One Church Model as Yeast

The Nicene and Apostle's creed both have a line that affirms belief in the holy catholic church and if we read it too quickly then we overlook the mystery of that phrase. 

I was reminded not long ago in a meeting with church leaders the meanings of these words. 

• holy - set apart 
• catholic - throughout the whole
• church - the body that comes together in order to be sent out

If the point of the church is to be sent out, then why would it come together to begin with? Some might even call this a paradox others might see this is really inefficient. If the point is to be sent out, then are we not going against the point when we come together? Many of us see the benefits of coming together in order to be sent out and are not hung up by this paradox. However, fewer of us are able to reconcile the paradox of something that is both set apart and throughout the whole. 

We like to think that we are able to hold two ideas in our heads at the same time and give them equal weight. We like to think that we do not privilege one side over the other. We like to think that we are able to hold the paradox, but more often than not we will place one position over the other. Despite our inability to hold paradoxes, we continue to try because we know that life is never one or the other, but full of contradictions and paradoxes. 

For instance, are you a parent or a child? What color is the dress? What do you hear? Maybe the most basic paradox - "this sentence is false."

The divisions in the church these days might be understood as our unwillingness to attempt to hold these tensions together. Some elevate the role of the church as holy (set apart and different) while others elevate the role of the church as catholic (though out the whole or sometimes understood as universal).

Photo by Drew Coffman on Unsplash

You may recall that Jesus attempted to address this paradox of being set apart and through out the whole by speaking of yeast. Yeast is different form the whole and yet in order for yeast to function it has to be through out the whole batch. 

The UMC faces a number of decisions in February 2019 around how to include LGBTQIA+ people in the church. It seems to me that the option that is most like the church as yeast is what is called the "One Church Model." This model gives the decision about ordination and marriage to the most local body able to make the decision. Conferences decide who they are going to ordain as it is now, pastors decide who they are going to marry as it is now, and churches decide what types of ceremonies are allowed on church property now.

If we allow the the decision of how to include LGBTQIA+ persons to be spread through out the whole of the church then, paradoxically and mysteriously, the yeast retains its holiness. It seems clear to me that if the status quo remains or if there is a dramatic change in the current stance, then we move closer to being holy OR catholic. 

This is one more reason why I believe the "One Church model" not only is in line with the creeds, but is in line with our historical and Wesleyan tradition of affirming the holy, catholic church.

A Difference in a Sermon and a Speech

It is important that preachers pay attention to their context. For instance, if your ministry is in a college town and the parishioners are college-educated people who place a premium on learning, then you know that you are going to have to have a teaching element in the sermon or no one will listen to you. If you are in a context where people value being a church of "Go" then by goodness, you need to be sure to have a call to action in the sermon. 

Context matters, but it is not king. Christ is King. In this sense that means the contextual must be in service of the transcendent. A sermon that is trapped and cannot transcend the context is not a sermon in my book. 

Sermons are those declarations of Good News that speak to the context but then transcend it. So if your community values learning, then the sermon must not be only about teaching. It must include a teaching element and then transcend it so that there is a call to service. The church of "Go" needs to hear the sermon that calls to action but transcends that call to include a call to worship and be still. 

Sermons that are trapped in their context are just that - trapped. There may be a good word shared, but it is not Good News. It may make the community feel good, but if the proclamation does not include and transcend the context then it is a public speech, not a sermon.*

---

*This post is specifically directed to all the preachers named Jason Valendy.

Full Inclusion Requires Exclusion #UMCGC

I am convinced that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life as John 14 says. My more progressive friends hesitate around this scripture while my more conservative friends embrace this scripture. The interesting thing is that both sides hesitate/embrace for the same reason - the exclusive claims that are attached to it. Progressives are not sure if Jesus is the only way, while conservatives are convinced he is. One side is apprehensive to exclusivity while the other side has it as an article of faith.

I would like to submit that the question needs to be not if Jesus is the way, but what exactly is the way of Jesus?

In his book, A New Christianity, Brian McLaren addresses this question: 

“If you want to know what God is like,” Jesus says, “look at me, my life, my way, my deeds, my character.” And what has that character been? One of exclusion, rejection, constriction, elitism, favoritism, and condemnation? Of course not! Jesus’ way has been compassion, healing, acceptance, forgiveness, inclusion, and love from beginning to end— whether with a visiting-by-night Pharisee, a Samaritan woman, a paralyzed man, a woman caught in adultery, or a man born blind.

It seems to me the Way of Jesus is the way of radical compassion and inclusion. And this radical inclusion leads us to Christ which in turn leads us to God. It is a cycle. Here is what I mean:

But here is the paradox that is often overlooked: the way of radical inclusion is the way of exclusion. The way of radical inclusion means that we exclude from our lives our own prejudices, judgments, condemnations, egos and self righteousness.

So my friends if we think that Christianity is exclusive, you may be correct. However, it is never exclusive of others. Christianity is the way of life that works to include others in a way that requires us to exclude our egos. This in part is what is meant by the need to die to ourselves so that Christ can live in us. When we exclude our own pride and ego and allow Christ to live in us, we find that way of Christ to be the way of radical and sometimes uncomfortable inclusion of the other.

Christ died for the world. Not for some select few or for the chosen ones. Christ died for the entire world. You cannot get more radically inclusive than that.

And yet in order to die for the sake of the whole world, Jesus had to exclude from his own ministry fear, hate, judgement and pride. He says in the garden prior to his arrest, “not my will but thine.”

Jesus is the way the truth and the life. The call for us today is are we willing to embrace the way of Jesus so that we may see the truth of his life?

Confusing Harmonious with Homogeneous

You may have seen this image floating around the internet the past month or so. 

As you can see it visually depicts the difference between inclusion, exclusion, segregation and integration. Perhaps the most helpful aspect of this image for those of us in the dominate culture is the difference between integration and inclusion. While integration brings others into the majority there is still a resistance to include the other into the larger group.

From what I understand it is difficult for the blue dot to move freely in the sea of green dots for there is a concern that the blue dot will loose their blueness and identity and become more blue-green and then ultimately be seen as green and not blue. It is difficult for the blue to remain blue when they are surrounded by green, so the blue might want to stay closer to other non-green dots. 

For those in the dominate culture, it is upon them to help move from integration to inclusion. It is upon the to foster a space where "greenness" is not forced upon the non-green. It is upon the  dominate culture to protect the variety of colors/ideas/beliefs/religions/etc. Which means that the green dots must also come to see that creating a harmonious group does not mean creating a homogeneous group.

There is a lie operating in our world that conflict will go away if we all were more similar than different. That is just a lie. I don't know about you, but I am at times in conflict with my own self - I want a cookie but I don't want a cookie, I want to run away but I don't want to run away, I want to yell but I don't want to yell. Harmonious living does not mean homogeneous living. Harmonious living is learning to respect the differences.