Sunday, May 25, during the congregation's 10:25 a.m. worship service. As always, the public is welcome to join us.
The service will once again feature the presentation of service colors, accompanied by the musical theme for each branch of the American military. Those who have served are invited to stand as their service flag is presented and as their service theme is played. Then the flags of America are presented and placed by the Antioch Shrine Legion of Honor. During the presentation, we are hoping to welcome for the first time the Legion's pipers. After the congregation has risen for the presentation of the flags, and after the flags have been placed, we will honor our Country with the singing of The National Anthem.
After the anthem is sung, leaders from the Legion of Honor will place a memorial wreath, honoring those whose lives were sacrificed in the course of their military service. Participants in the service will want to pick up copies of the names of the congregation's relatives and friends who have served in the military, whether past or present. Shiloh honors them for their service.
At he end of the service, the Legion of Honor will retire the colors. We hope then to share the haunting sound of pipers playing Amazing Grace as we exit.
We sincerely hope that everyone puts such a recognition in its proper perspective. Shiloh does not condone war and genuinely hopes that not another life is lost in protection of America's freedoms. We are confident that people share that hope. Lives have been lost, however. The blood of men and women has been shed in faithful service. Our children have been sacrificed.
Shiloh acknowledges the loss and honors the memory of those who have died. Many have died in sincere hope of spreading the blessings that we so often take for granted. Therefore, our recognition is twofold. Firstly, we remember that the lives that we enjoy have come at an extreme cost. Secondly, we pray that the world may so change that not another drop of blood is spilled.
Join us in recognizing our loss and in praying that no one in the future suffers as we have in the past. May our actions today and tomorrow lead to peace and harmony throughout the world.
The service will once again feature the presentation of service colors, accompanied by the musical theme for each branch of the American military. Those who have served are invited to stand as their service flag is presented and as their service theme is played. Then the flags of America are presented and placed by the Antioch Shrine Legion of Honor. During the presentation, we are hoping to welcome for the first time the Legion's pipers. After the congregation has risen for the presentation of the flags, and after the flags have been placed, we will honor our Country with the singing of The National Anthem.
After the anthem is sung, leaders from the Legion of Honor will place a memorial wreath, honoring those whose lives were sacrificed in the course of their military service. Participants in the service will want to pick up copies of the names of the congregation's relatives and friends who have served in the military, whether past or present. Shiloh honors them for their service.
At he end of the service, the Legion of Honor will retire the colors. We hope then to share the haunting sound of pipers playing Amazing Grace as we exit.
We sincerely hope that everyone puts such a recognition in its proper perspective. Shiloh does not condone war and genuinely hopes that not another life is lost in protection of America's freedoms. We are confident that people share that hope. Lives have been lost, however. The blood of men and women has been shed in faithful service. Our children have been sacrificed.
Shiloh acknowledges the loss and honors the memory of those who have died. Many have died in sincere hope of spreading the blessings that we so often take for granted. Therefore, our recognition is twofold. Firstly, we remember that the lives that we enjoy have come at an extreme cost. Secondly, we pray that the world may so change that not another drop of blood is spilled.
Join us in recognizing our loss and in praying that no one in the future suffers as we have in the past. May our actions today and tomorrow lead to peace and harmony throughout the world.
Monday, May 12, 2014
From "Cared For" to "Caregiver"
A regular feature of Shiloh's 7:00 p.m. alternative/contemporary worship experience is the opportunity to discuss the evening's message. As part of the service, a member of the worship team, usually Justin Sierschula, leads the discussion.
This past week's message centered on the notion that each of us desires to be considered sheep, who are cared for, tended and protected. We rely upon the shepherd to take care of us, to feed us, to guide us, to protect us from the evils of the world. Sometimes, we get stuck there, demanding that God tend to our personal and family needs, that God fix all the wrongs of the world, that Christ save me, comfort me, be beside me.
At what point do we see ourselves as those who are equipped, empowered, enabled and called to shepherd others? At what point do those who have been so thoroughly cared for become the caregivers, the caretakers, the protectors, guides and inspiration to others? When does Christianity become our vocation instead of our safety net?
Justin asked the question during our discussion. "So which are we? Are we sheep or are we shepherds?" he asked.
Which are we?
A member of the worship team probably expressed what each of us was thinking, but for which we could not find appropriate words. "We are both." he said. "We are sheep to the One but must find ways to shepherd for the One."
I continue to find the response a brilliant statement of the Christian vocation. Because we are the sheep of the One, because we follow Christ, a crucified and risen savior who sacrificed himself for all people, throughout space and time, we are called to shepherd. We are called to care for, protect, help guide and inspire the flock. We can no longer simply be cared for. We must be intimately involved in the process of caring, serving, ministering and providing.
Those who follow Jesus Christ do so most faithfully, it seems to me, when we follow the Good Shepherd in paths of sacrificial service that benefits those around us who are in need. We are called to demonstrate the grace of God in Christ. We are called to live mercy, peace, forgiveness, kindness, generosity and love. The Good Shepherd guides us into such paths of service and ministry. To follow him means to pick up his cross and join in the heavy lifting of universal salvation.
Indeed. We are both sheep and shepherds. We are both cared for and caregivers. We are the faithful community of Jesus Christ. Of course we minister and serve in his name. Join us!
This past week's message centered on the notion that each of us desires to be considered sheep, who are cared for, tended and protected. We rely upon the shepherd to take care of us, to feed us, to guide us, to protect us from the evils of the world. Sometimes, we get stuck there, demanding that God tend to our personal and family needs, that God fix all the wrongs of the world, that Christ save me, comfort me, be beside me.
At what point do we see ourselves as those who are equipped, empowered, enabled and called to shepherd others? At what point do those who have been so thoroughly cared for become the caregivers, the caretakers, the protectors, guides and inspiration to others? When does Christianity become our vocation instead of our safety net?
Justin asked the question during our discussion. "So which are we? Are we sheep or are we shepherds?" he asked.
Which are we?
A member of the worship team probably expressed what each of us was thinking, but for which we could not find appropriate words. "We are both." he said. "We are sheep to the One but must find ways to shepherd for the One."
I continue to find the response a brilliant statement of the Christian vocation. Because we are the sheep of the One, because we follow Christ, a crucified and risen savior who sacrificed himself for all people, throughout space and time, we are called to shepherd. We are called to care for, protect, help guide and inspire the flock. We can no longer simply be cared for. We must be intimately involved in the process of caring, serving, ministering and providing.
Those who follow Jesus Christ do so most faithfully, it seems to me, when we follow the Good Shepherd in paths of sacrificial service that benefits those around us who are in need. We are called to demonstrate the grace of God in Christ. We are called to live mercy, peace, forgiveness, kindness, generosity and love. The Good Shepherd guides us into such paths of service and ministry. To follow him means to pick up his cross and join in the heavy lifting of universal salvation.
Indeed. We are both sheep and shepherds. We are both cared for and caregivers. We are the faithful community of Jesus Christ. Of course we minister and serve in his name. Join us!
Tuesday, May 06, 2014
Are There Not Other Issues?
For the first time since he was a child actor, I find myself agreeing, at least on the surface of the issue, with Kirk Cameron. Over the weekend, Mr. Cameron, now a Christian conservative advocate, expressed disappointment with churches that focus mainly on issues of same-gender relationships. He explained that the attention of the church might be better spent on issues that genuinely support relationships, that lift up good and healthy relationships, and that shift the focus away from judgment of a segment of the relationship spectrum to providing for resources and support that is universal.
I admittedly softened the language here. Mr. Cameron actually stated that the church should be more concerned with issues of divorce and perversion than with same-gender relationships. He believes that those who practice poor relationship damage the faith. The church should attend to them.
While I agree that hyperbole around same-gender relationships has reached its crescendo, and that there are more pressing relationship issues in which the church might better involve itself, I also do not wish to condemn persons who are divorced or who practice poor relationship behaviors. Mr. Cameron fails to take into account the fact that each of us is a product of our upbringing, our social environment and the choices that we have made.
The church might better expend its energy and place its focus on supporting good relationships in and through religious institutions. This is more universal than issues of same-gender marriage or the astronomical divorce rate. I would argue, in fact, that the religious right rails against both of these from a stance of poor relationship.
The church can work at building relationships that include mutual and universal respect. It can work at creating and providing resources that build the honor, respect and integrity of all persons, even those who differ in form and practice from us. I argue that such resource and attention would both lower divorce rates and allow us to embrace same-gender relationships. Such attention and focus would allow the church to regain its position as a positive source of communal life. It may reclaim its position as an important and relevant component of post-modern culture.
While I agree in essence with Mr. Cameron's position, I cannot agree that we should use criticism or judgment as a tool for "fixing" destructive behavior. All that accomplishes is alienation and rejection. The church must instead become again a force for positive regard for all persons. It must spend its time and attention on uplifting, building, shaping new and mutually loving relationships. One cannot reject, criticize and reject when one is practicing the love of Christ. So, while you are on the right track, Mr. Cameron, you fall back into models of Christian behavior and belief that no longer work.\
Shiloh is a place where we work for justice and equality for all people. This congregation seeks to be a resource for positive relationship formation. And, of course, everyone is welcome here.
I admittedly softened the language here. Mr. Cameron actually stated that the church should be more concerned with issues of divorce and perversion than with same-gender relationships. He believes that those who practice poor relationship damage the faith. The church should attend to them.
While I agree that hyperbole around same-gender relationships has reached its crescendo, and that there are more pressing relationship issues in which the church might better involve itself, I also do not wish to condemn persons who are divorced or who practice poor relationship behaviors. Mr. Cameron fails to take into account the fact that each of us is a product of our upbringing, our social environment and the choices that we have made.
The church might better expend its energy and place its focus on supporting good relationships in and through religious institutions. This is more universal than issues of same-gender marriage or the astronomical divorce rate. I would argue, in fact, that the religious right rails against both of these from a stance of poor relationship.
The church can work at building relationships that include mutual and universal respect. It can work at creating and providing resources that build the honor, respect and integrity of all persons, even those who differ in form and practice from us. I argue that such resource and attention would both lower divorce rates and allow us to embrace same-gender relationships. Such attention and focus would allow the church to regain its position as a positive source of communal life. It may reclaim its position as an important and relevant component of post-modern culture.
While I agree in essence with Mr. Cameron's position, I cannot agree that we should use criticism or judgment as a tool for "fixing" destructive behavior. All that accomplishes is alienation and rejection. The church must instead become again a force for positive regard for all persons. It must spend its time and attention on uplifting, building, shaping new and mutually loving relationships. One cannot reject, criticize and reject when one is practicing the love of Christ. So, while you are on the right track, Mr. Cameron, you fall back into models of Christian behavior and belief that no longer work.\
Shiloh is a place where we work for justice and equality for all people. This congregation seeks to be a resource for positive relationship formation. And, of course, everyone is welcome here.
Monday, April 28, 2014
"Living the Benediction"
I was especially inspired by a component of this past weekend's spring meeting of the Southwest Ohio Northern Kentucky Association. Of course, it helped that Shiloh's own Jay McMillen serves as Association chair of the team that developed this particular part of spring meeting. The Church Development Team, that group which Jay chairs, offered a panel discussion entitled "Living the Benediction."
"Living the Benediction" was a presentation of new revitalizing initiatives from three of SONKA's congregation. Philippus UCC in Cincinnati, shared its new ministry of facility utilization that opens the congregation as a resource in its troubled community. Truth and Destiny shared its new ministry to transgender persons and communities, providing a safe and loving environment for shared ministry, service and support. First UCC, Cincinnati, shared its ministry of housing homeless families through a weekend once per month.
Each story was remarkable. One was told from the perspective of what was, for all intents and purposes, a dying congregation. Another was told by a new congregation. The third demonstrated a focus that had begun in the congregation somewhere around fifteen years earlier. In each case, the congregations have been enlivened and re-energized. Their niche ministries have breathed new life into their church and communities.
While I found each of the stories meaningful and exciting, what I most appreciated about the presentation was the basic notion of "Living the Benediction." What does it mean for our congregations to live the benediction? By the way, what is a benediction?
In good liturgical design, there are five essential parts of worship:
We Gather (But we gather in the old life of community and family and vocation)
We Die to the Old Life (We give up the old ways, emptying ourselves)
We Receive New Life (The void in us is filled with God's Word)
We Accept the New Life (We embrace God's Word as course for new life)
We Go Out and Serve in the New Life (We complete God's praise in ministry and service)
Part of that final act of liturgical worship is the "Benediction." In Shiloh's liturgical design, we call it "The Blessing." It is the promise that, as we go forth in ministry and service, God's spirit goes with us, strengthening us and guiding us in paths of faithful service.It is the notion that the congregation goes out to intentionally live out God's Word, God's will, forming God's reign and claiming God's realm.
To live out the benediction means to intentionally act to embody God's Word and will in acts and words that reflect that new life. Congregations like Philippus, First UCC and Truth and Destiny have surely embraced the new life and found ways to live the benediction. What an inspirational approach to telling the good news of what is taking place throughout SONKA! Thanks to the Association's Church Development Team and a great big way to go to our own Jay McMillen!
Now, how is Shiloh "Living the Benediction?" How might this congregation do more to intentionally embrace the new life of Christ?
"Living the Benediction" was a presentation of new revitalizing initiatives from three of SONKA's congregation. Philippus UCC in Cincinnati, shared its new ministry of facility utilization that opens the congregation as a resource in its troubled community. Truth and Destiny shared its new ministry to transgender persons and communities, providing a safe and loving environment for shared ministry, service and support. First UCC, Cincinnati, shared its ministry of housing homeless families through a weekend once per month.
Each story was remarkable. One was told from the perspective of what was, for all intents and purposes, a dying congregation. Another was told by a new congregation. The third demonstrated a focus that had begun in the congregation somewhere around fifteen years earlier. In each case, the congregations have been enlivened and re-energized. Their niche ministries have breathed new life into their church and communities.
While I found each of the stories meaningful and exciting, what I most appreciated about the presentation was the basic notion of "Living the Benediction." What does it mean for our congregations to live the benediction? By the way, what is a benediction?
In good liturgical design, there are five essential parts of worship:
We Gather (But we gather in the old life of community and family and vocation)
We Die to the Old Life (We give up the old ways, emptying ourselves)
We Receive New Life (The void in us is filled with God's Word)
We Accept the New Life (We embrace God's Word as course for new life)
We Go Out and Serve in the New Life (We complete God's praise in ministry and service)
Part of that final act of liturgical worship is the "Benediction." In Shiloh's liturgical design, we call it "The Blessing." It is the promise that, as we go forth in ministry and service, God's spirit goes with us, strengthening us and guiding us in paths of faithful service.It is the notion that the congregation goes out to intentionally live out God's Word, God's will, forming God's reign and claiming God's realm.
To live out the benediction means to intentionally act to embody God's Word and will in acts and words that reflect that new life. Congregations like Philippus, First UCC and Truth and Destiny have surely embraced the new life and found ways to live the benediction. What an inspirational approach to telling the good news of what is taking place throughout SONKA! Thanks to the Association's Church Development Team and a great big way to go to our own Jay McMillen!
Now, how is Shiloh "Living the Benediction?" How might this congregation do more to intentionally embrace the new life of Christ?
Monday, April 21, 2014
Easter Hangover
I have an Easter hangover. Unlike the other, unpleasant kind of day-after payback that we suffer for over-indulging, this hangover is distinctly joyous.
This past week was, of course, Holy Week. It ended with a service of Tenebrae, where Jesus lay, dead in the tomb, and the new week started with the startling good news of his Resurrection. Life conquers death. The heavenly virtues of kindness, generosity, forgiveness, grace and mercy are demonstrated to be more powerful that those of human, physical, material contrivance.
The crowd Sunday was tremendous, both large and energetic. There was an infectious vibrancy in the air. The Spirit was surely moving at Shiloh Church. I suppose that any person who attended service here felt exactly that of which I write. It was electric.
I write on the Monday after Easter, sitting in my relatively quiet office, feeling both the sense of excitement from yesterday and the need to return to the mundane tasks of the church after Easter. Worship must be written, Bible studies need to be planned, staff needs to be organized, this coming Sunday's three message need to be built, phones need to be answered and multiple questions need to be addressed.
There remains something in the air, however. There is a vibration, just out of reach of the senses. Even in the course of the mundane, weekly effort of church work, the spirit continues to enliven the multiple settings of ministry and mission. It moves. It infuses. It flows.
Today, the feeling is palpable. It is overt, obvious. Hopefully, the vibrancy of that Easter spirit continues to move in and through even the mundane work to which we are called. Maybe it can show in the smallest of acts, in the humblest ministries, in the most hidden missions, and shine with a light so bright that it overcomes the darkness that sometimes settles around us.
Do you feel it? Is it moving in and through you as well? I sincerely hope that your Easter hangover is as pleasing and powerful as mine is today, and I hope that it shows in every word that your speak and in every act that you take. Let the world see that life has overcome death, even in us.
This past week was, of course, Holy Week. It ended with a service of Tenebrae, where Jesus lay, dead in the tomb, and the new week started with the startling good news of his Resurrection. Life conquers death. The heavenly virtues of kindness, generosity, forgiveness, grace and mercy are demonstrated to be more powerful that those of human, physical, material contrivance.
The crowd Sunday was tremendous, both large and energetic. There was an infectious vibrancy in the air. The Spirit was surely moving at Shiloh Church. I suppose that any person who attended service here felt exactly that of which I write. It was electric.
I write on the Monday after Easter, sitting in my relatively quiet office, feeling both the sense of excitement from yesterday and the need to return to the mundane tasks of the church after Easter. Worship must be written, Bible studies need to be planned, staff needs to be organized, this coming Sunday's three message need to be built, phones need to be answered and multiple questions need to be addressed.
There remains something in the air, however. There is a vibration, just out of reach of the senses. Even in the course of the mundane, weekly effort of church work, the spirit continues to enliven the multiple settings of ministry and mission. It moves. It infuses. It flows.
Today, the feeling is palpable. It is overt, obvious. Hopefully, the vibrancy of that Easter spirit continues to move in and through even the mundane work to which we are called. Maybe it can show in the smallest of acts, in the humblest ministries, in the most hidden missions, and shine with a light so bright that it overcomes the darkness that sometimes settles around us.
Do you feel it? Is it moving in and through you as well? I sincerely hope that your Easter hangover is as pleasing and powerful as mine is today, and I hope that it shows in every word that your speak and in every act that you take. Let the world see that life has overcome death, even in us.
Monday, April 14, 2014
What is Worship?
I was asked on Sunday a very interesting question. It arose in the midst of Shiloh's April Church Council meeting ( for those not steeped in UCC-speak, a Council is a congregation's governing board, usually meeting monthly to conduct the business of the church). A few members of the congregation posted the question through representatives to Shiloh's Council.
The question is this: "What is worship?"
While I was asked only second-handedly, I want to take this week's post to The Shiloh Insider to attempt an answer. What is worship? It occurs to me that worship, like ministry, evangelism and stewardship, is an intentional act of the praise of God.
Worship is the intentional praise of God. It is a verb. It is an act. It is work. More concretely, worship is the intentional praise of God that requires the gathered community to work, act and do. We can draw this type of worship, using an image from the theater:
In passive forms of worship, the characters of the theater of worship look like this:
The Pastor is the actor. She or he does worship.
God is the director, who sets what is to be done and how.
The congregation is the audience to and recipient of worship.
In an active form of worship, the characters of the theater of worship look like this:
The Pastor is the director, ensuring opportunities for praise in the how and what.
The congregation is the cast of actors, doing the work of worship.
God is audience to and recipient of worship.
Worship is intentional, active praise of God.
That definition leaves us wanting, however. How do we praise God? Are there not as many approaches to corporate acts of praise as there are persons in the community? Is praise objective or subjective? Is it an established set of rituals, behaviors and practices, or is the process of praise more intuitive, inductive, creative?
Shiloh attempts to address three distinct styles of the intentional praise of God in its worship life. One of our services meets the needs of those persons and times when persons might prefer a more quiet, uncomplicated opportunity for reflection around and application of God's Word. Another of Shiloh's worship opportunities offers a more traditional weekly experience of the Crucifixion and Resurrection from liturgical structure, seeing that some persons engage in acts of praise within the context of tried and true formulas of relative orthodoxy. Another of Shiloh's services offers an opportunity to praise God in overt, often loud and messy, celebration of God's love and grace.
Shiloh offers three varying weekly opportunities for intentional acts of praise in worship. The 8:30 service offers acts of praise that are introspective, quiet and uncomplicated (which is not to say "easy"). The 10:25 service offers a liturgical experience of Crucifixion and Resurrection, though less formally so than in decades past, for those who prefer a sense of order and orthodoxy. The 7:00 p.m. service is celebratory and is for those who desire praise to be boisterous, fun, uplifting and energizing.
Each worship type offers the opportunity for persons to engage in the work of praise, though the form of that work and praise differs. Each is worship. Each is praise. Each is faithful. Therefore, worship does not always take the same form or meet the same needs, it is not always a set formula of beliefs, statements, behaviors or responses. While expectations of persons may sometimes fall into such solid formulations, worship includes all of these, and more.
Worship is an intentional act of praise, in which Shiloh engages faithfully. I hope that you will join us regularly, or perhaps for the first time this Easter Sunday!
The question is this: "What is worship?"
While I was asked only second-handedly, I want to take this week's post to The Shiloh Insider to attempt an answer. What is worship? It occurs to me that worship, like ministry, evangelism and stewardship, is an intentional act of the praise of God.
Worship is the intentional praise of God. It is a verb. It is an act. It is work. More concretely, worship is the intentional praise of God that requires the gathered community to work, act and do. We can draw this type of worship, using an image from the theater:
In passive forms of worship, the characters of the theater of worship look like this:
The Pastor is the actor. She or he does worship.
God is the director, who sets what is to be done and how.
The congregation is the audience to and recipient of worship.
In an active form of worship, the characters of the theater of worship look like this:
The Pastor is the director, ensuring opportunities for praise in the how and what.
The congregation is the cast of actors, doing the work of worship.
God is audience to and recipient of worship.
Worship is intentional, active praise of God.
That definition leaves us wanting, however. How do we praise God? Are there not as many approaches to corporate acts of praise as there are persons in the community? Is praise objective or subjective? Is it an established set of rituals, behaviors and practices, or is the process of praise more intuitive, inductive, creative?
Shiloh attempts to address three distinct styles of the intentional praise of God in its worship life. One of our services meets the needs of those persons and times when persons might prefer a more quiet, uncomplicated opportunity for reflection around and application of God's Word. Another of Shiloh's worship opportunities offers a more traditional weekly experience of the Crucifixion and Resurrection from liturgical structure, seeing that some persons engage in acts of praise within the context of tried and true formulas of relative orthodoxy. Another of Shiloh's services offers an opportunity to praise God in overt, often loud and messy, celebration of God's love and grace.
Shiloh offers three varying weekly opportunities for intentional acts of praise in worship. The 8:30 service offers acts of praise that are introspective, quiet and uncomplicated (which is not to say "easy"). The 10:25 service offers a liturgical experience of Crucifixion and Resurrection, though less formally so than in decades past, for those who prefer a sense of order and orthodoxy. The 7:00 p.m. service is celebratory and is for those who desire praise to be boisterous, fun, uplifting and energizing.
Each worship type offers the opportunity for persons to engage in the work of praise, though the form of that work and praise differs. Each is worship. Each is praise. Each is faithful. Therefore, worship does not always take the same form or meet the same needs, it is not always a set formula of beliefs, statements, behaviors or responses. While expectations of persons may sometimes fall into such solid formulations, worship includes all of these, and more.
Worship is an intentional act of praise, in which Shiloh engages faithfully. I hope that you will join us regularly, or perhaps for the first time this Easter Sunday!
Monday, April 07, 2014
A Kind Word
I ran a completely unscientific and unexpected experiment this morning that demonstrates the fact that we do not say kind things to people nearly often enough.
First, let me be clear about the intent here. The attempt at making someone's day just a bit better did not begin as an experiment of any kind. Sometime during sleep last night, I decided to message a group of my Facebook friends to let them know that I appreciate them. The selections were completely random. Whoever was on within a designated time received a message from me. To women, the message read, "Want you to know that you are beautiful, inside and out." To the men, it read, "You are a good persons and I am glad to know you."
Fifty such messages were posted, as private messages, in Facebook Messenger.
I received forty-seven responses. The majority of those return messages wondered what had spurred such a comment. Was I sick or dying? Had something happened? What did I know and what is going on? I should admit, I suppose, that it is a fairly rare occurrence for me to make such comment without context or without invitation of some kind. After all, doing so may be considered, at least in my 20-something daughter's parlance, as "creepy."
You are beautiful, inside and out.
You are a good person and I am glad to know you.
Forty-seven discussions followed. Some of these people I have had no discussion with in at least several weeks. Some have not heard from me in a year or so. I do not remember ever having had a discussion with one of those to whom I sent a message.
The universal comment was more than simply "thanks." It was, "I really needed that today (or right now)." Every single person from whom I heard in return said that the brief comment had made a difference in how they will approach their day and how they might be willing to say kind things to others.
It took exactly three minutes to send out fifty Messenger messages. It has taken two hours to field the responses and engage in conversations. I am confident that taking that time will ripple through the vast communities of those to whom I addressed the initial message.
I think that I will try this again tomorrow. Who knows? Maybe saying nice things to people can affect attitudes and moods to the point where others will take up the cause of saying kind things to one another. Maybe we have been working too hard at bringing God's kingdom. Maybe all it takes is a kind word.
Join me?
First, let me be clear about the intent here. The attempt at making someone's day just a bit better did not begin as an experiment of any kind. Sometime during sleep last night, I decided to message a group of my Facebook friends to let them know that I appreciate them. The selections were completely random. Whoever was on within a designated time received a message from me. To women, the message read, "Want you to know that you are beautiful, inside and out." To the men, it read, "You are a good persons and I am glad to know you."
Fifty such messages were posted, as private messages, in Facebook Messenger.
I received forty-seven responses. The majority of those return messages wondered what had spurred such a comment. Was I sick or dying? Had something happened? What did I know and what is going on? I should admit, I suppose, that it is a fairly rare occurrence for me to make such comment without context or without invitation of some kind. After all, doing so may be considered, at least in my 20-something daughter's parlance, as "creepy."
You are beautiful, inside and out.
You are a good person and I am glad to know you.
Forty-seven discussions followed. Some of these people I have had no discussion with in at least several weeks. Some have not heard from me in a year or so. I do not remember ever having had a discussion with one of those to whom I sent a message.
The universal comment was more than simply "thanks." It was, "I really needed that today (or right now)." Every single person from whom I heard in return said that the brief comment had made a difference in how they will approach their day and how they might be willing to say kind things to others.
It took exactly three minutes to send out fifty Messenger messages. It has taken two hours to field the responses and engage in conversations. I am confident that taking that time will ripple through the vast communities of those to whom I addressed the initial message.
I think that I will try this again tomorrow. Who knows? Maybe saying nice things to people can affect attitudes and moods to the point where others will take up the cause of saying kind things to one another. Maybe we have been working too hard at bringing God's kingdom. Maybe all it takes is a kind word.
Join me?
Monday, March 31, 2014
A Light in the Darkness
It seems sometimes that everything is closing in around us, like everything is falling apart, like there is simply no hope for things to improve.
Shiloh has been under a cloud for the first several months of 2014. The weather has been awful. It has kept many away, both from worship and from activities in the life of the church. When people do not come, everything in the life of the congregation suffers, from morale to money.
As always, Shiloh has been a very busy place, where we work tirelessly to "Live the Word by Serving the World." The February concentration on Black History Month was meaningful and energizing, as was the celebration on March 2-3. Bible @ Boston's has been going strongly enough, especially through that celebration and into Lent. Weekly Bible studies are sparsely attended but very meaningful for those who have been attending. The dedication concert for Shiloh's organ console was well attended and a tremendous success, despite the fact that the antiphonal, which worked just that morning, ceased to function.
The staff has been decimated by illness and injury. One member of the staff has had knee replacement surgery and is not yet back to the office. Another faces triple bypass surgery later this week, and faces at least eight weeks off of work. A third has just been hospitalized with pneumonia. A fourth has been affected by flu-like symptoms, and has missed some activities. A fifth staff member is on vacation this week, while the rest of us are walking and driving very carefully. We simply can't afford another staff member off work and maintain anything like the level of activity to which Shiloh has become accustomed.
It has felt recently as though, like Milne's Eeyore, a dark cloud has settled over us. We do excellent ministry, but it seems more and more difficult to accomplish the things that we had, in the past, taken for granted.
Perhaps it is appropriate at this point in the season of Lent to feel the oppression of the surrounding darkness. Maybe it is right for us to feel a sense of dark depression, to recognize the impending doom of both Jesus' Crucifixion and our own faithful response. It may be the case that we are unable to genuinely experience the light of Resurrection without first passing through the darkness of death.
As we heard during Shiloh's Black History Month celebration, maybe these are times that we can but "watch and pray," waiting for the light of new life to break into the gathering gloom. Pray for Ken and Sid and Martha and Aaron. Pray for one another, as we take this journey together.
Watch and pray!
Shiloh has been under a cloud for the first several months of 2014. The weather has been awful. It has kept many away, both from worship and from activities in the life of the church. When people do not come, everything in the life of the congregation suffers, from morale to money.
As always, Shiloh has been a very busy place, where we work tirelessly to "Live the Word by Serving the World." The February concentration on Black History Month was meaningful and energizing, as was the celebration on March 2-3. Bible @ Boston's has been going strongly enough, especially through that celebration and into Lent. Weekly Bible studies are sparsely attended but very meaningful for those who have been attending. The dedication concert for Shiloh's organ console was well attended and a tremendous success, despite the fact that the antiphonal, which worked just that morning, ceased to function.
The staff has been decimated by illness and injury. One member of the staff has had knee replacement surgery and is not yet back to the office. Another faces triple bypass surgery later this week, and faces at least eight weeks off of work. A third has just been hospitalized with pneumonia. A fourth has been affected by flu-like symptoms, and has missed some activities. A fifth staff member is on vacation this week, while the rest of us are walking and driving very carefully. We simply can't afford another staff member off work and maintain anything like the level of activity to which Shiloh has become accustomed.
It has felt recently as though, like Milne's Eeyore, a dark cloud has settled over us. We do excellent ministry, but it seems more and more difficult to accomplish the things that we had, in the past, taken for granted.
Perhaps it is appropriate at this point in the season of Lent to feel the oppression of the surrounding darkness. Maybe it is right for us to feel a sense of dark depression, to recognize the impending doom of both Jesus' Crucifixion and our own faithful response. It may be the case that we are unable to genuinely experience the light of Resurrection without first passing through the darkness of death.
As we heard during Shiloh's Black History Month celebration, maybe these are times that we can but "watch and pray," waiting for the light of new life to break into the gathering gloom. Pray for Ken and Sid and Martha and Aaron. Pray for one another, as we take this journey together.
Watch and pray!
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
The Power of Gethsemane
In preparation for Shiloh's Bible @ Boston's series, I am comparing the Gospel Crucifixion narratives, beginning with the Passover meal and Jesus' establishment of a new religious ritual. Several events occur during that fateful meal that portend the danger that is to come for Jesus and his followers. After the meal, the troupe heads out together for the Garden of Gethsemane. It is what happens there that speaks loudest to me this Lenten season of Jesus' profound faith and willingness to pursue God's will, at all costs.
After the meal, the disciples sing a hymn with Jesus and go out to the Mount of Olives, to a garden there, as was Jesus' custom, according to Luke's account. At Gethsemane, Jesus asks his disciples to wait and to watch. He takes with him Peter and James and John, and they depart from the others. Jesus encourages his closest disciples to pray, "that they might not enter into temptation." Jesus removes himself a short distance and prays.
He prays something like this: Father, if it is possible, I pray that you remove this cup from me. Let this hour pass. Yet, let not just what I will to be done. But let what you will be done.
Years ago, I read a great, insightful novel about the plight that Jesus, and we, face. It was entitled "The Last Temptation of Christ," by Nikos Kazantzakis. In the final moments of the narrative, Jesus hangs, in agony, on the Cross. He whispers the pathos of the moment, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" In the moment that follows, Kazantzakis writes Jesus envisioning a life that might have been, a life that could have been, a life of human contentment and practical pleasures. At the same time, Jesus realizes that his act of sacrifice is not being accomplished for himself, but for the benefit of every person who has, does and will live. It is about them. It is not about Jesus. In the next instant, Jesus sees the wonderful value of his ministry and gives voice to his acceptance of that mission by stating, "It is finished." Jesus breathes his last and dies.
No one, it seems to me, desires suffering and death. If a person exhibits any form of sanity, his or her first impulse is to remain alive and well. In his Gethsemane prayer, Jesus articulates for faithful people throughout time the mantra of sacrificial ministry. "Please, Lord, do not ask me to do this. It's very painful. Yet, if it be your will, then I will do as you ask."
Can we feel the depth of Jesus' struggle? Do we simply write off his suffering as being somehow covered up in his divinity? Do we ignore the pain and the emptiness of Jesus' calling because we call him The Son of Man?
It is sad, I think, that we do. For, if we were to feel Jesus' struggle, we might much better be able to understand our calling. See now, the point of Lent is not just Jesus. It is not just about his journey to the sacrifice of the Cross. It is also about ours. It is about human tendency to turn away from the sacrifice, to a life of human need and desire, to human benefits and practical applications, to longevity and selfishness. Lent encompasses each and every calling, highlighting for each the cost of discipleship and apostleship.
Lent is a spiritual discipline, to pray in order that we not enter into the temptation that lies between "Why have you forsaken me" and "It is finished." Three times there in the garden, Jesus returns to his disciples, only to find them sleeping. "Could you not remain awake for even one hour?" he asks them. "Nevertheless, rise, my betrayer is at hand." He says. "So the Son of Man is placed into the hands of sinners."
We weep for the arrested Jesus because we feel our own faithfulness being tested. The disciples, we are told, scattered, like sheep whose shepherd is struck. They would not enter into Jesus' suffering and death. They remained safe and secure, though frightened. We stand, with them, on the periphery of Jesus' sacrificial ministry. We stand, isolated from our own.
Lord, even if it costs us everything, do your will in us and through us.
See you at Bible @ Boston's, each Wednesday in Lent, 6:00 - 7:00 p.m. at Boston's Bistro and Pub.
After the meal, the disciples sing a hymn with Jesus and go out to the Mount of Olives, to a garden there, as was Jesus' custom, according to Luke's account. At Gethsemane, Jesus asks his disciples to wait and to watch. He takes with him Peter and James and John, and they depart from the others. Jesus encourages his closest disciples to pray, "that they might not enter into temptation." Jesus removes himself a short distance and prays.
He prays something like this: Father, if it is possible, I pray that you remove this cup from me. Let this hour pass. Yet, let not just what I will to be done. But let what you will be done.
Years ago, I read a great, insightful novel about the plight that Jesus, and we, face. It was entitled "The Last Temptation of Christ," by Nikos Kazantzakis. In the final moments of the narrative, Jesus hangs, in agony, on the Cross. He whispers the pathos of the moment, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" In the moment that follows, Kazantzakis writes Jesus envisioning a life that might have been, a life that could have been, a life of human contentment and practical pleasures. At the same time, Jesus realizes that his act of sacrifice is not being accomplished for himself, but for the benefit of every person who has, does and will live. It is about them. It is not about Jesus. In the next instant, Jesus sees the wonderful value of his ministry and gives voice to his acceptance of that mission by stating, "It is finished." Jesus breathes his last and dies.
No one, it seems to me, desires suffering and death. If a person exhibits any form of sanity, his or her first impulse is to remain alive and well. In his Gethsemane prayer, Jesus articulates for faithful people throughout time the mantra of sacrificial ministry. "Please, Lord, do not ask me to do this. It's very painful. Yet, if it be your will, then I will do as you ask."
Can we feel the depth of Jesus' struggle? Do we simply write off his suffering as being somehow covered up in his divinity? Do we ignore the pain and the emptiness of Jesus' calling because we call him The Son of Man?
It is sad, I think, that we do. For, if we were to feel Jesus' struggle, we might much better be able to understand our calling. See now, the point of Lent is not just Jesus. It is not just about his journey to the sacrifice of the Cross. It is also about ours. It is about human tendency to turn away from the sacrifice, to a life of human need and desire, to human benefits and practical applications, to longevity and selfishness. Lent encompasses each and every calling, highlighting for each the cost of discipleship and apostleship.
Lent is a spiritual discipline, to pray in order that we not enter into the temptation that lies between "Why have you forsaken me" and "It is finished." Three times there in the garden, Jesus returns to his disciples, only to find them sleeping. "Could you not remain awake for even one hour?" he asks them. "Nevertheless, rise, my betrayer is at hand." He says. "So the Son of Man is placed into the hands of sinners."
We weep for the arrested Jesus because we feel our own faithfulness being tested. The disciples, we are told, scattered, like sheep whose shepherd is struck. They would not enter into Jesus' suffering and death. They remained safe and secure, though frightened. We stand, with them, on the periphery of Jesus' sacrificial ministry. We stand, isolated from our own.
Lord, even if it costs us everything, do your will in us and through us.
See you at Bible @ Boston's, each Wednesday in Lent, 6:00 - 7:00 p.m. at Boston's Bistro and Pub.
Monday, March 17, 2014
Money in the Church
One might suspect that the chief issues of division in the modern Christian Church are equal marriage rights, ordination or acceptance of homosexuals, social service ministries, or a lack thereof, abortion, contraception, lyrics in popular music, or the evolution/creation debate. While each may have its claim on the spotlight, I firmly hold that it is none of these. I think that there are two, twin issues that divide the present Church of Jesus Christ. They are: Money and its use and control.
Money divides us into haves and have-nots. It divides us by gender, by social strata, by economic power, by position and advantage, by age, by those who belong and those who remain on the outside, forever looking in. In the Church, money, and control over it, is a destructive and divisive matter of justice, equality and faithful stewardship.
Most congregations struggle with money these days. The great majority of those communities of faith claim that, since aggregate contributions have declined in direct proportion to the decades-long decline in membership and participation, dollars have become rarer and less available for the funding of ministries. As dollars have diminished, so have church staffs, church ministries, functional judicatories, support of denominations, benevolences, hands-on ministries and missions, and impact on communities and neighborhoods. Congregations have tended to close in on themselves financially, saving whatever money might me available for the inevitable "rainy day."
Ministry in and through congregations has diminished with the decreasing availability of dollars. Dollars have become rarer, in direct proportion to the decline in population. Money, and control of its use in congregations, has become a powerful means of division, argument, conflict and narrow-mindedness. Most churches have been affected. Some have fallen apart because of the tension. Many have argued over conflicting points of view.
What is the poor Church to do?
One cannot deny the patterns of the past fifty years. If those patterns continue, congregations will continue to shrink. Fewer and fewer people will be coming and participating. Fewer and fewer dollars will be available to fund the mission and ministry of the Church of Jesus Christ. The Church will become more and more irrelevant to and within culture.
As is nearly always the case, however, it is precisely where the greatest challenge is found that the Church finds the greatest potential and promise for change. If the Church of Jesus Christ is to stem the tide of social irrelevance, if it is to reverse the trend of shrinking dollars, diminishing membership and participation, disappearing ministries and missions, then it has got to begin by changing its mind about the use and control of money.
Money will not guarantee continuation of the Church of Jesus Christ. Endowments will not promise longevity. They may simply delay the inevitable. Unless, that is, if congregations invest dollars differently. Until a time when churches see the funds entrusted to them as God's call to expanded ministries and missions, until churches use whatever dollars may be available for community and neighborhood ministries and missions, until churches risk, become vulnerable, dare to lay out their last cents, the tide of decline will continue to roll.
When churches learn the challenging lessons of excellence in stewardship, when they unlearn the worldly tendency of fear and worry, then the Church begins to invest in God's calling, in God's ministry, in God's ongoing mission.
Money, then, is both the church's greatest challenge today and its most promising potential. If the church is to work its way through decline and disappearance, then it is going to have to invest its dollars in a different way of being the Church of Jesus Christ. If organizational longevity and continuation remain the goal of the use and control of congregational monies, churches will continue to decline and disappear. The risk is amazingly difficult in congregations. The call to faithful stewardship is challenging. Upon that risky call, however, rests the very future of the Church of Jesus Christ.
Money divides us into haves and have-nots. It divides us by gender, by social strata, by economic power, by position and advantage, by age, by those who belong and those who remain on the outside, forever looking in. In the Church, money, and control over it, is a destructive and divisive matter of justice, equality and faithful stewardship.
Most congregations struggle with money these days. The great majority of those communities of faith claim that, since aggregate contributions have declined in direct proportion to the decades-long decline in membership and participation, dollars have become rarer and less available for the funding of ministries. As dollars have diminished, so have church staffs, church ministries, functional judicatories, support of denominations, benevolences, hands-on ministries and missions, and impact on communities and neighborhoods. Congregations have tended to close in on themselves financially, saving whatever money might me available for the inevitable "rainy day."
Ministry in and through congregations has diminished with the decreasing availability of dollars. Dollars have become rarer, in direct proportion to the decline in population. Money, and control of its use in congregations, has become a powerful means of division, argument, conflict and narrow-mindedness. Most churches have been affected. Some have fallen apart because of the tension. Many have argued over conflicting points of view.
What is the poor Church to do?
One cannot deny the patterns of the past fifty years. If those patterns continue, congregations will continue to shrink. Fewer and fewer people will be coming and participating. Fewer and fewer dollars will be available to fund the mission and ministry of the Church of Jesus Christ. The Church will become more and more irrelevant to and within culture.
As is nearly always the case, however, it is precisely where the greatest challenge is found that the Church finds the greatest potential and promise for change. If the Church of Jesus Christ is to stem the tide of social irrelevance, if it is to reverse the trend of shrinking dollars, diminishing membership and participation, disappearing ministries and missions, then it has got to begin by changing its mind about the use and control of money.
Money will not guarantee continuation of the Church of Jesus Christ. Endowments will not promise longevity. They may simply delay the inevitable. Unless, that is, if congregations invest dollars differently. Until a time when churches see the funds entrusted to them as God's call to expanded ministries and missions, until churches use whatever dollars may be available for community and neighborhood ministries and missions, until churches risk, become vulnerable, dare to lay out their last cents, the tide of decline will continue to roll.
When churches learn the challenging lessons of excellence in stewardship, when they unlearn the worldly tendency of fear and worry, then the Church begins to invest in God's calling, in God's ministry, in God's ongoing mission.
Money, then, is both the church's greatest challenge today and its most promising potential. If the church is to work its way through decline and disappearance, then it is going to have to invest its dollars in a different way of being the Church of Jesus Christ. If organizational longevity and continuation remain the goal of the use and control of congregational monies, churches will continue to decline and disappear. The risk is amazingly difficult in congregations. The call to faithful stewardship is challenging. Upon that risky call, however, rests the very future of the Church of Jesus Christ.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Spiritual Evolution
I stand by the notion that cultural evolution spawns spiritual, if not necessarily religious, evolution. Readers will discern immediately that I am identifying a disconnect between a spiritual evolution and that which takes place in the religious institutions of a given epoch. Events like the Great Schism and the Great Reformation take place in an atmosphere of significant cultural upheaval, and give rise to amazing spiritual changes. These spiritual changes eventually lead to religious transformation.
The crucial point here may well be that I consider the seismic advances of culture to be evolutionary. More concretely put, I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ finds itself today in the midst of just such a seismic culture shift, characterized, as usual, in new forms of communication, new definitions of personhood, and new paths of religious faithfulness. The cultural shift is already well advanced, having begun at some point in the mid- to late-1960's. The spiritual shift, that which might define the communal ethos or communally shared values, is also well advanced. It is characterized by acceptance of diversity, importance of persons over systems, demands for equality and justice, and invites institutions that create, maintain and protect these virtues.
The Church has, throughout the process of religious evolution, dragged its feet. More honestly phrased, some factions within the Church have sought to pull culture back from the precipice of evolutionary change to a perceived "safer" time, a mythical idyllic age, when people knew their proper place in society and Church and would never dare push for personal or individual rights that are foundational to systemic life. Some religious institutions have simply wanted people to "get back into line," each in his or her "proper place." This tendency is easier for us to perceive in the lives of others, especially the right wing, Taliban-like movements in the Middle East and beyond. But the hesitance can be perceived in our own religious institutions.
Let me go a step further.
I find cultural, spiritual and religious evolution to be a good thing. As steeped as I am in the way that the church used to be, I am even more excited about the possibilities of what the Church of Jesus Christ might become. If we are able to move from control mechanism and ritually based piety, perhaps the Church can be an instrument for peace and reconciliation, for individual and group rights, for personal development and inspirational spiritual calling. I think that this is the work to which Christ calls us.
I am thankful for a culture that has led us here. I am grateful for a new spiritual environment, which requires different systemic and institutional responses. And I am hopeful that the Church of Jesus Christ will stop the attempt at pulling people back into ignorance and begin to function as Christ is now calling it to work.
Shiloh is a place where we continually work at religious and spiritual evolution, community and social relevancy, personal transformation and individual empowerment and calling. I hope that you are excited as I am about the future of this congregation and the evolving Church of Jesus Christ.
The crucial point here may well be that I consider the seismic advances of culture to be evolutionary. More concretely put, I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ finds itself today in the midst of just such a seismic culture shift, characterized, as usual, in new forms of communication, new definitions of personhood, and new paths of religious faithfulness. The cultural shift is already well advanced, having begun at some point in the mid- to late-1960's. The spiritual shift, that which might define the communal ethos or communally shared values, is also well advanced. It is characterized by acceptance of diversity, importance of persons over systems, demands for equality and justice, and invites institutions that create, maintain and protect these virtues.
The Church has, throughout the process of religious evolution, dragged its feet. More honestly phrased, some factions within the Church have sought to pull culture back from the precipice of evolutionary change to a perceived "safer" time, a mythical idyllic age, when people knew their proper place in society and Church and would never dare push for personal or individual rights that are foundational to systemic life. Some religious institutions have simply wanted people to "get back into line," each in his or her "proper place." This tendency is easier for us to perceive in the lives of others, especially the right wing, Taliban-like movements in the Middle East and beyond. But the hesitance can be perceived in our own religious institutions.
Let me go a step further.
I find cultural, spiritual and religious evolution to be a good thing. As steeped as I am in the way that the church used to be, I am even more excited about the possibilities of what the Church of Jesus Christ might become. If we are able to move from control mechanism and ritually based piety, perhaps the Church can be an instrument for peace and reconciliation, for individual and group rights, for personal development and inspirational spiritual calling. I think that this is the work to which Christ calls us.
I am thankful for a culture that has led us here. I am grateful for a new spiritual environment, which requires different systemic and institutional responses. And I am hopeful that the Church of Jesus Christ will stop the attempt at pulling people back into ignorance and begin to function as Christ is now calling it to work.
Shiloh is a place where we continually work at religious and spiritual evolution, community and social relevancy, personal transformation and individual empowerment and calling. I hope that you are excited as I am about the future of this congregation and the evolving Church of Jesus Christ.
Tuesday, March 04, 2014
Service to Others
I was developing a slide show presentation, which was to be used as part of Shiloh's Black History Month celebration, when I ran across a quotation from one of my favorite civil rights activists and scholars, Cornell West. He is quoted as saying, "The benchmark of greatness is finding love and joy in serving others."
Among others pictured in the slide show presentation were Rosa Parks, Jackie Robinson, Shirley Chisholm, Frederick Douglas, Andrew Young, Thurgood Marshall, Condoleezza Rice, Harriet Tubman, Fannie Lou Hamer, Martin Luther King, Jr, Coretta Scott King, and Barack Obama. It occurs to me that all one may need to know to verify the truth of Cornell West's words are the stories of those mentioned here. In every case, greatness has been determined by the love and joy that each found in service to others, even if that service was at great expense.
I happen to wholeheartedly believe that West's words are lived out in the heroes of every culture, whenever men and women stand in defense of those who are, as Bob Jones put it in his message at Shiloh this past week, "the sheep and the lambs." Whenever human beings, of whatever ethnicity, stand in defense of the victimized, the oppressed, the helpless and the hopeless, love and joy springs from such service. Even if that service renders one a "radical," leading to recrimination, of whatever kind, that person, and the entire human community, experiences love and joy.
So I say to those who are depressed, fatigued, put-upon, tired (and tired of it), find the love and joy of life in serving others.
It is a grand irony, I suppose, to discover that the best elixir for one's sorrows, real or imagined, is not serving one's self, not locating some new self-help strategy, not the next diet fad or the newest nutritional supplement. One best serves one's self by reaching out still further in service to others. Perhaps the magic of selflessness lies in forgetting one's sorrows in the exercise of removing sorrow from the lives of those around us. Perhaps we lift ourselves as enter into the sacrifice and cost of lifting others. Maybe it's as simply as feeling a deep sense of personal satisfaction in doing what we all know to be, a priori, right and good.
I want to thank all those who took part in Shiloh's celebration of Black History Month. I learned again the core lessons of life and faith. Whether those lessons came from the books I read throughout the month - and they did - or if they came through the personal effort of those who dedicated their time, energy and talent to making our celebration a tremendous success - and it has - I genuinely treasure the simple fact that we are all in this life together. We all find benefit in the witness of those who go out of their way to serve.
"The benchmark of greatness is finding love and joy in serving others." Shiloh is doing great ministry! Thanks for all your efforts.
Among others pictured in the slide show presentation were Rosa Parks, Jackie Robinson, Shirley Chisholm, Frederick Douglas, Andrew Young, Thurgood Marshall, Condoleezza Rice, Harriet Tubman, Fannie Lou Hamer, Martin Luther King, Jr, Coretta Scott King, and Barack Obama. It occurs to me that all one may need to know to verify the truth of Cornell West's words are the stories of those mentioned here. In every case, greatness has been determined by the love and joy that each found in service to others, even if that service was at great expense.
I happen to wholeheartedly believe that West's words are lived out in the heroes of every culture, whenever men and women stand in defense of those who are, as Bob Jones put it in his message at Shiloh this past week, "the sheep and the lambs." Whenever human beings, of whatever ethnicity, stand in defense of the victimized, the oppressed, the helpless and the hopeless, love and joy springs from such service. Even if that service renders one a "radical," leading to recrimination, of whatever kind, that person, and the entire human community, experiences love and joy.
So I say to those who are depressed, fatigued, put-upon, tired (and tired of it), find the love and joy of life in serving others.
It is a grand irony, I suppose, to discover that the best elixir for one's sorrows, real or imagined, is not serving one's self, not locating some new self-help strategy, not the next diet fad or the newest nutritional supplement. One best serves one's self by reaching out still further in service to others. Perhaps the magic of selflessness lies in forgetting one's sorrows in the exercise of removing sorrow from the lives of those around us. Perhaps we lift ourselves as enter into the sacrifice and cost of lifting others. Maybe it's as simply as feeling a deep sense of personal satisfaction in doing what we all know to be, a priori, right and good.
I want to thank all those who took part in Shiloh's celebration of Black History Month. I learned again the core lessons of life and faith. Whether those lessons came from the books I read throughout the month - and they did - or if they came through the personal effort of those who dedicated their time, energy and talent to making our celebration a tremendous success - and it has - I genuinely treasure the simple fact that we are all in this life together. We all find benefit in the witness of those who go out of their way to serve.
"The benchmark of greatness is finding love and joy in serving others." Shiloh is doing great ministry! Thanks for all your efforts.
Monday, February 24, 2014
Where is the Hypocrisy?
For several decades, I have stood as a conscious observer of the decline of what used to called the Mainline Church. I read all the books. I listened to all the complaints. I watched the conservative backlash to the culture's evolution, as some tried, in vain, to pull the culture back into the church's past. I have seen the fear of middle judicatory and denominational leaders, as they have wrestled with the real impact of fewer people and greatly diminishing financial support. I have talked with those who have been dissatisfied with churches, those who have become part of the ever-expanding church alumni association. I have listened to the Gen-Xers and their generational successors, and I have agreed with them, by and large, about the Church's hypocrisy.
For years, I had been told that the reason for the decline in churches in America - we lost more than 50% of our membership between the years of 1968 and 2010 - was that the culture had become painfully aware of a disconnect in the Church between what the Church was intended to be and what it had become.
The Church, I was repeatedly told, was intended to be a place that reflected the ministry and mission of its founder, Jesus Christ. It was to be a source of hope for the poor and disengaged, the rejected and the forlorn. It was to be succor for the suffering and aid for the struggling. Its ministry was to be directed to "the least of these." The Church was to be a place of sacrificial service, where ministers, evangelists and apostles are trained to go out, in humility, to reach out to those in need. It was to associate with the lepers of its age, the disenfranchised, the oppressed, the disheartened, the hopeless and the helpless.
I agreed with this assessment. The Church of Jesus Christ is called to engage with Christ in his work with all people, starting with the most needful.
The culture has called it hypocrisy that the Church had become a place of arrogant orthodoxy and rejection, limiting its services to those who are "right and good." The culture has called the Church an outmoded and irrelevant institution of religious selective blindness, one that refuses to see advances in science and cultural diversity. The Church was seen as an institution that stands over and against practical and social advances, against equality, justice and peace.
Again, I agreed with those who were quick to point out the Church's hypocrisy. It was not as intended. Through the ages, it had become a self-serving means to eternal salvation, a religious totem through which adherents had much to gain if they would just follow the rules and regulations. The Church of Jesus Christ had diminished, and was diminishing, because it had fled far from its intended purpose and value.
I used to agree with the mass of practical agnostics, who called the Church to accountability for the disconnect between its intended purpose and its reality.
I no longer agree with the charge of hypocrisy. Here is why. I serve a congregation, and know of others, whose entire ministry and mission is focused on meeting the needs of those who struggle and suffer. Many of our congregations are faithful to the intended purpose to which the church alumni association has called us and from which the functional agnostics have fled. I can claim with absolute certainty that there are congregations, like Shiloh Church, which are doing precisely that to which God has called them and for which God has empowered and equipped them.
The hypocrisy of the Church of Jesus Christ has diminished as we have narrowed the gap between intended purpose and practical reality. We are doing that to which we are called!
The hypocrisy now rests with those who have called the Church to make the changes necessary to narrowing the gap, but refuse to be a part of the service that makes the difference. The church alumni association and the practical agnostics can now take a fresh look at the congregations of which I am aware. They will see a new Church of Jesus Christ. The problem is that they refuse to look. They continue to stand apart and criticize. The hypocrisy is now theirs.
For years, I had been told that the reason for the decline in churches in America - we lost more than 50% of our membership between the years of 1968 and 2010 - was that the culture had become painfully aware of a disconnect in the Church between what the Church was intended to be and what it had become.
The Church, I was repeatedly told, was intended to be a place that reflected the ministry and mission of its founder, Jesus Christ. It was to be a source of hope for the poor and disengaged, the rejected and the forlorn. It was to be succor for the suffering and aid for the struggling. Its ministry was to be directed to "the least of these." The Church was to be a place of sacrificial service, where ministers, evangelists and apostles are trained to go out, in humility, to reach out to those in need. It was to associate with the lepers of its age, the disenfranchised, the oppressed, the disheartened, the hopeless and the helpless.
I agreed with this assessment. The Church of Jesus Christ is called to engage with Christ in his work with all people, starting with the most needful.
The culture has called it hypocrisy that the Church had become a place of arrogant orthodoxy and rejection, limiting its services to those who are "right and good." The culture has called the Church an outmoded and irrelevant institution of religious selective blindness, one that refuses to see advances in science and cultural diversity. The Church was seen as an institution that stands over and against practical and social advances, against equality, justice and peace.
Again, I agreed with those who were quick to point out the Church's hypocrisy. It was not as intended. Through the ages, it had become a self-serving means to eternal salvation, a religious totem through which adherents had much to gain if they would just follow the rules and regulations. The Church of Jesus Christ had diminished, and was diminishing, because it had fled far from its intended purpose and value.
I used to agree with the mass of practical agnostics, who called the Church to accountability for the disconnect between its intended purpose and its reality.
I no longer agree with the charge of hypocrisy. Here is why. I serve a congregation, and know of others, whose entire ministry and mission is focused on meeting the needs of those who struggle and suffer. Many of our congregations are faithful to the intended purpose to which the church alumni association has called us and from which the functional agnostics have fled. I can claim with absolute certainty that there are congregations, like Shiloh Church, which are doing precisely that to which God has called them and for which God has empowered and equipped them.
The hypocrisy of the Church of Jesus Christ has diminished as we have narrowed the gap between intended purpose and practical reality. We are doing that to which we are called!
The hypocrisy now rests with those who have called the Church to make the changes necessary to narrowing the gap, but refuse to be a part of the service that makes the difference. The church alumni association and the practical agnostics can now take a fresh look at the congregations of which I am aware. They will see a new Church of Jesus Christ. The problem is that they refuse to look. They continue to stand apart and criticize. The hypocrisy is now theirs.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Discriminatory Laws and Bigotry
I am embroiled in what many may consider to be the most dangerous and most interesting of online discussions. Actually, to be fair, I stuck my nose into a conversation between two boyhood friends, one of whom is active in the establishment and maintenance of universal civil rights and the other an elected official.
The arena is Indiana State politics. The topic is equal marriage rights for same-gender couples.
In the Indiana House, two recent bills have sparked considerable controversy. The first was a potential law that defined marriage exclusively, as being between one man and one woman. This supposed "Biblical Model" was supported by a minority of congressional representatives and failed. The second bill was an attempt to legalize an inclusive definition of marriage, one that codifies the marriage of same-gender couples. That bill also lacked majority support. It failed.
My political friend and my civil rights friend were on different sides of both the aisle and the fence. They promoted opposing views. (It is not perhaps incidental that one is gay and the other straight.) Frankly, I saw only one side of the argument being promoted through my social media account. My "friends" tended to discuss the issue from a single perspective.
Unfortunately, in the course of the discussion, those who opposed the inclusive definition of marriage, who voted for the initial bill and against the latter, were called "bigots." One of my old friends asked the other if all who oppose same-gender marriage rights are bigots. Is the word "bigot" a fair descriptor of all who stand for the traditional definition of marriage?
Again unfortunately, the answer was "yes." All who oppose an inclusive definition of marriage are practicing the same king of bigotry that America has seen in racial and gender civil rights movements. Opposition to equal rights for any segment of the society is bigotry. According to my office copy of Webster's Third New International Dictionary, bigotry is: "...obstinate and unreasoning attachment to one's own belief and opinions with intolerance of beliefs opposed to them or the behavior or beliefs ensuing from such a condition."
Is it bigotry to cling to traditional, exclusive definitions of marriage and marriage rights? Perhaps. But my issue here, and the reason that I stuck my nose into the discussion, is that it is not particularly helpful to call persons with opposing views any name, especially a pejorative one, like "bigot." I suggested, instead, that we might learn to understand the tendency to cling to discriminatory laws as discriminatory practice. We can all agree, I think, that discrimination against any segment of the culture is wrong and that laws that promote such discrimination should be changed. If we learn to free ourselves from the need to call names, I firmly believe that we can achieve, to a higher degree, change and progress. We can evolve, culturally and spiritually.
Interesting, though, isn't it that much of this discussion has taken place in the context of celebration of black history? There are some interesting parallels to be drawn, I think. Someday, maybe, we will learn.
The arena is Indiana State politics. The topic is equal marriage rights for same-gender couples.
In the Indiana House, two recent bills have sparked considerable controversy. The first was a potential law that defined marriage exclusively, as being between one man and one woman. This supposed "Biblical Model" was supported by a minority of congressional representatives and failed. The second bill was an attempt to legalize an inclusive definition of marriage, one that codifies the marriage of same-gender couples. That bill also lacked majority support. It failed.
My political friend and my civil rights friend were on different sides of both the aisle and the fence. They promoted opposing views. (It is not perhaps incidental that one is gay and the other straight.) Frankly, I saw only one side of the argument being promoted through my social media account. My "friends" tended to discuss the issue from a single perspective.
Unfortunately, in the course of the discussion, those who opposed the inclusive definition of marriage, who voted for the initial bill and against the latter, were called "bigots." One of my old friends asked the other if all who oppose same-gender marriage rights are bigots. Is the word "bigot" a fair descriptor of all who stand for the traditional definition of marriage?
Again unfortunately, the answer was "yes." All who oppose an inclusive definition of marriage are practicing the same king of bigotry that America has seen in racial and gender civil rights movements. Opposition to equal rights for any segment of the society is bigotry. According to my office copy of Webster's Third New International Dictionary, bigotry is: "...obstinate and unreasoning attachment to one's own belief and opinions with intolerance of beliefs opposed to them or the behavior or beliefs ensuing from such a condition."
Is it bigotry to cling to traditional, exclusive definitions of marriage and marriage rights? Perhaps. But my issue here, and the reason that I stuck my nose into the discussion, is that it is not particularly helpful to call persons with opposing views any name, especially a pejorative one, like "bigot." I suggested, instead, that we might learn to understand the tendency to cling to discriminatory laws as discriminatory practice. We can all agree, I think, that discrimination against any segment of the culture is wrong and that laws that promote such discrimination should be changed. If we learn to free ourselves from the need to call names, I firmly believe that we can achieve, to a higher degree, change and progress. We can evolve, culturally and spiritually.
Interesting, though, isn't it that much of this discussion has taken place in the context of celebration of black history? There are some interesting parallels to be drawn, I think. Someday, maybe, we will learn.
Monday, February 10, 2014
The Allegory of the Evolution/Creation Caves
The famous philosopher, Plato, may have argued, in The Republic, that the natural state of humankind is located, as it were, deep within the darkness of a cave, facing the rear wall, where there is scant information with which to deal and where life is simple to control. In such a state, the human experience is reduced to dim reflections that barely glow off the back wall of the cave. Humanity begins to notice, however, that those reflections are not likely things in themselves, but incomplete echoes of another things that exists elsewhere.
Curiosity leads humans to turn away from the incomplete information that is refracted from the back wall of the cave toward more complete information about the world. In that moment, the world becomes exponentially more complex. While the information is more complete, so is the complexity of managing new ways of thinking and believing. As humans feed their need for more and better information, the world becomes increasingly difficult to manage and control. Simplicity is lost. Control can no longer be claimed or maintained.
I thought of Plato's Allegory of the Cave last week, as I watched the "debate" between Bill Nye, The Science Guy, and the founder of the "Creation Museum." Unfortunately, neither side participated in the debate in order to find any common ground for discussion. Each side wanted only to prove the other wrong, to demonstrate their own side's correctness. They each rejected the premises under which the other side presented and thought through their argument. The discussion disintegrated into "because the Bible says..." verses "Scientific knowledge teaches that..."
Both sides of the discussion were stuck with their own assumptions about how to arrive at the truth of the universe. The creationist argued theologically. The scientist argued theoretical process. Neither was truly able to demonstrate a single thing to the other side because both exercised under preconceived notions of limited understanding.
If we are ever to achieve a balance between the spiritual and spacial worlds in which we live, I suggest that the conversation must begin with a search for commonality. We can see the differences easily enough. They are reflected off the back wall of the experiential cave to which we have grown comfortable. Until we turn together in an effort to link the spacial and the spiritual, the theological and the theoretical, information about the world in which we live will be sacrificed at the altar of control and simplicity.
While modern Physics may be finding ways to shine brighter light into the depths of our chosen caves, it is still up to us whether or not we turn and learn, coping with the complexity of Higgs boson particles or with something as simple as defining life as both spacial and spiritual. Until that conversation begins, I am afraid that we are likely to remain either "Creationists" or "Evolutionists," but never fully becoming spiritual rationalists.
Let the conversation begin!
Curiosity leads humans to turn away from the incomplete information that is refracted from the back wall of the cave toward more complete information about the world. In that moment, the world becomes exponentially more complex. While the information is more complete, so is the complexity of managing new ways of thinking and believing. As humans feed their need for more and better information, the world becomes increasingly difficult to manage and control. Simplicity is lost. Control can no longer be claimed or maintained.
I thought of Plato's Allegory of the Cave last week, as I watched the "debate" between Bill Nye, The Science Guy, and the founder of the "Creation Museum." Unfortunately, neither side participated in the debate in order to find any common ground for discussion. Each side wanted only to prove the other wrong, to demonstrate their own side's correctness. They each rejected the premises under which the other side presented and thought through their argument. The discussion disintegrated into "because the Bible says..." verses "Scientific knowledge teaches that..."
Both sides of the discussion were stuck with their own assumptions about how to arrive at the truth of the universe. The creationist argued theologically. The scientist argued theoretical process. Neither was truly able to demonstrate a single thing to the other side because both exercised under preconceived notions of limited understanding.
If we are ever to achieve a balance between the spiritual and spacial worlds in which we live, I suggest that the conversation must begin with a search for commonality. We can see the differences easily enough. They are reflected off the back wall of the experiential cave to which we have grown comfortable. Until we turn together in an effort to link the spacial and the spiritual, the theological and the theoretical, information about the world in which we live will be sacrificed at the altar of control and simplicity.
While modern Physics may be finding ways to shine brighter light into the depths of our chosen caves, it is still up to us whether or not we turn and learn, coping with the complexity of Higgs boson particles or with something as simple as defining life as both spacial and spiritual. Until that conversation begins, I am afraid that we are likely to remain either "Creationists" or "Evolutionists," but never fully becoming spiritual rationalists.
Let the conversation begin!
Monday, February 03, 2014
Black History Month
Shiloh Church is celebrating Black History month.
The congregation is engaging the opportunity in three distinct ways. Firstly, since the Gospel readings for the month of February come from Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, we are utilizing Jesus' message of social and cultural impact (particularly how it calls us to diverge from traditional, ritualized, ortho-doxological practices in order to focus on practical, public applications of the message of Christ) to relate to the contributions of black Americans. This past Sunday, Shiloh combined the Beatitudes with the images of Rosa Parks as a way to help us understand how we might be the "blessing" to those who hunger, thirst, or mourn by changing the ways things work. Direct action changes the world. Direct application of the message of Christ to the ways that we live can forever alter human history.
Secondly, the congregation's Bible @ Boston's program will resume each Wednesday. We will gather at Boston's Bistro and Pub, from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m., to remember and celebrate the many contributions of our brothers and sisters to the fabric of American culture. Each session is free and open to the public. Come early for the best seats in the house! The list pf speakers and topics are listed here:
February 5: Karen Brame: An Overview of Black Histo
February 12: Idotha "Bootsie" Neal: Wright Brothers/Paul Laurence Dunbar Project and Walk of Fame
February 19: Terrence Grimes: Celebrating Black American Music
February 26: Margaret Peters: African-Americans who have helped establish Dayton's history.
Thirdly, on the first weekend in March, Shiloh will offer to the public a series of displays that highlight contributions of Black Americans to corporate American identity and culture. The displays will be open on Sunday, March 2, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. The 10:25 worship service will feature special ethnic music, dance performance, and speaker Rev. Robert Jones. The service will be followed by a special carry-in ethnic meal. Recipes can be located on the circular table that is located in the Information Gallery. Sign-ups are available on the Green Table, located in the Narthex/Lobby. The meal will conclude with a discussion of the book, "Remember As You Pass Me By," written by L. King Perez, who will be in attendance and who will take part in the conversation. You may obtain a copy of the book from Marilyn Jones or from Amazon.
Another feature of Shiloh's program will take place on Monday, March 3. Children from several local school districts will travel to Shiloh to tour the exhibits, have lunch, and offer a program in the sanctuary. The planning group anticipates up to 300 children, who will offer songs, dances, readings and even artwork, to commemorate the event.
If you want to help with any of these activities, see Carl Robinson, Terry Ogletree, or sign up on the sheets that are available on the Green Table. You may also call the Church Office for more information. I hope to see you all there!
The congregation is engaging the opportunity in three distinct ways. Firstly, since the Gospel readings for the month of February come from Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, we are utilizing Jesus' message of social and cultural impact (particularly how it calls us to diverge from traditional, ritualized, ortho-doxological practices in order to focus on practical, public applications of the message of Christ) to relate to the contributions of black Americans. This past Sunday, Shiloh combined the Beatitudes with the images of Rosa Parks as a way to help us understand how we might be the "blessing" to those who hunger, thirst, or mourn by changing the ways things work. Direct action changes the world. Direct application of the message of Christ to the ways that we live can forever alter human history.
Secondly, the congregation's Bible @ Boston's program will resume each Wednesday. We will gather at Boston's Bistro and Pub, from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m., to remember and celebrate the many contributions of our brothers and sisters to the fabric of American culture. Each session is free and open to the public. Come early for the best seats in the house! The list pf speakers and topics are listed here:
February 5: Karen Brame: An Overview of Black Histo
February 12: Idotha "Bootsie" Neal: Wright Brothers/Paul Laurence Dunbar Project and Walk of Fame
February 19: Terrence Grimes: Celebrating Black American Music
February 26: Margaret Peters: African-Americans who have helped establish Dayton's history.
Thirdly, on the first weekend in March, Shiloh will offer to the public a series of displays that highlight contributions of Black Americans to corporate American identity and culture. The displays will be open on Sunday, March 2, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. The 10:25 worship service will feature special ethnic music, dance performance, and speaker Rev. Robert Jones. The service will be followed by a special carry-in ethnic meal. Recipes can be located on the circular table that is located in the Information Gallery. Sign-ups are available on the Green Table, located in the Narthex/Lobby. The meal will conclude with a discussion of the book, "Remember As You Pass Me By," written by L. King Perez, who will be in attendance and who will take part in the conversation. You may obtain a copy of the book from Marilyn Jones or from Amazon.
Another feature of Shiloh's program will take place on Monday, March 3. Children from several local school districts will travel to Shiloh to tour the exhibits, have lunch, and offer a program in the sanctuary. The planning group anticipates up to 300 children, who will offer songs, dances, readings and even artwork, to commemorate the event.
If you want to help with any of these activities, see Carl Robinson, Terry Ogletree, or sign up on the sheets that are available on the Green Table. You may also call the Church Office for more information. I hope to see you all there!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)