Pastor's Blog

Styles of spirituality

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 12:18:00 +0000

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

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:06:00 +0000

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

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:54:00 +0000

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

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 03:03:00 +0000

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

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:51:00 +0000

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

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 23:53:00 +0000

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

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 02:25:00 +0000

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.

Lambeth Conference - 2

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:27:00 +0000

I suspect we will find many more blogs regarding this summer's Lambeth Conference! In summary that is the every 10 year gathering of Anglican (Episcopal) Bishops from throughout the world.

What the media and many other people have missed is that Lambeth was created as a "family gathering" and not a legislative session. Under our system, this group of bishops has zero authority except when they get home. They do sometimes pass resolutions but those are "sense of the gathering" style resolutions. That is: "the majority of the Bishops gathered hold the opinion that ____ "

Naturally people who agree with the statement like to emphasize it while those who do not tend to ignore the resolution.

Bishop Curry has written a short introduction to this year's Lambeth Conference which you can find at www.episdionc.org You can also go to http://www.episcopalchurch.org/episcopal_life.htm and get information from our national church. They try to be moderate but obviously have some bias. The other side is frequently found at http://www.livingchurch.org/ . They too make some effort to be moderate or balanced but also have a bit of an anti-establishment bias. (Lambeth is July 16-August 3)

My suggestion is to basically ignore the national press who still find it difficult to pronounce "Episcopalian" and watch these three places for updates.

Special music

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:09:00 +0000

On June 8th Shirley and I went to All Saints for a concert by Deborah and Johathan Hutchinson. Wow!

I was tired. We had hustled all week to be ready for Blake Leckie's funeral and interment. That was on top of an already busy week. Then Sunday was the youth car wash which I had little to do with --- but it adds to the confusion! So Shirley and I wondered about even going but decided to give it a try. And we are so glad we did.

Shirley is the musician so I asked her afterwards to characterize the music. She said it all had a gospel theme by the style was impossible to characterize. There were hints of blues, soft rock, even a bit of new age. We were extremely impressed not only by the music, most of which (all?) they wrote but by the "production". Her voice is wonderful! And they way they blended voices, guitar, flute and keyboard was outstanding. Several times they introduced pieces by discussing the scriptural passage which inspired that song.

They gave me permission to post a song or two on this blog ... now I just have to figure out how to do it! (Any help out there?)

It is my sincere hope we can invite them to St. Christopher's sometime in the near future.

Scattering of Ashes

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:04:00 +0000

Saturday for the first time our Memorial Garden was used as intended --- as a location to have a person's ashes scattered. Blake Leckie, one of our founding members, had specified that he wanted his body cremated and his ashes placed in the Memorial Garden.

Although this is not especially common, it is also not unknown. Frequently we hear of people wanting their ashes scattered over the ocean or at a favorite park. Blake was such a pillar of this church that he asked to have his placed here.

I had dug a small ditch for the ashes to be placed within. As the ashes were placed by his children, I covered them with white sand to prevent an blowing away. Later, after everyone had left, I covered them up with the garden dirt.

It was an amazingly moving time for me. Several other people made a similar comment. The Garden is now an extra special place.

Archbishop of Cantebury

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Tue, 27 May 2008 13:05:00 +0000

Funny thing --- every time I think we (St. Christopher's) are doing things in a modern way, I find we are behind the curve!!

The Archbishop of Canterbury is on YouTube! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCJ1G_3WPjw

If you have wondered "who is this guy anyway?" This could give you a small taste. PLUS - he is speaking about the upcoming Lambeth conference for most of the Anglican (the general name for the church we belong to) bishops. AND, in so doing he touches on the issues facing our worldwide church.

Although sexuality is the usually named issue, the issues are much more broad and difficult. The underlying issue is the issue of hierarchical authority. As the American bishops pointed out last year, the American church reduced the amount of hierarchical authority after the revolutionary war. (They went on to say: and we have no desire to become a colony again -- paraphrase) After the Revolutionary war we organized a church that has hierarchy -- bishops, but only our General Convention (similar to the US Congress) above the Bishops. The Presiding Bishop has virtually no authority. The Archbishop of Canterbury has no authority over US churches.

Many of our world wide cousins still have a stronger hierarchy and cannot understand that we do not. So they have gone around looking for someone to control us and are frustrated that no such power exists.

(Especially frustrating for me was finding out how many of my ordained, Episcopal colleagues did not understand this! I had friends argue that the Presiding Bishop should do this or the Archbishop of Canterbury should do that. When I pointed out that they did not have the authority to do those things -- I was challenged and doubted -- until they did some research!)

I am impressed that this worldwide gathering of church leaders will spend more time on Bible study than resolutions! What a great model.

We may be behind the technological curve but I am not sure I want to be on U-tube!

Evangelical Manifesto

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Wed, 21 May 2008 14:38:00 +0000

An article in the News & Record last Sunday mentioned an "evangelical manifesto" which was shaking up Washington DC! Great lead in ... had to go get it. "www.evangelicalmanifesto.com" The article stresses how the term "evangelical" has become synonymous (to many people anyway) with "right leaning Republicans". Since in many ways I consider myself evangelical -- that characterization really bothers me! And frankly, does not fit me.

The manifest states that "evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally". It goes on to say that "Evangelicals in American, along with people of all faiths and ideologies, represent the greatest challenges of the global era: "Living with our deepest differences"

Wow! We Episcopalians have been attempting to live with our deepest differences --- or at least some CLAIM to be seeking that goal. So to have this group, a group many Episcopalians consider the "other end of the spectrum" from us, to have this group make that claim is both challenging and encouraging.

Can we live up to that standard? A standard to be defined by our theology? More importantly perhaps, what is our theology?

Historically we have said that our theology is basically defined by the Nicene and Apostles Creeds. These are in the Prayer Book on page 358 and page 304 respectively with the Apostles Creed ending with the words: "and the life everlasting".

To that definition I would add (and I think most Episcopalians would agree) "the creeds as expanded upon by the remainder of the Baptismal Covenant" (You can go to www.BCPonline.org if you do not have your copy of the Prayer Book handy!)

As we look over those creeds we discover they say nothing about issues we disagree about, and various evangelical churches disagree about --- capital punishment is probably the easiest example to cite. You can build a pretty good case from Scripture either for or against capital punishment. People who say they go only from Scripture are picking which passages to cite. That's why it is so important to be willing to honestly listen to other people who disagree with us --- it is at least faintly possible they are right and we are wrong!

I mentioned a couple weeks ago how reading sermons and articles defending slavery which were written in the 1850's and 1860's really affected me. In many cases you could hear the sincere faith and belief of the writers. The fact they were wrong in defending slavery did not change the fact that at their deepest level of knowledge and belief they thought they were right. They thought they knew God's will. They thought they were reading scripture as God intended.

I try very hard to remember those authors every time I am absolutely sure I am right!

All that said, there is one issue or question I am totally unwilling to consider being wrong about --- God loves you!!! (and me)

OK I shocked and annoyed a few people by saying I consider myself an evangelical -- at least in many ways. So I guess it is only fair to define the term as I see it: (1) believing God loves us all - equally - even those who do not love God, (2) believing that Jesus meant what He said about how we need to be a servant to all, and especially to the "least of these", and (3) believing Jesus meant what He said in the great commission that our job is to go to all people and preach (word and action) the good news of God's love for them. (btw - that is a Ken Kroohs unauthorized paraphrase of the Great Commission in Matthew 28:16-20

blessings

She's the star!

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:26:00 +0000

The great little girl on the far right is Alyssa! My grand daugher.

Actually I put this up partially to test the use of videon on the blog.

God's referrals

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:25:00 +0000

Have you ever referred some to a doctor or an attorney? By that I mean, known someone needed that kind of help and told them: "Oh, go see _____. They're great! They will help you."

I have been thinking about that because I believe that's essentially what happens when a visitor comes to our church --- God has referred them to us. We are then responsible for what happens.

THAT is a complete reversal of the thought process in many churches. In (too) many churches the thought is that the visitor is responsible for knowing the service, introducing them self, finding place to fit in, getting involved, etc.

If we take the attitude that we are responsible that makes a very BIG difference in our attitude. Its the difference between a retail store where you have to search everything out on your own and a store where people are available to help you. Of course we don't want to become the kind of place that pesters people either! And that used to be a concern of mine but I have come to the conclusion that very, very few churches have to worry about trying too hard.

At every meeting our Vestry (governing board) prays that God make us worthy of the responsibility placed on us.

Crazy Season

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:06:00 +0000

Wow! The stretch from Christmas -- through Bishop Curry's visit --- through Lent --- and then Easter was just crazy! This is within one day the earliest Easter can be. Add the Bishop's visit in the middle and it becomes even busier.

All that said, it was an amazing stretch. The Bishop's visit was great! We have a DVD of the service. Email me or call the office at 869-5311 if you would like a copy. (Someday I will find time to figure out how to post videos on this blog. Probably easy --- after the first time!)

During Lent I tried something visual to go with the sermon theme. I used the theme of "you can only see clearly by looking through the cross" In other words, when we try to view our lives and our world without considering, or looking through the cross we see a distorted view. To make that a bit more obvious I took down the wooden cross behind the altar and covered all the windows with film. Then I cut out the shape of the cross so that was clear but the rest of the windows were fuzzy. (It worked better at night than during the day.) On Easter I took off the film and re-hung the wooden cross.

We also (with lots of help, especially from Tom Gordon and Bert Walls) installed a 15 station prayer walk at the church. We decided this year to go around the parking lot so it was easy for anyone during any weather. Several people commented on how much they appreciated this opportunity. One day I happened to see the meter reader looking at it and going through the booklet! (special thanks to Curtis Tysinger for bringing his power hole digger and to Bruce Kafer for helping to install all the sign posts.)

On Easter we changed the Prayer Walk from the traditional Stations of the Cross to a relatively new: Stations of the Resurrection.

Ash Wednesday fun

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:26:00 +0000

A friend sent me this interchange about Ash Wednesday. The Roman Catholics and Baptists are having a discussion the Pentecostals join in! Enjoy

http://kansascitycatholic.wordpress.com/2008/02/04/lenten-fare-2008/

African Bishop's comments regarding gays

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:49:00 +0000

I mentioned that at our Annual Convention the Bishop of Bostwana spoke. He spent most of his time explaining that the national and international media's comments on how Anglicans around the world feel ----- well let's say they are not telling the whole story! (surprised?)

Click here for an article about the Bishop's remarks. We did not get a written copy so this is the best summary I can offer. (You may have to enlarge it on your screen to read it easily.)

2008 Diocesan Convention

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:44:00 +0000

I always explain that the Diocesan Convention is analogous to the state legislature --- except we only can meet for two days a year!

Our convention met on January 18 and 19th. Several interesting discussions were held.

As always, Bishop Curry's address to the convention was a major highlight! He spoke about how the church did not need a revival, which suggests doing what we have always done, but needs to be a new church. He did not mean that in a demeaning or insulting way but rather to suggest that our church (the people) should look like North Carolina. He quoted from the 3rd Bishop of NC who wrote in 1855 that our church had many of the wealthy people but where were the shop keepers, and where were the slaves? A courageous comment to make in 1855! This link is to the bull Pastoral Address by Bishop Curry but I also have some printed copies at the church.

We adopted a resolution formalizing a campaign diocese arrangement with the Diocese of Botswana (near South Africa - I had to look it up!) Bishop Mwamba was our keynote speaker. I wish his address was available! I will link you to the Greensboro News-Record article as soon as possible so look back here in a couple days. One of his points was to stress how, unlike what the international media may say, not everyone in Africa hates the US church! He stressed how most people were too focused on food and shelter to worry about another countries discussions over sexuality! Plus many people felt maintaining the Anglican Communion was more important than any single issue.

We adopted several other resolutions. Most of them, I am convinced, God has no interest in!! Sure it is important that we agree on how to count votes, etc. but I am sure God would drift out for a cup of coffee and conversation during those discussions. Still, I have included those for anyone interested. For some reason the set we were sent left out the one on the environment and energy conservation. Again, look back and I will link to that as soon as possible.

As has become the norm, the controversial one concerned sexuality and specifically the blessing of same sex unions. The final resolution had three resolves. The first one urges the Archbishop of Canterbury to invite the Bishop of New Hampshire, an openly gay man, to the worldwide Lambeth Conference. (Interesting -- extending such invitations is effectively the ONLY power the Archbishop of Canterbury has!) The argument is essentially, like him or not, Bishop Robinson is a duly elected Bishop and should be invited.

The second resolved asks that our deputies to the next General Convention (i.e. those from our Diocese) support "the full and equal participation of all persons regardless of sexual orientation in all aspects of the Church's ministries, lay or ordained." Although it does not say so quite that directly, the focus of this resolved seems to be on ordination. Effectively that is the only "aspect of the Church's life" currently in question. (see comments on marriage below)

The third resolve was the most controversial. It encourages the General Convention (which is analogous to the US Congress) to "call for the development of public liturgies for the blessing of same sex unions."

To fully understand this issue we must clarify some language issues. The church has NO POWER over who gets married and who does not. That power is entirely and completely a government issue. I can decide NOT to do a wedding, but if the state says a couple should not be married, I cannot do the marriage. For example, it was not so many years ago that a Black and a White could not be married. A priest could not decide to marry them no matter what the priest's opinion.

The church's power is over whose wedding is blessed. Even though I sign the marriage license, I do so as an unpaid employee of the State of NC -- not specifically as a priest. The blessing however is my choice.

Unfortunately the word "marriage" has been linked to religion, when there really is no such link. I wish I had good statistics but a very large percentages of "marriages" in NC have nothing to do with God. They are strictly civil unions with no mention of God at all. They are done in the courthouse or other venue by a civil employee such as a judge. In fact, our Prayer Book has a special service for such circumstances: "The blessing of a civil union." Many people have argued that churches should refuse to do the "marriage", let civil employees do that, and stick to the religious "blessing'. That is what Prince Charles did this last time for example. They went to the courthouse, were married, and then went to the church and asked God's blessing on the marriage. (Although the rule is unlikely to change and I am unlikely to become a stickler on this point -- I have come around to that opinion.)

So what this resolution requests is that the church develop services (liturgies) to allow the blessing of committed, monogamous couples of the same gender. As you probably know some states have approved doing this on a civil level to simplify things like health care decisions, inheritances, ownership, etc. However, this would again be separate from the civil legal decision but be "simply" asking God's blessing.

Opposition to this action seemed to fall into two camps. First there were people who were opposed entirely to the blessing of same sex unions. They (I am assuming here but it is a reasonable assumption) believe the Bible forbids such unions. People who disagree with that statement argue (again greatly simplifying a complex issue) that either those prohibitions were aimed at another society (similar to the prohibitions against certain foods) or second, that the Bible was prohibiting abusive sexual relations of any kind. (That is the stronger argument of the two I believe.)

(semi-aside. I think it is important to note that the discussion is seldom "throw out the Bible" but instead is: "are we understanding the Bible correctly? How did God intend us to understand this passage?)

The second reason for opposition was an issue of timing. (Again, I am assuming - ) That the blessing of same sex unions may be a good thing - later. But for right now we need to take a little more time for discussion, prayer and thought. (not necessarily in that order!) I heard a couple people say that we needed to give moderates around the world a little more time before jumping this far.

Bishop Curry commented toward the end of Convention that the most important point was our ability to discuss controversial issues in a respectful manner. You can read his comments by clicking Bishop's comments.

As always feel free to email me at: ken@st-christopher.org (I hope - eventually - to clear up the spam problem so we can allow a group discussion through this blog.)

Wow ! What fun!!

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:31:00 +0000

I had to stop the email response option because we got spammed by about 50 Viagra ads. I will seek to discover a way to do it better but until then please just email me at ken@st-christopher.org.

I know, I know, I know!!! I promised to keep this updated and have utterly failed in that promise. As I have told the Vestry (our elected board) sometimes the second item on the "to do" list is never reached. In fact, some days it seems as if the FIRST item is pushed off the priorities before the day really begins. Oh well, enough excuses!

We have had two fantastic events since I last wrote. Christmas Eve was all it could be and then some. To those who visited for the first time that day --- many thanks! You added so much to our time together. 14 families or individuals visited on Christmas Eve and New Year's. That is just fantastic. And several of those were specifically invited by friends already attending St. Christopher's! Well done people.

Then on January 13th we had Bishop Michael Curry with us. We baptized four persons and confirmed/received 9. (This picture is only a few of the people involved -- candidates, sponsors, family, etc. Bishop Curry is in the middle with me behind. This picture shows me getting some bright idea with the light bulb over my head --- but I don't remember it!)

If someone has a better photo, please email it to me and I will post it instead.

After the service we had a wonderful dinner organized by Joan. Great job! This was the first time we have used the new space for a large meal and it worked just fine.

At the service I announced the great news that St. Christopher's set another all time attendance record in 2007 AND is one of only two Episcopal churches in the triad whose attendance has grown for the last ten years! Well done people!

A friend starts a new ministry

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:03:00 +0000

With joy for her and saddness for us I report that the Rev. Heather McCain has taken a new call. Heather has been a personal friend to me as well as to many in the congregation. This past summer she preached and celebrated at several of our 5 pm services. For several years Heather has been a real friend to St. Christopher's including officiating at Shirley and my wedding.

Heather's new call is one of the greatest challenges a priest can accept. She will be a "Church Planter". She will be the lead person in the founding of a new Episcopal Church. All the material of that ministry stresses that the single most important need for a church planter is a strong and reliable prayer support team. In the name of all of us, I have committed St. Christopher's to pray regularly for Heather and her ministry.

Responding

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:56:00 +0000

Last Sunday was our first "First Responders Sunday". We heard about and thanked the police officers, fire fighters, Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc. who respond when we are in need.

The guess sermons helped with our focus. We were reminded that God calls us all to be responders. We should be alert for the needs of other people and respond to them. Usually it is something small: baby sitting while the mother visits a relative in the hospital, a dinner for a harried person, mowing a neighbor's lawn. "Responding" is not always, in fact seldom is as dramatic as giving CPR!

That said, we do owe a debt to those people who arrive in the moment of major crisis. Let us pray: Gracious and loving God, we scream in terror to you after a heart attack, or house fire, or stroke or other event. We scream in terror to you and you respond by sending these people to minister in your name. We lift them up to you with thanks and ask that your blessings be upon them at all times. amen

Why not say something?

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:29:00 +0000

A busy, very busy week. The memorial service for Lewis Brandon will be Saturday, 11 am at St. Mary's. (Lewis and Margaret have columbarium niches at St. Mary's.)

Why not say something?
Through this week I have been challenged with the question of why so many of us are so hesitant to say anything about God, much less our faith. Well, at least anything positive about God!

Don't give me that "I don't want to offend" stuff. I see people driving around with signs for their football team or NASCAR driver. People will get in a fist fight over whether the school with royal blue or the school with washed out blue is the better school! (OK -- that was a deliberate attempt to get people excited!)

Or offend someone by our political stands? We are willing to speak favorably about this or that candidate even if it offends -- but about God? Why is that so hard?

We make excuses --- "Oh ,that is private." but I am not asking why we don't insult someone else's faith, just why we don't mention our faith.

"Oh, I don't know what to say." --- OK, that one may be fair, at first glance anyway. But if we have nothing to say about God than --------- I am not sure what! But I am sure it is not good.

Maybe it is easier to say something about our church than about God. OK. But we seldom do that anyway. And when we do we normally mention the non-religious factors. They are important, just not necessarily religious. "Oh, everyone is so nice." --- OK, but I can get that at the civic group. "Oh, the music is so good." --- OK, but I can listen to a CD while driving my kids to soccer practice.

Don't mis-understand ! You would not want a group, especially a church, where the people are nasty and the music stinks!!

But a church needs to offer something else so we need to speak about other things -- too. Did the Bible lesson speak to you? Did the sermon touch you? Did the music touch you?

When we get the question: "How was your weekend?" can we respond: "Good, went to the kids soccer games on Saturday. Then at church heard a fascinating talk on forgiveness -- that's hard! Then watched Dallas and Buffalo. Good stuff." If the person wants to follow up, they can. Most likely they won't but maybe after a time or two they might trust us enough to ask a question.

Or when something special goes on at the church respond: "We had 'First Responders Sunday' with fire fighters, police, sheriff, ambulance ... just lots of people!"

Or mention the Christmas carrol sing or Easter Egg hunt or youth group mission trip. None of that is insulting to the other person but it might open the door for some conversation.

Of course, none of that actually speaks about OUR faith but it does open the door.

Final reason why we don't say something --- "What if they ask me a question I cannot answer?" Actually, nothing would be better !!! Say, "Good question and one I wonder about. What don't we get together and ask about it?"

Full immersion baptism in the Episcopal Church

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:46:00 +0000

Note: I have finally posted the last couple sermons so we are up to date (until Sunday!) Go to www.st-christopher.org/sermon.html to get the list and links.

This article is by and about a friend, colleague and all around good person!

(note: this article is from the September 9, 2007 issue of The Living Church and although reprinted with permission it is copywrited.)

Immersion
Death and resurrection are made especially plain when an infant is baptized by immersion.By Lisa G. Fischbeck

The way we worship, what we do in the liturgy, both expresses what we believe and shapes what we believe.

I was 41 years old and had been ordained as a priest for five years before I witnessed a baptism by immersion. This despite the long-standing practice of baptism by immersion in the ancient church, despite the practice in many American protestant traditions, despite rubrics for baptism in the Book of Common Prayer. Baptisms by immersion are not common in The Episcopal Church.

In part, this is because of our church architecture. We are the inheritors of baptismal fonts designed to hold bowls of water, not tubs. Throughout the 19th century, when Victorian propriety and formality were in full bloom, baptisms became formal, private, family affairs. The practice of a light, symbolic, sprinkling of water evolved, for infants and adults alike.

Form followed function. Many of the churches we worship in today were built in that Victorian era, and in the century that followed. These churches were built with relatively small baptismal fonts near the pulpit, or by the west door, at the point of entry, so that the family could easily gather around. Gone from Episcopal and Anglican church architecture for a century or more were the baptistries, the pools in which immersion could take place.

Then the liturgical renewal movement of the mid-20th century got Anglicans and most of the rest of Christendom looking back at our liturgical past, bringing back things that made liturgical and theological sense, including baptism by immersion. Those who studied the liturgy realized that, in the move from immersion to sprinkling, something big had been lost.

In his letter to the Romans, St. Paul writes: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his (Rom. 6:3-5).

Death and resurrection are made especially plain when an infant is baptized by immersion.

The baptismal pool is filled with warm water. The entire congregation gathers round, with the children at the water’s edge. The parents are a bit nervous, perhaps even scared. They are about to hand their precious and vulnerable infant into the hands of a priest who is going to put that infant under water. There is a sense of possible drowning in the minds of the parents, and those who are gathered — especially those who have never witnessed a baptism by immersion before.

Theologically, at least, drowning is exactly what happens when we are baptized. And baptism is indeed about vulnerability, and about death, and about giving ourselves to God and to the Church.

This is made very real when nervous and fearful parents unwrap the towels from around their infant and hand the naked child to the priest. The priest, declaring the name of the child, sweeps the child through the water, saying:“I baptize you in the Name of the Father …”On first pass, the infant is startled by the water, especially if it’s cold. Its eyes pop wide open, then close tightly shut. Most often, at this point, the infant lets out a scream. The trusting yet frightened mother holds her breath.

“And of the Son …” On the second pass, all alarms inside the infant and parents and much of the congregation go off. This is counter-intuitive. It seems almost cruel. What are we doing here?

“And of the Holy Spirit ...”On its back, head first, deeper into the water goes the startled and frightened child. All that is known and comforting and familiar is stripped away. The priest and all watching see the head go down into the water. It is only for a passing second, yet it seems frozen in time. Death is what happens in that moment.

In our baptism we die to the ways of sin, to all that would strive to separate us from God and from one another. We die to the forces of wickedness that conspire to claim us. That is what Jesus made real for us when he willingly went to his death on a cross.

But Jesus did not stay on the cross. He did not stay in the grave. And the infant does not stay in the water. The three days pass. The moment passes. The infant is passed through the water, and the waters of death become the waters of birth. We do not drown in the waters of baptism. We pass through. And as we do, we are born anew. “For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.”

Here the imagery is breathtaking (literally). The people, the parents, see the baby on this third sweep. Eyes are closed tight, fists are clenched, as the infant goes through the water. A few weeks ago this same infant was passing naked through the waters of birth, emerging from its mother’s womb.

Baptism is being born into Christ’s resurrection, being born into the new life, being born in the body of Christ, the Church.

In that moment, something else the church teaches becomes profoundly real: Through our baptism, each of us who has been baptized does in fact, become a member of the body. We are, in fact, brothers and sisters in Christ. We have all emerged from the same womb. We have all passed through the same birthing waters. We have all become one body.

The baby is lifted high, and the gathered congregation shouts “Amen!”

Oil is poured over the infant’s head, and the infant is marked with the sign of the cross as Christ’s own forever, wrapped in fresh white towels, and given to the loving arms of its parents, or, better yet, its godparents.

The newly baptized is welcomed, the Peace of the Lord is shared, and the celebrant, using the pool as aspergillium, casts water upon the congregation, reminding them that they, too, are baptized.

The imagery is vivid in the baptism of an infant by immersion. Imagery not lost, perhaps, but certainly diminished in small bowls, sprinkled water, and fine gowns.

And it doesn’t stop there. Once we have witnessed such a baptism by immersion, it carries over into the Eucharist, the gathering of the baptized at the altar of God, Sunday after Sunday. There we see brothers and sisters, born of the same womb as we were, members of the one body, which is Jesus Christ our Lord.

The way we worship, what we do in the liturgy, is an expression of what we believe and shapes what we believe. Baptizing infants by immersion can profoundly express and shape what we believe about ourselves as baptized people, born again. The Rev. Lisa G. Fischbeck is the vicar of the Church of the Advocate, Carrboro, N.C.

Caroline -- only fair!

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:24:00 +0000

I was being unfair to you all! I had not yet posted a picture of the other beautiful grand daughter. As a Duke graduate I had several "interesting" captions to use, but decided to be nice!

One boss

ken@st-christopher.org (Ken) — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:46:00 +0000

NOTE: I think the "post a comment" option is now working correctly. But if it does not appear go to the bottom of the page and you can post in that manner. Please remember that this blog requires a full name on every comment to keep the conversation open and candid. Comments without a name will be deleted.

For the past several weeks the gospels have focused on the need for us to make a choice. We so much want to be fully a Christian and (to use Paul's phrase) fully of this world. We so want to NOT have to make choices between God and our various desires.

Last Sunday we heard Jesus say that we can only serve one master, or one boss. And most of us react to that by making excuses. "Yeah, BUT (I read somewhere that by definition the words following "BUT" are always blasphemy!) "Yeah BUT I have to do what my boss tells me so he/she is the boss."

Jesus is speaking about ultimate decisions. As my mother told me frequently, "if he/she told you to jump off the bridge would you do it?" True, in business matters the boss is the boss, but those are not ultimate decisions. I believe Jesus' point is that at some time the earthly bosses and God will come in conflict --- we need to be clear about that and clear about who we would choose.

If the boss tells you to "cook the books" --- probably not directly but makes obvious suggestions along those lines --- what would you do? Would you take a chance on losing your job? If that sexy person invites you to a quiet dinner --- what would you do? Would you give up that exciting (& scary) chance?

A decision making tool I find helpful is to imagine myself explaining the options to Jesus. Just sitting and talking and telling Jesus what choices were presented to me. I find the decision becomes clear most of the time. In fact, most of the time I wonder why I ever considered the other option at all!