Bandits No More

It is time for Pat Robertson to retire. It is at least time for someone to take away his microphone. The AP reports that Mr. Robertson warned Dover, Pennsylvania that God has rejected them.

Why does Mr. Robertson think God has turned his back on Dover? On Tuesday Dover voted out of office all eight school board members. The Dover school board had tried to introduce intelligent design theory into science classes.

Intelligent Design (ID) is the theory that the complexity of the universe implies some intelligence behind its design; that it didn’t “just happen.” Critics of ID consider it dressed up scientific creationism. ID proponents, of course, deny this.

I have commented on ID before. Richard also blogged on the matter. I have no intention of commenting in ID, evolution, creation, or any other theory here.Here I am more concerned with Pat Robertson than with how the world came to be.

I am confident God brought the universe into existence. I am wondering, at the moment, why he brought Pat into existence.

NEWSFLASH: Townfolk of Dover and everywhere: God has not forsaken and will not forsake you depending on your vote for school board or based on your understanding of origins.

How do you know when you’ve got things out of proportion?

I was at a high school football game a couple of weeks ago. Just before halftime the quarterback was on the sidelines, and was smiling. I heard an adult not far from me say, “I wish I could wipe that smile off his face! Does he think this is just a game?”

No, I am not making that up. What a tragedy for so many adults who live their dreams of glory vicariously through kids.

Whew. Another year’s Charge Conference behind us. One of the challenges our church faces is our old church plant. We celebrated the centennial of the sanctuary this past spring. The fellowship hall and education building are 50 years old and are clearly showing their age. Starting before I arrived as pastor in 2003, the church has been engaged in an extensive program of renovation centered on the sanctuary. The building interior was renovated (finished the week I arrived), leaving us with a current debt of 250k. We just finished the 46k renovation of the stained glass windows, and the 34k roof job. We ony lack about 23k for the 185k renovation of the pipe organ. Lurking ominously in the background is the need for getting a bid to level the shifting foundation (we wish we didn’t see the cracks in the walls). The fellowship hall/education building also has a shifting foundation and a 50 year old asbestos roof. If you’ve been following this blog for a while, you know about the loss of our recently renovated youth building. Just opened in February, an arsonist burnt it down in July.

Do you get an idea that money might be on the minds of the congregation? Do you also get an idea of how that money might be used? As far as these capital expenses go, the money is going entirely toward fixing old things. Having fixed old things is better than having unfixed old things, but there seems to be a different kind of attitude that goes with repairing the old than building the new.

Many would like to build a new youth center to replace the one that was destroyed. In a community where the other leading churches (i.e., the baptists) already have new youth facilities, it’s mighty tempting to jump on the “if you build it they will come” train. Clearly, some people think that way. They make a direct connection between a church’s investment in facilities for youth and the church’s commitment to youth. If there are no – or substandard (when compared with other local churches) – facilities dedicated for youth, then they’ll take their youth elsewhere.

I understand how children look at these things. When I was a kid I’d much ratrher have something new than something old. What’s the ratio of kids who want their old clothes constantly repaired to those who want new clothes to replace the old? As a culture, we tend to value the new over the old (unlike the ancients who valued the old over the new).

In a historic church like this there are both kinds of people: lovers of the old and lovers of the new. Too often, they think they’re desires are not only incompatible, but so righteous that they must be imposed on the whole body – “or else I’ll quit.” In times like this one of my main jobs is reminding people that we’re in the people business. Building have a purpose – they can be a great blessing. But they can also sap the energy, finances and missional drive of a church.

Rioting has been going on in France for almost 2 weeks now. Why? Originally set off by the deatsh of two boys – they thought the police were pursuing them so they hid, mistaking a transformer station as a safe refuge – the riots have expanded each night. Some have suggested it is the beginning of a European (or “Eurabian”) intifada. Clive Davis has a different take on it. He suggests that the biggest problem is the lack of integration of immigrants for the past 40 years. What we see now is their hopelessness boiling over.

At the end of his post Davis translates from a Le Figaro interview:

Ces émeutiers ne se projettent dans aucune revendication sociale ou politique. “A notre niveau, c’est la merde», lâche Morad, qui avoue toutefois rêver “d’un petit pavillon, d’une femme et d’enfants… au bled”.

[Loose trans: “These rioters put forward no social or political demands. “Down where we are, life is horrible,” says Morad, who nevertheless admits he dreams of “a little house, a wife and kids… in a village.”]

Once upon a time France was counted as a Christian nation. Surely part of the long term solution in France will be for Christians to take the hope found in Jesus to these folks with no hope. As for an immediate solution, I’m too far away and too ignorant to have any advice for anyone.

But I do wonder how these things might be prevented in America. I think we do a better job of assimilating imigrants – though sometimes we do so kicking and screaming, and sometimes, especially of late, we’ve proclaimed that assimilation is a bad thing. But there’s more.

If you want your eyes opened, read Jerome Weeks’ piece in today’s Dallas Morning News. He writes about “Sundown Towns,” towns that through explicit or implicit action have sought to keep blacks from settling. The stereotype might be that this is a southern problem, but from the research of James W. Loewen, the problem (sin? evil?) is greater in the North and Midwest. Texas has its Sundown Towns – Weeks mentions Vidor (everyone knows Vidor’s reputation) and Highland Park (a rich town in Dallas – and the rich profess to be more enlightened!).

Once upon a time peopel called America a Christian nation. Evidently we have even more work to do than we thought.

The Council of Bishops has just released a “Pastoral Letter” in response to the Judicial Council’s ruling that reversed a bishop’s decision to place a pastor on a leave of absence for denying membership to a practicing homosexual.

I have not yet digested the entirety of the letter, but came to this sentence that, frankly, set me off: “The United Methodist Church is committed to making disciples of Jesus Christ with all people.” (emphasis added) I cannot take it anymore! Mrs. Weisinger, help me!

Mrs. Eloise Weisinger was my Senior English Teacher. She had the patience and the passion finally to open the doors of my mind to grammar. Now I wish she were available for our denomination.

It has long struck me that we, as a church long since ceased ministering “to” anyone. To claim we were in ministry “to” someone would obviously imply that someone was in need of our help, thus we would be putting ourselves above another.

Putting ourselves above anyone is something we United Methodists would never do. (Except the Religious Right, but they are barely human anyway) In our concern never to do anything that could be conceivably construed as condescending, we only are in ministry “with” others; never “for” or “to” others.

Ah, but the dear Bishops, our Loyal Leaders, have taken it one step further. Now we are no longer to be part of the Great Commission of making disciples of Jesus Christ “of” all people; we want to make disciples of Jesus Christ “with” all people.

Please, Mrs. Weisinger, correct me if I am wrong, but the way I read “make disciples of Jesus Christ with all people” assumes that all people are about the task of making disciples of Jesus Christ. Since everyone is about this same business, we happily, then, join in the work.

But is it fair or wise to assume that everyone is about the business of making disciples of Jesus Christ? Are our Muslim brethren aware they are on such a task? Ought we suppose the Hindi have a lick of interest in making disciples of Jesus Christ “with” us?

Prepositions are generally small words. But, my, can they make a great deal of difference!

Last Sunday I preached on the price of following Jesus. Jesus didn’t practice some of the positive thinking recruitment strategies we’d think of today. Instead of just offering a mansion in heaven, eternal happiness and an end to the difficulties of life, Jesus said, “Anyone who wants to follow me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.” In this message I show that this isn’t an isolated thought in scripture but permeates not only the message of Jesus but also the writings of Peter and Paul.

Scott Burns, a financial columnist for the Dallas Morning News always writes interesting and practical pieces, sometimes on personal finance, sometimes on bigger issues. Today’s column was on the declining buying power of the lower 75% of the American populace. Here are some snippets of what he has to say:

According to the most recent IRS statistics on tax returns (for 2003), households needed at least $295,495 to be in the top 1 percent, $130,080 to be in the top 5 percent, $94,891 to be in the top 10 percent and $57,343 to enter the top 25 percent.

Yes, you read that right. If your household income is over $57,343, you’re well toward the front of the line when the checks are handed out. If your income is below $29,019, you sink into the bottom 50 percent.

Increasingly, those in the bottom 75 percent – households with incomes below $57,343 – are looking like a long, slow train wreck….

Over this period [1993-2003], the dividing-line income for the bottom 50 percent has risen from $21,179 to $29,019, rising 4.3 percent a year. Had the income line only risen with inflation, it would have climbed to $26,504.

And that’s an important fact: Even the bottom of the income scale has gained purchasing power over the period – about $2,515.

Combine that additional income with declining interest rates on home mortgages, a period of weak to declining rents for apartments, a multitude of low-interest and no-interest offers from stores and automakers, and the people who do a lot of the heavy lifting in our society have gotten along.

Meanwhile, those with more earning power have done a lot better than just get along.

Earners at the top 1 percent line have gained $63,040 in purchasing power. Earners at the top 10 percent line have gained $12,198 in purchasing power, while seeing the portion of income they spend on income taxes decline from 20.2 percent to 18.5 percent. Earners at the top 25 percent line have gained $5,570 in purchasing power.

Unfortunately, gains for the bottom 75 percent are vaporizing.

It would take a major hit to destroy the $12,198 gain for those at the top 10 percent line.

That isn’t the case for those in the bottom 50 percent. Their entire $2,515 purchasing power gain since 1993 may already be history.

Will a tax cut solve the problem? Burns says,

If the federal income tax was simply eliminated for every household in the bottom half, it would liberate only about 3.5 percent of their income – less than inflation for one year.

Doesn’t sound like a lot of help to me.

I’m inclined to think this is a problem – and not only because I’m in that lower 75%. I think it would be a good thing for people in the bottom 75% of the economic scale to do at least as well, percentage-wise, as those in the top 25%.

How is that going to happen? I don’t know. A raise in minimum wage would help a few, but not the majority. In the olden days an increase in unionizing seemed to have helped, but I’m doubtful that’d work today. First, the nature of jobs has changed. Industries are more varied now. Second, we’re even more individualistic than ever. Unionism seems to depend on denying yourself more than we’re used to. Third, at least for me, unions don’t have a great reputation. I’m sure many are just fine – maybe even most – but I’ve read too many stories of union bosses who are every bit as mean, controlling, greedy and corrupt as some of the worst business people they oppose.

Here are a few ideas, though they maybe too idealistic:
1. Find a way to bring CEO pay & expectations in line. Their huge packages ought to embarrass businesses. But you’d think the businesses would be embarrassed by hiring leaders who fail to lead and destroy their companies. It would seem companies need smarter boards to do this.
2. Think up ways to make it so work and not just wealth can build wealth. Right now, wealth has great leverage. As far as work alone goes, you can work all day every day, and still not get ahead. Completely unrealistic, I know. The underlying requirement seems to be moving away from a culture built on gambling – and I don’t mean what they do in Las Vegas & state lotteries. Right now money makes money better than work because our culture sees investors as taking a risk in their investment. We’ve developed ways of quantifying and measuring these risks (markets, stock exchanges, etc.). That’s great. Since people want a big return, they’re often willing to take big risks. But is work seen as a risk? Short term, unless you have a dangerous job, it’s often not. But economically with our economic structure, yeah, working for a lifetime and not getting ahead sounds like a risk to me. But we have no institutions that quantify this risk. I’m not an economist so I haven’t a clue how to do this, but I’m inclined to think it’s not impossible.

At the risk of being labeled a homophobe, I have to make a confession here. There is something about the current debate over sexual orientation and practice that confuses me. For many, it seems, once sexual orientation is declared to be determined rather than chosen, it follows that acting on one’s orientation is therefore acceptable, even recommended.

For instance, the Reconciling Ministries Network’s mission statement is: “Reconciling Ministries Network is a national grassroots organization that exists to enable full participation of people of all sexual orientations and gender identities in the life of the United Methodist Church, both in policy and practice.”

Actually, so far so good. But from here is where, for me anyway, the problem starts. As one pursues an understanding of the position of the Reconciling Ministries folks, one becomes familiar with “LGBT,” or Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered.

Is my point of confusion clear? I have no desire to argue here the various points on orientation versus practice of “lesbian” or “gay.” It seems to be pretty clear, though, that when one moves into “bisexual,” one moves to a place where there is an obvious and necessary distinction between orientation and practice.

Whether or not there is justification for a sexual orientation called “bisexual,” it is obvious that bisexual practice is inappropriate for Christians because Christians are in broad agreement, as far as I know, that appropriate sexual behavior is “celibacy in singleness and fidelity in marriage.”

(This is one reason those on the Reconciling side of this argument fight for homosexual marriage; as it currently stands, church law and civil law forbid them from practicing fidelity in marriage.)

So here is my problem, and it is one that will undoubtedly have some on the “left” side of this issue banding me a homophobe. It seems to me that there is necessarily a difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. There is no law, either in The United Methodist Church or in the United States, that directly refers to, limits, or addresses sexual orientation.

Since we necessarily have the ability to differentiate between orientation and behavior, the standard argument identifying orientation and behavior is specious. Specifically, how does “fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness” not preclude bisexuality being acted out?

Why does God let bad things happen to good people?

The Reverend Kyle Lake, pastor of the University Baptist Church, was electrocuted this past Sunday while preparing for a baptism. Why would God allow such a horrible thing to happen?

From what I have read, Rev. Lake felt called to take the Gospel to people who were not comfortable with traditional church. What a wonderful calling! The institutional church has injured so many people over the years there is a huge mission field among those who feel they cannot be a part of traditional churches!

I think the Good News of Jesus will help us understand why bad things continue to happen to good people. It will also help us see why the opposite, and just as frustrating, also happens: why good things happen to bad people.

In creating the world, God desired fellowship with creation. As such, from the outset people were given the freedom and opportunity to choose to live in fellowship with God, or not to. How meaningful would a relationship be if it was not entered into freely?

In allowing us the freedom to choose a relationship with him or not, God also allows us freedom to live and move as we decide, not as he decides. Scripture tells us that God is “not willing that any should perish….” (2 Peter 3:9).

God gave up controlling the world that he had made so that we might indeed have the opportunity to choose him. Because God gave up this control, things happen that would not happen if God were running every event.

The real Good News of the Gospel is that in spite of all the things that happen due to our freedom, God has established that all who choose him can have a relationship with him forever; in this life and the next.

The Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church has announced its decisions on the the Beth Stroud & Ed Johnson cases. In the first case, the findings of the original trial court – that Beth Stroud as a “self-avowed practicing homosexual” could be removed from ordained ministry – were affirmed. In the second, the decision of Bishop Kammerer to suspend Rev. Ed Johnson was reversed. The root cause of his case was a refusal to take into membership an allegedly unrepentant homosexual. Both of these cases are getting lots of publicity. I haven’t seen any comments on Decision 1020, however.

Decision 1020 is about the California Nevada Annual Conference’s inclusion of two items in their proceedings:

Item 26: The California-Nevada Annual Conference hereby defines the word “status” as including sexual orientation such as heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and transgendered.

Item 27: The California-Nevada Annual Conference hereby specifically refuses and declines to define the word “practicing” or Practicing homosexual.”

The Cal-Nev AC doesn’t approve of the denominational position regarding the exclusion of self-avowed practicing homosexuals from ordained ministry. This looks like a strategy to allow them to retain the Discipline while acting in accord with their conscience. A member of the conference raised the question about whether Item 27 made ¶ 304.3 unenforceable. Bishop Shamana ruled that the Items were in keeping with the Discipline, and thus acceptable. On appeal, the Judicial Council has approved the Bishop’s ruling.

Now I understand the Council’s ruling, but I don’t understand their statement (the part I’ve put in bold):

Question 3 concerns the annual conference’s refusal to define the word “practicing” or “practicing homosexual.” An annual conference may not adopt any item that purports to void and/or violate the enforcement or enforceability of ¶ 304.3 of the Discipline. Refusal to define has no effect on the enforceability of ¶304.3. The Bishop’s decision of law for Question 3 is affirmed.

How does “refusal to define” not have any effect on enforceability? How can an undefined condition be enforced? Someone help me out here. Also – am I wrong to assume that the Cal-Nev Conference was trying to make the statute unenforceable?