How do you decide what technology your church uses? Does the staff decide what makes their work most efficient? Does your pastor or board of trustees make the decisions?  Does each individual ministry do its own thing? Is it the responsibility of a communications committee?

For a few years I did pro bono consultation for churches and church related organizations that had issues with how to take advantage of newer technologies that had become available to them. We had mixed success, primarily in proportion to the level of support from the high profile members of the church and to the willingness of the leadership to embrace the idea that technology was the servant of ministry and therefore should specifically be designed, purchased, and set up with the idea of advancing ministry in mind. To many, technology was a necessary evil, not a tool that could be used for the Kingdom.

Let me try to explain. The churches I assisted that were successful in their goals had specific missions they wanted to accomplish. They wanted my assistance in finding ways that these tasks could be accomplished. In each case we established a group or committee that was responsible for coordinating with the various ministries and helping to determine what potential courses of action could be taken to accomplish their goals. Recommendations for technology purchase, deployment, maintenance, and use came through this group, regardless of who actually ended up making the decisions regarding the implementation of the programs. The job of the technology committee was to facilitate any ministry that needed the use of modern tech, whether blogging, setting up  Websites, using projection screens in worship, audio tech, or just daily office work. I encouraged the inclusion of representatives of any group that was the primary user of the equipment, such as administrative staff, or music ministries. We also looked for ways that ministries that were less involved in the use of tech could request access to the group and the technology. The idea was to design the ministry first, albeit with an understanding of some of the possibilities available, and then establish what was needed to accomplish the task. Once new technology was deployed, the church would always look for ways to maximize its investment by finding new ways to use what it already had. As of my last venture in consulting with these churches, those who were following this model were enthusiastic about what they were doing and what possibilities lay ahead.

The flip side of all this is those churches that were either fragmented or involved in turf wars. I should use my own church here as an example, I suppose. I stopped the consulting work I had been doing because I was asked by the pastor and a few of the church leadership to do similar work for my own congregation. I very quickly ran into groups and individuals who had the technology they were using just where they wanted it, and who and strongly, strongly resisted any suggestion that others be allowed to use the equipment. After over 2 years of trying to simply get folks to report monthly in an open way on what was being done with technology so others would know what was available for their use, I found  I could not even get consistent answers from the people who did tech-related work in the church. Usually the staff either didn’t know what other staff members are doing or for some reason they do not wish to tell.

Of course, there were also the nay-sayers who felt that modern technology, such as the Internet, blogs, or advanced things such as projecting text on walls, has no place in the church. The powers that be refused to even consider the use of voice and video protocols to allow a terminally ill woman to be in contact with her church friends of many years. The mantra was continually intoned that older folk weren’t interested in such things; this in spite of the willingness of all the parties involved in the actual process to give it a try. (I finally found a way to get things set up anyway, but the fine lady had died in the meantime.)

I have requested that a technology group be established, as in the other churches I counseled, but the leader of our governing committee sees no purpose in this. The trustees (who incidentally have no members who seem to have a substantial interest in technology, not to mention technology/information management experience) recently decided what systems we should have based on the suggestions of a single professional group, who also happened to make arrangements for the purchase and installation of equipment. No second opinion, even when I brought the advice to seek one from a group of several people who individually manage major information and technology services for organizations that handle thousands of devices of over a hundred varieties. I have no idea where the trustees came up with their operation requirements, but I know they did not meet with the ministries of the church to discover their needs. They made the decisions and then thrust them upon the rest of us. I don’t claim that my opinion is necessarily right or that my advice must be followed, but I do feel it is in the best interest of the church that the possibilities be discussed.

So there we are. Our church, as well as several that asked my advice but did not even discuss it, have technology that can be used for multiple missions, but is solely controlled by one individual or small group of individuals. It has expensive new equipment that is designed to do what non-users of the equipment think it should do rather than designed to meet pre-determined “business” needs. It has no official policy regarding coordinating technology use or trying to assist ministries who have a need for such technology. Even those who do, in fact, use what technology we have aren’t always sure how they are supposed to work with church ministries. Reports I have received from the people from other churches with whom I consulted in the past suggest that this state of affairs exists in the churches that chose to remain with their status quo. In the meantime, one of the smallest churches, in terms of financial resources anyway, has church attendance from Afghanistan and a retirement center  by way of the Internet, thanks to their own inspiration and willingness to let the horse pull the cart instead of the other way around.

I still help somewhat at my church. Some of the tasks I assist with are very poorly coordinated and not very effective, but we do what we can. The church regularly makes use of over $1,000 of equipment I have loaned it, but which the trustees have forgotten isn’t theirs. I serve as chair of 2 committees, but it should be budget time now and no one has contacted me regarding my committees’ financial needs. I use my personal equipment to do work for ministries that become aware of my willingness (as long as time allows) to help, equipment and software that costs several thousands of dollars, and of course my education and experience which, should I charge them my going rate, would be an additional expense. I don’t begrudge any of it. I just wish that there was a willingness to get together and see how to make the most effective use of it. I have started receiving requests from other organizations again. Maybe it is time to once more leave all the decisions regarding the appropriate missions of our congregation in the hands of those who have control of the resources, rather than those who are involved in the ministries. Not bitter. Just trying to discern where God most wants me to be, and more and more His call seems to be coming from a distance.

 

The Tonsured One

I have a big problem with the mission of the United Methodist Church (UMC). “The mission of the church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.” When one reads the words of many who were involved in the decision to change the mission statement into its present form, it is easy to see that this statement is focused on transforming the world into a better place, not a statement that we should transform the earth into a world of believers. The statements of members of the church hierarchy at the time of the change make it clear that it was in response to the question “Why do we make disciples?” (Many of the articles are still available online if one wishes to do a search for them.) Which brings me back to the problem I have with the statement.  Actually, I have two problems with it. The first is a question of the authority for the statement, the second in a more theological vein.

In the first case, that of authority, I have yet to find scripture that cites world transformation as a goal of spreading the gospel. I once read a version of the Great Commission in a responsive reading that used the phrase, but I haven’t found the scripture.  It may be there, but so far I haven’t found it and no one has shown it to me. Christ tells us to minister to virtually all types of people and makes clear that these people may be transformed, a message hammered home in the epistles. Yet the goal of spreading the gospel is to bring people to Christ so that they may become disciples. Period. Becoming disciples is the end game.  Nowhere does scripture give us a vision of a world we are expected to create as a result of this process. So we now have a mission statement to do something to bring about transformation? Into what? Who decides? Scripture is full of examples of the Hebrews working toward goals they have taken on under their own initiative in hopes that their wisdom and knowledge will create a better life. I am not sure that I want to go down that path deliberately. I have already done it unintentionally enough times and paid the earthly price.

Now, I strongly believe that we should minister to those who need us. We should try to ease their burdens. This process changes many things in the world, not surprisingly when one considers that the world is very complex and constantly changing. John Wesley set an example for the practice of sacrificial love as Christians, something that he felt was necessary in the Christian life. I’m not as well read when it comes to Wesley as I would like, but I don’t know of anywhere that he made transformation of the world the reason to make disciples. A result of becoming disciples, yes indeed. In many cases.  Few leaders of church change and reformation can top Wesley when it comes to advocating societal change. But when he discusses the concept of evangelism, it is the soul, not the state of the world, that is his focus. The early Methodists would ask each other “How is it with your soul?” Which brings me to the second, and somewhat overlapping, reason for my difficulty with this mission statement.

I believe that we can work wonders if we are true followers of Christ. I believe that much in the world will change because of that transformation. But although it may be a simple thing to say, there is no subtlety in the difference between working for the transformation of the world as the goal of making disciples, and the mission of making disciples solely to make disciples. There are two radically different goals here. One is to make disciples, the other is to transform the world. Either the UMC mission statement explains the purpose of making disciples or it explains the method to be used in transforming the world.  (It is true that the word “for” in the statement may not mean the purpose of making the disciples but rather the type of disciples of Jesus that we intend to make, but I think this a stretch. Again, we have much material showing that the amended version of the mission statement had to do with the purpose of making disciples, not the type.) I find either of these to be theologically unsound.

Christ’s emphasis on making believers was on individual salvation. Eternal life, in my belief that is eternal in both length and depth, is to be had by becoming a follower. In accepting Christ and deciding to follow him, we are transformed individually. The result of that transformation will often include a desire to take actions that will transform some piece, large or small, of our earthly home. That is for God to decide and for the Spirit to translate into a call. But it goes too far to say that it is the mission of the church.

Christ speaks little about the mission of the church, sometimes referring to it as His bride, an entity that relies upon Him and for which he cares deeply. It is primarily through the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles that we flesh out the role of the church. These scriptures primarily focus on the role of the church in supporting one another. They show a societal role for the church, but not a lot is said about the role of evangelism for the church as a unit. There is certainly nothing about the mission being the transformation of the world.

We, as individual Christians, are commanded to treat the world as we would be treated ourselves. That translates easily into a collective mission as it is a more or less single purpose. But even here we do not agree on what constitutes treating others as ourselves. (No wonder so much of the New Testament focuses on unity in the church; it was needed.) If we cannot agree on that, how are we to agree on the form the transformation of the world should take? Attend almost any official gathering of United Methodists and you will discover the answer. We can’t. To say that the arguments over structural and social differences at the last General Conference were passionate would be a gross understatement.

There are those who have a vision of the world as they feel it ought to be based on their interpretation of what is right and what is wrong. There is a place in the church for discussion of social issues and appropriate action, but the church should never become the tool of individuals or groups to bring about their own interpretation of how things should be. Doing so elevates these people to a position of grace, knowledge and wisdom that surpasses that of their fellows, and is out of character with the role of the church as it is presented in scripture. People may participate in legitimate actions of the church that may be in line with their own personal social goals, after all when we are called to be the body of Christ it is a call to compassion and support for our fellows, but this is different. One may align ones views on society to fit with the actions of the church, but we have no authority to align the mission of the church to fit our concept of fairness or social justice. The church is Christ’s bride, not ours.

The old story is out there regarding the man who is going down the beach at low tide, throwing stranded starfish back into the water. When he is told that he is saving just a tiny fraction of the stranded creatures and in the big scheme of things his actions didn’t matter, he threw another into the sea and said “It mattered to that one.” That is the act of a Christian disciple, although perhaps not the purpose for which he was made a disciple. I can support a mission statement that says something like, “The mission of the church is to spread the gospel so that others may become disciples of Jesus Christ.” We could add, “(And try to save a few starfish while we are at it.)” if we want. I could live with that.

The Tonsured One

Have you ever been the token? The one that people ask to be on a committee or involved in a program just so they can say they have extended their reach to someone of your ilk, er, situation? The lone “volunteer” archivist (even if you also happen to be a professional in another position) in a group of paid archivists, asked to join so that it can be said to be inclusive? The member of a church committee that has different ideas about how things might possibly be done, asked to be a member to show inclusiveness rather than because the rest value your opinion?

I have been, and still am, these things. When it was pointed out that I had skills that my church needed to comply with certain policies, I was asked to help. My opinion was not taken into account, however. When I made the mistake of letting some of the powers that be know my skills in areas of communication and technology, I was asked to lead a group that was to include people from other such areas. All members applauded the decision and promptly found they were too busy to be part of the group?

So what do we do in these cases? Do we get offended? Do we plug ahead as if our gifts were truly valued? Do we decide that the various activities and people are not the wisest use of our time and resources?

I have found that the way I answer these questions relates more to whether I am participating because of my professional skills, my vocation, or a calling. In the last case, where I truly feel called to be doing what I have been asked to do, I feel no offense and just keep plugging away. The opinions of others only affect me in that I consider them potential sources of God’s further communication to me about my call. Otherwise, it is a “no-brainer.” Likewise, if my experience and skills are being sought in my professional capacity only, it is fairly easy to make decisions about the value of my time. If there is not a lot demanded of me, then I can easily help out in a token capacity.

The real dilemma for me comes when the requests made of me bear on my vocation. For me, this is often where my calling meets my profession, where my gifts meet my skills, where my heart and mind meet practicality. My skills and gifts are used in side and outside my profession, and whether I am asked to work as a consultant, a field historian in some capacity, do technical or computer work, I usually know when I am part of something that is truly needed or just wanted; at least from the view of my own time and effort. I have to decide if I need to use the time and resources I have for the task, or is it better to leave it for another and to look elsewhere for a way to serve. I find that I get very frustrated when I feel that I am needed, but not wanted.

The yard stick I use to determine if, once over my frustration, I stay of go is based on two simple questions. First, can I do the work to the glory of God; meaning can I take that attitude in my heart. Secondly, does this fit my vocation in the definition I have borrowed from Frederick Beuchner, paraphrased as where my deep gladness meets the world’s great need. If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then, again, it is a “no-brainer.” Only through prayer and meditation can I answer these questions. If either is a no, it is time to move on.

At present I am a token to the glory of God on several committees in several organizations, both church and secular. I have also left several positions. The nature of service and vocation, I suppose.

The Tonsured One

Jonathan Merritt has posted a great article/discussion topic at Q:Ideas.( http://bit.ly/iccd6R ). I see his point, but since he has made it clear that he wishes discussion, and those commenting have accepted the challenge, I would like to offer my response. It is, a bit long for a comment section, so it will be posted here. I will take his statements ad seriatim after these short comments, that may themselves bring some good response (and I hope they do.):

• First, I believe the essence of the Church is relationship. With God, with Christ, with each other and with creation. If God did not wish the Bride of Christ to be in human, at least from our side, relationship, he would not have created it.
• Second, the Body, as Paul points out, is not composed of parts that are the same. From his example of a human body we can infer that all parts do not act the same way or relate to each other in the same way. Relationship is different.
• Next, God doesn’t change. Christ doesn’t change. But because we have human life, we change. That means collectively as well as individually. My belief is that God dealt differently with His people at different times because they needed different guidance as they grew, just as a child does.
• This is a bigone, and vitally important. For good or ill, many people, particularly the youger folk, do not think as we do. By that I mean they do not process information or even feel emotion in the same manner as those of previous generations. My study of history suggests that this is not the first time that this has happened and such things bring radical changes in the way we relate to God and each other. I would ascribe the early growth of Christianity and the Protestant Reformation, at least in part, to such changes.

These statements are a context for my coming comments. Any who disagree with me will find me ready to listen and/or defend.

Now Mr. Merritt’s article:

In his first paragraph we see the crux of the question. Building the “type of community that Jesus intended….” The rest of the article goes into this, but let us start with this. Jesus made it clear that he wanted us to love one another as He loved us, that we should support each other, and particularly the poor and needy. We should keep our focus on God’s ways, not the world’s. There was more, but the one thing he did not do was define a church structure of method of doing these things. Much of Paul’s support to churches, at least of which we know, came from communicating with them through the fastest means possible. This would not be the same way as today.

Jonathan makes it clear that, although he comes down on the this-is-not-a-real-church-side of the argument, he applauds the methods of the online “churches”/”outreach” for what they are. He then adds the caveat that we must “speak of these communities in a way that is appropriately congruent with the scriptures.” I believe this a great idea, but do not see that the scriptures give us enough definition of the desired structure of the church to do this in a fashion that eliminates online churches from the mix. Oh there are examples of how the early followers went about things, but these include their failures as well as successes, this would seem to imply they were to learn from their new experiences. I submit once again that Jesus placed little value in the actual structure or even physical location of believers.

He also makes it clear that online venues may be adequate in certain sircumstances, but by doing so he admits they may be adequate and his argument takes on a tone of what is preferred rather than essential. This should also be born in mind in the rest of this ramble.

Jonathan points out that the term ekklesia appears multiple many times in the New Testament in a way that implied or stated a physical assembly. But this is hardly surprising as the majority of places it is used are in statements about or letters to physical assemblies that were already established. Just because these relationships already existed in the forms of physical assemblies does not mean that they existed in the only, or even preferred form, of a church. Today, for instance, if Paul wrote to the City Road Chapel United Methodist Church, and referred to the folks at First Methodist Franklin, he might well refer to Methodists rather than to an assembly or ekklesia. Would then argue that the Methodists were the correct form of Christ’s church and the others just do good things? I think not. Yet the Methodists have very specific structures, as do other denominations and independent congregations.

Assembly no longer means the same thing as it did. The statement that it requires physical presence is just an opinion, and one that it more and more often not accepted by people. Too many people communicate in ways that allow them to share what is important to them without leaving the home or office. It has also been noted already in comments that the meaning of words change. [BTW- I am sure other comments will address some of the points I am trying to make during the time I am writing this. Oh well.] I was once a seaman. In the old days ships literally sailed, as in propelled by the wind, across the ocean, Today they still “sail,” but we would not claim that they do not serve their purpose of transportation because they are no longer wind driven. In fact, we would say they accomplish their mission more efficiently an produce better results than before. Could it be that in some cases an online church is actually a preferred method? I’ll get back to that.

I note that Jonathan’s statement that Nicola David, in her writing, “falsely equate[s] the ability to worship with the existence of a Biblical church.” This is actually a gratuitous statement in that it is opinion, not supported by fact. Not Ms. David’s comments, but rather that worship can be equated by to the Biblical church. Christ made worship a primary duty for his followers, although he did not make it clear to what extent it must be corporate. In fact, many of his instructions could be interpreted as either individual or corporate duties or both. I participate in personal and corporate prayers, for example. He then returns to the number of times the Greek is used for church, a point I have taken up earlier.

Then things get interesting. The two historical duties of the church,”preaching of the Word and right administration of the sacraments.” I will take up the second later as it is the most difficult issue for many to deal with, though my background makes it easier. The first perplexes me, however. Every online church that I have checked out not only preaches the word, but to a wider audience and, with the ability to use translation software and archived Webcasts, may do so more efficiently. it is hard to see that this is being missed in a community that Mr. Merritt acknowledges exists and “is building community, discipling [sic] believers and encouraging theological discussion.” The problem with his statement regarding corporate worship reminds us that he is expressing his feelings rather that trying to prove an issue. I understand that it is difficult for many to experience corporate worship when one does not feel one is a corporate body. This, however, is actually a part of the argument against accepting the online community as a church, and one can’t logically use one’s own conclusion as evidence for that conclusion. If people do feel that they are in relationship with God and each other to the extent that they are assembled, regardless of distance (which means nothing to God,) than they can do things corporately and in assembly. The belief here is the crux of the whole matter.

“[C]ertain aspects of church life and ministry seem to require face-to-face meetings. Accountability and church discipline, providing help to the sick and poor, offering hospitality to one another and many other commands seem to require a physical assembly.”   I fail to see this. I am part of an accountability group that meets online and even know of one that uses software to help provide that accountability by letting a fellow Christian know when his brother or sister is in trouble. Much of the work I do administering to the poor and sick is done with other members of other assemblies. Believe it or not, the e-mail collections of “thank yous” for help and comfort I have given people it through my vocation belie the idea that hospitality can only come from physical presence. This is true for the other list of duties a paragraph or so later.

I will now note that I feel that there is something, an energy, that can be transmitted through human presence that does not transmit across the Internet. Yet I have also noted that many younger people do not seem to pick up on that the same way that they did and that the relationships they develop on the Net are, in many cases, more real than some they have in real life. The Net has brought people to Jesus. In a similar way, I have seen alcoholics brought to Jesus through AA. They will not darken the door of a church because they feel the relationships there are false, while theirs are real. Some, no, many, eventually take the step to the traditional church, but many know only the relationship they have with other, often strangers, often met through literature or online. Christ saved their lives and yet they don’t attend what we call church. They call AA their church and as the meetings have many elements of worship and community that are missing from other churches, although they are missing their own elements, I will not gainsay them.

The big one is communion. The issue here is what the right form of the sacraments is. I am a member of the United Methodist Church that believes sacraments must be administered by ordained clergy, or at least the elements of communion consecrated by them. There are varying opinions on this ranging from the Ned of the clergy to actually hand off the elements to there being no need for clergy at all. I come from a Church of Christ (acapella) background and am more open in this area than say, my Roman Catholic friends. But this essentially changes the argument of whether an online church is a church into whether a church that has differing views on the administration of sacraments is a church. Much bigger and longer argument.

I will note that early, and many present, churches, such as those Methodists, had licensed preachers or laity to handle church services and then received the sacraments at times when the ordained preacher could be there. I know churches that will provide kits with the elements for those who cannot be present. I know many a preacher who will baptize anyone into Christ’s church, rather than a specific congregation, and that covers most sacraments recognized by Protestants.

So it seems to boil down to this. Not do we recognize other people in assembly by the Internet as churches, but do they find themselves in relationship with the Spirit and one another in a way that meets the needs of the fellowship and provides the means to accomplish the goals and duties of the New Testament church? If so, well, it is walking like a duck, quacking, like a duck, etc. It may be a funny looking duck to the rest of us, but the lord works in mysterious ways. In some cases he goes to the ill or dead and restores them, in cases such as the centurion’s servant, he just says a word. Surly time and space will not interfere with God gathering His church in such a way as serves Him best.

Jim Havron

Blogging on the Tonsured One’s site

I have had several deaths of family members and friends, new job, illness of family members that required my attention, as well as personal illness. I have been inattentive to the blog and apologize. I thank the folks that e-mailed me. I will be posting again soon, although I have no idea how consistently. I have done some guest blogs for others, and my thoughts can be found among those at hereticalarchivy.wordpress.com. I also work with http://www.cow-mmm.com, the Clouds of Witnesses-Memory, Ministry and Mission project. I am one of the Billy’s.

The Tonsured One

I have often maintained that nature is a manifestation of God in his creation, so there is not really anything unnatural, by definition. That which appears supernatural or unnatural is just something that we do not yet understand, have not yet explained, or is beyond our understanding entirely. This is not to say that all things are what God intends. He loves us, and wishes for our love to come back to him, freely given. Anything that interferes with that process is not his specific intention. Thus the existence of sin. Yet sin is not beyond the rule of God over his creation, or beyond his power as it is expressed in his creation (i.e., nature.) Therefore the existence of sin is the natural consequence the existence of free will.

The problem we have when we discuss “human nature” is we are not really discussing nature at all. It is a matter of semantics. Our natural (as in allowed by God, not his specific intent) state, or human condition, is one of sin. Sin, as in “without” in Español. Without God. We are not able to be totally in God’s presence because of sin, yet we have the power available to us to overcome this condition. The power is natural because it comes from God. He will act upon our human condition, our “natural” state, if we but ask him to, and his force will alter the otherwise inevitable consequences of our human condition. This is fully natural, but not normal. It is unusual for a human being to regularly surrender his own will to God to the extent that his course is drastically changed while on earth. Many of us go far enough to gain salvation, but not enough to be holy as we live our lives.

The laws of inertia and motion include the premise that bodies at rest tend to remain at rest, and bodies in motion tend to remain in motion, unless acted upon by external force. There is more to it than that, of course, including the amount and direction of the force(s) and a bunch of other stuff, but for the purposes of this illustration, that will do. Over at Heretical Archivy, a brief set of comments on a business book points out that the authors used Newton’s first law in connection with the behavior of organizations. The illustration most certainly applies to organizations such as the church. It also applies to the membership of the church.

Bodies at rest, (not growing in Christ, not doing the will of God in their own lives; individual bodies or the body of Christ,) will tend to remain that way. Bodies in motion, (whether growing in faith and discipleship, or imploding upon themselves; again, individual bodies or the body of Christ,) will tend to remain in motion. Unless acted upon by outside force. In the physical world, friction and gravity tend to keep bodies at rest, or to slow or redirect their motion. A greater force must be applied to overcome these  forces.

Are our bodies at rest or in motion? If in motion, are they moving in the right direction? Regardless of the answer, what force propels or restrains us? Just thinking.

The Tonsured One

From Heretical Archivy:

“Reshaping Your Business with Web 2.0: Using the new Collaborative Technologies to Lead Business Transformation by Vince Casarez, Billy Cripe, Jean Sini and Phillipp Weckerle (McGraw-Hill, 2009.)…From page 6:

‘Organizations not doing anything in a particular area tend to keep not doing things in that area, and if, by chance, they are doing something, they tend to do the same thing in the same way for as long as they can. This means that it is rare for them to lead anyone anywhere. When they do, they had better hope they are headed in the right direction, because it is hard for them to stop.’ [Emphasis added.]”

There are a good number of tutorials for using drop.io top upload and share larger files than would otherwise fit in an e-mail. I have sent them and instructions to several of my church members, but there must be something missing because they do not catch on. I demonstrated personally to one and he caught it immediately, so I just recorded that same demo and here it is. I do not know why it worked for him and more professionally done ones did not, but just the same…

Guest Blog

God shots is a popular term, or at least was when I was a young(er) adult. See or hear of a prayer concern, or just feeling grateful, pause and through out a (I want to lift up…), a (I bring to your attention…), a (thank you father) or whatever prayer that comes out in a sentence of 2. The idea was that you didn’t have to stop the world to pray. Of course, it could be used as an excuse for not taking time for more serious prayer, but it also helped you remember prayer throughout the day. And you felt as if you were doing something. You felt as if God were around. Good feeling.

In my church, Twitter is anathema. At least among many of the leadership. So are other technologies that are seen to be too “tech-y” and somehow, solely for that reason as best I can tell, almost sacrilegious. WiFi connections are seen as too much trouble and when 2 congregation members wanted to arrange for a terminally ill member to be able to use Skype to communicate with her Sunday School class, the idea was discarded out of hand. Of course, i am so far out there that I think a Twitter play-by-play of the service, including the prayer, broadcast through a sign in front and/or beside the church would be a good thing. And folks, I’m already in the second half of the first century of my life. Imagine how I would feel if I were a kid!

Anyway, Twitter prayer is a bit harder to turn down. Many in my church have done so because they fear we will have “liability” of some kind. I don’t know. “Please pray for John, Ethel, Bill and Jim this week,” tweeted under a pseudonym from an unknown location does sound like a pretty dangerous thing to do; but then what type of liability do you want on your soul? “When I was in need, you prayed for me?” or “When I was in need, you were afraid to even say a quick prayer fo me in a way that only my Father would know who I was was?” And then we will say, “When did we see Thee in need, Lord?” You can follow the rest.

Anyway, the more passive among us can follow prayer concerns without worrying about liability. Hashtags allow that. Nice short blog post about it at City Road Chapel, UMC’s blog, here. Now I have to see what hash tags relate to a tonsure.

The Tonsured One

One of the things we discuss in Sunday School and in my discussions among friends and family are the various parables in the New Testament. It is particularly interesting to examine them in light of the message of one in context of the rest of the book, or in contrast to another parable that may seem to say similar or totally different things. One translation or another may shed different light upon the same story. I have had different pastors explain what the Greek words meant but given different definitions or interpretations of the same passages. The most common theme I find is people trying to use parts of the passages as metaphor and other parts as literal (of course this is easier if one understands that Christ spoke either 17^th-century English or the language of the RSV.) That Jesus used this method of teaching because it made things easier to understand seems a bit ironic when we see how often a parable is in the center of a doctrinal or dogmatic controversy.

What I find a common thread in all the parables, and one we discuss rarely if at all, is the fact that they all seem to go against established religious thinking, or at least to challenge the listener to think about it, and to challenge it with common sense that is not based on dogma. The use of the parable is in itself a parable. Something like:

“A rich young ruler said, ‘Master, I have all my religion in a box. It has been kept there for me, refined and honed to a sharp edge by those who are wiser than I am. They have added to it, taken away that which I do not need. I wish to find God. Where is the best place to find Him?’ and Jesus answered “Have you carefully examined the box and seen the signs of He who sent me there? Do these signs not say you may find him?’ and the young man replied, ‘Yes Lord, but though they tell me I will be able to find Him, He is not in the box. Everything I know that is Holy appears to be there, but not Him!’ And Jesus said ‘ Perhaps he is not in the box. Perhaps the things that men have decided are holy and put there for us are not all the holy things my Father has given us. If you want to meet my Father, you must seek outside the box as well as inside. And you must ask His guidance as to what things, inside or out, are the ones that are truly holy.’

“The rich young ruler went away very sad, because the box had been passed down to him from the time of Moses and generations since then. The wisest men and women had refined it until it was complete. He did not wish to admit that there were ways he might find God that were not in the box. He was sure that the box contained all he needed and certainly there should be nothing added or taken away! The box had become more precious to him than anything in the world, and he could not change it. He must continue to find a way to locate God in the box, or, if He was not there, to stuff Him in!’

Jesus followed the spirit of the Law, and the intent of the Law, which was to bring God’s people closer to Him. Man had put borders around the Law so it served man, not the relationship between God and Man. Jesus’ parables always seemed to emphasize that. When Jesus spoke of the widow’s mite, was that really a sermon telling us we must give 10% of our income to the church? (And where did it address whether that was gross or net, before or after taxes?) Was his story of the Good Samaritan really about how churches as organizations should do good or what political establishment social programs we should support? What part of the established order was he telling us to support when he spoke of the workers and their wages? Or, another way of asking these questions might be, what part of the box was Jesus telling us to look in if we want to have a relationship with God? After all, we must have our boundaries and all things must be in a box. It is hard to make someone as eternal and impossible to understand precious to us. Gold in another country has no value to us while cash in our accounts does. A God we cannot hold…? Doe He have value? Or must he be in our account box?

The Tonsured One

A preacher at worship the other day had the congregation pass the peace by looking one another in the face and saying, “You have Jesus all over your face!” I really like that one. I had not heard it before and do not know if it is his idea or someone else’s that he recognized the worth of, passing the Peace on from location to location rather than just in the service.

I am also interested in the rest of the metaphor. Do we put on the face of Jesus only for church or also for our daily grind? We wash our faces to get ready for church in the morning. Do we make a point of washing any leftover Jesus off before we go to work on Monday? I will be asking that question of myself.