PEACE OR REVOLUTION?

In the USA, we have just come off a grueling presidential campaign. We have a president-elect who won the technical vote, but not the popular vote. The nation is deeply divided on the policies which might be instituted by the president-elect. Some ask, “How should the Church respond?” We first must acknowledge the Church is not monolithic in its assessment of the president-elect nor the policies which might be enacted.

There is a multitude of responses being voiced by both the committed and nominal members of the church. It is not as easy as saying this is what the evangelicals support and this is what the liberals resist. It is important to understand that those who self-identify as evangelicals and liberals both approach their support or resistance based on their theological approach to scripture. However, there are as many variations in each “camp” as there are people. Inconsistencies abound.

We know the early Christians lived in a hostile political environment. When the republic devolved into government by an emperor, considered to be a god, the conflict for Jews and Christians became more stressed. Jews and Christians held there is only one god, the god of Abraham, Issac and Jacob; the god revealed in Jesus the Christ. The policies and actions of the Empire often stood in sharp contrast with the theology and ethics of the Christian community. What advice do we find in the Gospel oriented Epistles in Scripture?

Three passages stand out: Romans 13:1-2 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which is from God. The authorities that exist have been appointed by God. Consequently, the one who resists authority is opposing what God has set in place, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.…  I Timothy 2:2 First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be offered on behalf of all men for kings and all those in authority, so that we may lead tranquil and quiet lives in all godliness and dignity.  I Peter 2:17 Treat everyone with high regard: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.

Were the writers really urging tacit support of the Empire, or did they insert such verses to be able to say to the Empire, “See you have nothing to fear from us. We pray for you and our followers are to submit to those in authority.” In I Timothy, the motivation for praying for governmental leaders and those in authority is clearly stated, so that we may lead tranquil and quiet lives in all godliness and dignity. Russell Rathbun states, “It seems like Paul is trying to convince the powers that he is on their side. He says he was appointed a herald (a court-appointed crier) and an apostle. … He wants the Empire to know that he and his Christians have no argument with them.”  (http://thq.wearesparkhouse.org/yearc/ordinary25epistle/)

Eric Barreto writes, “But also here, we encounter a significant preaching challenge, especially in recent days characterized by protest and demands for change in pursuit of justice. Is the “quiet and peaceable life” always the ideal avenue for Christian faith? Haven’t we heard so often the call from preachers for protesters to be patient, for the oppressed to wait for justice? Too easily, we might preach a call to a quiescence that denies injustice, a peace that belies an underlying violence. Lest we become enablers of continued oppression, we ought to bring a critical eye to this text.” (http://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?commentary_id=3035)

What then is the call to believers? Are we to pray for and submit to the governmental authorities so we may lead tranquil and quiet lives? Or, do we resist those policies which deny justice and the underlying violence that peace covers up?

I believe the answer is found in the Gospel of Matthew 25:31-46. The New King James Version titles this section The Son of Man Will Judge the Nations. (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=NKJV)  “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 4 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” When the government policies and leaders care for “the least of these,” it/they deserve the support of believers, if they do not resistance and pressing for change is the course believers must take.

RECIPROCITY

If one spends any time around live stage actors, one is likely to hear them talking about their interaction with the audience. They will talk about how the energy or response of the audience feeds them as actors. The same can be heard from musicians and comics.

If the ones on stage “phone in” their performance (lacking energy or authenticity) the audience will be flat, and likely to thin out at the intermission. Any performance which is monotonous, delivered as if the audience were a blank wall, will leave the audience wondering why they bothered to show up.

On the other hand, if the audience is tired, troubled, distracted, or disinterested there will be little, if any, response no matter how hard the performers are working. The performers call it a “dead house.” When this is the case it can drag down the performance.

It used to be the advice to preachers, “do not put any emphasis into the reading of the Scriptures, nor into the sermon. Let the naked words speak for themselves.” The congregation sat blankly, sang a hymn of two and went home. Ironically, during this model of worship, attendance was at its highest in the last seventy-five years. But that was before television and the proliferation of action films.

It is hard work being a preacher. In general, people no longer will sit still of a thirty-minute expository sermon, no matter how eloquently it is delivered. It seems the preference is for short, pithy, humorous sermons which leave the congregation feeling good. Above all, the preacher must not overtly offend anyone. It is hard work crafting a sermon which will speak very subtly to the social issues of the day. Maybe, preachers need to telegraph their punch before the sermon by saying, “Let those with ears to hear, hear.” (Mark 4:9, Revelation 2:7)

I was once doing a presentation, after a trip to Rwanda following the genocide. I compared the radio spokespeople who, over time, stirred up the divisions between the Hutu and Tutsi populations to Rush Limbaugh stirring up divisions in our own populations. One couple immediately got up and walked out. Later, the husband angrily told me I was out of line, and that such political comments were inappropriate in church.

I am convinced preachers must follow one of the ordination vows when preparing and delivering a sermon: Will you pray for and seek to serve the people with energy, intelligence, imagination, and love? (Book of Order W-4.4003 h) All four elements of this vow are critical to preaching, today. Energy is required if we are to move the congregation from where they are to where God is calling them. Intelligence is required if we are faithfully to interpret and proclaim the whole of Scripture. Imagination is required if we are to see beyond the thick veil of our context, and if we are to help the congregation to see beyond it also. Love is required because if we did not love God and the congregation we are called to serve there would be no reason to engage in the foolishness of preaching.

https://www.wayostccs.com/

Survival of the Fittest

https://www.facebook.com/AusTeaParty/

Per popular understandings, Darwin posited the theory of evolution in which was the proposition of the survival of the fittest. This would appear to be true in much of the animal world. The weak straggler in a herd is often prey for predators. Those which cannot keep up get left behind. This is illustrated by this joke, Two men were walking through the woods when a large bear walked out into the clearing no more than 50 feet in front of them. The first man dropped his backpack and dug out a pair of running shoes, then began to furiously attempt to lace them up as the bear slowly approached them. The second man looked at the first, confused, and said, "What are you doing? Running shoes aren't going to help, you can't outrun that bear." "I don't need to," said the first man, "I just need to outrun you." (Jokes2Go.Com)

I wander, even in the case of the two men in the joke above, if there were not another option. Must one be sacrificed so the other might survive? In the leading photo to this blog liberal philosophy/theology is pictured as weakening the strongest so the weaker members of the herd might keep up. That is so NOT THE CASE. My response to that photo on Facebook was, in true liberal style, the stronger would surround the weaker so all might safely make it to their destination. Yes, the stronger ones might have to travel a bit more slowly; might have to make sure the weaker ones get to water and food; might have to position themselves between potential threats the those less able.

One of my professors in seminary, Dr. Catherine Gunsalus Gonzalez, said, “One who truly takes Scripture seriously will be a social liberal.” How can a Christian read Matthew 25:31-46 and not care about the poor, disposed, and the weaker of our society? “…, Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’  “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.

Scripture says a lot about caring for the poor, weak and vulnerable, and nothing about making sure the rich, strong and lofty remain that way at all costs. However, in our current USA economy the rich get richer and the poor become poorer. The “law of the jungle,” survival of the fittest, seems at play. How do we adapt to provide the proper social safety nets so the hungry, thirsty, stranger (refugee), naked, sick or imprisoned are not left to predators?

Adaptability is the key. How do we adapt ourselves to the new economic realities so the weakest are not left behind? In the movie, Wall Street, it was proclaimed “greed is good!” How do we adapt from a greed based economy to one where the strongest surround and protect the vulnerable? If all are to survive, we must adapt. It was Darwin, himself, who promoted adaptability rather than survival of the fittest.

Hiatus

(www.entrepreneur.com/article/237687)

The first time I heard the word hiatus was when an actor used it on television to speak of an extended period she took between film projects. The word tickled my ears. I liked the sound of the word. I like the definition of the word. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines hiatus as, an interruption in time or continuity: break; especially: a period when something (as a program or activity) is suspended or interrupted. (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hiatus) A hiatus is a gap in activity.

History records when John Calvin returned to Geneva, after his exile to Strasbourg, he picked up reading Scripture and preaching at the point where he ended when sent away. It seems he interpreted his exile as a hiatus, an interruption to his early ministry and preaching. Sometimes a hiatus is freely chosen and at other times imposed by circumstances not of our choosing.

It has been several weeks since I last posted a blog. In large part, my hiatus was freely chosen. In part, I chose to take a hiatus from blogging because I knew it would be ease to be sucking into the heated rhetoric of the presidential election campaigns. There were sporadic lapses on Facebook and other social (anti-social) media. I am not proud of the times when I “flamed” another, or was guilty of passing on the untruths from “fake news” outlets.

Culturally, we still have a bifurcated view of the election result. Some are elated. Some are very fearful. Some want to overturn the Constitutionally prescribed process. Prior to the election some were proclaiming the system was rigged to reach a different outcome. I had/have my own very strong opinions about the two main candidates and the tenor of the campaigns. To keep pouring combustible words into the national discussion will not be helpful in seeking to heal the wounds suffered and wounds anticipated in the future.

The Prophet Jeremiah could have urged those in exile in Babylon to be active insurrectionists. He could have encouraged the exiles to use every opportunity to be subversive. Instead, Jeremiah encouraged the exiles saying, But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. (Jeremiah 29:7 NRSV)

The election has established a president-elect who will officially take office on January 20, 2017. As a people, we remain divided on the outcome of the election and the projected changes we might face under the incoming administration. Whether each of us supported the eventual one who will become the President, we can still pray for the welfare of the place where God has placed us, knowing our own welfare is inextricably tied to the welfare of the nation and the world.

I am not encouraging that we roll-over and blindly support every proposed change. There are legitimate means of voicing our desires for the nation and the world. There are legitimate means of seeking redress of policies and programs which do not advance the general well-being for all. It is our responsibility as citizens of this nation and as citizens of the world to seek the welfare of all people, especially the disposed, the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the refugee. … (S)eek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.

So, ends my hiatus.

I AM NOT BEING FED

I have never understood why some people leave a congregation declaring, “I’m not being fed.” What does that mean? Are things too challenging and the preaching and teaching over their heads? Are the preaching and teaching so simplistic that they do not challenge enough?

How does one understand being fed? What is the responsibility of the person for their own feeding? Is being fed a passive or active experience? One can be fed by a feeding tube. If a person is having ongoing and serious trouble swallowing and can't get enough food or liquids by mouth, a feeding tube may be put directly into the stomach through the abdominal skin. This procedure is called a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). (http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/feeding-tube-placement) A feeding tube is totally passive. The person, except for the processes in the digestive track, is not actively involved in the process of being fed.

For John Calvin, the first mark by which we may know the true church is Whenever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard” (Institutes, 4.1.9), this is where the true visible church is found. The preacher has the responsibility of presenting the Word in the most honest and faithful way possible. It is a task not to be taken lightly. On the other hand, hearing the preached Word is an awesome responsibility. As the preacher has to spend effort in preparing to preach, the congregation has a responsibility to spend effort in preparation to hear the proclaimed word.

Have the people prepared their hearts, minds and souls to hear the proclamation of the Word? I have seen, and experienced, the mad rush of Sunday mornings of trying to get the children up, dressed, fed, and out the door in time to gather for Sunday school and worship. By the time some folks get to church their morning has been a whirlwind of activity. There has been no time to read the Scriptures for the day, if they are known ahead of arriving, or to center oneself in prayer. When I was a pastor, I was glad to see the fellowship among folks before worship began. My preference was to have the prelude after the call to worship. This was an intentional time for them to quieten and to center themselves for worship.

Preaching and hearing the proclamation of the Word is a two-way communication loop. There is the broadcast (speaking) and there is the receiving (hearing). The preacher is responsible for the quality and content of the broadcast. It has to be in a form appropriate to the congregation. The Apostle faced that struggle. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for solid food. In fact, you are still not ready, 1^st Corinthians 3:2. Sometimes it is necessary to “bottle feed,” or “spoon feed” the congregation.

In order to properly receive the broadcast, the ears, heart and soul of the hears, like a radio, need to be tuned to the proper sending station. Do they arrive in a spirit of expectation of tuning into God? Do they expect the preacher to be the instrument through which God speaks? As the Apostle asks, How then can they call on the One they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the One of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone to preach? (Romans 10:14)

If one declares, “I am not being fed,” could it be they are refusing to eat?

Cruise Ship or Flotilla?

A friend of mine was once an officer on a nuclear submarine. In an informal conversation with him, about being a submariner, he said something on the order of, “There are two kinds of vessels in the ocean, submarines and targets.”

Just yesterday I was reading an internet story about the WW II marine warfare off the east coast of the United States, and the discovery of sunken ships and U-boats. http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-worldwar/5908. In conjunction I was reading about the launch of the largest cruise ship in the world. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/03/worlds-biggest-cruise-ship-sets-sail-features-augmented-reality-and-cirque-du-soleil.html.

My wife and I were able to sail on one of the previously “largest cruise ships,” the Allure of the Seas. https://www.royalcaribbean.co.uk/our-ships/allure-of-the-seas/ I can assure you it is massive. My friend’s comment comes to mind, again, as I think of cruise ships getting bigger and bigger, carrying more passengers and crew members than many small cities across the country. And I remember the Costa Concordia. I wonder about the causalities if, by some act of terrorism or accident, one of these sea faring monstrosities were to go down.

Years ago, the Associate Executive of John Calvin Presbytery, Jim Marlette, asked a session if they were on a cruise ship or a flotilla of smaller ships. On the cruise ship everybody is going in the same direction, at the same speed, to the same destination. A flotilla is made up of several ships, going in the same basic direction, not necessarily at the same speed, nor necessarily arriving at a given destination at the same time. They responded they wanted the congregation to all be on a cruise ship. They feared that if they were a flotilla some might become lost.

Again, my mind goes back to my submariner friend’s comment. A large cruise ship may be able to offer many amenities, but it is also a singularly larger target. A flotilla, made up of several smaller ships, may not offer as many amenities on each ship, but they have greater agility to deal with the changing forces of the sea. A flotilla presents several smaller targets.

Over the years, I have seen several mega-churches go down under their own weight, or due to hidden attack by dark forces in the deep. When the largest of large congregations go down, the casualties are numerous. Seldom can they be righted or even salvaged. To be sure, it is a sad day when a single smaller ship of a flotilla strays off course or goes down. I’ve seen several of those, also.

One of the things about the larger cruise ships is one becomes just another face in the crowd.  One might not have contact with a person other than a chance seating beside each other on deck, and never run into them again. It engenders high individuality rather than a sense of community. In 1972-73 the United Presbyterian Church decided that presbyteries and synods were too small. The result was larger presbyteries and regional synods, rather than state boundaried synods. One of the soon raised complaints was, “I don’t know everybody anymore.” After the 1983 “reunion,” once again, presbyteries and synods were combined. Over the last several years, involving three meetings of the General Assembly and two different commissions the attempt was made to reduce the sixteen synod to eight (amended to 10-12). While various efficiencies were imagined if the super-synods had come about. The one thing which would have been lost, again, would have been a sense of knowing one another.

It seems, even though the latest General Assembly scuttled the idea of super-synods, there are still those who want to insist on reconsidering the structure of the Councils (as Presbyterians now call governing bodies or judicatories). My suggestion is we look to reducing the geographic size of presbyteries and synods to allow for more intimacy and trust which are the fruits of being able to “know everybody.” For the basics of congregational care and oversight, and ministerial care and oversight smaller presbyteries and synods could function better than large presbyteries and synods. For the holding of events and trainings, several presbyteries and/or synods could combine efforts and resources.

The further the more inclusive Councils are from the pews in which members sit, intimacy and trust in those councils are diminished. Increase the trust in the presbyteries and synods and trust in the General Assembly is likely to increase.

Are we all on one of the massive cruise ships which present an impersonal and attractive target, or are we in a flotilla of smaller, more personal, ships where there is a greater opportunity to get to know and trust our shipmates? Maybe, just maybe, the larger geography for the councils of presbyteries and synods, no longer fill the need for which they were created. The trend might be toward larger and larger cruise ships, but whose needs are they meeting? I suggest you read Sue Krummel’s, MUSINGS FROM THE ROAD.

https://www.wayostccs.com

Basic Unit of Mission

They Depend on Me, I Depend on Them

When we boil things down to the basic unit for mission, be it in business, the military, or in the church it begins with the individual. Our bodies are made up of cells. It could be said the cell is a basic unit of the body. Each cell has a particular function. Each cell is differentiated from other cells. Cells join together to fulfill a particular function in the body as an organ. Each organ as a particular differentiated function in the body. The body depends on each organ fulfilling its function. Each organ depends on the body in order to fulfill its function.

I shift metaphors. On a football team, since it is that time of the year here in the States, each player has a particular function. Players joint together in differentiated squads: defense, offense and special. The squads can be broken down in to particular units: defensive line, offensive line, safeties, linebackers, receivers, quarterback, and so on. To carry out a successful play each single member must do their part in the functioning of the whole squad. Each squad must do its particular function for the team. If a team were composed only of people who can function as a quarter-back the team would be in total chaos. Yet, every individual player, every squad, relies on the success of the team.

Let’s move to another realm, the church. Individual believers join with other individual believers to form a congregation. Each individual fulfills a particular function/role within the congregation contributing to the well-being of the congregation. The congregation contributes to the well-being of each member through corporate worship, various programs, government, discipline and participation in mission in the congregation’s particular context. Congregations are the basic unit of mission. Because the Mission of God it larger than a particular congregation can fulfill congregations frequently join efforts for effective mission within a larger geographic context. The larger body contributes to the well-being of the individual congregations.

If an individual withdraws from the congregation, both the individual and the congregation are the poorer for it. The individual is no longer contributing to the health of the congregation, and the congregation is unable to provide for the health of the individual. The same is true when a congregation withdraws from the larger body. When an individual withholds financial support for the congregation, the congregation is robbed of one of the nutrients required for its health and functioning. The same is true when a congregation withholds financial support for the larger body. Both the one which withholds and the one which receives experience poorer health and a lessened ability to function.

The congregation is a confederation of individual members. The larger parts of the Church are a confederation of congregations. Friedman says this about these confederations,

Within such “confederations,” to the extent that the smaller unit helped the larger unit deal advantageously with the environment, the larger unit, by surviving, ensured the survival of the smaller unit. It was thus to the advantage of the smaller unit to work to preserve the larger unit’s integrity. That is because those smaller units that worked for the survival of the larger unit were more likely to survive. (A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix" by Edwin H. Friedman, Kindle location 2960)

It is to the advantage of the congregation to fully participate in and work for the health and functioning of the larger portions of the Church. However, what we see are individuals and congregations declining when they move into a posture of seeking to ensure their own survival at the expense of the larger portions of the Church. I have heard it said by congregation leaders, “We cannot afford to share some of our best human resources with the presbytery. We need them here.” Therefore, the larger body is weakened and is less able to work for the health of all the congregations in its bounds, and congregations become weaker in the loss of nutrients which could be provided by the larger body.

The Apostle summarizes it all in 1 Corinthians 12:12-31.

www.wayostccs.com

BROAD HORIZONS

I am still plodding my way through Rabbi Edwin H. Friedman’s Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix. (Church Publishing, Inc., 2006) I am plodding through it, on my second reading of it, because there is so much to reflect upon. I read a bit, and then think a bit. Sometimes, I have to read something else to give my mind and spirit some rest.

Today, sitting outside on a delightfully pleasant day, following many of high temperature and stifling humidity, under the glorious canopy of our large maple tree, Friedman was speaking about the three factors which determine survival: the physical reality, dumb luck, and the response of the organism. (Kindle location 2734) He maintains that our response to any toxic/threatening situation is key to our ability to survive.

Our potential response combines all those traits mentioned in previous chapters that enable self-definition and self-regulation: the richness of our repertoire of resources, including persistence, stamina, resiliency, hope (that is broad horizons), and the capacity to think systemically in the first place. (Kindle location 2759-2766)

His enlargement on the word “hope” as being “broad horizons” struck me. Immediately, I remembered the scriptural definition of faith. Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1) Our survival does not depend on what our eyes can see, as much as it depends on the breadth of our imagination to hold on to that is not seen.

There are many who cannot see beyond the moment, or at best beyond today. Their imagination cannot see beyond the present reality. They are, in some respects, the walking dead. The only thing which animates them is the natural life process which keeps the body alive. Can one imagine a day when hunger will be eliminated; when wars cease; when cures for diseases will be discovered; when racism will be an archaic word found only in old dictionaries?

Our personal and societal survival demands an imagination which sees beyond the walls which are built around us; beyond the edge of the horizon; beyond and beyond and beyond. We may not actually see the fruition of everything we hope for. We may not physically live to “see the day when….” Without hope, without a horizon broader than we can actually see, our life comes to an all too soon end, even though our bodies may robotically continue to go through the motions of existence. When our horizons extend beyond what is known in our present reality our life takes on new meaning and we have a greater chance of surviving into untold generations.

Moral Majority - Moral Agenda, A Polarity

William Barber – Moral Agenda     Jerry Falwell – Moral Majority

These two men could not be any more different, except they both profess faith in Jesus Christ and they both base their “morality” on Scripture. However, their sense of morality is a true polarity.

Can they both be right? Can they both be wrong? Is there a point in the middle

Rev. Falwell is no longer with us, his words linger. I believe that Americans want to see this country come back to basics, back to values, back to biblical morality, back to sensibility, and back to patriotism. Americans are looking for leadership and guidance. It is fair to ask the question, "If 84 percent of the American people still believe in morality, why is America having such internal problems?" We must look for the answer to the highest places in every level of government. We have a lack of leadership in America. But Americans have been lax in voting in and out of office the right and the wrong people. …  It is now time to take a stand on certain moral issues, and we can only stand if we have leaders. We must stand against the Equal Rights Amendment, the feminist revolution, and the homosexual revolution. We must have a revival in this country. . . . (Listen America, 1980)

Rev. Barber has said, I'm a preacher and I'm a theologically conservative liberal evangelical biblicist.  I know it may sound strange, but I'm a conservative because I work to conserve a divine tradition that teaches us to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God. … That is why I'm so concerned, about those that say so much—about what God says so little, while saying so little—about what God says so much.  And so in my heart, I'm troubled. And I'm worried about the way faith is cynically used by some to serve hate, fear, racism, and greed. … The prophet Isaiah cries out, “What I'm interested in seeing you doing, says the Lord, as a nation is, ‘Pay people what they deserve’  ‘Share your food with the hungry.’ Do this and then your nation shall be called a repairer of the breach.” …  Jesus, a brown-skinned Palestinian Jew, called us to preach good news to the poor, the broken, and the bruised, and all those who are made to feel unaccepted. (Speech at the DNC Convention 2016)

For me, this illustrates the great divide among us. It illustrates the difference between our two major political parties, and within the parties. It seems we will have to choose one or the other. The theories on polarity management appear stymied in the face of this polarity. Where is the leader(s) who can manage this polarity? For some, the choices are absolutely clear. For others, it is like walking through a dense forest on a moonless night. It is unclear which way to go.

I know which choice I am making.

Hill To Die On

In these tumultuous time of a presidential election campaign, it is tempting for preachers and writers to extol one candidate and to demonize another. Yielding to that temptation can be unwise, for preachers and congregations, on two accounts. First, it is illegal. From the IRS website (https://www.irs.gov/uac/charities-churches-and-politics) it states,

The ban on political campaign activity by charities and churches was created by Congress more than a half century ago. The Internal Revenue Service administers the tax laws written by Congress and has enforcement authority over tax-exempt organizations. Here is some background information on the political campaign activity ban and the latest IRS enforcement statistics regarding its administration of this congressional ban.

In 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes charities and churches, from engaging in any political campaign activity. To the extent Congress has revisited the ban over the years, it has in fact strengthened the ban. The most recent change came in 1987 when Congress amended the language to clarify that the prohibition also applies to statements opposing candidates.

Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one "which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

While it seems the enforcement of this provision is laxly or lopsidedly applied, all it takes to draw attention to “political activity” is for one or more parishioners to file a complaint. Let’s face it, not everybody in a congregation will appreciate our activities or words. Now, I am not saying I fully agree with the law. On the other hand, I do not want the Church to be co-opted by the state as it was in Germany during the 1930s.

The other reason to avoid direct political speech or actions is it could be a nail in the coffin of one’s ministry with a particular congregation. Some would say, “So be it, I must be prophetic.” That is noble, even righteous, but one has to be willing to pay the price of being prophetic. Prophetic proclamations might not just shorten one’s current pastorate, but can make future pastorates difficult to come by. Yes, we have a prophetic responsibility. There are many means of exercising that responsibility. One can address the issues without openly speaking for or against a particular party or candidate.

One of my mentors, in former days when I was a young fire-brand, would ask me, “Is this a hill you are willing to die on?” Sometimes, I was willing to run the risk. At least once, it did cost me future service with that congregation. In retrospect, there were several other ways to have exercised what I felt was my prophetic responsibility on a local issue. In the long run, what I thought was a critical issue, did not materialize, and that particular sermon had nothing to do with the issue becoming a non-issue.

Is speaking or acting for or against a candidate for office “a hill you are willing to die on?” For each of us, that may bring forward a different answer.

Administration

Captain Kirk’s San Francisco Sailing

Papers were stacked on the desk. The freshest on the top and the stale ones on the bottom, hoping benign neglect will eventually mean they can be trashed. There are workers needing directions about the work they are doing. A budget has to be prepare for the council to review. Both the computer and the copier quit working on Thursday afternoon, and there is little chance of getting them working before Monday. The worship bulletin is not yet finished. The organist/choir director just called to say she was not well and would not be able to be at church on Sunday. A substitute will have to be found. Millie called to complain because the Women’s Birthday Luncheon isn’t on the church’s website. The florist wants to know when they can get in Saturday morning to place the flowers for the wedding Saturday afternoon. The annual statistical report needs to be completed and submitted, but the computer is down and that is how it has to be submitted. The sermon isn’t even started. It will have to be another Saturday night special.

Such is the life of a pastor for a smaller membership congregation. Details, details, details. What is it they say, “The devil is in the details?” Many pastors know the frustration of being the one designated as the person who is to handle the details. Although some pastors do like to hide in the weeds of the details to avoid doing other activities, most proclaim their disdain for administration. Get a group of pastors together and one of the chief complaints will be about the time and effort it takes to handle the administrative details of the congregation. “I didn’t go to seminary to become the congregation’s CEO,” can often be heard. Most seminaries barely provide instruction in the area of church administration. Among many, administration might as well be a four letter word.

It is no wonder so many pastors have an allergic reaction to administration when it is taken to mean handling a plethora of details which have not been delegated to some other person, or which have been dropped by others like children’s toys strewn on the floor for the parents to pick up. The Apostle must have been using some bad dope when listing administration as a spiritual gift. (I Cor. 12:27-28). Is there another way of understanding what is meant by administration?

Martyn Burt, Treasurer for the Anglican Diocese of Rochester, writes, The spiritual ‘gift of administration’ is the ability to turn God-given vision into reality. The word administration comes from the Latin and literally means ‘to’ (ad) ‘minister’. To administer is to do ministry. Paul lists it as one of the crucial gifts for building up the church so it must have been thought of as being quite crucial. The Spirit equips us with the ability to make things happen and to help church-life flourish. http://www.rochester.anglican.org/content/pages/documents/1425900820.pdf

When we look more closely at I Corinthians 12:27-28, we see that various roles (gifts) in the community are listed. Jeff Carver writes, The Greek word for the spiritual gift of administration is Kubernesis (Κυβερνησεις). This is a unique term that refers to a shipmaster or captain. The literal meaning is "to steer," or "to rule or govern."  It carries the idea of someone who guides and directs a group of people toward a goal or destination. http://www.spiritualgiftstest.com/spiritual-gift-of-administration

Without a person, or group of people, with the gift of administration the church, be it a congregation or a denomination, is like a boat which merely drifts from one sport in the ocean to another without ever reaching any particular destination. An administrator organizes people and resources to fulfill the “Great Ends of the Church.” {Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Book of Order F-1.0304}. Administration is a crucial role within any organization. Administration is not about picking up dirty laundry dropped on the floor by others. Administration is the gift of guiding the church to fulfill its God given purposes.

RESILIENCE

As I look out the window I am watching the window blow against and through my favorite tree in the yard. It is a glorious maple. I have plenty of room to sit under its expansive canopy. Earlier today the wind was more gentle causing the thinner limbs to sway lazily as the wind was caught by the leaves and then relaxing back in place as the wind eased. Now, the wind has increased its force and the limb now bend more and dance more vigorously. The increasing wind portends the approach of the possibility of a storm. Thankfully the limbs are supple and maintain enough ability to bend and come back into place without breaking.

Over the year of gentle and strong winds the limbs of the tree have developed resilience. If they never had the wind gently and strongly blowing them about there would be no resilience. Without resilience the limbs were to suddenly encounter a strong wind the limbs would most likely snap. Over time with mild and gusty winds the fibers of the limbs have developed the strength whipping back and forth of more robust winds.

Organizations and people build resilience as we encounter the gentle and strong winds which blow against us. As we are pushed out of our comfort zones and then regain our position. Small challenges, disruptions to our stability, and overcoming them strengthens us to endure the next more resistant challenges. The unexpected flat tire or leak in the roof challenges us to figure out how to deal with the non-budgeted expense. Each small challenge which comes our way strengthens us in problem solving skills. Building resilience enables us to deal with larger problems without breaking.

Drawing on our experience of handling the disorientating events of the past gives us clues in handling the troublesome events of the present day. “What did you do the last time your car broke down?” “How did that work out?” “Not so good.” “What would you have done differently then?” “Oh, you would have called AAA instead of hitch-hiking twenty miles.” “So, you would have called for help instead of trying to resolve it yourself?” “Wasn’t walking along the road with you thumb sticking out a way of asking for help?” “Facing this issue, what from the time your car broke down can you apply to this situation?” “Well, I guess I could ask for help.” “Who would you call?” “I could call that company called TECH GUYS ARE US.” “How important is it to get your computer up and running sooner rather than later?” “I do have that report to finish by next Thursday.” How long will it take you to finish the report?” “This is Thursday of this week. When do you plan to call the Tech Guys?” “I think I better call them know. I don’t know how long I’ll have to wait for them to get here.” “Good, will you let me know when the report is finished so I can celebrate with you?” “That would be fun. I’ll call you.”

The winds blow against us. Sometimes the winds are gentle and we sway from our place of comfort to a new position and then back to where we were. The swaying strengthens us for the time when the winds blow with greater intensity. Resilience is what keeps us from breaking.

Devolving or Evolving?

(Magic Optical Illusion by Robert Gonsalves)

Is it devolution or evolution? There are many sectors of life which are undergoing massive change. Retail, manufacturing, entertainment, economies, technology, everything is changing. Because I have only limited knowledge about the changes being face by humankind, I limit my reflections, today, to the church in the United States, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), in Pennsylvania, in western PA. I do think what is happening here gives a glimpse of what is happening across the Church in the United States.

What are some of the observable realities?

1. Church membership is declining.
2. Worship attendance patterns have changed.
3.  Fewer congregations can afford a full-time pastor.
4.  More is spent on facility upkeep than mission.
5. The number of congregations being served by non-seminary trained pastoral staff is increasing.
6. The governing structure is being restructured again and again.
7. Mid-level (presbytery and synod) administrative staff positions are disappearing.
8. Financial support of the more inclusive structures is decreasing.

These are but a few of the changes occurring in the contemporary church.

This past week the Bishop of the Pittsburgh Roman Catholic Diocese announced the imminent closing of 15 congregations, and by 2018 many more could be merged or closed (http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/10371846-74/parishes-diocese-pittsburgh). Historically, the Roman Catholic and the Presbyterian presences in the Greater Pittsburgh Area have been very strong. The Presbyterian presence has splintered into three primary divisions. Add that to the aging and declining membership, and the PC(U.S.A.) is a mere shadow of its former self.

I have been saying, for many years, "full-time, uninterrupted, congregational service as a pastor from ordination to retirement is a thing of the past." I have urged that those being considered for ordination must be able to demonstrate a second set of salable skills by which to earn a living. This article from the Presbyterian Outlook in March, 2013 lifts up a picture of the issues for ministers and congregations (http://pres-outlook.org/2013/03/full-time-called-pastor-as-an-endangered-species/).

One possibility for the future is to under-gird the pastors who are serving full-time in congregations, and to have them serve as “teachers” for some of the Ruling Elders commissioned to particular pastoral service (CREs) who are serving very part-time in surrounding congregations. I can see the time coming when many presbyteries will have more CREs than Teaching Elders (seminary trained, and ordained ministers). The full-time pastors need to be supported in their role as Teaching Elders. They need to be released from day to day management of the congregation leaving that to the Ruling Elders. They need to be released from the day to day pastoral care of their congregations leaving that to the deacons in the congregation. They need to be released from multiple responsibilities in the more inclusive councils of the church. They need to be provided with a coach to help them chart a path to greater life and vocational fulfillment. Full-time teaching elders could then have some time to dedicate to under-girding the CREs serving nearby congregations.

There is much wringing of hands and despairing conversation about the state of our congregations, and the decline in the number of fulltime pastoral positions. In very few presbyteries, or across the denomination, are we developing comprehensive strategies which might lead us into a different and new future. Even though things are not the way they were 43 years ago when I was ordained, I have to believe the church in this part of the Church is evolving, not devolving. I believe there is a new role developing for teaching elders (ministers). The parish and presbytery will become the seat of development of schooled leaders, particularly for the congregations with fewer than 200 members. We will still need seminaries, though fewer of them, to provide the in depth preparation of teaching elders who then will serve as those who serve a congregation and providing greater training for Ruling Elders commissioned to particular pastoral service.

https://www.wayostccs.com

Discrimination

             http://www.employees-lawyer.com/practice-areas/discrimination/

The other day I posted a comment on Facebook saying, “I find it interesting to watch the lineup of corporations and other entities saying they will not do more business with North Carolina. Twenty years, maybe even ten years, ago this would not have been the response.” This was in response to “Religious Freedom” law passed by the North Carolina state legislature. The “religious freedom” laws being passed in various states allow for discrimination on the basis of one’s religious beliefs. It has been said that “religious freedom” is code language for being able to discriminate on the basis of sexual identification.

If one owns a store and a same gender couple comes in to make a purchase, the store owner, on the basis of their religious conviction, may refuse to sell to the couple. The real sticking point is the requirement that a person use the restroom for the anatomical designation on one’s birth certificate. Therefore, a person who has gone through anatomical reorientation cannot use the restroom of their present sexual identity. A man who has gone through sexual reorientation, emotionally and physically, to become a woman could not use the women’s restroom, but would have to use the men’s room. What would one have to do, carry their birth certificate around and show it to the restroom police?

Some significant business and organizations have either decided not to expand their business operations in North Carolina, or not to open an operation there. Some media production companies have decided not to make films in North Carolina. These decisions are being made on the basis of supporting non-discrimination. Where were these companies during the civil rights days? Where were/are they when it comes to equal pay for equal work?

Let’s face it discrimination still is alive and flourishing in this country on the basis of religion, sex, race and any other factor which makes you different from me. There are those who would close our borders to the south with huge walls. Some want to ban the immigration of those who come from predominantly Muslim countries. In the past, Africans, Italians, Irish, Chinese and Japanese were the targets of our nationality discrimination. It still exists and we cannot close our eyes to it, and pretend we are all happy together in the melting pot.

Even though I know there are some discrimination tendencies in my own life, I find it ironic that we who worship the God who because one of us and pitched tent among us use our scriptures and religious beliefs to say that God did not include you. Either God is for all of us, or God is for none of us. There is not a white god and a black god. There is not a male god and a female god. There is not a straight god and a gay/lesbian god. There is not a Jewish god, and a Muslim god, and a Christian god. Until we can wrap our hearts and minds around that, we are guilty of making God in our own image rather than we being the imago dei. Whatever we use to discriminate and to separate us from one another keeps us from seeing the image of God in the other.

https://www.wayostccs.com

Assigned & Ascribed Leadership

In college I was a sociology major. One of the first distinctions we learned was between assigned and ascribed leadership. Strictly speaking they are distinct, at times they intertwine. Assigned leadership is often first experienced as a child when you are put in the position of line leader to guide the rest of the students out for recess. Ascribed leadership may happen because all the other classmates have seen you excel in a skill and choose you as team captain.

Assigned leadership may depend on one’s status. Bill inherited the position of president of the company. Because of his status in the family hierarchy Bill is assigned his position. Assigned leadership does not require any particular knowledge, skills or experience. How many times have we heard derisive comments about people in assigned leadership positions?

Ascribed leadership depends on one’s knowledge, skills, experience, and achievements. Sue began working in the sales department of the company. She frequently took classes to improve her knowledge. On a regular basis she achieved top ranking in sales. She took on tough sales regions and gained a wealth of experience. It was not long before she was promoted to a regional sales manager. Her next step was to be appointed a vice-president for sales, based on the success of her regional sales team. After a few years as VP, the board of directors of the company elected Sue as the new Chief Executive Officer.

As Sue moved up in the company she was in both an assigned and ascribed leadership position. As regional sales manager, as VP and as CEO she had positional/assigned leadership authority and responsibility. Her increased knowledge, skills, experiences and achievements gave her ascribed leadership authority and responsibility. Sue proved she had what it would take to move into greater positions of authority and responsibility.

When a crisis hit the company, as CEO, Sue was in the assigned leadership position to lead through the crisis. More importantly, Sue had “earned her stripes” to be trusted by the board of directors and employees to follow her lead. Within a couple of years, the company was again flourishing. Imagine what might have happened if Sue had only been in the assigned leadership position without the knowledge, skills, experience and achievement to lead through the crisis with the trust of the board and employees.

www.brainyquote.com

When one is elected as a pastor, immediately out of seminary, about all one has to offer is a passable academic career, and maybe some commendations from field work in a congregation. Yet, being pastor carries with it a level of assigned, or positional, leadership. In the assigned leadership role of pastor there are, and will be, expectations among the members of the congregation, among the regional denominational leaders, the community at large and from future congregations. What are the lessons from Sue’s story which apply to being a pastor, and leading through a crisis?

https://www.wayostccs.com

TOO MANY YOUNG PEOPLE

I just read a very disturbing story from the New York Times entitled “The World Has Too Many Young People,” by Somini Sengupta. (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-world-has-a-problem-too-many-young-people/ar-BBqnY8m?li=BBnb7Kz) One would never guess that is the case by looking at a typical Christian congregation in either Europe or the United States where gray hair, arthritic knees and hips, and declining membership is the norm.

Sengupta focuses much of her article on India. Here are a few eye-opening statements in the article.

-Every month, some one million young Indians turn 18 — coming of age, looking for work, registering to vote and making India home to the largest number of young, working-age people anywhere in the world.

- Already, the number of Indians between the ages of 15 and 34 — 422 million — is roughly the same as the combined populations of the United States, Canada and Britain.

- This is just part of India’s staggering challenge. Every year, the country must create an estimated 12 million to 17 million jobs.

These figures do not include China, Africa, Central and South America. One of the points Sengupta makes is that unemployed and unemployable youth are the fertile ground for frustration, anger and revolt. What do we say, “Let them eat naan?” Sengupta gives an ominous warning, Mind your young, or they will trouble you in your old age.

Sengupta states, In the United States, nearly 17 percent of those between the ages of 16 and 29 are neither in school nor working. (I do not think that includes the vast number of people, especially African-America, in that age grouping who are incarcerated.) We wonder why our inner city populations and the rural poor are enticed into illicit, and often violent, activities. If that is so here, can we really be surprised by uprisings in other parts of the world?

During this political campaign season, we hear some of the candidates proclaiming they will bring jobs back to the United States. Sure, we still have an official unemployed rate of someplace between 4.5% and 5.5% of the population. The unofficial rate may be a percentage point of two higher. Would some of our unemployed take the menial jobs which have been exported? Sure, some would. If we were to reclaim all the jobs which have gone off shore, we would only be making matters worse in those countries to which the jobs were transferred. If the economic situation in countries, such as Indian, were exacerbated by “bringing home those jobs,” would we not be contributing the horrid conditions there?

If the Syrian Refugee immigration into Europe has created problems, what would it look like if the youthful unemployed of India were to engage in a massive immigration not only into Europe but into the United States? What would it look like if one million young people were to immigrate each month into Europe and the United States?

There are a myriad of ethical and economic questions and variables which are not easily answered. I do not have the answers. I do know Sengupta’s article raises many points of concern for me. We are told the U.S. population is confused and frightened as we see our lives as they used to be no longer being that way now nor into the future. We live in a world sheltered from the realities with which much of the global population must cope daily. It is almost as if we were on The Truman Show. Articles like Sengupta’s give us a squinting view of the real world. Once viewing it, what are we to do?

https://www.wayostccs.com

Right Size

braedennip10.wikispaces.com

imur.com

What is the right size for a congregation? Some would say it is one which can support a building, have a full-time minister, and which can offer programs that meet the needs of the members. Others might say it is one in which I can know everybody by face and first name. Still others might say one which is big and powerful enough to address issues in the community and world with measurable outcomes. There are many definitions of what is the right size for a congregation. When it comes to making a judgement about that, we are all like Goldilocks. Some might be too small, some too big, and some “just right.” When I was a general presbyter (one with administrative, pastoral and leadership responsibilities for the mission, ministry and maintenance of the presbytery), I could tell you from year to year how many members it would take for a congregation to be “just right” by the first definition. I do know that there is no “one size” which fits all.

According to Facebook, I have 267 friends. In reality, I have a few friends, some acquaintances, some people who interest me, and some who happen to be friends of friends. When I look at the vast numbers of "friends" some of my friends have it makes me feel unfriendly. As I reflect on my social connections, over the years, they have always been rather small circles. My nuclear family was just four of us. My extended family, particularly on my father’s side included several aunts, uncles and cousins. Among the cousins, there was a relatively small group of us who were close, and a larger group I barely knew because they were significantly older or lived further away. The neighborhood in which we lived was relatively small and there were few people my age. The elementary school I attended was small, and I can only recall about ten people I would have called friends. High school was much the same. There were eighty-two people in my graduating class. I knew a lot of people, but I would have called about twenty people as my friends. When I went to college, beginning at The Ohio State University, my freshmen class had fifteen thousand students. That was a quantum jump from my high school graduation class. OSU was too large and offered too many distractions for me. I didn’t make it to my sophomore year. I flourished in a college of about two thousand students.

A dear friend of mine grew up in a smaller to small mid-sized congregation in a relatively small town. She and her family were totally involved in the life of the congregation. After she was married and moved to a big city, she said she wanted a big church where she could become lost in the crowd. After a while, the bigness did not fit. So she and her family moved to a congregation of around two hundred fifty members where they could be more involved in the life of the congregation. It fit “just right.”

In large congregations, more than five hundred members, they usually become a conglomeration of smaller groups. Sunday school classes, the choir, fellowship groups, Stephen ministers, and a host of other smaller groups become the focal point for relational exchanges. I have known pastors of larger and huge congregations who have admitted there was no way they could know the names and faces of all of the members. Specialized staff tended to the smaller relational grouping.

In an excellent NPR article titled “Don't Believe Facebook; You Only Have 150 Friends,” we are pointed toward some serious considerations about what is a right sized congregation. The NPR staff writers drew upon the research of Robin Dunbar in writing the article/program script. Dunbar proposes that the number of people we can really “know” ripples out from five to the one hundred fifty ripple. Much beyond that we may know of somebody, but we probably do not really know them.

This might suggest that the ideal sized church, or subsection of a large church, might be in the neighborhood of one hundred fifty people. While it is true that we can gather for concerts or worship with thousands, we cannot build or maintain meaningful relationships with that many people. We have heard it jokingly said, “Last night, I was with two-thousand of my closest friends at an Adele concert.” We know that is a hyperbolic statement of the relationship of the speaker to the others at the concert.

If a congregation is to be a community, not only for corporate worship, but for mutual development as disciples of Christ Jesus, then the “right sized” congregation might be one hundred fifty people (give or take a few people). If we are to be of mutual encouragement and discipline, we need to be in a significant relationship with one another. To use a colloquial phrase, “If I do not know you from Adam” will I value your encouragement or discipline? In a congregation of one hundred fifty people we can know and be known; we can care for and be cared for; we can trust and be trusted. Maybe we are spending too much time, effort and resources trying to grow congregations beyond the 200 plateau. Maybe we need to look to stable, meaningful relationships which are more possible, according to Dunbar, in those congregations of around one hundred fifty souls.

https://www.wayostccs.com