The Lutheran Zephyr

Beyond Capernaum

My old seminary classmate Matt Staniz has a new blog.  I figure it's worth reading for three reasons:

• he serves a church in my fare hometown of Havertown, PA
• his new blog has an awesome name: Beyond Capernaum.  Capernaum - Jesus' home base for his ministry - was my favorite place on a Holy Land tour I took ten years ago (yeah, it beat out Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth, and all the other mega-popular touristy holy places in my estimation).
• he's a smart, witty, and faithful guy. 

So, go check out his blog, add it to your blogroll, bookmarks, and/or feedreader, and enjoy.

Read LutheranChik's "Reverence and Ritual"

LutheranChik tells of a powerful discussion that arose from her congregation's monthly lay ministry meeting about the meaning of worship and its various symbols and gestures (from what I can tell, at her church "lay ministry" = lay assisting ministers). 

Besides being floored that her congregation actually has a monthly meeting of worship assistants - what a great model of dedication, training and continuing education! - I very much appreciate her conversation regarding the what and how of worship:

How do we initially ritually create sacred space that lets people know that they're not at a social, not in a lecture, not at a game show, not at some assembly of individuals all cocooned inside their own private faith dramas, but the gathered people of God, ready to be fed by Word and Sacrament and then sent back out into the world? . . .

. . . I fear that, in our institutional desire to be friendly and welcoming and immediately accessible to anyone who walks through the door, we lose a sense of holy mystery.

Go check out her brief but wonderful post, Reverence and Ritual.  She asks some really good questions, and in the process makes some nice points for reverence, ritual and mystery as essential elements of Christian worship.

PS: If you like her call for the importance of reverence, ritual and mystery, you may also appreciate my post suggesting that young folk are not opposed to tradition (as is commonly thought!)

Clinton's Troubling Politics of Choosing Church

"We have a choice when it comes to our pastors and the churches we attend."
- Senator Hillary Clinton, in response to a reporter's question about Barack Obama, his church, and its fiery former pastor, The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. (from AP article Clinton Would Have Left Obama's Pastor)

These words sent a chill down my spine.

We have a choice when it comes to our pastors and the churches we attend.

It wasn't enough for Senator Clinton to critique Pastor Wright.  It wasn't enough for Senator Clinton to critique Pastor Wright's role as an unpaid adviser to Senator Obama's presidential campaign.  No.  These words are much more than that.  These words go to the core of religious and political identity, and suggest that religious identity should answer to political identity.

We have a choice when it comes to our pastors and the churches we attend.

With these words, Senator Clinton has declared a political litmus test on the faith and religious membership of politicians and, indeed, on all Americans.

We have a choice. 

I guess we had better make the politically correct choice.  Perhaps Senator Clinton can publish a list of approved churches and approved ministers so that I can be sure that I have made the proper religious choice.

We have a choice.

On the surface Senator Clinton is right.  We who worship and affiliate with religious communities choose where we worship and with whom we affiliate.  But attending church is not a simple choice, and not one that many of us make based on political considerations.  The relationship between a believer and her faith, between a church member and her congregation, between a congregant and her pastor is not defined by a political litmus test.  Many of us attend churches and belong to faith communities despite political and theological disagreements with church and denominational leaders.  Agreement on isolated issues is not the basis of Christian community.

We have a choice.

Should Roman Catholics who support family planning and abortion abandon their faith because they worship in a church and listen to priests who ardently oppose abortion from their pulpits?  Should Roman Catholic Republicans abandon the Church because the social agenda of their church is often at odds with the GOP's policies?  Before I join a congregation, should I ask for a sampling of past sermons to evaluate the political implications of the pastor's preaching?

We have a choice.

Faith is not a matter of choice (Ephesians 2:8-9). For many of us, membership in a church (a local congregation or, for some, membership in a broader communion, denomination, or "Church") is deeply connected to faith, and as such is not so much an element of choice as one of belongedness, of being in the Body of Christ (expressed locally in a congregation) - a belongedness, a being that is a gift of God.  And so if my membership in a church is partly - largely - a gift of God, and if membership in a church is part of my participation in the Body of Christ, then how is receiving a gift of God and participating in the Body of Christ a choice?  No occasionally loud-mouthed preacher is gonna wreak the gift of God or destroy the Body of Christ.  God's presence, Christ's Body is bigger than any one preacher, than any collection of sermons.

We have a choice.

Yes, we have a choice whether to listen to preachers shout "God damn America," or who sing "God bless America."  And Senator Clinton and I would make different choices, it seems to me.  Give me the preacher who calls the nation on its sins any day over the preacher who confuses God and country.  Give me the preacher who stands in the tradition of Old Testament prophets calling political leaders to task rather than the one who fails to be moved by the suffering this great nation often leaves in its wake.  Give me the preacher who considers Religious Faith before National Patriotism, Creed before Pledge, God before Country.

We have a choice.

We have a choice between a candidate who uses religion as a wedge issue, and another candidate who uses religion as a source of hope. 

I've made my choice.

Is Hillary Clinton the Messiah?

James Carville (loyal friend of the Clintons') has likened Governor Bill Richardson's endorsement of Senator Barack Obama to Judas' betrayal of Jesus.

“An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

- From The New York Times, First a Tense Talk with Clinton, then Richardson backs Obama

If Governor Richardson is like Judas, then is Senator Hillary Clinton like Jesus?  Should I fall to the ground in worship when I approach her?  Well, the folks in her camp sure do have a Messiah complex about her, as if she were the Promised One to lead the Democrat Party and the country into a supposed Promised Land.  So then, this metaphor is apt, less so for Richardson's endorsement of her rival than for revealing the Clinton Camp's disturbing sense of entitlement.  Hillary Clinton is God, and anyone who gets in their way is Judas.

Furthermore, is this yet another veiled attempt by the Clinton camp to throw doubt on Senator Obama's faith?  Here they are presenting Obama as receiving an endorsement from Judas, the man whose betrayal led to Jesus' murder.  Senator Obama hangs out with Judas!  Put that together with rumors that Obama is Muslim and Senator Clinton's limp noodle response to those rumors - "as far as I know" he's not Muslim - and perhaps we see a pattern of religious warfare in this race.

Perhaps.  It's a stretch, I know, but I'm becoming increasingly sensitive to the subtle role words play in parsing out racial and religious distinctions in this race.  At the least, this is a sloppy and offensive analogy that compares betraying God to betraying Hillary Clinton.  At the worst, this is gutter politics being duked out with religious imagery.  The candidates and their surrogates need to be more careful about their use of racially and religiously-charged language.  This race is becoming increasingly ugly to watch.

Lord (Jesus, not Hillary) have mercy upon us.

Famous Last Words: "Just a trim"

What part of "Just a trim, please" did my barber not understand?  I was painfully clear: "I want to keep the length, but just a trim to clean up around the sides." 

What I got is a modified crew cut.  Not very helpful when I was hoping to grow my hair out a bit.

Argh.

"Unashamedly Black . . . "

Trinity United Church of Christ, where The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. served as pastor for 20 years, boldly proclaims that it is "Unashamedly Black, Unapologetically Christian."  Earlier today on NPR, Michele Noris interviewed The Rev. Otis Moss, III, the new pastor of Trinity UCC, and she asked him about his church's slogan.  Reverend Moss responded in part in this way:

The majority culture has always had the assumption that we are celebrating culture that is connected to Europe.  It is important that we become a multicultural, broad spectrum of our understanding of what it means to be a part of the human family . . .

[In response to a follow-up question suggesting that perhaps his church's credo represents a "double standard"]

I think that anyone who operates within the religious tradition knows that they are bringing certain pieces to the table in terms of their culture and it is not a double standard.  The real double standard is to say that you can't say it, to say that we can't say you're unashamed of being black, then the opposite must be, then we must say that we are ashamed of being black.

Reverend Moss makes two great points here, points that (as I listen to the national media) most Americans don't seem to understand.  First, our majority culture assumes that culture is defined by European standards.  White (European) culture is the default culture in this country.  If you are not of a white, European background, then your culture and your way of life is not honored, not valued, not celebrated, not empowered, not assumed to be "normal" or "standard" in the way that white culture is.  The majority culture tends to like minorities who play by the majority's rules.  When the minorities develop their own rules and do things in accordance with their own traditions, we in the majority get anxious. 

Second, Rev. Moss notes that we bring culture with us into our practice of religion.  There is no "non-cultural" or "trans-cultural" or "post-cultural" religion.  Culture is embedded within our practice of religion.  We can't get rid of it.  His church understands this fact, and celebrates their culture and race as God-given gifts to be celebrated.  What Trinity UCC does so well is to embrace their God-given particularity.  Many white congregations and traditions, on the other hand, assume their own practices to be universal, when in fact they are not universal but very particular, very European in origin.  Why can't we in the majority see our particularity?

Finally . . . there is so much more to write about this topic.  I have met Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. on at least two occasions, heard him speak a few times, and have had a few conversations with him.  In fact, when I first met him I didn't know he was such a prominent preacher and church leader.  He is a good man, and definitely not the boogeyman people make him out to be.  If, as Gordon Lathrop says, the pastor is a symbol, then Dr. Wright is a symbol of the greatest (and not unfounded) fears of the black community - that the federal government is behind the urban HIV and drug crises (anybody remember Tuskegee?) - and also a symbol of the great faith and power of that community, too.

As I wrote above, there is so much more to write on this topic.  But it is getting late, and I must get some sleep.  Starting tomorrow evening, it is going to be a busy four days.

A blessed Holy Week to you all.

Clinton, McCain next to give big speeches?

Mitt Romney gave his speech on Faith in America.

Barack Obama gave his speech on Race in America.

John McCain gave his speech on Old White Men in America. 

Oh wait a minute, he didn't do that.  He doesn't have to do that.  We're used to having old white men run this country.  It's the religious and racial minorities that really get this country freaked out.  They're the ones who get backed into corners, who get reminded everyday that they're different, who start out with a certain percentage of the electorate hell-bent against them simply because of their creed or color.  They're the ones who have to bend over backwards to define themselves, demystify themselves, declare to the country that they're not boogeymen.

When will Hillary Clinton give her speech on Gender in America?  Perhaps she doesn't have to make such a speech.  And perhaps that says something about our country, that (thus far, anyway) Senator Clinton hasn't had to define herself vis-a-vis her gender the way that Romney did with religion and Obama did with race/religion.  Gender equality is still far off in this country, but perhaps - just perhaps - Hillary Clinton won't have to give a Gender in America speech.  And that's good news.

Obama speech podcast?

Anyone know where I can find Senator Obama's speech on race in America as a podcast?  I'd like to listen to it on my iPod . . .

Thanks.

Easter without Jesus: Direct mail church advertising

If churches ever do the direct mail marketing blitz, it's at Christmas and Easter.  So far, I've received two full color postcards from local churches, and I expect to receive perhaps a few more before Easter arrives.

I do not disagree with the concept of direct mail publicity (it really isn't evangelism, folks), but too often in our attempt to apply marketing to the Messiah we reduce the Gospel to a few attractive and appealing attributes, minimizing the meat of the message.

The folks at [Neighborhood] Church (names have been obscured to protect the innocent) - a nondenominational megachurch in the Willow Creek Association that "encourage[s] you to dress casually and enjoy the complimentary Starbucks Coffee and breakfast items that are provided each week in our Café!" (from their website) - sent me a tastefully-produced 4" x 6" postcard with a graphical montage that includes a photo of their church and Jesus' outstretched arms on the cross.  In large text across the image you read:

Easter Weekend at [Neighborhood] Church
webaddress here

Immediately below the image I read that there is a Good Friday Midday Service at 12noon "followed by a FREE lunch in the [church name] Cafe or 'to-go'."  On Saturday there is an egg hunt for the whole family, including pictures with the Easter Bunny.  There are three Easter Worship Services - Saturday at 5pm, and two on Sunday morning - "Uplifting and high energy worship services with music, media and a relevant Easter talk by (pastor's name, sans title) . . . ."  On the reverse, the postcard includes a map and an announcement that "Kidz Inc. offers a safe, secure and FUN environment for kids nursery age through the 6th grade during all Weekend Services."

A few notes:

• Jesus' image is on the card, though his name or various titles are not.  Easter Bunny and eggs, however, get text.
• FREE lunch is available in the well-branded church Cafe, or "to-go."  Uh, too slick for me - didn't I see that in an advertising circular this week?  At least I don't have to clip a coupon (although I think it could be really funny if you had to bring a coupon that said "Redeem on Good Friday" to church!).
• Uplifting and high energy?  A relevant Easter talk?  Sounds like an advertisement for worshiptainment.
• There's no religious symbol on the church's logo, the pastor's title is not printed,  Jesus' name is not printed, and on Easter Sunday you'll enjoy a "relevant talk," not a sermon.  The lack of religious language is fascinating. 

And now the other postcard, from a local congregation in a Main Line denomination.

This card features a picture of two cute girls - probably about six years old - with the large title "New Friends" and a smaller banner that says, "Easter: Rebirth and Renewal."

On the reverse we read:

GOD LOVES NEW LIFE!
Not only did he provide a way for all of us to have a fresh start, but God also formed a community of people that could experience new life together.  We'd love for you to enjoy this new life with us - this Easter.  We have some fun things planned for the whole family as we celebrate.  It's a season of rebirth.  Maybe you will experience something fresh - something new - that will stay with you throughout the year.

Underneath this verbiage you'll find Easter Sunday Worship! and Easter Egg Hunt for families! schedules (exclamation marks included!).  Also, the standard Sunday schedule and a parenting program are also listed.

A few notes:

• I give these folks credit for daring to use some religious language - God (who was MIA from the text of the MegaChurch's postcard), Worship, Rebirth, New Life.  Jesus, however, was absent from this postcard's text. 
• Yet I'm curious: God Loves New Life?  I thought that God gives New Life.  Heck, anybody can love New Life.  Only God can give New Life.
• The front of the card - the two girls, the "New Friends" banner title - makes no sense to me, unless you want to communicate that this church welcomes well-dressed, cute, upper-middle class, white families.  I'm pretty sure that's not what they wanted to communicate . . .
• This mailing attempts to offer a synopsis of the Gospel - that in this community of people we can experience new life together.  Not bad for the limited text of a post card.

Both postcards have obvious failings, and they exemplify the problematic nature of advertising Christian community via postcard.  What is being sold or communicated with these postcards?  Not Jesus.  Jesus is 0-2 on the postcards advertising worship services commemorating his resurrection.  But family activities, high energy (explicitly offered on the first postcard, implicit in the exclamation marks on the second), celebration, and inspiration are touted on these church postcards.

Excuse my naiveté, but isn't Easter about Jesus' resurrection from the dead, and the promise that we who have been joined to his death in baptism are also joined to his New Life? 

More to write on the subject, but the kids are already past their bedtime.

I'm sure that good church advertising exists, but . . . it hasn't arrived in my mailbox yet.

"Tradition" is not the Millennials' problem

I recently attended a discussion for church leaders on ministry with Millennials (the so-called Generation Y, or those who were born from the late 1970's through to the turn of the century).  Within the discussion it was assumed that members of this generation do not like "traditional" worship, "traditional" Sunday School, "traditional" Bible studies, the "traditional" way of doing church.

But there's a difference between "tradition" and the way we customarily do things in the church.  Is it "tradition" they don't like, or is it the (often poorly executed) way we do things in the church they don't like?

• That is, do Millennials not like 17th century hymns because they're old and supposedly irrelevant to today, or do they not like such hymns when they're played and sung as funeral dirges and inappropriately revered as the highest pinnacle of religious and musical achievement?
• Do they not like traditional liturgy because it is (supposedly) rigid, or do they not like traditional liturgy because we do a poor job at planning and executing the liturgy faithfully?
• Do they not like preaching because they are suspicious of authority figures and/or are attuned to a world of constantly-changing multimedia presentations, or do they not like preaching because most preachers are not very good at it?
• Do they not like traditional Bible studies or Sunday School because such Bible studies are rigid and dogmatic, or because they're usually poorly planned and unwelcoming?
• Do they prefer to sleep in on Sunday mornings because that's their nature, or because we haven't given them something worth waking up for?

I'm convinced that our churches need to worry less about post-modern ministry techniques than we do about simply doing our "traditional" (modern, ancient, whatever) ministry techniques a whole lot better.  It has been my experience - as a church leader, a church member in non-leadership roles, and an observer of "effective" and "healthy" churches - that churches which engage in intensive planning and preparation, churches that show up on Sunday morning and midweek Bible study ready to proclaim the Gospel, are often doing just fine. 

It's when we're planning Sunday School lessons in the car on the way to church that we get in trouble.  It's when we're writing sermons exhausted late on Saturday evening - when the time for reflection, review and editing is rapidly waning - that we get in trouble.  It's when we throw untrained people into leadership roles that we get in trouble.  It's when we have no cohesive vision to pull this whole church enterprise together that we get in trouble.

Everyday Millennials go to rather traditional schools or universities or workplaces, and they thrive within these "traditional" institutions.  They know how to do the "modern" thing.  That is, they don't live in an exclusively "post modern" world (oh my, just imagine what that would be like!). 

I don't deny that the church can learn a few things from the postmodern project.  I'm just not convinced that we need some turn-the-church-on-its-steeple radical reformation.  Perhaps we just need to build a better steeple.  Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.