Opposition to Appeasment

At some point to make the church better we will have to stop ducking, dodging, evading and pacifying grown people who know how to behave better. People who take offense at the drop of a hat and yet care not that they give offense. Why is it permissible for them to say they can't relate to our topics but not permissible for me to say I cannot relate to their whining. Why is it permissible for them to oppose an effort to grow our church by reaching out to the disenfranchised and others for no stated reason. Why must we unyieldingly adhere to their Wed. schedule when most working people can't attend. Who is telling them the young people are unhappy about this? It is the same problem that went ignored in the housing situation. Just as I said then it does not go away by ignoring or appeasing it. They could offer no spiritual justification for their actions then and offer no spiritual justification for their opposition now. ( I have not forgotten our exchange of emails on the topic -- and your contention that the faith position was not to act in the confidence that God would protect us from the consequences-- but you never understood that I was aware that the church could be put at risk as I am aware that such risk is exactly what Jesus called us to. Not with the promise that we would not suffer the consequence but rather the assurance that we likely would.) You defined your heart to a large degree when you confessed your desire to preserve UBC based on your 40? years here. And like most here you want to always point to good things we do as if that somehow justifies the blackness lurking at our core. It does not matter how many good things we do if we forsake the gospel to preserve our fragile self image. I still cannot shake the picture of our church denying refuge to some and not even being willing to consider it for others because we were protecting a building. God have mercy on us all.

Preservation of any church is not our goal. Had Jesus taken the path of appeasement-there would be no Christian CHurch and we would be the unclean Gentiles exclude from the life and TEMPle of the chosen people. Can't you hear his response to complaints about our offensive topics-so much like his audacity in socializing with publicans and sinners- perhaps a simple retort -the topics are not to draw you.

The sad thing is that the leadership of this church insist on having dialogue like this one in the shadows and promotes the views of an undefined constituency. I am at all times prepared to give a defense of myself and my actions. You dare to rebuke me and when I respond asking you to earn the right to deliver that rebuke, you don't even address the issue instead lapsing into appeasment language again. The fact is that UBC will not get better until some of those older people muster the courage to stand up and look their friends in the eye and say you are just wrong and you know your position is indefensible.

Instead we continue to enable what I think and hope is a minority. Two things that did not escape me in the housing fiasco were 1)what really gave offense was taking the issue public by emailing the church after they ignored my private attempt; 2) they capitulated almost immediately when the light of day shined on them. Which tends to confirm my hope that the vast majority of the church do not agree with the shadow minority. I really wish we would just call a vote on one full Sunday Morning on the issues Sunday Night, Worship Style, Housing future evacuees. I earnestly believe in UBC and we could put all this whining and appeasing behind us and move ahead. Or if I am wrong and the darkness runs deeper then at least we would know and could go elsewhere to serve and to grieve the eventual demise of UBC.

Finally, it is not about who has more flaws. I am well aware of my many flaws-nevertheless-Jesus calls us in our imperfection. And I have an obligation to say to MY church leaders give account of yourself. Quit delaying and obstructing the gospel by appeasing those who give no account. Ask yourself why the leadership doesn't want me saying these things to the church as a whole. Why are we slinking around in the dark. What is there that Christ's church cannot look at in the light. The only answer is darkness because it cannot abide the light. So expect me to continue to call for courage from our leaders to stop appeasing naysayers. And ask yourself was the Christ you follow an appeaser of the institutional church? I think not.

Chilling

"Do not be too quick to condemn the man who no longer believes in God: for it is perhaps your own coldness and avarice and mediocrity and materialism and selfishness that have chilled his faith." Thomas Merton

Pretty chilling. Or at least it should be. We have all been told that we should be careful how we act because people are watching. Unfortunately, as Christians they are also watching Christ as He is reflected in us both individually and corporately. Wednesday Night we talked about Acts and the crisis in the identity of Jews created by the inclusion of Gentiles in the body of believers. The erosion of distinctions that defined a people. Immediately it ocurred to me that we have returned to our distinctions of race, denomination, and class. We cluster in homogeneous groups and erect cultural barriers to keep out those who are different. Maybe they are a mode of dress, a style of worship, a restrictive theology, etc., but they all act as a fence around our group.

These distinctions and our isolation contribute to the problem of our witness by assuring that those different from us are always watching from without not knowing us intimately. Thus we are judged strictly on what our group position is percieved to be. I am again compelled to wonder if this is why Jesus focused on making disciples rather than forming a church. The institution gives the imprimatur of authority to our actions, when in fact the authority lies outside ourselves or the institution. The gospel emphasizes God's grace in light of our fraility. I wonder sometimes if the church is even capable of projecting the gospel because as an institution it magnifies our corruptibility by giving credence to our distancing ourselves from the hard sayings of Jesus. Perhaps it is better that we maintain the vulnerability of the individual and forsake the safety of the institution.

One has to wonder at God choosing such imperfect messengers.

Thoughts on Lacombe

I went to Lacombe Friday to work on the houses the church is sponsoring. There is no doubt that we are rebuilding a couple of houses and I suppose helping to rebuild some lives in the process. Going there the first time, I wondered at whether in light of the devastation we should be invevsting resources in rebuilding such hazard prone areas. This trip one of the crew question whether one of the houses was worth rebuilding. My only reply was I guess it is to her. This raises the question, however, of what we do about the real devastation that is poverty. These places in Lacombe were not like our homes and won't be when we leave. In fact when we are done some might still ask is that house worth rebuilding. I wonder. I read with interest the story in the paper about new Erath and even more the Canadian automaker sponsored new community. It seems to be a sensible approach. Would we do better to pool resources and build a habitat community on high ground. The problem is so large our efforts sometimes seem like spitting in the ocean. But maybe that is what we are called to do. Jesus repeatedly dealt with individuals and meeting their needs. Maybe it is why the gospel message has to be primary, We must multiply those equipped to meet the needs while at the same time actually meeting them. I've talked to some folks about what we are doing and who we are and the tendency is to address the issues separately, but I believe the two are inextricably linked and interdependent. Anyway these are just some random thought generated by the experience of Lacombe.

On the personal side the trip was satisfying and frustrating and humbling all at once. Satisfying that I was doing something outside myself. Frustrating because operating in a venue I have always enjoyed, it was apparent that this is one area of my life that PD has snatched away. And out of that frustration, the humbling experience to be the one asking for help and taking direction instead of the other way around. To be acutely aware of what you can't do and aware of other's awareness of your inadequacy. It wasn't much fun and yet it was satisfying.

On Going Privately Public

This all started with a desire to foster dialogue in a congregation that had stopped communicating directly. The idea was was to try to provide a place to air out the issues that we hide from. I started with a message board and with the first post was censored by the leadership as to public a forum, too controversial a topic. So I tried a restricted message board. That was too cumbersome even for the censoring leadership. Ultimately while reading some blogs from various ministers it ocurred to me to just do a blog linked to our church site. Well after a couple of months of that, with none of the hoped for dialogue, I arrived at this point. Take down the link and say whatever I please about whatever I please and see if any kindred spirits exist in blogdom. So for anyone new here is the rant that started it all in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina:

No Room at the Inn
I am writing to express my grave disappointment withthe decision to no longer house emergency workers. I find it bitterly ironic that the Christianstory begins with just such a case, of no room at theinn. The fact that we have been approached again onlyemphasizes the great need for available space to housethese volunteers. I know we have excuses: no showers, security,liability, etc. All of these are the same as thosebeing overcome with creative solutions by sisterchurches in our area. I am confident that we are atleast as creative as they. RV's have showers, security canbe paid, and Christianity is an endeavor fraught withrisk. If we lose the church in a tort suit because wegave refuge to health care workers, we should wear ourbadge of martyrdom proudly. While as an attorney I understand the potentialcomplications that perhaps led to this decision, as aChristian I can find no Biblical justification. Whatis a church if not a refuge for those displaced? ashelter from the storm? While we have done manythings to aid those in need, we are not called to giveout of our abundance, but to give sacrificially. Wehave not been asked to give shelter to the unwashedmasses, but merely to others who are givingsacrificially. How can we, in good conscience, deny refuge to thesevolunteers? To raise the trite but true question ofthe 90's, what would Jesus do? Do we really think Hisresponse would be, "Yes, I have a chapel, but you maynot use it"? To those who would make a stewardshipargument I ask, what worldly possessions did Jesushave? Finally, I question the authority of the Trustees toblock the housing of the health care workers. It ismy understanding that the Trustees are charged withimplementing the mission and ministries of the churchas defined by the deacons. I am aware of no vetopower. I pray that our deacons still believe that itis the mission of the church to provide shelter fromthe storm and refuge for the displaced, and not merelyto provide a comfortable and safe place for churchmembers. As we are faced again with a situation of "no room atthe inn," I would hope that we would provide a placefor the Lord to lay His head. When we provide such aplace to the least among us, whether it be stable orchapel, we live the gospel. As I have said, I canfind no scriptural justification for denying refuge tothose in need. We are faced with a unique time with uniqueopportunities to share the gospel in tangible ways. It is my hope that you will reconsider your decision,or perhaps more appropriately, leave the decision todeny refuge to the deacons or the church body as awhole.

After much gnashing of teeth. The powers that be relented and we housed Red Cross workers for about a month. I still have a bad taste in my mouth from the experience and a fear of that dark place in the heart of my church.

Communication Revisited

Does a tree falling in the woods make a sound if no one is there to hear it? In my previous post I wondered a bit about selfless presentation. Putting the hearer first if you will. The more I think about it, however, the more convinced I am that it is only half the formula. I'm beginning to think that whatever method of communication you choose, some folks will not get it. For communication to occur the listener must meet you half way.

As I think about concerns over how the church communicates, I think about complaints about not knowing about events and then I think about responses to my reply- It was in the Window, It was on the website, We announced it in church. I invariably get, I don't read the Window, I don't go to the website, I don't listen to the announcements. At some point it begins to seem that some folks just don't want to hear.

Granted we can definitely improve our transmission of the message, but for communication to really occur the hearer has to improve his reception as well. I guess it is like the parable of the sower. No matter how well you spread your seed if it falls on the wrong kind of ground it will not bear fruit. We will continue to work on transmission, will you work on reception?

What are we doing?

I was at a meeting recently where the question was asked "Who are we trying to reach?". The answer was congregants who don't attend.

I was at lunch with a friend and asked, "What are we doing to reach non-christians with the gospel?" The answer, Sharlo? Kairos? CoN?

Then I asked, "Why is it all our efforts are focused on folks that by circumstance or ministry structure are segregated from the main body?" Neither of us had a good answer.

What are we doing?

I know we don't care for formulaic witness programs at UBC-and I'm on board with that- but, it seems we ought to be figuring out some way to tell folks outside our church body that God desires a relationship with them and so do we.

Anybody else wondering, What are we doing?