I remember one of the first scoldings I got in Kindergarten. The teacher, exasberated with a couple of us for arguing over a wonderful toy in the room, proclaimed, “Play nice and share!” We’ve all heard this before. For those among us with children of our own, we’ve probably said these words at nauseum. The very purpose of a young child’s life is to learn how to play nice and share with others. It’s funny what you remember from your childhood. And I’d be willing to be that we all can remember these two simple, yet profound lessons from around the time we were about Kindergarten age.
Oh how fast we forget these simple lessons. We live in a world where it seems that we often do anything but play nice and share. In fact, it seems that more times than not we’re discouraged from such benevolent gestures.
In Wisconsin, people are protesting for their rights to organize and negotiate for their salary and benefits. The Governor of the state believes that people should “pay their fair share” toward their benefits. This increase in payments will help fill in the gaps in the state budget that faces a major deficit. The state employess who are protesting fight on the terms that they shouldn’t have to pay more of their salary. Both sides are fighting tooth and nail to preserve what they believe to be “rightfully theirs.”
The health care debate continues to rage–even when the news doesn’t cover every major cord of the song of disharmony. The fundamental arguement is over whether or not the government (i.e. taxpayers) should pay for the health care of those who might not be able to afford it. Again, both sides frantically argue to save what is “theirs.”
War remains a reality for many across the world. Regions like Lybia and Egypt, while they ride the tide of democracy, do so under the currents of violence and ill-content. The Unted Sates continues to fight a war in Afghanistan. Violence remains a reality in our streets at home and an option as a response to crime under the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. Violence easy becomes the means by which we preserve and protect what is “rightfully ours.”
The basic notion we all harbor (whether we want to admit it or not) is that when we “earn” something it’s ours and ours alone. Sharing becomes difficult when it means giving of what is “ours.” But children do it every day. Maybe it’s because when we teach them these lessons, we teach them that the reason they share is because they don’t “own” their toys–we give them toys to play with. Why doesn’t that hold when we become adults? Doesn’t God give us everything? Is my house or my wealth or my toys truly mine, or are they gifts from God? And if they are gifts from God, then, just like our kids, we’re called to share because we truly own nothing. Everything is given to us by God.
“Play nice. Share with others.” These are very simple words and I would never dare to claim that these simple words can solve all of the world’s problems. But they’re a good start. Yeah, it’s funny what you remember from childhood. God help us remember these simple and profound lessons every day.
Theologian Brian McLaren has some thought provoking words on what the Kingdom of God is in light of how we might think of it. Is being a Christian about “going to heaven when I die” or is it about something else? Something more? Something bigger than we’ve ever considered?
[Disclaimer: With Board of Ordained Ministry interviews looming and a very busy Spring unfolding, my hope is to complete all of the work ahead and live to tell about it. With that, there may a few more videos such as this with short commentary. Don't mind me, I'm just the guy with my nose stuck in books right now. I'll be back in the swing of things very soon...]
A historic thing happened in Egypt a few days ago. Well, that’s not exactly true. A historic event culminated a few days ago. The truth is, what could be called Revolution 2.0 against the oppressive regime of Hosni Mubarak has been in the works for some time.
It can be difficult as an American to truly appreciate such a far-away triumph of the collective human spirit. While we “benefit” from 24-Hour Cable News, much of focusses on U.S. news. To occasionally spice things up we can get a trashy story on Charlie Sheen amid the monotony of news of U.S. politics and the drama between Democrats and Republicans. Most would agree that our coverage of world news lacks a bit. It can become easy to feel very foreign to the rest of the world.
But thanks to social media, the unfolding drama of protests in Egypt were played out right before our eyes. Twitter and Facebook posed such a threat to the regime of Egypt that they even cut off access to the Internet for some time. When this happened, third-party sources like Tweetdeck became the forum through which they expressed their collective voice of discontent. And news reporters even perpetuated this by “retweeting” these statements so that more and more followers could see and know what was going on
What we’re seeing is a growing pattern of tools of protest for young people around the world. Say what you want about Social Media and its ills in our society, it’s being used by thousands of young people in countries that don’t allow free speech as a way to break through the iron wall of oppression that try to enforce silence among the people. What newspapers cannot print, Twitter will carry in snippets of 140 characters. What government news programs will not highlight can be instantly turned in to a Fan Page on Facebook. From there the viral spread of hope and freedom can actually spread across the world.
Don’t get me wrong, this was by no means a triumph of Social Media. The victory belongs to the people of Egypt. This revolution against oppression is the product of a people who know hope against everything seemingly to the contrary. But the tools they chose to help organize the effort was a study in what Washington and Lee University professor Claudette Artwick calls technosociality.
It’s a good day when the voice of the people can cry louder than oppressive powers. It’s a good day when powers can fall to the sound of voices of protests rather than bombs. And it’s a really good day when, through the power of Social Media and communication, I can peer through the window of my computer screen to witness the triumph of a people who joined in community to declare that there would be more to life than just oppression. I guess you could say that, in some sense, the distance between Macon, GA and Egypt seems a lot shorter now.
Is bigger always better? I would argue that many of our churches find themselves facing this question whether they know it or not. The mainline church is in membership decline. Much time and energy has been spent describing this reality that we’ve known in our churches week in and week out.
Our “powers that be” stress the importance of growth. Actually, this has been stressed for over thirty years now. But for some reason, after 7 months of being in the local church, I’ve noticed that this emphasis can begin to hang around the necks of pastors like a 100lb brick. We give much talk to the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20) and how “all the world” means we have to grow numerically. The basic concept boils down to an emphasis that a healthy church will naturally be a growing church.
Before I proceed, I admit that one of my primary areas of ministry is evangelism. I spend a good part of my days and weeks thinking of and carrying out various methods to help grow our local church. So before I risk indigting anyone, know that I’m indigting myself first.
Does every church need to be a large church? Are large churches always our healthiest churches? Why such a push for numbers? These are among the important questions we face in the local church as we address needs and wants in the area of evangelism.
I see pastors of small, dwindling churches killing themselves to be considered among the ranks of fast-growing churches-many of which consist of churches that are recent church plants so it’s like comparing apples and oranges. It’s become sexy to be a church that explodes in membership in a short period of time. We all revere these churches and pastors for the great work they do. And I do admit that this work should be praised for the wonderful impact is has on the local community. But is it the destination we all should strive for?
We’ve become so enamored with fast-growing church plants that we’ve misconstrued their great work into a so-called model of ministry for all churches. What makes a church grow fast in one area often does not translate into another church in a different community. Nonetheless, we look to these churches and their success as the model of how all churches should be doing ministry. If this is how success is measured, then you’re not successful if you don’t measure up to the latest and greatest church model.
Growth based on numbers first is rooted in a church-growth model from the 1970s that is not often applicable when it comes to addressing the needs of a new world. Church-growth does a good job emphasizing the need to recover life in dwindling congregations numerically. But it also ventures into treating people like commodities. The church, then, becomes a factory and our product is people. Increasing product is a sign of healthy business, or so that logic goes. All of this is rooted in a capitalist business model that can eventually reduce us all to numbers on a page.
Growth should mean personal and communal growth. We have to grow in our discipleship and service in mission. We have to grow in our presence in the local community. We have to grow in the richness of our liturgy and worship. And this does not always translate into growth in numbers.
Can a small church be a healthy church and remain a small church? Does success in ministry have to translate into a mega-church model? Are all mega-churches necessarily healthy? The truth is, our American ideals of “bigger always means better” can fail us when it comes to being faithful to the gospel.
Just as with people, churches can come in all shapes and sizes, some large and some small. All of these will attract different people for different reasons. Believe it or not, there are still people out there searching for the vibrant small to medium-size congregation; those that lack flashy lights and Disney World allure. Success should never favor one type of church over the other as long as growing in the love and grace of Christ is found to be at the center of all life within the church.
Does size really matter? I guess it depends on who you ask…
33 retired United Methodist Bishops have issued a statement calling on the United Methodist Church to remove its ban on homosexual clergy. Now before you get too nervous to excited, this is not a blog post on the “rights” or “wrongs” of homosexual clergy. That, my friends, is a musing for another day. No, today’s quest focuses on a little statement found at the end of the article you can find linked in the text above.
“They stressed that their statement is based on their experience as pastors. Experience? A little United Methodist doctrine for those who care to read on: the United Methodist Book of Discipline charges that our Theological Task is grounded in a methodology for theological reflection known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. The 1988 Book of Discipline recognizes that this understanding is to be seen as “the rule of Scripture within the trilateral hermeneutic of tradition, reason, and experience.” In other words, Scripture is our primary source for faith discernment and it is informed by tradition, reason, and experience.
How do these two items relate, you ask? (Actually, at this point you might be asking to go to another page if I quoted the Book of Discipline any more) The long standing argument in the United Methodist Church is that homosexuality is “not consistent/compatible with Christian teaching/doctrine.” By these Bishops citing experience as their basis for argument they’ve done an interesting thing. They’ve opened the door to the idea that the “rule of Scripture” could be challenged by experience. Now before you get too worked up over this statement, please know that I’m not assuming that they would think experience should ever take the place of Scripture. However, the framework we’re seeing as it forms live and in living color before us is the idea that there is no such thing as “objective” Scripture. To assume a primacy of Scripture would assume that Scripture can and does stand above the other three. We’ve always asked the question as to how or why Scripture informs our reason, tradition, and experience. But we’ve never seemed to ask (or at least not often enough) how these three inform the way we read Scripture. In other words, I cannot come to Scripture empty-handed.
Hot-button issue aside, these Bishops are quietly opening the door for what I feel the next big theological argument will be in the United Methodist Church: how do we view Scripture? If experience can open the door to challenge a particular reading of Scripture like these Bishops have asserted, then how does that effect the way we read Scripture? Is it no longer fair to assert that the Bible “inerrant?” Can we actually view a Wesleyan Quadrilateral that no longer asserts a hierarchy but rather an interdependence? I don’t know. All I do know is that I can’t wait to be a part of this rich and spirited discussion!