Archive for the ‘Christianity’ Category

Take the LENT CHALLENGE!

Posted: 2017/02/27 in Christianity

Lent is a season of preparation for Easter, the most important moment of the Christian year.  It provides space to grow one’s faith and deepen their relationship with God through Jesus Christ.  It has been the tradition of many Christians over the centuries to take up spiritual practices that help such faith and relationship building.  Today, we tend to reduce these to giving up something we probably will not miss anyway and eating fish on Fridays (if there is a good fish fry in the area).

To better use this Lent season, I offer the following 3-part challenge that will make Lent a much more meaningful season.  It’s a tough challenge and moments of failure will occur along the way.  That’s okay—ours is a gracious and forgiving God.  Don’t give up!

Here’s the challenge:

(1)  Give up/abstain/fast from something that you know down deep is harmful, be it alcohol, overeating, smoking, cynicism, internet trolling, messing with your cell phone while driving, or whatever (you know best your own harmful habits and hang-ups).

(2)  Take up a spiritual practice (or two) that grows your faith and relationship with God—
– schedule/set-aside time for prayer each day,
– read your Bible each day,
– attend worship at church every Sunday, and/or
join a Bible study.

(3)  Establish accountability for your choices made in (1) and (2)—
– Write down what you plan to give up and the spiritual practice(s) you want to do.
– Tell someone you trust about what you are doing and ask them to check in with you regularly.
(This last part of the challenge is the most difficult, but it’s the most powerful way to support your efforts with (1) and (2).)

Remember, you are not alone in this—let God help by inspiring and strengthening you along the way.

Making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.  (mission statement of The United Methodist Church)

It’s that last bit—“for the transformation of the world”—that has driven my ministry since I retired from software engineering a baker’s-dozen years ago to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.  And it’s that last bit that obliges United Methodist preachers to bring the affairs of the outside world into the church, a place where a good many would prefer to be a sanctuary away from the conflicts and anxieties of the world.  If we are to be a Christ-following people of world transformation, we must engage the world and do so within the context of Christian community (i.e. the church).  Bit, never have I known this imperative to be so difficult as it is today.

In this winter of our divisive discontent, having just elected a president unlike any other, and whose leadership is decisive, unconventional, and results-oriented (bypassing the red-tape to fulfill campaign promises), yet sometimes dysfunctional and too-often immoral (lying and promulgation of prejudice against Mexicans and Muslims), a Christ-centered perspective on current events is necessary.  We need to sort out and clarify who we are and what we believe as Christians (individually and as a church), and then interact with our world from that identity.

My first impulse, not unlike that of the bazillions of commentators and trolls on social media, is to speak and preach directly to our current situation.  But to do so would allow me to drift too far into preaching political and social opinion rather than interpretation of the Bible.

My solution to this problem, and I hope it works, will be to focus first on the Bible and its theology.  Our turbulent world will always be in the background, but with the Bible and Jesus Christ in the foreground, those to whom I preach and teach will receive from me tools for making their own decisions about the world around us.  In other words, I want to “Make disciples of Jesus Christ.”  They will, in turn, go forth and impact the world around them in their own unique ways.

Part of me feels like this is a bit of a cop-out that allows me to avoid conflict, and it may be, but I do not see how we get to “the transformation of the world” without first “making disciples of Jesus Christ.”  And it will be those disciples who, out of their own deep faith and Spirit-stoked inspiration, will do whatever they do best to make a difference in the world.  I intend not to get in the way of that by alienating the very people whom I am trying to help become more devoted disciples of Christ.

I AM A HUGE POPE FRANCIS FAN!  BUT!!!!! -WE’RE NOW AT ODDS . . . AND IT’S OVER WOMEN!  (I’m sure we’ll get through this disagreement and, one day, the Pope will invite me to dinner, but for now. . .)

In an article reported in The Guardian, a Swiss journalist asked the pontiff if the ban on women becoming priests would ever be lifted.  His response: “Saint Pope John Paul II had the last clear word on this and it stands, this stands,” referring to a 1994 document forever prohibiting women from the priesthood.  I’m not surprised, but I am disappointed.  I was hoping for ecclesial disruption of the Holy See’s status quo from this pope. I guess even the most radical pope in generations (centuries?) has his limits.

To be clear, although I am an ordained elder in The United Methodist Church, I owe much of my vocation, and maybe my health and wholeness, to the Catholic Church, who, during my undergrad, had an on-campus ministry that reached out to me and helped me through a very difficult transition from Atheist to Christian. They helped me when I was in spiritual, emotional, and physical danger, and for that I will be forever grateful.

However, my ancestry, genetics, and my spirituality are, at their roots, Celtic, and the Celtic Church has always been more … well … practical than the Holy See.  We’ve never accepted the prohibition of women in the priesthood.  Women have always been as revered, venerated, and respected as men . . . especially spiritually.  (For that matter, we’ve never warmed up to the celibacy of the priesthood.)

The foundational argument for keeping women out of the priesthood is that Jesus’ disciples—in particular his inner circle of those who would become his apostles—were all men. No women.  Thus, there is no precedent to ordain women as priests (they forget that we had Celtic women priests once).

I’d like to point out that none of Jesus’ inner circle of disciples were from South America (as Pope Francis is), or Poland (where John Paul II came from), or Italy (where a lot of popes were from).  So . . . why can a pope be a non-biblical Polish, Italian, or (name-the-nationality) man but not a non-biblical any-nationality woman?!?

It’s medieval, patriarchal, and a bit silly. . . and the Roman Catholic Church should obsolete the prohibition against female priests. It makes no sense, is not biblical, and berefts the church of a great deal of wisdom.

Pope Francis — if you do invite me to dinner, I’ll not only bring my wife but ask for a more cogent theological rationale for a male-only priesthood.

As voices within The United Methodist Church (UMC) continue to argue human sexuality, vis-a-vis, homosexuality, they continue to do so while ignoring the proverbial 800 pound gorilla sitting in the middle of the room.  A good example of how some of our more thoughtful UMs miss the most crucial point is exposed a quote from Rev. Jeff Greenway, who led Asbury Theological Seminary while I was matriculating there.  In a piece he wrote explaining  the purpose of the newly formed Wesleyan Covenant Association, a conservative forum for UMs, and offering thoughts on the Council of Bishops’ Commission on a Way Forward, which will try to sort out our issues of human sexuality, Rev. Greenway said (emphasis mine),

“Let me be clear—human sexuality is not the cause of our differences—it is the presenting symptom. The real causes of our division are related to the nature, role and authority of Scripture—the nature of salvation—and the work of sanctification in the life and conduct of a follower of Jesus. We are miles apart in these basic beliefs and it makes our covenantal relationship untenable. We use the same language, sometimes quote the same scriptures or Wesley sermons, but we are speaking about entirely different expressions of faith”

Rev. Greenway almost sees the 800 lb. gorilla. He is spot on that the arguments we have over homosexuality are proxies, carrying the water for deeper issues that a few, like Greenway, are either insightful or bold enough to raise to the surface. As Greenway, and a good many others who claim the “conservative” label see it, the real issue is a difference of opinion about the authority of the Bible. Alas, this is where we get stuck again because we haven’t yet dug deep enough to unearth the core issue.  Moreover, when conservatives claim that they support the authority of Scripture, then they are also claiming that the same authority is being ignored by progressives (those who support the full inclusion of homosexuals into membership and ordained ministry, and who advocate defying The Disciple in those places where it lists proscriptions against homosexuality).  This is not a debate but an indictment that gives progressives no way to respond.

The very debate that we are neglecting–the 800 pound gorilla–is not human sexuality, or even the authority of Scripture (which faithful people on both sides will say is all important and inviolable), but how we interpret the Bible.

Competent, critical interpretation of the Bible is a basic required skill of all UM clergy.  The preaching, teaching, and spiritual guidance that is our business are dependent on our ability to do more than skim a page of the Bible and then simply parrot back what it says (although some scripture allows for this, e.g. “Jesus wept”). However , we can interpret the Bible using various rubrics. One common rubric is a literalist rubric that assumes what was written a long time ago in a land far away is absolutely universal in meaning. This contrasts with the kind of interpretation many of us are trained to do by using the tools of literary criticism, historical criticism, social/psychological criticism, coupled with the commentaries of the church throughout its history. Nor surprisingly, these varying interpretive rubrics can render differing interpretations of a text.

Until we begin sideline accusations about who does and does not recognize the true meaning and authority of Scripture so we can discus how we interpret Scripture, we will progress no further, and, worse, our differing positions will entrench.

Let’s stop ignoring the 800 lb gorilla—It’s not invisible.

To all nervy white folk who are anxious (or just plain panicked) about increasing ethnic and cultural diversity in America:

Become a well-rounded musician or music-listener and you might lose your fear of diversity.

As I bounce back and forth between sermon preparation and rehearsal for a piece of music I’m presenting in church tomorrow, it occurs to me that I am playing a flute traditionally used by Native Americans of the Great Plains, a guitar built by a Canadian company, all played over electronic music with roots in Europe with improvisation based on jazz, an African-American invention.

Oh . . . and the sermon is based on a piece of scripture from a writing originating in the Middle-East around 3,000 years ago (a Psalm from the Hebrew Bible, a.k.a. Old Testament). And to my knowledge, the Bible which we Christians, including White Christian Evangelicals (the religious group most disturbed by cultural diversity) claim to be the cornerstone of our religion, spirituality, and ethics was written by a bunch of Semitic Middle-Easterners and Greek-speakers from what is today’s Palestine, Syria, and Turkey. No American white guys involved.

Maybe I’m due to give an apology to my ethnicity, so here it goes:

To all white Americans—my apologies but, I just don’t get the fear of diversity that’s created the Alt Right, nurtured racial division and inequality, and somehow makes the angry rhetoric of American isolationism and wall building seem reasonable to far too many. Sorry, but I just don’t understand what the problem is and why I should be anxious, suspicious, and hateful of non-whites either in America or outside of it. Indeed, I feel enriched by exposure to cultures other than my own.

Okay . . . so that wasn’t really an apology. I guess I have no apology I feel I need to make for my embrace of the world’s cultural and ethnic diversity. Why should I? As God says in Genesis 1:26, “Let us make humanity in our image,” and that means all of us (I just can’t get that to read “Let us make white Americans in our image.”).

Oh, by the way, . . . about that wall one of our presidential candidates wants to build to wall off Mexico— The French tried that tactic already. It was called the Maginot Line and after great expense and effort to wall off France from Germany, the Germans simply went around it.

While accompanying the seminary choir on bass (guitar) during worship one Wednesday, things were going well for the first two and a half measures.  The choir sounded musical, passionate without melodrama, and articulate, and I was playing with smoothness and subtlety so that the bass became another voice in the choir.  And then I hit a B. The Asbury Seminary chapel range like a large bell. It sounded like I had replaced my modest combo bass amp with a big Ampeg stack and turned it up to 11.  It was ridiculously loud . . . but only when I played B.  I made it through the choir anthem by consciously playing that note very lightly.  As I explained to the choir director (who already knew what the problem was), the brash and bold B was at the resonant frequency of the chapel’s interior, its only architectural design flaw. My bass guitar’s B was at just the right wavelength to bounce around the room in a way that made it sound a lot louder than any other note.

I had a psychological experience of such resonance while at the School for Pastoral Ministry this over the last few days.  Listening to one of the two excellent keynote speakers, Nadia Bolz-Weber, talk about her calling in ministry, something she said—probably several things—rang like that bass B through the cognitive and emotional mess that is my consciousness. The resonance was with my own calling into ministry—my religious raison d’etre, the “why I got into this ministry mess in the first place”.

I have been struggling for a while with a sense of direction in my ministry, which has led to a bit of paralysis and a lot of frustration as I feel pushed to get the church I serve to grow in numbers and figure out something a somewhat elderly church can do to fulfill the United Methodist Church’s slogan (part 2): “transformation of the world.”  I’ve tried blending contemporary music into worship and preaching about social justice and changing the world. The problem is that I am just not called to, or capable enough at, either engineering church growth or prophetic preaching.  Some pastors, such as Adam Hamilton, are greatly adept at providing a worship and discipleship environment that attracts a lot of people of all ages.  Others do a lot of social justice work, preaching about the issues of society and leading mission work. These are all great things and important, but they are not why I entered ministry.

My calling to preach the Gospel (Good News of Jesus Christ), offer the sacraments, and help sinners realize God’s gifts of grace and forgiveness. It’s these things that I am here to do and mean to return to doing with focused intent.  I don’t need to engineer church growth or figure out how to transform the world.  If I help people deepen find their home in the house of God’s grace, embrace God’s forgiveness, and discover for themselves what Christ crucified means for them, then the other stuff will just happen.  Forgiven and grace-filled people who “get it” about what God was doing suffering on the cross and dying for us will go out and transform their world as well as bring others in to experience that God can do for them as well. I need to simply do what matters most and get out of God’s way.

What will this mean for my work as a pastor?  Past changing the direction of my preaching and how I approach the sacraments, I haven’t a clue. But I’m sure God knows. . .

The ones I am speaking of are those enshrined by our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. These are the same that are apparently fungible for presidential candidate Donald Trump.

As CNN reported today about an incident at a Trump campaign rally in Rock Hill, SC —

“Rose Hamid [a Muslim wearing a hijab], a 56-year-old flight attendant sitting in the stands directly behind Trump, stood up Friday during Trump’s speech when the Republican front-runner suggested that Syrian refugees fleeing war in Syria were affiliated with ISIS.”

Her protest was silent. No yelling. No insults. Just silence.

She was then escorted out of the building; forced to leave by local law enforcement.

“Major Steven Thompson of the Rock Hill Police Department told CNN Hamid was kicked out of the event because the campaign told him beforehand that “anybody who made any kind of disturbance” should be escorted out.”

Really?!? Standing silently was a disturbance?!? According to the report, the ruckus that arose after Hamid took to her feet were Trump supporters behaving badly. In contrast to the silent Hamid, they remained welcome.

While I understand that a candidate’s campaign rally is not a place a candidate and his/her supporters want to face opposition or protest, but this incident makes we wonder how Trump would deal with dissent if elected president. Would he contrive some executive action silencing such dissent in direct violation of the 1st Amendment? Would the most strident critics find themselves accused of sedition or treason?

Just as concerning, because I believe character matters in leadership, is the implication that Trump has no tolerance for dissenting opinion. Instead of engaging with the politely protesting Hamid, he had her removed, in effect saying, “I will not listen to you; I cannot be your president!”

I suspect that five minutes into a discussion about the ethics and social conscience of Jesus Christ, he would have me thrown out too.

By the way, why were local police complicit in abetting his 1st Amendment violation? . . . hmm . . . (another rabbit hole to explore another time)