United Methodist Church – Page 4

No More Denial

Posted on May 13, 2012Leave a comment

Seventy five years ago, I probably would not have been welcomed in this pulpit. As a woman, ordination was out of the question. A combination of tradition and a patriarchal society and a way of reading the scriptures precluded the church from welcoming women as preachers and pastors.

But here I stand… robed, ordained, my calling from the Holy Spirit confirmed by the church.

As a young woman, I have always lived in a church that ordained women. I have always been a part of a church that valued the contributions women made in ministry, in leadership, and in the world. It has been a given.

And so it was a wake-up call to remember at General Conference this year that this church has not always welcomed everyone.

Of the many things we celebrated – one was the fortieth anniversary of Cosrow – the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women. CSRW has worked tirelessly these past forty years to make sure women have had a place in the church… and continue to work hard in places like Nigeria, Tanzania and the Congo to help the United Methodist Church there continue to affirm the calling of women in a culture that has traditionally been led by men.

We also had a time of celebration of full-communion with our African Methodist brothers and sisters. For students of history, the historically black Methodist denominations in our nation were formed out of discrimination and exclusion… beginning with the African Methodist Episcopal Church. The AME Church was founded in 1816 by Richard Allen who left the Methodist Episcopal Church. At the time, black congregants were segregated to the second floor gallery and although the church affirmed his calling to be a pastor… Allen was only allowed to preach to and minister to other black Methodists.

After the AME Church came other Pan-Methodist denominations like the AME Zion church, the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, the African Union Methodist Protestant Church and the Union American Methodist Episcopal Church.

Twelve years ago, the United Methodist Church repented of our acts of discrimination and exclusion towards our brothers and sisters and this year, we celebrated full-communion together. We now recognize one another’s churches, share sacraments, and affim the clergy and ministries of one another’s denominations.

I think that it is important to have this backdrop of our own exclusion, presumptions, and history of discrimination as we read our text from Acts for this morning.

You see, Peter has been sent on a missionary journey to the home of Cornelius… a gentile. A Gentile is a non-jew, someone who was not a part of the family of Israel, someone who was an outsider as far as the faith was concerned. Gentiles would not have been allowed into holy places of the Jewish temple. They were excluded because they were unclean. They were different. They were not welcome.

But while Peter is in this community, he has a vision of the clean and unclean joining together. He has a vision of a new sort of body of Christ. And when he goes to preach to Cornelius and his family, the Holy Spirit descends upon them and they recieve the gift of faith.

Peter’s world has just been turned upside down. Those he thought were outside of God’s love and power have just had it poured upon them. And exclaims: “These people have received the Holy Spirit just as we have. Surely no one can stop them from being baptized with water, can they?”

No one could deny their gifts. Water was brought and Cornelius and his whole family were baptized on the spot… they were part of the family of God.

I wonder if at various points throughout our history faithful folk stood up and exclaimed about women or people of color: These people have received the Holy Spirit… just like we did – How can we stop them from being baptized? How can we deny them a place at the table? How can we stop them from being ordained when God has so clearly spoken in their lives?

I wonder what kinds of upside down realizations helped people to reverse traditionally held views about who was outside of the call and power of God? John Wesley, the founder of Methodism was against women preaching in principle… until he witnessed the Holy Spirit working through the lives of women like Sarah Crosby, Grace Murry, and Hannah Ball. He relented and licensed them for preaching in the circuits across England.

And I wonder where we need to have our worlds turned upside down once again?

In a small community like Marengo, we are not exceptionally diverse. And so when we come to church we find a lot of people who look and think and talk like we do. Or at least it might appear that way.

When we dig deeper, we find that we are young and we are old. We are rich and we are poor. We are healthy and we are in need of healing. We have been educated by the streets and we have been taught in universities. We vote republican and we vote democrat. And yet, we have made room here in this place for all of this difference. God is good!

And yet, there are still people missing from our midst. There are still people in this community and in this world who either do not know that they are welcome here or who actively feel excluded from this community and from leadership in our church. Our sign outside might say, “All Welcome…” but do we truly live that out with our lives? And do we actively let people know with our words and our deeds that they truly can enter this building and be a part of our community? Do we go out into the world to discover where the Holy Spirit is active and moving in the hearts of children of God?

In our gospel lesson this morning, we are reminded that we have been chosen by God. We are friends of Jesus… but not because of anything special that we have done to deserve that recognition. No, God chooses who God wants. And as we look through history we find that God choose people like the murderer, Moses; the deciever, Jacob; the prostitute, Rahab; the tax collector, Matthew; and the super-religious, Saul.

In spite of our pasts, in spite of our present, in spite of where we were born or who we were born, God has chosen to love us. And God also chooses to love people outside of these four walls. The Holy Spirit is out there in the world right now moving among people in this community: parents with little kids; single moms; drug addicts; gays and lesbians; the elderly who are homebound; folks who partied too much last night; and people who don’t want to know Jesus Christ.

God is out there moving! It was the Holy Spirit that led our apostle Peter into the community of Caesarea and into the household of Cornelius. Cornelius may have been a Gentile, but God was moving in his life. Cornelius actively supported the local synagogue and Jewish ministries… even though he was not allowed in the Temple to worship like those who were born Jews.

God chose to speak through him. God chose to act through him. And Peter was the one who needed the wake up call to see that the Holy Spirit could move even outside of the traditional bounds of faith.

In his farewell message to his disciples, Jesus not only called them friends, but he also reminded them that they were sent. Sent out into the world to point to where the Holy Spirit is moving. Sent out into the world to love the people, to love the creation, and to bear the fruit of the gospel. And as we go, we need to remember that God can and does choose people who don’t look like us, talk like us, love like us, minister like us.

In May of 1956, the Methodist Church began to ordain women with the same full rights as men. And in May of 2012, the United Methodist Church voted to fully recognize and value the ordination and sacramental authority of men and women that our church had shut the doors to 200 years ago. And this General Conference, we began to make the first steps towards reconciliation with Native American brothers and sisters – who we as United Methodists have actively pushed to the margins of society.

As we experienced those acts of repentence at General Conference, my heart couldn’t help but wonder who we are leaving out today and are not yet ready to even admit… who are we still excluding? Who has God called while we remain in denial? May we have open eyes and open hearts and open minds to see the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the lives of people in this world. May we always be ready and willing to share this church and this ministry with all of those whom God has chosen. And together, as friends of God, may we all go into this world ready to bear the fruit of the Gospel.

questions/implications re: Paragraph 304.3 #gc2012

Posted on April 28, 201212 Comments

This afternoon, the Faith and Order legislative committee passed an amendment to paragraph 304.3 in the Book of Discipline that discusses qualifications for ordained ministry. The change actually removes language that would bar a “self-avowed practicing homosexual” and removes language that talks about from service and instead inserts this language:

I have a LOT of questions about this amendment that I hope are discussed before we decide to pass this change.

1) Does this amendment refer to only ONE marriage, or does it leave open the possibility for someone to be remarried. As it stands, it talks about a marriage between a man and a woman and makes no comment on the reality of divorce and remarriage, remarriage after death, etc. Clearing up that question is important. We have many re-married clergypersons in our midst and if we are already concerned about the retirement tsunami in the next 10 years – this impact might be HUGE.

2) while our standards previously called for “fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness” (and still retains that language earlier in 304.2) there were no particular stipulations re: appointment for those who have failed to live out the highest of these standards. Clergy who today have committed adultery may have sanctions, but we leave room for forgiveness, repentance, etc. This language seems to preclude that by now including unfaithfulness in marriage (as well as co-habitation) in the list of things that will make a person ineligible for commissioning, ordination, AND appointment.

3) Point two leads to deeper questions if the answer to my first question is “only one marriage.” With the new language that is listed here, are clergy persons who have divorced and how have remarried not eligible for appointment?

4) What about sexual conduct outside of marriage that happened in the past? What if I was a wild child as a younger adult and have since matured and changed my ways… does this amendment preclude them from being a candidate for ministry? What if a person co-habitated before marriage? Does this amendment apply retroactively to their behaviors and now as an ordained elder or deacon mean they will not be appointed?

5) **thanks to folks who talked with me in person and in the comments here** WHAT IS SEXUAL CONDUCT?! genital sex? kissing? smouldering eyes at one another over a table? Lord help our unmarried younger clergy (which we are trying to recruit) if they have to constantly fear something they are doing might be construed as sexual conduct.

I could go on and on and on about questions and implications of the wording of this amendment… the language needs to be CLEARER or else it might have implications on our current clergy that we have not for seen.

On the other hand, I’m guessing that someone who would respond to some of my questions might see that little word “may” in the fourth line from the bottom. It says that those persons “may not” be certified, ordained, appointed. It doesn’t say “shall not.” It says “may not.” And that means that Boards of Ordained Ministry and the Appointive Cabinet can exercise judgment and flexibility and can leave room for grace and compassion and forgiveness.

And that is because legislatively speaking, “may” language is permissive language. It has flexibility. It leaves the question up to the person who is exercising judgment, rather than simply following a set, prescribed rule.

And actually, for friends of the LGBT community… that means it is a step in the direction of inclusiveness. Previously the paragraph read: “The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in the United Methodist Church.”

“Are not” is very different from “may not.”

Words matter.

A global church #gc2012

Posted on April 24, 2012Leave a comment

This Sunday, the African Ministry from St. Mark’s UMC came and joined our congregation for worship. Well, they didn’t just join us… they led us. Pastor Dieudonne preached, the choir sang, the little boys danced, and it was an exciting, uplifting time of worship.

One of the things that really stuck with me was that Pastor Dieudonne kept reminding us that God is doing us a favor in worship… meaning that God is blessing us right now by allowing us to be here in this place. And it truly was a blessing to gather with brothers and sisters from around the globe and to remember what we are about and WHO we are about.

My congregation was full that morning – not only with members of my church and our brothers and sisters from Cedar Rapids, but also from other churches in our community who wanted to come and worship with us. So we were not only global, but ecumenical, and all different ages were a part of our celebration, too!
For three hours, we were a living embodiment of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic church… the body of Christ, itself. It was awesome.

And it got me very excited because this morning, I’m in Tampa. And delegates from every state and countries from all across this globe are gathering. And as we worship we will remember that we truly are a global church. We are a church that has listened to the command of Jesus Christ to make disciples of all nations… at least we are trying to do so.

So far, I’ve visited with folks from Michigan, Ohio, Alabama, Boston, Puerto Rico, Illinois, Korea, and the Phillippeans. (Yes, I know I spelled that wrong… my brain keeps wanting to type Philippians)

But on the plane yesterday, I was also reminded that our global church has some work to do. We do not truly share our standards across the globe. We will make a lot of decisions these next two weeks that will only affect the United Methodist Church in the United States. We will employ practices that are very “American.” Our denomination does not represent the diversity of the very places that we live in, much less the world. There is work to do!!!

For the next two weeks, I hope and pray that we might not only become empowered to truly be a global church, but to listen to our brothers and sisters, to speak out of the fullness of our hearts, and to be willing to change and expand and grow if that means welcoming someone else at the table and into the Body of Christ… or maybe even being willing to get up from our table and go to join someone else in creating the body of Christ where they are!!!

GC02: Fruits vs. Roots… or the Call to Action vs. IS3

Posted on March 2, 20123 Comments

An interesting counterpoint to all of my general conference focused discussions on the Call to Action has been my involvement on the local level with the Iowa Safe and Supportive Schools (IS3) grant.

One afternoon as I was pouring over survey data and statistics and numbers and practices for the IS3 grant, I asked myself why these numbers were so important when I was having such a hard time thinking about church numbers in the same way. It has taken me a while, but I think I finally nailed down the difference.

In the Call to Action, we have determined what congregations are vital based upon three criteria: congregational growth over five years, significant engagement of members in ministry and the mission of the church, and an outward focus by making new disciples and giving generously to the needs of others (Call to Action Study Guide, page 8). Now… if our mission as a church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world – then we are looking for churches that are growing in the number of disciples and are engaged in transforming the world. Fair enough. The Call to Action then suggest that we need “to redirect the flow of attention, energy, and resources to an intense concentration to foster and sustain an increase in the number of vital congregations making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world” (Call to Action Study Guide, page 10).

An assumption was made at some point in the process that we should look at what characteristics those vital churches have and then encourage others to implement those drivers. Throughout the reports and materials, the metrics used to determine effectiveness are: professions of faith, worship attendance, # of small groups, # of people engaged in mission, and money given to mission. Pastors, bishops, annual conferences, general agencies are refocusing on these things. What we have not heard in the process is how those resources get redirected. Does it go to those who are already successful? Does it go towards implementing conference wide strategies for growth like our New People for New Places or Co-Missioned or Path One or Healthy Congregations? Does it go to the churches who are failing in order to help them get back on course?

With that in the background, I want to describe a little bit about my involvement with Iowa Safe and Supportive Schools. There is an awareness that “No Child Left Behind” was in large part a failure in its attempts to reform the educational system. In my work with the School Improvement Advisory Committee, we have talked some about how the goals set out for them in that process in many ways creates impossible demands. There are specific goals and metrics that schools must meet and it is not always possible for this to be done. I cannot remember some of the specifics, but an example would be that we need to have 90% of students testing at grade level in reading. We can work with students, we can prepare them, but if in a small school like ours even one student has a bad day or doesn’t test well, then the goals cannot be met. Schools with high achievement scores are rewarded, those that struggle are punished, and the focus of classrooms has to shift to prepare students for tests, rather than education. The measure of a good school is based on student achievement and so academic results are the measure. Teachers are stressed, students are stressed, and it simply is not working.

Iowa Safe and Supportive Schools takes a different approach to the whole thing. The goal in many ways is the same – we want students to learn and succeed – that is the mission of schools in general. But instead of setting goals for testing, this evaluative process asks the question: what is it that helps students to learn and succeed? What are the conditions that need to be in place for real learning to take place? Through research, studies, etc. they have determined that safety, engagement, and the school enviroment are all background factors in student achievement. If a student does not feel safe, they will not succeed. If they are not engaging with other students and adults, they will not succeed. If they do not have a consistent and welcoming environment at the school, they will not suceed. So using this criteria, schools were evaluated in the spring of 2011.

Based on student surveys and hard data from the school, schools were evaluated as to how safe and supportive they were. Then, schools who scored poorly in these areas were invited to recieve funding in order to improve school conditions of learning. Our school district had low scores specifically around engagement and environment and gratefully accepted the grant in order to work on these areas.

But here is the real kicker. The state department of education, in similar ways to the Call to Action, is putting money where their mouth is. They are providing these grants to help create more safe and supportive schools. And in the process, they have provided each district with trained resource people who are walking with us through our particular data sets so that we can determine a particular plan of action for our district. That is why I am pouring over data and statistics. We are trying to determine what are the next steps in our district, which areas we can really focus on, and which will make the largest difference in the success of our students.

I realized as I compare that process with the Call to Action that our denominational iniative feels a lot more like “No Child Left Behind” than it does “IS3.” I look at the drivers and I look at the indicators of effectiveness and I see a lot of ways to measure fruitfulness and results. I see test scores as a measure of success and nowhere do I see the deeper question of “what are the conditions necessary for discipleship?”

What helps someone to take up their cross and follow Jesus?

What are the background factors that transform someone from a mere member to a disciple?

The Call to Action Study Guide at least lays out some of these things from a Wesleyan perspective – lifting up the importance of the means of grace as a practice of daily surrender and obedience to God… but then we head back to the perils of membership decline, worship attendance decline, decline in offerings and a fear decline in mission engagement.

My take from the Call to Action is that I need to create more programs for young people, train and mentor more people to be leaders, stick around in a congregation for a long time, and have vibrant worship. But do those things really help us to surrender to the will of God in our lives? Do they really help us to participate in the redemption of the world? Some of them are… but many of the things that are layed out are fruits… and I’m not sure that they need to be our focus if we want to see lasting change.

I believe we need to back up and focus on what makes us disciples. I believe we need to get to the root of what we believe a Wesleyan disciple is. I believe we need to work on the things that create the conditions for discipleship and like the IS3, let the fruits naturally follow.

And, a key learning from the IS3 process, I think that as we redirect resources back to local churches, we need to focus on those churches that are not vital and help them to discover what are the ways that they can improve the conditions for discipleship in their local places. Telling a small church they need to add a contemporary service or make a Sunday school class for kids is pointless. Walking beside them as they discover that people are having a hard time believing in God when the factory in town has just shut down and jobs are gone is another. Because in the latter – the solution is contextual, it meets us in our real situtations, and invites the Holy Spirit to imagine with us creative possibilities for community, sharing our resources, prayer, and trust as we depend upon the grace of God to get us through.

GC01: Call to Action Study – Part 2

Posted on March 2, 2012Leave a comment

As I mentioned in Part 1 of this post, I am going through the Call to Action Study put out by the Council of Bishops with my congregation. In our first session we covered sections 1-3 and in the second session we examined 4-6.

The call to grow more vital congregations. My folks noticed that the definition or criteria for being labeled as a “highly vital” congregation was based on the three things mentioned: 1) cong. growth over 5 year period, 2) engagement of members in ministry/mission, 3) outward forcus by making new disciples and generous giving. Many of them said that they absolutely agree with those second and third critera because engagement means that members are taking a role and living out their discipleship, but they are not sure that growth in numbers is a good indicator for vitality in this day and age. In any case, they were confident that growth would not occur if engagement and outward focus were not also happening.

A large chunk of our conversation around this point was asking if growth is possible when the culture at large is working against us. We are fighting sports, working parents, family time, school activities, and on Sunday mornings at least, we are losing the battle. We live in a community that has not experienced any real growth according to census figures at large. The folks who are not currently involved in church seem to have little interest in being involved. We believe we have something important and vital to offer, and can share that, but people do not always respond. Does that mean that we are not being faithful? Is our faithfulness being based on the response/hardheartedness of the culture surrounding us? Tis lead us into questions about how we can help to change the culture around us. What is it that we offer? Fellowship, ways to actively live out our faith, studies, we are the body of Christ and don’t have to be on our own, we share with our brothers and sisters and find value in that kind of community centered around Jesus Christ. I found a tension in their answers that ranged from a firm desire to get more kids in Sunday School to an emphasis on saving souls; from reclaiming/changing culture to being a set-apart entity that might NOT be popular, but still can be faithful.

This section also included five ways that the “adaptive spiritual challenge” is defined – aka, the problem behind the numbers. They sensed that division and mistrust is a problem – not so much on the larger levels, but they experienced how they lost people in their church when there was conflict amongst themselves. They agreed that we are not comfortable with setting goals, because then that means we might have to actually do something about it and follow through. They absolutely feel like they are not always connecting with the nominally and non-religious people in their community, but in many ways struggle to imagine what they might have to do differently. They see the issue as a two-way street. We need to invite and connect with new people, but there are also many who are burnt out from continually asking and inviting and always being told no.

Then, this section layed out the challenge: to grow more vital congregations. We really liked the definition here of a vital congregation as a community of believers under the lordship of Christ – but we weren’t sure how that connected with the other things that were mentioned earlier in the section. It seemed like that piece came out of the blue and it was the first time that was mentioned! We had talked earlier about the need to get back to basics – talking about salvation, following the Holy Spirit, prayer, and that if we did that, everything else would fall in line, so we liked that it was part of the expanded definition in this section. But we also really dove into the idea that we have to live that out in our lives. We have to participate in the redemption of the world. We have to smile more, greet people more, be a Christian every moment of the day. We have to forgive a little more and be people of grace in everything thta we do. Someone told a story about how their son had a bad experience with another church and came back saying – “if those are Christians, I don’t want anything to do with them.” Someone also made note that it was ironic there were pruning shears on the picture – if we are pruning back in order to grow, sometimes that means people who aren’t committed will leave the church, and sometimes that is a good thing for the overall growth and spread of the gospel.

16 Drivers of Vital Congregations I was disappointed there was NOTHING to explain the drivers, how they were arrived at, what they meant in the context of this study. Knowing what I do from our orders event and reading I have done for General Conference, I explained that these 16 drivers were characteristics that those 15% of congregations that were vital had. So compared with other churches they had more of this, and more of that, and these were descriptors that pointed at what made them vital.

We looked at them by sections, starting with children and youth. Someone asked if having a preschool helped a congregation to be more vital and connect with the community. We talked about our youth group at the church and outreach into the community in that area. In a small church, we don’t have the people to have a lot of programs – so will we always struggle with vitality? Does it count when we are doing these things in partnership with other churches?

Lay leadership we found to be very important. Our congregation has not had a history of lay leaders understanding their roles very well and this is something we are working to change. We also have not challenged our lay leadership to really grow in their personal faith journey and are trying to focus on that as well. They were astonished at number 7 which said 20% or more of their worship attendees describe themselves as current or past leaders. I pointed out, however, that since our average worship attendance is only 50, that would mean only 10 people see themselves that way. We currently have 12 on our church council, which is more than that.

We had a lot of discussion in the “pastors” category about how long the pastor stays being an indicator of effectiveness. This is a congregation that has had a lot of short term pastorates and feel like when they finally get something going with a pastor, he/she is pulled away. They feel like longer appointments would help them to have a better cohesiveness. Someone compared it to dating and talked about the importance of chemistry. When you find the right fit, you can’t always replace that right away, if ever. There also is sometimes a lame duck time. They are used to pastors leaving after a few years and expect them to move and give up working and expecting things to change.

In the last category of worship, we talked about the reality of small churches. We do not have multiple services, so is a blended service okay? The drivers only talk about contemporary OR traditional. We do have wonderful multi-media capabilities in our church and celebrated that.

As you can see… we had a lot of conversation! And so with the time constraints, we skipped ahead to what is the Call to Action for laity in the church. I wanted them to see where they specifically were being challenged to grow/act. Their initial perception was that it sounded good and really called them to take action. We felt like a lot of what we are already doing with our “Co-Missioned” process fit into this naturally (we are finishing up a two year church revitalization and missional focus process thingy). Several talked about how they felt like they need to personally take action. They realized that coming to church and sunday school is fine, but that they need to get up and do more in the church. One person said that they would if they knew what they could do, if someone personally asked and invited them to do something. We talked about how we need to encourage and ask people to serve more. This is something that has been a natural outcome of that Co-Missioned process for our church and in fact is the next step on our journey, so it was good for them to hear we are already working on that.

As I process what they have said, one of the realizations I had is that there was a lot of explaining and background work that I needed to do. We do not do a good job of talking about the structure, mission, vision of the church, the four areas of focus, the larger goals of the denomination, new people and new places, etc. When we can make those connections, great, but it is not something that is readily known to every lay person. It can all get very confusing because there are so many different things to focus on. But people were eager to learn, connect, and overall were very supportive of our denominational connections. The level of mistrust we sometimes talk about between local churches and the denomination just wasn’t there. This is a congregation that is on the cusp of “vitality” – they are growing spiritually, they are deepening in their engagement with the church and community and are extraordinarily generous… yet, compared with these drivers and indicators and definitions, they aren’t sure quite where they fit. They know they haven’t arrived and aren’t sure if they will ever grow in the way this is asking them to. They know they will never be a large church, but they are determined to be small but mighty.

GC01: Call to Action Study – Part 1

Posted on February 13, 20122 Comments

I am leading my congregation through the Council of Bishop’s study guide on the Call to Action.

We started last week with sections 1-3 and an overview of how the United Methodist Church is actually set up.

It was important for me to bring this big picture and important discussion to my rural county seat congregation. It was important to hear what they are thinking, hoping for, and what they, in fact, simply don’t care about. None of what we decide at General Conference will make any difference if the folks who make up our church have no idea what is going on and no ownership of the process.

So to start with, here are some of their responses to the questions the study guide raises:

What do you experience in the world and the church that calls for urgent action? Declining membership, need to have young people and kids in the church, political unrest – especially in the Middle East, and to be the hands and feet of Christ to a hurting world.
What is the role of the congregation in helping United Methodists practice personal piety and the means of grace? attending local worship, bible study, to pass on the word about opportunities to grow, a reminisence about the song “I Surrender All”; the conference? education opportunities, district leadership events, retreats, resources and support (financial and persons), connection points to ministries we do together; the denomination? we hear about the controversial things that GC discusses and how they take a stand on issues of justice, they give us rules and guidelines for how to live, resources and support, Upper Room
What church leader do you know today who has been a turnaround leader and what did they do? They talked about how in our local church people ARE stepping up to lead. They were a bit dismayed by the piece in the study guide that said “the next anticipated significant decline is in the field of mission giving and mission engagement.” This is an area where they have seen HUGE growth as a congregation because we are taking risks and stepping up. They credit me with this because I have brought some energy and have been willing to take risks, but it also has to do with laity taking up the reins on those projects. They also mentioned that we are not afraid to show the community we are in it for the long haul and to dedicate ourselves to projects. Someone asked what would happen if we worshipped outside in the park for a whole month during the summer and built relationships with folks who were unchurched – great question and one we are going to look into! The conversation drifted to how to engage younger folks. Someone asked if there was a way to encourage youth to give back – musically, in worship, etc. so that they could get to know them better. While I think there are, I also lead into the next question…
What should we sacrifice to embrace God’s unfolding mission for the church? I asked what they could sacrifice to in turn reach out to the youth? joining them for dinner on Wednesdays? going to their events outside of church? We talked about sacrificing our comfort with worshipping inside the church in order to meet people out in the community.

Overall, they are grateful for the opportunity to think about these things and really looking forward to continuing on to the second half next week.

One of the frustrations that I had with the first part of the study guide is the focus on “turning around” the sinking ship. While sections 1 and 2 call for deeper discipleship and re-claiming our mission as the United Methodist Church, section 3 shifted the focus to what they see the biggest problem is: decline in people and money. Down-ward sloping numbers… that is what the Call to Action is all about. It is not framed in terms of the true missional need in our communities – ie: the number of people around us who don’t know Christ. It is not framed in terms of the great opportunities for ministry around us. No, the urgent call is in direct response to decline.

: photo by: Svilen Milev

I actually think it is kind of trivializing to compare our reductions in people and dollars with the “stiff winds of oppression” that Esther and Mordecai were confronted with facing the genocide of their people. The “stiff winds” of indifference and fatigue and a lost sense of purpose are NOT the same as massacre.

Yes, we need some forward-thinking leadership.

Yes, we need adaptability.

Yes, we need courage.

And yes, we need to make sacrifices and take risks in the process.

I know that the declining numbers are not the problem in themselves, but merely symptoms of larger “spiritual and systemic issues.” But I wish that this study guide and in fact, the Call to Action in general, would talk more about those larger spirtual and systemic issues and less about the numbers. (if any of you can point me to a resource that does address what CTA thinks those larger spiritual/systemic issues are… please tell me!)

Instead, we are left with the impression that the problem is that people aren’t coming to church and that people aren’t coming to worship and that people aren’t giving enough. And at least my congregation doesn’t know what it is going to take to change that. They can’t necessarily give more. They keep asking their neighbors and friends to come and they won’t. They are working on building relationships and reaching outside of the walls of our church and my prayer is that as they do that… as they are the hands and feet of Christ in this world… that people will come to know Jesus through them and will find a place within our church family.

Preparing for our Lenten study on Romans 12 (our vision scripture) I came across Chip Ingram’s work on the text. In this segment, he answers the question: if God doesn’t measure faith by activities, why do people and churches?

I think it’s a good question. We are called to make disciples. And I suppose that if we are making something, we want to see numerical growth. But I understand discipleship as a process. A process that requires inward growth, deep growth, lifelong growth. If I can take the 50 people who regularly attend my church each week and spend my whole life working with them and at the end of that time those fifty people have learned to follow Jesus more closely, to surrender their lives to him, to serve others through him, and have planted seeds in the lives of others, have I done my job? I tend to think so… but I’m not sure that CtA would agree I have been very effective.

competing goods and womens’ bodies…

Posted on February 10, 2012Leave a comment

Lately, womens’ bodies and health care and pregnancy and contraception and abortion and religious freedom and laws and the kitchen sink have been tossed around and talked about ad naseum.

My twitter feed blew up with critiques and praises of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. My newsfeed from facebook was littered with comments about rights to health care and freedom of religion. Over breakfast, having coffee, in person, on the phone, the issues these questions raise are all around me.

And I guess why this is so exasperating for me, personally, is that I can’t figure out what to say and where to stand. I see all sorts of different sides to these issues. There are a thousand shades of grey to understand in the conversations and multiple “goods” that unfortunately do not play well together. And so when I’m asked my opinion or what I think about it, it would probably take three hours just to lay out all of the pieces of the puzzle… and that doesn’t include any time spent trying to actually give an answer.

Most often, however, the arguments are boiled down to two positions.

On the one side – let’s just call it what it is – the left side – the argument comes from a question of whether or not people have access to resources they need to care for their bodies, make informed decisions, and lead autonomous lives. It is about rights and conscience.

On the other side – the right side – the argument begins with the beliefs/traditions/morals that institutions hold about our bodies. It is also about rights and conscience.

You could start trying to pick a side by asking yourself -well, which is more important? An individual’s rights? or an institution’s beliefs?

But then that leads to questions about what happens when one individuals conscience leads them to harm another? What happens when an institution’s conscience leads them to harm another institution? or an individual? or a group of individuals? Who/what is more valued? Which institution gets the say? The government? A church? Are any particular persons more “persons” than others?

(we aren’t even dealing with details, yet… just the big picture of rights)

Take the issue of birth control and the mandate (or whatever it is) that all institutions will have to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees through their health care. It doesn’t apply to churches, but it would to educational institutions, hospitals, etc. that are religiously affiliated. Which puts the issue of institutional vs. individual right smack dab in the center of the debate for an institution like the Roman Catholic Church that does not see contraceptives as a moral good. It prevents life, therefore they are against it. I can completely understand and respect an institution’s beliefs and values and want them to have the freedom to stand by them. But I would also like for the many Catholics who actually use birth control pill to have the ability to have it affordably. I would like for the teenagers covered by their parents insurance who use birth control pills to mitigate acne to get it for a good price. I would like the women who suffer with long and painful periods to be able to make a choice and have it covered by their employeers insurance if they need to use the birth control pill or IUD or other method to help regulate their cycles. I recently read that over 50% of the women who use the birth control pill do so for a reason besides pregnancy prevention. That number absolutely floored me.

As I heard on NPR this afternoon – if it is an argument about religious freedom… the bishops win. If it is an argument about accessibility of contraceptives for individuals… then the administration wins. I want both institutions and individuals to have the freedom to make informed decisions and to stand by their convictions. But in these particular issues, we just can’t have it both ways. So which is more important? Religious freedom? or access to health care? Pressed to make a choice, I take the fifth.

I think I struggle also with the issue of abortion because it is not clearly a black/white issue… as much as people try to frame it that way.

The official United Methodist position regarding the issue can be found in The Book of Discipline:

The beginning of life and the ending of life are the God-given boundaries of human existence. While individuals have always had some degree of control over when they would die, they now have the awesome power to determine when and even whether new individuals will be born.

Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection.

We oppose the use of late-term abortion known as dilation and extraction (partial-birth abortion) and call for the end of this practice except when the physical life of the mother is in danger and no other medical procedure is available, or in the case of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life. We call all Christians to a searching and prayerful inquiry into the sorts of conditions that may warrant abortion. We commit our Church to continue to provide nurturing ministries to those who terminate a pregnancy, to those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy, and to those who give birth. We particularly encourage the Church, the government, and social service agencies to support and facilitate the option of adoption. (See ¶ 161.K.)

Governmental laws and regulations do not provide all the guidance required by the informed Christian conscience. Therefore, a decision concerning abortion should be made only after thoughtful and prayerful consideration by the parties involved, with medical, pastoral, and other appropriate counsel.

From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church – 2004. Copyright 2004 by The United Methodist Publishing House. Used by permission.

I appreciate the nuance that our position holds. I believe it tries to hold up the goods of not only life, but also the good of family, responsible parenting, a woman’s body. It also leads us into prayer about “the sorts of conditions that may warrant abortion.”

One of my most memorable experiences in seminary was attending the Cal Turner Center for Moral Ethics retreat. Graduate students from five different fields were brought together to discuss issues that we all will face in our career fields. I was surrounded by students from the law, business, medical and nursing school – along with my colleagues from the divinity school. The presenter that really helped me to understand the “gray” area of the abortion question was Dr. Frank Boehm, who had written a book called, “Doctors Cry, Too.” He talked about his experiences in the emergency room treating young women who had either tried to perform abortive measures on themselves or had recieved “back-alley” abortions. They found themselves in the E.R. with deadly infections, rips and tears, and irreparable damage. Some died. He struggled with his convictions about life and the pragmatic reality that safe and legal ways of terminating a pregnancy were needed or these women would continue to use whatever means necessary. His story has caused me to truly not have an answer when asked if I am pro-life or pro-choice. I both want to uphold the sanctity of life and want those who see no other options to have safe and legal options available to them. I also firmly seek to provide options and resources and hope to those who find themselves in those positions.

The UMC position also tries to bring some nuance to the very term “abortion.” We make a distinction between the stages at which procedures are performed. But mentioned here in this piece is no mention of the “morning-after pill.” Some who are pro-life today would oppose use of the morning-after pill because it would prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. And yet, most morning-after pills are merely strong doses of the same ingredients found in other contraceptives. In reality, many contraceptives are effective in part because of this reason. At the same time there is national conversation about mandating the coverage of contraceptives in health care, states like Mississippi have proposed legislation that take the definition of abortion to extremes that could potentially make said contraceptives illegal. That measure was NOT passed thanks to 58% of the voters of the state rejecting the measure. We have to have these conversations because even if and when we agree that protecting life is good, we don’t agree about what life is and when it begins. Fertilization? Implantation? when an embryo becomes a fetus? According to some places in the Old Testament, life was determined by the breath. We have talked about life ceasing with heart beats, so does it also begin with them? What about brain waves? It is a complicated and difficult conversation with no easy answers.

In all of these questions, there are goods that we are trying to achieve. Goods like health, life, equality, choice, accessibility, convictions, morality, community, and accountability. And unfortunately, sometimes those goods compete and we have to choose between them. And sometimes our decisions are merely choices between evils rather than goods. I see so many different sides and truly faithful and good people coming from all different perspectives. My number one hope is that we might have these conversations with civility, respect, and a willingness to listen to the heart and experience of another person.

I just wish that these debates weren’t always about women’s bodies. It is frustrating that we live in a world in which so many of these complicated issues have to do with what women can and cannot do with their bodies and have so little to do with the physical bodies of adult men. I sometimes wonder if the conversations would be different.

#endthedeathpenalty

Posted on September 21, 2011Leave a comment

katiez – for all that we have done… and left undone. for all that we have said… and left unsaid. Lord have mercy. #deathpenalty

hughlh – “You can say they deserve to die, but the key moral question is ‘Do we deserve to kill?'” — Helen Prejean

Mike Oles – Mourning for America tonight. This shouldn’t happen here… And then I saw a slick pr ad for tar sand oil. Climate change or death penalty, it’s time to be organized and start winning all of these struggles.

Thom Dawkins – To (poorly, unfairly) paraphrase an acquaintance: We need mercy always, and tonight, we settled for justice. In the process, we’ve let ourselves become hardened and unjust.

AndAFool – Remember when Amos said “Let executions roll down like waters…”, or Jesus said “I have come to proclaim execution to the captives…”?

julieclawson – Today, on the Intl Day of Peace, the US blocked Palestinian statehood, executed 2 men, arrested Wall Street protestors and bombed Libya.

TerryRamoneSmit – “Only in the USA can you get away with being pro-war AND pro-death penalty and yet call yourself pro-life.” – @hughlh

lcleeland – I love this country, but not so much tonight. #troydavis

EugeneCho – I’m sorry for my vulgarity but if there’s ever an appropriate time to shout “F*ck” and turn tables, this would be the time. #troydavis

thinkprogress – “People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty.”– Ruth Bader Ginsburg

rabbijosh – “@thinkprogress: TroyDavis: Another man confessed. 7 eyewitnesses recanted. Police accused of coercing witnesses. No DNA. No murder weapon.”

matthewlkelley – in jesus, god shows that death does not have the last word. state sanction executions are the act of a kingdom whose reign will not last….

tamrenb – There is another Troy Davis in a cell somewhere in America. Pray for him.

megateer – Two men will have been executed tonight. One, very much guilty, another, guilt in much doubt. Even in stark contrast, #deathpenaltyiswrong .

timbrauhn – Restorative justice will someday reign in the America that I know and love. Compassion and truth will guide our path. RIP Troy Davis

nate_nims – Pray for Tory Davis, Georgia, the SCOTUS and true, restorative justice. #wearealltroydavis

godgrrl – #TroyDavis I could throw up. Ashamed.

laurenmroden – Praying for #troydavis, his fam & fam of Officer MacPhail. “To take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, not justice.” Desmond Tutu

NickKristof – When smart people debate whether or not a man should be executed, that’s a good reason not to execute him. #TroyDavis.

PastorBradS – MacPhail family, my heart aches for your lost, but the death of another human being won’t bring you peace. Only Christ can. #toomuchdoubt

amaeryllis – I really don’t understand the eagerness to execute. Justice is served at conviction, beyond that is just a test of our humanity.

tomtomorrow – rt @barryeisler Weird that the same people who don’t trust govt to administer health insurance do trust it to put people to death.

EdgeofSports – “@jeremyscahill: #TroyDavis RT @barryeisler See, there really are death panels in America. We’re watching one tonight in Georgia.”

AfroWonk – RT @KoriHaart: Dear Georgia, It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one. -Voltaire

revbrad – “We believe the death penalty denies the power of Christ to redeem, restore, and transform all human beings” -UM Discipline #TroyDavis

alphaleah – #TroyDavis #DeathPenalty : So the man has been lying on a gurney, ready to be wheeled into be killed, for TWO HOURS, while this goes on.
sallykohn – Meanwhile, in Texas, Lawrence Russell Brewer executed at 7:21pm EST for dragging death of James Byrd

UnvirtuousAbbey – Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” #TroyDavis

JesusOfNaz316 – Grace > Justice System

Edpilkington – What’s clear is that we are still in the waiting game. I’m a wreck by now so how mist #TroyDavis be feeling?