So tomorrow is the fourth Sunday, a day many Protestant preachers dred...or at least bury their heads from. It's the day we're supposed to talk about Mary. (gasp)
I must admit I have done the basic Protestant Mary sermon several times: "Mary's fiat/yes/willingness to to God's will is an example for all of us and we should be thus open to God as well." Yay. Sermon preached. Let's all go enjoy a nice potluck.
The problem is, the immaculate conception (which involves Mary's conception, not Jesus') and such aside, Protestants do share many views about Mary with Roman Catholics. We may not want to talk about it, but that only further confuses things. What's more, some people have some really crazy ideas that we never address because we don't want to talk about it. And some people have some really good questions we never discuss because we're perfectly happy to put in our few words about Mary on this day and then move on...and talk about Biblical literalism or homosexuality...something, anything else.
When I was in seminary, for my intro to theology class, I wrote a paper on the immaculate conception. What can I say, I bore easily. I think I was just still stunned that the immaculate conception was about Mary, not Jesus, and I was a bit frustrated no one ever told me that before. But, you know, we never talked about it, so I was like most Protestants.
This year, I'm going to walk head on into this Mary thing. Spice things up a bit. I've got a variety of people in my congregation, and they know even a wider variety of folks. Somewhere mixed in all of that are people with really serious and important questions that we so seldom address. What is up with this whole virgin conception thing? Is it different from the phrase "virgin birth" people use? How can the Bible make such a point of saying Jesus is descended from David then make this family tree pass through Joseph who the Gospels say is not Jesus' biological father? What would have had to be necessary for Jesus to be born without sin? What was God really up to anyway?
And all of this tied up in the fact that Christmas isn't really a very significant Christian holiday anyway. Lent and Easter, those are the big ones. Christmas? Well, we all know a little about the complicated traditions of Christmas.
Does Christmas shape our understanding of Easter, or vice-versa?
I haven't even scratched the surface on these questions well. Continue on into whether the infancy stories are a pandering to Greek culture or not, and on and on, and it's honestly pretty incredible we just bury our heads in the sand.
I'm interested to see people's thoughts after tomorrow's sermon...we'll see. Mostly, I'm trying not to be too much of a theology nerd and make some sort of lineal progression...
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Religion in the News
Okay, in the span of just a few minutes I've heard the UMC sponsor a segment on CNN and a long story about who people do or don't like that has been invited to pray at Obama's inauguration. Really? I mean, I always wanted the religious discourse to open up a bit (from the iron grip the religious right had on it)...but it was a lot more fun to make fun of people from a distance. Not sure I like being with the group who gets to be picked on now...
Blog Life
So I search Twitter from time to time for terms that interest me...like Frederick, or Methodist, etc. I did just just a few moments ago and stumbled across locustsandhoney.blogspot.com...and I guy named "John the Methodist" in the blogosphere. Apparently he's been around for a while. I seem, however, to have discovered his blog on a bad day.
As evidenced from his posting today: http://locustsandhoney.blogspot.com/2008/12/i-am-no-longer-candidate-for-ordained.html, "John" has been discontinued from candidacy for ministry. Now, a lot of things go through my mind...most of all being how impressed I am he's kept his identity a secret-ish thing. That having been said, I don't know him, don't know his situation, and can only imagine what a bad turn of things this must be.
But I am STUNNED if he truly was discontinued for standing up against his DS as noted. I'm of course overcome with curiosity to know all the details, but I'm mostly terribly disappointed to hear of all this. My father is a district committee chair and serves of our conference BOOM and I know he along with others in our conference take their role very seriously. And I know that things are rarely as simple as we might like to think. Not everyone who enters the process will (or should) end it with ordination. And anytime someone is discontinued, it's rough. In our conference at least, it's also a ling process and doesn't happen suddenly. It's long enough, in fact, that a candidate has time to find a better conference if for some reason they don't mesh well with theirs (I've known few people who actually thought their chance at ordination was improved if they switched conference, but it's out there).
I wonder how the community that has gathered around this blogger will shape up now, and it will be interesting to see how his anonimity does or doesn't persist. He mentions having others in his family who don't want him to give details. I don't get that. I mean, if there's something really sketchy going on, why not? But, it's not my life, and not knowng that conference or the climate there, I can only hope that it's not what he's describing. But it very well may be.
I suppose I really need to get into watching other blogs...goodness knows it's hard enough to keep up on my own that following others seems daunting...but who knows...maybe it will help the juices flow better...
As evidenced from his posting today: http://locustsandhoney.blogspot.com/2008/12/i-am-no-longer-candidate-for-ordained.html, "John" has been discontinued from candidacy for ministry. Now, a lot of things go through my mind...most of all being how impressed I am he's kept his identity a secret-ish thing. That having been said, I don't know him, don't know his situation, and can only imagine what a bad turn of things this must be.
But I am STUNNED if he truly was discontinued for standing up against his DS as noted. I'm of course overcome with curiosity to know all the details, but I'm mostly terribly disappointed to hear of all this. My father is a district committee chair and serves of our conference BOOM and I know he along with others in our conference take their role very seriously. And I know that things are rarely as simple as we might like to think. Not everyone who enters the process will (or should) end it with ordination. And anytime someone is discontinued, it's rough. In our conference at least, it's also a ling process and doesn't happen suddenly. It's long enough, in fact, that a candidate has time to find a better conference if for some reason they don't mesh well with theirs (I've known few people who actually thought their chance at ordination was improved if they switched conference, but it's out there).
I wonder how the community that has gathered around this blogger will shape up now, and it will be interesting to see how his anonimity does or doesn't persist. He mentions having others in his family who don't want him to give details. I don't get that. I mean, if there's something really sketchy going on, why not? But, it's not my life, and not knowng that conference or the climate there, I can only hope that it's not what he's describing. But it very well may be.
I suppose I really need to get into watching other blogs...goodness knows it's hard enough to keep up on my own that following others seems daunting...but who knows...maybe it will help the juices flow better...
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Con Men (and Women)
It's been so crazy to watch the news lately coming out of Illinois and New York. Unfortunately, stories of corrupt politicians, scheming businessmen and greedy lawyers may not sound all that new. But between the likes of Blagoyavich, Madoff and Dreier, it sure does seem a bit like the rule of three has been borne forth (let's hope so, that this is the extent of the craziness for now).
I spoke about these stories in my sermon on Sunday, since they seemed in such marked contrast to the story of John the Baptist that was the morning's Gospel reading. When asked if he was a whole range of important figures, he said "No," and that he was only there to point to someone else...the coming Messiah, whose coat (as Peterson puts it in his translation The Message) he is not worthy to hold.
The sad thing is, we are not, most of us, all that different from these three men. All too often, we are more likely to take credit that is not ours than to really understand not only who are ARE, but who we AREN'T. It feels nice when people think we can fix things, make things right. Until we can't.
And at the same time, we're also guilty of handing over too much power and accilade to others in our own desire to find quick and easy solutions to challenges and problems that we know are very complicated.
An example of this is Madoff. Now many people on Wall Street apparently saw his fund as a high-risk one. They didn't trust his policies. Some so much that they refused even to meet with him, let alone invest with him. Now, sometimes people can bear a high risk investment. In fact, experts encourage younger workers to be willing to take a bit of risk with their retirement (if they have the stomach for it) because they have the time to recoup losses on risks if that happens. BUT...what I find most troubling about those who invested with Madoff is not the risk itself (though I'd be concerned about investing with him if major companies wouldn't even meet with him)...but rather that so many people invested EVERYTHING with him. Now, it's much more complicated than that, I know. But I think it's just one more sign of what we've always known about ourselves...we want to be WINNERS and we're prone to run full steam towards the winning team, sometimes without thinking clearly.
During this Advent season, it is a time to be reminded of the importance of waiting. Thinking. Praying. Discerning. Seems as though some people were quite anxious in John's day for the coming of the Messiah. They were looking. Waiting. Even impatient. I wonder how it would have been different if John hadn't had a firm grasp on his role---what he WAS and WASN'T supposed to be and be doing.
And I wonder how our world would be different if we all took a moment to make the same assessment of ourselves, those around us, and our leaders. What have you claimed the power or authority to do or be that you really aren't (fix someone's life, be the calm in someone's storm), or what have you given over to someone that really isn't theirs (being your life, the balance in yours, fixing your problems, etc.).
Edwin Friedman wrote about familiy systems theory before his untimely death. And one of his major points was how the very worst thing we can often do is try to get involved in someone else's issues when they need to be the one dealing with it, or when we try to make someone else responsbile for that which is properly ours.
In a season where families, relationships and communities are strained (and all the more so in our nation in its current financial crisis) perhaps a good dose of some honest self-reflection, humility, and pointing to the only One who is able to be our calm and center isn't a bad idea.
I spoke about these stories in my sermon on Sunday, since they seemed in such marked contrast to the story of John the Baptist that was the morning's Gospel reading. When asked if he was a whole range of important figures, he said "No," and that he was only there to point to someone else...the coming Messiah, whose coat (as Peterson puts it in his translation The Message) he is not worthy to hold.
The sad thing is, we are not, most of us, all that different from these three men. All too often, we are more likely to take credit that is not ours than to really understand not only who are ARE, but who we AREN'T. It feels nice when people think we can fix things, make things right. Until we can't.
And at the same time, we're also guilty of handing over too much power and accilade to others in our own desire to find quick and easy solutions to challenges and problems that we know are very complicated.
An example of this is Madoff. Now many people on Wall Street apparently saw his fund as a high-risk one. They didn't trust his policies. Some so much that they refused even to meet with him, let alone invest with him. Now, sometimes people can bear a high risk investment. In fact, experts encourage younger workers to be willing to take a bit of risk with their retirement (if they have the stomach for it) because they have the time to recoup losses on risks if that happens. BUT...what I find most troubling about those who invested with Madoff is not the risk itself (though I'd be concerned about investing with him if major companies wouldn't even meet with him)...but rather that so many people invested EVERYTHING with him. Now, it's much more complicated than that, I know. But I think it's just one more sign of what we've always known about ourselves...we want to be WINNERS and we're prone to run full steam towards the winning team, sometimes without thinking clearly.
During this Advent season, it is a time to be reminded of the importance of waiting. Thinking. Praying. Discerning. Seems as though some people were quite anxious in John's day for the coming of the Messiah. They were looking. Waiting. Even impatient. I wonder how it would have been different if John hadn't had a firm grasp on his role---what he WAS and WASN'T supposed to be and be doing.
And I wonder how our world would be different if we all took a moment to make the same assessment of ourselves, those around us, and our leaders. What have you claimed the power or authority to do or be that you really aren't (fix someone's life, be the calm in someone's storm), or what have you given over to someone that really isn't theirs (being your life, the balance in yours, fixing your problems, etc.).
Edwin Friedman wrote about familiy systems theory before his untimely death. And one of his major points was how the very worst thing we can often do is try to get involved in someone else's issues when they need to be the one dealing with it, or when we try to make someone else responsbile for that which is properly ours.
In a season where families, relationships and communities are strained (and all the more so in our nation in its current financial crisis) perhaps a good dose of some honest self-reflection, humility, and pointing to the only One who is able to be our calm and center isn't a bad idea.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Being Conflicted
This is the time of year when pastors gear up for the marathon that is the Christmas season (last year it was even long since Christmas ran right into Lent and Easter with almost no break) and also have to evaluate themselves and think about what they will be doing in the future--well, United Methodist pastors at least.
It's pretty standard for people to get evaluated in their jobs, and even to do self-evals. It's still kind of new here, and everyone does these differently. The thing is, the evaluation is always dependent upon a person or church's ability to be self-reflective, and also how high their goals are. So while it's a time to look at how you're doing, it's also a time to look at how well you think you can do. Evaluations are as much a reflection, I think, of reality as they are of possibility.
For the past few years, the first ones we had evals, our conference's forms have had numbers attached...like 5 we you're exceeding expectations or something. This year the numbers are off. That's a good thing. It feels a bit better to check that you "Need Improvement" than that you're a 1. It's a mental thing I know, but it matters. And hopefully that little change will allow us all to be a bit more self-critical.
In the United Methodist system, we have this fundamental assumption, it seems to me, that all pastors and congregations are more or less interchangeable. I think that's changing, but it's still there. Any pastor should be able to serve and be successful at any church. Not allowing for the fact that there are just some patently unhealthy churches and pastors out there, I think a lot of time we really struggle to appreciate that many times, matches aren't all that good. Often that's not clear right at first. Other times, as pastors and congregations change, they can, in the words use for marriages, "grow apart." Often what are called "irreconcilable differences" in marriages are simply stories of "it seemed like a good idea at the time," and two people not really knowing each other all that well. And perhaps one or both of the persons not knowing themselves all that well at first.
It was a pretty incredible idea for me to hear at the new church start conference about "Affinities". Basically the idea is maximine the effectiveness of new church starts by planting pastors amongst people they are similar to. Getting over the idea that it's easy enough to take a passionate person and see them succeed in any soil, and plant them in the right soil.
I cannot imagine the frustration of cabinets trying to play this difficult, and I imagine, heart-rending match game. And I am sure that for all the good matches, there are just pastors and appointments that are paired as best as they can with what's out there. And things change. But I wonder what it would look like if we were all just really upfront about who we are, and thus who we connect best with. What if, when what seems like an ideal match isn't possible, that's acknowledged from the start and it's clear to everyone where the differences are?
I haven't had a chance to talk with many of my colleagues about their experiences with the evaluation and advisory forms this year...or even with experienced pastors about how they approach these. But I am interested to do that. To hear how these forms have been shaping on their ministries, and what if any effect this opportunity to pause and reflect has had in their lives and ministry.
It's pretty standard for people to get evaluated in their jobs, and even to do self-evals. It's still kind of new here, and everyone does these differently. The thing is, the evaluation is always dependent upon a person or church's ability to be self-reflective, and also how high their goals are. So while it's a time to look at how you're doing, it's also a time to look at how well you think you can do. Evaluations are as much a reflection, I think, of reality as they are of possibility.
For the past few years, the first ones we had evals, our conference's forms have had numbers attached...like 5 we you're exceeding expectations or something. This year the numbers are off. That's a good thing. It feels a bit better to check that you "Need Improvement" than that you're a 1. It's a mental thing I know, but it matters. And hopefully that little change will allow us all to be a bit more self-critical.
In the United Methodist system, we have this fundamental assumption, it seems to me, that all pastors and congregations are more or less interchangeable. I think that's changing, but it's still there. Any pastor should be able to serve and be successful at any church. Not allowing for the fact that there are just some patently unhealthy churches and pastors out there, I think a lot of time we really struggle to appreciate that many times, matches aren't all that good. Often that's not clear right at first. Other times, as pastors and congregations change, they can, in the words use for marriages, "grow apart." Often what are called "irreconcilable differences" in marriages are simply stories of "it seemed like a good idea at the time," and two people not really knowing each other all that well. And perhaps one or both of the persons not knowing themselves all that well at first.
It was a pretty incredible idea for me to hear at the new church start conference about "Affinities". Basically the idea is maximine the effectiveness of new church starts by planting pastors amongst people they are similar to. Getting over the idea that it's easy enough to take a passionate person and see them succeed in any soil, and plant them in the right soil.
I cannot imagine the frustration of cabinets trying to play this difficult, and I imagine, heart-rending match game. And I am sure that for all the good matches, there are just pastors and appointments that are paired as best as they can with what's out there. And things change. But I wonder what it would look like if we were all just really upfront about who we are, and thus who we connect best with. What if, when what seems like an ideal match isn't possible, that's acknowledged from the start and it's clear to everyone where the differences are?
I haven't had a chance to talk with many of my colleagues about their experiences with the evaluation and advisory forms this year...or even with experienced pastors about how they approach these. But I am interested to do that. To hear how these forms have been shaping on their ministries, and what if any effect this opportunity to pause and reflect has had in their lives and ministry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)