Vacationing

Due to a minor surgical procedure and the need for some additional rest, Carl will not be in the office for the next two weeks. He will return to the Shiloh office, and to the Shiloh Insider, on November 9. See you then!

Two Paths Have Diverged in the Wood

Jesus turned his face toward the salvation of all people in the seventh chapter of the Gospel According to Mark. The Syro-Phoenician woman called him to accountability beyond his own race, type, kind and clan. It is astounding that Jesus, immediately thereafter, altered the course of his earthly ministry. He resolutely sets his face toward the self-sacrifice of Jerusalem.

Since the seventh chapter, Jesus has walked and talked with his disciples, teaching them about the nature of this self-sacrifice. They do not understand the concept. It is possible that they are too caught up in the traditional organizational and institutional thinking in which they had been raised to comprehend a sacrificial formula. Instead of understanding and supporting Jesus, they argue about which of them is the greatest, lobby for position, tell the children who crowd around Jesus to go away, and, this week, tell poor old blind Bartimaeus to be silent. "Shut up, old man. He isn't going to pay any attention to you, a poor beggar...Get a job and lay off the booze!"

The Syro-Phoenician woman would not settle for Jesus' racial epithet. The children continued to jump and hop and crowd around Jesus, being children. Blind Bartimeaus sees the truth and follows Jesus on the path of sacrifice. While the disciples imagine the gilded hallways of power and authority, Jesus directs them along dirt paths of giving up what one is given for the sake of others...every other and all others.

The Church has, for a long time, walked with the disciples down those gilded hallways of power and authority, legislating morality and demanding that the culture honor the standards of its religious orthodoxies. The Church has coerced and manipulated. It has claimed its place as the one true faith through which we determine both domestic and foreign policy. It has claimed the throne of American empirical rule.

This all began to change in the mid- to late-sixties. Through the Vietnam war and its demonstrations, through the civil rights movement, and its assassinations, through the equal rights amendment struggle, through Watergate and coverups and hearings and impeachment, the culture gradually abandoned the gilded hallways of power and authority. The culture began to demand that we embrace a more egalitarian, fair and gracious model of societal organization. It called the Church back to the dirt tracks of sacrificial ministry.

The Church resisted. It preferred the golden halls of sanctimony and the empty liturgies and impractical rites of totem and taboo. It despised the children around Jesus, the Syro-Phoenician mudblood, the bum Bartimeaus and those who had been estranged from the right ways of Sunday morning morality. And it began to shrink. Its influence diminished. Much of it died. Many went away.

Now, however, we, the Church of Jesus Christ, hear Christ's sacrificial teachings.. We hear him as he calls us to stand with him, drinking from the cup from which he drank, suffering the baptism with which he is baptized. We return to the dirt tracks upon which the faith was originated. We return to service and ministry that is carried out for the sake of all people. We embrace again the Syro-Phoenician woman, the children who crowd around Jesus, poor, rejected Bartimeaus, the untouchables, the outcast, the disenheartened and the hopeless.

These are the days of hope and promise. These are the days of the faithful Church of Jesus Christ. These are the days of working together for the individual and systemic justice and equality that Christ had sacrificed himself to bring. Thanks be to God for bringing us back, not giving up on us and directing us down the paths of faithfulness,service and ministry.

Welcome back to the grimy, dirt paths of sacrificial ministry!      

Sacrificial Ministry

So, Pastor, just tell me. How much money can I have and still be faithful?

This past Sunday, Jesus is heard in the Gospel lesson saying, "How hard it will be for those who are rich to enter the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:23) Interestingly, that is all that some hear from Jesus in this text. They fail to take into account the sadness that Jesus feels as he sees some struggle with their spiritual selves, knowing that the world of the flesh has, in them, won out. They will forever be defined by the ways of the flesh, and will define others by some vague profit/cost equation. They will do what benefits them instead of sacrificing their own needs for the sake of those around them who are in need.

Remember, please, that the New Testament is a Hellenistic witness. The Gospel of Mark is created in, to and for Hellenistic culture, with Hellenistic cultural assumptions and a dualistic understanding of all life. One is to practice the "heavenly virtues," those practices which we know a priori to be reflective of divine will. These heavenly virtues are perfect and eternal. They are spiritual and heavenly. They are qualitatively superior to the virtues that come from the realm of the flesh, where practicality and utility rule. The heavenly virtues go deeper, to the very core of essential human nature, where the spirit dwells.

O, c'mon. For Christ's sake, Pastor. Just tell me how much I can keep for myself!

No, you don't get it. You are asking a question similar to that asked by Nicodemus when, being told that he must be born again, wonders about the process of an old man entering a second time into his mother's womb. Or, it's like the disciples fighting with one another over which of them is the greatest, especially in light of Jesus' walk with them toward Jerusalem. They do not understand his sacrificial ministry. They do not get his service to all humankind. They do not understand the motivation of doing freely for others.

Look, to stand with Christ Jesus means sacrificing ourselves in service to others. It means subjecting our own needs to those of the needs of the rejected and despised ones among us. It means that we go out of our way to protect the rights of those who see no justice in our courts and feel no acceptance in our streets. It means that we allow what we have been given to be used in ways that elevate those of lowest degree.

Why would we do that, Pastor? There is nothing to be gained.

Exactly! To live according to our spiritual essential nature is to give of ourselves even when there is nothing to be gained. That is practice of the heavenly virtues. That is living life according to the archetype of Jesus' Crucifixion/Resurrection. Church is the place where we learn again to devote our lives to the process of bringing kingdom to the lives of others by sacrificing ourselves. It is about devoting everything we have to the cause of Christ.

No wonder churches are shrinking! The Pastor won't even tell me how much I can keep for myself!

*Sigh.

Guns as Symptom, Not the Illness

Again last week, a person engaged in an act of mass murder. Depending on the statistics that you read and believe, this is mass attack 200-something since Columbine. What in the world is going on in the United States and how can it be fixed?

Citizens are aware that the United States is the mass-murder leader among developed countries, with a rate that is exponentially higher than that of any other developed nation. Some blame the NRA, with its concentration on gun rights. Some blame mental health institutions, or the States that would otherwise run them, for eliminating programs and expelling dangerous persons into the general public. Some blame Muslims.

Most blame is placed without credence. Just because human beings have the right to own and use firearms does not mean that we will use them to kill one another. While it may be true that no one would die of a gun shot wound if we took away all the guns, it is also true that to outlaw guns would ensure that only outlaws would have guns. The rhetoric, from either side of the gun debate, is not helpful. It is just empty rhetoric, devoid of significant meaning.

While I certainly believe that our systems should and could do more for persons who struggle with mental diagnosis, I do not believe that persons who so struggle are more prone than any other segment of the population to engage in mass-murder. Perhaps such persons are simply more susceptible to the pressures and directions of the culture in which they live. I do not even know if that research would be found to be true.

To blame it on Muslims, or blacks, or to attribute the shocking rate of mass-murder in the United States on any particular segment of the population is pure racism. Such claims must be rejected as ignorance, as bias and prejudice.

 There is something deeper, and more sinister, going on here. The honest issue will not be addressed with gun legislation, not that better gun control might not contribute to a lower murder rate in the U.S. It will not help to remove persons who bear mental and emotional diagnosis to be removed from the general public, though such persons need better support and more direct services. It certainly will not help the situation to kick out all the_____________ (Place racial, ethnic, economic or political bias here.) "They" are not the problem.

We are the problem. Each and every one of us is the problem. We have grown numb to basic disregard for human dignity and become deaf  to cries for justice, mercy and compassion. Do not misunderstand, we do okay when it comes to our own. We care for our families, for our type, our kind, our clan. But we do damned little to ensure that justice, acceptance, empathy, generosity or grace are available to those who are unlike us. "They" deserve what "they" have gotten, we say. "They" should do x, y, or z, then we would help "them." The Lord helps those who help themselves.

I am no fan of Dr, Phil. He asks one question that I find to be meaningful in the conditions that have led to the highest mass-murder rate among developed countries: "How is that working for you?"

In the United States, it isn't working at all. We kill one another at an alarming rate.

The fix is not an easy one. It rests in standing with Christ for the innate dignity of every person, regardless of her or his station in life, economic or political realities, race, color, creed, national origin, religion, life-style choices, height, weight, hair color or degree of attractiveness. It is tireless and demanding work, counter-cultural in so many ways. Yet, it is built on the simple ethic of Christ Jesus, sacrificing self in service to those who are in need around us.

Will that work? Is it practical? We do not know. We have never tried it.    

Pope Francis

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

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

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

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

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

I appreciate Pope Francis. What do you think?    

The Healthy Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Words

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

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

Wow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Religious Evolution of Weddings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spirit or Scripture?

Difficult concepts occasionally occur to me. I wrestle with them, ponder them, hold them up, as an egg before a candle, and see whether or not there is life in them. One such quandary has me increasingly convinced of a troubling aspect of the Christian faith, one that, if embraced, forever changes the way we look at the Bible and its use.

Jesus did not believe in a literal application of scripture.

Throughout the liturgical church year, those who follow the Revised Common Lectionary are faced with the difficulty of Jesus rejecting that which is written in order to practice what he sees clearly as God's will. The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew or the Sermon on the Plain in Luke is a fair example. Jesus says there, "You have seen that it was written," or "You have heard that it was said." He goes on to quote from Jewish Torah or the Prophets. Then, he says, "but I say to you..." Jesus' teaching counters that which is written. He contradicts the scriptures and offers a gracious response that undoes the scriptural lesson.

This week's Gospel text is another example. In Mark 7:1-8, the Pharisees, protectors of the Temple structure and the laws that uphold it, wonder why Jesus' followers eat with defiled hands. Why do they not wash, as the law requires? Jesus' response was brilliant, a quote from Isaiah: "This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrine." He then applies the text: "You abandon the commandments of God and hold to human traditions."

Wait, is the command to wash not in Leviticus, and elsewhere? Is the requirement not spelled out at length in the scriptures? Of course it is, but Jesus refers to such law, rule and regulation as "human precept" and "human tradition." That the restriction is included in Torah and the prophets does not impact Jesus' belief, thinking or practice. Jesus rejects a literal application of the written scripture for a kinder, gentler practice of grace and love.

I find the concept of Jesus rejecting scripture uncomfortable and challenging. Clearly, Jesus has an alternative standard of belief, thinking and practice.He does not place his trust in a literal reading of scripture as a litmus test for faithful living. This is upsetting. It is confusing.

If Jesus placed his belief, thinking and practice on a foundational other than scriptural authority and written authority, then perhaps the Church that bears his name should find the standard upon which Jesus relied. If it is not scripture, however, where does that standard lie?

I am convinced of two things: 1. The standard for Jesus' belief, thinking and practice did not lie outside of him, but was internal and personal. and 2. That standard was spiritual instead of material, intellectual or practical. In the Gospel According to Mark, Jesus is able to do what God calls him to do precisely because he is empowered by God's own Spirit. It is this spiritual presence that renders him "God's Son, in whom God is well pleased."

Jesus trusts the Spirit that directs his actions. He is intimate with its demands and applications. To put that differently, Jesus is certain that he knows God's Spirit. It is the Spirit, internal and personal, that establishes the foundation from which Jesus acts. It, alone, is the standard of Jesus' belief, thinking and practice. The Spirit requires no external instruction or limitation. In fact, to follow external regulation or instruction limits the possibility of the Spirit-at-work.

The challenge for the Church that follows Jesus Christ, instead of laws, regulations, traditions or ritual practices and incantations, is that it must base itself in the internal and personal Spirit that empowered and enabled Christ. It is that same Spirit that empowers and enables us. It is the foundation upon which we establish standards of belief, thinking and practice. That this standard remains subjective calls us to accept the diversity of possible applications, and the diversity of persons who seek to apply them.

The religious authorities of Jesus' day sought to disavow this "spiritual" foundation for the sake of their traditional, institutional, social and political faith. The Spirit freed Jesus from the law of scripture. Perhaps it can so free the Church that follows him.      

 

Belief Barriers or Bridge Builders?

The 16th century Great Reformation promised to free the Christian world from a religion of laws, rules, regulations, orders and orthodoxies. In many ways, the Reformation served as a recovery of the theology of grace and the awakening of a powerful and innovative spirituality. It's potential was unrealized, however. Within a century of its advent, the Great Reformation backtracked into denominationalism. It divided the Protestant world. It fractured the unity of spirituality in the brokenness of minute differences in orthodoxy, rule, regulation and practice. The Great Reformation fell far short of its potential as a theological recovery and a spiritual reawakening.

Far worse, the Great Reformation resulted in a religious tradition that is marked by fractured belief and divided religious opinion. Methodists do things differently from Episcopalians. The Congregationalist do things contrary to the practice of the Presbyterians. The United Church of Christ and the Disciples of Christ, despite being engaged in a decades-old attempt to unify, are divided by subtle, some would say silly, differences. Each argues with the other that their particular way of belief and practice is superior to the other. Since the Great Reformation, the Protestant world has been constructing belief barriers that have divided and separated what could have been unified.

If you want a review of the influences that led the Protestant world to revert to the divisiveness of belief barriers and sectarian practice, you will have to ask Reformation historians. Ask Adam Wirrig. If you want to understand the result of such division and separation, look no further than the Progressive Church alternative to Protestant denominationalism.

The Progressive Church invites us to focus less on what we believe, how we practice the Sacraments or rites of the faith, how we worship, what and how we sing, how we look at and recite ancient liturgies, how we shape upcoming generations to accept the faith as we have designed it, and to focus more on the outcomes of our belief and practice. What do we do? How do we live? How are we impacting those around us? How are we serving our communities?

Whereas belief builds barriers, focus on what we do unifies and universalizes. If the attention of the Progressive Church is drawn toward being like Christ instead of simply believing rightly in him, then it is the actions of the church-in-community that matters. Because ministry and mission is carried out in the name of Christ Jesus, and is therefore a service to every person in every place, without restriction or exception, a focus on what we do builds bridges across social, economic, political, racial, gender, age or life-style chasms.

The Progressive Church movement is building bridges instead of constructing belief barriers. Service to others crosses the divide and is not limited to how persons act, how they live, what they think, how they look, from whence they come, what religion they practice, if any, or their success, position or power in society.

Christ's servanthood is blind to divisiveness. So might ours be. But we have to drop the notion that the practice of our faith is an intellectual exercise or based in belief. It must be grounded in the ministry and mission of Christ Jesus, where we see ourselves as representatives, agents and ambassadors of his mercy, grace, love, compassion and forgiveness. When out attention is on how well we live up to Christ's standards of servanthood to all persons, regardless of what might otherwise divide us, we are faithful to him. Nothing else matters.

The question for today's congregations is whether we want to continue to construct belief barriers or if we are willing to be bridge builders. Can we allow our service to reach beyond a type, kind, class, race, gender, life-style, orthodoxy, rule, regulation or practice? Can we serve the needs around us, as Christ did, without distinction or division?

It is time that we move on from the denominationalism of the Great Reformation, with its resulting belief barriers, to an age of Christian servanthood. It is time for us to build bridges instead of constructing barriers.    

    

Why is Grace so Difficult?

As a philosophy, the theology of grace sounds wonderful. As an orthodoxy, it reads well. The problem with grace comes, as it does with almost any theology or philosophy, in its practical application. Why is grace so hard?

Grace says that all people, in every place, throughout time have received from God the gift of unconditional and universal salvation. It is freely given, without merit or condition of receipt or use. Grace is made available to everyone through the sacrifice of Christ Jesus. God did the work in him. No act of commission or omission can undo what God has accomplished for us in Christ. No sin is unforgivable. No personal or communal limitation is so crippling that it bars persons from access to grace. No flaw is so deep that it discredits persons.

As part of our regular 7:00 p.m. service here at Shiloh Church, those who gather discuss the evening's message, or texts, or theological/spiritual issues that had been raised. Last night, the topic was grace. Why is it so difficult, and why does no one seem to appreciate when grace is exercised?

The group surfaced three issues. Firstly, grace sounds great until one has to put it into action with someone who does not merit our forgiveness or assistance. Secondly, grace-in-action always seems to throw us into criticism, rejection, or the charge of being "liberal." Thirdly, grace always ends up costing us more than we receive in return.

What about grace in relationship with those who do not merit it? The funny thing about grace is that none of us merit it. None of us has been so perfect, so righteous, so sinless, so near to God's will for us, that we deserve the gift of salvation. We have in no way earned it. Does right belief earn us grace? Does righteous action? Does proper orthodoxy or polite deportment? No. We have not earned the grace that we have received. Why in the world should we limit grace to those who look rightly, seem good, live well or behave politely? The radical nature of grace means that it is available to precisely those who have not worked for it.

Why does grace always seem to lead to rejection or criticism? The United Church of Christ had always been on the periphery of American religious and political life. The denomination had traditionally stood with the disenfranchised, the rejected, the challenged and the maligned. Because we have stood with those on the fringes of society, the denomination placed itself on the fringes with them. Grace is fringe-work. Its very nature draws criticism. Polite society raises a collective eyebrow at those who work on the fringes. By the way, who ever said that grace would be widely accepted or popular? Certainly, neither Jesus nor Paul ever held that silly notion. Applied grace is almost always dangerous and disruptive to status quos. It is, therefore, always up for question.

Why does grace seem to be so costly? Did you ever notice that an act of grace costs the giver in direct proportion to any perceived wrong? If you are acting in forgiveness with someone who you have perceived to have done you a wrong, the cost of grace will be paid by the one doing the forgiving. Well, of course. Grace comes from the archetype of Crucifixion/Resurrection. Christ pays the cost of universal salvation by offering the gift of his own life. He paid, as it were, for us. The cost of grace is borne by the giver of grace.

Grace, while a lovely philosophy and a thrilling theology, is tremendously difficult to apply in actual, everyday living. This should not be surprising at all, since it is grounded in Christ's sacrifice. The problem lies in following him in its application  That is no small feat and should shock no one. Our faith is called Christianity, not easy-to-do-happy-fun-time. Grace requires much from us in response. Who is willing to pay the price?

Privilege

The Biblical picture of God's unfolding reign is completed when the lamb and the lion lie safely together. I think that there is a reason for that remarkably unlikely situation. In order for the lamb to lie safely with the lion, the lion must make a conscious decision to refuse to eat the lamb. In fact, the lion must make a decision to serve as protector of and security for the lamb. Only when those who have the advantages put them to work for the sake of those without the advantages can the system work for previously disadvantaged. Only when the lion takes responsibility for the safety of the lamb can the two lie together.

Now, I am a middle class white male. As such, I am advantaged. I am privileged. In this culture, I have been granted privileges that have nothing to do with my merits, character or work ethic. This truth is painful to me. As much as I want to deny it, I have begun the race well ahead of those who were not fortunate enough to be so advantaged.

I had two parents who cared about my destiny. They pushed me, and worked with me, to become well educated. They expected me to be a good person, treating people fairly and helping those who needed my assistance. I grew up in a safe environment. I did not fear for my life, or the lives of my friends and family. There were plenty of guns where I was raised, but they were used for hunting and protection instead of violence against other persons. I was always seen as a person of potential. Teachers, community leaders, my parents, friends and extended family assumed about me that, should I simply work to nurture my potential, I could do important and meaningful things in life. I was trusted, given responsibility, celebrated when I did well and guided when I did poorly.

The privilege has continued into adulthood. I have the right to assume that I will be treated with respect and integrity in the process of community interaction. I anticipate that people will respect my property and help me to safeguard my neighborhood. I have the right to my own opinion, can vote, can sign petitions, own property, establish a credit rating, read and watch what I want and cheer for whatever sports teams I so choose. I can believe in whatever god I wish, or hold that there is no god whatsoever. I have made money, not a lot, mind you, but enough to provide my daughter with an excellent education and a good start to her young, married life.

Some of this has been due to my hard work. Much of it has not.When I weigh all that I have been given, due mainly to my position in the culture, my race, my gender, my native intelligence, even my relative height (I am 6'2"), I can see that much of my advantage has come through happy accident. I am aware of and thankful for those undeserved advantages. As much as I want to claim that those privileges were available to me because of my hard work, I fully own the fact that many of them were not. I am a person of relative privilege.

I do not feel guilty, however, for the advantages that I was granted. Instead, because I am partially aware of them and thankful for them, my privilege calls me to utilize the gifts that I have been given to serve those who have not been so richly privileged. Instead of complaining that I do not have more, bigger, better, newer, more influential or more powerful, I acknowledge that the best use of what I have is in improving other lives.

While I am no lion, my appreciation for the privilege that I have been granted is spent on the lambs that appear as opportunity around me. Or so I would like to claim. Admittedly, I am only learning what it means to live in relative privilege, and to work for the benefit of the lambs that surround us. I only hope that I can do better today what I learned better how to do yesterday.  

    

Wedding Bells

Okay, so, wedding bells are ringing in and around the Robinson household. The time has finally come. Casey Robinson is marrying Justin Sierschula on July 25. Casey is our 25 year-old daughter.

From the time that Casey was a small child, I would tell her that I knew exactly what I wanted her to be when she grew up. She would always ask what that was. "Happy." I would say.

Casey was raised with pretty high expectations, placed on her by her mother, Lisa, and I, as well as the communities and churches in which she grew. Through all of it, I am proud to say that she was strongly nurtured and embraced. (This is not always the case for "PK's.") Through the gymnastic years, through high school and college, through the early years of her career as an ASL interpreter, and into this new chapter of her life, I have been, and continue to be, proud of the person that she has become.

Justin makes her happy. While my obsessive compulsive side wants to make sure that she will be constantly cared for and about, he gives her everything that I have ever wanted for her. She is happy. Everything else will work itself out. She is smart, capable, creative and responsible. Together, they are quirky, unique, fun and adventurous.Whatever comes their way, I am confident that they will handle it together. Happiness is all that we can hope for our children. I am thrilled that she has found it.

To the point of this week's post to The Shiloh Insider, the upcoming wedding means that I will be taking a few weeks off from Shiloh Church. My complete concentration will be on getting to and through the wedding. Then, I am taking a week to recover, emotionally, mentally and physically. The only project that I have on my agenda for the weeks is refinishing the back deck on the house (if it should ever stop raining). Besides that, I will be relaxing, recuperating and resting.

Casey's wedding also turns an important page for Lisa and me. Because Justin's family owns and operates a business in the area, it is likely that they will be tied to Englewood/Dayton for the long haul. In some ways, that means that the Dayton, Ohio area will always be something of a home base for us. While my family has been in the Indianapolis area, and Lisa's on the Illinois side of St. Louis, we have never before enjoyed a home base. We have always been sojourners, travelers, experts who carry a computer bag and live more than fifty miles from wherever we have found ourselves. From this time forward, and no matter where we might find ourselves, the Dayton area will remain a home base. That feels oddly warming.

Enjoy the next few weeks, free from obligation to read updates to The Shiloh Insider. I will return to the office and the chancel early in August.  

UCC in from the Fringes

The United Church of Christ has always been located somewhere out on the fringes of cultural and societal norms. The denomination has always been a champion for civil and social rights, from being the first church to ordain a woman to professional ministry, to fighting for racial equality and struggling for equal marriage rights for same-gender couples. The UCC has fought for farmers' rights, women's rights, racial justice, just peace movements around the globe and equal opportunities in our communities.

The concentration on human rights had always placed the United Church of Christ on the periphery of religious and social discourse. The Church has been seen as the enemy of traditional values and the nemesis of the status quo. Because we have stood firmly with the disenfranchised, the burdened, the underserved and underprivileged, the victimized and the oppressed, the United Church of Christ has rarely been recognized as a force for American culture.

I am thrilled to see evidence that the situation is changing radically. Do not misunderstand. The United Church of Christ continues to stand, with Christ, on the side of those who are victimized and oppressed by the systems and traditions under which we live, including religious ones. The denomination will continue to fight for equality and justice, both at home and around the world. Evidence of this being the case is provided in the General Synod 30 resolutions. The UCC voted to engage in boycott, divestment and sanction in the occupied territories of Israel-Palestine. The national body acted to pressure sports teams that utilize racial or cultural epithets in their logos, mascots or marketing to cease in doing so. Dialogues on race relations continue, as does the work for gender equality, LBGTQ concerns, worker rights and just peace initiatives.

No, the United Church of Christ has not come into the middle of the social context by moderating its message or its actions. Quite to the contrary, the culture, in which the United Church of Christ has worked in sometimes radical ways, has found our causes, calling from the fringes. The culture has found our causes. It has evolved to the point of visionary peace, radical justice and equality, social, cultural and relational compassion, kindness and generosity.

The culture is starting to throw off the heavy cloaks of partisan politics and divisive economics, religious retribution and separation theology. The Cultural evolution has been very troubling for those who had demanded that their religious practices of divisiveness and exclusion be found at the core of social and cultural life. Today, many who claim to be religious - it does not really matter which one - find themselves at war with the cultural evolution that is taking place around and through us. They call it the "end times."

I concur. These times mark the end of religious hegemony, of divisive and exclusionary religious practices that favor some over others, cater to the privileged, the wealthy and the powerful. These are times when radical issues of justice, equality and peace are pursued culturally, in society, universally and communally. In other words, these are times for God's will to become systemic, communal, cultural, personally and politically applicable.

Welcome in from the fringes, United Church of Christ. I am proud to be part of your transition.  

General Synod

I just returned today from six days of inspiration, discernment and worship at the 30th General Synod of the United Church of Christ. This was my thirteenth Synod experience and, by far, the most exhilarating celebration of the Church that I have witnessed. Here is why.

Firstly, on the first day of business, the Supreme Court of the United Stated released a ruling that said that States may no longer restrict marriage rights from those of same genders. While not everyone agrees with that decision - nor does everyone support it - the determination marked the realization of decades of work by the United Church of Christ. The response that we may make to those who disagree, or who seek to understand how a church can support such a ruling, is simple. The United Church of Christ stands with Christ in applied love and acceptance of all people, even if that stance seems to differ from Biblical principles that are derived from and developed within particular human contexts. Regardless of who, what race, what ethnicity, what gender, what economic or social status, what life-style, what sexuality, what politics, the United Church of Christ seeks to accept all people.

Secondly, the United Church of Christ called and installed the next General Minister and President of the denomination. His name is John C. Dorhauer, a seminary classmate of mine, who is a recognized expert in the field of white, male privilege and a warm, engaging minister and pastor. Though a middle class, straight, white male, John offers us an opportunity to see ourselves, and our callings, from new perspectives. As another friend of mine says about John, "He offers me hope for the future of the Church." I concur. This was a fine choice for General Minister and President of the Church. John will help us maneuver paths toward justice and peace among all persons.

Thirdly, and I think most importantly, the United Church of Christ is finally matching the arc of social evolution with its ministry and mission focus. The denomination had always been out ahead. We looked too liberal, too progressive, odd and dangerous. Now, with recent social and cultural evolutionary steps, the United Church of Christ is reflective of and relevant to the directions of the world in which we live and serve. Culture is moving. So is the United Church of Christ! Finally, we seem to be moving together!

At Synod, I served as a member of a committee that deliberated a resolution of attaining a just peace in the Israeli-Palestinian territories, including boycott, disinvestment and sanction in relationship to companies that profit from acts of violence and exclusion in the territories. After some amendment, this resolution was overwhelmingly ratified by the plenary. Another, related resolution on Israel-Palestine failed, however, mainly because it sought to label the climate in Israel-Palestine as "Apartheid." Those who lived through the 70's may remember the Apartheid government in South Africa, where a racial minority ruled over a racial majority. Because of the distinctions between that situation and that of Israel-Palestine, and because the term is incendiary, the resolution was rejected by the plenary. While human rights violations have certainly come to light, the commitment of the UCC is to a resolution of the conflicts instead of a further incitement of the divisions.

The Worship of General Synod 30 was inventive, inspiration, meaningful and powerful. Shiloh will be seeing some of that worship form and content throughout the summer months. We hope that you will attend, being part of this congregation and the denomination to which we belong. We are the United Church of Christ, where we encounter God in unexpected places and through unanticipated means. Help the world encounter God with us, as we stand with Christ in applying unconditional love and acceptance.

Christian Anthropology

If the notes of disagreement that I have received from members and friends of the congregation are any indication, the messages of the past several weeks have struck a chord. In this season after Pentecost, through the first 13 weeks of this season, I planned to shape an understanding of our Christian calling that is fulfilled when we subject ourselves to the power of God's indwelling Spirit. This theological view of human nature is, obviously, quite controversial.

The anthropology here suggests that human beings - all and each one - are of the same essential nature as Jesus. Especially in the Gospel According to Mark, Jesus is a human being, who is adopted by God in Baptism in order to accomplish God's will on Earth. It is not Jesus' essential nature as the Son of God that renders him able and willing to do God's will, but the power of God's Spirit upon and within him.

Over the past several weeks, events have invited us to apply the lesson of adoption in the Spirit to a radical sense of equality. If every person receives the same Spirit, then each one is to be held as important, worthy, valuable and as potential to God's reign and realm. Therefore, where and when there are incidents of discrimination, we are invited to stand with Christ against them. This includes the fact that black people get pulled over by police for no reason, as happened last week to a member of the congregation. I understand that white people get pulled over too, but it is typically for a reason or reasons. When an officer has to manufacture a reason for pulling over a motorist, then the officer is overstepping her or his authority. This happens disproportionately to minorities. It is an injustice.

Clearly, when a white supremacist enters a traditionally black church in Charleston, South Carolina and guns down nine innocent Bible study participants, it is an injustice. What is even more tragic is that we, as a society, continue to produce persons who are so filled with anger and hate that they would take such violent action. In fact, it seems that we are more supportive of radicalized words of hate, judgment, rejection and partisanship. Personal attacks are commonplace. We vilify "the liberals" or blame everything on "the conservatives." We call each other things like "stupid," "ignorant," "ugly," "fat," or "delusional." All of it is angry, violent, and judgmental. It is injustice.

If we are ever to live in God's will, if we are ever to establish God's reign and realm on Earth, then that work must begin with a renewed sense of commonality, unity and a rejection of that which divides and separates us. We must start with the very essence of human nature. If each of us is like Christ Jesus, then no one will tolerate mistreatment of any brother or sister. No injustice would be supported or condoned.

June is Gay Pride Month. It may be uncomfortable for some to think that a recognition of LBGT rights and openness and affirmation of alternative life-styles is a separate issue. But is it not. It is the same issue. Acceptance and embrace of LBGT persons is about justice.

Apparently, not everyone agrees. Yes, I am aware. And, yes, I am sensitive to the controversy. I firmly and wholeheartedly believe, however, that it is time that we get over our sometimes subtle biases and stand with Christ for the benefit of every and each person.

Holiness and Service

There is an inverse relationship between the degree to which we hold Jesus as a divine character and the degree to which we feel ourselves to be empowered by God's Holy Spirit. Surprisingly, if one thinks of Jesus as the divine Son of God, whose essential nature renders him able on Earth to do God's will, then we will tend to diminish the role of the Holy Spirit in ourselves. If we think of Jesus as a human being, just like each of us, who is empowered for his ministry and mission by the Spirit of his Baptism, then we will tend to understand that we are similarly, but uniquely, empowered by the same Spirit.

For those who take part in our twice-weekly Bible studies at Shiloh, the relationship can be understood as an inverse relationship between Christology and Pneumatology. Christology is an attempted definition of the one by whom we are saved, while Pneumatology deals with our understanding of the role of God's Holy Spirit. As it turns out, a high Christology results in a low Pneumatology. A low Christology equates to a high Pneumatology.

A more practical explanation comes organically, since we are in year B of the Revised Common Lectionary. Throughout year B, our concentration for the themes of worship come from the Gospel According to Mark. In Mark's Gospel, Jesus is drawn differently than in the other synoptics and John. Mark's Gospel begins with Jesus' Baptism. This is purposeful and meaningful. The author is making a very important point. His point is simply that Jesus' ability to do on Earth what God calls him to do is a function of the Holy Spirit, not of Jesus' essential nature. This is a low Christology and a high Pneumatology.

Throughout year B of the Revised Common Lectionary, we have the opportunity in the Church to examine the human side of Jesus, to see him as one of us, empowered uniquely by God's Spirit to accomplish what God directs. Mark does not deify Jesus. Instead, the author allows Jesus to wrestle with an unfolding awareness of the power of God's Spirit, and with means of utilizing the Spirit to do what is best for all and each person that Jesus encounters. The power to do God's will comes from God's Spirit in Jesus, not from his position as the Son of God. He is adopted to it.

Throughout the Season After Pentecost in year B of the Revised Common Lectionary, Mark's low Christology invites the Church to embrace a very high Pneumatology. We embrace a Holy Spirit that equipped Jesus and now equips us. We strive to understand and practice the ministry for which the Spirit enables us and to which the ministry of Jesus Christ calls us. As it did in Jesus, so the Spirit does in us.

If I may be so bold, I suggest that the contemporary Church of Jesus Christ struggles with a low Christology and a high Pneumatology, precisely because it levels the ground between Jesus' essential nature and ours. We have been conditioned to think of Jesus as "other," as unlike typical humanity, as being of divine origin and character. Mark's Gospel erases that distinction, or at least blurs its lines, to the point where we can see ourselves in Jesus. A careful reading of the text allows us to see ourselves both as equal to Jesus and equally empowered by God's Holy Spirit.

The Season After Pentecost becomes crucial in the liturgical calendar. The Church understands itself as the body of Christ, empowered, like Christ Jesus, by God's own Spirit, in order to establish God's will as an earthly way of life. The Church is completion of the promise that was made throughout history, and in Christ Jesus, to bring God's kingdom (forgive, please, the male imagery).

So, I invite every reader of The Shiloh Insider to entertain, at least for this liturgical season, the possibility that we are equal in essential nature to Jesus and equally empowered by God's own Spirit to accomplish God's will on earth.

Spirit or Flesh: How About Both?

Christianity, perhaps from its roots in the Hellenistic dualism of Plato and others, has often claimed the life of the spirit over the life of the flesh. The result of such a division has sometimes been the absolute denigration of anything that is historical, practical or reasonable. As a result, things that are spiritual must be other-worldly, ahistorical, beyond the bounds of human existence. Nothing good, holy or acceptable to God can come of corporeal existence. So we place Heaven/Hell outside of human history. We place God in a heavenly realm, where spirit dwells.

The problem with this picture is, of course, that, in Pentecost, Spirit dwells in humanity. It is not separated from human existence or corporeal nature. Spirit is experienced within human history, as a product of words and acts that reflect the virtues that are taught in the archetype of Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection, as well as reflected as "heavenly virtues" in Hellenistic culture.

If the Spirit is granted us in Pentecost, then it is necessarily part and parcel of the human historical experience. It is a mistake to place the realm of the Spirit beyond human history or outside of corporeal existence. Instead, we must work at establishing human history and corporeal existence as an experience of the Spirit.

In Hellenism, this practice establishes the reason for which humans exist. The realm of the Spirit, in the Heavens, mingles with the realm of the flesh in everything that lives. God breathes God's Spirit into otherwise unanimated matter. The Spirit is the very life that lives and moves and has its being. That Spirit belongs to the Divine and is not considered to be the possession or property of the flesh in which it dwells. All life is an admixture of spirit and flesh, of energy and matter. In modern physics, one might say that all life is derived from the motion of some form of wave, particle or string that brings and comprises life itself. It may or may not be corporeal in nature, but its effects and presence is both measurable and noticeable. While life exists, then, it is of both Divine and corporeal nature. The task of those who are aware of their natural and essential identity is to bring the spiritual virtues to bear within corporeal and historical nature.

There is no division here between Spirit and flesh. In fact, Spirit is granted everything that lives in order to construct all corporeal life as an experience of the Spirit. These are the "heavenly virtues" that humans experience as "good" or of Divine origin. It turns out that the same dynamic exists in the archetype that is established in Christ's Crucifixion/Resurrection. Sacrifice for the sake of others is the highest heavenly virtue, core to the world's religions and common to every decent human practice.

When we remove the Spirit from human potentiality, we render God's realm as external to human existence. This is contrary to the theology of Pentecost, where humanity is empowered to establish God's realm on Earth. Human beings, so empowered and enabled, can establish God's will. It is time that we marry the two - Spirit and flesh - instead of divide them. Human existence is not an either/or proposition but a both/and. Pentecost says that we are able, if willing, to live according to God's will on Earth. Maybe something like "Spirit in Flesh" or "Flesh by Spirit" better articulate the Pentecost season than "Spirit or Flesh."

Imminent of Delayed Kingdom?

The 7:00 p.m. worship service at Shiloh is a mix of contemporary, alternative and raucous worship styles. It is Shiloh's own creation, but it works quite well for the gathered community.

Over the past several weeks, the community has considered the difference between an imminent understanding of God's kingdom on Earth or a delayed understanding of God's reign. The issues are all tied up in concepts of salvation, fulfillment, mission and ministry, as well as theologies of stewardship, evangelism and pneumatology. (I heard someone yawn out there...just hang with me.)

An imminent understanding of God's kingdom implies that God's reign is established on Earth when those faithful to Christ Jesus embrace and embody the ethic that Christ established, lived and taught. It is fulfilled when we live in the conditions that God may intend for each of us. It is an ethical system that presumes that God's realm is possible, potential and ultimately qualitative.

A delayed understanding of God's kingdom implies that salvation comes only externally to human history, as a result either of heaven-induced apocalyptic, wherein a new world is created, or a post-historical system of reward and punishment, where we spend eternity in either heaven or hell. Either formula works simply. One is either qualified morally or disqualified morally from eternal reward, whether that of participating in the new world order, under God's command, or of earning one's way into heaven as ultimate reward. The corollary is also true. One may live morally enough to escape being on the outside of God's realm or being consigned to eternity in the fires of hell.

At the 7:00 p.m. service, there is an occasion built into the service where the community discusses the message, texts, points or directions. This happens every week. Over the past several weeks, we have asked whether persons hold to an imminent or delayed understanding of God's kingdom. The decision matters because that decision, and ones associated with it, determine how we spend our time, talent, energies, money and concentration.

If we believe that God's kingdom comes imminently, as the result of faithful actions of those who seek to embody the ethic of Christ Jesus, then we believe that we co-establish with God a way of life that reflects God's will, even here on Earth. Ethical action leads to establishment of God's kingdom, and salvation is, therefore, conditionally established. The Church of Jesus Christ spends its time, talent, energy and money in establishing God's kingdom on Earth.

If we believe that God's kingdom is delayed, placed beyond human history, that it comes only when God defeats all evil on the face of the Earth or that Heaven and Hell are established as places outside the human arena, then we believe that we have to live morally, following the dictates and principles of our religions, ensuring that we are rewarded, either after death or post-apocalyptic. We spend our time, talent, energies and money in getting ourselves, and others, morally right. We avoid the punishment of hell and prepare for the paradise of heaven, to defend against being left out (or behind) and being, instead, included in God's realm.

So, we asked Sunday, which is it? What do you believe about salvation and the establishment of God's kingdom? How have you decided to spend your time, talent, energy and money?  

Diversity in Action

I was attending a summit meeting of leaders from the Southwest Ohio Northern Kentucky Association (SONKA) and the Central Southeast Ohio Association (CSEOA) when I heard a very interesting metaphor for embracing diversity, one of which I had never thought.

Another clergy representative from SONKA made the point that diversity actually makes things better. By mixing different elements, the whole improves. He made the point by saying something like this:

I like Long Island Iced Teas. Now, those particular drinks are a combination of five, potent alcohols, none of which, left to themselves, are very tasty or desirable. A Long Island includes Tequila, Gin, Vodka, White Rum and Triple sec. It is mixed with lemon juice and a splash of cola, over ice. At the face of it, it would seem that a Long Island Iced Tea is bitter and powerful, consumed only by those who seek a quick drunk. But that perception is mistaken. A Long Island is actually quite tasty and refreshing. While I would almost never enjoy any of the elements of the drink by themselves, I really enjoy them when they come together in my favorite adult beverage.

Mixing diverse elements makes the whole better. It does not require that component part become like the others, nor that the component parts cease to have individual function. It is simply this: the whole is improved by combining the component parts. That is a remarkable model for diversity, I think. Human life is improved when we combine the individual, differing components that comprise it.

The summit meeting between SONKA an CSEOA is an example of diversity in action. The summit group is comprised of three or four representatives from each Association. We have met to investigate ways in which we might improve our ministry and mission by working together. Now, I must confess that the two Associations are unique entities. They are organized differently, led differently, staffed differently and they operate differently. But they share a common ministry and mission. Each is called to equip, empower and provide resource to, with and for its member local churches. The question of the summit is simple. How can we better fulfill our mission by sharing the load of Association possibility?

The steering committee has identified two areas wherein we might begin better serving both Associations. The first is a Church and Ministry function. Anyone who has served in the Church and Ministry function is Associations of the United Church of Christ knows that the tasks are wide-ranging and daunting. It is this group that deals with persons in discernment, those who are investigating and in the process of becoming professional ministers. This group also deals with those who are authorized in ministry leadership, those who are licensed or commissioned for specialized and/or ministry that is limited in scope. This group is also responsible for those who qualify as post-ordination, ministry professionals who have the continual need of boundary training and occasional professional review and censure. A working group of three persons from each Association is investigating ways that we might work together to better serve our local churches.

The second area that the steering committee has surfaced is communication technology. Both Associations recognize both the challenges of and potential for communication technologies in, through and with the Associations and their local churches. How can we help one another to best utilize the ever-expanding world of communication technologies? How can we supply and train local churches is use of technology? How can we improve cross-Association communication of opportunities and workshops that one or the other Association is offering.

We are hoping that, as we mix these potent ministries together, we come up with something sweet, something that makes the whole even  better than its component parts.