I need to stop mentioning my sports rooting interests at church. It’s hurting my soul. Twice in the past two months, my favorite teams made it to their sports’ respective championship games. And twice, I made a mention of that at church. And twice, my teams lost.
To the casual (sane?) observer, these connections carry no deeper meaning. To the dedicated fan, however, we know- KNOW!- that our daily actions matter for our favorite teams’ performance. After all, I preached in a Broncos jersey before the Super Bowl, and Denver was embarrassed. Having learned my lesson, I left the UK basketball shirt at home before the NCAA championship, but couldn’t stop from making an unplanned reference to the game during my sermon. The following night, UK wasn’t blown out, but neither did they win. Had I simply kept my gloating mouth shut, they’d have gone on to victory, amen?!
Well, maybe not. But that won’t keep the sports fan inside me from wondering, “What might’ve been…” Indeed, I’ve mentioned that recently to several people who know my sports allegiances. And some of them were long-suffering Twins fans. They said, essentially, “Shut up Shane. At least, your teams played for a championship!” To which I had no morally acceptable answer other than, “You’re right. I’m sorry.”
Still, isn’t it strange that I’d focus on the downside- that my teams got so close but lost- rather than the upside- that they had a chance for ultimate glory at all? Apparently not. Have you ever heard of “loss aversion”? It’s a term psychologists and behavioral economists use, describing a near universal attitude among people, including yours truly, apparently. What it means is that people tend to value the possibility of losing something more than they value the possibility of gaining something. For instance, no one wants to lose $100, and everyone wants to receive $100. But when tested, people receive more satisfaction in not losing that money than in gaining it. In fact, we’re likely to choose to not lose $50 than risk winning $100, all odds being equal. In other words, we care more about avoiding loss than we do pursuing gain.
Is that because loss hurts more than victory thrills? It can feel that way in relationships. The idea of losing a friend strikes me as more painful than making a new one strikes me as exciting. Something similar happens to generals in war, or investors in stocks. One fights longer in a losing cause than is reasonable in order to “honor fallen comrades.” Another waits too long to sell a falling stock, hoping it will rebound, correcting already incurred losses (aka “sunk costs”). Maybe things turn around for these people. More often, they don’t. Indeed, researchers find that loss aversion causes folk to make more costly decisions, delay solving problems longer than is wise, and miss risk-taking opportunities that would benefit them because they’re too worried they’ll fail.
Or they might see negative outcomes in the past more clearly than positive ones. A person in my shoes- two near-championship teams in two months!- should be higher than a kite on a windy day. Yet when loss aversion kicks in I focus on “what we did wrong” or “what needs to change next year.”
That’s what I love about Easter. This day should remind Christians that our most fearful loss- life itself- has no power anymore. Christ is risen! New life is ours! Death lost its sting! So that tendency to fear failure too much, to avoid risk and pain more than seek opportunity, we needn’t nurture that. Our lives are held into eternity by Creation’s Creator who calls us, “Beloved child.”
So the next time you’re tempted to wallow in loss, define your past or future through negative happenings, not possible victories, ask, “Am I seeing things clearly, in light of Christ’s resurrection? Or am I overvaluing loss and pain?” If the latter, remember Christ is alive, walking beside you with grace at all times. So you can shoot for the stars! And if you land on the moon? Well, that’s something, isn’t it? Now, about next year’s Super Bowl and the Broncos…
Grace and Peace,
Shane
Read more!
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Iconoclastic optimism…
In the first millennium of Christianity, a debate raged over whether images were appropriate for churches. Supporters often used specially created pictures- icons- to direct their prayers to God. Critics countered that the second commandment expressly forbids graven (or painted?) images of God. Then, because this always happened, politics intervened, and those who mistrusted icons came to power with armies. They were called iconoclasts, i.e. enemies of icons, statues and whatever human creation might steal honor from the Lord. For centuries, the sides fought and hated each other, until it…stopped.
Nevertheless, the word endured, filtering into modern English, although divorced from Christian origins. Today, an iconoclast is anyone who disrupts accepted wisdom, cherished institutions or widely-held beliefs. Revolutionary War American iconoclasts toppled statues of King George III. Charles Darwin’s scientific iconoclasm is rather ironic, given the word’s beginnings. Jackie Robinson upended beliefs about sports stars. Pablo Picasso challenged perception. Think of those who stretch boundaries, push fields forward; they think different than others. Iconoclasts.
I bring this up because of certain writings I’ve come to enjoy in recent years: Books, articles, blog-posts, etc. celebrating how good things are today. One I just finished begins, “If asked to pick any time in history to be born as an average citizen, the second best choice would be- Today. The best choice- Tomorrow.” To make this point, the author cites facts like the reducing trends of violent crime worldwide, US teenage pregnancy rates falling in half over the past two decades, safer average childbirths, longer average lives, increased education access (especially for girls!) and historically unprecedented (Western) living standards. To which many outside the West are catching up quickly. In other words, these writers survey the world, and see hope. They’re optimists armed with loads of research, charts and data to make the case.
And yet, as I read newspapers, talk with neighbors, or turn on any cable news channel, I feel constantly bombarded by a message that “Things are bad and they’re getting worse!” A Pentagon official said last year that he thinks the world’s more dangerous now than ever before, despite the fact that global battlefield and terrorism-caused deaths are lower now than...ever before. Basically, outside the big, huge, we-should-not-ignore-this upward trend in global-warming-causing gas emissions, worldwide trajectories in things from wealth creation/poverty reduction to affordable vaccinations to democracy to renewable energy costs are heading in our collective favor. Count your blessings, people!
But we often don’t, right? Hope isn’t the dominant, accepted wisdom, as I hear it at least. Rather, today’s optimists are iconoclasts, rouges who challenge cherished, negative beliefs. And as rouges, outsiders, rebels, they’re easy to dismiss. After all, most of us form our opinions from news reports with splashy videos and hysterical graphics, dramatic sounding anchorpeople, whose companies have economic incentives to play up hype and stoke our fears. With that force so strong in our culture, how could we ever listen to other opinions, actually hear the iconoclastic optimists? Easy. Remember Sunday School? The answer’s always Jesus.
I mean, talk about your rebellious hope-monger, amen?! “The kingdom of God is here!” “Blessed are the poor!” “Today, you’ll be with me in Paradise!” In fact, maybe the most important thing Jesus should do for contemporary Christians is flood our spirits with hope and peace about our past, present and future. Because every moment, God is present, with love that conquered death already. Every day, we wake to the light of God’s sun, and God’s Son shining within us. God loved the world so much, God sacrificed everything to show us the way, betting we’d make good of it. Given what these iconoclastic optimists now report, that seems like a good bet God made.
So here’s a challenge for this week- Don’t trust the pessimists. Instead, wield hope like a hammer, one that swings in your heart to break apart whatever shortsighted negativity is trying to drag you down! Of course, neither be foolish; sin still exists, injustice needs defeating. But that battle won’t be won by those convinced we’re lost already. The victors are those who see hope as real as Jesus did. You know, that guy who resurrected?!
Grace and Peace,
Shane
Read more!
Nevertheless, the word endured, filtering into modern English, although divorced from Christian origins. Today, an iconoclast is anyone who disrupts accepted wisdom, cherished institutions or widely-held beliefs. Revolutionary War American iconoclasts toppled statues of King George III. Charles Darwin’s scientific iconoclasm is rather ironic, given the word’s beginnings. Jackie Robinson upended beliefs about sports stars. Pablo Picasso challenged perception. Think of those who stretch boundaries, push fields forward; they think different than others. Iconoclasts.
I bring this up because of certain writings I’ve come to enjoy in recent years: Books, articles, blog-posts, etc. celebrating how good things are today. One I just finished begins, “If asked to pick any time in history to be born as an average citizen, the second best choice would be- Today. The best choice- Tomorrow.” To make this point, the author cites facts like the reducing trends of violent crime worldwide, US teenage pregnancy rates falling in half over the past two decades, safer average childbirths, longer average lives, increased education access (especially for girls!) and historically unprecedented (Western) living standards. To which many outside the West are catching up quickly. In other words, these writers survey the world, and see hope. They’re optimists armed with loads of research, charts and data to make the case.
And yet, as I read newspapers, talk with neighbors, or turn on any cable news channel, I feel constantly bombarded by a message that “Things are bad and they’re getting worse!” A Pentagon official said last year that he thinks the world’s more dangerous now than ever before, despite the fact that global battlefield and terrorism-caused deaths are lower now than...ever before. Basically, outside the big, huge, we-should-not-ignore-this upward trend in global-warming-causing gas emissions, worldwide trajectories in things from wealth creation/poverty reduction to affordable vaccinations to democracy to renewable energy costs are heading in our collective favor. Count your blessings, people!
But we often don’t, right? Hope isn’t the dominant, accepted wisdom, as I hear it at least. Rather, today’s optimists are iconoclasts, rouges who challenge cherished, negative beliefs. And as rouges, outsiders, rebels, they’re easy to dismiss. After all, most of us form our opinions from news reports with splashy videos and hysterical graphics, dramatic sounding anchorpeople, whose companies have economic incentives to play up hype and stoke our fears. With that force so strong in our culture, how could we ever listen to other opinions, actually hear the iconoclastic optimists? Easy. Remember Sunday School? The answer’s always Jesus.
I mean, talk about your rebellious hope-monger, amen?! “The kingdom of God is here!” “Blessed are the poor!” “Today, you’ll be with me in Paradise!” In fact, maybe the most important thing Jesus should do for contemporary Christians is flood our spirits with hope and peace about our past, present and future. Because every moment, God is present, with love that conquered death already. Every day, we wake to the light of God’s sun, and God’s Son shining within us. God loved the world so much, God sacrificed everything to show us the way, betting we’d make good of it. Given what these iconoclastic optimists now report, that seems like a good bet God made.
So here’s a challenge for this week- Don’t trust the pessimists. Instead, wield hope like a hammer, one that swings in your heart to break apart whatever shortsighted negativity is trying to drag you down! Of course, neither be foolish; sin still exists, injustice needs defeating. But that battle won’t be won by those convinced we’re lost already. The victors are those who see hope as real as Jesus did. You know, that guy who resurrected?!
Grace and Peace,
Shane
Read more!
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Freedom to move…
From 1915 to 1970 about six million black Americans migrated out of southern states to other states. Historians call it The Great Migration, and an awesome book I just finished- The Warmth of Other Suns- chronicles this vast, complex event. The book offers many statistics, but its author- Isabel Wilkerson- wanted to make the story personal (and not boring). So she focused mainly on three southern-born African-Americans who moved to different states in different decades.
We read of dreams hatched, sought, deferred, denied, lynched and sometimes reached. Involving so many over so long, of course, important nuances and broad trends emerged. Though her three characters’ stories are mostly typical, she claims, full of striving, heartache, change and incredible courage.
But I don’t have 660 pages, so here are some stats: Before 1915, 10% of black Americans lived outside the South; by 1970, that jumped to 48%. Chicago prior to The Great Migration was 3% African-American; mid 40s by 1970. Similar shifts transpired in Cleveland, Detroit, LA, Oakland, Philadelphia, New York. Yet a popular memory persists about migrants in early-mid 20th century America, that they were primarily Irish, Central Europeans or Latino. In fact, their numbers, however significant, pale in comparison to African-American migrants. Perhaps that perception lingers because folk distinguish between international and internal migration. But maybe it’s also because of many folks’ discomfort about The Great Migration’s main driver: Jim Crow laws and racism.
Some of you, I know, remember when black Americans were still legally segregated in the South. You maybe saw or were turned away by “Colored Only” signs I’ve cringed at in grainy pictures. Or perhaps you recall northern versions of Jim Crow; not a legal regime, but- say- whites abandoning neighborhoods as black Americans moved in (or shooting/bombing newly purchased homes, as happened to Billie Holiday or in Chicago’s Cicero neighborhood).
This book brought that history to life for me in profound, shocking ways. To think that’s but a few decades past…. To think it’s not simply history…
After all, I live in a neighborhood as ethnically diverse as any in Minneapolis- 45% black, 30% white, 11% Asian/Pacific Islander, 7% Latino/Hispanic. Not twenty years ago, Folwell was nearly monochromatic. Things changed rapidly in the mid-to-late nineties. And as its demographics became more colorful, longtime residents wondered and worried. I’ve heard neighbors complain recently, “What’s happened to this place? Why are these kids so (insert negative racial stereotype here)? What about my property value?!” To these neighbors, the issues feel new. But Wilkerson paints a portrait of similar conversations repeating across the country during The Great Migration’s several decades.
Which is to say that, for all our nation’s progress in overcoming its Original Sin (slavery), we’re not yet living in Paradise restored. It’s no coincidence that my diverse neighborhood is also among our city’s poorest. Further, Wilkerson argues persuasively that common explanations for why black communities are also often poor communities (that there are “special pathologies” in African-American culture, or rap music, or young, black men with hoodies) miss the point that our nation brutalized and failed centuries’ worth of its first non-native “colonists” and their ancestors. Within my grandparents’ lifetimes, millions were driven to new homes because they were terrorized on the streets, at their jobs, in their houses, had siblings hung as strange fruit from poplar trees.
Among our denomination’s four main priorities is becoming an “Anti-racist/Pro-reconciling Church”. Yet it’s common for white seminary students to ask, “Is that goal still necessary?” Absolutely. Particularly as churches remain more segregated than most neighborhoods, and misunderstandings occur frequently across color lines, with sometimes tragic results. But Galatians proclaims, “For freedom, Christ has set us free.” That must remain our greatest dream, claimed for all people, whomever their ancestors, wherever they moved from or why. Because God so loved the world, we can be freed from the sin of fearing the worst in people. Because Christ conquered death, we can be freed from suspicion in order to form more perfect unions. Jesus freed everyone to be as courageous as humanly possible, even if that means moving thousands of miles with no guarantees but a hope to struggle, survive and succeed.
Grace and Peace,
Shane
Read more!
We read of dreams hatched, sought, deferred, denied, lynched and sometimes reached. Involving so many over so long, of course, important nuances and broad trends emerged. Though her three characters’ stories are mostly typical, she claims, full of striving, heartache, change and incredible courage.
But I don’t have 660 pages, so here are some stats: Before 1915, 10% of black Americans lived outside the South; by 1970, that jumped to 48%. Chicago prior to The Great Migration was 3% African-American; mid 40s by 1970. Similar shifts transpired in Cleveland, Detroit, LA, Oakland, Philadelphia, New York. Yet a popular memory persists about migrants in early-mid 20th century America, that they were primarily Irish, Central Europeans or Latino. In fact, their numbers, however significant, pale in comparison to African-American migrants. Perhaps that perception lingers because folk distinguish between international and internal migration. But maybe it’s also because of many folks’ discomfort about The Great Migration’s main driver: Jim Crow laws and racism.
Some of you, I know, remember when black Americans were still legally segregated in the South. You maybe saw or were turned away by “Colored Only” signs I’ve cringed at in grainy pictures. Or perhaps you recall northern versions of Jim Crow; not a legal regime, but- say- whites abandoning neighborhoods as black Americans moved in (or shooting/bombing newly purchased homes, as happened to Billie Holiday or in Chicago’s Cicero neighborhood).
This book brought that history to life for me in profound, shocking ways. To think that’s but a few decades past…. To think it’s not simply history…
After all, I live in a neighborhood as ethnically diverse as any in Minneapolis- 45% black, 30% white, 11% Asian/Pacific Islander, 7% Latino/Hispanic. Not twenty years ago, Folwell was nearly monochromatic. Things changed rapidly in the mid-to-late nineties. And as its demographics became more colorful, longtime residents wondered and worried. I’ve heard neighbors complain recently, “What’s happened to this place? Why are these kids so (insert negative racial stereotype here)? What about my property value?!” To these neighbors, the issues feel new. But Wilkerson paints a portrait of similar conversations repeating across the country during The Great Migration’s several decades.
Which is to say that, for all our nation’s progress in overcoming its Original Sin (slavery), we’re not yet living in Paradise restored. It’s no coincidence that my diverse neighborhood is also among our city’s poorest. Further, Wilkerson argues persuasively that common explanations for why black communities are also often poor communities (that there are “special pathologies” in African-American culture, or rap music, or young, black men with hoodies) miss the point that our nation brutalized and failed centuries’ worth of its first non-native “colonists” and their ancestors. Within my grandparents’ lifetimes, millions were driven to new homes because they were terrorized on the streets, at their jobs, in their houses, had siblings hung as strange fruit from poplar trees.
Among our denomination’s four main priorities is becoming an “Anti-racist/Pro-reconciling Church”. Yet it’s common for white seminary students to ask, “Is that goal still necessary?” Absolutely. Particularly as churches remain more segregated than most neighborhoods, and misunderstandings occur frequently across color lines, with sometimes tragic results. But Galatians proclaims, “For freedom, Christ has set us free.” That must remain our greatest dream, claimed for all people, whomever their ancestors, wherever they moved from or why. Because God so loved the world, we can be freed from the sin of fearing the worst in people. Because Christ conquered death, we can be freed from suspicion in order to form more perfect unions. Jesus freed everyone to be as courageous as humanly possible, even if that means moving thousands of miles with no guarantees but a hope to struggle, survive and succeed.
Grace and Peace,
Shane
Read more!
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Companions…
A woman stopped by the church office not long ago, offering information about her company’s programming. This occurs rather frequently- An insurance salesperson, the kindly Culligan Water man. And this woman wanted to talk with me about our older adults ministries, whether we could use her workshops and products to enhance our elderly members’ lives. I was in a hurry, and she discerned that our conversation wouldn’t likely prove lucrative. So she gave me brochures, received my card, we said thanks and then departed.
But it got my mind spinning about our church’s needs- across this and all age groups- and one need in particular that her brochures mentioned, which I’ve read some about recently: Companionship, defined as people simply spending time together. I don’t care how old you are or what you do, companionship matters. Introverted youth may not enjoy frequenting parties, but they’re probably still on Facebook, gather regularly with a couple close compadres, or play videogames on-line with others. Mid-career or retired adults might not have a bevy of life-long friends, but they’re still game for a running buddy, a book club, or nights out with the dinner group. Older adults also report strong desires for companionship, of course. But given mobility or financial concerns, the loss of beloved friends and spouses, or many other reasons, any lack of companionship often feels more poignant, and troubling. I’ve read of recent studies claiming that elders worry more repeatedly and urgently than youngers about companionship, and that their health, life expectancy and happiness are tied to their experiencing it, or not. In other words, the more connected we feel with friends, family, neighbors, church, the better we feel, the more quickly we may heal, the longer we’re likely to live.
To an intergenerational church, these findings should be important. We are sisters and brothers within God’s extended family; our members’ well-being is a prime priority. And a church as small and intimate as ours is poised for incredible companionship, right? It’s near impossible to attend PCCC anonymously. You will be seen!
But will you be noticed? Will you feel connected? Sometimes yes, but not always, I’ve learned. For starters, some of our folk can’t get to church consistently, or ever. Also, some have long established church relationships they treasure, but have struggled opening those up to newer people. Plus, we’re not the most extroverted church, amen?! Which is great, that’s who we are, and God loves that. But it means we have to work harder than others at initiating relationships, being pro-active companions.
To that end, we’re starting up a couple initiatives. First, after several years in hiatus, new small group formation is beginning. If you have a small group you like, that’s wonderful. Keep building good, faithful community. But some of you don’t, and would like one, so here’s an idea. Several members want to organize a monthly “World Cuisines” small group. Folk will gather at a Twin Cities establishment specializing in one of many ethnic cuisines. Indian, Turkish, Soul Food; they’re up for whatever. Being adventurous is tasty! If you want to be on that list, let me know. And if that’s not your thing, but you’d like to form another small group- say a Dog Park Group, Bible Study or Card Players group- we could handle a couple more.
Second, the Servant Leaders have decided to undertake additional responsibility. They propose to connect more often with church members feeling most in need of greater companionship. This could be folk who can’t make it to worship, but still call us home, read our weekly mailings and pray for our needs. This could be folk feeling isolated and lonely in this fast-moving world, kids and grandkids far away and busy. The Servant Leaders main job, after all, is to care for our church’s health- spiritual, emotional, communal- and as part of that, they want to connect with you more frequently- phone calls, visits, emails, whatever. If that sounds welcome, let me know. I’ll help you find your very own Servant Leader companion. And let’s all of us recommit to welcoming each other and our neighbors more. If we don’t do it, who will?
Grace and Peace,
Shane
Read more!
But it got my mind spinning about our church’s needs- across this and all age groups- and one need in particular that her brochures mentioned, which I’ve read some about recently: Companionship, defined as people simply spending time together. I don’t care how old you are or what you do, companionship matters. Introverted youth may not enjoy frequenting parties, but they’re probably still on Facebook, gather regularly with a couple close compadres, or play videogames on-line with others. Mid-career or retired adults might not have a bevy of life-long friends, but they’re still game for a running buddy, a book club, or nights out with the dinner group. Older adults also report strong desires for companionship, of course. But given mobility or financial concerns, the loss of beloved friends and spouses, or many other reasons, any lack of companionship often feels more poignant, and troubling. I’ve read of recent studies claiming that elders worry more repeatedly and urgently than youngers about companionship, and that their health, life expectancy and happiness are tied to their experiencing it, or not. In other words, the more connected we feel with friends, family, neighbors, church, the better we feel, the more quickly we may heal, the longer we’re likely to live.
To an intergenerational church, these findings should be important. We are sisters and brothers within God’s extended family; our members’ well-being is a prime priority. And a church as small and intimate as ours is poised for incredible companionship, right? It’s near impossible to attend PCCC anonymously. You will be seen!
But will you be noticed? Will you feel connected? Sometimes yes, but not always, I’ve learned. For starters, some of our folk can’t get to church consistently, or ever. Also, some have long established church relationships they treasure, but have struggled opening those up to newer people. Plus, we’re not the most extroverted church, amen?! Which is great, that’s who we are, and God loves that. But it means we have to work harder than others at initiating relationships, being pro-active companions.
To that end, we’re starting up a couple initiatives. First, after several years in hiatus, new small group formation is beginning. If you have a small group you like, that’s wonderful. Keep building good, faithful community. But some of you don’t, and would like one, so here’s an idea. Several members want to organize a monthly “World Cuisines” small group. Folk will gather at a Twin Cities establishment specializing in one of many ethnic cuisines. Indian, Turkish, Soul Food; they’re up for whatever. Being adventurous is tasty! If you want to be on that list, let me know. And if that’s not your thing, but you’d like to form another small group- say a Dog Park Group, Bible Study or Card Players group- we could handle a couple more.
Second, the Servant Leaders have decided to undertake additional responsibility. They propose to connect more often with church members feeling most in need of greater companionship. This could be folk who can’t make it to worship, but still call us home, read our weekly mailings and pray for our needs. This could be folk feeling isolated and lonely in this fast-moving world, kids and grandkids far away and busy. The Servant Leaders main job, after all, is to care for our church’s health- spiritual, emotional, communal- and as part of that, they want to connect with you more frequently- phone calls, visits, emails, whatever. If that sounds welcome, let me know. I’ll help you find your very own Servant Leader companion. And let’s all of us recommit to welcoming each other and our neighbors more. If we don’t do it, who will?
Grace and Peace,
Shane
Read more!
Thursday, March 20, 2014
In all things…
Last Thursday, Plymouth Creek hosted an event unique to my pastoral experience: a political news conference. Here’s the news. One of our members- Sharon Sund- decided to run for U.S. Congress. The district within which Plymouth Creek sits, and most of its members vote, is Minnesota’s 3rd, currently represented by Erik Paulsen. Sharon has participated in political organizations and causes as long as we’ve known her, and before. It’s one way she puts her faith into practice, advocating for public policies she believes in. Indeed, you may remember that during the 2012 election cycle, she sought the DFL endorsement for this seat, but lost during caucuses. After much thought and prayer, she decided this time was right for her, so she’s now challenging Rep. Paulsen.
Thus, two Sundays back, she asked her church to host last Thursday’s event. She set up a podium outside our building, invited supporters and reporters to attend, and made a speech declaring her candidacy, after which she took several questions. As her pastor, I welcomed the guests, then went off to the side- away from cameras- to watch the proceedings. In fact, I stood with a couple college students who attended, members of a local Young Republicans club, and we chatted about ice fishing and their political interests. It was a nice, civil event all around.
But it’s also a tricky one for a local church, isn’t it? Politics and faith sometimes mix poorly. First, there are tax implications for certain political activities a congregation might pursue. We’re allowed to advocate for specific issues, even public policies the church deems important. Were we, say, to join the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition’s current efforts to curtail payday lending in Minnesota, we could set up phone banks, host letter writing sessions, invite speakers and much else to further the cause. And in doing so, our tax-exempt status would not be at risk. However, should Plymouth Creek ever endorse a specific candidate, we’d be in violation of the law as a tax-exempt religious institution. Even if that candidate is a member. Hence why I didn’t appear on camera during Sharon’s speech.
Besides, we’re not a politically monolithic congregation. Some of you may vote for Sharon, while others probably won’t. And for the church or its leadership to behave in ways that overlook that diversity would be a disservice to our members. In fact, I’m convinced it would be a disservice not just to this church community, but the broader community too. One of the fundamental failures of our current political culture, as I see it, is the hardened partisanship and persistent meanness that permeates news and campaigns. I’ve read reports in recent weeks of activists and candidates across the spectrum behaving disgracefully- belittling opponents with differing views, questioning not simply their goals but their characters and basic goodness, comparisons to Hitler, hyperbole, invective, and smug, ironic disdain. It’s like we Americans forgot that we can have political adversaries without treating them as mortal enemies. It’s like we’ve given up on believing that people of good faith can disagree.
Our church tradition, by contrast, rests entirely upon that conviction. Freedom of belief is a core Plymouth Creek (and Disciples of Christ) value, which extends to politics as much as scripture reading. Remember the old frontier days rallying cry? “In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.” Would that be uttered more often in the White House and halls of Congress, we’d be better off, I’m convinced. Which is to say that, when one of our own asked her church to stand with her as she took this brave step, it wasn’t to endorse her partisan candidacy. We couldn’t, and shouldn’t, do that; we’re a diverse group. Rather, it reflected one of the best things about us, this hope that though we differ sometimes, we can love at all times; supporting our sister in her chosen way of following Jesus, even if some vote and believe differently. That’s the Disciples way of doing church, of building community, and it’s a way I couldn’t believe in stronger. Kindness and dignity, respect and freedom, offered to all, for all are God’s children.
Grace and Peace,
Shane Read more!
Thus, two Sundays back, she asked her church to host last Thursday’s event. She set up a podium outside our building, invited supporters and reporters to attend, and made a speech declaring her candidacy, after which she took several questions. As her pastor, I welcomed the guests, then went off to the side- away from cameras- to watch the proceedings. In fact, I stood with a couple college students who attended, members of a local Young Republicans club, and we chatted about ice fishing and their political interests. It was a nice, civil event all around.
But it’s also a tricky one for a local church, isn’t it? Politics and faith sometimes mix poorly. First, there are tax implications for certain political activities a congregation might pursue. We’re allowed to advocate for specific issues, even public policies the church deems important. Were we, say, to join the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition’s current efforts to curtail payday lending in Minnesota, we could set up phone banks, host letter writing sessions, invite speakers and much else to further the cause. And in doing so, our tax-exempt status would not be at risk. However, should Plymouth Creek ever endorse a specific candidate, we’d be in violation of the law as a tax-exempt religious institution. Even if that candidate is a member. Hence why I didn’t appear on camera during Sharon’s speech.
Besides, we’re not a politically monolithic congregation. Some of you may vote for Sharon, while others probably won’t. And for the church or its leadership to behave in ways that overlook that diversity would be a disservice to our members. In fact, I’m convinced it would be a disservice not just to this church community, but the broader community too. One of the fundamental failures of our current political culture, as I see it, is the hardened partisanship and persistent meanness that permeates news and campaigns. I’ve read reports in recent weeks of activists and candidates across the spectrum behaving disgracefully- belittling opponents with differing views, questioning not simply their goals but their characters and basic goodness, comparisons to Hitler, hyperbole, invective, and smug, ironic disdain. It’s like we Americans forgot that we can have political adversaries without treating them as mortal enemies. It’s like we’ve given up on believing that people of good faith can disagree.
Our church tradition, by contrast, rests entirely upon that conviction. Freedom of belief is a core Plymouth Creek (and Disciples of Christ) value, which extends to politics as much as scripture reading. Remember the old frontier days rallying cry? “In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.” Would that be uttered more often in the White House and halls of Congress, we’d be better off, I’m convinced. Which is to say that, when one of our own asked her church to stand with her as she took this brave step, it wasn’t to endorse her partisan candidacy. We couldn’t, and shouldn’t, do that; we’re a diverse group. Rather, it reflected one of the best things about us, this hope that though we differ sometimes, we can love at all times; supporting our sister in her chosen way of following Jesus, even if some vote and believe differently. That’s the Disciples way of doing church, of building community, and it’s a way I couldn’t believe in stronger. Kindness and dignity, respect and freedom, offered to all, for all are God’s children.
Grace and Peace,
Shane Read more!
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Church?…
I heard recently about a unique church experiment in Orlando, Florida. Apparently, a drive-in movie theatre shut down, and a nearby church took over the property. They have an altar where the big screen had been, invite worshippers to stay in their cars, and broadcast prayers, sermon and singing on a short-range radio frequency. One member described why this works for her. “I’ve been struggling with cancer, and simply want to cry at church, which would be hard if I worried about others seeing or hearing me.” Her voice, in describing the set-up, rang with welcome and relief. Of course, some things never change. After service, the old concession stand offers conversation, donuts and coffee!
Now, the news report where I heard about this said nothing about the church’s deliberations before moving. Presuming they’d previously occupied a typical building, I imagine those conversations were… animated. One person says, “We could do drive-in church!” Another says, “Are you crazy?!” Still others wonder, “Would it work? Should it?” Many likely kept silent. I’m sure the church lost some members, gained some members; they called a new pastor two years ago. Which suggests the experiment is working. At least, it hasn’t bombed yet.
In Iowa, one of our sibling Disciples churches does, not drive-in church, but drive-through church. That’s what they’ve dubbed it. People get out of their cars- mind you- but for only twenty minutes. One hymn, one prayer, a sermon, communion, offertory, and off to soccer games. This isn’t their only worship offering. There’s a fuller service at 10 am. Nevertheless, that church adapted to meet emerging needs for overscheduled families. I have another colleague and friend starting a church in Fargo. They don’t have a building, and aren’t sure they want one. Instead, they meet in a bar, after Sunday night Happy Hour, where a rock band plays old hymns with new arrangements. Some drink tea. Others prefer local craft beers. Together, they pray and praise in ways that feel right to them. A seminary colleague of mine leans traditional in most things worship and liturgy, though she’s theologically progressive. Still, usually she doesn’t go in for “newfangled” music and prayers. Nevertheless, this Ash Wednesday, she stood in her church parking lot during lunch, and invited passersby to get their foreheads smudged. Window down. Say a prayer. Apply ashes. Return to work.
Something the earliest Christians needed was new forms of worship. You see, most were committed Jews for whom the Jerusalem Temple was the center of faith. But once they decided to follow Jesus, the Temple was off limits. Crisis ensued. How could they faithfully worship if the forms and styles their ancestors used were no longer available? Some models remained at-hand. Synagogues were just emerging for use among non-Jerusalem Jews. Traveling rabbis had long brought people together. Jesus instituted the Last Supper. Nevertheless, for most things “church,” little precedent existed. And if you read the New Testament closely, you can tell that much creativity was attempted, while controversy circled endlessly.
Eventually, they “settled” into worship forms and church organization structures that we still use, though rarely with complete agreement. Indeed, throughout our faith tradition runs an impulse to try new ideas, shake things up. And that’s entirely appropriate, right? After all, God- fundamentally- is a Creator. One who delights in beautiful newness. What better way to worship that One than to create ourselves, to never be settled?!
All of which is to say that, as much as you and I may enjoy certain aspects of what we’ve grown accustomed to as “worship” or “church”, none of that is set in eternal stone. We stand on the shoulders of those who made things up. And while their creations might work for us, as the broader population- particularly younger folk- increasingly distrust traditional “church” and styles of worship, we’ll need to adapt, step out of our comfort zones if we intend to grow, or even endure. Is that drive-through or drive-in church? New music priorities? New ministries that serve our neighbors? Ask yourself (and tell me!) what you consider essential for Plymouth Creek? And what can- perhaps should- drastically change?
Grace and Peace,
Shane
P.S.- Last Sunday, Plymouth Creek “live streamed” - via Skype- our sermon to members sailing in the Caribbean, one of whom led Communion for the entire church just after. They’ll go off sailing again for several months at a time, and we emailed on Monday about making this a regular thing, where they’ll even invite fellow sailors away from (or without) church to their boat on Sundays, gather around a screen, sing, listen, pray, do communion. Because, well, why not?!
Read more!
Now, the news report where I heard about this said nothing about the church’s deliberations before moving. Presuming they’d previously occupied a typical building, I imagine those conversations were… animated. One person says, “We could do drive-in church!” Another says, “Are you crazy?!” Still others wonder, “Would it work? Should it?” Many likely kept silent. I’m sure the church lost some members, gained some members; they called a new pastor two years ago. Which suggests the experiment is working. At least, it hasn’t bombed yet.
In Iowa, one of our sibling Disciples churches does, not drive-in church, but drive-through church. That’s what they’ve dubbed it. People get out of their cars- mind you- but for only twenty minutes. One hymn, one prayer, a sermon, communion, offertory, and off to soccer games. This isn’t their only worship offering. There’s a fuller service at 10 am. Nevertheless, that church adapted to meet emerging needs for overscheduled families. I have another colleague and friend starting a church in Fargo. They don’t have a building, and aren’t sure they want one. Instead, they meet in a bar, after Sunday night Happy Hour, where a rock band plays old hymns with new arrangements. Some drink tea. Others prefer local craft beers. Together, they pray and praise in ways that feel right to them. A seminary colleague of mine leans traditional in most things worship and liturgy, though she’s theologically progressive. Still, usually she doesn’t go in for “newfangled” music and prayers. Nevertheless, this Ash Wednesday, she stood in her church parking lot during lunch, and invited passersby to get their foreheads smudged. Window down. Say a prayer. Apply ashes. Return to work.
Something the earliest Christians needed was new forms of worship. You see, most were committed Jews for whom the Jerusalem Temple was the center of faith. But once they decided to follow Jesus, the Temple was off limits. Crisis ensued. How could they faithfully worship if the forms and styles their ancestors used were no longer available? Some models remained at-hand. Synagogues were just emerging for use among non-Jerusalem Jews. Traveling rabbis had long brought people together. Jesus instituted the Last Supper. Nevertheless, for most things “church,” little precedent existed. And if you read the New Testament closely, you can tell that much creativity was attempted, while controversy circled endlessly.
Eventually, they “settled” into worship forms and church organization structures that we still use, though rarely with complete agreement. Indeed, throughout our faith tradition runs an impulse to try new ideas, shake things up. And that’s entirely appropriate, right? After all, God- fundamentally- is a Creator. One who delights in beautiful newness. What better way to worship that One than to create ourselves, to never be settled?!
All of which is to say that, as much as you and I may enjoy certain aspects of what we’ve grown accustomed to as “worship” or “church”, none of that is set in eternal stone. We stand on the shoulders of those who made things up. And while their creations might work for us, as the broader population- particularly younger folk- increasingly distrust traditional “church” and styles of worship, we’ll need to adapt, step out of our comfort zones if we intend to grow, or even endure. Is that drive-through or drive-in church? New music priorities? New ministries that serve our neighbors? Ask yourself (and tell me!) what you consider essential for Plymouth Creek? And what can- perhaps should- drastically change?
Grace and Peace,
Shane
P.S.- Last Sunday, Plymouth Creek “live streamed” - via Skype- our sermon to members sailing in the Caribbean, one of whom led Communion for the entire church just after. They’ll go off sailing again for several months at a time, and we emailed on Monday about making this a regular thing, where they’ll even invite fellow sailors away from (or without) church to their boat on Sundays, gather around a screen, sing, listen, pray, do communion. Because, well, why not?!
Read more!
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
In the door…
My economics-trained wife has told me before about an important business idea- The “barriers to entry” concept, which relates to companies seeking new consumers or venues to sell. Here’s how it works (I think, but ask Tabitha for a full report…). When someone wants to become, say, an electrician or financial planner, it’s not so easy as printing a personal business card. Electricians need training and certification. Financial planners go through licensing. These are “barriers to entry”, basic requirements for participating in a particular market. They’re a mix of government regulations, educational expectations, funding sources and more. And the barriers change depending on the industry. Still, they exist, and impact the economy.
This came to mind when I read a recent Pew poll about Americans’ perspectives on religion. Unsurprisingly, it shows that young adults (18-33) are our country’s least religious group. Partly, that’s a fact of youth. Partly, it’s long-term trends away from organized religion. But what caught my attention were current reasons young adults give for avoiding religion. Fully one-third said it was because they perceived religious groups as hostile to gays and lesbians. I’ve heard general impressions before that younger Americans are more open to the LGBT community than older Americans. But data describing this notion as their reason to not attend church was news to me. Further, the survey found that 70% of American YAs agree that religious groups are “alienating young adults by being too judgmental on gay and lesbian issues.”
We’ve discussed these issues before. Several of you have expressed anxiety about them, even. And in general, churches like ours frequently avoid the topic. There’s concern that if we talk about it, and especially if we take a further step of advertising we’re open and affirming, we risk anger, division, distraction from ‘bigger issues,’ even splitting the church. At the same time, many of you have expressed anxiety over our demographics. It’s true for lots of churches, that worshipping populations trend older than most prefer. “How can we appeal to young adults?” People wonder. “New Worship styles? Mission activities?” That’s part of the mix, surely, but this survey signaled something else. Perhaps.
Recall that economic concept of “barriers to entry.” The metaphor may be imprecise. Still, if seven-in-ten young adults perceive churches as too judgmental, plus one-in-three claims they avoid church in large part because of “negative treatment” toward or “teaching” about gays and lesbians, it means this issue matters to them. It’s a potentially serious barrier to entry. Many YAs won’t even consider attending our worship, serving with us or joining until we’ve convinced them we’re “not that kind of Christian.” Of course, we still may not be their preferred church, just like not every electrician proves successful. But if we can’t even get them in the door because of preconceived notions, we have no opportunity to ‘make a sale.’
Which isn’t to say we need a rainbow flag on our church sign tomorrow. It’s a complicated conversation for most churches, PCCC included, given our history and diverse beliefs. But this survey suggests that churches may also incur costs by not discussing the topic or avoiding taking a stand. Young adults will simply look somewhere else. After all, young adult Americans express as much spiritual longing as their elders do. They too want close, intimate community that joyfully serves God and neighbors in need, and provides unconditional hospitality. In our suburb especially, there aren’t many- if any- churches who embrace freedom of belief, like we do, while clearly expressing they’re welcoming to gays and lesbians.
Thus, a question- Would it be strategically valuable to publicize “we’re different”? Not perfect, of course, but trying to be open. It wouldn’t provide potential young visitors with everything they want, but might reduce this barrier to entry. If you find that interesting, let me know. I’d be glad to facilitate a conversation. And if you disagree, that’s fine. We’re all different, and God loves that. But we should all want our church to think about how we invite more people into our doors and to the Table. Old, young, and all ages between. That’s what church is for, after all. Amen?
Grace and Peace,
Shane
Read more!
This came to mind when I read a recent Pew poll about Americans’ perspectives on religion. Unsurprisingly, it shows that young adults (18-33) are our country’s least religious group. Partly, that’s a fact of youth. Partly, it’s long-term trends away from organized religion. But what caught my attention were current reasons young adults give for avoiding religion. Fully one-third said it was because they perceived religious groups as hostile to gays and lesbians. I’ve heard general impressions before that younger Americans are more open to the LGBT community than older Americans. But data describing this notion as their reason to not attend church was news to me. Further, the survey found that 70% of American YAs agree that religious groups are “alienating young adults by being too judgmental on gay and lesbian issues.”
We’ve discussed these issues before. Several of you have expressed anxiety about them, even. And in general, churches like ours frequently avoid the topic. There’s concern that if we talk about it, and especially if we take a further step of advertising we’re open and affirming, we risk anger, division, distraction from ‘bigger issues,’ even splitting the church. At the same time, many of you have expressed anxiety over our demographics. It’s true for lots of churches, that worshipping populations trend older than most prefer. “How can we appeal to young adults?” People wonder. “New Worship styles? Mission activities?” That’s part of the mix, surely, but this survey signaled something else. Perhaps.
Recall that economic concept of “barriers to entry.” The metaphor may be imprecise. Still, if seven-in-ten young adults perceive churches as too judgmental, plus one-in-three claims they avoid church in large part because of “negative treatment” toward or “teaching” about gays and lesbians, it means this issue matters to them. It’s a potentially serious barrier to entry. Many YAs won’t even consider attending our worship, serving with us or joining until we’ve convinced them we’re “not that kind of Christian.” Of course, we still may not be their preferred church, just like not every electrician proves successful. But if we can’t even get them in the door because of preconceived notions, we have no opportunity to ‘make a sale.’
Which isn’t to say we need a rainbow flag on our church sign tomorrow. It’s a complicated conversation for most churches, PCCC included, given our history and diverse beliefs. But this survey suggests that churches may also incur costs by not discussing the topic or avoiding taking a stand. Young adults will simply look somewhere else. After all, young adult Americans express as much spiritual longing as their elders do. They too want close, intimate community that joyfully serves God and neighbors in need, and provides unconditional hospitality. In our suburb especially, there aren’t many- if any- churches who embrace freedom of belief, like we do, while clearly expressing they’re welcoming to gays and lesbians.
Thus, a question- Would it be strategically valuable to publicize “we’re different”? Not perfect, of course, but trying to be open. It wouldn’t provide potential young visitors with everything they want, but might reduce this barrier to entry. If you find that interesting, let me know. I’d be glad to facilitate a conversation. And if you disagree, that’s fine. We’re all different, and God loves that. But we should all want our church to think about how we invite more people into our doors and to the Table. Old, young, and all ages between. That’s what church is for, after all. Amen?
Grace and Peace,
Shane
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)