Discouragement, Disillusionment, and the Future of the UMC

It is discouraging to be a United Methodist pastor right now.  Not only are we suffering from the same trends affecting all of Mainline Protestantism related to a decline in participation, but we have the added anxiety of a the failed special general conference which promised to produce a way forward, but instead produced nothing but pain and frustration.  So in a reality where the vast majority of our churches are declining in attendance, membership, and funding, there are more UM pastors doubting their call than ever before.

And who can blame us?   We got into this because following Jesus introduced us to a way of living that is a gift we wanted to share with those who are enslaved to our anxious, selfish, hopeless culture.  And when we look at our ministry and are unable to see God using us to find the lost, heal the sick, and feed the hungry... well, it's natural to ask if we are still called to serve in this way.

And some have argued that everything will get better when we just rip off the bandaid and split the church.  And I think there is some truth to this sentiment.  Part of the difficulty is a lack of identity.  In a world where people are looking for reasons not to participate instead of reason to participate, the large tent approach has made it so everyone has a good reason not to be United Methodist.  If you are progressive, the evangelicalism of UM doctrine is enough to push you away.  If you are conservative, the Bishops refusing to defend the faith from public disobedience is enough to push you away.  If you don't like conflict... well, you get the picture.

So I do think it will be beneficial when we tear the big tent at the seams, but its not going to be a magic bullet for the problems affecting our local churches.  Nor is it a miracle drug for the depression that is gripping a large group of my colleagues.

Now, this would be the point where if I was smarter I would propose a solution.  Or if I was really smart I would tell you that the solution is in my new book which will be released next month.  No, I don't have a simple solution or even a complex one.  And my sense is that it is going to get worse before it gets better.

So pray for your pastor.  Chances are they feel like they are failing you and failing God.

If you are going to criticize them, make sure it is missional criticism.  You have no idea the breath of fresh air it would be for your pastor to hear you go to them and say, "Pastor, I got a bone to pick with you.  We need to make new disciples."  Understand that the vast majority of what gets to us is petty.  So to hear someone voice a problem that is related to the mission instead of one's preference is better than ten compliments.

Because we see the hurt and anger and anxiety and hopelessness of so many people around us, and in our bones we know that following Jesus radically transforms a person's life.  And our hearts are breaking and for many of us, it feels like we are alone.  Because it is rare to hear someone ask what Jesus or the church can do for their neighbor who just lost a child to a heroine overdose.  It is rare to hear someone ask what Jesus or the church can do for the son who is angry and being shaped by supremacist voices.  It is rare to hear someone ask what Jesus or the church can do for the sister who lives with the shame of abuse.

But this is why we are here.  We are here to be the instrument by which God finds the lost, heals the sick, feeds the hungry, frees the captive, and reconciles the rebellious.

The world has changed.  The way your pastor was trained is not very effective anymore.  But, we are doing our best to be faithful in this new reality, and most of us feel like we are failing.  Methodism as we have known it is dying.

And if it is to be saved, it will be by lay people whose hearts are broken for the brokenness of their community.  Men and women who believe, in their bones, that the gift of God is not to be hoarded by those who reside within the church, but is rightly received when it is being given away.  Children and Seniors who know the power of new life offered to those who trust in Jesus and are filled by the Holy Spirit.

We are missionaries of life in a land of death.  May we not grow weary in our mission.

The Way Forward: Humility as an Intellectual Virtue

A week from now 864 delegates, hundreds of alternates, thousands of support staff, and tens of thousands of demonstrators will invade St. Louis for the Special General Conference.  And there is just one item on the agenda, negotiating a deal that will make those on the left happy enough that they don't riot and those on the right happy enough that they don't secede from the denomination.  And honestly, I don't think this will happen.  I think we will probably see a riot or two and by March 1st the gears will be in motion for a formal church split.

And honestly, this doesn't scare me or bother me.  The UMC has put the mission and the vision in the trunk for decades and our bloated bureaucracy exists for the preservation of the institution and nothing more.  So, a split that results in two or more new connections picking up the pieces and being forced to articulate a vision for being the church is the best thing that could happen to the Methodist movement.

My hope for the Methodist expressions of the future is that we will have the humility to recognize that we live in a slice of time, with a particular zeigeist, privileging evidence in a particular way, and that we are finite, fallible, and cannot be trusted to rewrite the doctrinal confessions of the church.

It is tempting to take six semesters of theological education and the tools one gains during that time and believe that these tools are all we need to properly interpret the Bible and properly execute the Christian life.  But we could not be more mistaken.  The Great Tradition is a gift and one that we leave unwrapped at our own peril.  It may be that as we study a particular section of the Bible, we begin to believe that the church universal has gotten it wrong; and our proper response is to go back and read Athanasius and Augustine and Aquinas and Luther and Wesley and Barth and Coakley to understand what is deficient from my study that is putting my understanding at odds with the giants of the tradition.

Richard Feldman and his posse at University of Rochester have been exploring belief justification, and they measure a person's capacity to know based on three criteria.  The first is the quality of their evidence:  Does a person have all the evidence that they could possibly have?  The second is the sincerity of the inquirer: Does a person have competing commitments that will get in the way of evaluating the evidence fairly? And finally, the last measurement is intelligence: Does a person have the brain power to evaluate the evidence.

With this in mind, is possible that a single interpreter with their divinity degree might have better evidence, but it is unlikely.  And it is possible that one is somehow more sincere than those who came before, but again, this is unlikely.  And it is possible that this person is more intelligent, but I doubt it.

Intellectual virtue demands that when my belief is in conflict with the belief of someone who is informed, intelligent, and sincere that my level of confidence in said belief is diminished.  Likewise, if informed, intelligent, and sincere people from around the globe and across time hold a belief that is different than mine, I should be far more concerned with understanding their arguments, recognizing the likelihood that I am wrong than in psychoanalyzing the saints that have come before in order to smear their sincerity.

The arrogance one must possess to say, "Huh, would you look at that.  My 'indepedently concluded' belief differs from Augustine, Aquinas, Sarah Coakley, and my grandmother; I must be a genius!" is unfathomable.

The reality is that we all occupy an intellectually vulnerable place and into this intellectually vulnerable place comes the creeds and confessions that make up the great tradition.  It is a gift to us, and one that we would be wise to embrace.

Now, it is important to point out that the Great Tradition doesn't deal with everything.  When the church has talked about doctrine, it has dealt primarily with questions related to the "nature of" God and creation.  Which means that it won't give us particular instruction for how to deal with every technological development and how these developments interact with humanity. However, it will give us a starting point and oftentimes guardrails.

So my hope is that whatever happens in the United Methodist Church, we all find ourselves more appreciative and responsive to the wisdom of the Saints who gather alongside us and the Saints who have come before.  My hope is that we rediscover the humility to recognize that when we hold beliefs that are at odds with the doctrine of the church that it is us who are probably wrong.

I am Disqualified.

Today, if you were on the West Ohio emailing list, you received a 'time sensitive' email about nominations for General Conference 2020.  And as I read the email, I was discouraged by the language used to describe the ideal candidate, especially this paragraph:

We seek candidates who understand the worth of all persons and are willing to listen to their brothers and sisters who cry out for justice. Furthermore, delegates must think globally and be committed to the mission of The United Methodist Church; We are a global Church, and our decisions have a global impact.

Really? Think globally?  When a major issue in United Methodism is that our leadership is disconnected from the local church, we think we can fix it by 'thinking globally'?

If you'll indulge a quick summary of my call: God called me to pastoral ministry nearly 20 years ago and I wanted no part of it, because I came from a church that crushed the souls of its pastors and nobody in their right mind would choose that life.  But 9 years ago I was a semester away from graduating and the place where I found the greatest joy was investing in the small, urban church located north of campus--breaking bread with the people that the other church's in town didn't want.  So I applied to seminary because I didn't know exactly what I wanted to do and it seemed like a good way to defer my loans for another 3 years.

The summer before I started seminary, I was mowing at the golf course, and my heart was warmed to the idea of calling up a former pastor who was leading a thriving church and asking if I could learn under him.  I spent six months learning systems and management from him, when I saw an email from the DS of the Maumee Watershed District looking for student pastor to serve a two-point charge in the Lakota School District.  And again, my heart was warmed so I responded and met with her, and before I knew it I was appointed... clueless, but appointed.

I loved those churches and their love for me took a hopeless, clueless 22 year old seminary student and made me a pastor.  Two years later I was on facebook and an aquaintance of mine was announcing that they were taking a new appointment, and as I read, my heart was warmed to the idea of following him.  Six hours later, I got a call from my DS about considering that appointment (which I thought was pretty coincidental).  So I drove down to Dayton with my wife for an explore-go with the the senior pastor and SPRC chairperson.  And before I knew it, there I was appointed... green, but appointed.

I loved that church.  It had several campuses, and the love of that church taught me how to lead.  After three years as the associate I met with my DS and she was much quieter than normal.  The next day I got a call from the DS in Capital Area South about taking a new appointment.  I had been told this wouldn't be a move year for my family (with our 4 month old baby), so the call was shocking, but as Cindy and I prayed about it, it became clear that God was calling us to Trinity.  And three months later, here we were appointed... anxious, but appointed.

I love this church, and the love of this church is teaching me the supreme value of prioritizing that which is most important, both personally and in leading the church.

Over these years there have been a couple other opportunities that I have turned down, because I didn't feel called to them.  And the realization I have as I consider the course of my vocational career is that I have been called to five local churches, but never called to The United Methodist Church™

I couldn't in good conscience advocate for 'the global church,' I don't know enough about the global church to advocate for it effectively.  Invariably, if I tried to advocate for the global church, my experience would paint the global church to look a lot like what I know.

But, I can advocate for my local church and the other local churches I have served.  And if everyone else came advocating for their local church and the churches they have served previously, we might have a dialectical process that acknowledged the uniqueness (and the sameness) of our contexts.

So, as I read the profile of the ideal candidate, it becomes increasingly clear that I am not that guy.  I am not committed to the mission of the United Methodist Church.  I am committed to the mission of Trinity (especially if the mission of the UMC is little more than self-preservation).  I can't think globally, I can only think locally and hope that those from other parts of the globe will sincerely advocate for faithful, contextual positions.  And if what is meant here is a paternalism that says, "you in Ohio clearly know what is best for those living in the global south, so give them what they really need" then I don't even know where to start...


So in summation, when I vote for the next delegation, I will be voting for people committed to advocating for their local churches, even if they aren't the 'ideal' candidate and I encourage you to do so as well.

To marginalize or Not to Marginalize: Why the One Church Plan is (still) the worst possible option for GC 2019

Can you imagine what would happen if an annual conference decided that it would refuse to ordain candidates of color? (Or a bishop refused and had to call in a colleague bishop)

What if a Bishop refused to find appointments for female clergy?

What if a Pastor decided they were unwilling to officiate inter-racial marriages?

All of United Methodism would lose their ever loving minds.  And rightly so.



Here is the deal, if the 2019 GC embraces the "One Church Plan" with regards to questions of human sexuality, what it is really doing is making the official position of the church one in which homosexual practice is affirmed while at the same time, sanctioning church-blessed discrimination.

This is wholly unacceptable.   It is every bit as unacceptable as if we were to say that Pastors, churches, conferences, and jurisdictions can decide whether or not they will do interracial marriages or refuse to ordain female clergy.

The Judicial Council has ruled that the language in the plan is by and large constitutional; yet, the logic of the plan is so terribly flawed that to pass it requires setting aside one's intellectual integrity.

And I get why it is appealing.  In many ways it is codifying our current realities and would (theoretically) preserve the institution.  But the current reality is that we are failing in our mission in the United States and both sides blame the decline on the disobedience of the other side.  Why would we choose to embrace this reality as what we want?

I am just a thirty year old dude from Central Ohio, and my opinion, my experience, my best guess should not be able to override the wisdom of the global church.


But if the wisdom of the global church leads to a change in official theology and language while not only allowing, but sanctioning discrimination, then woe to us.

Squatting on a swedish ball: a better idea than the One Church Plan


This blog was published earlier, but edited in light of the recent decisons by the Judicial Council.

The Craziest Thing

This evening at dinner I was watching the Yankees and the Red Sox and the craziest thing happened.  In the bottom of the second inning, the Red Sox centerfielder was on first base and attempted to steal second.  He was didn't get that good a jump and the catcher made a good throw and they got him by a mile.  But he wouldn't go back to the dugout.  So manager Alex Cora used his challenge, the call was upheld as the runner being out at second, but he still refused to go back to the dugout.

At this point, Yankees manager Aaron Boone went to the home plate umpire to have him get the retired baserunner off of the field so that the teams could continue playing.  So the umpire walked out to second base and had a conversation with the baserunner.  He returned to home plate and explained to Boone that the runner felt like the tag was unnecessarily forceful and he was unwilling to return to the dugout, so the umpire had decided that they would let the runner stay out on the base paths.

Boone sauntered back to the dugout shaking his head, in disbelief of what he was seeing, but the game went on.  And that runner who should have been out ended up scoring two batters later.

Again in the third, the Red Sox had a batter who grounded into a double play.  This time, neither runner complied with the rules of the game and returned to the dugout after being forced out.  Both of these runners scored as well.

By the end of the fifth inning, the Red Sox had pulled this charade 5 times and the game was tied 7-7.

In the top of the sixth, the Yankees scored three runs to take the lead 10-7.  In the bottom of the sixth, the first Red Sox hitter struck out on three straight pitches, but he refused to go back to the dugout, instead he demanded to be allowed to hit until he put the ball in play.  And he did, 9 strikes later, the hitter doubled to right field.  The next hitter was struck out on three pitches as well, but this hitter too was unwilling to leave the field of play.

So the Yankees pitcher, utterly frustrated, plunked the hitter in the back with a 95 mile per hour fastball.  The batter took his base and the umpire warned both teams against throwing at opposing batters.  The third hitter of the inning worked the count to 2 balls and 2 strikes. And on the next pitch hit a towering fly ball that drifted just a few yards from being a home run, resulting in a long, loud foul ball.  But the hitter rounded the bases as if the ball had been fair, and the scoreboard read 10-10.

At this point, the Yankees left the field, unwilling to waste their time with a team that was not going to follow the rules and unwilling to be subject to umpires that refused to enforce the rules.

After the game, the 'AL East Insight' blog wrote a scathing rebuke of the Yankees for being quitters.  And 'Hacking Baseball' accused the Yankees of conspiracy against the integrity of the game. 

But can you blame the Yankees?  The umpires showed no intention of upholding the rules of the game; and while it is terrible sportsmanship to walk off the field before the game is over, what is gained by sticking it out to the end?

UMC Disagreement: It's Worse than You Think it is

If you are reading this, you are surely aware of some of the challenges facing the United Methodist Church.  In the popular spheres of media, our disagreements have been framed as fundamentally a disagreement around whether or not our connectional church should choose to change its polity so that those who engage in non-traditional sexual intimacy are welcome to 1. be married in our local churches and 2. be candidates for ordination by our annual conferences.

But what if I told you that this particular disagreement is the tip of the iceberg... That even if, by some act of divine grace, tomorrow morning every United Methodist had the same view on this issue, we would still be a church in schism.

I think the deepest divide in our church is not between those who want to hold to a traditionalist view of marriage and those who wish to change it; I believe the true divide is between those who privilege tradition as the primary tool to interpret the Bible and those who privilege experience.

Just yesterday, on the United Theological Alumni page, a debate was raging between an alumnus who is convinced that the Holy Spirit has spoken and that the polity of the UMC is in defiance of the will of God and a different alumnus who found it suspect that the Holy Spirit would wait 2000 years to reveal this truth to the church, allowing the church to be in error for two millenia.  And as I read through the thread it became painfully clear: the difference in the interpretive lens between these two is so dramatically different that they can't even comprehend how their debate partner could come to the conclusion they come to.

I would argue that Outler/Barth/Wesley do a good job of describing the ideal way a person might interpret the Bible in saying that everything read in the Bible should be filtered through the lens of experience and of reason and of tradition... what they fail to recognize is that every single person naturally favors one of the three.  And we know these people (and here are somewhat hyperbolic sketches of them):

The traditionalist:  Mark is the typical traditionalist's favorite Gospel because it was first.  And being first, it was most likely the most accurate commentary on the life of Christ.  Undisputed Pauline epistles are better than the undisputed because they were written earlier.  Augustine is better than Aquinas because he wrote earlier.  You get the picture... When in doubt, the traditionalist will side with the tradition.  It's not that the traditionalist has a different set of experiences than the experientialist, as has universally been assumed by the progressives in this debate; rather, it is the decision to error on the side of the wisdom that has been passed down over and against the wisdom of one's personal experience.

The experientialist: The experientialist typically prefers John to the other Gospels because of it's vivid imagery and relational tone.  The experientialist prefers to read and gives preference to the narratives of others over other types of literature.  The timeline doesn't matter nearly as much for the experientialist, however, for the experientialist, the narrative of a marginalized person is privileged and accept these narratives without critique.  In fact, I would argue that the cardinal sin for the experientialist is to critique the truth of someone else (especially their truth).  It is important to recognize that the experientialist, for the most part, comes from the same tradition as the traditionalist, however, when in doubt, the experientialist will error on the side of their experience and the experience of others, especially the experience of the marginalized.

The reasonist:  The reasonist is hardist to find, because they are least likely to enter into social media debates.  The reasonist will often prefer Luke because it came latest as a synoptic Gospel and has the most information.  The reasonist wants to live on the cutting edge, and will tend to privilege recently published material over things from the past.  The reasonist typically will seek the wisdom of other areas of study in order to make sense of difficult questions.  Notice that both the traditionalist and the experientialist will use outside scholarship when it supports their position, but it is only the reasonist who uses the outside sources as a key feature of their interpretive process.  The reasonist shares the same experiences as the experientialist and comes from the same tradition as the traditionalist, but is skeptical of both tradition and experience as sufficient lenses by which to interpret and to determine truth.


Can you see how these differences in interpretative privilege have caused our current impasse with regards to the question of human sexuality?  Can you also see how these differences are not limited to creating the impasse surrounding human sexuality?

It is important to note that this isn't the only factor at work and everyone use all three to some degree, and I am sure that someone who is smarter than me will likely be able to pinpoint something with an even greater influence; however, as I have conversations with the self-identified progressives and the self-identified traditionalists, I am encouraged that almost everyone wants to be faithful to God.  Almost everyone wants to grow in holiness.  Almost everyone wants a church where everyone is welcomed and everyone is given the opportunity to grow in Christ-likeness.

But, in the information age, the gap between those who error on the side of tradition and those who error on the side of experience is not a gap but a chasm that has been supercharged by the postmodern turn.  And even if the miracle occured and this issue was no longer a source of disagreement, the next one would be just as ugly, and for that reason, I don't think it would be a terrible idea for the church to seperate.  Allow, those who are committed to a democracy of the dead have the opportunity to live out their mission without the pesky experience terrorists getting in the way.  Likewise, those who privilege experience shouldn't have to deal with the prison of tradition as they do their best to faithfully follow Jesus.  And honestly, the reasonists don't need their own denomination.  Because the reasonist operates best as the faithful opposition and the reasonists I know would likely split based on who they respect and who they are already most deeply connected to.

So please, Commission on the Way Forward, draw up a plan for getting us out of our own way, but don't fall into the trap of thinking this is primarily a disagreement on human sexuality.  Define the theological process for the new denominations and allow them in their first independent general conferences to elect their own bishops. 

Post Script: After the writing of the blog, Rob Renfroe over at Good News Magazine posted an exerpt (likely the introduction) of a new book calling for an amicable separation in United Methodism.  I often find myself critical of Renfroe, but I found very little to criticize with this most recent post.  His lens is different than mine, but his reasoning is sound and I appreciate that someone with the clout that he possesses had the guts to say it, knowing that he will be labeled a schismatic.

Love as Lip Service and the Divide in the UMC

Last night I was scrolling through my social media feed and one of my "friends" (who I have never met, but with whom I am a co-laborer) posted this passage from Romans:

9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. (Romans 12:9, NIV)

And it got me thinking, in the UMC, both sides like to affirm their righteousness with regards to the inner-turmoil by publicly saying things like, "I love all my colleagues" and "we are better together;" however, these phrases are little more than lip service.

The truth is that in progressive safe spaces, there is no love lost for traditionalists who are keeping the denomination in the dark ages.

And behind traditionalist closed doors, there is little more than vitriol for progressives who have forsaken their first love for an Oprah-fied version of Christianity.

I once dated a girl who didn't really like me all that much.  She might say that she loved me and daydream about an idyllic future with 3 kids and 2 dogs in the suburbs, but when it came down to it, I was an interchangeable piece to her future puzzle.  It wasn't me that she loved, it was the idea of what she could turn me into.

And this is where we are as a denomination.  We love the idea of a truly United Methodism where (if you lean to the left) everyone is united in self-discovery, living one's personal truth, and living in harmony with nature and neighbor; or where (if you lean right) we are united in self-control, spreading scriptural holiness throughout the land, and orthodox affirmations.  But, we don't love our adversaries (and yes I chose this word on purpose) enough to allow their vision of the future to influence our shape our own.

Rather, in private text messages and while carpooling to conference events, we angrily decry "those people" who are killing our denomination in the safety of our echo chambers.

I ended up breaking up with the girl.  It was a really good decision.  In the freedom of no longer trying to live into her vision for me, I was able to embrace a more authentic, less anxious version of me. 

Neither faction of United Methodists are willing to live into the other side's vision for the church, which has meant that at every opportunity, we flex our muscles to demonstrate that we won't submit to the other's vision for our denomination.  What might happen if we did just break-up? What if these competing visions no longer had to coexist under the same roof?  Would we too have the opportunity to embrace a more authentic, less anxious version of ourselves, both individually and corporately?

I have friends in both camps, and it will be a bummer to miss out on our annual excursions for ice cream and to play shuffle board; but, for the sake of the mission(s), because we seem incapable of loving each other sincerely, it is probably time to break up.

Now, I admit that I could be wrong.  So, by all means please leave comments that are kind and truthful and if there is a way to keep this thing together, we can figure it out together.

Big Hairy Question: What does the Bible say about Science?

This month, we are working through big hairy questions.  One that came up a couple times in survey responses was, "What does the Bible say about science?"  There were questions about climate change, evolution, and what happened to the dinosaurs.

What does the Bible say about science?  I recognize that this may be unsatisfying, but the short answer is that the Bible says very little about questions that we view as part of the scientific inquiry.  One of my professors in seminary said it well when he said that science is the study of how the universe works; however, science is incapable of answering the question of why the universe works the way it does.  On the other hand, religion tells the story of why the universe is the way it is, but is not primarily concerned with the processes that govern how the universe works.

A prime example: in the first two chapters of Genesis, we get two different origin of the cosmos stories.  In the first story, the universe begins as a wet, chaotic, formless nothing, which God hovers over and by speaking, introduces order.  God separates light from dark, day from night, sky from surface, land from sea, plants from animals, birds from fish, mammals from reptiles, and as the final act, God separates, from the rest of creation, a human.  All of these acts are seen as good and all of them flow from evening into morning.

In the second account (beginning at Genesis 2:3), the earth is dry and dead, but God brings forth life, water flows from the surface of the dry, dead surface of the earth, and God takes dust from the dry, dead surface of the earth, forms that dust into a human form, and breathes life into Adam.  In the first narrative, everything is good, but in the second, Adam is working in the garden and God says, "it is not good for man to be alone, I will make a helper suitable for him."(v.18) God then brings forth even more life out of the dry, dead ground.  Animals of every shape and size, but no animal is found a suitable companion.  Until God finally puts Adam in a deep sleep, removes one of his ribs and from the rib creates a woman.

Now, science might ask the question, which of these creation possibilities is true?  Was the earth a wet, formless void that God separates to create order, saving humans for last?  Or was the earth a dry, dead planet that God brought life to, beginning with humans?

But religion asks the question what is true about these creation stories?  As Christians we don't say that one creation narrative is true and the other is false, we recognize that neither narrative is presented as a scientific or historical telling of the origin of the universe, rather these two creation stories are given to us to teach us from the very beginning of the Bible some fundamental truths about who God is.  And what are these truths?

• When God speaks, things happen.
• God is a creator of order, not of chaos.
• Creation is good.
• God is a giver of life.
• God has created humans in the image of God.

And if we continue reading, the next set of stories teach fundamental truths about what it is to be human.

Additionally, we should point out that the vast majority of scientists throughout human history and according to a 2009 study, 60% of scientists working today believe in the divine and 40% have a religious practice.  Science and religion aren't the competing worldviews the media makes them out to be.  Science and religion continue to exist as partners in the pursuit of truth.  We need not be afraid of learning about how the world works from our brothers and sisters pursuing the scientific inquiry.  We shouldn't feel the need to defend the narratives of the Bible against scientific scrutiny.  The Bible is a religious text, whose primary purpose is to tell us about God.  It wasn't written as a scientific hypothesis, and it is unfair to treat it in that way.

Rather, we can affirm, like St. Augustine, that all truth is God's truth and sincerely do our best to understand how the world works, and praise God throughout the process for God's creativity and care to even the smallest details.

The Central Untruth that Unravels Centrism

The Uniting Methodists met over the last two days in Georgia, and I didn't attend.  I like most of the people associated with the caucus group, and find their goal of discerning a solution that will save the United Methodist marriage to be noble.  However, it is pretty clear that their efforts are doomed; and they are doomed for one central reason.

Compatibilism is not a theological position.

According to the "centrists" there are essentially four theological positions in the UMC with regards to the question of affirming the practice of homosexuality.  Tom Berlin, says more here, but the gist of what he says is this:

• Position 1 is progressive non-compatibility, meaning one believes that full affirmation of the practice of homosexuality is the correct course of action and the only solution is for every UM church and every UM pastor is fully affirming LGBT practice.

• Position 2 is progressive compatibility, meaning that one believes that full affirmation of the practice of homosexuality is the correct course of action, but is willing to let individual churches and pastors make their own decision.

• Position 3 is traditional compatability, meaning that one believes that full affirmation of the practice of homosexuality is not the correct course of action, but is willing to let individual churches and pastors make their own decision.

• Position 4 is traditional non-compatibility, meaning that one believes that full affirmation of the practice of homosexuality is not the correct course of action, and that churches and clergy should be held accountable to the current standards of the denomination.

Here in lies the problem.  Compatibilism, by definition, is not a theological position.  Because there are only two possible theological claims with regard to the full expression and practice of homosexuality:

• Claim A: God can be glorified by the full expression and practice of homosexuality. (Given a kind, self-giving, committed relationship)

• Claim B: God can not glorified by the full expression and practice of homosexuality. (Even in the presence of a kind, self-giving, committed relationship)

Now, it is legitimate to be unsure which of these claims is true.  But it is wholly insincere to suggest that both claims can simultaneously be true.

Compatibilism is a strategy of progressives to keep the institution together, with the assumption that those who do not agree with them will one day "grow up"

And honestly, it is far and away the best strategy for UM progressives.  But it is a strategy, not a theology.

Because a sincere progressive is unwilling to let the official position be that churches within their denomination may exclude an expression of God's creativity and grace.

And a sincere traditionalist is unwilling to let the official position be that churches within their denomination celebrate sin.


A Caveat

I do believe that there is a significant number of people who find the evidence muddy and have chosen to withhold judgment, and for this group especially compatibilism is very attractive.  Why not let both my friends on the right and the left do what they feel is right?

But even for the person who finds the evidence inconclusive, compatibilism should be a frightening proposition, because compatibilism institutionalizes relativism.  How can the official position of the church be that M Barclay and Rob Renfroe are both right?


To be fair, I don't think the Uniting Methodists are actually saying that both M and Rob are right.  I think what they are actually saying is that M is right, but that we don't have the guts to tell Rob he is wrong.  Which gets back to the whole issue of truth telling...

#NextMethodism will have a Better Logo

The bureaucrats in the United Methodist Church love our logo.  See here, here, here, and here.

And if you follow these links, you will find really good theological foundations for a logo with a cross and a flame.  And there in lies the problem, we have really good theological reasons for a cross and flame branding; however, I will never forget bringing a friend of color to my home church and his first reaction being, "Caleb, why is there a burning cross on your church?"

Consistently in the methoblogosphere (I think that is a word) we find folks lamenting the lack of diversity within the UMC.  And while we might assume that the church is slowly getting more diverse, the data says otherwise.  In 1998, the UMC's North American membership was 87% white.  By 2008, it was 90% white.

Surely there is a plethora of reasons for our shameful history of connecting with minority populations; however, one might assume that having a logo that approximates a symbol of terror against black bodies in the United States has something to do with the pasty whiteness of the United Methodist Church.

Again, the theological underpinnings of our current logo are great, and I would suggest that we keep them in the design of a new logo.  Christocentric, excellent. High view of the Holy Spirit, fantastic.  But, isn't there another way to brand these virtues that doesn't look painfully similar to the klan's device of terror?

I think there is, and I think we will see it in #NextMethodism

#NextMethodism will be about both Self-discovery AND Self-denial.

I have been hesitant to say anything publicly about what is happening in the United Methodist Church, in large part because I realize that most of the people blogging, making videos, writing articles, giving speeches, and the like are far more intelligent than I am.  But, this afternoon Dr. Watson issued the invitation for the sharing of hopes and ideas about the future of methodism, and said nothing about staying silent if you are kinda dumb.  So, here are my kinda dumb ideas...

#NextMethodism will be about self-discovery AND self-denial.

I have lurked in the shadows reading the thought giants from across the spectrum in our church, and I have come to believe that ultimately we are not going to divorce over issues related to LGBT acceptance, rather, this split is the result of two very different perspectives on holiness.  And the difficulty is that they are both pretty good perspectives.  Both potentially lead to healthier, happier human beings.  But these visions of holiness are radically different and have ultimately led to a great deal of tension.

Our friends on the left have (generally) defined holiness as self-discovery leading to self-acceptance.  From the born this way movement to the #calledout rallying cry, the picture of holiness as defined by RMN, Love Prevails, and the MFSA is marked by learning how to love ourselves the way God created us and from a place of self-love being able to fight for a more equitable society which is how one pleases God .  This is a pretty good vision and it has Biblical roots.

Our friends on the right have (generally) defined holiness as self-denial leading to Divine conformity.  WCA, Good News before them, and the Confessing Movement before them have all put an emphasis on dying to self, with the understanding that a cruciform life is the kind of life that pleases God. This too is a pretty good vision and it has Biblical roots.

And before you break your keyboards telling me that the left has elements of self-denial and the right has elements of self-discovery--you are correct.  The folks who make up the whole of thinkers on both sides have a wide array of perspectives on holiness, however, I continue to argue that generally when we talk about the life that pleases God, the life of holiness, those on the right will focus on self-denial while those on the left will focus on self-discovery. (We also might say that the difference lies in the left seeing the salvific act of Christ as being primarily liberating and the right sees it as transforming)

But here in lies the problem with Biblically based self-denial removed from a process of self-discovery.  It is too easy to make a list of things one should deny themselves, without really having an understanding of how one's own selfishness has impacted the shaping of said list.  To be painfully blunt if a person is talking about the sinfulness of homosexuality but hasn't made tithing a priority, they would be wise to search their own heart and commitment to living in the light of God.

And the problem with self-discovery that doesn't get filtered through the Bible our practice of self-denial is that God really does want to transform us into the image of Jesus, and if our best hope for personal holiness is learning to love ourselves, we have missed the point. If one doesn't need Jesus for anything other than liberation from the oppression of white guys and their lists of self-denial, they are practicing the most meager form of Christianity.

But #NextMethodism will rediscover the Wesleyan vision for perfection, which Kevin Watson beautifully articulates saying, "[it is the practice of] giving all that I know of myself to all that I know of God."  This twin emphasis on knowing oneself and knowing God, so that we can both embrace the roll of God's grace in wiring us in unique and beautiful ways and identify the marks of the fall that keep us from living in the light of God.

Wesley famously wrote that we should be rigorous in judging ourselves and gracious in judging others.  If you feel that I have failed in describing the position of your tribe, I apologize, and invite your correction.  If your hopes for the future of Methodism are not in allignment with mine, I would like to hear why.  If  you read to the bottom, I appreciate you time.

Caleb

Open Letter to the Global Board of Higher Education and Ministry

Dear Ms. Cape, Ms. Conklin-Miller, and whom else it may concern:

I started seminary at 22.  A new college grad, I was fortunate enough to live in Ohio where no matter our zip code, we are never more than three hours away from a University Senate approved seminary. After my first semester, I became a student pastor serving a two-point charge and after the second semester I was licensed.  My wife and I lived in the parsonage where we served and I traveled to and from the seminary for classes.

My story was the typical story for licensed local pastors in 1975.  It was the typical story for seminary students in 1975.  But it is 2016.  The Lewis Center released some data not too long ago that showed that in the last 30 years, the number of churches being served by licensed local pastors has nearly doubled (3,804 to 7,464) and in that same time the number of licensed local pastors over 55 has almost tripled (1,462 to 4,284).

There are 4,284 licensed pastors that are over 55, and while they have the option of attending seminary, for the vast majority of them, seminary is not a worthwhile investment, which is why the Course of Study programs are so important for our denomination going forward and the Board's recent decision to cancel the program at United Theological Seminary is baffling.  In an era where the typical local pastor is 60 years old, limiting their ability to receive a quality theological education will have negative consequences for the local church.

United had a unique program that allowed licensed local pastors to study online with periodic face to face encounters that for the thousands of local pastors who are deeply committed to the churches they serve gave them an opportunity at a quality theological education that the remaining programs cannot achieve either by virtue of distance or program structure.

Time will show that this decision hurts the local church most.  As the UMC relies more and more on local licensed pastors, losing this option for quality training will further hurt small membership churches.

I respectfully ask that you reconsider the decision to terminate the Course of Study program at United.

Grace and Peace
Rev. Caleb Speicher


Y Campus Pastor, Sulphur Grove United Methodist Church

Christmas Reflection: Don't throw out the Baby with the Bathwater

Let's be honest... the church is a complex organism.

On one hand, Christians have been the leaders in the abolishing of slavery for centuries--but on the other hand, Christians fought to keep slavery legal and in some corners of the world still illegally own slaves.

On one hand, Christianity has produced the most important scientists and discoverers in human history (did you know Sir Isaac Newton wrote more on the topic of theology than he did on science?)--but on the other hand, we made Galileo recant, deny global warming, and fund Ken Ham's "museum."

On one hand, Christians led the way in women's suffrage--on the other, we still perpetuate patriarchy by talking about "Biblical manhood and womanhood" like there is only one right way to operate as either a man or woman in 2015.

On one hand, Christians are leaders in pacifism--but, we can't forget the crusades, the Holocaust, and the dozens of other times that Christians have played a major role in conflict.


In the past, I wanted to deny my connection to the historical evils perpetuated by the church, saying either, "well, they weren't really Christians" or "They didn't know any better, and we do better now" but in the same way that everyone has that family member that you wish wasn't, we have atrocities in our spiritual family tree.  We have incredible displays of love and care and discovery and achievement, but we also have incredible displays of selfishness and fear and failure.  The church is a complex organism.

And personally, some days I look at our world and the Christian influence on it and (like George Bailey) think maybe it would be better for everyone if the church hadn't been born.

But then I remember that the reason why the church exists is not to tip the scales of cultural value and that the sin of the church can't overwhelm the grace of her bridegroom.  So we live in this complex organism because the baby is more precious than the bathwater is putrid.  We live in this complex organism because Jesus liberates us from slavery to sin and death.  We live in this complex organism because God is our father and the church... is our mother.

Scattered Thoughts in the Midst of Our Chaos

Let me start by saying that I find conversations about the intersection of race and society fascinating, but rarely do I say anything in public because, well, I am the face of privilege.  I am a white, male, married, Christian, son of two educated people.  I may not have started the race in the front row, but I am not very far back.  And because of the situation I was born into, I have an incredibly difficult time imagining what life is like for someone like Michael Brown or Eric Garner.  I have never believed that the police would treat me unfairly, and even when I have broken the law, never once have I feared for my life.

But, if we are to believe the shared experiences of our brothers and sisters of color, that is the reality for nearly all of them living in this country.  In seminary I remember my friend Vincent telling me that if he dressed the way I did (hooded sweat shirt, blue jeans, and a Cincinnati Reds hat) and walked through a parking lot, he would hear car doors lock as he walked by, and the minute he entered the mall, security would be keeping an eye on him.  I told him that I didn't believe him and when he exagerates he loses his credibility.  But then Marty and John and Deion started telling their own stories of similar events where they were stopped by the police because they "looked suspicious" and followed around stores because they "looked like they were gonna steal something."  One of them told the story of spending the night in a holding cell after jay-walking.

I simply cannot understand the world that people of color occupy, because even though we may be neighbors, the way society interacts with us is fundamentally different.  I cannot understand how the events in Ferguson led to Michael Brown's death, because that would never happen in the world of privilege.  

One time, in college, when I was selling security systems door-to-door in a secluded, wealthy community, I was stopped by the police for "looking suspicious," and in fairness, I did look suspicious.  But the policeman never raised his voice, he never acted in a way that was threatening; he simply pulled beside me, rolled down his window and asked what I was doing.  He was satisfied with my answer and drove away.  When I think back on that interaction, I thank God that I am white.  

Had I been black, I very likely could have found myself cuffed and sitting in the grass (a recurring theme I hear in stories) while the officer ran my information through the computer, called my supervisor, and made sure I was doing what I said I was doing. 

The more stories I hear coming out of the black community, the more convinced I am that in these most recent non-indictments and in the many that preceded them. our system is failing at the most fundamental level to uphold due process.  

The most fundamental piece of due process is that those with power should not have the advantage over those without it.  For example, the Heisman trophy winning quarterback at your college shouldn't be protected when they violate the rights of an ordinary student.  Rather, in order for the justice system to work (at any level) we must error on the side of the powerless.  This doesn't mean that the powerful are always found to be in the wrong or that they are always convicted, however, it should mean that the victim who is harmed at the hands of the powerful is given every opportunity to seek and receive justice.

When a policeman kills a black child or when a politician is accused of abusing his intern or when a clergy-person is accused of embezzling money from the offering plate they must endure the greatest levels of scrutiny, or the process doesn't work.  If we don't indict the policeman or investigate the pastor, then we are allowing their privilege to short-circuit the system.  And as Christians, we must error on the side of the powerless.  

Now, I wasn't there when Wilson shot Brown.  I wasn't there when the Beavercreek PD shot Crawford.  I wasn't there when Damico choked out Garner.  And I wasn't there when the Cleveland cops shot Rice.  I don't know the totality of training, policy, and mindset that led to the actions taken by law enforcement officials which resulted in the death of four, unarmed black men.  I don't know what previous events led the officers to believe that they were doing the right thing.  And because the grand juries erred on the side of the powerful, none of us ever will.  

Vision starts with 'Why'

Every church I have ever been a part of has a mission statement.  At Marysville, our mission statement was, "To build and be the body of Christ."  At Trinity Evangelical it was, "To know Christ and make him known."  At Kansas and St. Paul's we used the standard UMC statement, "To make disciples for the transformation of the World" and now at Sulphur Grove, our mission statement is, "to grow disciples, to live and share God's love."

And all of these are noble statements of purpose, describing what we do; however, mission statements fail to build robust consensus for the same reason that most fail to serve as a north star for determining the direction of an organization.  Mission statements fail, all to often, because they vaguely describe what we do, but they do not describe why we do it.

Here recently, in an attempt to guard against breaking my four month old son, I have found myself reading books related to neuroscience and human personality.  And the consensus of the scientific community (as it relates to human interaction) is that our brains do not operate as a single functioning unit, but rather that our pre-frontal cortex (PFC) is the emoting desire center of the brain, while the frontal cortex (FC) is responsible for higher functions like language and reasoning.  The PFC is hard-wired to survive by releasing positive emotion chemicals when we are interacting with people who talk like us, walk like us, believe like us, look like us, etc.  If you are like me, and grew up in a community with very little diversity, and couldn't understand why your minority best friend in elementary school spent less time with you and more time with other minorities when you got to high school where there were other minorities, this is one reason why.  Our brains are hard wired to seek out sameness as a survival tactic.  So while reason (done in the FC) might tell us that our shared history is what is truly important, and we should still be the best of friends, the overwhelming chemical response put out by our PFC means that, in most cases, our friend if given the opportunity to be friends with others who look more like her, sound more like her, believe more like her, etcetera--she will take it.  Now, this is a general idea that requires much greater nuance in the real world, and no situation can be seen as strictly determined by brain chemistry.  The intersection of nature and nurture can lead to a plethora of outcomes; but, in general, scientists agree that the way our PFC works is to draw us in to people who look like us, believe like us, and talk like us.  We want to agree with those who our PFC tells us are our kind of people.

So what does this mean for vision casting?

If you want to build consensus, if you want the vision to be communicated powerfully, it all comes back to the community's shared belief.  Don't tell me the things that you do, tell me the belief that explains why you do it.  So your mission is to make disciples, that's nice.  Why?  What is so great about disciples?  We have these mission statements that are so obtuse and so dependent upon everyone who hears them making the right assumptions about our motivating beliefs that they have no real meaning outside of the mental exercises performed by our frontal cortex.

If you want to powerfully cast the vision for God's preferred future, speak to the heart (or at least the pre-frontal cortex).  Don't tell me what you are going to do or how you are going to do it, tell me why!

Here is an example of how umc.org describes itself:

We are the United Methodist Church.  We make disciples for the transformation of the world.
We have 12.5 million members who are committed to being a global, connectional, inclusive, scriptural, wesleyan, missional, ecumenical, socially just church.

Not very inspiring is it...

But here is how we might better cast the vision for what it is to be United Methodist:

We believe that knowing Christ and being filled with the Holy Spirit transforms individuals, families, communities and our world.
There are 12.5 million of us who are committed to being global, connectional, inclusive, scriptural, wesleyan, missional, ecumencial, and socially just.
We make disciples for the transformation of the world.  We are the United Methodist Church.

What do you think?  Do you respond to the second vision for United Methodism more strongly than the first?


For a more detailed look at this idea, read Simon Sinek's, Start with Why.

The Cost of Faking Extroversion

This past week, I began reading Susan Cain's Quiet.  It is an exploration of the ways that introverts can succeed in an extroverted world by embracing their introversion.  As a life-long introvert that has spent most of his life trying to approximate extroversion, I have found her writing to be a cool drink of life giving water, and when I finish the book, I will likely review it.

In an early chapter, she talks about Tony Robbins, the self-help guru who as Jack Black famously quipped while shaking his hand, "it's like shaking a bunch of bananas" and she writes that "[Tony] told us at the start of the seminar, 'You don't have to be an extrovert to feel alive...' But it seems, according to Tony, that you'd better act like one if you don't want to flub the sales call and watch your family die like pigs in hell" (39).

Since reading this, I have been reflecting on my own struggle with faking extroversion and I would like to share with you some of my thoughts.

Thought 1: Faking extroversion made dating incredibly painful

The other night, I was talking with Cindy and I shared with her that one of the reasons I love her and wanted to marry her was that she was the first non-family member that I could embrace introversion in front of without the fear that she wouldn't like me anymore.  The reality is that few things suck more for (most) introverts than dating.  Consider the expectations given to us by Hollywood for what dating should look like: A charming, flirtatious hunk uses his best line on a beautiful, clever woman who knows how to deflect the first line in such a way that he comes back with a new one.  Eventually, (some times in as short as 5 minutes) the magnetic, outgoing man and the clever, confident woman are overwhelmed with their interpersonal energy and bada bing, bada boom=love.  If you don't believe me, I challenge you to find a romanticish movie where the male protagonist is an introvert (hint: I can only name two).

So for those of us who find playful, flirtatious banter exhausting, these expectations are overwhelming.  And often-times result in awkward exchanges as we try to pretend to be Don Juan, when our natural response is the exact opposite.

Thought 2: Faking extroversion leads us to say stupid stuff

I think the best way to explain introversion is to say that we are energized by internal stimuli (we gain far more satisfaction from the debates that rage within our own mind than any debate we may have with another person) and that we process internally rather than externally (you will rarely hear an introvert say the words, "I am thinking out loud")

Therefore, when we try to 'think out loud' in the attempt to approximate extroversion we are probably going to say something really foolish, because we don't practice thinking out loud and the on the fly filters developed by extroverts are underdeveloped for us.  Think about it this way, when most extroverts become inebriated, their ability to filter is greatly diminished and they say things that 99 times out of 100 are filtered and left unsaid.  For introverts, everytime we try to think out loud, we run the risk of saying the things that extroverts only say when drunk.

Thought 3: Faking extroversion is expected in American culture

Going back to the thinking about the protagonists of love stories, now broaden the scope of the study, how often is the protagonist of a given story a larger than life, life of the party, alpha who wins the hearts of everyone around them with charisma and cunning?  Go ahead, try to think of one, my guess is that for every 1 protagonist that doesn't fit that description, you will be able to come up with 10 who do.  The heroes of American pop-culture, business culture, church culture, political culture, etc. are predominantly extroverted, and our children learn from a young age that to be a hero, one must fill a room, be glad to be in that room, shake every hand, kiss every baby, and want to do it all over again when we are done.

The reality is that for introverts, parties are exhausting.  Which doesn't necessarily mean we dislike being there, but we have to budget our emotional energy.  For example, I love being in church on Sunday mornings, I love hearing the stories of how God's grace is being extended in the lives of people who I love; but, by noon, I am emotionally spent and need to get home, sit in the recliner and recharge.

A few months back, I began tracking how many hours in a given week I did activities that required people skills more often found in extroverts, and I found that after 12 hours of meetings, church, meeting new people, being in public, working in a team, and other energy sapping activities, my productivity, enthusiasm, and overall performance plummets.  I encourage you to look at your schedule and see how long it would take for you to reach 12 emotional energy sapping hours, my guess is that you would be surprised how quickly you get there, I know I was.  In large part this is because in the US, most places of work operate on the assumption that working in a space that is abuzz with the activity of coworkers will increase your own productivity and that multiple weekly meetings are not only helpful but necessary.  My boss, Tom, describes his own introversion like this, "I am an introvert, which means I don't need someone watching me to get my work done."

Thought 4: Most employers want an introvert, but we interview so poorly they don't realize it

If given the choice of an interview or a standardized test, I would take the standardized test every single time.  Interviews are terrible.  They begin by entering a room with one to five people you don't know (strike one), who will be asking questions some of which you aren't prepared to answer (strike two), all with the underlying assumption that you must produce magnetism in the first 10 seconds to make a good first impression (strike three, and we're out).

What if employers were to send out a packet with case studies that required applicants to consider a problem prevalent in a given work environment, and then write out their response?  Would this not be a far more helpful strategy in finding employees that would add value to your company, church, school, or municipality?  In the church, we produce pages and pages of written work for ordination, which can all be undone with a bad interview... what sense does that make? To give privilege to a 40 minute interview over a two pound stack of documents, recommendations, and performance reviews, that doesn't make any sense.


Now this list is far from exhaustive, but hopefully it will start the conversation.  What do you think?

A Foolish Tweet from an Intelligent Man

This morning, as I was making my wife breakfast, I read this tweet from astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson, "If your belief system is not founded in an objective reality, you should not be making decisions that affect other people." As a modern hero of humanism, this sort of rhetoric is often used by Tyson and other non-theists to claim intellectual high ground against theists of every stripe. However, as is the case in every claim that can be made in less than 140 characters, this line of thinking has some serious problems. For starters, there is not a person living on the planet today, who experiences "objective reality." Each of us are bound by our situatedness and our intuition. To deny that human existence is inherently subjective either shows an incredible lack of self-awareness or unbridled arrogance. Now, it would be one thing to say that those who make decisions that affect others should be capable of making well-reasoned decisions based on the evidence that is available to them, but I don't think this is what Tyson is saying. That being said, he hints that their may be a plurality of objective realities. Which means that best case scenario, Tyson is saying that 'if your belief system is not founded in well-reasoned claims about the nature of reality given the evidence that you have available to you, you should not be making decisions that affect other people.' But, I don't think that is what he is trying to say.

Finding the real in the midst of what my TV shows me of Israel

My friend Craig Miller posted his thoughts earlier today on the current news coming out of Israel, and as I was reading I thought back to my own experience of Israel this past January.  And I should start by saying that life in the strip of land between the Mediterranean Ocean and the Jordan River is far more complex than American news sources are capable of reporting.  The narrative that you and I hear coming from every major news source is that there are two essentially two sides that are separated by culture and religion and cannot come to terms for sustained peace because of these differences... this narrative is incomplete and if we try to make value judgments with this as our baseline understanding of the conflict, we will almost surely be in error.

When Cindy and I were there, we were instructed by Rabbi Brad Hirschfield to do what we could to suspend judgment as we heard the stories of the people.  He encouraged us to assume that every person we talked to was being honest and that each of them were describing their interpretation of the reality of their lives.  He said that if we went into our experience looking for what is true we would leave frustrated, but rather if we listened for the real, we would have a robust, enlightening experience.  I listened to his advice and these are the realities that I remember from my trip to Israel.

The Main-line Ben Gurion reality:
In the early 20th Century, Mayor Meir rode his mare, Mayer, into Tel Aviv and started a colony for displaced, discouraged, disenfranchised Jews from across Europe.  One of the early founders of this city was a man named David Greene.  Greene would later be known as Ben Gurion and when the British left the land in 1948, Ben Gurion, along with the first Israeli paliament declared that Israel would be a Jewish state in the Holy Land.  Within 24 hours, all the surrounding nations attacked, but by God's grace Israel survived.  In the year's following the Israeli government has acted in the best interest of Jews around the world providing a safe place to live to a people group who have been persecuted continuously for 3,000 years.  While Israel isn't perfect (for instance, Sephardic Jews were discriminated against in the 80s and 90s), it offers greater freedom, safety, and prosperity than the other states in the region and has the only functional, quality centralized health care system in the world.

The Palestinian refugee camp reality:
In 1948, the Jews removed the locals from their homes, gave them a tent, and put them in open air prisons promising that in two weeks they would take them back to their homes.  It has been 65 years, and they are still waiting to go back to their home.  In the last 65 years the refugees endure daily dehumanization from IDF guards and have developed a strong disdain for their jailers.  The camps are overcrowded, but if someone tries to build on empty land beyond the boundaries of the camp, their home is demolished by bulldozers in the night.

The National Religious Party Reality:
Forget the last century, three millenia ago, God gave them the land and by God they are going to live in it.  Settlements are not illegal, but rather the will of God who promised the land to the children of Abraham.  With each settlement, God's will is coming to pass.  (Some of the more hardliners would call for the expulsion of all non-Jews from any land that was Israel/Judah during the time of the unified kingdom)

The Bedouin reality:
In the last 40 years, the Israeli government has bulldozed 80% of their communities, and even now the communities that are still intact have rules which forbid putting permanent roofs on homes, installing sewage systems, and other essentials for thriving.

The Eritrean and Sudanese refugee reality:
As many as 100,000 African refugees have come to Israel looking for a safe place to work and live, while their country is embattled in bloody civil wars.  They, in union with human rights groups are asking for work visas so that they can enjoy the privileges of being documented workers.

The Conscientious Objector reality:
At 18 Israeli citizens (with some exceptions) are expected to join the Israeli Defense Force.  Some of these soldiers after seeing the inequity and oppression of the Palestinians conscientiously object to the way in which their own government has governed its neighbors in the Holy Land.

The bartender at our hotel's reality:
Palestinians (he was one) are stupid.  The only way they can live in prosperity is to come to grips with the reality that the Jews are here to stay.  Learn the rules and play by them, quit dreaming of the way things were 70 years ago, because the world is a different place.  Educate yourself and learn how to live in the Jewish world.

These are just thumbnail sketches of the realities that I can remember.  What I learned is that I need to be really slow in judging who is right and wrong, understanding that such value judgments run the risk of dehumanizing both sides.  

Focusing on Virtue

One of my prayers for my son, Ben, is that he would grow up to live a virtuous life.  Virtue is not a particularly popular topic in today's world, as a word it smacks of an antiquated bygone era, but virtue was once the goal of which all great people aspired.  Virtue is a process not a result.  Virtue is a way of being, not a bottom line.

In the modern world, we measure success by how many figures are in our salaries, how many people attend our events, our winning percentage, batting average, and state test scores.  However, the problem with measuring success in this way is that it is incredibly difficult to replicate results.  How often have we seen a person with promise be promoted beyond their capacity?  How often have we seen a one-hit-wonder?  How often do we see fast-starters burn out in the long run?

John Wooden says that when he was younger, he wanted to be in better shape than anyone else he played against, but as he matured he saw the foolishness of this thinking.  His goal should never be rooted in being better than another, but rather in being the best he possibly can be.  Wooden says, "Success is peace of mind which is a direct result of self-satisfaction in knowing that you made the effort to become the best of which you are capable."  This is virtue.  Virtue is the intentional, internal choices to become the best of which you are capable.

David Watson explains, "When we are listening, giving fair consideration to arguments, representing the positions of others accurately, thinking rigorously, and speaking in ways that are logical and coherent, we exhibit intellectual virtue. When we do otherwise, we exhibit intellectual vice."  Notice, that intellectual virtue is not a measurement of truthfulness or falsehood of one's stated position, but rather a measurement of the process that leads one to believe, and virtuously express those beliefs.

Someday, in the relatively near future, Ben will begin to develop the ability to communicate.  And I pray that as he begins to compete on courts, diamonds, rinks, and fields and as he begins to bring home schoolwork and as we talk about what he learned in Sunday School after church, that his mother and I can effectively nurture virtue within him. so that the only person he ever judges himself against is his best possible self, and the way we score each performance is focused on his process rather than the outcome.  

A New Place to Belong

Child development experts say that for the first 18 months of our life, the fundamental question of our existence is, "To whom do I belong?"  As we get older, we ask different sets of questions, but the first question we ask is always, to whom do I belong, or as the children's book phrased it, "Are you my mother?"

When we go through transitions, we often find ourselves asking this same question.  When I married Cindy, I instantaneously belonged to a new person.  This past week, with the birth of Ben, I have found myself belonging to yet another person.  And not all my belongings are familial.  I belong to friends, the community of faith, and God.

There are people in our community who find themselves without a place to belong, sometimes because of previous sin, sometimes because of disabilities, always because the world's economy has said that they are not valuable, are not worthy, are not loved.  We have an awesome opportunity to subvert the message of the world, with the message of Jesus.  This is why Gentle Worship is so exciting.  For the first time, in the history of Dayton, a church is saying that families affected by disability are valuable, are worthy, are loved--and God has called us to be that church.  There are two other churches in the Dayton Metro area that have monthly gentle worship gatherings, but we will be the first to offer a weekly place to belong for families affected by disabilities for worship, fellowship, and service.

This Saturday, Greg, Andy, Cindy, and I will be going to Hillside Chapel in Beavercreek to worship with their Gentle Worship community, and network with partners in serving the disability community in Dayton.  Pray for us as we continue to plot and scheme ways to infect the world with the subversive message of Jesus.  If you would like more information about Gentle Worship at the Y, please let me know.