God Bless NASCAR

Somehow I missed this entire meme until now. Work has been too busy, I guess.

So...there's this pastor. I think he's a pastor of Family Baptist Church in Lebanon, TN. In April, he prayed this prayer before a NASCAR race: You don't want to miss this.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dCj7n1PhHA&w=640&h=385]Let's be straight: that was good. Quality communication with the Father if I do say so myself.

But only a few months later, big boy outdid himself. If you skipped the first one, shame on you. DONT MISS THIS ONE.

Boogity, boogity, boogity, AMEN

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J74y88YuSJ8&w=640&h=385]The faces of the drivers are about the most wonderful thing in the world. I'll forego this opportunity to criticize his use of the word "power" when he has been charged with demonstrating and relating the power of God. I think he stole the "Boogity" line from Darrell Waltrip, but he used it in a way that will be remembered for ages.

Of course, the Songify kids put this gem together (though I think footage from a Dale Earnhardt crash is probably in poor taste):

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZnDt2wEFjk&w=640&h=385]I hope you've benefited from this experience. I know I have.

Lessons I've learned: I want to go to his church and God Bless NASCAR.

Boogity, boogity, boogity, AMEN.

-B

UPDATE: It's Lebanon, TN, not Nashville. Also, their website is a real treat. FULLY colored in Red, White, and Blue. You need to check it out. Do so, here.

The KJV on Contemporary Music

Michael Pearl (whoever he is) on Contemporary Music in the Church.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCmY3HgZF7w&w=640&h=385]

It is obvious that he has shining opinions. It's also fairly obvious which side he is on.

I hear tons of arguments for and against "contemporary music" (whatever that means) in the Church very, very often. Many make good points. Others make points like our friend above.

It is, though, an interesting approach to be sure. All of his other videos seem to focus around the Bible for guidance in issues he drones on about(yeah, I watched more than one). This one, besides the trumpet point at the end, does none of that. Rather, he uses "science" (and to use that term is more than a large stretch) to talk about how a happy song can't have a "sad" melody or harmonic pattern. While most any human would agree with this notion at first glance, I doubt many are able to make the jump that our friend does here (we might also profit from thinking about how many other emotions are portrayed within music, especially outside of the realm of happy and sad). Somehow he went from that concept to...rap music glorifies violence and rape. While we all know that many songs on the radio do glorify violence, rarely (if at all) do they glorify rape. And, just because a rapist listens to rap music, doesn't mean that all music with the same rhythms or "beats" is intended for rape and violence. It's a boggling correlation that makes very, very little sense.

He remarks that music that glorifies God has to have four part harmonies and be the music of "Bach and Beethoven." He also says that that was when music was at its best, "it was at its most complex." I'm a fan of both noted composers, but music has become more and more complex since the time of Bach and Beethoven. It is only within the past 75 years or so that music has "simplified." Beethoven's works, in and of themselves, are good examples of the progression of complexity that continued through time. If one compared Beethoven's early works to his later works, one might not be even able to tell that they were written by the same man. Bach was incredibly talented and brilliantly minded to be sure, but complexity within music (specifically within harmonic studies) has become more and more developed since his time. It's what we like to call "progress" and it is both necessary and inevitable.

The part about the trumpet may have some truth to it (I haven't done any research) but he contradicts himself again when he speaks about how if the spirit of God tugs at you then it is Godly music. He assumes that all people feel the spirit of God in the music he does.

We all know what you do when you ass-u-me.

-B

NOTE: My choice of title for this post is intended to reflect the irony of our friend's lack of Biblical insight into this "issue" while also explaining to the reader who Michael Pearl is. He only uses the KJV Bible, and actively speaks negatively about all other translations, including the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. He prefers the Masoritic and Vulgate, which in translation were heavily influenced by church politics. Because when you want an accurate translation, politics are the first thing your need.

This post spends no time at all looking into what the KJV actually says about music (the trumpet parts appear in every text). If you're disappointed by this reality please accept my profuse, yet not that profuse, apologies.

What Is A "Call"?

I dislike the word "call."

I feel like it is an excuse, right? I feel like if you desire to do something, you say "I feel as if God is calling me to do this" and you get your way because, who can argue with God?

Please notice that I didn't say I didn't like the idea of "call." I only said that I don't like the word "call."

I suppose that I choose to think that "call" ought better be defined by actions, rather than words. "Hey Bryant, tell us your call." I think I'd rather just bring in people whose lives I've made a difference in. I think I'd rather show them the communities I've been a part of. I think I'd rather show them the effort I've put in here or there. While articulating a call, in a verbal sense, is probably important...I tend to think that actions speak louder than words. But, as my wife always reminds me, I'm not always right.

If you're an individual seeking to work in a local church for the foreseeable future, you've probably struggled with "call" once or twice. It doesn't matter your denominational affiliation, you've thought about what it would be like to work within the local church. That probably sparked a thought in your mind about what your future might be. Most denominations have some sort of ordination system whereby you are examined by people who both know you and don't know you and asked serious questions on your theological thoughts, ecclesial thoughts, and passions and "call" into ministry. It truly does depend on your denomination as to whether or not your "call" fits into their system.

It's hard to describe "call." This is probably because the term "call" is so multi-faceted. A "call" can involve your practical talents (what you are really good at). It can involve your "spiritual gifts"(remember taking those inventories?). It can involve the way you perceive your interactions with people. It can, and often should, involve your passion for the betterment of the world and desire to see the Church reflect Christ in every way possible. I can involve your, gasp, political feelings about what is going on in our world.

And the worst part about it is probably the fact that it changes on an almost daily basis. Certain things tug at your heart. Certain things cause you to change your mind. Certain things may make other concepts more vague or more clear.

I may not like the terminology (or really, just the way that the word has been abused) but I think one thing is clear: most everyone wants to know how THEY fit into a larger picture. They want to know what they're being asked to do. They want to know how their gifts and talents are being used for the betterment of the final outcome. Without that, I believe, that we humans feel left out. We feel abandoned. We feel wasted. None of those are things that any human ever desires to feel.

One of the things about the society we currently live in is that we move so quickly that we don't have a chance to think of how to articulate our "call."

We do the things that we care about. We do them as well as we know how. But we rarely stop and think about why.

Which brings me back to my thoughts on actions as opposed to words. How do we better articulate a call? Why can't it be wrapped up in actions? Why can't we look back and see what we've done and are doing? Why don't we present that as evidence? My guess: because if we can't communicate through language, we are often lost in our world. We can't tell anyone why we are doing something. We can't explain ourselves. The way we interact with each other is through language. Because actions can be misinterpreted, we can only know someone's intent by the language that they use.

But language isn't perfect either. Humor is lost. Lying happens.

Well, if we can't use actions, and we can't use words, to give the most accurate representation of our "call," how do we know what a "call" is? How do we see the "call" in an authentic light? How do we come to a realization and portray it accurately to others?

Fruits.

We have to discern the goodness of the fruit that results. We have to judge the outcome. And by that, with a little prayer, we can probably get a head start on what it is God is "calling" us to do.

One of the things I struggle with in life is watching someone else do something that I know I can do faster and better than they are doing. I know that you deal with this too. I get frustrated when I see others making silly decisions based on their lack of knowledge at any given point. As my wife often reminds me, I'm not perfect. But I think there is a reason I deal with this. I think that it is at those moments that I can see the outcome. And I can see how point A gets to point B. I know how to make it work.

I think we all ought to learn to judge fruit. We ought to learn to see the outcome.

We can't, anymore, hide behind this wall of a "call." Reality is what it is, and we must do our best to judge the outcome of our actions and those around us. Perhaps in this way we can see what God is doing in our lives and the lives of those we touch.

When we learn to judge the fruit, we will learn what the fruit needs to be like. When we learn what the fruit needs to be like, we will be able to see how our gifts can get us there. When we see how our gifts can get us there, we can see where our place is. When we see where our place is, we will know what our "call" is. When we see all of these steps, we will be able to better articulate what God is "calling" us to do. When we can better articulate our "call" we will be able to make a bigger difference in the world. When that happens, God rejoices.

It will be, and only be, at this point that we will stop hiding behind the wall of our "call." Because then, and only then, that word will begin to mean something again.

It is not only important, it is imperative, for the the future of the Church for this to happen in the life of every single Christian.

-B

When a Woman Loves a Woman

Well, the trial is over. Because of the lack of updates on Amy DeLong's own website and the slow moving articles from UMC.org, I found out about the trial verdicts in the same way that most of you did. In the same way I found out about Michael Jackson's death. And in the same way most of the world found out that the criminal mastermind who hired people to fly planes into our buildings had been killed: Twitter.

So, though the UMC has posted pictures of the trial, the important worship services before and throughout the trials and sentencing, it is important to note that I, nor many who read this, have any clue about how this all shook out exactly. Some tweeters were there, and helped us along the way but taking their word for it. But trying to understand and really "get" what happened in that church without being there is like...well, a little reading the Bible in English. You mostly get the idea (and even exact quotes) but so, so much is lost. 140 characters just doesn't quite do it.

If you're looking for more "reporting" than Twitter can give you, just check out UMC.org and various other sites for as much info as you can find.

Story, as I hear it, is that she was acquitted 12-1 that she was a "self-avowed practicing homosexual". From what we all hear, she refused to answer some of the questions regarding this, citing that they were being asked in an accusatory manner. I see her point. But I also think that true "evidence" exists that is published by Rev. DeLong that submits that she is "guilty". I'm happy for Rev. DeLong because this verdict means that the person she loves hasn't held her back from pursuing her calling.

She was, though, guilty on the other charge...as we all expected. I think I made it clear last time, Amy broke the rules.

The punishment was a bit of a slap on the wrist but anyone who might have either expected or hoped for something more substantial probably wasn't being realistic. She was assigned to a 20-day suspension (seems to me like a "think-about-what-you-did" scenario) and to write a document for some sort of presentation at General Conference 2012. I really like the second penalty. I think it'll take her passion and put it into a position where it can actually make a difference, and possibly...a change. That's great.

I've received quite a bit of negative feedback in regards to my first post, as many who sit clearly on the side of Rev. DeLong have seen my post as a means of arguing against homosexuality. I wasn't. I was only saying that Rev. DeLong broke the rules. Even in my remarks regarding her baptism, I wished to point out that the movements against her have simply been to maintain fairness.

I have heard many "unjust rules were meant to be broken" ala MLK Jr arguments. Politically, I actually agree. I have made it quite clear that I think that God loves all of God's children. What I neglected to make as clear is that I see, as I think you should, a difference here in the political argument as opposed to the religious argument. The United States says that all are equal. So, all should be equal. Rosa Parks, MLK, Malcolm, X, and many many others fought for this cause. They were jailed for their efforts as well. And they were in the right. The laws of the USA were acting in opposition to some of the founding documents of this country. Many of them cleverly snuck in religious references to their arguments, but that argument was a social argument regarding a matter of US policy and law. It was against the rights of the African Americans to treat them in the way they were bing treated. All men are created equal.

What's perhaps most confusing about the homosexuality "issue" in today's society is that it is once again a political issue on the state side with a lot of religious rhetoric thrown back and forth. Who decides the rules for the country and states? The founding documents and then instances of precedents and bills passed in Congress. Who decides the rules for the church? The church, in whatever way each church chooses to rule itself.

The UMC has a way of going about this. Prayerfully, spiritually, and Biblically: the Book of Discipline is decided on. It's decided on by a vote. Which means that a MAJORITY of the people in the UMC elected delegates who decided to keep the current BOD language regarding homosexuality that existed prior. To break these rules, knowingly, is more than just to say "you are wrong", it is to say "your interpretation of the Biblical scriptures doesn't count because progress must be made." I personally believe that God's grace is available for ALL. The difference is: I don't see where this instance changes that that much.

Then there is the part about Amy's agreement with the UMC. Rosa Parks didn't make any agreement with the US. Because the whole situation of Civil Rights was born out of oppression at the start, it's not even fair to say that agreement was based on taxes and public services rendered. But Amy did agree to something. And the church agreed to something. The fact that Amy was a homosexual was something she knew about. And she broke the rules.

Which is why I think that the slap on the wrist of 20 days does nothing more than show others that they can do the same thing, if they're willing to take the penalty. This opens up a whole new world of interest. Had it been a stronger penalty, two things might have worked better (for all involved): the Discipline (and the inherent Bible-based decisions that have to come from that) might have been put to the use that it exists for, and the Biblical interpretations of all involved would actually have been dealt with in a way that made all feel like their voices were heard. What this might encourage (and to note, may or may not be good or bad...history gets defined by the "winners") is a whole bunch of pastors who believe so strongly in one idea that they're willing to break the covenant they made with the church. To me, that's a big idea. Biblically, breaking covenants is looked down upon. I must be clear: I think is is very, very different than Rosa Parks.

The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence are very clear in (most of) their language. The Bible really isn't. It was written by many many people over a long period of years; many of which seem to, at times, have different ideas about discipleship, salvation, grace, and faith. To make it worse, church history is even more messed up than the US's history is. It is because of this that we are at this juncture today.

One thing is clear to me, though: in this church trial, no one really wins.

-B

Incompatible with Christian Teaching

A note regarding this post: I am and have been close with several self-avowed homosexual people within my lifetime. It is my personal belief that God loves all of God's children and calls upon all of us to act and behave in the same way as God has demonstrated through Jesus' life here on earth. I do not claim to understand the homosexual lifestyle (as it simply does not describe me) and choose not to judge the lifestyle because of my extreme lack of knowledge regarding the topic. I do, however, think that our culture is on the verge of a gender and sexual orientation crisis that has been snowballing for years. I think that if the Church does not handle such a crisis with grace, mercy, and love, we will not only have disobeyed God's will for us, but we will have lost (please define "lost" however you'd like, it will still be true). My opinions listed below are indicative of my own observations of the said situation at the given time, with as much information as I felt like I could find. I would hope that they do not anger any readers, as I have attempted to choose the words carefully so as to be inclusive, yet honest, with describing and arguing a very difficult situation that no one quite knows the "right" answer to. I have attempted to be mindful of those that I know and love while writing this post, because if at the end of the day I have angered people close to me, I have lost. If at any point you disagree or wish to point out my own ill-thinking, please express this to me in a way that embodies the grace, mercy, and love referenced above. Rev. Amy DeLong of Wisconsin is on trial in the United Methodist Church for "chargeable offenses" according to Paragraph 2702 in the United Methodist Book of Discipline. The Book of Discipline is edited, morphed, and revoted on every four years by delegates from each of the Annual Conferences within the United Methodist Church. For those uninterested in church procedure and polity, it reads a lot like a phone book (do they even still have those anymore?).

The story of Amy goes something like this: she fell in love with the United Methodist Church around the time she was in college. She began to feel a call to pursue ordained ministry. By the time she had affirmed that call and applied to seminary, she fell in love with her partner, Val. You can read Amy's account of her story here.

Then, in 2009, "Amy officiated at a Holy Union for a same-gender loving couple."(Link) She then reported about it in the annual required report that pastors must submit. She was called in to meet with the Bishop and she explained what she had done and described to the Bishop her on-going relationship with her partner, Val. The link at the top of the paragraph has the rest of the story's timeline. Given what you've read so far, you can put the pieces together.

What are the offenses against Amy? The Book of Discipline (remember, decided on by United Methodists worldwide) says you can't do that.

The Book of Discipline lists the word "homosexual" 17 times. It lists "gay" seven times. It lists "lesbian" three times. In regards to homosexuality in general, the Book of Discipline says this:

The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God's grace is available to all. we will seek to live together in Christian community, welcoming, forgiving, and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons. (Paragraph 161, F)

Basically, the UMC implores individual churches to love and care for homosexual people, but still considers the practice of homosexuality "incompatible with Christian teaching."

Rev. DeLong, though, at this point isn't guilty of anything. She's cited as guilty of charges under PP 2702.1b. Paragraph 2702 refers explicitly to reasons that a bishop, clergy member, local pastor, clergy on honorable location, or diaconal minister may be tried. Here's what it lists:

  • immorality including but not limited to not being celibate in singleness or not faithful in a heterosexual marriage.
  • practices declared by the UMC to be incompatible with Christian teaching, including but not limited to: being a self avowed practicing homosexual; or conducting ceremonies which celebrate homosexual union; or performing same-sex wedding ceremonies.
  • crime.
  • failure to perform the work of the ministry.
  • disobedience to the order and discipline of the UMC.
  • many others including sexual abuse, sexual misconduct, harassment, and racial or gender discrimination.

Short and sweet: Rev. DeLong broke the rules.

So, according to the Book of Discipline, she is being charged with breaking the rules. Sounds fair, right? When she was ordained as a pastor, she agreed to hold to the rules. She didn't.

Obviously Rev. DeLong didn't take nicely to this. She has employed help and a defense system including the recently popular www.loveontrial.org.

Here's what I don't understand: why is she angry? Obviously, she is on the verge of losing her job (one that she loves and feels called to). I guess that makes sense. But, we musn't forget: she knowingly did something that she was consciously aware was against the teachings and rules of the church. When you have a private job (remember, churches are private institutions) and you break the rules of that job, your employer has the right (and the responsibility) to remove you from your position at their own discretion. This issue is often compared to the Civil Right's issues in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. I don't personally think this is a fair comparison in this instance because Amy has a private job. Martin Luther King went to jail. Amy will not. The government has no rules about her own ordination. If she loses this trial, she is not going to go to jail. The best argument that she has is that the UMC shouldn't legally be able to ask you whether or not you are gay in order to be employed. (It is worth noting that I noticed this during my recent investigations into the ordination process of the UMC. The church does background checks--expected--but also financial checks, health checks, marriage checks, etc...things that other businesses in the private sector are not legally allowed to base employment choices off of.)

However, the reality remains the same: she agreed to hold to a value and behavioral system. In exchange for her agreement (and hard work), the church agreed to give her a job, insurance, and a house for the rest of her employable life. Setting aside any spiritual aspect of the role of the pastor (of which there is obviously much of), she didn't hold to her side of the deal.

If you read her material on www.loveontrial.org, you'll notice that she is a talented speaker. She has a gift for writing sermons and has a real heart for ministry. I feel for Amy. She's in a tough situation. There's not a great way out at this point, except to gain a following and leave the UMC in a big way. If she can gain followers, perhaps she can make a difference in the future. I personally wonder, that if this is where she is, why is she still so "called" to the UMC? If I felt as if a church body wasn't including me, I'd look somewhere else.

(Irony, noted)

There is one more thing, though. In a sermon Rev. DeLong gave the other night, she said this:

You see, they don't want my ordination back, they want my baptism back. They don't want me included. They don't want me to feel beloved. They don't want the Holy Spirit to be poured out on me and they certainly don't want God saying, "Amy, in you I am well-pleased." They aren't after my ordination. They're after my baptism. They're saying God's grace isn't sufficient. (Link)

I see that Amy is in the midst of perhaps the most emotional time in her life. I get that she is using the argument that the UMC is being a legalist and she is being "spiritual." I see why she says what she says. I don't always agree, but I can see where she is coming from.

But, in the quote above...I think she is wrong. The Book of Discipline explicitly states that homosexual people ARE to be welcomed. Remember the "implore" line above? They do want her ordination back, not because they have a political stance, but because the General Church agreed that that was what was required. To let her keep her job after what she is done is not being fair to her, it's being unfair to the rest of the church.

They do not, in any way, want her baptism back. I can see why she might feel that way, but to explicitly state that the church is unable to keep her from being a Christian is not only a misrepresentation of the situation but it is also extremely out of line.

My only hope is that somehow some sort of reconciliation can come out of this. I'm not sure the church is completely right. I'm not sure that Amy is completely right. Somehow, the Church is going to have to learn how to deal with the changes in culture in order to continue to be effective witnesses for Christ in the world.

Here's to hoping that actually happens.

-B

ADDITION: I don't like the "incompatible with Christian teaching" language. Not because I don't think it's true (who defines "Christian teaching" anyway?), but because I think it is only used to call out the homosexual lifestyle explicitly. I personally think that divorce is incompatible with Christian teaching, (and in a strict sense, MUCH more than homosexuality) and yet the UMC ordains divorcees every year. I go to school with several. If the UMC were to not allow self-avowed divorcees to be ordained, hell might break loose. There are many many options and times when divorce is the right situation. When divorce is the only way out of an abusive or unhealthy situation. I do not choose to judge those times. I simply wish to point out that the "incompatible" language does not include all things, as it should.

A Church I'd Go To

I've had a somewhat rare opportunity for a young person such as myself. I've helped start two churches. Both had much in common.  Both were very different. Because of this, I often reflect on what it is that draws people in to a church.  If you've never started a church before, you won't realize the ridiculous amount of work, effort, and energy that goes into moving people into a building.  And no, it's not for the mere idea of having a big church; it's about evangelism and sustainability.

First, though, a note: though "house churches" have garnered more of a following in the past years, it is difficult for them to support full-time ministers.  I actually think that house churches are great ideas, but I don't necessarily think they're going to negate the idea of large church communities that make huge impacts on the community and world around them. I think that in many ways house churches can be connected to larger organizations to help shape more and better disciples.

Because I do a lot of contemplation about this, I thought I'd begin to compile a list of what it is that makes a church "successful".  I choose not, at this time, to define "success" except to say that growth, outreach, and mission, in my mind, are necessities. This list isn't built off of what the churches I have been involved with have done well, nor are they based on what the churches didn't do as well.  Admittedly, there is a bit of both in the points below.  However, there are also some observations that I've made from other churches I've visited as well. Also, this list isn't complete (could it ever really be complete?).  I invite you to join in with your additions and thoughts in the comments.

Things that I think churches (especially church-plants) ought to strive for:

  • A welcoming, inviting atmosphere
    • I often tell people that I can tell whether I want to be a part of a community or not within the first minute and a half. It has nothing to do with how the parking situation is, although churches that have weird parking situations and manage it well stand out. It has nothing to do with the worship space.  It has to do with whether or not I feel welcome.
    • Within that minute and a half, you must be greeted. You must be welcomed. You must be spoken to.  Hopefully, they'll hook you up with a nametag.
      • I think we've all experienced that awkward moment when there is someone new in the middle of a room of old and everyone kind of wonders who will make the first move.  We ought to be clear on this: that shouldn't ever be the case in our churches. We are all guilty of it on one level or another.
    • This is a perfect time to help a new person easily get acquainted with the way the time of worship (or whatever stands in its place) will run. In 2011, like it or not, comfort is an important thing for potential church goers.  Make someone feel out of place, they're not likely to return. (Please spare me the "but church should be a time of stretching, molding, and challenge" arguments. They're not relevant to new comers.)
  • A simplistic, well organized, thoughtful, meaningful time of worship
    • Some churches use pre-composed liturgy. Some create a new order of worship every week.  Some do a little bit of both.  Whatever the case, the order of worship should make sense (which means that if you are straying from lectionary readings, etc...be sure to make sure that the order of worship fits the theme, texts, and MAKES LOGICAL SENSE).
      • It should be abundantly clear that I glean this from an Apple-centric way of viewing the world.  Apple has had huge success by having all of their business moves seem to at least appear simplistic. Logic, too, is key.
    • Transitions are key in a worship service, I think. (Please spare me the "church services shouldn't be produced" arguments.) In 2011, "dead time" means "awkwardness." THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN SILENCE. Silence can be very, very good. But when leadership doesn't know what's going on, it's not meaningful silence.  It's distracting.
    • I don't always buy that the music should be split up because standing for long periods of time is painful, but I'm often wrong. There are many options available to the planners so that you don't have to sing seven songs in a row. Whatever you plan though, have a plan. When you half-ass it, you aren't fooling anybody.
  • A solid community
    • Some churches are huge.  Some are small. Contrary to popular belief, it does not matter about size as much as it matters about community.  Many, many churches that are huge in numbers have strong communities within themselves and everyone feels like they're a part of something. (Think of it like attending a large public University, most students need to find SOMETHING to belong to).  Many many small churches speak negatively about each other behind others' backs. When people visit the church, they want to feel like people know each other, but they aren't clique-y.
    • Prayer requests, etc are awesome opportunities, I think, for the community to be solidified.  People like knowing what's weighing on one another's hearts and they are, many times, more likely to lift it up in worship than mention it as an aside within another conversation.
    • Don't rush other things.  Allow those who wish to talk and catch up with one another to do just that. Fellowship is extremely important in the growth of a church.
  • Inspiring, creative leadership
    • Hitler was a bad man. But, in a very strict and technical sense, he was good at his job. Barack Obama was good at campaigning. Jesus was good at his job.  Osama bin Laden was good at his job. Steve Jobs is good at his job. Walt Disney was good at his job.
      • Some of these were good for the world.  Others weren't. All of them were inspiring leaders. They were all, also, well-spoken charismatic speakers.  People want to follow that...like it or not.
    • We all know when someone is and isn't an inspiring leader. Being charismatic and inspiring isn't always a recipe for success, but it certainly helps.  When people are feeling down or tired, they need a pick-me-up.  When people are doing well, they need affirmation. This is reality, and it's a reality for churches.
    • Creativity is key. Being stuck in a rut is not suitable for relevant ministry and it sometimes takes a little moving and shaking to get things done. This often takes place in today's churches within technological creativity. This is mostly good, but it doesn't have to be done in this way. Be creative in all aspects of your leadership.  If it still makes some sort of clear, directional, logical sense, it's probably ok.
    • This also includes being a good manager of people and staff.
      • I waver back and forth on whether or not I  agree with the "Pastor as CEO" model. More times than not, though, I come back to it.  Pastors have to be honest with staff members who aren't cutting it.  Pastors have to be honest in each and every situation. I truly believe that if the staff is dysfunctional, it will become apparent to new-comers to the church far faster than you would have hoped.
    • This leadership (in all aspects of the church) has to truly care for people.
      • Some of the biggest time-taker-uppers for pastors are hospital visits, funerals, weddings, and counseling. If you've ever experienced even a hint of any of them, you'll quickly realize that they're all blessings in their own unique ways. However, when a pastor doesn't truly care for or about people in tough or difficult situations, it's evident to everyone.  It's truly a calling and, I think, a necessity.

There are many, many more.  I think, though, that this is a decent start. There are some obvious omissions and I am sure that you'll disagree with some of what I said.

Here shall be my challenge to you: submit your feedback (both more suggestions and corrections) to me through the comments below.  I'd like to make this a working list.  I'll update the post (and mark it, giving credit to the authors) with additions that I think are fruitful.

The Church will only change if we change it. I believe that the Church has been ordained to change the world.

-B

Love Your Neighbor

I think, perhaps, this could have been the kind of work Jesus was talking about. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXf18-3p2Sg&]

Joplin needs the Church. Thank God the Church is there for Joplin.

-B

Why Are Churches Segregated?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGRevimPiQI&] "There's black churches and there's white churches, and that's racism."

Is it? Is it tradition? Is it heritage? Is it comfort?

Also, is it good or bad?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61QmJDz6tJg&]

-B

The Older Annual Conference

I've been watching the Florida Annual Conference off and on for the past few days. They stream it live (with post-vote commentary!) on their website for the whole world to see. It's probably a sick obsession with church polity or the fact that my wife is there and seeing a little glimpse of her here and there is a lot of fun, but either way...I've been watching.  I watch as much of the voting sessions as I can stand, listen to a lot of the dialogue during discussion, and watch whatever of the worship service I can.

There's been a small Facebook and Twitter campaign rolling around trying to get younger clergy and laity elected to serve as delegates to the General Conference next year.

And yet, when the election breaks down, there doesn't seem to be as wide of a collection from all age groups, it tends to weigh heavily on the older populations.

Now, I was raised to respect my elders.  I was raised to think of them as wise.  I learned first hand how wise many of them can be.  I learned first hand how correct many of them could be. Life does that to you, I guess. Life allows you to learn lessons that you'd only have learned from experience.

But I can also remember the times that I was listening to a pastor give a Children's Moment on a Sunday morning and one of the children said something so brilliant, I had to write it down.  I remember the times leading a small group at camp and one of the 6th graders made a theological observation that blew my mind. I also remember when I saw a 5th grader put his arm around an acquaintance (of the opposite race), who had been made fun of; he provided comfort and love that the acquaintance hadn't yet experienced.

I mean, right? Those experiences will change your life. I can already think of several instances where I've seen the wiser, older people not act or speak in those ways because 1) it was not appropriate or 2) things had never been done or spoken of in that way before.

And so as I reflect on an Annual Conference that elects more older people than younger people to represent them to the General Church, I worry. Not because young people are better (the older were once younger, remember). And not because older people are better.

But because God speaks to and through people of all ages.  God does things through the young AND the old. The Bible speaks to this time and time again.

It seems normal that in Florida, there would be a larger population of older members. It seems to make sense, then, that the voting would follow that breakdown: there are going to be more older delegates elected than young.

But, what if we worked to actively elect a broad range of ages? What if we said, "I think this 20-year-old has just as much to say as this 60-year-old"? What if we invested in the future and new leaders by providing them with the opportunity to feel as if they are a part of something real? What would it look like for an older candidate to look toward the younger candidates and campaign for them? What would it look like for new ideas to be treated with the same insight and respect as older ideas? What if the representation didn't represent the age of people, but rather it would represent the way God treats and speaks through every individual?

I think it would look like the Church.

-B

 

If I Were To End The World...

I look forward to seeing you all on Sunday. We'll meet for church, catch up for a few minutes, laugh and joke, maybe go out to lunch, and then we'll celebrate that the world hasn't ended. Or, we'll cry because we haven't been included in the rapture. These peeps that have been saying that the rapture will occur on the May 21 and then the end of the world will be on October 21 aren't reading the same Bible I am.

It has got me thinking though, what would I do if I were these people?

I'd be so convinced that the end of the world is coming that I'd want to tell people. I'd plan out an awesome Saturday lunch with friends and then retreat to my home. I'd probably lie down in bed and hope to be taken in my sleep.

But...what would happen when the stroke of midnight struck? Would I get worried? Would I call my fellow church members? Would I call my adversaries? Would I try to figure out if I had just missed the mark, or would I think I had been left behind? How would I show my face in public again?

I'd see two ways out:

  • Mass suicide with all who think the way I do.
  • Go in to hiding.

(I struggle deeply with the concept of suicide. It's a rough thing that has plagued our world for all of time. It's extremely sad and unfortunate.)

So, I think I'd have to go with hiding. After all, Osama hid in plain sight for ten years.

I think I'd take my church members and go into hiding. I'd secure some random island that no one knew about, figure out a way to get myself, my family, and all my friends there. Then I'd live there until people forgot that I had proclaimed the end of the world and judged them prematurely.

Yeah, hiding would be the only way to keep the news cameras and late night talk shows from taunting and stalking me.

After it had all been planned, I'd probably read over the plans.

I'd think about it, pray about it, and then decide that it sounded like a lot of work.

I'd probably just go ahead and on May 20th tell the world that I'd been making it all up.

Then, I'd go back to the Bible, read it, and decide that the world was actually going to end at a time unknown to man. I'd probably decide that Jesus's message needed to be spread more than ever. But not for the sake of the souls of the "saved."

I'd decide that Jesus's message needed to be spread in a way that eradicated poverty.

I'd decide that Jesus's message needed to be spread in a way that accepted those who has never been accepted.

I'd decide that Jesus's message needed to be spread in a way that showed the world the beauty of the resurrection.

I'd decide that Jesus's message was not modernity's "heaven" but rather, Jesus's "salvation."

Yeah, I think that if I was to decide that the world was going to end, that'd probably be how it'd play out.

We've got to rid the world of the Christianity that is so convinced that it is all about us.

I hope the world ends, because when it does, the pains of the world will no longer be, pain.

Maybe then, the beatitudes will finally come to life in a way that our Church could not accomplish.

-B

Father Reginald Foster

This guy is awesome. Fast forward this to 3:32. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcNdteJNyO4&feature=youtube_gdata_player]

Here is another one about his Latin passion.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inQ6CWx7V2c&feature=youtube_gdata_player]

I feel like the Church needs more of him.

-B

The Gospel of GaGa

This morning, I watched Lady GaGa's Monster Ball Tour on HBO. I missed it the first time around and thought quickly enough to TiVo it for the second time.  Thank God HBO shows specials like MTV shows reality shows. If you are a fan of creative use of costumes, lighting, dancing, video, and curse words...you'll enjoy the show.  It is well done.

I feel like my feelings toward her "Judas," however, are more real than I might have expected.

As far as I can tell, GaGa exists for one purpose: to let everyone know that they should be who they are (and be proud of it) because God made them who they are and it's ok to be who you are because people told her she was nothing and then she went and became a star, and Superstardom should be the key to all good things so people should want to be like her and follow her.

Throughout the show (in which she constantly encourages the audience in regards to the aforementioned point of her existence), other than GaGa, one figure remains constant on stage.  It's a shirtless, long-haired electric guitar player who she readily refers to as Jesus, Jesus Christ, or Jesus Christo. To be fair, he kind of looks like what we typically think Jesus looked like (throwing away the notion that Jesus might have looked a lot like Osama bin Laden). In fact, at first I thought that that was why she called him Jesus.

But...it seemed to move from being a joke to being real.

I've heard many people discuss whether or not GaGa's message of "love all" is really the message of the Gospel or not.  I've heard people advocate that GaGa is spreading her own Gospel. I've expressed before how much I think the sexuality of her performances and videos depletes the value of her message.

I think one thing is clear: I think GaGa senses a sense of calling to be the voice for those who have been afraid to be themselves in this world.  I think she feels a need to speak up for those who have felt "oppressed." I think she thinks she is spreading the Gospel (however we are to define that word).

The problem for me, though, still lies in her follow through.

Everyone should appreciate who they are and who God made them to be: awesome.  People who feel attracted to members of the same sex should be able to live lives that aren't based in hiding those feelings: great. People should want to make something of themselves, especially when they've been told over and over that they will never be anything: fantastic.

But, why the crotch grabs? Why the F words? Why the suggestive nudity?  Why the mocking of religious attire and practice?

There's no doubt in my mind that Lady GaGa is extremely talented.  If it's not in her singing, then her dancing, If not in her dancing, then in her writing.  If not in her writing, then in her work ethic.  If not in her work ethic, then in her creativity.  If not in her creativity, then in her sense of "call."

She's got what it takes to make it.

But she's one of those rare artists that come along and gains rare stardom...and tries to use that fame and voice to speak a message. So her potential is not just for fame, her potential is for change. Imagine a world in which this potential is used in a proper way!

If her message were based in love and life, she'd have something. But it isn't.

She wants to be a voice for those disrespected by culture...but she cares more about those people following her than the purpose of the message. It's a fake-out, to the highest degree.

She has a voice that many in the church wish they had.  She even speaks some of the same language that they'd like to. But she's doing it in the wrong way. The potential for change is lost, ruined, and destroyed. Instead...she doesn't influence culture in the way that the Gospel is supposed to. She influences culture in the way that she wants to.

And because of that, I'd ask her to stop calling that guitar player, "Jesus."

-B

She's good, but she used to be better. Just watch:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM51qOpwcIM]

May 1st, 2011 - Life Wins

It was May 1st, 2011 at 10:50 pm.

I was on my way back from Durham, having just gotten off the phone with my dad, when Allison called me.  "Did you hear the news?" she asked. "No." "Osama bin Laden is dead. It's all over twitter and the President is going to make an announcement."

I have to admit, my first response was to...smile.

I think I even said something like, "that's great!"

Because, you see, I remember sitting in 2nd period band when a school administrator came in and told us that our nation was under attack and that two planes had hit the World Trade Center in New York. I remember watching the Today Show, and I remember watching people jump to their death from the buildings.  I remember watching both buildings fall, live, on television.

And I remember thinking, "who would do that?"

Before 9/11, I didn't know anything about Osama bin Laden.  I didn't know a thing about al Qaeda.  But later that week, al Qaeda became the center of all our lives.

And I will admit that when I watch that clip of President Bush standing on that rubble saying, "I can hear you! And the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon!" I get goosebumps every time.
Every single time.

Because to me, a man who sent in OTHER people to kill 3,000 innocent Americans ought to be "brought to justice."

I once watched an episode of Oprah where she was talking about Timothy McVeigh.  I remember the story going that after he dropped that van off in the basement, he ran from the building. He got down the block before the explosion.  When it finally hit, he kept running. After it was over, he looked behind him and I'm almost positive that his quote was, "Damn, I didn't get all of it."

When I heard that Timothy McVeigh was arrested and sentenced to death, I smiled inside. Evil had been "brought to justice."

You can call me an evil person. You can call me unChristian.  You can call me a hypocrite. But, I'd rather refer to myself as "honest."

These people did horrible things to our world. And now they can't anymore. That gives me some sense of joy.

But immediately, I started questioning whether this sense of joy was proper or not.  Joy is not true joy unless it comes from the right source.  When I got home, I looked at the news and the first thing I saw was people flooding the White House with American flags wrapped around their backs screaming "USA! USA! USA!" I immediately had a flashback to all of those videos I've seen of Middle Easterners burning our flag.

I got on Facebook (which took awhile, I had deactivated it until finals were over) and all of a sudden, I saw thinks like "F&$@ you Osama!" and "WE GOT HIM!" and "Proud to be an American!" and "Rot in Hell!"

But, of course, I'm a Divinity student, so I also had interspersed within the news feed things like "Love your Enemies" and "Why do we celebrate the death of a human?"

And I was back to being torn.  Do I act as an American? Do I celebrate one more embodiment of evil finally being gone? Do I mourn that my fellow countrymen are celebrating in the death of someone? Do I remember Jesus' line about a giving him the other cheek? Do I try to reconcile some of the emotions I am feeling with the almost unbelievable message of the Gospel?

See, we were confused about the details at first.  We didn't know exactly if the mission was to kill or to capture (although most signs point to kill). We didn't know that night if Osama had shot back (although we know now that he was unarmed). We didn't know how all of it had gone down (although we know more almost every second now).

Sam Wells, of Duke Chapel, raised the point that Osama wasn't given a fair trial before his death. And my first thought is that I don't remember those on 9/11 getting a fair trial before their death. In fact, Osama seems to have been unarmed and unaware of what was going on when they shot him. In that sense, he has something in common with the people he killed on 9/11.

But I return to Jesus' command not only to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, but also to the idea of fighting this concept of "an eye for an eye." To Jesus, I think the concept of returning a bad deed with a bad deed seemed stupid...because it did nothing but return violence with more violence (though Jewish law really seemed to have laid it out as a fair and balanced system). In Jesus' mind, I am confident, violence returning violence only escalates.

When I said as a child, "Isn't it wrong to kill someone by the death penalty?" I remember being asked, "Well, if someone takes someone else's life, do they deserve to keep theirs?"

And, daily, I struggle with this question.

How is justice defined? Do Americans get to decide what is just? Is justice the same thing as fairness? Does the fact that "life's not fair" play into this? Is governmental justice different than vigilante justice?

And I continue to return to one fundamental concept. For Christians, none of us deserve to keep our lives. But because of the death and resurrection, God has given us the gift of eternal life, one that goes beyond the one that we currently inhabit. And, if we learn anything from the resurrection, it is that life defeats death...in each and every sense. It's not just Jesus' death that was defeated. Death...has been defeated.

Because of that, I choose not to condemn the US for killing bin Laden. I choose not to preach to my fellow Americans who are simply acting according to their emotions. I also choose not to celebrate a murder.

Instead, I choose to focus on life eternal. I choose to focus on salvation.  I choose to focus on resurrection, because I know that the way that we sometimes view life and death here on earth is wrong.

If resurrection lives in us, which I believe that it does, then we celebrate the new life that God has given our country and world because an active doer of harm is gone. We also celebrate those who were under his leadership who didn't know what life really was, and now do. We celebrate the lives of the marginalized that are now able to think and act for themselves because there isn't a ruler over them who has extremist views and glorifies violence.

Sam Wells said we shouldn't celebrate. If we define "celebration" in the same sense that those who flooded the White House gates defined it, then I  agree.  But if we define celebration as taking comfort and joy in some form of new life here on earth, then I think the resurrection still lives within us and with that, the Word of God is still present.

Murder is wrong.

Life is good.

What a world we live in.

-B

Sam Wells Comments on "Celebration"

Great memo from Sam Wells of Duke Chapel regarding the death of Osama bin Laden. Well stated and thought provoking. You can read it here. I encourage you to read it more than once. While I agree with his statements almost whole-heartedly, I wonder about the mix of church and state and the influence a letter like this might have on civilization at large. Is it appropriate for pastors to comment on the ongoings of civilization? I would say, yes (given the virtue based content). But, the moment a pastor is interpreted as criticizing (and I'm not sure that he is, directly) the government (their decision to kill rather than to arrest and try), we have to think about how we are to interact with the world, as the Church.

Many pastors might preach about this, in some way, this coming Sunday. It would be unfortunate for them to use the opportunity to preach freedom, instead of life. I thought Revd. Dr. Wells did a phenomenal job of speaking the values of true justice and life (shown through his comments on justice and the setting of a trial) into a stern warning to our nation and our faith.

-B

UPDATE: Fred Phelps doesn't think we should celebrate either, but really for another insane, illogical, incomprehensible reason completely. Are you surprised?

The Best American Idol

I got an email advertising this clip from YouTube tonight. Let's clear up a few things first: she sings the heck out of this. While she may be criticized for where she chooses to take breaths, it is beautifully and masterfully sung.

Watch the clip (it really is very good):

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLLMzr3PFgk&]

However, along with this clip, within the email...was this proposition:

"PLEASE watch and listen to the attachment of Carrie Underwood singing her heart out on "How Great Thou Art", I first saw it on T.V. last Friday night and she brought tears to my eye's and the audience to there feet, and I'll bettcha God heard her in Heaven cause if you watch her closely as she sings, she was singing to Him........."

The thing is, the song is great. Carrie is great. It is well done by both her and Vince.

But I wonder if this song, in this context, is being performed as a hymn or simply as a spiritual song. Is there a difference?

I don't doubt that she was singing to "Him" but I wonder if the applause from that crowd was for God, or Carrie, or both.

An honest question, I'm not sure how I feel about it.

No matter who the applause and praise was for..."I bettcha God heard her in Heaven." I'm pretty sure God hears everything. Especially words sung in praise to God.

-B

Can The Church Be Innovative?

One of the best shows on TV, in my opinion, is Modern Family. But that's not the one I want to talk about. That is, also on ABC, Shark Tank.

For those who aren't familiar with the show, it goes a little something like this: An inventor or someone with a "good" idea or product needs financial help. They may need financial help to be bailed out of the debt they've incurred upon themselves, they may need it to grow the business. Whatever the case, they need financial help for their business and so they seek an investor to invest in them and their product in exchange for a percentage of equity in the company or product.

Think of it like this: Joe Schmo makes really cool socks. And his sock business has been booming. It's been selling so well that he cannot meet the orders that he is getting, and so he is forced to make customers wait for the product (weeks, maybe months...sound familiar Apple?). So, in order to meet demand and not turn customers away, he comes and asks the group of investors (referred to as "Sharks" on the show) for, let's say, $50,000 in exchange for 20% of his business. The idea is that the idea and product are so good that with the Sharks' help, the business will grow and both people will make lots of money.

In fact, that's the goal...make money. One shark in particular, Kevin O'Leary, makes that point very clear. He isn't interested in stories of heartache and suffering. If he can't make money, he isn't interested at all, no matter whose feelings he hurts.

I've struggled with why I like this show so much.

I think it is exciting. I think it is a neat idea, and to be honest...when a really good idea comes along, the show is breathtaking.

Then, last night I was reminded of one of Jesus' message while putting away laundry watching Godspell. You know the one, about not serving two masters...God and money in Matthew 6. The Greek word used is "μαμωνα" which I think is borrowed from Aramaic and is most often translated "money" or "wealth."

If we agree to work off of that translation (and not the one of the personified Mammona), we can see the rationale for people in ministry attempting to live a life of non-wealth (I personally think that describing American pastors as living a life of "poverty" is unfair and untrue). We can understand why many pastors and Christians get upset at pastors like Joel Osteen. We can also see why many pastors feel comforted when they hear of Rick Warren serving his church for free (although let's be real, Warren is making plenty with his book...it's just that by most accounts he tries to tithe most of it back to the church).

Keeping that in mind, back to Shark Tank. As someone who admittedly has issues with the wealth of the world and collecting products (I should really count how many Apple products I own sometime), my first reaction to this realization that these two worlds might possibly be incompatible was to come down on myself as being a gluttonous pig. While I'm not saying that isn't true, it still didn't feel like the right answer to me.

So I thought, what is it that I like about Shark Tank? Why am I so intrigued by Apple and the tech industry?

I realized: innovation.

I like the idea of progress. I like the idea of humans using their minds to be creative. I like the idea of humans truly pursuing their callings by inventing things. And I'm not saying all innovation is good, but I do think it has helped all of our lives (even those who think that things were always more authentic and better way back when). Some forget that the very Scriptures we read were written down on a paper like material...and copied over and over, all a form of technological progress.

And that's why I like Shark Tank. The people that come and bring in companies and products are innovating, for the most part.

But it occurred to me, the world and life-centering ideology of money and the inspiration for innovation go hand in hand. In our capitalistic American society, people innovate because they want to find a way to sell their invention and make money...lots of it (and save me the arguments about people like Jonas Salk, who are obviously the exception to the rule).

And if we function off of the rationale that these two function together, my question becomes: where is the Church? Are people inspired to innovate for the Church?

There was a time when the Church influenced the culture. Sometimes, that was paired with the Church ruling over others' lives without their sayso or freedom. Today, the Church doesn't seem to have much influence on the culture.

It seems to me, in these days, that the Church has also lost its interest in innovation. We study tradition (for good reason) and then sometimes we sit by the tradition and have it speak for itself. But we have forgotten that the Gospel is what needs to speak for itself. While the tradition of the Church has brought quite a bit of positive influence of the Church, it has also destroyed many many many people's faith in God. Our tradition is good, but it is also bad.

The churches that ARE innovating these days are drawing large crowds. And they get looked down on for that. Unfortunately, because often these churches have innovated in new forms of worship with the intention of drawing more people in, to collect more money. They sell their products outside the services. (I can't remember so well, but I seem to remember Jesus not liking that idea.) So these churches aren't truly innovating for the church, they're innovating like Americans innovate...for money and money alone (and probably to "save souls").

Maybe, then, the question is less about the Church innovating...and more about letting the Gospel innovate through the Church. At least, I sure hope that's what it is.

-B

Two Worlds Clashing

I preach to the music team at the church I work at all the time about the change that has occurred in how music is written over the past 50-100 years. I have a classical music education but typically lead worship in the contemporary tradition (ha! right?) on a weekly basis. I've seen the crossover from voice-written pieces to organ-written pieces to piano-written pieces to guitar-written pieces.  There is both quality material and crap in ALL categories.

I have often expressed before, here, how much I care about the progressive church. At our church we try to find a nice balance between all of these worlds.  It's a new experience for me and something I am not always successful with.

When we do hymns at church (you know, out of those little books that sit in the pew in front of you) I typically rely on my figured bass (I mean, it's not figured bass but that training comes to my rescue in a huge way) reading skills to play along to the hymns on the guitar.  I am, at times, more successful at some than others.

I HAD to share this.

This song moves quickly, has a lot of running parts and the chords don't transfer to the guitar well.  So, of course I went on CCLI and looked up a chord chart to see if they had one.

I was blown away.

I'm a fan of simplicity (welcome, Apple) and so this type of visual organization drives me crazy anyway, but this was crazy.  I'm all about trying to take the good out of the old and moving it forward (we all do this in some way or another) but often times it ends up like this:

How is ANYONE who knows how to read music or, especially...doesn't, going to be able to follow that? Unbelievable work.  Unbelievable.

I'll probably get in trouble (with CCLI) for posting this, but it was too good to pass up.

-B

I Had To Jump...

...off of the GaGa train. First, it was this.

Then her new single, "Judas" came out. I don't know exactly how I define "antichrist" but I'm starting to believe that GaGa is getting scary close.

I've  sifted through these lyrics over and over trying to find a different way to interpret it. Can't. Do. It.

She mixes all kinds of stories centering around Jesus to point to (I think) the fact that she is in love with some sort of sin. I get that. But I think it was poorly timed with Holy Week (I'm sure that's exactly why they did that) but I think she has mixed a few too many things with a story I'm not positive she has complete understanding of.

Proof point: "In the most Biblical sense, I am beyond repentance."

Hopefully someone can enlighten my interpretation of the song. I'd like to a hear a non-biased interpretation that finds her point among the trash mixed in.

I choose not to post the lyrics.  Find them yourself.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAWpkZSCMXU]

-B