Remember Who You Are...

Gearing up for January/February's series on "The Sacred Romance" -- wherein we affirm the Gospel as the ultimate love story (in which we are focal characters)...

Ours, though, is the curse of forgetting: forgetting the overarching story (i.e., the "metanarrative," as the academics call it) of our lives and living, forgetting who we are, forgetting Whose we are...

A clip from the children's classic, The Lion King, has long stood out as the perfect illustration for me: of this forgetfulness... and our call to remember... and our need to return:





Yes, we have forgotten who we are [in our baptisms]. Truly, whether we have been apart from the church for decades (or a lifetime)... or a part of it for the same, we are more than we have become. Dear Newcomer... and Old-Timer: isn't it time to "return" and claim our place, afresh, in the "circle of life" and living?!

Yes, there may be more in our childhood stories and epic adventures than we ever imagined! Maybe our hearts,... maybe our salvation!

Beauty and the Beast: Music Hath Charms to Soothe the Savage Breast

you-tubing today... believe it or not, it's a part of my worship design work... hey, someone's got to do it!

had me returning to one of my favorites: Connie Talbot taming the savage beast, [American Idol's] Simon Cowell...

get a cup of coffee... or tea... and enjoy!



.

"Here's to You, Jesus... and the Outsider!": Reflections on Christian "Social" Drinking

.
[23]"Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive. 24Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others… [31]So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. [32]Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God—[33]even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of of many, so that they may be saved. (1 Corinthians 10:23,24, 31-33)

“We affirm our long-standing support of abstinence from alcohol [and illegal drugs] as a faithful witness to God's liberating and redeeming love for persons... We commit ourselves to assisting those who suffer from abuse or dependence, and their families, in finding freedom through Jesus Christ and in finding good opportunities for treatment, for ongoing counseling, and for reintegration into society.” (From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church [2004])

It has happened more than once in my ministry. A church member goes to a Church function (as, e.g., a Sunday School party). Unbeknownst to the class, that person is a recovering alcoholic. Again, I have seen it more than once: the look of disappointment… and the sense of betrayal (that they shared with me, their pastor)—something along the lines “how could that which I thought was a safe haven [i.e., the church and my Sunday School class] be just one more place of temptation, one more place which ordains the demon I am trying to escape?” Of course, these souls were strong enough and “recovered” enough to voice their disappointment and concern. Of course, they eventually gravitated to other communities that were more sensitive to the needs of the weaker among us. (A more disturbing question for me is: for every one of these who voiced their concern, how many others left the church altogether… or, God forbid, forsook their path of abstinence?!)

For too many years, I have heard too many Methodists brag about their Methodism as though it was a license to “eat, drink, and be merry”: “one of the reasons I am Methodist is because we can dance and drink!” (It’s a sentiment which smacks of the other slam I hear about “Methodists believing anything!”) At a time of year when many are prone to assemble and party (and to do so under the umbrella of the Church through one of its programs), allow me to clarify the Methodist—and, in my opinion, the Christian position—on drinking. (Therein, maybe you’ll overhear some principles to be distilled for dancing and “eating meat sacrificed to idols” and all other sorts of behavior!)

Yes, it is true—and grounded in the Gospel: that Methodists are “free.” However, lest liberty become license—i.e., freedom give way to licentiousness—some higher principles must prevail and govern that freedom.

This “higher principle” the Apostle lays down as loving regard for and sensitivity to one’s neighbor. Yes, he argues in his correspondence with the Corinthians, you are free to do all things—free to partake of every kind of food and drink! But not all things edify—that is, “build others up.” In the end, then, we gladly constrain and refine all we can do on the basis of all we should do for the sake of others and our witness to these others—whether “they” be our children, the weaker among us… or the weaker who may unknowingly come our way. For the Christian, you see, drunkenness is hardly the measure of too much drinking as that solitary sip that might cause another to stumble… or think less of your witness, the Church, or the Faith. (If there’s any “stumbling block” or obstacle to the Faith for others, let it be Christ and Christ alone!)

Amidst discussion of mission and purpose in various congregations, I have heard those who emphasize that we should not forsake our existing congregation. The thinking here would seem to be that, amidst our efforts to reach outsiders, we should not neglect the needs of existing members. To be sure, we have an obligation to members that is not eclipsed by the needs of outsiders. However, a real part of that obligation and ministry is to equip these “insiders”—in the very Spirit of Jesus our Lord—to be passionate about the outsider and sensitive to their needs and potential weaknesses. (Give me a group whose primary mission is to members and I’ll show you a country club. Give me a group whose primary mission is to outsiders [i.e., those who could and should and would be with us] and I’ll show you a Church in the image of Christ!)

Of course, I know I need to be careful here—lest I sound judgmental and run the risk of hitting that opposite extreme which is legalism. I am aware of and respectful, for example, of Episcopal friends who invited us to a wine and cheese reception after a performance of “The Messiah” last year night—even as I am aware of a host of our brothers and sisters in Christ who partake of wine every Sunday morning as part of their communion liturgy! Still, on this last note, I can not help but remember another recovering Soul, a newborn to the Church, who humbly came to me—fumbling with the right way to ask whether we Methodists served real wine during Communion. “I’m sorry to ask, Preacher,” he said, “but you need to understand that one drop is enough to knock me off the wagon!” With that dear Soul (and others) in mind, I’ll gladly forbear a drop of wine—even though I have a “right” and the “freedom” to drink the whole bottle! And, I’ll continue to celebrate Holy Communion using the fruit of the vine bottled by fellow Methodist, Mr. Welch.

In the coming Holiday (i.e., Holy Day) Season… and beyond, can I encourage you—as individuals and as members of the Strawbridge Family of Faith—to be about this same [Methodist] witness to the weak among us… and the weak who could be and would be and should be among us?!

Pioneers vs Settlers

.

In view of this Sunday's sermon (on "A Risk-Taking Church")--a sermon which will draw upon imagery from the commentary on the church which is Wes Seeliger's Western Theology, I have decided to include the following summary. (This summary itself is an excerpt from Brennan Manning's Lion and the Lamb.)

Basically, Seeliger and Manning--and I, myself (in this Sunday's message)--seek define two possibilities for the modern church: there's the Settler "circle-the-wagon, pitch-the-camp, let's-stay-right-here" mindset... and then theres the Pioneer "Wagon-Ho, ours-is-a-manifest-destiny-to-win-the-world" outlook.

Writes Manning:

There are two visions of life, two kinds of people. The first see life as a possession to be carefully guarded. They are called settlers. The second see life as a wild, fantastic, explosive gift. They are called pioneers.

These two types give rise to two kinds of theology: Settler Theology and Pioneer Theology. According to Wes Seeliger in, in his book Western Theology, the first kind, Settler Theology, is an attempt to answer all the questions, define and housebreak some sort of Supreme Being, establish the status quo on golden tablets in CinemaScope. Pioneer Theology is an attempt to talk about what it means to receive the strange gift of life. The Wild West is the setting for both theologies.

In Settler Theology, the church is the courthouse. It is the center of town life. The old stone structure dominates the town square. Its windows are small and this makes things dark inside. Within the courthouse walls records are kept, taxes collected, trials held for bad guys. The courthouse is the settler’s symbol of law, order, stability, and--most important--security. The mayor’s office is on the top floor. His eagle eye ferrets out the smallest detail of town life.

In Pioneer Theology, the church is the covered wagon. It’s a house on wheels, always on the move. The covered wagon is where the pioneers eat, sleep, fight, love, and die. It bears the marks of life and movement--it creaks, is scarred with arrows, bandaged with baling wire. The covered wagon is always where the action is. It moves toward the future and doesn’t bother to glorify its own ruts. The old wagon isn’t comfortable, but the pioneers don’t mind. They are more into adventure than comfort.

In Settler Theology, God is the mayor. He is a sight to behold. Dressed like a dude from back East, he lounges in an over-stuffed chair in his courthouse office. He keeps the blinds drawn. No one sees him or knows him directly, but since there is order in the town, who can deny that he is there? The mayor is predictable and always on schedule. The settlers fear the mayor, but look to him to clear the payroll and keep things going. Peace and quiet are the mayor’s main concerns. That’s why he sends the sheriff to check on pioneers who ride into town.

In Pioneer Theology, God is the trail boss. He is rough and rugged, full of life. He chews tobacco, drinks straight whiskey. The trail boss lives, eats, sleeps, and fights with his people. Their well-being is his concern. Without him the wagon wouldn’t move; living as a free man would be impossible. The trail boss often gets down in the mud with the pioneers to help push the wagon, which often gets stuck. He prods the pioneers when they get soft and want to turn back. His fist is an expression of his concern.

In Settler Theology, Jesus is the sheriff. He’s the guy who is sent by the mayor to enforce the rules. He wears a white hat, drinks milk, out-draws the bad guys. The sheriff decides who is thrown into jail. There is a saying in town that goes: those who believe that the mayor sent the sheriff, and follow the rules, they won’t stay in Boothill when it comes their time.

In Pioneer Theology, Jesus is the scout. He rides out ahead to find out which way the pioneers should go. He lives all the dangers of the trail. The scout suffers every hardship, is attacked by the Indians. Through his words and actions he reveals the true intentions of the trail boss. By looking at the scout, those on the trail learn what it means to be a pioneer.

In Settler Theology, the Holy Spirit is the saloon girl. Her job is to comfort the settlers. They come to her when they feel lonely, or when life gets dull or dangerous. She tickles them under the chin and makes everything okay again. The saloon girl squeals to the sheriff when someone starts disturbing the peace.

In Pioneer Theology, the Holy Spirit is the buffalo hunter. He rides along with the covered wagon and furnishes fresh meat for the pioneers. Without it they would die. The buffalo hunter is a strange character--sort of a wild man. The pioneers never can tell what he will do next. He scares the hell out of the settlers. He has a big, black gun that goes off like a cannon. He rides into town on Sunday to shake up the settlers. You see, every Sunday morning the settlers have a little ice cream party in the courthouse. With his gun in hand the buffalo hunter sneaks up to one of the courthouse windows. He fires a tremendous blast that rattles the whole courthouse. Men jump out of their skin, women scream, dogs bark. Chucking to himself, the buffalo hunter rides back to the wagon train shooting up the town as he goes.

In Settler Theology, the Christian is the settler. He fears the open, unknown frontier. His concern is to stay on good terms with the mayor and keep out of the sheriff’s way. “Safety first” is his motto. To him the courthouse is a symbol of security, peace, order, and happiness. He keeps his money in the bank. The banker is his best friend. The settler never misses an ice cream party.

In Pioneer Theology, the Christian is the pioneer. He is a man of daring, hungry for new life. He rides hard, knows how to use a gun when necessary. The pioneer feels sorry for the settlers and tries to tell them of the joy and fulfillment of life on the trail. He dies with his boots on.

In Settler Theology, the clergyman is the banker. Within his vault are locked the valuables of the town. He is a highly respected man. He has a gun, but keeps it hidden in his desk. He feels that he and the sheriff have a lot in common. After all, they both protect the bank.

In Pioneer Theology, the clergyman is the cook. He doesn’t furnish the meat. He just dishes up what the buffalo hunter provides. This is how he supports the movement of the wagon. He never confuses his job with that of the trail boss, scout, or buffalo hunter. He sees himself as just another pioneer who has learned to cook. The cook’s job is to help the pioneers pioneer.

In Settler Theology, faith is trusting in the safety of the town: obeying the laws, keeping your nose clean, believing the mayor is in the courthouse.

In Pioneer Theology, faith is the spirit of adventure. The readiness to move out. To risk everything on the trail. Faith is obedience to the restless voice of the trail boss.

In Settler Theology, sin is breaking one of the town’s ordinances.

In Pioneer Theology, sin is wanting to turn back.

In Settler Theology, salvation is living close to home and hanging around the courthouse.

In Pioneer Theology, salvation is being more afraid of sterile town life than of death on the trail. Salvation is joy at the thought of another day to push on into the unknown. It is trusting the trail boss and following the scout while living on the meat provided by the buffalo hunter.

.

Beyond "Buffet Christianity"

“It just makes you feel good inside”: the pitch of a local church I won’t name (though I suspect many of you know of whom I write… still, not naming it has a way of making the point that I don’t want to digress into church/denomina-tional battles). To me, it’s too much the sentiment of the age: "I need a faith and a church that make me feel good inside." To me, it’s disturbing: Christianity is not so much nor has it ever been about our avoiding the cross as much as it is our living, with Him, through (and beyond) our crosses!

It’s truth I encountered as I finished Gary Thomas’ Authentic Faith the other day. (It’s not the best written book, but it does do a good job of establishing its thesis: namely, that there are hard parts of life and even hard disciplines of the faith that God uses for our spiritual growth; to avoid such hard times is to side-step spiritual maturity.) In his Epilogue, Thomas quote Harry Schaumburg’s False Intimacy:

A quick reflection on the first-century church reveals that New Testament Christians never attempted to validate the truth of Christianity by the way in which their experiences in life improved [or made them feel better or become richer]. For them, becoming Christians meant real sacrifice and sometimes death. (Thomas, Authentic Faith, p. 241)

Folks, to borrow from Mother Theresa, discipleship has nothing to do with our becoming more successful but it has everything to do with our becoming more faithful--becoming transformed more and more into the full image of Jesus our Lord (an image which was often bloodied and bowed and broken, with tears streaming down the cheek.)

Sadly, though, there are too many who pick and choose – custom design – their discipleship response: “I’d like a good heaping plate of feeling good, topped with prospertiy… and, oh, hold the ‘brussel sprouts’ which are the dying to self and the mission work and any real identifying with the poor and broken and the…”

Recalls for me an article by Dick Staub on “Buffet Religion, Buffet Christianity”:

We should not be surprised that today’s Christians are constructing a self-serving approach to the faith. Most Christians seem to think the faith is a buffet when it is, in fact, a fixed menu. At a buffet you pick and choose what you want, but in a fixed menu you get it all… Buffet Christians want to take the part they like and leave the less appealing parts—you know, lots of desserts and no broccoli. (from "CultureWatch" at http://www.dickstuab.com/)

And then, he goes on to conclude:

The Christian life is not a buffet; it is a fixed menu. Everything on the menu has been carefully planned and is time-tested to produce health and growth. As the old chorus puts it, Jesus must be “Lord of All or not Lord at all.”

Tough as it is to accept, we are not in charge of the menu! No, ours is the simple choice: to be in it for the full course of Christian discipleship… or to be about some other diet which is delicious and immediately satisfying but hardly Christian (no matter what you call it).

.

Liberals (Democrats) vs Conservatives (Republicans)

A convergence of things has me musing about the differences between liberals/democrats and conservatives/republicans: there’s election day, of course; there was my participation in a clergy marriage/leadership retreat (and engagement of the Myers-Briggs Personality Inventory);… even my recent post on traditional versus contemporary (and my wish that we could find a centrist position that brings them together).

At first blush, a long-held generalization about liberals and conservatives was something I confided to only a few: “liberals think with their hearts, conservatives feel with their brains.”*** It comes across rather brusque if not superficial.

Still, it was not formulated or held without some grounds:
• liberals are often referred to as “bleeding hearts” (where “heart” is the seat of emotions and feelings)… and Bush’s reference to a “compassionate Conservative” seemed like an oxymoron to many
• Liberals seemed to always resort to what Jesus, the Word of God, would have done (appealing to his love as an emotional impulse)… and conservatives seemed to always resort to what the Bible, as the Word of God, says (appealing to it’s truth as an objective reality to be discerned and obeyed)

More recently, though, there’s been other data/input to undergird my generalization—making me feel a little more justified in my position… and a little more willing to air it. First, there was my overhearing a quote from Churchill on the radio the other day: something along the lines that “any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.”

And then, there was my engagement of Myers-Briggs (MBTI) preferences. Election fervor had me wondering about Democrats vs Republicans—so much so that I did a little googling.

“Allen Hammer published several statistics about the political affiliations of each MBTI preference in Snapshots of the 16 Types. In his research, he found that: Republicans preferred INTJ, ENTJ, ESTJ, and ISTJ (the executive types). The ESTJs are more than twice as likely as the INFPs and INFJs to be Republicans. Democrats were typically NF or INFJ. In fact, those people with a preference for Feeling are more likely than other types to identify themselves as Democrats.” (http://www.thembtiblog.com/2008/10/mbti-preferences-of-republicans-and.html)

(For those not versed in Myers-Briggs, the third letter in each personality configuration refers to thinking (T) or feeling (F) as the primary mode of decision-making—so that Hammers stats verify that Republicans feel and Democrats think.)

Of course, the real issue is not whether my generalization is founded (or not) as much as it is, just one more time, our need to find a way to bring it all together – to find that precious synergy and synthesis: liberal and conservative, heart and mind, emotions and thoughts, truth and love, knowledge and vital piety, the mercy of Jesus with the uncompromised truth/law that Jesus declared and upheld, democrat and republican.

And here, I guess, I “hit the wall” of reality this side of Heaven: that forever, in this world, there will be liberals and conservatives who do not know the meaning of or way to crossing the aisle and meeting in the middle,… that the centrist position I hold dear and that stirs my heart is, no doubt, an impossibility on earth, another property of His Kingdom coming.

=======================================

***of course, there are exceptions to this generalization... still, even as I recognize this and write this footnote, my mind drifts to talk radio and the plethora of conservative talk hosts and the demise of Al Franken (and radio USA... or whatever it was called): could it be that talk radio was made for thinkers.... even as movies and documentaries and moving images(Michael Moore) work best for feelers??