Bandits No More

What began as a fairly clever ad line is well on the way to becoming United Methodist Theology.

The slogan, “Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors” was created by an advertising firm for the United Methodist Church. It was rolled out to use in the “Igniting Ministries” marketing strategy.

As an ad line, I have no real problem with this slogan. However, I hear more and more United Methodists refer to this line when describing our church. When difference of opinion, or more seriously, difference of doctrine comes up, some fall back to this slogan as though it is the lowest common denominator of all things United Methodist.

I’m not really sure what “open hearts” are, but an open heart is certainly not our goal. “To worship God and enjoy Him forever” is the chief end of man. Where openess of heart and mind are important aspects of this that the individual can come to know and love God better, I am all for it.

Our purpose is NOT to have “open minds.” Open minds are an essential part of learning and growing, but because learning and growth are possible, the openess of the mind is ultimately secondary to its capacity to learn and grow. In other words, if one has learned something, one no longer needs to have one’s mind as open as when was merely ignorant.

Again, our purpose is also NOT “open doors.” It really bugs me when my ushers, for whatever reason, lock one of the two doors to our sanctuary, figuring since one is open, everyone can get in. I shudder at the idea of someone reaching for a door handle to enter a sanctuary and the door not opening. On the other hand, there is something very particular and specific going on in our sanctuaries; the worship of the God we have come to know chiefly in and through Jesus Christ.

I don’t have all the answers. My theology is not airtight and completely formed. For it to grow closer to where it ought to be, looking to Our Theological Task and our Articles of Religion will do me far more good than will turning to an ad slogan.

In one of my favorite episodes of M*A*S*H, the 4077th needs an incubator. Hawkeye and BJ find themselves at a press conference with a General. When the General takes questions, Hawkeye asks why MASH units don’t get incubators. After he receives a convoluted bureaucratic answer that doesn’t answer the question, Bj asks the next question: “Why don’t you answer his question?”

The other day the budget of our Annual Conference was presented. It was then explained that the budget was presented on Mondays for the opportunity of questions and information, but wasn’t to be amended or voted on until Wednesday. The floor was opened for questions.

Two people raised legitimate questions. Neither were answered with any more than an “I don’t know; we’ll check on that.”

There were no more questions. Can anyone really wonder why?

Last year at the District Steward’s meeting, I had two legitimate questions about the budget. The only answer I got was that the chair of the Finance Committee had not seen the budget until that night, but she had chaired the committee for twenty years, so I should just sit down and mind my own business

If the System really doesn’t want questions to be asked, could we at least develop the integrity to admit it?

Last week I summarized Bishop Huie’s address – that’s the official term; “challenge” would be a better word. I said then that it was the best such address I’ve ever heard. As a pastor who is called to lead rather than to just be a chaplain it is very encouraging to have my boss say what she said. Here are some thoughts on how we in Pittsburg can respond.

Part 1: Current Reality – We live in a small town. Though it will continue to be small for the foreseeable future, we not only have new people moving in, but we have long term residents who do not participate in any church. There are plenty of people to reach. Some of these are a lot like us. We already have connections with some of them so we can invite them into the life of the church. Others, however, are form a completely different cultural background. They speak Spanish rather than English. It’ll take more work to reach them. I’ve spoken with Rev. Jaime Lopez, the incoming pastor at Far de Luz UMC in Mt. Pleasant about finding a way to partner with them to start a work in Pittsburg. More on this below. Another aspect of our current reality is that we are an established church. We celebrate our sesquicentennial in 2 years. Our facilities are older and their recent renovation has left us in debt. We can look at this debt and continuing expense as reason to hold back on ministry with the idea that we need to conserve scarce resources. I think that such a move will be deadly for us. Why? We’re in the people business, not the building business. When paying for and maintaining the buildings crowds out reaching people, we’re defaulting on our calling.

Part 2: Jesus’ Model of Discipleship

A. Radical Hospitality – This goes beyond friendliness. Jesus was notorious for spending time with outsiders – with people whose lives were broken. There are plenty of outsiders here in Pittsburg. Some we see as they come in for help with food. Some we see in Wacky Wednesday, FISH, and the Youth Ministry. As we find ways to draw in the Spanish-speaking community and the poor and broken, we will be practicing radical hospitality.

B. Passionate Worship – I (like some of you) like contemporary style worship. I (like some of you) like traditional style worship. More important than style is connecting with God in worship. Singing is important – I’d love to see the sanctuary full of exuberant, joyous worshipers every Sunday. This kind of worship will draw people in and help them experience God.

C. Faith-forming relationships and experiences – Early Methodism was built on small groups. We have good Sunday school classes, but right now less than half of our average worship attendees go to Sunday School. We need to start more small groups, not only for the people we now have, but also as entry points for new people.

D. Risk taking Ministry and Service – This can be scary stuff. Failure is possible. Doing the Agape House ministry was an exercise in this direction. I’m so thankful that we have leaders who are willing to take risks and try new things. We’ll be trying a lot more (and probably failing at a few) before we’re done. The main thing is, We’re in the people business, so we’ll be investing in ways to connect them with Jesus.

E. Extravagant Generosity – Little that is worthwhile comes cheap. Oh, some things don’t cost much money – just, blood, sweat, toil and tears. Doing the ministry God calls us to will mean that we can’t live as a poverty church (controllers of scarce resources). We’ll have to live as stewards of God’s abundance – in our lives as individuals, families and as a church. One of the economic changes that has hit churches in the past generation is the number of families with 2 full time workers outside the home. People have less volunteer time available, and more organizations clamoring for it. This has given churches two choices: (1) Cut ministry; (2) Hire staff to fill in the gap. Although it’s expensive, I’m glad we’ve taken the second option. No church, however, can afford to hire enough people to do all the ministry that needs doing. This extravagant generosity, therefore, calls not only for financial stewardship, but also time stewardship.

Part 3: Vision

Bishop Huie named four elements in her vision – I know more will come later.

1. New Church starts – Starting 10 new churches a year is a major change from the way we’ve been doing things. It is sufficiently impossible that if God doesn’t step in we will fail. What’s our role? We need to keep our eyes open even here. As a strong congregation we may be able to give birth to a Hispanic Methodist church here.
2. Revitalizing existing congregations – We’re going to have to ratchet up our learning and skills development. We won’t be able to survive, let alone thrive, by doing things the way we’ve always done them. I have a lot of growing to do, and I assume I’m not the only one.
3. Focus on Youth and Young Adults – The studies I’ve read show that churches that invest in a full time youth pastor have more impact on youth. I’m thankful we started thinking that way before I got here. Those same studies show that churches need to (and can!) overcome the divorce between youth and adult culture.
4. Recruitment, training and retention of effective leadership – If the Conference is going to plant 10 churches a year, we’ll need a bunch more pastors. I think some of those new pastors can come out of this congregation. We also need to develop more leadership training for our local leaders so we can stay beyond the model of managing scarce resources model of church.

Well. Does that sound challenging enough? Don’t quail at the sight of it all. Instead, give thanks to God that he has counted us worthy of joining him in his mission of reaching the world.

I read two articles on American religion today. Tom Ehrich bemoans the rise of conservative Christianity. Narrow-minded, unquestioning, dogmatic, they go to church for comfort as they face economic stresses of trying to keep up with the Joneses. Fear. Ignorance. Certainty. Ehrich sees these as the building blocks of conservative Christianity. He recognizes that this kind of Christianity seems to be “working” – it draws the crowds. Their way of doing things, however, contrasts with Jesus, and will have dire consequences.

What concerns me is the emergence of a religious leadership cadre that doesn’t hesitate to turn fearfulness into rage, hatred and scapegoating. They, of all people, should know better. They should know that the answer to fear is faith, not hatred. They should know that Jesus didn’t name enemies, launch moral crusades or wage culture wars. He didn’t exercise thought-control with his disciples. He didn’t insist on one way of thinking or believing. He wasn’t legalistic or rigid or conformist.

No, Jesus was a good modern American liberal, thoroughly open-minded. He wouldn’t hurt a flea. And since his world was ruled by evil conservative republicans – oops! strike that – Romans – they killed him for it. Or so it appears.

Jesus had disciples. A disciple is a learner – a student. He taught them not merely a method (critical thinking) or a moral directive (be loving and kind) but actual content about the nature, purposes and action of God. Through his actions and words he embodied the Kingdom of God, not just as a theory, but with himself – strangely – as the King. Was his method “thought control?” Well, he like other rabbis (and other teachers throughout the ages) wanted his students to learning something. He thought this teaching to be important enough that he spent three years with them – and continued teaching even when it led to death threats. If Jesus was a good teacher (not just a teacher who happened to be a good person) then it would make sense that his students actually learned from him. When students attach themselves to a teacher one might imagine them doing so because they want to learn something, perhaps even how to think better. Jesus certainly didn’t treat them as robots – in John 6 he even encouraged them to consider what he had said and to leave – if they thought that appropriate.

Though I wouldn’t call this “thought control” – which may just function as a “boogie man” term for Ehrich – it is a far distance from Jesus to modern autonomous individualism, which might be more amenable to Ehrich’s desires. Think and let think. Treat everyone as fully rational already (unless they’re conservative and act on their beliefs).

Dave Shiflett rights from the opposite point of view in National Review Online. Author of a recent book on the collapse of liberal churches, Shiflett emphasizes the different views of God in liberal and conservative churches. The former, he suggests, proclaims a God of infinite mercy and niceness, who “understands” the hardships we face, and wouldn’t (and probably couldn’t) deign to lift a finger to correct (oppress) us when we stray from what some idiosyncratic preacher might proclaim as “the way.” Sometimes this God even seems to blink out of existence.

Writer Andy Ferguson encountered the lesser god while taking a class at a West Coast Episcopal seminary. Andy sometimes argued basic Christian beliefs with a professor. After one such discussion he repaired to the lunchroom, where he was approached by a fellow student. ‘“We have finally figured out what your problem is,’” the classmate said. ‘You are the only one here who believes in God.’ Andy thought it over and concluded: This guy is right. Thus began a journey that recently took him into Catholicism. In economic terms he had switched brands. It’Â’s highly unlikely he’Â’ll be switching back.

The latter group proclaim a stronger more serious God – a God to whom we must adapt or pay a huge price. People are hungering, Shiflett says, for a God who is bigger and stronger than they are.

What do we do with these divergent evaluations of American religion? Does it work to explain away our opponents as mere projectionists (following Feuerbach) who create a god in their own image – either the pipe-smoking, tweed clad, bearded deep thinker or the macho, brusque, impatient strong man? Or are both sides pursuing an illusion (following Freud) , who excuses their immorality (the economic immorality of the conservatives and the sexual immorality of the liberals) and makes them feel better?

When I read the Bible I find a God who is way bigger than I am. This God wants people to come into a love relationship – a relationship that includes increasing understanding. I know this, but I also know that because God is so much bigger than I am, my understanding is always partial. And because I am a sinner, my knowledge is also often distorted. But the mistake of moderns is to look at this word knowledge and pursue an objectivist epistemology leading to certainty. Liberals may be pessimistic when it comes to knowledge about God, while conservatives may be optimistic about the same, but insofar as both count this kind of knowledge central, both will fail. While factual knowledge of God is important (and possible), it will not work when abstracted from a living relationship with God. As we live in this relationship God not only offers us forgiveness and deliverance from fear, but we also hear Jesus’ invitation to take up our crosses and follow him. Whether one thinks of oneself as either a liberal or a conservative (or anything else) that is not a comforting thought. But it is a good – because on the other side lies resurrection.

“All in favor, say ‘Aye,” any opposed, ‘Nay’.” I am in Fort Worth for the 139th session of the Central Texas Annual Conference. This three day session is a time when over a thousand clergy and laity from United Methodist Churches in central Texas come together for meetings, meals, and worship services.

It seems like we vote on almost everything. There are positions to be filled and budgets to be apportioned. We vote on each of them. There are candidates for ordination. We vote on them. We even vote on whether or not we will receive a report. We take this vote after the report has been presented. I’m still unsure what would happen if we voted not to receive a report that has already been given. Would the presenter have to try again?

Overall, I suppose it is a good thing that ideas, motions, and budgets are presented, discussed, and voted upon. But last night as I lay pondering our first day of business sessions, it struck me: we are not serving a democracy.

Though much of the ethic Jesus taught his disciples seems to us today to fit well within a democratic framework, Jesus did not call us to the “Democratic Republic” of God. He called us to the Kingdom.

One key difference between a kingdom and a democracy is the matter of who is in charge. In a democracy the will of the people is supreme. In a kingdom, the will of the King is supreme.

It is difficult for Christian Americans to get our minds and souls around this; we are democratic to the core. It is good practice for us occasionally to step back from this and realize we serve a King.

The sanctuary was full, and though the closing hymn was listed as the “Recessional Hymn,” the congregation sat down following the benediction for the playing of the postlude. It was a well played piece by an obviously talented organist.

As the moving toccata came to a close, the congregation applauded. Some stood. It was clear; the man’s talent was appreciated and was a ouseing way to end the worship experience.

This brought to mind the debate over worship styles. The service that night was entirely traditional. A large choir sang three different selections, and did so very well. I suppose it was the way we were instructed to sit for the postlude that brought to my mind the “worship wars.” The points were going to be made that THIS was worship, that the ORGAN is the instrument of choice for worship, and that THIS organist was a very gifted musician.

To toccata was beautiful. What I could not get out of my mind, thought, was, in what way(s) was this performance better, or more inherently worshipful than a well done guitar riff?

Please help me understand!

The Central Texas Conference opened tonight with a worship service at the First United Methodist Church of Hurst. Bishop Woodie White preached from Philippians 2:1-11.

The gist of the message was this: claim the Name. There is power in the Name. Do not be ashamed of the Name. The Name is that of Jesus, of course.

I appreciated the Bishop’s point that Christians ought not be ashamed of the name of Jesus. He called us to be good citizens in an increasingly pluralistic society, but to do so without ditching the name of Jesus in the name of inclusion.

“I expect a Buddhist to be about Buddha. I expect a Hindu to be a good Hindu. We likewise ought to be good Christians. Don’t be ashamed of the name.”

While I am skeptical that merely using the name Jesus will reunify and refocus the energies of The United Methodist Church as much as is needed, this is a welcome call to the church. Let’s get back to the name.

In a conversation with another pastor yesterday morning at Conference, the issue of pastoral tenure came up. This pastor shared a theory one of his parishioners holds (I paraphrase): “When you want to keep a pastor a long time, you need to make sure you don’t pay too much. If you pay too much the pastor might get ambitious and want to move.” From the way many churches operate, I get the idea this is a commonly held theory. I think it is mostly mistaken, however.

I freely admit that I’m ambitious. I’m not content with the way things are. And this is a good thing for my congregation.

My ambition is not to move up to be a DS or Bishop. My ambition is not to become wealthy – although I do have a few dreams that are money related: paying for my kid’s braces, sending my kids to college, and owning my own house some day. But those things aren’t the center of my ambition (and I think they’re not that abnormal when compared to most of the people in my church).

My ambitions center around reaching people for Jesus. I want to pastor a church that is radically in love with Jesus and does everything possible to connect people with Him. Such a church will hunger after God, win people to Christ, grow them as disciples, help them discover their spiritual gifts, and then deploy them in ministry.

Doesn’t that sound like a good thing for a church?

Some churches out there are already everything they need to be. Everything goes smoothly. It’s perfect. I’ve never been in a church like that, but I figure there’s some out there. But I like the idea of creating something that doesn’t exist – of bringing health where there isn’t health, growth where there isn’t growth.

So what church leaders ought to want is an ambitious pastor whose ambitions can be fulfilled within that congregation. That will go a long way toward keeping a pastor.

Anyone who has thought deeply about evangelism knows that decisions are important. In come circles, the decision to “accept Christ” becomes the end-all of the evangelistic enterprize. Years ago James Engel came up with the Engel Scale, a way of depicting the multiple decisions – or stages – of a person’s response to the Gospel. Then a few years ago Frank Gray observed that while the Engel Scale mostly dealt with knowledge, it neglected the attitudinal component. This led to his development of the Gray Matrix. The Engel Scale is 1 dimensional, the Gray Matrix two dimensional. An even greater improvement would be to make it three dimensional to show the social component, one’s connection with the church.

Here’s a good overview of Engel & Gray.

William Willimon, the new Bishop of the North Alabama Annual Conference, is finding his new leadership role somewhat different from his old role at Duke. Though he has never withdrawn solely into the world of the theoretical – like some who work in seminaries – he is now in a frontline leadership position. He wants to see growth in the churches of his annual conference – he’s going to challenge them to grow their average worship attendance by at least 5% in the next year. Adding contemporary worship services is clearly one way to do this, but

Willimon is concerned contemporary services will bring an end to Christian traditions, such as the hymns of Methodist co-founder Charles Wesley, that have enriched the lives of Methodists for more than 250 years.

First, though much contemporary worship uses only recently written songs, there is also a resurgence of hymn singing, though the accompaniment and style of singing has been “contemporized.”

Second, for me – and I’d guess for many others – what matters isn’t the musical style but the spirit of the worship. The memorial service Monday at Annual Conference was a great worship experience. All the music was traditional – And Can It Be, I Stand Amazed in the Presence, and For All the Saints. It was awesome to have thousands of people singing with gusto – as if they actually understood and meant what they were saying. For that very reason, hymn singing is always one of the highlights of Annual Conference for me. What would happen if in our local churches we recovered the vigor of old-time Methodist singing – whatever the style?