My son will turn 8 this weekend. He's a good kid; a generation or two ago he would have been called 'well-adjusted'. He's popular with his friends, behaves appropriately but at times is prone to bouts of silliness, gives it a try in sports, is excited about church, and does well in school.
Lately, though, he's had fits of crying and sadness, often minutes after going to bed but also at other times of the day. Most kids in that situation have just awoken from bad dreams, or they remember a bad incident that happened at school. But not Jacob. Jacob is sad because he is growing older. He recalls the joy of being a childhood and doesn't want to leave that behind. For him, childhood has meant bike rides with dad, playing with friends, snuggling with mom, trips to the ocean and Disneyland, and a church family that loves him. And that, he says, is what he doesn't want to give up.
I suppose I've never been like that, or at least that I can recall. I've always responded to the 'next stage' of life as as a given. You get older and that means you start to drive, you go off to college, you start working, you get married, you have kids. I turned 45 a few months ago and don't think obsessively about it. I get nervous about the future at times, but have never lost my mind over such things. I've never worried that I am getting old. What I thought might seem old many years ago simply IS. A few more aches and pains and pounds, a few more responsibilities, a little bit more wisdom (I hope). But I've never spent much time dwelling on getting older any more than trying to look back and be thankful for past and hopeful for the present.
My son, though, is a different animal. He's always been much more deliberate about the world in front of him. He 'sees' in a way that is different. And no, I'm not going down this road of 'MY CHILD IS A GENIUS' because I know that's not the case, because at times common sense and he do not appear to be friends, and because his idea of a good joke still seems to be sitting on my lap and farting and then laughing uproariously.
And so I wonder how to deal with this. I'm not sure it's enough for us to say that it's great to get older, that he has so much to look forward to. For him memories are much more real tangible than the future. I can talk all I want about how he'll have more great things happen or how age isn't just a number, but maybe I need to just be quiet and let him weep a little bit for his childhood. 8 seems early for that, but maybe it's good for him to already be learning some introspection.
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Paris, November 2015
A quick note to my fellow Christians:
Since when did fear and loathing become a part of the Christian message? For many this is now the default position of all public words. The things we used to keep to ourselves we can now broadcast instantly on Facebook or Twitter or Tumblr. Maybe it's better to have kept those things to ourselves...but then again, putting them out in open demands a response.
The easy response, of course, is to blast them all to hell. It's what our base instinct tells us to do. They attack us or our friends and we want blood. We demand justice, and we certainly have the power to do something about it. The bad guys are already being bombed and hunted down around the world. Heck, as one friend said, in 1945 we nuked the Japs and we haven't had problems with them since...so why not do the same?
But remember: we do not respond as they do. Why do we find it so easy to explain away Jesus' words about turning the other cheek? Peter told his readers that we are to always regard Christ the Lord as holy, that it is a better thing to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. God spoke through the prophet Isaiah during a time of invasion and said, 'Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread.' When did we start letting the fear-mongers and the Lamech disciples tell us what it is that we need to be doing?
I don't have all the answers. Governments will do what they do, for they are earthly kingdoms that fight earthly battles. But for Christians we can never let the terrorists make us live in perpetual terror and to fight their battles for them. God has made us better than that when he transformed us and given us his Spirit and made us citizens of his Kingdom. Remember this as you speak and post.
Since when did fear and loathing become a part of the Christian message? For many this is now the default position of all public words. The things we used to keep to ourselves we can now broadcast instantly on Facebook or Twitter or Tumblr. Maybe it's better to have kept those things to ourselves...but then again, putting them out in open demands a response.
The easy response, of course, is to blast them all to hell. It's what our base instinct tells us to do. They attack us or our friends and we want blood. We demand justice, and we certainly have the power to do something about it. The bad guys are already being bombed and hunted down around the world. Heck, as one friend said, in 1945 we nuked the Japs and we haven't had problems with them since...so why not do the same?
But remember: we do not respond as they do. Why do we find it so easy to explain away Jesus' words about turning the other cheek? Peter told his readers that we are to always regard Christ the Lord as holy, that it is a better thing to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. God spoke through the prophet Isaiah during a time of invasion and said, 'Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread.' When did we start letting the fear-mongers and the Lamech disciples tell us what it is that we need to be doing?
I don't have all the answers. Governments will do what they do, for they are earthly kingdoms that fight earthly battles. But for Christians we can never let the terrorists make us live in perpetual terror and to fight their battles for them. God has made us better than that when he transformed us and given us his Spirit and made us citizens of his Kingdom. Remember this as you speak and post.
Monday, November 2, 2015
The Miracle of the Bloop Single
I come from a religious tradition that has generally eschewed miracles. While we can't put an exact Scripture on it (never a good start), we have had this mindset that, ok, God gave 'extra' power to the apostles, who could give it to somebody else, who then couldn't give it to anybody else, and so miracle power died out in the first century. I know, it's a rather lame piece of reasoning, but many of the frauds and charlatans of our world have driven us to a point that we think that God won't (can't?) do miracles today.
Even as this was how I was raised, I was never fully comfortable with this line of thinking. Why do we pray? And even if God chooses not to act in a certain way, does that really mean that this is always and forever the case? And why do we even bother preaching from the gospels when Jesus (or elsewhere when somebody else) does something miraculous, if those stories have absolutely nothing to say to us today? Miracles may not happen as we imagine that they will, but surely God can do whatever he chooses, right?
I say all these very serious things to lead up to something that, in the grand scheme of things, really isn't that important. Last night, the Kansas City Royals won the World Series. The Royals had endured almost a quarter century of mismanagement, bad luck, lack of money, and simply bad ballplayers to come back and win it all. Since they had won 30 years ago I had come to believe that likely they would never do this again in my lifetime. I wanted to believe, but so many years of watching some really bad baseball teams had sapped most of my belief. Decent prospects like Angel Berroa and Carlos Febles turning to stone overnight. Better-than-average players like Johnny Damon and Zack Grienke fleeing to greener pastures. And lots and lots of Jimmy Gobble, Mark Redman, and Runelvys Hernandez blowing leads and causing us to hide between our fingers.
Even as the team got better in recent years I never fully could buy into it, never truly believe that this was actually happening. Surely, I thought, they'd find a way to blow apart. This season in September they were something like 12 games ahead in the division and I kept thinking, yeah, we might find a way to totally collapse and miss the playoffs. A near-lifetime of horrors had convinced me that something bad was going to happen. The team played poorly throughout most of September, though luckily the rest of the division was horrible. We made the playoffs, then almost gagged it away against the Astros.
It's here that I need to stop and say that miracles (of a sort) made this team win a championship. They won 11 games in the postseason, 8 of them in comebacks. Several of those comebacks came against really good pitchers and involved really bad errors by the other team. You can say all you want about how 'they kept pressing and pressing' or how 'they would never, ever give in', but seriously, watch these games. A ball sneaks under the glove of the NLCS hero. A lazy fly ball falls between Goins and Bautista. Multiple huge-run innings late in games in which not a single ball was hit hard. How else can you explain this but to think that the natural order of things has somehow been fiddled with?
The skeptic in me is already thinking about how this won't last. People still died and were suffering in the 'age of miracles', and I'm guessing it will be sooner rather than later that the Royals will stink again. Players will leave, new players won't be as good, and the natural order of things will make it where balls don't slide under gloves or fall between three fielders.
I get it. But for one month miracles were real again.
Even as this was how I was raised, I was never fully comfortable with this line of thinking. Why do we pray? And even if God chooses not to act in a certain way, does that really mean that this is always and forever the case? And why do we even bother preaching from the gospels when Jesus (or elsewhere when somebody else) does something miraculous, if those stories have absolutely nothing to say to us today? Miracles may not happen as we imagine that they will, but surely God can do whatever he chooses, right?
I say all these very serious things to lead up to something that, in the grand scheme of things, really isn't that important. Last night, the Kansas City Royals won the World Series. The Royals had endured almost a quarter century of mismanagement, bad luck, lack of money, and simply bad ballplayers to come back and win it all. Since they had won 30 years ago I had come to believe that likely they would never do this again in my lifetime. I wanted to believe, but so many years of watching some really bad baseball teams had sapped most of my belief. Decent prospects like Angel Berroa and Carlos Febles turning to stone overnight. Better-than-average players like Johnny Damon and Zack Grienke fleeing to greener pastures. And lots and lots of Jimmy Gobble, Mark Redman, and Runelvys Hernandez blowing leads and causing us to hide between our fingers.
Even as the team got better in recent years I never fully could buy into it, never truly believe that this was actually happening. Surely, I thought, they'd find a way to blow apart. This season in September they were something like 12 games ahead in the division and I kept thinking, yeah, we might find a way to totally collapse and miss the playoffs. A near-lifetime of horrors had convinced me that something bad was going to happen. The team played poorly throughout most of September, though luckily the rest of the division was horrible. We made the playoffs, then almost gagged it away against the Astros.
It's here that I need to stop and say that miracles (of a sort) made this team win a championship. They won 11 games in the postseason, 8 of them in comebacks. Several of those comebacks came against really good pitchers and involved really bad errors by the other team. You can say all you want about how 'they kept pressing and pressing' or how 'they would never, ever give in', but seriously, watch these games. A ball sneaks under the glove of the NLCS hero. A lazy fly ball falls between Goins and Bautista. Multiple huge-run innings late in games in which not a single ball was hit hard. How else can you explain this but to think that the natural order of things has somehow been fiddled with?
The skeptic in me is already thinking about how this won't last. People still died and were suffering in the 'age of miracles', and I'm guessing it will be sooner rather than later that the Royals will stink again. Players will leave, new players won't be as good, and the natural order of things will make it where balls don't slide under gloves or fall between three fielders.
I get it. But for one month miracles were real again.
Friday, September 11, 2015
ALL Lives Matter
While I was walking my son to school this morning we passed by a garbage truck making his morning rounds. Jacob wanted to stop and watch as the truck picked up the trash bin and dumped it into the truck. He thought it was way cool, like all little boys think, and like many he expressed a thought that maybe it would be fun to drive a trash truck.
Most parents probably do not want their kids to grow up to be trash haulers, fast food fry cooks, or custodians. We hope that our children will rise to something more 'substantial' (code: better paying), and it would be easy to try and dismiss those hopes by running down what some people do.
But I thought that this gave me an opportunity for a different kind of conversation on the rest of our walk. Yes, trash trucks are cool, but they also are a bit smelly, and there are other things I hope you will do someday. He seemed to accept that, but I decided to press on a bit further. I told him that I hoped he would do other things, but I also told him that picking up the trash is an important job. Who really wants to have trash sitting out in the streets for a long period of time? I also told him that people who work in restaurants are important, and if I had more time before I turned loose of him, I would have told him that we should also honor people who cut grass, clean school buildings, and make up hotel rooms.
Because all lives matter. All jobs are important. While as parents we hope for our children to do some things and not others, we must make sure they learn to respect people who do jobs that we ourselves do not want to do.
Recently I have seen a trend to 'elevate' some kind of jobs. Facebook posts reminding us that 'Police Lives Matter' (in response to some officer shootings). Yes, they do...but so do the people who a few bad police threaten, intimidate, injure, or kill because of an over-glorified view of their position. Then there are other posts griping about how fast food workers demand $15/hour while soldiers live in virtual poverty. Rather than take time to think that both have difficult and often undesirable jobs, we put the two 'classes' in conflict with one another instead of looking up at those who make millions pushing papers.
Maybe we need to recognize and affirm that all kinds of people matter, all kinds of job matter. Paul talked about the nature of the church in 1 Corinthians 12, how different kinds of giftedness does not give us an excuse to despise or cast off some we think are less important. It's the same way in society. We certainly don't pay him as much, but my garbageman matters just as much as the school superintendent. We might not want him making important decisions, but the guy who cleans my kids' school matters as much as the city manager. Because all lives matter.
Most parents probably do not want their kids to grow up to be trash haulers, fast food fry cooks, or custodians. We hope that our children will rise to something more 'substantial' (code: better paying), and it would be easy to try and dismiss those hopes by running down what some people do.
But I thought that this gave me an opportunity for a different kind of conversation on the rest of our walk. Yes, trash trucks are cool, but they also are a bit smelly, and there are other things I hope you will do someday. He seemed to accept that, but I decided to press on a bit further. I told him that I hoped he would do other things, but I also told him that picking up the trash is an important job. Who really wants to have trash sitting out in the streets for a long period of time? I also told him that people who work in restaurants are important, and if I had more time before I turned loose of him, I would have told him that we should also honor people who cut grass, clean school buildings, and make up hotel rooms.
Because all lives matter. All jobs are important. While as parents we hope for our children to do some things and not others, we must make sure they learn to respect people who do jobs that we ourselves do not want to do.
Recently I have seen a trend to 'elevate' some kind of jobs. Facebook posts reminding us that 'Police Lives Matter' (in response to some officer shootings). Yes, they do...but so do the people who a few bad police threaten, intimidate, injure, or kill because of an over-glorified view of their position. Then there are other posts griping about how fast food workers demand $15/hour while soldiers live in virtual poverty. Rather than take time to think that both have difficult and often undesirable jobs, we put the two 'classes' in conflict with one another instead of looking up at those who make millions pushing papers.
Maybe we need to recognize and affirm that all kinds of people matter, all kinds of job matter. Paul talked about the nature of the church in 1 Corinthians 12, how different kinds of giftedness does not give us an excuse to despise or cast off some we think are less important. It's the same way in society. We certainly don't pay him as much, but my garbageman matters just as much as the school superintendent. We might not want him making important decisions, but the guy who cleans my kids' school matters as much as the city manager. Because all lives matter.
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
The Kentucky County Clerk
The gay marriage fight continues on. I've posted on this before, and really don't have much else to say, but I am interested in the ongoing drama going on in Kentucky. An elected clerk in the courthouse has decided that she cannot issue marriage licenses to gays because of her faith, and even as the courts have ruled against her, she continues to resist. Now she says that she will not issues licenses to anybody.
The question of conscience has now become the new battleground in the fight over homosexual rights. Should those who sincerely feel that homosexuality is sin (I am one of them) have to do things that go against their conscience? Should bakers have to bake wedding cakes for gay couples? Must Christian adoption agencies have to place children with gay couples? It's a hard question: on the one hand, it does seem 'hateful' to deny somebody a service that would be offered to other couples. But on the other hand, are we 'blessing' a sin by helping somebody carry out that sin, no matter how small?
As a preacher I would feel compelled to say no to any gay couple that asks me to do their wedding. I cannot think that it is right to take part something that I feel to be sin. Maybe it will come to a point that I cannot do any weddings so as to be 'non-discriminatory', but I do know that people will always be able to be legally married, whether in a church or in a courthouse. Life and marriage will go on without me.
But as I have said before, because the legalities of marriage are dependent upon the state (e.g. inheritance rights, visitation rights in hospitals, custody rights for children), I do believe that gay people should have a legal right to be married and have that marriage recognized by the state. To deny them the same rights as straight couples seems to be an unlawful form of discrimination. I may not like or approve of what it is that they are doing, but as one who still has a libertarian bias, it is not in my power to say whether or not they can be married. I know of many straight couples that I think should not have been married (for various reasons)...but that's not in my power to contest from a legal point of view.
And so when it comes to the Kentucky clerk who will not issue licenses, here's my belief: she should either resign or be removed from her position. She does not have to like the law, but if she is an officer of the state, she has to carry out its policies or resign. If her conscience cannot allow her to do what the law requires, then she should step aside and let somebody else should do the job. Imagine a police officer who is Rastafarian: his religion tells him that drug enforcement of cannabis users is wrong. Should we keep him in his job? Or imagine a soldier who decides that he cannot kill for any reason based upon his understanding of Scripture. Should he continue to be a soldier?
Perhaps the laws were different when she was elected; too bad. Laws change, and even if as Christians we do not like the change, it is our duty to accept it in society, and officers of the law are compelled to carry out that law. If they cannot carry it out, then resign your post. When it comes to a law we do not have to like it, promote it, or affirm it. In our democratic form of government we might even work to change it. But accept it as law of the land we must.
Here's the thing about this story that most amazes me, though. The woman who will not allow gays to marry has been divorced and remarried three times. From a very literal understanding of what I read about divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, then she should not have been allowed a marriage license, either, for her current marriage! But the law of the state seems to be that somebody can be divorced and remarried as many times as possible; what of a clerk who held that she could not issue licenses to anybody with a previous marriage on their record? We would not tolerate that, would we?
The question of conscience has now become the new battleground in the fight over homosexual rights. Should those who sincerely feel that homosexuality is sin (I am one of them) have to do things that go against their conscience? Should bakers have to bake wedding cakes for gay couples? Must Christian adoption agencies have to place children with gay couples? It's a hard question: on the one hand, it does seem 'hateful' to deny somebody a service that would be offered to other couples. But on the other hand, are we 'blessing' a sin by helping somebody carry out that sin, no matter how small?
As a preacher I would feel compelled to say no to any gay couple that asks me to do their wedding. I cannot think that it is right to take part something that I feel to be sin. Maybe it will come to a point that I cannot do any weddings so as to be 'non-discriminatory', but I do know that people will always be able to be legally married, whether in a church or in a courthouse. Life and marriage will go on without me.
But as I have said before, because the legalities of marriage are dependent upon the state (e.g. inheritance rights, visitation rights in hospitals, custody rights for children), I do believe that gay people should have a legal right to be married and have that marriage recognized by the state. To deny them the same rights as straight couples seems to be an unlawful form of discrimination. I may not like or approve of what it is that they are doing, but as one who still has a libertarian bias, it is not in my power to say whether or not they can be married. I know of many straight couples that I think should not have been married (for various reasons)...but that's not in my power to contest from a legal point of view.
And so when it comes to the Kentucky clerk who will not issue licenses, here's my belief: she should either resign or be removed from her position. She does not have to like the law, but if she is an officer of the state, she has to carry out its policies or resign. If her conscience cannot allow her to do what the law requires, then she should step aside and let somebody else should do the job. Imagine a police officer who is Rastafarian: his religion tells him that drug enforcement of cannabis users is wrong. Should we keep him in his job? Or imagine a soldier who decides that he cannot kill for any reason based upon his understanding of Scripture. Should he continue to be a soldier?
Perhaps the laws were different when she was elected; too bad. Laws change, and even if as Christians we do not like the change, it is our duty to accept it in society, and officers of the law are compelled to carry out that law. If they cannot carry it out, then resign your post. When it comes to a law we do not have to like it, promote it, or affirm it. In our democratic form of government we might even work to change it. But accept it as law of the land we must.
Here's the thing about this story that most amazes me, though. The woman who will not allow gays to marry has been divorced and remarried three times. From a very literal understanding of what I read about divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, then she should not have been allowed a marriage license, either, for her current marriage! But the law of the state seems to be that somebody can be divorced and remarried as many times as possible; what of a clerk who held that she could not issue licenses to anybody with a previous marriage on their record? We would not tolerate that, would we?
Monday, August 31, 2015
The Confederate flag comes to my town
In the small town in which I live I have started to see a disturbing trend: a spike in the number of Confederate flags waving proudly from the back of pickup trucks. These aren't simply flags in a window, or flags on a bumper sticker (things that have always been in my little town), but big flags on poles planted by design on the pickup bed. One of the trucks has a small American flag on one side, and a larger Confederate flag on the other side of the truck bed. Another flies the Confederate flag alone, along with a sticker saying "Always been a rebel" as well as an OU sticker on the back window. I'm safe in saying that actually going to college has probably never been an option for the driver.
I look at these trucks and the drivers are all very young. What, exactly, do they think that they are doing? We don't live in the South; in fact Kansas has a history centered on what it was going to be, slave or free, and ultimately and proudly chose free. Osawatomie, Kansas (last town of one of my grandparents), is where the great abolitionist John Brown spent at least some time. It's not that Kansas really has a problem with racism; we are a tolerant, moderate people, even with the short-sightedness of current government officials. It's not as if slavery and/or racism has ever been thought of as a good thing in these parts.
And so these young drivers, if asked, probably would say something like, "I don't hate black people. It's all about states' rights! I hate the federal government trying to tell me what to do, to take away my guns." And so, in opposition to all that, let's pick out a symbol that for most people means hatred and bigotry and under which in South Carolina there was a recent mass killing in the name of racial purity. It's a flag under which many people went to war to fight against the country that they now live in, a flag that stands in marked opposition to the other flag that redneck #1 also has planted on the back of his pickup truck.
I get it. People have free speech, and they get to protest how they want. Accepting free speech means that you have to put up with a lot of really dumb free speech. I don't want to go down the road of banning symbols and words.
But really, if you hate things so much, isn't there a better way than to fly a flag that for so many represents one of the darkest periods in our nations' history? Do you have to make your point by waving proudly a flag that people in the years since the civil war has been used to still intimidate minorities and express hatred? I know...for you it means one thing. But for the rest of us, it's a sign of your stupidity.
I look at these trucks and the drivers are all very young. What, exactly, do they think that they are doing? We don't live in the South; in fact Kansas has a history centered on what it was going to be, slave or free, and ultimately and proudly chose free. Osawatomie, Kansas (last town of one of my grandparents), is where the great abolitionist John Brown spent at least some time. It's not that Kansas really has a problem with racism; we are a tolerant, moderate people, even with the short-sightedness of current government officials. It's not as if slavery and/or racism has ever been thought of as a good thing in these parts.
And so these young drivers, if asked, probably would say something like, "I don't hate black people. It's all about states' rights! I hate the federal government trying to tell me what to do, to take away my guns." And so, in opposition to all that, let's pick out a symbol that for most people means hatred and bigotry and under which in South Carolina there was a recent mass killing in the name of racial purity. It's a flag under which many people went to war to fight against the country that they now live in, a flag that stands in marked opposition to the other flag that redneck #1 also has planted on the back of his pickup truck.
I get it. People have free speech, and they get to protest how they want. Accepting free speech means that you have to put up with a lot of really dumb free speech. I don't want to go down the road of banning symbols and words.
But really, if you hate things so much, isn't there a better way than to fly a flag that for so many represents one of the darkest periods in our nations' history? Do you have to make your point by waving proudly a flag that people in the years since the civil war has been used to still intimidate minorities and express hatred? I know...for you it means one thing. But for the rest of us, it's a sign of your stupidity.
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
The Problem of Concentrated Giftedness
I lived in a rural town on the Oregon coast early in my ministry. I was not married at the time and it did not take long before I realized that a good wife was not going to be found there. In this small town young people had two options: stay in town and get a job in the lumber mill or in the forest (jobs that were increasingly going away), or move into the I-5 corridor (or even further) and start a life or get an education but never come back again. I did make some friends with some 'young' people in the community, but never found a single dateable female. Sure, they were there, but none were really my type. If they stayed, they really wanted to stay there and live that kind of lifestyle, one that was not really for me. Any girls who came out of that area that I would have wanted to date left at an age far too young far before I arrived.
Years later I am happily married with a wonderful wife whom I did not find in Oregon, and now live and preach with a church on the edge of the Bible belt, but I continue to see history repeating itself. Today in my email inbox I got a notice about a church workshop put on not from where I live. It's being done by a large, LARGE church that is in the center of the Bible belt, and they have decided to come here and teach us how to do church better. I know that their intentions are good and right. They are prosperous spiritually and numerically, and we are not. They are trying to help be a blessing, and we need to honor that. But here's the thing: church here is not, and likely will not ever be, the same here as it is there, in part because they have all the most talented and gifted people who once grew up here. Like the Babylonians taking the best and brightest of the Jewish young men into their service, our 'best and brightest' now are firmly ensconced in the Bible belt.
Think about it. Like my time in Oregon, there are two types of young people in the church. One kind stays and lives and rarely moves far from home. They get no greater training from our church colleges and ministries and so, while they might have some gifts, they do not really have them developed in a professional manner. They might well serve and teach here, and even do well (and I know of a few who do so), but how much more gifted could they have been had they had the right kind of training? The other kind goes off to college (often a Christian college) looking for a bright new world, and they rarely ever come back. I see it again and again: we are sending our best and brightest and most gifted away to be even better than what they are now, but then they stay in or around the place where they went. Rather than come back and be a spiritual force in a small pond, they would rather stay in the large pond where it seems to be more safe spiritually.
I can't say that I really blame them. It's easier to be a part of a large church in an area in which more people come reside in your spiritual comfort zone and have been trained in much the same way. In these large churches, you aren't asked do as much, and perhaps you can even become more of a specialist. For those who stay, who live their lives in small churches that are in a less 'spiritual' culture, there's little time to really get good at one particular thing because you get asked to do so many different things. Even for those who stay in this area many tend to concentrate at a few of shrinking number of larger churches. There they have more youth programs, more diversified kinds of ministries and people than we have in our little churches. Again, I can't blame them for doing what they think is right for their families. But while large churches have many people with more developed gifts, smaller churches struggle to find those who are strong in spiritual gifts and have had some training to develop them.
Or here's a further example about preachers, something I know a lot about. Many of these larger congregations have numerous retired preachers (either those who were full-time or vocational) sitting in their pews. Many of these have moved to these large congregations after retiring: perhaps they are to be closer to their kids, or because they need to be in a town with better health care. Or perhaps many of them are just tired of having to lead. They've been leading and serving all their lives, working in churches in which they were one of the few with a college education or especially ministerial training. And now they are just tired of it. Sundays are now much easier for them. They don't have to preach two sermons and a class. Maybe they deserve some rest, but I'm guessing that even within an hours drive of where they attend there are literally dozens of little churches dying for somebody with their skill sets and gifts. But now that the preachers have become concentrated in the large church, they no longer have any interest in helping.
So when this large church decides to come up and tell us how to do better, maybe their plan will be to send back our young people, or to train people to go and work with small churches as much as possible where we are. Doing that will be the best blessing they can give to us.
Years later I am happily married with a wonderful wife whom I did not find in Oregon, and now live and preach with a church on the edge of the Bible belt, but I continue to see history repeating itself. Today in my email inbox I got a notice about a church workshop put on not from where I live. It's being done by a large, LARGE church that is in the center of the Bible belt, and they have decided to come here and teach us how to do church better. I know that their intentions are good and right. They are prosperous spiritually and numerically, and we are not. They are trying to help be a blessing, and we need to honor that. But here's the thing: church here is not, and likely will not ever be, the same here as it is there, in part because they have all the most talented and gifted people who once grew up here. Like the Babylonians taking the best and brightest of the Jewish young men into their service, our 'best and brightest' now are firmly ensconced in the Bible belt.
Think about it. Like my time in Oregon, there are two types of young people in the church. One kind stays and lives and rarely moves far from home. They get no greater training from our church colleges and ministries and so, while they might have some gifts, they do not really have them developed in a professional manner. They might well serve and teach here, and even do well (and I know of a few who do so), but how much more gifted could they have been had they had the right kind of training? The other kind goes off to college (often a Christian college) looking for a bright new world, and they rarely ever come back. I see it again and again: we are sending our best and brightest and most gifted away to be even better than what they are now, but then they stay in or around the place where they went. Rather than come back and be a spiritual force in a small pond, they would rather stay in the large pond where it seems to be more safe spiritually.
I can't say that I really blame them. It's easier to be a part of a large church in an area in which more people come reside in your spiritual comfort zone and have been trained in much the same way. In these large churches, you aren't asked do as much, and perhaps you can even become more of a specialist. For those who stay, who live their lives in small churches that are in a less 'spiritual' culture, there's little time to really get good at one particular thing because you get asked to do so many different things. Even for those who stay in this area many tend to concentrate at a few of shrinking number of larger churches. There they have more youth programs, more diversified kinds of ministries and people than we have in our little churches. Again, I can't blame them for doing what they think is right for their families. But while large churches have many people with more developed gifts, smaller churches struggle to find those who are strong in spiritual gifts and have had some training to develop them.
Or here's a further example about preachers, something I know a lot about. Many of these larger congregations have numerous retired preachers (either those who were full-time or vocational) sitting in their pews. Many of these have moved to these large congregations after retiring: perhaps they are to be closer to their kids, or because they need to be in a town with better health care. Or perhaps many of them are just tired of having to lead. They've been leading and serving all their lives, working in churches in which they were one of the few with a college education or especially ministerial training. And now they are just tired of it. Sundays are now much easier for them. They don't have to preach two sermons and a class. Maybe they deserve some rest, but I'm guessing that even within an hours drive of where they attend there are literally dozens of little churches dying for somebody with their skill sets and gifts. But now that the preachers have become concentrated in the large church, they no longer have any interest in helping.
So when this large church decides to come up and tell us how to do better, maybe their plan will be to send back our young people, or to train people to go and work with small churches as much as possible where we are. Doing that will be the best blessing they can give to us.
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Summer 2015: Breathe-a-thon
It's the middle of the summer, so that means a)vacation for a lot of people and b)the Supreme Court is handling down a boatload of rulings before they escape the summer heat of DC for a few weeks. It's always an exciting time for court watchers, but this year has been especially important, for in the past few weeks the court has legalized gay marriage nationwide, upheld Obamacare subsidies, made it easier for power companies to pollute, and kept as legal some of the more controversial lethal injection processes used to put to death the worst among us. There's a bunch more they are ruling on, but I don't feel like looking up everything on which they have graced us with their wisdom and/or stupidity.
As you might expect, this has led to a lot of people FREAKING THE CRAP OUT. While most of these issues will rarely affect any of us directly (though, in the case of the court finding the Obamacare subsidies legal, this will save me and my family a ton of money), What This Means For America has become the trending topic of the day.
If you are one of these people who have become irate or overjoyed, then, let me give you a few words of advice as we continue on through summer. It's hot, and I don't want you overheating or dehydrating because you can't take the time to relax and breathe and eat. Once you calm down, you can thank me.
-The apocalypse is not coming because the gays are married or people are getting cheaper health care or polluters feel more like polluting. If it was, the stars really would fall from the sky, the sun would rain down fire, and the moon would turn to blood. Last I looked up, though, this had not happened. But if it does and you have been proven right, you have my permission to spend the rest of eternity telling us how wrong we idiots were.
-These are not the best of times nor the worst of times, nor the darkest of all eras nor the beginning of a new age of enlightenment. Read a little bit of history, people. At least we're not actually shooting at others over a matter of whether it really is good to enslave people with dark skin color. At least the plague is not killing millions even as we are engaged in 'the war to end all wars'. At least rivers aren't on fire. At least the economy is not in shambles and we are wondering whether or not we can afford to ever eat lamb again. Are things perfect? No. But I'd rather live now and here than at most any other time and place of history.
-You are not moving to Canada or Costa Rica or Uganda or Sweden because some people did some things you don't like. Once you calm down, your life is going to go on and you will realize how silly you looked at your threats to leave. You are staying right here, just like everybody else. I know, you feel like America has left you. Wouldn't you be happier in a place in which people were not so environmentally destructive, or where gays were put 'where they belong'? Yes, we all dream of moving to a place in which business is truly free or where human life is respected rather than destroyed. But you're not moving. You wouldn't be able to get ESPN there, would you? Vacation there if you want, but remember, you're still an American.
Look, I'm not saying all this to denigrate what you believe, though I admit I am making fun of you, at least a little bit. Nor am I saying that we shouldn't worry or get upset about bad things happening. But I am saying that in the big picture, these things are really small potatoes. They really are, trust me on this. I know it seems like a big thing now, but in a few weeks you'll be outraged at something different. Some presidential candidate will say something racist or something that goes against party dogma, or another fanatic will shoot up a mall or school or church building, or your football team will try covering up how they shrunk the goal posts to make field goals harder to make. You'll be outraged about those things and have completely forgotten how distraught you were a few weeks earlier. Come back and read this again. Breathe. Realize that it's not worth getting so mad about. Go for a walk and tell God how much he needs to agree with your position. And then come home and hug your kids. You'll get through this.
Now, do we have that straight? Are you ready to calm down and breathe again and stop freaking out? Good. Now, go get me some ice cream. Chocolate chip cookie dough if they have it.
As you might expect, this has led to a lot of people FREAKING THE CRAP OUT. While most of these issues will rarely affect any of us directly (though, in the case of the court finding the Obamacare subsidies legal, this will save me and my family a ton of money), What This Means For America has become the trending topic of the day.
If you are one of these people who have become irate or overjoyed, then, let me give you a few words of advice as we continue on through summer. It's hot, and I don't want you overheating or dehydrating because you can't take the time to relax and breathe and eat. Once you calm down, you can thank me.
-The apocalypse is not coming because the gays are married or people are getting cheaper health care or polluters feel more like polluting. If it was, the stars really would fall from the sky, the sun would rain down fire, and the moon would turn to blood. Last I looked up, though, this had not happened. But if it does and you have been proven right, you have my permission to spend the rest of eternity telling us how wrong we idiots were.
-These are not the best of times nor the worst of times, nor the darkest of all eras nor the beginning of a new age of enlightenment. Read a little bit of history, people. At least we're not actually shooting at others over a matter of whether it really is good to enslave people with dark skin color. At least the plague is not killing millions even as we are engaged in 'the war to end all wars'. At least rivers aren't on fire. At least the economy is not in shambles and we are wondering whether or not we can afford to ever eat lamb again. Are things perfect? No. But I'd rather live now and here than at most any other time and place of history.
-You are not moving to Canada or Costa Rica or Uganda or Sweden because some people did some things you don't like. Once you calm down, your life is going to go on and you will realize how silly you looked at your threats to leave. You are staying right here, just like everybody else. I know, you feel like America has left you. Wouldn't you be happier in a place in which people were not so environmentally destructive, or where gays were put 'where they belong'? Yes, we all dream of moving to a place in which business is truly free or where human life is respected rather than destroyed. But you're not moving. You wouldn't be able to get ESPN there, would you? Vacation there if you want, but remember, you're still an American.
Look, I'm not saying all this to denigrate what you believe, though I admit I am making fun of you, at least a little bit. Nor am I saying that we shouldn't worry or get upset about bad things happening. But I am saying that in the big picture, these things are really small potatoes. They really are, trust me on this. I know it seems like a big thing now, but in a few weeks you'll be outraged at something different. Some presidential candidate will say something racist or something that goes against party dogma, or another fanatic will shoot up a mall or school or church building, or your football team will try covering up how they shrunk the goal posts to make field goals harder to make. You'll be outraged about those things and have completely forgotten how distraught you were a few weeks earlier. Come back and read this again. Breathe. Realize that it's not worth getting so mad about. Go for a walk and tell God how much he needs to agree with your position. And then come home and hug your kids. You'll get through this.
Now, do we have that straight? Are you ready to calm down and breathe again and stop freaking out? Good. Now, go get me some ice cream. Chocolate chip cookie dough if they have it.
Thursday, June 25, 2015
'Fairgrounds Entertainment, Ltd.'
This summer our family is foregoing cable TV, having cut it off completely in favor of a menu of Hulu and Netflix. In truth, we're probably watching more TV than we did before because so much of cable TV is crap and there's really a lot of good stuff on those two providers. But that's not why we quit...by doing this we're saving almost $90/month even after you add up the Netflix and Hulu fees.
Still, I miss watching sports, which you don't get on those two, and only watching highlights over the internet really isn't fulfilling. We did a trial of Sling TV, which gives you 21 channels (including the first two ESPNs) for $20, and could have added a sports package that included BeIN sports for another $5, but again, this led to a fundamental problem I have with the idea of cable: sure, you get a couple of channels that you want, but you also get a bunch more channels that you don't and have to pay for them in the meantime. I will never watch Polaris or Galavision (unless, of course, they get the rights to EPL soccer), so don't make me pay for it!
There's been some talk for years about a 'pick-and-pay' cable system, but it's never really taken off, mostly because groups as diverse as minorities (concerned about diversity) to religious broadcasters (worried that their stuff won't be selected) to ESPN (realizing with dread that if people knew the real cost of subscribing to them many would not) would fight it to the death. Every once in awhile the idea is proposed again, but cable companies know that this would kill their bottom line and so nothing like this will ever get done.
But still we can dream here in blogland. I got to thinking today while mowing the yard in a hundred degree heat about an entertainment company I would start if I had a few billion and could nullify most of the existing laws and agreements. It's called 'Fairgrounds Entertainment', conjuring up an idea about this being fair, but also the memory we have of buying a la carte tokens when we go to county fairs. Pay one token for a kiddie ride, but if you want to go big and ride the screamer that costs you five.
So here's how it would work, if a pick-and-pay system will never happen here: let's say for $50 you get a hundred tokens of value. You can't buy less, ensuring that the cable company gets something and making it where you have to buy at least a certain value number of channels. But with that hundred tokens you can choose what you want. Want to go cheap? There's El Rey for a single token! Willing to spend a little bit more to make the tweens happy? You can get a month of Nickelodeon for three tokens! And if you really want to splurge, you can buy each of the ESPNs for 10 apiece.
Companies can decide how many tokens they want to charge. If they have a high opinion of their network, they can charge as much as they want...but then will face the consequences of not having a lot of subscribers. Companies more interested in volume and increasing their market share can each get for a buck. Over time companies can lower or raise their cost, knowing that whatever they do will in turn affect their subscription rate. This really is the free market at its best; my old economics professors would combust in their Adam Smith-ness if they could see this happen.
Because here's the catch: every month consumers can re-choose what they want to buy by logging onto their account and switching up their lineup. Choice rules everything. No longer interested in AMC now that Mad Men and Breaking Bad are gone? That's four tokens to spend elsewhere. Want a month of watching the Copa Del Rey soccer tournament on BeIN sports for three tokens apiece? Sounds great! Again, this seems to be the dream of the free market at its best: cable channels that are good get selected for a fair price; cable channels no longer worth watching or who make the mistake of taking the easy buck by cramming in lots of infomercials get dumped. It's that easy.
If 100 tokens are not enough, there can be more variations than your simple 100 token package, but this will continue to be the minimum. Want to add another 50 tokens for $20? Sounds good. Look into 'bundling options' that some channels are teaming up to do (e.g. Oxygen, Lifetime, and HGTV are available together for three months at 10 tokens a month rather than their normal cost of 4 tokens each)? We can do that too. Rival channels running at discounts in order to get market share (getting Fox Sports and NBC Sports and the MLB channel at the same price as ESPN)? It's a TV wonderland!
The downside of this idea (beyond the fact that cable companies will never, EVER let Congress allow this to happen) is that bad channels will quickly go bankrupt. And in truth you won't get as many channels as you get now, and likely most people would be too lazy to ever change their channels monthly. I'm not really sure Americans could handle this much freedom.
But still, we can dream. If you love nothing but news you could get your fill of the cable news and financial channels. If you love sports, you could have a whole package of nothing but ESPN and Fox Sports and a ton of other channels. Networks could even get involved, though it would be hilarious when many of them are rudely awakened that not many people would pay half their tokens for a whole morning of Today and Jerry Springer.
Because I a)will never have the money to do this and b)do not have the business acumen to do this anybody who wants to steal this idea is more than welcome to do so. My only request is that I get extra tokens at least a couple of times a year...
Still, I miss watching sports, which you don't get on those two, and only watching highlights over the internet really isn't fulfilling. We did a trial of Sling TV, which gives you 21 channels (including the first two ESPNs) for $20, and could have added a sports package that included BeIN sports for another $5, but again, this led to a fundamental problem I have with the idea of cable: sure, you get a couple of channels that you want, but you also get a bunch more channels that you don't and have to pay for them in the meantime. I will never watch Polaris or Galavision (unless, of course, they get the rights to EPL soccer), so don't make me pay for it!
There's been some talk for years about a 'pick-and-pay' cable system, but it's never really taken off, mostly because groups as diverse as minorities (concerned about diversity) to religious broadcasters (worried that their stuff won't be selected) to ESPN (realizing with dread that if people knew the real cost of subscribing to them many would not) would fight it to the death. Every once in awhile the idea is proposed again, but cable companies know that this would kill their bottom line and so nothing like this will ever get done.
But still we can dream here in blogland. I got to thinking today while mowing the yard in a hundred degree heat about an entertainment company I would start if I had a few billion and could nullify most of the existing laws and agreements. It's called 'Fairgrounds Entertainment', conjuring up an idea about this being fair, but also the memory we have of buying a la carte tokens when we go to county fairs. Pay one token for a kiddie ride, but if you want to go big and ride the screamer that costs you five.
So here's how it would work, if a pick-and-pay system will never happen here: let's say for $50 you get a hundred tokens of value. You can't buy less, ensuring that the cable company gets something and making it where you have to buy at least a certain value number of channels. But with that hundred tokens you can choose what you want. Want to go cheap? There's El Rey for a single token! Willing to spend a little bit more to make the tweens happy? You can get a month of Nickelodeon for three tokens! And if you really want to splurge, you can buy each of the ESPNs for 10 apiece.
Companies can decide how many tokens they want to charge. If they have a high opinion of their network, they can charge as much as they want...but then will face the consequences of not having a lot of subscribers. Companies more interested in volume and increasing their market share can each get for a buck. Over time companies can lower or raise their cost, knowing that whatever they do will in turn affect their subscription rate. This really is the free market at its best; my old economics professors would combust in their Adam Smith-ness if they could see this happen.
Because here's the catch: every month consumers can re-choose what they want to buy by logging onto their account and switching up their lineup. Choice rules everything. No longer interested in AMC now that Mad Men and Breaking Bad are gone? That's four tokens to spend elsewhere. Want a month of watching the Copa Del Rey soccer tournament on BeIN sports for three tokens apiece? Sounds great! Again, this seems to be the dream of the free market at its best: cable channels that are good get selected for a fair price; cable channels no longer worth watching or who make the mistake of taking the easy buck by cramming in lots of infomercials get dumped. It's that easy.
If 100 tokens are not enough, there can be more variations than your simple 100 token package, but this will continue to be the minimum. Want to add another 50 tokens for $20? Sounds good. Look into 'bundling options' that some channels are teaming up to do (e.g. Oxygen, Lifetime, and HGTV are available together for three months at 10 tokens a month rather than their normal cost of 4 tokens each)? We can do that too. Rival channels running at discounts in order to get market share (getting Fox Sports and NBC Sports and the MLB channel at the same price as ESPN)? It's a TV wonderland!
The downside of this idea (beyond the fact that cable companies will never, EVER let Congress allow this to happen) is that bad channels will quickly go bankrupt. And in truth you won't get as many channels as you get now, and likely most people would be too lazy to ever change their channels monthly. I'm not really sure Americans could handle this much freedom.
But still, we can dream. If you love nothing but news you could get your fill of the cable news and financial channels. If you love sports, you could have a whole package of nothing but ESPN and Fox Sports and a ton of other channels. Networks could even get involved, though it would be hilarious when many of them are rudely awakened that not many people would pay half their tokens for a whole morning of Today and Jerry Springer.
Because I a)will never have the money to do this and b)do not have the business acumen to do this anybody who wants to steal this idea is more than welcome to do so. My only request is that I get extra tokens at least a couple of times a year...
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Booing Brownback
Recently there was a storm of outrage about Governor Brownback being booed at the WSU/KU game. How dare people boo the governor! Why, it's disrespectful and hateful. I've seen more than a few of my conservative friends up in arms about this.
And while I think some of the comments were funny (such as, 'how can he root for these teams when he's just as soon cut off funding for their schools'?), I agree at least in principle with what the frustration...leaders should be respected and prayed for. As a Christian, I should seek to pray for leaders I agree with and leaders I don't.
But I can't help but laugh when, living in the most red of red states, there is this outrage about Governor Brownback when he has been booed. President Obama, and most Democrats, can only hope to get off with booing from most Christians.
Will Christians repent for the hateful and slanderous things that have been said about Obama, the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, and the like through most of my lifetime?
Will Christians turn off Fox News when 'fair and balanced' means little more than a token defender of the President while their hosts make endless and unsubstantiated allegations about him and his political allies?
Will Christians stop gleefully listening to hour upon hour of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the like, who are little more than hatchet men who know that their mostly 'Christian' audiences love to hear mocking and salacious attacks on their political enemies?
Living in a red state, I can guarantee that it takes a lot more 'courage' and 'boldness' to speak against the poor policies of Brownback, the Koch brothers, and their political allies than it does to complain about the President and the federal government. Everybody does the latter...almost nobody does the former. Especially at church, when many of my fellow Christians feel that tea partyism is equivalent to Christianity.
So I agree...what happened was distasteful. But until I hear 'Christian' people start to be more proper and righteous with their words (and not behave like 'spoiled brats' as one writer said...conservative Christians live with far more of a delusion of entitlement than anybody I know, but that's for another time), I'll not really take those complaints seriously.
And while I think some of the comments were funny (such as, 'how can he root for these teams when he's just as soon cut off funding for their schools'?), I agree at least in principle with what the frustration...leaders should be respected and prayed for. As a Christian, I should seek to pray for leaders I agree with and leaders I don't.
But I can't help but laugh when, living in the most red of red states, there is this outrage about Governor Brownback when he has been booed. President Obama, and most Democrats, can only hope to get off with booing from most Christians.
Will Christians repent for the hateful and slanderous things that have been said about Obama, the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, and the like through most of my lifetime?
Will Christians turn off Fox News when 'fair and balanced' means little more than a token defender of the President while their hosts make endless and unsubstantiated allegations about him and his political allies?
Will Christians stop gleefully listening to hour upon hour of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the like, who are little more than hatchet men who know that their mostly 'Christian' audiences love to hear mocking and salacious attacks on their political enemies?
Living in a red state, I can guarantee that it takes a lot more 'courage' and 'boldness' to speak against the poor policies of Brownback, the Koch brothers, and their political allies than it does to complain about the President and the federal government. Everybody does the latter...almost nobody does the former. Especially at church, when many of my fellow Christians feel that tea partyism is equivalent to Christianity.
So I agree...what happened was distasteful. But until I hear 'Christian' people start to be more proper and righteous with their words (and not behave like 'spoiled brats' as one writer said...conservative Christians live with far more of a delusion of entitlement than anybody I know, but that's for another time), I'll not really take those complaints seriously.
Saturday, February 21, 2015
The last of the heroes
As a young boy I grew up, like most kids, looking for role models. Coming from a family in which sports was important I gravitated towards athletes. Pete Rose, O.J. Simpson, and Dr. J were three athletes that I thought were the coolest of the cool. Yep, a gambler, murderer, and a legendary philanderer were my heroes, though I didn't know any of their dirty secrets at the time.
But nobody compared to Bruce Jenner, 1976 Olympic decathlon winner. Here was the greatest athlete in the world, a man among men. He was forever on the box of Wheaties, the stud we all aspired to be. He became a reporter, man about town, race car driver. He was so manly that eventually he replaced Erik Estrada on CHIPS. Sure, it didn't last...but even Estrada never was on the cover of Sports Illustrated.
When did it all go wrong? Maybe it was when he appeared on Silver Spoons. Or maybe when he was the star of 'Can't Stop The Music'. But was there ever a point where we could say he was headed towards this bizarre Kardashian/transgender/hit-and-run place he is at now? And what does the seven-year-old within me think of all this?
Heroes are strange things. There's something within us that looks up to certain people, and when those people no longer are what we thought they were (or we realize that they never were what we thought they were to begin with) it affects us. None of these heroes should be blamed for not fulfilling our expectations...but the spotlight can be a very hard thing, not only for the ones under it but the ones watching it.
I suppose I still have heroes, though they are more about genuine character than our imaginations. Heroes in recent years are people I know...a minister friend of mine who died recently after many years of faithful service to the church, or a grandmother who takes her children in when her kids aren't able to raise them well, or a teacher who year after year puts up with the crap of the modern education system because she loves kids. People like this will still fail sometimes, but at least they won't have married a Kardashian.
But nobody compared to Bruce Jenner, 1976 Olympic decathlon winner. Here was the greatest athlete in the world, a man among men. He was forever on the box of Wheaties, the stud we all aspired to be. He became a reporter, man about town, race car driver. He was so manly that eventually he replaced Erik Estrada on CHIPS. Sure, it didn't last...but even Estrada never was on the cover of Sports Illustrated.
When did it all go wrong? Maybe it was when he appeared on Silver Spoons. Or maybe when he was the star of 'Can't Stop The Music'. But was there ever a point where we could say he was headed towards this bizarre Kardashian/transgender/hit-and-run place he is at now? And what does the seven-year-old within me think of all this?
Heroes are strange things. There's something within us that looks up to certain people, and when those people no longer are what we thought they were (or we realize that they never were what we thought they were to begin with) it affects us. None of these heroes should be blamed for not fulfilling our expectations...but the spotlight can be a very hard thing, not only for the ones under it but the ones watching it.
I suppose I still have heroes, though they are more about genuine character than our imaginations. Heroes in recent years are people I know...a minister friend of mine who died recently after many years of faithful service to the church, or a grandmother who takes her children in when her kids aren't able to raise them well, or a teacher who year after year puts up with the crap of the modern education system because she loves kids. People like this will still fail sometimes, but at least they won't have married a Kardashian.
Monday, January 26, 2015
The 10 sermons we preach
There's a preaching urban legend that goes something like this...one reason many old-time preachers only stayed one place for a short length of time is that they only had a years' worth of sermons. When they would get through their year of sermons, they would move on to somewhere else, repeat those sermons, and move on again.
The truth is, most of us only have a handful of sermons. No matter where we begin, we end up in the same places. In Churches of Christ my experience is that the standard-issue list of traditionalist sermons goes something like this.
-1)The importance of sound preaching.
-2)The necessity of baptism by immersion.
-3)The evils of instrumental music.
-4)The evils of denominationalism.
-5)The evils of creeds, since we preach the Bible alone.
-6)Divorce and remarriage.
-7)The pattern of the church organization (a. a plurality of elders; b. the qualification of elders and deacons; c. the evils of parachurch organizations)
-8)The pattern of acceptable worship (singing, communion, giving, praying, preaching)
-9)The Adamic, Mosaic, and Christian dispensations (for expert Jule Miller-filmstrip-approved preachers only)
-10)The sins of worldliness we must avoid (pre-1970s); the proper role of women (post-1970s).
Again, it's not really important where one started from, but these themes seemed to appear in almost every kind of sermon I grew up hearing. Nadab and Abihu? That's a warning about instrumental music! Acts (oh, we loved Acts)? Numerous examples of proper conversion! The Pastoral epistles? Church organization AND words on Sound Preaching! For all of our talk about creeds, these seem to be the Ten Most Important Things.
I used to laugh at the small-mindedness of this list...but as I have now finished 15 years of full-time preaching and almost 20 years of full-time ministry, I'm starting to realize that most of my sermons keep coming back to the same subjects. I might well have close to fifteen hundred sermons in my files (and probably another 800 classes), but put them back to back and there's not that much variety. I would, however, like to think that the things I have focused on are a more Biblical list, things that are genuinely important to matters of Christian faith. So, what's my list, if I am being honest?
-1)Jesus is the only way to salvation.
-2)Grace, not perfect obedience, grants one salvation.
-3)The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.
-4)The love, grace and mercy we must show to one another.
-5)The abject sinfulness of humanity, repeated again and again in human history.
-6)The calling out to God (as exemplified in Psalms).
-7)The power of the Holy Spirit for a transformed life.
-8)The call of God to return from sin (as exemplified in the Prophets).
-9)The teachings of Jesus for a full life.
-10)Why the power of the gospel enables Christians to live a holy life.
I'm sure that there are a few other things that I preach, but really most of my sermons end back up in these subjects. I like my list a lot better than the first list, and I think it's more at the core of Scripture...but after all these years I'm finding that I'm not so different than my preaching ancestors.
The truth is, most of us only have a handful of sermons. No matter where we begin, we end up in the same places. In Churches of Christ my experience is that the standard-issue list of traditionalist sermons goes something like this.
-1)The importance of sound preaching.
-2)The necessity of baptism by immersion.
-3)The evils of instrumental music.
-4)The evils of denominationalism.
-5)The evils of creeds, since we preach the Bible alone.
-6)Divorce and remarriage.
-7)The pattern of the church organization (a. a plurality of elders; b. the qualification of elders and deacons; c. the evils of parachurch organizations)
-8)The pattern of acceptable worship (singing, communion, giving, praying, preaching)
-9)The Adamic, Mosaic, and Christian dispensations (for expert Jule Miller-filmstrip-approved preachers only)
-10)The sins of worldliness we must avoid (pre-1970s); the proper role of women (post-1970s).
Again, it's not really important where one started from, but these themes seemed to appear in almost every kind of sermon I grew up hearing. Nadab and Abihu? That's a warning about instrumental music! Acts (oh, we loved Acts)? Numerous examples of proper conversion! The Pastoral epistles? Church organization AND words on Sound Preaching! For all of our talk about creeds, these seem to be the Ten Most Important Things.
I used to laugh at the small-mindedness of this list...but as I have now finished 15 years of full-time preaching and almost 20 years of full-time ministry, I'm starting to realize that most of my sermons keep coming back to the same subjects. I might well have close to fifteen hundred sermons in my files (and probably another 800 classes), but put them back to back and there's not that much variety. I would, however, like to think that the things I have focused on are a more Biblical list, things that are genuinely important to matters of Christian faith. So, what's my list, if I am being honest?
-1)Jesus is the only way to salvation.
-2)Grace, not perfect obedience, grants one salvation.
-3)The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.
-4)The love, grace and mercy we must show to one another.
-5)The abject sinfulness of humanity, repeated again and again in human history.
-6)The calling out to God (as exemplified in Psalms).
-7)The power of the Holy Spirit for a transformed life.
-8)The call of God to return from sin (as exemplified in the Prophets).
-9)The teachings of Jesus for a full life.
-10)Why the power of the gospel enables Christians to live a holy life.
I'm sure that there are a few other things that I preach, but really most of my sermons end back up in these subjects. I like my list a lot better than the first list, and I think it's more at the core of Scripture...but after all these years I'm finding that I'm not so different than my preaching ancestors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)