Styles of spirituality

This week at St. Christopher's Episcopal Church we will experience all three basic styles of Episcopal worship. What we usually miss is that these are not entertainment styles, but different ways to experience God.

In our jargon we call the more formal style "High Church". This frequently includes chanting, incense (smoke), lots of bells and lots of candles. The clergy vest themselves in special clothing. The physical elements are as formal as possible: silver, linen, etc. The music frequently is classical.

Our regular 5 pm service does not go very far toward the "contemporary" end of the spectrum but it clearly is a step that way. The contemporary style looks to use modern elements to touch people. The music tends to be newer. In many churches the service will look like a modern college classroom with powerpoint presentations of the music and illustrations for the sermon. Usually the setting is much more informal with few candles or linens and ceramic rather than silver.

The "broad church" style attempts to spread its arms and reach toward both ends. There may be a mix of music. The setting is not as formal as the "high church" but more formal than the "contemporary".

Notice I avoid the word "traditional" since what is "traditional" to a person is what they grew up with!! (Old joke -- "traditional in the Episcopal Church is the way I want it done next time!!)

Each style illustrates or illuminates God differently. More importantly each style helps us know and touch a different aspect of God. To do that we must understand the extremes of God. Remember that God is not either/or but is both/and.

On one extreme is the imminent God -- the God who is closer to us than our next breath. The God would walks with us every step of our life. The God who knows us much better than we know ourselves.

On the other end is the creator God. The God who is so far above us that a mere thought created the entire world. The God who is more magnificent than we can even begin to imagine. The God we have no right to approach except if allowed.

The contemporary style tends to illustrate or illumine the imminent God. We avoid the things that might seem to separate us from God: fancy linens, fancy clothing, etc. This style is like having a good friend visit us for lunch.

The high church style tries to illustrate or illumine the creator God ... the God who we really have no right to approach. This style is more like the mail room clerk having the CEO of a multi-national corporation come for dinner! There is no way we can live up to what is expected but we still try to do so. We use all our fanciest things. We do so knowing we cannot impress God, but as a way to show respect for God.

My point is not that either is right or wrong --- simply they are different. And each will touch each of us at different times in our lives. Anyone who knows me knows the high church is not 'my thing' ! But what you may not understand is that is partially because I grew up informal Protestant. But also partially because I tend to think of God as the creator God .... a being so far above me that even a glimpse would be an unexpected gift. So the broad church or contemporary style brings God home to me in a way I need to remember. BUT THAT'S ME!

Other people will have exactly the opposite reaction. Great! The point is to know God and touch God in the way that works for you.

What's most amazing is that our God is so generous, so loving that we are provided with these multiple approaches. Thanks be to God!!

Proper perspective

Every once in a while we get a kick in the butt from God!

Yesterday I answered the phone for one of "those" calls. A man asked to speak to the pastor -- which means either a salesman or someone asking for money. I listened politely to his very common story --- was addicted, now clean, getting help, will be much better in a couple months, etc. etc. Can you detect the attitude with which I was listening? Then he mentioned how I had helped him last year and apologized for (1) asking so much last year and (2) calling again. My thought --- he is smooth!

Being the type who likes to be prepared I had already "written" my response that we don't have any money to give out and he should seek help from the various agencies.

He then said he was staying at Open Door --- a positive thing. Too often someone calls and explains they are "too good" to stay at Open Door. Plus he had gone to Salvation Army for some clothes --- OK - maybe he is not the biggest con around.

I am trying to politely, always politely, interrupt him to tell him I am too busy to talk any more when he says that what he really would like some help with is .... (I was sure it was a hotel room for a week) ..... underwear and socks. That he would really like to put on some clean underwear and socks. Oh, and if he could have a cheap (kept stressing 'cheap') lock for his locker to protect his things that would be wonderful!

I needed clean clothes because I felt so dirty. I preached two weeks ago on the feeding of the multitude and how Jesus did not check any one's credentials. Jesus never asked if someone was worthy or not. I did say that we need to try and be careful because we had only so much to share but focusing on whether or not a person is worthy would not be Jesus' way.

Guess what I was doing?

OK God, you got to kick me in the butt. And God, I hope you got a chuckle out of this!!! Have to stop now and go buy some underwear, socks, and a lock.

Dis-connected People

One of my personal interests is the group of people some call the "dis-connected". These are people who believe in God, are very interested in having a deeper spiritual life, but have found churches wanting. (NB: I am a firm believer that if there is "fault" in this situation, it is the churches' fault and not the person's. If a restaurant goes out of business for lack of customers you do not blame the customers.)

Some people are now talking about a "post-Evangelical age" By this they mean that the people who I call "dis-connected"are not finding what they need in either the old style churches or the newer, evangelical style churches. Dr. Scot McKnight at North Park University claims there are 8 characteristics that are generally shared (my comments in italics):
1) cannot accept Bible inerrancy (I suspect that in many cases the issue is less Bible inerrancy than that they have heard/been taught improperly. When Jesus said: "I am the vine, you are the branches" He was not predicting leaves growing from our hands! When the psalmist says the mountains shall sing we need not ask 'which hymn?' If I am correct then my point that the fault lies with the churches is even more accurate.
2) the have been taught a caricature of Jesus rather than the real thing (yup!)
3) do not believe that when science and the Bible colide, science is wrong (yup! Unfortunately we are AGAIN in the topic of bad teaching. We, and most churches, say the Bible contains everything necessary for salvation but never claim it is also a science or history text.)
4) disillusionment with the 'clay feet' of church leadership, and not just the big names but the general leadership (yup --- sadly, very sadly --- yes. That said, I do think it is important to remember that (surprise!) church leaders are human beings with all the human faults. The issue should never be perfection but striving for improvement.)
5) teaching from some churches that 'people not like us are doomed' is rejected (yup! How anyone can argue that the Jesus who went to the Samaritan woman would reject other people is beyond me!!)
6) God is totally gracious and loving -- not angry and vengeful (hmmm ... this one could be dangerous. "Totally gracious and loving" can drift into a God who doesn't care what is done. That said, a God whose basic nature is gracious and loving, not angry and vengeful, is (I believe) what scripture describes.)
7) acceptance of homosexuality without being specifically pro-gay -- to live in harmony with gay and lesbian friends (yup. I always stress a couple things. First a "gay is wrong" OR a "gay is OK" position can be supported from scripture. So it is fine to have strong, personal beliefs. But to suggest the person who disagrees is doomed does not make sense. Second, scripture mentions homosexuality only about 8 times out of thousands of verses so, at worst, it is not a big deal. If we spent a tenth the energy on what scripture does speak about the most -- caring for the poor -- we would be much better off!! It frustrates me how few people have actually read the passages they "quote". For example, Sodom and Gomorrah (and the story's repeat in Numbers) is only about rape. That is all that is mentioned.)
8) language is culturally shaped which affects the theology is describes. (yup! For example, the word frequently translated "fear" as in "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of faith" can equally accurately be translated "awe" as in "being in awe of the Lord is the beginning of faith" ---- How very different our understanding is when we use a different word!)


So what does all this mean for a church today? I believe it emphasizes the need for honesty and sincerity. But also emphasis the importance of being willing to listen, and speak. To hear their stories and share ours. Most importantly, and the part which can be taken from the evangelical history, is the need for a strong desire to be with people. That is, a strong desire to have those people be with us and us with them so we can walk together in our journey. Which means, our desire to be with each other is much stronger than our desire to disagree.
see: http://www.alternet.org/story/140321/america%27s_%27emerging_church%3A%27_will_a_new_post-evangelical_christianity_reflect_more_tolerant_views/?page=entire

LIVING IN A WORLD OF EVIL

The title for this entry will upset some people after they read this. Sorry. But this really is a reflection on our lives and our world. I am using this post to think through an issue in my life.

I LOVE college basketball. First and foremost I am a basketball fan. As far as teams go I root for Duke, then Wake Forest, then UNC and then just about any ACC team against non-ACC team. My thinking is that the more any ACC team wins, the better my teams look. As a Duke fan I can say with excitement that UNC played one of the best NCAA series ever played. They were great!

I LOVE college basketball. With all the stress and work of my life college basketball is one of my few real diversions. And yet ........... I wonder if next year I can enjoy it as much as I have in past years. This year I became more aware I guess ... life and this world have not changed but maybe I have .... I became more aware that being in the midst of some basketball rivalries feels as if it is being the midst of dark evil. The nastiness, the insults, the hatred can be as un-Christian as anything.

Am I over reacting? I hope so because I LOVE college basketball and would hate to give it up. Scripture tells us to be in the world but not of the world. Our Baptismal questions ask us if we will renounce the forces of evil. So how can I be in the midst of that and still claim to be Christian? I can do it in other venues because, frankly, I don't care about them! But I care about the basketball game. I love to watch good basketball. I love to be with real fans. But to be with people whose primary concern is how much they HATE another team? HATE a group of human beings.

My weakness ... my sin ... is that I cannot simply sit and hear people insult, demean, and be hateful to another person, or team, without getting emotionally involved. I am upset at myself and ashamed that during the NCAA tournament when I went to the UNC - Duke doubleheader that I allowed some nasty, hateful UNC fans get to me. (Make no mistake about it -- Duke fans can be nasty and hateful too! And make no mistake about it, most fans are good people.) I guess I can take some relief in that the worse thing I actually SAID was: "The only class UNC has in the buildings!" --- OK, somewhat clever! But not nice and certainly not loving and certainly not Christian.

Should I renounce being within such atmospheres? Is that the Christian response? Should I only sit in front of my own TV and make a point of not being with other devoted fans? Is it possible to find other fans who can get emotionally and deeply involved in a game without being nasty?

What does it mean to renounce evil when that evil is standing next to you? Does it mean ignoring it? Does it mean challenging the evil? Actually I doubt it means challenging the evil, at least in the moment since I sincerely doubt that can result in anything less than conflict.

What would Jesus do?

CHURCH CHANGES

This past week I have been (again) reflecting on the many changes at St. Christopher's --- and the many changes likely still to come.

There is a theory about churches, and other human groups, which says they function in various ways depending on their size. For churches the term "family size" is used for the smallest churches. These are churches which do not have full time clergy, frequently do not have any consistent clergy presence, and therefore the leadership tends to be by one or more of the families.

As the church grows the role of the clergy grows and the next size is usually termed "pastoral" -- with more leadership by an ordained pastor.

Next comes the "transitional stage" (more in a moment)

The "program size" describes churches big enough that individuals, even clergy, cannot be active in everything. Therefore the "programs" of the church provide a great deal of the leadership.

Finally the largest churches are known as "resource" or "corporate" size churches. These are churches which function similarly to a major corporation with a CEO and a Board of Directors.

St. Christopher's was in the "family" size just a few years ago. You could hold a congregational meeting around the Sunday morning coffee pot! And it seemed as if every family was represented, or recently been represented on the Vestry.

We now are somewhere in the "pastoral" and "transitional" stages. This change is the most difficult to make. Largely that is because people are used to the centrality of the clergy so keep looking to the clergy. The problem is that the clergy can only juggle a limited number of activities! The challenge therefore is to raise up a new leadership structure.

BUT -- the even bigger challenge is to raise up a leadership structure which is permission giving and not power controlling. Too often the leadership becomes focused on their ideas and interests rather than the ideas and interests of the people involved. (St. Christopher's has done a great job minimizing this problem but we need to be ever vigilant.)

The best term is "servant leaders". I keep emphasizing to the Vestry that 99% of the time our response to someone should be: "How can I help?" and not "do it this way". Trying to come up with extreme and somewhat crazy examples --- if the person leading the pancake supper says "this year we will have triangular pancakes to symbolize the trinity" -- we may think "that's not how it has been done before" or even think "that's going to be difficult to do" but we don't call a committee meeting and vote on the shape of pancakes!

At the same time if someone steps forward and says "we are not going to have Sundy School for the kids anymore --just a play time", then the leadership does need to say "that is not consistent with the goals and vision of this church. Therefore Sunday School will continue."

The difference of course is that the shape of the pancakes does not conflict with the goals and visions of the church whereas eliminating Sunday School very much does.

So we need to move into a new leadership stage but we need to avoid the pitfalls which have destroyed other churches. The rule in business is to be structured as if you are 20% larger than you are and you will grow into the structure. If you structure for your current size you will never grow.

And yet if the business (or church) discourages entrepreneurial thinking - which tends to mean doing things in ways we never did it before -- that too will create negativity and a lack of growth.

The best part of all this is that ultimately it is about doing the many wonderful things we do, even better. It is about making more outreach and spiritual growth possible. It is about encouraging and enabling people to do what they feel called by God to do. St. Christopher's is a fantastic church and the growth is about being more fantastic as we live into Jesus' commandment to reach out to all people.

A delightful Episcopal church

One of the joys of being on vacation is the ability to visit other churches. While staying in Marlinton, WV we discovered a delightful little Episcopal Church - St. John's. If more Episcopal Churches were as friendly, yet serious as St. John's the Episcopal Church would explode with new members!

We were not dressed for church -- we thought we would have left before Sunday (see blog about the Green Briar Trail) --- and yet we were welcomed warmly. We decided to be true Episcopalians and not arrive TOO early - about 10:55 was early enough. Several people were standing around talking when we walked in but everyone stopped their conversation to greet us. (I did not tell them I was a priest and I think they were much more impressed with Shirley's singing anyway!)

Although there were "only" about 10 people present there was no sense of dispair or depression over numbers but real joy over being together and worshiping.

We used Morning Prayer and the leader, an English woman with a delightful voice, did a great job. She put energy and enthusiasm into the service without it becoming at all disrespectful. She read the gospel lesson as it was written, as a story, with some inflection at appropriate places.

After the service we just stood and chatted with a couple members including a man, Dr. Jim (did not catch his last name) who will soon be ordained a deacon and later a priest. He will be serving two congregations. I sooooo wanted to give him some advice but managed to hold my tongue! (Ask Shirley if you doubt my word on that!)

Whimper not a bang

Well, the meeting of Anglican (Episcopal) Bishops from around the world, known as the Lambeth Conference, has ended with more of a whimper than a bang ---- personally, I am very glad!!

One of the things I have noticed is that Jesus spent very little time, even with the most generous count, discussing human sexuality. He never once mentioned homosexuality (which is NOT to say it is unimportant!).

My point is simply that we should put the emphasis on issues Jesus emphasized -- care of the poor, our excessive focus on money and material things, healing the sick, visiting the lonely, etc. etc. When our resources, especially our time and energy, are focused in a way which is greatly out of sync with Jesus' focus --- it is time to reconsider our efforts.So I was glad that the Lambeth Conference did not become a 10 day discussion on homosexuality.

I know that those who believe the church should condemn any and all homosexuals believe the fact that many bishops around the world did not attend is a sign they reject the right to even discuss the issue. And there is probably some truth in that.

However I find myself siding with those who say that the fact that over 2/3rds of the bishops from around the world could gather and have honest, deep, meaningful discussions about a number of issues is very encouraging. Furthermore, I am intrigued by the fact that many of the Bishops who did not attend come from some of the poorest, least healthy, and most violent societies in the world. (Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, and Kenya) I have to wonder if God wants His church leaders focused on what happens in New Hampshire while so many of God's children are dying in these Bishop's country of responsibility. I wonder if God would not have preferred they attended Lambeth, made their points on homosexuality, but then also joined in the conversations about how to save the lives of people in their home churches?

We need to continue discussing the issues around human sexuality including homosexuality but also questions about divorce, remarriage, and female church leadership. Those are somewhat less visible but just as divisive in some ways as homosexuality.

I have my thoughts and beliefs, beginning with the firm belief that only God is right all the time, I am not God, and therefore I must be wrong some of the time. So I try very hard to "discuss" while remembering that I could be wrong. But I will "argue" on one point --- when someone says there is nothing to discuss because THEY know exactly what God intends -- I will disagree strongly!

I believe we can only learn what God intends by being willing to discuss --- and listen. We can only learn more from people who disagree with us. People who only repeat our own thoughts can teach us nothing.BUT --- a very important "but" if we spend more time on that then we do being "servants to all" as Jesus instructed us to do -- we have missed the point. I firmly believe God will forgive us for being wrong about capital punishment or abortion or whatever as long as we have honestly and sincerely attempted to understand God's mind. But, I also firmly believe God will be less open to people who fail to act in a loving manner to those around them --- including those we disagree with.

For closing thoughts by the Archbishop of Canterbury, our Presiding Bishop, and our own Bishop Curry you can go to www.episdionc.org for links.