Most everyone knows by this time that the Supreme Court of the United States is in session this week to argue the constitutionality of State restriction on same-gender marriage. It is widely assumed that SCOTUS will determine State bans unconstitutional and that same-gender marriages will become legal in all fifty States. In Ohio, such a lifting of restrictions is meaningful.
Ohio is a State that currently bans same-gender marriage. If we are right, and if SCOTUS removes State restriction, then same-gender marriage will become legal in Ohio. That may mean that churches, congregations and Temples may be crowded with same-gender couples who looking to legalize their commitment in marriage.
While Shiloh is not officially ONA (the UCC classification of congregations that are "open and affirming" of LGBT persons and issues) the congregation certainly holds to the acceptance of all persons. In fact, when I brought the issue of ONA status, now more than ten years ago, the leadership at Shiloh thought it a misrepresentation of the church's openness to reduce hospitality to ONA distinction. Our welcome went further than the ONA classification. Therefore, the congregation did not consider ONA status.
Now, however, it may be time for Shiloh to reconsider the determination of ONA status. The reason for pursuing such classification is an intentional openness to those couples who may be seeking marriage equality in wake of the Supreme Court decision. If couples consult the UCC website and search for congregations that are ONA, Shiloh would not be included among those churches. That would be an unfortunate exclusion. Even though the ONA policy is limited, it may be time for Shiloh to state at least that portion of its intentional affirmation of all persons.
If SCOTUS outlaws State restrictions on same-gender marriages, Shiloh will have an opportunity to serve a widely rejected population. Statement of ONA status would certainly ease that intentional hospitality.
Assuming that Shiloh accepts LGBT persons among those to whom we are called to extend Christ's radical welcome, this may be the perfect time for the congregation to study, vote upon and demonstrate Christ's love by adopting the ONA stance. While the statement is more limited than Shiloh's affirmation of all persons, this may be the perfect time for us to embrace at least that part of intentional affirmation.
By the way, if SCOTUS should rule against State bans on same-gender marriage, it is likely that such a decision would be rendered sometime around the end of June, 2015, when many of us will be attending the General Synod meeting of the United Church of Christ in Cleveland. It should be one huge celebration!
Monday, April 27, 2015
Monday, April 20, 2015
Small Church Practice? O Hell No!
Tony Robinson (no relation) recently wrote in a United Church of Christ online devotional that it may be time that we revert to "small church." What he meant by that, I assume, was not small membership congregations, or small budget ones, but ones whose practice is small. I am unsure whether Robinson was advocating a move to small purpose congregations or if he was pointing out current conditions. Either way, I think that he is dead wrong.
In the devotional, Robinson said that we are moving toward communities that engage in spiritual prayer and renewal, biblical studies and mutual care. (I am not quoting because I did not retain the devotional). Interesting. Where in there is anything that lies outside of one's self or immediate community? Where is mission and ministry? Where is an act of self-sacrifice that embodies the purpose to which Christ Jesus calls the Church?
Small church minimizes the ministry and mission of Christ Jesus. It reduces it down to individual and group spirituality, prayer, study and care. None of those things are bad, mind you. All are part and parcel of the function of the Church of Jesus Christ. But they cannot, and must never, become the full function of congregations that serve to represent Jesus Christ.
Churches that claim to be congregations of Jesus Christ, communing with him and joining him in mission and ministry, can never be reduced to individual and group function within the life of the small-ministry congregation. On the contrary, the impact of even a small population or small budget church can be meaningful in communities and throughout the world. Small numbers can make significant changes if they are focused on embodying the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ, in, to, with and for those communities.
Imagine if the disciples had decided to embody Robinson's small church practice. They would have remained a tight-knit community of like believers, or relatively so, who prayed and studied together, caring for one another and ensuring that the needs of each community member was met. They would have died peacefully, never having accomplished a single, wider ministry or mission than that required beyond the exercise of the group. In short, nothing would have happened.
And nothing happens today in congregations that accept Robinson's small church practice. In fact, Christ Jesus is not practiced, because the practice of Christ calls us beyond our walls, our spiritualities, our studies, our worship, our prayers. It calls us into the world, meeting the needs of those who struggle mightily in a world whose benefits are skewed to the benefit of the wealthy and the powerful. Small church does nothing, beyond one's own group, to meet those needs or to stand with Christ against the world's injustice, inequality, exclusionary close-mindedness.
Nope. I do not accept the concept of small church. We are called to big ministry and mission in Christ's name. We are called, as communities of faith, to stand with Christ against the wrongs of the systems under which we live and to engage in concrete acts of kindness and generosity for those who are victimized by them. If we reject the ministry of Jesus Christ in favor of the small church practice that Robinson seems to advocate in his devotional, then we are not the Church of Jesus Christ at all.
We might be sound spiritual communities, learned and prayerful ones perhaps, but we are not following the ministry and mission to which Christ has called us.
In the devotional, Robinson said that we are moving toward communities that engage in spiritual prayer and renewal, biblical studies and mutual care. (I am not quoting because I did not retain the devotional). Interesting. Where in there is anything that lies outside of one's self or immediate community? Where is mission and ministry? Where is an act of self-sacrifice that embodies the purpose to which Christ Jesus calls the Church?
Small church minimizes the ministry and mission of Christ Jesus. It reduces it down to individual and group spirituality, prayer, study and care. None of those things are bad, mind you. All are part and parcel of the function of the Church of Jesus Christ. But they cannot, and must never, become the full function of congregations that serve to represent Jesus Christ.
Churches that claim to be congregations of Jesus Christ, communing with him and joining him in mission and ministry, can never be reduced to individual and group function within the life of the small-ministry congregation. On the contrary, the impact of even a small population or small budget church can be meaningful in communities and throughout the world. Small numbers can make significant changes if they are focused on embodying the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ, in, to, with and for those communities.
Imagine if the disciples had decided to embody Robinson's small church practice. They would have remained a tight-knit community of like believers, or relatively so, who prayed and studied together, caring for one another and ensuring that the needs of each community member was met. They would have died peacefully, never having accomplished a single, wider ministry or mission than that required beyond the exercise of the group. In short, nothing would have happened.
And nothing happens today in congregations that accept Robinson's small church practice. In fact, Christ Jesus is not practiced, because the practice of Christ calls us beyond our walls, our spiritualities, our studies, our worship, our prayers. It calls us into the world, meeting the needs of those who struggle mightily in a world whose benefits are skewed to the benefit of the wealthy and the powerful. Small church does nothing, beyond one's own group, to meet those needs or to stand with Christ against the world's injustice, inequality, exclusionary close-mindedness.
Nope. I do not accept the concept of small church. We are called to big ministry and mission in Christ's name. We are called, as communities of faith, to stand with Christ against the wrongs of the systems under which we live and to engage in concrete acts of kindness and generosity for those who are victimized by them. If we reject the ministry of Jesus Christ in favor of the small church practice that Robinson seems to advocate in his devotional, then we are not the Church of Jesus Christ at all.
We might be sound spiritual communities, learned and prayerful ones perhaps, but we are not following the ministry and mission to which Christ has called us.
Tuesday, April 07, 2015
The James Ossuary
We wake up to the television news every morning, except for Saturdays and Sundays, when the news is replaced by special interest programming and infomercials. This morning, I stayed in bed a little later than usual because of the promise of a news report that would forever change the face of Christianity.
I was intrigued. The promise was of a new archaeological discovery that would undo much of what we had thought of as core to the Christian faith. When I heard a bit more, I was skeptical. This new archaeological discovery supposedly proved that the Resurrection never happened, but that Jesus lived a normal life, with wife and child, and died, being buried according to the customs of his day.
The burial customs of Jesus' day were unique, as we all know. One is pronounced dead. The body is placed in a secluded spot until persons can determine that the body is really quite sincerely dead, instead of being just merely dead. They poke it with a stick. If it moves, it is alive. If it does not, then the body is determined to be dead. At that point, the body is treated with caustic spices. These hasten the decomposition process. The body is then wrapped in cloth, also to hasten decomposition. The tomb is closed. A year to the day after the person's death, the family members open the tomb, unwrap what is left of the body, collect up the bones and place them in a stone box, called an ossuary, where other family bones are stored.
The breaking news was not breaking news at all, but an old story. In 1980, and ossuary was discovered in a Jerusalem private collection that bore the inscription: Jesus, son of Joseph, brother of James. It was, of course, in Hebrew script. The only new information to come from the report on this discovery of "The James Ossuary" was the discovery of a site where it had been, purportedly, entombed. At that site, archaeologists uncovered ossuaries for Mary and a young boy. This had led the archaeologists to conclude that the James Ossuary proved Jesus' typical burial, and that the discovery of Mary's and the boy's prove that Jesus had a wife and son.
I am giggling as I type this on my laptop. Even is the James Ossuary belonged to the Jesus of Nazareth that we follow, that leads to doubt about the ascension of Jesus, not his resurrection. Let's say that Jesus was buried in the typical fashion. That only means that his ultimate end was not an ascension into heaven but a normal death. It says nothing of the Resurrection, unless one believes, as I do, that the Resurrection points to spiritual instead of physical reality.
Besides, archaeology has surfaced literally hundreds of ossuary. Many bear the names Jesus, Joseph and James, some even in combination.This is old news. It discounts nothing. It proves nothing. It does raise some doubt about the historicity of the ascension narrative, but I imagine that few of us take that as scientific fact.
My point is that I should have gotten out of bed instead of waiting for this "breaking" news. There was nothing new here, and nothing particularly exciting. I get to hold onto my belief in the spiritual resurrection of Christ Jesus for yet another day.
Happy Easter!
I was intrigued. The promise was of a new archaeological discovery that would undo much of what we had thought of as core to the Christian faith. When I heard a bit more, I was skeptical. This new archaeological discovery supposedly proved that the Resurrection never happened, but that Jesus lived a normal life, with wife and child, and died, being buried according to the customs of his day.
The burial customs of Jesus' day were unique, as we all know. One is pronounced dead. The body is placed in a secluded spot until persons can determine that the body is really quite sincerely dead, instead of being just merely dead. They poke it with a stick. If it moves, it is alive. If it does not, then the body is determined to be dead. At that point, the body is treated with caustic spices. These hasten the decomposition process. The body is then wrapped in cloth, also to hasten decomposition. The tomb is closed. A year to the day after the person's death, the family members open the tomb, unwrap what is left of the body, collect up the bones and place them in a stone box, called an ossuary, where other family bones are stored.
The breaking news was not breaking news at all, but an old story. In 1980, and ossuary was discovered in a Jerusalem private collection that bore the inscription: Jesus, son of Joseph, brother of James. It was, of course, in Hebrew script. The only new information to come from the report on this discovery of "The James Ossuary" was the discovery of a site where it had been, purportedly, entombed. At that site, archaeologists uncovered ossuaries for Mary and a young boy. This had led the archaeologists to conclude that the James Ossuary proved Jesus' typical burial, and that the discovery of Mary's and the boy's prove that Jesus had a wife and son.
I am giggling as I type this on my laptop. Even is the James Ossuary belonged to the Jesus of Nazareth that we follow, that leads to doubt about the ascension of Jesus, not his resurrection. Let's say that Jesus was buried in the typical fashion. That only means that his ultimate end was not an ascension into heaven but a normal death. It says nothing of the Resurrection, unless one believes, as I do, that the Resurrection points to spiritual instead of physical reality.
Besides, archaeology has surfaced literally hundreds of ossuary. Many bear the names Jesus, Joseph and James, some even in combination.This is old news. It discounts nothing. It proves nothing. It does raise some doubt about the historicity of the ascension narrative, but I imagine that few of us take that as scientific fact.
My point is that I should have gotten out of bed instead of waiting for this "breaking" news. There was nothing new here, and nothing particularly exciting. I get to hold onto my belief in the spiritual resurrection of Christ Jesus for yet another day.
Happy Easter!
Monday, March 30, 2015
Standing With Christ
In working through this past Sunday's texts - It was Palm/Passion Sunday - I noticed something that I had only tangentially regarded before this year. The Triumphal Entry is actually the clash of two religious cultures, one that is reflected in the Temple and the other reflected in those who sit, begging, at the city gate.
The Temple authority is a traditional configuration. It is a closed audience, a hereditary code, an exclusive association of those who have, by birth or "proper" behavior, worked their way into positions of power and recognition. Only the proper ones are allowed access. If there is something wrong with you, if you are a leper or lame or blind or a menstruating woman, if you are poor or unemployed or unusual, if you are a non-Jew or dressed inappropriately, or if you eat the wrong things or think the wrong kinds of ways, well then, you are simply not allowed access. The privilege that keeps all those within the system from falling out are taken for granted and held up as expectations and standards of those who are left outside.
At the gate sit those who have been excluded. They have no access to the benefits of the Temple. Because they are excluded from Temple, they are excluded from business, relationship, association, acceptance and hospitality. These are the pariahs. They are untouchable. To associate with them renders those within the Temple system impure, unacceptable, defiled. The two cultures rarely, if ever, interact. The gate population is to be avoided at all costs. In fact, if the Temple authority could manage it, they would disallow the gate population from sitting and begging at the Temple gate. What an embarrassment they are to those who come from afar to visit the Temple of the Lord.
Jesus comes, borrowing the ancient symbol of royal coronation, to declare to the gate population that there is a new religion afoot. There is a new world coming. There is a new way. In this new configuration, Jews and non-Jews will be equal, in both the sight of the Temple and in the courts of law. Leprosy will become a universal need for care and medical research. Those who are lame and deaf and blind will be supported and cared for and valued. The poor will be employed. Women will be respected and no longer considered the property of men. The divisiveness of the Temple system will come to an end and all people shall be included in the population that is in covenant with God.
The Temple hates this symbol. The Sanhedrin despises the promise. Such radical equality is simply not to be allowed. Such grace is ridiculous to a system that has been so steeped in the law.
The clash goes on. In Indiana, two religious communities are clashing over current legislation. The "Freedom of Religion" bill has been approved by the Indiana Representatives and Senators and signed into law by the Governor. Now, the law in itself has little of so much controversy. It is similar to what has been enacted in other states and federally. What differentiates the Indiana bill from the others is its intention. It comes from the desire of some businesses within the state to refuse service to some segments of the population because those persons practice in ways unacceptable to the business owners. Should a business not have the right to refuse service to persons who do not live up to some moral or religious code?
The question is quite simple, really, and can be applied in a very consistent manner that follows a very basic Christian rubric. Do we stand on the side of Christ or do we represent the Temple culture that Christ's radical practice of equality and respect so deeply insulted?
Holy Week provides a clear answer. Some today stand with the crowd that shouts "Crucify him!" while some stand boldly by him, rejecting exclusionary legislation. What will we do this week? Where do we stand?
The Temple authority is a traditional configuration. It is a closed audience, a hereditary code, an exclusive association of those who have, by birth or "proper" behavior, worked their way into positions of power and recognition. Only the proper ones are allowed access. If there is something wrong with you, if you are a leper or lame or blind or a menstruating woman, if you are poor or unemployed or unusual, if you are a non-Jew or dressed inappropriately, or if you eat the wrong things or think the wrong kinds of ways, well then, you are simply not allowed access. The privilege that keeps all those within the system from falling out are taken for granted and held up as expectations and standards of those who are left outside.
At the gate sit those who have been excluded. They have no access to the benefits of the Temple. Because they are excluded from Temple, they are excluded from business, relationship, association, acceptance and hospitality. These are the pariahs. They are untouchable. To associate with them renders those within the Temple system impure, unacceptable, defiled. The two cultures rarely, if ever, interact. The gate population is to be avoided at all costs. In fact, if the Temple authority could manage it, they would disallow the gate population from sitting and begging at the Temple gate. What an embarrassment they are to those who come from afar to visit the Temple of the Lord.
Jesus comes, borrowing the ancient symbol of royal coronation, to declare to the gate population that there is a new religion afoot. There is a new world coming. There is a new way. In this new configuration, Jews and non-Jews will be equal, in both the sight of the Temple and in the courts of law. Leprosy will become a universal need for care and medical research. Those who are lame and deaf and blind will be supported and cared for and valued. The poor will be employed. Women will be respected and no longer considered the property of men. The divisiveness of the Temple system will come to an end and all people shall be included in the population that is in covenant with God.
The Temple hates this symbol. The Sanhedrin despises the promise. Such radical equality is simply not to be allowed. Such grace is ridiculous to a system that has been so steeped in the law.
The clash goes on. In Indiana, two religious communities are clashing over current legislation. The "Freedom of Religion" bill has been approved by the Indiana Representatives and Senators and signed into law by the Governor. Now, the law in itself has little of so much controversy. It is similar to what has been enacted in other states and federally. What differentiates the Indiana bill from the others is its intention. It comes from the desire of some businesses within the state to refuse service to some segments of the population because those persons practice in ways unacceptable to the business owners. Should a business not have the right to refuse service to persons who do not live up to some moral or religious code?
The question is quite simple, really, and can be applied in a very consistent manner that follows a very basic Christian rubric. Do we stand on the side of Christ or do we represent the Temple culture that Christ's radical practice of equality and respect so deeply insulted?
Holy Week provides a clear answer. Some today stand with the crowd that shouts "Crucify him!" while some stand boldly by him, rejecting exclusionary legislation. What will we do this week? Where do we stand?
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
The Big 54
The 54th birthday is not usually a cause for tremendous celebration. In fact, at this age, birthdays come and go, all to quickly. There is little that differentiates one from another. Unless there is some special reason, 54 is just another year to celebrate, looking back at what has been accomplished and another occasion for imagining as we look forward.
Unless, that is, there is something more to it than we might at first realize, which is the case with me. This is a very big birthday.
Let me explain.
My father died, in 1989, at the age of 53, just months short of the birth of our first and only daughter, Casey Jane. He died as the result of medical mishap, a mistake made in the course of a heart catheterization (sp?) that cut off blood flow to his intestines. When they opened his chest cavity for a quadruple bypass two weeks after, they discovered that a significant portion of his intestines had become necrotic and gangrenous. Instead of pursuing incredibly dangerous, and nearly impossible, medical procedures at the time, he decided, in consultation with the family and the doctors, to allow his life to end naturally. He died later that same day.
I have inherited many of my father's health challenges. I am hypertensive, with an enlarged heart and slightly high cholesterol. My transglycerides have advanced over the years, though only to a slightly high point. My habits are not like his were, however. I quit smoking in 1994. I work out as often as I can, though there is a special challenge with a very bad hip and two bad knees. While my diet is not perfect, I do not eat three-egg fried egg sandwiches three lunches per week or drink upward of a dozen cups of battery-acid coffee every day. I know my health numbers. They are not perfect, but better than they were ten years ago.
In short, 54 looks pretty good. I thought that I would take this occasion to celebrate some of that for which I am thankful...and some of that for which I hope.
I am thankful for my family. My wife and my daughter continue to be tremendous life-partners. They are, in many ways, the reason that I do what I do and the motivation behind me doing it. I am thankful for the life time of memories, for those who have contributed to shaping me, educating me, inspiring me, reminding me who I am and from whence I have come. I recognize the influence of teachers, coaches, mentors, friends and colleagues along the way. Thank you to each of you.
I am thankful for advancements in medical science, which, if they had been available in my father's time, may well have saved his life. I am thankful for doctors and nurses, who dedicate their lives to dealing with human illness, hoping that the outcome of their care is human wellness.
This leads me directly to several things for which I continue to hope and work. I wish that medical care were less financially dictated, that insurance companies did not have the power or authority to determine one's health care. I wish that we could all receive whatever care we needed and desired, like Angelina Jolie, who can afford to take preventative and voluntary surgical measures to protect herself from illness.I wish that option were open to the poor and middle class as well as the rich. I wish that we were more unified in caring for one another, that the superficialities that divide us might be erased by the unity at the essential human core.I wish that people treated others with respect and honor. I wish that list included all others, not just those of one's kind, type, class, status, race, orientation or life style.
Because I have been given this gift, which I, today, celebrate, I dedicate my remaining years to achievement of these wishes. I hope to serve in communities where they join me in the effort of overcoming decades and centuries of divisiveness in ways that result in radical unity, peace, justice and mercy.
The 54th is a big birthday for me. Thanks for all the kind wishes. Now, can we get to work?!
Unless, that is, there is something more to it than we might at first realize, which is the case with me. This is a very big birthday.
Let me explain.
My father died, in 1989, at the age of 53, just months short of the birth of our first and only daughter, Casey Jane. He died as the result of medical mishap, a mistake made in the course of a heart catheterization (sp?) that cut off blood flow to his intestines. When they opened his chest cavity for a quadruple bypass two weeks after, they discovered that a significant portion of his intestines had become necrotic and gangrenous. Instead of pursuing incredibly dangerous, and nearly impossible, medical procedures at the time, he decided, in consultation with the family and the doctors, to allow his life to end naturally. He died later that same day.
I have inherited many of my father's health challenges. I am hypertensive, with an enlarged heart and slightly high cholesterol. My transglycerides have advanced over the years, though only to a slightly high point. My habits are not like his were, however. I quit smoking in 1994. I work out as often as I can, though there is a special challenge with a very bad hip and two bad knees. While my diet is not perfect, I do not eat three-egg fried egg sandwiches three lunches per week or drink upward of a dozen cups of battery-acid coffee every day. I know my health numbers. They are not perfect, but better than they were ten years ago.
In short, 54 looks pretty good. I thought that I would take this occasion to celebrate some of that for which I am thankful...and some of that for which I hope.
I am thankful for my family. My wife and my daughter continue to be tremendous life-partners. They are, in many ways, the reason that I do what I do and the motivation behind me doing it. I am thankful for the life time of memories, for those who have contributed to shaping me, educating me, inspiring me, reminding me who I am and from whence I have come. I recognize the influence of teachers, coaches, mentors, friends and colleagues along the way. Thank you to each of you.
I am thankful for advancements in medical science, which, if they had been available in my father's time, may well have saved his life. I am thankful for doctors and nurses, who dedicate their lives to dealing with human illness, hoping that the outcome of their care is human wellness.
This leads me directly to several things for which I continue to hope and work. I wish that medical care were less financially dictated, that insurance companies did not have the power or authority to determine one's health care. I wish that we could all receive whatever care we needed and desired, like Angelina Jolie, who can afford to take preventative and voluntary surgical measures to protect herself from illness.I wish that option were open to the poor and middle class as well as the rich. I wish that we were more unified in caring for one another, that the superficialities that divide us might be erased by the unity at the essential human core.I wish that people treated others with respect and honor. I wish that list included all others, not just those of one's kind, type, class, status, race, orientation or life style.
Because I have been given this gift, which I, today, celebrate, I dedicate my remaining years to achievement of these wishes. I hope to serve in communities where they join me in the effort of overcoming decades and centuries of divisiveness in ways that result in radical unity, peace, justice and mercy.
The 54th is a big birthday for me. Thanks for all the kind wishes. Now, can we get to work?!
Monday, March 16, 2015
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?
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?
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
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.
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.
Monday, February 09, 2015
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.
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.
Monday, February 02, 2015
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.
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.
Monday, January 26, 2015
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!
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!
Monday, January 12, 2015
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 06, 2015
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 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!
Monday, December 22, 2014
The Smartest Post Ever!
Blah...blah...blah.
Merry Christmas!
Blah...blah...blah.
Happy New Year!
Blah...blah...blah.
Peace on Earth!
Merry Christmas!
Blah...blah...blah.
Happy New Year!
Blah...blah...blah.
Peace on Earth!
Monday, December 15, 2014
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.
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.
Monday, December 08, 2014
"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!
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!
Monday, December 01, 2014
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!
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!
Monday, November 24, 2014
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.
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.
Monday, November 17, 2014
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.
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.
Monday, October 27, 2014
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)