Perspective

This past week, in Shiloh's regular Thursday Bible study, we were discussing the texts that are designated for this past Sunday by the Revised Common Lectionary. Among the four designated texts were the two that we had decided to use as the focal point of worship for the fourth Sunday in Lent: Ephesians 2:8-10 and John 3:14-21.

The conversation arose naturally, as we were attempting to tie our modified Historical/Critical Method to a direct application for that upcoming Sunday. We discussed the Pauline concentration on the grace of God in the Crucifixion/Resurrection of Christ Jesus and the typical epistolary elements of his letters. We determined that, given those typical and necessary elements, Ephesians seems only slightly like Pauline material. The theology is similar, but the essence of the epistle is missing. We discussed that the theology of grace is always juxtaposed with a theology of the law. The question is whether Jesus and Paul reflected a conditional relationship with God, as one would expect under a theology of law, or if it is unconditional, as one would experience with a theology of grace.

In the course of the conversation, in order to make transition to consideration of the gospel texts, I said that most biblical texts can be interpreted from either perspective. In order to support the point, I demonstrated to the class how John 3:16 can be read as either conditional or unconditional statement of faith. (I did the same at the 10:25 service on Sunday morning.)

John 3:16 can reflect both a conditional (law) or unconditional (grace) relationship with the God of Jesus Christ. Here is what is written: For God so loved the world that God gave God's own begotten Son, that whomsoever should but believe in him would not perish but have eternal life (my translation). Does this mean that everyone receives salvation in Jesus Christ, or that only those who believe (rightly) in him do? The difference in how one reads the text reflects how one was raised, how one thinks, and what one embraces as a truth of life. Those who believe that their relationship with God is conditional will read the text from that perspective. Those who believe that their relationship with God is unconditional will read the text from that perspective. Neither, it turns out, tends to entertain the alternative perspective.

Some in the class understood that the text itself could be interpreted from alternative perspectives. The text is not definitive, but open to interpretation. Some in the Sunday service understood that the text leaves the interpretive door ajar and that neither perspective is certain, at least not according to the text itself. Most wanted to argue the point, from one perspective or the other.

It was clear, however, that the intent of the Revised Common Lectionary authors was that this text should be interpreted as the theology of grace. Tying John 3:16 to Ephesians, the notion that we are saved solely through faith and not works, with works as faithful response to the free gift of God's grace, is testament to the theology of grace. The Revised Common Lectionary interprets John 3:16 as belonging to the theology of grace, and approaches the theme from that perspective.

While not a definitive answer to how we should interpret John 3:16, the action of the Revised Common Lectionary authors is informative. But the question for us is clear. Is John 3:16 a conditional or unconditional statement? Does it paint the picture of relationship with the God of Jesus Christ according to the theology of law or according to the theology of grace. The answer, it turns out, tells us more about our perspectives than it informs us about the faith.

By the way, almost every scriptural text can be read from either perspective. In fact, the divisions between unconditional and conditional perspectives on faith have been the chief dividing factors within, among, and from religious traditions of every kind and every place throughout time. I wonder if we can move past those perspectives and find common ground from which to practice the mission and ministry to which our faith calls us? Perhaps faith relies more on the outcomes of what we do than the path that we follow in order to get to them?    

I Hate Lent

Welcome to Lent.

Lent is a season of 40 days, excluding Sundays, throughout which Christians around the world mark Jesus' journey from Galilee to his Crucifixion and Resurrection in Jerusalem. It is a season of penitence and serious elf-assessment, beginning on Ash Wednesday, when we focus on the power of human sinfulness, and ending on Holy Saturday, with Jesus dead in a borrowed tomb. It is the story of both a failed revolutionary movement and the success of spiritual liberation from the twin powers of sin and death.

Why are Sundays not counted in the season of Lent? I am glad that you asked.

In the Christian world, Sunday is Resurrection Day, a celebration of new life and a recognition of the vitality that God works even when situations seems hopeless and impossible. It is a day of work. It is not Sabbath. Sabbath, a day of rest that takes place on the seventh day, is Saturday. Sunday, the first day of the new week, is a day of new possibilities and spiritual potential now turned into kinetic energies in and through the Church that bears Jesus' name. One cannot both celebrate the new, resurrected life in Christ with a journey to the Cross of his sacrifice. Therefore, Sundays are not counted within the season of Lent.

For those of you who are engaging in the spiritual discipline of giving up something for the season, you are correct in not counting Sundays. However, for the sake of going the second mile in your discipline, those of you who gave up something may wish to extend your discipline to Sundays as well. I have chosen to do so this year, as I have done in the past.

Why is Lent such a bummer? Goodness, you are just full of good questions today!

Walking to a Cross is never celebrated. The Roman practice of Crucifixion was the height of humiliation and deterrence. It was not just punishment for crimes against the empire. Much more than that, Crucifixion was an intentional sign for all who might be led to practice sedition against Roman Rule. Persons who actually attempted revolt against the Romans were arrested, publicly flogged, derided and debased, normally marched naked through the streets and nailed to huge wooden beams that were hoisted high into the air, overlooking the city, in order to deter any other potential revolutionary. The death was slow and agonizing. The cause of death was normally asphyxiation, after reaching a point at which the physical body could no longer support itself and the torso collapsed in on the lungs and diaphragm. It normally took days for death to release prisoners from their suffering.

Even after death, Crucifixion continued. Dead bodies were left on crosses, hoisted high above the cities, for all to witness the punishment that results from attempted revolt. The bodies remained for days, weeks or months, until they literally rotted from their posts. The bodies were not collected by families or friends, but fell to the ground below, where they were consumed by wild animals and continued to decompose. Piles on bones mounted on the grounds that surrounded the place of Crucifixion as ongoing symbols of Roman power and the fate that met all who may attempt overthrow.

Crucifixion is ugly and gruesome. It is the worst sort of public punishment and humiliation. In Lent, we walk with Jesus toward his intentional, purposeful embrace of Crucifixion. Perhaps Jesus assumed that the poor for whom he was willing to suffer and die would arise in revolt at such a sight as their Messiah being hoisted above the city of Jerusalem. They did not, however. Even his closest followers deserted him. Only his mother and Mary Magdalene and some other women remained. Only they saw it all.

Lent is a season of asking where in the story might we betray him. Where might we flee into the welcoming arms of life-as-normal and away from the self-sacrifice of Christ? Where do we find ourselves in collusion with the ways of world and align ourselves against him, shouting with the crowds to "Crucify him! Crucify him?" Where do we find ourselves denying knowledge of or allegiance with him? Where do we run away from him, escaping our own sacrifice?

Lent is not a happy or joyous walk, but a necessary one. In order to genuinely embrace the celebrations of Easter, we must first walk, heads bowed down, to and through the streets of Jerusalem, naked and humiliated, facing the most painful of all deaths. For out of that sacrifice comes new life, a resurrection hope, a vision of a new world for every person in every place.

So, we walk with him.  

Power of Negativity

I left the new Association Ministry Council meeting Saturday feeling very good about the direction of the program in southwest Ohio and northern Kentucky. I call it new because it is part of the new structure of the Association, wherein we have separated the governance of the Association from its ministry to, with and for our local churches. The Ministry Council is made up of targeted ministries, at least in this point of its configuration. There are groups for education, local church ministries, spiritual development, communication, technology, and a few others that do not immediately occur to me.

It was a very productive meeting, in which we planned the Spring Association Meeting, scheduled for April 25, at Flemming Road UCC, in Cincinnati. The topic will be ministry to and with people who are on the fringes, those who suffer from mental health issues, addictions, relationship transitions, or anything else that has been stigmatized in church settings. The Ministry Council sees ministry to and with persons who exist on the fringes, or at least at the outer most extent of the church's periphery includes, at one time or another, almost each of us. The day will conclude with a unique labyrinth station worship experience, one that is sure to make a powerful impact on all who dare participate.

I was enthused. These were high level theological and ministerial conversations, an important sign that the Association is now moving in an important and meaningful direction.

When I got home, I posted on Facebook, to the SONKA group there, that it had been a fine meeting and that I was thrilled with the spirit that is moving in SONKA. I meant the comment to be a positive witness to the ministry and direction of what I take to be a very important component of church life. Within minutes, however, some of my colleagues began to complain that they wanted information about the new structure, about what was going on, and about who was serving in what role. I felt as though I was being attacked simply for making a positive statement about a meeting.

Almost immediately, my enthusiasm drained. My hopes for the immediate future of the Association waned and my willingness to make such witness again disappeared. If making positive comment leads to attack, then why in the world would I, or anyone else for that matter, bother to offer any? I was deflated.

How often do what we say and how we respond to those around us have just that effect? How often do the negative comments that we make, or even what we intend as suggestion, deflate the spirit of those who make positive comment? I take this incident as a call to be even more mindful about the impact we make when we respond to those around us, perhaps especially through social media. I do not believe that my colleagues intended to drain my enthusiasm. I do not think that they meant to criticize my comment. But the outcome of what they said and how they said did just that.

I will be reluctant to post such a comment again to the SONKA group, knowing that it had been a negative experience. If my comments have ever done such a thing to any of you, I sincerely apologize. Please know that I will be more mindful in the future.

The Line Between

There is a line that lies somewhere between being funny and being hurtful. More appropriately stated, there is a difference between humor and injury, and there are times when both speakers and hearers blur that distinction.

You are familiar with the situation. Someone rambles on, thinking that they are being funny and endearing, when, in actuality that persons is being nothing but tedious and annoying. Worse, such attempts at humor can be made at the expense of others.They become hurtful and insulting.

There have been times when most of us have been guilty of such unfortunate behavior, usually after a drink or two too many. It is also likely the case that most of us have been on the receiving end of such abuse, and likely bear some resentment for it.

I am reminded of Paul's dealing with the church in Corinth. They had been nothing but a problem for Paul. Conflict was constantly at hand, especially with the apparent divisiveness of many in the small community of faith. Some within the congregation were always looking for ways to exclude some others, to say who could be in or out, depending upon one's behavior. Some within the group wanted to state their superiority over others, a tendency borrowed from the competitive world in which they lived. The argued about food that had been sacrificed to idols, the hierarchy of spiritual gifts, who could and could not take what elements of the sacrament, and what to do with the influence of paganism in the lives of some, or many, within the church.

Paul was a master apostle. In his answer to these, and other, questions, he always applied the same standard of action and decision-making. Paul constantly utilized the archetype of Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection as a model for faithful behavior and thinking. This archetype suggests that all action and decision-making can be determined on the grounds of self-sacrifice and the benefit of others. For instance, while we know that eating food that had been sacrificed to an idol neither helps us not hurts us, the determining factor has little to do with us. It has to do with others. If a person who is weak in faith sees a strong person in the faith consuming food that had been sacrificed to an idol, may the strong not lead the weak into what the weaker person takes to be homage to another god? Therefore, for the sake of those weaker in the faith, it is probably better that we refrain.

Paul always applies the archetype of Crucifixion/Resurrection. How might we apply it to the thin line that separates humor from injury, fun from hurtfulness? Saying things that harm others is unacceptable. If we focus on Christ, then our intent in speaking must be to lift others, to make them feel better about themselves, to allow others to focus on their giftedness, empowerment and capability. We must refuse to speak in ways that invite others to focus on their weaknesses, flaws, limitations or wrongdoings. We must refuse to use our speech to tear others down, to make them self-conscious, to get them to look at things that may keep them from being faithful. If the archetype of our speaking were the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ Jesus then we would refuse to hurt and seek at all times to help.

Alas, our speech is not always so pure. It does not always, or even often, focus on building up others. We have grown accustomed to using speech that harms and hurts, that criticizes and deflates. All too often, our speech is used as a weapon against others, making them feel terribly while it falsely builds up the critic, providing, in one's own mind, a comparative advantage (like the food that had been offered to an idol).

In those moments, those who are insulted are also invited to apply the archetype of Crucifixion and Resurrection. It is a weak psyche that needs constantly to tear others down. It can be understood as a character flaw, born of low self-esteem and a tragically wounded ego.If we were to "walk a mile in the critic's moccasins," then perhaps we might better understand the context of his or her hurtful words and actions. Many times, hurtful speech is unintentional. While the intention does not excuse the effect, perhaps those injured might do well simply to let the speaker know that such language is harmful and to hope with that person that he or she not hurt others with that kind of speech. In most situations, that is all that we need to do. The Crucifixion and Resurrection so applied leads to healing, better intent, forgiveness and redemption.

Sometimes, however, people find it funny to continually tear down others. They constantly choose to be destructive. Stop listening to them. Walk away. Refuse to put yourself in such a situation, and work to help others avoid poison personalities as well. There is a line between fun and humor, between humor and injury. If someone crosses the line constantly in an effort to be funny, help them understand. If they can't or won't walk away.        

Not "Conservative"

A few weeks back, I made a comment during a Sunday morning message that insulted a member of the church. What I said was along these lines: "Such cultural evolution, and the progressive church's spiritual response, has been the bane of our right-wing conservative brothers and sisters..."

The member's point was that there are many conservatives who want to see culture evolve. They want to see thing progress. They want to see the world become a better, safer, kinder place to live.

Admittedly, this member is probably correct. Conservatives and liberals alike want to make the world a better place in which to live. Perhaps I used the wrong word. Instead of saying that cultural evolution and the progressive church's response to it are the bane of conservatives, I should have said that it is the bane of those who fear progress.

The opposite of "progressive" is not "conservative," after all. The opposite of progress is regression, repression and fear. We have seen and heard a fair share of progress' opposite in the past fifty or so years. In fact, we hear from repressive camps any time that we have experienced meaningful cultural evolution. They so fear cultural development that they seek to pull culture back into a previous configuration, beginning with their own religious culture.

The American response to a cultural evolution that began sometime in the 1960's has been to gather in regressive and repressive religious organizations. The destructive religious climate is far worse in other parts of the world, of course, where it has led to the degradation of women and children and violence enacted on any who would dare represent the cultural evolution. The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to a young girl who was shot in the head for daring to work for the education of young women in her culture. The opposite of progress is repression, regression, hatred and violence.

Those practices do not belong to political or cultural stances, like conservative or liberal. They are distinctly religious in nature. The enemies of cultural evolution, and of a spiritual one to which it can lead, has been decidedly religious. Religion has become the voice of repression and regression. Perhaps that is the chief reason that modern culture has rejected religious institutions in general, even while those same institutions have grown and amassed huge followings.

If the Church of Jesus Christ is to survive the current cultural evolution in which it finds itself, it will be through progressive means instead of repressive or regressive ones. How can the church become an instrument of the great things that are coming from the current contemporary cultural evolution? How can it lead to a spiritual and practical evolution in our denominations, churches and judicatories?

Next time, I will be more careful in the words that I choose. I apologize.

  

Enough Negativity?

Jesus said to those who might leave their lives and follow him on his missionary journey into a new and different life, "The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of heaven is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." Immediately upon hearing his invitation into an entirely new way of life, Andrew and Simon left their nets and followed. So did James and John.

We can assume that these would-be disciples may have had some previous experience with Jesus. It is not a great leap in the history of Jesus to suggest that he may have been an Essene disciple of John the Baptist, somewhere near the Jordan River, outside of Jerusalem. It is also not a giant leap to assume that others may have been connected to John's Essene community as well, even others such as James and John and Simon and Andrew. It is reasonable to assume that Jesus knew these men from his association with them as members of John's Essene settlement. When John had been arrested, his disciples fled, returning, in this case, to Galilee, to their fishing businesses and their former lives. The call to these men makes sense if they know Jesus as the one who has now stepped forward to take John's place.

But, in Jesus, something new is afoot. In him, something is different. This is not John's rhetoric about redemption and forgiveness. This is not a baptism that is based in the cleansing waters or the traditional Essene ritual. These men sense immediately that there is something different about Jesus. Then they hear his call. Nothing will ever be the same again hereafter. He calls them to a whole new way of life.

What is this new life to which Jesus calls his disciples? What is this new teaching? How is it different from either the Temple Judaism of the elders or the Essene Messianism of their teacher, John? They know that this is something new...but what?

Firstly, Jesus calls his disciples out of the negativity of the traditional practices of Temple Judaism. That Judaism is founded upon human sinfulness and the need to placate a God who demands absolute adherence to the laws of their ancestors. Humans compensate for their inherent pathology only by participating in the rituals, liturgies and traditional observances of the institutional faith. It says that Human beings are bad, deserving of God's wrath. Or, conversely, members of the institutional faith are superior to others, particularly those of other nationalities, because they are the ones who practice absolute adherence to God's laws. Temple Judaism is at once negative and, because of the institutional practices, superior.

Secondly, Jesus calls his disciples to repent of their involvement in the negativity and superiority of Temple Judaism. He calls them to turn from a negative understanding of human nature to a positive one. He wants his disciples to thing very highly of themselves, not in a way that it reflects the arrogance of Temple Judaism, but in a way that it feeds self-esteem and basic ego. Jesus wants them to understand themselves as capable, enabled and empowered to bring this new way of life to practical application. Jesus also wants them to understand others - all others and every other - as being similarly valued and deserving of honor and respect.

Thirdly, Jesus calls his disciples to enter into the good news that is at hand. Because the kingdom is coming, and because God's will is about to reign, Jesus' disciples are to be understood as messengers of good news (gospel). This runs counter to John's dire warnings of Messianism and apocalyptic, about the need for repentance and forgiveness of sins. This new life, Jesus may suggest, is about providing a positive message instead of dire warnings. It is welcoming, accepting, uplifting, whereas John's message was frightening, threatening and destructive.

Jesus invited disciples out of traditional negativity, to repent of their collusion with religious movements that have made people feel badly about themselves and fear an angry God, and into a practical life-style that helps people feel good about themselves and their God.

So Jesus invites us today. Are you tired yet of the negativity? Are you not worn out by religious movements that call us names and lay on us impossible and impractical beliefs and practices? Would you rather not be part of a positive life-style, an inter-personally-based movement of respect and dignity? Would you like to repent of all the negativity, the dire warnings, the destructive demands and the fear of God and turn to a loving and gracious God who thinks highly of and loves God's people - all of them and each of them?

Now is the time to give up all the negativity and follow him. Leave all that baggage. Abandon the judgmentalism and criticism of self and others. Help yourselves and others feel better about your and themselves, to feel God's acceptance, empowerment and equipping call to servanthood and ministry. Step out of unhealthy and impossible religious practice and into an age of care, concern, sacrifice, kindness and mercy. Step from law into grace. Now is the time!        

Positive or Negative Anthropology?

Why would anyone belong to any organization that told them that they were bad, evil, flawed, broken, unable and ignorant? Would persons rather not know that they are good, skilled, talented, empowered, enabled, potential, and relied upon?

Seemingly not. At least, not just yet.

In preparing a schematic for the theological differences between traditional church "orthodoxy to the law" and the Progressive Church "theology of grace," I listed under "Anthropology" a negative for the traditional, law-based theological system and a positive for the Progressive Church.

In last night's Discovery Time (contemporary, non-traditional) service at Shiloh Church, I noted the negative and positive anthropologies of the different ways of understanding baptism. Baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins is founded on a negative anthropology. It says that humans are inherently sinful, originally flawed, naturally unable to do God's will. They stand in need of a rite or ritual, an elixir or ceremony, that fixes them, that repairs their inherent illness. That elixir is provided by water baptism. The alternative is, of course, a spiritual baptism. In the case or spiritual baptism, humans are empowered, enabled, called and sent. All humans become "beloved sons and daughters of God," upon whom God may rely and through whom God's will is faithfully represented on Earth.

A theology of law or orthodoxy requires a negative anthropology. It demands that persons see themselves in need of repair, inherently broken, unrelentingly sinful. It provides for sacraments, rites, rituals and liturgies that promise to repair the inherent human flaw and promises that their practice renders one just good enough to earn eternal reward. "Whew! Just made it!"

A theology of grace demands a positive anthropology. A theology of grace requires that we understand humans as able, skilled, talented, inspired, equipped, called, having a vocation in life, faithful and gifted. Baptism is entree into utilizing the gifts of the Spirit to bring God's will as our way of life on Earth. Human beings can. Because of the Holy Spirit, they are able. As a result of the free gift of God's Spirit, human being share a common vocation and calling. They share a unified purpose and aim for life. Humans are to use the gifts, talent, creativity and imagination that each and all are given in odder to bring about a way of life that better reflects God's will for every person in every place.

Yet, people want to argue with a positive anthropology. People tend to cling to the old, familiar negativity of a theology of law and orthodoxy. In the Progressive Church movement, we fully acknowledge that none of us is a perfect reflection of God's will. We are not called to perfection. We are simply called to utilize the gifts that God has made available to us, as best we are able, to establish an alternative way of life that reflects the ethic of Christ and the heavenly virtues by which he lived and ministered.

I would argue that we cannot do so from a negative understanding of human nature. We cannot establish an alternative, Godly life-style if we are mired in the negativity of law and orthodoxy. May God someday set us free from the law and orthodoxy of the church's past, in order that we may live boldly into the world's future grace.          

Which Baptism?

Paul asked some strangers whom he encountered in the course of his missionary journeys, "With which baptism were you baptized?" (Acts 19:3) In the midst of the conversation, Paul discovered that these unfortunate would-be followers had only heard of John's baptism. They knew only a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sin.

The problem with a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins is that it needs to be repeated, often, in most cases. Those who know only a baptism about one's cleanliness, purity and righteousness are doomed to stand in need of perpetual and frequent baptism. The affects of the spiritual cleansing are impermanent.

I think this is what a young lady meant when she told me recently about her need to be "re-baptized." What she meant, I suppose, was that she was at a point in her life where she was ready again to dedicate herself to God's will for her. In order to get from her recent past to the future, however, she needed to cleanse herself of the past, to rededicate herself, to be made pure again. Unfortunately, or not, I think her intent is all tied up in traditional "shoulds" and "oughts," or more honestly in the traditional "should nots" and "ought nots." Faithfulness, to her, means following the rules and expectations of purity and righteousness.

But there is a different baptism, one of which the Church is shockingly unaware. It is the baptism of spiritual empowerment, of being equipped for doing God's will, of living in the light of Christ. It is not about being cleansed but about being equipped, just like Jesus, for the mission and ministry to which God's will calls us. This baptism is about acceptance and vocation more than it remains, in the traditional sense, about our eternal salvation.

Into which baptism were you baptized. Are you baptized in water or in the Spirit?

We at Shiloh are aware that the Spirit empowers us for ministry and service. It equips each of us, in unique ways, to accomplish God's will in the world. The Spirit breathes from the core of our being in order to bring God's love, forgiveness, compassion, grace, mercy and miraculous acceptance to everyone in every place. Baptism in the Spirit is about our ability and willingness to share the vocation of ministry and service in such powerful and meaningful ways that we change lives.

Perhaps the difference can be expressed best as the baptism for vocation and calling or baptism for righteousness and purity under the law. This Sunday, we will draw some stark lines between the two, and invite each of us to embrace again the baptism of vocation and calling, to accept again the baptism of the Spirit, to recognize again that we are empowered and equipped to represent God's will in, to and for the world in which we live.

If you want to be re-baptized in the baptism of empowerment and vocation, then you can't miss this coming Sunday! We worship at 8:30 a.m., 10:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Everyone is welcome!    

The Smartest Post Ever!

Blah...blah...blah.

     Merry Christmas!

Blah...blah...blah.

     Happy New Year!

Blah...blah...blah.

     Peace on Earth!

Peace on Earth

I was reminded of an incident that happened almost exactly a century ago, one that could have put an end to violence and warfare. Sadly, it didn't.

In the midst of the First World War, on Christmas Eve, 1914, the war fell silent along a thirty-mile span of the western front. The Germans put down their weapons, lit lanterns and sang Christmas Carols. The British side, recognizing the tunes if not the lyrics, applauded and shouted greetings. On Christmas Day, German, French and British troops met in a no-man's land, shook hands, shared food and exchanged gifts. The "Christmas Truce," as it has come to be called, lasted for hours. Alas, peace was not permanent and the soldiers were reminded of their duty. Soon, they were once again trying to kill one another. (From a devotional, written by David McCasland, focusing on Ephesians 2:13-19.)

This historical fact is striking for two reasons. Firstly, it is amazing that, in the midst of  multi-national conflict, even Christmas can bring a respite from the violence and devastation. It is surprising that the German troops were able to bring a day of peace simply by celebrating the birth of Jesus. Clearly, the French and British troops recognized in the effort a beauty that transcended the purposes of warfare, even if for a very short time. Secondly, it is surprising that a peace once reached could be driven back into violence and warfare. What forces led those who had shaken hands, shared gifts, and sang together of the season to turn back to despising, hating, fearing and killing one another?

Surely, in a return to violence, hatred and warfare, we see the hand of authority and power. Clearly, someone ordered the troops from their celebration of Christmas to the fighting for which they were responsible. I imagine that they were reminded of their "higher purpose," their responsibility to country and throne and flag. "Stop that silly camaraderie," the officers may have said, "And get back to the war."

It is my opinion that we live in very dangerous times. Those who have historically been discriminated against have great reason to fear. Far too many recent incidents have seen unarmed and possibly innocent young black men shot down and killed by the police. When fervor for providing for the safety and security of the general public touched us against racial prejudice and fear of those unlike the majority, there is bound to be violence. Unjustifiable death is the result.

We are tempted to sweep the incidents aside as a cost of providing for the safety and security of the general public. I am reminded of another historical act, however. Pastoral members of the Evangelical Church in Germany found themselves imprisoned in World War II Germany. Their arrests came as a shock to them. They had stood behind the Third Reich, supported the social and foreign policies, even supported the war. When the authorities began arresting Jewish neighbors, these leaders were unconcerned. When the same authorities began arresting anyone with a dissenting voice, they remained unconcerned. When the Church leaders had seen enough abuse and death, and began to speak up, they too were arrested by the authorities. You can read the message of repentance yourselves by Googling "The Barmen Declaration."

I do not appreciate authority run amok. I do not appreciate the manner in which authorities treat good citizens of whatever race, color, nationality, age or physical appearance if those authorities are in any way being less than polite and respectful. I have been stopped by an officer for having an nonworking license plate light. Before he even arrived at my window, he had inspected the interior of my automobile. What the interior of my car had to do with a burned out license plate light baffles me yet. When he did arrive at my window, he was disrespectful and rude. I can only imagine what that incident may have been like if I were a young black man, or any minority. I was insulted and, in my opinion, abused.

Where is the peace? Can we achieve it? And, if we can achieve it, can we make it last? Or will we respond to the order of the officers, who may say, "Stop all this silliness and get back to the war?"

May Jesus achieve the peace in our hearts and times that we can now only imagine.    

  

"Glory to God in the Highest"

Shiloh Church is offering to the congregation and community its annual Christmas musical, "Glory to God in the Highest" this coming Sunday, in the Shiloh Church Sanctuary, at both 10:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. If the past years have been any indication, this is an event that you do not want to miss.

The annual musical is a production of the music ministry department at Shiloh Church. It is under the direction of Mark Barnhill, Shiloh's Director of Music. The musical will feature the joint choirs of Shiloh Church, including the Sanctuary Choir, the youth choir, the Discovery Team (Shiloh's 7:00 p.m. contemporary worship praise band and worship leaders) along with the church's bell choirs, both Voices in Bronze and the youth bells, several musicians from Shiloh, and an all-volunteer community orchestra. Martha Kirkland assists Mark Barnhill. Besides accompanying the musical on the piano, Martha has filled in as Shiloh's organist over the past few months as well.

The musical is an expression of hope, peace, love and joy. It is a means by which Shiloh's musical groups share their celebration with the congregation and community. Following each production, a hospitality team, headed by JoAnn Orihood, will offer a reception, to be held in the congregation's Omega Hall. This is always a well-attended and exciting reception. The hospitality team will also be on hand to greet people and assist those who may need direction.

Our sincere hope is that the entire congregation comes to support the music ministry in its efforts to share the Christmas message of joy with the community. As usual, Shiloh's Christmas musical is something of a throwback, to a time when the musical message completes the celebration of the season. It is intended to enthuse, inspire and uplift.

Come and join us. I promise that you will have a great time!

 

Endings

I despise endings. I think that most of us do. An ending means that things will not be the same thereafter. Endings mean that something new is around the bend, just over the next hill, around the corner. It's not that we dislike new things, I think. I think that we hate giving up the familiar and comfortable. We do not like seeing the usual pass.

A great sense of loss accompanies most endings.

I remember when my father died, at the age of 53,in 1989. At the time, my wife and I were living in Junction City, Kansas, serving a good congregation that was filled with good people. Lisa was seven months pregnant with our daughter, Casey. As I sat at his memorial service, held at my home town church in Bremen, Indiana, I remember thinking that this ending meant that I could no longer rely upon my father to bail me out of any trouble that might arise. That ending meant that I was on my own. The world changed in that moment.

I remember, too, when we left that congregation in Kansas and headed for Evansville, Indiana, to serve a congregation there. The loss of the ending in Junction City was modified somewhat by the anxious anticipation of the relationships and ministry that awaited us at Christ Church UCC. We lost much in the ending, but gained as much in the new environs.

Advent is as much about endings, it seems to me, than it is about beginnings. While we tend to want to cling to the lovely story of a baby who is born to be the savior of all humankind, a baby who never cries in the manger, never needs, never poops, the reality of Advent hits us hard. Nothing can be the same. His coming means an end to the old ways, a cosmic transformation that undoes and redoes everything that is, was and will be.

That is good news, but more for those who have no stake in the way things have been. For most of us, who have found ways to cope and succeed in life as it was, the ending of Advent is a loss. The rules change, and with those changes comes a need to adapt to new ways. The transformation is uncomfortable and inconvenient. It takes us into uncharted territory, into uncertainty and doubt and wonder.

So we grieve the loss that Advent brings. But we celebrate too. We celebrate the fact that Advent means that God's will in embodied in human nature, first in a little baby and then in those who seek to embody his example. We move from lives that are governed by economics and politics and social status to lives that are defined by compassion and caring, sacrificial ministry and service to others. We transition from worlds that are about "Me" to worlds that are about "All."

Sure, there is loss there. But the loss of a world that is defined in violence, warfare, privilege, position and power is hardly a loss when compared to the compassion, caring, mercy, grace, forgiveness and generosity that is in the world to come. Advent is an ending. It is also a beginning. Thanks be to God!  

Never a Dull Moment

The Fall at Shiloh Church has been exciting, taxing, dizzying and frantic...so, usual. The frantic pace stretches back to the Annual Golf Outing, where Shiloh raised $8,000 for needy families through the Christmas season. Then, in September, Shiloh held its annual Fall Fair. On its heels, we sold pumpkins through our Pumpkin Patch, 75% of the proceeds returning to the Navajo reservation where they were grown. After that, Shiloh geared up for its annual Holiday Bazaar. Craft items of nearly every description were available, as were antiques, artwork, baked goods, along with food, fun and fellowship. On Saturday, following the closing of the Bazaar at 2:00, a crew transformed the sanctuary in preparation for the dress rehearsal for Sinclair Community College's community invitational performance of Handl's Messiah. More than 600 people gathered for that performance on Sunday evening.

Now, because no downtime is allowed, Shiloh is preparing for its annual Christmas Musical, which will be held on Sunday, December 14, at both 10:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. in the sanctuary. In preparation, a crew of volunteers is "hanging the greens" for Christmas season. The choirs, bell groups and volunteer orchestra have been busy in rehearsal. It should be a great celebration of the coming of our Savior. We hope that you all join us.

Did I mention that, in the midst of all of this, Shiloh has been replacing its entire sanctuary dimmer system? While Shiloh had planned to go ahead with the project, it was pushed along by a grant from the Fred Luther foundation. Throughout much of the Fall, Shiloh has experienced intermittent outages in lighting service, whether in the chancel/apse area or in the nave. Thanks to the grant, to the hard work of John Rabius, Shiloh's Director of Media Ministries, and to a small group of volunteers, the project is nearing half-way. We are hoping to have the entire project completed within the next few weeks. In case you are curious, total cost of the project should be somewhere in the neighborhood of $60,000, $50,000 of which we received from the Luther Foundation. The remainder has already been raised by Shiloh's Next Steps Team.

I should mention two other features of Shiloh's Advent preparations. Firstly, Bible @ Boston's resumes on Wednesday, December 3. We will study on the 10th and 17th as well, using the curriculum that was written for the UDLLI class: AT THE END: The Revelation of St. John from a Historical/Critical Perspective. We will complete our study in January, as we meet on the 7th, 14th and 21st. Secondly, Shiloh will hold its annual Christmas Eve celebration with a candlelight service of word and carol on the 24th, with an organ/instrumental concert at 7:00 p.m. and continuing with the service at 7:30. Once again, we hope that everyone joins us for this annual highlight.

If you are tired reading about all this, imagine trying to coordinate it all. Truly, there is never a dull moment at Shiloh Church UCC, and I would not have it any other way.

Have a blessed Thanksgiving week. Remember, though, as you gather at your Thanksgiving tables with friends and families, that there are those who are not so fortunate. Keep them in your prayers, and find a way to lend your support this week.

The Light of Christ Shines

Discerning readers of The Shiloh Insider will have noticed that there was a two-week period in which no updates were made to the blog. The explanation of the gap is simple. I was on vacation. Instead of advertising the fact in The Shiloh Insider, I thought that a two-week hiatus from updates was far from the worst thing that may happen. Now, after a week of writing and another in sunny Mexico, I am back in the office and ready to resume posting to the blog.

It is always amazing to me how seemingly unrelated events come together and form a symbiotic whole from which we might interpret life more faithfully. One of those events occurred while in Cozumel. On a particular day of our vacation, our small group of five decided to rent a taxi, with driver, and travel around the island, seeing the sites, visiting some ruins, stopping at an eatery or two and generally just enjoying the scenery. Our driver's name was Juan. He was a gentleman of, say, 40-50 years of age. His van was decorated with cartoon characters and a few ubiquitous religious insignias. He provided a cooler of agua and cervesas, in case we wanted something to drink while traveling.

Before continuing with the story, I have to provide a contextual point. On Cozumel, in fact throughout much of Yucatan Mexico, the average wage per 10-hour day is $5.00. Our experience, after traveling to this part of the world several times over the past decade, is that these people work remarkably hard. One friend, Alfredo, works as the resort bell hop. Alfredo is likely in his early 70's, but lugs traveler's bags throughout the resort six days per week,10 hours per day. He does so with a constant smile and an open willingness to do whatever he can to make people happy. Every time we visit this resort, we warmly greet and generously tip Alfredo, telling him how much we appreciate his presence.

On our taxi excursion around Cozumel, we indeed stopped a few watering holes, saw every side of the 9 1/2 x 34 mile piece of land and visited a Mayan ruin. The most meaningful event of the day took place on the way back to the resort, however, as we simply riding in Juan's taxi.

Another contextual note becomes necessary at this point. On Cozumel, there are very few family-owned automobiles. The cars and vans are, by and large, taxis or shuttles. Families travel by scooter. We have seen as many as four family members, ranging from senior citizens to very, very small children, loaded on a scooter,

On our way back to the resort, while riding in Juan's taxi, we passed a young mother with a 2 or 3 year old daughter, standing aside a broken down scooter. As we passed the scene, Juan looked at me in the rear-view mirror. I understood and nodded. Juan wanted to stop to offer assistance to the young mother and her child. Juan pulled over and backed his taxi to the broken down scooter, explaining to the rest of the group that he noticed the young girl crying and the mother struggling to comfort her. By the time we arrived, the father of the young girl had arrived on a motorcycle to assist his family. Juan had a brief discussion with the father, after which it became clear that Juan had offered to provide a ride for the mother and young child in our van.

Juan explained, somewhat reluctantly, that he had offered the ride. Would we mind? It meant that our little group would be providing the ride, free of cost to them, and we would be slightly inconvenienced. No problem.

Juan invited the mother and daughter into the van. They rode with us into town, to a repair shop, where the father was to have brought the scooter. We dropped them off and shared smiles all around. This was a beautiful and generous act. It shone with the light of Christ. Juan was practicing the simplest of virtues. He went out of his way in order to assist someone in need. We were simply bystanders, an audience to Juan's act of kindness.

We returned from our trip very late Saturday night and attended the 7:00 p.m. worship service at Shiloh on Sunday. In the course of the service, as a regular feature of that worship experience, the participants discussed the theme of the texts and message. The facilitator asked why we are uncomfortable at times with those who so boldly demonstrate or talk about their faith. I was reminded of Juan. He never talked with us about his faith. Aside from some minimal iconography, we would have never guessed his religious persuasion. But we knew from what he did. He did not need to say a word about what he believed. Maybe we are made uncomfortable by the words about faith and what we believe instead of the simplicity of acts that demonstrate faith without having to say a word about them.

When we returned to the resort, we paid Juan and tipped him generously, about a week's worth of his average salary. He attempted to argue. I explained, best I could, that kindness has its rewards and that what he did for that young mother and child was a beautiful act. It was a fairly emotional parting.

It's funny, isn't it, how simple acts of kindness speak more profoundly than our words ever can? Strange, isn't it, that we spend so much time and effort on the details and overlook the simplicity of a beautiful act? Thanks, Alfredo, Juan and the amazing people that we encounter every time that we travel to Mexico, for showing us again the beauty of simple kindness.    

The Neighborhood

Certain approaches work to bring people to churches and some do not. Before moving on to describe those approaches that work and those that do not, let me first explain what I mean by the phrase "bring people to churches."

I do not mean that these approaches, or any others, necessarily bring people to membership in local churches. Local churches are not necessarily called to grow memberships...or to guarantee ongoing financial stability...or to make sure that their organizations are assured forever. Churches are called to serve people, both those within the neighborhoods surrounding our facilities and those who live farther away from our locations.

This is upsetting to some. If congregations make their organizational success or institutional sustainability the key to their activity and function, the churches may well gather for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the ministry of Jesus Christ. If Christ, expressed in our neighborhoods and beyond, is the ball upon which we are trained to keep our eyes, then our ministries and missions will only incidentally impact organizational success or institutional sustainability.

That expressed, there are approaches to bringing people to our churches that do not work. Advertising, by and large, does not work. Fancy, glitchy ads that promise personal fulfillment or spiritual development are the least effective way to attract persons. They do exactly the opposite, in fact. They tend to repel.

Programming that is geared to societal or cultural strata do not work. What organization has not tried to structure approaches around target demographics? What church has not attempted socio-economic or geographical groupings to attract like-minded an like-oriented persons? What church has not tried tying itself to some distinct political or social cause? These attempts may work for a short time, but they eventually fade away and cease to be effective.

What works is simple and basic. Congregations that serve their neighborhoods, that are seen as a resource to and an aid for neighbors, thrive and grow. Their ministries expand. Their missions grow.

Shiloh Church has demonstrated this simple fact in two very important ways. Firstly, Shiloh's Front Porch Ministry has been a tremendous success. The Front Porch takes place in the course of Shiloh's Saturday Farmers' Market. Regional farmers, and other food-related producers, gather to sell products to the community every Saturday morning, May through October, in the parking lot of Shiloh Church. The Market offers WIC/food stamp usage as a means of serving our area's financially struggling population, as well as those who may be able to afford fresh produce. Members and friends of Shiloh gather each Saturday, in the Gazebo, to offer welcome, discussion, hot and cold drinks, breakfast sandwiches and friendship. There is no proselytizing, no commercial, no church information...unless persons ask. The majority of Shiloh's new members, through the last three New Member Sundays, have come from the Front Porch. Many more lives have been touched.

Yesterday, Shiloh offered its first-ever Trunk of Treats program. From 5:30 - 7:00 p.m. twenty-two members and friends of Shiloh gathered in the "point" of the facility's parking lot, decorated trunks of cars, backs of SUV's and beds of trucks, and distributed candy, pencils, and fun products to more than 385 neighborhood children and families. The neighbors enjoyed free hot dogs, chips and drinks as well. By providing a safe environment in which children could trick-or-treat, Shiloh served a huge segment of its neighborhood. The program was simple, but memorable. We are certain that the project will expand, both with community response and Shiloh members' involvement.

These programs work. Serving our neighborhood, representing Christ to and with them our closest neighbors in creative and imaginative ways, works. It brings people to Shiloh. Activities like the Pumpkin Patch, the Fall Fair, the Holiday Bazaar, the Golf Outing, Food Bank Collections, and too many others to mention, work. Well done, Shiloh! You are representing Christ to, in and with your neighbors.    

Something Better?

I do not know for certain whether the tendency comes from the culture or from the nature of the contemporary church. Perhaps it is not universal at all, but part of my, admittedly, limited experience. It certainly seems to be true, however.

People do not sign up. They do not commit. They do not attach their names to projects or programs or events. Only at the last minute do people seems to be willing to state their devotion to x, y, or z. It seems as though people hold out until the last possible minute to commit, seeming to expect something better to come along and claim their attention.

So it was, I imagine, in the Gospel parable from this past Sunday. The king had invited certain people to the wedding banquet of his son, but they refused the invitation. Worse, they made light of it, thinking that other things in their lives were more important, more attractive, more fun or more meaningful. They rejected the king's invitation. They abused the king's servants. The king was enraged and caused the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem at the culmination of the Roman/Jewish war in 70 c.e. Others were invited. They came, but some were unprepared for what the banquet required. So, many are called but few are chosen.

The more I study and learn, and the more I wrestle with God's will for humankind, the more I am convinced that authentic spirituality invites us simply to go out of our way for the sake of others. It is the highest of heavenly virtues. It is at the core of the Christ ethic and speaks of the motivation that lies behind the archetype of Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection. Every religion has at its core the simple act of sacrificing self for the benefit of others.

If self-sacrificing service is at the core of our religion, and I firmly believe that it is, then one might assume that the best that the church has to offer is the opportunity to engage in and embody that service. There is nothing better. There is no greater good, no superior service, no more meaningful use of time, energy, talent of wealth.

One would expect therefore that opportunities to participate in self-sacrificing service ministry and mission would be the most important, most exciting, most meaningful opportunities that we have to offer. But people still seem to be waiting for something better to come along.

I wonder for what we wait? What do we expect to come along that is superior to the self-sacrificial service opportunities that we offer?

To find an answer, I look in my assessment mirror and find there...myself.

 Ah. That.

The sole reason for waiting to commit to opportunities for self-sacrificing service is the self that wants anything but to sacrifice. Of course I wait for something to come along that better suits me, my self, I. I avoid the self-sacrificing service if I can better serve myself with something more self-serving. Tautology much there, Plato?

Of course we are tempted to wait to see whether or not something more self-serving might come along before we commit to an opportunity for self-sacrifice. I wonder, though, how we market the notion that opportunities to embody self-sacrifice are preferable to the best of self-service? If we could sell that notion, if we could just convince one another of its merits, sign-ups would be immediate and commitment would be sure and certain.

Until then, alas, people will be people. Sorry, king. Can't come to your banquet. I've got a mani/pedi scheduled at 5:00.      

Open and Affirming?

I found myself drawn into a lengthy email conversation a week or so ago that I think the Shiloh community might be interested in knowing. It involved the United Church of Christ stance that many of us know of as "Open and Affirming (ONA)."

The "Open and Affirming" stance states that congregations are both open to and affirming of persons and couples in same gender relationships. It says that the doors of the church are open to persons from the LGBT community, and that we affirm that lifestyle. Shiloh is not technically an "ONA" congregation.

A colleague of mine was examining Shiloh's website recently and emailed me, shocked that Shiloh was not an official ONA congregation. She has known me for some years, knows many of my theological and social values, and had always believed me to be a person who was welcoming of all persons, regardless of race, creed, national origin, gender or lifestyle.

She went on to explain that some biblical models seem to exclude persons, mainly on a social/cultural basis, but that the contemporary church should not be a part of such exclusion. She included several links to sites where I could access more information on those (six) biblical texts and how we might better understand them in a contemporary setting.

She wondered how I, a pastor of pretty consistent thinking and theology, could serve a congregation that is not officially ONA. Quite frankly, she went on and on and on, trying to convince me that the congregation that I serve must have led me down a more conservative path than she assumed that I would have followed. She even said that she was disappointed in me.

Well...

It is true that Shiloh is not technically an ONA congregation. There are two factors that have led to that factor that my colleague has failed to recognize. I explained in my return email:

There are two reasons that Shiloh is not ONA, neither of them accounted for in your earlier email.
 1. ONA does not include all persons. How about issues of race, gender, national origin, economic status, social order, healthiness, residence, background or dress? None of these are addressed in the ONA stance. Shiloh believes in the equality of all persons, not just some. Therefore, the ONA stance does not go far enough for the way this congregation practices its faith.
2. Shiloh is radically welcoming. Ask the couples and families of every description who attend and who take part in the congregation's ministries. Ask our Indonesian, Hispanic, African-American, gay, artistic, conservative, progressive participants whether or not they are made to feel welcome as we work side-by-side in the ministry of Jesus Christ. Shiloh seeks to practice instead of taking political stances. We just do.

The remainder of the email was a request that perhaps we should gain information before judging or jumping to conclusion. Just because Shiloh is not technically ONA does not mean that we are not a welcoming community that stands in allegiance with persons of whatever description. This congregation prefers instead to claim that everyone is welcome here, no matter where they have been, what they have done, or where they might be on life's journey. Shiloh's doors are genuinely open and the congregation genuinely affirms every person. The congregation lives its faith. I am proud to serve here.

As the Pastor

A few weeks back, a member of the staff made an excellent suggestion, one that Shiloh will seek to embody in a new Bible @ Boston's feature. It is called Ask the Pastor.

Ask the Pastor will consist of formulating responses to the spiritual and theological questions of members and friends of the church and turning those responses into hour-long investigations of those questions. For instance, the first topic that the staff has received from a church member has been, "What is the significance of the concepts of Heaven and Hell and where did these concepts come from?" (sic)

Many recognize, of course that a theology of grace runs counter to our traditional understandings of Heaven and Hell. If grace is true, then eternal punishment makes no sense. If eternal punishment makes no sense, then eternal reward is up for debate. If grace is universally given, and if each person is saved in the Crucifixion, then eternal reward must be universal instead of conditional. It is derived, not from one's commitment, devotion or loyalty, but exclusively in the act of God in Christ. Grace is salvation accomplished for us and, as an extension, grace is embodied through us.

So what about Heaven and Hell?

This will be our topic of discussion , originally scheduled for Wednesday, November 26, from 6:00-7:00 p.m. at Boston's Bistro and Pub, located at the corner of North Main Street (St. Rte. 48) and Dogleg Road (Westbrook Rd.). I am aware that this is the night before Thanksgiving, and that some of us may be traveling. I am therefore willing to change the date to a week earlier, though that coincides with the Holiday Bazaar. A week earlier than that would place the discussion on November 12. If I hear from enough of those who may be interested in the discussion, it is possible that we might change to that date, but I have to notify Boston's by the middle of October.

In order to submit a question for Ask the Pastor, simply place your question, in writing, in the offering plate on Sunday, email it to Carl Robinson at crobinson@shiloh.org or make a comment in response to this post on the Shiloh Facebook group site. Remember that comments are disabled on this account on blogspot.

We look forward to some lively discussion and some important information on pertinent issues. I sincerely hope that many of you will join us.

Structural Implications of The Church of Vocation

The bureaucratic church of the past, with its by-laws and constitutional boundaries, sees the developing church of vocation as too unmanageable, too unruly, chaotic. If everyone is empowered directly from God to engage in whatever ministry that person feels called to, just how is the church to manage the charismatic anarchy that ensues? Everyone running around doing what they discern as their call? Cray-cray!

The charge of the bureaucratic church is not without merit. In fact, bureaucracy and authority have been the ways that the church has managed itself since - and before - the time of Paul. Paul was an anomaly, you may recall. The Apostle did not know Jesus...never met the guy. His calling lacked the hands-on experience of the disciples, but rested, instead, in the power of the revelatory spirit. His calling was spiritual, charismatic, mystical. The mystic Paul countered the claim of face-to-face authority by claiming an equally sound spiritual insight. In response, Paul developed a theology of grace. That theology was later rejected as an organizing core principle of the late first century because grace was simply to unruly to institutionalize. Law and authority took it place in the concept of apostolic succession.

So, beginning as early as the the late first century c.e., the chaotic mysticism of Paul was rejected and a system of law and authority took its place. The early Christian Church was organized around law and authority, power and position. By-laws and constitutions spelled out succinctly who could be a member, what actions they had to take to maintain membership, the means of control and authority and rules for what boards and committees did and did not do. Sometimes, the rules might have allowed for how persons do things within or through the congregation that were not included in constitutions and by-laws. Rarely, that is. Normally, everything was set in proverbial stone.

The contemporary congregation finds itself at the cusp of a whole new way of thinking and organizing, however. If our churches are to be made relevant again in the developing culture in which we find ourselves, we are being forced to cede the organizational foundations of law and authority and open ourselves to organizing from the ubiquitous vocation of universal calling. We are challenged to return to pre-apostolic succession, when mysticism remained tolerable and grace was a core theological principle, to do the work that the ancients feared. We have to herd the cats of Christian spirituality.

There are three steps to the process that I can imagine:

1. Scrap the old thinking. Organizing around law and authority are things of the past, and they should be put there. This means scrapping constitutions and by-laws, along with rules about membership and activity.

2. Adopt new thinking. How does the church embody personal and communal spirituality and how can it organize itself around vocation? Are there categories of service around which the church might organize the ministries that are reflected in the calls that comprise it? What would this look like? How can we imagine and create such a fluid structure? What the heck is a fluid structure?

3. Try it. Step into the unknown of structures that reflect the theology of grace instead of law and organizations that are built around vocation instead of  regulation.

Shiloh is attempting just that in the outcome of its latest five-year plan. The congregation is re-organizing around grace and vocation. Our hope is that we are able to work the bugs out of what looks like unmanageable chaos to reach a point where we minister together out of our common call, by finding a place that honors the mystical/spiritual realities of individual call.

Join us in attempting to herd the mystical and spiritual cats, in order to return to relevancy within the cultural evolution that is taking place all around us.    

Educational Opportunities Abound

Shiloh Church takes the process of Christian Education seriously. The congregation engages in far more than Sunday School, though the traditional classes for all ages are offered every Sunday morning, from 9:15-10:15 a.m.

Included in Shiloh's Sunday morning schedule is a weekly opportunity to discuss the message/texts for that Sunday of the liturgical church year. Following the 10:25 worship service, usually around 11:45 or so, a group gathers in Shiloh's Omega Hall to converse. Such conversation is a usual feature of our weekly 7:00 p.m. alternative worship setting, by the way.Everyone is welcome.

Shiloh continues to offer twice-weekly Bible studies, where participants study together the texts that serve as the basis for that coming Sunday's worship. Following the Revised Common Lectionary, or by utilizing the church's newsletter, participants can study upcoming texts in preparation for each session. Sessions are held on Tuesday evenings, from 7:00-8:30 p.m. or on Thursday mornings, from 10:00 - 11:30 a.m. All sessions are held in the church's chapel. Again, as ever, everyone is welcome.

Bible @ Boston's is being offered by Shiloh throughout the month of September. Our curriculum is based on the cultural evolution of the past fifty years and the church's response to it. It is entitled: Theology of the Progressive Church Movement: From a Church of Law Toward a Church of Vocation. Sessions are held each week, Wednesday evenings, from 6:00 -7:00 p.m. at Boston's Bistro and Pub, located at the corner of North Main Street (St. Rte. 48) and Dogleg Rd. (Westbrook). Food and drink are available for purchase.Guess what? Everyone is welcome.

I am also currently teaching a session of the University of Dayton's Life Long Learning Institute, in course entitled  "At the End: The Revelation to John from Historical/Critical Perspective." This is the fourth series that I have led at UD and I am thoroughly thrilled with the response to that population's response to the modified Historical/Critical Method that we teach. Those sessions will run from September 15 through October 20, every Monday morning, from 9:30-11:30 a.m. Participants need to have membership in the University of Dayton's Life Long Learning Institute in order to attend and there is a cost per enrollment quarters. Fliers can be found on the Library table, located near the Copper Room, or by contacting UDLLI.

I am also currently developing a class for SONKA's Affiliates for Education, formerly the Association's Lay School. Now located at United Theological Seminary, SONKA's Affiliates for Education offer high-level classes for those who are interested in pursuit of calling, whether lay or professional. I am writing a curriculum for Introduction to Old Testament, which will include both an overview of the literature and a survey of theological developments. Persons can apply for participation in SONKA's Affiliates for Education by contacting the SONKA office, or by accessing the Association's website, www.sonkaucc.org.

We sincerely hope that the people of Shiloh, and any interested parties from our community, take part in the rich educational opportunities that Shiloh offers. Learning together, we are Living the Word by Serving the World.

Childhood Memories

I learned late yesterday afternoon of the death of one of my two best childhood friends. There are as yet no details, except for the fact that his death was by his own hand.

This is the second time that a member of my graduation high school class, the Bremen, Indiana class of 1979, committed suicide. More poignantly, this is the second person that I played with as a child, who lived in my neighborhood, who I loved and who I will miss, took her and his own life. The first was Dawn Marburger. Now Tracy Cather.

I do not know the details of Dawn's death. She lived in California. I saw her at our 25th class reunion, the only one that I have attended. I had lost touch with her. Despite Facebook and other available social media, I had also lost touch with Tracy.

Tracy's death comes on the heals of his father's passing and the break up of Tracy's long-term relationship with his partner.

I wonder if the pressures and stress of being gay in our culture had anything to do with his eventual suicide. If so, we should be ashamed of ourselves. Political or religious stances are evil when they contribute to the death of someone so talented and valuable. Such stances are evil when they contribute to any person's rejection, diminishment, or depersonalization.

Dawn suffered in some of the same ways. While I do not think that she was attracted to persons of the same gender - after all, she was my first real kiss - I know that she suffered greatly with body image and bulimia. Despite being a beautiful woman, she never felt comfortable in her own skin.

Our culture is killing people. The pressure that we place on one another is leading to depression, deep seeded frustration and disenchantment, to hopelessness and desperation. It is leading to suicide at an alarming rate among Baby Boomers.

The Revised Common Lectionary texts for this past week included Paul's lesson from Romans, to simply "Love One Another." In the act of loving one another rests fulfillment of all the laws. More than that, however. In loving one another lies mutual support and compassion, acceptance and sincere respect, wherein we see persons as more than tools for our political or religious posturing.

Who is to say? Perhaps if we were able to live in love, just maybe Dawn and Tracy might still be with us. I mourn their loss. I grieve for them and regret their pain.

It may sound naive, but is it not time that we pursue love of one another? We have lost far too many already.

Miley Cyrus Shocks Again

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.

 

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.

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.    

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.

    

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?  

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.      

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.