The Dreams For Tomorrow vs. The Reality Of Today

(This post is Part 2 of a series on the struggle to maintain idealism. Part 1 can be found here.)



Earlier today, I became involved in a discouraging conversation on Twitter. It focused on the matter of worship in the mainline church and whether new styles are practical and/or necessary. I was trying to make the point that for many people, traditional worship is rote and uninspiring. They attend more out of duty than for a genuine and exciting experience of God’s presence. Because that sense of obligation is fading as the church gradually recedes from the cultural mainstream, changes will be necessary if the church is to remain vital and strong in coming decades.

Much to my surprise, I received a good bit of resistance from the group of mostly progressive church leaders. Where I thought I would find abundant resonance to the idea of boldly blazing a new trail of creative faith expression, I instead received a litany of reasons why change efforts are risky/impractical/unnecessary/irresponsible/arrogant. On the whole, my desire for a new vision was not affirmed, and even the concept of moving forward was brought into question.

I ended the conversation with a frank expression of my frustration, accusing the participants of splitting hairs and lacking vision. Upon further reflection, I admit that my reaction was a bit rash, but it is born out of a deep and genuine angst over the prevalent “we fear change” mentality in the mainline church. It’s an angst that I imagine everyone in that Twitter conversation shares on some level, and it can lead even those who are favorable to change to respond negatively when others call for it. I’ve caught myself doing it sometimes.

The reason this happens is related to my previous blog on idealism and its tendency to fade over time. I observed that a lot of people (especially ministers) harbor high ideals for changing the world when they are young and in school, but gradually let go of these dreams as they become established in the real world.

One reason for this was revealed by today’s Twitter conversation. In an environment such as seminary, students are encouraged to think about the future. Discussions of what the church should look like in 10, 50, or even 100 years are common.

Once we hit the ground, however, and must deal with the day-to-day realities of a congregation, the focus changes dramatically. There might be precious little time to consider what worship should look like in 20 years, because we are consumed with what we’re going to do this coming Sunday. And in every church I’ve been in, staff and committees have rarely talked about what will happen more than six months into the future.

In such “present-centered” work environments, idealism naturally takes a back seat to practicality and realism. It’s no surprise, therefore, that concerns about how current church members will respond to change take precedence over what will happen in a generation if we don’t change.

Which is where most of the folks I got so frustrated with on Twitter seem to be. In theory, they might agree with the need for an evolving long-term vision of worship. In a seminary class, we probably would have had the kind of affirming, uplifting conversation about this that I was hoping for. We would have been free to focus on the larger sweep of church history and where we are heading beyond the horizon of the current church season.

But on a random Wednesday morning, when we’re all neck-deep in our preparations for another Sunday and another busy fall, it turned out differently. Instead of the forest of idealism, it was all about the trees of reality, about “what we are doing right now.” And right now, as much as it might be needed, it is quite difficult to be an agent of change in an institution that is so steeped in tradition.

Anyone leading a traditional mainline church faces this tension between long-term vision and short-term practicality. For the next five to ten years, I know that my church will continue to thrive with the same service it’s been doing. But if we want to remain vital beyond that, we have to start today in forming a new concept of worship (and a lot of other practices, too).

So the question I pose is this: How do we honor both? How do we be sensitive to the concerns of the present day without sacrificing our long-term future? Or do we have to choose?

Cling To Your Idealism - Part 1

A couple of years ago, I was talking with a colleague of mine about some difficulties I was having in my church. One of the issues concerned prophetic statements I had made about health care and some other social issues. My friend concluded that the conflict was in large part a spillover from the angry national political climate, but he also placed some of the responsibility on my shoulders - observing that even in my late 30s, I am still quite the idealist.

He was quick to qualify his charge, saying that idealism can be a very good thing - but the implication was clear. Idealism is something that is fine for students in a classroom theorizing about changing the world; but real people out in the real world, and especially pastors, need to get over it if they want to avoid trouble and get anywhere.

In my time in the church and in politics, I have seen many people “get over” their idealism. From seminary classmates with whom I shared pitchers of beer and dreams of a social justice movement in the church; to fellow ministers who have been slowly seduced by the allure of bigger steeples; to partners in political blogging who transformed from bold critics of the system to dependents on the status quo – in all of these, the basic pattern is the same.

Grow up. Go to school. Come to understand the evils of the world and its systemic nature. Develop big dreams and plans for changing the world. Graduate. Go out into the world. Realize that changing the system is a lot more difficult than anticipated. Watch a lot of friends and colleagues do well by abandoning their idealism and conforming to the system. Watch a few struggle painfully by continuing to fight the system.

Ultimately, the process forces young idealists into a difficult choice. In the movie “The Rainmaker,” the rookie lawyer played by Matt Damon asks the grizzled veteran who defends a criminal corporation, “Do you even remember when you first sold out?” What he’s really asking is if the lawyer made a conscious choice to abandon the principles of his youth, or he if he just woke up one day and realized he had drifted away from them.

My sense is that most ministers who lose their idealism drift away. They might not even realize it is gone, thinking they are still fighting for those same lofty principles they developed in seminary. But bit by bit, they might soften their language from the pulpit and edit their words in the newsletter. They might shy away from the challenging programs and study topics, instead making choices that are less controversial and more popular. Slowly but surely, they become cogs in the system they once decried, and they come up with a variety of justifications for why they shouldn’t pursue a bolder, more prophetic style of ministry.

In the next installment of “Cling To Your Idealism,” I’ll unpack some of these justifications, and I’ll examine some ways in my own ministry I have felt the temptation to abandon the lofty ideals of my youth.

From the Pulpit: More Than A Wish

(This excerpt is from the sermon I preached Sunday, August 28, 2011 on Hebrews 10: 19-25)

When I was growing up, my grandmother would call us in October each year and tell us that it was time to take to take a look at the “wishbook.” By this, she meant the big Sears catalog which contained pretty much their entire inventory. We were told to go through each page carefully and circle the things we might want for Christmas.

And we did so with great enthusiasm, sometimes letting our imaginations get away from reality. For as my brothers and I eventually learned, just because we circled something in the “wishbook” in October didn’t mean that it would automatically appear under the tree on Christmas morning. Sometimes, our wishes came true. Sometimes they didn’t.

As Christians, we can sometimes think about the Bible and the promises it contains as our spiritual “wishbook.” We might flip through its pages, read over some of the verses, circle the ones that we really like, and then hope that they turn out to be true. Which means that we sometimes think of God like a loving grandparent at Christmas, dispensing presents and making all of our wishes come true.

But just like wishing for an expensive toy at Christmas, approaching the Christian faith like that can also lead to disappointment. When we see God as nothing more than a granter of wishes, we start to lower our spiritual expectations as a lot of those wishes fail to come true. And we begin see the Bible as nothing more than a book of improbable dreams. Before long, the disappointment can cause us to stop believing the promises of God’s Word altogether.

But the good news is that the Word of God is not a wishbook. It’s not something that we leaf through in order to think about the things that we want. Instead, the Scriptures could be called our “hopebook.” As we will see by looking at today’s passage from Hebrews 10, the difference between what the word “wish” means and what the word “hope” means makes all the difference.

According to Webster’s dictionary, “to wish” is to “desire or long for something, to make a request.” “To hope,” means “to wait for something with a feeling of confident expectation.” Those last two words, “confident expectation,” are the key to what we have in our Christian hope. It’s not a matter of maybe it will happen, maybe it won’t. Hope involves certainty, conviction, and perseverance. Listen to the phrases that emerge as the author of Hebrews describes the hope that he has in the salvation that is in Jesus Christ:

“Since we have the confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus.”
“Let us approach with a true heart in full assurance of faith.”
“Let us hold fast to our confession of our hope without wavering.”
“For he who has promised is faithful.”

And finally, it’s all done as “we see the Day approaching” – meaning that all of our certainty about the things we hope for comes from the knowledge the Kingdom of God is at hand.

Unfortunately, when I was a kid flipping through the Sears wishbook, I never had that level of confidence in what I was circling. If I had truly hoped instead of just wishing for what would appear under the tree on Christmas, I would have gotten that BMX bicycle; video game system; that ultimate LEGO set; and even that gigantic backyard waterslide. All of those fantastic toys that I never received would have been mine.

Fortunately, as we seek to know Jesus Christ, to grow in grace, and to go forth into the world with hope – we do have that certain confidence. Because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the promises of the Kingdom are not a matter of “if” – they’re a matter of “when.” They’re not a matter of “might,” they’re a matter of “shall.” And they’re not a matter of “maybe,” they’re a matter of “absolutely.”

The Origins Of Sunday School And The Call To Compassionate Innovation

Have you ever wondered how the great Christian tradition of Sunday School got started? It was in England during the late 1700’s, just as the Industrial Revolution was in full swing. Large groups of poor people had moved into the cities to work in the new factories. Children as young as eight were hired for brutal six-day work schedules. On Sundays, which was the only off day, the children blew off steam by smashing windows, breaking into homes, and pickpocketing the city’s residents.

Eventually, an Anglican layperson named Robert Raikes decided that the plight of these children was something Christian folk should be concerned about. He started a school on Sunday to teach them reading and writing, the Bible, and proper morals – the only way these poor children would receive any sort of education. The “Sunday School” was born. Raikes, who was also a printer, published large sheets with the Ten Commandments and other Scriptures verses on them – the first-ever Sunday School curriculum.

Over the next few decades, the idea spread across England and to the United States, eventually being offered for all people – not just the poor street children. It wasn’t long before Sunday School become an essential part of the culture and the church’s witness to the world.

What Raikes accomplished with his first Sunday School was nothing extraordinary. His program didn’t require a huge investment or some sort of miraculous intervention like the Parting of the Red Sea. It simply took a basic concern for needy children, the willingness to try something new, and the perseverance to stick with it and make it work.

As we begin a new year of Christian Education around the nation, I hope we can continue to teach the children and adults of our time with that same compassionate vision. I have always said that there is no more important task for the church than educating the people in the faith.

I also hope that we can be open to new ways to spread God’s Word that respond to the changing conditions in our world. We are not facing the same problems that Raikes faced with the new factories and the children in the street – but we certainly have our own challenges and our own calling that is unique to our context. May we be faithful witnesses to God’s love in our time with the same sense of compassion and love.

From the Pulpit: The Other Side Of The Boat

(This excerpt is from the sermon I preached at Clarksville Presbyterian Church on August 21, 2011. It is based on John 21: 1-14)

It is a good thing to have some self-awareness about the traditions we keep and why we keep them, and to be willing to update some of them when it is necessary. That is the lesson that we learn from today’s story from the 21st chapter of John.

All night long, the disciples have been out on the lake, and they’ve brought in absolutely no fish. Their nets are completely empty haul after haul. But then, just as the sun is beginning to come up, they see Jesus standing there on the shore. Being unusually honest for fisherman, they admit to him that they’ve caught absolutely no fish. Jesus tells them to cast their nets on the other side of the boat. And as soon as the disciples move their nets, they began to catch more fish than they can haul into the boat.

Now as I’ve already suggested, I don’t know much about fishing - especially about fishing with nets from a boat. But obviously, something had happened in that lake that night. Something changed. Whether it was the wind, the temperature, or the water currents – conditions were different than what they were used to, and the fish weren’t where they had always been. The techniques that had worked in the past were no longer working. The solution was not to completely change what they were doing. They were still going to be fishing in the lake with nets from a boat. But they did need to makes some adaptation, some updating of their technique, to continue catching fish.

In the same way, we as the church are in a time of changing conditions. And because of this, we are struggling to balance tradition with the call for new practices. And it's hard for us, because we are a body of believers that is steeped in tradition, some going back as far as 2000 years or even longer.

What has made the church so strong and so resilient throughout its history is its ability to resist every trend and fad that comes along in culture, and to instead stay true to our beliefs and our core practices. As a result, even as the world is rapidly changing around us, and even as other institutions rise and fall, we can always count on the church being here as an authentic and consistent witness to the salvation that is found in Jesus Christ.

So our calling is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and abandon everything that has made the church great. But in these changing times, we are being called to update some of our techniques. If we want to give the most effective witness we can in today’s world, we can’t be completely tied to “the way that we’ve always done things.” We must be willing to fish from the other side of the boat, because like or not, the fish that we are meant to catch are not where they used to be...

... In our particulr time and place, when Jesus calls on us to fish from the other side of the boat, he is calling us most urgently to update the way we do evangelism and outreach. Those are the areas where, despite a lot of hard work and a lot of good efforts, we are pulling up empty nets. It’s not that our church and other churches in the community have not already been doing good outreach ministry. We have many very dedicated people who put in a lot of hours at places like the food pantry, Project Care For, the Ruritan’s thrift store, Madeline’s House, and other places that have helped a lot of people. It’s not that these ministries have failed. Not in any way.

But the reality is that these efforts are no longer enough. I don’t have to quote a bunch of statistics for us to realize how tough the economy is – and we are now entering the fourth year since the bottom fell out. Many people who used to have good jobs are facing the unimaginable strain of long-term unemployment, and many others are learning to scrape by on a fraction of what they used to earn.

In Mecklenburg County, these increasing economic needs seem to be especially urgent, and the structures we have in place to help people are being strained to the breaking point. Here in Clarksville, Project Care For has been shut down since June for lack of funds – which is not the first time this has happened - and the food pantry has burned through all of its reserve supplies.

The fish have moved, and our traditional nets of outreach ministry are no longer adequate. As a church and as a community, we are being called to cast our nets on the other side of the boat. We are being called to dig deep not just into our financial resources, but into all of our talents and skills and energies, to come up with new and more effective ways to help those who are struggling in these difficult times.

This summer, I have been in conversation with the other three pastors in our downtown area about ways that our community can better meet these needs – and our own Mission Committee has discussed this as well. We all agree that it’s going to take a different approach than just handouts of food or money. What people need the most are things like jobs, education, childcare, and transportation – things that are not as simple as paying an electric bill, but that in the long run provide a much greater benefit.

Over the course of the coming months, my hope is that these conversations can continue and that, through the power of the Holy Spirit, something can begin to come together - some type of new ministry. I can’t say what this new ministry should look like. It’s going to require a vision that is much broader than one pastor or one church. But I can say that it will require us to cast our nets on the other side of the boat, to do more than “what we’ve always done.”

Poverty Misconception #9 - "Poor People Are Lazy"

As the economic crisis grinds into its fourth year, it is clear that many people are struggling through no fault of their own. Whether it’s from long-term unemployment or from having to settle for a new job at a fraction of their old pay, a lot of undeserving people are slipping from the middle class into poverty or near-poverty situations.

Nonetheless, despite the clear systemic reasons for these struggles, many conservatives are maintaining a “blame the poor” attitude that has been prevalent for decades. Since the Reagan years, we have been fed the inflammatory stories of the welfare queens, shamelessly driving their Cadillacs to pick up their monthly government checks. This false image has been used to portray the poor as lazy and unwilling to work, and it has helped justify numerous cuts in social spending.

“The poor have no work ethic” was an inaccurate, un-compassionate, and self-serving attitude back then. These days, with so many more suffering unjustly, the “blame the poor” attitude is downright despicable. Anyone who has worked with outreach agencies or ministries to the poor knows how much of a gross generalization it represents.

When I helped start a food pantry and assistance ministry in my former town in South Carolina, I learned how difficult it is to make blanket statements about the poor. They are as diverse in their attitudes and work habits as the rest of the population.

Some of the people we served do fit the conservative’s stereotype. They acted very entitled. They never said, “Thank you.” Every week, they were back with a different sob story and a different need. They were only interested in hand-outs, never in any opportunities to improve their education or job skills. One even pulled up in a Cadillac and yakked away on a cell phone as she stood in line for her food box.

But that does not describe the majority of the people. Most were very humble and grateful for what they received. Their needs were genuine, and they took advantage of any opportunities that they could to improve their situation - but many were limited by age, medical issues, or handicaps. A surprising number were not lifelong welfare recipients who had no intention of working for a living. Instead, they were honest, hard-working people who had fallen on a temporary hardship. Our ministry, as well as the government programs such as unemployment benefits, played a large part in getting them through that time.

If I had to guess, I’d say that about two-thirds of the people were genuine hard-workers who were being held down by circumstances beyond their control. Only a third fell into the “lazy, no work ethic” category – a reality that I have witnessed in many agencies in many different contexts. Nowadays, with so many more people applying for unemployment and coming to outreach agencies for help, it is likely much fewer than one in three who match the conservative’s stereotype.

Which makes it all the more despicable that Fox News and others are waging a campaign to blame the poor for their difficult situations. At a time when they’re trying to pin the economic crisis on their political opponents, it doesn’t make much sense to harp on about the personal failings of those who are struggling. Shouldn’t they be saying that it’s all Obama’s fault, not the fault of the poor? Wouldn’t it be better to cast the lower classes as victims instead of villains?

As we continue this series on misconceptions about poverty, we’ll see why this and other falsehoods are proclaimed so religiously, often in ways that seem politically unwise and logically inconsistent. They’re all part of a long-term campaign, going back to the early 1980’s, to shift the basic attitudes of Americans toward the “least of these” and to reorient the way we live together as a society.

(Please click here and here for the first two installments in this series.)

About The Emergents, Part 3 - The River Washes All

Something new is happening in the American church, but describing it is not a matter of saying “who’s in or who’s out,” or even “who gets it and who doesn’t”. It’s a matter of affirming that God’s grace is creating a new reality in all churches and in all Christians, in ways that are wonderful and mysterious. We need not divide ourselves in the process. My one beef with much of the emergent theory I have read is that it has an unspoken attitude of “we get it, and they don’t,” or “we’re the future of the church, and they’re not.”

Please don’t misunderstand the nuance of this argument. There are many harsh critics of the emergent movement who accuse them of being everything from rebellious teenagers to heretics. I am not at all one of those critics. I applaud the emergents for their efforts. They are fulfilling a vitally important role in this transitional period. They are kicking down a lot of doors into the new reality, and they are reaching a young urban population that more traditional churches could never reach.

The nuance, therefore, is not that the emergents are misguided or irrelevant. It is a very necessary movement, but it is an incomplete one. The nuance is that they are one expression of the many ways God is calling forth something new - not the only one or the definitive one.

In fact, the entire spectrum of the American church is being transformed. Tony Jones, a popular emergent author, has offered the image of a tiny lifeboat casting itself away from a giant cruise ship as a metaphor for the emergent movement. But I suggest a different and less divisive image. Let us consider a river that is in floodstage, that is overflowing its traditional banks, and that is carving forth a new reality from an old landscape. Picture a scene where water (The Holy Spirit) is freely flowing across places in the church that haven’t seen water in eons, and it is washing away all of the accumulated dirt and rocks that have been desposited by three centuries of modern institutionalism.

In some ways, this flooding river is uncovering traditions that have been buried for centuries – such as ancient liturgies, mysticism, icons, labryinths, and contemplative prayer (to mention just a few). These practices are being rediscovered across the spectrum of church styles, not just in emergent congregations. For example, my very traditional Session has begun to use lectio divina (an ancient method of guided meditation on Scripture) as part of its monthly routine – a very significant break from the all-business approach of the modern era.

In other ways, the river that is carving away all the sand and mud of modernity is digging up some brand new practices. One emergent church I read about recently has a “tattoo night,” where members invite friends to receive a spiritually-themed tattoo, enjoy fellowship, and participate in a brief worship service. Such an event would horrify my church members, but it makes perfect sense for in a youthful urban setting.

The same river can look quite different as it flows across different landscapes, and the same is true of the Holy Spirit. It’s the same Spirit that inspires my Session to do lectio divina, and that urban congregation to do “tattoo night.” In both places, the sands of the old are being washed away, and the new reality is coming forth.

Which brings me to my central point in this series on the emergent church, a point which will reveal both the traditional and postmodern nature of my convictions. Being transformational, being led by the Spirit, and being an agent of the new thing that God is doing in the American church – it’s a very contextualized experience. In fact, it is happening in every context across the spectrum of our practices and beliefs in ways that are impossible to categorize or even recognize.

In Part 4, which will be the final installment in this series, I will propose some new terms and different ways of describing the new reality that are more inclusive of the entirety of the transformation that is occurring.

Poverty Misconception #10 - "Let Them Use The Emergency Room"

(This is the first in a series on "The Top 10 Misconceptions About Poverty," based on Marie Antoinnette's alleged statement, "Let them eat cake.")

The conversation usually goes something like this:

"Did you know that there are nearly 50 million Americans who don't have health insurance?"

"Yes, I did. But those numbers are inflated. The actual amount is more like 16 million."

"Well, either way, it's too many. Whether it's 5% or 15% of the population, isn't it shameful that so many people in a society as wealthy as ours don't have basic access to health care?"

"What do you mean 'don't have basic access'? Even a homeless person can get health care when they really need it. Emergency rooms are required by law to treat anyone who comes through their doors. It's not like people are dying in the street."

At this point, the conversation invariably devolves into an argument about emergency room statistics, the benefits and savings that come with good primary care, and how much the current system increases everyone else's costs. And anyone who takes a serious look at the situation will know that emergency rooms are not the solution to our health care woes. At best, they're an expensive band-aid - but I won't bore you with the statistical argument here. That's been well-documented in other places.

Instead, I would like to point out the fallacy that is inherent in even attempting to make the emergency room argument. Even if it were a viable solution to the problem of the uninsured, why would someone on the right even suggest it? It goes against the entire conservative philosophy.

The one consistent belief that I have heard expressed by conservatives is "the power of the individual" - the notion that first and foreost, people are responsible for themselves. Self-interest, both at a personal and a corporate level, is the fuel for our economy. They object to a national health care system, and to anything that resembles socialism, because they believe at a fundamental level that it is not the government's role to ensure the people's welfare. The free market, powered by self-interest, is the way to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

So isn't the argument that the uninsured can use the emergency room for health care antithetical to this conservative philosophy? Because the insured patients that go to a hospital pick up the tab for the uninsured. What could be more socialistic than that? The "haves" are carrying the load for the "have nots."

Wouldn't a more consistent argument from the conservative side be to just tell the uninsured, "Tough. That's what you get for being lazy?" I've heard a few jerks say that, but most conservatives I know are compassionate people and want to do something to help those without access to health care. And most understand how complicated the actual solutions are going to be.

The real problem, then, with saying "let them go to the emergency room" is that it's a lazy answer. It's a way for a conservative to shut down a conversation, instead of digging into the more nuanced layers and issues which might expose some contradiction in their conservative beliefs.

So instead of launchging into a barrage of facts of figures on the impracticality of the ER solution, which will only lead to defensiveness, perhaps the best response is to agree and then take the discussion deeper - to say something like this: "Yes, letting them go to the ER might be something we can do for now. But why don't we talk about some solutions that are feasible for the long term, that don't involve just letting the insured patients pay for the uninsured."

You're not likely to get a ringing endorsement for a national health system out of such a conversation, but you might get past that reflexive and and completely impractical suggestion that the emergency is the solution to our problems.

About The Emergents - Part Two

(Click here for the first installment in this series.)

Instead of drawing sharp lines between emergent and non-emergent churches, which creates an unhelpful “us vs. them” mentality, perhaps we should think of it as a spectrum. The old way of doing church is on one end, and the new way is on the other. All Christians fall somewhere on the spectrum.


Here’s the key to understanding the spectrum, and where the emergents sometimes misunderstand the situation: The Holy Spirit is moving and shaping the new reality from all ends of the spectrum – not just from the emergent end. The new reality, which is the product of the 500-year shift that we are all going through, exists above the spectrum and emerges from both ends of the spectrum. Which means that the new reality will not be the result of everything changing, but of some things changing, and some things staying the same.

This new reality will be organic in the way it involves. We can’t neatly divide the church into those who are working for change and those who are working against it. It is not a matter of one group or one ideology triumphing over another. The new reality is the result of the struggle between the desire for something new, and the desire to hold onto what is good – a struggle that exists on some level in every church, in every faction and ideology, and in every individual believer. Which is why all need to put ourselves somewhere on that spectrum and understand that God is working a new thing in and through us no matter where we might stand.

So it’s not a matter of deciding “who’s in or who’s out,” or “who gets it and who doesn’t”. It’s a matter of affirming that God’s grace is creating a new reality in all churches and in all Christians, in ways that are wonderful and mysterious. My biggest concern with much of the emergent theory I have read is that it has an unspoken attitude of “we get it, and they don’t,” or “we’re the future of the church, and they’re not.” We need not divide ourselves in such a dramatic way.

Top 10: Let Them Eat Cake

When told that the people had no bread, Marie Antoinette said, "Let them eat cake." A few days ago on Facebook, I asked my friends to share contemporary examples of the same type of ignorance and lack of compassion. Here are the top 10 responses:

10) Let them use the emergency room.

9) Poor people have no work ethic.

8) They'll just use that money for alcohol and drugs.

7) Poor people have it good these days. Most of them have cell phones and
televisions.

6) Poor people in America would be considered wealthy in some countries.

5) Give a man a fish...

4) Jesus said that the poor will always be with us.

3) It's the job of churches, not the government, to help the poor.

2) When the Bible talks about the poor, it means spiritual poverty.

1) Whatever you do, don't raise my taxes.

In future posts, I'll unpack each of these statements and show why they are misguided or outright false.

Do you have any to add to the list?

About The Emergents - Part One

The emergent church movement began among a group of frustrated young evangelical leaders in the late 1990’s. It is difficult to define or even make generalizations about, but the emergents are postmodern in outlook, open-minded in their practices, and appeal primarily to younger generations in urban areas. In many ways, I share their feelings and their frustrations, especially at the inertia and intolerance that is often prevalent in more traditional modern churches. And I certainly don’t believe, as many critics do, that the emergents are a fad that will soon fade into obscurity.

In fact, I’m quite a fan of the emergent churches, and would probably belong to one had I not been called into small-town ministry. I admire what they do and feel they are a very necessary part of 21st century Christianity. But I have a few concerns about some of the emergent theory I have read.

The first and biggest concens is about the way the emergents sharply define themselves over and against the rest of the “non-emergent Christians.” There seems to be a clear line drawn between the insiders and the outsiders, between “those who get it” and “those who don’t.” Does the distinction have to be so black and white?

Tony Jones, in his 2008 book The New Christians, uses the image of a tiny life raft that has cast itself away from a giant cruise ship - which represents how the emergents have broken free from the traditional church. Could Jones have chosen a more divisive and alienating metaphor? Does Christianity in America need to think of the wonderful new thing that is “emerging” as a rebellion and a separation? Or are they throwing the baby out with the bathwater when they write books with titles such as Everything Must Change (by Brian McClaren)? Does everything really need to change? Perhaps we need a better metaphor.

In a recent conversation with a friend who considers himself emergent, I pushed him to define the movement beyond just saying “we’re postmodern,” or “we’re doing things differently.” He had trouble coming up with a concrete answer, but he eventually said, “We’re guided by the Holy Spirit, not by what we’ve always done.” Which is more or less the same description that Tony Jones offers:

“Emergents tend to have a stronger belief in the third person of the Trinity… Emergents trust in the Holy Spirit more than they trust in the methods of doing church.”

And I agree with that sentiment, too. Being led by the Spirit and not by convention is something we strive for everyday in my very modern, very traditional church - and something at which we often succeed.

My challenge to the emergent movement is this: What is being said of the Spirit-led nature of the emergent movement, and what makes them such an authentic and relevant expression of the Christian faith, can also be said of many traditional-looking churches. Just because a congregation has traditional worship services, traditional music, traditional programs, and traditional people does not mean they are bound by the old conventions and deaf to the leadings of the Spirit.

Perhaps the emergent movement should think of itself not as something separate and uniquely led by the Spirit, but as one branch of a whole new reality that the Spirit is calling forth - a new reality that is transforming the entire spectrum of faith. My feeling is that most emergent writers would agree with this sentiment, but perhaps some of the backlash to their efforts comes because they are perceived as a rebellion and a rejection of what traditional churches are doing.

(In part two of “About The Emergents,” I will offer an alternative to the lifeboat metaphor for thinking about how the emergent movement fits into the 21st century reality of American Christianity - one that is more inclusive of the Spirit-led transformation that is happening all types of churches.)

It's Time For The Circus To Leave Town

When I was kid, back before animal rights was even a consideration, the circus was the most exciting event that came to town. There was so much to see and enjoy – the elephants and tigers, the acrobats and trapeze artists, the clowns and the funnel cakes. When that big tent went up next to the Civic Center, we all knew that we were in for a once-a-year treat.

Well now that we’re facing this national debt/credit crisis, and now that the 2012 election is finally getting into gear, we all have a front row seat for the circus that is American politics. But before we take our seats to enjoy the greatest show on earth, please consider this: It’s been fun, but it’s time for the circus to leave town. There’s a reason that it only stays in one place for a few days at a time, and that’s because it doesn’t take long for the fun and excitement to wither. Then, we see the circus for what it really is - a noisy, smelly, unsightful mess - and we’re grateful when it moves on to the next city.

When it comes to politics and the media coverage of politics, the American people have had enough of the circus, too. No more tricks and illusions. No more annoying donkeys and bloated elephants who can only seem to stink up the place. No more clowns who only play to the audience and ignore the real issues. It’s time to send all three rings, and the media that encourages them, packing.

I think we can all agree on that it’s time for the circus to go. The only question, is, what does this mean? How do we get our politicians and the media focused on what matters?

A) Throwing out the elephants and the donkeys by supporting a viable third party
B) Reshaping the existing parties from within from cultivating better candidates
C) Working to change the electoral system to allow for more choices and
less corporate influence
D) None of the above. Politics and the media will never change. The
solutions will come by changing people’s hearts and minds through other
avenues.
E) Who cares? I just want another funnel cake.

A Pirate Looks At 40

The song that inspired the title of this blog. Just replace "ocean" with "church", and "pirate" with "pastor", and it sums up a lot of my feelings.

Left vs. Right Does Not Define Us

Back in June, I went to the graduation ceremony at the local public elementary school. One of the teachers, who happens to be a member of my church and a card-carrying Republican, spoke briefly of a new after-school program that she has helped initiate. It is designed for children who are in danger of not having the basic skills necessary to begin first grade - a type of program that is quite common around the nation, but that had been sorely lacking in this rural Virginia county.
I was choking back tears as this teacher called about two dozen children to the stage – most of them from desperately poor African American families – and presented them with hugs and certificates. Knowing that she also invests a considerable amount of her personal time making home visits and tutoring these students, it dawned on me what a significant difference she makes in the lives of young children who have an incredible number of obstacles thrown between themselves and academic success.

This remarkably dedicated kindergarten teacher reminds us of how incomplete and misleading the typical left vs. right dichotomy can be. It would be easy to consider her Republican voting record and her conservative views on issues such as abortion, gay rights, and gun control, and to conclude she has little in common with folks on the left. From this, it would be easy to assume that, like some Republicans, she takes a “blame the poor” attitude toward poverty issues and has little compassion for those who are suffering in this economic crisis. Because of such stereotyping, it would be easy to ignore the fact that she is dedicating her life to helping poor children in a woefully underfunded public school system.

Those of us who get pigeonholed into easy categories of left/right and Democrat/Republican often fail to see the common bonds we share with our so-called political enemies. We cannot allow differences on a handful of “hot-button” issues to be exploited by those with political agendas and ambitions. If people of good will and legitimate concern for the common welfare continue to beat up one another based on these outdated categories, more sinister forces that have no concern for the people or no particular stake in partisan politics will further consolidate their power.

A prime example of this sinister tactic is the recent attack on teachers’ unions in many states. In this budget crisis, in what should be a time for the people to rally around its education system and proclaim that it is always a top priority, we have allowed partisan politicians trying to increase their own power to bitterly divide us. People who care deeply about the same thing have been duped into throwing stones at one another, to the great detriment of our nation’s children. Shame on them, and shame on us for taking the bait.

So before you place yourself in staunch opposition to someone because of who they voted for or how they feel about one of those wedge issues, please consider the deeper, non-partisan values that might be shared. Both sides might be surprised if we can steer the conversation away from the oppositionalism that is consistently fed to us. “Seek common ground” is not a naïve, pie-in-the sky slogan. It might be our only hope.