Thursday, August 16, 2018

Ministry Matters in Nashville, Tennessee, United States for Wednesday, 15 August 2018 "A way forward...into cultural diversity, #ChurchToo, Scripture and the traditional faith of the church, and Dissing newspapers"

Ministry Matters in Nashville, Tennessee, United States for Wednesday, 15 August 2018 "A way forward...into cultural diversity, #ChurchToo, Scripture and the traditional faith of the church, and Dissing newspapers"


Bigstock/dbvirago
As United Methodists ponder the future (part of which includes choices before General Conference about “A Way Forward”), there is one reality that must be faced. Cultural diversity is not only increasing but accelerating exponentially. Any decision about the Commission on a Way Forward’s report will occur in that context.
Unfortunately, I think church people face cultural diversity in much the same way they face global warming. It scares them to death, but they think if they just ignore it that it will go away. Unlike global warming, however, cultural diversity actually represents more opportunity than threat. In order to discover the opportunities, church people must set aside ideological polarization to understand the chasms between the cultural left, cultural right, and cultural middle. And they must find the courage to bridge those chasms with greater empathy for the contexts in which people live and work, play and pray, raise families, and quest for God in unique ways.
Whether United Methodists have the courage to do this is yet to be revealed. One of the most important admonitions of the Commission on a Way Forward’s report uses Arbinger mediation language:
“The condition of our heart to another person very much shapes the outcomes. If we have a heart at peace, we see the other as a person, with many needs, hopes and gifts. If we have a heart at war, we see the other as an object or an obstacle to our own desires and visions. In addition, a heart at war exaggerates the differences between persons in order to prepare to go to war with them. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
But the only way to have the courage to adopt a “heart of peace” is to first empathize with the cultural diversity and the many distinct and sometimes opposite lifestyles that are included in it.
Greater understanding is possible. I wrote Sideline Church: Bridging the Chasms between Churches and Cultures for that reason. Unless the church (denominational) and the churches (congregational) build that broader empathy, then nationally and locally it will be increasingly on the sidelines of American culture. Neither the left nor right nor middle will care a jot what the church thinks, says, or does.
"Sideline Church: Bridging the Chasm between Churches and Cultures" (Abingdon Press, 2018). Order here: http://bit.ly/SidelineChurch
Just like the issue of global warming, so also the issue of cultural diversity is more complicated than many church people think. I hear church people (and seminary professors) blithely talk about community context without detailed understanding of true diversity. Cultural diversity is no longer just about race, ethnicity, language, diet, music, or country of origin. Nor is diversity merely about gender, age, income, intimacy, occupation, or any other categorization. Generalizations have been swept away as society fragments into more and more lifestyle segments. That process started around 1981 when the personal computer made the internet mainstream and we began tracking digital footprints.
Contrary to what many perceive, cultural diversity is not primarily driven by immigration or education. It is now driven by technology. The digital world has created a whole new cultural complexity because it has fostered unprecedented sharing of ideas, perceptions, and behavioral norms. These in turn shape, and are continually reshaping, how individuals and groups find meaning in life. These are called “Lifestyle Portraits,” and these are now the basic building blocks for cultural diversity. “Lifestyle Portraits” are now used by every sector of society — corporate, non-profit, health care, education, media, entertainment, law, government, and even the military — but only sporadically by the church.
Consider what happened in American culture since I completed my doctoral dissertation in 1981 using a fountain pen and IBM Selectric typewriter. The former was introduced by the Fatimid Islamic Caliphate in 974, refined by Leonardo da Vinci in the last decades of the 15th century, and went mainstream in Europe in the 17th century. The latter was introduced in 1961. And then…
  • AOL popularized the first social media in 1983
  • Experian began tracking digital personal information in 1996
  • Facebook appeared in 2004
  • Twitter appeared in 2006
I first became aware of MissionInsite in 2008, and have subsequently written five books on lifestyle expectations for ministries and spiritual leaders since 2013 (with the technological assistance of Microsoft).
Every single United Methodist Conference subscribed to MissionInsite by 2016. Insights into lifestyle expectations for ministries have been available to local churches for strategic planning for ten years. Yet it is astonishing how church people still think they “know their community” without knowing the diverse lifestyles represented within the community. We still make broad, old-fashioned generalizations about age, race, gender, family, class, and religion that are no longer accurate. We still assume a handful of simplistic theological and ideological assumptions encompass all the nuances of moral choices and spiritualties among 71 distinct lifestyle portraits in America. Our indifference to the realities of cultural diversity has brought us to the brokenness we experience today.
I think it is important to understand what is at stake here. It is not merely the survival of the United Methodist Church, in whole or in parts, but the relevance of Methodism as a way of spiritual life among more and more emerging lifestyle portraits. This cultural diversity is growing exponentially. Technology (including social media) is not only tracking diversity, but energizing more and more diversity. Generations previously emerged every thirty years or so, but today new lifestyle portraits are emerging every single year. United Methodists used to worry about reaching the youth. Today they should worry that every emerging lifestyle segment is stepping further and further away from the institutional church. And it’s not because of the music or the coffee. It’s not even because of the theology or the ideology. It’s because the church refuses to understand, adapt, and bless them in the ways that encourage their unique quests for God.
Bigstock/igor stevanovic
Full disclosure: I am not a member of the United Methodist Church, but have a great admiration for Methodism. When I read the Commission on a Way Forward’s report, I had two reactions.
The first reaction is that of the options presented, only one faces the realities of cultural diversity. That is the “One Church Plan.” No doubt this plan raises a number of polity headaches about connectionalism, apportionments and appointments, and mission agency funding. But as an outsider looking in, it seems to me that the eternal value of Methodism is not that it is a set of religious rules but rather a way of spiritual life. It is an admirable way! For fifty years, United Methodists have navigated their practice of spiritual life with a quadrilateral that seeks truth through four sources (the entirety of scripture, the whole history of all the church, reasonable facts and fairness, and the constant presence of the Holy Spirit). If that occasionally leaves church leaders in a quandary over issues like gender equality, birth control, pacifism, marriage equality and more, so be it. All leadership entails risk in the midst of culture… and trust in the wisdom of God. With that in mind, I think the “One Church Plan” could be renamed the “One Tradition Plan.” One way, many churches, credible leaders.
The other options don’t face the realities of cultural diversity. There are too many lifestyle portraits — and many more to come. The complex organizational changes of the “Connectional Conference Plan” focuses the church inward rather than outward. The rigidity of the “Traditionalist Plan” simply reinforces the #1 criticism among all lifestyle portraits (progressive and traditional) that churches are just too judgmental.
My second reaction is that the claim by any church to even have a “choice” is, in a sense, a form of hubris. Churches don’t really have a choice. Churches today are caught between growing cultural diversity on the one hand and God’s urgency to bless all people on the other. You can’t build walls to keep culture out, and you can’t tell God what to do. The Commission report recognizes this.
“The matters of human sexuality and unity are the presenting issues for a deeper conversation that surfaces different ways of interpreting Scripture and theological tradition.”
But this is only one side of the eternal tension of Christian ministry. One can only pursue a deeper conversation about scripture and tradition if one also pursues a deeper empathy with cultural diversity and the profound religious questions different lifestyle portraits are really asking. We are called to answer their questions, not just develop our theologies. The recognition of cultural diversity is not a choice.
But understanding cultural diversity is not a popular task, and the choice for the “One Church Plan” may not be a popular option.
For those lifestyle portraits included in the cultural middle (which today I describe as the culturally passive), it requires work. Church people among the cultural middle are reluctant to leave the office and vacate the pew to really listen, learn, and love the strangers that surround them.
Extremists among church leaders of the cultural left and the cultural right (which today I describe as the culturally ambivalent and the culturally righteous) may not like this choice either. It means that they cannot force everyone to agree with their theological or ideological positions.
In short, the option to embrace cultural diversity means that self-interest and power-struggle are not options anymore. And standing up for that is, truly, an act of courage.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Thomas G. Bandy
Tom Bandy is an internationally recognized consultant, conference speaker, and leadership coach for Christian read more…

Sponsored
Bigstock/SvetaNanobear
I was in active leadership during college at my Episcopal campus ministry when I was invited by the parish where we were located to attend the Willow Creek Global Leadership Summit being streamed at another local congregation. Even though Willow Creek’s theology skewed more evangelical than my parish’s, the invitation was to learn more about and cultivate leadership through interviews and keynotes by people both inside and outside the church. I remember being particularly impressed by a talk on servant leadership given by Colleen Barrett, then the President and Corporate Secretary of Southwest Airlines.
While the worship and music component was outside of my comfort zone (we joked that you could tell the Episcopalians because we were the only ones without our hands in the air during praise songs), I found Bill Hybels to be different from other megachurch pastors. He seemed more down-to-earth, less slick — like a friend’s dad. So, I was surprised this past April when allegations of Hybels’ misconduct with women surfaced. Even with my commitment to believe women, my own engrained patriarchal tendencies said, “Not Bill Hybels! He seemed like such a nice guy!” As if nice guys are not susceptible to using their powerful positions to sexually harass women.
I had no previous knowledge or connection to many of the other church leaders publicly caught up in the #MeToo and #ChurchToo movements, but based on my experience with the Leadership Summit and Hybels’ prominence in the broader Christian community, Hybels was the first one I felt like I “knew.” Hybels’ alleged behavior towards women hits home in that, as Terry Mattingly writes, Hybels seemed like one of the good guys after having our fill of “bad-guy evangelicals.” And it is proof that those behind #ChurchToo have been right; it’s not just a few bad apples. Churches that rely on cults of personality, minimal oversight of the leadership, patriarchy, and hierarchy are all ripe for abuse.
The similarities between abuses in the evangelical world and in the Catholic Church hinge on power. These are not crimes that are fundamentally about sexual fulfillment but about power run amok. As such, they cannot be solved by the so-called Billy Graham rule, recently made prominent by Vice President Mike Pence. No amount of separation between the genders will render moot the power dynamics that create an atmosphere ripe for abuse.
Those of us in Mainline Protestant traditions are also living in glass houses, lest we be tempted to throw stones at our evangelical and Catholic family members. Though we might have women clergy and women in some of the highest positions of denominational leadership, the system is patriarchal and hierarchical at its heart. Perhaps we’ve been lucky to escape the spotlight and the wrath of the media and wider culture, but we should not delude ourselves that abuse does not similarly infect our beloved institutions.
What can we do then if all of the Safe Church policies and the Billy Graham rules can’t protect us? Christianity needs a major reckoning with power. I am hesitant to recommend a complete dismantling of our ecclesial systems, but it is likely that we cannot use the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house, to quote Audre Lorde. Somehow, we have to look towards the one whom we worship, Jesus Christ, who emptied himself of all power, humbling himself to the point of death on the cross. We must repent of our grasping and reliance on power to become the Body of Christ for all people.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Kira Schlesinger 
The Reverend Kira Schlesinger is an Episcopal priest in the Diocese of Tennessee with a Master of Divinity degree from read more…

THE PLAYING FIELD: SCRIPTURE AND THE TRADITIONAL FAITH OF THE CHURCH
Jessica LaGrone

During my first mission trip, I left the US for the mountains of Costa Rica. We were there to build houses with an international chapter of Habitat for Humanity, but my best work was building relationships with the children, who laughed at my toddler-level Spanish and taught me games on the rocky hillside. One day a group of them shyly pulled me by the hand and told me they were going to show me the most beautiful place on their mountain, a claim that piqued my interest since this was already the most beautiful place I had ever seen.
After a long, breathless hike, we turned a corner where I saw, in the middle of all the rugged mountainous glory . . . a lawn. A simple, flat lawn, rockless and sprawling, just like thousands of suburban landscapes back home. To put it bluntly, I was underwhelmed. Just then, one of the boys pulled out a ball, and they began running and kicking it with glee. This space, while it looked ordinary to me, was their soccer field—the only one for miles. To them it was holy ground. As they began to run and play (many of them barefoot), I recognized that they were right. In the freedom and joy of these children of God, I found the most beautiful sight I would encounter on that mountain.
G. K. Chesterton’s assessment of the discipline and order found in the Christian scriptures was that “the more I considered Christianity, the more I found that while it had established a rule and order, the chief aim of that order was to give room for good things to run wild.”[i]
The playing field God provides for us in scripture exists not to constrain God’s creation or cramp our style but to provide the “room” Chesterton celebrates: a clear and free space for human flourishing, the restoration of God’s image in us and God’s glory in creation, and a place for goodness to run wild in our communion together.
Unfortunately, The United Methodist Church has been overtaken by chaos that continues to grow and envelop our life together, muting our hopes for world-changing ministry and damaging our witness. While the headlines and arguments center around the church’s stance on same-sex practice, our core disagreements have their roots in differing views of scripture.
We read and understand scripture very differently.[ii] We should not be surprised that this leads to opposing goals for the doctrine and discipline of the church that we share.
As a member of the Commission on a Way Forward, I spent eighteen months having hard conversations with people who love our church deeply, many of whom are now dear friends. We discussed the church’s deep division and our best hopes for her future. As we talked about our differing views on sexuality, it was clear that they were rooted in the different ways we read scripture. We were repeatedly asked to find ways to express what unites us as United Methodist Christians, but even when we articulated our rich heritage and common goals, we encountered roadblocks over the simplest words because of our reading of God’s word.
What does unity look like when we can’t agree on the goal of God’s work in human hearts or the nature and pursuit of holiness? How can we press on to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world when we can’t agree on the nature of disciples, how they are to live differently from the world around them, and what kind of transformation we are hoping to effect?
With each of our nine meetings, we as a Commission grew deeper in relationship with each other, but we didn’t mistake our growing love for each other as a concession that our opposing views on scripture, holiness, and sexuality mattered any less. In fact, some who most vehemently disagreed on scriptural interpretation and theology could find common ground in the fact that we would never be in agreement on core beliefs, and that we wanted to stop fighting so that the work of the church could continue unfettered.
As we approach the called 2019 General Conference, the divisions in the church have only deepened. Bishops, annual conferences, boards of ordained ministry, and jurisdictional conferences have not only committed acts of ecclesial disobedience but called publicly for others to do so as well. Decisions of the judicial council have been ignored outright. Rather than anticipating schism, these actions signal we are already in schism. We are not just bending the rules. We are playing on entirely different fields.
Those who have been paying attention during decades of General Conferences should not be surprised that delegates who have supported the language concerning sexuality in the Book of Discipline will continue to do so. It seems almost surreal when those who support the paragraphs of the Discipline we most argue over are considered divisive or schismatic. The UMC’s position on marriage has been a matter of public record since 1972, and those of us who vowed to uphold its doctrine were well aware of the nature of the covenant to which we were committing.
A plan will certainly be submitted to the 2019 General Conference that will affirm our current ordination standards and language defining Christian marriage. This plan will likely also add measures of accountability and strengthen enforcement of that language. Critics will characterize this plan as punitive and severe, but it simply strengthens the position supported by every General Conference since the language was introduced. Indeed, those who hold to a traditional reading of scripture around the ethics of sexuality seem to be a growing majority in General Conference, though they are consistently underrepresented in bodies like the Commission on a Way Forward and publications like this one.
Those who support a plan that would push decisions on marriage and ordination to a local level significantly miss the importance of the connectional church and conciliar discernment at the heart of historic Methodism over and against a congregational polity. To say that our beliefs on sexuality are not important enough to decide on corporately, or that what we do with our bodies is nobody’s business but our own, is contrary to scripture and Wesley’s understanding of holiness as worked out together in community. To play with different rules from one context to the next will not increase our unity as “one church” or expand our ministry but will only intensify our chaos and division.
On a soccer field, it’s not much fun to quibble over the boundaries of the field or debate the rules of the game. All of us would much rather play. This, of course, is a light metaphor for a very heavy subject. This is no game. This is Christ’s church. There are souls to be saved and incredible needs in the world for justice and mercy to be offered freely, unfettered by internal conflict, and with the wild abandon of grace.
[i] G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (Norwood, MA: Plimpion Press, 1908), 175–76.
[ii] For an excellent treatment of the Wesleyan reading of scripture that goes deeper than the space available here, see Scripture and the Life of God: Why the Bible Matters Today More Than Ever by David F. Watson.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jessica LaGrone 
Jessica LaGrone is Dean of the Chapel at Asbury Theological Seminary, where she earned an MDiv degree. Previously she read more…

Bigstock/Tupungato 
THE WORKPLACE
New kids on the block
The excitement that New Zealanders felt for Jacinda Ardern, their prime minister, became a worldwide buzz when on June 21, Ardern gave birth to her first child, a baby girl. On that day, Ardern became just the second female elected head of state to give birth while in office, following Benazir Bhutto, the prime minister of Pakistan, who gave birth to her second child in 1990. However, unlike Bhutto, Ardern will take six weeks of paid maternity leave, becoming the first head of state to do so. In her absence, the government will be led by Winston Peters, her deputy prime minister.
Relatedly, in April, Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) became the first senator to give birth while in office. She joins a list of just nine other women to have given birth while serving in the United States government, all of them members of the House of Representatives (Duckworth gave birth to her first child while serving in the House). Just days after the birth, the Senate unanimously voted to allow babies onto the floor — a change made just in time for Duckworth to vote against the confirmation of NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine with her newborn daughter by her side. Maile Pearl, Duckworth’s daughter, became the first infant to appear in the active Senate chamber. In response to the vote that allowed children in the chamber, Duckworth tweeted, “By ensuring that no Senator will be prevented from performing their constitutional responsibilities simply because they have a young child, the Senate is leading by example & sending the important message that working parents everywhere deserve family-friendly workplace policies.”
While these two examples appear to show a shift in attitudes toward women in elected office having children and taking leave, the same attitudes are only slowly shifting for the American public overall.
Maternity leave in America
While Ardern can comfortably take six weeks of maternity leave, many Americans aren’t so fortunate. Currently, there’s no legislation in the United States guaranteeing mothers or fathers paid leave after the birth (or adoption) of a child. In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act, which included a provision for up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave guaranteed to parents to care for a new child. Nearly 88 percent of civilian workers have access to this unpaid leave benefit.
While there are no government-enforced guarantees, many companies and organizations do offer paid maternity leave. The Pew Research Center found that in 2016, 14 percent of workers had access to paid maternity leave, up from 11 percent in 2010. However, the fields most likely to offer paid leave are concentrated in upper-middle-class job sectors such as finance and insurance, information technology, and scientific services. By contrast, unskilled laborers in fields such as construction have the lowest access, with just five percent of workers having access to paid maternity leave. In comparison, 37 percent of workers in finance and insurance jobs have access to such leave.
The United States is the only country in the developed world without guaranteed paid maternity leave. According to the United Nations Data Retrieval System, in Sweden, both parents have access to a combined total of 480 days of paid leave, with 60 days designated to each parent. The remaining 360 can be distributed between the parents. If there’s only one parent, then he or she receives all 480 days. In the United Kingdom, new parents have access to up to 52 weeks of paid maternity leave; and Australia gives new parents 18 weeks of paid leave. Even China has a 90-day paid maternity leave program.
Making maternity leave a priority
Scientific research points out the importance of bonding with babies in the first few months of their lives. The World Policy Analysis Center has found that countries with paid parental leave have lower rates of infant mortality, and mothers experience less postpartum depression.
Paid leave also alleviates the economic strain on families with new babies. With unpaid leave, household income drops at the same time expenses rise. The average two-parent household income drops 10 percent when a child is born and doesn’t recover until both parents are back in the workforce. For single mothers, income drops up to 42 percent when a baby is born, with decreases happening during pregnancy due to loss of hours.
Some families are making it work through the generosity of their coworkers. Angela Hughes of Missouri hadn’t been working at her new company long enough to qualify for maternity leave, so her coworkers chipped in and donated enough vacation hours for her to spend eight weeks at home. “It took a weight off my family’s shoulder,” Hughes said. “It really, really meant a lot to me. . . . I was extremely appreciative and very humbled.”
Critics have pointed out that donating vacation hours is an unsustainable solution to the maternity leave problem. Despite this example, few companies allow workers to donate their time to others. According to the 2018 Employee Benefits Survey, only 15 percent of employers allowed employees to donate their vacation time to coworkers.
Pew Research reports that most Americans are in favor of paid maternity leave; however, while 51 percent believe that paid leave should be mandated by the federal government, 48 percent believe that companies should decide for themselves whether to provide paid leave. Currently, the rules surrounding leave are determined by state laws and company policies. These laws and policies vary widely and often don’t make provisions for fathers or for leave in the case of adoption. While maternity leave benefits are certainly a top priority for those workers who have started or are planning to start a family, only 35 percent of the American public say that expanding maternity leave is a top priority.
Paternity leave
While much of the discussion around paid leave centers on new mothers, there’s a growing conversation about ensuring that fathers have paid leave as well. According to a policy brief released by the Department of Labor (DOL), “Seven in ten U.S. fathers taking parental leave took ten days of leave or less.” Additionally, in 2012, only 13 percent of men who took parental leave received pay, compared with 21 percent of women.
While women have pressing biological reasons for needing paid leave after the birth of a child, fathers shouldn’t be left out of this discussion. The DOL found that longer paternity leaves are associated with increased father engagement and bonding with the new child. A study comparing data from Australia, Denmark, the United Kingdom and the United States suggests that longer paternity leave and the increased time fathers spend caring for their very young children are associated with higher cognitive test scores for their children. “Fathers taking parental leave helps not just children but moms, too, by changing who changes the diapers and the whole culture around work and family,” said Tom Perez, former secretary of labor.
A 2014 study indicated that 90 percent of “highly educated professional fathers” in the United States felt that paid parental leave would be important to them when looking for a new job. As American culture continues to embrace a more egalitarian view of parenthood, paternity leave will likely become an increasingly important topic.
Be sure to check out FaithLink, a weekly downloadable discussion guide for classes and small groups.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Laura Brekke
The Rev. Laura K. Brekke serves as Benfield-Vick Chaplain at Davis & Elkins College in Elkins, West read more…
Bigstock/ChrisDoDutch
Do people younger than middle-aged read newspapers? Seemingly not so very much, except for occasional articles streaming across their social media. Instead, even some of the best informed often rely on smorgasbords of opinion blogs and podcasts, some of which are thoughtful. But many if not most of such sources are rich with opinions while thin on reporting. It’s a terrible loss.
Almost every day since 1976 I’ve read The Washington Post, starting age 10, for which I remain very grateful. Early that year my fifth grade class began examining the presidential election and hosting mock primaries. I fervently supported Gerald Ford and began reading the Post for election news.
Even earlier The Post was a daily presence, every morning landing with a thump on our front porch. My parents, grandparents, teachers and all adults I knew read it. I vividly recall the gigantic headline NIXON RESIGNS, and other headlines from the early and mid 1970s about the fall of Saigon and Phnom Penh, the deaths of Mao and Chiang Kai-shek, assassination attempts on President Ford, the Arab oil embargo.
I read the front page section, including editorial pages, the local Metro news and the sometimes salacious Style section, including political humor columns by Art Buchwald. If vacationing with family at the beach we would find a Post. Once while visiting relatives in Tennessee I felt starved for real news, as the local papers only had Jack Anderson’s faux investigative column.
From the start I knew The Post was liberal, it had of course in 1976 endorsed Jimmy Carter, my bête noire. But my own developing conservatism was not impeded in the least. I relied on its reporting, understood there was sometimes a slant, but still learned much. The Post‘s coverage of the often disastrous 1970s was decisive to shaping my worldview. Eventually as a teenager I subscribed to a conservative newsletter devoted to countering media liberal bias, whose founder Post editor Ben Bradlee denounced with a term meaning regurgitated vomit. Yet still I daily read The Post.
And I worked for The Post for four years all through high school as a delivery boy, starting each morning at 5:15. Some customers would already be up, eagerly awaiting their newspaper’s arrival. Some of that era’s great events I learned on dark mornings peering at fresh bold headlines. American hostages taken in Iran, and rescue mission failed. Soviets invade Afghanistan. Margaret Thatcher elected. Before the internet and cable news the morning newspaper was often first to announce breaking news. Such excitement!
My daily Post reading helped me in college as I had almost a decade of reportage and commentary about numerous topics stored in my head. And now I have over 40 years worth catalogued mentally, perhaps equaling or surpassing my formal education. Unlike most online sites today, The Post, then and now, includes lengthy, in-depth coverage of topics that would of themselves almost never appear in organic social media. When young I routinely on the back pages read about coups and famines in obscure countries about which I otherwise would never have known.
Bigstock/Pe3check 
In recent years, flummoxed by nuisance newspaper piles in my house, I reluctantly cancelled my Post home delivery in favor of reading digital versions of the hard copy. No more newsprint on my hands as I read over breakfast. For a few more years I would still hear The Post delivery truck outside in early hours, driven by older immigrant men, delivery boys on foot or bicycle long since irrelevant. (Back in the day, there were occasional delivery girls, including a neighbor my age, who delivered our Post for years, starting age 10, often walking streets alone in pre-dawn darkness.)
The Post influenced me professionally and spiritually. Its global coverage motivated my original work in foreign affairs. Its Saturday morning religion page awakened me to church controversies that preoccupied my later vocation.
Of course there was a downside to reliance on a single newspaper. Columns in The Post by George Will and Robert Novak notwithstanding, starting in college I subscribed to National Review for conservative commentary, plus conservative religion journals, like, later, First Things.
DC’s other longtime newspaper, The Evening Star, an afternoon daily, closed in the early 1980s. Then there was The Washington Times, which I read, though discomfited by its Unification Church ownership. Network news, and as a boy I watched Walter Cronkite, was editorially in sync with The Post and other big liberal newspapers. Conservatives, religious or otherwise, accurately complained they were largely shut out, yet somehow their message still transmitted. Certainly it did to me, though it often required a skeptical and inquiring disposition. Today’s countless media options are incomparable to the narrow choices of 40 years ago.
But today’s absence of comprehensively reading daily newspapers, especially by the young, often leads to knowledge and opinion ghettos. Whatever their faults and biases, newspapers have had a spiritual purpose in sustaining geographic communities, versus today’s focus on online community. Opinion blogs and podcasts, no matter how insightful, can never fully replace actual wide range reporting, systematically compiled and vetted. And I confess that my daily newspaper reading has not prevented, thanks to my own heavy intake of social media, decreased patience for lengthy articles.
Newspapers will survive of course, but perhaps never again will they reach whole communities, as in my boyhood, when everyone read The Post. It’s a loss, but Divine Providence often replaces a loss with a gain. Doubtless new generations are being shaped for the better by new media in ways yet unimaginable.
Meanwhile, I’m indebted to The Post, which still begins my every morning. And no longer, when traveling to remote locales, do I need fear lack of access, with The Post, and everything else, effortlessly at my fingertips.
This was first published at Juicy Ecumenism. Mark Tooley is the author of The Peace That Almost Was: The Forgotten Story of the 1861 Washington Peace Conference and the Final Attempt to Avert the Civil War.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mark Tooley
Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. Prior to joining the IRD read more…ce
Sponsored
Bigstock/carloscastilla 
Preaching on Sunday’s Old Testament text, 1 Kings 2:10-12, 3:3-14, might feel like investing in a startup venture or flipping a house: high risk with the possibility of huge rewards. Solomon, for me, is a pastel, two-dimensional kind of figure in the Bible. You don’t get a sense of his heart like you do with David. What shocks me is that the Bible both reveals the dirt on Solomon and tries to paper over it so we don’t notice — but unsuccessfully. It’s always Solomon was great! But…
Solomon is humble, but then arrogant. Solomon is wise, but then foolish. Or as 3:3 puts it, “Solomon loved the Lord… but he sacrificed at high places.” If the preacher wants to make this text into a lesson for how an individual leads the life of faith, I guess you could say we are all mixed like this. We love God; we fail God. We a holy; we are horrible. So the moral of such a sermon would be… what? Be like good Solomon, not bad Solomon?
Or is it young Solomon versus older Solomon? Perhaps the Solomon of our text, the Solomon of the dream, was humble and holy, or not yet jaded and corrupted by the world. Heather Murray Elkins articulates this approach wonderfully:
"This story may be a conscious attempt to remember what is lost and in the telling regain it... This story seeks to return a people to a trust in YHWH, God of creation and liberation. The outcome is determined by the memory of what was known to be true at the beginning and what is hoped for at the end of the struggle."
I like that. But I'm jaded, and I see primarily the corrupt Solomon. It’s truer to the text — and to reality, to God, and to our current situation — to detect what is clearly going on in this text. God makes an extraordinary offer to Solomon: ask what I should give you. Jesus suggested to the disciples that whatever they ask, he’d do it. But he did add “in my name,” which isn’t a magical formula but an invitation to be close to God’s heart in our asking.
I think of Thomas Aquinas on his deathbed. A voice from above said “Thomas, you have spoken well of me. What reward do you want for yourself?” Aquinas replied, “Nothing but your self, O Lord.”
"Weak Enough to Lead: What the Bible Tells Us about Powerful Leadership" (Abingdon Press, 2017). Order here: http://bit.ly/2rYxHac
Good answer. Solomon gave the best answer ever. He began with immense humility: I am like a little child, I do not know what I am doing. 1 Kings says this “pleased the Lord.” My question is, was the Lord really fooled by this faked humility? Didn’t the Lord detect the BS? Or is the BS in the editor who passed along the story of Solomon to us? Solomon has for some time, and with a shockingly aggressive cruelty, been conniving to seize the throne. Immediately, his kingship was about accumulation, expansion, forced labor, massive taxation, as if he was bound and determined to prove Samuel right when he warned the people about why they should not want a king (1 Samuel 8).
God’s response to all this is lovely and something we might aspire to: “Because you have not asked for long life or riches, or the life of your enemies, I will give you a wise mind.” But then the editor, clearly propping up the absurdities of Solomon’s real reign, jams these additional words into God’s mouth: “I will also give you what you have not asked for — riches and honor.” Seriously?
I’ll never forget a short period of time in seminary when a huge light bulb popped in my head when I heard about “hermeneutics of suspicion.” We peek behind the official, sanctioned curtain of the text and ask what was going on that got hushed up. Our suspicion is that power trumped, that God got domesticated, that the story got tailored for public consumption to the advantage of the winners, the powerful, those who manipulated the system to their advantage.
I read Stefan Heym’s amazing The King David Report, a novel about Ethan, a court historian, who was instructed by Solomon to write “The One and Only True and Authoritative, Historically Correct and Officially Approved Report on the Amazing Rise, God-fearing Life, Heroic Deeds and Wonderful Achievements of David.” The deeper, cynical purpose of crafting such a slanted tale is to vindicate Solomon and justify his reign.
Clearly, 1 Kings is kin to Heym’s novel, and most good scholars (with Brueggemann leading the way, I suppose) see the vested regal interests dominating Solomon’s story. And yet the real story, the theologically sound angle on the story, wasn’t totally suppressed. There is a condemnation of all that is Solomon’s impressive but theologically troubled reign.
I will try to talk about this and about what goes on in our culture. The preacher must be equal-opportunity and bipartisan on this — which isn’t difficult. Politicians put forward their preferred story. They vainly mix their thin and usually faked piety into the official narrative, but we who know the heart of God are rightly suspicious. All the more reason to warn our people not to bow down to the great idolatry of our day, which is political ideology. * * *
The Epistle, Ephesians 5:15-20, is a fine text rich with preaching possibilities less controversial and risky than 1 Kings. Be wise. Good idea! You can explore wisdom in a world where people know people who are smart but aren’t sure if they know anyone who is wise.
“Make the most of the time” intrigues. The culture might say that and mean grab the gusto, cram your time full, stay busy, maximize your life… but making the most of the time might mean being still, ‘wasting’ time in prayer and worship, etc. The Greek, as spun by Frank Thielman, exgorazo implies buy, or buy up, or even buy something to gain its release from where it is.
We hear the phrase "buying time."
Thielman envisions the phrase implying “buy the time away from what has a grip on it.” What has its grip on time? Corporate life? The entertainment/diversions world? Fears and anxieties (which are entirely fixated on time)? Paul says “the days are evil,” well worth exploring in the context of how our time gets strangled and how it needs liberation.
Careful attention is required to parse “Do not be drunk with wine, but be filled with the Spirit.” It’s not, Don’t do this, but do this other thing. The two are interrelated. People drink to achieve what the Holy Spirit is supposed to provide, what only the Holy Spirit can provide: we seek joy, we want good company with others, we need recovery from a bad day, we want to celebrate a good day.
Alcohol plays an outsized role in life, and so much of it is destructive. For our purposes today, it’s not just destructive, but actually subs in and blocks our way to the Holy Spirit.
Our church tried a cool program a few years back. We asked people to give up alcohol for Lent, then take the money they would have spent on beer, wine, cocktails, and contribute it to the “Spirit fund” (get it?), which would then go to support recovery ministries. Huge wrestlings and great conversations ensued. I know of four people who went into treatment programs because we did what we did.
Finally, Paul urges us to sing to one another. This is not hard to explore in preaching; I’m reminded of a story Tom Long told in a sermon I was lucky enough to be present to see and hear. He told about visiting an older person in the hospital, fairly unresponsive, until his family gathered around the bedside and began singing old hymns. The man’s eyes flew open, he smiled, and sang along as best he was able; he died not long afterward. Tom said he left the hospital and phoned his non-church-going son and said, “You’ve got to learn these songs” — anticipating the day he would long to hear them in his own hospital bed. 
* * *
The Gospel, John 6, is covered in my blog treating the whole 5 week run through that chapter.
"What can we say come August 19? 13th after Pentecost"originally appeared at James Howell's Weekly Preaching Notions. Reprinted with permission.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

James C. Howell
Dr. James C. Howell has been senior pastor of Myers Park United Methodist Church since 2003, and has served read more…
Bigstock/Andy Dean Photography
I begin with a one-question quiz. It is multiple choice.
In twenty-five years, the typical American United Methodist of today will be:
A registered Democrat
Living in Sun City, Arizona
Dead
The correct answer is “C.” In twenty-five years, demographics and median age declares the average United Methodist living today in the United States will be…dead.
I departed for active duty ministry as a Navy chaplain endorsed by the Southern Illinois Conference in 1977. The year I departed, the conference claimed 68,000 members and an attendance of roughly 30,000. When I returned in 2005, nine years after a merger with the former Central Illinois Conference (that was nearly twice the size as its southern cousin), the merged Illinois Great Rivers conference had lost nearly all of the numbers of the former southern partner. By 2017, the year I retired, the numerical journey to oblivion was complete. The Illinois Great Rivers conference had fewer members and worship attendance than the former Central Illinois conference had twenty-one years earlier. The numbers added by the former Southern Illinois conference had disappeared without so much as an obituary or a burp.
The issue is not the statistics I have shared. That is a symptom. The issue is that when I returned from the Navy to my conference, I was stunned by the lack of urgency in responding to this decline. Everyone had some level of awareness, everyone agreed it was not a good thing, everyone knew something ought to be done, but no top-to-bottom, profound, focused or dramatic change had been implemented to alter a course leading to functional extinction by 2050. The absence of focused urgency mobilized to address the collective challenges facing the US church is the issue far transcending the debate over sexuality.
Three Barriers to Facing Reality
I have noticed three types of responses to this crisis, responses not only in my home conference but among the six other annual conferences in three other Jurisdictions where I affiliated while a chaplain. In no particular order, they are:
The Hezekiah Syndrome — Drawn from the sad story in 2 Kings 20. King Hezekiah has a successful reign but late in life steps outside the will of God. The prophet Isaiah confronts him and declares the kingdom will crash during the reign of Hezekiah’s son. Outwardly the king coos, “God’s will be done,” while inwardly he thinks, “Who cares, since there will be peace and security in my time” (2 Kings 20:19). The Hezekiah syndrome is one where the pastor, the bishops, and the leadership clearly know the future headed down the drain, but the crash will come after retirement benefits have been collected by those currently in charge. Profound change is hard, demanding and too much work, so those best positioned with the power and experience to begin decisive change beg off. Age, physical limitations, hassle and heartache are too great to make it worthwhile. Human nature is prone to inertia in such matters, so change is limited to tweaking the edges, or ploys such as closing a dying congregation and merging the leftovers with another congregation…while declaring the process to be a new church start!
The Agag Syndrome — Drawn from the unfunny episode where the prophet Samuel “hewed Agag into pieces before the Lord” (1 Samuel 15:33). This is the merry role assumed by fighting within the church or denomination about this or that. Success gets defined as stopping something. The cross-stitch in the church office reads, “Happiness is a known enemy,” and no day is complete without spending spiritual and emotional energy ‘rounding up the usual suspects.’ They can be liberals, conservatives, gays, straights, Republicans, Democrats, Klingons, whatever. The current ongoing brawl in the denomination over human sexuality is Exhibit A. Clearly matters of principle require a firm stand, but when nearly every church and pastor engaged in the tussle reflects a church flatlined or declining in attendance, energy is being misplaced by the system’s process for extending rather than resolving the dispute.
The Court Lackey Syndrome — Reflected in the incident recorded in Acts 23:3-4, where the High Priest orders Paul illegally smacked during an interrogation, whereupon Paul snaps, “God smack you, you whitewashed wall.” Rather than express horror at Paul’s unjust treatment, the court lackeys present swoon at Paul’s words by saying, “How dare you speak like that about God’s High Priest.” Here, preaching ceases and meddling begins. Many express horror over a possible division within the denomination. Certainly destructive, anger-driven schism does not honor God. Against that, recall this fixed wisdom from organizational theory: “Every institution is perfectly aligned to the results it gets.” The US version of results is sustained and accelerating decline, sliding toward oblivion. I am not the least interested in preserving any organization that delivers a consistently and predictably defective product for the Kingdom of God, and neither would John Wesley or the Jesus he and we serve. Setting fire to the system to watch it burn is not the point, but a default setting that seems most to fear upheaval bottles and caps any Spirit-led revival which precedes authentic reformation. For those horrified of change, consider this line from the great Italian novel, The Leopard: “If you want things to stay the same, things will have to change.” Or consider former Army Chief of Staff, General Eric Shinseki, who said, “If you dislike change, you will dislike irrelevance a lot more.”
Annual conferences have elected 850 honorable insiders and tasked them to think outside the box for the called General Conference in 2019. Naming and taming the play-it-safe Hezekiah temptation, the Agag impulse and the Court Lackey attitude are crucial to a way forward that truly is forward and not simply steaming safe squares in the vast ocean of religious administrivia.
The main issue remains: How does the US church reclaim life in the face of its increasing romp toward death? The decline is the bitter fruit of the church’s wicked problem, a combination of issues that have created an ongoing perfect storm for the faithful laity and clergy who are the heart of the church. Trust deficits, faulty communication, demographics, finances, obsolete personnel preparation and assignment processes, outdated and ineffective organization, inability to offer a shared and measurable definition of the mission of the church (what exactly is a disciple and how does one “make” a disciple) — these are among expressions of the wicked problem.
None are beyond solution or response. 2019 can “shoot the swordsman” as Indiana Jones did in Raiders of the Lost Ark, a way to move the kerfuffle over sexuality toward the rear-view mirror. What difference does it make to have the ‘right’ stand on same-sex marriage in the church if no church is left standing? Richard Tedlow of Harvard Business School, in his delightful book, Denial, gives it a two-word definition: protective stupidity. Notice how our Presbyterian (PCUSA) colleagues project a 60% loss in membership between 2000-2020 without (as yet) engaging any deep change to shake the institution before its statistical extinction date of 2045. There is time for them, and for us, but honesty about the nature and depth of what the church faces is step one. “There are a hundred ways to put out a fire but denying its existence is not one of them.”
So let two versions or twenty versions of existing United Methodism form as part of the 2019 General Conference. Let the 2020 General Conference be a watershed to focus on spiritual and practical renewal and reformation, top to bottom, with all sacred cows offered for a delegate barbecue on the first day. We can walk with wisdom and foresight into profound change or let consequences and reactions push, kick and smack us into thoughtless change that does no honor to God nor brings healing to a floundering system. In Philippians 3, Paul offered a list of what he gave up, lost, and surrendered and the richness of life in Christ gained as a result. Wise change, deep and pervasive, Spirit-led and Scripturally sound is the way forward. The need is… urgent.
"THE Issue Facing American United Methodism" originally appeared at People Need Jesus. Reprinted with permission.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Bob Phillips
Dr. Bob Phillips is an elder in the Illinois Great Rivers Conference and a delegate to General Conference 2019. read more…
Bigstock/LGreen
When preschoolers inhabited the Owensby house, bedtime included story time. On some nights, Andrew, Meredith, or Patrick would choose a short and frankly tedious book designed to teach colors or animal names. Inevitably, they would insist that we read it again and again before they drifted off to sleep.
More often, the kids selected a book that we parents enjoyed reading at least as much as the children did. The tenderness of Goodnight Moon stilled my soul no matter how many times we read it. The humor and weirdness of Where the Wild Things Are made my efficient, practical adult heart vulnerable, at least for a few minutes, to the playful magic that children encounter on any ordinary day.
Roald Dahl—author of Matilda, James and the Giant Peach, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory—once wrote:
"And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don’t believe in magic will never find it." (from Billy and the Minpins)
That’s what great children’s literature does. Children hear with delight well-crafted tales about their familiar, magic-infused universe. When we adults read Dahl or Maurice Sendak or Margaret Wise Brown, we glimpse the depths and textures of life that we’ve become too hurried, cynical, sophisticated or wounded to look for.
"A Resurrection Shaped Life: Dying and Rising on Planet Earth" (Abingdon Press, 2018). Pre-order here: http://bit.ly/2K2M3wB
Strictly speaking, it’s not magic to which we can become oblivious — it’s mystery. It’s the loving, life-giving presence of God in the midst of all things. Things as simple as a morsel of bread or a cup of wine, a nighthawk’s cry or a dog’s slobbery tongue on your lips.
Sometimes we rush past the divine presence in an over-scheduled hurry. There is no time to listen to a child’s prattle or the same old story from an elderly person. And so we miss the mystery.
Sometimes we say that we’ll sit and enjoy sunsets or listen to music or simply be still when we have time. Right now, we have to complete an assignment or chauffeur the kids or prepare for that presentation. And so we miss the mystery.
Maybe we’ve been disappointed or wounded or betrayed so often that we just don’t get our hopes up. We expect the world to let us down, not to delight us. And so we miss the mystery.
Maybe it was something like this that led some of the people in a crowd surrounding Jesus to say, “Who does this guy think he is? Isn’t that Joseph and Mary’s boy?” (John 6:42)
Jesus had just said that he is the bread of life. The bread of heaven. Mystery in the flesh. To top it off, he said of all that by way of explaining the meaning of a miracle he had performed: feeding thousands of people with a few loaves of bread.
And still, some among the crowd missed the mystery.
I can’t really blame them. After all, every day the divine reaches out to us from the depths of ordinary, simple, mundane places, from unremarkable people and routine circumstances. And sophisticated, worldly, practical grownups like us manage to see only the ordinary, the simple, and the mundane, not the infinite mystery seeking to embrace us in those people and places.
Paradoxically, we were made to yearn for, and to be fulfilled by, an encounter with and union with the divine. As Augustine put it in The Confessions: “Thou hast made us for thyself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it finds its rest in thee.”
Jesus put it this way. “No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me.” (John 6:44) In other words, it is in our very spiritual DNA—in the very way we were created by God—to yearn for God in the deepest recesses of our being. Ronald Rolheiser calls this the holy longing.
That longing does not necessarily take overtly religious shape. We long for our lives to have significance. For our lives to have mattered. As we mature in this longing, we come to see that our significance derives not from achievement or status, not from power or possessions, but from relationship. From giving and receiving love. From being part of something greater than ourselves.
The Greek philosopher Aristotle, for instance, argued that Love set all things in motion. Every thing that is yearns for what he called the Unmoved Mover. Thomas Aquinas adopted and adapted Aristotle’s thinking, recognizing that God’s love brought all things into being, sustains all things, and draws all things into union with the divine.
In Jesus, we see most clearly that God is not a mystery that we will observe from a distance. God is the mystery that inhabits our lives. By dwelling with us and dwelling within, God makes us who we most truly are.
Maybe Jesus would paraphrase Roald Dahl like this:
Watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because mystery is always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who yield to their longing for mystery will be embraced by it.
"Longing for Mystery" originally appeared at Looking for God in Messy Places. Reprinted with permission.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jake Owensby
Jake Owensby is the fourth Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Western Louisiana. Jake is the author of several books read more…
Bigstock/yaoinlove
In our house, back-to-school time means football. Both my oldest and my youngest son play, and I have gained a great deal of respect and appreciation for what the game teaches. Last night before practice my seventh grader said, “Mom, I don’t think I want to play football anymore…I’m afraid of hitting.”
“You need to go to practice tonight, son,” I replied compassionately.
“But, mom, you don’t understand…you’ve never played football before. It hurts!” he continued with the sound of fear in his voice.
This back-and-forth continued as I probed further. We then talked about other sports that may be of interest, such as wrestling, track, and basketball. I pointed out that middle school is the perfect time to explore. “But I’m not good at basketball. I can’t dribble, and my footwork is lousy.”
“That’s why you practice. Anyone who is really good at a sport practices…a lot,” I explained. “But tonight you are going to football.”
He reluctantly got dressed for practice. Again in the car, “Mooooommm, do I have to go?”
“Yes. Go tonight, and we will talk more later.”
After practice he got in the car with a smile. “I did it, mom,” he announced proudly.
“Aren’t you glad you didn’t give up, buddy?” I asked with a high-five. He nodded.
How many times is a scenario like this repeated time and again either at home or at school? A child questions his or her own ability and seeks permission to opt out of the challenging situation. Whether it’s sports or literacy or science, students may say, “I can’t!” We have the privilege of leading them through these scary moments by seizing teachable moments.
Reflecting on this conversation with my almost-teenage son, I realize that it was impactful for both of us. It would have been easier for me to say sharply, “You’re going to practice. That’s it!” or “Stop your whining!” It took extra time and energy during a busy part of the day as we shuttled from camp to home to field, but he is worth the investment.
"Building People: Social-Emotional Learning for Kids, Families, Schools, and Communities" (Abingdon Press, 2018). Order here: http://bit.ly/BuildingPeople
As parents and educators, we are in the business of building people. We are preparing kids for life. According to many employers, the greatest area of weakness for new recruits is social skills. In the world of Google, kids do not need to memorize facts and figures. They need to learn how to solve problems. It is our job as caring adults to teach these competencies. In my conversation with my son, we worked through issues related to self-awareness, self-management, and responsible decision-making.
Heading back to school is an exciting and stressful time. It’s important that we stop and take time to think about our goals for our students this year. Besides great test scores, what do we want to accomplish?
Here are three suggestions for Building People:
  1. Show You Care — Create a warm and nurturing environment by calling children by name, greeting with a smile, and giving high fives each day. 
  2. Value Conversations — Give time and space to listen to students’ thoughts, ideas, and opinions. 
  3. Utilize Project-Based Learning — Instead of worksheets or multiple choice tests, let students struggle with the complexity of a real-world challenge. Coach, don’t rescue. 
By intentionally integrating a common language for social-emotional learning into all that we do, we can do what Hawkins and Catalano suggest: foster relationships, establish high expectations, and create meaningful engagement. As Mister Rogers said, “Knowing that we can be loved exactly as we are gives us all the best opportunity for growing into the healthiest of people.”
"3 Ways to Build People This School Year" originally appeared at EdCircuit. Reprinted with permission.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Tamara Fyke 
Tamara Fyke is a creative entrepreneur with a passion for kids, families, and urban communities. She has worked
Ministry Matters
2222 Rosa L. Parks Boulevard
Nashville, Tennessee 37228 United States 
***
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)