All posts by Rod White

Parades at the MWC

As I acclimated to the sprawling Pennsylvania Farm Show complex in Harrisburg I ran into a parade of good memories of worldwide travel with the Mennonite Central Committee. I met Ron and Judy Zook with whom we traveled to Palestine. I saw Bonnie Klassen from Colombia who has impressed anyone who has met her since I did. A new Beachy Amish friend talked about visiting San Pedro Sula, in Honduras, like I had on my first learning tour with Ron Byler (and later I saw Steve Penner!). MCC has a big presence at the MWC /Mennonite World Conference, with which the Brethren in Christ are affiliated. I have been all over the world with our relief and advocacy mission, now I am experiencing the whole world coming to Harrisburg.

The first meeting started off with a dramatic parade. Native Americans representing those displaced by Mennonite immigrants in the 1700s came in to drums, singing and flutes. They reminded us of a recent ceremony of mutual understanding and forgiveness that took place. The ground was made clean for the meeting.

 

Then there a “parade of nations” reminiscent of the Olympics to begin the week. Brethren in Christ churches from Zambia and Zimbabwe were represented, banners and all.

There were a smattering of BIC people in the mix of the giant crowd (I think they expect 10,000 people). I counted five present and former bishops. More friends will probably show up as the week goes by. We ran in to dear people and had some stimulating conversation about the Brethren in Christ, who might have trouble generating a worldwide movement, since we do not seem to have a clear identity of who we are anymore. But we also talked about justice, grandchildren, marriage and dissertations. It is always great to feel relieved by a loving face in a daunting crowd.

I thank God for the excitement of singing together with people who have a common faith — many of whom have the passion that would get them on a plane to demonstrate their faith in a foreign country. The people in front of us were from Basel, Switzerland; we were in line with kids from Winnipeg, Danisa Ndlovu of Zimbabwe gave a speech. God is praised.

Here is a song we sang that will encourage you. Another gift of the conference is a whole book of music from sisters and brothers around the world!

Practical thinking about drugs

The wisdom or rightness of whatever we are doing depends primarily upon our motivation or purpose for doing it. “Why?” and “what for?” make a difference. Jesus followers know why they are alive and what to live for.

The Apostle Paul masterfully helps us with our decision making about activities that could “go either way” in several of his letters — “Is this action wise or right?” For instance, in his day there was a debate about what to do with food that comes from the temple “store” after having been sacrificed to idols. He writes:

The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. (Romans 14:3-9)

We may not have a similar circumstance in our own time (although some people think eating genetically modified foods might be something sacrificed to a corporation). But lately we have had the debate about ingesting drugs of various kinds; there is a parallel. This is the second half [previous post] of some thoughts we explored in our last “Doing Theology” time; Paul is a good guide to questions we have to keep asking.

This might be a question more suitable to what we are discerning:

Is it right or wrong to drink and glass of wine or smoke a joint?

The Bible seems to teach it depends — who is doing it, where and when? For myself, I rarely drink any alcohol in public and usually don’t serve it  because I am aware that some people should never drink any alcohol and I am in solidarity with them. In his argument about eating temple meat, Paul, likewise, says that even though he feels free to eat whatever he chooses, he abstains when he is around people who are against eating such things because he doesn’t need to do anything — especially if it causes someone to stumble over a debatable matter. He has enough confidence in his freedom not to need to exercise it just to prove he has it. His argument (above) easily applies to most ampliative drugs, since they are unnecessary.

More important to most of us is this question:

Are you using drugs to enjoy the gifts of God to the glory of God and to edify the body? Or are you trying to escape or numb pain? Is your drug use about God and others or just about you?

An ampliative or therapeutic drug is just a substance. It can (at least many drugs can) be used for good or it can be used sinfully or ignorantly. Instead of its potential good impact, it could have unintended or sin-ridden consequences. Like anything, it can take on meanings beyond what it is and have undue influence. Whether you use a drug or not, if Jesus is Lord and extending his kingdom motivates you, then you will be able to work things out – God has accepted you even if you have an alternative approach to someone else’s, or you interpret your needs differently, or even if you are just plain wrong at this moment.

You could use a drug and think “nothing can touch me. I am free and strong!” Or you could use a drug in fear, to escape what you should be facing. You could use a drug and feel holier than everyone else. Or you could not use a drug you need and be a big detriment to everyone who has to make up for how badly you behave. You could use a drug ignorantly or rebelliously and become addicted.

We’ll have to work it out.

How does one decide about using therapeutic drugs or attempting to use ampliative drugs therapeutically?

Here are some important questions to ask on the way to answering that question:

  1. Are you avoiding the hard questions that the drugs might help you avoid?
  2. Will the drug/medication aid your maturity or will it numb the process or even blind you to it?
  3. Are you praying things through or is the drug your refuge?
  4. Do you have friends and therapists to talk to or does the drug help you avoid scary relationships?
  5. Is taking the drug/medication an expression of faith and service or is it running and numbing? Conversely is refusing to take it relying on yourself instead of humbly admitting your need?
  6. Will not using the drug/medication build up or tear down the body?

Questions that help do theology from where you are starting:

How are you presently using drugs of all kinds?

Have you or your loved ones (friends or family) ever been prescribed or used drugs to their detriment? What happened?

What are the most important parts of this dialogue so far for your future health and the future health of Circle of Hope?

What is God telling you about using ampliative or therapeutic drugs?

Here are some “one-liners” we collected at the end of our Doing Theology time. These are not ‘last words,” just the wisdom some people were willing to offer:

  • Talking about drug use more lets everything that might be suppressed get out into the light. Not talking can leave us lost in feeling defective.
  • As a church, it is better to be known as a fertile ground for recovery than as a place where one is free to party.
  • Peer pressure is a big thing in a community. It runs things. We need to remember that what we do influences others.
  • Drinking wine could be joyful if Jesus is behind it. He obviously thought so.
  • We should handle substances relationally, not legally. Our sin addiction keeps us isolated and prone to cutting people off.
  • Avoidance is part of humanity. The Zoloft user could easily tell the alcoholic to get the speck of sawdust out of his eye while she has a plank of dependency in her own.
  • Jesus can transcend the space of our deepest suffering, dependent on a drug or not. We yearn for transformation.
  • Suspicion of one’s personal capacity is warranted. None of us is all that self aware. None of us is capable of competing with the billions  of dollars spent to get us to use unnecessary drugs.
  • The body  of Christ is useful in all healing processes. Just learning how to be the body is healing. The therapeutic dyad central to psychotherapy amplifies this truth.
  • Where does my necessary suffering end and unnecessary begin? I cause a lot of my own suffering. We all need the mirror.
  • Getting connected to something beautiful usually starts before sobriety.
  • How do we get to the place where we can ask the question: “Show me how I work so I can be healed?”
  • Rationalization and spiritualization are enemies of transformation.

We are not Indiana: Gov. Pence please save us from RFRA

It is interesting to be alive as the United States goes “post-Christian.” I still remember sitting around the living room just after graduating from college predicting this day and looking forward to it, so we could get back to telling people the gospel and forming the church without being all clogged up with saluting the flag. We are not quite there yet — and I am not sure if getting what I hoped for (as usual) is going to be what I really want.

We get tagged by Gov. Pence and the RFRA

The example of the day for not getting what I want is the uproar over the “religious freedom” law in Indiana. (Here is a description from the NY Times, complete with a link to the bill). Governor Pence told ABC’s This Week that the new Indiana law is just an expansion of a federal law that is over 20 years old. It is about expanding individual rights for those who feel government has impinged upon them. “This is not about discrimination,” he said. “This is about empowering people to confront government overreach.” The supposedly controversial Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act is based on a 1993 Federal Law of the same name, signed by Bill Clinton. It protects individuals (which includes most anyone or anything that can get a federal id number) from risking a lawsuit by exercising their convictions. Not only can the Christian owners of a bakery refuse to write an inscription on the wedding cake of a gay couple, but the black owners of a T-shirt business don’t have to print the KKK’s burning crosses on shirts, and Jewish owners of a gift shop don’t have to put Nazi symbols on coffee cups.

However, Pence did not answer directly when asked six times whether under the law it would be legal for a merchant to refuse to serve gay customers. “The issue here is still: Is tolerance a two-way street or not?” he responded several times. The governor might have better reason to respond that way if “sexual orientation” were a protected class of people on Indiana’s list. But they are not. So the law leaves room for merchants to decide who is gay and whether they want to serve them based on their orientation. Why a state would want to further injure LGBT people now that they are finally enjoying the light of day is beyond me. Quite predictably, the bill has been roundly condemned around the nation. Seattle’s mayor went so far as to issue a travel ban to Indiana for city workers.

As a leader in the church, people turn and look at me suspiciously whenever religious arguments get adjudicated in the press. Republican Governor Pence says that Indiana is under fire for faith, so I am supposed to either defend him or not because he got on TV. People look at our church and wonder if LGBT people are a protected class among us, as if we were a state government! Once again, people who are not personally dealing with the varieties non-dominant sexual attractions start lumping everyone together into an “identity” and making them conform to the latest version of the political fight. I still don’t think those are our only choices. I am for religious freedom and I think the various RFRA’s, federal and in twenty-one states, make a lot of sense. At the same time I think the application in Indiana is wrong-headed and hurtful. I have the luxury of seeing things that way because I don’t need an RFRA to have religious freedom and I am not Indiana. Governments should be useful and are often dangerous; regardless, Jesus is Lord.

Jesus does not need an RFRA

“Flevit super illam” (He wept over it); by Enrique Simonet, 1892.

When Jesus entered Jerusalem yesterday he pointedly challenged the authority of both the empire and the religious leaders. They promptly killed him. We might like to remember his example. Alternatively, Republican Christians got themselves into power in Indiana and they intend to use the power of the state to defend their rights. They may save me from getting killed, I don’t know. But they also threaten to delude people into thinking that state law is somehow going to save them. It is not. It is just as likely to threaten your life. The big point of Palm Sunday, that even children could recognize, is that Jesus is the one who saves.

I think the people who are furious over the Indiana law are even more sure that state law will save people — specifically those who just want to love who they love without being discriminated against as a result. For more and more people, the state is god and the laws are the word of the lord. Whoever marshals enough firepower to win the legal fight rules — and people are deploying the weapons of “dialogue” in our country to overturn this law. The media is already holding court sessions for the latest round of social construction. The corporations are already deciding the verdict on Indiana. Charles Barkley gets on TV and pressures the NCAA to move the Final Four out of the state. Tim Cook of Apple denounces the law as an opening for discrimination (which it is). Salesforce.com cancels all events in the state. Yelp issues a warning. Angie’s List says it is rethinking expansion plans.

What Christians seem to miss on Palm Sunday is that Jesus is clearing out the temple of merchants and other powers so God is worshiped, not the regulations, laws and business interests that have come to substitute for God’s direct rule. As much as I am against oppression, I am surprised at how many Christians leave their faith behind in order to worship at the feet of the government (and the corporations who own it) whenever they experience discrimination, begging for freedom and demanding the power to make things right, as if American exceptionalism will actually save the world.

Meanwhile, in the church which, again, is not an Indiana in any way, shape or form, we are walking with real people who experience same sex attraction. Some are ready to strike out against inequality with their allies. Some may want to get married. Some don’t want to strike out or get married. And some would like people who are supposedly defending them to be quiet. The issues of faith , hope and love are bigger than the Constitution. I think criticizing Indiana’s lawmaking is important, but I know I will do more good, ultimately, if I follow Jesus more fearlessly in the face of bad laws. If I expect the powers-that-be to stop doing what the fallen powers of this world do, I will ultimately be less influential for good in that murky arena, too.

When the powers that be want to reduce loved ones down to a “protected class” we need to tell them our kingdom is not of this world and any so-called “class” does not need their permission to express the first fruits of the age to come. If you can’t go that far, you can at least not project your frustration with Indiana on the church. We are not Indiana. We don’t need to fall into a political trap every time it is opened to us. We need to keep creating an alternative and not align ourselves with the pawns of the state who compete for some validation from their false god. Jesus is our hope for love and truth and we should keep speaking the truth in love.

Who am I in the globalized world: migrant or tourist?

A version of some thinking we’ve been doing as Brethren in Christ church planters.

I think the story of Jesus and our own stories of following the Lord’s lead are crucial to church planting in this next era.  A person entering our meeting has plenty of preconceived notions about what church is in the United States. They need to run into a person whose story is being written with Jesus, not just a story that can beam in on a screen – they are up to their eyeballs in those, and not just someone else’s story — like the ones written in the Bible.

I think Circle of Hope has a unique story  about living out the historic Brethren in Christ ethos to offer as a gift to our post-Christian culture.  Our leaders are feverishly trying to manage our “mosaic” with less resources all the time and with outdated practices, so we will see how we fare in the coming era — that story is being written. So far, it looks like we are getting further fragmented instead of united in love. Some of the reasons for that may have to do with a lack of dialogue about who God is calling us to be in a changing world. It seems like many of us have outsourced thinking to our leaders and they don’t have that much time to do it!

How we see the new environment being created before our eyes may help us decide what we ought to do to follow Jesus through it. Here are the two most common ways people find a way through: as a migrant or as a tourist.

William T. Cavanaugh is the director of the Center for World Catholicism and Intercultural Theology at DePaul University in Chicago. His newest book Migrations of the Holy is a great encouragement for church planters who are facing the great divide happening right now in Western history: the move into post-Christian culture and post-modern thinking. The BIC have been a small boat on stormy seas for most of their history. This may be the biggest storm yet, and we’ll see if the boat can survive it. Technology, capitalism and war have created a global economy with all new assumptions and it presents a host of challenges for Jesus followers, especially the followers who want to multiply their churches, either a cell or a congregation.

Cavanaugh says that every person in a globalized world dominated by nation states and the giant corporations that keep the states going for their profit has three choices for dealing with their mobility: they can be a migrant, a tourist or a pilgrim. What I mean by mobility is very broad. An obvious example is: we travel — like travelling across the country for a meeting or planning a destination wedding. We change countries – like I moved from California to Central PA – a true cross cultural experience (yes, I know they are supposedly in the same nation). Even more, our relationships and ideas are mobile. We carry mobile phones and the younger we are, the more connected to them we are.

The group

Navigating these circumstances as a group takes some good communication. Here’s an attempt to give us some fuel for dialogue about church planting in our era, before all we are talking about is the latest episode of the Walking Dead (and, of course, becoming them). Are we migrants or tourists? The Brethren in Christ, historically, have reflected each of these circumstances: migrant, tourist and pilgrim. We’ll talk about pilgrim next time.

Migrant

A migrant  is person who has exercised border-crossing mobility. The nation states have freed the movement of capital across national lines, but they have not freed the movement of labor, by and large. So migrants are points of contention in most places. U.S. money can go to Mexican factories just across the border, but Mexicans cannot come to the U.S. to get it the same way Americans get it. The borders try to deal with the question of identity with which postmodernity is consumed — are you an indentifiable, legal someone or not? For instance, the Mennonites are breaking apart over sexual identity  — they are being forced over mental and religious borders by philosophy, governments and corporations. The BIC decided to call the denomination a “mosaic” because we do not have much of a practical identity.

The original Brethren in Christ in this country were part of the radical reformation Christians who migrated into William Penn’s generous idea of a commonwealth. They maintained their language and religious traditions. They were migrants. I choose to think they had an Anabaptist sense of separation, practical holiness and community. But they were also migrants who banded together to preserve their past and common identity. They found their identity by being “other” than the rest of the people. A lot of churches are self-protective migrants who don’t connect to the country. Peter and Paul call new believers to adopt this identity as aliens and strangers in any number of passages. To this discipleship, the BIC in the new world had the overlay of being a migrant people who were not accepted in the mainstream. They did not have to leave the world, they were rejected by it and had to find their own way.

You can see how someone new to the Brethren in Christ might like to become an Anabaptist theologically with a New Testament sense of being a stranger and alien because of the community’s radical faith. Meanwhile, people whose ancestors were migrants might enjoy becoming part of the mainstream. I like to see myself and our church as invasive separatists. But I think most Anabaptists these days are invaded separatists. They are not aliens in their identity, they are merely alienated migrants consumed, like everyone else, with finding their seat at the national table.

Tourist

A second way Cavanaugh sees that a believer can navigate the global world we live in is to be a tourist. This will be more familiar to most of us, I think.  The migrant sees the bordered world from below, like the Mexicans in my neighborhood who keep an absolute vacant face until they see someone they know. The tourist sees the world from above, a giant white man with plenty of money to travel and experience all the interesting people looking up at him as he peers through his imperial magnifying glass. That’s how they exercise their mobility. It is an interesting phenomenon of the loose borders of the postmodern world: one can scan the globe and imagine herself engaged with “otherness” in any part of it.

Disney Arabs

Not long ago I was in Disney World for a couple of days. Disney is the epitome of tourist experience of reality. From the beginning of our visit it was “make a memory” and “dreams will come true.” There was a princess from every culture plus a fairy one to offer the propaganda. This is a very common way for Americans to see the world, as tourists expecting their dreams to come true. Disney collects all the otherness for you so you don’t even need to cross the safety of the border.

Disney is a magical experience put on by cast members. I think it is extremely tempting to be cast members of a memorable experience each week when we put on worship shows — since people will love them. If we can get them to wear our brand, like Mickey Mouse ears, they might even love it all better. Some huge churches have perfected tourist Christianity. I think the BIC have tried hard at this too, mostly unsuccessfully.

Roxbury Camp became a place to put your vacation home.

It is hard not to think that when the Brethren in Christ were invaded by the holiness doctrine in the 1880’s and into the twentieth century that it was a little bit touristy and that is why it was so roundly criticized and why we managed to squeeze out the excesses of the movement. I think it was an intriguing encounter with “otherness.” The United States was turning into a common country with common communication devices and a government that was capable of infiltrating its entire territory with force and taxation. Magazines and new ideas spread like wildfire. And the BIC were also intrigued. I choose to think of their interest in the holiness movement as interest in the movement of God’s Spirit. But I also think that people were sick of Anabaptist culture without its reformation fire and Pietism that had become legalistic principles and practices. So they built camps to hold revival meetings that generated the intriguing experiences and which eventually became spots to vacation. By this time most of the holiness-oriented churches in the BIC are dying out or have turned over to evangelicalism and just complain that the denomination has lost Pentecostal fire.

You can see how many people in this era might be attracted to people who have an authentic relationship with the living God, spirit to Spirit. You can also see how people who were still living out 1910 in 1980 would like to get on with it and sing like Disney with everyone else. Holiness makes a person weird. And being weird makes you an object of the state’s protection, not an actual member of the community. It is always tempting to offer what people are buying.

What is your story? Is our church filled with migrants and tourists? I think Jesus, the Bible writers and radicals from the history of the church, have offered us a better model: the pilgrim. But before we get to that, it might make sense to assess where we are starting. Is our story just a variation on the movement of the global economy? Or do we follow a different Lord?

The companion to this piece follows:
THINKING like we ought to belong together — even these days

Here is the lead in
What it takes to plant churches

Brigid Day — celebrating great women of faith

February 1 is always a great day to celebrate great women of faith. Thank God for Brigid and for you!

Here are some pieces from the past that celebrate Brigid of Ireland and women like her of today.

2009 — Today Is Saint Brigid’s Day

2014 — Nineteen Flame-tending Women to Start

Obama runs over Jesus in victory lap

Last night I watched the whole State of the Union address for the first time since I can’t remember. Good speech – even usually-disapproving pundits had to admit that. After forty-five minutes most of us were getting a little tired, but not the president, who is not daunted one bit, apparently, by getting thumped in the last election. He threatened vetoes, did some mild trash talking, said we won’t “screw it up” so no one would think he had too much dignity, and presented a whole list of things he knows Congress won’t approve but which most of Philadelphia (who did not watch the address) probably thinks are already law, since they seem like common sense.  I love Philadelphia.

It seemed like a self-referential victory lap. And since he did not mention drones, banks or Dallas, I pretty much did a lanky jog with him.

I won’t comment on the whole speech or you won’t read this whole blog post either! But I will comment on the first part and then lament a few things:

Barack Obama said:

The shadow of crisis has passed, and the State of the Union is strong.

9-11 is over, we’ve returned devastated Afghanistan and Iraq to their people and now we only risk their lives when we bomb them or supply weapons to various factions instead of doing it in person.

At this moment — with a growing economy, shrinking deficits, bustling industry, and booming energy production — we have risen from recession freer to write our own future than any other nation on Earth. It’s now up to us to choose who we want to be over the next fifteen years, and for decades to come.

The Empire struck back and now we are on top! Europe schmeurope, China don’tcha whina, even manufacturing is moving back stateside. We’re #1! (I wish I could depict the president crowing for you. He even has a 50% approval rating).

Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well? Or will we commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and chances for everyone who makes the effort?

I can only hope that a couple of his ideas get implemented. I don’t think a lame duck can undo what the 1% have been engineering since Ronald Reagan — when someone except them gets a raise these days it is national news! Federal employees got a 1% raise in December — at that rate they might catch up with the 1%’s raises in what, 100 years?

Will we approach the world fearful and reactive, dragged into costly conflicts that strain our military and set back our standing? Or will we lead wisely, using all elements of our power to defeat new threats and protect our planet?

That would be nice. Post-Afghanistan military spending is out of control, however. It is hard to say there is commitment to diplomacy and building world community when the country comes to any negotiating table armed to the teeth and chanting “U.S.A.!”

Will we allow ourselves to be sorted into factions and turned against one another — or will we recapture the sense of common purpose that has always propelled America forward?

That would also be nice. However, there seemed to be no evidence that the political class wants to have a common sense of purpose — unless it is the purpose their faction proposes. For instance, Rand Paul gave his own response to the State of the Union (unasked, I presume) to make sure we knew he did not have a common purpose. Did you film one too?

Studiously unmentioned in the speech was any religion — not Islam which has been the main cause of war for Obama’s whole term, and not Christianity. God got in the last line of the speech, of course. But the word search came up with nothing for “religion, Jesus, church, faith, hope, love, Christian, Bible” or even “marriage.”

According to an ABC poll 83% of Americans identify themselves as Christians in one way or another. Most of the rest, 13%, have no religion. That leaves just 4% as adherents of all non-Christian religions combined — Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and a smattering of individual mentions. (Gallup says 77% are Christians and that includes 2% who are Mormons). The fact that the president can make a speech to Americans without mentioning Jesus is one of the most interesting, weird things about the country. But as Newshour deftly portrayed it has been that way from the beginning (link has restrictions). The elite who organized the country made sure that Jesus would stay private, not public, even though most of them were Christians, too. I’m OK with that since I don’t want the government “screwing up” the church. But it is still odd.

Even though I give the speech a high rating (which I am sure Barack is waiting to hear), and even though I can whip up some admiration for the president’s audacity, competitiveness and attention to some of my greatest irritations, the speech made me glad, as usual, that Jesus introduced me to an alternative way of life and glad that Circle of Hope keeps giving me a chance to practice it.

My fantasy is that the president was being restrained, but what he really wanted to do was quote James 5:

“Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.”

That would have been nice — and true.

Seafaring: a key discipline for success

I have been slowly plowing through a very well-written book: The Barbarous Years: The Peopling of British North America–The Conflict of Civilizations, 1600-1675 by Bernard Bailyn. Maybe I am one of the last people in the U.S. who think “history” does not mean, “What I did last summer.” Regardless, I keep finding new applications for the stories of the brave and often odd people who first settled the European colonies in the United States — what they did to each other and to the people they invaded, usually in the name of God.

When I began to prepare for teaching the cell leaders last Saturday I was in the middle of reading about the famous Pilgrims. I realized that Christians, in general, and their leaders, in particular, would do well to develop a spiritual discipline that every Pilgrim had to develop. We Christians are a “seafaring” people.

The Pilgrims were radical Christians but they were normal people. Their several month voyage to North America in a small, leaky boat was amazingly brave. Most people I know are in a small, leaky boat, in one way or another right now —  I know Circle of Hope fits that description! But even if I were not connected to that vessel, I would still have the leaky boat named Rod to deal with. Yet God calls me to set out for parts unknown. I need to become seafaring even if I am not completely seaworthy. (Good metaphor for us, right?)

You know you are gaining the spiritual discipline I call “seafaring” when you are unafraid of vast waters, you are adventurous, and you can procure a ship.

I am not sure any sane person is totally unafraid of vast waters. But a Jesus follower cannot be led by Jesus if they are not drawn to the ocean of eternity and brave enough to wade in. That impulse caused the Pilgrims to load their families (little Hannah!) on disreputable boats and sail for some place they thought might finally be a place where they could live their faith in peace. I don’t totally agree with their theology, but I admire their fearlessness.

To be seafaring, it also helps to be adventurous. I am not sure  a sense of adventure is totally necessary to travelling with Jesus. Some good Christians are going to either stay in the hold the whole journey or be seasick the whole time — that’s not preferable, but it has to be OK. But it will help if you love sea air, will climb up and furl the sails, are on deck to help in a storm and love scanning the horizon for the next destination to come into view. To follow Jesus, one needs to like travelling because He’s going somewhere.

One of the least appreciated factors in being seafaring is usually the most necessary — one can procure a ship. The Pilgrims had a very difficult time getting the funds to hire one. Some families had to wait nine years to be reunited before their handlers considered them worthy of space on a ship! Our church has spent no little effort trying to find a places to live in Philadelphia so we understand how hard the practical necessity of getting a vessel. I recently learned that the “stampeders” who made the daring trip to the Klondike in Canada to mine for gold also had to be seafaring. Part of their difficult journey included building a boat to get up the river to gold fields. While there were commercial sawmills operating, the cost of milled lumber was beyond the means of most. The majority were forced to resort to milling their own lumber by hand. This involved laying a log on a scaffold and then sawing the log lengthwise using a whipsaw. This was such a hard, two-man job that many close partnerships fell apart in frustration and exhaustion — and the end result was often pretty leaky! Jesus followers in general, but certainly their leaders, understand the frustrations that come with trying to get somewhere that is hard to get to. Lord help us build the boat and stay afloat.

Circle of Hope miraculously floats and gets places. The danger inherent in that success is that fearless, adventurous, skillful people, like the survivors who invaded of North America were, are prone to thinking that their courage and power made them great. It is surprising how often people start out with God and then ten years down the road of their holy experiment are much more like their home territory’s power structure than they imagined. Most people are seafaring in the Spirit until they get somewhere; then they revert to thinking they’ve got it together or are in charge of keeping it together. Meanwhile, Jesus is looking over his shoulder wondering why they stopped following.

I led a little exercise in the meeting and had people rank themselves on a scale of one to ten in relation to the basic traits of being seafaring: unafraid of vast waters, adventurous, can build a ship. (Try it!). Then I dared them to stand when their number was called. I don’t remember any ones or twos. But we had a healthy representation all along the rest of the spectrum. There are a lot of different kind of people on our boat — I think that makes it a good ship if Jesus is the captain. I think Jesus wants us all to get there together. Some of us will always be more daring than others and a few of us will always be the ones who lead us to build our vessels. But we all need to develop a taste for sea air and need to enjoy the wonder of being saved, no matter what is over the horizon in that vast sea.

Being a network of congregations and why that got going.

Some people discovered this piece among my pages last week. I thought I would share it again. It first appeared in the Dialogue Quarterly, fall of 2005

Let me say right off: we may use the 21st century word “network” to describe ourselves, but what we are doing is as old as Jesus. As usual, we’re ancient/future in our outlook.

That’s why we needed to put out this issue of the Dialogue. We wanted to focus on the network of cells and congregations that forms Circle of Hope because we sometimes seem strange to people. Supposedly, being a Network it is hard to “get.”

Maybe that is because people have been “got” by other thinking so the Bible is hard to “get.” One can hardly take a step in the Bible without running into God working through what might be called a network of people or without being called on by Jesus to form one!

I’m not sure the writers of the Bible would be able to “get” how most Christians in this era tolerate the enculturation of Christianity to the point that most Christians can’t form networks. Don’t you think they would be appalled by our racially and ethnically segregated worship? Wouldn’t they be amazed that many Christians think their country, their city, their neighborhood, their church, their cell is better than, or in competition with others? Wouldn’t they be puzzled at how many people resent the supposed imposition faith relationships make on their individual “freedom?” I do.

Like we are doing, I think the Bible-writers, if parachuted into Philadelphia or born here, would be very determined to perfect a network. They’d do it even when people in G’town complained about going “clear down to” Broad and Washington. They’d step it up when people in Kensington said, “So many people in the other congregations are so old!” They’d keep working it out when people in South Philly lost track of the fact that other congregations exist and vice versa, and vice vice versa.

So let me try to help us keep working with this. My goal is to take us back to some of the scripture that gave us a few of the major reasons we decided to be the church the way we are. If we hope to keep building a network of love and trust in our distant, skeptical culture, we’ll need a strong foundation to stand on.

Network

 

  1. Actually, we became a network TOO. The Holy Spirit has been inspiring similar things from the beginning.

We had the blessing of inventing how we thought God would plant a church for the next generation in Philly. We came up with an ancient/future answer: He’s going to do it like God is always doing things – bringing people face to face with him and with each other again.

Jesus had his own idea of “net” work:

Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore.” Matt. 13:47-8

We’re all kinds of fish in one net, too. Paul had lots of pictures to describe a network. This one is directed against individualists who can’t seem to stay connected.

Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow. Col. 2:18- 19

We want to live connected to the head, and so to each other like a body is held together.

  1. We had the basic goal to survive as diverse, touchable, incarnations of Jesus in a neighborhood.

We had the inspiration to do something a little harder than corralling a market share by appealing to felt needs and using clever branding. We want to be real and we want to live in our neighborhoods. So we came up with a both/and method for meeting that challenging goal. Each congregation stays small enough to be touchable and the church (network) is big enough to survive. We want the intimacy of smaller and the capacity of bigger.

For the writers of the Bible, this is common sense:

Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken. Ecclesiastes 4:12

Jesus and his people are always up against a lot. Standing alone makes us sitting ducks for evil. Intertwined, we are hard to break into wreckable pieces. We’re not proud enough, as individuals or congregations, to take the dangerous path of going it alone, just “getting ours” or just being “us.”

  1. We wanted to do our part to knit together the Philadelphia region with love

When we looked at Philadelphia’s balkanized condition, it cried out for reconciliation, and still does. Lot’s of people know about this, but very few people, especially Christians, organize to do much about it. We thought it would be a cop out not to do our part, so we planned to be a network, crossing the boundaries between the neighborhoods with our own love. We are neighborhood-based and citywide. Sometimes we use the word “glocal,” since Christians are transnational — global and local.

This is the kind of goal Paul would recommend, don’t you think? It is the kind of thing he says he was trying to do, too:

My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Colossians 2:2-3

We want to demonstrate this “unity in love” to a world that hasn’t seen it much and which thinks it is impractical. The newer translation quoted above traded the more literal “knit together” in love for “united.” I like to think of us as knitting – each person, each cell, each congregation linking with the others to form a whole piece of material. When you hear Paul talking about that, he seems to be implying that if we DON’T do that knitting, we will not have the “full riches of complete understanding.“ I think he is right. What’s more, if we aren’t knitters others won’t get a true picture of Jesus from us, as well.

  1. We wanted to give people an opportunity to get healthy and exercise their capabilities. Multiplicity helps.

The organic growth of cells propels new people into responsibility all the time because new leaders are needed when they multiply and everyone’s gifts are required to do the mutual care of each little “body.” We decentralized our mission efforts too, and called for people to start their own teams to lead us in whatever the Spirit could generate from us. This way of doing things creates ferment. We like that “chaos” because it requires the Spirit of God to generate it, direct it and keep us together in it. Having many people engaged heightens our sense of dignity and accountability. So we are flexible and accountable at the same time.

 Plus, I think pushing multiplicity is the kind of approach God has always used. The first church is the best example. After Stephen riled up the leaders in Jerusalem, the first church was attacked and forced out of town into the nearby territory. By telling the story of Jesus, they created the first network of churches.

On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off menand women and put them in prison. Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went. Acts 8:1-4

When you have a system that is ordered by common love and faith and directed by the Holy Spirit it seems as crisis-ridden as Acts 8, at times. But handing everyone the responsibility to do their part wherever they are planted and expecting them to keep together in love seems like the best way to keep everyone growing into their fullness.

  1. The next generation is not a mass market, and we didn’t want to treat it like a market, at all.

Yes, yes, making church like a TV show “works.” A lot of things work that we wish did not work because people still don’t seem to understand what will kill them. Sometimes it seems pigheaded, but we don’t like to pander to people’s worst instincts just so they’ll come to a meeting, give money, or just like us. What we are trying to do instead is deliver the life and message of Jesus as a community in Christ. We want to be a safe place for people to explore God’s love as they are now. And we want to be discerning enough to keep our eyes open for where they are going to be next. We’re relevant and predictable at the same time. God knows how to speak everyone’s language, but that never makes the message inconsistent.

Some people have thought it is a little suspicious when they realize that we’re hard to “pin down.” We’re more of an amoeba than a corporation. But I think Paul was that relationship-oriented, too. Even when he was writing to believers he had never met, he presumed a common bond that would result in some good thing:

I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong– that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith. Romans 1:11-12

Such mutuality forms a character trait that says a lot more about Jesus than most arguments about the Bible. In our postmodern era, being a people is more compelling than talking about what someone ought to “buy.” So, as cells, as congregations, between our congregations, and in relationship to the world at large we are trying to perfect sharing. We’re replicating the picture Paul paints in his letters:

God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 1 Cor. 12:24-7

We may not have as well-developed and consistent character as we would like, but we are who God has. We accept that like he does. We’re not advertising ourselves. We are not a product. We’re a people.

That’s a lot of stuff in a few paragraphs, maybe too much, maybe too pared-down to make all the sense I would like. I offer it to help keep the dialogue going so we can listen to God and each other and end up creating the church the Lord would like to use next. So far, I think we have done a good job of listening and trying to keep up with him. We have, appropriately, bitten off more than we can chew and need God’s help to enable us to be what we are called to be. Let’s keep chewing.

Being Circle of Hope, “the network of cells and congregations who form one church in many neighborhoods” can seem a bit strange. Some people find it hard to “get.” But somehow that seems appropriate, since the world, in general, doesn’t seem to get God too well, at all. But I think God gets us and that makes all the difference to me.

Advent is a wonderful truckload of “foolishness”

Maybe Advent should culminate with a Mummers Parade. Maybe we should reorient the whole season to focus on how crazy it all is and stop cleaning things up. Prophets having visions, John the Baptist in animal skins, Jesus in a manger, foreigners with gifts, baby slaughter, angels, Holy Family displacement and immigration — it is much wilder than a family dinner with grandma and all that exquisitely pretty music, don’t you think?

Fools

Last night I began with convincing people that the prophets of the Old Testament could be considered “fools” — the kind Paul recommends to us when he says: “It seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to human beings. We are fools for Christ” (1 Corinthians 4:9-10).

jokerHistorians dispute some of this, but Shakespeare popularized the idea that part of a king’s entourage in Europe’s included a fool, or a jester (who said things in jest). He could say things in jest because he was a fool. Sometimes the fool had an actual disability, a natural fool. And sometimes he was a licensed fool, a person who had license to say things back to the king or queen that others could not say. For instance, when the French king Philippe VI experienced a great defeat at sea in 1340 his “fool” told him the English sailors “don’t even have the guts to jump into the water like our brave French.” We preserved the memory of these people in our deck of cards (and Batman movies) with the joker.

Foolishness

We also preserve the function of putting all the foolishness on someone or letting all the foolishness out in some way so we don’t have to bear it ourselves. For instance, Philadelphia provides the world with the best Mummers Parade ever.  The following video will tell you all about it in the first 5-10 minutes. The government tried to eradicate the racism from the Mummers Parade in the 60’s, with some success. They keep trying to eradicate its spirit with super fancy costumes, but the comic brigades preserve the weirdness and the commentary. It is good foolery.

The best preservation of “the fool” is left to the comedians. I think the best of them is Jon Stewart. He has become the conscience of the ruling class — he is certainly among the one-percent, himself. Fox News is the 50’s; Jon Stewart is the 60’s; the rest of us are amused. But there is the function, however turned into media fodder to feed the subscribers and ignored, that manages to let the truth be told. Here is Stewart, for instance, on Ferguson — mostly talking back to his rival talking heads, but telling truths like only he can.

Many have pointed out that Jesus is the ultimate jester. His whole work is a riddle the rulers cannot solve, unless, of course, they bend their knee to their Ruler. So Paul recommends that we all follow Jesus and learn to appreciate being a conundrum — at least making people wonder what is going on because of what we say and do. If the rulers and the general populace they dominate don’t object to our foolishness, we may not be following Jesus at all! So let’s keep protesting the commodification of our holiday, affirm the fools that keep sticking it to the man, and focus Advent where it belongs: as a celebration of the upside-down kingdom coming and planting itself as our right-side up redemption.

That “other” person is someone I love!

I have traveled in the same circles with Ron Sider since I was in my twenties – actually ran into him on my son’s street a few weeks ago. I was profoundly influenced by Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. I am a fan.

I say all that so my small criticism of what he recently said in Christianity Today is not taken as a slam. His article: Tragedy, Tradition, and Opportunity in the Homosexuality Debate: We need a better approach to the traditional biblical ethic on sexuality in the November 18 CT was passed around by some of my acquaintances and friends in the BIC, which made me wonder what it was all about. So I read it.

A progressive evangelical “gay” policy

Here’s the gist: 1) He wants evangelicals to admit their track record on relating to: “gays” is tragic. 2) He makes a more-generous-than-usual argument about Biblical tradition that ends with the conclusion that everyone who is not in a lifelong heterosexual marriage should be celibate. 3) He ends with seeing the present argument as an opportunity: a) to do what it takes to nurture marriage, b) to listen to “gay people” c) To be nice: “Surely, we can ask the Holy Spirit to show us how to teach and nurture biblical sexual practice without ignoring, marginalizing, and driving away from Christ those who struggle with biblical norms.”

His thoughts seem revolutionary to some people. For instance, someone wrote in to voice their struggle with Ron’s assumption that gay people could be saved (!). Ron knows CT’s audience, so I appreciate his boldness. I saw that the moderator of our denomination and a bishop posted the article on Facebook. So he got some affirmation. One commenter said that he appreciated how a person of authority stated something that he had thought for a long time.

I’m only cousins with Evangelicals

This is the one thing I offered on FB: “I don’t think I have ever been part of the ‘we’ Ron is talking about. I’ve certainly been listening to so-called gay people for my whole adult life. Just to be clear ‘gay’ people have been ‘us’ while ‘we’ have been dithering about ‘them.’”

Someone wrote in response to my thoughts: “clear?”

I guess my problem is not clear. So here I am writing about it.

For one thing, I have never been an evangelical. I officially left that fold (to the extent I was in it) when I became consciously part of the Brethren in Christ (that’s now another whole story, of course). I am fond of evangelicals, and I have ridden on their bus at times. I just wanted to miss all the excess Ron calls tragic. I am still getting tagged with the tragedy, but I tried to miss it. So when Ron says “we” need a better approach, I want to note that I did not adopt the former bad approach along with millions of other Christians.

For another thing, so-called “gay” people have been part of my life and part of the church for as long as I have been a part. The tone of the article sounds like “they” just got discovered and people should stop being reluctant to accept their existence! My views have developed along with the whole movement in the last 30 years, but my friendships with LGBTQ people have always been just that: friendships. They have been part of my “we.” When I think of the people Ron is talking about I think of faces, not some mysterious “other.” Christians belong to a transnational, transhistorical, transcultural body in the Spirit; only people who renounce Jesus could be considered truly “other,” I think – and we are called to love even them! So-called “gay” and so-called “straight” are called to the same allegiance and the same application of it.

We have tried to stay out of polarizing debates about sexuality during the life of Circle of Hope. But even we got blamed for the “tragic” behavior of evangelicals in the local gossip column! We ended up making our statement and trying to repair the divisions the “us” vs. “them” competition for the dominant, legalized thinking of the day caused in our community. I think we were pretty successful. But I suppose I am still sensitive about getting dragged into some loveless debate about some “thing,” when the “thing” happens to be someone I love.