Friday, October 21, 2011

What makes a good neighbour?

“Which one of these was a neighbour to the man in need?” This question is the conclusion to Jesus' answer to another question “Who is my neighbour?” Note that Jesus doesn't answer the question asked, Jesus doesn't say “Those in need are your neighbor.” Jesus asks who acted as a neighbor, he really answers the question “Why be a neighbor?” with “Be a neighbor because you see ones in need.” Everyone is our neighbor in this world, it honestly may be the best term we can use for others. The Greek term used here literally means “the one nearby” and has the implication of “a person I know of.” We all know people in need, either specific people who we know by name, or people who we know exist even if we don't happen to see them everyday because of how our world is sometimes divided. We can all talk about places where there are struggles and people who are in need, and because of that we should call them neighbor.

One of the ministries we worked with this past summer was the Urban Ministry center in Charlotte. They call all who come to see them neighbors, and often over time by name. They care about the homeless who have need of medical care, food, clothing, shelter, help getting paperwork so that they can be employed, and just love from another person who has the ability to help. Our youth were touched by one of these neighbors, Gary. As Gary told his story, you could see the stories of others we had met over the week flood through the minds and hearts of our youth. They saw someone who they could help and could love, and made a decision that they weren't leaving without finding him again and giving him a gift. This isn't because it was the right thing to do, but because he was a neighbor. One in need.

It doesn't matter who our neighbors are, we will know them when we see them, because the Spirit that lives within us sees others spirits and feels their needs. This is God at work in this world, caring for others and fighting for justice. But more than that it is building a relationship and being that neighbor, a neighbor who doesn't separate from others, whose concern, like the Samaritan in scripture is for the “other” the “neighbor.” There are no walls, no rules, no laws, no expectations that keep him from being a neighbor. Likewise we must question the things that divide us, do they likewise keep us from seeing each other and our needs, from letting the Spirit of God act among us as it wishes, bringing all together in God's love. In The Mending Wall by Robert Frost we see a narrator who questions the walls that are built between neighbors, and a neighbor who seems to the narrator to walk in a sort of darkness, protecting self interest and not sharing love, even as he is unable to understand the need for such a divide and just clings to it because it's always been there. May we be ones who question the walls in our lives and in the world. Thus may we become the neighbors to all that we are called to be.

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun,
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
'Stay where you are until our backs are turned!'
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors'.
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows?
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.' I could say 'Elves' to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."

Monday, October 10, 2011

What would I ask myself:

While I was out directing 50 HS/MS on how to act on the Ed Sullivan Show, someone asked me online what questions I'd ask someone interviewing for a youth and family position. Here is a short list of things:

Why do you feel this ministry is important to a church?

What things would be a sign to you that a church thought this ministry was important?

In doing this ministry, what things do you see being the best use of your time and skills?

What are some of the best things you've seen others do that you have not been able to replicate (and follow up with "Why" if needed)?

How do you see other ministries in this church affecting and intersecting with this ministry?

Where do you feel you (would) work best when doing this ministry?

In what ways do you find the parts of this ministry similar? different?  (depending on what info they have may also have to ask "what do you find to be the essentials of this ministry")

Something you thought would work really well didn't turn out the way you expected, what would you do?

How do see relationships, programing, resourcing, and planning working together in your view of this ministry?

A new family comes to worship, what do you do? (or has been coming for a month, depending on what you want to know)

How does your own life reflect the ideals that you feel are most important to the work of this ministry, in what ways does it not?

How does this ministry affect other groups in the church (list if needed)?

How do you deal with someone who feels that a major part of your ministry is "not for them?"

Who are the most important people to your ministry?

I could go on for a while (and have) but this is a good kickoff interview list I think to get people to possibly give more than just canned answers and open up comfortably about if a ministry is truly a fit.

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Growing or Transforming

I will not forget the words of my late seminary professor Cecil, he would always say: "Your job as pastor is to take care of the church, and taking care of the church is assuring it's health and long life.  You do this by bringing in young families.  Those are the most important people to a church."  I thought then it was a bunch of bull, and I still do.  Yes, that is now, has been, and will probably continue to be the way to assure that the church goes on functioning for yet another generation, but it misses the importance of actually being church. 

The congregation I work with is undergoing a revisioning process, and it has been hard to stop the talk of "how do we grow the church" within that conversation.  I agree we shouldn't just focus on what our church is but on a picture of what it could become in this process, but really transforming the church is different than just growing the church.  Cecil is right, if you want to grow a church get focused on your youth, children, and families, but if you want to transform a church, then everyone is involved. 

I was talking with one of the children at the church recently and asked the question "What is church here for?"  Her answer: "To take care of those who can't take care of themselves."  Do to the nature of the conversation we didn't get much deeper than that, but it is true, we are here to be community, to carry one another in a way that is healing and creative.  We're not just here to bring other people in, we're here to be part of what goes out and changes the world.  We must then focus not on those who can help us, but on helping those who can't help themselves.  We are transformed by interacting, and I would hope that we're trying to be transformed into people with a larger vision.  That means discovering new things about God, the world around us, and ourselves through relational experiences. 

I took a group of youth this summer on their first mission trip.  I watched them put together thoughts about inequality, human rights, and God's plan for all creation in ways that I'd never heard before.  They connected with people, and then made bigger connections.  We so often miss this in our normal church lives.  We disconnect what we're up to in a building or through our programs from the bigger picture.  Yet I truly believe that the reason it is essential for us to gather together is so that we can be transformed by one another. 

This then extends to the church as a whole.  If the church is going to be transformed it has to truly interact with the world around it.  It can't be just a bubble with programs to draw in, it has to be a living moving creation that goes out and interacts with the world around it.  It has to take care of those who are part of it that can't take care of themselves in order to be able to take care of all.  It has to visit, it has to love, it has to be with the world,  walking with the world and hearing the issues, and then working to help those who hurt, who are unable to help themselves, just as Jesus did. 

We are the hands and feet of Christ.  If we believe this, believe ourselves to be God's body, we need to be about God's work.  Jesus did not worry about washing himself, he served and washed others.  It was not about how many people were following him, but about what he could do for those who did.  Jesus transformed the world by doing the work of God.  The children came to him not because he created an environment that was child friendly, but because children recognize true friendliness and are attracted to it naturally.  If we want our churches to be transformed, to continue to be relevant in generations to come, we must act as friends to the world.  We must go and do God's work, and trust that God's love and grace is truly as irresistible as we claim it to be.

Saturday, August 6, 2011

The God of America

I spent a good bit of time in my childhood/teens in SBC churches.  I even remember a seminary board member who was part of one of these churches telling me they were always there to make sure I had every opportunity to live up to my potential (at least until I got divorced).  I have a fairly good working knowledge of the conservative christian world because of this I think.  Today's event in Texas and the politicizing of faith is not what I remember anyone in that world really standing for.  The political ideologies played some part in things sure, but what we taught and were taught was all about helping others regardless of the cost.  Now I admit that it often glossed over some of the national social issues, but I remember many nights carrying blankets for the homeless, driving them to shelters, and giving money towards medical missions at home and abroad.  These were the things people talked about and did.  Yes, there was an annoying amount of morality based theology, but the "literal" reading of scripture didn't read like "America the Chosen nation."  It often read very differently than that.

I don't know exactly how this side of Christianity got co-oped by those wanting to create fear and promote nationalism, but it certainly seems to have happened.  Maybe it's because instead of being a community where various ideologies had a voice, all the dissenting views left or were pushed out (and some of both happened).  Without dissenting voices it is much easier to broker fear, without those who push our buttons and make our blood boil that we truly love, it is easier to call them enemies, to push them into a group known as "other."  I say this with a sense of fear of what could still happen in the PC(USA), where the sides divide, glad to let go of struggles and settle into a comfortable place.  I don't think that's what we're called to.  I think we're called to struggle.  To struggle along with those we disagree with vehemently, to struggle about the meaning of scripture, to struggle with questions of power, privilege, equality, and love.  We need to see that none of us have the only way, and that we must go together if we are to do anything good in this world.

Today there are people praying for the economy, for our nation, for moral values, and for other things that I personally find to be misguided prayers.  I would rather us pray for equality of humanity, care for creation, love for all, and continued struggling together, but those praying for these other things can only journey with us if we're willing to treat them as equals and not as others.  I do not agree with the co-opting of God for national, personal, or ideological gain, but I do nothing better if I'm not willing to engage in the conversations and act in love.

That being said, I must say why I am pained by the subjects of these prayers:
1. The Economy - Those who have lost before know that these prayers are ones of protect what I have.  Yet, God is clear that nothing is our own.  Should we lose everything, we gain a freedom that we do not have when we possess things of our own.  We should not pray that God fixes the economy, but that we will learn what many who have been or are homeless know: There is a real difference between want and need.
My prayer: http://youtu.be/a-O88_hZD5o
2. Our Nation - I do not hate the US, but I do not think we deserve any special blessings, or even deserve all we have.  We are truly a nation of privileged and power, and any prayers for our nation should begin with a greater realization of what protecting our own does to damage the rest of the world.  God is not interested in making our nation great, rather God is interested in the greatness of all of creation and that begins with us all realizing our shared humanity, our shared divine spark, and our shared call to be stewards of all of Creation.
3. Morality - I don't think we should go about killing each other or just doing whatever whenever, but really it is not what people do in scripture that makes them faithful or not, why do we think that's the key for us?  The key for those called faithful within our Christian (and by extension Jewish) tradition is a willingness to listen and discern that which God wants from them.  Jonah is reluctant, Moses is both reluctant and immoral, Peter falls far from belief or morality (cutting off ears, easily forgiven?) . . . these are heroes, and they should be because they never stop struggling and discerning.  They are faithful, not moral.  The why is of greater importance than the what.  This also means that we are not to decide for others what is most faithful in any specific instance, but again walk along side them in their journey, for we do not know which paths are narrow or wide while we are on them.

There is much more I could say, but really you've probably read all you want to by now.  Again, I wonder how many others really think that God is America's God?  How many feel that God is more interested in us than any other nation?  How many think that God feels that the things we call important to God are really the things that are important?  How many want a God that is a God that is going to say "You didn't feed me when you saw me on the street corner that one time, you're a goat, go to hell."?  How many think that God just wants you to believe, be fairly moral to those you care about, and ask for lots of forgiveness, all while trying to protect that which you think of as yours? 

Or do we really realize that God created us for something more, for greater works of faithfulness, for an actual relationship with God, each other, and all of creation that calls us to give all of ourselves up and being uncomfortable and struggling, but to do so together in love with one another for there we will find peace?

Monday, July 18, 2011

Can one depart a relationship graciously?

I heard the term again today . . . Gracious Departure.  I can't tell you how uncomfortable that term makes me.  It's like a CIA coverup, let's work out a deal and then it'll be done and all go our separate ways.  Before you know it, it'll be like nothing ever happened.

For people that's BULL.  For churches that's BULL.  It is the nature of relationships that some end.  Many when they end, need to end, and when both parties recognize that it does become easier to move on.  Those in that situation though are few and far between, and even then division of shared identity is problematic.  This best case scenario then recognizes the irreversible change that we create on one another and the links created.  This does happen, but it's never quick and painless.

A truly gracious ending to a relationship though is more complicated and happens only 1 of 2 ways in my opinion:

1. A recognition that a relationship needs to end from 2 parties, with a full recognition of mutual connections and commitments, and an understanding of the continuation of these apart, leaving open the potential for forming a new relationship in the future.
2. A realization that a relationship is not, nor was it ever as both parties may have interpreted it, with an agreement to continue to work and define said relationship for what it is, not what either side thought it was.


Of course to read between the lines there, many would argue that neither is an actual departure from said relationship.  I would argue from a Human Communication viewpoint they are actual departures, just outside of what we view as the norm.

Yet, at this moment it seems though that this split that is happening within the PC(USA) is not amicable, much less gracious.  Both sides have put a claim on parts of the shared identity as solely belonging to them.  This means that we're not looking at a Gracious Departure, but a Violent Disassociation.  I've been here done this in the Baptist world, some churches there had packed their bags more than a decade earlier and were already out the door, just playing house with the denomination.  Their exit was expected, but they still thought that it would "prove a point."  It didn't.  Other churches still cling to some form of dual identity, but really have hacked off a leg or 2 in the process in order to feel comfortable with their decision.  The problem for these churches is they realized the bond that was already formed and didn't want to lose it, there was value in the relationship they had fought for, and they still wanted to be heard. . .on some things.  On the other issues, they'd take their ball and play elsewhere until their partner (SBC) made them take the rest of their stuff from the house as well.

I see both of these things happening in PC(USA).  The "Fellowship" group is seemingly trying to do the latter, while a number of churches are willing to just take the bags they packed and leave.  There though are many churches who haven't committed to either of these approaches, but feel the tugs of one or both.  It is for these that I fear the consequences of what we choose to do with the others in regards to a "Gracious Departure."

I will use a circumstance I know for an example.  I know 3 churches in an area who are all currently restless due to the passage of 10A.  They all have sessions that are "examining the options" or have examined them.  Given the right set of circumstances they may all take a chance at a "Gracious Departure."  The pastors and sessions have tired of fighting with the denomination.  So let's assume they agree to make a "Gracious Departure" would it really look like Grace?

Church 1 - Leads the Hispanic ministry in the area, without them this growing ministry collapses within the PC(USA) for the area.
Church 2 - Is more theologically diverse than their Session believes.  Their pastor is honestly struggling to work through issues he's having, but is committed to the denomination, if they leave his turmoil becomes worse.  The other staff member would quit immediately.  The church would lose people and probably go under in the resulting turmoil.
Church 3 - Again, an active church in community outreach, heads up many presbytery wide initiatives (school and clothing drives, education events, etc). 

Regardless of how both the church and denomination handled the departure of any of these churches it would be less than gracious because the connections are too deep.  Termination of these relationships couldn't be done cleanly and quietly. No relationship termination is without explosive collateral damage when disassociation is involved.

I admit that I do not desire for there to be a mass exodus of conservative congregations, I feel denominations are stronger and better able to grow faithfully when there is pushing and struggling together rather than moving to places of ideological agreement.  This also goes for efforts to name churches according to ideological stances on any certain issue (fellowship, more light, etc.) but as long as we don't use these tags to disassociate with one another, it would be a smaller price to pay in my opinion.  I do not believe that in all cases the fight should be to keep those who have been out the door for years, they're going to go anyway, but let's not encourage others to go that way because we're acting as we feel we've been acted towards.  I don't think this denomination would be stronger if the chopped off all that feel uncomfortable, don't fit.  To say that it would is as fundamentalist as one may claim those who now feel like leaving are.  This has been and will continue to be a complex journey of faith we take together.  This is not the end nor is it a beginning, it is just another moment in the journey and the journey together is what I think it is really all about.

So maybe there is a way still to redefine these existing relationships, maybe though there does need to be some sort of "break."  I don't know the answers, but I feel we're not doing enough to truly be a people where ALL are welcome when we're too willing to let the uncomfortable, the misfits walk (regardless of who these misfits are).  This is a hard issue for our church, just as it is when friends, lovers, or any other relationship becomes strained and difficult for a long time.  Let us journey together in God's grace.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Creating a Spirit of Fear

I spent today with a youth who I know has lots of thoughts and opinions, but rarely expresses them.  You can see her brain working but rarely do words come out beyond "That's fine", "It's okay", "Whatever you want", "I can do that", etc.  Around the half way point of the day, she finally says this: "I don't say much because I'm afraid I'll say something wrong and disappoint someone or embarrass myself."

I was told recently how impressed people were with how "mature" my kids are.  Well, I wanted then to tell that parent then that I wish my kids knew more about what being a kid is like.  These are kids who are expected to take care of younger siblings, take care of grieving parents, and take care of each other due to loss in the community.  They are kids who live structured lives run by coaches and directors, kids so talented that they seem to always be placed in leadership roles wherever they go.  This seems to have been the case for most of them since they got to middle school.

How hard do we push our kids to grow up?  Why do we push them in certain ways?  It seems to me that we far to often view kids as our legacy, and thus try to give them a leg up in being "the best they can be."  Youth are the future of the church, our kids "shouldn't go through what we had to,"  we want them to have "happy lives."  All of these ideas have major issues.  We set up kids to shut down because they're afraid of failing us, and thus failing themselves and God by extension.  We make kids feel like what they do is attached to who we are and our emotions.  We set them up to think if people aren't happy then things have been a failure.

We shouldn't focus on happiness of any individual or group when talking about what it means to be adult or to be Christian.  Rather we need to use a language that encourages finding "meaning" and acting on that "meaning."  Kids know they want more than to be happy, but we've been telling them for so long that "we just want you to be happy" or "I'm not upset at you, I'm just not happy right now" that they don't even know what it is they're seeking.

So since they know there's more to life than being happy, but it seems the only other options are pleasing "adults" who seem to want to be happy at their core.  This sets up the fear of disappointing others or self that my youth today spoke of.  They want to make sure they're saying, doing the right thing.  They don't want to feel bad about a wrong choice, so why even bother choosing anything when "someone will tell me what to do." 

So what type of place do we need to create within the church for our young people?  A place where they know they can't disapoint us? A place where they can seek meaning?  A place where they're encouraged to speak what is on their mind freely, just so they can get it out there? Probably a little of all of these things, but it's not easy because both the culture and the church is full of this legacy thinking, full of people afraid to be wrong, afraid to risk their "good name," afraid they may find themselves uncomfortable while searching for meaning instead of happiness.  We can't ask our youth to be in the present, to be the change they want to be, if we're not willing to join them.  They are not the future, they are the present, and their questions, their struggles are our struggles.  But we're the adults, we should provide real opportunities to journey through these things, not provide a place where youth are afraid to journey as individuals and within the community.

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Human Communication and Social Media

I love social media, I truly do.  As an Aspie, it has been a wonderful way to get closer to people without the difficulties I have in normal social situations.  I've met people I never would, shared great ideas, gotten closer to people who I may have just barely known otherwise.  Yet, those who know me know I go against the grain when it comes to the idea that we can form community from social media alone.

My issue has always been based on issues of how much we share with each other in these places and the types of connections we form.  We tend to gravitate towards the extremes, towards those who share views close to our own, or in some cases towards conflict with those on far poles from us.  It seems that many people just form pseudo-communities based around ideological or demographic similarities.  There's nothing wrong with these relationships, but if you read my previous blog posts you will know that I don't think these things can be the basis for community as defined from a Human Communication perspective.

Well, now I'm adding a new piece to this.  I've spent some time today reading and researching on the idea of a global/cosmic consciousness (or 6th sense).  In studying this, I begin to really see patterns that show that we "think" with some idea of each other, that we don't just react but that we connect to each other and all of creation with some commonality of thought or common desire.  A "God Spark" if you wanted to make it theological.  But studies show that the level of connection over distance is significantly weaker than that of people who are closely connected through local communities that interact physically.  Much like magnetism, the closer we are to one another, the more this global thought is shared.  These are not common opinions, but emotional responses and physical subconscious reactions.  This is not saying we can make each other think alike, rather that we share a deep emotional, maybe even spiritual connection.  It is the feeling we're being watched, it is these moments that come from a physical experience, not just one through interaction of ideas (social media's base).  Our emotions are not just reactions, but do seem linked to something bigger and greater than individual moments.

It also makes me wonder about myself as an Aspie, I really want to find some research about the subconscious activity of people with Asperger's syndrome. Some of this research tonight on human emotions and how we understand them individually and in community seems to indicate to me it is those connections that act differently in Aspies. We don't read faces well, we don't act according to social norms, is it possible that my extreme logic is something connected to being somehow disconnected from the global consciousness. Yet, studies also show that some Aspies have a higher level of premonition than normal, so this would say we're still connected but less reactive and more proactive. So I want to ask: do we move outside the collective consciousness or do we just connect differently? Regardless of this answer: How does that effect how we view and understand God? 

All of this put together makes me wonder if my response to social media is based on personal experiential evidence, or if there is something real that social media can't recreate?  I am convinced that there is something more to physical contact that even the best connections through electronics cannot recreate.  For that reason, I plead for those who feel alone to seek community in places like churches where not everyone thinks the same.  I plead for churches to be those places, places where we can walk faithfully seeking and discerning, not being indoctrinated and conformed to ideological ideals.  I hope that what we find out about our commonality as humanity, be it a global consciousness or not, is the key to what brings us together into community.  For it is that commonality, that "image of God" in all of us, that truly can change the world.