Are We Better Off With or Without Apple?

Since Steve's passing, the world has honored him at Apple Stores, via social media, via television talk shows, and countless other ways.

The world, even Apple haters, has been kind to honor the work and change he's made.

But, now, it's been a few days. And we've all had a small chance to grieve. And we've all had a small chance to reflect a bit on his direct impact on OUR lives. It is like when Michael died, we all grieved because the world had lost another Mozart; then we began to reflect on what kind of difference was made on our personal lives. For some it was sad to lose Michael, but not for too long. The same has been true of Steve, for some.

He's been compared quite a bit to Thomas Edison, the famed inventor of the light bulb. I was asked this question the other day, "Edison created the light bulb, how does Steve even begin to compare to that?" My honest first reaction was to automatically assume that the asker simply doesn't think about what they do day in and day out.

To me, the impact is simple to see: almost everything that consumers do with computers today has so much to do with Steve's work. He was the driving force behind making the graphical user interface popular (a paradigm we take hugely for granted today...I think my evidence above proves it). He made using computers simple, and I'd argue that that is what brought forth widespread adoption. Because of some of Apple's poor decisions and Microsoft's willingness to copy, it happened indirectly...but it was Steve who did it.

This morning, the point was raised to me,

"i[sic] think he was brilliant for sure but are we better off as a people to have the newest toy but as a whole we are going broke to afford them.[sic] i[sic] think these things have made a much more selfish world that are[sic] self centered and spoiled."

It's a fair point with a certain amount of validity. There are also many claims going on here:

  • Steve simply made the newest toys
  • We are going broke to afford them
  • These things have made a much more selfish world
  • This selfish world is self centered and spoiled (apparently because of the devices Steve has created)

Again, it's a fair argument. I know there are families that struggle to feed themselves each night, but give their kids smartphones. I know, and have acknowledged in the past, that texting and driving has become one of the most dangerous parts of our lives.

The main point though, I think, is that Apple's marketing has encouraged people to want the next big thing all the time. Our emotional draw to the company has forced us to wait in long lines, complain excessively, and stop everything we are doing for product announcements. Yes, it's true and each any every one of those statements applies directly to me.

I think it would be fair to account that a large objection to the future and progress of technology can be summed up inside of this argument: these things (and the marketing of them) have made us worse people.

I think I've recognized the bit of truth to this argument. We text instead of call. We avoid face to face confrontation if at all possible. We have gained a new sense of individualism, and less of a sense of community. I might argue that things like Skype and FaceTime have actually counteracted this argument, but I'll leave it be for the time being.

The question for me though is, "Who is to blame?"

The Church has discussed this for ages. The questions has always been, "Are we a part of the culture or are we not?" or "Is progress good or bad?" or "Can we have material things, or should we deny ourselves?" or "How is Scripture interpreted for this purpose?"

Throughout time, religion has made use of new mediums. In example, George Whitefield's popularity in early American Christianity is largely due to the newspaper reports of his preaching. There are tons more examples.

Isn't it a question now in the Church as well? We've got churches who attract more members because of their light shows and moving backgrounds. We've also got churches who speak down on these churches and worship in a very liturgical, high church way. Both have dying churches. Both have growing churches.

This argument currently going on in the Church is not separate from the argument made to me this morning.

However, even more high church churches are beginning to figure out how to relate to people. They sometimes break it down by "worship" vs. "outreach". For example, it's ok to have a website, because people want to know about you...but no computers in a worship service. But...even that's becoming less and less true.

I know where your mind is going..."Who is winning?"

STOP

This isn't about winning. This is about living a Christ-like life. This is about hearing a call from God. This is about Resurrection and Salvation.

I am convinced that these things, these most important things, are still possible with progress.

I actually think that progress helps these things. For instance, because of the advent and popularity of texting, we have been reminded that living, talking, and being in community is important. And now, now that we know this, we are able to use these new fangled inventions and technologies as tools instead of distractions.

Sure, these tools have the ability to distract, and ARE VERY TEMPTING in this sense. But, what if the Church were to look at these tools as better ways to communicate, as better ways to outreach, and as better ways to live as disciples in 2011?

What exactly are we afraid of? That we won't be creative enough to figure it out? That God won't show us the way? We've got to have more faith than that.

What I like so much about Apple's approach to technology is that they don't do things just because others did. They don't make a bigger screen just because others have bigger screens. They don't implement a voice recognition piece of software just because Google did. They don't have an open platform just because other companies did.

No, they approach it from the perspective of use. What good is voice to text software if you still have to hit buttons? What good is a big screen if you have to use two hands to use it and it no longer fits in your pocket? What good is an open platform if its very openness is one if its greatest downfalls as an experience? It's not even really about being ahead of the game...it's about taking a technology, a concept, an idea and applying it in a real world situation for a real purpose in a way that helps people communicate. That's what spurred Steve's innovation. That's what defines who Apple is in today's world.

So has Apple's marketing asked people to become self centered? Their new iPad ads don't seem to support that.

No, it doesn't seem so. No, what has spurred on this idea is our reaction. I can no longer blame the technology companies for my failings as a human. I can no longer blame McDonald's for the hot coffee I spilled on my lap. I can no longer blame the cigarette companies for my lung cancer (post-revelations that that was actually bad for you). I can no longer blame the city for me not paying attention to that huge stop sign. I can no longer blame the fast food companies for my fatness. I can no longer blame the Church for my lack of faith.

No. Because at some point, I must take up my own cross. At some point, I must learn that it's not the new things that bother us...it's the way we use them. It's not the progress that makes us worse people...it's our sinful nature. It's not someone else's fault that I'm not the disciple I could be, it's me.

(It's worth adding that this is mostly true in America, currently. There are places in our world where girls are used in conjunction with the exploitation of men's sexual desires. This is not the girls' fault, this is the both the faults of the brainwashers above them, and the men who readily support these ventures.) I, in these cases, think the Church has to speak up for the girls...speak up for those who can't. It is still worth noting that those reading this in American CAN almost assuredly speak for ourselves.

As soon as the Church realizes that our mission is active and not passive and that we are not controlled by others, but only influenced by the grace of God through Christ, then we will be able to look at our culture with new glasses...in a way that is beneficial to the life of faith and the progress of the Gospel.

We don't do things just because. We don't slobber at the feet of our favorite company just because they brainwash us. No, we appreciate what they do because it makes a difference. It changes what we can do. It changes how we do things. It's up to us to be able to step back and see where we have succeeded and faltered.

Apple made tools. Thankfully, they made good tools.

Let's use them for good. Please.

-B

PS - Lack of recognition of Steve's contributions to society is a great example of just how well he succeeded.

"OH MY GOD, ROB BELL IS RUINING OUR LIVES!!!!"

Rob Bell announced yesterday that he and Carleton Cuse (of LOST fame) will be writing a TV show that has been picked up by ABC. He and his family are moving to Los Angeles from Grand Rapids, Michigan. It is only now appropriate for his Mars Hill family to wish him "Farewell, Rob Bell". I wish him serious luck. Hollywood is a mean, ripyouupeatyoursoulandthrowyououtwiththedogs kind of business and if the show doesn't play well, you'll be able to buy all ten episodes of "The Complete Series" at Target for $39.99 in a year or so.

Most Christians I know have become very cynical of this news. Wait, the word "cynical" is too generous.

I've been thinking, though, what my reaction might be if I was all the various types of Christians out there. These are generalized statements and intended to be humorous, so don't get too angry if you fit into these categories:

Reformed Piper Followers - "This guy has been going off the deep end for a long time. When will he learn that Love is not for everyone and that God picks and chooses who He saves? Farewell, Rob Bell. Welcome to your life of fame."

Roman Catholics - "These evangelicals will never understand that the Church, even above God, AND DEFINITELY NOT TV is at the center of all things good in the world."

Nondenominational hip Churches - "Dang, wish we could have thought of that. I guess our Twitter account won't cut it anymore."

United Methodists - "Hey, will someone tell us what to think of this? We can't seem to make up our minds about anything important."

Mormons - "He thinks a TV show is an effective way to change the world? Why doesn't he just run for President?"

Southern Baptists - "At least it's not a woman."

Passion 20somethings - "When can we get Chris and Louie on a TV show?"

Divinity Students - "Bell is too centered on himself and his megachurch obviously isn't big enough for him anymore. Down with the megachurch! Down with the megachurch!"

It seems absurd to me that so many of us might be so quick to judge because of a few website headlines we read. Bell is a phenomenal, charismatic, well-read communicator who happens to have followed a call into ministry off of a chance preaching opportunity years ago. He's been picked as one of the most influential pastors in America and has made it his mission to welcome back those hurt by the church by incorporating relevant and trendy cultural points into his sermons and speaking engagements.

Beyond that, Bell is controversial and not afraid to be so. He borders on being more "spiritual" and less "Jesusy" with the hopes that if he can attract people to a new way of life and understanding of Scripture, he can make better disciples. This, because it seems to be less traditional, is controversial. But Bell is not afraid to be so. People respect that, and because he is quite charismatic, and they follow him. The strongest argument against him is that he lost Jesus, but if you study him carefully...you'll find that it's simply not true. Jesus is a significant part of Bell's theology, rightly so.

Bell isn't as anti-traditional as some have made him out to be. I've seen nearly all of his videos and listened to countless sermons of his and I've rarely come across some sort of exegetical insight that I strongly disagreed with (at last not any more than you might find in any mainline church in any town in America).

It's time we stop thinking of religious innovators (and while that term probably does mean progress, it DOES NOT mean a loss of tradition) as inherently "bad". We must judge the preacher on the content and gifts and less on how we view people who have the same church-style.

And beyond all that, it's time we start approaching ministry and those attempting it from a positive stance, and only after that criticizing his/her work from an understanding of their theology, and not from our own personal bias.

If we fight inside these walls and don't go out there, they'll always find another one. Something is wrong...something is terribly wrong.

-B

Ten Years Later: Thoughts on Christianity in America

I was in second period band when someone from the front office of the school came into the room, whispered something in the band director's ear and then announced to the class that two planes had hit the World Trade Center. She began her statement by saying, "I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but our country is under attack as two passenger jets have hit the World Trade Center in New York City."

It's funny the things you remember so perfectly. I feel like I even remember the temperature of the room.

I also remember this well: George Bush standing with firefighters and his bullhorn saying, "The people who hit these buildings will hear all of us soon!" According to his book, he said this in a response to someone in the crowd shouting, "We can't hear you!"

Chills. I got, and still do get, chills.

Retaliation. There's got to be some sort of inner (almost definitely sinful) human desire to get someone back who has wronged you. So, when the President of the US stands at Ground Zero and tells those who had gone into the fallen building and the country that we were going to get them back for what they had done and we were so overwhelmed with emotion and anger, we cheered. We clapped. We went to war.

Today, we remember all of those who lost their lives on 9/11/01. Today, we remember and honor the lives of those who we now consider heroes: those who risked their lives to save another. Today, we remember all of the loved ones who lost their lives fighting insurgents and terrorists in far away countries. Today, we honor those still serving overseas.

And we should. We should remember. We should honor.

But, I can't help to rethink my original feelings when I heard Bush's bullhorn moment. What is it that makes me feel so patriotic? What is it that gives me chills? What is it that still angers me when I see the TV footage?

Can I get the chills? Is that right? Or am I moved by something I shouldn't be? Doesn't God call on us to forgive completely? Does Jesus call on us to love our enemies? If so, and I truly believe that, why is it that I constantly think about how angry 9/11 made me? Can I truly get excited when I find out that the man who masterminded these attacks has been shot and killed by our own forces?

These are some of the most difficult questions an American Christian can ask themselves.

Because, as a Nationalist, the first reaction is to flood the White House gates with an American flag around our shoulders. Because victory, over something so tragic, is sooo sweet.

We are a nation with a history of getting what we want.

We've always had an innovative military system. We've always had a string of religious principles that has been with us throughout our short history. We've always been geographically separated from so many of the world's problems. We have led the Christian movement in many ways in the world over the past 200 years. We were also that nation that dropped two obliterating bombs on the nation that invaded our naval base. We helped end the Nazi regime, but we also interned Japanese and Native Americans. We fought each other hard over ending the enslavement of humans. And even after that, it took another 80 years (and we are still not there) to treat all American citizens like actual humans. Our leaders sometimes swear oaths with God's name mentioned. We have religious, Biblical themes throughout almost everything we do. We allow churches to function without the headache of paying taxes. But we also highly profiled Muslim citizens wanting to fly from place to place after 9/11.

We are used to getting what we want. We are strong. We are relatively united. And our culture is that which supports and encourages any citizens to strive their best to get what they want or need.

Which is why, I think, we are so offended when we are attacked on our own soil. And, because we operate inside of that paradigm of thinking, our reaction draws emotional stimuli. And when our leader says out loud what we are feeling deeply inside ourselves, we get chills.

Because we have to defend our lands. From our very beginnings, we don't like people telling us what to do.

The question, then, truly is this: can American Christians, a group that from our Jewish backgrounds has been somewhat nomadic and lacks a centering geographical location for our "home", live in an authentic dual citizenship between God and country?

There are so many fundamental conflicting values between the two. And, perhaps, these are best seen and discovered when we remember times when we were so offended by actions against us.

To me, these questions, these ponderings, and these conflictions are the reason that as American Christians, we must study the Holy Scriptures. We must learn and synthesize the history of the Church. We must read and prayerfully consider what Christ asked us to do when he spoke about how we interact with one another. We must read Paul as a guide for our lives of faith.

There seems to be a movement in American Christianity to refer to Scripture whenever they don't know the answer to something. I tend to think that they're right...they just often choose the least important decisions to focus on, rather than overarching themes and principles. We focus so much more on gay marriage, something Jesus didn't even mention by our records, when we ought to be focusing on loving our enemies, something he spoke strongly about.

If we forget who we as Christians are, and we often do in America, we run the risk of making hasty decisions that increase violence and war in the world, rather than bringing about peace and love.

Isn't that our goal? Isn't that God's goal? Peace, hope, faith, and love?

I think so.

America has changed Christianity significantly since 1776. I can't explain it, but I'm convinced that we can be both American citizens and Christians.

The question, for all of us, should be on a day like 9/11, how?

-B

"Wrong Worship"

Divinity School has been busy. Sorry it's been so long.

Give the next few minutes of your life to this clip.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJp98hoqy5I&w=640&h=385]

It is evidently a clip used in a sermon illustration at what appears to be First Baptist Church in Orlando, FL.

I've been to the church before. It's huge and their growing services are almost all in the contemporary style.

It seems to me that out of context this might appear to be a treatise against contemporary music, the performance-based nature of the art, and the sad reality that has come with the modern church.

I think this is what many people see when they see contemporary music. I think this is what many think of when they think of modern worship.

While I think the video makes some great points about the me-centered church and cultural bindings that have come with the modern church movement, I also worry about the danger it brings to those who criticize the modern church and contemporary music. Are some of the songs sung "hymns"? Sure. But, the giant stage, lights, microphones, and everything else that comes with it may add fuel to the raging fire around what seems to be a growing dislike for the modern worship movement.

It's an interesting introspective look at what modern music has done to our world, the dangers that lie within any type of musical worship literature, and it surely will serve as an accountability measure for the faith community.

Funny, too.

-B

God Bless NASCAR

Somehow I missed this entire meme until now. Work has been too busy, I guess.

So...there's this pastor. I think he's a pastor of Family Baptist Church in Lebanon, TN. In April, he prayed this prayer before a NASCAR race: You don't want to miss this.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dCj7n1PhHA&w=640&h=385]Let's be straight: that was good. Quality communication with the Father if I do say so myself.

But only a few months later, big boy outdid himself. If you skipped the first one, shame on you. DONT MISS THIS ONE.

Boogity, boogity, boogity, AMEN

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J74y88YuSJ8&w=640&h=385]The faces of the drivers are about the most wonderful thing in the world. I'll forego this opportunity to criticize his use of the word "power" when he has been charged with demonstrating and relating the power of God. I think he stole the "Boogity" line from Darrell Waltrip, but he used it in a way that will be remembered for ages.

Of course, the Songify kids put this gem together (though I think footage from a Dale Earnhardt crash is probably in poor taste):

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZnDt2wEFjk&w=640&h=385]I hope you've benefited from this experience. I know I have.

Lessons I've learned: I want to go to his church and God Bless NASCAR.

Boogity, boogity, boogity, AMEN.

-B

UPDATE: It's Lebanon, TN, not Nashville. Also, their website is a real treat. FULLY colored in Red, White, and Blue. You need to check it out. Do so, here.

The KJV on Contemporary Music

Michael Pearl (whoever he is) on Contemporary Music in the Church.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCmY3HgZF7w&w=640&h=385]

It is obvious that he has shining opinions. It's also fairly obvious which side he is on.

I hear tons of arguments for and against "contemporary music" (whatever that means) in the Church very, very often. Many make good points. Others make points like our friend above.

It is, though, an interesting approach to be sure. All of his other videos seem to focus around the Bible for guidance in issues he drones on about(yeah, I watched more than one). This one, besides the trumpet point at the end, does none of that. Rather, he uses "science" (and to use that term is more than a large stretch) to talk about how a happy song can't have a "sad" melody or harmonic pattern. While most any human would agree with this notion at first glance, I doubt many are able to make the jump that our friend does here (we might also profit from thinking about how many other emotions are portrayed within music, especially outside of the realm of happy and sad). Somehow he went from that concept to...rap music glorifies violence and rape. While we all know that many songs on the radio do glorify violence, rarely (if at all) do they glorify rape. And, just because a rapist listens to rap music, doesn't mean that all music with the same rhythms or "beats" is intended for rape and violence. It's a boggling correlation that makes very, very little sense.

He remarks that music that glorifies God has to have four part harmonies and be the music of "Bach and Beethoven." He also says that that was when music was at its best, "it was at its most complex." I'm a fan of both noted composers, but music has become more and more complex since the time of Bach and Beethoven. It is only within the past 75 years or so that music has "simplified." Beethoven's works, in and of themselves, are good examples of the progression of complexity that continued through time. If one compared Beethoven's early works to his later works, one might not be even able to tell that they were written by the same man. Bach was incredibly talented and brilliantly minded to be sure, but complexity within music (specifically within harmonic studies) has become more and more developed since his time. It's what we like to call "progress" and it is both necessary and inevitable.

The part about the trumpet may have some truth to it (I haven't done any research) but he contradicts himself again when he speaks about how if the spirit of God tugs at you then it is Godly music. He assumes that all people feel the spirit of God in the music he does.

We all know what you do when you ass-u-me.

-B

NOTE: My choice of title for this post is intended to reflect the irony of our friend's lack of Biblical insight into this "issue" while also explaining to the reader who Michael Pearl is. He only uses the KJV Bible, and actively speaks negatively about all other translations, including the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. He prefers the Masoritic and Vulgate, which in translation were heavily influenced by church politics. Because when you want an accurate translation, politics are the first thing your need.

This post spends no time at all looking into what the KJV actually says about music (the trumpet parts appear in every text). If you're disappointed by this reality please accept my profuse, yet not that profuse, apologies.

What Is A "Call"?

I dislike the word "call."

I feel like it is an excuse, right? I feel like if you desire to do something, you say "I feel as if God is calling me to do this" and you get your way because, who can argue with God?

Please notice that I didn't say I didn't like the idea of "call." I only said that I don't like the word "call."

I suppose that I choose to think that "call" ought better be defined by actions, rather than words. "Hey Bryant, tell us your call." I think I'd rather just bring in people whose lives I've made a difference in. I think I'd rather show them the communities I've been a part of. I think I'd rather show them the effort I've put in here or there. While articulating a call, in a verbal sense, is probably important...I tend to think that actions speak louder than words. But, as my wife always reminds me, I'm not always right.

If you're an individual seeking to work in a local church for the foreseeable future, you've probably struggled with "call" once or twice. It doesn't matter your denominational affiliation, you've thought about what it would be like to work within the local church. That probably sparked a thought in your mind about what your future might be. Most denominations have some sort of ordination system whereby you are examined by people who both know you and don't know you and asked serious questions on your theological thoughts, ecclesial thoughts, and passions and "call" into ministry. It truly does depend on your denomination as to whether or not your "call" fits into their system.

It's hard to describe "call." This is probably because the term "call" is so multi-faceted. A "call" can involve your practical talents (what you are really good at). It can involve your "spiritual gifts"(remember taking those inventories?). It can involve the way you perceive your interactions with people. It can, and often should, involve your passion for the betterment of the world and desire to see the Church reflect Christ in every way possible. I can involve your, gasp, political feelings about what is going on in our world.

And the worst part about it is probably the fact that it changes on an almost daily basis. Certain things tug at your heart. Certain things cause you to change your mind. Certain things may make other concepts more vague or more clear.

I may not like the terminology (or really, just the way that the word has been abused) but I think one thing is clear: most everyone wants to know how THEY fit into a larger picture. They want to know what they're being asked to do. They want to know how their gifts and talents are being used for the betterment of the final outcome. Without that, I believe, that we humans feel left out. We feel abandoned. We feel wasted. None of those are things that any human ever desires to feel.

One of the things about the society we currently live in is that we move so quickly that we don't have a chance to think of how to articulate our "call."

We do the things that we care about. We do them as well as we know how. But we rarely stop and think about why.

Which brings me back to my thoughts on actions as opposed to words. How do we better articulate a call? Why can't it be wrapped up in actions? Why can't we look back and see what we've done and are doing? Why don't we present that as evidence? My guess: because if we can't communicate through language, we are often lost in our world. We can't tell anyone why we are doing something. We can't explain ourselves. The way we interact with each other is through language. Because actions can be misinterpreted, we can only know someone's intent by the language that they use.

But language isn't perfect either. Humor is lost. Lying happens.

Well, if we can't use actions, and we can't use words, to give the most accurate representation of our "call," how do we know what a "call" is? How do we see the "call" in an authentic light? How do we come to a realization and portray it accurately to others?

Fruits.

We have to discern the goodness of the fruit that results. We have to judge the outcome. And by that, with a little prayer, we can probably get a head start on what it is God is "calling" us to do.

One of the things I struggle with in life is watching someone else do something that I know I can do faster and better than they are doing. I know that you deal with this too. I get frustrated when I see others making silly decisions based on their lack of knowledge at any given point. As my wife often reminds me, I'm not perfect. But I think there is a reason I deal with this. I think that it is at those moments that I can see the outcome. And I can see how point A gets to point B. I know how to make it work.

I think we all ought to learn to judge fruit. We ought to learn to see the outcome.

We can't, anymore, hide behind this wall of a "call." Reality is what it is, and we must do our best to judge the outcome of our actions and those around us. Perhaps in this way we can see what God is doing in our lives and the lives of those we touch.

When we learn to judge the fruit, we will learn what the fruit needs to be like. When we learn what the fruit needs to be like, we will be able to see how our gifts can get us there. When we see how our gifts can get us there, we can see where our place is. When we see where our place is, we will know what our "call" is. When we see all of these steps, we will be able to better articulate what God is "calling" us to do. When we can better articulate our "call" we will be able to make a bigger difference in the world. When that happens, God rejoices.

It will be, and only be, at this point that we will stop hiding behind the wall of our "call." Because then, and only then, that word will begin to mean something again.

It is not only important, it is imperative, for the the future of the Church for this to happen in the life of every single Christian.

-B

When a Woman Loves a Woman

Well, the trial is over. Because of the lack of updates on Amy DeLong's own website and the slow moving articles from UMC.org, I found out about the trial verdicts in the same way that most of you did. In the same way I found out about Michael Jackson's death. And in the same way most of the world found out that the criminal mastermind who hired people to fly planes into our buildings had been killed: Twitter.

So, though the UMC has posted pictures of the trial, the important worship services before and throughout the trials and sentencing, it is important to note that I, nor many who read this, have any clue about how this all shook out exactly. Some tweeters were there, and helped us along the way but taking their word for it. But trying to understand and really "get" what happened in that church without being there is like...well, a little reading the Bible in English. You mostly get the idea (and even exact quotes) but so, so much is lost. 140 characters just doesn't quite do it.

If you're looking for more "reporting" than Twitter can give you, just check out UMC.org and various other sites for as much info as you can find.

Story, as I hear it, is that she was acquitted 12-1 that she was a "self-avowed practicing homosexual". From what we all hear, she refused to answer some of the questions regarding this, citing that they were being asked in an accusatory manner. I see her point. But I also think that true "evidence" exists that is published by Rev. DeLong that submits that she is "guilty". I'm happy for Rev. DeLong because this verdict means that the person she loves hasn't held her back from pursuing her calling.

She was, though, guilty on the other charge...as we all expected. I think I made it clear last time, Amy broke the rules.

The punishment was a bit of a slap on the wrist but anyone who might have either expected or hoped for something more substantial probably wasn't being realistic. She was assigned to a 20-day suspension (seems to me like a "think-about-what-you-did" scenario) and to write a document for some sort of presentation at General Conference 2012. I really like the second penalty. I think it'll take her passion and put it into a position where it can actually make a difference, and possibly...a change. That's great.

I've received quite a bit of negative feedback in regards to my first post, as many who sit clearly on the side of Rev. DeLong have seen my post as a means of arguing against homosexuality. I wasn't. I was only saying that Rev. DeLong broke the rules. Even in my remarks regarding her baptism, I wished to point out that the movements against her have simply been to maintain fairness.

I have heard many "unjust rules were meant to be broken" ala MLK Jr arguments. Politically, I actually agree. I have made it quite clear that I think that God loves all of God's children. What I neglected to make as clear is that I see, as I think you should, a difference here in the political argument as opposed to the religious argument. The United States says that all are equal. So, all should be equal. Rosa Parks, MLK, Malcolm, X, and many many others fought for this cause. They were jailed for their efforts as well. And they were in the right. The laws of the USA were acting in opposition to some of the founding documents of this country. Many of them cleverly snuck in religious references to their arguments, but that argument was a social argument regarding a matter of US policy and law. It was against the rights of the African Americans to treat them in the way they were bing treated. All men are created equal.

What's perhaps most confusing about the homosexuality "issue" in today's society is that it is once again a political issue on the state side with a lot of religious rhetoric thrown back and forth. Who decides the rules for the country and states? The founding documents and then instances of precedents and bills passed in Congress. Who decides the rules for the church? The church, in whatever way each church chooses to rule itself.

The UMC has a way of going about this. Prayerfully, spiritually, and Biblically: the Book of Discipline is decided on. It's decided on by a vote. Which means that a MAJORITY of the people in the UMC elected delegates who decided to keep the current BOD language regarding homosexuality that existed prior. To break these rules, knowingly, is more than just to say "you are wrong", it is to say "your interpretation of the Biblical scriptures doesn't count because progress must be made." I personally believe that God's grace is available for ALL. The difference is: I don't see where this instance changes that that much.

Then there is the part about Amy's agreement with the UMC. Rosa Parks didn't make any agreement with the US. Because the whole situation of Civil Rights was born out of oppression at the start, it's not even fair to say that agreement was based on taxes and public services rendered. But Amy did agree to something. And the church agreed to something. The fact that Amy was a homosexual was something she knew about. And she broke the rules.

Which is why I think that the slap on the wrist of 20 days does nothing more than show others that they can do the same thing, if they're willing to take the penalty. This opens up a whole new world of interest. Had it been a stronger penalty, two things might have worked better (for all involved): the Discipline (and the inherent Bible-based decisions that have to come from that) might have been put to the use that it exists for, and the Biblical interpretations of all involved would actually have been dealt with in a way that made all feel like their voices were heard. What this might encourage (and to note, may or may not be good or bad...history gets defined by the "winners") is a whole bunch of pastors who believe so strongly in one idea that they're willing to break the covenant they made with the church. To me, that's a big idea. Biblically, breaking covenants is looked down upon. I must be clear: I think is is very, very different than Rosa Parks.

The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence are very clear in (most of) their language. The Bible really isn't. It was written by many many people over a long period of years; many of which seem to, at times, have different ideas about discipleship, salvation, grace, and faith. To make it worse, church history is even more messed up than the US's history is. It is because of this that we are at this juncture today.

One thing is clear to me, though: in this church trial, no one really wins.

-B

Incompatible with Christian Teaching

A note regarding this post: I am and have been close with several self-avowed homosexual people within my lifetime. It is my personal belief that God loves all of God's children and calls upon all of us to act and behave in the same way as God has demonstrated through Jesus' life here on earth. I do not claim to understand the homosexual lifestyle (as it simply does not describe me) and choose not to judge the lifestyle because of my extreme lack of knowledge regarding the topic. I do, however, think that our culture is on the verge of a gender and sexual orientation crisis that has been snowballing for years. I think that if the Church does not handle such a crisis with grace, mercy, and love, we will not only have disobeyed God's will for us, but we will have lost (please define "lost" however you'd like, it will still be true). My opinions listed below are indicative of my own observations of the said situation at the given time, with as much information as I felt like I could find. I would hope that they do not anger any readers, as I have attempted to choose the words carefully so as to be inclusive, yet honest, with describing and arguing a very difficult situation that no one quite knows the "right" answer to. I have attempted to be mindful of those that I know and love while writing this post, because if at the end of the day I have angered people close to me, I have lost. If at any point you disagree or wish to point out my own ill-thinking, please express this to me in a way that embodies the grace, mercy, and love referenced above. Rev. Amy DeLong of Wisconsin is on trial in the United Methodist Church for "chargeable offenses" according to Paragraph 2702 in the United Methodist Book of Discipline. The Book of Discipline is edited, morphed, and revoted on every four years by delegates from each of the Annual Conferences within the United Methodist Church. For those uninterested in church procedure and polity, it reads a lot like a phone book (do they even still have those anymore?).

The story of Amy goes something like this: she fell in love with the United Methodist Church around the time she was in college. She began to feel a call to pursue ordained ministry. By the time she had affirmed that call and applied to seminary, she fell in love with her partner, Val. You can read Amy's account of her story here.

Then, in 2009, "Amy officiated at a Holy Union for a same-gender loving couple."(Link) She then reported about it in the annual required report that pastors must submit. She was called in to meet with the Bishop and she explained what she had done and described to the Bishop her on-going relationship with her partner, Val. The link at the top of the paragraph has the rest of the story's timeline. Given what you've read so far, you can put the pieces together.

What are the offenses against Amy? The Book of Discipline (remember, decided on by United Methodists worldwide) says you can't do that.

The Book of Discipline lists the word "homosexual" 17 times. It lists "gay" seven times. It lists "lesbian" three times. In regards to homosexuality in general, the Book of Discipline says this:

The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God's grace is available to all. we will seek to live together in Christian community, welcoming, forgiving, and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons. (Paragraph 161, F)

Basically, the UMC implores individual churches to love and care for homosexual people, but still considers the practice of homosexuality "incompatible with Christian teaching."

Rev. DeLong, though, at this point isn't guilty of anything. She's cited as guilty of charges under PP 2702.1b. Paragraph 2702 refers explicitly to reasons that a bishop, clergy member, local pastor, clergy on honorable location, or diaconal minister may be tried. Here's what it lists:

  • immorality including but not limited to not being celibate in singleness or not faithful in a heterosexual marriage.
  • practices declared by the UMC to be incompatible with Christian teaching, including but not limited to: being a self avowed practicing homosexual; or conducting ceremonies which celebrate homosexual union; or performing same-sex wedding ceremonies.
  • crime.
  • failure to perform the work of the ministry.
  • disobedience to the order and discipline of the UMC.
  • many others including sexual abuse, sexual misconduct, harassment, and racial or gender discrimination.

Short and sweet: Rev. DeLong broke the rules.

So, according to the Book of Discipline, she is being charged with breaking the rules. Sounds fair, right? When she was ordained as a pastor, she agreed to hold to the rules. She didn't.

Obviously Rev. DeLong didn't take nicely to this. She has employed help and a defense system including the recently popular www.loveontrial.org.

Here's what I don't understand: why is she angry? Obviously, she is on the verge of losing her job (one that she loves and feels called to). I guess that makes sense. But, we musn't forget: she knowingly did something that she was consciously aware was against the teachings and rules of the church. When you have a private job (remember, churches are private institutions) and you break the rules of that job, your employer has the right (and the responsibility) to remove you from your position at their own discretion. This issue is often compared to the Civil Right's issues in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. I don't personally think this is a fair comparison in this instance because Amy has a private job. Martin Luther King went to jail. Amy will not. The government has no rules about her own ordination. If she loses this trial, she is not going to go to jail. The best argument that she has is that the UMC shouldn't legally be able to ask you whether or not you are gay in order to be employed. (It is worth noting that I noticed this during my recent investigations into the ordination process of the UMC. The church does background checks--expected--but also financial checks, health checks, marriage checks, etc...things that other businesses in the private sector are not legally allowed to base employment choices off of.)

However, the reality remains the same: she agreed to hold to a value and behavioral system. In exchange for her agreement (and hard work), the church agreed to give her a job, insurance, and a house for the rest of her employable life. Setting aside any spiritual aspect of the role of the pastor (of which there is obviously much of), she didn't hold to her side of the deal.

If you read her material on www.loveontrial.org, you'll notice that she is a talented speaker. She has a gift for writing sermons and has a real heart for ministry. I feel for Amy. She's in a tough situation. There's not a great way out at this point, except to gain a following and leave the UMC in a big way. If she can gain followers, perhaps she can make a difference in the future. I personally wonder, that if this is where she is, why is she still so "called" to the UMC? If I felt as if a church body wasn't including me, I'd look somewhere else.

(Irony, noted)

There is one more thing, though. In a sermon Rev. DeLong gave the other night, she said this:

You see, they don't want my ordination back, they want my baptism back. They don't want me included. They don't want me to feel beloved. They don't want the Holy Spirit to be poured out on me and they certainly don't want God saying, "Amy, in you I am well-pleased." They aren't after my ordination. They're after my baptism. They're saying God's grace isn't sufficient. (Link)

I see that Amy is in the midst of perhaps the most emotional time in her life. I get that she is using the argument that the UMC is being a legalist and she is being "spiritual." I see why she says what she says. I don't always agree, but I can see where she is coming from.

But, in the quote above...I think she is wrong. The Book of Discipline explicitly states that homosexual people ARE to be welcomed. Remember the "implore" line above? They do want her ordination back, not because they have a political stance, but because the General Church agreed that that was what was required. To let her keep her job after what she is done is not being fair to her, it's being unfair to the rest of the church.

They do not, in any way, want her baptism back. I can see why she might feel that way, but to explicitly state that the church is unable to keep her from being a Christian is not only a misrepresentation of the situation but it is also extremely out of line.

My only hope is that somehow some sort of reconciliation can come out of this. I'm not sure the church is completely right. I'm not sure that Amy is completely right. Somehow, the Church is going to have to learn how to deal with the changes in culture in order to continue to be effective witnesses for Christ in the world.

Here's to hoping that actually happens.

-B

ADDITION: I don't like the "incompatible with Christian teaching" language. Not because I don't think it's true (who defines "Christian teaching" anyway?), but because I think it is only used to call out the homosexual lifestyle explicitly. I personally think that divorce is incompatible with Christian teaching, (and in a strict sense, MUCH more than homosexuality) and yet the UMC ordains divorcees every year. I go to school with several. If the UMC were to not allow self-avowed divorcees to be ordained, hell might break loose. There are many many options and times when divorce is the right situation. When divorce is the only way out of an abusive or unhealthy situation. I do not choose to judge those times. I simply wish to point out that the "incompatible" language does not include all things, as it should.

A Church I'd Go To

I've had a somewhat rare opportunity for a young person such as myself. I've helped start two churches. Both had much in common.  Both were very different. Because of this, I often reflect on what it is that draws people in to a church.  If you've never started a church before, you won't realize the ridiculous amount of work, effort, and energy that goes into moving people into a building.  And no, it's not for the mere idea of having a big church; it's about evangelism and sustainability.

First, though, a note: though "house churches" have garnered more of a following in the past years, it is difficult for them to support full-time ministers.  I actually think that house churches are great ideas, but I don't necessarily think they're going to negate the idea of large church communities that make huge impacts on the community and world around them. I think that in many ways house churches can be connected to larger organizations to help shape more and better disciples.

Because I do a lot of contemplation about this, I thought I'd begin to compile a list of what it is that makes a church "successful".  I choose not, at this time, to define "success" except to say that growth, outreach, and mission, in my mind, are necessities. This list isn't built off of what the churches I have been involved with have done well, nor are they based on what the churches didn't do as well.  Admittedly, there is a bit of both in the points below.  However, there are also some observations that I've made from other churches I've visited as well. Also, this list isn't complete (could it ever really be complete?).  I invite you to join in with your additions and thoughts in the comments.

Things that I think churches (especially church-plants) ought to strive for:

  • A welcoming, inviting atmosphere
    • I often tell people that I can tell whether I want to be a part of a community or not within the first minute and a half. It has nothing to do with how the parking situation is, although churches that have weird parking situations and manage it well stand out. It has nothing to do with the worship space.  It has to do with whether or not I feel welcome.
    • Within that minute and a half, you must be greeted. You must be welcomed. You must be spoken to.  Hopefully, they'll hook you up with a nametag.
      • I think we've all experienced that awkward moment when there is someone new in the middle of a room of old and everyone kind of wonders who will make the first move.  We ought to be clear on this: that shouldn't ever be the case in our churches. We are all guilty of it on one level or another.
    • This is a perfect time to help a new person easily get acquainted with the way the time of worship (or whatever stands in its place) will run. In 2011, like it or not, comfort is an important thing for potential church goers.  Make someone feel out of place, they're not likely to return. (Please spare me the "but church should be a time of stretching, molding, and challenge" arguments. They're not relevant to new comers.)
  • A simplistic, well organized, thoughtful, meaningful time of worship
    • Some churches use pre-composed liturgy. Some create a new order of worship every week.  Some do a little bit of both.  Whatever the case, the order of worship should make sense (which means that if you are straying from lectionary readings, etc...be sure to make sure that the order of worship fits the theme, texts, and MAKES LOGICAL SENSE).
      • It should be abundantly clear that I glean this from an Apple-centric way of viewing the world.  Apple has had huge success by having all of their business moves seem to at least appear simplistic. Logic, too, is key.
    • Transitions are key in a worship service, I think. (Please spare me the "church services shouldn't be produced" arguments.) In 2011, "dead time" means "awkwardness." THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN SILENCE. Silence can be very, very good. But when leadership doesn't know what's going on, it's not meaningful silence.  It's distracting.
    • I don't always buy that the music should be split up because standing for long periods of time is painful, but I'm often wrong. There are many options available to the planners so that you don't have to sing seven songs in a row. Whatever you plan though, have a plan. When you half-ass it, you aren't fooling anybody.
  • A solid community
    • Some churches are huge.  Some are small. Contrary to popular belief, it does not matter about size as much as it matters about community.  Many, many churches that are huge in numbers have strong communities within themselves and everyone feels like they're a part of something. (Think of it like attending a large public University, most students need to find SOMETHING to belong to).  Many many small churches speak negatively about each other behind others' backs. When people visit the church, they want to feel like people know each other, but they aren't clique-y.
    • Prayer requests, etc are awesome opportunities, I think, for the community to be solidified.  People like knowing what's weighing on one another's hearts and they are, many times, more likely to lift it up in worship than mention it as an aside within another conversation.
    • Don't rush other things.  Allow those who wish to talk and catch up with one another to do just that. Fellowship is extremely important in the growth of a church.
  • Inspiring, creative leadership
    • Hitler was a bad man. But, in a very strict and technical sense, he was good at his job. Barack Obama was good at campaigning. Jesus was good at his job.  Osama bin Laden was good at his job. Steve Jobs is good at his job. Walt Disney was good at his job.
      • Some of these were good for the world.  Others weren't. All of them were inspiring leaders. They were all, also, well-spoken charismatic speakers.  People want to follow that...like it or not.
    • We all know when someone is and isn't an inspiring leader. Being charismatic and inspiring isn't always a recipe for success, but it certainly helps.  When people are feeling down or tired, they need a pick-me-up.  When people are doing well, they need affirmation. This is reality, and it's a reality for churches.
    • Creativity is key. Being stuck in a rut is not suitable for relevant ministry and it sometimes takes a little moving and shaking to get things done. This often takes place in today's churches within technological creativity. This is mostly good, but it doesn't have to be done in this way. Be creative in all aspects of your leadership.  If it still makes some sort of clear, directional, logical sense, it's probably ok.
    • This also includes being a good manager of people and staff.
      • I waver back and forth on whether or not I  agree with the "Pastor as CEO" model. More times than not, though, I come back to it.  Pastors have to be honest with staff members who aren't cutting it.  Pastors have to be honest in each and every situation. I truly believe that if the staff is dysfunctional, it will become apparent to new-comers to the church far faster than you would have hoped.
    • This leadership (in all aspects of the church) has to truly care for people.
      • Some of the biggest time-taker-uppers for pastors are hospital visits, funerals, weddings, and counseling. If you've ever experienced even a hint of any of them, you'll quickly realize that they're all blessings in their own unique ways. However, when a pastor doesn't truly care for or about people in tough or difficult situations, it's evident to everyone.  It's truly a calling and, I think, a necessity.

There are many, many more.  I think, though, that this is a decent start. There are some obvious omissions and I am sure that you'll disagree with some of what I said.

Here shall be my challenge to you: submit your feedback (both more suggestions and corrections) to me through the comments below.  I'd like to make this a working list.  I'll update the post (and mark it, giving credit to the authors) with additions that I think are fruitful.

The Church will only change if we change it. I believe that the Church has been ordained to change the world.

-B

Love Your Neighbor

I think, perhaps, this could have been the kind of work Jesus was talking about. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXf18-3p2Sg&]

Joplin needs the Church. Thank God the Church is there for Joplin.

-B

Why Are Churches Segregated?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGRevimPiQI&] "There's black churches and there's white churches, and that's racism."

Is it? Is it tradition? Is it heritage? Is it comfort?

Also, is it good or bad?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61QmJDz6tJg&]

-B

The Older Annual Conference

I've been watching the Florida Annual Conference off and on for the past few days. They stream it live (with post-vote commentary!) on their website for the whole world to see. It's probably a sick obsession with church polity or the fact that my wife is there and seeing a little glimpse of her here and there is a lot of fun, but either way...I've been watching.  I watch as much of the voting sessions as I can stand, listen to a lot of the dialogue during discussion, and watch whatever of the worship service I can.

There's been a small Facebook and Twitter campaign rolling around trying to get younger clergy and laity elected to serve as delegates to the General Conference next year.

And yet, when the election breaks down, there doesn't seem to be as wide of a collection from all age groups, it tends to weigh heavily on the older populations.

Now, I was raised to respect my elders.  I was raised to think of them as wise.  I learned first hand how wise many of them can be.  I learned first hand how correct many of them could be. Life does that to you, I guess. Life allows you to learn lessons that you'd only have learned from experience.

But I can also remember the times that I was listening to a pastor give a Children's Moment on a Sunday morning and one of the children said something so brilliant, I had to write it down.  I remember the times leading a small group at camp and one of the 6th graders made a theological observation that blew my mind. I also remember when I saw a 5th grader put his arm around an acquaintance (of the opposite race), who had been made fun of; he provided comfort and love that the acquaintance hadn't yet experienced.

I mean, right? Those experiences will change your life. I can already think of several instances where I've seen the wiser, older people not act or speak in those ways because 1) it was not appropriate or 2) things had never been done or spoken of in that way before.

And so as I reflect on an Annual Conference that elects more older people than younger people to represent them to the General Church, I worry. Not because young people are better (the older were once younger, remember). And not because older people are better.

But because God speaks to and through people of all ages.  God does things through the young AND the old. The Bible speaks to this time and time again.

It seems normal that in Florida, there would be a larger population of older members. It seems to make sense, then, that the voting would follow that breakdown: there are going to be more older delegates elected than young.

But, what if we worked to actively elect a broad range of ages? What if we said, "I think this 20-year-old has just as much to say as this 60-year-old"? What if we invested in the future and new leaders by providing them with the opportunity to feel as if they are a part of something real? What would it look like for an older candidate to look toward the younger candidates and campaign for them? What would it look like for new ideas to be treated with the same insight and respect as older ideas? What if the representation didn't represent the age of people, but rather it would represent the way God treats and speaks through every individual?

I think it would look like the Church.

-B

 

If I Were To End The World...

I look forward to seeing you all on Sunday. We'll meet for church, catch up for a few minutes, laugh and joke, maybe go out to lunch, and then we'll celebrate that the world hasn't ended. Or, we'll cry because we haven't been included in the rapture. These peeps that have been saying that the rapture will occur on the May 21 and then the end of the world will be on October 21 aren't reading the same Bible I am.

It has got me thinking though, what would I do if I were these people?

I'd be so convinced that the end of the world is coming that I'd want to tell people. I'd plan out an awesome Saturday lunch with friends and then retreat to my home. I'd probably lie down in bed and hope to be taken in my sleep.

But...what would happen when the stroke of midnight struck? Would I get worried? Would I call my fellow church members? Would I call my adversaries? Would I try to figure out if I had just missed the mark, or would I think I had been left behind? How would I show my face in public again?

I'd see two ways out:

  • Mass suicide with all who think the way I do.
  • Go in to hiding.

(I struggle deeply with the concept of suicide. It's a rough thing that has plagued our world for all of time. It's extremely sad and unfortunate.)

So, I think I'd have to go with hiding. After all, Osama hid in plain sight for ten years.

I think I'd take my church members and go into hiding. I'd secure some random island that no one knew about, figure out a way to get myself, my family, and all my friends there. Then I'd live there until people forgot that I had proclaimed the end of the world and judged them prematurely.

Yeah, hiding would be the only way to keep the news cameras and late night talk shows from taunting and stalking me.

After it had all been planned, I'd probably read over the plans.

I'd think about it, pray about it, and then decide that it sounded like a lot of work.

I'd probably just go ahead and on May 20th tell the world that I'd been making it all up.

Then, I'd go back to the Bible, read it, and decide that the world was actually going to end at a time unknown to man. I'd probably decide that Jesus's message needed to be spread more than ever. But not for the sake of the souls of the "saved."

I'd decide that Jesus's message needed to be spread in a way that eradicated poverty.

I'd decide that Jesus's message needed to be spread in a way that accepted those who has never been accepted.

I'd decide that Jesus's message needed to be spread in a way that showed the world the beauty of the resurrection.

I'd decide that Jesus's message was not modernity's "heaven" but rather, Jesus's "salvation."

Yeah, I think that if I was to decide that the world was going to end, that'd probably be how it'd play out.

We've got to rid the world of the Christianity that is so convinced that it is all about us.

I hope the world ends, because when it does, the pains of the world will no longer be, pain.

Maybe then, the beatitudes will finally come to life in a way that our Church could not accomplish.

-B

Father Reginald Foster

This guy is awesome. Fast forward this to 3:32. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcNdteJNyO4&feature=youtube_gdata_player]

Here is another one about his Latin passion.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inQ6CWx7V2c&feature=youtube_gdata_player]

I feel like the Church needs more of him.

-B

"Obama Thinks Jesus Is Nuts."

Bill Maher talks about how  he is a non-Christian, just like most Christians. Beware of the foul language, it is Bill Maher.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giVXvveef8Y]

While his rhetoric makes logical sense, I think he is targeting the part of the Christian body that won't watch his show and might never agree with him.  The "hippy" Christians already agree with him and...probably aren't watching his show either.

His point about Obama I thought was most interesting, as Obama has to be a politician first and foremost, probably above his faith.  He has to get Scripture to his phone every morning so that the Right will continue to tolerate him while he also has to go after America's enemies...because, well, he is the President.

But really, who is Bill Maher to talk about accountability of Christians?

Oh, yeah, that's right...this isn't accountability, it is just more of his campaign against faith.

-B

Thanks to Chad Holtz for sharing.