Thursday night, July 9, I experienced one of the most encouraging events in the brief history of my tenure and First EPC’s pastor—the program bringing a week of Vacation Bible School to a close. What encouraged me most was not the number of kids (about 150) or the performance of the kids (stellar), but rather it was the complexion of the kids.
As each class took its turn on stage, the image that popped into my head was that of chocolate Skittles. If you open a bag of chocolate Skittles and poured it out, in front of you would be candies ranging in color from creamy-white to dark brown. This was the complexion of VBS. What should encourage us is that this is also the complexion of our neighborhood. What should challenge us is that this isn’t, for the most part, the complexion of our worship services.
Why do I bring this up? Is it the result of church-mandated sensitivity training? Absolutely not. It is the outworking of my calling. My job as the pastor, of this particular church in this particular place, is to lead this congregation up, toward God, and out, into our community and in the past few years our community (Kent/Renton) has changed dramatically.
Only a few weeks ago, the Seattle Times published a story that said, among other things, “Kent — the state's fourth-largest district — has undergone the most rapid change among Puget Sound districts, from about one-third minorities five years ago to about 51 percent this past school year.” Wow. If the complexion around our church is growing more diverse doesn’t it stand to reason that the complexion of our congregation should be changing as well? It must. If we are “gathering and growing” in accord with our vision as we move forward, into the future, we will look different than we do now.
The challenge here, of course, is that this means—here comes a dirty word—change. Since I’ve been the pastor here at First EPC, many things have changed. Did you expect something different? I recently heard, second-hand, someone say “Is everything we did before [as a church, I assume] bad?” The answer is, of course not.
On the other hand, everything First EPC did in the past she did in a radically different demographic and cultural context than the one in which we currently live. Thirty years ago, the neighborhood around us was predominantly, if not completely Anglo and people couldn’t Google us before they visited.
As I look back at the history of First EPC, it seems that each generation of this church (since 1893) has been faced with, and made, extremely difficult decisions as to how to “gather and grow” in their particular context. The last generation made the difficult decision to leave the PCUSA and join the EPC and those of us here now constantly reap the benefits of their sacrifice.
The decision of this generation is whether we will make the changes necessary in order to best communicate the gospel to those whom God has placed in our communities and neighborhoods. In fact, even if we never looked outside our doors, we’d still be faced with the question of whether we are willing to change in order to reach our own children. Are we?
One of the battle cries of the Protestant Reformation was “ecclesia reformata semper reformanda” (the Church reformed and always reforming). We tend to forget the second part of that statement—always reforming. The only other option it seems is: ecclesia reformata quod mortuus (the Church reformed...and dead). Which will it be?
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Preaching and Politics
Personally speaking, the most welcome day of 2008 was November 5th. Why? The fact that our country has gotten to the point that they would elect a black man as our President is momentous and a great encouragement. However that isn’t the reason I rejoiced to see the day. You see for me, a pastor, I longed to see that particular day is because it meant, finally, that the election process would be over. That’s it. I was tired of it.
More than a few times this last election season individuals became frustrated with me because of my unwillingness, from the pulpit, to advocate for one or the other (frankly, just one) of the presidential candidates. No doubt, the root of frustration has to do with the fact that these folks have assumed (and we know what happens when we “assume”) that either everyone in the body would welcome such “preaching” or that those in the “wrong” camp might be persuaded after hearing, from the preacher, that a certain politician is God’s obvious choice. My perspective (below) on these issues, obviously, is quite different—otherwise I’d be doing it.
While I consciously avoid, politically speaking, “showing my hat,” here’s a full-disclosure of where I am: realistic (although my family might argue that the phrase “paralyzingly cynical” might be more appropriate). I turned eighteen during Basic Training and, shortly thereafter, cast my first vote for Ronald Reagan. The primary motivator there wasn’t my “views” on taxes or government size, but rather the fact that I was a Ranger in the U.S. Army and Reagan, literally, took special care of us. In fact, I can still remember the portrait of him, wearing a black beret, hanging in our battalion headquarters. Since then, although I’ve always voted as part of my civic duty, each time I felt my options were always “the lesser of two evils.” This said, again in the name of disclosure, neither candidate in this past election cycle even remotely excited me.
Given these facts, I felt (and feel) that the best thing I could do is that which I always do—preach the gospel. Not only can you not save yourself, but neither can the “right” candidate save you. Added to this, if you are a Christian, I assume (and we know what happens when we “assume”) that you need to hear, not which candidate to vote for, but rather the fact that God is sovereign over all our affairs, including, and even specifically, government affairs.
Consider Paul’s words to the Romans, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God”(Romans 13:1 ESV). Peter echoes these thoughts as well, saying, “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people”(1 Peter 2:13-15 ESV).
What was the context into which both these Apostles wrote? In short, it was a government structure (Rome) which, at the time, wasn’t particularly friendly to Christians or their causes. Instead of telling their audiences (including us) “fight the power” or “stick it to the Man,” they tell us to embrace the political situation(s) in which we find ourselves. How do we affect change? At least according to these passages, we affect change by doing good.
In fact, Peter seems to acknowledge the problems of most governments and even sounds a bit...cynical realistic. However, he advocates that the way to address the situation and, what he calls ignorance of foolish people, is by doing good. Christians do an incredible amount of good. In fact, when is the last time you’ve ever seen a hospital, orphanage, or homeless shelter named for an atheist? It just doesn’t happen. On the other hand, if Christians do so much good, why then do Christians not have this reputation? I’m afraid, no matter how much good we do, our words are actually louder.
What do people hear us say? Among other things, they hear us criticizing and complaining about those whom God has ordained to lead us. Honestly, one of the things that bothered me most during the Bush presidency was to hear left-leaning Christians publicly run him down and call him names. Already, I hear right-leaning Christians criticize Obama. While you may disagree with the policies of either man, does that necessarily mean they are “stupid,” “idiots,” or “godless?” Besides a sense of self-righteous satisfaction, do those words do anything to “silence the ignorant” or advance the kingdom of God? In my experience, the answer is no.
Why won’t I ever tell you for whom you should vote? The answer is simple: it’s not my job. Moreover, I assume (and we know what happens...) that instead of scorning and/or complaining about “right-wing nuts” or “left-wing socialists” that you are actually befriending, loving, and bringing them to church. This being the case, I am loathe to have inappropriate political statements become a stumbling block for those desperately in need of another kind of news—Good News.
More than a few times this last election season individuals became frustrated with me because of my unwillingness, from the pulpit, to advocate for one or the other (frankly, just one) of the presidential candidates. No doubt, the root of frustration has to do with the fact that these folks have assumed (and we know what happens when we “assume”) that either everyone in the body would welcome such “preaching” or that those in the “wrong” camp might be persuaded after hearing, from the preacher, that a certain politician is God’s obvious choice. My perspective (below) on these issues, obviously, is quite different—otherwise I’d be doing it.
While I consciously avoid, politically speaking, “showing my hat,” here’s a full-disclosure of where I am: realistic (although my family might argue that the phrase “paralyzingly cynical” might be more appropriate). I turned eighteen during Basic Training and, shortly thereafter, cast my first vote for Ronald Reagan. The primary motivator there wasn’t my “views” on taxes or government size, but rather the fact that I was a Ranger in the U.S. Army and Reagan, literally, took special care of us. In fact, I can still remember the portrait of him, wearing a black beret, hanging in our battalion headquarters. Since then, although I’ve always voted as part of my civic duty, each time I felt my options were always “the lesser of two evils.” This said, again in the name of disclosure, neither candidate in this past election cycle even remotely excited me.
Given these facts, I felt (and feel) that the best thing I could do is that which I always do—preach the gospel. Not only can you not save yourself, but neither can the “right” candidate save you. Added to this, if you are a Christian, I assume (and we know what happens when we “assume”) that you need to hear, not which candidate to vote for, but rather the fact that God is sovereign over all our affairs, including, and even specifically, government affairs.
Consider Paul’s words to the Romans, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God”(Romans 13:1 ESV). Peter echoes these thoughts as well, saying, “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people”(1 Peter 2:13-15 ESV).
What was the context into which both these Apostles wrote? In short, it was a government structure (Rome) which, at the time, wasn’t particularly friendly to Christians or their causes. Instead of telling their audiences (including us) “fight the power” or “stick it to the Man,” they tell us to embrace the political situation(s) in which we find ourselves. How do we affect change? At least according to these passages, we affect change by doing good.
In fact, Peter seems to acknowledge the problems of most governments and even sounds a bit...cynical realistic. However, he advocates that the way to address the situation and, what he calls ignorance of foolish people, is by doing good. Christians do an incredible amount of good. In fact, when is the last time you’ve ever seen a hospital, orphanage, or homeless shelter named for an atheist? It just doesn’t happen. On the other hand, if Christians do so much good, why then do Christians not have this reputation? I’m afraid, no matter how much good we do, our words are actually louder.
What do people hear us say? Among other things, they hear us criticizing and complaining about those whom God has ordained to lead us. Honestly, one of the things that bothered me most during the Bush presidency was to hear left-leaning Christians publicly run him down and call him names. Already, I hear right-leaning Christians criticize Obama. While you may disagree with the policies of either man, does that necessarily mean they are “stupid,” “idiots,” or “godless?” Besides a sense of self-righteous satisfaction, do those words do anything to “silence the ignorant” or advance the kingdom of God? In my experience, the answer is no.
Why won’t I ever tell you for whom you should vote? The answer is simple: it’s not my job. Moreover, I assume (and we know what happens...) that instead of scorning and/or complaining about “right-wing nuts” or “left-wing socialists” that you are actually befriending, loving, and bringing them to church. This being the case, I am loathe to have inappropriate political statements become a stumbling block for those desperately in need of another kind of news—Good News.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)