I’m Sorry. We Failed You.

I met Randy a little over 4 years ago. He was living down the road from my church and started coming in every Sunday morning for the service. Every once in a while he would ask for help with something – a ride, or a little bit of food. One day he came in and told me that he was getting kicked out of his house and would be homeless by the end of the day. Randy had a pretty rough go of things as an adult. After a stint in the Army he found himself a drifter, moving from shelter to shelter across the country trying to find a home. He worked along the way and picked up skills in construction. He ended up back in Indiana because both his parents lived there, within an hour of each other.

A few years before I met him he was living in a homeless shelter in Grant County. He would pick up odd jobs during the day, sometimes just volunteering his time and talents. One day he was helping another resident move a refrigerator up some stairs for an elderly lady. The stairs gave out from under Randy and he fell through with the fridge on top of him. He broke his back. He mounted up somewhere between $30k-$60k in medical bills and went through multiple surgeries. Randy couldn’t afford medical insurance so these bills just mounted. He found a free clinic that would see him and prescribe pain meds but he soon became addicted to the pills. It was his addiction that led him to me. He was being accused of stealing pills. I don’t doubt that he stole them. When Randy was high he didn’t have much awareness of his actions. Without the pills he lived in severe pain, but with them he was a mess.

Had Randy been able to afford a primary care physician he may have had the chance to try other medicines that could control his pain without the addictive side-effects. He might have had regular checkups that would put him on a path towards healing rather than towards a destructive cycle of addiction and homelessness. Because he was poor his primary care was the emergency room. With each painful visit his bills mounted. I worked with Randy for a number of years. I took him to disability trials, doctor appointments, and helped him find a place to live. He found odd jobs to pay his rent but they always landed him in the hospital. He was disabled, plain and simple, rendering his manual labor skills moot. Through a program at a local social service agency he was able to find permanent housing and after years of waiting finally started receiving SSI so he could afford it. He even got his meds mostly under control.

Randy’s girlfriend came to my office this morning. She can be pretty dramatic so I wasn’t surprised to see her a bit flustered. She was looking at me through her periphery. Her voice was quick and desperate when she told me, “This isn’t good. Randy died last night.” She thinks he may have died because of a tumor he had on his head, but she wasn’t sure.

This morning the United States Supreme Court heard arguments against the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress in 2010. Though this is a complicated issue the basic question is whether or not Congress has the power to require people to buy insurance. The counter is that everybody participates in the healthcare system at some point. If a person without insurance has to access healthcare and cannot afford it those costs get passed on to others through rising healthcare costs and through taxes. The Affordable Care Act also expands coverage for low-income folks. As I mentioned earlier, Randy’s primary care was the emergency room. In 2009 the average cost for a visit to the ER was $1,318 (Medical Expenditure Panel Survey). When folks like Randy can’t pay their bills these costs get passed on to others, which doesn’t make the bill go away. An average visit to my doctor costs me $167. One 2010 study shows that ¼ of all regular doctor visits (non-emergency) are made in the ER rather than with a primary care physician (http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/29/9/1620.abstract). That’s 88,500,000 ER visits a year. Of those, more than half are made by patients who have no insurance. That’s over 44,250,000 visits a year, with an average cost of $1,318 per visit, that gets passed on to other people and to our government amounting to a total cost of around $58,321,500,000 a year to care for the uninsured. These numbers are a gross simplification but demonstrate the cost of health care in our current system. And none of these costs go to preventative measures which would keep people healthy, ultimately saving more money.

But right now, these numbers mean squat to me. A friend of mine died because our society didn’t take care of him. He wasn’t deemed worthy of having adequate health care in a society that thrives on gluttonous consumption. We failed Randy and, I’m afraid, millions of people like him. This isn’t about conservative vs liberal. This isn’t about ousting a president or towing a party-line. This is about human dignity. What will history say of a society that has more money and resources than any society before it but who won’t feed, clothe, and protect the most vulnerable of its citizens? It will say that we failed. I’m sorry, Randy.

Read Full Post »

The Good Apologist

A group of young seminarians had come to the end of their ropes.  Time and time again they were challenged in public to defend the faith from heroes of the secular world but could not come out on top.   They had tried every trick ever taught them and every method at their disposal yet their atheist adversaries made far better arguments and won over crowds with ease.

But the seminarians had heard tales of an apologist from days past; rumors of a man who could take down the mightiest of opponent with his wit and intellect.  He was a man whom had fought the good fight through every secular idea his generation could throw at him: communism, evolution, and philosophy.  But they also knew that this man had not practiced his craft for years.  They weren’t even sure how to find him but they knew that it was only he who could defeat the secularism of their day and therefore spread the gospel of Jesus to those who were not yet convinced.

When a professor, who was once acquainted with the old man, told the seminarians how they could find him they jumped into action.  They approached the sage, explained their situation and asked if he would publicly defend the faith once more against a famous atheist whose work was gaining much ground.  After seeing the enthusiasm and hope of the young men the old apologist acquiesced and told them that he would do as they asked.

The event was scheduled.  In a public forum the atheist and the apologist would have a showdown.  Knowing the reputation of the old man, the atheist brought every weapon he had.  He was going to tear down the evangelical faith once and for all.  The old man was also ready.

The atheist stood before the crowd and with supreme eloquence he presented irrefutable evidence that evolution is true and that the Biblical account of creation in Genesis is archaic and erroneous.  The audience was mesmerized by his wit and charm.  When it was clear that everybody in the room was thoroughly convinced the atheist stepped aside and invited his opponent to respond.

The old apologist slowly rose from his seat, smiled at the atheist and nodded in thanks while walking to the podium.  He approached the microphone and with humble sincerity said, “I suppose you’re right, my dear friend.  Thank you for teaching us.”  He then turned and walked back to his seat.

Not quite sure what to do, the atheist hesitated but stood again to give his second exposition.  Again, with charisma and zeal, he tore apart the Christian faith.  In a matter of minutes he convinced the whole of the room that the Christian religion was philosophically untenable.  When he was satisfied he had done an adequate job he sat down.

The old apologist slowly rose from his seat, smiled at the atheist and nodded in thanks while walking to the podium.  He approached the microphone and with humble sincerity said, “That seems to make a lot of sense.  Perhaps you’re right.”  He turned again and walked back to his seat, smiling the whole way.

The atheist didn’t understand.  What could this old man be thinking?  What would make him give up his faith so easily?  He rose and asked, “Why won’t you defend the faith you’ve so ardently defended in the past?”

The young seminarians rose to listen, eager to hear the answer.

The old man smiled.  He stood up and said, “I searched for Christ in politics and I could not find him.  I searched for Christ in philosophy and theology but I could not find him.  I searched for Christ in the Christian religion but could not find him.  I determined that he must not be there.  But I found him.  He was on a cross letting the accusations of other’s destroy his reputation, his work, even his religion.  And because they destroyed all of these things, and because there was nothing left to take from him, folks were able to see what God gave us in their place.”

“And what was that?” inquired the atheist.

“A man who is for others,”[1] Said the apologist, “It seems the only real way to defend that is to emulate.”

So moved by his humility and unsure of how to respond the atheist took his seat.  But one of the young seminarians, disappointed in the exchange, marched to the stage and told the audience that they would continue the debate.  Taking things into his own hands he began to refute the atheist’s claims.  He pulled no punches and left no stone unturned.  He did a precise and flawless critique of the atheist’s logic rising to the occasion like the apologists of old.  He deconstructed every word, phrase, and thought the atheist had put forth with depth and insight.  Having thoroughly demonstrated the superiority of the Christian faith he turned to the atheist and said, “Now that you have something to respond to let’s see what you’ve got.”

With a look of uncertainty on his face he cautiously approached the podium.  He looked at the old man, who was sitting contended in his chair, and he looked at the young seminarian who had proudly stepped aside.  He shrugged his shoulders and with sincerity replied, “I suppose you’re right, my friend.  Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.”  With that he turned and walked off stage never to be heard from again in the public arena.

---

[1] Bonhoeffer, Dietrich.  Christ the Center and Papers and Letters From Prison.

Read Full Post »

Rilke’s Eschatology for Modern Living

“All will grow great and powerful again:

the seas be wrinkled and the land be plain,

the trees gigantic and the walls be low;

and in the valleys, strong and multiform,

a race of herdsmen and of farmers grow.

———————–

No churches to encircle God as though

he were a fugitive, and then bewail him

as if he were a captured wounded creature, -

all houses will prove friendly, there will be

a sense of boundless sacrifice prevailing

in dealings between men, in you, in me.

—————————

No waiting beyond, no peering toward it,

but longing to degrade not even death;

we shall learn earthliness, and serve its ends,

to feel its hands about us like a friend’s.”

-Rainer Maria Rilke-

Read Full Post »

I’m An Egalitarian. Are You?

Full disclosure, I’m an egalitarian.  I believe that men and women, though biologically unique from one another, are not required by the Bible to be relegated to specific roles within the church or in the home.  The church for which I work comes from the Church of God, Anderson movement and is also egalitarian in its approach to ministry.  Women may be lead pastors in a congregation.  I have, though, some wonderful and faithful friends who are complimentarians.   A complimentarian holds that the Bible teaches that men and women are relegated to different God ordained roles within the church and, for some, within the home.  The spectrum within this camp ranges from those who believe that women should be silent in church, submissive to their husbands, and relegated to western traditional roles within the home to those who believe that women and men are to be mutually submissive with men as the head (as Christ is the head of the Church), women may participate actively in ministry under the authority of a male pastor, and there is a great deal of mutual respect for both genders and their gifting.  Thankfully most of my friends approach complimentarianism from this second, very respectful, camp.

In a blog that I frequent from time to time a discussion on gender roles caught my attention.  In the comments I asked the question:

If male headship is a result of the fall (Genesis 3:16) then why wouldn’t the liberation of Christ require us to move away from those categories?

The reply from the article’s author, Tamie, offered some great categories to explore but the comments ended there.  I would like to explore these categories here.  She said:

I think the two big questions in the debate are:
1. Is male headship a result of the fall or does the fall distort good male headship?
2. If it is, does the NT move away from it and towards liberation of Christ or does it seek to restore male headship, but in the image of Christ?

My goal here is not to debate the Pauline passages on women.  That is for another post.  I would like, instead, to focus on Genesis in relation to Christ’s work on the cross.  Let’s first take a look at the passage in question (emphasis mine):

Genesis 3:16-20 ¹⁶ To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.“  ¹⁷ Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.  ¹⁸ “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field;  ¹⁹ By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.”  ²⁰ Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.

My first temptation after reading this passage is to classify male headship as a result of the fall.  This, in my mind, puts it in the same category as sin.  Is this a fair assessment of male headship?  Of course, one could also say that this puts male headship in the same category as clothes but I’m not so quick to say that as a result of the freedom Christ brings we should all become nudists.  Clothes aren’t explicitly defined as something that are brought into the equation as a punishment for sin so I think we can safely assume that wearing clothes does not fit into the same category as male headship or sin.

Now there are three caveats to this issue that need to be explored: 1, Is male headship a God ordained and timeless instruction for all believers for all time?  Or 2, is male headship primarily a cultural institution and therefore not binding in every culture?   Or 3, does male headship come from both a combination of culture and providential ordination?  After these three questions are explored we can address the two questions asked by Tamie, which get to the heart of the issue.

Let’s start with question 1.  Is male headship God ordained and timeless?  What can we learn from the Genesis passage?  Well, I feel comfortable saying that male headship is a consequence of the decisions made by Eve but I could be misreading the text.  In God’s comments to the serpent he states a cause – “Because you have done this.”  In God’s comments to the man he also states a cause – “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife.”  However, to the woman he does not say “because.”  I tend to assume from the text that there is a cause which is stated earlier – “because” the woman was deceived and ate.  Is this a fair assumption?  Or am I implying too much?  Maybe the fact that there is no “because” means that it is a simple reality of life from here on out.  Maybe a break in communion with God cannot happen without an increase in the pain of childbearing and the institution of male headship.  Which one seems most faithful to the text?  Is there a third way to understand the lack of explicit causation?

By asking if male headship is timeless I mean, is headship something that exists in the original order of creation to be applied for all of time?  We’ll explore that later.

Question 2: Is male headship primarily a cultural institution?  As an egalitarian my short answer is yes, of course, but I recognize that this doesn’t further the conversation.  What does male headship look like?  For some it means a world of very specific gender roles and responsibilities.  I was once turned away when I offered to help clean up after dinner at a Southern Baptists pastor’s home deep in the Appalachian Mountains.  A few seconds later a female associate of mine offered the same help and was welcomed into the kitchen.  It was culturally insensitive of me to even offer the help but it was culturally expected that she would participate in clean up and all because when these people read the words of Paul and the Genesis 3 passage they projected their traditional gender roles onto the text.

When we examine gender through fields like psychology, anthropology, human development, and even missiology (my field of study) we find reason to examine all of our previous assumptions about gender roles.  Although I have explored the idea that gender is cultural nothing I have written proves that it is primarily cultural. I’m not certain I would defend gender as solely cultural but I think it is an important element.  Here is how the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines Gender:

“the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex”

Psychologists now categorically define sex (biology) and gender (cultural/psychological) differently.  Of course it is not possible to completely distinguish between the body and the mind because they are two parts of the same whole, but we can distinguish between human beings and culture.  In Australian culture, for instance, it is less acceptable for a male to be openly sensitive (unless of course it has to do with sport) than it is in America.  This is not a biological phenomenon but a cultural one that is deeply rooted in what it means to be a male in Australia (Though there are exceptions and I found many Christian males to be more open to their sensitivities than their not-yet-Christian friends).  Not being a psychologist I can only examine this anecdotally rather than in-depth but I imagine that we all agree there is a great deal of what we consider “gender” that has been shaped by our culture, if not all of what we consider gender.  Our biology deeply affects our gender as well though.  Men and women have different amounts of different hormones that affect how we think, behave, and experience.

Question 3:  does male headship come from both a combination of culture and providential ordination?

Here is where complimentarians and I part ways.  I believe that when we read Paul’s advice on women we are seeing culturally defined gender roles rather than timeless truths to which Christians should always submit.  I think back to my experience in Appalachian culture.  The director of our ministry site was a female.  She was not in charge of teaching or even involved in direct hands-on ministry but took care of the organizational side of the ministry (housing, finances, etc.).  We learned very quickly that when interacting with locals, and in particular Christians, with whom we hoped to partner we sent a male to do the talking.  Some people would not even consider talking to a female or working with a ministry that put a female in her position.  If I were to write a letter to the staff who would be taking our place the following summer it would not be beyond me to borrow a sentence from Paul: “But do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”  This is not because our director was incapable but because this was the most profitable approach to ministry in this community.  Again, this is anecdotal but demonstrates my point.  Even if Paul was a child of his culture and bought into the ideas of his culture that does not make them necessarily applicable to our own.  After all, even he admitted that there is no male or female when it comes to Jesus.

I promised this would be about Genesis 3 though and not about Paul so let’s continue down that path by asking Tamie’s questions:

1. Is male headship a result of the fall or does the fall distort good male headship?

This is really two questions:  Is male headship a result of the fall? Or, does the fall distort good male headship?

The first question is what I asked originally.  When we read Genesis 3 does it teach us that male headship is a result of the fall?  The second question implies that male headship was in place (timeless) and that the fall reoriented, and therefore distorted, it.  So if male headship was not initiated at the fall from where does it come?  In her blog Women in Ministry, Cheryl Schatz covers common answers to this question.  Here are a few reasons she has discovered why people believe that male headship was in place before the fall:

1. God’s design in Genesis 1
2. Adam names Eve which implies authority (he calls her both woman and Eve)
3. Eve usurped Adam’s authority (but this is only true if it is previously established that he has authority over her)

I’ll only address the first one as the other two seem to be dependent on a previously established authority.  God’s Design in Genesis 1:

Genesis 1:26-31 ²⁶ Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”  ²⁷ God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  ²⁸ God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”  ²⁹ Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;  ³⁰ and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so.  ³¹ God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

This is the key passage for this claim.  You can see though that there is no authority given that places the man above the woman here.  They are given mutual responsibilities.  One might claim that the Genesis 2 passage more clearly defines a hierarchy between the genders but it isn’t in the text.

Genesis 2:18 – 3:1 ¹⁸ Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”  ¹⁹ Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.  ²⁰ The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.  ²¹ So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.  ²² The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.  ²³ The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”  ²⁴ For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.  ²⁵ And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Here we see that man had a relational need and the female was created to join him.  There is nothing that implies submission or hierarchy here.  In fact Adam’s own words imply mutuality.  He says she is of the same essence as he is, and that when they join together they will be one flesh.  You could, of course, retroactively interpret these texts by first reading Paul and then interpreting Genesis through his words but I think that would be putting the cart before the horse.  Paul isn’t reinterpreting Genesis he is writing letters to churches and church leaders.  If anything we should first work to understand what the relationship between genders was before the fall and then work to understand Paul.

1. Does the NT move away from male headship and towards liberation of Christ or does it seek to restore male headship, but in the image of Christ?

I can’t express how well this question is worded because it is truly the heart of the issue.  As an egalitarian I hold that male headship is a result of the fall and that the work of Christ liberates us from these categories.  But Tamie’s question gives cause to stop and reflect.  Does the work of Christ restore male headship as it was intended to be?

As I see no evidence that male headship existed before the fall, I cannot adequately address this question.  I welcome my complimentarian friend’s insight here.  Please feel free to address the claims I have made in regards to there being, in my understanding, no pre-ordained/timeless hierarchy in gender relations.  For that matter please feel free to clarify, correct, or explore any of the ideas I’ve presented here.  My plan was not to write so much but as I’ve read through this I can’t think of anything to take out and wish that I could add more (sorry!)!  If I have misrepresented complimentarians please feel free to correct me.  I think this conversation is helpful for all of us even if it only serves to reinforce the stance of people from both parties!

Read Full Post »

Painting Memories: Church and Music

A counselor once explained to me that memories, those powerful images from our past, are stored as images in the hippocampus section of our brain.  The hippocampus is part of the Limbic System:

In an off handed comment during his explanation the counselor mentioned that this is also one of the areas responsible for processing and remembering music.  My wheels started to turn (note, in the picture above there are no wheels – it is a metaphor – brains don’t have wheels).  What got me interested was the idea that there might be a connection between those powerful memories of old and music.

Memories are an integral part of the human experience.  Our past, and how we interpret it, determines a great deal of how we live in the present.  I, for instance, haven’t done a back flip off of a diving board since third grade when I knocked out a couple of teeth at my grandparent’s pool.  The memory of fear is too strong.

When I was in college I was asked to lead our class chapel in a time of praise.  I had been playing guitar since I was 14 so I had the skills, yet I had never stood up to lead people in songs – particularly songs intended to affect hearts and minds in such a significant way.  That was the first of many experiences I have had with music in church.  I’ve lead at congregations at three different churches on two continents and have accepted multiple invitations to lead as a guest at other churches and events.  Through all of my experiences I have found one common theme:  Music is important to people.

I have gotten everything from strong criticism to abundant praise for my efforts, and all in the course of one Sunday!  I’ve had people from every living generation pour their heart out in regards to music preference.  When people who are over the age of 55 (please note that this is a generalization and is in no way true of everybody over that age) speak to me about their desire for “more hymns” they often appeal to childhood memories.  They miss sitting in the pew holding a big red hymnal and hearing their father’s, undoubtedly, beautiful voice singing the songs of old.  Much to their disappointment we no longer have pews, let alone lead out of hymnal.  But the songs are the linchpin that holds these memories together.  Take away the pews but don’t take away the songs.

As I took on the position of Interim Worship Leader with my current congregation I wanted to be diligent in serving the formational needs of the people.  I dug out an old survey the church had taken three years before to get a feel for what people desired.  79% of the congregation agreed that a “blended” style of music was the most desirable.  A blended service is one that tries to incorporate both traditional styles of music and contemporary styles of music.  I heard a pastor once say that if you want to upset half of the church have a contemporary service, if you want to upset the other half have a traditional service, and if you want to upset everybody have a blended service.  I quickly learned that he was right.  The survey was not professionally written and therefore had some large shortcomings.  The most striking shortcoming was that “blended service” was not defined for the congregation.  I found that two interpretations of “blended service” had emerged from the congregation:  1, a service that had both contemporary songs played in a tasteful, yet contemporary, way and traditional songs played in the traditional way; 2, a service that incorporated both traditional and contemporary styles of music to create a third style – blended.  The latter definition is the closest to a true definition of “blended service” but the congregation cannot be faulted for not knowing that.

Not having grown up in a church I knew only a few hymns and did the best I could at incorporating them.  Sometimes we would do contemporary versions of classic hymns.  These often kept the melody the same but changed the pace and the instrumentation.  Those were easier for me to pull off and I assumed they would be a bridge between the two styles of music.  The bridge, however, was on fire before construction was finished.  After one Sunday, in which 6 out of the 8 songs we sang were hymns or contemporary versions of hymns, I had an elderly man come up to me and ask when we were going to sing more hymns.  I explained that we played 6 the Sunday before to which he remarked, “I didn’t hear any.”  Over time I discovered that he, and the demographic he represents, didn’t want hymns but desired the style of music that they remembered from their childhood.  This “style” is not a classic Christian style of music but a style that emerged in the early parts of the 20^th century.  Drums and guitars were not to be found in churches and organs and pianos were sacred.  The words of boisterous celebration from the Psalter were of no matter.  It is not an appeal to rich Christian tradition but an appeal to memories.

Here is where the two worlds collide – when memories meet music the Church has a difficult task that requires patience, humility, mutual submission, instruction, and forgiveness.  Congregations have to learn, for the sake of Christian love and charity, to deal with the issue of church music with diligence and integrity.  We have to recognize that music is important to everybody and not just for the sake of preference but for the sake of development and formation.  I am not one that advocates that a church determines its music based on what they feel will draw not-yet-Christians into the building.  Music is much too important to the spiritual formation of the faithful to sacrifice for the sake of being seeker-sensitive.  There are other ways to be sensitive to new-comers that don’t also sacrifice the deep spiritual and psychological effect music has on spiritual formation.  Music exists in gatherings for a few reasons (and I’m sure I’m missing one or two):

1. Instruction – we can learn both orthodoxy and orthopraxy through church music
2. Praise/Adoration – our hearts and minds and bodies are brought to a place of submission and praise to our Father in Heaven
3. Identity – our songs are songs that remind us who we are, Children of the Great Lover
4. Mutual Edification – our songs can be used to build each other up in the faith

I’ve found that being faithful to these four callings that music has in the life of our gatherings means that I become picky in my song choices.  I have found many a traditional hymn that communicates theology that is just plain unhelpful or unbiblical (I’ll Fly Away) and I’ve found contemporary songs that don’t communicate anything of substance.  Conversely I’ve found great depth of insight in many songs, both traditional and contemporary.  This makes the call to those planning our gatherings a call to greater responsibility and often times will draw us into conflict.  What path the music in your congregation takes is of little consequence when compared to the spirit with which that path is taken.  For many churches leaving hymns of old behind for more contemporary expressions of long standing Christian ideas is of utmost importance to the growth (spiritual and numeric) of the congregation.  For others leaving behind hymns would be detrimental to the life of a congregation.  And our decisions to move forward have to be decisions of leadership – not of appeasement.

We must take into consideration who we have in our midst – what their backgrounds are, what their needs are, and what sacrifices will have to be made by some for the betterment of the whole.  If we don’t recognize the vast importance that memories have for people in every walk of life we will do our congregations a disservice.  This means that not only do we take into consideration the memories of those who have been faithful for decades upon decades but we also remember that we are shaping the memories of the young people among us.  And memories are not a good enough reason on their own to remain stuck in a tradition.  When we meet difficult memories that inadvertently desire to hinder the growth of others we are called, in patience and humility, to instruct.  Likewise, when we are met with attitudes that refuse to recognize the richness of different styles of music to the detriment of the body we must also meet these with patience and humility through instruction.

Memories are powerful.  They can be both compelling reasons to build bridges between generations and opportunities for instruction.  There are attitudes that will inevitably need to be challenged and there are people who will respond by severing relationships.  These are sad and difficult moments but when viewed in a larger context can be seen for what they are: growing pains, spiritual immaturity, and the reality of human relationships manifest in the most human of institutions, the Church.

Read Full Post »

Church in Court For Feeding Homeless

Neighbors lacking compassion or church being irresponsible?

I guess it depends on who exactly is complaining. The article suggests that households and residents are complaining. If this is the case there needs to be efforts to educate the neighborhood. If, however, the weekly arrival of a swath of homeless people is hindering local business efforts the church would do well to rethink their strategy. The call to serve the underprivileged is no excuse for foolish practices that lack creativity. The business community is the very source that can put an end to homelessness/unemployment so it is irresponsible to practice charity that directly conflicts with economic development. Service to the poor is one of the highest callings of the Christian faith but our efforts must not be so egocentric and prideful that we hinder the very forces that could help us in our task.

Read Full Post »

Allegiance

“Some trust in chariots and some in horses,

but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.”

                                                               -Psalm 20:7-

Read Full Post »