Review: The Irresistible Revolution, by Shane Claiborne

I recently finished reading Shane Claiborne's The Irresistible Revolution: living as an ordinary radical. I hope many of you have already heard the sad news about Shane and The Simple Way community that he started in Philadelphia - on June 21st a 7-alarm fire completely destroyed the community and several other homes in the area. You can visit The Simple Way's website to donate or see other ways to help rebuild.

Shane's book is a sort of autobiography, and a call to discipleship (and revolution?!). The style is very readable - it is a story, narrative. A quick read (although I managed to drag it out over a few months - but that's because I wasn't reading it, not because it took a long time to read!)

What's frustrating about this book:

• I find Shane's logic sometimes over-simplistic. He tends to simplify the viewpoints of people he's referring to, identifying liberals and conservatives in ways I don't think do service to liberals or conservatives.
  
• Shane uses the words "giggle," "bubbles," and "sidewalk chalk" more than I can bear. A lot more. I'm a cynic. I'm sarcastic. I can't take it. It's too much!
• Shane writes of his journeying in much the same way that the apostle Paul writes of his. That's all I want to say about that.
  

What's good about this book:

• Shane talks about and is part of the new monasticism movement. You can read about the principles of new monasticism here.
  
• Primarily, and most importantly/overshadowing-any-flaws, Shane is clearly getting it done. Whatever else I think about the book, or how it is written, or his style, etc., what Shane is doing, so far as I can tell, is being an authentic disciple. He's actually doing that stuff Jesus talks about, and that's not something I feel I can claim for myself most days, from the comfort of my pastor's life and pretty parsonage. Shane's example is a challenge to me, and I like a good challenge.

I think the book is worth a read, because it certainly requires asking yourself how you actually are (or are not) responding to the call of discipleship of Jesus. And especially keep Shane and community in your thoughts as they work to recover from the fire.

Extreme Church: Extreme Expectations

When I was elected to General and Jurisdictional Conference, one of the things I received even before I left Annual Conference was a handout on delegate reflection/preparation, which I thought was a nice idea.

Apparently, the theme of the 2008 Northeastern Jurisdictional Conference is Extreme Church: Extreme Expectations. The scripture focus is Ephesians 3:17-20, from Eugene Peterson's The Message version:

"Christ will live in you as you open the door and invite him in. And I ask him that with both feet planted firmly on love, you'll be able to take in with all followers of Jesus the extravagant dimensions of Christ's love. Reach out and experience the breadth! Test its length! Plumb the depths! Rise to the heights! Live full lives, full in the fullness of God. 20-21 God can do anything, you know—far more than you could ever imagine or guess or request in your wildest dreams! He does it not by pushing us around but by working within us, his Spirit deeply and gently within us."

The handout gives some questions for reflection:

How have you experience God in the extreme - for yourself? In your church?

What might it mean for the UMC to "reach out and experience the breadth," "test the length," "plumb the depths," "rise to the heights" of Christ's love?

What might it mean for individuals and for the Church to believe fully that God can indeed do anything? What would we entrust to God if that were true? How might our listening for God and to God change?

How will we as delegates be open to the Spirit working "deeply and gently within us?" How in particular will we invite God's Spirit to be at work in our preparation and in our Conferencing?

What will we do, both before Conference and during Conference, to "plant our feet firmly on love?"

I like that the worship team (creators of the document) are really trying to encourage some reflection and deep thinking before the event. Of course, too often, General Conference and Jurisdictional Conference is completely wrapped up in taking sides, winning, and making sure your point wins in every issue, and that your candidate gets through for everything - Judicial Council, boards and agencies, Bishop, you name it. Even still, and even though I am typically skeptical and sarcastic about so many things in life, I refuse to throw in the towel and give up hope for these major conferencing events in the denomination. I was certainly wide-eyed and innocent to how bad it could be when I went to General Conference 2000 - I certainly don't have that ignorance anymore. But I'm still hopeful for the church. If we don't have any hope for the church than we really might as well just throw in the towel and not bother pretending.

Can the church change? Or perhaps we're asking can the church still be/start being the church again? Can the church survive? Is there hope? I don't think these questions are over-dramatic. I think the church is having an identity crisis, because lots of people are trying to define what the church is and what the church is about. Is the church about the same good news that Jesus was trying to share in the first century? I hope so. I wish so. I hear these questions for reflection asking about risk-taking. We've stopped being willing to take risks as a church. We can still "plant our feet firmly on love" while taking risks as the body of Christ.

Do you have hope for the church? What is your hope?

General Conference and the Use of Technology

Sorry for the lack of posting - I've had a busy week. As I mentioned, I had a Book of Resolutions Task Force meeting this past week, in conjunction with the Interagency Legislative Task Force Meeting. The Interagency thing is where staff/members of different boards and agencies get together to talk about legislation they will be submitting to General Conference 2008. The idea is that agencies will be able to collaborate on legislation and avoid submitting similar/overlapping petitions or avoid assigning work to another agency without informing them beforehand.

During our conversation together, the issue of technology and General Conference came up. Someone asked about the rules for using things like PDAs, cell phones, and laptops during GC, especially for delegates. Currently, there are no rules in place. The conversation quickly turned to all the 'bad' ways technology might be used at GC, and a suggestion that device-use be restricted for delegates, and signals jammed onsite.

At this point, I had to speak up. I think the conversation was showing some fundamental differences in the way people make use of technology. I immediately thought of Leonard Sweet's language of 'native' and 'immigrant' when it comes to digital technology. I don't always agree with Sweet's ideas (he was a professor of mine at Drew) but I think he puts this in a helpful way to think about. Natives don't just 'use' technology - it is a fully integrated part of life, a way of life. But 'immigrants' may use technology, but more as an external tool that is employed to facilitate work. To me, attempting to limit use of technology at GC would be limiting a huge part of how people expect to be able to live, interact, and carryout work and relationships during GC. I think some of the folks as the meeting only thought of ways that technology could distract from the 'real work' to be done, but I see exciting possibilities for how it can actually positively and radically impact the work of the church.

I'm not sure I convinced everyone, but there were some who were certainly on the same page as me. To illustrate the point perfectly, one member received a text message while we were talking that had important information for our meeting. God moves in mysterious and timely ways, right?

What do you think? How can/might/will/should/shouldn't technologies be used at General Conference?

**Update: Jay mentions in comments that some rules are already in place. I'm surprised no one at the meeting knew about these. I understand the concerns Jay mentions - really, I do. But how long will these rules hold up against a changing world? That's another issue...

Review: The New UMC.org

Last night I attended a 'launch' gathering for bloggers of the new UMC.org. The web meeting itself was interesting - I simultaneously logged on and called in, and the meeting used Acrobat Connect to guide us through a presentation of the site while we listened to commentary over the phone from Matt Carlisle, Larry Hollon, and Stephen Drachler. The phone connection was a little iffy - feedback and random background noises made it hard to communicate clearly. After the presentation, there was time for Q & A - not many questions were asked - I didn't ask any myself - but I think in part this was because 1) The presentation was clear and the features are somewhat self-explanatory and 2) Until you get a chance to actually check out and use the new site yourself it is not clear what you might want to ask.

So - the new site...

The main feature of the new site is that it contains a social-networking component, which is being hosted/run by 7 Villages. Apparently, some annual conferences (that are cooler and more technology-hip than mine) have already been using 7 Villages, and the hope is that more UMC groups will begin to hook into 7 Villages as a major piece of their web ministries. I've made my page, as well as a 'village' for my annual conference. I'm pretty excited about this site - it's certainly no myspace - some of the features of myspace are missing, and member pages aren't as dynamic and unique, but I think this may change over time as people begin using the site more. Right now things are a little - bulky, I guess I would say - hard to navigate. But there is a lot of potential there, and I'm excited to see what direction it takes.

Other features: Overall, Hollon and Carlisle talked about their process for design and their focus on being user-oriented vs. institution-oriented. They've focused on making navigation easier, making connecting with people and ministries easier, and making local ministries more apparent and more at the center of attention.

Serve: Another new feature allows users to search for volunteer opportunities and for users to submit volunteer opportunities. I think this is a great idea. In the past, I've been searching for a VIM trip opportunity for myself, and found it difficult to find any place where all trips are listed. Still to work on here - the search features should be expanded. I want to be able to search for opportunities by date, or by age-group, etc. Carlisle (or Hollon, I can't remember) mentioned that a recent Christian Science Monitor article notes an increase in global volunteerism - 29% of people volunteered in 2005, an increase, a 30-year high actually. Interestingly, the age-groups volunteering: older teens, baby-boomers, and senior citizens. People want hands-on ways to make a difference.

Pray: You can now submit prayer requests online, which are directed to the Upper Room Living Prayer Center. A more interactive prayer center might be interesting, where people could respond to one another's prayers - a feature like this was shared at the Web-Empowered Church workshop at the Congress on Evangelism - anyone have a link to that feature?

Other features include a still-being-added-to Methopedia, which is a bit skimpy now, but could be quite useful when more articles are added, and a section for local church leaders, giving resources for different positions and ministries. Also, churches now have more freedom to enter their own information and images and details in the find-a-church feature, which is the most-hit feature in the site. I definitely need to update my church's page!

I think this is definitely a positive new direction for the site. A work in progress, for sure, but what isn't? Check it out, and let me know what you think.

Cross-posted at the Methoblog.

Think Tank Reflections: 3 Dollars Worth of God

As I've mentioned before, I'm currently part of a 'think-tank' book study with my district superintendent and some area clergy. We gathered again yesterday, and my also-pastor uncle, Bill Mudge, shared a bit of this 'poem' with us (authored by preacher/writer Wilbur Reese):

3 Dollars Worth of God

I would like to buy 3 dollars worth of God, please
Not enough to explode my soul or disturb my sleep, but just enough to equal a cup of warm milk or a snooze in the sunshine. I don't want enough of him to make me love a black man or pick beets with a migrant.
I want ecstasy, not transformation.
I want the warmth of the womb not a new birth.
I want about a pound of the eternal in a paper sack.
I'd like to buy 3 dollars worth of God, please
How much God do you want?
You get as much or as little as you desire.

I really like this - not just because I think it echoes the unspoken sentiments of some people I encounter in my everyday ministry, but also because I think it says out loud my unspoken sentiments. How much of God do I really want? Enough to feel warm and fuzzy, or even to make me feel righteously indignant about injustices I see, but perhaps not enough to make me get off my butt and have a changed life...

How much of God do you want?

Reflections: Congress on Evangelism - Part 1

This week, as I alluded to yesterday, I am at the Congress on Evangelism in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. My motivation for coming, I will admit, was solely to meet up with other methobloggers. Otherwise, I can’t say this is an event that would typically appeal to me. But I am enjoying myself and enjoying the event. More on that in a bit.

First, Myrtle Beach. I’ve never been to Myrtle Beach before. I drove down from Central New York because, if I haven’t mentioned it before, I have a huge fear of flying. I will fly if I have to, but I find that in the continental US you very rarely have to fly. Myrtle Beach is a 14 hour drive from my home, and I left at a god-awfully early hour on Tuesday to get here. Book on CD make this kind of drive feasible for me, but by the last two hours, I was well past ready to be at my destination.

I remember in elementary school that a few of my classmates always vacationed in Myrtle Beach. My family would take vacation in more manageable (read: inexpensive) places like Canada, or in a good year, Washington, DC. If we wanted to go to the beach, we’d go to the local State Park. Hey – they had a beach and a place to swim just like Myrtle Beach, right? Actually, looking back on things, I’m glad of how we vacationed. I can’t imagine how crazy Myrtle Beach must be in the summer. It is beautiful, for sure. I’m staying at the Dayton House, where my “efficiency King” room, which is the smallest I could book, has a stove and refrigerator and sink and sofa and living room area and king sized bed and a view of the ocean which is literally about 50 yards out the back doors of the hotel. This is a vacation city. In January, the Beach is stunningly quiet and empty. If you are smart, and you don’t consider vacationing at the ocean when it is only in the mid-sixties or seventies out a hardship, you should bring your family here on vacation in January at an easy $50-$60 a night for resort-like hotels.

Anyway, beautiful setting aside, this is an interesting event to be at. The keynote speakers include J. Ellsworth Kalas (whose book I reviewed earlier this week) as Bible Study leader, Bishop Scott Jones, and Adam Hamilton, among others. This is not an event I would likely have come to, as I mentioned, were it not for the methoblogging component. It’s not that I don’t want to learn about evangelism. Contrary perhaps to stereotypes of ‘liberals’ like me, I think most ‘liberals’ are very interested in learning how to better communicate the good news of Jesus. But I think ‘liberals’ like me often have stereotypes about what others, other more conservative folks mean by evangelism. So I was a bit nervous – or curious I guess – about what this event would be like. The atmosphere is certainly different than most gatherings I’ve been to – the speakers so far are surprisingly centrist in their presentations – not saying things the way I’d say them, but not generally saying things I totally disagree with. The worship and music is more traditional than I would have expected – a little disappointing, actually, but the content is solid. I will probably spend the next few posts focusing in on each speaker more specifically.

I’ve gone to four workshops – three sponsored by our methoblogging sub-conference, and one with blogger/DS Susan Cox-Johnson focusing on Wesley and the emerging church. I’ll also write about these in more detail, but my gut reaction is that I wish there were different ‘levels’ of workshops for people coming in with different ‘levels’ of knowledge. Re: web ministry, some people are here with a lot of experience already, but others don’t know anything about using the internet yet, and it is hard for workshop presenters to meet all of these various needs.

Of course, the most fun part of being here is hanging out with the other methobloggers. It is so much fun to meet people you’ve only known in part online. It is fun to see how my mental images match up with the real people and personalities. I won’t confess to them which is which, but let’s say some of these methobloggers are exactly like I expected, and others are nothing like what I expected! I’m reminded of taking my doctrine and polity courses online at Drew, and then running into the professor on campus, and being totally thrown off – he wasn’t what I had been imagining at all!

To be continued…

Think-Tank Thoughts

This fall, my DS has been meeting with a small group of pastors and having us read together The Shaping of Things to Come, by Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch. We're only a few chapters in so far, so I will save a real review for later. But the book has been making me think a lot about the in-between/torn feelings I wrote about a while back.

We got to talking in our conversation about why it is that we can all say we agree with this book, and think things need to change dramatically, foundationally in the church in order for us to truly be about building the kingdom of God, and yet, still not have anything change, anything grow differently. My former pastor, now colleague, offered this excerpt from Kent Carlson's Soul Journey as an answer:

"I am convinced that personal ambition, and a pastoral ethic centered around productivity and success is brutal to our souls and destructive to the souls of the people we lead. I believe there is a better way. But it requires us to walk right into the messiness of our own ambitious hearts, ready to die to those ambitions. We must become skilled at detecting the odor of personal ambition, then flee from it as if the church's future depends on it. For I believe it does."

I've been thinking a lot about these words since Bruce shared them with us - personal ambitions. We don't like to talk about or admit a lot when it comes to our personal ambitions in the life of the church. I think we sense that we're not supposed to have them, unless our ambitions are more Christ-like (that whole first/last last/first thing he liked to talk about) than is probable, and yet I suspect that we all have personal ambitions about where we see ourselves in the church and world.

Let me speak more personally, and own my words. I certainly have personal ambitions about the church and my life in it. I always joke with people when they ask me about my 'goals' in ministry, and respond that I hope to be the first female Protestant Pope. (Unless John's dating service for me works out, I've apparently at least got the single thing down no problem.) I respond this way because people are constantly teasing me about becoming bishop or DS or General Secretary or something equally thrilling. But, truth be told, if I was asked by my bishop and the DS to take an appointment at a three-point charge like the itty-bitty one I grew up in, with average attendance of 25 or less, in a town that makes Oneida, NY look like a mega-city, I would have a very, very hard time getting excited about things. Do I think I'm actually called to something else than this scenario in my ministry? Yes. But also, my personal ambitions wouldn't fit well there either.

Jesus' deepest and harshest words of criticism were for the religious leaders of his day, and he was most critical of them for taking what God had given them and trying to smush it into a box that they could control and monitor and limit. He criticized them for taking what God had given them, and fighting over it, and ranking themselves within it, and fighting for power to talk about it, power to lead others to it, power to control those they shared it with. If we are ever to become what God calls us to be as individuals and as the Church, we must "walk right into the messiness of our own ambitious hearts, ready to die to those ambitions." Perhaps this is the hardest, but first work we need to do.

Recently, a pastor-friend of mine was lamenting a situation in the well-to-do, large church she serves. They have millions in savings, endowments, special funds. But they spent a church council meeting fighting about whether or not to pay their final apportionment payment of the year. Could they afford it? She wondered how big of a nest-egg they would need before they would truly feel 'safe' enough to do ministry. She expressed to a parishioner how much she hated spending so much energy fighting about money, fearing that building the kingdom of God was an activity that was only going on outside the walls of the church she was serving, giving her time and energy to. She's been reading Shane Claiborne's The Irresistible Revolution - my copy - since during Exploration. She was flying through the book during the event, but now is dragging to finish. Why? She says she's afraid to read more because reading something like this book makes her think she really needs to change some things to be working for the kingdom of God, and she's not sure she's ready to do that.

An honest answer for sure. I love the United Methodist Church. And I love the structure - I really value the connectionalism and collegiality that is the UMC at its best. And I value the ministry that our structure allows. I value the ministry of the general church, and I value the ministry and giftedness of our district superintendents and bishops. My DS is retiring in July, and I will truly miss his guidance for our district and his role in my ministry at its beginnings. But the structure also surely encourages us - or at least enables us - to be personally ambitious to the detriment of the kingdom of God.

I'm not sure where I'm going with these thoughts. Like my pastor-friend, mostly I want to stop them here, stop writing, for fear of where the thoughts naturally lead. But, I've always believed that God's calling on our lives is never a done, completed, one-time event. And so I am trying to listen for how God is calling me now. And this much I hear clearly: Pope-hood is not in my future.

Review: Stranger Than Fiction

I went to see Stranger Than Fiction last week. This time of year when there are so many 'awards season' movies out, contenders for the big prizes, I find it hard to pick what to see - too overwhelming. But my friend and I arrived at the theatre without a specific movie in mind, so we just picked what was playing next - Stranger Than Fiction. I was a little wary of the movie because I'm not a huge Will Farrell fan. Ok, I laughed all through Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, but I was doubtful that he could pull of a serious role like this one.

Well, he pulled it off. I really enjoyed the movie. If you've seen the previews, you've seen the basic premise: Will Farrell plays a straight-laced man who finds that his life is being narrated by some voice, and the voice says his death is just around the corner. He tries to find the author and persuade her not to write his death, and in the process of his quest, he tries to live differently - in a way that the voice doesn't predict. The narration of his life makes him realize how mundane and unsatisfying his life has been so far.

Farrell was really excellent in the role. The film has many absurd qualities, and he fit right in as a person who plays absurd so often - but his role was definitely a huge change from his typical. The other actors were also great - Emma Thompson, who I think is one of the best actresses around, plays the author. Dustin Hoffman is excellent as a quirky professor Farrell goes to for advice. Maggie Gyllenhaal, another favorite, plays a woman Farrell audits (he's an IRS guy.) Queen Latifah's talents are unfortunately mostly wasted in a small, underused role as Thompson's assistant.

The film has a basic message of 'carpe diem - seize the day.' It isn't necessarily profound, but I guess like all such life lessons, we need to keep hearing it until we're living it. I can't remember where I read it recently - I think maybe in an article in Relevant magazine - an article that asked, "what are you waiting for until you really start you life?" I didn't say that well. What excuse do you keep putting out to yourself or to others that goes like this: "I'll get around to [the thing I'm really called to be doing/meant to be doing/passionate about/convicted about doing] as soon as [this other life thing happens/falls into place/gets settled.]" I'm very guilty of this. I'm very guilty of saying to myself that I'll start doing things the way I think I really should be after I get my PhD, or after I'm ordained (that excuse is no longer valid!), or even just after the new year. The point is - what are you waiting for? This is it already - this is your life. It has already started, is already well underway, and if you keep waiting for the perfect time to act, your life will be well over before you get anywhere.

Anyway, I'm trying to take that message a bit to heart, and trying to think about what I've been putting off that I know I should be attending to now. But maybe I'll start in the morning... :)

Update: For Andy B.'s more profound Christological view of the movie, read here.

Review: How (Not) to Speak of God by Peter Rollins

I finally finished reading (#19) How (Not) to Speak of God by Peter Rollins. I would describe this book as a theology of the emergent movement, a 'foundations' sort of book. Maybe Rollins wouldn't describe it that way, but I mean it as a compliment. The book describes an understanding of God - or a not-understanding of God - that is where I see a lot of people these days, where I see a lot of people who are looking for a spiritual life, a faith community.

Rollins writes two parts - the first is the 'heavy' stuff - the theology, and the second is outlines and explanations of twelve worship services that represent what he's talked about in the first part. The services aren't meant to be copied, though they can be, but they're meant to give more tangible examples of what he's talking about. I had a hard time getting into the book at first, so I went and read the services, part two, first, and then went back and read the 'heavy' stuff, which I found a helpful approach. I managed to finally finish it off (I have no excuse, really, it is a short book) when I was stuck in a doctor's office waiting room for 2+ hours.

Rollins talks a lot about how we often think we can talk about God in a knowledgeable way, but he stresses that what we don't know, and our realization of what we don't know, is often more significant. He talks about "conceptual idols" - making idols of our beliefs about God. "Like an aesthetic idol . . . the conceptual idol refers to any system of thought which the individual or community takes to be a visible rendering of God. The only significant different between the aesthetic idol and the conceptual idol lies in the fact that the former reduces God to a physical object while the latter reduces God to an intellectual object." (12) Revelation is "not to be though of either as that which makes God known or as that which leaves God unknown, but rather as the overpowering light that renders God known as unknown." (17)

Rollins talks a lot about our beliefs, our theology, as something that can potential get in our way of having actual encounters with God. He sees this is the problem of the Pharisees in the New Testament. "They held so closely to their interpretation of the Messiah that when the Messiah finally appeared in a form that was different to what they expected, they rejected the Messiah in order to retain the integrity of their interpretation." (21) It isn't, then, necessarily that what they Pharisees believe is so wrong or destructive. It is that what they believe and how committed they are to the rightness of what they believe leaves them unable to experience anything greater than their beliefs. He continues, "If theology comes to be understood as they place where God speaks, then we must seek, not to speak of God, but rather to be that place where God speaks." Compelling.

Some other highlights:
"God is not the object of our thought but rather the absolute subject before whom we are the object. This is confirmed in baptism when we say that we are 'baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.' Here we do not name God but God's name names us." (23, bold is my emphasis.)
What Rollins calls an "a/theistic" approach to God: "a form of disbelieving what one believes, or rather, believing in God while remain in dubious concerning what one believes about God." (26)
The idea of God as "hypernomous" - not anonymous as in completely unknown. But hypernomous - so known to us that God is unknown. Overwhelming.
"It is only in the midst of undecidability that real decisions are made. For instance, take the example of two people getting married with the firm conviction that the union will last as long as they both live. In this state of obvious delusion no real decision needs to be made. The future is believed to be so certain that the decision to marry requires no decision at all. Yet if two people understand that their relationship will face various hardships, that the future is uncertain and that there are no guarantees, then, far from preventing a decision, this is the very point when a real decision needs to be made. The vows of marriage are not so much affirmations of what one believes will take place but rather promises that one will work towards ensuring that it will indeed happen." (34)
Rollins talks about Jesus not as one who gives us all the answers, but as one who makes us want more, ask more: "Instead of religious discourse being a type of drink designed to satisfy our thirst for answers, Jesus made his teaching salty, evoking thirst." (37)
"A true spiritual seeking can be understood as the ultimate sign that one already has that which on seeks, or rather, that one is already grasped by that which one seeks to grasp. Consequently a genuine seeking after God is evidence of having found." (50)

All along while reading I had been thinking of Derrida and deconstruction, so I was glad Rollins mentioned him (45-46) too. I first encountered Derrida in my senior year of high-school English, and found it all a bit overwhelming and disagreeable. So, I took a whole course on Derrida in seminary, and found him a little bit more disagreeable (and thought-provoking.) But the context in which Rollins talks about Derrida and theology finally had me getting and appreciating a bit more.

Rollins' final section in part one transitions towards the more concrete, talking about love and ethics and what the previous chapters mean about how we live as disciples of Jesus Christ. This leads to the transition to the worship services, which are really quite unique.

An excellent read. And probably a short read, if you're a bit more determined than I've been about reading these last few months!

Online Studies

A while back I mentioned that we would be trying online studies this fall at St. Paul's. Well, they're both kicking off this week: a scripture study, usually following the lectionary, though occasionally using different passages if we are using different passages in worship, and a book study, currently on Brian McLaren's The Secret Message of Jesus. I'm not sure how these studies will go - I'm not sure St. Paul's will be 'into' blogging-studies, at least not right away, so if you feel like stopping by and joining in and setting a (friendly) blogging example, I'd welcome your input!

Reflections: GBCS Fall Meeting, Part III

Another set of (rambling) thoughts about the fall GBCS meeting.

GBCS is blessed to have a really great set (and fairly sizeable set) of young board members. Currently, one youth and a few college students, and a few seminarians, and a couple of "old" young adults like myself. We had a handful of young people last quadrennium too, but no organized time together, and I don't think I knew more than one of the other young adults in any meaningful way. This quadrennium, we always set aside at least one meal time to eat together. Sometimes we're working toward a specific purpose - talking about the Global Young People's Convocation and Legislative Assembly - sometimes just for time together. I really appreciate this group, this time.

It is at these gatherings, though, and in some other places in my ministry lately, that I feel most like I have a split personality when it comes to the Church - the UMC specifically, but the Church as a whole. I don't know where to fit myself. On the one hand, I feel tired. Tired, at 27, when I hear the energy and ideas that are coming from some of these young adults. Tired, because though I am young, though I am part of this missing demographic, though I am in the age group of those who usually stay away, who don't find meaning in the Church, I did stay, and I love, live, breathe the institution of the UMC. I love the hierarchy, the organization, the structure, I'll gladly admit. There is part of me that is totally satisfied with worship how I've known it most of my life - I enjoy learning new songs, but I love the old hymns. In fact, I don't usually enjoy praise bands or 'contemporary' music. I like hearing a good sermon. I like parts of the liturgy. I like a Sunday schedule of Sunday School, worship, coffee hour, or some combination like that.

But the other part of me finds voice with those who are increasingly critical of a church that seems to them completely irrelevant, even as they strive for spiritual meaning, spiritual lives. I wonder why we are unwilling to say "we need to start over and try again" if we really want to reach people with Jesus' message of the kingdom of God. I feel excited about the possibilities, the prospects, of doing a new thing, a new something a new way. I feel like there is something else I ought to be doing, and like sometimes I am even on the brink of going there. But...

How do these two parts go together, though? It takes some boldness, some bravery, to do these new things, to put these two parts together in a real way. And instead of bold, I often feel like I have to compromise one part for the other, compromise one part of me in order to speak with the other part. And that doesn't feel very bold to me. It feels like I'm not getting anywhere. Frustrated. Stalled. Unwilling to take the risky steps to move where I think I might need to move for fear that the other part of me won't come along too, and then maybe I'll end up with neither part. I feel a little stuck.

One of these young adults who just impresses me with her energy, her vision, her boldness, is Kristina Gebhard. She blogs, though not recently, here, and has written in particular about her experiences travelling to Kenya this summer. Kristina preached at our closing worship, and when we were preparing the service, she talked about her dislike of sermons. Sermons, preaching, she said, doesn't do much for her. She can't remember many sermons that really meant something to her, moved her. She doesn't find herself really challenged by them, and doesn't like being told what to do. Instead, she'd rather be challenged and pushed and moved by relationships - by people, and being with people, learning from and about people, and learning about herself and who she is from others, and because of relationships, be changed, challenged, moved. She's also technically an institutional UMCer, but she's asking more frequently: Can the church still be an agent of the kingdom? Or, to build the kingdom, must she be outside of the church?

At any rate, she still graciously prepared a sermon - a poem - a slam poem - that was fabulous. I was going to include just excerpts here, but it is just all too good, so I've included it, and part of her intro, whole. Of course, printed, you miss the cadence of the spoken performance aspect, and also the sung chorus (the 'na watoto je' part) but you get the idea. The irony - as we stood and applauded her message - is that her message is about us - we, the church, unable to get beyond ourselves to be ourselves and let others be part of us and us part of them. Here it is:

God’s kingdom in a child - by Kristina Gebhard

I wanted to share a poem with you. I wrote it when I was thinking about all the things in our lives we have commodified, all the things that we have allowed to come between us and kingdom building. Specifically I was reflecting on how poverty, especially in the developing world, has become an industry. I was thinking about how we throw around words like malnourished, and starving, because we have had to completely externalize their meaning in order to go on with our daily lives. The idea that we have plenty to eat while millions of children die lacking basic nutrition is too harsh to internalize. Why? Because if we internalized it, we’d be like that rich man—Jesus would be telling us to change. Jesus would be saying, kingdom building isn’t something you can do on your days off. Kingdom building is something you live. This poem is about the struggle to live in the process of kingdom building, amidst so much privilege.

God’s kingdom in a child

As I hold your malnourished head in my hand
And think about the malnourished souls in my land
I wonder how long we’ll keep telling you, you can do it, yes you can
Just buck up, there’s so much life to live
After all its not the greatest to receive, but to give
We say work, child, work,
If you put your mind to, we promise you can do it
Work, child, work
That’s what we did, we say,
We went to school, we earned our A’s,
We started small and climbed the corporate ladder
Who we stepped on, it doesn’t really matter
And now we’ve got our nine to fives,
And our long commuter drives
And our perfect happy families
Waiting oh so patiently
For a Disneyworld vacation
Or a Fourth of July celebration
Hoping they can cover up
Praying so to smother up
The penetrating mediocrity
And hibernating desire to be
A part of something greater than ourselves
But with our family portraits on our shelves
Our SUVs and boats and extra beds
It’s much easier to say we should see the hungry fed
And say privately, we’ve earned this and we deserve this
So work, child work

Na watoto je?
What about the children?

And I pay $40,000 in tuition,
To bring my goals to fruition
I learn to talk intellectual
My walk becomes ineffectual
As I insulate myself by criticizing theories
And joining clubs that motivate my liberal fury
So I can feel somehow my academia
Is connected to my life,
my life is disconnected from the mania
That is globalization’s new world order
My generation has the world on our shoulders
And it’s so damn heavy we’d rather lift chemistry books, ipods, a few shots of expresso
Sure, we’ll help to fix the broken levies
But we just don’t have the energy or the naivety
To see that this country acknowledges exposed poverty
As personal responsibility
Look, we feel for them, but we’ve got our problems too
My paper on global inequality is three days overdue
They say my maladjustment is extreme
and they’re not trying to be mean,
But how bad can it be to stand in the middle
I say
Will anything ever change if we don’t each change a little?

Na watoto je?
What about the children?

And as I hold your malnourished head in my hand
And think about the malnourished souls in my land
I’d like to hope or even chance to reason
That our leaders in the midst of their treason
Could learn so much by listening to your story for an hour
If politicians, with their political claims to a higher power
Might spend ten days with you and your likeness
Maybe they’d learn to see Christ in your faces
Or maybe they’re too full of their own Christ given graces
Jesus, here we are your children dying
And we talk about your saving and your sanctifying
Love falls so short of its destination
We go to church and praise this nation
We go to work and praise a God who’s saved us from the hell that we’re creating
But child, so beautiful, you just smile at my gyrating
Laugh at the anger I’m generating
And remind me I’m not better than those of us who did this to you
If I speak in liberal tongues of hate and from my place of “consciousness” spew
Pretentious rhymes about the state of the world that convict the complicit crew--
God there are some bastards out there, but you want them to be human too.
And as I hold your beautiful head in my hand
And think about the beauty in the souls in my land
I dare to dream, like the idealistic fool that I am,
That maybe, one day, we will bring forth God’s kingdom for every child
For now, I’ll glimpse God’s kingdom in your smile, and live my life to feed us both.

Mark Driscoll, Mainline Churches, and The Numbers Game

A while back both Adam and Sarah Walker Cleaveland posted about Mark Driscoll's recent blog entry on mainlines churches. (Mark is the founder of Mars Hill Church) I've had the posts saved in my bloglines for a while, with thoughts forming in my head about how to respond to Driscoll's post.

Driscoll, in a charming tale about filling his young son's heads with ridiculous stereotypes of mainline-church Christians, wrote about driving by a mainline church with his son, age 7:

"He asked me what that church believed and I told him they do not believe people are sinners, do not believe the Bible is to be taken literally but is more like a fantasy video game, do not believe you need Jesus to go to heaven, and do believe that being gay is cool with Christ."

He goes on to share his "ten easy steps to destroying a denomination." His first starts with "having a low view of scripture." His whole article angers me, and I'm tempted to take it point by point, but this post would end up rant-like, which I'd prefer to avoid, even though he has a lot to say about "liberal women" that I could write on at length. But I have to say that I do hate the phrase "low view of scripture" which to me only says that the speaker has a different view of scripture than I do. I certainly would never say that I have a low view of scripture - what does that mean? I've been studying the scriptures since I was a child who was curious about God and faith and how the Bible could help me understand both. I took semester after semester of Greek in college and seminary not to tear apart a book I don't care about or view lowly, but to better understand it, get closer to it. Frustrating, and very insulting.

Anyway, though, that's not the main thing I wanted to comment on. Driscoll also comments on declining membership in mainline denominations as proof of non-rightness, not-on-the-right-trackness. I also think there are things the mainline church needs to do, ways we need to drastically change if we want to offer anything relevant to people. I worry about the Church's future, life-span, and my place in an 'institutional church', which I love, but which drives me crazy. But I think statistics, increases and declines, can only be facts for us to ponder. Increasing numbers don't mean evangelical conservative churches are right. Declining numbers don't mean all mainline churches are wrong. The reverse would also be true, and you can remind me of this should evangelical and mainline churches ever be in reversed statistical places.

What do increased numbers and declining numbers really mean? This summer at my church, I've been teaching a course on World Religions - nothing fancy, just basic facts and theology of major world religions, and few that were of particular interest to the class. In my preparation, I was searching for stats about the world's fastest growing religions, and I found this at adherents.org:

Some of the fastest growing religions/world views are:

• animal rights
• activists
• Assemblies of God
• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• environmentalism
• Evangelicals
• Hinduism
• International Church of Christ
• Islam
• Jehovah's Witnesses
• Lubavitcher Hasidic Jews
• non-denominational community churches
• Pentecostalism
• primal-indigenous religion/revitalized tribal and "first peoples" organizations
• Seventh-day Adventists
• Soka Gakkai
• Sufism
• Unitarian Universalists/Unitarians
• Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
• Wicca
• Zen Buddhism

Quite a list! And what do these movements/religions have in common? Nothing much, as far as I can see. Do you see common threads? Why do you think these things are among the fastest growing?

Of course, I want my church to grow. I want people to want to be there, be a part of a community of faith, feel like being a part, being a disciple, is something they just can't live without. But I'm also so conscious of the challenging message of Jesus. Throughout the scriptures, though we hear of many coming to believe, we hear from Jesus about how hard what he says is, and how hard it is for people to hear what he has to say. We hear during his ministry that many are not able to accept his teachings, and stop following him, turning back to where they came from. If Jesus' ministry went through a time of decline, if eventually even his closest abandoned him - does that mean there was something wrong with what he was teaching?

I want my church to grow. But I also think people can be simply attracted to what is new, flashy, easy, convenient, socially fulfilling. I think some churches, both mainline and other, can grow for wrong reasons too.

How do we assess growth in discipleship, really? I'm not sure we can do it by the numbers, the stats. I know we can't do it entirely without either. How do you measure discipleship? Right now, I think much of our interest in numbers and stats is so that we can rank ourselves, and compete against each other, and secure financial status and power within or between or over denominations. Can we engage in new ministries if their success can't be numerically measured somehow? What are signs of effective ministry that aren't numerical?

Review: The Secret Message of Jesus

Book #18 this year: The Secret Message of Jesus by Brian D. McLaren. I wasn't sure what to expect, after reading and mostly enjoying A New Kind of Christian. The title (and chapter titles) certainly plays on the DaVinci Code frenzy, implying something hidden that we've missed from Jesus. I read some unflattering reviews, but primarily, frankly, from critics I don't normally agree with anyway...

I really like the book. In fact, I like it so much, and like how it is written (an easy read, challenging, but simple language and easy to understand arguments) that I think I'm going to use it as a book study in my congregation this fall.

The book is about the kingdom of God, and what Jesus meant by talking about the kingdom of God. You might argue that this isn't a new concept, a critique which McLaren addresses, but his point is that we've missed the point(!) when we talk about the kingdom of God and what it means. McLaren offers several working definitions/re-imaginings of the concept of the kingdom of God, but the simple early definition he offers is: "an extraordinary life to the full centered in relationship with God." (pg. 37) His focus is very much on the "right-nowness" of the kingdom, and I'll agree with him that in much of the church this "right-nowness," the near and at-hand that Jesus always talked about, has been absent. He says "we are under a gentle, compassionate assault by a kingdom of peace and healing and forgiveness and life." (pg. 60)

In a particularly good chapter ("Secret Agents of the Secret Kingdom") McLaren writes "We may have tried to make people 'nice' - quite citizens of their earthly kingdoms and energetic consumers in their earthly economies - but we didn't fire them up and inspire them to invest and sacrifice their time, intelligence, money, and energy in the revolutionary cause of the kingdom of God." (pg. 84) He imagines what world might look like if we sought to become "secret agents" of the kingdom, living as active, leading participants of the kingdom no matter what place we are in right now. The images he uses here are fun and challenging but also convey a sense of possibility and "I can do this."

In a later chapter ("The Open Secret"), McLaren does interesting work with Paul's letters and relating them to the kingdom language Jesus uses, arguing against saying that Paul's letters are about "Paulianity" instead of "Christianity" as some would argue. I think I need to reread this section with a Bible in hand so I can better see the context of the passage he lifts out for examination.

As I was reading, I felt like several sections gave me completely new ways of looking at certain gospel passages. I kept thinking to myself - remember this! Write this down! Good sermon starter! But of course, flipping back through the pages and reading my margin-scribbles, it all seems a blur. One that I do remember is a source McLaren uses - a passage from philosopher Dallas Willard who does a great rereading of Matthew 5:29-30 (that part about plucking out your sinful eyes and such). Willard says that Jesus "reduces [the Pharisees'] principle . . . to the absurd, in hope that they will forsake their principle." (pg. 124) Huh.

McLaren also address "Borders of the Kingdom", forwarding a principle of "purposeful inclusion." Is it "whoever is not against us is for us"? Or, "whoever is not for us is against us"?

Overall, I found this very readable, but challenging, and as I mentioned above, I am using this book as a study book this fall. (There are some study guide helps included. Not extensive, but a starting point.) With this second read from McLaren, I'm more intrigued by him and where he's going.

I'll close with a great passage McLaren closed with - a poem written by Archbishop Oscar Romero called "A Future Not Our Own."

It helps, now and then, to step back
and take the long view.
The kingdom is not only beyond our efforts,
it is beyond our vision.

We accomplish in our lifetime only a tiny fraction of
the magnificent enterprise that is God's work.
Nothing we do is complete,
which is another way of saying
that the kingdom always lies beyond us.

No statement says all that could be said.
No prayer fully expresses our faith.
No confession brings perfection . . .
No set of goals and objectives includes everything.

This is what we are about:
We plant sees that will one day grow.
We water seeds already planted,
knowing that they hold future promise.
We lay foundations that will need further development.
We provide yeast that produces effects beyond our capabilities.

We cannot do everything
and there is a sense of liberation in realizing that.
This enables us to do something,
and to do it very well.
It may be incomplete, but it is a beginning step, a step along the way,
and opportunity for God's grace to enter and do the rest.

We may never see the end results . . .
We are prophets of a future not our own.