Therefore Go... And Balance

 

This week finished the sermon series on our Methodist Roots with a look at the way Wesley took the church to the people. We already learned that while stationed in London he started small groups, served the urban poor, but still couldn't get people inside the doors of the church. He realized there were people who would never set foot inside a church, so how to reach them? He needed to find a way to balance his work on behalf of those he saw suffering with a need to share and cultivate in them faith.

At the invitation of a colleague Wesley chose to be "more vile" (his words) and go to the people.  In southern England he preached to miners in a field as their shifts changed. Wesley was willing to give up some credibility and risk looking foolish in order to bring the church to the people, where they were, as they were. He found a way to balance the need to follow The Great Commission of Matthew 28 with the fact that people were not going to go to the church.

I liked the quote from the sermon I heard that said, "Church has become a place we go instead of something we do." Jesus gave us many examples "doing church," like Matthew 9:36-38(NIV):

³⁶ When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. ³⁷ Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. ³⁸ Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.”

As a priest in the Anglican Church Wesley found a way to balance his respect for the institution of the church with the need to reach out to people who really needed and wanted the gospel. A way to follow the example of Jesus.

One aspect of Wesley's experience that I'm not really clear on is whether or not he struggled with the balance between acts and faith. The book of James focuses on a faith that works. From my perspective it looks like Wesley had figured out James 2:14-26. I would really like to know how he did that... Is there a "sweet spot" of balance, a static state, or is balance a matter of keeping the pendulum in motion, so that you never spend too long at either end of the pendulum's arc?

So now I'm getting all charged up and feeling like I should be doing more. But first, a few points (excuses) to remember. First, Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience, encouraging them to go out to teach Gentiles, something they would never have done. They needed to go and cross cultural boundaries because they lived in segregated society. (Wait! Was that then or now?)  That is a large part of the "all nations" in The Great Commission.

Another thing to remember is that there was a set tradition and method of teaching and learning, of questioning and challenging within the Jewish community. They already had an infrastructure for equipping and sending disciples. The early church focused on that thorough method of teaching and making disciples for Christ, not for themselves. It may be just me, but I don't really feel like I am equipped to make disciples. couple that with some horrifying images of making disciples - door to door evangelicals, tract-passers, hell-fire-and-brimstone preachers - and I am left in brain lock. What can I do that doesn't alienate people the way I have felt alienated? How do I make a disciple?

At the end of the series the one word that comes to me is balance. In the first week we talked about the need to balance corporate worship with learning in small groups. The second week was about balancing  individual needs with the need to be connected relationally, to be in community.
 Last week's take away was that faith can't just share spiritual information, it has to desire social transformation. I hear that as balance between this world and the after life. And finally, this week, the need to balance faith and works, caring for our community but also caring for the world. Methodism as Wesley intended seems to be all about balance.

Roots: Like or Of?

As part of the introduction to the sermon each week the pastor's have quoted from Wesley's Directions for Singing. You can read all seven, but the short version is that they combine the principles of individual and corporate responsibility in worship, producing a united voice. It's a choice of both and, not either or, reflecting the need for us to be responsible not only for our own faith, but also the for the faith and actions of the congregation. So far in this sermon series we have learned that 1.) all of us are called to preach and teach; 2.) small groups are the source of growth and faith; and today, 3.) we need to have faith like Jesus, not the faith of Jesus.

It is a small change in words, but a huge difference in meaning. Wesley set quite an example for us. When he woke up to the abject poverty, social ills and injustice around him he took action. He decided that it would take more than learning in small groups and began feeding the hungry, educating those who didn't have access to schooling, wrote a book on primitive remedies, started a dispensary. I'm exhausted just learning and writing about it. Christ is clear that we need to pay attention to those around us.  Matthew 25:31-40 shows us that people who society could easily push to the margins are valuable, that we are called to care for all of our brothers and sisters. A quote from the sermon that struck all of us this week is that "faith can't just share spiritual information, it has to desire social transformation."  It's unusual  that the same idea resonated with almost all of our group, but I have to wonder what that looks like in practice? What am I doing to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit those in prison?  Are my small efforts enough?

 Methodists have been at the forefront of many social movements - abolition, women's suffrage, prohibition, civil rights.  We have an extensive document, Social Principles and Social Creed, that outlines our beliefs.  As a denomination we have a pretty good record of having faith in Jesus and also practicing the faith of Jesus. It's all about Balance. Balance between individual and corporate responsibility in singing. Balance between the intellectual and the practical. Balance between faith and action.  Pursuing that balance requires seeing issues on a continuum, not the dichotomy of "you're either fer me or agin me." You have to expand the gray area by shrinking the black and white.  For me it's important to not take too much pride in this history. It becomes very easy and comfortable to point to "the church's" efforts and claim them as my own. My conscience is quick to appropriate the corporate actions as my own in order to relive me of any need to act or guilt over inaction.You know, "I gave to the wells in Mozambique, so I'm good. I'm taking care of others." (Only not so much.)

As a lifelong Methodist there are things I love about my denomination, and things I'm not so crazy about.  I appreciate that in big issues Methodists have taken and sought the middle ground, compromise, unity.  I confess I was disappointed to see no vote on the 57 petitions on human sexuality at General Conference, but quite heartened by Pastor Matt's explanation of the situation. It sounds like the Council of Bishops has found a way forward together. I hope and pray that the committee is able to agree on the boundaries of the gray area and find the balance necessary to lead us through the journey in unity.

 

Roots Part Deux

Each week we are looking at one aspect of Methodism. I don't know about you, but when I heard this series was going to be about digging into our roots, I expected a little bit more of a linear history lesson. At first I was disappointed to find that wasn't what it was going to be, but as we delved into the second week I found that this is a different, but equally enlightening way of looking at the history of Methodism.

The first week was about empowering the average person to ministry and this week focused on the need for community, the group. There were several quotes that hit home for me this week, especially the idea that if we want to grow spiritually we need to be connected relationally. John Wesley saw that people had the "form of religion without the power." Kind of like just talking the talk instead of walking the walk. Acts 2:42-47 describes a communal, sharing life that gives rise to four commitments - to learn, to care, to fellowship and to worship.

So what does being connected relationally look like?  I really do like learning, and take classes, attend lectures, seek knowledge, but I have to keep reminding myself that I don't actually know it all. There is a hubris that comes with study. I say (but I don't always believe it) that I know just enough to be dangerous. :-) It means continuous leaning, thinking, and trying new ideas out in humility.

Actively caring for one another doesn't necessarily mean selling our possessions and sharing the proceeds, but I could use some help reframing that one, too. Our group has taken responsibility for our friend's mother, a small but tangible act. Is that enough? Or what is enough?

I think we are pretty good at fellowship. When it fits our schedule. This seems to be a part of the DNA of almost every Methodist I know. In some parts of the country we are known as the "hot dish" (casserole) church. How many pot-lucks have you been to? The one thing that bothers me about this, though, is the tendency to become insular. I have seen shared meals in the name of fellowship turn a congregation's focus inward, becoming exclusionary without meaning to, shrinking the soul and reach of the congregation.

Worship is coming together and learning together. Wesley clearly transferred the power to lead worship to the individual. I would rather not have to take that responsibility, so I could point my finger at the leaders and say it's their fault if I find worship lacking, but the truth of the matter is that it rests with me. Ugh. I hate admitting that. Although, if I do take that responsibility I find that it does what Wesley intended - keeping spiritual zeal alive and causing faith to impact my daily life more deeply.

Finally, what does the environment where we can be connected relationally look like? This is the big and hard question for me. Yes, amazing things can happen in our lives when we are in small groups, and yes, we can push ourselves farther with others than we can by ourselves.  I do need to be reminded of my commitment and to be challenged. But I also need to be in a safe environment, where I am comfortable being vulnerable, where I can trust that I won't be judged. It means giving over power to God, but also to my group mates.  Being connected relationally isn't just a matter of faith, it's also a matter of trust.

Roots Part 1

"Movements do not happen when a few people lead and many people follow. Movements happen when a lot of people see themselves as able to lead."  Methodism started as a movement within the Church of England, led by John Wesley.  As the child of a priest in the Church of England, and as a priest himself, Wesley recognized that the church had become boring, irrelevant, disconnected from the culture of the day, a dead or dying institution that most people had written off as not having meaning in, or for, their lives. The movement began as a radical plan to revitalize the church and make it consequential in daily life.

Sound familiar? I mean the irrelevancy of the church, that could have been written today, not 300 years ago. It made me reflect on what makes "church" irrelevant for most people and how that came to be. Is it a lack of leadership? Is it devotion to the customs and created rituals instead of the message and action? Does abdication of my personal responsibility - leaving the actions and decisions to "them", or "the leaders" - encourage withdrawal from the organization?  Is my sense of disconnection the result of my own decision to not participate actively?

The Priesthood of Believers (1 Peter 2:9-10) was an idea that came out of the Reformation. Wesley's plan transformed the idea into an active movement. His training and his father prepared him intellectually, but his mother prepared him for the leading, for the boldness to empower "normal people" to lead Bible study, prayer groups, and even to preach. As a mother, on Mother's Day, I have to say that I personally loved hearing how a mother of 19 children, with a husband who was often away for extended periods of time, started leading a prayer circle that grew to the point that she was preaching. I especially loved that when she was basically told to "cease and desist", she challenged her husband in a brilliant and bold manner that he could not challenge.

Wesley's plan was based on that empowering of "normal" people, including women and even slaves. Wesley went out into the community and met people where they were to form small groups, or Bands. As a side note, this is where the idea for Bar Church came from.  From an organizational perspective, it seems natural that rules would be required to guide people who had no experience in leading and no formal theological training. That said, the rules are pretty intimidating if read in today's context. First you would need rules for organizing and formatting the meetings: 

Rules for the Band Societies (Small Group Meeting)

The design of our meeting is, to obey that command of God, "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed."

To this end, we intend,-

1. To meet once a week, at the least.

2. To come punctually at the hour appointed, without some extraordinary reason.

3. To begin (those of us who are present) exactly at the hour, with singing or prayer.

4. To speak each of us in order, freely and plainly, the true state of our souls, with the faults we have committed in thought, word, or deed, and the temptations we have felt, since our last meeting.

5. To end every meeting with prayer, suited to the state of each person present.

6. To desire some person among us; to speak his own state first, and then to ask the rest, in order, as many and as searching questions as may be, concerning their state, sins, and temptations. 

OK, those aren't too bad, I think I can manage that, although number 6 is making me a little twitchy.  Next, he defined how you get to be a member of the group: 

Some of the questions proposed to every one before he is admitted among us may be to this effect:- 

1. Have you the forgiveness of your sins?

2. Have you peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ?

3. Have you the witness of God's Spirit with your spirit, that you are a child of God?

4. Is the love of God shed abroad in your heart?

5. Has no sin, inward or outward, dominion over you?

6. Do you desire to be told your faults?

7. Do you desire to be told of all your faults, and that plain and home?

8. Do you desire that every one of us should tell you, from time to time, whatsoever is in his heart concerning you?

9. Consider! Do you desire we should tell you whatsoever we think, whatsoever we fear, whatsoever we hear, concerning you?

10. Do you desire that, in doing this, we should come as close as possible, that we should cut to the quick, and search your heart to the bottom?

11. Is it your desire and design to be on this, and all other occasions, entirely open, so as to speak everything that is in your heart without exception, without disguise, and without reserve?

There it is, that accountability piece. In other religions, generally speaking, you are accountable to clergy, yourself and God. In a populist movement you are accountable to your friends, neighbors, and fellow believers as well. Those are some tough questions to answer, but I think even tougher are the weekly questions:

*Any of the preceding questions may be asked as often as occasion offers; the four following at every meeting:-

1. What known sins have you committed since our last meeting?

2. What temptations have you met with?

3. How were you delivered?

4. What have you thought, said, or done, of which you doubt whether it be sin or not?

 In my discomfort with these questions I looked for ways to redefine them as antiquated, and I came up with some questions that I hoped would invalidate them. Why were the rules so stringent?  How do they shape members into leaders? It is through introspection and a thorough understanding and admission of your own failings that you can come to be a leader, or a better leader?  How does that provide you with support?  How does answering those questions in group deepen faith? Unfortunately, the answers I came up with made them even stronger and more relevant.
 

"Movements do not happen when a few people lead and many people follow. Movements happen when a lot of people see themselves as able to lead." I love that quote, and I hate that quote.  One of the many things I value about being a Methodist is the strong emphasis on a personal relationship and understanding of God. That requires learning, questioning, acting and being willing to lead.  Guess I have some work to do...

Modern Beatitudes

 For some time now I have had trouble bringing what I want to say to the surface.  I have been doing more reading, trying to sort the jumble of words and ideas in my mind into a more coherent order.  Today, this struck me and I think it is more than worth sharing.  I hope you enjoy it as much as I did and do:

Some Modern Beatitudes – A Sermon For All Saints Sunday

What Lies Beneath?

I haven't written for quite a while because I have been in brain lock.  And also helping move kids, but mostly brain lock.  After the last post I requested Piketty's book three times.  I returned it three times without cracking the cover.  I still have a lot of questions.  Does the capitalistic philosophy that we have created engender a mentality that causes us to seek to create scarcity?  Why and how do we keep moving the line between scarcity and need?  If we are successful in creating scarcity can we stop it before it goes all the way to nothingness, or death?  It seems our reliance on scarcity incites a constant, persistent fear and worry about not having enough, even when we have more than enough.If I look back on my post about the "spiral" of nature - some things must die in order for new things to live, then maybe the old church must die in order for a new church to live?  How do we divorce our societal, marketplace understanding of success from our faith life?  Is that what it means to be in the world but not of the world?

That looks like enough material for a year or two of contemplation, especially if I could ever get around to actually reading that book!  Then came the Supreme Court decision on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.  I read the entire 95 pages and am deeply troubled on many points.  The point I find most disturbing is that the "person-hood" of a corporation has been given priority over the person-hood of a PERSON!  Talk about a slippery slope.  The other item that troubled me greatly was not in the decision itself.  There was a large number of congratulatory high-fives that appeared in Christian media, on Facebook pages and in the Twitterverse.  In and of themselves they aren't so bothersome, it is to be expected when we deal in rhetoric.  The thing that bothered me most was what was missing.  I didn't once see any one of the pundits, or even the people I know asking if this was the best decision for the women?  How did the lives of real, working women figure into the ideology of those celebrating?  Quite simply, they didn't.  It appears that creating and maintaining a doctrine that meets personal beliefs and then imposing it on others is more important than truly caring about the well being of others.

And then came Ferguson.  An event so overwhelming, the result of issues that have been smoldering for years that it is easy to throw up your hands, cover your eyes, say a few prayers and think that is all you can do.  How do you approach something so big?  What can I do?  I can't solve it. I can't make a dent in this thing.

Maybe it is the little, daily actions where true change begins.  I can consciously consider and change how I think about it and how I act.  I highly recommend Dr. Eric Knost's blog.  Listen to the conversations around you, and to your own words.  How many times have I heard "those people" come out of my mouth?  Those people and those children are ours.  I can also recommend Matt Miofsky's sermon based on the interview with F. Willis Johnson on NPR because he points out what we can do - small, concrete steps that build a foundation for change.  Last night I attended a meeting of the Metropolitan Congregations United, an organization devoted to issues of social justice.  I don't know a lot about them yet, but I intend to learn more than I did of Piketty's book.

I need to move from brain lock and despair to action.  Something as small as pointing someone of a different race to an empty parking spot feels like a big deal in our current environment, especially after some of the experiences I have shared with friends and acquaintances who happen to belong to a minority group.  On the surface the unrest is about race, but underneath it is about so much more...

Is Capitalism Killing the Church?

I am resigned to the fact that I am not going to get a teacher who will take me by the hand and lead me through lessons, so I am doing my best to pay attention and look for them.  It's amazing, but when I actually pay attention there is often a stream of "coincidences" that lead me to a lesson, if not a revelation.  A few months ago a friend sent a link to an interview with Nadia Bolz-Weber, an unconventional Lutheran pastor.  When I got around to watching the Vimeo video, I heard a lot of things that resonated with me.  I was particularly interested in the way she articulated the Christian life as a constant cycle of death and resurrection.  She gave personal examples of how her heart would get small and cold and hard, and then God would reach in and give her a new, beating heart.  (Those are her words, I have experienced it more as a 2x4 up side my head.)

Shortly after watching the video, her name inexplicably popped up on my Facebook feed.  No doubt there is some metric tracking me somewhere.  I followed her on Facebook and when I did a link to her blog showed up.  When I went to her blog I found an inspirational entry that I believe she delivered to her Synod's assembly very recently, Stop Saying the Church is Dying.

There were a lot of very familiar themes in the address - fear, loss, worry, the requisite hand-wringing over how the church isn't what it used to be.  One statement jumped out at me:  "And we come by this fear honestly in a society in which a perceived state of scarcity is what drives the free market economy."  I have been turning that idea over and over in my head.  Could it be that capitalism (as we currently know it) is killing the church?

Although my experience and knowledge are limited, it seems to me that most of organized religion is living in a state of fear.  Numbers are smaller and shrinking, budgets are tighter and more often in deficit.  Our worry is never about what we will do with more money, with more members, with more period.  This allegiance to perceived scarcity may drive the free market economy, but it appears to have created a mindset that is killing congregations by paralyzing them with fear.

While I was contemplating this "heresy," I noticed a Tweet that lead to an article on a similar topic - Capitalism Eating Its Children. It's an op ed in the NY Times about a keynote speech given by Mark Carney, the Canadian governor of the Bank of England. 

"Carney pulls no punches. Big banks were too big to fail, operating in a “heads-I-win-tails-you-lose bubble.” Benchmarks were rigged for personal gain. Equity markets blatantly favored “the technologically empowered over the retail investor.” Mistrust grew — and persists.

"Prosperity requires not just investment in economic capital, but investment in social capital,” Carney argues, having defined social capital as “the links, shared values and beliefs in a society which encourage individuals not only to take responsibility for themselves and their families but also to trust each other and work collaboratively to support each other.”

Maybe this issue is not just economic, but also societal, political, and religious.  It would seem the tyranny of perceived scarcity isn't limited to the free market.  The author, Roger Cohen, references the work of economist Thomas Piketty in the same article.  In true "if you give a mouse a cookie" fashion, I have added that name to my reading list.

It is easy to become discouraged by the pessimism that is an integral part of  perceived scarcity.  Thank goodness Bolz-Weber closes with inspiration and hope, at least for religion, saying, "Perhaps our definition of success can shift more toward what is foolishness to the world and yet life to those in Christ.  Buildings and budgets and social currency will fall away.  But what stands is the kingdom of God.  Which Jesus tells us is the Father's good pleasure to give to us... But we should never judge ourselves as the church according to these things because you know what the culture around us will NEVER do?  Preach the Gospel, administer the sacraments and proclaim forgiveness of sins.  You know why?  That's OUR job."