Bandits No More

Sometimes I wish I would be snet to pastor a church that is already everything it should be. So often I feel like I have to start over from scratch, especially in terms of basic teaching. Every church I’ve been to takes hard work. We can’t just coast. Sometimes I envy those non-pastors who can go out and just find a church that is already where it should be (in their opinion), one that has ministries and programs their kids are excited about participating in.

But there is a part of me (I think it’s bigger than the other part), that takes great joy in making something – in the act of creating something that wasn’t there before. Of course this has a double challenge. I not only have to lead my congregation in such a way that we become what we can be (what God wants) but also to lead my people to want to become co-creators and not settle for just running over to the local baptist church (they always seem to have more money & resources & young people) or to the next town (always a little – or a lot – bigger).

I like the idea that God made us to be co-creators with him.

Some of the press has been reporting that this year’s election is the dirtiest most divisive in history. Other reporters have put it in historical context: presidential elections in the United States have a strong tradition of being contentious. I suppose there is some truth to both sides.

I am a political news junkie. I enjoy the “Crossfire” type discussion/debate show. One of the things I find most intriguing on such shows is watching the hosts, political opponents, as the camera pans out for a commercial break. When the sound is off, and the hosts think they are off camera, they chat and laugh together. I particularly enjoyed watching William Safire and James Carville chum around after a debate once. How could such ideological enemies enjoy each other’s company?

Because, strictly speaking, they are not ideological enemies. They are political opponents. Within a shared political system, Safire and Carville have many disagreements about the role of government, the rights of individuals, and many other things. But at the same time, they hold in common a trust in the political system that provides the civil space for such disagreement.

I am concerned that not all of our great land is so inclined. In some contexts the hostility seems so strong that I wonder if opponents on some issues do still realize that we share an investment in a system that is built to surround or provide a space for serious disagreement. In other words, if real communication is to occur, somewhere beneath the disagreements, dissension, and arguments, there is a base-level foundation on which opponents stand together. Otherwise, they find themselves screaming past one another, not caring or listening to what the other side says.

Are we screaming past one another? Do you feel your side is being heard by the other? Do those on the other side feel you are listening to them? If we do not listen to one another, and do the hard work of understanding, we will erode the foundation upon which our system works.

There is great social unrest happening in Iran. With the repressive regime, this is no surprise. Keep praying for the people of Iran.

In response to those who say Christians should tend to “lost souls going to hell” instead of “meddling” in the political arena…

If we consider that doing something about “lost souls going to hell” to be what Jesus was about, and take what we see him doing and hear him saying in the gospels as an expression of that activity, then It sure looks like his concern is expressed very differently than what I’ve seen in contempoary churches that use that kind of languge to describe their mission. Jesus didn’t shy away from controversy with any of the parties of his day – the local parties that is. His controversy with Rome turned out to be pretty one sided (at least in the short term).

Our American weakness is that we tend to think there are two sides to every issue. Perhaps our two party system strengthens our belief this is so. But that’s not the way it is. In many areas there are many, many sides to an issue. This is especially true when we think of something as big and complex as a Vision for America.

The common denominator between the political groups we call “liberal” and those we call “conservative” are that they are both rooted in modern liberalism (the JOhn Locke tradition), focused on political freedom and individualism. Doubtless there are great differences in the way each group appropriates the Lockean tradition. One side emphasizes absolute freedom in one area, while another defends it an another. Think of private property (and money) and sexual morality as examples.

Our difficulty as modern American Christians is that Jesus is not a
Lockean. He is not an individualist (in our modern sense at least). He is not an American. He – and his teaching – just won’t fit in our boxes.

Would Jesus be “concerned” about abortion? It doesn’t seem to have been an issue in his local world so we don’t hear him saying anything about it; but it was an issue in the broader Roman world so his followers spoke to it within the first couple of generations.

Would Jesus be “concerned” about wars – either of conquest or of
freedom-seeking-revolution? If Tom Wright is right in his reading of
Jesus, then a major point of contention between Jesus and at least the Shammaite Pharisees (and the zealots) was the method of achieving national deliverance. The latter advocated violent overthrow of the Roman oppressors – being better at the power game than Rome was. After all, God was on their side, so size wouldn’t matter. Jesus, however, rejected the way of power, taking instead the way of weakness, the way of the cross. Of course this reading of Jesus necessitates that see him fulfilling not merely OT promises of individual salvation, but also fulfilling promises of salvation to Israel the nation. However we read
Jesus, the early church – and the Romans, for that matter – took his message to be something like, “Jesus is Lord – and Caesar isn’t.”

Would Jesus be “concerned” about government deficits? Would it make a difference whether the deficits came about through financing a war, the reconcstruction of a broken country (or two or three), of massive pork to keep buying votes? Or would he speak against the greed, acquisitiveness (consumption-itis), selfishness and violence of the electorate?

The insight that accountability to fellow believers is essential to growing in maturity as a Christian was central to early Methodism. Methodism survived beyond Wesley’s lifetime because of his organization genius, and that genius focused on developing structures to of accountability.

To the extent it has retained accountability, modern Methodism has translated it primarily into bureaucratic institutions. As individuals, Methodists don’t really care to be help accountable for the way they live their lives. I believe that is a major reason we lack the power of early Methodism. If we are to recover that power, we must find ways to recover spiritual accountability.

Here’s one idea: Start where you are.

Most of us already find ourselves in relationships. Start by allowing the people closest to you to hold you accountable. If you’re married, ask your husband or wife to hold you accountable. If you’re not married, ask your parents, children or a friend to work with you. Start in practical areas. Agree on a set of questions that fits your situation. Here are some suggestions:

• Am I being faithful to my marriage vows and to the needs of my family?
• Do I listen to my spouse and children in such a way that they are convinced I am listening?
• Am I demonstrating the Fruit of the Spirit in my family life in such a way that my family is being drawn to Christ?
• Do I have a healthy balance in my relationships – family, work, ministry, and recreation?

We can answer each of these questions for ourselves in the privacy of our own minds. But that won’t work very well. We’re just too prone toward self-deception. We need outside input from those who are close to us and know us well. In my experience, those who are least willing to allow those close to them to challenge them in these areas face the greatest risk of self-deception.

Once upon a time it seemed a good thing to many United Methodists that our denomination was not fraught with doctrinal disputes and narrowmindedness the way some are. The phrase, “The thing I like about being United Methodist is that you can beleive whatever you want to beleive,” caught hold. People would say this with pride!

A learned and respected colleague in ministry reiterated this old point yesterday at a meeting I attended. “One of the strengths of Methodism [should we suppose he intended to exclude the EUB part of our tradition, or that, being Texan, he is geographically prejudiced against the old midwestern church?] is that all are welcome at the table, without regard to what one believes.” I was caught between astonishment and gagging, but for the sake of decorum showed neither.

I like the idea that this metaphorical table at which we meet is not under the control of some close-minded fundamentalist. Though, like most, if the table is under the control of someone with whom I tend to agree, I care less about the parameters for exclusion than if it is controlled by someone with whom I generally disagree.

As I pondered this colleagues’ stupifying statement, I could not help but wonder how the church got to this point. Doesn’t calling our particular “table” Christian necessarily imply that some views are more welcome than others? Are there no longer any bounds to what is “Christian” and what isn’t?

Where do we decide what is and what isn’t Christian? At the Table.

If found guilty, Stroud could lose her ministerial credentials. Her
church has established a legal defense fund to help her pay for church attorneys.

If she’s confessed to it, how can she not be found guilty?