Fair Share Contribution

Had an interesting conversation with a cashier at Menards today as my wife and I were checking out. She was complaining about her mom buying snacks which were causing her to gain wait. That was one of the downsides of living at home for her. She was twenty and had been living on her own before having to move back in. On her own she didn't have enough money to buy extra food to snack on so she stayed thin.

I commented on the great deal it is to live with your parents but she couldn't wait to be on her own again. Apparently there wasn't a problem with her parents, she just placed a high value on independence. She was proud of what she accomplished all on her own.

I felt a little bad for her. She was chasing the American dream but it seemed way to rushed and very inefficient. Independence means a great deal of inefficiency because everyone has their own of all they could ever need. It would have been much more efficient to share a roof, utilities, etc. with her parents. But in her mind she wouldn't be pulling her weight.

I think a fair share contribution to the community is the way to go. The element of responsibility is maintained but everyone in community benefits from the efficiency. I tease my kids that I'm kicking them out of the house as soon as they finish high school. I tell them we're going to move away in the middle of the night and leave no forwarding address. They counter with proclamations that they will never leave. The reality will probably be somewhere in between.

Our cashier was driven to be independent. I think it is sad that our society creates that kind of value for our kids. I'll be 42 years old in a little over an hour and it is too bad I had to get so old before I realized it was okay to rely on others. Our cashier seemed like a nice person. Hopefully she'll learn that lesson a little earlier than I did.

In Need of Grace

I like personally offering communion to each one who comes to receive it. We have used several methods with regards to the mechanics of partaking but there is something special about the personal contact for me. I get a little glimpse into the lives of those who partake.

Some come with a sense of wonder and awe. Others come with a sense of respect and honor. Unfortunately there are a few who come with a sense of obligation or duty. I am surprised at how easy it appears to read these things, especially since I'm not that great at reading people. Maybe it is something about what we are doing that tends to remove the masks.

But there are a few who come that I can't get out of my mind. I think it is because they present a need that I don't know how to respond to, or maybe can't respond to. These come with a look of desperation. Something is not right. They seem grateful for this connection they are making with God because they feel there is nowhere left to turn. Their pain is obvious as they force a slight smile at me as they receive the elements.

They are focused on what they are doing because they seem to be hoping for something magical to happen as they participate in communion. I wonder if they are disappointed or if they actually find what they are looking for. My guess is that their hope grows somewhat because they feel they have touched the Almighty. Their loneliness is alleviated somewhat. They have been touched by grace.

I'm not sure where to go from here. These folks need to know they are loved. That they are not alone. I probably can't fix what they are struggling with and I know these struggles sometimes take a lot of time. But it is an incredible thing to see God's grace at work and I want to be part of it.

Authoritarian Rule

The Parade section in last Sunday’s paper had their annual list of worst dictators in the world. Having live in Africa I have seen these types of leaders or at least had them at the fore front of my daily news for many years and I am familiar with how they operate. It has been said that the best leader in the world would be a benevolent dictator. I doubt one exists though.

Authoritarian rule is often highly regarded in the church. The assumption is that a man of God highly in tune with the Holy Spirit should be given authority to rule. Forgive me but I have a cynical view on this. No doubt the Bible gives us examples of this but I think such men may be as rare as the aforementioned benevolent dictator.

“The only time we see a democracy in scripture is when the spies reported on their visit to the promised land and the majority was wrong.” Unfortunately this widely stated opinion is wrong. Well, the part about the majority report being wrong may be right, but the idea that this is the only place a democracy appears in scripture is wrong. Take Acts 27:12, for example, when once again a majority made a decision. Okay, so they were wrong again. The point is that we do see democracy at work in more than one place in scripture.

Actually, I think the idea of consensus is inferred in several places in scripture. I would start with the “Let us make man in..” found in Genesis 1:26. Or how about Acts 6. Doesn’t it appear that the twelve had come to a consensus? Actually, I think the Bible is full of stories where decisions are made in community.

Probably my favorite example is found in Acts 13 when Saul and Barnabas where “…sent out by the Holy Spirit.” It obviously states that the lead was the Holy Spirit, yet they were actually “sent off” by a group of men who, after a time of fasting and prayer, must have come to a consensus that this was indeed the leading of the Holy Spirit.

I think pastors need to be careful about authoritarian rule. Power is one of the big temptations for pastors and it can be easily abused. There is something to be said about consensus among devout followers of Christ. It provides a very important measure of safety.

Communion

I like preparing the elements for communion. There is something... well, spiritual about it. For some reason I can't shake the feeling of the presence of the Holy as I prepare it. I come from a tradition that views the elements as symbolic yet there is the feeling that there is something deeper here.

We use regular grape juice rather than wine which in some respects lends to the ordinary nature of the elements. I'm not sure how wine would change that and perhaps it wouldn't make any difference. But in spite of the ordinariness there still seems to be something powerful here. Something sacred. There is juice left over after I am done but it doesn't feel right to just drink it. I get the feeling that I would be desecrating something. I can't wait to partake with our church family.

Communion is one of those things that get me in trouble with some people in my church. I let children participate. I make a general announcement that communion is for anyone who believes in Jesus and then invite people to participate. I don't rule out the kids.

The kids participate with enthusiasm and as kids can do they often get the giggles. Nevertheless, they participate with wide-eyed wonder. I think they feel like they are apart of something big. They have been invited to join in a wonderful activity right along with the grown-ups. It is an invitation that they readily accept. It seems to raise their sense of value.

Somewhere along the way "an unworthy manner" went from a wild orgiastic party (okay, maybe I'm going a little far here) to a few girls giggling. Apparently if Jesus where here he would frown on these girls as they participate with glee. Somehow I have a hard time buying that. Instead I think he would be less annoyed at their disturbances than I am. He'd probably even smile.

I will continue to let those kids partake because I can't stand the thought of turning them away. Rejecting them. Keeping them out. Instead I will welcome them, invite them to join in and encourage them to participate. I imagine that their views of communion will change over time. (It will probably become a mundane ritual to them as it is to so many adults I know.) But I want them to develop their thinking through participation not from watching from a distance. I don't want to destroy their spirit.

I admit that I could be very wrong on this. But I think it is important kids participate in the rituals of their faith community. I think a lot of learning takes place here and I believe it is something that they will carry with them throughout their lives. They don't have to grow up to be a part of the community. They are a part of it right now.

Should it really ought to be?

Wow, that title is confusing! Actually, I was thinking about my propensity to strongly believe that things ought to be the way I think they should and how that could very well lead me into huge mistakes. I think it was Rush L. who wrote a book entitled "The Way Things Ought To Be" which I find to be a terribly arrogant thing to say whether right or wrong.

I am not talking about absolutes here so I am keeping my thoughts on things that I strongly believe, feel I have supporting evidence for (although maybe anecdotal) and things I have reached conclusions about through reason and logic. But what if, after all things are considered, I am wrong. What if the way I think things ought to be is not the way things should be? Can I see that or am I blinded by my own stubbornness? Is there a way to monitor progress and recognize mistaken beliefs early so that corrections can be made?

On the other hand, decisiveness and consistency are usually good things. Indecisiveness will cause stagnation and I would probably never get anything accomplished. I would never learn anything either. I guess I just need to be aware that I may be wrong and willing to change if necessary.

Struggling with Dissent

It is a new year and we are going to be holding our first board meeting soon. We have several new members on our board and as I think about them I wonder how well they will handle dissent on the board. I think handling dissent in a healthy manner is one of the hardest things for a board member to get used to.

I think dissent is a good thing to have on a board. It makes us think carefully and keeps us from rushing into things just because it was proposed. It offers some protection from what they call "group think." Unfortunately the reaction to dissent is usually unhealthy. When the dissent is first uttered a look of shock will be seen on most of the faces in the room. Then all sorts of bad thoughts begin to percolate in people's brains. The dissenter just doesn't like progress. They're just getting in the way. They don't like the person who made the proposal.

It is also hard for the dissenter. The proponents, in most cases, will be shooting daggers. Even the rest of the members are left shaking their heads. It doesn't feel good and I think dissenters leave such meetings as soon as they are adjourned. The hostility feels thick in the air. There may be a few folks around who will try some superficial chit-chat in an attempt to break the tension but it never works. Any sense of being a team is gone.

My hope is that our new board will be able to create what others have called a culture of healthy dissent. Where we actually expect people to disagree and we don't hold it against them. We need a culture where the dissenters feel free to speak up but won't be upset when there objections are eventually overridden.

Hey, its my dream so I can dream if I want to.

Dealing with Sin By Mass Proclamation or Propinquity Effect Theory

Okay, never mind the title of this post as I have no idea what it means, but here's my theory. A significant number of pastors do not use an exhaustive approach to help people deal with sin.

I need to prefice this by saying that I believe there is a strong tendency to model pastoral ministry after very unrealistic expectations. Pastors are different in personality and ability yet we have a tendency to want all pastors to be one thing. I won't go into a discussion here about what that "one thing" is but I think each pastor's ministry will look very different and that's okay.

My theory is that you can break down how pastors help people deal with sin into a couple of very broad categories. On the one hand you have pators who use mass proclamation. These are the ones who preach fire and brimstone each week. They are constantly talking about the need to repent and they would never miss the chance for an altar (or alter) call.

On the other hand you have those who help people deal with sin at a very personal level. They do this out of a close relationship and they are more specific about the sin. There mass proclamation is more teaching and altar calls are few.

Many pastors are good at both and use both regularly. Most others use both but rely heavily on one or the other. However, I think there are a significant number of pastors who have the ability to do one very well but are very poor at the other. In other words some pastors are very good at fire and brimstone in a mass setting but won't say a word about sin on a personal level. Likewise, some rarely talk about it in a large setting but are extremely good at identifying sin and helping people repent on the personal level.

I know there are some who would insist on one over the other. And there are those who feel that a pastor should have expetise in both. But I think we need to be careful about asssumptions. I have heard people say, "Pastor So-and-so never preaches about sin and hell." The accusation is that he is soft and probably a liberal. But it might just be that he does deal with sin on a personal level all the time. Others might conclude that not dealing with sin is the way to go because they have heard that another pastor rarely mentions it on Sunday and his church seems to be thriving. In actuality that pastor might be saying a lot about sin in a different setting.

Anyway, just a theory.