"Christian" Doesn't Always Mean "Good"

I had an interesting conversation in a public forum earlier this week.  A person began a statement with, in essence, "I must say this because I am a Christian and I can't remain in this group without stating it."  The person then proceeded to state his case in a fairly injurious way, knowing that it would affect the people around him negatively.  When others started to object he re-asserted his right to make the statement and accused people who disagreed with him of religious intolerance.  "You say we should tolerate X and Y but then you don't tolerate my right to have my opinion!"

To his own ears this sounded quite noble.  He got to stand up, trumpet his own views regardless of how they'd fall on other people's ears, and then claim to be a victim--and his audience as hypocrites--the instant someone challenged him...all in the name of his belief in God.

Yeah, it was pretty gross.  And the conversation that flowed from this incident was unhelpful, fractured, embarrassing.

And yet we've all heard this kind of thing before.  "If you don't tolerate me saying this then YOU'RE the bigot!"  How much water does this hold?  Is this a case of the persecuted Christian standing up for their faith in a world that hates them?  If not, where did they go off the track?

You can tell already by the tone of my writing that I'm going to argue that this was NOT a case of a persecuted Christian being wronged.  In fact I found this person's interpretation of "Christian" lacking, though unfortunately quite common.  So let's take this from the beginning.

Did the person fall short of Christianity because he had an opinion on the matter in the first place, based on his understanding of scripture?  No.  This is exactly what we're supposed to do, draw from the well of scripture and base our lives accordingly.  Scripture is vast, touching all times and places.  Humans are different.  Inevitably some people will draw from scripture in one way while a neighbor comes to an opposite conclusion.  That doesn't make one "Christian" and the other not.  We are free to hold opposing convictions on many matters.  None of us are perfect.  The world will never be sinless.  We're never going to find full agreement.  If we do, that belief will have become our idol...a false compromise with a broken world.

Fortunately as Christians we understand that we're not saved by our own opinions.  Christ saves us despite our opinions.  Some beliefs rest on firmer foundations than others but in the end we have to go with our understanding of God.  If that lands us in a place different than most, that's the way it is.  God loves us anyway.  This guy's opinion didn't make him not a Christian.  There's room for people you disagree with at the table.

The point at which our speaker went off the rails was when he chose to express his opinion without regard for the people around him.

Notice how the statement began.  "I must say this..."  For whom was this statement made?  The primary motivator was not the need of the listener, but the need of the speaker.  People often want to hide behind the truism, "Didn't Jesus speak boldly and correct people?"  He did indeed.  But at no point did Jesus get up and speak to make himself feel better, more secure, more justified in his belief.  He didn't put himself first.  He spoke on behalf of the people around him.  

The times when Jesus spoke stridently, correcting and getting angry at others, all contained a common thread:  he got angry at people who were victimizing others in God's name.  The Pharisees and temple leaders put themselves first whenever they spoke about God.  THAT'S when Jesus got angry.  He corrected them right there in the presence of their victims precisely to show those victims that the self-centered approach that they'd been subjected to by "faithful" people was wrong.  Even here Jesus wasn't speaking on his own behalf, but to protect some of his people from others of his people who were hurting them.

When our speaker unleashed his opinion, defining it as "Christian" because of its content instead of its effect on the community, he ceased speaking a Christian manner.  At that moment he stopped following Christ and started following the people Christ spoke against.  This was true even though his words were couched in scriptural terms just as the words of the Pharisees were.

Summarizing for clarity:  "Christian" isn't shown by what you believe as much as what you do with what you believe.  Believing right and doing the wrong thing with it doesn't make you Christian.

As it turned out, our speaker's statements victimized the people around him.  It was probably more carelessness on his part than intent, but that doesn't change the effect.  Predictably these people reacted negatively.  Instead of love, joy, forbearance, and the other fruits of the Spirit flowing from this conversation we got anger, frustration, pain.  Whether the intent was to assert his own beliefs or educate people around him as to the "right" way the speaker failed miserably.

Predictably when the listeners objected and expressed their anger and pain the speaker turned around the issue, claiming that they were intolerant of his beliefs.  This is a common and distressing practice which should be addressed.

First of all, claiming the protection of religious intolerance was ironic since this guy wasn't following Christian tenets in his speech.  People weren't objecting to scripture or a faith system.  People were objecting because this guy was being a jerk!  He stated things in ways that felt like an attack to other members of the audience and then claimed that God mandated that he do so.  Who isn't  going to object to that?  In fact the people who countered him fit into Jesus' sandals better than he did.  They at least were responding to protect the people around them, a legitimately Christian motivation.

Second, common sense tells you that you can't throw the first punch at somebody and then scream, "Hey! No fighting!" when they swing back.  You can't state something that's unfaithful and intolerant and then claim other people are being intolerant for not accepting your injurious words with tolerance.

Let's say we were at a gathering full of people of all kinds of races.  Somebody stands up and says, "The Bible says that God hates everybody who is not white!"  People start to object, saying that this is not OK and that God loves and accepts everybody.  The speaker now stands up and says, "Well you're not loving and accepting me because you got mad at my opinion and say it's not faithful!  You didn't let me express myself and are persecuting me!"  

Is that true?  Is everybody being equally intolerant here?  Of course not.  The speaker isn't being persecuted for his beliefs.  He's being stopped from doing damage to everyone around him in God's name.  "God loves and accepts his children" doesn't mean that Christian folks are supposed to stand by and smile tolerantly while people hurl racial epithets or abuse or imprison or commit all kinds of wrong against their fellow human beings.  Rather we move to combat the things that would send the message that God doesn't care about you--slurs and abuse and wrongful imprisonment and people standing up and speaking however they want without caring about others--and lift up the things that show God does care.

If we see somebody beating another person with a baseball bat we need to show that God cares about the person being hit by stopping the beating.  We don't stand there and say, "I can't interfere because that would make me seem intolerant towards the guy with the bat."  What about the guy who's being hit?!?  Jesus loved everybody and died for everybody.  He never stood by while another person was victimized in God's name.

This "I can say whatever I want and you can't object or I'll claim I was persecuted" is garbage.  Being persecuted means suffering for the sake of someone else in the course of helping them.  It's not a way to weasel out of responsibility for your own utterances.  Nor is it a shield to hide behind while you lob attacks at other people.  The Pharisees didn't get to claim they were victims because they weren't allowed to damage all those around them.

In his own mind our original speaker felt like a hero for his faith.  He stepped up and said something he thought would be unpopular regardless of consequences and became a martyr when people responded negatively.  Reality is far less noble.  His message was harmful, his consideration and love for his neighbor non-existent, and even his martyrdom was pretty weak, as he objected to the counter-attacks all the way.  If this were old-time Rome he would have happily been thrown into the Coliseum to face hungry lions for the sake of his faith as long as nobody actually opened the lion cages, as long as he could continue throwing stones and accusations at the crowd in the process, and as long as he could storm off feeling self-justified at the end instead of being eaten.  

It was a miserable experience all around, completely un-educational, largely a waste of time.  But that's what happens when you define Christianity as something you do and believe instead of something that God works through you for the sake of the world.

--Pastor Dave (pastordave@geneseelutheranparish.org)

Monday Morning Sermon: Final Instructions from Jesus

The Gospel this Sunday came from John 13: 31-35

Jesus said, “Now the Son of Man is glorified and God is glorified in him. 32 If God is glorified in him, God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at once.
33 “My children, I will be with you only a little longer. You will look for me, and just as I told the Jews, so I tell you now: Where I am going, you cannot come.
34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

On Sunday we asked folks to remember the first time their parents left them alone in the house.  Jesus isn't ever going to leave his followers but the situation is analogous because one phase of his ministry--the most visible part--is coming to an end and the next phase is about to begin.  That phase will include his crucifixion, resurrection, and the ascension into heaven.  He's not leaving his followers but they're about to take on far more responsibility for the house!

Before your parents left you for the first time they went over a detailed set of instructions, right?  "Remember to feed the dog, turn off the stove, call me if you go anywhere, and NO PARTIES!"  The order and content may vary depending on your parents, but one thing's for sure:  whatever they thought was most important they said last, right as they were going out the door.  It doesn't matter if they had told you seven times before.  "NO PARTIES!" made one more return as they were ducking into the car.

This gospel reading is the equivalent of Jesus' last instructions to the kids.  And what did he say just as he was throwing his suitcase in the trunk?  "Here's my command.  Love one another just as I have loved you.  This is how everybody will know you are my followers."

That's it!  So simple!  And yet it's every bit as important to God as "turn the stove off" was to your parents.  Without this there's no security, continuity, responsibility, family life...in some ways no life at all.

It's funny how many ways people try to follow God.  There are as many flavors of faith as there are stars in the sky.  But Jesus' Big Instruction provides the litmus test for them all.

If understanding God were simple the Bible would only be a few pages long.  We'd have a handy set of definitions and instructions and that would be it.  It's nowhere near that clear.  That's no accident!  The Bible provides enough space and access points for millions and millions of people to find God's relationship with them.  Those people have different opinions, follow different rules, operate in different environments.  None of them are completely right.  Few are completely wrong either.  Everybody operates in ambiguity.

The test of faith isn't what you believe, it's how you use what you believe.  We're thrown into conflict with each other not to prove who was right or wrong, but to see what we'll fall back on when we can't figure out who's right and wrong.  Will we retreat into enemy camps, lobbing theological shells at each other, creating enemies and scorched earth all around us in God's name?  Or, in the midst of these moments of confusion, will we opt to love?  This is what God is watching for, not who got it right, but who loved the most even when they might have gotten it wrong.

None of us can be God.  Jesus knew this when he told his disciples, "Where I go you cannot follow."  We could not make the sacrifice he did, nor would it mean the same thing if we tried.  There was only one Jesus. But this one thing we can do:  we can love in his name.  And when we do this, we become like Jesus in every way that matters.  Even if we never walk on water or heal a leper, we have performed the act that stood at the root of his ministry, at the root of his very identity.  Loving people echoes the act of Our Savior in their lives.  Nothing else can substitute.  If we do this, we have fulfilled our faith.  If not we have no hope of doing so.

Return now to the moment when your parents left you in the house.  Yes, they said, "NO PARTIES!" seven times, including in the last second in which they saw you.  But for most of us that wasn't the absolute last thing they said, was it?  After all the instructions and admonitions, after working through all the worry and fear, what did they really say last?

"I love you."

Maybe they understood more than we thought, even if we did throw that party anyway.

--Pastor Dave (pastordave@geneseelutheranparish.org)

Council Meeting Minutes for April, 2013

Genesee Lutheran Parish Church Council Minutes

April 9, 2013

In Attendance:

Patrick Adams, Susan Rigg, Courtney Sharnhorst, Amy Peterson, Jennifer Parkins, Linda Chilson, Gayle Rossebo, Dan Carter, and Pastor David Deckard

Amy will do devotional next month.

Susan went over the Budget report and let us know she will transferring one of the CD’s into the general fund.

We discussed what is going to happen with Vacation Bible School this year, there was someone who was going to coordinate it but she had to back out due to other obligations.  The theme this year is Code of Armor. Pastor Dave felt as long as we could get people to help out he could come up with a plan so that we will have VBS. He will report back on how he is progressing with that.

We moved on into the Pastors report-

Pastor reported on how well Easter services went and thanked everyone for helping with services and music.

There will be a monthly meeting with any Parishioners that would like to come help work on sermon ideas for the month.  

Pentecost Sunday is May 19^th and would like ideas on how we want to celebrate it this year.

Services move out to the Valley Church May 5^th and will continue at 10 through May and change to 9:30 in June. The 28^th of April is the last day for Sunday School for this year.

On Saturday soon he would like to get people to come help clean up the yard and take down lights at St John’s.

We need to come up with guidelines for how the church will help with funeral services and meals. Susan said she will help organize meals unless anyone else wants to do it. We do need to get names and phone numbers of people who are willing to help out with the meals.

Next month we will work on our Mission Statement

Help Needed: Is Anyone Coming Home from Moscow on Friday?

Hey folks,

One of our lovely, wonderful college-aged students wants to come and participate in our activity on Friday night but can't find a ride from Moscow to Genesee.  Is anyone working in, or passing through, Moscow in the late afternoon or evening tomorrow?  If so, could you give a congregation member a lift?  Contact me if you can help.

I can give him a ride home after we're done but I can't pick him up beforehand.

[Update:  Problem solved!  Thanks, all!]

--Pastor Dave (pastordave@geneseelutheranparish.org)

"My Church" Part 2: Practical Applications

In our last post we discussed the phrase "My Church".  We talked about the proper definition:  "The community in which God's mission for me is revealed and lived out."  We also talked about other definitions that creep in to our detriment:  "Place where I'm comfortable, where people agree with me, where I've always been" or "place that I own and have control of because of my special contributions".  Today we're going to look at practical ways to avoid the bad definitions of "my church" and encourage the good.

The first and easiest step to avoid bad definitions of church ownership is to stop thinking of church in a physical sense.  The more you define church as a "place where" the more you get bound up in buildings and property and physical elements.  Physical things are always owned in our society, usually exclusively.  You own the rights to your property, the air space above it, the mineral rights beneath it...top to bottom it's yours.  If you think of church like more property you will inevitably come to think that you possess it.  You'll also feel threatened and frustrated when someone else evidences any sign of ownership...like moving that flower vase you set out or leaving crumbs on your floor.

Church is a living web of relationships between God and his people to which we're all connected.  A spider web can't stand if there's only one string.  It'll just blow away in the wind.  Each strand is distinct from the next but all the strands rely upon each other to make a cohesive whole.  My relationship with God supports your relationship with God and vice versa.  Church forms the center connecting point of that web, the place where we're closest together.  It's comprised of all of us without being owned by any of us.  Relationships can't be possessed in the same way that physical things can.

The church does have physical elements, of course.  But those physical things are there to serve the relationships, not vice versa.  This is where the "old school" perception of church gets backwards.  Once upon a time people assumed we were all there to serve the church, particularly the building.  Keeping up appearances and getting the color of the carpet right were BIG DEALS.  In reality the building only exists because it's hard to gather and worship when you're getting snowed on.  The carpet's there to keep our feet cushy.  Tables and pictures and kitchen utensils are meant to be moved based on the needs of the ministry.  None of them matter as entities unto themselves.  Their use determines their value.  "Owning" them (in the sense of freezing them in place) destroys them.

Another handy tip to avoid the bad connotations of ownership:  Ask how many times you hear "YES" in your church. Churches that are owned in the bad way hear the constant refrain of "NO".  No, we can't do that.  No, don't touch those.  No, we do it this way here.  No, things will fall apart if we try.  No, nobody cares about that.  No, we need to do this instead.  Churches that live out mission resound with "YES".  Yes, let's try it!  Yes, that could be valuable.  Yes, go ahead and move those around.  Yes, your voice matters to us.  Yes, you have something to contribute!

Churches that do this well don't even need to hear that many "Yes" answers.  People just go ahead and do!  Decisions aren't regulated by a bureaucracy or a small cadre of insiders whose approval you need (and seldom get).  Decisions are made at the ground level by the people actually doing the work.  Everybody else learns, celebrates, and follows.  The church gets bigger every time a different person leads us in a new direction.  People experiencing the good kind of ownership are not only free, but eager, to take us on those journeys.

Beware of phrases like "good member".  Beware of the instinct to introduce yourself by sharing how long you've been a member.  In fact have a healthy suspicion of the concept of membership in general.  Dividing people is a covert way to establish (bad) ownership.  Watch how you create "us" and "them" groups in your church.  Tenure, gender, age, ethnicity, background, economic status, profession, political persuasion, beliefs...any criterion you use to separate out others makes you the owner by default.

Pay attention to your response when you disagree with something that people say or do, when you get annoyed or offended.  The bad, fearful sense of ownership makes you insist upon your own way and sends you scrambling to justify all the reasons you should get it.  "I've been here longer, invested more, understood God's teachings the right way!"  The good sense of ownership simply acknowledges that you're walking on a different portion of the web than somebody else seems to be.  But unless your string is anchored to a point on the other side of center the web's going to fall apart.  Besides, there's plenty of room in the middle to gather together anyway.

Gauge how you feel when something changes.  Huge changes require discussion and thought.  But a different hymn every once in a while, switching liturgies every now and then, the tables moving in the fellowship hall, a fork placed in the "wrong" drawer, or somebody else sitting in "your" pew?  Those won't rattle you unless you're assuming that the church is yours and not anybody else's.

During the synod assembly I attended a workshop on stewardship.  We explored the definition of the word "steward".  Originally the steward took care of the kingdom in the king's name without owning the kingdom himself.  Nowadays nobody wants to be a steward because everybody thinks they're a king.  The modern world allows us to draw our life circles so small that we've lost our sense of interdependence and thus the need to communicate with anyone outside of our personal kingdom.  God's Kingdom is infinite, eternal, and beyond the control of any of us.  Nobody can contain or own it.  The church is supposed to be the reflection of that Kingdom on earth.  It ceases to be that the moment it's owned by anyone, trading in its eternal significance for cheap control, agreement, ease, and compromise with sin and culture.  That's not a good trade.

In the end, the most faithful measure of the quality of your ownership is the feeling you get when you hear the phrase "my church".  Does your heart fill with love, gratitude, and excitement when you utter those words or does it evoke fear and territorial instincts?  One way will leave you feeling that other people are always messing up your church.  The other understands that your church can't be messed up, that each new pathway only leads you to a more comprehensive expression of God's love. 

--Pastor Dave (pastordave@geneseelutheranparish.org) 

What Does "This is My Church" Mean?

This week I want to address faith issues common to (affecting, afflicting?) every level of the church, things embedded so deeply in our instinct or unconscious that we forget to examine them.

The first of these issues:  I hear people say, "[Church X] is my church" all the time.  Most of them insert the name of their local parish but it's also used to describe Lutheran, Christian, what have you.  I wonder what we mean when we say, "The Genesee Lutheran Parish is my church" or "The ELCA is my church body"?

It seems to me there are two senses to "my church", the common and the theologically correct.  As you may guess, these don't line up well together.

Most people view the words "my church" through cultural lenses.  Church is "theirs" because they've gone to the church forever or because they're comfortable there or because the church espouses a philosophy they agree with.  "My church" means "church matches up with me".

The theological shortcoming here is obvious.  Church is meant to shape and transform us.  To deny this is to assume we're perfect, the Big Biblical No-No.  We are meant to transform our church as well, but transformation isn't inherent in these particular "my church" stances.  If church is "mine" just because I've gone here forever it no longer feels as much mine when something changes.  If church is "mine" because I'm comfortable here I become detached and angry when pushed beyond my comfort zone.  If church is "mine" because I agree with its philosophy I feel disenfranchised when that philosophy evolves.  In this framework the church becomes less "ours" every time something moves.  Over time we become less concerned with discovery, vibrancy, spiritual growth and more concerned with power, prerogatives, keeping things the way they are.  Not failing becomes more important than succeeding.  Not dying becomes more important than living.  Fear replaces courage and we get triggered into fight or flight mode every time something doesn't go our way.

Sometimes this dynamic gets wrapped up with "ownership" in the economic sense.  Our society tells us that we have power over that which we own, paid for at the time of purchase, exclusive to us over and above anybody else.  If I buy a truck I get to choose where and how to drive it.  You don't get to because you didn't pay for it.  It's not your truck!  Nor can it be your truck as long as it is mine.  I might let you borrow it if I'm not using it at the moment.  I might sell it to you slightly used someday.  But we can't co-own or else the whole idea of paying for it in the first place becomes silly.  How many people drop 50 grand on a new pickup then walk over to their neighbor's house and say, "I want your name on the title and you don't have to pay anything"?

Few of us are crass enough to think we own a church outright (or at least we wouldn't admit it in public).  It is God's house, after all.  But the phrase "my church" is often a clue that people think their contributions--money, time, energy--have purchased a place on the title alongside God's.  It's not written on paper.  It's maintained by keeping tight control over decision-making processes, preemptively vetoing anything that goes against the grain (a.k.a. "tradition"), threatening to walk out and cease support--thus bringing the church down--if things go awry.  It's a clever, and perfectly understandable, way to keep things the same...comfortable...agreeable.

Every time you hear the phrase "That person is a 'Good Member'" your ears should prick up.  The most likely translation is, "That person is part of the group that thinks they have ownership of the church based on their various contributions."  Just like the truck title, there no room for others no matter what their contributions.  This item has been bought and paid for.

Between the not moving, not growing, not exploring, not tolerating anything different, treating God like a commodity, narrowing real membership to a select and unimpeachable few, and horribly mangling the definition of "good", this definition of "my church" gets ugly really fast.  You'd think people would be up in arms about it.  That doesn't happen as often as it should.  This kind of ownership has the side benefit of few things going wrong, few people arguing, few uncomfortable moments, and the assurance that somebody will always support the church and keep it running so it'll never die.  To a society pressed for time and money that favors a peaceful church experience that doesn't require more than an hour a week, the trade-off is worth it.

Judging by outward appearance and convenience, the churches owned in the worst ways seem to be functioning the best.

The correct theological definition of "my church" takes more time, thought, explanation.  The first hurdle is overcoming cultural bias.  How do you explain to somebody in 21st century America that it's good to invest your money, time, energy, and life into something that you do not then control?  In a society obsessed with biggest return for least investment and risk, how do you convince folks to devote everything to a community that only functions well when it's in a constant state of trial, discovery, failure, and renewal?  How do you keep a straight face when telling someone that the sign of a great church is that you don't always agree with it, that you are forced to go beyond any boundary you thought you had in service to people who will give you no tangible reward...even people whose views you might despise?

Here's what "my church" is supposed to mean.  "My church" means "the community in which God's mission for me is revealed and lived out".

Notice that this is just as personal and intimate as the other definition...more so, in fact.  The "for me" is still in there.  My mission will look different than everybody else's.  I bring something distinct, important, irreplaceable to this gathering, for God shows something unique through me.  It isn't a church where I do some thing.  The mission, the call, and the interactions which stem from them are peculiar to me.  The experience isn't interchangeable.  Thus I call the church "mine".

Through church I hear God's Word given for me.  In church I receive God's body and blood shed for me.  From fellow participants I receive encouragement to live out the life God has prepared for me.  Among them I get to reflect on the triumphs and challenges I experience along the way.  The personalized "me" is all over the joint!

But that personal, intimate connection between God, me, and my neighbor doesn't convey any of the control of the prior definition.  Nor does it carry the same baggage.  Power isn't conveyed by length of tenure or size of monetary contribution.  My own comfort and agreement aren't prerequisites to the experience.  Half the time they get in the way as God calls me beyond myself and my old limits.  Most importantly, my sense of ownership and connection don't prevent anyone else from having the same ownership and connection in their own way.  My church is also your church, always and totally.

I expect that God's mission for you will look different than mine and will lead this community to different places than mine will.  I commit to affirming you in your mission even as you strengthen me in mine.  Together we make the church bigger, expanding its borders into new individual frontiers while maintaining the fullness of the communal connection.  Growth and change don't trigger fights and flights, rather new reasons to celebrate.  If I have to sing a new hymn or take out the garbage an extra time a week to make that happen, hey...that's just more of God's mission, right?

Every church, every level of church, should stop for a moment and re-examine the assumptions under which they're operating when they make the claim, "This is my church".  It doesn't take long for outsiders and people in need to figure out which definition of ownership you're operating under.  It shows up in the welcome, in the variety of interactions, in expressions of celebration and grief, in the practices of leadership, and even in that sixth-sense, spiritual feeling you get when you walk among a people.  You may think you're hiding ownership skeletons in your closet.  In reality you might as well hang them right up above the altar on the cross in place of Jesus, because people perceive them just that clearly.  The only folks who can't see them are the ones who have long since become used to them and accepted them in place of the true work of the Spirit.

Once upon a time folks might have accepted that kind of church, eager to put on appearances and be perceived as one of the good people.  The cardinal rule nowadays is simple: nobody respects disingenuous motives and nobody wants to expend that much energy playing pretend...at least not about spirituality.  When people talk about the "dying church" they're not talking about the death of the Spirit, nor of God's work.  They're talking about the long, slow death of the "owned" church, the kind of foolishness and blindness that nobody sees a reason to put up with anymore.

I don't know about you, but I find that a good thing.  It's a warning to those who would preserve their own power but it's also a promise that God's true mission will prevail no matter what else we try to substitute for it.

Next Up:  Practical applications for church life!

--Pastor Dave (pastordave@geneseelutheranparish.org)

Pastor Dave is Back!

Hey folks!  I'm back from my long journey now.  It's good to be home!

"But Pastor Dave, wherever did you go???" comes the chorus of voices.

I'm glad you asked!  Let me tell you...

My trip started on Tuesday with a drive to Portland.  It was for business but it was actually my "other" business.  Each year our Portland Trail Blazers blog takes donations to send underprivileged kids from the Portland area to a Blazers game.  We work with dozens of organizations who serve kids who otherwise wouldn't get to go because of economics or family situations.  These organizations range from low-income schools, foster care programs, programs that work with disabled children, churches, counseling services, youth programs, after-school programs, you name it.  This year we sent 750 kids and chaperons to last Wednesday's game where the Blazers faced the Golden State Warriors.  Portland lost--one of the few times that's happened on our special night--but it was fun anyway.  I've already got letters and e-mails from people describing how much the night impacted their children.

It just goes to show you how easy evangelism and service are if you have your eyes open.  This whole thing started six years ago when we were holding a regular old get-together at a Blazers game.  One of my readers purchased tickets but wasn't able to use them.  He e-mailed me and asked if I could give them away to someone in need.  I posted on the website that we had 3 tickets available if anyone could use them, priority given to anyone in need.  A guy wrote and said he worked with a dozen kids from impoverished families.  He asked if he could get tickets to send 3 of them to a game.  I told him to hold on for a day or two and put the word out on the site that we needed 12 tickets.  Within a couple days we had 45.  I wrote the guy back and said we had enough tickets for ALL his kids to go, and by the way did he know other people in similar circumstances?  That's how Dan, a youth worker in Portland, became our official ticket coordinator...a post he's held ever since.  It's quite a job now that we're up to 750 kids instead of just a dozen!  But people are looking for a chance to do something wonderful and the need is always there.  Ministry doesn't always mean doing everything yourself.  Sometimes it's just having your eyes open and being able to connect people who need to be connected.

After the game and a couple stints on the radio in Oregon explaining why the Blazers stunk so bad at the end  of the season and how they'll try to fix that this summer, it was off to Boise for the annual Synod Assembly.

The assembly was a mixed bag.  Some parts were great.  I attended a couple workshops on stewardship and got some traction on some materials that should be inspirational for all of us.  I'm glad other people have gifts in areas that I don't!  We also heard plenty of inspirational stories of ministry from around the synod.  Unfortunately the assembly seems to be locked into a system where all of the less important parts get most of the time and attention while all of the vital, living parts get shunted to the side.  It was ironic that in a gathering with the theme "The Spirit Gives Us Power" many of the presentations were tone-deaf reports that inspired...well, let's just say "few".

However even the down parts were an instructional eye-opener of sorts.  It's easy to get locked into a range of vision that extends no farther than our own world.  Our own ups and downs seem like the only thing in the universe sometimes.  Being at the assembly showed several things:

1. We are way ahead of the program in terms of our priorities and the way we conduct our own meetings now, annual and council.  We made the right decision in making those changes and those decisions will now have to prove instructive to the larger synod body.
2. We are also way ahead--and very blessed--in the quality and variety of musical expression in our church.  We should give plenty of credit to Louise, Phyllis, Patrick, Jennifer, John, Rob, and other musicians for leading us to bold yet wonderful horizons.  Being at the assembly was like eating Saltine crackers musically when you're used to gourmet meals at home.  Nothing wrong with the Saltines...they tasted fine.  But after a while you go, "Is this all there is?"  We are downright spoiled here.
3. Most of the really inspirational success stories that people shared came from the same cloth as our best stories:  acts of service without thought of reward or growing "membership".  People are starting to catch on to the really holy ways of doing ministry.
4. I'm not trying to brag, but I think I need to give you perspective.  We heard multiple stories of churches that were ecstatic to get 40 people in worship and/or to get those people active in ministry.  We also heard stories of people lost and confused about the way forward, even some who are facing the idea of their parish closing soon because they don't have a single child among them.  Sometimes we take our church for granted.  Other times we're encouraged to look at things it isn't (or isn't yet) instead of celebrating what it is.  If nothing else this assembly was a huge referendum that we're not only on the right path, but may well be at the very tippy-top of small-town/rural churches in a vast geographical area.  That's not to say we're better than anyone else...especially not if some of those "anyone elses" are reading.  Very rarely do I find comparing churches helpful no matter what the measure.  Each congregation walks its own journey and there's goodness in each path.  I just know that sometimes we're tempted to view our church negatively by criteria in which we're actually doing comparatively well...VERY well, in fact.  That's not to my credit, but to yours.  The church you're helping to create is a serious and bright beacon on the hill...or in the Valley in the summer I guess.

Thanks to John, Patrick, Rosanna, Bertle, and Linda for helping lead worship while I was gone.  Lay leadership of worship is another wonderful feature to our church that I think could catch on with others eventually!  And thanks to all of you for helping make this church so special...far ahead of the curve in so many ways.

--Pastor Dave (pastordave@geneseelutheranparish.org)