Gutenberg's Workshop

Listen to me!

2010-10-04T22:09:00.002-05:00

Is there anything more frustrating than not being heard? By the same token, don't you feel closest to those people who really try to understand you? We'll talk about it Tuesday night when the topic is "Listen to Me!"

The food is provided by the United Methodist Men of Christ United Methodist Church.

Hope to see you there.

Trim-The-Tree

2009-11-30T14:47:00.002-06:00

We are having a Trim-The-Tree party at Wesley 1 'til 5 Monday. We have seasonal goodies, hot cider and a tree and center to decorate. Come for as much or as little time as you can and join in the festivities.

More than a garden walk

2009-03-10T20:19:00.004-05:00

In working on my sermon for this past Sunday, I read some in the writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (sermon preparation often leads me to -- and through -- Bonhoeffer). One of the things that ended up on the cutting room floor, that is, stuff that I worked on but did not end up using, was Bonhoeffer's ongoing debate against "liberal theology." Bonhoeffer never fully abandoned some of that system's tenets, but he found the emphasis on personal experience to be unscriptural.

At a couple of levels, what more can one say? How can one put oneself up against Dietrich Bonhoeffer, for goodness' sake? And also, Pastor Bonhoeffer is once again right on target. I have had so much personal and pastoral experience with folks who believed that the be all and end all of the Christian Faith is summed up not in The Nicene Creed or The Sermon on the Mount, but in the lyric line of "In the Garden," and particularly in the the opening line of the refrain:

And he walks with me
and he talks with me
and tells me I am his own...1

Now, I am not placing myself over against the evangelical arm of our faith that puts great weight on the acceptance of Jesus Christ as personal savior. Where I do depart from these sentiments is in that so many people see this personal relationship as the goal and not the beginning of faith. They desire a personal experience of Christ as an end rather than as an empowering to make disciples of all nations.

I remember a Bible study conversation in which we were looking at the Piety Triad in Matthew 6. The subject turned to fasting. I pointed out that Jesus does not say, "and if you get around to thinking about considring entertaining the notion of looking at the possibility of fasting." Jesus says, "and when you fast." He takes it for granted that his disciples will make fasting a part of their piety. I pointed out that the commitment to fasting was part of our General Rules as United Methodists. One participant finally spoke out in frustration: "Why haven't we heard this before?" My honest answer was, "I don't know. I -- and all United Methodist elders -- promised as part of our ordination vows2 to 'recommend fasting and abstinence by precept and example.' I would assume that any and all preachers in this church would have discussed the matter at some point in time."

The response was twofold: "Is this necessary for my salvation?" and "I don't think this makes ny difference in how I feel." I was stupefied. If Jesus says, "Do this," is the question of necessity even worth pursuing? And, if right religion is all about feeling, I suspect fasting would be pretty close to the bottom of the list, because a few hours without food doesn't make most of us very good. It takes a long time before the feeling ceases to be one of deprivation and begins to be one of obedience and devotion.

So, Bonhoeffer's observations ring true. People may strive for individual experience and uphold that as faith. But, "When Christ calls a man, He bids him come and die."3 Discipleship is about cross-bearing.

1Words and Music by Charles Austin Miles, 1913

2 The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church, par 304
3 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship
The photograph is from Wikipedia, and is in the public domain.

Who do you say you are?

2009-01-13T19:48:00.005-06:00

If you turn in your Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church to our Historical Documents, you come to our Articles of Religion. Article XIII reads:

The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men (sic) in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly administered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

So, what we say about who we are is that we are a worshiping people. Some will argue, "Well, no, who we are is caught up in our Mission Statement:

The mission of the Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ.

Even as the General Conference has tacked on the phrase "for the transformation of the world," we must remember that the Mission Statement describes what we do. The Article of Religion states who we are. And, who we are is worshiping people. We come together as faithful people in order to hear the pure Word of God preached and to receive Holy Communion as Baptized members of the Body of Christ.

Worship is an act of Word and Table. Even though Baptism is not repeated, it colors these worship acts. It is difficult to conceive of the Word and Table having significance to an individual if that individual is outside the community of the Baptized.

In that observation of Word and Table, there are certain things that of necessity are requisite to the preaching of the pure word of God and the due administration of the Sacraments. There is, I am sure, a wide variety of opinion concerning what these requisites are. I think that, at the very least, there is an implied order. I mean, it is not ever referred to as Table and Word, always Word and Table. The Eucharist is the high point of our worship whenever it is celebrated.

There is also an implication that due administration of the Sacraments means standing firmly in the tradition of the historic church and of the Methodist Tradition. We have a liturgy that has been refined over the ages and that biblically rehearses the salvific work of God and rehearses the institution of the Sacrament of the Table. Imagine coming to the Table without any preparation or communal preparation. One might receive a pleasant little bread and juice snack, but merely consuming the elements is not Communion.

In like manner, our liturgy of Baptism recollects some of the various references to water found in Scripture, and then focuses on the initiatory nature of this Sacrament. One could, I suppose, slosh a little water on people and hand them a pledge card, declaring them church members. But, the Water and the Word constitute Baptism.

While not a sacrament in my tradition, let me appeal to one more worship act. Suppose two people stood before the congregation with no words spoken or signed. They exchange rings, kiss, and go eat cake. Is that a wedding? Is that the Rite of Matrimony? Or, suppose a priest/preacher/officiant stands before the congregation, reads all the way through the Wedding Ceremony, but is not accompanied by a bride or groom. They are sitting at the back, or already headed for the Poconos, but are not present for the service. Is that a Wedding? Doesn't that covenant ceremony consist of word, vow and token?

We are worshiping people. If that is who we say we are, doesn't it behoove us to try to do a good job of it?

The Cross and Flame is a registered trademark and the use is supervised by
the General Council on Finance and Administration of The United Methodist Church.

O Come, O Come, Emmanuel

2008-12-03T14:12:00.005-06:00

It is Advent. I love this time of year. The four weeks prior to Christmas. That's how we identify this season. It is an appropriate way to reckon time. But, that designation -- the four Sundays before Christmas -- makes the time span seem more dependent on that which follows than is strictly necessary. Another way to say that is that Advent can be perceived as a pot that can stand on its own bottom, and doesn't need to lean on Christmas for its identity or significance.

I remember when I made the subtle but significant decision to buy a blue stole for wear during Advent. It was a departure from the purple that I had worn for so long. But, the purple was identified primarily with Lent, and Advent was viewed by many as a reflection of Lent. Again, we run into that stand-on-its-own-bottom thing. We see this reflection concept most prominently in the scheme that some churches use for their Advent Wreath. Those groups use three violet candles and one rose-colored candle on the outer ring of their wreathes. The rose candle is lit on the third Sunday of Advent.

Now, this gets a little complicated.

The Bishop of Rome used to give his favorites a golden rose on the middle (fourth) Sunday of Lent. Because Advent was thought to be to Christmas as Lent was to Easter, a rose-colored candle was lit on the Third (sort of middle) Sunday of Advent. The intertwining of Advent and Lent was both confusing and a poor piece of theology. Lent is a time of pentitence, self-denial and self-examination. These things are good and right. They are never inappropriate for a member of the community of faith.

But, we are speaking of Advent. Advent is not a purple season. It is not a pale reflection of Lent, nor a kindred time to that observance. Advent is a Blue Season. It is the blue season, in point of fact. Blue represents hope in Christian iconography. It is a color associated with Mary, the mother of Jesus in Christian art. It speaks of the hope brought to a creation that dwells in darkness by the Babe of Bethlehem. But these days speak just as clearly of our hope in the realization of the Reign of God in all its fullness when Jesus the Son of Man arrives in glory. We regularly read during this season the text from Isaiah 9:6:

For a child has been born for us,
a son given to us;
authority rests upon his shoulders;
and he is named
Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Those are not words that confine One to a manger; those are words that lift up the cosmic significance of the coming of Christ in the world.

I am looking forward to Christmas. But I am revelling in Advent.

The above image is from Wikipedia.

We are gathered here

2008-05-21T08:50:00.005-05:00

I've been thinking a bit about weddings. I am particularly considering the wedding service. Arising out of those conversations is the question about that service, "What is it?" That is, are we attending a ceremony? A ritual? A sacrament? A service of worship? A rite? Well, depending on the context, it is each of these things? Or all?

But, in the United Methodist Church (UMC), the event is a worship service. The UMC has two services, a more familiar, traditional service -- the one you see in the movies -- and a more modern format that came into being with the adoption of the 1988 Hymnal and the 1992 Book of Worship. The first service(1) begins:

Dearly beloved, we are gathered here in the sight of God and in the presence of these witnesses to join together this man and this woman in holy matrimony...

the latter service(2) gets underway with these words:

Friends, we are gathered together in the sight of God to witness and bless the joining together of Name and Name in Christian marriage.

In each of these instances, sight of God is the church's way of saying "we are at worship." If you look at the accouterments, there is scripture, music etc., and it looks "like church." Some communions see such a day as a ceremony or observance that has no direct relationship to the worship life of the church. I know of one sect that doesn't use instrumental music in its worship, but they don't give a second thought to wheeling a keyboard or piano into their gathering space for weddings.

I am of the mind that, if we would accent the worship nature of the day more, that the event might unfold with more dignity, and it just might be that the bride and groom would take the entire proceedings more seriously. Undoubtedly marriage is a rite of passage. And, we expect the church to have a big part in all other such occurrences. Infant baptism, confirmation, marriage, baptizing of one's own children, the funeral -- the church has its hand in all the great events of our lives. The wedding is a major step in the life of any individual. It is also one of the abovementioned rites of passage that is entered into voluntarily.

I don't really see how anyone can make the argument that such a day is merely a pageant. Now, unchurched people have to find a way to get hitched if they are concerned with that sort of thing. Secular weddings are performed all the time by judges, magistrates, justices of the peace, and captains of ships at sea. But, anything that is even remotely theistic, or at least that includes the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in its language, has a default setting of worship.

I have no need to defend the worship nature of the wedding service. I do, as I said initially, have some reflections. If worship is "to ascribe worth," and if Christian worship involves praise and thanks rendered to God, then the service of marriage may be the perfect paradigm of corporate worship. For, in the work that we do that day, God creates something new. God creates a household, a family, and a covenant relationship. The God of "behold, I am doing a new thing" (3) does such a thing in that particular worship time. We remember that the Roman Church considers marriage itself a sacrament. Where would God perform a sacrament except in worship?

Maybe the bird seed, the unity candle, and the flash pictures would crawl off into the corner and disappear if we took a more worshipful approach to the day. And maybe, just maybe, divorce, separation, pre-nuptial agreements, broken homes and broken lives would diminish as well

(1)The United Methodist Hymnal: Book of United Methodist Worship ,
copyright 1988 by The United Methodist Publishing House.
(2) The United Methodist Book of Worship,
copyright 1992 by The United Methodist Publishing House.

The image is from Wikipedia.

Of gifts and giving

2008-05-19T13:04:00.003-05:00

The subject of giving to the church inevitably comes up when Christian people gather. This is so, in part, because just about all church folk are singing the blues these days. With greying congregations, $4.00-a-gallon gas, diminishing church rolls and increasing program & maintenance costs, there is not a lot of extra in most church budgets.

Across the board, United Methodists give between 2.3 and 2.8 percent of their income per capita. This is among the higher percentages among Christian groups. If that seems low, remember that a significant number of people in any local congregation are giving more, even considerably more. That means, of course, that others are giving less. Significantly less. Or nothing at all.

This brings up the subject of The Tithe. That term appears only seven times in the New Testament of the King James Version. It is not present at all as the New International Version reads. At that, the KJV references are either verses where Jesus condemns the rigidity of the Pharisees or they are verses from Hebrews where the writer is making reference to the tithes as the old or former way of doing things.

Now, don't hear me saying that a target giving level of 10% of one's resources is a bad thing. But, when you look at the world of the Bible, much of what is labeled "tithe" has to do with crops and first-fruits and flocks. Jesus speaks of those who even "tithe their dill and cumin." (Matthew 23:23) This begins to focus us on the problem of legalism. If one has an herb garden and is counting sprigs growing out of the ground so that they can set aside ten percent, they probably don't fall under the category of "joyful giver."

Jesus has more words about money, wealth and giving than about faith, hope, love, and prayer combined. That indicates that Jesus believes the use of wealth to be important. What Jesus does say is that His disciples should give sacrificially. The sacrifice is also a good Old Testament term. The Law of Moses carries instruction for all types of sacrifices. These take the form of thank offerings, sin offerings, purification offerings and any number of other types. But, in a variety of settings for a multitude of causes, scripture calls for a sacrifice.

One of the things we need to realize about animal sacrifice is that the giver of the offering didn't go to the flock and pick out the oldest or the sickest or the most lame or the most useless of the herd. The animals offered are to be "without spot or blemish," and they are young and strong and vital. Now, when a giver offers such an animal, that person is not only surrendering the life of that animal, but also all of the animals that the original beast might produce for ever. Remember, the animal presence of the world was repopulated from a single pair that was preserved on the Ark of Noah. So, the surrendering of one animal releases the potential of a multitude of progeny over time. A person sacrifices not only their now but also their future.

Now, we are not usually called upon to slit an animal's throat, place it on a pile of kindling, and set it on fire. But, the principle applies. Our gift sacrifices not only a bit of our checking account, but also all of its investment and earning power in the future.

Sacrificial giving is not reckoned on a legalistic percentage. Ten percent might be a drop in the bucket for one individual. It could be a totally unrealistic -- and discouraging -- total for another. Now, what you give is between you and God. But, the reality is that we are called to sacrificial giving, and some people give all they can give at a minuscule portion of their resources. For others, a tithes is so insignificant as to be unnoticed. Sacrificial giving in those instances may reflect a significantly higher segment of their total holdings.

That we give is understood. What we give is still a concept in quest of an understanding.

The above image of Abraham Sacrificing Isaac by Laurent de La Hire,
1650 (Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Orléans) is from Wikipedia.

Yet she on Earth hath union with God the Three in One

2008-05-18T16:44:00.008-05:00

Today is Whitsunday, or Trinity Sunday, the one day in the Christian Liturgical Year that centers on a particular doctrinal point. The day itself has a bit of a ragged history. Perhaps inconsistent would be a better word, as the articles here and here demonstrate. But, this is not the only feast that has had its location moved around the calendar for various reasons. The Transfiguration of the Lord would be another example.

But, the when is not as important as the what. The belief in a Triune God, of God the Three-in-One, is a defining belief for Christians. From the United Methodist perspective, John Wesley labeled affirmation of the Holy Trinity one of the essential beliefs of a Christian.

On this day in which we celebrate this fragment of the revelation of God's nature, I lament that we often make the concept of The Holy Trinity a stumbling block rather than receiving it as a gift. Today's epistle lesson from the Revised Common Lectionary concludes with 2 Corinthians 13:14,

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

In this text, Paul gives us one of the earliest presentations of well thought-out trinitarian theology. Remember, most commentators date the writing of First Corinthians around 52 A.D. The earliest gospel was penned at least a decade later. Paul develops trinitarian thought throughout the course of his writing.

But, Paul's purpose is to help us see God. We are not called to dissect or deconstruct, but to be faithful.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost;
as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be;
world without end. Amen

The above image, Holy Trinity, fresco by Luca Rossetti da Orta, 1738-9 (St. Gaudenzio Church at Ivrea, is from Wikipedia.

Come to The Table

2008-05-16T08:49:00.003-05:00

A friend and colleague addressed some folks who are training to be United Methodist pastors recently. The topic was Sacramental Theology and Practice. In the portion of his presentation that dealt with Eucharist, he made frequent reference to the United Methodist foundation document on the subject. The work is This Holy Mystery, and is the result of a study commissioned by the General Conference of The United Methodist Church and was adopted in 2004 as the official position of the church on this subject.

This is such a rich work that it is hard to center on one portion or one idea in all the 43 pages above all the rest. But, I was intrigued by some comments regarding that old bugaboo 1 Corinthians 11:27-32:

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

I have witnessed and have observed more conflict and misunderstanding over this text than just about any other short text in scripture. First, how can anybody ever be worthy? Jesus himself said that it is not the well who need a physician, but the sick.

But, beyond that, when the passage speaks of recognizing (some translations say discerning) the body of the Lord, how is it that Paul uses that phrase -- the body of the Lord, the body of Christ -- in just about every other context? It is a metaphor for the church. When a person sees the Sacrament of the Table as anything other than a community act rehearsing the grace of Jesus Christ, that is the judgment. The great misdirection of our time is the understanding of our faith as being solely an individual act. Again, in scripture, when Paul says, "you," he is almost always using the plural. In modern English translations, the singular and plural of "you" are distinguishable only by context. One of the places where the King James Bible does us a big favor is that, in the plural, "you" is rendered as "ye." Now, I live in the South, and in my region, we speak of "y'all." "Ye" is KJV for "y'all." So "ye" must discern the church and its gift of Table, otherwise you bring the judgment of God upon yourselves. The Eucharist is God's great gift to the church. It is not a present to an individual.

And it's a mystery.

There is nothing ordinary about it

2008-05-15T16:09:00.004-05:00

We are now in Ordinary Time. It is a season which carries a lot of confusion. Although, it must be said that "a lot of confusion" is a relative term. Hardly anyone gets excited enough to be confused regarding Ordinary Time. The title sounds odd, and yet we don't get stirred up enough to find out about the oddity.

Ordinary in this sense does not mean "common." Ordinary refers to the way in which the church designates time. You know that there are two sets of numbers. There are cardinal numbers (one, two, three) and there are ordinal numbers (first, second, third). We are in a season of Ordinal Numbers time. We speak of the coming Sunday, May 18, as The Second Sunday After Pentecost. Pentecost was May 4. Whitsunday -- or Trinity Sunday -- was May 11. The rest of the Sundays between now and November 24 will be referenced as particular ordinals after Pentecost.

Now, when I was growing up, and through the adoption of The Book of Worship in 1992, the time between Pentecost and Advent was divided into the Season of (after) Pentecost (which lasted through the month of August) and Kingdomtide (which began the first of September and continued to the day before Advent). In 1992, the official seasonal designation of United Methodists became The Season After Pentecost (United Methodist Kingdomtide). I will have to admit, though, I don't know of anyone who employs the parenthetical description.

More importantly than what we call the season is the comprehension of the content of the season. If you look at the entire sweep of the Christian Liturgical Year -- and especially if its observance is informed by a discipline such as The Revised Common Lectionary, the year falls into two great divisions. The first half of the year (roughly) concentrates on Jesus in action, whether being announced, conceived, birthed, baptized, crucified, entombed, resurrected, ascending, or dispatching the Holy Spirit. The second portion of the year revolves around what Jesus said, whether preaching, teaching or commenting on discipleship. In employing the image of a red-print Bible, the Advent through Pentecost are seasons of the black print, the Season After Pentecost is the time of the red.

So, we are people who are living in the Season After Pentecost. We are not doing so just in these few weeks of 2008. Rather, all disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ are living in a season of Christ's teaching. The parables, the instruction, the correction, these things deepen our ability to follow The Lord. So, this time between Pentecost and Advent is not the "off season." It is more like the "so what" in response to the first portion of the year. Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, Easter -- these reflect the gracious gifts of God. The latter part of the year frames our response to the marvelous things that God has done.

There is nothing common about that.

Of pastors and families

2008-05-12T14:56:00.005-05:00

Senator Hillary Clinton is on record as saying, in regard to the controversy surrounding Senator Barak Obama and his association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, "You don't get to choose your family, but you get to choose your pastor." I do not choose to wade into partisan politics or Democratic intramural squabbles. I would like to think a bit about the senator's approach to relating to a pastor.

For many years, the church operated under the Parish System. That is to say, that you associated with the church that was geographically closest to you. There were often lines drawn on a map so that the boundaries of parishes were clearly-defined. You were a member of your parish. That was that. When denominationalism emerged, the closest church building to your dwelling may not have housed the fellowship of your own communion. Then, people became more mobile, and folks became more selective in regard to the place where they worshiped.

This loss of parish and the rise of mobility allowed church people to avail themselves of a number of opportunities in a variety of churches. It also allowed them to refrain from sinking real roots in a local congregation. When Senator Clinton says, "You get to choose your pastor." she reflects the tendency of Americans to go to a local church as long as they are comfortable. If they like the music, if the architecture, congregational size, programming, athletic offerings, fellowship gatherings and worship style, then they are willing to stay. If the pastor speaks of "they" rather than "us" or "you," that is viewed as a good thing. But, if the pastor's theology or rhetoric becomes a source of discomfort, and the family can't participate in a movement that is effective in ousting the pastor, then many contemporary families pick up and leave, finding another congregation, denomination, or faith that doesn't stretch their envelope.

"You get to choose your pastor," indicates to me a mind-set that says, "I'm not in this for the long haul." It says, "I choose pastors/churches/fellowships in the same way that I decide on restaurants or dry cleaners." There is, in short, no commitment to the church -- or to a church -- in such an approach.

We have all but lost the discipline of submission in the contemporary church. People in our culture don't see themselves as accountable, much less obedient, in matters of faith. I am of the mind that you don't get to choose your pastor. You might choose to attend where a certain pastor labors for a season. But, without roots, without commitment, an individual is just passing through. They will move through a succession of churches -- and pastors -- without any of them having particular influence on their lives.

When one commits to a local church, they don't choose their pastor, they bond with a community of faith. One may disagree, one may be made uncomfortable (as with our families from time to time), but one doesn't see their church as choice. It is, instead, a relationship with a congregation, with the Body of Christ, and with the Kingdom of God.

The image is of Raleigh United Methodist Church, Memphis, Tennessee.

When the Day of Pentecost had come

2008-05-11T16:36:00.004-05:00

In the history of the church, the great feasts were not Christmas and Easter. As important as these days are, they were secondary in importance to another pair of observances. The first great celebration of the Christian year was The Epiphany -- the Feast of the Revelation of Christ to the Gentiles. The second major commemoration was Pentecost. This is the occasion in which the church celebrates the gift of the Holy Spirit upon the Church.

How these two days came to be devalued is a matter of long consideration. One cannot help but wonder if, somewhere along the way, there was seen to be no commercial opportunity in Wise Men and Great Rushing Wind. Taking the high road of sorts, it might be interesting to trace the movement from a set of communal -- or community -- celebrations (Epiphany: the revelation of Christ to the Gentiles; Pentecost: the bestowing of the Holy Spirit on the church) to instances that lend themselves more to personal piety (Christmas: the birth of the Savior; Easter: the Resurrection of The Lord).

I believe that, in this movement, that the church has lost (or abandoned) a portion of its fundamental nature. According to the Wikipedia article, the word church translates the Greek term 'ekklesia', which literally means a "gathering" or "selection" or "called out assembly". The biblical images of "church" always speak of the communal. When the Apostle Paul writes his letters, the "you" in the epistles is virtually always plural. The well-being of the body, the church, is inevitably placed before the needs/wants of an individual.

But, look where we have come. Individual churches have had to come to deal with church-shoppers. Visitors to new congregations are not asking, "How can I best serve God and God's Kingdom in the world. The current inquiry is, "What's in it for me?" When you tune in "preachers" on the television, you are much more likely to get someone spouting the bilge of "The Prosperity Gospel" than someone speaking to the Gospel Message to the community of faith.

I want to shout to folks, "It's not about you! Church, Christian Faith, Discipleship are not matters of 'all me, all the time.' " When one puts how a faith expression makes one feel, or how a particular faith expression rewards a person ahead of how the Kingdom is served, people begin to tread on very treacherous ground.

So, on the Day of Pentecost, I hope that the Church can look to recover it's true nature, its communal spirit. I know that submission is not a popular discipline in our day. But, every time -- every time -- in the course of church history, that the person has been valued over the Body of Christ, that movement has slipped into heresy, or faded off into oblivion. God granted the Holy Spirit not to a few people by name, but to the assembled body of believers. I believe that is how God intends to maintain the Church.

Veni, Creator Spiritus!

The image is from Wikipedia.

"They're only children's books"

2008-05-07T16:30:00.004-05:00

I have recently re-read The Chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis. Although they are identified by Lewis as children's books, I come into new awareness every time I read (or hear) them.

I haven't seen the recent film of The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, but I want to before I see the upcoming Prince Caspian. I have been told that the first movie varies from the book somewhat. In a screenplay, I suppose that is to be expected. I have also heard, but cannot yet speak authoritatively, that the Christian message is watered down in the screen version. That is understandable, if lamentable. I would recommend the BBC productions of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe (1988), Prince Caspian and the Voyage of The Dawn Treader (1989), and The Silver Chair (1990). They virtually use the novels as screenplays, are well-cast, and are utterly delightful.

In 2008, there are critics who level charges of sexism, racism, paganism and all sorts of -isms at the books. Guess what? Those things exist in real life, and so their representation in pre-Last Battle Narnia might be appropriate. Some of the charges, particularly sexism, are groundless. I hope that at the end of my days I can be half the human being that Susan Pevensie turned out to be.

While these Christian allegories speak timeless truths in simple language, they are never simplistic. They make me laugh. They make me weep. They hold me up to judgment. They offer me great comfort. If you have any questions about Heaven, read The Last Battle and see if you don't view Paradise a little more clearly.

Now, this is not the Summa Theologica. It does not pretend to be. But, if you want to answer a few questions about the Christian Faith -- and if you want to be challenged by finding a few more -- spend some time with these books.

I am looking forward to the film.

The images of the seven volumes of The Chronicles of Narnia are from Wikipedia.

Blest Be the Tie That Binds

2008-05-07T16:01:00.003-05:00

Well, the dust has settled following the 2008 General Conferenc e of The United Methodist Church. I watched as much as I could make time for using the UMC website's streaming video of the proceedings. I will have to admit that I have some strongly-held personal feelings about several of the issues that came before the Conference. Some of those concerns were huge in scope, while others were mundane. My particular take on those topics is a subject for another time.

When I viewed the debates over a couple of the really hot-potato subjects, while I had my preference as to which way I wanted the vote to go, my prayer -- and that is not a word I use figuratively -- my earnest, fervent prayer was that the outcome of these votes individually or collectively would not be divisive in our church.

I know that the presence of unresolved tension can be divisive. Doing nothing can be more damaging than taking the wrong step. But, for churches, for a denomination, it is seldom the case that more harm is done by exercising caution than by moving in a certain direction.

The Conference spent a lot of its time and energy discussing what United Methodism would look like as a global church. But, in almost the next breath, the Conference would tackle things that threatened to create a chasm between the North American church and the African or European version of Methodism. There are also deep divisions on certain hot-button issues between delegates in The United States. I did not expect the 2008 gathering to solve these things. But, I prayed, prayed, that the Conference would first do no harm, that it would not make matters worse.

I understand that people -- good, faithful people -- are frustrated with either the action or the inaction of this quadrennium's work. But, I believe that we have taken steps to ensure that we stand together while we still attempt to work these things out.

Thanks be to God.

What're they talking about at General Conference?

2008-04-29T15:14:00.004-05:00

I have been watching the proceedings of the United Methodist Church's 2008 General Conference sessions online. Although the Conference continues through May 2, the gathering has been hard at work dealing with issues monumental and mundane. It has held Judicial Council elections and it has dealt with the nature of United Methodism as a global church. The sessions give all United Methodists a voice in the workings of their church.

I have been interested in the cooperative spirit that has prevailed in Forth Worth. The delegates have discussed items that will involve massive amounts of money. They have spoken about profound theological issues. The Conference has considered potentially divisive topics and done so with a spirit of charity. For the good this does for our church internally, and for the witness it makes to the world, I want to say to the delegates, "Good on you, mates!"

I have noticed that there has been one category of exception. That is the area of discussion that can only be described as turf. When someone's board, agency, committee, council, hobby horse, pet project or ad hoc group has had its existence or funding discussed, all of a sudden backs begin to raise and voices get shrill and a bit of folks' Christian Charity goes out the window.

At one level, I perfectly understand. Whenever our own rice bowl is threatened, we cannot help but be a bit protective. But, in another vein, such protectiveness does not serve our church well. It is certainly not good for our image (which has suffered enough over time). If we are to die to self and live to Christ (Galatians 2:20), that seems to speak to releasing our "stuff" and submitting wholly to the will of God.

Now, some folks in Fort Worth give the impression of wrapping their turf up in a thin covering of religiosity. They speak of special interests and special interest groups as if they are the only-beloved of the Holy Spirit. The arguments are frequently couched in such a fashion that they say, in essence, "to oppose my legislation,study commission/budget item is to oppose the Holy Spirit; because, obviously, this is the one true pork barrel in our entire proceedings."

I admit that, by and large, I don't have a horse in this race. So, it is easy for me to say that other people should be aware of their turf issues. But, we are a part of a shrinking denomination with dwindling resources. Just because someone says that their project fulfills our mission to "Make Disciples of Jesus Christ" doesn't make it so. I would hope that, as General Conference winds down, that the delegates could get away from "what's in it for me?" and get closer to "What's in it for our Church?"

The shovel image is in the public domain.

It means "having the expected result"

2008-04-03T14:45:00.004-05:00

Robin Russell, managing editor of The United Methodist Reporter, has an article entitled Unconditional guarantee? Petitions would tweak clergy ‘job security’ that can be found at the website of The United Methodist Portal. In a nutshell, Russell supports certain proposals being made to the 2008 session of the United Methodist General Conference that would eliminate the so-called "guaranteed appointment" for clergy.

Russell traces the history of the dogma, from the days when women, racial minorities, or outspoken social activists were regularly threatened with the withdrawal of their assignments whenever they might push bishops and cabinets out of their comfort zones. Russell then outlines the rationale for making changes in the current Disciplinary position.

What is at root in the argument is the issue of clergy effectiveness. Russell argues that, under the system, once a clergyperson -- particularly an elder -- is in, that they're in for the duration. Russell cites this as a reason for the numerical decline in United Methodist membership in the United States.

At one point, the writer says,

When bishops were asked by an episcopal task force last year what they need to lead the denomination toward renewal, redefining “guaranteed appointment” topped the list.

And then,

That’s why the United Methodist Council of Bishops has jointly crafted a petition with the denomination’s General Board of Discipleship and the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry to ask the 2008 General Conference, the church’s top lawmaking body, to modify the appointment system.

This is followed by Lyle Shaller crunching some numbers but offering no solutions.

Three more quotes from the article, and then I have some reflections.

Instead, the petition backed by the Council of Bishops urges modifying—not doing away with—the system to keep in place due process with the board of ordained ministry yet redefine what it means for elders in full connection to be in “good standing.”

“It shifts the burden of responsibility from the bishop and the cabinet from having to prove ineffectiveness, to the expectation that all pastors have to give evidence of effectiveness,” said Bishop Schnase.

“This petition is not going after clergy—I want to be clear about that,” Ms. Greenwaldt (chief executive of the General Board of Discipleship) said. “This is not a blame game. It’s really asking, ‘Who has responsibility for the effectiveness of congregational life?’ And that responsibility rests in many, many places.”

So, I have these questions: first, if the practice of guaranteeing appointments (as it were) began officially in 1956, that would mean that the system would have been fully institutionalized in the late fifties and early sixties. Russell in the article itself appeals to that Land of Milk and Honey, the late sixties, where the UMC had over ten million members and all was right with the world. Wouldn't "guaranteed appointment" have been wreaking havoc even in those days if it was the demon-spawn that is being claimed today?

Second, it is the Council of Bishops that is pushing for some of these changes. Modifying the itineracy/guaranteed appointment has emerged from their conclave as being the great single issue in revitalizing our church. My question is, has there been no inquiry into discerning gifts & graces of clergy and/or churches? Are bishops and cabinets receiving reliable information from their only consistent source of information regarding church context and clergy fruitfulness -- the district superintendents? How often are D.S.s in worship in local churches, sitting across a desk (or a coffee table) from pastors or leaders in a congregation? When a district superintendent goes to a local church or charge for the annual church/charge conference, do they arrive five minutes before the meeting and leave while the echo of the benediction is still ringing in their ears. Or, do they give that church/charge their undivided attention for that one day or portion of the day that is reserved for that ministry context and that ministry context alone? On the other hand, have the bishops got cabinet members so busy with controlling presences in meetings of every rinky-dink Conference committee, work area, task force, board, panel and ad hoc committee that they spend all their time pushing pencils and no time on the ground, resourcing congregations and gathering data so that more effective ministry might be brought about?

Next, the article speaks of shifting the burden of proof for effectiveness onto clergy. That determination would be made by Annual Conferences, apparently with the aid of the Conference Boards of Ordained Ministry. Is there any way that this determination can not include nickels and noses? Who is more effective -- or effective at all -- the senior pastor of a megachurch who commands an empire of associate ministers, directors of music, Christian education, programming, & age-level ministries; who has a raft of support personnel to answer the phone, type the bulletin, keep the calendar, mop the floor and cut the grass; who has been plopped down in a demographically expanding, economically privileged neighborhood; and who just might be a college roommate of the D.S.? Or the pastor who does most of the support work him- or herself, has been appointed to a ministry context in a transitional neighborhood that does not value the traditions long a part of that local congregation's practice, that is struggling to meet current bills much less support benevolences beyond its walls, and who has the personal perception that their ministry is overlooked, unappreciated, or forgotten? On a playing field that is in no way level, how does a system make determination about effectiveness?

The last quotation is from one (Rev.) Karen Greenwaldt, "chief executive of the General Board of Discipleship," who wants to make it perfectly clear that no one is "going after clergy." I'm sorry, but there is no chief executive of the general board of anything who deserves a voice in this dialogue. If the chief executives are so all-fired effective, let them take parishes. Let them preach. Let them go to finance committee meetings. Let them go to hospitals and nursing homes. Let them preach every Sunday of the world. Let them take heat for not getting apportionments paid. Are we supposed to take seriously these general board people who hand down wisdom from Olympus? Don't tell me they did such a good job in the parish that the general board of junk-mail came and gobbled them up so that they could spread that effectiveness out on a grand scale. Come out into the field. Sweat in the hot sun. Come in tired at the end of the day. Then, we'll see if these folks have anything worthwhile to say.

I should take a deep breath. I know that the issue is effectiveness for clergy. I understand that it is a real concern for our church. My hesitation is that I have never seen an approach or an instrument or a system that has capably gauged the work of clergy. I have seen terribly subjective instruments that suffered horribly from having them implemented by untrained people. These same instruments are easy to skew by both the pastor's fan club and those who take issue with the pastor for whatever reason. Those tools that seek to be more objective always, always, always fall back on nickels and noses. You can reference my thought on the level playing field for comment.

I understand that we need to facilitate clergy effectiveness. I applaud the dialogue. But, I remain unconvinced by Russell's methodology. There must be an answer. But I don't think the solution is in the tossing guaranteed appointment in such an arbitrary manner.

Pandora thought the answer was in a box...

What price grace?

2008-02-25T13:44:00.005-06:00

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906 - 1945) was a theologian and martyr. His influence on the theology of the mid-20th century was such that, whether one agreed with him or not, any writer on the subjects of religion or philosophy who wished to be taken seriously during that period had to at least tip their hat to Bonhoeffer.

He is best known for a collection of the writings he composed while he was in a Nazi concentration camp. That book is Letters and Papers from Prison. But, his most influential work was a treatment of the Sermon on the Mount entitled The Cost of Discipleship. That book begins with these words:

Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our church. We are fighting to-day for costly grace.

Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like cheapjack's wares. The sacraments, the forgiveness of sin, and the consolations of religion are thrown away at cut prices. Grace is represented as the Church's inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or fixing limits. Grace without price; grace without cost! The essence of grace, we suppose, is that the account has been paid in advance; and, because it has been paid, everything can be had for nothing. Since the cost was infinite, the possibilities of using and spending it are infinite. What would grace be if it were not cheap?

Cheap grace means grace as a doctrine, a principle, a system. It means forgiveness of sins proclaimed as a general truth, the love of God taught as the Christian "conception" of God. An intellectual assent to that idea is held to be of itself sufficient to secure remission of sins. The church which holds the correct doctrine of grace has, it is supposed, ipso facto a part in that grace. In such a church, the world finds a cheap covering of its sins; no contrition is required, still less, any real desire to be delivered from sin. Cheap gtrace, therefore, amounts to a denial of the living Word of God, in fact, a denial of the Incarnation of the Word of God. 1

John Wesley's entire understanding of the Plan of Salvation is based on the reality of grace -- made evident in a variety of ways and performing a variety of functions -- in the life of an individual believer. His understanding, while not employing the same vocabulary, is on the same page as Bonhoeffer.

But, in the common usage, grace has become a term that is spread around liberally, casually. It is a word that is regularly employed to evade accountability. Grace has become a sort of synonym for faith in a caracature of the faith/works dichotomy. People employ grace in speaking of the work of God and the reliance upon God in the face of human futility. But, the people who erroneously refer to grace in this manner see themselves as absolutely passive, having no action to take. They do not see themselves as partners in the salvation equation. The proponents of this view speak as if they are merely standing still, and God's saving goodness washes over them, leaving them clean, redeemed, and very emotional.

Bonhoeffer speaks elsewhere in The Cost of Discipleship the single sentence for which he is best-known: "When God calls a man, he bids him come and die." It is a reflection on Jesus' proclamation that "If any one would come after me, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me." (Matthew16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23) Jesus tells potential disciples that they must count the cost for walking with Christ. (Luke 14:28ff)

This is not feel-goodism. This is not the idolatry of emotionalism. This is the gospel.

We are beholden to God for all that is good and right in our lives. Some ancient heresies portrayed God as a Great Clockmaker who built Creation, wound it up, and set it loose in the heavens so that God could sit back and curiously observe what went on. As I say, those are heresies. God is not detached from us. God is also not one who gives and gives and who expects nothing in return. In the Old Testament, the heart of worship was sacrifice. An animal was slaughtered, placed upon an altar, and burned so that the aroma might rise up to heaven and please God. Now, God doesn't need carcasses. Nor does God physically require fragrance. But, when God asks that one of the best of the flock, a young animal without spot or blemish, be given up in worship, God is asking for the best of the breeding stock. When that animal is offered, the worshiper gives up not only that animal, but all of its potential offspring for ever. The glad willingness of the worshiper to do such a thing is what pleases God. It would be easy to give the infirm, the diseased, the no longer fertile in offering. The sacrifice is found in the depth of denial that the giving of this young, strong, potential-filled critter holds within itself.

But, God moved from the offering of the flock -- or bank account -- to the offering of the heart. Hosea 6:6 reads, "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." These acts -- mercy and acknowledgment -- can be as dreadfully difficult for us sometimes as killing the fatted calf.

There is a price to pay for discipleship. Discipline, devotion, sacrifice, obedience, all these things outline the gospel response to grace.

In Lent, many people re-visit Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. How anyone can watch such a thing and not be moved by the cost of grace is beyond me. How one can say that we are just takers is beyond my comprehension. In some ways, the life of discipleship is a life-long effort to return one percentage point of interest against the great price that has been paid for our redemption.

Alas! and did my Savior bleed,
and did my Sovereign die?
Would he devote that sacred head
for sinners such as I?

Thus might I hide my blushing face
while his dear cross appears;
dissolve my heart in thankfulness
and melt mine eyes to tears.

But drops of tears can ne'er repay
the debt of love I owe.
Here, Lord, I give myself away;'
'tis all that I can do.
-- Isaac Watts

1 Dietrich Bonhjoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship
(copyright 1963, Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc.).

Change from the bottom up

2008-02-21T14:55:00.004-06:00

Like seemingly every other United Methodist congregation on the planet, some of our folks are spending some time with Bishop Robert Schnase's Five Practices of Fruitful Congregations.1 His contention is that congregations that are vital, faithful, and growing exhibit certain qualities. These attributes cut across size, denominational and economic lines, according to the bishop.

The first Practice under discussion is Radical Hospitality. This covers a lot of ground, from simply putting on a happy face all the way to a significant reallocation of resources by a local church. He speaks in concrete language about the changes that some congregations have made in their community life, and how those changes have enhanced the ministry of those churches.

The most significant talking point in the chapter, though, is the writer's observation of the root cause of this first practice.

If the biblical quality of hospitality includes all these things, why intensify it with the word radical? What is Radical Hospitality? Radical means "arising from the source" and describes practices that are rooted in the life of Christ and that radiate into the lives of others. (pp. 20-21)

The bookstores -- secular and religious -- are filled to overflowing with self-help books. They have plans for individuals, systems and organizations. They imply that, with the application of the proper technique, all desirable ends are possible. They tend to sweep aside motivation. They appear to ignore those things which have brought individuals, systems and organizations (read "book-buyer") to their current state of disappointment. Paint it over. Fix it up. Re-tool it. That will make it better, according to the experts (read "book-sellers").

The congregation that welcomes the stranger, that throws its doors open to the dwellers of the highways and hedgerows, will reach such a state when the conversion it so ardently preaches takes place within its own collective heart. I have heard too much lately of "the right kind of person" or "folks like us." It is folks like us who are dying on the vine. There may not be enough of the the right kind of person to go around. When we can see beyond "right kind" and "like us" and merely see "folks" and "people," we will have begun to have our hospitality arising from our source. That Source is a Savior who wasn't too particular about what kind of person we were when He invited us to stay in His mansion.

The peace of the Lord be with you.

The First Temptation of Christ

2008-02-11T13:15:00.000-06:00

In the fourth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, the Evangelist tells the story of The Temptation of Christ. There are a couple of interesting little sidelights to this narrative: in Mark's Gospel, the writer says the Spirit drove Jesus into the wilderness, while in Matthew, Jesus is led; in Luke's telling of the story, the last two temptations (the pinnacle of the Temple and the Kingdoms of the World) appear in the reverse order reported by Matthew. Luke says that, after the third temptation, the devil withdrew from Jesus until an opportune time, while the First Evangelist says that the devil left and the angels ministered to Jesus. Now, one can make a good case for the word choices that each writer makes based on each writer's context and agenda. But, it would be a mistake, I think, to spend too much time dwelling on these fine points. They do not reasonably affect the telling of the story.

When I was growing up, I can remember hearing these narratives preached now and then. I don't pretend to have had the nuances of each individual preaching event burned into my memory. But the sense of what I remember is that the story points out that Jesus overcame temptation. That report provides a moral inspiration and encouragement for us to do the same. With all due respect to those preachers whose proclamation helped form me, I now respectfully disagree. What they were preaching was essentially the same error as we found a few years ago when so many people were wearing bracelets printed with the letters W.W.J.D. -- "What Would Jesus Do? The problem there is that, when faced with a hungry multitude, Jesus turned five loaves and two fish into a meal that could satisfy them all. When separated from his traveling companions, Jesus walked on water. When Jesus' good friend died, Jesus raised him up. What Would Jesus Do? Things that you and I don't hold out as options. So, I think there is more to the Temptation of Jesus than holding moral sway over the devil.

If we look at those things that tempted Jesus -- and we must assume, I think, that Jesus was truly tested by these things. The story makes no real sense (or difference) if Jesus dismisses these things out of hand. Jesus fasted for forty days and forty nights, and he was tempted to turn stones into bread. Jesus was tempted to demonstrate to the world the truth or falsehood of Psalm 91:11,12. Jesus was asked to worship the devil, and to receive all the kingdoms of the world as his realm over which to reign.

Transform, jump, worship -- this is all Jesus has to do, and he can surely achieve his mission. All of these temptations, at one level or another, are temptations to take a short cut. If he wants to be acknowledged as the Son of God, as the Messiah, as God's Anointed, he can miraculously produce food. After all, he will do this later, to feed five thousand men plus women and children. All he has to do is jump. The angels will catch him, set him down in the midst of the crowd that is always present in the Temple precincts, and he will receive acknowledgment and recognition. Bend the knee, worship the devil, and the King of Kings will receive his kingdom without having to go through the ordeal of Upper Room, Gethsemane, Judgment Hall, Golgotha, and Tomb. He can have it all. He can have it now. He can have it easy.

But, Jesus says, "No."

Besides all that this says about Jesus and Christ's obedience, this narrative also gives us our marching orders. I doubt that we will ever be tempted to turn stones into bread or to jump off the pinnacle of the Temple in Jerusalem. But, disciples are always being tested to see if we will choose shortcuts. We are constantly encouraged by devils to take the easy way. The lure is, "Isn't the result the same? Doesn't the end justify the means?" The faith response is "No."

The short cut is to say, "I have done enough. I have put in my forty days. It is time for bread." The short cut is to say, "I will not walk the path of obedience any further. I will make the decision, now. I will chart the course." The short cut is to say, "I can have what I desire, and I can have it without the hardship. I don't have to make sacrifices."

Jesus points out, through his own experience, that this is not only disobedient, but it is downright idolatrous. Discipleship consists of a lot of blessings. The guarantee of comfort is not one of them.

One could easily say, "Jesus was alone during this time, wasn't he? There was just Jesus and the devil. The devil wouldn't report on his own defeat, would he? How do we know the events of this story?" Well, one answer is that Jesus would have, at the appropriate time and in the proper venue, related this story to his followers. But, he wouldn't have done so in order to blow his own horn. Rather, he may have told the tale in order to encourage those who might have complained, after a long, cold night sleeping on the hard ground, that the price of discipleship was getting too high. Jesus never constrained anyone by force. He does not coerce disciples. But, he might say, "There is always the lure of the convenient. The self-serving is always at odds with the gospel."

In Lent, those who have chosen the Gospel Path come to grips with the difference between what is easy and what is obedient.

The peace of the Lord be with you.

The image is from Wikipedia.

Shrove Tuesday

2008-02-05T13:01:00.000-06:00

Today is Shrove Tuesday. It is the last day before Lent. (People differ as to whether it belongs to Ordinary time proper or not. I don't give that aspect of the day much thought.) In the tradition of the church, the faithful confess their sins and receive absolution -- are shriven -- today in preparation for the observance of Lent. (Just as an aside, it is from this term "shriven" that we get the contemporary expression "to give short shrift" as a description of not weighing heavily the alibis of other people.)

The day before Lent has a lot of other titles, many of which are little-used. It is the Tuesday in Shrovetide for some. It is Tuesday of Carnival for others. In the U.S., we are more likely to hear of Fat Tuesday. This label comes from the tradition of using up all the fat in the house on Tuesday before Lent begins on Wednesday. The practice is related to the Lenten discipline of fasting. One clears out all of the sumptuous foods so as to be prepared for the fast.

It is the last day liturgically that it is appropriate to use the Alleluia in worship until the Easter Vigil. It is a kind of liturgical fasting.

I have attended -- and conducted -- Shrove Tuesday services in the past. I always found them moving. I think this is due to the fact that they are so personal. The next day, on Ash Wednesday, there is a lot of historical ritual, and a lot of corporate expression. I believe that, on Shrove Tuesday, because there is so much less cultural history, that these moments of contemplation, confession and absolution help move the individual observer into the corporate observance of Lent.

May the God who forgives richly bless you today.

The Peace of the Lord be with you.

The image is from Wikipedia.com

Clean Monday

2008-02-04T13:03:00.001-06:00

In the Orthodox Communions, Lent is a forty-day observance, but these churches do not exclude Sundays as does the Western Church. Lent begins with the Sundown worship service on the Sunday forty days out from Easter. (Beyond simple acknowledgment, here I will not deal with the calendar differences between the Eastern and Western Churches. Therefore I will not wade in the murky waters of the differences the two groups encounter in calculating Easter Day. Obviously the reckoning of Easter affects the placement of the beginning of Lent on the calendar. The difference in the observance of Easter in East and West will result in the computing of a different week for the beginning of Lent.)

As I say, in the Orthodox traditions, Monday is the first full day of Lent. It is known as Clean Monday. The name comes from the desire to be cleansed of one's rebellious nature and sinful ways so that the believer might be truly penitent during the Forty Days. I have to say that I like the concept. It is not so removed from Shrove Tuesday or Ash Wednesday. But, it puts a bit of individual consideration into a time that is largely corporate in practice. A person expresses a desire to be clean -- to be cleansed -- and then enters into the church-wide observance of being shriven and of penitence.

The liturgy for the day revolves around Isaiah 1:1-20. Verse 16 begins

Wash yourselves and ye shall be clean;
put away the wicked ways from your souls before Mine eyes;

The old gospel song "Whiter Than Snow" carries this prayerful refrain:

Now wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Whiter than snow, yes whiter than snow; Now wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.*

I hope that all of us may find the peace that being washed brings.

The Peace of the Lord be with you.

The image of Christ in the Wilderness is from Wikipedia.

*The text is by James L. Nicholson, and is in the public domain

A Feast by any other name

2008-02-02T17:18:00.000-06:00

As we come to the end of this year's brief observance of Ordinary Time, I have been gently reminded of the truth that this season concludes in different ways for different traditions. In the United Methodist Church, the last Sunday in Ordinary Time is marked by the Feast of the Transfiguration. This has been artificially placed by several (but not all) of the communions which participated in the Consultation on Common Texts. The idea being that The Season After The Epiphany is bracketed by two great theophanies: the Baptism of the Lord and The Epiphany. The scripture narratives describing these events both contain similar elements, including submission by Jesus, heavenly signs and the voice of God coming from the cloud(s). Even the words of God are virtually identical. The Transfiguration, being the last Sunday before Ash Wednesday in this scheme, is therefore a movable observance. There is a lot to be said liturgically for grouping these similarly-themed days together, as they give the "Season After The Epiphany" a coherent theme, and allow for an ongoing observation of the motifs of the season, including light, mission and revelation.

The traditional observance of The Transfiguration is August 6, and a good portion of the Church still embraces this scheme. There is a lot to be said for maintaining a long-standing practice. It might also be neat to have a great feast during the Dog Days.

February 2 in the traditional liturgical calendar is known by the title The Presentation of Jesus. It is sat this time that the Holy Family encounters the prophetess Anna and the old man Simeon. Some protestant communions speak of this day as The Naming of Jesus. The adherants to these traditions embrace a continuity of Advent, Christmas and Epiphany. They see this day as the conclusion of the series of events preserved in the infancy narratives.

The other popularly-employed name for the day is "Candlemas." According to the Wikipedia article:

The Western term "Candlemas" refers to the practice found in the Roman Missal whereby a priest on 2 February blesses beeswax candles with an aspergilium for use throughout the year, some of which are distributed to the faithful for use in the home.

All of this is significant, no matter what scheme one personally adopts, because this is the last Sunday of this liturgical year that dates or describes itself in relation to the birth of Christ. On Ash Wednesday, we begin a way of reckoning our time that references Easter instead. The one Great Feast gives way to the other. In this fashion, our yearly rehearsal of the Gospel is complete.

So, whatever observance knits your soul to God, may this transition be a time of deep faith and indescribable joy.

The peace of the Lord be with you.

--The image of The Transfiguration is from Wikipedia

Short-changing Ordinary Time

2008-01-25T15:40:00.000-06:00

The Feast of the Resurrection of Our Lord -- Easter -- will fall on March 23 this year. If that sounds early, it is. In point of fact, Easter Day may fall anywhere between March 22 and April 25. So, in 2008, we are only one day shy of having Easter come as early as it possibly can. According to the web site of M. J. Montes, Easter does not occur on March 22 at all between 1875 and 2124. We celebrate the Feast on March 23 only two times in that same time frame.

One of the pieces of fallout from this year's calendaring is that with Easter -- and therefore Ash Wednesday -- coming so early in the year, this installment of Ordinary Time, or the Season After The Epiphany, is terribly abbreviated. From The Epiphany (January 6, of course) to The Feast of The Transfiguration (February 3 this year), this season only encompasses four Sundays. With two of the Sundays being the feasts that bookend the season, the great themes of this time must be caught up in only two Ordinary Sundays.

This is not a declaration of protest, but it is an expression of frustration. The massive motifs of Light, Revelation, and Mission cannot find an adequate voice in so short a time. Yet, we have just finished the great days of Advent and Christmastide. It would not have been appropriate to borrow some of those days in order to move on to the thoughts of January. We don't want to short-change Lent. So, in this all-too-brief time, we let these moments of contemplating God's Manifestation and Revelation do their work on us.

Next year, Easter is on April 12, and down the road a bit, in 2011, Easter comes on April 24, just one day shy of as late as the day can fall. So, there is some symmetry in the long run. Meanwhile, we ponder anew what The Almighty can do -- even in a few short weeks.

The image above is from Wikipedia

Plowshares, Pruning Hooks, and Promise

2007-12-07T22:20:00.000-06:00

Today, December 7, is the 67th anniversary of that "day that shall live in infamy," the attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor. In that assault, 2,390 Americans were killed were 1,178 wounded. It was the event that drew the United States into the Second World War.

To call the day "Pearl Harbor Day" is to tie that tragedy up in too neat a package. It draws too perfect a line between "good" and "evil," between "right" and "wrong," and obviously, between "them" and "us." Was that bombing a heinous, warmongering act? Without a doubt. In the course of the conflict, did people on all sides commit atrocities? No question.

Politically, the United States and Japan are allies now. Economically, we are the closest of trading partners. Even in the minds of many former combatants on both sides, the adversarial relationship no longer exists.

I think that the value of recollecting December 7, 1941 is that December 7, 2007 falls in Advent. It is a time when we anticipate The Coming -- Advent, if you will -- in Glory of The Prince of Peace. It is certainly true that those who do not study history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them. But, for the Christian believer, history is on course to do a new thing, a thing that armies and princes cannot accomplish. At The Coming, history's Sovereign will establish a domain that will need no standing army, no high-tech defenses, and no secure borders.

The time is not yet, but it is coming. And we'll study war no more.

--The photograph of the USS West Virginia is from Wikipedia

The Feast of Saint Nicholas of Myra

2007-12-06T15:01:00.000-06:00

St. Nicholas was born in the third century in modern-day Turkey. He is the patron saint of sailors, archers and children. In this season, his story is intertwined with that of Santa Claus. It is appropriate that, in Advent, we hold up the example of a Bishop of the church who was renowned for gift giving. Saint Nicholas' story grew out of tales of his providing dowries for poor girls, and anonymous treats for small children as they slept.

We discourage the preoccupation with material goods that some folks practice this time of year. But Nicholas' unselfishness, his love of his fellow human beings, and his generous spirit certainly elevate the highest ideals of this season. No tradition about Nicholas dwells on anything that the saint received. The narratives are always about his giving.

It would be appropriate for disciples of Jesus Christ to meditate on the merits not of giving perishable items that moth and rust destroy and thief can break in and steal. Rather we come into an understanding of the desirability of giving from our hearts those thing which endure -- love, acceptance, tolerance, support. It is these and all gifts of ourselves that have enduring value.

We thank God for the example of Saint Nicholas, and pray that we, too might be known for our godly giving.

--The photograph of the statue of Saint Nicholas is from Wikipedia.

Some kinda reality check

2007-10-24T14:05:00.000-05:00

Psalm 137
1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
when we remembered Zion.
2 There on the poplars
we hung our harps,
3 for there our captors asked us for songs,
our tormentors demanded songs of joy;
they said, "Sing us one of the songs of Zion!"
4 How can we sing the songs of the LORD
while in a foreign land?
5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
may my right hand forget its skill .
6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
if I do not remember you,
if I do not consider Jerusalem
my highest joy.
7 Remember, O LORD, what the Edomites did
on the day Jerusalem fell.
"Tear it down," they cried,
"tear it down to its foundations!"
8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
9 he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks. (New International Version)

Psalm 137 was the Psalter Reading prescribed by the Revised Common Lectionary (RCL) for the Nineteenth Sunday After Pentecost. When our congregation read this passage responsively, there was an audible gasp when the people got to the last line. The almost universal question at that point is, "What could make people say such a thing?"

The answer is in verse eight. What the Psalmist hopes to happen to his enemies in verse nine is what the adversary did to the Psalmist as recorded in the preceding verse. This vengeful attitude may not strike us as being very "faithful" or "Christian." There are those who would object to such a reading being employed in public worship.

I believe that it is one of the most profitable of all passages for meditation, for study, and for worship. I say that because it is real. There is no "Pie in the sky bye-and-bye" here. There is not a hint of, "Just turn it over to the Lord, and it'll all be better." This is the cry of a wounded, enraged heart: "They have destroyed the Temple! They have razed Jerusalem! They are murdering not only warriors but innocent children! I hope I get to see the day when these barbarians are just as wounded, and just as helpless as we are now!"

I admit that there is no "turn the other cheek" or "walk the second mile" sentiment in that statement. But, it is understandably genuine. And in that, I find hope. This passage of Scripture -- inspired, holy Scripture -- is a graphic representation that the lives of covenant people are lived in the real world.

We ourselves exist in an environment where tires go flat, termites infest homes, corrupt politicians get elected, and good people contract terminal diseases. None of those eventualities are reflections on the lives of the faithful. They are observations on what happens in the real world.

If Scripture was another word for "fairy tale" or "morality play," the protagonists would always win, and people would live happily ever after. While that may be entertaining storytelling, it is insufficient as being "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Psalm 137 is a hard place to live, sometimes.

So is the place where we live, and work, and do ministry.

This is My Father's World

2007-10-15T12:51:00.000-05:00

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:28 (KJV)

This passage from the story of The Creation is a narrative that is all too often misinterpreted. It is that term have dominion that causes the trouble. Modern translations are no better. They render the phrase as "rule" or "conquer." The version of the Bible called The Message says "have responsibility for." That comes closer to the intent (but it appears in a presentation where, a little earlier, in verse 27, while the King James says, "in the image of God created he them," The Message reads, "he created them godlike").

The Hebrew/Christian scriptures are very respectful of Creation. At the moment of The Fall, the story records that not only were the man and the woman separated from God, but from Creation as well. The entire Created Order suffered as a result of human pride. One need look no further than chapter three of Genesis, where the heretofore vegetarian people now wear the skins of animals for clothing. From that point, people slaughtered critters for food, for clothing and for implements.

The Fall resulted in the ground yielding not only edible vegetation, but also weeds and tares. The ground only grudgingly surrendered that food which it once gave freely. The instances of other fallout from the disobedience of the people are numerous.

But, God's instruction to the people regarding the land is never revoked. To subdue is not to desecrate. It is not to spoil. It is, rather, to care for. The people were never intended -- in the plan of God -- to be monarchs over the earth. Rather, they were to be gardeners. They were to be caretakers. They were to work with Creation.

The violations of air, water, soil and ozone layer are results not of the mastery of the environment by humankind, but rather are the product of The Fall of humanity. We have lost our divine mandate. We no longer take care of that which has been placed in our trust.

There are certain things that individuals can only do for themselves. The Means of Grace comprised of prayer, fasting, searching the scriptures, Christian conversation and devotion to The Eucharist grow out of each person's spirituality. But there are other things that we can only do communally. Caring for Creation is one of them. Each person can live a cleaner, more efficient life. But we are also bound to unite in working for those things that preserve rather than destroy.

Today (October 15) is Blog Action Day. All sorts of cyberfolk will be speaking to the issue of the environment. My observation is that the concern is not a new one.

God is Great, God is Good

2007-07-12T13:37:00.000-05:00

We talked in our church's mid-week Bible study last night about prayer. One of the things we spoke about was instruction. Do you remember being taught to pray? I don't. There just always seemed to be a part of me that knew how to say, "God is great, God is good, let us thank God for our food. Amen." "Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray thee, Lord, my soul to keep," was as much a part of settling down for the night as brushing teeth or donning nightclothes.

I don't remember learning how to run. But, I remember coaches instructing me as to how to run faster. I don't remember learning to talk. But, I recollect being tutored in projection and enunciation. As I said, I don't remember being taught how to pray. But, I also don't remember any Sunday School teacher, UMYF counselor, parent or professor educating me in the advanced practice of prayer. I don't remember a lesson, devotional, lecture or sermon that said, "This is how a mature Christian prays."

To be honest, I also don't remember addressing the matter pastorally more than a handful of times myself.

I've done a lot of reading, sort of on my own. Augustine of Hippo, Hildegarde von Bingen, Julian of Norwich, Martin Luther, John Wesley and -- although I hate to mention his name in the same breath as the others -- Richard Foster have all informed my thinking and my practicing prayer. That's fine. What bothers me is that I have had to root those authors and their material out of a mountain so-called "prayer, devotion and meditation" volumes. Most if it is pure bile. Or, they treat prayer at the "Now I lay me down to sleep" level. Or, they come out with a profound statement like, "Prayer is good and we ought to do more of it."

We hear Bishop Robert C. Schnase's book The Five Practices of Fruitful Congregations ballyhooed a bit lately. His top five list is:
•Radical Hospitality
•Passionate Worship
•Intentional Faith Development
•Risk-taking Mission and Service
•Extravagant Generosity.

Alongside this volume, there is much ado regarding Jim and Molly Scott's tome Restoring Methodism; 10 Decisions For United Methodist Churches in America. The Scotts discuss: recognizing the reality of the church scene in America, recognizing the reality of The United Methodist Church, scriptural and theological base, discipline, systemic issues, clergy, local church, laity, sanctification, and Trinity: Holy Spirit.

Do you notice anything peculiar? Is anything glaring in its omission? Except in the most of oblique form, there is absolutely no reference by any of these saviorettes to prayer. There is no suggestion to pray. There is no encouragement to prayer. There is no instruction as to how we might be better practitioners of the discipline of prayer. It is nowhere to be found.

The original disciples of Jesus saw him do a lot of things. They witnessed as he taught, healed, exorcised, calmed storms and raised the dead. They requested that he instruct them in only one area: "Lord, teach us to pray."

Teach us to pray.

Offer Them Christ

2007-07-03T13:11:00.000-05:00

It was my privilege a couple of weeks ago to direct the 2007 Memphis Annual Conference Local Pastors’ Licensing School. This is an event in which those who are about to go into their first pastoral appointment receive some exposure to several tasks involved in the ministerial office.

When the students concluded their work, they received a certificate of completion (in anticipation of having their Local Pastor’s License issued to them by Bishop Dick Wills). The Conference also gave them another token. It is a small print of a painting by Kenneth Wyatt called Offer Them Christ. It is a depiction of an elderly John Wesley bidding farewell to Thomas Coke as Coke is departing for America. Coke, along with Francis Asbury, will convene a meeting in Philadelphia in 1784 that will establish the Methodist Church in America. But, this painting freezes for us a moment in time that says a lot about who we are.

There are all kinds of things that Wesley could have said to Coke as the boat is shoving off. He could have given him administrative advice. Wesley could have cautioned Coke about some of the obstacles that Wesley himself had met in America. But, what he said was simple, basic, fundamental: “Offer them Christ.”

John Wesley never ( insofar as I can determine) engaged in demographic studies. He didn't form focus groups. I don't recall Wesley ever calling in the services of an outside (human) consultant. He didn't wring his hands and moan about nickels and noses. He didn't sit in his rocker and pine about the way things used to be. He understood human beings to be fallen, sinful creatures. Having diagnosed the condition, he had but one treatment for the malady: Offer them Christ.

It is a picture and a word that might benefit us all if we meditated upon it a bit more.

--the reproduction of the painting is with the permission of
The Foundation for Evangelism,
Lake Junaluska, NC,
which holds the copyright.

Full Connection -- and Fully Connected

2007-06-28T11:37:00.000-05:00

Several of my brothers and sisters, including Johnny Jeffords and Sky Lowe-McCracken, have taken up the subject of our United Methodist Connection recently. Those comments are in addition to the party line of folks like (Bishop) Will Willimon and others. The consensus appears to be that our Connection -- and therefore, our church -- is in crisis. That being the case, what to do, what to do?

I am a firm believer in diagnosis. We can wring our hands an moan about our pathology, but that is not very productive. We have gotten into a "Doctor, it hurts when I do that." "Don't do that!" mode. Are we dysfunctional? No one would argue to the contrary. Is it troubling? You bet. Why? Well, that is open to debate.

The issues of itineracy, guaranteed appointment, and our caste system have been eloquently addressed by the above mentioned and others. I would like to cast one more crumb of bread upon the water.

I believe that we have made an idol out of The Connection, and in so doing, have lost touch with what it is, and/or what it is supposed to be. When the Methodist movement was just aborning, preachers were received into full connection (connexion in the old manuscripts) with "Mr. Wesley." That status implied a certain degree of collegiality. But it also carried a sense of submission. There was no doubt, as Annual Conferences debated issues of faith and order, who it was that was going to make the final decision. That would be Mr. Wesley.

In the U.S., when the Methodist Episcopal Church was constituted in 1784, connection or connectionalism implied that pastors and churches were related to one another in a whole that was greater than the sum of the individual parts. The connectional organization also allowed mission & ministry beyond what separate congregations could accomplish by themselves. In the words of Garrison Keillor on the occasion of John Wesley's birthday, "Methodists established more colleges, more hospitals, childcare facilities, retirement homes – more than any other Protestant denomination." How can one take issue with that?

But, somewhere along the way, The Connection became more iconic than Mission & Ministry. Connectionalism somehow ceased to be a tool for service and became an Institution to be served and maintained. A lot of activity that has no real rationale for taking place is undertaken because "it promotes the Connection." We have come to serve artificially that which at one time was our implement of service.

As I see it, The Connection has become a purely administrative creature. As currently applied, it seldom serves the church, the churches, or the Kingdom of God. We have developed a fairly efficient way of disseminating certain kinds of information. We gather reports fairly effectively. We issue top-down edicts and impose them on churches/pastors at the bottom of the food chain with flair. True, some apportionment dollars are collected and administered. But, the connectional pride that once existed in regard to "conference askings" has all but disappeared.

Gloom and doom. But, I can't refer to anything that refutes this take on who we have become.

Is this just a random rant about "the way things are?" Maybe. But, I have a dream.

I don't mean any disrespect to those who have used that phrase more effectively than I. But, I have a dream. It looks like this.

First, those who have the most invested in Connection -- bureaucrats and administrators at whatever level and by whatever name -- get their hands dirty in the work of connectedness. That means that folks who have screamed "connection" the loudest will be in touch with, in communion with, connected to local churches. In this dream, that contact is with congregations no matter how small, regardless of how remote. Connectional authorities will go to them, rather than summoning them to offices or "central locations." This will happen to the degree that these local congregations will know the names and faces of those in positions of authority over them.

Second, we will once again celebrate those effective ministries in which we are involved connectionally. Hospitals, housing, food programs, educational emphases, and countless other good and right endeavors will be held up as signs of the Kingdom of God. This will not be at a $10-a-plate meal with 75 cents-worth of food and a program of boring speakers. This will be done in the local church context, in district and conference gatherings as part of the larger agenda. This will be done in such a manner that the results, the service rendered, the Kingdom Work undertaken will be at center stage. It will not be a holding up of isolated anecdotes with the tag line, "And we could do so much more, if only we had more money!"

Third, in my dream, there are no Lone Ranger preachers, who, when they receive their appointment to tall-steeple churches, abandon district, conference, jurisdictional and general church responsibilities. These upper-caste ministers will still serve on boards, agencies and committees. They will attend clergy meetings. (When I was appointed to one of my several multiple-church charges -- circuits -- and I would go to clergy meetings, what message do you think I got when I looked around and saw that the "First Church" pastors didn't see these gatherings as important enough events at which to spend time?) They will share with and encourage those pastors whose fields of service offer a different kind of challenge. They will lead their congregations in responsible financial dealings, so that their newly-constructed, high-interest buildings do not shift the financial burden of the workings of their district and conference to other congregations who have adopted philosophies of "pay-as-you-go" or "doing without."

Finally, in my dream, the money that we necessarily request of local congregations will be asked for in the name of Mission & Ministry. There will be no emphasis on comparison to other congregations. There will be no rehearsing of history of "payment" or "non-payment." The existence of local congregations or their continuance in their current state will not be couched in terms of apportioned giving. Churches will be informed, will have Mission & Ministry interpreted, and will be encouraged in such a way that "bottom line" is not even a consideration. Pastors who have submitted to the authority of administrators and bureaucrats, and have done so willingly, will not be threatened by those who have placed them in brittle situations. These same bureaucrats and administrators will take their own accountability for not matching gifts and graces with congregational needs. They will own up to just bad appointment-making. Churches will receive apportionments based on a fair and equitable determination. Powers-that-be will not equate the effectiveness of pastors with their inability to get blood out of a turnip.

In my dream, The Connection once more becomes a tie that binds, and ceases to be a noose around our necks.

Context is everything

2007-06-25T15:02:00.000-05:00

I believe that one of the great mischiefs we can do to a person, a group, or an idea is to take those things out of their defining contexts while trying to make an argument or prove a point. There is an old story about a guy who decides that he is going to live his life according to scriptural directive. His methodology is that he will blindly open his Bible, point to a random passage, and embrace that instruction. So, he follows this plan and his eyes fall on the words "And Judas went out and hanged himself." Rattled, he decides to try again. This effort brings him to the words of our Lord, "Go therefore and do likewise." Nervously, he resolves to try one more time. The words of Holy Writ: "What you do, do quickly."

We have had too many Sunday School lessons, heard too many "brief devotionals," and sat through too many sermons that have extracted a paragraph, a sentence or just a phrase and constructed an entire argument. Fragments are not complete thoughts. One-liners are not entire stories. When building a theology, a word from Romans, a thought from Hebrews, and a paraphrase of a segment of Deuteronomy does not provide very solid footing. To put a biblical thought in context does not mean reading the one verse preceding and the one verse following a citation. The entire chapter before and after might be better. Reading the complete book in which a particular thought is found would be better still. Yet, even such a thorough treatment implies that we can make absolute sense of a document from internal evidence. It might be that, after consulting commentaries, concordances, Bible dictionaries, scholarly writings, the history of interpretation, and denominational references, we might be able to recover some true sense of what a biblical passage means.

We are sometimes impeded in our understanding by the versification of scripture. The dividing of the books of the Bible into chapters and verses was first a liturgical innovation. The questions, "Where did we stop last week?" and "Where do we start this week?" were answered more easily when a passage was identified by such markings. Later, scholarly consideration was made easier by being able to locate an idea quickly and precisely. But, the marking of chapters and verses frequently divides thoughts into artificial units and does violence to the flow of the text. But, if readers blindly embrace these divisions as being tools that should direct their thought, they fall into real problems. Likewise, there are readers who believe that the chapter and verse markings are part of the original text. In point of fact, the delineation of chapter and verse is a medieval convention. It has never been a tool intended to shape theological thought.

John Wesley called himself homo unius libri -- a man of one book. His devotion to the Bible is unquestioned. Wesley termed the involvement of people with the Bible a Means of Grace. But, his term for that involvement was not "read the Bible." He didn't say, "cherry pick the Word of God." He called it Searching the Scriptures. Searching implies a degree of intentionality and thoroughness. In Luke 15, the Evangelist paints two pictures, one of a lost sheep and one of a lost coin. In both instances, the individuals search for that which is lost. Now, if a sheep is lost, one could go stand on the top of the hill and look one direction, then climb down and check under a bush, and perhaps amble over to a stand of trees and check to see if the sheep is there. One might even locate the sheep. But, that method is not likely to be productive. In the same manner, when the woman misplaces a coin, she doesn't look on the kitchen windowsill, then check under the recliner, and follow that with a rummaging around through yesterday's clothes. In each instance the searchers are depicted as performing their examinations in a systematic fashion. In that manner, they locate that which was lost.

Searching the Scriptures in no way implies a haphazard hopscotching through the Bible. Searching the Scriptures is a discipline that involves the execution of a concrete plan designed to make scripture a part of who we are. It is not an activity that commends the Bible to us word by word, or line by line. Rather, to Search the Scriptures is to commit the Bible to heart. This is not necessarily "by heart," as most of us don't have the gifts to memorize Genesis to Revelation. But, we can take Scripture's truths to heart, and therefore discern what their real implication is for the living of our lives.

Defn.: hash out, talk over, discuss

2007-05-30T15:20:00.001-05:00

This Sunday, our Annual Conference convenes for its 2007 session. For those of you who may not know United Methodist lingo, our denomination is divided into geographic units called conferences. The General Conference of the United Methodist Church (UMC) is the gathering of all United Methodists, and it holds its session every four years. Its next assembly is in 2008 in Fort Worth, Texas. That is the body that is empowered to change our polity, doctrine and other whole-church matters.

The American UMC is divided into five Jurisdictions (Northeastern, North Central, Western, South Central, and Southeastern [which is the Jurisdiction in which I serve] ). Each Jurisdiction holds a conference quadrennially.

In each jurisdiction, there are Annual Conferences. These are the locales within which pastors are generally deployed, and within which local churches are connected for some ministries. I am a clergy member of the Memphis Annual Conference.

That being said, the Annual Conference gathers each year to evaluate program, adopt a budget, plan ministries and deploy clergy. This year we will also elect clergy and laity delegates to next year's General and Jurisdictional Conferences.

You will notice that most of the comments on these assemblies have to do with business items. The controversial agenda pieces for our gathering this year cover apportionments (money requested of local churches that goes into various pools to fund mission and ministry), clergy insurance, a study of clergy effectiveness, and a report from an Annual Conference Study Task Force (that recommends reducing our number of districts, establishing a position of Assistant for Ordination and Personnel Matters, and a bunch of coupon-clipping measures).

In the early days of Methodism, conferences centered around matters of faith and order, not nickels and noses. The record of those gatherings reflect weighty discussion and profound exploration of doctrines and practices that shape Christian lives. John Wesley even went so far as to group Christian Conference -- or conversation -- into that family of practices he called The Means of Grace. He understood, in other words, that conferencing, including Annual Conferencing, is a way that we do -- or should -- be able to experience the presence of God.

I pray that this is so for June 3 - 6, 2007. I'll let you know.

In the Beginning

2007-05-20T16:22:00.000-05:00

Next Sunday is The Day of Pentecost. In the Old Testament, it is the festival that commemorates the giving of the Law — the Ten Commandments — to Israel. In the New Testament, it is the day on which God sent the Holy Spirit upon the Church.

A lot of goofy stuff has come to be associated with the day. I have heard of churches that brought a birthday cake into the sanctuary. I have even heard of congregations that have sung “Happy Birthday” to the church on that day. To be sure, the church can mark its beginning from that first Day of Pentecost following the Resurrection. But, I could make an equally compelling case, I believe, for calling The Annunciation the beginning of the church (when the Angel Gabriel brings the news of Mary's service to her, and the Incarnational miracle begins to take place, that is surely a moment when -- as the Word initially became flesh -- the Body of Christ began to find its new home in the world). The first Christmas (when the Word made flesh becomes an independent soul, it could be at moment that the church begins to take form) is a likely candidate. The Baptism of the Lord (in the moment when Jesus enters public ministry, when he fulfills all righteousness, and when the heavens, cleft open and bringing forth the Holy Spirit of God, visible for the first time -- here, like a dove, later, like tongues of fire -- and when the very voice of God declares Jesus His Son) is a likely candidate for measuring the genesis of the church. I kind of like The Confession of Peter; if Jesus says, "On this rock I will build my church," that is a kind of laying of the cornerstone. Maundy Thursday (when The Sacrament of Holy Communion is instituted), or Good Friday (obviously, when the redeeming sacrifice of Christ takes place) could be good places to start. Easter Day is hard to dispute, if pigeonholing an actual moment is important. Ascension Day could also work out, as it is the time when Jesus physically departs and charges his disciples to be witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the ends of the earth.

I have no quarrel with designating Pentecost as the beginning. I would just say that there are legitimate alternatives. I would also maintain that merely to designate Pentecost as the passing of another anniversary is to diminish its significance dramatically. The day commemorates the moment when God’s Spirit left its dwelling place in heaven and came to abide within human hearts. Because of this, lives are changed, sinners converted, the condemned escape the pits of Hell. Are we to encapsulate this with the singing of “Happy Birthday?”

Notwithstanding those folks who identify their entire faith expression as, this day and this event are filled with mystery and power. We would do well to listen for the sound of the great rushing wind, to tremble before the tongues of fire, and marvel at the cacophony of the known languages of the world being spoken in support of the gospel.

I am looking forward to The Day of Pentecost. But, I think I'll leave off the cake.

God's Family Room

2007-05-16T15:31:00.000-05:00

In this month's issue of The Circuit Rider, there is a plethora of writers who are engaged in either exegesis, explanation, or muddled thinking regarding the biblical passage found in John 14:6. The verse has variously been an encouragement, a confusion, a galvanizing text, and an embarrassment for the Church in the history of interpretation.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. Elsewhere (10:9) in the Fourth Gospel, Jesus refers to himself as the gate. The trouble is, that on the basis of this passage, lots of people see themselves as the gatekeeper. They want to be the ones who decide who avails themselves of the gate. If you believe exactly like them, express your faith in the manner they employ, sing their hymns, pray their prayers, and salute their flag, then they are perfectly willing to admit you into their perception of the Kingdom of God. But, fail their litmus test, and they contend that you are not worthy to come through the gate.

Likewise, the text has been hard on folks who would prefer a universal salvation. "How could God refuse my dear friend the Jew - Arab - Agnostic - Atheist who lives a moral life, helps senior citizens across the street, pets dogs on the head and puts a coin in the beggar's cup?" Their take is, "Jesus is a way..."

I would offer this comment: the word Jesus employs in referring to God, the word that the English translators render "Father," is the Aramaic Abba. It is a word that reflects a relationship of familiarity. It might be more accurately presented as "Daddy" or "Papa." Now, I know that this might b a difficult kind of word for a lot of people to use in addressing Ultimate Reality. But, the term carries with it a certain nature of connection. This is not the distant, aloof parent who disciplines with an iron hand. Abba points toward the loving Father who might haul a child up on his knee, bounce the child up and down, and read to the child from a storybook.

I am not prepared to say that there is no other path to deliverance or mercy. I don't want the job of gatekeeper. But, I believe Saint John teaches that there is one single path to a personal connection with God which breaks down old barriers that made God inaccessible. If you want to know God as Abba, Jesus says, there is only one way.

Jesus says, "I am the way to the personal, intimate relationship with a loving God. No one comes to the sitting-on-the-knee, reading-a-storybook relationship with God except through me." When a person professes faith in the lordship of Jesus Christ, his Abba becomes our Abba.

Ya Gotta Have Hart

2007-05-03T10:09:00.000-05:00

Johnny Hart died April 7. You may not know that name. However, I suspect that you know his work. He was a cartoonist. He was the creator of B.C. and co-creator (with Brant Parker) of The Wizard of Id. I have read B.C. all my life. B.C., Curls, Clumsy Carp, Wiley, Thor, The Cute Chick (sorry!), and The Fat Broad (really sorry!) were like friends. I gleaned a little wisdom and a lot of joy from Grog (the missing link), Gronk (the dinosaur) the apteryx (a wingless bird with hairy feathers), the anteater, the turtle, the snake and the ant colony. Johnny Hart's characters invented the wheel, they feuded, they laughed, and they believed in God.

Hart had several cartoon strips pulled by newspaper editors (the feature ran in about 1,300 newspapers) because of their overt religiosity. Other papers moved the controversial strips to their religion pages.

I appreciate Hart's witness, and I am glad that an occasional public figure can testify to faith when s/he is not on some bandwagon. But, today, I'm feeling sad because a long-time source of daily joy is gone. The Johnny Hart estate says that the strips wil continue. But, if you've tried to read Blondie without Chick Young or Dick Tracy without Chester Gould, I'm sure that you'll agree with me that it's not going to be the same.

Rest in Peace, Johnny Hart.

Do you renounce the spiritual forces of wickedness?

2007-04-24T13:02:00.000-05:00

In December, 1997, I was pastor of a congregation in Paducah, Kentucky. At that time, a disturbed young man shot several of his classmates at Heath High School. He wounded several and killed three in that senseless act of violence. Several members of our church’s youth group were present in the Prayer Circle that was assaulted. The grandmother of one of the slain students was in our church. The shock wave of the event spread throughout our congregation.

The events of last week at Virginia Tech University evoked much of the pain and anger that I had experienced a decade ago. The news also raised many of the same questions: Why? What goes on in the mind of such an individual? What could have been done to prevent this? How does the community of faith respond? The occurrence brings other issues to mind, of course. When the perpetrator of such an act has the name Cho Seung-Hui, racism rears its head. "Close the borders!" some cry, as if that would solve anything.

Such things cause us to ponder anew the nature of a fallen Creation. They compel us to consider the essence of evil. We question, “Can I forgive?” Before we are too quick to bless these purveyors of violence, we might need to ask ourselves, "What is the nature of forgiveness?" As I see it, forgiveness is a relational word. I can forgive you if you offend me. You can be forgiving of me if I trespass against you. We all look to God's grace to be forgiven our sin against The Almighty. But -- and I'm just asking -- can I forgive Cho Seung-Hui, or Michael Carneal? They have both surely violated me, but only in a distant way. Who can stand in a relationship of forgiveness with murderers? The victims' families? Friends? Co-workers? Fellow church members? I don't know.

There are times when a casual, blanket statement of absolution prevents us from looking people right in the eye, confronting the wrong that has been committed, and making any kind of reconciliation truly possible.

Cho Seung-Hui, the shooters at Columbine, and several other takers of life have abdicated any accountability by making themselves the last of their shooting targets. There is a sense in which these folks have removed any possibility of repairing relationship. There is no potential for retribution or reconciliation, for vengeance or vindication. For better or worse, these relationships will remain forever fractured.

There are no easy answers. Our process of deliberation may be as enlightening as the solutions which we find in ourselves. It may be much more important to say, “How do I order my life in the face of such evil?” rather than “How do I relate to those who practice wickedness?” We cannot change others. However, we do choose how we behave ourselves.

Where Have All The Flowers Gone?

2007-04-12T16:20:00.000-05:00

Easter Day is statistically the best-attended day of the year in churches. More people show up than on the Sunday nearer to Christmas, than on Mother's Day, than at any point in the year. And the margin is not close. You'd think, that there might be a gradual fall-off, given the tendency of people to lose enthusiasm over time.

Not so for church attenders. The Sunday following Easter is the least-attended day of the year for congregations. The percentage of reduction can be staggering. Some elements of the church even misinterpret the title given to this day -- Low Sunday -- to refer to meager attendance. In point of fact, the day receives its name in that that this Sunday is the Octave of Easter, and thus the conclusion of the High Feast itself (even though the season of Easter continues through the Great Fifty Days). Some folks get so depressed about the nickels and noses of the day that they try all manner of gimmick to try to bolster attendance artificially.

It is hard for me to get worried. On the Sunday after the Resurrection of Jesus, according to Saint John's Gospel, the number of believers could all fit in one upper room. Even though some of them had seen the Risen Lord, the numbers were quite small. Of course, from this humble beginning, the church catholic was born. The numbers didn't pick up until Pentecost.

I don't mean to sound complacent. But, maybe we should wait on The Spirit a little longer before we panic.

You've Got to Have Friends

2007-04-11T17:03:00.000-05:00

I have just finished Franklin and Winston:An Intimate Portrait of an Epic Friendship by Jon Meacham. The volume spent some weeks on the New York Times bestseller list a while back. The book may have the all-time champion of self-descriptive titles. Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill met briefly and without incident in 1918. Twenty-two years later, they were the leaders of their respective nations' governments. Britain was already embroiled in World War II, and the United States was figuring how and when it might end up engaging Japan and/or Germany-Italy militarily. Churchill appealed to Roosevelt, if not for direct intervention, then for financing and materiel. Over the course of the next five years, the two men would see each other personally scores of times, would correspond frequently, and would communicate by wire sometimes several times a day. They directed the Allied war effort. They cobbled together a democratic peace. They inspired, encouraged and cajoled their populations. In a real sense, Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill were the architects of western civilization for a generation to come.

The two men also became good friends. One of the things of which we are reminded in this examination of that relationship is that genuine friendship doesn't always mean eye-to-eye agreement or complete approval in all instances. But, as much through their disagreements as in their accord, we see the depth of their admiration and affection one for another. Meacham reminds his readers that friendship -- even love -- does not always mean that the relationship is nothing but smooth sailing. He also shows us that quality relationships are worth the work of preserving.

Easter People, Raise Your Voices!

2007-04-10T13:26:00.000-05:00

Easter Day, among the musical offerings during our service of worship, our church sang Christ is Risen (United Methodist Hymnal #307). The lyric is by Brian Wren. I appreciate his music, a lot of which appears in the UMH. Among the reasons I gravitate toward his stuff is that he is one of the few people of whom I am aware who qualify for the title "contemporary hymnwriter." So much of the pablum that passes as "contemporary Christian music" is a re-arrangement of about six words which are sung over and over. Disqualified from any consideration for "contemporary hymn" is any lyric line that contains the word "just," (unless the word is used as a substitute for "justice"). Singing "I just want to praise the Lord" in repetitions that exceed two-score does not make those words more profound.

In the United Methodist Church, hymns have historically not only served as praise elements, but also as educational vehicles. The Charles Wesley hymn that we sing so often in this season, Christ the Lord is Risen Today (UMH #302), has some meat on its bones:

1. Christ the Lord is risen today, Alleluia!
Earth and heaven in chorus say, Alleluia!
Raise your joys and triumphs high, Alleluia!
Sing, ye heavens, and earth reply, Alleluia!
2. Love's redeeming work is done, Alleluia!
Fought the fight, the battle won, Alleluia!
Death in vain forbids him rise, Alleluia!
Christ has opened paradise, Alleluia!
3. Lives again our glorious King, Alleluia!
Where, O death, is now thy sting? Alleluia!
Once he died our souls to save, Alleluia!
Where's thy victory, boasting grave? Alleluia!
4. Soar we now where Christ has led, Alleluia!
Following our exalted Head, Alleluia!
Made like him, like him we rise, Alleluia!
Ours the cross, the grave, the skies, Alleluia!
5. Hail the Lord of earth and heaven, Alleluia!
Praise to thee by both be given, Alleluia!
Thee we greet triumphant now, Alleluia!
Hail the Resurrection, thou, Alleluia!
6. King of glory, soul of bliss, Alleluia!
Everlasting life is this, Alleluia!
Thee to know, thy power to prove, Alleluia!
Thus to sing, and thus to love, Alleluia!
-- Charles Wesley

The hymn uses scriptural imagery to say not only that Christ is risen, but also talks of the event's significance and of a joyful believer's reaction. Each line includes the Easter Alleluia!, which has been gone from our music and our liturgy since Shrove Tuesday.

I am not an advocate for only things old rather than anything new. I don't necessarily prefer the old wineskins. But, if the church is going to use contemporary music, it seems like that music ought to have something to say.

A Day Called Maundy

2007-04-06T15:41:00.000-05:00

Christian calendars refer to the beginning of the Great Triduum in a variety of ways. Some call the day Holy Thursday. It is an accurate and perfectly acceptable designation. It is part of Holy Week, and precedes what those calendars often call Holy Friday. Holy means "set apart." It's a good title. Other calendars will list the day as Thursday in Holy Week. Those same calendars will refer to the other weekdays preceding Easter in the same way. It is a method of combining the ordinary (the cycle of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday...) with the sacred (Holy Week). This is a proper way of thinking about the day. Many Orthodox communions call the day Great Thursday. I sort of like that. It carries a sense that something spectacular happens on that day.

Much of the church, though, employs the title Maundy Thursday. The term comes from the Old French by way of Middle English. Mandé translataes the Latin mandatum. John 13:34 reads, "Mandatum novum do vobis ut diligatis invicem sicut dilexi vos," in English, "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you."

Think of all the events that occurred in Jesus' last full day of freedom. Although no gospel account carries all of these instances, a survey of all four evangelists indicates that Jesus accomplished a lot. He shared his Last Supper with his disciples. He washed their feet. He predicted his Passion, his betrayal, and his denial. He prayed his High Priestly Prayer. He uttered his Lament over Jerusalem. He gave his Last instructions, or perhaps we could say that he made his valedictory. He underwent The Agony in Gethsemane. He underwent the disappointment of three times discovering sleeping companions who should have been sharing the moment and/or standing guard. He was betrayed. He healed the ear of the servant Malchus, as his ear had been damaged by a sword-wielding Peter. He was deserted by his followers. He underwent the first portion of his trial before the Sanhedrin, Pilate and Herod. He was mocked and abused by Temple guards and Roman soldiers. It was a long day.

Yet, out of all that activity, we designate the day Maundy Thursday. We name the day not after something Jesus endured, but after something he said do. "Love one another, as I have loved you." It could be Eucharist Thursday, or Gethsemane Thursday, or a remembrance of any other item from the above account. But, we call it Commandment Thursday. It is not a static observance that passes with a cake or a greeting card. It is a day that calls us to obedience. It summons us to discipleship. It bids us participate in the work of the one whom we call Lord.

It is a good day to be commanded.

What _is_ That Thing?

2007-03-29T15:17:00.000-05:00

"A fountain pen?" Someone who had seen my blog intro asked. "A fountain pen?" Well, yes, I use a fountain pen. As a matter of fact, I am an accumulator of fountain pens. I wouldn't call myself a serious collector, but I've got a few lying around the house.

I enjoy them because they are expressive. Have you ever tired to be creative with a Bic stick pen? A broad-tipped pen has variation of line depending on which direction the stroke moves. It isn't quite calligraphy, but it's not meant to be. One user has said, "I don't use a fountain pen in spite of the fact that it is slow; I use one because of it."

One advantage I have found is that you don't wish a pen had an "Oops" button. Have you ever dashed off an e-mail in haste, sent it off, and then reflected, "I wish I hadn't done that?" That almost never happens with a fountain pen.

There are several types of fountain pen. The most common has a small plastic cartridge of ink that loads in the barrel. Most of us tried out a Shaeffer of this type somewhere in school. There are also piston fillers, that draw ink up into the reservoir by twisting a knob that creates a suction. Pump- or lever-filled pens use a small bar that, when lifted, presses against the sac in the barrel, again creating a vacuum, and they fill from an ink bottle. Eyedropper pens are the height of simplicity. You unscrew the nib, literally draw ink into a dropper, and squirt the ink into the barrel of the pen. Eyedroppers can hold a lot of ink. Wikipedia has a short survey here.

You can get a pen for $2. You can also pay $10,000 (I'm not kidding). There is a limited edition "Babe Ruth" pen that has a glass dome on the end. The dome displays a portion of one of The Bambino's game-used bats. Small countries have less GDPs than the retail cost of such pens.

It is hard to find these things in stores. A couple of office supply houses carry a small selection. I know of one specialty store in my town that has a nice variety. But, the real heavy-lifters sell online. I buy from Pendemonium when I can. They have put up with my unknowledgeable questions patiently over the years. The folks at Swisher Pens are also good. Joon and Fountain Pen Hospital have really nice, hefty catalogues that they mail out free. There are a gazillion vendors out there, and most are honorable.

There is even a hobbyist's organization, The Pen Collectors of America. There are pen shows, where collectors gather to buy, sell & trade.

I must also admit, that when I write with a pen (read: fountain pen), I feel a certain kinship with those scribes and amanuenses whose task was painstakingly to copy out the scriptures and other faith writings by hand. Before computers and word processors and typewriters and carbon paper and erasers and white-out, folks were being about their work of transmitting these documents the old-fashioned way. Sometimes, when I write with a pen, it is my way of saying "Thanks!"

"...Yes That's the Book for Me"

2007-03-28T15:37:00.000-05:00

I mentioned Jesus Christ Superstar in the previous post. Thinking of that opus made me recollect how many folks referred to Superstar as if it were gospel back in the late sixties & early seventies. We all carry around a little Bible inside us. It contains information about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, faith, works, the Golden Rule and the Book of Revelation. However, that portable little resource can also deceive us at times. That misrepresentation is not intentional, it reflects what we have put there. For instance, we have seen enough children's Christmas pageants that we can clearly visualize a setting that includes a star, angels, wise men, shepherds, Mary, Joseph, Jesus, and the odd cow and sheep. The problem is, that there is no scriptural passage that has all of these elements converge on the manger at once. Luke's gospel tells us about the angels and shepherds. It is in Matthew's story that we find Magi and star.

To compound the issue, it appears that a lot of people are getting their religious information from sources like The DaVinci Code or The Gospel of Judas. The sensational will frequently overwrite the traditional.

Entertainment media have an extraordinary input into our concept of biblical story. I notice that The Miracle Maker has just been re-released on DVD. The Jesus Film is the most viewed piece of video on the planet (you can see it here). Franco Zefferelli's Jesus of Nazareth is one of my favorite film depictions of Jesus' life. But, all of these works employ a certain amount of cinematic license. For one thing, if all that Jesus did were committed to film, the world could not contain the DVDs.

John Wesley termed Searching the Scriptures a means of grace. That is to say, he understood that work to be a way in which human beings can experience the love of God. Secondary sources are fine. I believe Christ is glorified in all faithful attempts to convey the gospel. It may not matter how many fish were gathered in The Great Catch. But, at other times, even the apparently trivial may end up having a profound effect on our lives, our community, and even our salvation. Nothing takes the place of sitting down with your Bible and pouring over its truths.

Putting the Palm Back in Palm Sunday

2007-03-27T15:55:00.000-05:00

Sometimes, the church makes much-needed and long-overdue accommodations. Some of us have taken way too long to install ramps, print large-type bulletins, provide assistance to the hearing-impaired, or to make rest rooms accessible. These things are not only convenient, but also necessary in order to make certain that as many people as possible can participate in worship.

But, sometimes, the Accommodation Bug bites a little too deep. I am thinking particularly of the upcoming Sunday immediately prior to Easter. Since something like the week after the first one happened, the Sunday before Easter has been called Palm Sunday. We sing Hosanna, Loud Hosanna and we wave Palm Branches and we call out, "Blessed is the One who comes in the name of the Lord." We recall the placing of palms and garments on the path before Jesus as he rode into the city. (Some of us can't help singing, Ho- ho-sanna, Hey-sanna, sanna, sanna, Ho as this scene is depicted in Jesus Christ, Superstar.) The day is about the fulfilling of prophesy and celebration and victory -- and misunderstanding, and false hope, and impending crisis. It is a full day.

But, somewhere in the early days of the Liturgical Renewal Movement, the day underwent a change. It became "Palm/Passion Sunday." Now, the Roman Church had historically referred to the last two weeks of Lent as Passiontide, but it abandoned that designation in 1969. Some liturgical traditions observed Passion Sunday as the fifth Sunday in Lent, and then followed that with Palm Sunday the sixth week. But that is really putting the cart before the horse.

The two days -- and observances -- were pressed together in essence to accommodate our sloth. The Book of Worship of The United Methodist Church (Nashville: Abingdon, 1992) says in its rubrics for A Service of Worship for Passion/Palm Sunday, pp. 336-337:

It is important not to let the celebration of Palm Sunday crowd out the observance of Passion Sunday. The passion narratives in Scripture are highly unified and dramatic, and we need to experience the story in its wholeness before we reflect at greater length on its various parts during the following weekdays. We need also to remember that many persons who attend on Passion/Palm Sunday will not be in church again until Easter Day. In going directly from the lesser joy of the entry into Jerusalem to the joy of Easter, without being addressed by the passion and the cross of our Lord misrepresents the gospel. There is not triumph without suffering, no crown without a cross.

I don't know what Hoyt Hickman, Don Saliers, Laurence Stookey and the late Jim White were thinking when they first released this observation back in 1986 (The Handbook of the Christian Year. Nashville: Abingdon, and copied both in The New Handbook of the Christian Year. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996, and in the aforementioned Book of Worship), but they clearly pushed the accommodation button too hard. "They won't be in church, so we better drop the whole load on them now!" The entirety of the liturgical cycle, the Christian Year if you will, is predicated on the principle that "we shall observe no feast before its time." How many decorated veterans of the Worship Wars have received their stripes in debate over singing Christmas Carols in Advent, or having the Easter Cantata at some point in Lent? But, here, we're supposed to wave the palms, visit the Upper Room, Gethsemane, the Judgment Hall of Pilate, the Via Dolorosa, Calvary, and The Tomb eight days before The Feast of The Resurrection?

This Holy Week One-Stop is not only sloppy ecclesiology, but tries too hard to be all things to all people. It succeeds in only be nothing to nobody.

If people want to come to church on Palm Sunday, then skip ahead to Easter, we can't do anything about it. Robbing Palm Sunday of its power is not the answer. Maundy Thursday will come, with or without the crowds. Good Friday will arrive, whether the masses perceive it or not. Holy Saturday will mourn the entombed Christ, whether with a few companions or with a multitude. The Easter Vigil does not depend upon throngs for its power.

There is plenty of time.

Hosanna! Blessed is the One who comes in the name of the Lord! --Matthew 21:9b

Holy Whole

2007-03-21T14:01:00.000-05:00

Our congregation holds a weekly service that we title "Holy Communion and Prayers for Healing." We have a small group of people who are quite loyal to this worship time. Many others, however, look askance at it or tolerate it as a kind of aberration. I suppose that many who misunderstand this time look at it as a pentecostal healing service, sort of like you used to see Oral Roberts do. Others see Healing Services as a sort of voodoo that doesn't really have any root in Christian faith at all.

But, the church has always made a place for healing services. To this day, the Roman tradition includes Anointing of the Sick among the seven sacraments (along with Baptism, Confirmation, Penance/Confession, Holy Communion, Matrimony, & Holy Orders). The ritual for Healing Service I in the current United Methodist Book of Worship (copyright 1992 by The United Methodist Publishing House), begins with words from the Epistle of James:

Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. --James 5:14 16a, NRSV

True, this is an isolated reference, and the only one of its kind in the New Testament. But, it is a scriptural mandate, and the fact that it is not stated repeatedly does not invalidate its authority. I believe that, if the mainline, Protestant church would re-claim its anointing heritage, that it would see immediate and dramatic results. It may not be that every individual who suffers would have their malady removed. But, we would find ourselves much more involved in the lives of our folks. Also, I believe, church people would come to see that church and faith are more intimately connected with day-to-day living than present perception seems to demonstrate. People live such pigeonholed existences right now, wouldn't it be wonderful if they saw Christ's Church as being holistically involved in their living?

In that same service, the blessing over the oil reads thus:

As your holy apostles anointed many who were sick and healed them, so pour out your Holy Spirit on us and on this gift, that those who in faith and repentance receive this anointing may be made whole;through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The prayer is not that ingrown toenails or dandruff be removed. Neither is it that particular catastrophic or chronic ills be taken away. It is that "we be made whole; through Jesus Christ our Lord."

The Word Means "to Ascribe Worth"

2007-03-19T12:24:00.000-05:00

Our church's Bible study was talking Sunday night about worship, and if our worship was transformational. I use that word in the sense of "causing change," especially "desirable change"
(one definition in The American Heritage Dictionary is a marked change, as in appearance or character, usually for the better).

If we desire our worship of God to be transformational for our own lives, we find ourselves on the horns of a dilemma. We assemble to worship God. We offer God our gifts of praise and adoration. We don't "go to church" in order to receive something for ourselves. We gather with other believers so that we might give something to God. Our singing, our praying, our meditating, our devotion to Scripture read and proclaimed, and even our offerings of money are all presentations of the human spirit to God.

So, any attempt to "get something out of worship" is to alter the meaning of why we gather. It changes the rules of what we do. People do all kinds of things in order to achieve a desirable feeling. From sleeping late on a weekend morning to highly-addictive and dangerous behavior, people will go to great lengths to "feel better." But, if we make ourselves the center of activity in a time that is billed as worship, we are no longer involved in the work that we have said we congregate to do.

So, that dilemma, simply stated, is this: is the activity in which the church involves itself has God as its object; yet, we frequently judge its merit on the basis of how the activity makes us feel. Isn't that contradictory?

I believe that worship, well-conceived and executed, brings us closer to God. Having been drawn to the Throne of Grace, we must be changed. If our quest is for God's Spirit, and if we have selflessly presented our best -- best singing, best praying, best thanksgiving -- then communion with God has changed us for the better.

Worship as theater is not worship. Worship that has our emotional response as its center is inauthentic. Worship that reaches out to The Almighty is life-changing.

A Prayer for Lent

2007-03-14T18:05:00.000-05:00

Write your blessed name, 0 Lord, upon my heart, there to remain so indelibly engraved, that no prosperity, no adversity shall ever move me from your love.
Be to me a strong tower of defense,
a comforter in tribulation,
a deliverer in distress,
a very present help in trouble,
and a guide to heaven
through the many temptations and dangers of this life. Amen.

This fifteenth-century prayer, from Thomas A Kempis, moves me deeply as a piece of Lenten devotional material. It is not fluffy. It is not full of "gimme's." It is a solitary spirit calling out to God's Spirit in simple petition. A pilgrim who makes no difference in one's own situation in life -- poverty or plenty, strength or weakness -- knows a Lord who touches all aspects of human existence. In a season that calls us to self-examination, this prayer is both an ideal model and a wonderful offering in its own right. Thanks be to God for the gift of Thomas A Kempis.

The Seven Habits of the Self-Help Rule of Life

2007-03-13T13:49:00.000-05:00

I have been involved in a number of activities lately that, one way or another, all address the manner in which people order their days. Last night, I saw a video presentation by Wayne Cordiero, a pastor of a mega-church in Hawaii (it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it). He sort of took Stephen Covey's Seven Habits of Highly Effective People (which I found to be quite instructive) and talked them from back to front.

Last week, I attended a retreat in which the presenter took some time speaking about the Benedictine Rule and its model for arranging our day, our week, and our year.

All of this has informed my meditations on my understanding that order in our lives is so very important. I don't mean "A place for everything, and everything in its place." Rather, I am speaking of a sense of intentionality in our living. Left to ourselves we foster chaos. We live in the urgency of the moment, or in the sloth of apathy. A Rule of Life -- by whatever name -- provides order. Again, I am not advocating regimentation of our every waking moment. Instead, the Order I for which I am a proponent makes room for -- and gives permission for -- spontaneity.

If I know that I have made room for those things that are important in a day, a week, and a year, then I can freely take advantage of those unexpected opportunities that come my way. On the other hand, if I am plagued with overdue projects and looming deadlines, then I rob myself of much of life's joy.

For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.
--Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
RSV