disability – Salvaged Faith

UMC 101: An Inclusive Church

Posted on February 20, 2022Leave a comment

Text: Luke 5:17-26, Book of Discipline – Constitution Preamble and ¶1-5, ¶140, and the new 6

Over this last month as we have worshipped with one another, there has been a recurring theme at the core of our tradition: God’s grace and love is for all.

The prevenient grace of God stretches out to all people, inviting them in.

When we become disciples, we are called to reach out in love to do no harm and do good to all we meet.

Grounded in the core of our faith, we create space for difference and open our arms to encounter people with varying languages and cultures and traditions.

We believe that God reigns over all of human existence, and we trust in the Holy Spirit to guide us as we seek responses that share the healing and redeeming love of God with all people.

And we go out, each uniquely gifted and equipped, to make disciples of all peoples and transform the world.

In our statement on inclusiveness in our Book of Discipline (¶140) we say:

“We recognize that God made all creation and saw that it was good. As a diverse people of God who bring special gifts and evidences of God’s grace to the unity of the Church and to society, we are called to be faithful to the example of Jesus’ ministry to all persons.
Inclusiveness means openness, acceptance, and support that enables all persons to participate in the life of the Church, the community and the world.”

In our Constitution, we proclaim that “all persons are of sacred worth” and “all persons without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition, shall be eligible“ to worship, participate, receive the sacraments, and become members of the church. (¶4)

The church… the Body of Christ… is for all… and needs all.

But the truth is we need these kinds of statements, because we have not always lived out this truth.

As we talked about last week, sometimes we have been more of a fortress protecting those inside, rather than a force out in the world seeking all people.

We have placed barriers on who was welcome and how they could participate.

We have created separations between races, genders, and classes.

Over the last few weeks in our Confirmation class, we have been exploring our United Methodist history. Each student presented on a different topic or person from our past and together we learned about people who did not experience the church as inclusive and open to all.

We learned about Richard Allen, a freed black man and ordained pastor who was sidelined in the Methodist Episcopal Church. He left our denomination due to the discrimination and formed the African Methodist Episcopal – or AME Church.

We learned about Anna Howard Shaw, who felt a call to ministry but was denied ordination in the MEC. In her journal she wrote, “I am no better and no stronger than a man, and it is all a man can do to fight the world, the flesh, and the devil, without fighting his Church as well.” (Story of a Pioneer, p. 123-124). She left the denomination and was ordained by the Methodist Protestant Church in 1880.

The Methodist Protestants themselves had left the denomination after growing concerns about the power of clergy and the exclusion of lay people from decisions.

The Free Methodists broke away from the denomination over their concerns for the poor after New England churches began the practice of charging for your spot in the pew!

Or what about the story of Bishop Andrews who gained slaves through each of his marriages and refused to set them free… his story became part of the rationale for why the Methodist Episcopal Church, South broke away from the rest of the denomination.

When the MEC, MEC South, and Methodist Protestants eventually merged back together in 1939, we learned about the segregation of the African American clergy and churches in the Central Jurisdiction.

We can find throughout our history these stories of exclusion.

But along the way, there were also folks who exemplified the spirit of our scripture reading for today… friends and colleagues who have torn down walls, built new structures, shattered glass ceilings, and burst through roofs in order to bring people to Christ.

Mark and Luke tell us the story of the crowds who gathered to hear Jesus preach in Capernaum. Five friends came together, four of them carrying their friend who was paralyzed.

But as anyone who might be vertically challenged like myself can attest, it is difficult to see over a crowd.

And it must have been even more so for this man on his mat.

The group tried to shoulder their way in closer, but to no avail.

And then they got creative.

They climbed to the top of the roof and began taking a part the tiles to make an opening above Jesus so they could lower him down.

They refused to let their friend sit out on the curb.

He, as much as any other, was a child of God who belonged at the feet of Jesus.

Do you know what I noticed in this pericope reading it this week…

It doesn’t say that they brought their friend in order to be healed.

There are many stories where people specifically brought people to Jesus to be healed, but that phrase is not used here.

The crowds gathered wanted to hear Jesus preach and to hear the good news.

Why would we assume anything different about this paralytic man?

In fact, Mark Arnold reminded me this week of how Jesus responds to this act of home vandalism. “Jesus sees the faith of the man and his friends first and includes him in his ministry of grace and forgiveness… only referring to the man’s disability when challenged about his authority.” (https://theadditionalneedsblogfather.com/2019/09/11/disability-sin-god-heaven/)

He goes on to write, “everyone, including disabled people, are made in God’s image.”

When we talk about inclusiveness in the church, we speak of our call to share the ministry of Jesus with all people and make sure that every person is able to participate fully in the life of not just the church, but the community, and the world. (¶140, p. 101)

It means “the freedom for the total involvement of all persons who meet the requirements… in the membership and leadership of the Church at any level and in every place.”

Our call to inclusiveness does not ask someone to adapt or change who they are in order to have a place at the table. It is a recognition of their faith and gifts and belovedness in God’s eyes… just as they are.

And it entails our commitment to “work towards societies in which each person’s value is recognized, maintained, and strengthened” through basic human rights and “equal access to housing, education, communication, employment, medical care, legal redress of grievances, and physical protection.”

It means speaking out against acts of hate or violence against people based on who they are.

And within the church, the call to inclusiveness means that sometimes we have to tear the roof off the house to make sure that everyone has access… or add a ramp or an elevator to the church.

It means utilizing assistive hearing devices and closed captioning on our facebook live stream.

One of the things that I think we have gained during Covid-tide is broadening how we make our worship accessible for our members who were homebound and we continue to mail the entire worship service to more than fifty homes every week. Where we can’t bring folks to church, we bring the church to them.

It means including youth and young people on our leadership teams and making commitments to protect children through our Safe Sanctuaries policies.

Here at Immanuel, it meant changing our maternity leave policy to a parental leave policy.

And it also means, as we say in our Constitution, that the church “shall confront and seek to eliminate racism, whether in organizations or in individuals, in every facet of its life and in society at large.”

I mentioned before the how we institutionalized racism through the Central Jurisdiction here in the United States. Just as those four friends literally changed the structure of that home, Confronting racism sometimes means changing our denominational structures and I give thanks that the Methodist Church eliminated the Central Jurisdiction with the insistence of the EUB church as part of the merger that formed the United Methodist Church in 1968.

But this also includes learning about and repenting of our history, as well as actively seeking to not just make room at our table for neighbors who are black, indigenous, or people of color… but building new tables – together.

As a predominately white congregation, this might entail intentionally building relationships with people and church neighbors that look differently than us.

And, it means that we bust open the glass ceiling and do the same for women and girls who have faced discrimination in the church. In fact… this new paragraph on gender equality was only added through a constitutional amendment approved in 2016 and then ratified by annual conferences in 2019.

Still, there are more walls to tear down.

Another constitutional amendment failed by just 5% to meet the 2/3 threshold for implementation by annual conference votes.

Currently, our constitution proclaims that “no conference or other organizational unity of the Church shall be structured so as to exclude any member… because of race, color, national origin, status or economic condition.”

That amendment would have expanded our protected classes in the constitution to add gender, ability, age, and marital status.

We continue to go on to perfection.

As I think about what it means to be United Methodist today, I think about those five friends from our scripture.

I think about how each one of them was beloved by God and a person of sacred worth… just as they were.

And I think about how they worked together to make sure that all were able to be in the presence of Jesus.

Our call to inclusiveness in the church is a call to relationship and faithfulness.

It is about invitation and welcome.

It is about breaking down walls and tearing apart ceilings and fighting so that our friends and neighbors can all gather at the feet of Christ.

But it is also about owning up to the reality that along the way we have not always lived into this ideal and acknowledging the people who either chose to leave or were forced out of the church simply because of who they were.

I am reminded that my access and privilege to even stand here in this pulpit is not something to be taken for granted.

I remember the people who fought to make this a reality and look for ways to use my voice to speak up on behalf of others who are excluded.

May we, as United Methodists, continue to work to ensure that the doors of the church are open to all people, may we embrace one another with love and acceptance, and may we provide the kind of support that is needed so that all of our siblings can fully participate in the life of this church.

Outside – In

Posted on March 22, 2015Leave a comment

Over the past eight months, I have learned a lot about the people of Immanuel UMC. I had heard you were friendly and welcoming, hospitable and that this was a caring church, but those are really just words until you see them lived out in people’s lives. And having a fresh set of eyes – an outsiders eyes – I want to share just a few things I’ve learned. I’ve learned that you are quick to show up at the bedside of a friend and have often have visited before either of us pastors hear someone is in the hospital or is sick. I’ve discovered the joy filled welcome that so many greeters offer to those who walk in the doors on Sunday mornings. I see the care that is taken to make this a hospitable and welcoming place – from the pots of coffee that are prepared to the flexibility to adapt and use this space differently, like you did with the nursery and library moves. On the sign outside our building, it says “All Welcome!” and you really want everyone to feel welcome here. But I must share that I also come as an outsider that looks and talks a whole lot like many of you do here in the church…. And on the surface, whether we intend for it to or not, that is itself a barrier for people who may not look or speak like the majority of those in this room. Being a part of this church, I can now see and name the multitude of ways we are diverse. We have a wide range of ages – from four week old babies to 104 year olds! We are people who are wealthy and who are struggling financially. We are healthy and we are in need of healing. Some of us have been educated by the streets and some of us have taught in universities. We vote republican and we vote democrat. And perhaps the most striking dichotomy of all: Some of us are Hawkeyes and some of us are Cyclones and some of us are Panthers and some of us don’t fit into any of those categories, but we still somehow are able to worship together 😉 We have made room in this place for all of this difference. God is good! Yet, there are still people missing from our midst. There are still people in this neighborhood and in this larger community who do not know that they would be welcome here. Even inside this caring, loving community, there are still people who feel like they simply don’t quite belong. Our sign outside might say, “All Welcome…” but do we truly live that out with every fiber of our being? In our gospel reading for this morning, the question of who belongs is lifted up. One afternoon, Jesus is hanging out with some of his disciples… who were all Jewish, both ethnically and religiously. In other words, they would have looked and talked the same. Philip and Andrew were out and about in the community when they encountered some Greeks who were in town for the festival. And these Greeks approached the pair and asked if they might see Jesus. What is interesting is that these are the same words that were used when Philip and Andrew first met Jesus… He asked them to “come and see.” So, these Greeks want to do more than just meet Jesus – they want to become followers OF Jesus. I can imagine Philip and Andrew turned to each other and started whispering. “They want to see Jesus?” “But they are Greek!” “Um…. Let’s go ask first…” What was the big deal? First of all, in the gospel of John, the disciples understood themselves to be part of a Jewish movement. They were traveling the countryside, preaching good news to the poor, but most of those people looked remarkably like them. Yes, there had been that one encounter with a Samaritan woman, but for the most part, this was a Jewish movement for Jewish people. This is only the second time in John’s gospel that Jesus encounters gentiles, people outside the Jewish community. Second, I have always found the disciples to be a bit thick. It takes them a little longer to catch on than we would like. They tried to keep the children from Jesus, but he welcomed them. They watched as he embraced sinners and prostitutes and outcasts. Yes, the ethnicity of these Greeks set them apart from Jesus’ disciples. At a minimum, their accents would have distinguished them. But maybe they dressed different and had a lighter hair and fairer skin. But Jesus had shown again and again that all sorts of people were welcome. Can you picture it? They walk up to Jesus, with the Greeks standing not too far behind them and they ask: “Hey Jesus, do you want to see those people, or should we send them away?” We want Jesus to answer with something like –“ Sure! Have them come over!” or “You guys just don’t get it… of COURSE I want to see them.” But he doesn’t. Jesus instead, for all to hear, starts talking about how you have to die to bear fruit. That he is going to give up his life and anyone who wants to follow him must give up theirs as well. When we think of it in the context of this diversity, Jesus’ words make a bit more sense. Standing before him are Andrew and Philip, the first Jewish disciples… and behind them are those who might become the first Greek disciples. Will they be able to get along? Will they be able to set aside their differences to follow him? Or will their pasts get in the way of the future God has planned for our salvation? This parable of sorts that Jesus offers is all about their identity. They can cling to their heritage and their labels, but if they do so they will always remain strangers. They will remain in their differences and never be lifted up with Christ. But if they let go of their worldly identity… their distinctions as Jews and Greeks… then they will come to know true life in the community of Jesus Christ. Jesus is asking them, and us, to declare our allegiance. Jesus invites us to let go of our labels – Jew or Greek, male or female, young or old and to take on a new identity as the servant of Christ… to identify ourselves not by any characteristic of this world, but to claim our identity in Jesus’ death and resurrection. I am white. I am a female. I am American. I am United Methodist. But first and foremost and more important than any of those other labels, I am a disciple of Jesus Christ. And the question raised by this parable is what kind of sacrifices do we need to make… what do we need to risk… in order for the world to know that is the core of our identity? Whether we want it to or not, all of those other identifying characteristics can get in the way of the world knowing the love of God in Jesus Christ. The color of our skin can be a barrier. The way we talk can be a barrier. Our nationality can be a barrier. And if we want others to see Jesus in us… If we want others to know and follow him who died to save us all… then it is up to us to cross whatever barriers might exist and be present with people where they are. Recently, Samsung put together an ad that describes the kind of hospitality and love that helps someone who feels like they are on the outside experience what it might like to be in. Muhareem is deaf and his primary language is sign language. Yet as he encounters neighbors and strangers in the world, they don’t speak his language. But what if they did? What if a whole neighborhood decided to cross a barrier and meet Muhareem where he is? What sacrifices can we make? What risks can we take? What barriers can we cross to help others see Jesus? God loves all sorts of people who live outside of these four walls. Single dads. Drug addicts. The homebound elderly. Children who are competing for first place in a contest. Folks who partied too much last night. So the question I leave us with today is what might Jesus be asking us to do to cross a barrier and share the love of Christ with them today? What might we, as a church, let go of, so that the world might know Jesus?

Moltmann Conversation – Last Session Ecclesiology

Posted on September 11, 20091 Comment

• You gave me language to describe myself in Crucified God, as a person born with disability – how to people who have gifts and burdens have access to the full expression of the church In the power of the holy spirit: a disability concerned me my life long, because my older brother was a severly disabled person and he died when euthanasia began in germany. I think the church must be consist of disabled and not disabled persons – a congregation without disabled persons accepted is a disabled church. Let our families bring them into the congregation and as a part of the community – because they all are images of Jesus Christ.

• When we talk about the imago dei, we talk about our ability to reason – yet there are human beings who have not this same ability to reason from abnormality or accident, but you wouldn’t dare say that person wasn’t created in image of God – how does persons with mental disabilities affect our doctrine of imago dei: I think that imago dei concept speaks of a relationship not of a qualification of a human being – but a relationship of God to the human being by which the human being is an image, a resonance of God.l This is the first relationship – the relationship of God to every human being and this cannot be destroyed, not by disability or sin. The other is the relationship of the human to God and this is the similarity – our response to God. This is a life of faith and responsibility and a conformity of our life to the will of God. The first relationship of God to humans is in every human being, be it a Xian or Muslim or atheist – in every person or disabled person or child or older person, this relationship of God is in everyone. So we must respect God in every person we meet. The second is the similitude of our relationship to God – God created all men equal, free & equal, so we must respect the image of God in every person, even in a murderous person or a terrorist! It is difficult, I know, but it’s not a question of our judgment, it’s a question of respecting God’s presence.

• Inalienable human rights… Macintyre = these are unicorns, we made them up, the Aristotelian language determines them and as Xians we use the bible to live by them – theologically, what do you think of this concept on which America was founded? I praise your document of independence for saying this. In 1978 I wrote in a document God’s rights and Human Rights, adopted by World Alliance of Reformed Churches. The only question was then, afterwards in 1990, in Seoul, how to relate these on human rights to the world of nature. Unfortunately dictatorial governments deny their citizens the human rights with the arguments of the persons you just quoted. But every Chinese person, every African person has inalienable human rights and those who commit crimes against humanity will be brought to court in Denmark – we have this in the UN already. War crimes in Balkans, etc… unfortunately the US did not sign the establishment of international courts to persecute crimes against humanity and human rights. You have a court from the crimes in Rwanda and Brundi and Tanzania and other places and this is really good development, because the growing world community will be based on human rights or there will be no world community at all…. come to the insight that it would be better to join this cause in the world. Every government will respect the human rights of their citizen, b/c human rights are deeper and more serious than citizen rights in a given society. Every person in China or Africa says, “Am I not a human being?”

• Rowan Williams proposed that because of the growing propotion of Muslims in Great Britian, that british law should make room for Shariah law – and there was a lot of discrepancy about that: Yes, especially from women, who say are we not human beings too? This is the cry from Muslim women in Germnay. I do not understand Williams at this point, perhaps I don’t understand the british legal system. You can’t let everyone have their own rights, than no one can be brought to court. This is an impossible idea.

• You refer to God as a he and HS as a she in this conversation – it’s coming up with pronouns that are appropriately intimate and personal for God and yet don’t anthropomorphize God with a gender is difficult: yes of course, God is neither he/she/it – God is God. And we should not use God’s divinity to justify the domination of men, of women, and therefore, the image one can be described of the trinity is neither the F/S/HS, but they have unity – this can be reflected in a human community – the church is by the unity of the Trinity the united community. If you look carefully in the gospel of John you can find clearly – let them all be one, like you father in me and I in you… no human being is the image of the father, and no human being is the image of the son – they are in community the image of the communal identity of love.

• The filioque clause which was part of the great schism – you have written it has led to a monarchial monotheism, or hierarchical trinity, you align yourself with Eastern Christians on that cause and there is an Australian theologian who wrote that this has written to the subjugation of women… What led to your rejection of that and what is the politics around that among Western theologians (esp Catholics?): Well, let me begin wit hthe practical side. In 1984-5 we had a big congress in Rome on the HS. And then the good John Pope II when he came to the Nicene creed, he read it in Greek and in Greek it has no filioque. In the book of Concord – the Lutheran tradition, you have it in Latin with it, in Greek without it side by side. There are traditions which do not follow the schism.

• So we should probably describe what that is – that the HS goes forth from the father and the son, or the HS goes out from the father alone. If the HS goes out from the father alone, the HS goes out from the father of the son, JC is already present in the going out, therefore the filioque is not necessary to be added. If we start with not a filioque, we can say the F/S/HS – this is important to understand the relationship of the Trinity in the life of Jesus, in the synoptic gospels: baptism, in the desert, working through Jesus healing and accepting, in the life of Jesus, the real subject of action and passion is the HS, so we have the order F-HS-S, b/c the HS came upon the Son… only after the resurrection this is turned around. HS comes from F on behalf of S – Jesus asks God to send the paraclete… you have a much richer understanding of the tradition in the scriptures…. In filioque, HS is always 3 – but you can’t number them anymore in perichoresis, they are all equal. The congregation has the spirit not only from the pastoral and the word of God, but also directly from God. This is certainly a reason for Pentecostalism. On the other hand, trad. Protestant churches, the HS only comes through the pastor, he is a spiritual man and through the Word. There was a time in Sweden, in the Lutheran world, where pastors were not allowed to pray freely – they must read the prayer. One must say to Pentecostals “lets all be in the community with Jesus from which the Spirit is a part” you can feel the baptism of the HS in the community with Jesus, but not so to speak directly from heaven (like shamanistic tradition) the filioque might be good for Pentecostals, but not trad. Churches.

• This has a huge impact on our action world! Filioque has a bearing on our structues of power. Maybe this is held onto so tightly because it supports their own version of human community and sovereignty/authority – a lot of us in the us emergent community says that the authority lies with the church – the body – and the pastors role is an organizing role. If the spirit comes from the Son, then the pastor as the bearer of the word…: this was my criticism over Barth in his volumes on creation. In the trinity there is a commanding father and an obedient son, therefore in creation, heaven is above and earth is below. Soul is above, body is below, man above, women below – this was against everything he knew about the relationship btwn soul and body from psychology and other things and also from the relationship of man and woman – which he had a lively exchange of letters from a woman who said she does not like the idea of a beheaded woman and a bodyless man.

• Paul seemed to think a lot about sex, Augustine certainly, in the American church – sexuality is a schismatic topic currently and the reason why others of us have withdrawn from those denominational fights: let me first say, this is no problem in Germany. We never have a struggle about this in the churches and in between the churches, because the church is about the gospel and not about sex. ….. Homosexual or heterosexual who believes by faith alone is saved! And is certainly able to be ordained in a Christian community. I would not say that a lesbian or homosexual partnership is equal to a marriage, because a marriage is intended to father children, I’m not intentionally objected to adoptive children, but I’m in no terms objected to blessing such a partnership. It is neither a sin, nor a crime – I don’t see the schism or the heat of the debate on it. But I know how much this is destroying children in this countries. Why is this more important than questions of war and peace.”

• Death in a person’s life – am I not right in trusting in a future of togetherness in which we might all together live/learn/love/grow: I’m not one to get into a dispute with Jesus. But I trust that those who died are not dead, they are with us, they are watching over us and we live in their presence. They also, according to the understanding of … are growing until they reach the destiny for which they were created. So if a life was cut short, God will bring what he had begun for the human being to its intended end and death cannot hinder God to do this, because God is God, and cannot be overcome by death. Love is an expression for an intimate relationship… Barth was asked, do you think we shall see our beloved ones again? Yes, but the others too.

• You said the church is the agent of God’s mission in the world… in that you talked about what is the church, how do you do church in America – so what is the church? there are many perspectives on it. For a long time: Body of Christ, body of risen Christ, after Vatican II, even Catholics talk about the people of God. If we say this, we must also say that God has two parts of the people – Israel and the Church. And the mission is not only through the church of the peoples, but also through Israel and we must take care of both sides, not only looking to the people of the world/poor but also to the Jews who also are the elected people of God. New church order saying that the church is in dialogue w/ Israel b/c we have a book in common and a hope in common. The church has a task of Christianizing society in which the church is – but restricted. Now we have dialogue everywhere, but this is not good, because a dialogue as such has no goal if the dialogue is the goal we want to convert the other partner, the dialogue will end. The way is the goal to dialogue. It is good to know the other religious communities, but a dialogue needs a common ground and this is with Israel the OT and this is the special relationship of the church.

• You say it’s not so much what is the church, but where is the church. Can you expand upon where the church is now that we have not seen in the orthodoxy of the church in the past: on the one hand we have the mission of the risen Christ,whoever visits you is me… on the other hand we have the inviting Christ – whoever visits you visits me (Mt 25) we must not only hear the commandment of Christ, but listen to the invitation of Christ coming from the outside.

• With changing forms of “inside” and “outside” and with new communications/communities/forms of communities that are no longer geographically but relationally based – where parish has changed. What is the future of the congregation? I believe strongly in face-to-face community. Cyber-space may be nice to communicate with everyone in the world, but a cyber space without be without the human. In the new media, you can see and listen, but you cannot feel, taste, smell. So only two of our senses are engaged and the other senses diminish and are no longer developed. You can make the test in school where the children already have their iphones – let them close their eyes and feel – they can no longer differentiate between wood and plastic, because there is no education of their feelings. Taste – doing work on the computers they eat pizza and junk food – this tastese like nothing, not to speak of smelling or anything. The near senses which babies develop first by putting everything into the mouth are underveloped while our far reaching senses are over developed (seeing and hearing). This has effects on our communities and therefore I still believe strongly in local face-to-face communites where we can talk, see, eat and drink together and be a community of full senses.

• You mention the eucharist – it seems that we can’t agree on what to call it b/c of different theological perspectives. Radical orthodoxy suggests Eucharistic rationality – with table as center of identity. Zwinglian experience = communion which is more agape meal, less sacramental, gathering and foretaste of great banquet. What is the role of communion/eucharist in the church? this is the most difficult point of the ecumenical gathering of denominations. I believe strongly that we do not celebrate on the Lord’s table our theories about his presence but his presence! We may have different thoeories about how and the way he is present, but lets celebrate his presence first! And then after the eating and drinking around the table, lets sit together and talk about our different theories. If we start with the different theories, we will never come to the table! After eating and drinking, every dialogue is better than dry throats and an empty stomach. I go to every invitation if I hear the inviting words of Christ. I don’t care. And so far no priest has said you are not invited, only those who belong. Jesus invited all those who are weary and burdened to come to him. He is not inviting Catholics only or Methodists only … this would be not the Jesus I know.

• I often think if we are going to spend eternity together, its good practice to get to know one another now! My catholic friends and I get to a place where we are both happy: transubstantian is a ____ theory. We have a union between Lutheran and Reformed churches and we believe in full presence of Christ in bread and wine – whether this is transformed this is nonsense, but what is important is that we believe in the presence of Christ in both forms and we rject RC of wine for preist and bread for community. In Vatican II they came close to this form for both for all, now with brother Benedict we have some reactionary forms of eucharist in the tradition, which is unfortunate since he was my brother at Tubingen.

• The cyber reality is one form of community/communication, but more and more as we are missional and our focus is in the community – church attendance is less and less because their lives are so busy and the stress of time is almost a commodity so spending time with neighbor is taking neighbor in some of the expressions of church rather than gathering for worship. Some worship is also in connection/serving people who are in their communities around them: this may be true for those who have a job, but not for unemployed people. For those who have a job it is a question of priority – whether they must go to the cabin/seaside or whether they be in the congregation. Its not that they have no time, it’s a question of priorities you set in your life.

• Is it the church when it gatheres? Or when it scatters too? Both kinds – we gather people together and we send them into the world, like inhaling and exhaling. – weekly breathing? The summers rest is more heresy than the OT/NT tradition of work days and rest day.

• Writing an ethics! Love of life and political side of new concept of justice/righeousness according to biblical traditions.

• Who should we be reading? What are you reading? All of course, the bible. It depends on your eyes. If you have curiosity to find new things in this old book, you will find it! If you have a traditional understanding it will be boring to read the whole text, but it is a revolutionary text and sometimes full of dangerous memories. Read: Miroslav Volf, Philip Clayton, Tony Jones, John Cobb, Nancy Bedford, many young people are coming up with new theological ideas. There are many good people coming up so we can step down and have rest.