The Orlando Massacre

I'd like to offer reflections on the Orlando Massacre which transpired a few days ago.  Please read the entire post prior to commenting.

This is a massacre.  A mass killing.  It is a tragedy and that fact must not be forgotten.  Many lives were lost and so many were changed forever.  We must never politicize such tragedies in a way that demeans or disenfranchises the victims and their loved ones.

It is, as always, appropriate to have a healthy discussion around the event, but only in the effort to respond to those effected with selfless love, or in the effort to prevent another similar tragedy from occurring in the future.  These discussions, however, should take into account that all of us--save those very, very few who promote mass killings--are on the same side.  Whether you are conservative or liberal, a northerner or a southerner, old or young, and gay or straight, we are together and united in our disgust with this action and resolution to prevent another similar action.

It is important not to blame the wrong people, as is so frequent in our society.  It is highly inappropriate to blame the victims for not embracing their 2nd amendment right to gun ownership, or to blame the nightclub for banning weapons.  It is very true that if someone nearby had a firearm, knew how to use it, and had good aim, the tragedy could have been reduced; but the victims are not remotely responsible for the terror inflicted upon them.  No one can or should be blamed for having violence perpetuated against them.  The case is also true with someone who is a victim of rape; even if that individual is dressed "scandalously", they are not asking for violence, and no one has the right to their body or life without consent.  Victims are not to be blamed!  They are victims.

It is important not to blame gun owners or those who support an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that allows semiautomatic rifles.  Gun owners across America did not commit murder in Orlando this week; one man did.  It is very true that the semiautomatic weapon used in Orlando made the massacre more deadly than a simple pistol, and a healthy, respectful discussion on whether or not such weapons are permissible to the common public is in order, with or without a massacre taking place.  But we need to understand that all the weapons in the world cannot commit such violence without a human being with violent intention.  Again, do not blame people for their politics and imply that their politics lead to this violence, as this places attention away from bringing love and compassion to the victims and their families.  Furthermore, it causes a divide between people that should not exist; we are called to be united in peace against violence.

It is important not to blame Muslims for this violence.  It is very appropriate to understand that one group of highly radicalized Muslims called "ISIS" has taken responsibility for this event and has celebrated this atrocity; but I want to remind you that religious extremists do exist and have existed for centuries, and even have a notorious place in Christian history (the KKK comes to mind).  Violence committed in the name of religion is not new, but such violence does not represent those who don't participate in it.  Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I am part of the KKK; likewise, just because someone is a Muslim does not mean that they are part of ISIS or otherwise seek death to Christians/Americans/gays/etc.  There are just too many Muslims to make a blanket statement about them in this manner, and doing so can only lead to greater problems.  As Christians it is doubly important to us that we are kind and loving towards all people, including Muslims, as a witness to the power of the Holy Spirit, given to us by Jesus Christ our Lord and our Father in heaven.

We can squarely blame the gunman for this violence.  Upon his hands lies the blood of more than 50 people.  And I would even include some share of blame for any and all who directly encouraged him to undertake the event, including those who are promoting ISIS's ideology.  But please do not place blame on all those people whom you do not like; again, while it is healthy to have a conversation about how to help transform our society into a more peaceful one, it is counterproductive to use anger and hate towards one another, as almost all of us are on the same side.

Here are just some suggestions for how we might move forward in transforming our society into one where massacres are a distant history:

1. Pray for one another, and often.  Pray for those people you love of course; but also pray for those people you don't like.  Pray for people with whom you disagree politically.  Don't pray for these people despite them, but honestly pray for their flourishing through God's blessings.  Prayer can and will transform us to be a more peaceful society.

2. Consider donation to the families impacted by violence, whether these from Orlando, or those in other massacres, such as in Charleston last year.  I promise that if you look online, you will find a way to tangibly support victims of violence; and I assure you that even a week later, a month later, or years after a tragedy, your assistance is both needed and appreciated greatly.

3. Be a salty witness to peace and justice, both online and offline.  With Facebook posts, avoid messages that blame groups of people, particularly those we've talked about who aren't responsible for committing violence.  Messages of solidarity, compassion and prayer are all great witnesses.  In person, do the same, especially in public when people are apt to overhear you.  Conversations should focus on outpouring of love for the victims.

4. Political action is possible, but know that Christians will disagree on politics and that no political party is endorsed by God.  If you are convicted to undergo political action, whether small or large, in response to this violence, please remember the victims and keep them at the forefront of your mind.  Using tragedy to prop up your own political agenda is not only in poor taste, but is a terrible Christian witness.  First and foremost our political agenda is that Christ has come to redeem the world; all other politics should be secondary.  And Christ just so happens to keep us at the forefront of all that he does, particularly those who are suffering and disenfranchised.  So when undertaking a political response to this tragedy, or at any time, never forget that your identity lies in the life of Christ Jesus, who was victimized and violently murdered at the hands of religious extremists and political strongmen.

5. Never lose hope.  Remember that this world ends in a new creation, and that resurrection lies ahead.  Best of all is God is with us; and God will never abandon us because he has chosen to be God with us.  Never allow violence to curtail that hope we have in Christ who strengthens the weak.

Peace be with you all, and my highest sympathy and love for those impacted by the Orlando Massacre.

What to Make of General Conference 2016

This post may appear to be early, since the General Conference continues through tomorrow evening, so as I write this post, we have two full days left before it ends.  You may recall that General Conference, an event held once every four years, is a conference between United Methodists from all corners of the globe to make decisions for the direction of our church.  This quadrennium's conference will last from May 10-20 and is being held in Portland, Oregon.

In case you have not been keeping up with General Conference 2016, allow me to give just a few highlights which I've selected to share.  They are in no particular order:

1) As always, the worship sessions at General Conference are easily the highlight of the time, and are what directs and centers this conference a Christian event.  United Methodists from all over the world travel to General Conference to offer the best of their gifts of song, dance, rhythm and proclamation.  And General Conference 2016 has been no exception.  Merely search YouTube for "General Conference 2016 worship" and you will find plenty of examples of powerful worship.

2) Technology has played a significant role in General Conference 2016.  Delegates have all been provided with tablet computers which help to provide all information from all sub-committees, and are used to queue for speaking on the conference floor.  It has helped to reduce paper waste and inefficiency, but at the same time has caused unforeseen difficulties in parliamentary procedure.

3) Some interesting pieces of legislation and judicial rulings have taken effect or been voted down.  In 2020 the UMC will elect four new bishops on the continent of Africa due to numerical growth; bishops will continue to be bishops for life, as a provision to term limits was voted down; and ordained deacons now have an easier road to practicing the sacraments in the church.

But of course, there is a huge pink elephant in the room: there continues to be a hotly contested debate in the United Methodist Church over the issue of the LGBT community and how to remain a united denomination while remaining divided theologically.  If you have seen any press released over General Conference 2016, there is a 98% chance that it involved, directly or indirectly, this core issue which has dominated discussion and has all but prevented any other real progress.  And I'm sad to report that much of the debate has been dramatic, overly emotional and often insulting.  It is what was expected, but is sad nonetheless.  Allow me to do my best to offer a very brief and over-simplified summary of what is happening in my best understanding and viewpoint:

1) As the United Methodist Church was forming out of the merger of the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Evangelical United Brethren, at the 1972 General Conference the delegates voted to support wording in the Book of Discipline that read that "homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching".  This is the language that remains in the Discipline to this day, and while there are many other passages in the Discipline that cite human sexuality in one way or another, it is this particular passage that receives the greatest amount of attention.  This is due to the fact that it is language written into the constitution of the church and is very difficult to amend; if it were altered, it would then impact the rest of the Discipline moving forward.

2) Moving forward in time, at the present date there are three "positions" within the United Methodist Church as relates to the issue of human sexuality.  Those known as the "left", "liberals" or "progressives" are pushing the church to remove this language from the Discipline in favor of new legislation which would incorporate the LGBT community on equal footing fully in all areas of the church, specifically ordination.  All language would reflect a theology of inclusiveness of LGBT persons within a paradigm of monogamous marriage, and as a denomination we would officially be in full support and solidarity with the LGBT community.  In contrast, those known as the "right", "conservatives" or "evangelicals" are pushing for the church to maintain its language from the Discipline with the opinion that, while all people are of sacred worth, LGBT sexual orientation is not compatible with Scripture and cannot be affirmed by the church.  Furthermore, where ordained pastors are holding marriage ceremonies for the LGBT community, there should be uniform and significant disciplinary measures taken to hold everyone accountable to the standard of the Discipline.  Finally, a third position, one which is much quieter and poorly organized, are those known as "moderates" or "centrists", who, while each one has an opinion on human sexuality, does not view the issue as paramount for the future of our church.  Moderates are not without opinion or conviction; however, they do not find the issue worthy of the attention which it receives, and generally are held in fear that those on the "left" and "right" are going to split the denomination apart.  Moderates are constantly torn at General Conference, but they are the "swing" vote for sure.

3) In the past four years, the United States of America has officially ruled the constitutionality of gay marriage in all 50 states, leading to the legal validity of gay marriage by any United Methodist minister.  While this is theoretically not allowed according to the Book of Discipline, pastors have been performing such marriages in defiance all over the country, including right here in Tennessee.  Annual Conferences have responded differently, with some punishing those who perform such ceremonies, while others do not.  In practice, the United Methodist Church is already operating under non-uniform standards, largely based on region.  In the more "left" or "liberal" conferences, such as in the Northeast or West Coast, many clergy have even come out of the closet at LGBT, with full support from their colleagues and, most importantly, their bishops.

4) So the "left" wants to officially recognize the full validity of the LGBT community, since in many regions they are still treated unequally; the "right" wants very much to crack down on those who are defying the Book of Discipline; and the "moderates" are being encouraged to go with one side or the other at every turn.  In fact, the only ones who are happy with the status quo, even remotely, are the moderates, because for them the issue of gay marriage is not paramount to the church's mission, so they are less concerned over the issue of social justice (as the "left" proclaims) or church discipline and consistency (as the "right" proclaims).  Of course, what would make moderates the happiest is if both sides would stand down and drop the issue entirely, but this is a really contentious debate with all kinds of history and implications that are far deeper than I can explain in a blog post!

5) Being a highly organized church (we're not known as "Methodists" for nothing!), with an 800+ page Book of Discipline that orders our denomination, there is plenty of opportunity to use legislation, politics and maneuvering to achieve your agenda.  If you can't beat 'em, drag 'em into a hopeless void of stalling tactics, voting blocs and manipulation of Robert's Rules of Order.  We spent three days during this ten-day conference debating whether or not to adopt a rule to open the conference which described ways to build trust among one another; ultimately it was voted down.  If there is one clear theme to this General Conference, it is that we have legislated ourselves into so many rules and systems that few people have a clear understanding of what implications new rules and systems will have.  My understanding is that most of the moderate legislation that has not been passed at General Conference 2016 is due to a really high level of confusion and disorder, much of which has been intentionally caused by factions on both the "left" and "right" to pursue their respective agendas.  In addition, some of that legislation was sloppy when it was presented to the conference, and did not define parameters well enough, which is another good reason to vote it down.

6) Yesterday (Wednesday, May 18) we set all sorts of new records at General Conference.  You can read reports from other sites for details: www.umc.org; www.unitedmethodistreporter.com; among others.  In a nutshell, our bishop from Tennessee, Bishop Bill McAlilly, just happened to be presiding over the conference during a heated vote over a proposal regarding sexuality.  Being a white male originally from Mississippi, with an accent to verify, he was targeted by a "liberal" delegate who, at the microphone in front of the entire conference, accused him of "telegraphing votes" by using hand gestures, as if to rig the vote, and then requested he step down from his role of presiding.  McAlilly then called for a ten-minute recess and returned to preside, moving forward.  So far as we currently know, this was the first time since the 1800s that a bishop was asked to step down from presiding during a General Conference.  What a lovely piece of history.  (By the way, McAlilly is well-known as a staunch moderate.)

7) The General Conference voted narrowly in favor of a piece of legislation that will, at the discretion and direction of the bishops, call for continuing conversation of human sexuality to re-convene at some point between now and General Conference 2020, marking the first time in United Methodist history of calling a special session of General Conference since its founding in 1968.  It would happen as early as 2018, or as late as early 2020.  This continuing conversation will involve delegates to this 2016 conference and will review each and every word in the Book of Discipline regarding human sexuality.

So...what should you make of General Conference 2016?  Lol!!  I can't tell you that, as you need to decide for yourself what you think about all of this politicking and drama!  However, I can tell you a few things in the final (ongoing...) analysis and what to expect coming up next:

A) First and foremost, much of the business of the church has taken a back burner to the issue of human sexuality, and our denomination is very likely to suffer as a result.  It is difficult to cast vision and forge a plan forward for bringing reconciliation into God's world if we can't even agree to be civil with one another as delegates to the General Conference.  This single issue has jeopardized the UMC for a long time, both in terms of unity and effectiveness.  And this is not going to stop anytime soon.

B) If you are staunchly on the "left" or squarely on the "right" of the human sexuality issue, you are not too happy, because the moderates have succeeded in fighting a war of attrition.  So much energy and heartache has been unleashed between the "left" and the "right" that finally enough people (narrowly, mind you) were willing to vote for a special conference at the guidance and leadership of the Council of Bishops (who normally have no legislative authority at General Conference).  It seems that you do not "win" by seeking division and absolution, but rather by keeping faith in the Holy Spirit and allowing God to be your sustenance, rather than your personal convictions or understandings.

C) The most natural course of events into the future is to allow the UMC to deal with the issue not through the General Conference, but through the Annual Conference, where different regions will deal with the issue differently, much to the chagrin of opponents.  Currently, the "left" and "right" factions are largely drawn out upon geographic lines, with "left" factions primarily in the Northeastern and Western US, and "right" factions in Africa and parts of the Southeastern US.  Due to financial matters, my guess is that the UMC is unlikely to divide or schism anytime soon, but we will continue having this conversation over and over again at the cost of millions of dollars and uncountable human resources. 

D) But don't walk away with all bad news.  In the end, the United Methodist Church is the last major Christian organization remaining which is holding a conversation--however heated--about the issue of human sexuality.  This means that at our core, there is something that continues to keep us together as a family, something which binds us even though many of us personally are pitted against one another.  We are the last bastion of Christian unity left in the US, perhaps the world, and unified we remain, however high and difficult the cost.  The fact that the UMC remains united is still a fantastic witness to the world, that no matter how difficult the road ahead lies, we are one body of Christ and we are in this together. 

May General Conference 2016, which came in like a lion, go out like a lamb, with our eyes and ears focusing intently on the Lamb who was divided that we might be made whole again.

Jesus' Ascent into Heaven

Today is Cinco de Mayo in the United States, but did you also know that it is Ascension Day?  It has been exactly 40 days since Easter, which, according to Acts 1, is when Jesus ascended mysteriously into the sky.  Rarely do we talk much about the ascension because it is so briefly mentioned in Scripture, it is unscientific, and appears to have little importance in the greater narrative of Jesus Christ.  After all, we spend a great deal of time discussing his ministry, death and resurrection; we just don't look at his ascension in quite the same way, particularly in the 21st-century Protestant church.  But what is there about Jesus' ascension that we can learn?  What does it really tell us about God, and ourselves?  Why does it matter at all?

Today our text comes to us from Acts 1:1-11. Here is the text as it is translated in the Common English Bible: 

Theophilus, the first scroll I wrote concerned everything Jesus did and taught from the beginning, right up to the day when he was taken up into heaven. Before he was taken up, working in the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus instructed the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he showed them that he was alive with many convincing proofs. He appeared to them over a period of forty days, speaking to them about God’s kingdom. While they were eating together, he ordered them not to leave Jerusalem but to wait for what the Father had promised. He said, “This is what you heard from me: John baptized with water, but in only a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
As a result, those who had gathered together asked Jesus, “Lord, are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel now?”  Jesus replied, “It isn’t for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has set by his own authority. Rather, you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”  After Jesus said these things, as they were watching, he was lifted up and a cloud took him out of their sight. While he was going away and as they were staring toward heaven, suddenly two men in white robes stood next to them. They said, “Galileans, why are you standing here, looking toward heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way that you saw him go into heaven.”
And that's it!  There is no other "historical" account of the ascension, save for the extremely brief text at the end of the Gospel, Luke 24:51: As he blessed them, he left them and was taken up to heaven.  But really, since Theophilus wrote both Luke and Acts, the larger text above is really just an exposition of the shorter text in Luke.

Before we really delve into the details around ascension, we must remember that Jesus has been resurrected and has a new body which is unlike our bodies in many ways.  As I discussed in posts from earlier in Easter, Jesus' resurrected body is both recognizable and not entirely the same.  Jesus was not brought back to life in the way Lazarus was, or in the way doctors can resuscitate patients on the operating table; he was cold dead, and then came back to life in a new form which had many consistencies with his old body's form.  [Look back to our devotional from March 31 for more details.]

So before people get all hung up with a scientific explanation of ascension, we need to bear in mind that there is currently no scientific understanding of resurrection, and therefore we cannot understand the physics behind Jesus' ascent.  Nor should we be too concerned about this; after all, it's not as if we have to worry about it at all.  When we experience resurrection of the dead, it will be the establishment of God's permanent and holy New Jerusalem on earth, and we will not need to ascend into heaven like Jesus because he will already be here with us!  With that in mind, Jesus' ascension into heaven may never again be repeated!  So the how/what/where is not the issue here, as we will never be able to ascertain a scientific explanation of this one-time event so far in the past.

What we should focus on is not the minutia of the ascension, but rather on the purpose.  Why did Jesus ascend into heaven at all?  What does it matter?  Well, let's begin with the obvious but important realization that Jesus did not die again after resurrection.  That is important because it makes resurrection distinguished apart from being brought back to life, such as with Lazarus or hospital patients.  In those cases, people die again, and for good, until resurrection.  Jesus' ascent is critical for this basic Christian principle in understanding these fundamental differences in God's world, and what's going on with life and death.

Furthermore, Jesus does not stay with us on earth in his resurrected form; rather, he ascends into heaven and sends the Holy Spirit, the Advocate, in the meantime.  Jesus was never meant to remain on earth any longer than a "normal" human being.  That makes sense because Jesus is God in the flesh, who came to be in total solidarity with humanity and to experience life in our shoes as fully as possible, in order to be able to rescue us from our selfishness and sin and show us a more perfect way.  Jesus' time on earth came to an end, and it was time for the church to be born and flourish through the people of God and the power of the Holy Spirit.  God saw it fit for us to experience Christ through the Holy Spirit, the Church, and the witness of the saints rather than in his physical form.  My guess, although I don't pretend to speak for God, is that if Jesus were to have stuck around for centuries, we would have focused too much on his earthly form rather than focus on his Father in heaven.  And his desire was to draw us into God's eternity, not prolong us in our earthly focus.

Finally, the apostles witnessed Christ going upwards into the sky.  We of course know that the sky is no closer to God than the ground; but this was Jesus' intentional move, to communicate not a physical location of heaven, but rather the understanding that he was going to an entirely different reality where humans cannot willfully follow on our own.  Two thousand years ago, people could not fly or go into outer space, so Jesus' ascent was clearly a signal saying: "Hey, don't physically try to follow me!"  That also makes sense, because his friends were really going to miss him, and the church would now begin to long for his return.  It was important for the apostles to witness this ascent so that people would not theorize Jesus had simply run away and was hiding in an undisclosed location.  Of course, people are still trying to locate his body, but I suppose the skeptics will never stop!

Christ's ascent into heaven marks the end of his earthly ministry.  Christ, who is the New Adam, the new example for humanity to follow, also demonstrates in his ascension that humanity can and should now be focused heavenward rather than the broken affairs of this world.  Since Christ has ascended into heaven, he illustrates that the path is paved for us as well; and just as he encourages us to follow in his footsteps in ministry to the world, he encourages us to follow him (spiritually) heavenward just as he ascended.  Even though Jesus spent over thirty years here on the ground, he never stopped looking up, and his ascension highlights our need to do the same.  Woe to us, who focus almost entirely on the situation on the ground!!

I pray that this week you would spend more time focused on God, heavenward, and on Christ, who rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father.

Pastoral Transitions: Organization

So today we're going to continue discussing pastoral transition, a common theme in the United Methodist Church.  Whether you pertain to a church currently undergoing a transition or not, no pastor can serve a church forever; at some point, pastoral leadership will be transferred from one to another.  And last week we talked about how this impacts relationships.  This week, we will be talking about the organization of the church and how it may be impacted during transition.  Often times there is a lot of concern as to how the church will operate with a different spiritual leader.  How much will "things" change?  What if he/she does it this certain way?  Will it make any sense to us?

In the United Methodist Church, pastors are called to serve the church by focusing on three particular areas: Word, Sacrament, Order and Service.  Being a steward of the Word, it is my job to make sure that we as a church are faithfully following the scriptural tradition of our faith.  This includes preaching and teaching, but is not limited to this.  Using the language of Scripture in prayer, posting blog posts like these, and discussing faith issues with those outside of the church (evangelism) are all ways in which the pastor serves the church in this area.  Next there is the Sacrament, which is Holy Communion and Baptism.  It is the pastor's duty to administer these two sacraments faithfully and, again, in accordance with the tradition of the church over the past two millennia.  From properly handling the elements at the Lord's Supper to discussing the meaning of baptism with new members to providing reminders to the congregation that our chief identity resides in our baptism is all part of a pastor's task to be a faithful steward of the Sacrament.  And finally, the call to Service describes the pastor's calling to be in faithful service to others, both within and outside of the congregation.  This includes pastoral care and mission projects.  

That leaves the third, and all too often final, the call to Order of the church.  By "Order" we mean that the pastor is called to tend to the ways in which the congregation operates, both internally and externally.  The Book of Discipline uses the phrase "temporal affairs" to describe this task.  This can refer to anything from offering leadership seminars, attending meetings, organizing the office space, etc.  Obviously the church has a lot of different moving parts, and the pastor cannot be directly responsible for each one of them; but ensuring that those parts are moving well, with purpose, and in accordance with the Book of Discipline is part of this duty.  

Since the pastor is tasked with stewarding the order and organization of the church, the smaller the church, the more it will be impacted in this area.  In my case, we have no paid staff other than the pastor, and I am responsible for the lion's share of the order in the church.  In a larger church with many pastors, staff, and a large group of volunteers, the order of the church will remain largely unchanged for a considerable amount of time.  The more directly involved the pastor is in the temporal affairs of the church, the more the church will notice a difference in the pastor's leadership of that church.

Perhaps the first thing most people will notice differently in one pastor over another is their personality and leadership style.  As United Methodists, most of us will lead the congregation in similar ways, making sure that the required committees are functioning, that the mission is being fulfilled, etc.  But right away there will be a change in the way the pastor leads this order.  For example, moving from an extroverted pastor to a more introverted one will be noticed quickly.  Or perhaps having a pastor with a participatory style of leadership versus one with a more directive style of leadership will be immediately apparent.  Is your new pastor more resistant to change in general, or perhaps welcomes change more openly?  In the beginning of a transition, we will be more likely to "feel" a difference due to the unique personality and leadership style of the pastor.  

And due to this uniqueness in different individuals, the greater the difference in personality and leadership style between the departing and arriving pastors, the greater the difference will feel during the transition.  Even if both of these pastors agrees on what is happening, how things should be conducted, and no changes are proposed between them, the transition will feel like a bigger change if the two pastors are very different.  Conversely, if the pastors are very similar in personality and leadership style, then the congregation will not "feel" much difference in the order of the church, even if the new pastor wants to make some significant changes.  

So this begs the question: do we want the transition to "feel" like there has been a big shift, or not?  Well, this depends on the congregation.  Some congregations are in a position where they sense a need for change in the order of temporal affairs; other congregations are in a position where they feel that a sense of stability in the order of temporal affairs is currently best for their mission.  In other words, some churches want a change, others don't, and still some need change but don't want it!  But regardless of whether or not change is good, we are likely to perceive this change based on these factors.

Now that I've thoroughly over-analyzed how the order of the church could change due to experiencing a pastoral transition, for the most part, the order of a healthy church does not and should not change radically with a new pastor.  That is, if the church is healthy, fulfilling its God-given mission in its community and serving others sacrificially, then the temporal affairs of that church are not going to change drastically anytime soon.  In seminary, we pastors are actually taught to avoid change in these temporal affairs as much as possible when moving to a new congregation, so that we can analyze the situation and together work with the congregation to discover new ways of organization that can help support and flourish the ministry of the church.  But again, for the most part, churches do not and will not change drastically in the first year of receiving a new pastor.

This is because the church is not fundamentally about the pastor.  The church is fundamentally about Jesus Christ, the Cornerstone of the church, and the goal of our work.  We are the body of Christ redeemed by his blood,  serving as his hands and feet to a broken and hurting world.  A pastor is an important part of the picture, as a servant-leader in many ways to a congregation.  But the church's affairs are a work of the people.  No pastor should be doing the bulk of the ministry in a church; it's the pastor's job to help teach and equip the congregation to go out into the world to serve.  So in a pastoral transition, while we may feel like there has been a significant change in the affairs of the church, the work that Christ has called us to do remains constant due to the work of the laity, the congregation, and that will remain constant even after this new pastor leaves.

No pastor can administer a church forever, but Christ is the eternal administrator, sorting the temporal affairs here on earth as they are in heaven.  For this we give thanks, and we pray that during pastoral transitions, our churches would thrive, both in the greater picture and in the everyday labors of both the ministers and the congregations.  

Pastoral Transitions: Relationships

Hello everyone, and I pray you've had a great Easter season so far!  My guess is that you have already heard that I am being moved to another church after merely one year in my current appointment.  This is an unusual case, because neither the church nor the pastor requested any move; but the bishop strategically moved a few things around in order to better minister to our shared parish.  So I am going to begin to talk about pastoral transition over the next couple of weeks through our devotionals.  Today I want to begin by discussing the nature of relationships in the church.

First I want to admit that pastoral transition is rarely easy for churches.  Even if the church has asked for their pastor to leave, it doesn't mean the transition from one to the next is any easier.  And even in larger churches with multiple pastors, the transition of any one clergy person can be difficult on the hundreds of people to whom he or she has ministered.  Pastoral transition is difficult because so much of the church's structure is tied to the pastor.  The pastor is a teacher, a preacher, a mentor, a caregiver, a friend, an advocate, a missionary, and an administrator, to name just a few different roles!  So there are few areas in a church which will go unchanged when the pastor changes.  How does the new pastor speak?  How does the new pastor connect with people, and with what kinds of people does the pastor best work?  What are the new pastor's priorities, and what is the new pastor's life experience?

Perhaps we could summarize the role of a pastor in all of the above scenarios as an individual who serves a church so as to bring them and God closer together in relationship.  I mean, what good would a pastor be if he or she did not at least attempt to inspire the congregation to come into closer relation with Jesus Christ, to be his close disciples and to live in accordance with the Holy Spirit?  And how could we serve in this role if we were not passionate about the fact that our God cannot stand being so far apart from us human beings, that this God is one who stops at nothing to enter more deeply into our lives?  Well, if this sounds at all accurate, then it goes to show that the pastor's focus on relationship between humans and God naturally establishes that our energy is focused primary on relationships.  Almost everything a pastor does and should do is geared towards forming and strengthening relationships so as to create a community bound together in love for God.  (For, at the same time, the Holy Spirit is both drawing us as Christians more deeply into Christ while also convicting us to reach out to others to draw them into the fold.  A pastor's job is primarily to foster this.)

All of this goes to say that pastoral transition is a time when relationships change significantly in the body of Christ.  With the exiting of a pastor, the relationship between the now former pastor and the church will be different, because he or she will no longer serve in all of those roles mentioned above.  Furthermore, he or she will no longer be working to develop relationships within that particular congregation, but instead someone else will arrive to fill the job.  This means that nearly all of the systems and relationships built by the previous pastor will be subject to change based on the knowledge, experience, personality and faith of the new pastor.  And this creates anxiety because we are never certain about how well the new pastor will forge relationships with us in the church, or with those outside of its walls.  What if the new pastor doesn't mesh well with us?!

So relationships, and the fact that the pastor's primary job is inherently relational, are a big reason as to why pastoral transition can be difficult and even painful, particularly when it is unplanned or sudden.  However, there are some facts we need to discuss when dealing with relationships in the body of Christ.

First, the (positive) relationships formed by the pastor of a church should not be credited to the pastor, but instead to the Holy Spirit who guides us and flourishes the church.  I know we say this all of the time, that it's not us, but God; however, while this fact is easy to understand, it is difficult to feel.  Even though we know God is behind everything, still we feel a sense of loss when a person moves away, because we sensed God working through that person, and God developed the relationship we had between one another as brothers and sisters in Christ.  In fact, it was God's intention that we would grow to love and trust one another, as it is between all human beings.  And if that love and trust has developed, than glory be to God, for his will has been done on earth as it is in heaven.  However, we must caution ourselves against crediting the pastor with being the agent of this relationship.  If you have formed a strong, constructive bond with a pastor before, then you have clear evidence that God loves you and wishes to draw you into his fold.  And even when the pastor leaves, this God will not leave you, but rather will continue to abide with you just as strongly as ever.

Secondly, don't write the pastor off in your life!!  A pastoral transition does signal many changes for the local church, its relationships, and its administration, but it does not jeopardize your friendship in Christ with that pastor and his or her family!!  It is important during a pastoral transition that the outgoing pastor not interfere with the ministry of the incoming pastor, so that new relationships may be formed through the Holy Spirit.  But, even though a pastor leaves, that doesn't mean the pastor is gone forever; this pastor is still your friend, your brother or sister in Christ, and quite possibly even a neighbor still.  Transition doesn't mean erasure of past relationships; it means God is doing something new in our midst. 

Finally, we must come to a place where we attend a church not because of the pastor in charge, but because of the God whom we serve and adore, and the community of faith with whom we share in service and adoration.  While a pastor functions as a conduit of relationships in the congregation and with God, the departure of a pastor does and should not jeopardize any other relationships already forged by the Holy Spirit.  We are the church!  And we work, socialize and witness together for the edification of the Kingdom of Heaven in our local communities!  We already know that God will never leave us, and we have formed together as a church in relationship with one another; the fact that a pastor is leaving and another is arriving changes none of that.  The momentum gathered by the Holy Spirit to begin new ministries and projects; the way tasks are delegated to individuals with particular gifts; and the way that the congregation has formed into an extended family is all carried over into the next pastorate, by the grace of God.  Simply stated, the church continues its work as before, its mission unchanged, and its witness clear. 

It's also worth discussing how the one individual who is at the highest risk of emotional baggage from pastoral transition is the pastor.  These transitions are never easy for a church, but they are twice as difficult on the pastor, who must answer to the church, to his or her family, and to the bishop (in the case of our United Methodist Church).  Moving to a new area usually means starting over, not only in the day-to-day affairs, but in forging relationships with others.  It can be difficult for a pastor to make long-lasting friendships due to the fact that he or she moves often during a lifetime.  And unlike in most vocations, the pastor rarely has the majority say-so in such moves.

I continue to pray for our churches which are undergoing transitions this year, as many do every year.  And I ask you to do the same, both for congregations and for pastors like me.

What is resurrection anyway?

Happy Easter!!  You might be wondering why I'm wishing you a Happy Easter, now that we are four days out from Easter Sunday.  Well, that is because Easter is not a day, but a season!  If you remember, the season of Lent, a time of preparation and reflection, lasted for forty days (not counting  Sundays); well, it doesn't make sense for Lent to be longer than Easter, given that our God is a God who brings bounty, peace and life!  So Easter needs to be longer--50 days, to be exact.  We will be celebrating Easter this year from March 27 until May 15, which is Pentecost Sunday.

And of course, during the Easter season we are celebratory and engage in studying resurrection.  What does it mean, after all, that Jesus rose from the dead?  Obviously that means he was walking around again, interacting with his disciples, even after he had been long killed; but what is resurrection really?  What does it look like?

In English we will often use several words almost interchangeably to describe a state of life after death.  The first is describing someone as "coming back to life".  This is probably best used to describe Lazarus, Jesus' friend, whom he raised from the dead after falling ill.  Lazarus was dead, and Jesus brought him back to life (John 11:44); but this wasn't exactly a resurrection.  One really important distinction about resurrection is that when we are resurrected, we will no longer experience death in any way.  Lazarus cannot properly be described as "resurrected" because he died again.  Similarly, when doctors bring patients back to life after a few minutes of no heartbeat, they are not "resurrecting" their patients; they are bringing them back to life.  They remain mortal, and in no better shape than they were before their brush with death.  In resurrection, we become immortal and eternally God's own.

Another term used mistakenly is "reincarnated".  This is a term used with prevalence in the Hindu religion to describe a spirit who, after death, possesses a new body based on the karma, or good/bad works, that the spirit acquired in the previous life.  This term "reincarnated" does not at all describe what we mean by resurrection; when Jesus was resurrected, he did not come back in an entirely different form, but rather he reappeared in a way that was recognizable to others.  Mary Magdalene, for example, recognized Jesus pretty quickly once she saw him (John 20:11-18), which would have been impossible if Jesus had undergone some sort of radical change, like turning into an animal.  Furthermore, Jesus' body continued to bear scars from his crucifixion which helped the disciple Thomas to identify him later (John 20:24-28).

Resurrection is unique.  In fact, it's only ever happened once before in history, with Jesus Christ--the rest of us are waiting for his return for our turn!  So everything we know about resurrection is based on the testimony from those who saw it with their own eyes and had it recorded for us to read.  And based on that Scripture, we know that resurrection leads to eternal life (immortality); a resurrected person is somehow recognizable to others; and thirdly, there is a profound change in the individual who undergoes resurrection, but this change does not render us unrecognizable.  In the gospels we read that Jesus' body did not respond normally to the laws of physics, as he is apparently able to enter into locked rooms without trouble (John 20:19, maybe again in Luke 24:36-37).  The disciples understandably think Jesus is a ghost of sorts, given that they had personally witnessed and confirmed his death, but it is likely that, due to their surprise in both of the above stories, Jesus is not making noise in the same way when moving around either.  Whatever the case may be, there is little room for doubt that something new is generated when the body is resurrected, and the body receives new qualities that are currently unbeknownst to us.

In brief: resurrection is God's work to take something which is old and lifeless and makes it into something new and eternal.  Resurrected people bear the old image of God originally bestowed but then also are given new properties such as immortality.  In effect, the resurrected body is by far superior to the old, and all of the wounds from the previous life are healed in full.

This of course has a lot of implications for us, not only in the next life, but in this one.  You see, it is quite obvious through Scripture that God's intention is to heal, restore and flourish humanity, not only for the future in heaven, but right now for us on earth.  We don't preach a Gospel of Jesus' healing that only comes in the future; we understand God's commandments to lead us as his disciples to start now in reaching out to a hurting world and bring them into God's fold.  As Christians we affirm the resurrection of the body (the whole body, including the mind, the spirit, etc.) as a true, historical event which has occurred and will occur again; but we also affirm God's work towards resurrection each day in our current lives, and through us to those all around us.  Resurrection, then, is not purely a theological concept limited to the raising of Jesus Christ, but is a word that appropriately defines all of God's works in our fallen world, that defines God's will towards creation, and describes God's heart and viewpoint when he looks upon us and takes delight.  

Happy Easter to you all.

Maundy Thursday sermon

It is Holy Week 2016 and for this blog I am pasting a full-text written copy of my sermon, delivered for Maundy Thursday (March 24, 2016).  As always, my written sermons do not reflect the differences that come when a sermon is spoken; so the version preached will be a little different.

For centuries now the church around the world has typically observed Maundy Thursday, which commemorates the final day Jesus lived as a free man prior to being turned into the Roman authorities by Judas Iscariot.  The term “Maundy” comes from a Latin word that refers to the great commandment that Jesus gives in our Scripture, that we would love one another.  It’s interesting how this day, which is filled with such sorrow and torment, would be named after some of the greatest words to ever come out of Jesus’ mouth.

        In fact, this whole story from Scripture is anything but ordinary.  It seems that the closer Jesus gets to the end of his earthly life, the stranger he acts and the more mystifying his actions become.  Our Scripture from John 13 tells us about these final hours, which apparently were filled with activity and drama.  In this chapter, we learn about Jesus washing the disciples’ feet; we hear how Jesus predicts his betrayal; and we are given this, the great commandment, which I will quote now from 13:34: “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another.  Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another.”  This part of Jesus’ story is not new to us sitting here today; we’ve all heard about foot washing, and some people have even experienced it in other churches.  But one thing sticks out to me as very unusual: what do foot washing, the great commandment, and betrayal have in common?  It appears rather obvious to us that Jesus was fully aware of his future, and therefore it makes sense that he would have been very intentional in those final hours with his disciples, teaching and leading them in a profound way.  But what is this connection between foot washing, betrayal, and the great commandment?

        So Simon Peter is the disciple who first gets his feet washed, under protest of course.  Why should his Lord do something so dirty, so gross, so demeaning, as wash his feet?!  To which Jesus provides a cryptic response, “Unless I wash you, you have no share with me.”  So then Simon Peter, thoroughly rebuked, asked for a full scrub down!  But then Jesus gives another difficult response: “One who has bathed does not need to wash, except for the feet, but is entirely clean.  And you are clean, though not all of you.”  And of course Jesus is referring to his betrayer as not being clean, and the Scripture goes into greater detail of how Judas is identified by dipping bread into wine. 

        What I find interesting is the careful choice of words that refer to removing dirt: wash; bathe; and clean.  Jesus uses the term “wash” with the task at hand with the disciples’ feet; Jesus uses the term “bathe” as a past action; and “clean” is a term used to describe a state of being.  And even more cryptically, Jesus claims that having bathed leaves you entirely clean, but you still need to wash your feet.  If this isn’t confusing at all, then you’re way ahead of me on this one!  Because this situation with foot washing is really complicated, and the language is being used very subtly to describe several different pieces of the puzzle.

        Most commentators agree on what’s going on here.  Jesus is using the term “bathe” to refer to baptism and repentance, a one-time action which cleanses us of our sins.  Jesus is then using the term “clean” to refer to salvation and membership in the kingdom.  Finally, the term “wash” is used to refer to dirty feet, a body part which, before the days of fancy closed shoes, would become dirty in a very short period of time after leaving the house even if you had just bathed a few moments ago.  If you had bathed in the river, for example, you would have been entirely clean, but you’d still be tracking mud everywhere.  And if you’ve spent time at the beach before, you still experience this.  When I lived in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, I lived three blocks from the beach, and even though I hadn’t even gotten in the (highly polluted) water, I would track sand into the apartment, regardless of whether I was wearing flip-flops or tennis shoes. 

        As we look deeper into the narrative, we see that the task of washing feet is not limited to Jesus.  Jesus is first to wash feet in this scenario, but then he commands the disciples to wash each other’s feet as well.  And not only are the disciples called to wash one another’s feet, but Jesus reminds them that they are already entirely clean.  It sounds contradictory, that you could both be “entirely clean” and need washing at the same time; but of course, Jesus is speaking in parables, and isn’t talking about tracking sand and mud into the house.

        But when applied to the spiritual realm, this parable makes sense and presents a great challenge to us, who are Jesus’ disciples.  Even though we have already been bathed by repentance and baptism, even though we are entirely cleansed from our sins, we continue to commit sins in our daily lives.  Due to having bathed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we are eternally cleansed and no longer bear the burden of sin, the heavy weight of brokenness.  Like the donkey in the procession into Jerusalem, which we discussed on Sunday, we have been permanently and unabashedly declared clean by our Lord, which is good because only God himself could declare us clean and follow through with it.  And while we continue to commit sins in this life, these sins do not erase God’s declaration upon our souls, that we have been bathed and cleansed for eternity.  No amount of stumbling around in this soiled world is ever going to jeopardize our status.

        But we still track mud wherever we go.  We still pick up bad habits, we treat others poorly, and we turn a blind eye to persecution.  We are no longer in need of bathing, but we continue to require washing of our feet, that our sins from day to day would be washed away so that we don’t track our dirtiness everywhere we go.  This is why we ask for God to forgive us our trespasses in the Lord’s Prayer, because we continue to trespass on others, soiling our feet.

        But don’t forget, that Jesus called upon the disciples to wash one another’s feet as well.  Foot washing, apparently, is not a job left solely up to God.  Bathing and being declared clean is God’s job alone—only through calling upon Father, Son and Holy Spirit are we baptized, and only through God’s grace are we eternally forgiven.  But it appears that we have also been granted the authority—no, a command—to forgive one another as well for the daily sins we continue to track.  This is why the Lord’s Prayer also says, “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us”.  Interestingly, Jesus doesn’t command us to wash our own feet—that is something we must do for one another out of love and a spirit of sacrifice.

       

        Jesus’ final hours tells us about what kind of God this is we’re dealing with.  Despite the fact that Judas Iscariot is about to trespass rather gravely against Jesus, Jesus is teaching his disciples to forgive one another their sins.  Presumably, some people are going to have feet that are dirty, but not too badly so.  And presumably, other people are going to have cracked, sore, and blistered feet which will take much more time, attention, dedication and care to wash.  We are dealing with a God who is both willing and capable of bathing and cleansing us head to toe—but still, when we stumble and get dirty out there, he enlists his disciples to help one another to overcome these earthly obstacles.  No matter how gruesome the sin, God has cleansed us once and for all, and we are called to forgive one another.

        And then Jesus gives us his final advice, his great commandment, which again I read, “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another.  Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another.  By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”  This is the thread which binds together the whole story: that love and forgiveness are two sides of the same coin.  If you have love, you can forgive; and if you can truly forgive, it is due to God’s love.  As Jesus’ disciples, we are commanded to love and forgive one another, washing each other’s feet as we go along the way. 

        Isn’t this fascinating?  Jesus knows that he’s about to be betrayed by one of his own flock, yet he spends his last moments urging us to forgive one another as we have been forgiven?  Even though he faces certain torture and death, the only thing on Jesus’ mind is to get his message of forgiveness across in a radical way by getting on his hands and knees to wash the feet of his closest friends.  And all of this he does during supper, according to verse 2, his final meal which he shares with his disciples, where he invites them to partake of the bread and cup, to accept the forgiveness of sins by the covenant of his blood.  And it is to this very same table that Jesus invites us all tonight, to partake of this bread and cup, that we would be forgiven, and that we would be empowered to forgive one another.