Diluting the Sacred?

There was a great article yesterday on MPR about another church doing a "Beer and Hymns" event.  While the story focused around one church in Fargo/Moorhead, I know it is something that a variety of churches all over have been trying recently.  On the one hand it is not something new, for years we have been adding coffee to our worship to make it a more comfortable and familiar experience for people.  I wonder though if we are helping by making the sacred more accessible through things like beer, coffee, couches, and casual clothes, or if we are diluting the sacred.

I am big fan of casual; casual liturgy, casual clothes, and sipping a beverage while you make yourself at home in worship.  That being said there can be something powerful about the ways that we create the sacred space for worship.  Are we doing ourselves a disservice by watering down the holy and making it too mundane?  I remember talking once about having communion more than once a month and someone commenting that they liked it less often because it made communion feel special. Do things like beer or coffee with our worship turn it from something special into something ordinary.  Monday night is football night, Tuesday is trivia night, and Wednesday is hymns down at the local pub.  Do we run the risk of turning worship into just another event that shares time with everything else in our week?

Making the sacred accessible without diluting it is a tough challenge.  Part of what makes something sacred is how it becomes special and set apart and yet that same distance can create a barrier for people seeking it.  Perhaps the real challenge is finding ways to make the sacred in new spaces.  How do we build up the sacred without many of the familiar trappings we have been using for hundreds of years (like ornate architecture, fancy robes, and complex liturgy).  Now we are removing some of the props we have used to create the sacred in the past and inserting others in their place.  The challenge for us remains to lead people to the sacred in whatever format we are using and to find ways to give people access to the divine through worship.

The Reason for the Season

So maybe it is just my constant desire to be contrary but I keep thinking about how Christmas is really about the "getting" and not the "giving."  Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of finding more ways to give during the Christmas season and I appreciate the efforts of the such things as the Advent Conspiracy to help us find new ways to give to others at Christmas ... but is that really the message of Christmas?  Is it really about what give or instead about what we receive.

I have been told that I am hard to shop for.  I never understood this since I can always think about more things that I want.  What I have realized over the years is that while I do a good job of thinking about these things I don't actually do a good job of asking for them.  I know what I want ... but I don't let other people know.  So instead of being easy to shop for I become a challenge.  I don't like to ask for gifts probably because I buy into this idea that is not about what we get but instead about what we give.  Receive things seems greedy while giving is something that is selfless and my parents raised me to be a giver.  Christmas is not really about giving though ... it is about what we receive.

I am not saying we need to give in to companies like Amazon that barrage us with daily attempts to get our money.  I am not saying we solely judge our Christmas by how large a stack of gifts we get.  I am saying we need to do a better job of thinking not just about what we give but what we receive.  Not just about about we can do for others but what we need for ourselves.  If we look at the story of Christmas it is about a great gift and it is not as much about the giver but about everyone who receives it.  In the story of Christmas we are meant to identify with the people who receive the gift (humanity) not he giver (God).  For some reason we forget this at times.  Christmas actually is about getting a gift.  Two thousand years ago I suspect that people knew what God could give them ... freedom from the Romans for one thing.  If you think the IRS is bad, imagine having to travel somewhere else AND then pay your taxes on top of it.  Do we know what we want from God this year?  Have we though about what we need?

Obviously God does not give us everything we ask for (that's what Santa is for).  If we never ask anything of God though, are we letting God be the great giver for us?  If we make Christmas all about what we give to others do we try to replace God?

Now I just need to get around to actually writing my Christmas list ...

Might and Right

A recent incident on the Miami Dolphins football team has awakened my frustration with a prevailing theme in our culture, the idea that physical might is an answer to problems.  The alleged incident is that bullying occurred over an extended period of time between members of the football team that has ultimately resulted in one member, Martin, leaving the team (because of being bullied) and another, Incognito, being suspended for his alleged role in the incident.  I have read several articles and numerous quotes and comments within those articles that emphasize the same point, that while the bullying was bad, it was wrong of the first player to not stand up for himself, not seek private redress, and instead left the situation and complain to the media about it (only after being asked).  The bottom line for many is that by NOT fighting back the one being bullied was weak.  Over and over people tried to make clear that they do not condone bullying but for a football player it was expected to fight back because that is what will really stop the bullying.  If he had not been so "soft" this would not have been a problem.

There are two things horribly wrong with this whole mess in my mind.  One is that we are still stuck on blaming the victim.  Over and over I see comments and suggestions about what Martin could have and should have done.  Mostly it involves fighting back, standing up for himself, or otherwise "being a man."  Why is any of this Martin's fault?  How is the poor choices and horrible conduct of another person his responsibility?  There are times when both parties in a situation can be at fault but I think by definition things like abuse and bullying are NOT those kind of situations.  From what I can tell it appears that Martin did a very Christian thing, turning the other check and not responding when he was abused.  People try and make a distinction because he is a football player and not some poor kid having his lunch money taken.  I don't think that is a fair distinction, abuse is abuse.  It is also not a fair distinction because we say the same things about kids and other victims of abuse, like rape victims who get accused of wanting it, being at fault for how they dressed, leading a person on, and so much worse.  We need to take responsibility for our negative actions not look to blame the victim of those actions.

The second thing I object to is this myth that being strong means fighting back.  Jesus preached on and lived the idea of turning the other check.  He chose to NOT fight even when faced with death and yet so many Christians seem to ignore this teaching when it comes to our own lives.  We live in a culture where the correct response when attacked is to fight back, to get revenge and to get that eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, and even life for a life.  The fact of the matter is that I think Gandhi is right, all that leaves us with is world that is blind.  I want my son to grow up in a world where he doesn't have to be violent to survive.  I think this is done NOT by perpetuating a myth that fighting back is the answer and instead by working to create a society where bullying is not tolerated and not seen by anyone as a way to use/abuse their power.  Every day we turn on the news and see the signs of violence in our culture, in the news stories of yet another shooting, to the endless stream of games that let us live out our fantasy of violence and warfare.  When are we going to say enough is enough.  When are we going to stop looking to the victim for what wrong and instead look at the one causing the pain and look at ourselves and wonder what we are doing to let it happen.  There are 51 other players on the active roster for the Dolphins that watched the bullying occur, not to mention the dozens of coaches and staff on that organization that must have had some idea of what was occurring.  Why did they stand by and let it happen?  Why do we all just stand by and watch the violence that surrounds us.  I don't have answers but I do know this ... it starts with me.  It starts with you.  Until we stop buying into this culture of violence it is never going to change.  It is time to say enough is enough.

Minority Rules?

The recent shut-down of the government highlights a continued struggle we have in our democracy ... the tension between the power of the majority and the minority.  In simple playground logic democracy is built on the idea that the majority rules.  If we look deeper into our system of government however we see that all over the place are rules and customs that allow for power to be held not just by the majority but also the minority.  It starts with our elections, where the winner of the popular vote is not necessarily the winner of the election when it comes to Presidents.  It is also possible for the minority to have power when it comes to things like a veto (where the president can over rule 65% of senators and representatives) and the filibuster in the Senate the allows for an individual to stand up and delay the process.  We have seen in it play out nationally where the House refuses to work with the Senate and President, (though they would frame the situation differently) and in Wisconsin, where state senators fled the state in order to stop votes on legislation they were opposed to.  There are clear instances where a minority is able to assert itself over the majority.  Is this really what a democracy is about?  You could also add in the further wrinkle of the will of the voters (or at least a random sampling of their will).  Should the fact that X% of the voters feel one way or another about an issue become a mandate in favor of something?  A majority of senators can easily represent a minority of the population if pulled from small states.  What does the rule of majority look like?

In 2012, The United Methodist Church continued its decades old debate around the issue of homosexuality.  Every four years the church debates about and ultimately votes to change, or not change its stances on any number of issues.  This time one of the suggestions was to add language that United Methodists were not of one mind on the issue of homosexuality.  This vote failed but it raises one of the problems of majority rule ... it can easily be used to erase the voice of dissent.  A majority of delegates decided they felt the "not of one mind" language was not necessary to be added.  Maybe it was because they felt strongly that the church's current stance around homosexuality was good or maybe they felt that adding a voice of disagreement was inappropriate when we don't agree about pretty much anything else either.  A strong minority however wanted that language included.  Under our system where the majority rules this group gets ignored.  They lost the vote, and we move on, but shouldn't the fact that we clearly don't agree on an issue matter?  Is the minority that much less important because they are the minority?  Now I am not saying that the minority is MORE important than the majority, but maybe they are just as important.

I have been a part of several groups that used a consensus model of decision making in order to get things done.  Rather than a simply up or down vote the conversation continues until everyone is in agreement on something.  Can it be abused ... certainly ... but it can also be transformational.  Now it is not just a matter of counting votes and getting to 51%.  Instead we are forced to listen to each other and hear what is causing the other side to disagree.  It moves us from a dichotomous thinking (am I for this or against it) and instead forces us to think creatively: what is important to me, what is important to them, and how do we a find a way for everyone to be happy.  It helps us to focus on the other person's values instead of our own.  Now we are not just thinking about how our side wins, but how everyone does, and that makes things better for all of us.

I love that we are a democracy, but the root of a democracy to me is not majority rules (that tends to be more of mob rule) but instead the idea that everyone voice matters, even the people in the minority.  If its important to them, it is important to all of us

Purple Pride in The United Methodist Church

As a loyal Vikings fan, I sat down on Sunday to watch the game and cheer for my team ... even though my cheers have no effect on the actual outcome (especially when using TiVo).  What surprises me, and actually what annoys me is that many of my fellow fans were choosing not to cheer, and instead were booing.  The difference between them and me was that their cheers, or lack there of, mattered because they were actually at the game.  Now, I am not saying the play of the Vikings on Sunday was worth cheering for all the time, or even maybe most of the time, but I am not sure that is the point.  To me a loyal fan is someone who supports there team.  A loyal fan who is at the game can actually have an effect.  My older brother was named MVP of a Vikings game in fact.  Technically it was given to all the fans but he was part of the end zone section that caused numerous false starts in a key play-off win against the Cowboys a decade ago.  While I think fans have a right to be upset, and really they can do whatever they want, but in my mind, if you are a real fan, and really want to help your team, then you cheer while you are at the game.  On the ride home you can vent all you want about the lack of creative play calling, the poor tackling, or who you would start as QB instead of Ponder.  During the game it is time for real fans to be cheering, making noise, and helping the team.

The same is true for those of us in the church.

Like the Vikings, The United Methodist Church is having some tough times and our "Super Bowl" record is about as dismal in the last fifty years or so.  I can understand if loyal fans of the church would rather be booing instead of cheering.  I am not sure however that the booing is anymore helpful to the church than it is to the Vikings.  Maybe it is because I am an optimist, but I think the cheering helps a lot more than the negative stuff.  Just as Ponder knows he screwed up when he throws an INT, most of us in the church know when we are making mistakes ... we need to be picked up, not picked on.

What does cheering look like in the church?

Obviously our work is not done in stadium bowls with vast roofs to amplify the noise, where the resounding shouts can both pump us up and make things hard for the other team.  Our work is a constant ongoing effort, week in and week out, Sundays and every other day and all of us need some cheering at times to pick us up.  We need to spend some time celebrating the good things that are happening and looking forward with hope, not beating each other up for things we don't agree on or don't like, or things we think could have been done better.  There is a time to focus on the mistakes, both for football teams and for the church, but too often we let our negativity and criticism spill over into times were we need to be upbeat, positive, and really believe that God is at work, maybe not helping the Vikings, but certainly helping the church to do great things no matter what the "score" might be.

When I Grow Up ...

Like most children growing up there were times I dreamed of being President of the United States.  I also remember consciously giving up on that dream at an early age.  I cannot tell you exactly when it was, but it was while I was still young.  I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience hold such an office because I would be required to be in charge of the military, and my first act in that role would probably be to tell everyone to go home, because I was, and still am, opposed to violence and war.  I recognized that this would be a conflict of interest because the President is responsible for the safety of our nation and I was sure that I could not order someone to go to war even if that was what was "best" for the country.  For this reason I don't envy President Obama and his current situation.  The United Methodist Church states in its Social Principles that war is incompatible with Christian teaching.  There is a strong pressure to elect good Christian leaders (Obama certainly faced a challenge on this) but then we expect them to do some of the most unchristian of things.  What if there is a better way to do this?

This morning I dressed my son in a onesie with a picture of Gandhi on the front and a tagline "Another skinhead for peace."  Bryce is now the second generation of Ozanne to wear peace-loving shirts long before he knows what they mean.  I grew up with shirts of MLK, Gandhi, and "you can't hug your kids with nuclear arms."  The struggle for peace did not start with my generation either.  My mother was fighting it too and it goes back long before then, as long as we have had wars I suspect there have been those crying out to find a better way to solve things.  I think our natural tendency is to respond with force but it is not the best one.  We cannot force people to love us, and until we love each other we are simply waiting for the other side to get a better weapon to strike us with, to find a chink in our armor, or a way to get an edge on us.  Mutually Assured Destruction kept us and the Russians at bay, but that fear people lived in was not a healthy lifestyle.  Maybe it is time we took steps so our next generation of children can dream of being a president AND being a peace-maker.  

Misery Loves Company ... Reflections on McDonald's

Much figurative ink has been used detailing the challenges the church has faced reaching a new generation of Americans.  While the decline of the main-line church has been going on for 40+ years, recently the big focus has been on the movement of younger adults away from the church.  A great deal has been made recently about the changes in worship/spiritual habits of the millennial generation.  Given the frustations many of us inside the church feel at reaching this generation it was perhaps more than a little heartening, though maybe not surprising, to see that we are not the only ones struggling.  McDonald's, long a bastion of corporate health, though maybe not dietary health, has seen its ranking has a top destination for fast food decline among this newer generation of shoppers.  While there are a myriad number of reasons for this, I wanted to start by looking at some of the solutions they claim to have found ...

Fresh and organic food: Millennials place an emphasis on the importance of organic and fresh food. Fast-casual chains do well with the demo because many of them promote a fresh or organic message.

Variety and customizable products: In the food world, millennials appreciate the ability to build their meals from an array of choices. Chains like Chipotle and Subway do well in this regard because each item is made to order.

Social change: Millennials care about social issues and tend to support companies that are actively helping address problems across the globe.

Sustainability: Particularly with food, millennials value companies that are proactive with sustainable farming practices and are environmentally conscious.

Social-savvy brands: Brands that have active Facebook and Twitter pages and engage in conversations with customers tend to have more long-term support from millennials.

Since these are generalizations and so by nature easy to criticize, I would like instead to spend a moment thinking about how these translate to the church.

"Fresh and organic food" ... I see two very different ways to translate this into church parlance.  One way would be to look at theology.  Often in the church we tend to offer "canned" theology.  Sometimes it is from time honored recipes, like the Apostle's Creed or the writings of Luther or Wesley, but still maybe what people are looking forward is a chance to be a part of the process, to engage with thinkers from the past and create something fresh and new that comes from our own experience and location

"Variety and customizable products" ... one size fits all is a hallmark of the fast food industry, after all, simplifying the choices helps enable fast food, but it is also often a hallmark of the church.  Even when we offer a multiple choices for worship it still comes at just a few times and many of our offerings are limited.  Maybe what need to do instead is to look at more ways to encourage people to find what they need in the midst of the many opportunities for spiritual growth we have, mixing and matching between corporate and personal activities, missions and Bible study, tactile and auditory.

"Social change"  ... this seems like maybe the easier one of all to do.  I think the church only stumbles on this one in that we have often chosen to out source our missions/social change, hiring missionaries or writing checks instead of rolling up our sleeves and when we do get our hands dirty we don't do a good job of communicating about it, asking for more help, encouraging others, and doing ministry with each other instead of for/to each other.

"Sustainability" ... this is one we really should be focusing on more, especially as many dollars that could be spent on missions are going to heat over-sized, poorly used, and energy inefficient buildings.  I am not say we should raze all our churches and start over, but maybe we could be more serious about how we actively be stewards of God's creation (see Genesis 1).

"Social-savvy brands" ... I think this is a stumbling block for the church in part because our institutions are not geared towards being nimble and this ends up meaning we are pursuing, not leading the way when it comes to changes and trends.  I have still be around conversations where churches are talking about starting a website, or getting email, hardly the cutting edge of change, even for a decade ago.  We are hurt in two ways, one is that our membership is older and that tends to mean we are not up with the newer things because usually older people are happy with the older ones, its what worked for us.  Second, our training of pastors is hard to keep current.  When I was in seminary it felt like little was being taught or studied around the use of media technology in worship.  Why is that?  Because to teach at a seminary you usually end up needing to spend 10 years in academia, maybe with a few years in the field in between your Masters and PhD.  Staying current is hard to do when there is such a lag on the time between what you learned/experienced and when you are teaching.  We also only have a finite amount of time to learn and there is a lot of things we wish we could know more about, but little we really need to less about.

Once again, I am not sure I agree with these generalizations totally, but they seem to be a good starting place.  I also think it can be dangerous to try and translate things from the business world into the church.  I do know that like McDonald's the church needs to be reaching each new generation, because when we fail to reach one, it gets that much harder to reach the next as well.