Looking Deeper

Matthew 12:38-42
Exodus 20:1-17
Galatians 4:22-26

St. Augustine: "The Church is a harlot, but She is your mother."

Exodus 20:12: "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you."

Jesus: "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign ..." (Matthew 12:39)
Exodus 20:14: "You shall not commit adultery."

Referring to Augustine's rather strong words toward the Church earlier made me begin to rethink the so-called "Ten Commandments" and how the contemporary Church has come dangerously close to marginalizing the more profound meaning implied in each one, reducing the "preamble" to the Law to little more than a list of rules by which we are inclined to justify our own sense of righteousness.

There can be little doubt that several of the commandments refer to the relationships we have with one another in the Lord's effort to teach us how to live in community with one another and be "set apart" from the dominant culture, but I cannot say I've heard much of a reference to any of these commandments within a much broader application.

But what if we were to look closer and deeper? What if we considered Jesus' rather strong words to the scribes and Pharisees, and the many biblical references to "adultery", on a much broader scale? We cannot reasonably say Jesus was simply referring to the scribes and Pharisees - indeed an entire "generation" - as just a bunch of "cheaters" who were all being unfaithful to their spouses. The accusation goes deeper - much deeper than mere "flesh". It can actually be tied to our status as members of the Body of Christ; in fact, it has to be - or some of the deeper meaning gets lost in the "flesh".

Even in the case of honoring one's parents, we should consider how one can "honor" a parent who has abandoned them. What is there to honor, first, if there is no honor at all in the life of the one we are compelled to honor? And secondly, how can we honor someone we don't even know? There are children who have been in foster care all their cognitive lives and are moved from home to home on a semi-consistent basis. These children know no "home" to call their own, and many don't even know a "mother" or "father" worthy of the kind of honor the Lord God compels. So what?

In order for the Law to have real meaning, it has to be universal; which is to say, the Law must be equally applicable across the board. Roman Catholic priests and nuns are not married, but it is not reasonable to say the prohibition against adultery does not apply to them - or it applies to them but in a way that is "different" from how it applies to you or me. This makes the Law - the whole Law - exclusive only to particular classes or categories of persons, or even individuals. Clearly the Law is applicable to all who seek to be in community with the people of the Lord. However, it cannot mean "more" to those within the Church, and it does not mean "less" to those outside the Church.

We have a common "Father" as human beings, the immortal "seed" by which we came to be. Likewise, we all have a common "Mother" who nurtures us, sustains us, disciplines us, comforts us, and protects us. It is unfair and inconsistent within the language of faith that those of us who were blessed to be have been born into what we would call "normal" homes to "normal" parents have more of a rightful claim - or a heavier burden - than those whose very birth feels like a curse only because they do not have "parents" as you and I have or had, or did not grow up in the same "home" as you and I did.

Universally we are all "married" to the same Bridegroom and live under the same universal Promise. By His Blood He has a rightful claim. What is not universal is the level of acceptance among us. Some enter into the Covenant as equal partners with the Lord in His Body the Church - while others are eager to proclaim "salvation" for themselves as sure as the Eternal Promise proclaims but who also live well outside of the Covenant of Community.

They make up their own rules and refuse to surrender any part of their being. They are perhaps being faithful to their earthly spouses and honoring their earthly parents - and are therefore self-justified - but their hearts and loyalties are far and apart from the heart of Christ. They expect the Lord to "swing by" and pick them up as He is passing through when He returns, but they will not be found searching for Him. They fully expect the Lord to "come to them" - but until that Time comes, they want no part of Him or His Church. They deny the universality of the Law or the Lord.

These are the very ones Jesus refers to as the "adulterous" generation whose intentions are, according to St. Augustine, contrary to the "divine order" and thus "evil". They are not responding to a call to repentance and faith but choose instead to stand "justified" by their own actions, their own definitions, standards, and measures of "righteous". And the Gentiles who respond in faith to the call of the Gospel will stand in judgment of the self-described "faithful" for it is they who will be true "heirs to the Throne"; those who were faithful not to the "flesh" but to the Spirit.

It is a harsh idea especially when we do the best we can by our spouses and by our parents, but there is a substantial difference between our obedience to the "flesh" and our obedience to the Spirit.

There is ONLY One who will always be True to us, and we only have one "Father" and one "Mother" both of whom are truly worthy of Honor.

Church Happens

Isaiah 65:17-25 Acts 2:42-47 Matthew 16:13-18

It has been said there are countless reasons not to get up early on a Sunday morning to attend worship services, but there is only One Reason why we must. I think this is not in dispute - among the faithful. What does seem to be in dispute among the other, less-than-faithful is whether that One Reason is good enough - or whether that One Reason is merely an opinion held only by those who have varied social or professional or even financial interests in high attendance numbers.

There is also the dispute about whether or not a failure or outright refusal to attend to worship is a "sin" and whether the Lord will hold it against us if we choose to pursue our own pleasures and individual interests rather than bother to show Him and fellow disciples some love and a little devotion by giving Him one silly hour out of our entire week to hear the Word proclaimed, to attend to the Sacraments of the Church, to support the Church, His Blessed Body, and to show support for one another in fellowship in our common prayers and presence.

It is truly all about "love" and whether such sacrificial love (and, ultimately, the Lord Himself) exists within us; whether there exists a mere PROMISE from the Lord - OR - if we are entered into a COVENANT with the Lord - and make no mistake; there is a substantial difference. It is that same Divine Love that not only created us for a specific purpose but, ironically, also set us free; and by creation and redemption even made it possible for us to not only choose to come but also stay - or not. To enter into Covenant with Him - or simply accept the Promise as our own "personal" guarantee and run.

Clearly my bias is showing, and clearly the Arkansas Conference will determine the effectiveness of any pastor and the usefulness of any particular United Methodist Church at least in part by rising - or flat and declining - attendance numbers. Clearly the burden for each member is diminished when more contribute to the upkeep of the Church. It's ok to be honest about these things because these numbers do speak to the current state of the Church overall; not just this one. So it is within the context of the greater and whole Church, the Body of Christ, that the question must be answered: Why Church? What purpose does the Church serve? Is the Church merely an antiquated institution that is no longer relevant? Is the usefulness or effectiveness of the Church in a secular society determined only by the Church's ability to manipulate the political and social agenda?

Why Church? Where would civilization be without the Church? It is painfully ironic that the many so-called "spiritual" Christians would insist that one can be a faithful disciple and/or redeemed apart from the Church - because the Church, for all her human imperfections, is still the Body of Christ - and it is Christ who redeems! - expressed by St. Paul in his Letter to the Ephesians: "[The Lord God] put all things under [Christ's} feet and gave Him to be head over all things to the Church, which is His Body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all" (1:22-23).

Some questions we should ask of those who insist they do not need the Church or that the Church does not need them or that the Church is no longer needed at all:

• Who will proclaim the Gospel of Christ if not the Church?
• Who baptizes according to Christ's command (Mt 28:19) if not the Church?
• What is one baptized INTO if not the Body of Christ, the Holy Church?
• Who is the guardian and herald of the Covenant if not the Church?
• Throughout the Bible, to whom are most of the "letters" and epistles addressed if not to the Church (and in the O/T, to the nation of Israel) as a whole?
• The Lord commanded through Moses that "the redemption story" is to be told perpetually, throughout the generations. Who will tell the story if not the Church?
• What did St. Peter mean when his eyes were opened and he proclaimed, "In truth I perceive that the Lord God 'shows no partiality' (NRSV)", or in KJV, 'is no respecter of persons' (Acts 10:34)? In other words, no individual or "personal" favors?


Tony Campolo, in writing for Christianity Today, expresses some harsh criticism of the Church as a whole, and the evangelical church in general, in his article, "Letter to a young evangelical", while still defending the integrity of the Holy Church. He writes: "Think about the words of St. Augustine: "The Church is a [harlot], but she's my mother." You don't have to look too hard to see that the ... Church in America has a great propensity for reducing Christianity to a validation of our society's middle-class way of life. Unquestionably, the church too often has socialized our young people into adopting culturally established values of success, rather than calling them into the kind of countercultural nonconformity that Scripture requires of Christ's followers" (Romans 12:1-2 = "Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed ...").

"Why, then, do I encourage you to participate in organized religion and commit yourself to a specific local congregation? Because, as Augustine made clear, "the church is still your mother". It is She who taught you about Jesus. I want you to remember that the Bible teaches that Christ loves the Church and gave Himself for it (Ephesians 5:25). That's a preeminent reason why you dare not decide that you don't need the Church. Christ's church is called His bride (2 Cor 11:2), and His love for her makes Him faithful to her even when she is not faithful to Him."

This argument goes back to a previous statement I made in which we are challenged to engage in Christ fully and completely, all aspects of His being, His Life as well as His death, in recognizing that we cannot have one without the other. It is utterly ridiculous, disingenuous, and unbiblical to believe one can be redeemed by His blood while simultaneously rejecting the relevance of His Life, the Presence of which continues in and through the Church.

It is important to remember and embrace the fidelity of the Lord regardless of our response - or lack thereof - because He is the one, single, solitary Constant and Certainty and Covenant in a world filled with inconsistencies, uncertainties, and broken promises. If we are making an argument "for" Church, the argument is empty without Christ - for the Church is empty without Christ. Without Christ as the divinely appointed Head, we may as well call ourselves the "Rotary" or "Optimists" or "Elks" or any number of other secular, civic organizations whose rules and standards of conduct are subject to majority vote of humans and their own cultural standards.

Tony Campolo, the same author mentioned earlier, tells of one of his earliest recollections of Holy Communion at the church where he grew up. As the bread was being passed around (the tiny crackers on a plate), a sobbing young woman seated in the pew just in front of him refused the plate when it was passed to her and then lowered her head, sobbing in despair. Tony's father leaned over the young woman's shoulder and whispered, "Take it, girl. It was meant for you."

"She raised her head and nodded—and then she took the bread and ate it. I knew that at that moment some kind of heavy burden was lifted from her heart and mind. Since then, I have always known that [it was only the] Church that could offer Communion to hurting people as a special gift from God."

Where else, indeed, will such Good News be proclaimed? Clearly the elder gentleman was not so concerned about making the young woman feel good about herself by granting her a social "pass" for her mistakes, but was instead seeking to make the young, heart-broken woman feel good about her Lord - who gave Himself so completely for her IN SPITE of her sinful state. Where else would this happen but within the Body of Christ?

There is a saying: "We're not what we ought to be, but then we're not what we used to be."

The Holy Church, as the Body of Christ, is made up of her individual members, those members who choose to step forward and come into Union with Christ AND with one another in COVENANT. It is the Church called forward by the "Great Commission" to be Christ in and to the world. The Lord did not offer an "option" prior to His Glorious Ascension; He issued a directive, a command. And He put His Body the Church in place, empowered by the Holy Spirit, to continue His ministry to those who cannot find their way. Who else but the Holy Church? And within the Holy Church herself, Christ's promises are sure: I will be with you ... And the gates of Hades shall not prevail.
In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Why Christ?

Daniel 7:1-3, 15-18 Ephesians 1:11-23 Luke 6:20-31

Continuing an exploration into the Church's relationship with the Lord as the Body of Christ, the logical first question to settle is, "Why Christ?" since the New Covenant of the Holy God comes to us by way of Christ Jesus. Trying to answer this overly simplified question, however, raises even more questions than I had previously proposed:
• Why did Christ come?
• Why did Christ die?
• Why did Christ rise from the grave?
• Why will Christ come again?
• Why discipleship?
• Why does any of this matter to me now?

I have often been accused of "over-thinking" religion and faith, but these questions have to be answered by disciples for this reason: they help to lead us into equal parts of the total Christ experience, which is to say that Jesus' teaching ministry, His crucifixion, His resurrection, His return, and His relevance cannot be separated one from the other. To believe in Christ is to accept and embrace His totality WITHOUT making Him to be a "god" unto Himself and without separating His death from His life. It should be very difficult to believe one can be "saved" by His blood while removing oneself from the totality of His life.

Questions are inevitable. It is a mistake to believe asking questions is somehow sinful or foolish or that we express a lack of faith by daring to ask questions. To follow Jesus is to be fully engaged with Him and with all of creation THROUGH Him. Besides, we are surrounded by a sea of non-believers who would like to have relevant answers to their questions, but the Church - by way of her members - has relegated that position of responsibility to the world and its temporal responses to eternal questions.

Statistics indicate that over 90% of Americans at least acknowledge the existence of a "higher power" even though they do not call that "power" by any name. It is more inconceivable that the world simply came into existence from nothingness than that the world we know was divinely created, an order called into being.

The 17th-century French writer and deist Voltaire was a product of, if not a contributor to, the Enlightenment, the age of religious reasoning. He expressed his personal theology in this way: "What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason."

This was deism, a belief only in that which is physically evident and from which logical conclusions can be reached. It is a good start from which questions will come, but it is incomplete. Voltaire, apparently like most Americans today, had no problem with a "supreme being", even insisting upon its necessity in order for creation to make sense, but he had a particular suspicion, if disdain, for Christianity and its seeming perpetual and generational metamorphoses based entirely on opinion and "hearsay" (his perception of Bible writings).

For Voltaire, and others like him before and since, Christianity is far beyond any sense of reason. That a Man was falsely accused, tortured, and murdered for His beliefs requires no faith; recorded history is filled with such stories. But to believe this same Man was three days dead in a sealed tomb and then resurrected - and all for a Divine purpose within the reasonable "created order" - goes far beyond reason. So we enter into the realm of faith and draw closer to an answer to our question; "why Christ?" In fact, we need to know why all these things even matter if Christ matters at all.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). So faith is an evaluation of the present reality measured against the promises of the Kingdom of Heaven, an abstraction for most because the present reality can often be so overwhelming. Things of the Kingdom of Heaven are somewhat lofty especially for those who are currently - and perhaps perpetually - economically disadvantaged. Or are suffering marital and other family problems. or have just lost a job and the only thing on the horizon in real terms is the possible loss of one's home, that last bastion of safety and sanctuary. Why Christ for them?

Reality can be pretty harsh when things are not going the way we want them to go, so reality is a little hard to overcome with promises of "heaven". And if we are going to be theologically honest with those who are facing such calamities, we cannot promise them that reality is going to change anytime soon. Devoting one's life to Christ and choosing to become a disciple is not going to change reality, but faith will enable us to work through reality with a new perspective. But those who have come to equate Christ with cash or other financial "good luck", like the TV preachers seem to promise with carefully selected Scripture passages, are in for some severe disappointments.

The so-called "Beatitudes" are more focused on and directed to victims of religious persecution than on lofty promises of a better life such as a job, a home, a new car, or unearned wealth for everyone because for all that Jesus offers in terms of future blessings, He is rather demanding in challenging us to "love", to "bless", and to "pray for" those who seek to do us harm *IF* we are standing firm in and suffering for the faith especially when our impulses, our natural inclinations are to "strike back" when threatened or harmed in any way. So Jesus is speaking to the faithful, "His disciples" as stated in Luke 6:20. He has a specific audience. But He is also answering our question for us - IF - we are willing to listen carefully - AND - believe He is offering something far more substantial than what we can see in the moment.

St. Augustine believed in a created order of hierarchy. Within this created order is the need to reach "higher" rather than "lower". In other words, we move closer to "completion" - toward what we were created to do and to be - as long as we reach up rather than stoop down. So for all the gold we could possibly have, we are still lacking within this divine order because we have yet to reach higher. In fact, Augustine would maintain that if our goal in life is to acquire even more gold, for instance, we are always going to come up short because "we will ... be incapable of loving anything else properly since we will expect from these lesser things what they are unable to deliver" (Good Ideas, Wilkins, p 113).

St. Augustine maintains that the "created" order and what we might consider to be the "natural" order (the "food chain"), are in conflict with one another, we with our worldly ambitions, natural impulses, and strivings for a better life against the Lord's created order and the purposes for each level. When that divine order is distorted, evil occurs and a disconnect between the Divine and humanity exists. But Augustine maintains that "happiness is only discovered in a properly aligned life in which the HIGHER things are given priority" (Good Ideas, Wilkins, p 113).

Jesus came to realign the divine order by giving us a reason to reach higher rather than to settle for lower. It is, according to Augustine, the difference between "good" and "evil" (no middle ground!). Such disconnects from the divine order are evident when we react to a given situation according to how the world, our cultural standards, our society, and even our parents have conditioned us to react ("You don't have to take that stuff!!", "Fight back.").

Our level of perfection, the Divine Image in which we were created, is diminished when we pursue anything less than the very Face of God. The promises and blessings of the Beatitudes are contained in our willingness to settle for nothing less than the Lord, to settle for nothing less than the "perfection" of the human soul, recognizing there really is "more"; it just is that the "more" we think we need will not be found on this earth.

Faith substantially requires a certain disconnect from reality in that we realize that Jesus calls us to something much higher in the Eternal Kingdom rather than the temporal world. It is our measure of "completeness" by which we are identified by the condition of our souls rather than by the condition of our current predicament. Reality is what it is, but Christ is more. In Him, so are we.

Amen.

The Morning Before

Politics is not easy. Candidates for public office are painfully aware of this, yet they choose to endure. Why? Are they really so convinced they (and/or their respective party) alone possess the magic pill that will save the nation/state/county/city and so are willing to take on the role of martyr? Or are they so delusional as to believe they alone possess that magic pill? The political TV ads, newspaper ads, radio ads, and incessant automated telephone calls try to convince us that our lives are either meaningless or hanging on the fringes without them and their particular brand of legislation or representation or leadership. These same ads and outreach efforts also try to convince us that their political opponents will cause the earth to stop spinning on its axis, ending life as we know it.

You and I know deep down they are all full of something substantially less-than-noble, but they don't seem to know or care that we know this much. I'm not even sure they know what we know at all. What they do know is how to play a crowd. They know which buttons to push, and they know most of us react emotionally even when confused with facts. They know what we are afraid of, and they know how to assign blame to those fears. What is becoming increasing clear, however, in listening to these unbelievable ads is that most of these people who are running for their respective offices do not know the functions and limitations of the offices they seek. One need only to consider some of the outlandish promises being made to know they are either clueless themselves - OR - they are counting on our cluelessness. In the end we reward them with that coveted office they are willing to go into debt for (they easily spend more than the job pays! There's our first clue, America!!), thereby solidifying their belief that negative, mean, hostile, disingenuous and less-than-honest ads, and downright falsehoods will win the day. This is how they become increasingly convinced that you and I are clueless and don't really want clues. "Please lie to us, Candidate X! We like it! And while you're at it, say something bad about your opponent's mama!"

We only want to be stroked, petted, and courted. We want to be convinced that our sorry lot in life is not our fault. We need to be convinced there really is a magic pill (cut spending/raise taxes). We don't want to believe (or even to know) that as easy as it was to get into the shape we are in (and like it or not, it began long before the current president, his predecessor and many others before them), it will be incredibly difficult to get out. We don't mind the idea of "cuts" in federal spending - in fact, we know cuts are a must - but we are not willing to personally endure those cuts. And this they know all too well. It is how they are able to get away with the sorry ads we are forced to endure for over a year. They do them because we seem to like them. And we obviously like them because we respond to them.

So here it is the day before Election Day, and I am so disgusted with the entire process and all the people involved that I am having a hard time convincing myself that I should even bother to vote. I feel like my participation will only encourage these nasty people, and yet I know every vote counts (or, at least, I hope so). The last time I voted I felt almost "dirty" because I did not like any of the choices. I was as disgusted then as I am now. I am at an impasse because no matter how I vote, the candidates who win the day will not know or even care about little ol' me. They will clearly care more about the party they represent, and they will care about those who can personally or politically benefit them in some way. They will begin to care about me when they come up for reelection. THEN they will answer my letters or take my phone calls.

What bothers me most, what really causes me great concern and distress is the unbelievably large number of Christians who believe politics is a useful theological tool (even as I am thoroughly disgusted with politicians who use theology as a useful political tool). Jesus and the apostles call us to be respectful of government and one another "for the sake of good order", yet we feel perfectly justified in cursing and judging one another according to political inclinations.

More than this, however; I am overwhelmingly disturbed at the large number of Christians who believe politics should define - or can define - our faith; can, in fact, subsidize and substantiate our very religion.

I have to say the Jehovah's Witnesses seem to have the right idea in removing themselves from the political process altogether. It must be said, however, that our republic is not ruled by a monarchy; we are self-governed. If we remove ourselves from the political process altogether, we them subject ourselves to whatever may come our way. We relinquish our role as part of the governing process and will be stuck with whatever comes.

So it sounds hopeless. From a purely political, social perspective there is no real hope. President Obama will not "save" us, and Congress cannot help us - not in the way we need to be "saved" or "helped". And the sooner we come to terms with this absolute reality, the sooner we can stop depending on and demanding so much from our government. But as long as we put so much of ourselves into the hands of man's political religion of self, there can be no hope within us. And as long as we reward liars and deceivers with virtually unlimited power and control over our lives and our society, we will get exactly what we asked for; exactly what we deserve but not at all what we would dare to hope for our children.

Why

Habakkuk 1:1-4, 2:1-4
2 Thessalonians 1:1-4, 11-12
Luke 19:1-10

Serious questions require serious answers. Rev. Bob Crossman, the Arkansas Conference General Secretary, challenges United Methodist Christians to answer three (3) basic questions as part of our overall evangelistic mission to "make disciples of Christ for the transformation of the world"; to act as the Body of Christ, to be Christ in the world:
• Why Christ?
• Why Church?
• Why this church?

To which I would respectfully add:
• Why worship?
• Why membership?

which will inevitably lead to other questions as well, which will include but not be limited to such questions as:
• Why baptism?
• Why Holy Communion?
• Why the Bible?

From our search for comprehensible answers, I think we must also be prepared for even more "why" questions than these which will likely arise from these discussions for the next few weeks as we continue to explore the Church's relationship with the Lord as His Body, as His presence in the world - and our parts as individuals within that dynamic.

I floated these questions some weeks ago during a Sunday evening service, but then I sort of left them hanging without much thought beyond posing the questions and challenging each of us to grapple with them, which some did. What I did not anticipate was how difficult it can be to answer these questions individually but within the greater context of how it applies to the Church as a whole, as the Body of the Risen Christ Himself - which must be done because this is who and what we are. We are not a church unto ourselves as individuals but as a body of believers; there is little that is "individualistic" about the mission of Christ's Holy Church even as we become aware of our individual gifts we are endowed with and expected and called to bring to the whole Body, the Church.

As we were reminded this Sunday evening past, however, most of us probably have the answers to these questions within us, but we think of our answers on a much more personal level. It must be said and acknowledged, then, that if we lack the confidence, the ability, or even the willingness to articulate these answers, our faith can become self-serving and our place in the Body of Christ irrelevant to the overall mission of the Church - irrelevant by our choosing, not His.

It becomes more and more about "me" as individuals and less and less about Christ the Lord who is Head of the Church (Ephesians 1:22). When we allow our faith to become that intensely "personal", it soon becomes "private" and not to be shared - or it becomes so rigid as to demand exclusive rights. The Body of Christ begins to crumble from within as more and more "parts" of the Body begin to fall away, the "eye saying to the hand, 'I have no need of you'" (1 Corinthians 12:21), to seek their own path and no other.

The Church Universal (which is to say, Christians of all persuasions and denominations, clergy and laity alike) must at least bear some responsibility for the many who are falling away or have already fallen away for several reasons, not least of which are what is commonly referred to as "cheap grace" (that is, salvation without sacrifice) in careless theology - AND/OR - practices of piety (means of grace) that have been either abandoned altogether or reduced to mere superstition with no spiritual discernment; in other words, no reason to embrace these practices except maybe to escape "bad luck".

In my humble opinion, the Church Universal has done a less-than-adequate job of helping seekers and the faithful to answer these compelling questions not only for themselves but for applicability within the greater context of the whole Church. And I say this because of the many, myself included, who attend worship to "feel good about themselves", to know they have fulfilled an obligation by doing their "part".

Few, if any, attend worship with the expectation of a Divine Encounter, and fewer still come with the understanding that Divine "marching orders" may be issued. In short, the Church Universal has encouraged and invited individuals to enter into the Presence of the Lord through His Body the Church and take their proper places within the Body - BUT - through careless theology has allowed these same "individuals" to walk out and away as the nine lepers in Luke 17:11-19 who were healed of their affliction but did not see fit to return. Nine of the ten who were healed got what they wanted out of it for themselves and went on their merry way, offering the Lord not so much as a "thank you". It was only the Samaritan, the social outcast, who returned to Jesus out of gratitude and awe. It was the Samaritan ALONE who became a part of the Body of Christ.

There is little to suggest Zacchaeus had any real expectations of an encounter with Jesus, but we can easily see that his curiosity got the best of him to the point that he climbed a tree to determine for himself "why" the big fuss. He was the chief tax collector AND a rich man; he obviously had all he needed to live as well and as contentedly as he would choose. Yet there was something within him that drove him to pull out all the stops just to see Jesus for himself, and it really does not matter what his intentions were. Little did he know that he would not only "see" but would also "be seen" AND called because of his relentless pursuit. He likely never imagined that for all his crooked ways, Jesus would actually want to sit down and break bread with him. And yet He did.

Yet even as much as the story itself seems to be all about Zacchaeus the individual, the reader must surely be able to see that the story is about repentance and salvation; not Zacchaeus. The story focuses not on any individual but on the grace and mercy that is Christ. The story is about putting aside the pursuit of one's own and seeking something much greater than self-fulfillment. Could Zacchaeus have kept all his money and simply professed Jesus as Lord? Could he not just simply "believe" and keep all his wealth besides? Could he not have the best of both "worlds"; the cash, wealth, and power his life surely afforded him - AND - be "saved", too?

Why question the story? Why ask questions that may make the story more complicated than it has to be? Why ask questions at all? Why not simply take the story at its face value: the Lord our God, through Christ the New Covenant, saves?

Why? Because our Lord is much bigger than Zacchaeus and He is infinitely bigger than Bro. Michael, but He cannot be bigger or larger or outside of Himself as His own Body, the Holy Church. The questions matter because discipleship matters. But before discipleship can matter or even have real meaning, we must answer the questions. We must know "why" the Church exists. We must know "why" Christ calls us forward in the Church, His Body. We must know "why" it matters to live within the Body of Christ rather than to choose to go it alone.

The Gospels are filled with stories of the disciples who followed Jesus faithfully and continually asked "why" questions. These were questions they needed answers to in order to follow more faithfully, to serve more faithfully, to become even more than they already were.

So shall we - TOGETHER as the Body of Christ - follow faithfully, ask relentlessly, and serve restlessly so that we may discover - TOGETHER - the fullness of Life that is Christ through His Holy Church.

So must we - in the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Phelps v Snyder: a can of worms

How does one defend the Bill of Rights while demanding an end to the reprehensible behavior of the Phelps Klan - and Terry Jones and the developers of the proposed NYC Islamic Center and many others - without putting at risk the overall public activities of the Church as a whole? This case before the US Supreme Court (Phelps v Snyder) is about much more than free speech. Even though "hate speech" and defining a public persona as a target of such speech seem to be what the Supremes are trying to deal with, there are other issues lying just beneath the surface, issues that could adversely affect the Church's ability to work within the secular community, unapologetically in the name of Christ, without restrictions as a religious practice.

When Roe v Wade came onto the scene so many years ago as an issue of privacy, albeit with respect to abortion, I doubt many could have foreseen today's ethical dilemmas of the so-called "partial birth abortion" or euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research or even human cloning. It is both the curse and the majesty of a judicial system by which such issues must eventually be decided, especially issues with profound moral implications that strike at the heart of mainstream Judeo-Christian ethics. For the faithful it is not about the exercise of religion; it is about the practices that define religious faith.

The ramifications of Phelps v Snyder are no less profound within the realm of Christian practice, a religion that demands of believers to "go ... make disciples ... teach them" (Gospel of Matthew 28:19-20). Though the manner by which the Phelps Klan proposes to "teach" may be questionable, they seem nevertheless to be protected by the 1st Amendment not only in speech but in the practice of whatever religion they claim for themselves (ostensibly Christianity since they say they are Baptists). In the context of mainstream Christianity, their message (though troubling, to say the least) is not entirely unbiblical. The Lord does refer to homosexual conduct as an "abomination" (Leviticus 18:22), the practice of which is punishable by death. In this context, it is clearly a practice the Lord "hates". Not to get too theological or even literal here, but the basic message is fundamentally sound at least according to the standards of the Bible on a very basic level. The Bible, however, is not on trial here, nor is any Bible believer's interpretation. What is on trial is a Bible believer's - or a church's - public conduct while claiming to act within a biblical mandate.

Mainstream Christianity that is biblically grounded overwhelmingly finds the activities of the Phelps Klan to be, at the very least, shameful. Yet it cannot be denied that abortion protesters, however civil and right they may claim to be, are highly offensive to those who do not agree. Indeed the very message of "repentance" itself is offensive to a largely secular society that demands its "rights" to do as it pleases when it pleases. The Religious Right and its demands of a certain moral standard are offensive to all who don't agree. In short, we are all too easily offended, and the Supreme Court seems to be backed into a corner of being forced to decide who has a "right" to be offended, and who has a "right" to be offensive.

It is a rare thing indeed for the Supreme Court to deal with only one issue with one ruling. In this particular case of Phelps v Snyder, there will be no winner. Free speech or the free exercise of religion is about to take a hit in some form or fashion.

A Member is a Member ... or not

Revelation 3:14-22
1 Corinthians 12:12-27
Luke 14:25-33

“Tell people where they are going and they may get there; inspire them with why they are going there and they will move mountains [to get there].”
~Christopher Novak

For the past several weeks I have shared with you only a few of the elements of the Church's call to mission which is not the "most" challenging aspect of church life: it is the lifeblood of the Church itself. It is the "Great Commission". Without a sense of mission, there is no Church. So if the Church is the Body of Christ, as St. Paul suggests to the Corinthians, it then stands to reason that the Body of Christ is the Heart of Christ and thus the Mission of Christ. So if all good things come from Christ and the Church is His Body, then for what we are called to do AS A CHURCH, all good things flow from Him THROUGH the Church. In this, then, we are compelled to ask: how can we profit on any level by consciously choosing NOT to be a part of the Body of Christ, the Holy Church?

The simple answer is: we cannot - and we can no longer afford to make excuses or exceptions for ourselves, our loved ones, our friends, or our neighbors. We can all agree that there is no profit in walking away from Christ; it is therefore reasonable that there is no profit in walking away from His Holy Church, His very Body. Yet many do. Why they do can be anyone's guess - and we do spend an awful lot of time guessing and speculating - but we do not typically spend a lot of time or expend a lot of energy trying to find out for ourselves firsthand exactly what set someone off to the point that they voluntarily remove themselves from the Church altogether - or move from one church to another.

It is reasonable that when we think in terms of "mission" we think in terms of reaching out to the unchurched; we think in terms of "making disciples" of those who have yet to discover for themselves the saving grace of the Lord through Christ. It is unfortunate that we can become so overwhelmed with such an awesome task that we often forget how important it is that we are also in mission to one another; not only "making" disciples but also "sustaining" and "nurturing" and "supporting" disciples. This is, in fact, the essential foundation of the Methodist movement altogether; it is why we have come to exist in the first place - to strengthen the Church, not tear it down. Part of the cohesiveness of the Church, which is each individual church's strength, is in recognizing that when ONE of us is in trouble - regardless of the nature of that trouble - then we are ALL in trouble. And when we are ALL in trouble, the CHURCH itself is in trouble.

Relationships within the Body of Christ are human relationships and are too often defined by human standards (our personal likes and dislikes); and as such, they are fragile and must be handled with care. There are some among us with extremely weak constitutions. Others constantly struggle with faith. Some are so sensitive to the point that they require special handling. Some, as I've been accused more than once, are a little more "direct" than may be necessary. And this is good to know so that I may make necessary corrections and issue apologies. I am the pastor and I should be held accountable - but no more or less so than any among us should be held accountable.

None of this makes a person of any lesser value than the most faithful among us; it only makes one unique, as we are all unique - and special - and of equally sacred worth. But because these relationships are so fragile, it takes very little to set someone off to the point that they up and walk out without a word, never to return. What's worse is that these often leave angry. It could be what the pastor says in a sermon, it could be the way someone looked at them, or it could be something really wrong in their lives that is interfering with everything else; but we won't know unless or until we ask.

Jesus, according to Luke's Gospel, makes no bones about what being His follower entails and what He actually expects and demands: TOTAL COMMITMENT. To be sure, there is a spiritual and often emotional element that evokes an initial response, but to commit to a life of service to the Lord requires consideration before commitment. To "count the cost" before such a commitment - to see the potential AS WELL AS the challenges - seems to be exactly what Jesus is referring to; in fact, the early Church had a preparatory period in which people were prepared for membership. No one was accepted on a whim. They could not just jump up, claim a Pentecostal moment, and be immediately received as members. It was a good discipline whose practice has been all but lost over the centuries. Now some might suggest that a refusal to receive a new member without question is a failure on the part of the Church or its pastor, but the truth is people need to know what will be expected of them. To accept them without question, to me, is the foundation for failure. It is like making a disciple but excusing that disciple from discipleship. It is like buying a new car but never putting gas in the tank. It's still a car, but it does not serve its purpose - which is the spiritual journey we all share - IF we are totally committed to Christ. And being committed to Christ is being committed to the Journey of Christ.

Today the Church is in such a state that people typically raise an eyebrow if the pastor does not offer an invitation at the end of every service, but my experience - and the experiences of others before and with me - has been that it is never a good idea to receive a new member on the spur of the moment. There must necessarily be a preparatory period in which the potential new member is introduced to life in the Church - AND all it entails. And yes, dear friends, that includes committee assignments as called upon especially in smaller churches with limited personnel options. Not only that, but membership calls for a commitment through which a committee may call upon an individual or a group of persons for help and be reasonably assured of a positive, if eager, and willing response. Hearing "No" and with only the explanation that "I just don't want to" does not speak well of one's commitment to the Body of Christ. And after so many "no's", it just becomes tiresome and cumbersome - and often down-right degrading - to have to virtually beg a disciple - a church member - to help where help is needed. But then - it is in this moment when discipleship and membership are more clearly defined.

The Bible and the United Methodist Book of Discipline are not unambiguous about what commitment to Christ means, but both references also acknowledge that many among us need a little extra help, a little more encouragement, a little more face time with someone other than the pastor who is more often perceived of as "only doing the job" for which he or she is paid. Most appreciate the efforts, of course, but there is an element of loneliness when fellow members do not bother to inquire, when others feel "forgotten" or worse; dumped on when no one else will step up. There is no care, there is no concern, there is no fellowship; there is only the pastor whose primary concern is "numbers". The "body" of Christ, such as it is, ceases to exist when its own members do not hold one another accountable or even care for one another.

We like being members of a church. We like that we "belong" to something but when our sense of belonging is reduced only to what we can get out of it for ourselves or only what we feel like doing as it personally pleases us, something gets lost; that something is "sacrifice" which is the bedrock of the Church, our faith. It is the very essence of the Lord Jesus who calls upon us and reminds us that He already took care of the really hard part. He corrects us, He enlightens us, He feeds us, and He even chastises us - ominously - as in the Revelation. Yet even with all that is written for our edification, we still bristle at the notion that our membership calls for more than we are willing to put forth - even and especially when there is no apparent or immediate reward for our trouble.

These are all very generalized statements, of course. It would be utterly unfair to consider such things to be universal or equally applicable because you know and I know there are some who will work their fingers to the bone for the sake and the life of the Holy Church until the Lord calls them home. We are also aware that more couples both work outside the home and thus have little extra time to devote to the life of the Church, what with soccer, baseball, football, dance lessons, and so forth, up to and including Sunday tournaments. And they do all this without question, without hesitation, and without reservation, but they typically do not give the Church the same attention and devotion. And the reason is simple: there are few who truly care enough to hold us accountable - because there is no sense of urgency about what is really at stake.

We are overtaxed from almost every angle and it often seems that the more we give, the more they want, regardless of who "they" is! In all this confusion and conflict, however, what we also fail to appreciate is that there are never enough bodies to do the work that needs to be done because we have done very little to bring our missing brothers and sisters back into the fold. The idiot pastor keeps pushing and challenging for stupid things like evangelism and outreach and keeps asking more and more of the fewer and fewer to reach out to the unchurched, and yet we as a Church fail to realize the substantial number of unchurched there are among even our own "members". They have excuses, we give them a free pass to use those excuses, but we never really challenge them. So we fail them and thus fail the Church - and ultimately the Lord.

We are United Methodists - and regardless of what you think or of what you've perhaps heard, being a United Methodist means something. It means we believe in the one God and Lord of all creation. It means we believe in the redemptive love of the Lord our God through Christ Jesus. It means we believe in the Holy Spirit who teaches us, strengthens us, and corrects us when we need to be corrected - He cares enough to hold us accountable. He has NEVER offered us a "free pass". But being a United Methodist also means that we believe enough in our heritage and what we are called to do that we would care enough for one another to hold each other accountable to and for the faith - for the sake of the Holy Church AND their eternal souls.

The Sacrament of Reconciliation - more commonly referred to as Confession - in the Roman Catholic Church was the single most difficult thing I ever did, and there was never a time when I was comfortable with the idea of "coming clean" to a priest. One priest, however, sat me down, had me close my eyes, and imagine Jesus sitting across from me. "But", he said, "imagine our Lord with a single tear streaming down His face not only because our failures have offended Him but also because He KNOWS every ounce of pain we have endured. He wants to help, but we won't let Him in." And this, my dear friends, is what is at stake whether or not we choose to hold one another accountable for our vows of membership.

When we are willing to go beyond ourselves for the sake of another, it is an unmistakable sign that we care; clear evidence that the love of God exists within us. We are United Methodist Christians and we trust in the Lord our God - BUT - we also believe in one another. It is or it isn't. We do or we don't - but there is no in-between. We are members of the Body of Christ - or we are not.

Where is the Love?

"Wookin pa nub en aw da wong pwaces, wookin pa nub ..."

For those not familiar with those lyrics, they are from a "Saturday Night Live" skit with Eddie Murphy playing the part of the old Little Rascals' "Buckwheat" pushing a compilation album in his later years. He used Buckwheat's accent and speech impediment to radically alter the lyrics of some familiar tunes of the day. It was a good skit and Eddie Murphy has since gone on from SNL to bigger and better things. The rest of the nation "wookin pa nub" (that's "looking for love" for those of you still trying to connect the dots); well, not so much. The digression of this nation's attitude and moral fiber is more than a little unsettling but before you begin to think I am about to go off on homosexuality, serial divorce and remarriage, teen sex, casual sex, adultery, or any of the other sex issues out there, think again. And read carefully.

"Those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh ..." Romans 8:5a NKJV

Be honest. Do you wonder how many Christians believe this passage to be solely devoted to issues of sexual ethics? Do you yourself see this passage, read "flesh" (and "carnal" which comes a little later in the chapter in the NKJV) and immediately think "sex" but fail to more broadly consider what the Bible means when it warns against "the things of the flesh? My guess is that many, if not most, actually do think exclusively about sex issues though I have no data to support such a contention. What I do have is the intent of so many Christians who are up in arms about the proposed Islamic Center to be built a few blocks from Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan and their very hate-filled words, but they're not homos or adulterers so they're good to go; still acting righteously. Right?

What I also have is a stale collection of Christians who are gathered in nearly every church setting cursing their "neighbor" for one thing or another, but at least these accusers are not up to no good in someone else's bed so they, too, are righteously good to go. Liberals are "too damned liberal", and conservatives are "too damned conservative" (I'm being kind, by the way) but as long as we are not straying or doing anything weird with someone else's body and bein' all nekkid, it's all good. Right? Remember that I am not talking about Washington DC and partisan politics; I am talking about the many churches of many denominations in many settings, rural or urban, who have somehow come to believe that righteousness is strictly defined by sexuality or nationalism.

"Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. Be kindly affectionate toward one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another, not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord ..." Romans 12:9-10

I have discovered, much to my dismay, that proposing to be fair about the "Ground Zero Mosque", as it has come to be called, has gotten me cursed from both sides and from all angles of the issue, the curses coming from - you guessed it - Christians. And to defend the president's remarks "in all fairness"? Forget it. I wondered if I would be tarred and feathered first by the hateful Christians who demanded that the president and the Muslims (or is it our "closet Muslim" president? I forget) be cursed. From the more liberal Christians who think I was not strong enough in my defense of the president come equal wishes that I die! To say that I am profoundly disappointed would not quite touch on my feelings but to be perfectly honest, I am not even sure how to feel especially when it is suggested to me that perhaps I should worry more about what is "right" than what is "fair". I am such an idiot. I thought "fair" was "right".

Allow me to express that given the nature and source of the well-coordinated attacks on this nation that fateful day in 2001, a new Islamic "anything" in Manhattan is in extremely poor judgment and taste and will not play well now; maybe ever. It may even be, as some have insisted, an intense if deliberate lack of respect for the feelings of those who survived the attack or who lost loved ones. But let me also express that those who planned and executed that attack on the people of the United States that dreadful day were, and are, as clueless about Islam as Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist people are about Christianity. These international criminals may well have been shouting "Allah Akbar" as they hit their WTC and Pentagon targets, but those proclamations did not express Islam, faith, religion, or anything even closely resembling righteousness. These were expressions of intense anger and raw hatred by murderers and cowards, pure and simple. The damage these murderers caused, however, may not be as profound or as long-lasting as the damage that is continually done in the name of the Lord yet "with malice in my heart".

"Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things." Romans 14:1

The American Church has been in steady decline for the past 40-50 years, and church leaders - both laity and clergy - continue to scratch their heads and think through the persistent decline. Some try to think of new "bells and whistles" that might be attractive. Others are trying very expensive media ad campaigns that seek to reintroduce their churches to the general public but in relevant ways. Sometimes it is "about the numbers", but we must always be mindful that each "number" represents a soul that may be in distress and on the verge of collapse, a soul the Church is called in mission to reach out for. These absentee souls, however, are making a profound statement that reverberates throughout the Holy Church but does not seem to resonate well with church people. What are the absences telling us?

I think the Church may do much better by talking more to those who are outside rather than to those who are inside. Attending a "listening session" some months back with some of the lay leaders of the congregation I serve as pastor, we got an earful from many other church folks who were insisting that the Church must return to its biblical foundation and "preach the truth". I heard the words they spoke, but I felt the utter disdain they seemed to express not only toward those who sponsored the "listening session" but also toward those who would not agree with them. What they - and many others, myself included - seem to overlook is that one can be technically correct when it comes to expressing biblical philosophy or doctrinal truth while simultaneously being spiritually so far off the mark as to render the biblical Truth ineffective, at the very least.

People don't respond with love and gratitude to threats, and it must be noted that contempt breeds nothing but contempt. Many among those who are outside the Body of Christ feel they have been threatened one too many times with hell fire from self-righteous Christians who are painfully devoid of love and grace. The so-called "or else" theology does not carry a sound biblical message for lack of one simple element: "speaking the truth in love"; witnessing to this Truth by our actions rather than by our demands. The Christian message is no message at all if we use the Bible as a weapon to destroy rather than as a tool with which to build. The meaning of Holy Scripture is without context if we can quote chapter and verse but do not have the Word of the Lord written in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.

It may sound as though I am giving those who have left the Church and those who keep the Church at a safe distance an excuse for staying away. To the contrary, I am telling - and have told - these many absentee disciples that the Church is in its current state because self-righteousness is as much the harm and cause outside the Church as in. These missing souls have gained nothing in any sense by removing themselves from the corporate church, and they have placed themselves at grave risk by refusing to participate in fellowship with other believers - SINNERS ALL, mind you!! - and holding the many wayward and backward-thinking Christians accountable for their hatefulness and spite or downright complacency.

This accountability alone gave rise to the Methodist movement whose founder was intent not in creating a whole new church but to strengthen the existing Church. Such a philosophy is no less true of the first century Church that grew and spread so quickly because so many were eager to share this wondrous Good News! And the Church has continued to grow for some 2000 years even with us "hypocrites" at the pulpits and other "jerks" leading the Bible study schools.

Let's face it. We are all in desperate need of the Lord's grace for none among us is worthy. And we are not made more worthy by pointing out the faults of others. We are indeed heaping curses upon ourselves as we curse our neighbors. Where is the love in that?

Dazed and Confused

A federal judge has struck down California's ban on same-gender marriage, and I have no real sense of how I should feel or what I should do. To say that I am troubled about the ruling would be an understatement because I am unequivocally opposed to same-gender marriage taking place in the Church (and more than a little resentful that I sometimes feel compelled to defend my stance against those who call me "hater" or "narrow-minded" or "bigot"), but I am a little lost when it comes to acts and demands of government because I am no longer the political animal I once was. I found it difficult to serve government functions and processes and the Lord simultaneously, so a choice had to be made. This is not to say that government workers, politicians, and lobbyists cannot be pious and faithful. And this is certainly not to say that church folk cannot practice faith and personal piety while in government service and lobbying efforts especially when it comes to issues of social justice; indeed they must. I only found it awkward for myself.

Those within the Church who claim to be fighting for social justice on behalf of homosexuals don't seem to have a problem incorporating their faith into the work they do, but I often find their arguments and understanding of Holy Scripture substantially flawed and their public conduct and behavior often reprehensible especially when they publicly claim to be acting in Christ's behalf. Often their own words are hateful; and contrary to Scripture, they answer what they perceive as "hateful" acts of mere opposition with hateful words and, often, hateful actions. Jesus and Paul both admonish the faithful NOT to fight fire with fire ("do not return evil for evil") but to "bless" those who hate. Now I do not for one moment believe that standing in opposition to such issues as homosexuality and abortion, for instance, are hateful acts in and of themselves anymore than I believe that advocacy for such things is hateful; not inherently so. Regardless of which side of the issues one stands, however, opposition is often perceived as hateful and antagonistic only because each side is already defensive and cocksure they are "right" and that whatever they choose to say or do in defense of their argument is "righteous".

An acquaintance of mine and fellow pastor is a GWB "hater" and was especially vocal during the previous administration especially in such public forums as in the op-ed sections of local newspapers. The "fruit" of his hatefulness was apparent in the vile comments, accusations, and innuendo he often made. His arguments were rarely of any substance. Though his opposition to the former president was fundamentally in opposition to the president's policies, the acquaintance's attacks were of a more personal and accusatory nature against the man George W. Bush and not the chief executive of the country. When questioned, he defended his choice of words because of the president's apparent "fruits" ("You will know them by their fruits" - by what they do - Jesus teaches). When I suggested to my acquaintance that his own "fruit" was somewhat bitter and poisonous, he attempted to defend his "righteous anger" but each accusation he leveled against President Bush was ultimately an accusation against himself for he was demanding to remove the "speck" from the former president's eye while ignoring the "plank" in his own eye. To varying degrees, there are few persons who can withstand such scrutiny, myself included!

All of this is to amplify the futile nature of such acts and arguments especially when human emotion and personal opinion are injected, facts are often overlooked, and respect for one's fellow man is painfully absent. Nothing is accomplished. In fact it would probably be more accurate to say that far more harm than good is done regardless of which side finally "wins" (if a victory can be claimed at all). As for what the federal ruling in California will finally mean for society in general and for the Holy Church, this has yet to be seen because the issue will be appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court because each side has promised such course of action regardless of the outcome of the appeals court ruling.

My personal sense of awkwardness is in recognizing that the Church must continue to function as the Body of Christ and not as a social agency within our secular society because I do believe the Church is called to serve as a sanctuary and as a means of redemption from the secular culture rather than as a catalyst for assimilation that is so obviously contrary to the Church's "Book", the Bible. The Church was a powerful voice for justice and social conscience during the Civil Rights era and continues to be so in the midst of ongoing immigration challenges - and rightly so on both counts - but can this truly be a fair comparison? No one can dispute that homosexuals are unjustly targeted by some in the form of so-called "hate crimes" and even in off-color and dehumanizing jokes, but the right to marry does not quite seem to compare with the right to be treated as a human being especially in terms of human exploitation. I freely admit that my own opinion and opposition prevent me from seeing such parallels. It is for me "apples and oranges" because the Civil Rights era, immigration issues, and even abortion are fundamentally about the dignity of the human person; the same-gender marriage thing is specific and exclusive. I am no more or less a human being because I am married. My marital status has nothing to do with my sacred worth or my dignity as a human being.

It is equally easy for me to say that even if states choose to offer marriage licenses without restrictions, it has little to do with the federal government which does not issue marriage licenses and nothing to do with the Church and her practices which must remain faithful to the Eternal Bridegroom and not succumb to secular social pressure. As for the call for "inclusiveness" within the Church, this much is true: all those who earnestly repent of their sins are to be included and incorporated into the Body of Christ.

In the final analysis, there is not much more that can be done since this issue is squarely in the hands of the federal court system whose players are appointed for life rather than elected for a term. All that is left to do is in the hands of the faithful prayer warriors to earnestly ask that the Lord's will be done. The will of politicians who will be left to respond after the court system does its duty will not extend much further than the ability to be reelected regardless of right or wrong, religious or secular.

The Kingdom of Heaven

Hosea 11:1-11
Psalm 107:1-9
Colossians 2:6-10
Mark 1:4-20

A recent article from the United Methodist News Service (UMNS) sought to explain the exodus of young people (18-24) from the United Methodist Church (UMC). The reasons cited were as varied as the people whose behavior they attempted to evaluate, but the common theme seemed to be the UMC's loss of identity. While "blame" may be too strong a word, there was an attempt to at least allude to "blaming" youth leaders for putting too much emphasis on attending nondenominational events that obviously did not and would not emphasis Wesleyan theology. Methodism stopped being important, the article seemed to suggest, because Methodist leaders stopped emphasizing Methodism.

Is a lack of denominational emphasis to blame for the continuing downward spiral of member losses and professions of faith in the UMC? Yes and no. Is there something more? There is much more. I would suggest it is not so much the sense of denominationalism that is being lost or watered down, but rather what the Methodist movement - our heritage - sought to restore at its founding. For instance, one young man cited in the article left the UMC because of our practice of and belief in infant baptism. Really? That was his biggest obstacle to fully appreciating what it is supposed to mean to be Methodist? Or is there something much deeper and much more abiding that is being overlooked? I think there is - especially if infant baptism is all he understood about Methodism.

As a result of my purely unscientific observations over the years, including my own experiences, I have concluded that people will remove themselves from the fellowship of the church for a variety of reasons, primary among them being that they just don't feel like going although they will rarely admit to this. These people, including myself at one point in my life, will tick off dozens of excuses which are predominately self-righteous in their nature in a vain attempt to justify their decision, but in the end it can easily be said that something has gone missing for them. It would be downright blasphemous to suggest that true knowledge of the Lord would not overwhelm the human heart.

It's not about worship attendance, though; not entirely, anymore than it is about "being Methodist" or even being a Christian for that matter, a simple title we claim rather than a life we choose to embrace. It is the clear indication that something is wrong, something is missing altogether, or something is just out of place. No matter how good the music is or how welcoming and loving the congregation is or how dynamic the preaching is, some will never come. Likewise, no matter how bad the music is or unfriendly the congregation is or how boring the preaching is, some will always come. And each one has his or her own reasons for attending or not. It must be understood, however, that mere worship attendance is only one element of what it means to be a Methodist Christian.

Even John Wesley, the Anglican priest, stood opposed to worship rituals as a substitute for Christ-centered faith. He insisted instead that Scripture study, prayer and good works were far more beneficial for the faithful than rituals that can be reduced to little more than a mechanical response as just something we are "supposed" to do. None of this is to suggest that corporate worship and practices - especially receiving the Sacraments of the Church - are of no value, but they are of limited value, as Wesley put it, as "occasional helps to human weakness."

Though my sum total answer may be a bit oversimplified, I think maybe what has ultimately been lost or misplaced over a period of time is, quite simply, the message. The Gospel of Christ. It is the Gospel itself that has gone missing because it has been overshadowed or, at the very least, watered down. And I am not referring to the condemnatory language about who is going to hell and why because there is plenty of that already being done. I am talking about the GOSPEL, the GOOD NEWS! And because the Gospel of Christ has been watered down or has gone missing altogether, the Church as a whole has lost its footing and, worse, its sense of identity.

It is within this struggle to reacquire and/or maintain our proper balance that the Church seems so clumsy and essentially lost to those outside the Body of Christ so much so that they have convinced themselves - with our help, I might add - that they are better off without us. Make no mistake; they have not rejected Christ necessarily. They have rejected institutionalized religion. And I would suggest they have rejected practices and doctrines of man because the element of the Gospel has been misplaced.

Because this very essential element is misplaced, the core of our pursuit is missing altogether. That core, dear friends, is the knowledge of the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN - the very reason for the Good News! It sometimes seems we would much rather spend time talking about hell and who is already there and who is destined to be there rather than talk about the Kingdom of Heaven and the Lord's desire that ALL join Him there! We have become far too preoccupied with cursing rather than blessing, worrying about what OTHERS should not do vs. what WE can choose to do. More than this, however, we have become far too comfortable to the point of complacency because the knowledge of the Kingdom of Heaven is no longer a point or source of excitement.

It is no less so for Methodism because of the very nature of our heritage and founding. John Wesley never intended to create a new church. Breaking away from the Anglican Church was the last thing on his mind, though it may have been arguably less so when he commissioned preachers for mission in America. The key word in his intent and design, however, was "mission", but that "mission" has been transformed over time to what it has become today, to the point of being very nearly lifeless, the very thing he sought to overcome in the Anglican Church: the complacency of institutionalization.

The "Kingdom of Heaven" is not an institution; it is, rather, a condition of the soul. It cannot be said that the Lord our God is an "institution" because by His very nature He is mobile and dynamic. Very much like a mother with toddlers, He actually has to work very hard to keep up with us, to protect us, to guide us, to teach us, and yes, to correct us! And too often just like toddlers, we have limited attention spans because of all that is going on around us! We become too easily distracted and excited about new things, "shiny" things, so much so that we often run headlong into such things and simply take for granted that our Protector will always be there to pick us up when we fall - if we think about Him at all.

But I think this is the whole point that Jesus is making in His proclamation that the Kingdom of Heaven has come near to us. We should be willing to run headlong into this Good News rather than away from it just as a small child whose faith in "mom" is absolute, unquestioning, and unwavering. I think surely this must be the reason Jesus teaches us that unless we become childlike, we can never enter into the Kingdom of Heaven - especially not if we question its validity or doubt its Eternal Promise - or simply take it for granted as "incidental" to all else.

So may we all commit to "repentance", but not in the negative, ominous, and threatening way we've been conditioned BY MAN to believe. May we, instead, see the proclamation of Christ as the PROMISE it is: the Kingdom of Heaven is UPON US ... NOW ... IN HIM! This is the Good News that gives us hope and a sense of peace - there is no substitute. To "repent", then, is to stop running away. Embrace it, live it, and proclaim it. For it is NOT what we do - it is, indeed, who we are.

Mission: the Transforming Agent

Deuteronomy 6:1-9
James 2:1-13
Matthew 25:31-40


Pit bull dogs are among the smartest of all canine breeds, but they have such bad reputations because of that breeding that many towns have made it unlawful to own them within city limits. Cesar Milan, the "dog whisperer", says that owning pits is "advanced dog ownership" because they have to be well trained. It is not merely "ideal" as it is with all dogs; it is of the utmost necessity! These highly intelligent dogs have a natural instinct that is strongly bred into them so that if they are not taught how to behave and obey, their stronger and more dominant inclinations will drive everything they do. They will function according to what they've been bred to do, which is to attack and fight.

It's sad to say so, but in many ways people are no different. We are born with certain God-given tendencies and inclinations as well as a baser animal instinct to survive. As we mature we are oriented into the world in which we are born. We are taught certain social skills according to our parents' norms and standards - or we are neglected and left to figure things out for ourselves. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, because some kids come from good homes and families and then made stupid decisions while others come from marginal homes and families but choose to rise above it all. For the most part, however, animals of all species function not as they were meant to function, but rather as they have been taught or trained or conditioned to think, act, and behave.

It is important, I think, for these things to be understood or at least acknowledged before the Church can effectively be in mission because we will always and everywhere encounter so many different people from so many different backgrounds and from so many different cultures and sub-cultures. There will never be any two who are exactly alike. Even though we know there is only one Gospel just as there is only one God, one Lord; we must necessarily recognize that our approaches cannot always be just one particular standard.

I am told of a local priest in the Philippians who was coordinating mission activities there. He was speaking to a group of most western missionaries who were all preparing to "change the world" by their missionary efforts. Before he sent them out, he told them to never forget: "Our poverty does not exist to serve your needs."

To think of such a statement in real terms is to come to an understanding that while we of the faithful do possess a certain "need" to serve on at least some level, we must always be mindful that it is not our "needs" that are to be fulfilled when we embark on a particular ministry. We think of mission primarily as going to the deepest, darkest jungles and actively working to minister to "pagans" and "heathens" - uncivilized savages all. We perceive a need, so we step up to the plate to fulfill that need, but we do it more out of a sense of duty and responsibility rather than as an opportunity. Either way, the biggest mistake most often made by missionaries - local or foreign - is dealing only with the "surface" issues; that which can readily be seen with the eye. People are hungry, so we feed them. Children are walking with shoes that cannot keep their little feet warm and dry, so we shoe them. And the list goes on.

The challenge for us, then, is to look beyond the "surface" issues because if we do not, we do not fully "engage" (the first component of mission) ourselves in the lives of those we propose to help. More than faithful, we are typically more practical. These "surface" issues are what evidently require our attention, so we go to it. It is practical to take care of what needs to be taken care of. Failing to fully "engage" ourselves in the lives of our charges, then, we subsequently fail to "enact" (the second component of mission) the certain reality of the Gospel: that the Kingdom of Heaven is near in Christ Jesus. This they need to know. This WE need to know.

Here also is the trickier part. If we are not fully "engaged" in this certain spiritual reality ourselves - that the Kingdom of Heaven is near in Christ - we then are unable to "enact" this spiritual reality in the lives of others. We feed them, and yet they remain hungry. We clothe them, and yet they remain naked. We've left the heart of mission undone because we are not fully "engaged". The fundamental question left for us to answer, then, is this: how can we transform lives and make disciples of Christ if we ourselves are not transformed as disciples? It is important to realize that we are not there to "save" them; we are there to "engage" them in the Gospel, the Good News, of the Lord! But we must first be "engaged".

It goes far beyond simply being a "good person". To be transformed is to be fully "engaged" first in a genuine love relationship with the Lord God, as Moses reminded the Israelites, giving the Lord EVERYTHING that constitutes our very being, holding nothing back. In this it becomes necessary to appreciate the words of James when he cautions us to avoid "being double-minded" (1:8); that is, having as much a mind toward our own desires and our own pursuits while pretending to keep one eye toward the Lord. We deceive ourselves when we become convinced that such a thing is even possible because our baser instincts, absent the full "engagement" to and with the Lord, are geared toward ourselves, our own well-being, and our own needs. If this is where we are, we are not fully "engaged" in our relationship with the Lord. We are "dead or alive" according to our engagement.

There is a lot to be said for and about mission, not least of which is that mission is not strictly limited to a trip to the Sudan to feed orphans or to the Gulf Coast to help those displaced by a hurricane. Our mission begins the moment we say "yes" to the Lord. Our mission begins the instant we walk out of the doors where we choose to worship together. Our mission is defined not by what we see but by our love relationship with the Lord; it is indeed the very essence of Christ's Holy Church. Mission is the very reason the Church was established in the first place. Christianity is more a "movement" of the faithful than a dead, lifeless institution in which we become comfortable in our double-mindedness and our social setting.

Even within the worship setting itself, James reminds the faithful that there is mission to be done, that the Church is not a social setting in which "engagement" is limited only to those whom we personally are pleased to engage with, showing our preferences and prejudices rather than true and genuine hospitality and failing to "enact" that which all of humanity needs to know: that the Kingdom of Heaven is near in Christ.

Let me end with this final thought. Though we are witnesses to the Truth and the Good News of the Gospel of Christ, are we "representatives of Christ" or are we "servants of the Lord"? The difference is profound and the answer may reveal a little more than we might be comfortable with, but this compelling question will also help us to perhaps better understand what mission is really all about; indeed what Church itself is really all about. To transform lives - including our own - to make disciples - in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Peace be with you and yours,
Michael

Reaping the Harvest

Galatians 6:7-10
Luke 10:1-11

For the last two years at least, the prevailing theme at Annual Conference has been "change" in response to a continually declining membership in the United Methodist Church. Of course other denominations are experiencing the same declines overall with fewer professions of faith and an aging congregation, but we are focused more on our own mission to a culture that is seemingly more and more alien to us. Bishop Crutchfield suggested we are perhaps not unlike the Israelites in the wilderness, experiencing a world that is unfamiliar to us. That may sound depressing, but the bishop also reminded us that, like the Israelites in the wilderness, the Lord God is still leading the way. It is simply a matter of whether or not we will choose to listen to Him and follow His lead - or perish on our own in that wilderness.

Social activism has, in my humble opinion, because more the focus of the United Methodist Church because such efforts are relevant not only to us but more so to those who find themselves on the fringes of society, struggling to keep their heads above water, and wondering when or whether someone will come along to remind them that they are of sacred value, as much as anyone else. These immediate physical needs are much easier to identify and much easier to address because we can clearly see what is needed at any given moment. And we work to fulfill those needs.

Yet the United Methodist Church declines as it has - and still does - because we've lost our heart for evangelism. Worse still, we have forgotten how to speak the language of evangelism. And make no mistake; social activism is not to be confused with evangelism. Evangelism is for many just a word, a task that falls on someone else, primarily clergy, so it is not for us to concern ourselves with. We don't need to know about evangelism because, well, that is the job of the "evangelist".

Doing "good works" suits us better not only because we can see almost immediate positive results but also because we can feel good about what we do. We can go about such good works not only because of how it makes us feel about ourselves, but because we can pick and choose these works according to what we feel like doing, according to whatever suits our particular style. If something is particularly unpleasant or uncomfortable or just plain hard, we reason that the Lord is simply not leading us there, that this particular task falls to someone else. In other words, the essence of our faith - sacrifice - as a key element of evangelism is lost because the language is as unfamiliar to us as the "wilderness" was to the Israelites.

It seems to me that social activism on behalf of any church or denomination substantially misses the mark of evangelism because in the end, we teach by social activism that man - perhaps specifically government - is the answer to their problems and prayers. We tell them they are forgotten because man has forgotten them, and that Uncle Sam (or man or a particular political party) can make their problems go away almost immediately. It gets tricky here, though, because we do have social and moral responsibilities as a people and as a nation - most certainly as the Body of Christ - and we are required to feed those who are hungry and tend to those who are sick, lonely, and afraid.

As we can see with Jesus' charge to His disciples, however, there is that important element missing: the Kingdom of Heaven has come near but we fail to make this message the primary focus of our efforts. It becomes incidental to what we do because we gravitate toward that which is more familiar to us, and unfortunately partisan politics is much more familiar to us than evangelism. We resist the "wilderness" experience because we can see no real reward for such discomfort, for unnecessary suffering on our part. We can clearly see there are a lot of people out there who are hanging by their last thread, a lot of people who are hurting, a lot of people who are delicately teetering between despair and utter hopelessness, but we are unwilling to share in their suffering, choosing instead to tell who is to blame for their sorry lot in life. This is the danger inherent to social activism.

Notice something. Notice the implied openness of Luke's gospel, and what I mean by "openness" is the suggestion that those who receive the messengers "in peace" (but not necessarily in faith) will have peace bestowed on them. "You reap what you sow." In Luke 10:16 Jesus simply states that "whoever listens to you listens to Me" BUT "whoever rejects you rejects Me ..."

It seems to me, then, that men and women instantaneously falling to their knees and embracing Jesus as Messiah by our visit is not necessarily part of the equation, yet this is what we have come to expect because, I think, we overthink evangelism and thus make it harder than it really has to be. We take much more upon ourselves than we are entitled or called to. Such a conversion will surely come in the Lord's time rather than our own, and that is an important factor too many of us fail to comprehend because we all function in our own time. We simply cannot comprehend "eternal" time.

Instead, by our faithful efforts seeds are being planted and relationships are being developed. There are those who are at least willing to listen to what the messengers have to say, but there may be a suggestion that the disciples who are sent are expected to keep their message simple and sweet. They are not called upon nor directed to inject their own commentary or opinions or formulaic prescriptions for what the listeners must do immediately upon hearing from them. 'Say to them what I tell you to say', Jesus says. He gives them a Message. And this is the simple task of the evangelist, the messenger. It is the essential language of the Message itself.

This is an interesting perspective given the frantic mindset of the urgency that you and I must "save" souls. We cannot do such a thing, that power is not within us, but we can be "agents" of grace. We can be examples of faith, but we cannot - MUST NOT - try to take on the role of religious "enforcer". It is historically clear that people don't respond well to such tactics. And besides, are we "agents" of grace or "agents" of fear? It makes a world of difference and does have a direct impact on how people will respond because if we impart grace, they can make a direct and honest response to grace. These are good seeds. If we impart fear or man-made doctrine according to our particular traditions, however, they can only respond to that because that's all they're being offered. These are bad seeds. If we make the mistake of telling them what they MUST do, they will more likely respond just as you or I would respond: fight or flee.

We United Methodists believe it is our call as part of the Church Universal to "make disciples of Christ ..." It is our mantra, it is the Great Commission, and it should be the driving force behind everything we do as the Body of Christ. But we must also acknowledge our limitations and a certain reality in understanding that we alone cannot "save souls", but we can by our faithful and earnest efforts "make disciples" if we understand that a disciple is a follower, a student, an observer, a seeker, but not necessarily a believer; at least not initially. But as a disciple learns more, a disciple desires more. And that desire comes from what John Wesley called "prevenient grace", the Holy Spirit touching their souls; the Lord our God acting FIRST.

We must remember that "no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:3). And because the Holy Spirit is the essence of the Holy Father, the Holy Spirit works in His time. What we can do in our time is to make a simple proclamation: "The Kingdom of Heaven has come near", and then choose to live as though we actually believe that because that is what they will see and that is what they will respond to! The consistent if universal message, however, is not contingent upon their response. It does not matter what they say; it matters more what WE say. No argument should ensue, and no spiritual threats or curses must be uttered. The Lord alone will determine whether His peace rests upon that person or not, but WE simply take our "staff", shake it off, and excuse ourselves. They need only to know that the Kingdom of Heaven has come near. What may also be present is the implication that the absence of peace may suggest that the Kingdom of Heaven has just passed you by.

If the harvest is to be truly fruitful for the Kingdom of Heaven, we must be mindful of what kind of seeds we sow. Are we telling people what they need to know, or are we telling them what we think they ought to know and to do, or are we leading them in the wrong direction altogether? They will not find Christ in the halls and processes of government programs, nor will they find grace in our insistence that they must follow our prescribed formula for salvation. Our actions, our demands, our insistence upon A-B-C being followed; quite frankly, we are reaping to the flesh rather than to the spirit, not unlike St. Paul's insistence that one does not HAVE to be circumcised to experience the joy and salvation of the Lord. But when we make demands we are not imparting grace; we are imposing religion like the "Judiazers" or advocating Uncle Sam as "savior". And I firmly believe that grace will beget grace but if we insist upon a certain "formula" for salvation or the "end" being the government, we will betray our calling and ultimately lose our way in the "wilderness".

The Harvest will come and the Promised Land is within our grasp, but before the Harvest must come the sowing. It is incumbent upon us to sow Kingdom seeds made of pure Gospel - the GOOD NEWS of the Lord: that Christ has died for the sins of the world, that Christ is risen by the power and mercy of the Lord our God, and that Christ will come again to call His faithful home. This is the work and the language of evangelism, it is the work of the Holy Spirit, and it is the good pleasure of the Holy God, all by way of Christ our Lord.

Poor ol' Joe

The old saying goes that there are only two things we can be sure of in this life: death and taxes. I would add a third: if you prick Joe Biden, there will be a response - and not likely a pretty one.

Call Joe Biden anything you like, but understand that his public performance likely since the beginning of his public service career has shown that Mr. Biden has a quick wit, maybe a short temper, and a rather sharp tongue. It has nothing to do with his status as a Democrat or as vice president of the nation. It is just a matter of what kind of person he is and how his mind functions. He may enjoy some light banter from time to time and may have a hearty sense of humor (I don't know the man personally), but from my observations from afar he seems to have little patience for what he would deem nonsense, and he virtually grows and shows fangs when he is challenged or confronted. It is who he is, for good or bad.

One element I might add to the volatile mix, however, is the length of his public service that may be indicative of what the nation is seeing spewing forth not only from the nation's capital but from our state capitals as well. Public "servants" lose that sense of humble service after spending too many years in public office. Too many become somewhat detached, bold, and often downright arrogant. How many years is "too many" would be anyone's guess and a matter of perspective, I suppose, but I have duly noted that every politician I've voted for or against at election time has been the meek and humble servant while asking for my vote. After that time passes, however, and the election (or reelection) is secure, they morph back into what they truly are. Again, whether for good or for bad is a matter of perspective AND perception.

I would suggest that folks get off Joe Biden's back about this very insignificant non-issue. There have been suggestions in the past that President Obama might have to put a leash and muzzle on the VP, but I would ask whether others might muzzle the president the next time he feels compelled to talk down the US while on foreign soil or when he tries to take the "high road" and makes lofty, "kumbya" demands when it comes to political rhetoric aimed at him while still feeling free to take cheap shots at the GOP or continue to blame former President Bush rather than "man up" and take the reins as chief of state himself.

I would like to imagine how I may have responded if the VP had said something like that to me, but one would never really know until faced with the same situation under the same circumstances; face-to-face with the vice president of the United States AND with TV cameras recording every word and movement. In the end the custard shop manager came off as somewhat more "presidential" than the VP himself - which says a lot about the state of our nation and what we are willing to tolerate. There is nothing new here, and there is certainly no issue - Biden is who Biden is, and consistently so. We should not feign such "shock". It just indicates once more how clueless most of us really are when it comes to picking politicians.

Testing the spirits

1 John 4:1-6

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is about as confusing a piece of work as any I've ever had to encounter. I easily get that there is the Holy Father, the Holy Son, the Holy Spirit as elements of one another. I get that our human languages have limitations that cannot possibly fully explain the essence of the Holy God but that the Bible - for lack of a better term - "breaks Him down" into manageable pieces. It is sad that one important "piece" of Him caused a division between Judaism and Christianity, but there is another element of His being, His essence that probably causes more confusion - and division - than any other doctrine in existence maybe only because we try to explain what is clearly inexplicable.

Who is the Holy Spirit, and what do we really know about Him? In a nutshell, He is the essence of the Father. He is the Eternal Teacher, the "Advocate", the Giver of Life, the Presence of the Holy God. Without Him, says St. Paul, we cannot "say that Jesus is Lord" (1 Cor 12:3), so the Holy Spirit must also be the Eternal Informer, the Imparter of the Everlasting Truth. The Holy Spirit is the essence of the Holy Father, and the Holy Spirit is also the essence of the Body of Christ (or should be), the Holy Church that calls forth all believers to continue the mission of Christ to "go", to "do", to "teach", to "baptize". The Holy Spirit is our reminder of that sure and certain promise that we have not been "forsaken", a fulfillment of the promise of Christ prior to His Ascension that He would be with us "until the end of the age".

One of the earliest Christian confessions is that "Jesus Christ is Lord". If the Spirit is then the Life of the Holy Church, it stands to reason that the "primary mission of the Holy Spirit is to bring home to [us] the real meaning of that confession" (pg 53, Stokes, Major United Methodist Beliefs, revised).

So what does this confession mean? St. John teaches in his epistle that the foundational purpose of this confession is revealed in how we discern for ourselves one spirit from another, how we can be sure we are talking to the Holy Spirit and not some evil spirit (an "antichrist") whose mission in life is to draw us AWAY from the Holy God. The last lesson of our "Restoring Methodism" study this morning explored the Church's relationship to the Holy Spirit and whether we are equipped to discern this Spirit. Whether we are "equipped", however, is not the real issue. The real issue is whether we are WILLING to hear the Spirit of the Lord.

Surely we can agree that the Spirit of the Lord was with Jesus as He begged to be released from what was to become of Him, and surely we can agree that the Spirit told Jesus to keep moving toward Jerusalem and, ultimately, Golgotha and His torturous death.

The significance of the Holy Spirit is confirmed by Jesus in Mark 3:29 when we are told that "the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness but is subject to eternal condemnation." Traditionally it has been taught to us that this "unpardonable sin" is that of denying Christ as Lord - and there is no indication this is not true - but think about what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit truly entails, especially when we consider that the Holy Spirit is, as stated, the 'essence' of the Holy Father, the nearness of Him in our day-to-day lives. This is the Spirit that affirms Christ as Lord, to be sure, but this Spirit also convicts us of our sin.

The Spirit is where we encounter the very Real Presence of the Holy God. This real presence is profoundly expressed in the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation involving the Holy Eucharist. And when Jesus promises us that He will be with us even when only two or three are gathered in His name, to suggest that the Spirit is not present is itself a blasphemous statement because it issues a direct challenge to the promise that comes from Christ Himself - not Rome - who also told us that He does not speak of His own authority but by the authority of the "One who sent [Him]".

But the Holy Spirit is not about Catholic doctrine or Methodist doctrine or Baptist doctrine. The Holy Spirit is all about the Presence of the Holy God, regardless of how humanity tries to define it or even express it. We are aware of certain traditions that proclaim "gibberish" (my own choice of wording - very sorry if anyone is offended) as the language of the Holy Spirit. Now those of these particular traditions may accuse me of blasphemy against the Spirit by my choice of words, but I use that word only to make this point. By the "gibberish" that is not a discernable language, what is being proclaimed? Do we get "Christ is Lord" by the 'humnina-humnina' that comes from these select few, or do we get another message entirely - a message that is entirely too focused on one or two persons, a message that draws attention to those one or two and AWAY from the Holy One?

There is one other significant element of understanding the Presence of the Spirit and blasphemy that may result from our carelessness. We may have difficulties trying to decide whether it is the Spirit actually speaking to us from within OR if we are operating strictly on our own hunches or feelings. Do we use the Holy Spirit as our justification for what we do in a vain effort to give our actions some significance that otherwise does not exist? It is indeed blasphemy and a direct violation of the prohibition against using the Lord's name in vain (Exodus 30:7).

The language of the Holy Spirit is expressed to us in every facet of our daily living. The Spirit speaks to us in our joy, in our loneliness, in sickness and in health, in our doubts and in our certainties. The United Methodist doctrine of the Holy Spirit is expressed in such languages, and many others, when we understand that the "Spirit's aim is to make the living Christ not merely a fleeting object of affection by the master impulse of our entire being" (pg 55, Stokes). The Spirit speaks to us in grace before we are even aware of the grace that is already present (prevenient grace), speaks to us in the certainty of the Father's forgiveness (justifying grace), and leads us in the path of perfect love (sanctifying grace).

In short, we are nothing absent the presence of the Holy Spirit and the Church is not the Holy Church without Him. The Church is directionless without Him. And we are without Christ without Him.