Monthly Archives: March 2008

Rock and Roll Revival Revisited

Posted on by
6

Rev. J, over at “Adventures in Revland” was looking at the U2charist liturgy. 

It is an interesting application of modern music and modern worship.  It does come with a warning, as it were.  While this group is encouraging the use of its music in such settings, they are also very particular about where and when their music is used, as well they should.  They wrote the music, they have the copyright and we need to respect that.

If you are interested, check out the comments that follow his post.

But it should give us pause to think about other music that we might use in our worship services.

I posted a piece back in November, 2006, entitled “A Rock and Roll Revival” in which I listed some personal favorites that one might use in a worship service.  I followed that up with “The Rock and Roll Revival Continued” in January, 2007

And this morning, it occurred to me that my opening prayer could by “Day by Day” (from Godspell)

Day by day
Oh Dear Lord
Three things I pray
To see thee more clearly
Love thee more dearly
Follow thee more nearly
Day by day

As always, I welcome suggestions for this “order of worship”

What Is The Real Problem?

Posted on by
Reply

The recent comments about race in America which span the spectrum of politics prompts me to ask the following question, “Do we truly understand the impact of racism, sexism, ageism, and every other form of discrimination that is, regrettably, a part of our society?”

As I pointed out in “My First Post”, every time we say that someone that is the first to do something, we are pointing out the limitations of society.

Sometimes being the first is a good thing, such as crossing the Atlantic in an airplane.  To me, it does not matter whether we are referring to Charles Lindbergh or Amelia Earhart; the ability to do that was a combination of technology and personal skill.  But when we refer to Amelia Earhart and her accomplishments, we are reminded again that society still told women that flying was something that they just didn’t do and for a long, long time society prevented women from doing many of things that men could do.

Our discussion of racism in America is made often in terms of black and white, though it could also be made in terms of other colors.  And we could just as easily substitute ethnicity or gender in the discussion. In the long run, any discussion about discrimination is a discussion that boils down to one group wanting to we limit what one person can do and when we do that, we limit what all people can do.

I have on a number of occasions pointed out the subtle effects of separate but equal schools.  The decisions by the Montgomery, Alabama, school board and the Shelby County (Tennessee) Board of Education were designed in part to limit what black students could do.  But the rules that were put into place affected what white students could do as well.

For as long as there have been societies, there have people who would separate its members.  The society of Jesus’ time was as divided a society as ours is today.  But Jesus transcended the barriers of society as he brought all those who sought him together in one place.  There was a period of time, often forgotten and most likely unknown, when there where communities in which everyone was equal.  No one suffered and only those who would not share or would not work for the good of the community were left out.  These were not the utopian communities of the 19th century nor the hippie communes of the 20th century; rather they were the beginnings of the new church, formed in the days following Easter and Pentecost.

But somewhere along the line, these communities disappeared.  Perhaps it was because Christianity became the “state religion” of Rome or because the church was able to survive the downfall of the Roman Empire.  Whatever the reason, what the church was disappeared and we are still seeking it today.  We have turned the words of the Bible and the actions of authorities into walls that separate people by race, creed, gender, disability, or economic status.

I don’t know if we could ever go back to the communal identification that was once the church.  Too many people have left the church and don’t hear the words of the Gospel message for that to happen.

But I do know this; if we do not start acting to remove that which is slowly but surely eating away at the roots of society, society will die and so will mankind.  It will take more than words to the problems of society; it will take actions.  We do not need new laws because we have enough laws as it is.  Laws alone are nothing more than words on paper if there is no way to enforce the laws.

We need to be looking at what will happen tomorrow and not be focused on what happened yesterday.  As long as we are focused on yesterday, we cannot be looking forward.  And if we are not looking forward, we can never see a way to a better and brighter tomorrow.

Despite all our rhetoric, there are still barriers.  And as long as there are barriers, the opportunity for all to succeed will be limited.

We need to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to succeed.  This is not done through laws but action. 

Education in this country is a prime example.  From this country’s beginnings, education was seen as a necessary part of democracy.  But somewhere along the line, schools became a barometer of the community.  If the community was successful, so were the schools; if the community was not successful, so were the schools.  Some schools have the tools for success; most don’t.  We turn a blind eye to the physical state of the school and only look at what the students have done.  Society demands accountability in its schools but society will not allow itself to be held accountable for the state of its schools.

Education today is dominated by the “No Child Left Behind” law.  But this law, despite its lofty goals and the desire for excellence that it expressed, was poorly funded.  As a result, no single child is left behind today; they all are.  You cannot mandate excellence solely with a testing program; you must have programs and systems in place that will focus on excellence and will focus on success for all, not just a few.

We must be willing to understand that decades and centuries of discrimination will not be replaced overnight.  We must be willing to understand that each person has a stake in the future and if they want to have any type of future they must be willing to be a part of the future, joining with others to make the future possible.  It is not a future where the average is the goal, for while it brings some people other, it will bring other people down.  It has to be a future where all are lifted up.

The real problem is not race or gender or economic status; the real problem is that we are not willing to work so that all have the opportunity.

Changes

Posted on by
Reply

First, I want to thank all those who made Sunday, March 16th, such a special day in the life of this blog.  I had over 150 visits to the blog!!

Now, this may not seem like a big number since there are other blogs that get over 5,000 visits per day but, for me, Sunday’s count was the largest number of visits I have ever had.  And so I say thank you for coming and please come again.

In terms of changes, I have been able to transfer all my posts from 2005 and 2006 that were on my old blog over to this one.  So, if you are interested in the history of the blog, all my writings are in one place.  I will, over the course of the next few weeks and/or months, be editing those older blogs to get some “bugs” out of the formatting that I was using.  If there is one that you know should be “fixed”, feel free to post a comment to that particular piece and I will work on it.

Another change that begins today is that I start contribute to the RedBlueChristian.com blog.  Since I am color-blind, I am not quite sure which side of the spectrum I am on.  It promises to be an interesting time and experience.

Again, my thanks to those who made the 16th a record-breaking day.  Hopefully, you will keep reading what I post on both blogs.

Why Do We Celebrate Palm Sunday?

Posted on by
7

Here are my thoughts for this coming Sunday, Palm Sunday.  This is going to be a busy weekend for me so I wanted to get this up.

The scripture for this Sunday is Matthew 21: 1 – 11.

———————————————————————————————————————————–

First, let me just say that I am deliberately using the word “celebrate” instead of “observing”. Perhaps it is because I see “celebrate” as an action verb and “observe” as somewhat passive. Worship services should be, I think, celebrations much more than observances and I think that we should celebrate Palm Sunday. But why, especially this year, should we celebrate Palm Sunday?

After all, we already know what is going to happen. We know that after the celebrations on Sunday and the actions of Jesus in the Temple during the week, Judas is going to betray Him. The religious and political establishment will arrest Him in the Garden of Gethsemane and convict Him in what is essentially a kangaroo court.

On Friday, Jesus will be crucified and He will die on the Cross. He will be taken down from the Cross and put into a well-guarded tomb so as to prevent anyone from stealing His body. We know that next Sunday, the tomb will be empty and we will celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And we do need to celebrate the Resurrection. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians (1st Corinthians 15: 13 – 14, 17),

“. . . if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. . . If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile.”

We know all that, so why do we celebrate it? I think it is because we recognize today that this week is more than just a prelude to Easter. We see the week and what is to come through the lens of history. So it is that we can see what is to come as a statement to the world that those who seek to maintain their power and their status through the oppression of others, either by force or restrictive laws, will, in the end, lose the battle. That righteousness and justice will, in the end prevail.

Early on in my life, I came to the conclusion that it was not the Jews who killed Jesus but rather the political and religious establishment. In that regard, this Palm Sunday is a lot like that first Palm Sunday. There are those who, in the name of freedom, would take away our freedoms. There are those who wish to establish a similar religious based government, one based on Biblical principles.

It is so remarkable our society today compares with the society then. This week we have heard of the death of the religious right and its loss of political power. While the relationship between the religious right and the political right may be declining, I don’t think that the religious right has died. Nor do I think that they are going to readily give up their thoughts about the direction they think this country is going. But they are as blind as the Pharisees who sought to eliminate Jesus and they have confused their own prejudices with the true meaning of the Gospel.

And I don’t think those on the left (political or otherwise) should cheer so loudly. Those on the left may believe, as Karl Marx wrote, that religion is “. . . the opium of the masses.” But if they do, they need to consider two things.

First, is it really Christianity that you despise and proclaim is restrictive and hateful? Or is it what people have done to Christianity and the church?

Second, are you prepared to offer a better alternative than the true Gospel message? Are you prepared to offer a better belief system that will seek peace and justice in this world?

We live in a world that seems to be dominated by fear. We are constantly reminded that terrorists are planning to strike this country and we must be constantly on our guard. We seek peace through military power. We have allowed the so-called guardians of our freedoms to utilize whatever means are necessary in order to ensure that we have the information that will enable us to strike at the leaders of any opposition. We have willingly let our own personal freedoms being taken away with the hope that when it is all over, we will get them back.

Ours is also a time of economic distress. In this time, the people cry out for salvation. But they want what the people of Jerusalem wanted two thousand years ago. They want a king to lead an army to free them. But they do not want to be a part of that army. The people of today are like the people of Jerusalem some two thousand years ago; they will only accept a solution that does not require much of them and are unwilling to accept a solution that calls for them to take action.

Jesus lived during the time that we have come to call the “Pax Romana”, or the Roman peace. But it was a time of peace under Roman rule and enforced by Roman tyranny. And the people of Jesus’ time were looking for someone who would overthrow that tyranny. It is no wonder that they cheered Jesus as the new king; to them, He was the one who would lead the army that would remove the shackles of tyranny.

Jesus would also be the one who would remove the shackles of religious tyranny, of the restrictions placed on people by the religious establishment who insisted on a strict adherence to religious law. Time and time again, Jesus challenged the religious establishment to follow not the letter of the law but rather the spirit of the law. Jesus offered hope to those whom the establishment would deny hope; he welcomed those whom the establishment would throw out. He proclaimed that the Kingdom of Heaven was open to all, no matter what their race, their gender, or their status in society. It is no wonder that the religious authorities of the time conspired with the political authorities.

The people wanted a political king; one who will lead a great army and remove the Roman tyranny and the restrictions placed on their lives by the numerous rules created by the religious establishment. The people of Jerusalem heard Jesus’ message but they did not understand that the Kingdom of Heaven was to come, not be in place on Monday morning. They did not understand that Jesus’ call for freedom came with responsibilities.

Of course, Jesus had no army, only twelve disciples. Even the disciples did not completely understand the message that they had heard for three years. This lack of understanding would lead Judas to betray Jesus. Even on the night that we have come to call the “Last Supper”, the disciples did not understand. “How was it,” they must have thought, “that Jesus is speaking of His own death tonight?”

And with His arrest later that night, the disciples were filled with fear and panic. Peter would deny Christ three times and everyone would hide for fear that now, once their teacher and friend had been arrested and murdered, they would be next.

It would not be until Sunday that the disciples and all who followed Jesus would understand what this all means. But we do understand what it means and that allows us to celebrate Palm Sunday.

But if we are to truly understand what Palm Sunday means, then we have to understand that we cannot go back in time and tell Jesus not to enter Jerusalem. He would only tell us, as he told Peter, to get behind Him. Jesus knew, as we know today, that He must go to the Cross.

We cannot tell the people in the crowds to quite cheering for a political king because they will not listen. We cannot stop the progress of the week because the week must go on or there is no Easter.

But it does mean that there is hope. It does mean that oppression can be stopped; that justice can be brought into this world. People will know that the status quo does not always bring justice nor does the status quo remove oppression. It does mean that we are called to be Christ’s disciples and fight for freedom for all.

We have spent the past five weeks preparing for this day. We have been called to repent, to cast aside our old ways and seek new ways in Christ. We can no longer use the message of the past as a pretext for a new world. We must begin anew.

Armies cannot bring freedom into this world. True freedom comes when people work to remove the causes of oppression and violence. True freedom comes when people stand up to the establishment that seeks to oppress others through guns and laws. Jesus showed us what freedom over sin and death truly was.

Jesus died to set us free and he must enter the city this Sunday. So we celebrate Palm Sunday, not because Jesus brings a kingdom on this earth but because when this week is over, the doors to the Kingdom in Heaven will be open for all. We celebrate this Palm Sunday because, if we believe, we have found freedom and we have found the way to bring freedom into this world.

That is why we celebrate Palm Sunday.

Is Science a Part of Our Lives?

Posted on by
Reply

I have found myself lately writing about science as much as anything else.  I did not intend that to be the case with this blog, but that is what has happened and I will go with it.

The problem perhaps is that it is becoming more and more clear that we are a collection of people who cannot independently think.  For example, our political campaigns rely on a blind acceptance of what is said and do not readily give us time to analyze what is said, what is promised, and what is offered.

We are called unpatriotic if we question our present administration and their tactics and ploys.  We are quickly called racists or sexists if we so much as question what a politician says or does.  We are asked to forget what we were taught in school about the history of this country so that others can justify their positions and thoughts.

There is evidence to suggest that global warming is more than a fancy power point presentation but we are told that the evidence is either circumstantial or limited in scope.  It is also evident that the present administration is used political pressure to drive scientific debates.

We demand accountability from our schools but accountability has quickly become nothing more than scores on a test at the end of the year.  If we want to really determine what a student has learned during a particular school year, test them three months after the end of that year, not at the end of the year.  If learning really took place, then it will be evident later. 

We have become accustomed to “sound bites” and it becomes evident that the typical “sound bite” is becoming shorter and shorter.  Our attention span is decreasing and we don’t want to think.  In my post, “Ages of Wisdom”, I noted that President John Kennedy was possibly the last president to speak in literate paragraphs and with references to history.  President Kennedy expected his listeners to understand those references and understand what he was saying.  His words could not be easily reduced to “sound bites”; his thoughts were not simple statements easily forgotten but ones that stayed in our minds and challenged us to respond.

Now, I am not arguing for more science in the classroom (I just wish that they would teach more science in the classes that are offered).  But science offers one way to teach thinking skills.  You can teach thinking and analysis in other courses, as well, and we should do that also.  But we need to have a knowledgeable and thinking society if we are to solve the problems that we currently have and to solve the problems of the future that we don’t even know of yet.

Craig Barrett, chair of Intel, stated

“The future economic success of the United States depends on out-performing the competition with smart people and smart ideas.  Without the best education system and investments in basic research and development we will become a second rate economic power.”

I write this because there is an opportunity presenting itself to change the direction of the society.  There is a call going out to all political candidates to participate in Science Debate 2008 yet no candidate has accepted the invitation to participate and tell the public how they plan to use science to inform their policies.  This debate is being organized for April, prior to the Pennsylvania primary.

We have seen over the past eight years political interference that has threaten our nation’s ability to respond to complex issues involving public heath, environmental, and national security clearances. 

Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing our country and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, it is imperative that we hold Science Debate 2008 on April 18 and that all political candidates participate.  I would even go so far as to suggest that we make it a debate without party distinction.  Let us think about what is going to happen; we have responded out of fear too often.

If you want more information concerning Science Debate 2008, go here

Describe Your Pastor

Posted on by
3

The results of a computerized survey indicate the perfect minister preaches exactly fifteen minutes.

He condemns sins but never upsets anyone.

He works from 8:00 AM until midnight and is also a janitor.

He makes $50 a week, wears good clothes, buys good books, drives a good car, and gives about $50 weekly to the poor.

He is 28 years old and has preached 30 years.

He has a burning desire to work with teenagers and spends all of his time with senior citizens.

The perfect minister smiles all the time with a straight face because he has a sense of humor that keeps him seriously dedicated to his work.

He makes 15 calls daily on congregation families, shut-ins and the hospitalized, and is always in his office when needed.

If your minister does not measure up, simply send this letter to six other churches that are tired of their minister, too. Then bundle up your minister and send him to the church on the top of the list. In one week, you will receive 1,643 ministers and one of them will be perfect. Have faith in this procedure.

One church broke the chain and got its old minister back in less than three weeks….so don’t break the chain.

The Strange Case of Mr. Piltdown

Posted on by
3

A recent issue of Chemical & Engineering News (February 18, 2008) contains the story “A Massive Case of Fraud”.  The story is about an Indian chemistry who published some 70 papers between 2004 and 2007.  Unfortunately, the papers were either plagiarized from other journals or falsified from the beginning.  The evidence of fraud began when a reviewer noticed a similarity between a paper written by this chemist dealing with arsenic and a paper written by a Japanese chemist that dealt with chromium.  Further examination showed that the author of these papers did not have the instrumentation at his university necessary for the research that he was diligently describing.

There are those who are going to wonder how this could have been accomplished.  After all, science is supposed to be self-correcting and such errors should be caught.  But the academic world is a world like the non-academic world where success is measured more often by the number of papers published and not the quality of the papers published.  If an author wanted to submit several papers at a time, such as this author did, several are likely to slip through the cracks and get published.  Sooner or later, though, the fraud will be caught.

Sadly, the perpetrator will suffer only a limited punishment as he is a permanent employee of his university.

One of the hallmarks of science is that it is self-correcting.  It may take time but those who try to publish faulty or incorrect research generally don’t get it done.  It is sad to say that the number of cases of scientific fraud are increasing each year.  But this is not a failure of science but rather indicative of a society that demands results when results take time.  The process of science to self-correct itself will, in the end and if it can be experimentally verified, yield the correct answers.

The history of science is complete with stories of the self-correcting nature of science.

Shortly after Wilhelm Röntgen published his discovery of X-rays, René Blondlot announced the discovery of N-rays.  Röntgen used the term “X” because “X” has always been used to refer to the unknown (as we are so often reminded when working algebra problems).  Röntgen was German and, while this has nothing to do with his research, it has everything to do with Blondlot’s research.

The competition between France and Germany, especially in the late 19th century, was in every category, including science.  If a German is going to discover something, then so must a Frenchman.  Blondlot, for whatever reasons, felt that he had discovered an additional unknown ray and he named it after Nancy, his hometown and the home of the university where he worked (the University of Nancy).

Immediately following his announcement of these special rays, practically every physicist in France announced that they too had seen evidence of these rays.  Unfortunately, physicists in Britain and here in the United States could not repeat the process.  Ultimately, Robert Wood of Johns Hopkins University proved that there was no such thing as N-rays and that Blondlot had only been deceiving himself as to the existence of the rays (he saw the rays because he wanted to see the rays).

What this shows is that the science can correct itself, even when a scientist make error.  Other scientists will check the experimental evidence and ultimately get science back on track.  Those who think that science is infallible do not understand the processes of science.  Sadly, René Blondlot’s life was to end rather tragically.

The strange case of N-rays is more properly considered “bad” science as self-deception rather than fraud was involved.  But even when fraud is involved, science will catch the perpetrator. 

Now, what does this have to do with Mr. Piltdown?  And who is Mr. Piltdown anyway?

In 1913, a fossil was discovered in the archeological site in Piltdown, England.  It had the characteristics of both man and ape.  For British paleontologists, this was the ultimate discovery.  Much as French scientists rejoiced in the discovery of N-rays and the triumph of French scientists over German scientists, so too did the British scientific community rejoice in the fact that they too had a major archeological find to go along with the French and German discoveries.

It also suggested that there was such a thing as a “missing link” and for over forty years it was treated as such. 

However, two things happened.  As more and more fossil evidence was discovered, it appeared that the Piltdown man was an anomaly.  And then, in 1953, examination of the original fossil showed it to be the skull of a modern man and the jaw of an ape.  The Piltdown man was shown to be at worst a fraud and at best an immense practical joke.  The only problem was that no one can figure out who might have pulled it off.  Among those listed as primary suspects is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes.

There is still some question today as to who the perpetrator is and the real reason for making the faux fossil. 

That it took forty years to discover that this was a hoax is not a weakness of science.  It may have been discovered sooner if those who held the fossils had not refused for so many years to allow others to examine the original fossils.  Had others been allowed to do so, the hoax would have been discovered sooner.  See “Piltdown Man” for a more extensive explanation.

I took the opportunity of a fraud that occurred in my area to look at the processes of science again.  The Piltdown man and subsequent hoax is often used by creationists and advocates of intelligent design as an example of bad science and evidence against the theory of evolution. 

They try to convince people that scientists do this sort of thing all the time and that any discovery will similarly overturned at any time.  They ignore the fact that the Piltdown man was either a fraud or a hoax and that it was good science that showed it for what it truly was. 

They present the argument that such fraud should have been discovered back in 1913 when the fossils were first discovered.  Yes, many British paleontologists and archeologists accepted the notion that the Piltdown man would fit into the scheme of evolutionary development.  But nationalism cannot stop people from showing that particular evidence is not plausible.

The date of the fossil would have been determined at the time of discovery, if suitable means for determining the date were available.  The age of the fossils and the proof that they were actually relatively modern were determined when suitable means to do became available.

It is very interesting that creationists will say that the Piltdown man proves that science doesn’t work while scientists point out how it works. 

Dry Bones

Posted on by
Reply

Here are my thoughts for the 5th Sunday in Lent. The scriptures for today are Ezekiel 37: 1 – 44, Romans 8: 6 – 11, and John 11: 1 – 45.

The past few months have given me the opportunity to ponder the nature of the church and what has happened over the past two thousand years. The recent study by the Pew Foundation on the religious make up of this country (“U. S. Religious Landscape”) hasn’t exactly helped in that contemplation.

As noted in “Pew study raises questions for Methodist leaders”, this study points out that the United Methodist Church is and has been losing members over the past few years. One could plot a trend line and statistically predict when the membership of the denomination will reach zero and thus the death of the United Methodist Church. Of course, such a statistical prediction would have a limited applicability and is still hopefully well off in the future. But if the trend is downward, it means that we are a dying church and not a living one. If the upcoming General Conference reaches the emotional levels that the past two General Conferences have reached, the stress of those emotions may very well hasten the decline and death of the United Methodist Church.

The United Methodist Church is becoming older. Young people are leaving or not even joining. Some churches still cling to the idea that they can “grow” the church from their Sunday school but when the high school kids leave the high school class for whatever reason, they don’t come back. The last two reports on churches (the Pew Study mentioned above and the Barna study that I mentioned in “The Lost Generation”) have shown that the youth of this country are losing interest in organized religion. They may believe but they do not join.

Shall we then just write off the older members of the denomination and the churches to which they belong? Shall we take Jesus’ admonition that you cannot put new wine in old wineskins and just concentrate on new churches and the young? Shall we let the older bones of the churches just lie in the desert to dry out and become part of the desert?

Shall we adapt our worship services to favor the technological approach that so dominates our lives today? Perhaps we can somehow transform our messages from regular English to something more suitable for text and instant messaging. Such a translation would clearly show the younger members of society that the church is “with it”. But are such substitutions of “u r” for “you are” an effective presentation of meaning? How do you translate the care of the less fortunate, the feeding of the hungry, the clothing of the naked, the housing of the homeless, or the freeing of the oppressed into text messaging?

As society has been transformed by the technology (how many things can your cell phone do beside make phone calls?), we have let technology become our master. Rather than using technology to provide the means for outreach to a spiritually hungry world, we let technology dictate how the message is presented.

It would appear that simply transforming our churches from staid, old fashioned buildings to technologically updated centers is not having the results that many expected. While more churches are using technology in many forms, the contemporary styles of worship that accompany the adaptations of technology are not have the results people expect (see the Music and Worship Study conducted by the General Board of Discipleship and United Methodist Publishing House or the study summary (UM Nexus for 03/05/08).

The problem is not one of new wine in old wineskins but rather what the message really is. It also doesn’t address the issue of who is worshipping. It is not a question of those who are old and who is young in age but rather whether everyone is old or young in spirit. It is entirely possible that someone is old in years but young in spirit or young in age but old in spirit. Yes, there are those who are both old in age and old in spirit and they perhaps dominate the nature of the church too much. Those who hold onto the past can never embrace the future. They are not looking to the future nor are they willing to do so

But that does not mean that the days of the calendar should drive our thinking. Rather, we must focus on the spirit, not the age of the worshipper. We must focus on bringing the enthusiasm of the early church back into the process.

It is noted in the Pew survey that the United Methodist Church is considered traditional and main-line and not evangelical. But evangelism was the hallmark of the early Methodist movement; our growth in America came during the major revival periods of this country’s history (and those same revival periods were driven in part by the evangelical fervor of Methodists). But we are no longer considered an evangelical church. What happened to the band of believers that was the hallmark of the early church? What happened to the enthusiasm that marked the development of Methodism?

In his “Letter from the Birmingham Jail”, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote

There was a time when the church was very powerful — in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators”‘ But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests.

Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an arch-defender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent and often even vocal sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably linked to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ecclesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners for the struggle for freedom.

I hope that the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour.

The conversion of George Whitfield, Charles and John Wesley led to the outbreak of a religious revival which impacted the Anglican Church and indeed the social structure of England. In an age of social decay the message of transformation preached brought hope to the masses and every level of English society. Some scholars, such as the French historian M. Taine, even suggested that the revival saved England from the social and political upheavals which engulfed France and led to the French Revolution. The religious revival changed course when on the urging of Whitfield, John Wesley took to the open air. The populace was hungry to hear the word of God. They responded en masse to the message of the revival.

It was a revival that focused on the spirit of the person. Wesley understood that people who were starving, cold, or homeless were not going to readily accept a Gospel message that said that wealth was the sign of a righteous life or that poverty and sickness were the signs of sinning. But somewhere along the path of history, we have lost that focus. We have become more concerned about the nature of the people in our churches than we are in working against sin.

We would much rather hear messages that tell us how to get rich or whom to blame for the ills of society. We would much rather hear sermons that tell us how to feel good rather than being called to sacrifice so that others may share in God’s glory. We would much rather wait for the anticipated Second Coming of Christ at Armageddon than work to help everyone enter into the Kingdom of God.

There are people in the church who today who say that the church and the people in it are dead. They are just waiting for the funeral. Perhaps today is the day that we hear God’s commandment to Ezekiel to prophesy to the dry bones in the valley and command them to come alive. Perhaps today is the day that we, empowered by the Holy Spirit, stand before the door of the church and command the dead to arise. (In the commentary that I use, there is a note that suggests that if Jesus had not specifically named Lazarus in today’s Gospel reading, then all the dead that were buried in his tomb would have responded to His command to come out of the tomb.)

The revival of the church today will not come from technological applications to improve the worship or make it more like other forms of entertainment. The revival of the church today will not come from rephrasing the Gospel to make it less demanding on the listener or to change the focus from God to one’s self. The revival of the church when we focus on Christ and the message that He gave us two thousand years ago.

As Paul wrote to the Romans,

“For they who are man-centered think along human lines, and they who are Spirit-centered think in terms of the Spirit. For man-centered reasoning dead ends in destruction, but Spirit-centered reasoning leads to life and space. Man-centered reasoning is hostile to God, because it does not subordinate itself to God’s plan nor indeed can it do so. People who are man-centered just can’t get along with God. But you all, you are not man-centered but Spirit-centered — provided, of course, that God’s Spirit permeates you. If one doesn’t have Christ’s Spirit, he isn’t Christ’s man. But if Christ is in you, the self, because of its sin, is stone dead; but the Spirit, because it is good, is throbbing with life. And if the Spirit of the God who made Jesus to live again permeates you, then this same God will give life to your hell-bent egos by means of his Spirit that permeates you.” (from Clarence Jordan’s translation of Romans 8: 6 – 11 in ‘The Letter to the Christians in Washington’).

Next week Jesus will enter into Jerusalem and the people will be cheering. But they will be cheering for all the wrong reasons and by the end of the week they will be calling for his execution as an enemy of the state.

We have a choice. We can continue to live the way that we live and our bones, no matter how old the calendar says they are, will dry out and we will become part of the dry bones in the valley that Ezekiel found. We will see Jesus but we will see him as those in the plaza calling for his execution, a threat to the establishment and to the status quo.

Or we can hear his call, the call that has echoed through these past five weeks of Lent and repent. We can change the course of our lives and bring these dry bones back to life. In doing so, we become the agents of change that are so desperately needed in this time and place.

Shall our bones lie drying in the sun, waiting for the wind to blow the dust to the four corners of the world? Or shall we bring these dry bones back to life?

What Is Today’s Date?

Posted on by
Reply

I post the following comments knowing that Sunday morning marks the renewal of Daylight Savings Time.  Remember that we are to “spring forward”, though what I am writing suggests that we are falling back.

                                                                                                   

As the government sought support for the troops fighting the war, the economy at home was in shambles and the people at home were starving.  There was evidence that the troops at the front were also poorly supplied as well.

On the left, voices were being raised to end the war and feed the people.  But right wing political parties, with the support of business and military interests, openly sought to destroy the efforts of the political left.  In fact, the government went even so far as to draft all the leaders of the political left.

It is obvious that this could not be today since we do not have a draft but it sounds very familiar to this country in 2008.  It was the state of matters in Germany in 1918. 

                                                                                                   

It is redundant to say that we cannot live in a world of peace when we live in a world of war.  But war takes away from everyone and there is no true winner.  If we insist on continuing the war in Iraq, no matter who is elected President this coming November, and we continue to ignore the economic problems at home, there can never be peace anywhere.

If we continue insisting that the answer to the problems in this world is through armed force, there will never be peace but only continued violence.  Peace will only come when the factors that encourage violence (hunger, homelessness, sickness, oppression) are removed.  It will not happen overnight but it will happen.

Questions from The Religious Landscape

Posted on by
1

I originally posted this on February 26th.  I am re-posting it to include a note from the United Methodist News Service (UMNS) – see “Pew study raises questions for Methodist leaders”.  I would think that the questions in the article are for all Methodists, not just the leaders.  The other thing that I think we need to be concerned with is a focus which builds the church but not the faith.

————————-

If you have not already do so, please read or glance through the recent Pew Forum on Religion and Life survey (“U. S. Religious Landscape”).  Let us start by noting that most of the people indicated that they had some sort of belief system (not necessarily Christian).  Just a bit of 89% of the respondents indicated that they were affiliated with some sort of religion.  In itself, that’s good.

But it is the breakdown of the numbers that is really interesting.  First, the survey data indicates that only 51.3% of the respondents indicated that they were Protestant.  Second, 28% of the respondents indicated that they had left the faith in which they were raised.

Point to consider – what does that little tidbit tell us about the nature of our church?  I have been of the thought that many traditional or mainline religions always felt that the children of the church, those who attended Sunday school, were the future.  This piece of information confirms that notion is not a good idea.

They also noted in the survey that 44% of the respondents had changed affiliations, either joining another denomination or leaving the church entirely.  16% of the respondents (and 1 in 4 of those between 18 and 29) indicated that they were no longer affiliated with any church.  This reflects the Barna study that I mentioned in “The Lost Generation” last October.

I have also pointed out that the policies of some of our churches are driving away our youth (see “We Are Eating Our Seed Corn”).

Point to consider – I think it is okay that people change church from the one they grow up in to another one.  That is the nature of growing up and finding yourself (I wasn’t interviewed but I would have been included in the group that had changed denominations).  What we have to think about is why are some many young people leaving the church altogether?

This brings me to the other point.  The survey broke down Protestant into Evangelical, Mainline, and Historically Black churches.  They do, in the first chapter of the report, give a more detailed breakdown of each of these groups.  But I struggle with how they defined evangelical and mainline traditions.  The report reads,

churches within the evangelical Protestant tradition share certain religious beliefs (such as the conviction that personal  acceptance of Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation), practices (such as an emphasis on bringing other people to the faith) and origins (including separatist movements against established religious institutions).  In contrast, churches in the mainline Protestant tradition share other doctrines (such as a less exclusionary view of salvation), practices (such as a strong emphasis on social reform) and origins (such as long-established religious institutions). Meanwhile, churches in the historically black Protestant tradition have been uniquely shaped by the experiences of slavery and segregation, which put their religious beliefs and practices in a special context.

It is interesting that Methodism was classified as mainline but we were once an evangelical church.  I wonder what happened?

Finally, the report does not indicate the nature of the churches.  Since the survey was on who we are more than what we do, I would not expect such a discussion.  But when there is a shift from one denomination to another, why did the people shift?  What type of church were they involved in before the shift and what type of church are they involved in after the shift? When the people left the church altogether, why did they leave?

Those are the questions that we need to concern ourselves with.  Too many churches are bottom-lined driven, and I included churches who are growing as well as those who are losing members.  They are all concerned with bringing people into the church.  How are they doing this?

In a national news report on this survey, people at one of the growing churches were interviewed.  A glance into the congregation showed “theater-type” seats.  Photos taken during a worship service showed a video screen with the words for the song on it with a “rock and roll” style band playing the music on what one would presume is the altar.  Now, I have no problem with modern music and it is probably cheaper to put the music on a video screen rather than buy hymnals or print pages for the worshippers to read from.  But these same pictures did not show a cross.  The center of our worship, or at least I thought the center of our worship, is the cross.  We are in Lent right now (and I think that is one reason why the survey was released); we are working towards Easter and the meaning of the empty tomb and the Cross.  Why is not part of the worship service?  What message can be given?

And finally,78% of the respondents said that they were Christian.  But yet we still have poverty and homelessness in this country.  Racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination seem to be on the rise.  Our response to problems is often made out of fear.  We may say that we are a Christian country (that’s what the survey says!) but are we?

The survey was informative but like so many things, in answering one question, other questions are asked.  And those new questions are the ones we need to find the answers to.