For the Christian church, Advent is the church year season that began last Sunday, November 27. Liturgically, it is "New Years"--the beginning of the church year. Denominations that hold to the liturgical calendar religiously (sorry...), sing only Advent hymns and refrain from mentioning Christmas, which is its own season. Many of us, though, eschew this rigid liturgical correctness and sneak in a Christmas hymn or two, and let the excitement build toward that season as each week's Advent candle is lit at the beginning of worship. So sinful are we...
Advent's traditional focus is on the "second coming" of Jesus Christ. The word Advent, itself, comes from the Latin, adventus, which is from the Greek, parousia, meaning "end-time things." A majority of evangelical Christians believe that Jesus will return, literally, to the earth and bring about the end of the age. A variety of books (and movies) have been produced on this fantastic subject, and the mere mention of it gets many a believer salivating for more stories about how the good guys get their deliverance and the bad guys get fried at the "end of time." Some folk actually get quite giddy at the thought of Jesus "coming in the clouds" and plucking believers out of the deplorable mire of earthly life. But what if that is not our theological ethos? What do others believe about Advent?
We DO believe it is a season of hope. However, hope here is not the selfish "wish" of individual redemption, but the expectation of God showing up. And not just at the end of time, or to pluck out the "true believers," but showing up to work in partnership with the people of God to help build a global realm of justice and peace for all people. This is the true promise of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit (counselor, helper, gift-giver, one who empowers) came upon the fledgling church to walk with a people committed to redemption for all and a just, abundant life for all of God's people. Advent is a time of believing that God has and will continue to show up via the Spirit of Jesus in the hearts and minds of us all, and lead us to a new promised land where "every mountain and valley shall be made low and the rough places a plain" (the rich humbled and the humble made rich). Hope gives way to peace, joy, and love, practiced by humanity for the common good as well as individual fulfillment.
In essence, we believe Jesus keeps returning, day after day, week after week. We are the initial beneficiaries, but as the blessings and grace come to us, they are passed on through acts of mercy and kindness, justice and peacemaking. Might Jesus actually show up "in the flesh" again? Very possibly, but rather than hold our breath waiting, we are nudged by the light of Advent to act like he's already here, and like we are already "on the clock" regarding the Jewish understanding of tikkun olam--fixing the world.
Hospitality and respect are two key ways we begin to do this. "Welcoming the stranger" as a full-blown member of the community, and respecting all life (but most certainly humans) are sure signs that the Advent of God is happening. If you want to see what the world would look like if Jesus came back, love your neighbor as yourself. Seek relationships with people very different than you, and respect them as if they were your kin. Expect the Spirit to create within you a welcoming persona--an attitude of blessing others because you have, yourself, been blessed.
This is Advent, and this is why it is a season of light in a darker world. Stop the waiting; get with the "doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God."
Oh, and sneak in a couple of upbeat Christmas hymns like "Joy to the World, the Lord has Come" or "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing!" just to cope with the gray skies and what seems like a creeping fear all around us. Expect God to show up...today...tomorrow...forever. And may you live life like Jesus just moved into your neighborhood. Salaam and Shalom, Yinz!
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Trump's America
Donald Trump is the president-elect of the United States. We continue as a polarized country. We need to find a way out of the angst and national malaise. I don't know how we are going to do this. And it's not realistic to just say, "God's in charge." When it comes to national affairs, I think God has largely put US in charge. So, what do we do?
There are several different "audiences" with which to deal if we are going to find a way forward:
1. Those who supported Trump because he gave voice to their anger, fear, and possibly nationalistic, misogynist and racist views. These may be the people who are responsible for the 60% rise in "hate crimes" that have been reported by the FBI since the election.
2. Those who supported Trump because they just feel left out and dis-empowered. These are the people in the "flyover" areas often talked about by pundits, but according to filmmaker Michael Moore, rarely taken seriously--except by the Trump campaign. Moore suggested--months ago--that these people wanted to "throw a 'Molotov Cocktail' into Washington" and that would be Donald Trump. He predicted way back then that these people would put Trump over the top. They did.
3. Those who supported Trump because, ultimately, they are party loyalists, and Trump was their candidate. Some of them overlooked his flaws; others just put on a cloak of denial, but either way, they voted the ticket.
4. Those who supported Trump because they just really didn't like or trust Hillary Clinton. Period. It pretty much didn't matter what the other candidate looked like. They were NOT voting for Clinton. Some of these folk extolled Trump's business acumen and believed these credentials could help the country.
5. Those who voted for a third-party candidate. Some did this because they didn't like Trump OR Clinton; others because they LIKED Stein, Johnson, or whomever; and some because they wanted to help get the Libertarian Party over the 5% mark toward legitimacy.
6. Those who supported Clinton because they did NOT like Trump. They weren't big on Clinton and the "baggage" or "drama" she brought to the ticket, but they were NOT going to vote for Trump.
7. Those who felt Clinton was very qualified for the office, based on her senatorial and State Department experience, but who still struggled with some of her questionable judgments such as the exorbitant speaking fees for Wall Street firms and the whole private email thing. Many of these were women and men who felt that the combination of experience and her gender--the potential first woman president--overcame the negative.
8. And finally those who enthusiastically supported Secretary Clinton, many of whom did so back in 2008 as well.
So, things are not as simple as "Trump vs. Clinton" people in this divided land. This was a much more complicated presidential race than it first appears. However, the extreme "poles" do tend to draw attention to themselves--the "alt-right" group that were the screamers and the brawlers at his rallies, and the strong feminists (including many men who were allies) who supported Clinton at least to some measure because of the trailblazing opportunity of voting for a woman.
Notice that I have said nothing about religion in any of these scenarios. Why? Because people of various religious backgrounds and practices were all over this list. It is true that the group branded "evangelicals" by the press voted heavily for Donald Trump. This is a really lousy label, however. "Evangelical" means "people of the Good News." I believe that every person who calls themselves "Christian," and who believes in witness to her or his faith, is an "evangelical." If you invite people to come to church with you, you are practicing "evangelical" theology. If you believe that Jesus left this world better off than when he came, you are "evangelical." If your faith makes you smile, treat people with compassion and respect, and you like to exude positive "vibes" in the name of Jesus, you are "evangelical." I could go on. I call myself and evangelical liberal, which is what Mr. Wesley, founder of Methodism, was. He believed in the the Bible as our guide to faith, but was very liberal in his interpretation of how it applied to life in the Eighteenth Century. He preached faith in Christ in the streets, and in the fields of England, but organized efforts to provide public education, reform the prison system, and encourage fathers to work hard and provide responsibly for their families (which was a really liberal social idea in that century!). Methodists were "people of the warm heart" when it came to having a passion for their Christian faith, but who also had a burning heart to change the society. That would be my definition of "evangelical liberal."
What the media is calling "evangelical" are Christian people who ascribe to certain core dogmas such as being "born again," believing the Bible should be taken literally, and who believe people who don't have the born again experience are condemned to Hell. This understanding of evangelical generally is applied to very conservative individuals who include among their social dogmas being anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ, and anti-same-sex marriage. Many people thus labeled "evangelical" in the popular culture voted for Trump because of their conservatism, and in some cases, just because Trump promised to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
These two paragraphs are a gross oversimplification of the different understandings of "evangelical," just as my Eight Audiences listed above are an oversimplification of the fields of American voters in this most recent election. However, both are meant to provide at least a framework for understanding the "mess we's in," so to speak.
So, how do we go forward? In a world that still believed in compromise, we would look for some common ground:
1. People need jobs who have been displaced by outsourcing, the death of certain industries like coal and steel, and the rapidly changing job market, period. Expanded opportunities for education, training and re-training are needed.
2. Something has to be figured out with healthcare. The ACA was a flawed attempt to offer coverage to all, and I believe this is still a common goal of many Americans. They just don't want to mortgage their home to pay for it, and are tired of deductibles now approaching half of the annual premium outlay.
3. Our children need a quality education that should not be based solely on one's ability to pay for it. Public systems should not be funded merely through taxing people in the district. This means that wealthy districts will have good schools, and poor or inner-city districts will have poor schools. And it's not just the money. Just pumping dollars into schools won't help without changing some of the paradigms for testing, teacher competence, and administration. And all students should be able to afford a college or trade school education after high school, for all jobs, including the trades, will require specialized training.
Let's call these things the "basics." I don't believe that any of the Eight Audiences above would have a problem with these "essentials." What if we petitioned our new government to work on these things? If you look at them carefully, you will see that the most liberal liberal and the most conservative conservative would have a fundamental problem with any of these three foci. There will be different ideas as to how to approach them, and some very conservative (especially Libertarians) may balk at government even taking on the challenge. But I'll bet the majority of Americans would affirm these things. I'll bet even the "evangelicals" would be OK with them.
If the government could stimulate job creation and help catalyze education and training for people to be qualified for the jobs which are created, this would be good. If we could come up with a better way to make affordable healthcare available to all, this would be huge, but it would most likely involve doing something that Secretary Clinton said would be very difficult: separate healthcare from employment. And if we could create systems that would make education and trade training widely available and affordable, an educated citizenry would be prepared to do occupy the jobs created, going forward.
Again, this is certainly an oversimplification of complex, national challenges. However, what I believe is not only practical but necessary if we are to make any progress is finding common ground goals that every constituency can believe in, and ones that, if accomplished, would benefit all Americans. Hence, I submit these three for your consideration.
Conservatives could still keep their "pet" agendas: strong defense, the Second Amendment, smaller government, etc., and they could continue to fight for these things. Liberals could fight for theirs: equal rights and pay for people of any gender, gender identity, or orientation; First Amendment freedoms, dismantling racism, etc. And "evangelicals" (as well as other religious groups) could fight for their agendas: anti-abortion, freedom to practice religion without undue government harassment, etc.
But maybe, just maybe we could greatly advance our country by making sure people had jobs, a decent education, and healthcare, first. We'd all have more energy and resources to work on the "pet" agendas! And our society would be that much more just.
Incidentally, these are, in a form, the kind of reforms Mr. Wesley was about in Eighteenth Century England.
Now, to quote comedian Dennis Miller: "This is just my opinion--I could be wrong." Shalom, Yinz.
There are several different "audiences" with which to deal if we are going to find a way forward:
1. Those who supported Trump because he gave voice to their anger, fear, and possibly nationalistic, misogynist and racist views. These may be the people who are responsible for the 60% rise in "hate crimes" that have been reported by the FBI since the election.
2. Those who supported Trump because they just feel left out and dis-empowered. These are the people in the "flyover" areas often talked about by pundits, but according to filmmaker Michael Moore, rarely taken seriously--except by the Trump campaign. Moore suggested--months ago--that these people wanted to "throw a 'Molotov Cocktail' into Washington" and that would be Donald Trump. He predicted way back then that these people would put Trump over the top. They did.
3. Those who supported Trump because, ultimately, they are party loyalists, and Trump was their candidate. Some of them overlooked his flaws; others just put on a cloak of denial, but either way, they voted the ticket.
4. Those who supported Trump because they just really didn't like or trust Hillary Clinton. Period. It pretty much didn't matter what the other candidate looked like. They were NOT voting for Clinton. Some of these folk extolled Trump's business acumen and believed these credentials could help the country.
5. Those who voted for a third-party candidate. Some did this because they didn't like Trump OR Clinton; others because they LIKED Stein, Johnson, or whomever; and some because they wanted to help get the Libertarian Party over the 5% mark toward legitimacy.
6. Those who supported Clinton because they did NOT like Trump. They weren't big on Clinton and the "baggage" or "drama" she brought to the ticket, but they were NOT going to vote for Trump.
7. Those who felt Clinton was very qualified for the office, based on her senatorial and State Department experience, but who still struggled with some of her questionable judgments such as the exorbitant speaking fees for Wall Street firms and the whole private email thing. Many of these were women and men who felt that the combination of experience and her gender--the potential first woman president--overcame the negative.
8. And finally those who enthusiastically supported Secretary Clinton, many of whom did so back in 2008 as well.
So, things are not as simple as "Trump vs. Clinton" people in this divided land. This was a much more complicated presidential race than it first appears. However, the extreme "poles" do tend to draw attention to themselves--the "alt-right" group that were the screamers and the brawlers at his rallies, and the strong feminists (including many men who were allies) who supported Clinton at least to some measure because of the trailblazing opportunity of voting for a woman.
Notice that I have said nothing about religion in any of these scenarios. Why? Because people of various religious backgrounds and practices were all over this list. It is true that the group branded "evangelicals" by the press voted heavily for Donald Trump. This is a really lousy label, however. "Evangelical" means "people of the Good News." I believe that every person who calls themselves "Christian," and who believes in witness to her or his faith, is an "evangelical." If you invite people to come to church with you, you are practicing "evangelical" theology. If you believe that Jesus left this world better off than when he came, you are "evangelical." If your faith makes you smile, treat people with compassion and respect, and you like to exude positive "vibes" in the name of Jesus, you are "evangelical." I could go on. I call myself and evangelical liberal, which is what Mr. Wesley, founder of Methodism, was. He believed in the the Bible as our guide to faith, but was very liberal in his interpretation of how it applied to life in the Eighteenth Century. He preached faith in Christ in the streets, and in the fields of England, but organized efforts to provide public education, reform the prison system, and encourage fathers to work hard and provide responsibly for their families (which was a really liberal social idea in that century!). Methodists were "people of the warm heart" when it came to having a passion for their Christian faith, but who also had a burning heart to change the society. That would be my definition of "evangelical liberal."
What the media is calling "evangelical" are Christian people who ascribe to certain core dogmas such as being "born again," believing the Bible should be taken literally, and who believe people who don't have the born again experience are condemned to Hell. This understanding of evangelical generally is applied to very conservative individuals who include among their social dogmas being anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ, and anti-same-sex marriage. Many people thus labeled "evangelical" in the popular culture voted for Trump because of their conservatism, and in some cases, just because Trump promised to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
These two paragraphs are a gross oversimplification of the different understandings of "evangelical," just as my Eight Audiences listed above are an oversimplification of the fields of American voters in this most recent election. However, both are meant to provide at least a framework for understanding the "mess we's in," so to speak.
So, how do we go forward? In a world that still believed in compromise, we would look for some common ground:
1. People need jobs who have been displaced by outsourcing, the death of certain industries like coal and steel, and the rapidly changing job market, period. Expanded opportunities for education, training and re-training are needed.
2. Something has to be figured out with healthcare. The ACA was a flawed attempt to offer coverage to all, and I believe this is still a common goal of many Americans. They just don't want to mortgage their home to pay for it, and are tired of deductibles now approaching half of the annual premium outlay.
3. Our children need a quality education that should not be based solely on one's ability to pay for it. Public systems should not be funded merely through taxing people in the district. This means that wealthy districts will have good schools, and poor or inner-city districts will have poor schools. And it's not just the money. Just pumping dollars into schools won't help without changing some of the paradigms for testing, teacher competence, and administration. And all students should be able to afford a college or trade school education after high school, for all jobs, including the trades, will require specialized training.
Let's call these things the "basics." I don't believe that any of the Eight Audiences above would have a problem with these "essentials." What if we petitioned our new government to work on these things? If you look at them carefully, you will see that the most liberal liberal and the most conservative conservative would have a fundamental problem with any of these three foci. There will be different ideas as to how to approach them, and some very conservative (especially Libertarians) may balk at government even taking on the challenge. But I'll bet the majority of Americans would affirm these things. I'll bet even the "evangelicals" would be OK with them.
If the government could stimulate job creation and help catalyze education and training for people to be qualified for the jobs which are created, this would be good. If we could come up with a better way to make affordable healthcare available to all, this would be huge, but it would most likely involve doing something that Secretary Clinton said would be very difficult: separate healthcare from employment. And if we could create systems that would make education and trade training widely available and affordable, an educated citizenry would be prepared to do occupy the jobs created, going forward.
Again, this is certainly an oversimplification of complex, national challenges. However, what I believe is not only practical but necessary if we are to make any progress is finding common ground goals that every constituency can believe in, and ones that, if accomplished, would benefit all Americans. Hence, I submit these three for your consideration.
Conservatives could still keep their "pet" agendas: strong defense, the Second Amendment, smaller government, etc., and they could continue to fight for these things. Liberals could fight for theirs: equal rights and pay for people of any gender, gender identity, or orientation; First Amendment freedoms, dismantling racism, etc. And "evangelicals" (as well as other religious groups) could fight for their agendas: anti-abortion, freedom to practice religion without undue government harassment, etc.
But maybe, just maybe we could greatly advance our country by making sure people had jobs, a decent education, and healthcare, first. We'd all have more energy and resources to work on the "pet" agendas! And our society would be that much more just.
Incidentally, these are, in a form, the kind of reforms Mr. Wesley was about in Eighteenth Century England.
Now, to quote comedian Dennis Miller: "This is just my opinion--I could be wrong." Shalom, Yinz.
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Praying for the elections...'
I know, the last thing you want to hear now is the word "elections." Well, I'm praying for the elections--praying they will be over! Have we ever seen such a divisive time in the American experience? I would be happy to return to the "attack ads" of yesteryear. Today's are absolutely depressing. "If you vote for (fill in the blank), nuclear war can't be far behind. Every puppy in America will cease to exist, and you will be homeless. Our veterans? Fuggedaboutit!" And then, five minutes later, you see basically the same ad with the opponent's name in the blank! What are we to do? VOTE!
Now, while I agree with an article I read recently that said that it is a fundamentally American right NOT to vote, if one chooses, I do believe we should vote. If you are too disgusted to vote for the top names on the ticket, at least vote for your state and local offices who will represent you in "domestic" matters. If they, too, have been duking it out and acting like children, write in someone you think could do the job! At least vote for your local civic authorities, as they will set your tax rate! Oh, and don't forget that Pennsylvanians have a referendum on the ballot that is stated in so much doublespeak that you really DO have to do some reading to figure out which way to vote.
But vote. I can't take anyone seriously in a conversation about anything political when they admit they didn't vote. Voting is our "chip in the game," so to speak. Show up at the polls, and vote. I have a cure for those who feel that the nastiness and myriad misinformation present in this election cycle have rendered them so debilitated that they feel they can't vote: Read! Read editorials, articles in newspapers and from all manner of news sources. Don't just take in a steady diet of MSNBC or Fox News (and, God forbid, Breitbart or Daily Kos). Read editorials from people who have won Pulitzer Prizes, and who write for newspapers (or electronic media) that have been around for awhile. But READ. And don't believe everything you read, but enough that you can form an "educated" opinion, and one that is your own, not someone else's ideas just rammed down your throat. Then, make an educated vote. There is no way to know if your decision is "right" or "wrong." But make it well-thought-out!
Don't vote straight party ticket! Even if you wind up voting for every candidate of a given party, at least go through the exercise of looking over every name on the ballot and making conscious choices. Savor your right of casting a ballot.
And, as people of faith, of course you should pray about your voting decisions, as well as for all of the others casting ballots, and for each and every candidate as well, because some of them are going to win, and they may not be your choices. The world will not end if your candidates are not elected, despite what the goofy ads say. I think, ultimately, God does have some say in this whole thing, but I do not believe God is in the corner of any specific candidate. God will always be doing triage and picking up the pieces of the inevitable "less than stellar" performance of any government. That is why the Apostle Paul tells us in Romans, chapter 13, to pray for these people. Even Paul understood that politicians are usually quite human (maybe more so than their constituents?), and that prayer may be what keeps us alive.
Finally, please don't be a "single-issue" voter. It certainly is your right. Heck, you can vote for someone just because you like his tie or her hairstyle, but governing requires so much more than focusing on a single issue. As I read FaceBook, I see lots of people using abortion or veterans issues as the sole delineator as to for whom they will vote. This stuff is hard, and life is extremely complex. There are no simple solutions to our very difficult problems. That' s a fact, regardless of what the goofy ads say. Voting for someone for high office just because of what she or he says about the military, or immigration, or women's reproductive rights will not get us to where we need to go.
And once it's over, pray for the winners and the losers. They all need grace. And if they turn out to be lousy leaders, pray for each other as we all need grace. And if you are really disappointed in what these people do or don't do in office, consider exercising another right of your American citizenship: put your name on the ballot next time around!
One final prediction: Come Wednesday, November 9, we will all still be here. America will continue to be America, with its incredible blessings and its vexing problems. And as people of faith, our best response is to pray, and then get to the work of being a hard-working, responsible citizen, a loving neighbor, and the kind of patriot who lives it instead of just hiding behind the flag. Not a bad recipe for being a good Christian, too! Happy voting, Yinz, and above all, shalom!
Now, while I agree with an article I read recently that said that it is a fundamentally American right NOT to vote, if one chooses, I do believe we should vote. If you are too disgusted to vote for the top names on the ticket, at least vote for your state and local offices who will represent you in "domestic" matters. If they, too, have been duking it out and acting like children, write in someone you think could do the job! At least vote for your local civic authorities, as they will set your tax rate! Oh, and don't forget that Pennsylvanians have a referendum on the ballot that is stated in so much doublespeak that you really DO have to do some reading to figure out which way to vote.
But vote. I can't take anyone seriously in a conversation about anything political when they admit they didn't vote. Voting is our "chip in the game," so to speak. Show up at the polls, and vote. I have a cure for those who feel that the nastiness and myriad misinformation present in this election cycle have rendered them so debilitated that they feel they can't vote: Read! Read editorials, articles in newspapers and from all manner of news sources. Don't just take in a steady diet of MSNBC or Fox News (and, God forbid, Breitbart or Daily Kos). Read editorials from people who have won Pulitzer Prizes, and who write for newspapers (or electronic media) that have been around for awhile. But READ. And don't believe everything you read, but enough that you can form an "educated" opinion, and one that is your own, not someone else's ideas just rammed down your throat. Then, make an educated vote. There is no way to know if your decision is "right" or "wrong." But make it well-thought-out!
Don't vote straight party ticket! Even if you wind up voting for every candidate of a given party, at least go through the exercise of looking over every name on the ballot and making conscious choices. Savor your right of casting a ballot.
And, as people of faith, of course you should pray about your voting decisions, as well as for all of the others casting ballots, and for each and every candidate as well, because some of them are going to win, and they may not be your choices. The world will not end if your candidates are not elected, despite what the goofy ads say. I think, ultimately, God does have some say in this whole thing, but I do not believe God is in the corner of any specific candidate. God will always be doing triage and picking up the pieces of the inevitable "less than stellar" performance of any government. That is why the Apostle Paul tells us in Romans, chapter 13, to pray for these people. Even Paul understood that politicians are usually quite human (maybe more so than their constituents?), and that prayer may be what keeps us alive.
Finally, please don't be a "single-issue" voter. It certainly is your right. Heck, you can vote for someone just because you like his tie or her hairstyle, but governing requires so much more than focusing on a single issue. As I read FaceBook, I see lots of people using abortion or veterans issues as the sole delineator as to for whom they will vote. This stuff is hard, and life is extremely complex. There are no simple solutions to our very difficult problems. That' s a fact, regardless of what the goofy ads say. Voting for someone for high office just because of what she or he says about the military, or immigration, or women's reproductive rights will not get us to where we need to go.
And once it's over, pray for the winners and the losers. They all need grace. And if they turn out to be lousy leaders, pray for each other as we all need grace. And if you are really disappointed in what these people do or don't do in office, consider exercising another right of your American citizenship: put your name on the ballot next time around!
One final prediction: Come Wednesday, November 9, we will all still be here. America will continue to be America, with its incredible blessings and its vexing problems. And as people of faith, our best response is to pray, and then get to the work of being a hard-working, responsible citizen, a loving neighbor, and the kind of patriot who lives it instead of just hiding behind the flag. Not a bad recipe for being a good Christian, too! Happy voting, Yinz, and above all, shalom!
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
Funding stuff...
Well, it's that time of year when our church's Stewardship Team puts together our "annual campaign" to ask our members and friends to "pledge" (we actually use "estimate of giving") their support for the coming year of ministry and mission at St. Paul's. As with many non-profits, funding the work we do is getting harder and harder. Costs are up--surprise!--and younger generations of church attenders are not prone to be as financially supportive as their parents and grandparents.
I have been fortunate to serve churches that do far more than just offer worship services. Each has engaged in a variety of community ministries from feeding programs to children's ministry that reached out into the families of the community. Most also supported myriad relief efforts in times of natural disasters, and most fielded work trips or "Volunteer in Mission" teams which did "hands on" acts of caring. What I'm saying is that we did far more with the dollars entrusted to us by these congregations than just hold worship and pay the gas bill--in business parlance, I guess you'd say "more bang for the buck." Hence, we have been able to encourage giving out of integrity, knowing that the "good" we did was worth it. Still, as the older generations move on--either to personal care homes or the "Church Triumphant"--the budget is getting harder to cover.
Of the churches I have served, St. Paul's is the most heavily invested in ministries of education, outreach, and regional and international mission. Interestingly, it is also the only church with basically no invested funds (endowments, trusts, etc.) from which to draw in times of low giving or poor cash flow. That is a challenge! Our Stewardship Team is working on several new ideas, from intentionally encouraging legacy gifts, to new electronic giving options via smart phones. We believe in what we are about, and have a great track record of delivering on our mission and vision. We are in the final stages of creating and approving a "fresh" mission and vision to guide us in the coming years. And yet, with some of the generational "shifts" happening, we go forward with some fear and trepidation. I like to think we trust God to provide, and this is what we preach, teach, and model for the congregation, but as lead pastor, I would be less than honest to say I'm comfortable with this level of uncertainty.
Yeah, I'm a pastor, so I started this blog with the financial woes of the church. And I realize that I have been very fortunate to serve vital churches that worked hard to maintain relevance beyond religion. But the second part of this "rant" is that our societal priorities--or lack thereof--threaten to plunge many non-profit causes into financial crises. As I write this, the Pittsburgh Symphony is on strike because of an unacceptable contract offer, and the teachers in the Pennsylvania State university system have gone out on the picket line as well. Charities, the arts, and education are all taking it on the financial "chin," currently. As is true with the church, generational shifts in charitable giving are having an increasingly negative effect. People who do set a high priority on charitable giving are inundated with requests for gifts and donations. It is not a premium time to be in the non-profit sector!
What will be the "fix" for this? First of all, I believe we need to restructure some of our societal priorities. We have never come up with a way to fund education that works. Public schools rely on outmoded systems of taxation and funds distribution. School boards are so intimidated that it is getting harder to get people to run for school board in many of our communities. Public universities find costs outstripping revenues, and tuition increases only serve to cut down on the number of students. Even private colleges and universities struggle unless they are blessed with huge endowments, as tuition costs have increased rapidly. Current school loan programs encourage high debt on the part of students who will enter the job market at salary levels inadequate to pay them down in a reasonable time frame. Many with undergraduate and graduate degrees will make school loan payments for the rest of their working careers!
In a nation that will spend over a trillion dollars on a single fighter plane program (the F35 Joint Strike Fighter) and that spends over 32% of its annual budget on defense, is it any surprise that when it comes to education as a national priority, we "speak loudly but carry a toothpick"? I'm not saying that national defense and "homeland security" aren't important, but a third of the federal budget?
Making a quality education for all a priority in the United States, and making the necessary financial sacrifices in the federal budget to fund it, would free up lots of money in the hands of citizens to fund other charities and the arts. A better educated citizenry would have a tremendous impact on our nation and the world. Better education means a deeper understanding of world issues, and may mean more informed ways to work for justice and peace. Fielding a strong defense doesn't have to bankrupt our nation, but not coming up with a better plan for funding education will, in the long run.
Finally, we must cultivate the generosity of all Americans. As mentioned earlier, younger generations are not demonstrating the altruism of their parents. Look around. The beautiful homes in a local housing plan near our church that used to house corporate leaders, school administrators, and medical professionals are now starter homes for the younger generations. Near where I live in Mars, PA, homes are going up all around that start at $800,000 and go upwards of three million dollars in cost! The average square footage of a new home today is 1,000 square feet larger than a new home in 1973. This is just one example of where we are parking our dollars. Automobiles? In our housing plan, our Toyota Prius and Subaru Forrester are, by far, the "bargain" cars in the neighborhood!
I'm suggesting that we all should take a "priority audit" of our own spending. How can we ever expect out government to re-prioritize its spending when it may just be following our lead? And please note that I'm not just harping on "giving to the poor" or "taking care of the least of these," according to the words of Jesus. I DO believe this should be a high national priority so none starve or have to be homeless who do not want to be, but in the long run, I think the "cure" for poverty is access to appropriate education and jobs that will lift people out of poverty.
Well, today's rant has been brought to you by a growing frustration in seeing college teachers and symphony artists on the picket line, and church stewardship teams beginning to feel like TV hucksters in finding ways to fund the mission and ministry our own people say they want. Should we trust God for help with all of this? I have to say "yes," but I remember the words of a wise old pastor who once told me that the expression, "Prayer changes things" was in error. Instead, he said, "Prayer changes people and people change things." Right or wrong, it's a good place to start! Shalom, Yinz...
I have been fortunate to serve churches that do far more than just offer worship services. Each has engaged in a variety of community ministries from feeding programs to children's ministry that reached out into the families of the community. Most also supported myriad relief efforts in times of natural disasters, and most fielded work trips or "Volunteer in Mission" teams which did "hands on" acts of caring. What I'm saying is that we did far more with the dollars entrusted to us by these congregations than just hold worship and pay the gas bill--in business parlance, I guess you'd say "more bang for the buck." Hence, we have been able to encourage giving out of integrity, knowing that the "good" we did was worth it. Still, as the older generations move on--either to personal care homes or the "Church Triumphant"--the budget is getting harder to cover.
Of the churches I have served, St. Paul's is the most heavily invested in ministries of education, outreach, and regional and international mission. Interestingly, it is also the only church with basically no invested funds (endowments, trusts, etc.) from which to draw in times of low giving or poor cash flow. That is a challenge! Our Stewardship Team is working on several new ideas, from intentionally encouraging legacy gifts, to new electronic giving options via smart phones. We believe in what we are about, and have a great track record of delivering on our mission and vision. We are in the final stages of creating and approving a "fresh" mission and vision to guide us in the coming years. And yet, with some of the generational "shifts" happening, we go forward with some fear and trepidation. I like to think we trust God to provide, and this is what we preach, teach, and model for the congregation, but as lead pastor, I would be less than honest to say I'm comfortable with this level of uncertainty.
Yeah, I'm a pastor, so I started this blog with the financial woes of the church. And I realize that I have been very fortunate to serve vital churches that worked hard to maintain relevance beyond religion. But the second part of this "rant" is that our societal priorities--or lack thereof--threaten to plunge many non-profit causes into financial crises. As I write this, the Pittsburgh Symphony is on strike because of an unacceptable contract offer, and the teachers in the Pennsylvania State university system have gone out on the picket line as well. Charities, the arts, and education are all taking it on the financial "chin," currently. As is true with the church, generational shifts in charitable giving are having an increasingly negative effect. People who do set a high priority on charitable giving are inundated with requests for gifts and donations. It is not a premium time to be in the non-profit sector!
What will be the "fix" for this? First of all, I believe we need to restructure some of our societal priorities. We have never come up with a way to fund education that works. Public schools rely on outmoded systems of taxation and funds distribution. School boards are so intimidated that it is getting harder to get people to run for school board in many of our communities. Public universities find costs outstripping revenues, and tuition increases only serve to cut down on the number of students. Even private colleges and universities struggle unless they are blessed with huge endowments, as tuition costs have increased rapidly. Current school loan programs encourage high debt on the part of students who will enter the job market at salary levels inadequate to pay them down in a reasonable time frame. Many with undergraduate and graduate degrees will make school loan payments for the rest of their working careers!
In a nation that will spend over a trillion dollars on a single fighter plane program (the F35 Joint Strike Fighter) and that spends over 32% of its annual budget on defense, is it any surprise that when it comes to education as a national priority, we "speak loudly but carry a toothpick"? I'm not saying that national defense and "homeland security" aren't important, but a third of the federal budget?
Making a quality education for all a priority in the United States, and making the necessary financial sacrifices in the federal budget to fund it, would free up lots of money in the hands of citizens to fund other charities and the arts. A better educated citizenry would have a tremendous impact on our nation and the world. Better education means a deeper understanding of world issues, and may mean more informed ways to work for justice and peace. Fielding a strong defense doesn't have to bankrupt our nation, but not coming up with a better plan for funding education will, in the long run.
Finally, we must cultivate the generosity of all Americans. As mentioned earlier, younger generations are not demonstrating the altruism of their parents. Look around. The beautiful homes in a local housing plan near our church that used to house corporate leaders, school administrators, and medical professionals are now starter homes for the younger generations. Near where I live in Mars, PA, homes are going up all around that start at $800,000 and go upwards of three million dollars in cost! The average square footage of a new home today is 1,000 square feet larger than a new home in 1973. This is just one example of where we are parking our dollars. Automobiles? In our housing plan, our Toyota Prius and Subaru Forrester are, by far, the "bargain" cars in the neighborhood!
I'm suggesting that we all should take a "priority audit" of our own spending. How can we ever expect out government to re-prioritize its spending when it may just be following our lead? And please note that I'm not just harping on "giving to the poor" or "taking care of the least of these," according to the words of Jesus. I DO believe this should be a high national priority so none starve or have to be homeless who do not want to be, but in the long run, I think the "cure" for poverty is access to appropriate education and jobs that will lift people out of poverty.
Well, today's rant has been brought to you by a growing frustration in seeing college teachers and symphony artists on the picket line, and church stewardship teams beginning to feel like TV hucksters in finding ways to fund the mission and ministry our own people say they want. Should we trust God for help with all of this? I have to say "yes," but I remember the words of a wise old pastor who once told me that the expression, "Prayer changes things" was in error. Instead, he said, "Prayer changes people and people change things." Right or wrong, it's a good place to start! Shalom, Yinz...
Thursday, October 6, 2016
Political Ads...
I'm not going to write about the political climate again--if you're not tired of that already, you probably need therapy. I am going to address a concern that arises from the advertisements overrunning just about every media outlet before our eyes and ears, but most especially TV and radio. Political ads on these media fall into the "You've GOT to be kidding?" category.
While watching television the other night, and being confronted with advertisements for candidates ranging from President to Congress-persons, I found both my anger level rising and my "bull" detector sounding off like a ship's klaxon. First of all, the people who make these ads are either nuts, evil, or on something, and possibly a combination of all three. Rarely did any of the ads address actual issues facing voters, and when they did, they either oversimplified complex issues beyond all hope, or they just turned and demonized the opponent, having named the issue in question. I realize that they only have thirty seconds in which to make their point, but please people, how about an ad that goes something like this:
"Hi, my name is _____________ and I'm running for_______________. I believe the three most important issues facing Pennsylvanians/Americans are: 1__________, 2_________ and 3_________. I have specific ideas on how to address these. Please visit my website at: _______________ for more information, or call ___________ and we'll send you a printed copy. After seeing my ideas, I hope you will vote for me on November 8."
Honestly, if I saw an ad like that, I might vote for the person just on principle! The ad, however, makes an assumption: that voters WANT to be informed and are willing to READ to be so. Therein lies the problem...
When it comes to important stuff--who we will elect as our local and national leaders, the health and welfare of our families, and our religious beliefs--seeking reliable, accurate, and detail-oriented information and READING it should be a proverbial "no-brainer." Whatever happened to an informed citizenry? Has Twitter and FaceBook robbed us of the desire to know more than tag lines, slogans, and "tweets" about things that impact our existence? The fact that political campaigns spend MILLIONS on TV and radio ads tells me that they are bearing fruit. I just can't imagine hearing one of these childishly oversimplified "problem/solution" ads or a nasty "smear" ad and thinking, "Oh boy, I'm gonna' vote for her/him!!!" They insult our intelligence, each and every one, and yet they must be working or candidates would stop doing them!
As a pastor, I sometimes find myself in a "debate" over an aspect of religious faith with a church member or even a clergy colleague. I quickly deduce that the other is not well versed in the subject on which they have a strong opinion. When I suggest a book or two, or a series of articles for them to read so as to be better informed, I may get the cold, hard "Are you KIDDING?" look. I fear that the "political climate" polarization may have helped ruin the art of conversation and an informed citizenry. This reminds me of an old episode of the popular TV show, "Cheers," in which the cerebral waitress Diane tried to end a beer-fueled debate going on in the bar by inviting opposing parties into the back room for a healthy, informed conversation about the issue. No one left their bar stool. Then, Diane said, "OK, how about everybody with a two-bit opinion?" And the whole bar emptied into the backroom.
Friends, I don't EVEN want to suggest how you choose to vote, or for whom. But PLEASE do your duty and vote! And PLEASE seek out reliable, intelligent sources of information about the candidates and READ. Do a little research, as such sources of information are getting harder to find, due to the popularity of heavily skewed media! At least read BOTH sides, if you can't find less partisan sources. Be able to give an account for the choices you make on November 8. Be able to say:
"I have decided to vote for _______________, and based on the information I was able to find and read, I am choosing this candidate for the following reasons:______________________."
Make sure you are adequately informed, that the "reasons" you cite are more than just the tag-lines of someone's moronic ad, and that none of the reasons is an attack on the other candidate! This puts you well on the path of being an informed citizen. Good for you!
Oh, and when it comes to the health and welfare of your family, consult reliable health professionals and sources, not the latest miracle "cure" on FaceBook; in terms of financial matters, don't fall for a scheme or call one of those 800 numbers where they claim to "eliminate" your debt, and when it comes to parenting advice, read some books or take a class.
And if the subject is your religious faith, read, read, read! Maybe even the Bible? And ask your pastor if you can borrow a commentary or two? How about taking in a lecture at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary? Most of them are free, and feature world-class scholars!
If we don't soon begin to reverse this "two-bit opinion" trend now infesting our politics, our finances, and our faith, we will soon be left with nothing but "two-bit" leaders. And for a nation that built itself on hard work, education, and an engaged, informed citizenry, the results will be calamitous.
While watching television the other night, and being confronted with advertisements for candidates ranging from President to Congress-persons, I found both my anger level rising and my "bull" detector sounding off like a ship's klaxon. First of all, the people who make these ads are either nuts, evil, or on something, and possibly a combination of all three. Rarely did any of the ads address actual issues facing voters, and when they did, they either oversimplified complex issues beyond all hope, or they just turned and demonized the opponent, having named the issue in question. I realize that they only have thirty seconds in which to make their point, but please people, how about an ad that goes something like this:
"Hi, my name is _____________ and I'm running for_______________. I believe the three most important issues facing Pennsylvanians/Americans are: 1__________, 2_________ and 3_________. I have specific ideas on how to address these. Please visit my website at: _______________ for more information, or call ___________ and we'll send you a printed copy. After seeing my ideas, I hope you will vote for me on November 8."
Honestly, if I saw an ad like that, I might vote for the person just on principle! The ad, however, makes an assumption: that voters WANT to be informed and are willing to READ to be so. Therein lies the problem...
When it comes to important stuff--who we will elect as our local and national leaders, the health and welfare of our families, and our religious beliefs--seeking reliable, accurate, and detail-oriented information and READING it should be a proverbial "no-brainer." Whatever happened to an informed citizenry? Has Twitter and FaceBook robbed us of the desire to know more than tag lines, slogans, and "tweets" about things that impact our existence? The fact that political campaigns spend MILLIONS on TV and radio ads tells me that they are bearing fruit. I just can't imagine hearing one of these childishly oversimplified "problem/solution" ads or a nasty "smear" ad and thinking, "Oh boy, I'm gonna' vote for her/him!!!" They insult our intelligence, each and every one, and yet they must be working or candidates would stop doing them!
As a pastor, I sometimes find myself in a "debate" over an aspect of religious faith with a church member or even a clergy colleague. I quickly deduce that the other is not well versed in the subject on which they have a strong opinion. When I suggest a book or two, or a series of articles for them to read so as to be better informed, I may get the cold, hard "Are you KIDDING?" look. I fear that the "political climate" polarization may have helped ruin the art of conversation and an informed citizenry. This reminds me of an old episode of the popular TV show, "Cheers," in which the cerebral waitress Diane tried to end a beer-fueled debate going on in the bar by inviting opposing parties into the back room for a healthy, informed conversation about the issue. No one left their bar stool. Then, Diane said, "OK, how about everybody with a two-bit opinion?" And the whole bar emptied into the backroom.
Friends, I don't EVEN want to suggest how you choose to vote, or for whom. But PLEASE do your duty and vote! And PLEASE seek out reliable, intelligent sources of information about the candidates and READ. Do a little research, as such sources of information are getting harder to find, due to the popularity of heavily skewed media! At least read BOTH sides, if you can't find less partisan sources. Be able to give an account for the choices you make on November 8. Be able to say:
"I have decided to vote for _______________, and based on the information I was able to find and read, I am choosing this candidate for the following reasons:______________________."
Make sure you are adequately informed, that the "reasons" you cite are more than just the tag-lines of someone's moronic ad, and that none of the reasons is an attack on the other candidate! This puts you well on the path of being an informed citizen. Good for you!
Oh, and when it comes to the health and welfare of your family, consult reliable health professionals and sources, not the latest miracle "cure" on FaceBook; in terms of financial matters, don't fall for a scheme or call one of those 800 numbers where they claim to "eliminate" your debt, and when it comes to parenting advice, read some books or take a class.
And if the subject is your religious faith, read, read, read! Maybe even the Bible? And ask your pastor if you can borrow a commentary or two? How about taking in a lecture at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary? Most of them are free, and feature world-class scholars!
If we don't soon begin to reverse this "two-bit opinion" trend now infesting our politics, our finances, and our faith, we will soon be left with nothing but "two-bit" leaders. And for a nation that built itself on hard work, education, and an engaged, informed citizenry, the results will be calamitous.
Saturday, September 24, 2016
In-between times...
I'm sitting here trying to finish a sermon on "The Supportive Community." It sounds like an easy one, but it isn't. To get beyond the cliche understanding of what a supportive community might be is difficult. And when do I get to decide what actions are "supportive" when I am the one needing support? I'm sure you all have had the experience of trying to support someone going through a rough time and either you got the sense that what you were doing was not helping, or the person you were trying to help TOLD you it wasn't helpful. Maybe we should develop the habit of just asking, "What could I do to be helpful to you at this time?" More on this in a moment...
Oh, I could write about more shootings and the protests that have followed. But I really don't know what to say, at this point. I do think that some kind of "national" standards about how and when police should use deadly force would be helpful, and this idea has been endorsed by many in law enforcement. I don't think "stop and frisk" is a good idea. It will just drive an even bigger wedge between cops and citizens.
And then there's the election. How could something so very important get us to the point where we just want to move to another country? Why are we doing this so poorly? One candidate just calls everyone who disagrees with him all kinds of names, and the other usually speaks in "lawyer" language (carefully worded propositions?), dulling the senses of most listeners. And don't tell me to vote for one of the fringe candidates. That's just a dumb idea, as neither of them will be president. Period. I might as well just burn my voter registration card as to cast a vote for a candidate that has absolutely no chance to be elected. Enough on the elections...
The Pirates are probably done for the year. McCutcheon had a "blah" year, what looked like promising pitching turned out to be smoke and mirrors, and enough dumb errors were committed--especially on the base paths--that it might call management into question. Maybe it was just a bad year--the storm before the calm. The Steelers are looking good after two games. They face a rookie Ben-lookalike with the Eagles this week. Could be interesting. People are getting excited about the Pens again, but need I remind you that, while they really haven't lost any talent from last year's team, a hockey Stanley Cup repeat is the toughest one in all of sports? Shuffleboard, anyone?
Ministries and the program year at St. Paul's are off and running and doing well. Our finances, year-to-date, are about par for the course over the past three or four years, which is not to say real good. Giving has increased moderately, but then so have expenses. Oh well, we just keep trusting God and our people to make the good stuff continue to work! Our proposed new purpose, mission and vision statements are being rolled out, including the preaching series on our congregational values that have been incorporated into the new verbiage. So far, so good. We hope to have final statements ready for Church Conference approval on November 15. Incidentally, our previous PMV statements guided this congregation for over 15 years!
Back to "The Supportive Community." What might that look like to you, the reader? If the church is to be a supportive community, what does that mean? Do individuals within that community "rise up" and offer to help you in your time of need? Does the existence of a praying, caring "church family" serve as a kind of safety net for you while you feel your life is being shot out of a giant canon? Or does an attentive congregation provide examples you may follow in getting out of the mess you feel you are in? One thing about it: It's easy for a church to SAY "We are a supportive community." Being that is another thing, and my sense is that, because the people--the objects of our support--are individuals, being supportive will mean a great variety of things, and it will often be kind of trial and error to get it right. Maybe it is supportive just in the very idea that people are willing to try, with all their hearts?
One image I have is that little party game where you have a "subject" lay down flat on her or his back, and all of the rest of the "party" each puts just two or four fingers under them, and with very minimal effort, the raft of collected fingers actually lifts the person upward. Wouldn't it be nice if our churches could be "supportive communities" in this manner? Unfortunately, not all of the fingers in question would be lifting, in many of our churches. Some would be poking, others pointing, and some even making obscene gestures, leaving the few legitimate "lifters" carrying way too much of the weight.
Enough "In-between times" for now. Hopefully, next blog I'll have something to write about...Shalom, Yinz.
Oh, I could write about more shootings and the protests that have followed. But I really don't know what to say, at this point. I do think that some kind of "national" standards about how and when police should use deadly force would be helpful, and this idea has been endorsed by many in law enforcement. I don't think "stop and frisk" is a good idea. It will just drive an even bigger wedge between cops and citizens.
And then there's the election. How could something so very important get us to the point where we just want to move to another country? Why are we doing this so poorly? One candidate just calls everyone who disagrees with him all kinds of names, and the other usually speaks in "lawyer" language (carefully worded propositions?), dulling the senses of most listeners. And don't tell me to vote for one of the fringe candidates. That's just a dumb idea, as neither of them will be president. Period. I might as well just burn my voter registration card as to cast a vote for a candidate that has absolutely no chance to be elected. Enough on the elections...
The Pirates are probably done for the year. McCutcheon had a "blah" year, what looked like promising pitching turned out to be smoke and mirrors, and enough dumb errors were committed--especially on the base paths--that it might call management into question. Maybe it was just a bad year--the storm before the calm. The Steelers are looking good after two games. They face a rookie Ben-lookalike with the Eagles this week. Could be interesting. People are getting excited about the Pens again, but need I remind you that, while they really haven't lost any talent from last year's team, a hockey Stanley Cup repeat is the toughest one in all of sports? Shuffleboard, anyone?
Ministries and the program year at St. Paul's are off and running and doing well. Our finances, year-to-date, are about par for the course over the past three or four years, which is not to say real good. Giving has increased moderately, but then so have expenses. Oh well, we just keep trusting God and our people to make the good stuff continue to work! Our proposed new purpose, mission and vision statements are being rolled out, including the preaching series on our congregational values that have been incorporated into the new verbiage. So far, so good. We hope to have final statements ready for Church Conference approval on November 15. Incidentally, our previous PMV statements guided this congregation for over 15 years!
Back to "The Supportive Community." What might that look like to you, the reader? If the church is to be a supportive community, what does that mean? Do individuals within that community "rise up" and offer to help you in your time of need? Does the existence of a praying, caring "church family" serve as a kind of safety net for you while you feel your life is being shot out of a giant canon? Or does an attentive congregation provide examples you may follow in getting out of the mess you feel you are in? One thing about it: It's easy for a church to SAY "We are a supportive community." Being that is another thing, and my sense is that, because the people--the objects of our support--are individuals, being supportive will mean a great variety of things, and it will often be kind of trial and error to get it right. Maybe it is supportive just in the very idea that people are willing to try, with all their hearts?
One image I have is that little party game where you have a "subject" lay down flat on her or his back, and all of the rest of the "party" each puts just two or four fingers under them, and with very minimal effort, the raft of collected fingers actually lifts the person upward. Wouldn't it be nice if our churches could be "supportive communities" in this manner? Unfortunately, not all of the fingers in question would be lifting, in many of our churches. Some would be poking, others pointing, and some even making obscene gestures, leaving the few legitimate "lifters" carrying way too much of the weight.
Enough "In-between times" for now. Hopefully, next blog I'll have something to write about...Shalom, Yinz.
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
Hallmarks...
As I was reading and studying the text of Hebrews 13:1-8 in preparation for a sermon a couple of weeks ago, five major challenges of a life centered in Jesus Christ presented themselves. For the purpose of this column, let's call them "hallmarks."
The first is hospitality. God's people, Israel, were given a hospitality code, or command, whereby they were to "welcome the sojourner in the land." God basically told Israel that even as they were once strangers or sojourners in a strange land, so should they now welcome others into their land. This hospitality code found its way into the Christian faith, and this Hebrews text reminds followers of Christ that by "welcoming the stranger," one might even "entertain angels without knowing it." For Christians to manifest this hallmark, we must be open to all kinds of "sojourners," and this in a day when everyone double-locks their doors, fences in their backyards, and carries on friendships via Twitter or FaceBook. This hallmark is a challenge! In the current political climate, immigration policy and "destroying ISIS" are pretty much items one and two in the debate, and to which degree each candidate would pursue these goals. For most of us, however, immigration policy and ISIS are not our direct problems, but how we treat the new neighbors, or the new person at work, or just people who don't look like us are. If there was ever a time, for example, when interfaith dialogue and bridging the "ignorance" gap of what others believe and practice were important, now is that time!
The next is reconciliation. The Hebrews author speaks like everyone should know that God seeks to redeem and reconcile all human beings to God-self. In the Christian faith, this is through the life, ministry and teachings of Jesus. But reconciling goes far beyond just the propitiation for personal sin. Honestly, that is probably the least of God's problem with humanity, at this point in history. Put yourself in God's position for a moment: you created humans to be a loving, just community with whom you could relate. Then, sin happened. The problem of sin wasn't as much as it separated one person from God, but that it breaks community and puts human selfishness and desire on the pedestal. Reconciling humanity means bringing us all back into this human/divine community where all people are viewed as children of God, and God is viewed by all people as the host of the feast. Still, if this great process begins with you--the reader--having your own sins forgiven by God, and you, in turn, forgive others as you have been forgiven, that's not a bad beginning!
The third hallmark we find in the Hebrews text is Fidelity. Here, the author talks of respecting ones partner in marriage, and not committing adultery. Of course, today we realize that there are many ways of committing adultery, and most don't even involve a physical sex act. I like the word fidelity. When I was a kid, we had something in the living room called a Hi-Fi (and no, for those of you under 40, I don't mean wi-fi. Our hi-fi sound system was able to play a record (a big, round, vinyl thing with physical sound grooves on it) that was recorded in high fidelity in such a way that the sound coming out of the speakers was the closest to the sound that went into the recording microphone that could be produced with 1960s technology. Thus, the sound was said to be high fidelity. So, if we are called, as Christian believers, to love others as God loves us, it stands to reason that God is calling us to a high fidelity love wherein the love we offer is as close to the love with which God loves us as is possible with human "technology." Jesus' love didn't discriminate. Jesus' love was always directed at forgiving, healing, and redeeming the human soul. Anyone who wanted to receive it, did. The only ones who didn't were those who chose to walk away. That's another important point about this high fidelity kind of love: we don't stop loving the other, even if they reject us and refuse to receive what we offer.
Hallmark number four is contentment. The biblical writer says, Your way of life should be free from the love of money, and you should be content with what you have." Now, don't go all slippery slope on me and think this says we can't work hard and pursue a prosperous career, or that we shouldn't want a new Apple Watch. What the text says is that, if we focus our lives on acquiring wealth and trying to become "independently wealthy," (or fixate and obsess about that new Apple Watch), then our priorities are so out of whack as to put our existence in danger. We are created to be community-based beings. We are created to need each other, and to seek meaningful, human relationships. We are called to share with God in the reconciling process to redeem humanity from its sin of selfishness and the attitude--which we see so often now in the culture--of "I got mine, so have a nice day." Learning to be content is a spiritual journey, friends. It is not easy, and the culture will hound you with every product ad, political candidate, and even--sadly--religious narrative to not be content with who you are, and in some cases, with whom your neighbor is! This "me first" mindset is to ingrained in the culture that I'll bet the idea of contentment as a spiritual discipline catches many of you by surprise.
And now, the fifth and final hallmark from this compact, yet pregnant little pericope of scripture? Trust. That's right, trust. The text reminds us that Jesus will never abandon us, and that Jesus is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. This means that Jesus will always be trustworthy and present to all of God's children, not that Jesus doesn't feel, or change, or empathize with the human condition. In fact that is exactly what Jesus and the theological doctrine we call the incarnation is all about! The part of Jesus that is always the same is his presence and his grace, and we can always trust Christ. Trust is the foundation of any successful relationship. Period. You might think it's love, but without trust, it will fail. I've counseled with many couples who never stopped loving each other, but whose relationship disintegrated over broken trust. Can love overcome such a broken trust? Yes, but only if the love has fidelity, as mentioned above, and only if both parties are willing to do the necessary and really hard work to bridge the chasm opened with untrustworthiness. Oh, and even when these efforts are forged, the rebuilt trust that results will never look like the trust that was first formed in the relationship. It will be different, and pretty uncomfortable for a season--maybe even a long season.
So, there you have some thoughts of Hebrews 13:1-8, and the five hallmarks it advances: hospitality, reconciliation, fidelity, contentment, and trust. Who said a Christ-centered life was easy? Not Christ, that's for sure! There is a scene in one of my favorite movies, Jeremiah Johnson (starring Robert Redford and Will Geer), where the grizzled, old mountain-man played by Geer wants to teach the novice, would-be tough guy a lesson. He shuts Johnson up in his cabin with a live Grizzly Bear and shouts, "Skin that one, Pilgrim, and I'll fetch you another!" The same could be said for developing these five hallmarks of a well-lived Christian life. Shalom, Yinz...
The first is hospitality. God's people, Israel, were given a hospitality code, or command, whereby they were to "welcome the sojourner in the land." God basically told Israel that even as they were once strangers or sojourners in a strange land, so should they now welcome others into their land. This hospitality code found its way into the Christian faith, and this Hebrews text reminds followers of Christ that by "welcoming the stranger," one might even "entertain angels without knowing it." For Christians to manifest this hallmark, we must be open to all kinds of "sojourners," and this in a day when everyone double-locks their doors, fences in their backyards, and carries on friendships via Twitter or FaceBook. This hallmark is a challenge! In the current political climate, immigration policy and "destroying ISIS" are pretty much items one and two in the debate, and to which degree each candidate would pursue these goals. For most of us, however, immigration policy and ISIS are not our direct problems, but how we treat the new neighbors, or the new person at work, or just people who don't look like us are. If there was ever a time, for example, when interfaith dialogue and bridging the "ignorance" gap of what others believe and practice were important, now is that time!
The next is reconciliation. The Hebrews author speaks like everyone should know that God seeks to redeem and reconcile all human beings to God-self. In the Christian faith, this is through the life, ministry and teachings of Jesus. But reconciling goes far beyond just the propitiation for personal sin. Honestly, that is probably the least of God's problem with humanity, at this point in history. Put yourself in God's position for a moment: you created humans to be a loving, just community with whom you could relate. Then, sin happened. The problem of sin wasn't as much as it separated one person from God, but that it breaks community and puts human selfishness and desire on the pedestal. Reconciling humanity means bringing us all back into this human/divine community where all people are viewed as children of God, and God is viewed by all people as the host of the feast. Still, if this great process begins with you--the reader--having your own sins forgiven by God, and you, in turn, forgive others as you have been forgiven, that's not a bad beginning!
The third hallmark we find in the Hebrews text is Fidelity. Here, the author talks of respecting ones partner in marriage, and not committing adultery. Of course, today we realize that there are many ways of committing adultery, and most don't even involve a physical sex act. I like the word fidelity. When I was a kid, we had something in the living room called a Hi-Fi (and no, for those of you under 40, I don't mean wi-fi. Our hi-fi sound system was able to play a record (a big, round, vinyl thing with physical sound grooves on it) that was recorded in high fidelity in such a way that the sound coming out of the speakers was the closest to the sound that went into the recording microphone that could be produced with 1960s technology. Thus, the sound was said to be high fidelity. So, if we are called, as Christian believers, to love others as God loves us, it stands to reason that God is calling us to a high fidelity love wherein the love we offer is as close to the love with which God loves us as is possible with human "technology." Jesus' love didn't discriminate. Jesus' love was always directed at forgiving, healing, and redeeming the human soul. Anyone who wanted to receive it, did. The only ones who didn't were those who chose to walk away. That's another important point about this high fidelity kind of love: we don't stop loving the other, even if they reject us and refuse to receive what we offer.
Hallmark number four is contentment. The biblical writer says, Your way of life should be free from the love of money, and you should be content with what you have." Now, don't go all slippery slope on me and think this says we can't work hard and pursue a prosperous career, or that we shouldn't want a new Apple Watch. What the text says is that, if we focus our lives on acquiring wealth and trying to become "independently wealthy," (or fixate and obsess about that new Apple Watch), then our priorities are so out of whack as to put our existence in danger. We are created to be community-based beings. We are created to need each other, and to seek meaningful, human relationships. We are called to share with God in the reconciling process to redeem humanity from its sin of selfishness and the attitude--which we see so often now in the culture--of "I got mine, so have a nice day." Learning to be content is a spiritual journey, friends. It is not easy, and the culture will hound you with every product ad, political candidate, and even--sadly--religious narrative to not be content with who you are, and in some cases, with whom your neighbor is! This "me first" mindset is to ingrained in the culture that I'll bet the idea of contentment as a spiritual discipline catches many of you by surprise.
And now, the fifth and final hallmark from this compact, yet pregnant little pericope of scripture? Trust. That's right, trust. The text reminds us that Jesus will never abandon us, and that Jesus is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. This means that Jesus will always be trustworthy and present to all of God's children, not that Jesus doesn't feel, or change, or empathize with the human condition. In fact that is exactly what Jesus and the theological doctrine we call the incarnation is all about! The part of Jesus that is always the same is his presence and his grace, and we can always trust Christ. Trust is the foundation of any successful relationship. Period. You might think it's love, but without trust, it will fail. I've counseled with many couples who never stopped loving each other, but whose relationship disintegrated over broken trust. Can love overcome such a broken trust? Yes, but only if the love has fidelity, as mentioned above, and only if both parties are willing to do the necessary and really hard work to bridge the chasm opened with untrustworthiness. Oh, and even when these efforts are forged, the rebuilt trust that results will never look like the trust that was first formed in the relationship. It will be different, and pretty uncomfortable for a season--maybe even a long season.
So, there you have some thoughts of Hebrews 13:1-8, and the five hallmarks it advances: hospitality, reconciliation, fidelity, contentment, and trust. Who said a Christ-centered life was easy? Not Christ, that's for sure! There is a scene in one of my favorite movies, Jeremiah Johnson (starring Robert Redford and Will Geer), where the grizzled, old mountain-man played by Geer wants to teach the novice, would-be tough guy a lesson. He shuts Johnson up in his cabin with a live Grizzly Bear and shouts, "Skin that one, Pilgrim, and I'll fetch you another!" The same could be said for developing these five hallmarks of a well-lived Christian life. Shalom, Yinz...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Editorial Cartoons
Jonah 3:10-4:11 God's concern for Ninevah 3:10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his ...
-
Perish the Rescuing… 2 Corinthians 4:3-6 4:3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4:4 In their cas... -
Donald Trump Wrestles the Almighty Genesis 32:22-31 Jacob receives God's blessing 32:22 The same night he got up and took hi... -
Advent I: Illumination Romans 13:11-14 Salvation is near; wake from sleep 13:11 Besides this, you know what time it is, how it is alr...