What They Told Us ...

At a conversation with people from their early-twenties to their mid-sixties, one of the most striking comments that was made - and one that nearly everyone present agreed with - was: "You have to be brave to walk into a church!"

The coming together was the result of some younger folks expressing a disconnect when they came to church on Sunday morning. When a "Home Group" of 50+ year-olds heard this, their first reaction was defensive. "How can this be?" "We love having them in church!" "Several of them are members of our Board of Trustees, or serve as ushers ..." "We have gone out of our way to make them feel welcome!" All true enough, but those realities did not alter the fact that some in our midst felt a "disconnect". So we decided to have supper together ... and talk.

There are some similarities. For example, it's not only the "young" who have to be brave; there are plenty of 50+ year-olds for whom walking into a church is a risk. The risks include the judgment of others, facing a whole host of assumptions people are making about us; and of course, there is the "style" - how we are "worshiping" (What does that word even mean - 'Worshiping'?).

Some of the things we have read in the research being done on young people and church bore themselves out. For example, it was noted that people in their 50s tend to "go" to church. People in their 20s just do it - they do church. This is not to say that older folks are not engaged in mission or acts of mercy and service. It is to say that younger people can do those things absent any felt need to attend a large gathering on a Sunday morning (or any other morning ...).

An interesting observation: Most everyone present 50+ were brought to church by their parents when they were younger. Most of the people in our youth program (teenagers) come from families where parents don't attend church, and in some cases the parents are antagonistic toward the church.

The key word, perhaps, is this: For the younger people "church" is organic rather than institutional. "Organic Spirituality" rather than "Religious Belief" - that's the paradigmatic disconnect that we are experiencing.

Another question arose from a 50+ year old: If the church is a barrier to people, what will be the point of entrance for those seeking to grow spiritually?

With relation to the Sunday Morning "experience", there are two facets - the Structural aspect ... that is, how the worship experience is scripted; and the Group Dynamic aspect ... that is, what kind of mindset people are in, how they feel about themselves and the people around them. It was noted that some people don't come to church because of who is already there.

The question: What's next? We did not arrive at a specific answer ... but I do believe there is a stronger commitment to know each other better. We acknowledge this project is essentially about God's expressed love for us through Jesus. It is essentially about our love for each other and our neighbor.

With regard to "worship" ... this coming Sunday is the First Sunday of Advent - the Christian "New Year" ... and I have an idea. I do have an idea ...

Fulcrum between Competing Priorities …

What does it take to hold one’s own when all about you “are losing theirs (head) and blaming it on you”? In politics it seems as if the “happy medium” is elusive at best, and perhaps impossible to achieve. What is the right answer with regard to Health Care? Most of the Democrats think they have it, but none of the Republicans agree – except one member of the House of Representatives (Rep. Joe Cao - R-Louisiana). There seems to be no middle ground between the competing priorities.

It wasn’t health care, however, that caught my eye today, but a word about Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury. And the “word” was from David Brooks in the November 19 edition of the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/opinion/20brooks.html?hp). To his – and apparently everyone else’s – surprise, Secretary Geithner’s plan to stabilize the financial system seems to be working. Brooks refers to an earlier Wall Street Journal poll of 49 economists, each asked for their opinion of Geithner; each gave him an “F”.

“If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you …” We can forgive Kipling his sexism for the moment. The point Brooks was making had to do with the fact that Secretary Geithner was criticized with equal vehemence from both right and left. No one believed he could do it. The secretary “uses the word ‘balance’ a lot. He talks about finding the right balance point between competing priorities.” And if David Brooks is correct, the reason Secretary Geithner has been successful thus far is because he is “context-sensitive”. “He’s less defined by any preset political doctrine than by the situation he happens to find himself in”, says Brooks.

As a Christian I have an inbred distrust of “balance” because it smacks of being “lukewarm”. (Revelation 3:14ff.) And we all know what the Bible says about that nauseating quality. But when I think of “balance” in the sense of being “context-sensitive”, I don’t think of wishy-washy piety; I think of a radically compassionate Christ. Jesus demonstrates balance between his destination and the need at hand. Upon heading home for rest, Jesus responds to the need of Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:29ff). He could be in the midst of a sermon, when suddenly he is faced with a paralytic in need of healing; and so he heals (Mark 2:2ff). He could be on his way to heal a child, only to be stopped by a bleeding woman. He can’t be touched by her without power flowing from him (Mark 5:21ff).

Brooks compares Geithner to a fox, flexibly responding to the current situation. He contrasts this with hedgehogs, defined as those who are guided (and perhaps shackled?) by “a few core principles”. Politics is schizophrenic; or perhaps manic would be a more apt description. Things are either way “up”, or way “down”. Popularity polls (“Do you think the governor is doing a good job?”) vacillate more quickly than north country weather.

Daivd Brooks says these are times that call for a pragmatic approach to problems – something Secretary Geithner seems capable of bringing to the table.

“If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster / And treat those two impostors just the same . . .” Ah … there is the key! To recognize that your “friends” are no more your “friends” than your “enemies” are your “enemies”! Jesus put it this way: There are sheep and there are wolves. Sometimes we must be doves; sometimes we must be serpents. (Matthew 10:16.) If we will accept “triumph and disaster” for what they truly are, Kipling says: “Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it.” If we will live with radical contextual sensitivity, Jesus assures us: “I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.” (Luke 21:15.)

With tremendous pressure to be on one side or the other, maybe the middle ground is the truest and best place to be after all. Not “lukewarm”, but delicately – and perhaps tenuously – balanced between the various competing priorities.

Loosing Chains ...

We read of soldiers returning from battle who suffer from PTSD. Now, there is speculation that a soldier who listens to the stories of returning comrades, with the intention of his listening providing a measure of comfort, has himself gone on a rampage of killing. It will be some time before the details are clear, and the actual motive or reason for Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's horrific meltdown may never be known. Was it the stories he had listened to for the past six years? Was it his own fear of being deployed? Was it a personality disorder or mental condition, pushed over the edge? And, rightly or wrongly, the question is being asked of the possible connections between his actions and his religious convictions.

There is another question that needs to be asked: How much longer can the world sustain the violence of war? This is the deeper - and more critical issue - one that deserves very serious consideration. This is not about who has handguns and who doesn't. It is about the stress of violence that all of us are paying a price for.

To put it another way: It is not just the soldier; it is not just the soldier's family; it is not just the innocent civilian in the wrong place at the wrong time who becomes "collateral damage"; it's all of us. We are increasingly a society - a world - living with the immediate reality of post traumatic stress disorder. The violence the soldier experiences first hand becomes part of the national and global psyche. The stories are not about "them". Increasingly, the stories are about "us" - ALL of us. It is almost as if every action - going to school in the morning, going to the shopping center, going to work, going to church - every action is a game of Russian Roulette. Are you safe on the subway? the highway? in the cereal isle?

That President Obama has recently taken time to consider both the mission in Afghanistan as well as the method best suited to carry out that mission is a sign of hope. Whether one agrees with the politics of the president or not, the fact is that we had best be as clear as we possibly can before we subject the world to the stories that will inevitably darken the soul of us all.

I recently read about a church whose congregants are attempting to be multi-cultural / racial. The article spoke of the frustration and the pain that is part of the process. One line stands out that describes both the faith and the tenacity required of the people engaged in this church: "We would rather be together than be comfortable."

I've heard that line before; but it seems particularly apropos in this day. Is there a correlation between the continued obsession with war and the fact that not only are we in danger in the midst of our "enemies"; we are in danger when among our "friends"?

If ever we are going to be "comfortable", we are going to have to be safe together. "Loose the chains of injustice," cries the prophet Isaiah; "Set the oppressed free!" (Isaiah 58.) The challenge arises, I suppose, in identifying who is oppressed and who is oppressing; but oppression begets oppressors.

This is a sad day for our nation; but unless something fundamental changes in how we view the world, it's a day that is bound to be repeated over and over again. If we want to be loosed from the direct and residual violence of war we are going to have to make a commitment that states clearly: We would rather be together than be comfortable. Then - and only then - will we be safe.