The Wisdom of Old Men

Posted on by
Reply

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it.  Hebrews 13:2 NRSV

“Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to them, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’  This is the greatest and first commandment.  And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.’” Matthew 22:36-40

I’ve been blessed by wise men this week.  I did not expect to be the recipient of wisdom, but I think that’s how it works.  When we expect someone to be wise – to be the giver of answers – we are too often disappointed.  Wisdom is best received and perceived when it bubbles up from unthinkable places or from unlikely people.

What surprised me the most by my two wise men (sorry there were not three), was their messages had to do with love, tolerance, and acceptance.  We want to categorized “the other” and certainly men in their 80s and 90s don’t seem to fit in the categories of acceptance, tolerance, or diversity.  But these two men were the unexpected carriers of wisdom lessons about embracing the stranger, loving, and being loved.

Oh, and my wise men were “disaffected” from the institutional church.  Go figure.

The younger of the men, in his mid 80s, told me about the initial influx of the current ethic minority in his small town.  He did not deride these “newcomers.”  He did not try to blame them for the cataclysmic changes that his community has undergone in the last few decades.  As we talked, he looked far away, pensive.  He told a story about “the first group” who were brought to the town as agricultural workers.  They were shown their new accommodations, left on their own, and expected to acclimate automatically.  There were missteps and misunderstandings.  While others mocked their “stupidity,” my white-haired guru reflected on how overwhelmed they must have felt.  If someone has never seen a gas stove or an  American grocery store, why would you expect them to immediately master their new environment, he pondered.  “I’ve thought what would any of us do if we were plopped in their country, without the language, without knowing the culture.  How would that feel?  How would we cope?  We would struggle just as much and people would mock us. They’re tough.”

With these few sentences, he dispelled my biases about people “of an age” and how they feel about brown-skinned immigrants.  He showed compassion and empathy.  For that conversation, he served as the voice of Christ to me, reminding me to show extravagant love toward the hungry, the thirsty, the sick, the imprisoned, and the stranger.  Such a wise man.

Later, when his wife joined us, he identified himself as a non-Christian.  For him that meant someone who was not brought up in “the church” and who never embraced “the church.”  He believed in a Higher Power and said that occasionally he went to church with his wife.  “But I feel like this every time,” pulling is arms to his sides and making himself as small as possible.  “I’m so afraid that I will do something ‘wrong.’”  How sad.  How sad that the wise man who has a Divine understanding of welcoming the outsider does feel welcome in the house of God.

My other wise man was the elder of the two.  As he reviewed some of the events in his long life, he interpreted their meaning from an intellectual perspective.  He was articulate, educated, reflective.  He divided his life into the “romantic” and the “practical.”  The romantic was when he allowed himself to embrace his creative, artistic tendencies.  The practical was when he accepted the responsibility of running his father-in-law’s business when his father-in-law died.  He had initiative and sought out education and training to achieve his highest potential.  He provided for his family and hoped that he was fair to his employees.  When he sold the business, I assume making enough of a profit to provide for his needs, he returned to “romantic” pursuits of creating and craft.

Part of this “romantic” period occurred after his wife was placed in care for her Alzheimer’s.  “They had a group, you know, and I participated.”  From his description the group was not for other caregivers but was composed of male residents.  Men who still had stories buried within.  His tired voice grew excited as he talked with wonder at discovering the changes that came over this group of men by his consistent presence.  At times my wise man groped for words, finally settling on the term “paying attention” and how “paying attention” to the other could change their lives, even improve their cognition.  “That’s what they needed, and I could do that,” he said with satisfaction  He brought up a shaking hand to his chest, “and I could not believe how it strengthened me to pay them attention.”  Tears welled in his red-rimmed, astonished eyes.  Acknowledging the other’s humanity, even through the fog of dementia, changed the men in this group and obviously had a profound effect my elder wise man.  “What would it be like if we paid more attention to each other?” he asked. What would it be like indeed.

Early in our conversation he wanted to clarify for me, the chaplain, that while he greatly admired his female pastor’s sermons and “ideas,” the liturgy of the church no longer held meaning for him.  His health prevented his attendance for the most part, but in truth, he confessed, the “stuff” of church was no longer relevant .  Because of this admission, he assumed that he “wasn’t much of a Christian.”  As he told his stories, of which the above was just one, I tried to tie them to the stories of our faith.  His paying attention was Imago Dei  I told him – seeing the image of God in the other.  This seemed to comfort him and from the little I gathered in our brief relationship, would cause him to ruminate on this suggestion for a while.  Even a wise man can appreciate a positive lesson now and then.

My life has been blessed by the wisdom of old men this week.  Old men who others might marginalize because of their age, their health, or their occasional loss for the “right” word.  These men, however, know what it means to embrace the other as Christ’s love embraces us.  They are not “church” men, but I believe the church can learn from them.  My prayer is that I reflected Christ’s loving embrace back to them this week.  My prayer is that the sometimes awkward, frumpy chaplain helped them to feel as  unconditionally accepted as they made me feel.

Knowing Better than God: No Pink Bowling Balls for Boys!

Posted on by
2

“You’re not gonna use the pink ball. We’re not gonna let you do that. Not on camera.” –Rick Santorum to a boy reaching for a bowling ball

I was never a particularly macho kid. Yeah, my brother and I played with cars and trucks. We even played the occasional vacant lot baseball game. Despite that, I never played organized sports. I was the last picked for teams in gym class. I chose the Drama electives instead of more manly subjects. Crying was not outside of my repertoire. Coming of age when I did, it was not easy to be the sensitive boy.  

“When are you going to get a real job?” –Cindy, about my work educaring infants and toddlers 


Spending my days nurturing and caring for infants and toddlers was not the traditional path for a man in the early 1980s. I knew it might be a lonely path when I became the first man to graduate from the early childhood degree program at Illinois State University. While blessed by a fully supportive fiance and now wife, I had also hoped—perhaps in vain—that my friends would understand. Some did. Cindy did not.

There were jobs I did not receive because of a cultural bias that any man who wanted to work with babies must be a molester. It was not easy blazing a trail. The joys and contentment I have always felt with humanity’s youngest is a clear sign that this was the Divinely-led path for me. 

As a bi-vocational minister, I still spend time working with babies and young children part-time. Things have gotten better or, perhaps, I’ve just gotten better at finding people who see my gifts. Nonetheless there are far too few men who work with young children. Our culture still has stratified roles for women and men. 

I felt anger rise within me. My eyes watered as I read of a presidential candidate discouraging a boy from using a pink bowling ball. I know how it feels to have who you are created to be dismissed by others. I am not alone in these feelings. Certainly women in traditionally men’s professions have a more difficult journey than I’ve had as a white man.

When we force boys or girls into rigid, culturally-constructed roles based upon their sexual organs, we deny their humanity. We deny their Divinely created gifts. In effect, we idolize – treat as a god – our own socially-constructed gender roles.

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the discernment of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses. 1 Corinthians 12: 4-11 NRSV (View this passage in context.)

When we discourage girls from studying the sciences or boys from nurturing babies, we teach our children to ignore the Spirit. We tell our children to pretend to be someone they are not. We tell God that we know better. 

Reframing “Choice”

Posted on by
3

Hilary Rosen’s comments last week about Ann Romney never having “worked a day in her life” may have created controversy but there has been a larger debate going on in the public political sphere for the past year, namely the “War on Women.”  From Maryland, where a few lawmakers wanted to cut Head Start funding because “women should be married, at home with the kids”  to Wisconsin where equal pay legislation was recently repealed and where one legislator wants to make it illegal to be a single parent and blames single mothers because it is the “choice of the women” and it is a “mistake” to the recent debates about birth control with Sandra Fluke and Rush Limbaugh’s comments in the media, to the number of anti-abortion and restrictive legislation that has been proposed across the country, from transvaginal ultrasound bills in Virginia and Texas to personhood law proposals in Mississippi and my current state of Oklahoma, including this legislation that was first attempted in 2010 and is currently under debate –originally designed to protect doctors from being sued for failing to disclose abnormalities found in prenatal screenings, the later version was part of the recent personhood bill as well.

One of the key words in this debate/war/attack/whateverthehellitis is choice.  Framed by the Right, choice is negative if it comes to anything having to do with a woman’s body, privacy, or reproduction.  Choice is only positive when it comes to choosing something over the woman’s personal life: choosing family over career, choosing to stay at home rather than work, choosing to care for an elderly parent or sick child over other activities.  Choice is only positive when the woman is in the caregiving role and gives up of herself from that framework.

The truth is that for many women and many families this concept of choice as framed by the Right does not exist.  Many families need two incomes simply to make ends meet, to pay a mortgage or rent, to pay student loans or medical bills—these are necessary expenses, not bills like cable or gym memberships.  For most families this is not a choice, but a necessity, to have both parents working.

Some of the “choices” are framed by our society still running on outdated conservative views: it is still more difficult for a father to stay home and raise children than a mother.  In the first year and a half of our son’s life, my husband was in part-time ministry and I was full-time, so he was home more than I was.  We shared in child-raising and housekeeping duties.  However, if one needed to go out and run errands, it is much easier to find a changing table in a women’s restroom than it is in a men’s.  Play and social groups are often mothers with children; I know from the experience of my husband and of other male friends that even today that men who take part in these activities with their children are often either eyed suspiciously or viewed disapprovingly.  For my male same-sex friends with children, they are often hit with the double-standard of being both male and gay when trying to interact with traditional mom’s groups on the playground.

From my own personal experience, I am outraged over the proposal in Maryland to cut Head Start funding.  My family moved to a very rural location where we had to make ends meet on one full-time income (my husband’s) and I work part-time.  I work part-time because in this economy I have found it difficult to find a full-time job, especially as a female minister in a predominantly male-led social location (that is another article for another time).  As we recognized that our son had unique needs and was later diagnosed with Autism, we found that the best program for him was our local native Head Start program.  They provided the structure and resources necessary for his development, something I could not provide at home.  Many of the children in Head Start programs across the country are not there because their parents dropped them off so they could work and have more things; they are there because they have special developmental needs that cannot be met by a parent staying at home, nor can a parent afford a full-time daycare for their child’s social needs.  Head Start provides valuable resources for children with developmental delays such as my own.

Very few of the women I know ever chose to become a single mom.  Most had marriages or relationships that fell apart.  Some are widows.  This is not their choice.  The idea of enacting legislation to punish single parents who have already been punished by society is sickening.

Women don’t choose to be raped.  They do not choose to be abused by uncles and fathers.  They do not choose to become pregnant and have their own health or life threatened.  They do not choose to become pregnant and have their health insurance or job stripped from them.  They do not choose many of the circumstances that lead to a woman having to make a difficult decision to end a pregnancy.  And in all my years working with pregnant women in crisis, none of them have ever used abortion as a form of birth control.  It has always been a heart-wrenching painful decision.  I would not call it a choice because if there was a better alternative for their health and life—medically, psychologically, and otherwise—they would take it.

For many women, birth control is a choice for the betterment of their own health, and often it is a choice made with their partner/spouse.  It is a choice made for the family, a decision about whether or when to have children.

None of these are “choices” to be made by lawmakers, let alone self-proclaimed moral leaders.  It is sickening to think that a woman chooses to take birth control just so she can be promiscuous (what Rush Limbaugh accused Sandra Fluke, a respected law student, of doing).  It is disgusting to think that a woman should choose to make less because “men enjoy making money more” (one of the arguments used to repeal the Equal Pay legislation in Wisconsin).  It is horrifying to think that a woman would have a choice in becoming pregnant by rape or incest and then be forced to have no choice in remaining pregnant.

We need to be aware of the way the word choice has been used in the public discourse, but especially the way the Right has framed the definition of choice, used positively only in supporting a woman’s decision to remain home (which very few women actually have the choice to do) and negatively in any other scenario in which she might actually have a choice.  Of course there is no need to portray staying at home in a negative light—if one parent could stay at home with children, regardless of whether it is a mom or a dad, single or coupled—it would be wonderful for most.  It is one of the most important jobs in the world, to parent a child—but one can be a great parent at work or at home.  I know for my son, having Autism, staying at home all the time is not what he needs developmentally.  He needs to learn from social groups and have other adults interacting with him, speech pathologists and therapists and special aides to help him learn and grow so he can participate in society.  Thank God for programs like Head Start.  Thank God that I do have choices, though not framed in the way the Right would frame them.

We need to call out the framing of the word choice, the way it is used and defined by society and by the Right, and remember that the best way to have true choice is to strip away society’s old barriers (start by installing more changing tables in men’s bathrooms and/or having more “family” public restrooms—you can do this in your church!) and call out the way the Right uses the word choice.  Let us give the power of choice back into the hands of women, so that they can make the best choice for them and their families.

Ministerial Myth: The Great, Young, White, Affluent, Single, Heterosexual Male

Posted on by
Reply

Our society is bloated with unrealistic, unattainable images and standards—whether it’s the voluptuous swimsuit model, the ripped, athletic male, or the ever-stylish and trendy young adult (preferably a male 18-29).  Despite the fact that these people don’t really exist (the swimsuit babe is an airbrushed digital creation and the buff guy spends hours upon hours in the gym working out, taking endless supplements, and not eating for days before modeling) our culture still believes these people actually do exist—and further—are the standard we should shape our society around.   Movies, TV, style magazines and even clothing all revolve around these ideal people, these mythical human beings that only exist on the digital screens of a computer.

There are yet more mythical standards—even within the Christian community, consider for example the white, affluent, young, heterosexual, male, ministerial student. Ah, let us examine the ways…

Young: Being that the most sought after demographic in churches today are young adults.  Every church dreams of landing a fresh, energetic, young minister—youth is an ideal character trait.  Twenty-somethings don’t have all the entanglements such as family or houses or debt that can weigh down someone twice their age. And when one considers the marathon-like effort one must put out to complete seminary, only the younger generation seem to posses the stamina it requires.

White:  I don’t exactly have to worry about overzealous neighborhood watchmen chasing me down, thinking I’m up to  no good.  Nor am I looked at with suspicion (like one from a middle eastern descent), or with condescension (like one from south of the border)—the opposite is true. My skin color is the majority and the norm—especially in mainline religious bodies! Mainline Christianity is predominantly a white middle-class religion.  Those of other ethnicities often have their work cut out for them.

Affluent: Education is crazy, ridiculously expensive to begin with.  Then if we factor in that trying to go to school full-time is nearly impossible while maintaining a job, the task is even more arduous.  Yet, if that weren’t enough, Divinity schools aren’t exactly popping up in everyone’s back yards.   Nope, the opposite is true; seminaries are long and far apart.  So attending one requires a significant financial commitment—moving cross country isn’t cheap.  Basically, if you want to get a degree, you better have a truck-load of cash or be willing to go deeply into debt for the rest of your life.

Single: Partners/Spouses and families are great—unless one is training for ministry.  Moving across country doesn’t work is well when you have kids.  Studying all night doesn’t lend itself to maintaining  a good relationships with a loved one.  And it’s really hard these days to sustain a family on only one income.  Single is the ideal.

Heterosexual:  Do I really even explain this? Somehow it should seem obvious that since a huge portion of America believes homosexuality is immoral and that many Christian denominations refuse to even ordain gays, those with a sexual orientation differing from the “ideal” have quite an uphill slog.

Male: Yes, good ole’ patriarchalism, ministry is a man’s job—always has been and always will be.  A man is independent, less vulnerable, more likely to be gain respect.  Society is still incredibly structured to favor men, especially when leading our institutions—a woman just won’t do.

If you think these are completely ridiculous standards for ministry, then you’re getting my drift.  But the educational system for ministry is set up exactly for this ideal candidate—the candidate that doesn’t exist, the candidate that is only a myth.  There was a time when this was the standard for divinity students, but that was 50 years ago! Now in divinity school women outnumber men, and the young adults are a minority in comparison to the second career folks.

I’m actually doing pretty well myself.  I’m still fairly young.  I’m white.  I’m heterosexual.  And I’m a male.  But on the other hand, I also have a family and I’m not exactly rolling in cash—far from it actually.  I think this whole process is challenging.  Yet I can’t imagine the struggle it is for someone who has 3,4,5, or even 6 of these “ideal” traits working against them!

This is real life.  This is the way it is—the Young, White, Single, Heterosexual, Male ministerial candidate no longer exists, and probably never will again.  Yet our religious seminaries and institutions continue to operate on this old, outdated, dying (dead?) model.  It’s the 21st century! Get with it, seriously. Our churches are closing up shop. Our congregations are drying up.  And our pulpits are sitting empty.  Yet despite all these problems our institutions continue to make ministerial education seemingly impossible for the non-young, white, affluent, single, heterosexual males.

And we wonder why our religious institutions are dying off…

Being the Last “Buggy Whip Salesman of the Month”

Posted on by
4

This past week Merlin Mann said “Being the last ‘buggy whip salesman of the month’ is great in the short run, but then what?” The point, of course, is that if you haven’t been paying attention all along to the changes taking place in the world and making adjustments, what looks stable and safe today will eventually be only a historical footnote.

I get the impression that many congregations are heavily invested in selling buggy whips. At this point I could give the obvious screed against “traditional churches” that haven’t given up hymnals for more “modern” music delivery systems, or who’ve failed to give in and hire a tattooed minister who drinks only micro-brewed beers and shade grown coffee.

I could do that, but as I’ve said before, I think that misses the point in so many ways .

Instead, I prefer to focus on the issue philosophically.

“Oh great. Here comes another completely unreadable bit of ‘musing.’ Why don’t you say something useful?”

Ok. I hear that, but I think this is useful—perhaps not in the sense of telling you whether to sell your church building and rent space at the local Cinemark, but in the sense of telling you why you should constantly revisit the question of why you should or shouldn’t.

“Clarity, sir.”

Let me try this: I’m speaking on a strategic, rather than a tactical level—meaning, I’m talking not about the decisions a congregation makes, which will vary according to context, but about the way a congregation makes those decisions. To put a finer point on it, I’m not even speaking about the process for making decisions. Instead, I’m speaking about the philosophy congregations use when making decisions, the context in which decisions get made.

Now, you may say that most congregations don’t have “a philosophy” about decision making. I would argue that they do, but that it’s rarely explicit, and therefore rarely subject to interrogation and revision. That is to say, most congregations don’t take time to think on a meta-level about decision making.

What do I mean?

Most young people—that elusive demographic that churches constantly seem to be seeking, consisting of Gen-Xers (1965–1980) and Millennials (1980–1999), who appear to have taken a pass on the church—think about decision making in a completely different way from their elders.[1]

“Hmmm …”

People from the Silent Generation (people born 1925–1945) and the Baby Boomer Generation (people born 1946–1964) grew up in a changing world. But much of that change came on a macro level over a sufficiently extended period of time. Technology changed. The work performed by the labor market changed. Political ideologies changed. However, those things all changed at a rate slow and steady enough for people to adjust.

The watchword for these generations (especially as it relates to vocation) is stability.

Though the world was beginning to change more rapidly by the time Baby Boomers showed up, they had a close enough relationship to stability through the world their parents had built, that they had a view of the world that assumed stability as a backdrop.

For the most part, Baby Boomers were free to leave a nest that was culturally and economically anchored. Low divorce and unemployment rates made for a world in which it was safe to explore.

“Yeah, but what about the 1960s? Wasn’t that all about change?”

Of course. But the 1960s were the apotheosis of cultural adolescence. Experiment. Drop out. Fight the system. Question authority.

But what is characteristic of adolescence? Adolescence is a developmental stage in which boundaries are challenged—sometimes fiercely—so that identity can be established. In commenting on the cultural shift underway in the 1960s, we often focus all of our attention on the “challenging” done by Baby Boomers, without devoting sufficient attention to the “boundaries” that made those challenges intelligible qua “challenge.”

Stability is the ether in which challenge and exploration can take place.

I can drop out and backpack across Europe or take a year off to pursue my muse as a sitar player while working in an Alaskan fish cannery, because I know that if it all falls apart, I can go home and get a job in the family business. Or if my family doesn’t have a business, then at just about any of the other tedious endeavors I’ve tried so ceaselessly to escape. Even if I’m just a factotum or a ridiculously over-qualified vacuum cleaner salesperson, I know I have somewhere to land, because the world I’ve inherited is predictable, firm, safe.

The generations that follow behind the Baby Boomers, (Gen-X and the Millennials) don’t have that same luxury. Generationally, they don’t have the same expectations of a stable world. Two indicators that kept the world safe for their parents have shifted dramatically for young people—divorce rates and unemployment rates (especially among minorities) have risen dramatically.

The world, to Gen-Xers and Millennials, doesn’t represent stability. It’s much more uncertain.

Think about technology.

Try this one on for size.

Time elapsed to 1,000,000 users:

AOL—9 years

Facebook—9 months

Draw Something—9 days

When you add into the equation the exponential speed with which technology is reshaping the world, you get generations of younger people who have no other expectation than that what is now, most likely will not be tomorrow—whether that’s socio-religio-political institutions or iPods.

What Does This Have to Do with Congregations?

The difference in generational understanding about something as simple as what kind of world we live in means that appreciating the way people come to decision-making in congregations is crucial. That is to say, dear reader, understanding decision-making philosophy, the meta-level questions around the way decisions get made, can prove remarkably useful.

If you find that young people in your congregation are frustrated when you try to bring them into leadership positions because of what they perceive to be institutional timidity or stodginess, this may be why.

If you find that older people in your congregation are frustrated when you try to bring young people into leadership positions because of what they perceive to be casualness toward the institution or brashness, this may be why.

If you are conditioned to believe that the world is largely a stable place, any change is a potential threat to that stability.

If you are conditioned to believe that the world is constantly changing, then change isn’t threatening; it’s an inevitability.

So, if you want young people to begin to come behind and take up leadership roles in your congregation, you’re going to have to make peace with fact that they care much less (shockingly, scandalously less) than you do about saving the institution. They don’t have any real expectations that the institution (at least as it’s presently constituted) will be around anyway.

All of which is to say, congregations (and denominations) need to quit worrying about saving the buggy whip industry, and start thinking about the need buggy whips satisfy, and how that need can be met in an increasingly fluid world where change isn’t the enemy; it’s the air we breathe. Being the last “buggy whip salesperson of the month” is great in the short run, but that bronze plaque is going to become an anchor much sooner than you realize.

Part two next week: Never let the guy with the broom decide how many elephants should be in the parade.

  1. I realize that speaking in general ways about something as large as generational differences is fraught with peril. I think as a heuristic, however, it can prove enormously helpful.  ↩

The Church and the Gender Gap

Posted on by
1

RECLAIMING EASTER

Posted on by
4

Easter is about resurrection and transformation – today.

Easter is not about the torture and execution and resurrection of Jesus.
Easter is not about an event that happened one time to one person a long time ago.
Easter is not about an 11th-century feudal theology
…..of “penal substitution” or “substitutionary sacrifice.”
Easter is not about a 4th-century theology of “original sin.”
Easter is not about a sadistic abusive murderous blood-thirsty God.
Easter is not about a narcissistic mercenary God
…..whose love and grace are so shallow and tenuous and inadequate
…..that the favor or forgiveness of God can only be earned or purchased.
Easter is not about useless promises of an eternal post-mortal utopian etherial existence.
Easter is not about using the sharing the Good News as a form of conquest.
Easter is not about hate.

Easter is about the life and message and path of Jesus.
Easter is about us living the life and message and path of Jesus.
Easter is about the resurrection of the disciples – all of us who follow Jesus.
Easter is about disciples living and being – here and now – the Kingdom of God.
Easter is about disciples working together as the living body of Christ.
Easter is about the Good News.

What difference would it make if an ossuary was found
that undeniably contained the bones of Jesus?

To the message of Jesus – that God is personal and present and immediate and available and is characterized by love and grace, whose passion for us is to provide justice and compassion and generosity and hospitality and service, and who invites us and welcomes us and includes us and embraces us without exception or conditions – that message would not in any way be changed or diminished.

Something happened on Easter morning. Until that morning, the disciples still saw the message of Jesus as an unassembled upside-down puzzle with no idea as to what image would be revealed by the completed puzzle.

What happened on Easter was a transformative epiphany.
The women had it first – a profound comprehensive epiphany.
It was the best of epiphanies.
When the women shared their insight with the others,
the others had the same epiphany, the same transformation.

It was as if every piece of the puzzle had been turned upside-right and sufficiently assembled that the picture could be easily discerned. After all the questions that had only received Jesus’ annoying and unsatisfying answers and after repeatedly hearing the puzzling parables and confounding aphorisms of Jesus, compounded by the grief and depression and repressive fear of the preceding weekend, the impact of this epiphany had to have been earth shaking. It was such a powerful experience that it felt like an earthquake strong enough to roll away massive tombstones. It was so revealing, it was as if the curtain covering the Holy of Holies had been ripped asunder and the presence of God could be plainly seen by anyone who had the courage to look. It was so personal that it was as if Jesus was alive – speaking to them and sharing meals with them – a tangible presence. The life and message and path of Jesus did not die on the cross. The life and message and path of Jesus lives like a fire that hovers over us and smolders within us and breathes as powerfully and disturbingly as a noisy rampaging wind storm. The life and message and path of Jesus can be heard by anyone at any time and regardless of where they were born or what language they speak.

In those first few years, this same epiphany happened to Paul and hundreds of others. Repeatedly, it was such a powerful experience that people were transformed. The isolation and desperation and fatalism of day-to-day living in an oppressive empire supported and legitimized by imperial dominionist theology was replaced by the dual realization that the character of the one true God is:
…..* unrestrained love and unconditional grace -
…..* always present and immediately available to anyone anywhere anytime, and
…..* that life does not require participation in the empire -
…..* not its political activities, not its cultural domination practices,
…..* not its imperial civic theology, not its military conquests, and
…..* not its greedy and isolating economics.

This same profound epiphany, this same earth-shaking resurrection,
this same life-as-if-from-death transformation
is still happening today.

The Good News has 3 inseparable messages:
1) The universal accessibility of the personal and persistent
1) unrestrained love and unconditional grace of God; and
2) The feeding quenching clothing healing visiting welcoming compassion and
2) the reparative rehabilitating restorative justice of the Community; and
3) The inclusive hospitality and joyous generosity and healthy service of the Individual
……………………………………………………RECLAIMING CHURCH – REDUX

This is resurrection and transformation!
This is the Good News!
This is Easter!
Alleluia!

The Evil Within Us

Posted on by
1

I detest McDonald’s food. I suppose you’d expect that of a vegetarian. I do, however, stop to use the fast food restaurant’s public restroom while traveling. I’ve noticed that the McDonald’s breakfast hour tends to attract older men, presumably retired, clustered over coffee. 

Recently at a McDonald’s in Portland, I overheard a comment about the Trayvon Martin killing. Following a long, somewhat winding description of the most recent news, an older white man concluded, “So we’ve got one man’s opinion.” He referred to the recent analysis by two voice experts of the 911 call which includes someone screaming.

During the earliest days of Internet research, helping my education students distinguish between information from a reputable source and information from someone with an opinion was challenging. We live in an era when everyone has the potential to air their opinion. 

Not every opinion or conclusion is equally valid. For example, because of my training and experience in child development and early childhood education, I have some authority when talking about children and human behavior. Likewise, my education and ordination into Christian ministry gives me some authority and knowledge about pastoral care of others, spirituality, and theology. My preference for an Apple computer over a Windows computer, however, is just “one man’s opinion”.


None of us know the full details of what led to the shooting and killing of teenager Trayvon Martin. I don’t know the heart of George Zimmerman nor Trayvon Martin. I do know about human behavior and relationships. While I am not a racism-expert, my web of unique experiences as well as my education convinces me that we cannot view the shooting and killing of Trayvon Martin without an awareness of race.

Racism is insidious. It is systemic in our nation. As a white man I am privy to privileges that I often don’t even notice. I am not intentionally racist but I do benefit from racism. I also have unconscious racist attitudes simply because of the culture in which we live. To pretend otherwise is to increase the likelihood that I will take overtly racist actions. (I wrote about a recent encounter with my own subtle racism here.)

The overarching storyline of the Bible bends toward love. God adapts to our free choices, encouraging us to become more loving. The importance of radical hospitality to the stranger, flows through both Christian testaments. Always God desires us to become the loving human beings we were created to be. We show that love by reaching out to others. When we love, we reflect the Imago Dei (the image of God). 

Racism buried within us, closes us off from the Imago Dei. Racism is the buried hatchet with the handle sticking out in America. It is real. It is here. It is hatred and it is evil. To say so is not to dismiss the progress made, but to pretend that we are post-racial is to risk losing that progress. 

It is likely that the man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin was frightened. It is possible that his unrecognized, racist attitudes and feelings propelled him to kill a boy walking to his father’s house with a bag of Skittles. This – THIS – is why it is critical that we’re aware of our own subconscious racism. Until we are, we have no hope of overcoming this evil. Until we are, Trayvon Martin will not be the last victim. 

Easter Sunday to Doubting Sunday

Posted on by
Reply

Easter Sunday has passed.  Doubting Sunday is around the corner.

I love how the Revised Common Lectionary places the second half of John 20 the Sunday after Easter.  It’s unfortunate for those regulated to always preaching the Sunday after Easter, when many senior pastors take the day off, and as one who has preached many times on that Sunday, it can get tiresome.  Thankfully, it’s a day when even in some of the more formal Protestant traditions won’t bat an eye if you go off-lectionary.

But I love this day because I need it after Easter.  Easter is often a time when long-held understandings (or misunderstandings) of the Christian story are upheld formally, even if every other Sunday strict blood-atonement theologies are challenged.  It’s the Sunday when everyone’s family is in town and the C & E people come and so the same message is often shared.  The tomb is found empty.  Christ is Risen!

It’s not a bad message by any means.  But where is the room to ask the questions?  Where is the space to say, “Could that have really happened?”  Where is the challenge to the old formulaic answer that because Adam sinned, we are born into sin and need Christ to save us, so Christ had to die as a sacrifice?  Is it safe to question on Easter Sunday, either in the pew or in the pulpit?

Thankfully, we have Thomas, who was no different than Peter who denied Jesus or any of the others who fled.  And we have this Sunday, when the C & E people have gone back home, when others are out of town and it’s typically a low attendance day, perhaps there is more space in the pew and pulpit to speak those challenges, those questions and doubts.

In my Christian Faith journey, the questions and doubts have flowed and ebbed over the years, going from the extreme of coming forward to accept/rededicate my life to Jesus about four times in my teen years, to considering forgoing Christ and exploring Unitarian Universalism and Judaism in my first year of seminary.

But Christ always calls me back.  Despite my rejection of theologies presented to me in my youth and at times doubts of the resurrection stories in the Gospels, I have never been able to leave Jesus behind.  Like Thomas, at times I want proof, I want answers, but it is through encountering Christ I am compelled to stay within the Christian tradition, and through relationship with the Body of Christ, I am compelled to stay within the church—even if that means at times facing traditional simplistic explanations and theories.

Christ is Risen!  And praise God for the space and room to doubt, question, and challenge.  And thanks to Thomas, who paves the way for questioning believers, who keep coming back even when the doubts and challenges pester our hearts.

Why I Love the Third Space

Posted on by
12

A post by Nathan Hill.

In ministry, sometimes the best things are those you stumble upon by accident.

My story has been about “third spaces,” places that are not church and not home. They are neutral territories, out in the community, where intersections between strangers and guests happen a little freer than the guarded walls of our sacred gardens. “Third spaces” offer safety for everyone in shared conversation. Since no one is in their home or sanctuary, power is a little more balanced. The only person one can remove from the conversation is themselves.

I can point to many “third spaces” that have shaped my faith – bars, restaurants, coffee shops, parks, and museums. These backdrops have served up conversations, lectures, questions, and experiences that have shifted my perspectives and probed my faith. I’ve made friends who might have otherwise been enemies. I’ve been the cool kid among the outcasts and the outcast among the cool kids.

I didn’t discover “third spaces” by reading books or understanding theory. Instead, I sort of fell into it with some roomies who were interested in getting out and making connections in an unfamiliar city. Our effort grew bit by bit, as our little organic web stretched itself with each new person attracted or caught by the pull for community. Some people came once and left. Others were regulars. And none of that mattered, because we didn’t own anything. The space sort of belonged to everyone.

Jesus used “third spaces” all the time. Whether it was the town’s literal watering hole, distant mountainside, industrious beach, dusty roads, or city gates, he met people where they were. Like the woman at the well, he struck up conversations that intrigued, shocked, and delighted. There seemed to be something about Jesus that let others know it was okay to ask questions. He seemed to like having to stop and say, “Who touched me?” Jesus spent more time out and about his countryside, ranging far and wide, than within the walls of the temple.

If churches are serious about engaging their neighborhood in conversation, Jesus and the “third space” seems to point one way forward. Church buildings offer a lot of positives as far as a secure, comfortable space for conversation and privacy, but neighbors don’t have x-ray vision. Our community around us cannot see what we are up to. Third spaces open up windows not just for others to see the church but for the church to see others.

At East Dallas Christian Church, I continue to be blessed to do ministry in third spaces. Our regular Tuesday evening pub ministry provides that kind of neutral space for regular churchgoers and non-churchgoers  to intersect and talk about big and little questions. It’s surprisingly simple and effective ministry. It’s easy to invite people, because it’s at a pub with great pizza and cold drinks. If the conversation isn’t your cup of tea, the delicious pizza and local beer mean you’re still going to have a decent evening.

On the other hand, inviting people to worship can be like inviting someone to take a stroll through a minefield – no matter how hospitable you are, watch where you step!

Why not meet folks who are new to your church and your faith halfway? Why not see what your neighbors are talking about? Why not celebrate new restaurants and gathering places in your city?

You may just stumble on Jesus while you’re out.