Wile E. Coyote Ministries: Introduction

Standard

A few months ago I was meeting with my new District Superintendent, talking about church planting, missional movements and ministry in the 21st century in general.

As our hearts and minds met on the drastic need for the church, particularly the Church of the Nazarene, to become more innovative he repeated to me what he had heard from someone else who had heard it from someone else who had read it in a book somewhere,

“The church is Wile E. Coyote in a Road Runner world.”

For those of you younger types (like me) who might be tempted to think Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner were names for obscure characters in that Mad Max movie that came out this summer, let me explain the reference.  There is this old, actually ancient, Warner Bros. cartoon that used to play on Saturday mornings.  It just had two characters.  One was a hungry coyote, cleverly named “Wile E.”  The other was a rather simple but crazy fast bird named the “Road Runner.”

Fatal Flaw #1: Sets tail on fire instead of rocket.

Every episode involved the coyote coming up with some elaborate, cleverly detailed scheme to catch the Road Runner.  And every episode the Road Runner, without so much as a plan or a strategy, just ran right through the scheme.  The humor in the show almost always centered around each plan’s fatal flaw.  Even though the plan was brilliant and well thought through and cleverly executed, there was always one chink in its armor, one thing Wile E. did wrong, one humorous oversight that let the road runner slip away.  In well over half the episodes, the flaw wasn’t a flaw.  It was just the world not working like it is supposed to.

For example, there is the now classic scene where the coyote paints a mural of a tunnel on a cliff side, hoping the Road Runner will smash into the cliff.  Instead, the Road Runner runs right through the mural into an actual tunnel.  The lesson is simple: The world doesn’t work like the coyote wants it too.

Its sad how the church is remembered for our foolishness, not for how well we can execute a potluck that only feeds “us.”

And we are the coyote.  Our programs, or to put it more religiously, our “ministries,” are elaborate.  They are schemed up by outreach committees in 3 hour long meetings.  They are emailed to pastors with subjects that read, “the brilliant plan that will save our church.”  While we pass the offering plates on Sunday morning, a passionate and dedicated layperson explains them to the congregations.  We claim it worked out just great for that mega church in Seattle or that mushrooming church down the street.  Our congregants get all excited and we all jump on board.

But they all have one fatal flaw and that flaw makes all the time, money and energy we just spent worthless.  Most of the time that flaw is we just failed to understand the world we are living in.

Fatal Flaw #2: We don’t know when to stop.

When that flaw manifests itself and our brilliant feat of outreach falls flat on its face, we at least have a number of cliches we use to comfort ourselves.

We say things like:

“Well God doesn’t care about results.  God just cares about faithfulness.”

“That’s just the way the world is.  God has hardened their hearts so that nothing we say will get through.”

“Well at least we tried.  Church of the Baptist Jesus down the street isn’t even trying.”

“We planted a ton of seeds. Go us!”

Some of that may be true and I am all about comfort in the midst of epic failure.  After all, comfort is what gives us the means to get up and try again.

But what if our problem isn’t that we aren’t dedicated enough, passionate enough, wealthy enough or smart enough.  What if our problem is that we just don’t take the time and energy to understand the world we are living in.

Over the next week I want to write a bit about what I perceive are “Wile E. Coyote” ministries being run by many churches.  My hope in this is not to be overly mean or critical but to think deeply about how we spend our time, money and energy in the hopes that we will become better stewards of our callings.

Even more than that, I hope that our mourned failures would turn into seasons of rejoicing as we truly reach the world for Christ.

Until the next post, here are some great articles elaborating on this concept:

http://pres-outlook.org/2000/10/wile-e-coyote-or-the-roadrunner/

http://time.com/3735089/wile-e-coyote-road-runner/

http://www.preachingtoday.com/illustrations/2013/march/3031813.html

http://new-savanna.blogspot.com/2011/04/desire-and-causality-in-road-runner.html

The Via Media and the Church of the Nazarene

Standard

I have been working on this post for some time and I am still not quite sure it is going to come together like I want.  However, given the events of the last couple of weeks from church shootings to supreme court rulings to even my own denomination’s fundamentalism controversy, I thought this might be a good time to post it.

While we have argued about these things, I have heard many quote Phineas Bresee (founder of the Church of the Nazarenes) and John Wesley (founder of the Methodists) who said things like:

“Though we do not think alike, may we not love alike.” John Wesley

“On the great fundamentals we are all agreed. Pertaining to things not essential to salvation, we have liberty.” Phineas Bresee

“In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things love.” Attributed to both but traces back to Augustine.

These are great slogans.  As banners they really work.  They all hinge on clever grammatical structure and roll off the tongue quite well.

And at their heart, they try to characterize this concept of the “via media” which is Latin for “middle road.”

The “via media” is more of an attitude than an idea that emerged in 18th century England.  The 17th century had been horribly bloody and tumultuous as Prostestants and Catholics took turns killing each other.  After 100 years of debates that almost always ended in bloodshed, an unsettling calm took over the country as people decided, “We are going to still disagree and we are going to keep arguing and debating but we are going to stop killing each other over this religious stuff.”

This was the environment in which John Wesley was born.  For him the via media was not so much an agreement to live and let live.  It was a commitment to engage in debates that were as committed to love as they were to finding truth.  If you read any of Wesley’s sermons (including his titled “The Via Media”) you will find that Wesley had very strong opinions and spoke passionately and firmly on them.  But he hoped that his strong arguments and firey rhetoric would not get in the way of his love.  Simply put, Wesley seems to be more concerned that we debate the non essentials lovingly than that we simply ignore them all together.

I see different via medias at work in our church today.

On the one hand, we have a small but growing group of younger, non confrontational types who think the “via media” means we have to stop having strong opinions all together.  It means we need to get rid of any concept of established truth and agree to live and let live.  We need to stop our silly debates, get rid of our frivolous opinions and, in the words of Big and Rich, “take a ride on the love train.”

In these circles, once an opinion is challenged, like, “I don’t think it is really that hot today,” all conversation stops until someone casually responds, “well we all have different definitions of hot” and everybody sighs in relief.  The problem is that this fear of confrontation creates a culture where we never understand each other because we never present our real selves.  We hide our passions and our thoughts and biases to the point where we are a shadow of ourselves.  We avoid intimacy and understanding and our love never gets past the surface.  This is hardly the love the Bible advocates for.

But then there is this other “via media” going on where certain groups say, “I (or we) decide what is essential.”  In these circles church documents are ignored and the historic creeds are not recognized.  In their place is set a book or an author or a group of beloved leaders whose sayings and teachings are “fundamental.”  Everyone else is expected to completely agree or, quite literally, go to hell.

Don’t get me wrong, these groups claim to have a list of non essentials too.  They just tend to be shallower things, like worship preferences, stances on going to movies, what clothes to wear to church, etc.  It is almost as if these groups are saying, “We are agreed in the essentials and we give liberty just as long as you agree with what we say is essential.”  The existence of these types of people seriously makes me wonder if we really are all agreed upon the fundamentals.

Regardless, both the conflict adverse and the angry dogmatics are operating on misunderstandings of what the “via media” really is.  And in my conversations with both types and many in between, it is becoming increasingly hard for me to even figure out what we mean when we say, “in essentials unity, in non essentials liberty.”  Those in the Church of the Nazarene have very different ideas about what should be on each list.

One group quotes the slogan to say we have no essentials whatsoever.  The other quotes it to get you to agree to their fabricated list.

And I don’t know how we move forward.  The recent happenings at NNU and at MNU certainly don’t give me any hope.  But as I have thought about it over the last months, I have come up with a few suggestions that might help point the way.

First, we must reclaim our articles of faith and the ancient creeds as our essentials.  These are the guiding documents of our faith and of our denomination and we need to stop telling people they can make up their own essentials or borrow someone else’s.  When we say “essentials” we mean stated doctrines, ratified by our members.  For that reason, we might alter our slogan to, “On the articles of faith and creeds we are all agreed” but then the thing gets super clunky and not as easy to memorize.  Still, the essentials are not what you want to make up.  They are the documents we have put together and ratified.

Second, we must stop avoiding each other.  We need to meet face to face.  I know the world is getting more silo oriented, where you can avoid those who do not share your opinions.  I fight this temptation daily.  In turn, social media has made it even harder to have a face to face conversation with whom you disagree.  Instead we either just ignore each other or we plant bombs in the form of angry comments structured by lousy logic and stray Bible verses to serve as “proof texts.”

To be sure, we can ignore each other or throw lousy logic and proof texts around in face to face conversations.  But at least the setting usually forces us to continue to be part of the conversation.  Online, we can set the bomb and run.  On a side note, this is why I delete comments on my blog that take the form of “bombs.”

Third, we must not be afraid of passionate debate.  The “in non essentials liberty” does not mean we get to make up whatever we want to believe, even in the non essentials.  It means we give each other the freedom to present their findings, experiences, logic and opinions in a loving way.  It also means we respect each other enough to do the same ourselves.  When we have given ourselves that liberty, we then listen to each other in a way that seeks understanding and discovers truth.  And if, when the sun begins to set, we find that we still do not agree, then, yes, we fall back on Wesley’s great sentiment that we join our hearts and hands and try to do the work of the kingdom together.

Simply put, we have a lot of work to do.

Recently Recorded Sermons: Lent To Easter and a Bit Beyond!

Standard

In the spirit of my series this week on preaching, here are six live recordings of recent sermons.  The first one is from Job.  The next several are from the gospel of Mark and the one at the end is on the road to Emmaus.

What if I Stumble

Standard

The Tuesday right after Easter I wrote a blog post that was half a response to the announcement of a friend’s upcoming job termination and half a struggle with current trends in the church, particularly as it relates to my denomination. If you haven’t read it, you can read it here.

My struggle is that there seem to be mobs out there who want to banish from the church those who think differently.  In the post I wondered how I would survive if such a mob ever managed to crucify my career.  In the Spirit of Easter, I claimed the resurrection hope that God would meet me in that painful situation and bring new life out of it.

The post was written with great amounts of passion, apparently a relatable one as that post is still my most successful post to date.

What I am about to write comes from an equal amount of passion, albeit a different kind of passion.  In fact, this post is in many ways an inverse of that last one.

Because as much as I am afraid that a scapegoating mob will crucify my career while I am innocent, I am much more terrified that I will deserve a crucifixion for gross sin or negligence.

Will I fall to the temptation to have an extramarital affair?

Will I stumble into online porn?  (It is unlikely at this point but still possible.)

Will my marriage crumble spectacularly overnight? (Very likely and more likely until we celebrate our 40th anniversary by the odds.)

Will I accidentally lose my temper and strike a parishioner?  (There are days when that temptation is more real than others.)

Will I become lazier and lazier and not do the work to which I am called?  (I might all ready be at that point.)

Or will my epic tumble be less epic?  Will it just be a growing pride and arrogance that refuses to admit when I am wrong and own my bad decisions?  (There are close calls of this nature almost every week.)

I have watched all these things happen to people who were thought to be much more holy than me.  I have seen calm, gentle pastors buckle under the stresses of the job and lash out.  I have seen an otherwise humble pastor suddenly choose the most pitiful and absurd molehill to die on, like paint color in the sanctuary.  And, of course, I have seen my fair share of extramarital affairs and divorces among the clergy.

And I am not guaranteed to avoid any of that.  It is true that I have had an excellent formation and training that at least helps me see temptation when it is coming.  I have wonderful mentors and friends who speak the truth in love.  I regularly practice disciplines of prayer, fasting, silence, solitude and exercise that keeps me calm and humble. But none of that makes me immune from the cliff falls from grace.

In fact, most days I think there is a 75% chance that my crucifixion will be a result of my own guilty choices, compared to the 25% that it will just be an angry mob looking for an innocent victim.

On those days I wonder how I will fail.  I wonder what the price for my wife, children and congregation will be.  And I wonder how I will possibly be able to get out of bed the next day if it ever should happen.

And every day I feel like my crucifixion is almost a guarantee.  After all, ministry is truly a dangerous line of work.

But as we approach the Ascension and climb that soon to be empty hilltop with the disciples, I find an incredible amount of hope.  The Ascension is that wonderful day when Jesus not only showed off his super power of flight, but also sat down at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.  There he represent us, the church, as both head and priest.

The Apostle Paul uses the word “energeo” in Ephesians 1 to describe the Ascension.  It is the same word we use for “energize.”  The Ascension energized the great power of God, the power that is now fully displayed in us the church, which Paul says is, “the fullness of Him who fills everything in every way.”

I think that means that the charged up power of God is at work whether we are faithful or unfaithful.  If ever I should fail, whether in gross immorality or in spiritual weakness, I still trust my head and my priest who sits at the right hand of God our Father.  After all the church is much bigger than my bad choices and though I may cause pain, whether intentionally or unintentionally, I know a great healer who can forgive, redeem and reconcile the consequences of my bad decisions.

In closing, the old Christian rock band D.C. Talk has a song on their “Jesus Freak” album called, “What if I Stumble,” that struggles with these same issues through these lyrics,

What if I stumble
What if I fall?
What if I lose my step
And I make fools of us all?
Will the love continue
When my walk becomes a crawl?
What if I stumble
And what if I fall?

At the end of the song they claim the love of Christ by saying,

I hear You (God) whispering my name
You say, “My love for You will never change.”

And that whisper is enough to get me out of bed tomorrow.

What’s Pastor Kevin Reading: Brueggemann’s “Prophetic Imagination”

Standard

A very strange thing happened indeed this week.  I actually finished a book!  April was a crazy month full of Easter worship and District Assembly gatherings and online debates and very little reading.

So I decided to mark my return to grace by reading an especially wonderful author whom I have always quoted but never read, Walter Brueggemann.  A friend at District Assembly referenced “Prophetic Imagination” several times so I downloaded it and worked my way through it this week.  As is the case with many books, it spoke “prophetically” into several facets of my current experience.  Or did it speak “imaginatively?”

Click to buy on Amazon

As many of you know, I began pastoring a new church two months ago.  The transition forced me to ask myself the hard practical questions about what a church is and how a pastor should lead it.

At the same time my district gathered to elect a new Superintendant.  In the end most everybody agreed we elected the right person.  Still, the process forced me to think long and hard about who I want as a “pastor to pastors.”  Do I want an executive with a plan?  A leader with a vision?  A friend with a shoulder to cry on?  A prophet with an imagination?  Or all of the above?

Likewise, as most of you know, I have been closely following three scandals in the Church of the Nazarene.  One concerns our Publishing House.  The other two concern our universities.  There seems to be a failure in the upper realms of our leadership to really follow the dictates of love, justice and honesty especially when money is on the line.  Where did this failure come from and why have we been so hesitant to be honest about it?

A key topic in all those discussions was the comparisons and contrasts between churches, businesses and universities.  A friend of mine summed up those differences well in the chart below.

At the intersection of all this stands Brueggemann’s “Prophetic Imagination.”  His brief but in depth discussion of the biblical prophets and holy communities illuminates several disparities between the church’s current state and our divine calling.

I could waste a lot of words fleshing out those discrepancies, but I will stick with a list Brueggemann gives in the preface to the 2nd edition.  He mentions the key characteristics of a Prophetic Community:

1) The community must have a long and available memory that sinks the present generation into an identifiable past made available in songs and stories.

2) There is a sense of pain that is cited as a real social fact.

3) Hope (not optimism) is actively practiced.

4) There is an effective mode of discourse that is distinctive and richly coded in ways only insiders know.  (i.e. a shared language).

The church I now pastor has quite a few families who now serve or once served in the US military.  As I have gotten to know them, I feel a sense of humiliation for the Christian church because the US military does those 4 things way better than most congregations.  They have songs and stories that root their identity in the great conflicts of the last 200 years.  They have a coded language with scores of acronyms that I can barely keep up with.  They have a real sense of pain and loss from living in a world where armies are necessary and they have a profound sense of hope that the US military can be the solution (or at least an integral part of it) to all the world’s problems.  All of this encourages scores of otherwise helpless young men (and some women) to join up.

I am frustrated that the church struggles to garner the same enthusiasm.  As Brueggemann argued convincingly, our insistence on catering to the powers and adopting their vocabulary has completely numbed us to our God given calling.  Now we get together to figure out how to co opt the powers and as we do, we ourselves are being coopted.

But all hope is not lost.  Brueggemann insists that the prophets in Scripture (from Moses to Jesus) did two things to awaken the holy community.  First they led the people in mourning.  Second they sang songs and told stories that energized faithfulness.  To put it more simply, they called the people back to worship and led them in the same.

And this is where the prophetic imagination informs my questions about the church, its leadership and our current scandals.  After all, it is no secret that the evangelical tradition has not done worship well.  We have filled it with the words of our culture, not the words of our ancient faith.  We have sung the narratives of the empire and not the songs of the redeemed.  And we have shared in the anger of the people, not in the compassion of our God.

If that is the case, then it might be possible that after attending those numbing services for decades, certain denominational leaders found themselves closed off to the hope of the gospel.  Instead of being emptied of all but God, they became filled with the edicts, deadlines and demands of the dominant culture.  If that is true, when they became leaders of institutions (like businesses, universities and churches), they had no Christian hope to add meaning or depth to their work and so made the controversial decisions that landed them in the hot seats.

If that is what happened, it means that who we choose to lead us in worship is so incredibly important.  Instead of vision casters, we need creative story tellers.  Instead of institution growers we need professional mourners.  Instead of money makers we need selfless givers.  And instead of relevant hipsters spewing the modern lingo, we need Biblical scholars who can make accessible the rich language of our tradition.

That all sounds poetic up above, but I am reminded by Brueggemann that this all has to start with me in my own setting and context.  After all, it is quite possible that I am currently leading a congregation that will include future CEO’s, University Presidents, Pastors and Superintendants.  It is a high and necessary calling to sing the songs and tell the stories of our ancient faith every week so that they can be grounded in compassion and justice, not in power and money.  Needless to say, the risk of failure is great.

Therefore, pray for me and pray for my church and I shall endeavor to do the same for you and your church.  And I pray the God of all history continues to call up prophets in this time and place who will sing the right songs, cry the proper tears and energize the needed love.

The Nazarenes and Strengthsfinders: The Gospel According to Gallup

Standard

Hello Everyone.

As are so many Nazarene leaders these days I want to begin with an apology that is in no way an apology at all.  I am sorry I have not been able to post anything for the last few days.  I have actually had a life and a local ministry context that needed my attention and so have not had time.

When I do have a spare moment, I have been piecing together a post about our big tent in the church.  I want it to be a really well written piece about getting along despite our differences and a call back to charity.  But it has not yet come together.

However, in the interests of biding time and frantically trying to keep your interest, Monday night’s NNU Alumni Q&A (that was more Q than A) with David Alexander introduced a fascinating wrinkle into the ongoing discussion about Nazarene identity.  As a sort of defense, he listed off his top 5 strengths according to Gallup’s Strengthsfinder’s Inventory.

This wrinkle, like most wrinkles in sheets or blankets, is caused by something much more concrete and sinister lying underneath and something that has bugged me for many years.  We in the Church of the Nazarene seem to be cultivating an unhealthy relationship with the Gallup organization, particularly through their Strengthsfinders Inventory.

Now, it would be inappropriate to leave out that I was on staff at a church that did not exercise caution when it came to Gallup’s Strengthsfinders.  The church let Gallup’s message replace the cross as its main proclamation to the world.

Perhaps most disappointing was regularly my senior pastor, whom I otherwise love and respect, would climb into the pulpit, hold up one of Gallup’s books, open it and read a passage.  This was in a worship service where no Scripture was otherwise read. Then he would exegete the Strengthfinders book for the congregation.  Whenever any book other than Scripture is exegeted from the pulpit, I get super nervous.

This is the word of Gallup. Thanks be to Gallup most high!

So I readily acknowledge that my beginning with Gallup left a really bad taste in my mouth, one I have not yet washed down (as evidenced by my snarky caption above).  In humility, I admit that isn’t how others are using Strengthsfinders and some have found a great and healthy way to refer to it.  Yet my weary journey with it has led me to deep and critical thinking which in turn has led to some questions and concerns.

The doctrine (or as I call it “gospel”) of Strengthsfinders rests on a few key principles:

The 1st and most foundational principle is that people should play to their strengths as much as possible while only managing their weaknesses.  A subset of this is that you manage your weaknesses by surrounding yourself with those who have different strengths.

2nd: There are only 34 strengths.

3rd: Those strengths are grouped into four categories that further help define your personality.

4th: You cannot change your strengths no matter how hard you try.  Your personality is set in stone.

5th: The best way to help yourself is to pay a tithe (er, um, donation, er, um, purchase) to Gallup so that you can take a test that tells you your top 5 of 34 strengths.  For those reaching super Gallup-saintdom you can even hire a Gallup clergy person, er, Strengths coach to help you help yourself even more.

With that basic framework in mind (and I admit I am summarizing the loads of Gallup books I have read and heard sermons about) I have great concerns about Strengthsfinders as it relates to our doctrine and polity.

First, I think it is quite naive to assume all of humanity can be summarized in 34 categories.  Humans are way more complex than that.  After all, when I fell in love with my wife I did not fall in love with an order of strengths but a complicated and complex human being who has shades of moods and layers of depth.  I am the same way.  You are too.  I am not a jumble of 34 categories roughly ordered.  I am a full, complete and complex human being and the only way to get to know me is to do life with me over the course of years.  I am not a woo, ideator, inputter, communicative and positive ENFP.

More than that, our church, particularly us Wesleyans, have always argued that the best way to know ourselves is to find ourselves in Christ using the means of grace.  If you want to know yourself and all your strengths and weaknesses, an inventory will not do it.  Instead it is much better to pray, fast, worship, give and serve.

Second, I really struggle with any narrative that says you cannot change.  I know Gallup insists they are talking about personality, not sinfulness, but still the Nazarene doctrine is built on the concept that God can change you and the real sciences have shown over and over again that you are changing whether you like it or not.  I think we need to be cautious and critical of doctrines and gospels that claim we can’t and won’t change.

Third, and perhaps most importantly for me, is that the church’s main proclamation is about the weakness of a cross.  Paul says in 1st Corinthians 12 that the power of God is made perfect in weakness and that when we are weak, then we are strong.  I believe Paul arrives at that conclusion because Paul understands the cross.  He is arguing from a logic he articulates in Philippians 2, that though Christ was in very nature God, he emptied himself and became nothing and humbled himself to death.  Biblically, postures of weakness glorify Christ, not postures of playing to your strengths.

This leads to a rabbit trail about the nature of American corporate greed with its gospel that only those who produce get the glory.  In that world Gallup really is good news because if you just pay your tithe and buy their book and take their test you can produce more for your church.  But the church is not a community of production.  We are a community of worship and of service.  In our church only those who take postures of weakness are guaranteed glory.

I feel like maybe one of the reasons our leaders are failing us so badly right now is because they have gotten caught up in the gospels according to Wall Street and Gallup.  They are trying to manipulate their personalities to produce things for God instead of falling on their knees in weakness and crying out, “I need you.  I need you.  Every hour I need you.”

But I digress.  .  .

With those things in mind, I am in no way saying we need to throw everything out that Gallup tries to offer us.  In fact the one thing personality inventories do is create a common vocabulary for people to understand each other and themselves.  Doing so aids understanding, creates unity, contributes to cooperation and leads to love.

But hopefully I have at least convinced you to keep Gallup in the boardroom and out of the pulpit.  After all, no doctrine or book or decree or gospel should share space with the Holy Scriptures of our Living God. 😛

Stay tuned for more as I have time!

When We Confess Our Sins. . .

Standard

When I was in junior high people began throwing around the word, “hypocrite” like it was free candy.  It was an especially popular concept in Christian circles as we used it to judge anybody who held any sort of ethical standard for us.  All being sinners ourselves, we knew that any legalist who gave us a “thou shalt” could not live up to any ethical standard themselves.  So we dismissed any ethicist with the word, “hypocrite.”

It was at that time that I realized it was almost impossible for a true Christian to actually be a hypocrite.  My thinking went that if the central confession of our faith was that we are all sinners in need of a savior, then sinning did not make us hypocrites.  It made our message truer.

That is a fairly dangerous thought process from an uneducated middle schooler.  It runs us really close to antinomianism, the idea that we should go on sinning so that grace may increase.

But I still think there is a shred of truth there.  After all, we are not the sinning community but we are the confessional community.  One of our pillars has always been confessing our sins, airing our dirty laundry for all to see.  This does not mean we are the most church when we go on sinning.  But we are the most church when we confess our sins, hanging them out for all to see while we pray for the God of forgiveness to deliver us.

There have been those this week who have suggested that having honest discussions about our church’s shortcomings are hurting our witness to the world.  They seem to be caught up in the 1950s mindset that the church can only be effective in mission if we are sinless and conflict free.

They want us to hide behind vague cliches like, “You are hurting the church” and “You are making our witness less effective.”

I disagree.  First the church is all ready hurting.  We are hurting not because of the actions of any one person or the existence of any one crisis but because we are the broken body and spilled blood of Jesus.  Our scars and bruises and pain only magnify Christ that much more.

Second, our witness does not rest on our own power or might.  If you read Acts 1:8 Jesus does not say, “Go and try to witness.”  Jesus issues a promise, “You WILL be witnesses” whether you like it or not.

I write all this to give us hope.  If our faith rested in our own deeds and sinlessness than this would be a time of despair.  But as our denomination confesses some of our dirty laundry, I am buoyed by hope, hope in a God who will make us witnesses, a God who will reveal God’s nature and self through these trying and hurting times, a God who uses situations like these to draw us all closer to the cruciform lamb, standing as though slain.

I am reminded of the closing words of Charles Dickens, “Tale of Two Cities” and they are my sentiments and prayer today:

“I see a beautiful [church] and a brilliant people rising from this abyss. I see the lives.  .  .peaceful, useful, prosperous and happy.”

Keep on fighting for transparency and justice and know your toil in the Lord is not in vain!