A LETTER TO MY SON – IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION “WAS JESUS A SOCIALIST?”

[Tim sent me an article entitled "Biblical Basis for Liberal Politics" by David Chandler (Originally published in the Tule River Times "Left in America" column.)]

Greetings Tim,

I really appreciate having the opportunity to dialogue about this.

In the article you sent me, there is a lot that is right. It would be especially right if it were written as a sermon for a Christian congregation who confesses their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord over heaven and earth. Christians (along with the Jewish people) have always been sensitive to the needs of the poor, the oppressed, the hungry and victims of any social injustice. There is a lot more that could be said about these things from the Bible, and I am sure the author is choosing just a few things to keep the essay short and readable.

Where we have a struggle as Americans is that we have from the very beginning of our nation simply assumed that the principles of capitalism that evolved long after the time of Jesus. Adam Smith, a Scottish philosopher of the 18^th century, developed theories about how to create wealth. He was a Deist, not really a Christian, and his views were based on the rational arguments of philosopher David Hume. They looked at the world as having been designed to function in a certain way, with wealthy people (who already existed) using their wealth in business (investing) rather than simply keeping it for themselves. Their assumption was that such investments would have beneficial effects that would help everyone in the community by making industry possible and rewarding people who worked hard (the Protestant Ethic promoted by Reformer Jean Calvin and practiced by our founding fathers, the puritans in New England) thereby increasing productivity in a mercantile-based economy and making goods available to a greater number of people at lower costs. (Not exactly a trickledown theory, but . . .)

In Jesus' day this type of economic system simply didn't exist. Much of the economy was based on a system of bartering agricultural produce, trading animals for crops, etc. Since God was the Producer and Provider of all these things, it was taught in the Old Testament and understood among the Jewish community, that such things should be shared with others, especially the less fortunate, widows, orphans, sojourners, who did not have the means for providing such things for themselves. "We take care of our own people," might be a way to describe the ethical system they followed.

Now when Jesus came along, he preached the coming of the reign of God over all the earth. In a world where everyone believes that God is a King who freely provides for all his subjects, it is imperative that all of God's subjects freely share their possessions with others who needed them. This communal-ism was practiced by Christians in Jerusalem in Acts chapter 2, where people sold everything they had and distributed the produce to everyone according to their needs. Incidentally, this is one of the biblical foundations for the writings of that son of a Lutheran pastor in Germany named Karl Marx.

Greed is considered one of the seven deadly sins in the Church. Requiring people to pay interest on money Christians lent to each other was strictly forbidden during the Middle Ages by the Church. That, in fact, is one of the reasons Jewish families became wealthy bankers during that period of history. Borrowing from Jews and paying interest to them was NOT included in the Church's prohibitions, so people who had excess cash would invest it with Jewish bankers who would in turn lend the money out to Christians in exchange for interest, which they would subsequently pay to the original investors minus a reasonable fee for their services. The Jewish people were a sort of "middle" class in that system initially.

In fact, it was because the Pope had required certain archbishops to contribute money for the building of St. Peter's in Rome during the 16^th century (which they borrowed from Jewish bankers at a price) that the Pope decided to authorize the Archbishops to sell indulgences to Christians so they could repay their loans with interest (while making a fair profit at the same time themselves from such sales). That is what led to the 95 Theses and the Lutheran Reformation.

Simply put, the Church corrupted the teachings of Jesus, and capitalism replaced communal-ism (if it ever really existed in feudal society) but at the same time provided the financial resources that subsequently led to the Industrial Revolution etc.

Socialism, as Jesus taught it, was a normative practice for people who understood that they were living under God's Sovereign Rule. In God's Kingdom, that's the way we are to do things: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Having said that, however, there is an enormous difference between what that means and the idea of encouraging a government consisting of fallible and sinful human beings, to force people using the threat of imprisonment and violence, to give up possessions they themselves worked for and then taking those possession (minus a small "administrative overhead fee" of 20-50% to pay for all the tax collectors, the police, the courts, the government, the jails, etc required to collect and re-distribute that money and to administer and manage systems such as health care programs and other forms of social welfare assistance). Christians should be in favor of
creating a social system built on the love of God and neighbor in which I work hard so I can freely and generously provide for the needs of my "brothers and sisters," as well as strangers. In fact, in some small, "symbolic" ways this is what we do at Hope with our food pantry, adopt-a-family programs, blood drives, etc. We could do a lot more, but certainly not less.

In one sense, in such a world, there would not be any "middle class" at all. In fact, there would be only one class, and all would share equally in it and wealth would continue to increase and produce a higher standard of living for all.

As Christians, however, we do confess our belief in original sin: that by nature all of us turn inward on ourselves and away from God and neighbor, grasping and keeping everything we can hang onto. It was Cain (who killed his brother Abel in Genesis) who asked: "Am I my brother's keeper?" His assumption was "no," but God's intention was clearly "Yes."

We live out our lives in what Luther called "two kingdoms." The "Kingdom on the Right" is that of Jesus as described above. The "Kingdom on the Left" is the one that God created to establish just laws and governmental systems to manage and constrain the behavior of sinful human beings, enforce God's Laws, and maintain order. Both Kingdoms exist side-by-side, and we believe as Christians that we live in both. But when society naively overlooks or denies the reality of Original Sin or the necessity of living by faith as followers of Jesus Christ in a society based on love of God and neighbor, or when we live in a society where the Christian understanding of God's reign is not universally accepted, it may not be possible to enforce the voluntary ethic of love for neighbor.

So, to complete my thought, Jesus DID proclaim a kingdom where social justice, harmony, peace, love, and mutual sacrifice and submission are coming into existence. That kingdom will come, just as we pray for it every day in the Lord's Prayer. Government should create just laws and provide for the needs of those who are marginalized or victimized by greedy members of society and foster a culture of love and sharing wherever it is possible. In my opinion, however, it is just too unreasonable for us to believe that by allowing government to rely on the threat of force and the use of violence, that such a government run by human beings will be able to transform the stubborn hearts of sinners. The most we can hope for is that Christians will have the courage to prophetically proclaim to society that those who are most needy must be cared for and protected (which the Church has actually been doing now for some 2,000 years) and will denounce the unbridled greed that exploits weak and poor people and destroys their dignity and independence. (see below for some quotes).

Pray for President Obama.

Love, Dad

DISCOVERING OUR FUTURE AS A MISSIONAL CHURCH

    As I think about my future as a pastor, my thoughts are always around the subject, "What does God intend to do through our church here in Selden, Long Island?"

    I ask the question in that form because I hope to be able to spend several more years serving as the pastor of Hope and because I want those years to be as productive and powerful as possible for the Kingdom of God.

    I suppose I could settle back and say to myself, "Hey, Rich, you've got only five or six years until retirement (or less, if I wanted to retire early), so take it easy and enjoy the fruit of your 25 years of service at Hope."

    But the problem I have is that I am more excited right now about what God is doing and intends to do among us than at any other time in my ministry. For me it's almost as if all the years up till now were meant as a time of preparation rather than a time to prepare sail off into the sunset.

    I recently attended the Allelon Summer Institute in Hamilton, Ontario because I saw a chance to start learning some new things about ministry. The overall subject was called the "Missional Church," a term that is being used more and more by people who are on the leading edge of how the Church engages our culture and community with the good news of God's kingdom.

    A "Missional Church" is one that asks itself two basic questions: "What is God's mission in our world?" and "What does God intend to do through us, in our time and in our community, as His people?" Speaking of the church in this way is to suggest that it is time that we begin looking at what we do and ask ourselves, "How can we as God's people get beyond being simply a 'provider of religious goods and services' and begin to mobilize our resources to actively bring the gospel out to others who dwell beyond the walls of our 'sanctuary'?"

    Too often we have acted like we are the ones who should determine and define the mission we carry out. We often think that the community needs to come to us if we are going to serve them in God's name. But the truth is, as my friend Robin Greenwood always reminds me, it is not the church of God that has a mission but the God of mission who has a church.

    If that is true, then there's a big difference in the way we see ourselves and the mission we are engaged in. If we focus primarily on caring for ourselves and waiting for outsiders to come to us to receive the resources they need from us, we are missing the mission completely.

    Early in his ministry in Galilee, our Lord Jesus sent out 70 followers into the villages where he intended to go. They had a single task, to proclaim to all that the "kingdom of God has come near." Jesus had no building to invite people to, and there were no "programs" for them to offer people. Their job was simply to "heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,
drive out demons." Jesus told them that it would be dangerous work, and they would not be welcomed by everyone, but those who did welcome them would indeed receive a blessing. They were to go as strangers into new places, ready to speak and do the work of God's kingdom, bringing his Shalom to everyone who would receive it. But if you look at what we do and how we connect (or not) with our community, that usually isn't the case, is it?

    We are all members of the Body of Christ, gifted by God's Holy Spirit for the work of ministry, and we spend the largest part of our daily lives living in the midst of a culture that is usually not very "God-friendly." But the truth is that even we, when it comes right down to it, do not often think too much about what God might be able to do through us for the sake of His kingdom. And even when we do come together as a body, very often it is for our own sake rather than for the sake of God's mission.

    I invite you to think, pray, and interact with me about this important question: "What might we do differently as God's people, both individually and corporately, if carrying out God's mission were our primary agenda as the church?"

    In coming days I will share some of my thoughts on this question. Please join me by sharing yours.

ON TO ONTARIO

In just a few days I will leave for a week in Hamilton, Ontario to attend a week-long Summer Institute offered by the Allelon Movement. I have signed up for two courses: "Mission-Shaped Groups - Structures for Missional Formation" and "Missional Church - Its Nature and Purpose." I will fly out toward Toronto, Canada on Sunday after worship so I can get to Hamilton, Ontario in time for Monday morning's first session at 8 a.m. .

It may sound rather odd for me to say that I am "going back to school" for a week, but it is something I have been thinking about for some time.

The classes will meet Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to noon and from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. and they are being held at "The Freeway," a church that is part of the "emerging church" movement that operates its own café that serves the public from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily. Look it up on the web at http://www.frwy.ca/

My reason for going to this Summer Institute is so I can become part of a "Learning Community" of church leaders from Canada and the United States, leaders who are actively involved in working with churches on the local level. The point of the Institute is to provide us with an opportunity to gather together with people who are "on the same wavelength" when it comes to working for the transformation of the church in North America.

There's a certain irony to this whole experience. As a pastor in the Metro New York Synod, I am already involved in a "movement" in the church that encourages us to "travel together" in the ministry of the gospel. That's actually what the word "Synod" means. It means, loosely translated, that we are traveling the "same way together" (Greek: "sun" = "same" and "odos" (pronounced "ho dos" = "way"). My experience for the past 20 years (at least ) since the formation of the ELCA Metro NY Synod, however, has not actualized this potential. We simply have not yet found a way as ELCA Lutherans to really walk the "same way."

It's really no wonder to me that we are witnessing the rapid decline of many churches in Metro New York. God intended that we should be in this work together, yet in truth we are not. We (pastors and churches) still work largely in isolation from one another, even though there is clearly more strength in numbers.

I believe that it doesn't have to be that way forever. That's why I'm making this journey and spending a lot of money. It won't be a vacation. In fact, if all goes well, it will probably require even more work from me (and you) as we begin looking for new ways to embrace the mission God is already carrying out among us. For some of us it will mean taking more time to study and pray together. For others it will lead into new areas of active ministry with people from outside our congregation. For all of us it will be necessary for us to grow spiritually.

So here is my "fair warning." Please keep me in your prayers and pray for our future together. I am excited about what God has done among us in the past, and I am eagerly looking forward to what God is going to do among us in the months and years ahead. There is so much God wants to do with us, and if we are open to the leading of God's Holy Spirit, we will see many new things emerge from within us.

THE FUTURE OF THE METRO NEW YORK SYNOD-A “TALE OF TWO SYNODS”

BISHOP OLSON'S WEEKLY WORD (from the June 17 MNYS E-Letter):

MNYS in the Future—Bishop Olson's Weekly Word

What will the MNYS look like in the future?

If the present trend continues, in 10 years we may have as few as 175 congregations and a membership below 70,000 baptized.  We will be sustained by closings and investments but not by stewardship if the next generation is not taught as we were.

We will have reinvested to renew many transition congregations and thus look more like the New York population, but older.  The future of suburban congregations started in the 50's and 60's is uncertain: will they be the transition congregations of the 2020's or welcome the next generation to their pews and councils?

The economic trends seem likely to make suburban MNYS more distant from the boroughs and the steady flow of immigrants.  The synod is 2/3 dependent on grants and endowments now.  How long can we depend on the sales of our grandparents' houses of worship to sustain synod ministry?

These assessments are rather grim.  Is this what God has in store for us?  How can we envision or begin to predict our future apart from our past and present?  Here are some clues that give me hope.

After years of focus on public issues (read 9-11, urban transitions, same-sex acceptance, etc.), the synod could re-focus on the ministry and mission of our congregations.  Target the next generation and families wherever they live.  Create a synod youth ministry with staff.  Recapture the interest of early retirees for mission.  Innovate in welcoming post-modern, post-Christian "seekers." Revitalize worship, preaching and education—especially Bible study.  Make a difference in enough New York neighborhoods to attract attention.

We have come through a long period of turning outward from our Lutheran quietism to be a more public church.  Now it is time to re-focus on our constituents and the 200+ "local Lutheran mission centers," our congregations.

We can't do everything.  We had better do what we have done well.  Will the church arise in this age as the old social Gospel hymn predicts so confidently?  I believe we will. J

"The church of Christ, in every age beset by change, but Spirit led,
Must claim and test its heritage and keep on rising from the dead."

 

 

 

My Response on the MNYS.org Forum

As you know, I have spent a great deal of time thinking and working on the future of the MNYS. What you say is probably the likely scenario, but I have a different view about what we could do, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

I would love to see the Commission for Evangelical Outreach and the new Bishop and staff take very seriously the future of the congregations of our synod and use the next year or so to start a thorough assessment of and conversation with the leaders of our local congregations in groups based on local realities (proximity, size, historical relationships, pastoral ability and insightfulness, etc.) to see how the churches could be intentionally and missionally linked with each other.

In such conversations there would have to be a hopeful attitude rather than the "grim reaper" approach that was articulated at the Synod Assembly last month.

In other words, rather than saying "When the music stops, one of you will be eliminated," why couldn't we begin instead with the attitude: "God has given us a tremendous host of resources for God's mission, and we are all in this together, so let's prayerfully work together to find a way to use these resources in new ways to expand rather than contract the work of God in this local area"?

Specifically this might mean that the bishop might ask five congregations located in adjacent conferences but very near one another to work with him to form a serious coalition for mission that would bring together the ordained and other rostered leaders as well as gifted key lay leaders to create a single ministry leadership team that would work with the existing churches to creatively collaborate to develop new outposts for mission-- something they could not and would not even have even thought of doing without the bishop's strong insistent leadership. Now they would do many more things because they would now have a "critical mass" of leaders, people, and money that would free them up to work together.

After working, praying, and worshiping together, they might decide to adjust the worship times in the participating churches so staff members could be available in different locations on the same day (perhaps even more than one per location), and they might offer educational offerings in selected locations so people could come together in large enough numbers to make a positive environment for spiritual growth possible.

Activities that they do separately now could be combined or worked out together (a common newsletter, a common bulletin or bulletins, shared secretarial staff, and eventually even a common Council).

The key would be to have shared ministry rather than perpetuating isolated survivalist ministries.

We would have to retrain our clergy and our key leaders and make a commitment to plan mission and ministry together. We might even decide that our corporate efforts could be more effective if one or more facilities were converted to other uses or even sold with the income being designated for local mission.

I realize that as Lutherans we probably don't have the faith and the courage we would need to make this sort of realignment a reality, but in other countries and other faith traditions this is what has been going on for a decade or more. As Lutherans we think we know better than others, and we want to keep clergy employed and laity from getting too powerful, but if we could humble ourselves and listen to the Spirit, we could get back to doing God's mission work and stop retreating from the tremendous mission opportunity God is handing us.

Indeed, as Jesus said in last Sunday's Gospel, "the harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few . . ." Some Christians hear those words as a challenge from our Lord, but sadly, many of us Lutherans hear those words and respond "You're right, Jesus, that's a real shame, isn't it?"

We can do better than that. God certainly wants us to.

THE SPEECH I NEVER GOT TO GIVE

My 5 Minute Speech
Hi, I’m Pastor Richard Hill, and I come from a church named Hope.
That fact is very significant for me because I believe that is the most important gift God has given me as I think about serving as bishop of the MNYS. When people have asked me “Why would you want to be bishop of Metro New York?” the best answer I can come up with is because I have hope for the future of our synod.
To me, it’s not a matter of “wanting” the job of bishop. Instead I ask “What would I have to give to this synod if I were bishop here?”
First, let me tell you who I am, and then I’d like to share with you what I think I would have to offer if I were bishop of this great synod.
I am a native Long Islander, born and raised in Nassau County, educated on Staten Island and Manhattan before going to seminary in Minnesota, and I’ve serve the last 25 years in Suffolk County.
In my 35 years as a pastor I’ve served only two churches, both of them named “Hope,” one a mission church in Massachusetts and the other in Selden, 60 miles east of the city.
While serving here in Long Island, I’ve seen God grow our church from about 300 members to slightly more than 1,600. We’ve been through 8 or 9 building projects and 4 major funds drives, and I’ve learned a lot about how to lead a church.
But more importantly, I’ve been privileged to welcome literally thousands of people into God’s church, but I’m still amazed at everything God has done and is doing among His people.
I care about our synod, and I’ve been actively involved in serving the synod for many years, both before and after the formation of the ELCA. I’ve served on the Synod Council and the Region 7 Coordinating Committee. I’m serving my fourth term as Dean of the Peconic Conference (a total of 10 years so far) and I am the chairperson of the Synod’s Mission Planning Team. I helped create our Synod’s Commission for Evangelical Outreach, and I serve as the chair of the CEO and as one of three coordinators.
My Doctor of Ministry degree at Andover Newton focused on leadership in the church. Over the years I’ve taken many Continuing Ed courses and I’ve read extensively about leadership.



What kind of leader am I?
1. I believe that a bishop must be first and foremost a “servant” of the people of God. I realize that the office of bishop is respected and honored by many, especially in the church, but the real power a bishop has is the power to serve God’s people. That’s how Jesus understood leadership. You recall that Jesus said: “Whoever would be great among you must be your servant,” and then went on to say, “the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

2. I believe that a bishop must be a “Team-player,” one who coaches others, but also shares in the work of ministry as well. The bishop stands alongside the synod staff, pastors, leaders, and all the baptized members of the synod and leads the church by using his gifts to equip, encourage and support God’s people in being the church. As bishop, I would continue to offer the kind of leadership that builds up the church and empowers God’s people.

3. I believe that the qualities and characteristics of a bishop that we identified during our synod audit process go far beyond what any single individual could provide. What we really need is a bishop who is able to bring together a diverse and talented team of people who share a common love for Jesus Christ and a common commitment to fulfilling God’s mission in the world. They need not agree on everything. What matters most is that they are willing serve God faithfully together.

4. And there are at least five things a bishop must be willing to do:

· First, a bishop must take time to really LISTEN to the insights, the feelings, the anxieties, and the hopes of others. The people of Metro New York are our greatest asset, God’s Spirit will work through them if we are willing to pay attention to what they have to say.

· Second, a bishop must spend time OBSERVING firsthand the needs and opportunities for ministry that really exist among God’s people. We all can learn from each other, and we can all become servants of one another. The bishop is the one who creates the opportunity for us to work collaboratively.

· Third, a bishop must SPEAK the truth of God (both Law and Gospel). The bishop must challenge destructive false beliefs and attitudes among God’s people but also encourage them to move beyond their comfort zones by taking risks and by making bold efforts on behalf of the gospel.

· Fourth, a bishop must also PRAY both in public services and in private settings for the diverse ministries God gives to us. God’s Spirit uses such actions to build up the church so that God’s Kingdom may come on earth as it is in heaven.

· But most importantly, a bishop must always bring HOPE to God’s people, as Peter wrote: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ for by his great mercy he has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” A bishop gives living hope to all who believe.

· The next bishop to serve this synod will have to be a navigator, someone who can steer a course through some very perilous and challenging waters. Our synod faces a serious crisis right now, and in the years ahead we will need to draw together all of the tremendous resources God has placed at our disposal.

· This is not a time for Christian to be pitted against Christian because of differences dividing us.

· This is not a time to adopt a “survival of the fittest,” mentality that sacrifices weaker congregations for the sake of stronger ones.

· This is not a time to retreat from the challenges of living in a growing multi-ethnic, multi-national, multi-cultural society. Rather, we must embrace them.

· This is not a time to focus resources on urban communities at the expense of rural ones.

· This is not a time to water down the message of God’s New Creation breaking in upon us so we can accommodate the fashions of politically correct elitists.

· This is the time for all of God’s people to come together around a single mission—to disciple all nations, by baptizing, teaching, and welcoming them into the kingdom of God.

· And this is the time to challenge every member of God’s Lutheran community to take up Christ’s cross and put ourselves on the line because we believe that Jesus Christ is Lord over all.

· It‘s an awesome task, but it’s also an exciting moment for us. No bishop can do it alone. That’s why God gave us each other--rich and poor; black, white, Asian, Latino; urban, rural, and suburban; straight and gay; Met fans and Yankees fans. We’re all in this together!

A Post-Modern Dilemma

For Lutherans, especially in the Metro New York area, the gradual demise of Christendom has had a seriously debilitating effect on churches. Lutherans once numbered some 10% of the population in this area, but now the numbers have diminished greatly, resulting in many churches being closed and great anxiety among clergy and parishioners who are stuck in old patterns they once relied upon quite heavily.

 

I just got home from a Ministerium gathering at a beautiful ELCA church located in Times Square. Over 120 clergy of our synod gathered to talk about the impending election of a new bishop to follow one who served eleven years before moving up to our church headquarters in Chicago where he now serves as Director of the Evangelical Outreach and Congregational Mission unit, a unit that controls 30% of the budget of the ELCA.

 

At the meeting, pastors were lamenting the fact that so many churches are in peril of closing, (roughly 35% of the 210 churches in Metro New York Synod.) Some churches are staying alive with attendance of 4-10 on any given Sunday, supported by endowment funds provided by previous generations. The anxiety level is high, and yet there is great resistance to doing things like evangelism or disciple-making because "Lutherans don't do that sort of thing." Many clergy would prefer to simply continue doing the Lutheran liturgy, "preaching Law and Gospel," being "faithful to the Lutheran Confessions," and "speaking out for social justice." There is very little creative thinking about how churches could do anything to deal with their situations differently, and even less openness to experimenting with new forms and approaches to developing collaborative relationships between nearby churches.

 

At the same time, many lack any understanding about how to even speak to a post-modern society (if there were anyone out there willing to come into the churches to listen to them.) Reaching out intentionally to unchurched people or to a younger-than-70-year-old generation, is something we were not trained for, and something which many show little inclination for.

 

Reading this, I realize how pessimistic this sounds. Perhaps I am just venting a bit from the session we had. But it is not helpful to talk about what kind of bishop we need unless we can talk about what sort of new leadership system we would need in order to begin converting the thinking of clergy and empowering the gifts of laity. Such reluctance seems to me to be simply sticking our heads in the sand.

 

How the changes in society cause by the demise of Christendom and the advent of post-modernism influence the way I do ministry is that I have learned that a different kind of pastoral leadership is needed in the congregation I have served for 25 years. For the past few years, especially since the attack of 9/11, I have been focusing on developing empowering leadership, identifying and using the spiritual gifts of the baptized community, and encouraging the free exchange of ideas and creative new approaches to ministering to the congregation and the community. At Hope we developed what we call "Total Life Caring Ministry," a new way of being church. As a result of this approach to ministry, I have seen many people taking greater responsibility for their ministries in the congregation, and there is a growing sense of empowerment among people in their daily lives, at work, at school, and in their families.

 

On a week-by-week basis, I am seeing more people actually bringing people with them to worship and to other activities of the congregation. They have a greater awareness of and appreciation for the gift they have received in the gospel, and they are growing out of their reluctance to take the risk of inviting others to share in their "experience of church."

 

They sense the impact of the changes taking place in society and they look to their church to help them keep a clear vision of a better world and to enable them to help make that vision happen in whatever way they can.

 

This is not easy. Leaders still need to grow into their roles as leaders, and newcomers need nurturing and support from others in order to find a home in the Christian community. As the only ordained pastor for some 1,600+ people, I find this rather daunting. I rely heavily on the support of gifted lay members and part-time staff members to keep the church growing spiritually and in numbers.

The Elephant

Last week when I gave my February Pastor's Report to the Congregation Council, I ended the list of items with the words "The Elephant."

I'm not sure anyone really noticed the item until I reached it as I went down the list. No one asked me what it meant, and no one knew what it meant either.

What I was referring to was the informal discussion that has been going on between members of the Council and even among staff members about my future as pastor of Hope. What caused the discussion to arise is the fact that this spring, at our Metro NY Synod Assembly, we will elect a new bishop for our synod after having Steve Bouman serve in that office for nearly twelve years, the longest term of any bishop of our synod since the 1988 merger that formed the ELCA.

Why were church members talking about me? Those who know me best know that I have been very active in leadership roles over the 25 years I've served as pastor at Hope. I was Conference President for the Long Island Conference of the Eastern District of the ALC prior to the merger. I was also active in the work of the Lutherans Cooperating in Metro New York Evangelism Committee for several years, in which role I organized several large scale evangelism events for the churches of Long Island and offered evangelism workshops as well.

Then as the ELCA was being formed, I was drawn into the work of the "Transition Team" that formed the Metro New York Synod. I was eventually chosen to serve on the Synod Council for several years, and that was followed by an appointment to serve as the Metro NY Synod representative to the Region 7 Coordinating Council for a four-year term that lasted five years.

Along the way I also served for two 2-year terms as Dean of the Peconic Conference after which I was selected to serve for two years as chair of the Synod Re-organization Task Force. Now I am serving the second half of my second 4-year term as Dean of the conference (a total so far of ten years as Dean), and I am a Coordinator for and chair of the Commission for Evangelical Outreach and chair of the synod's Mission Planning Team.

All these things have been uncompensated volunteer responsibilities (except for a small stipend I receive as one of the three coordinators for the Commission for Evangelical Outreach.)

So again, why are members talking about me? I think it's because when they look at this synod resume, they think my name will be on the list of potential candidates for the office of bishop.

It's flattering to be thought so highly of by members of our congregation and staff. I am honored just by the thought that I could serve in such an important role in the church. But I think that with respect to our synod, I have probably reached my "peak" of responsibility. We have a very liberal synod, even for the ELCA, and from the very beginning our synod's bias has been clearly focused on the urban character of this great Metropolis in which we live. I am a native Long Islander who is still impressed by the huge buildings in Manhattan and goes into the city mainly for meetings. I am used to spending hours on the LIE and the LIRR just to get places, and I still think of everything beyond the bridges as "upstate."

The reason I put this item on the list for the Pastor's Report is that the discussion that was going on made me realize that as a congregation we all need to be thinking about what the future holds for us. Now that I am getting to the age when people start asking, "Are you thinking about retirement?" I realize that I need to be thinking about what our future as a church should be.

What does our future have in store for us at Hope? What should we be striving towards during the next six or seven years before I reach the traditional "retirement age?" How am I going to continue to provide helpful and useful leadership for Hope during the remaining years God gives me to serve here?

As important as these questions are to me personally, I know that I cannot answer them on my own. We need to be asking these questions together and working to develop a strategic plan for the foreseeable future. That's why I proposed to the Council that this spring we should select people who have the gifts we need to provide leadership in planning our church's future. Who should be on this team? I think that 4 or 5 really gifted people are enough to get the ball rolling if we empower them to do so. If we organize our efforts carefully, a small group can stimulate a response from many of our members. That way the end product will be the result of a large-scale collaborative effort rather than just a collection of the exotic ideas of a select few.

In my mind THAT'S the elephant we need to talk about. Let's pray and think together about how God can carry out His mission here through us in the years we still have together. I am confident that if we get started on that now, the future will be full of exciting outcomes and miraculous results.