Greetings to all!

On to NOLA!

As I thought about leaving for the Youth Gathering tomorrow, I decided that I would do my best to keep a running commentary on the event for any folks who want to know what I think about what's going on. I'm looking forward to having a good time with our teens and their chaperones (who have done such a great job of getting the group together and ready for the event), and I'm coming along to be their pastor and to learn more about an important part of the life of the church—our teen culture.

Some may not know this, but this is the seventh youth gathering I've attended since coming to Hope. I've been to San Antonio, Dallas, Atlanta, New Orleans (Hotel Life Team), St. Louis (Hotel Life Team), and San Antonio again. Now I return to New Orleans, but for our chaperones it will be their first time.

I expect HOT weather, thunderstorms, and more HOT weather. I understand why people like Tabasco sauce so much down there—it's the only thing that's hotter than the weather. By the way, did I mention that I'm expecting it to be HOT in New Orleans? And Humid?

But it should be fun. I will bring my video camera as well as my digital one. If I can, I will post some photos. I'm hoping that there will be some streaming video from the event, but I couldn't find any evidence of a link on the website at www.elca.org.

In any case, I'm sending this note out to you now because I'm not sure I will get to send out advance notices of blogging updates each day. So, if you're interested, just go on the internet to this site: www.hopespastor.blogspot.com. If I can meet my goal of daily updates, I think you'll be glad to read them. Take care.

By the way, for those who haven't figured it out yet: "NOLA" is "New Orleans Louisiana."

THE 9:03 Sermon

I really liked the sermon I preached this weekend. In it I focused on how God is at work reconciling the whole world to himself through Christ. I get very excited about this theme, but my "Finnish Charisma" often doesn't show how excited I feel.

After the service was over, as I greeted people coming out of church, one of our most respected members spoke to me briefly about the sermon. He told me that what I said was very discouraging and that it would have the effect of making people not want to come to church any more. He asked me, "Why do you keep talking about that stuff?"

Why did he say that? Because in my 8 a.m. sermon I referred to a rather startling presentation and report I received this week at the meeting of our synod's Conference of Deans. I guess it was so much in my mind that when I got to a certain point in the sermon, I just started sharing what I learned this week, right in the midst of what was otherwise a good sermon.

He was right in his criticism of my sermon. My anxiety about the grave situation our Metro New York Synod is facing right now should not be shared right in the middle of a sermon on hope. It isn't fair to the hearers for me to just unload my sadness on them in such a fashion. They may need to know the content of what I was saying, but there are better ways to communicate that. In effect I clobbered them with information they could not readily assimilate or act on.

As a result of what his "9:03 Sermon," I simply left out the mention of our synod's grave situation and kept the sermon focused on the good news we have in Christ. I think I did the right thing.

But it's a strange dilemma I'm dealing with. For about eight years I have been one of only a few voices in our synod urging our synod to take seriously the rapid state of decline that many churches are experiencing. Having learned how Christians in other parts of the globe have dealt positively and creatively with similar problems, I have spoken again and again about what we could accomplish if we simply began thinking about how we might do our ministry differently.

But it's not easy to change any system, and the system we are living with in the larger church context (our synod and our denomination) has been working for a long time. But add to that the fact that there are a lot of people who are simply in denial of what is happening to their church and the churches all around us, and we have a real problem.

Simply put, the presentation asserted that within the next five years as many as 2/3 of the churches in our synod will be in a situation where they will probably no longer be able to sustain a traditional full-time Lutheran ministry as we have know it for decades. The implications of such a thought are overwhelming, and the "solution side" of the presentation did not hold out much hope.

As someone said to me after the 8 a.m. service, "I wonder how it must feel for people who have been members of the same congregation for decades to have to think about it all coming to an end, especially so soon." I know that the members of St. Mark's still feel the pain of the closing of their church.

I don't know what to say. For all these years I have been advocating certain actions that might offer a new way of "being church," but it's hard for people to understand such ideas, much less take them seriously. Yet I still think there is an alternative to "triage" as a strategy for "mission renewal" in our synod. Please pray for our bishop, his staff, and for the Commission for Evangelical Outreach that I still chair. We may be in serious trouble as a synod, but Christ is still Lord over all.

WHO’S TELLING THE TRUTH?

On Sunday I spoke about a problem I see more and more in our day when we take part in public discourse. Intelligent discussions about religious content or political issues or social realities are becoming more and more restricted because of changes taking place in each of these areas of our "common life."

There was a time when we believed that there was such a thing as "truth." I suppose we refer to that as the "Modern Era," a period of social and cultural history that still lingers in our DNA although the 'Enlightened Ones' of our day consider it to be outmoded. In the Modern Era people liked to think that "things normally work as they are supposed to." When something stopped working, we would take out the instruction manual and look for a "fix." And often we succeeded.

These days, however, we have stopped trying to fix things. In fact, many folks are not so sure that things were even designed to work, especially in the areas of religion, politics, and culture. As a result, they scoff at those who espouse "traditional" values based on Modern Era assumptions, and they are fascinated instead by ideas that go completely against logic and common sense, just because they are "different.

Suppose, for example, that I was managing my home and discovered that my bills were getting too high or that my income was decreasing significantly. What would I do? Perhaps I would review my expenditures, look for ways to reduce spending or save money, and see if there was some way I could also increase my income. If necessary, I might even risk taking out a small loan to fund some measures that would produce a net improvement in the near future.

I would probably not go out to borrow a huge sum of money, increase my spending using all my credit cards including my unused Discover card, and then hope for my problems to go away.

But in our day there are some folks who suggest that this is the smartest way to go, even if it seems totally absurd to me.

But here's my problem. Perhaps my strategy and approach are wrong and going on a wild spending spree is really the best way to solve my financial problems. The problem arises when I suggest that I'm right and they are wrong. They cannot produce any logical arguments that disprove my idea. They oppose me simply because I had the nerve to suggest that common sense is a better guide for moving ahead and I challenged others who know better than I do about what will work best for me.

In effect, they've shifted the focus "What is the truth?" or "Who's telling to truth?" to "Where do you get the nerve to suggest that common sense is better than 'New Think'?" and "Who do you think you are, anyway, to challenge what we all know to be true?"

I know that I'm not the only one with this problem. Ironically, I think the majority of Americans or Christians or others who share common ground with me are treated the same way. Whether something is actually true is considered of lesser value than whether one's thoughts conform to the 'New Think' principles promoted by the more 'Enlightened Ones' who are filled with hope and want to change the world.

If you don't agree with them, your ideas are not simply wrong. You yourself are to be considered as permanently disabled, and your ideas should be pushed aside as irrelevant.

At great risk, therefore, I will still suggest that there is indeed something we can point to that is true. Actually, it's not some "thing," but some "One." Jesus Christ said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." I have found in my personal experience and in the reports I have heard from others that this good news still "works," even when there are powerful and persuasive forces at work to overthrow it or obscure it. I am glad that for 2,000 years there has already been a Messiah at work in our world. One Messiah is enough for me.

mjtjmtaa

BREAKING THE RULE

On Sunday I told the congregation about the rule about preaching that I learned growing up. I didn't learn it in seminary. I learned it at the dinner table on Sunday when we sat down to enjoy this week's roast beef and talk about church that day. Sooner or later my dad would start talking about the pastor's sermon and he'd add, "The pastor was talking about money again today."

I would sit there wondering how a sermon based on the healing of the blind man or the parable of the sower had anything to do with money. I never figured it out, but I did learn a rule that has served me well for 36 years as a preacher: "Never preach about money."

Since I was preaching on the lesson from II Corinthians 8,however, I decided that the time had come to break that rule. I preached about money.

In that lesson the Apostle Paul was writing to the Christian community in Corinth to ask them to complete the collection they had started taking up some time earlier. The money was not for Paul. It was a collection for the Jewish Christian community in Jerusalem, a persecuted and poor group of believers who needed the help that the wealthy Gentiles could give. Paul had promised James, John, and Peter that he would take up such an offering, and he wanted the Corinthians to do their very best as a show of solidarity with the Jewish Christian community back home.

In this passage he spells out four basic principles to guide them in their giving, and I want to summarize them briefly here for our benefit as 21^st Century givers.

First, when we give, we give REGULARLY. That principle actually comes from the end of I Corinthians, but it is basic to his understanding. He instructed them to set aside money "on the first day of the week" for this offering. Doing this on the first day of the week accomplished two important goals. First, it linked the act of giving with the worship of God's people. Giving money is an important response we can give to the Word and the Sacrament we share each week. We should never have a worship service without providing people the opportunity to give an offering. Second, it reminded them of the resurrection of our Lord, which took place on the first day of the week. What Jesus did for us by dying and rising from the dead is the ultimate motivation for all giving.

Second, we give PROPORTIONATELY. That means we give from what we actually have, a real percentage of what we have available to give, and we choose what that percentage should be. The Old Testament "tithe" is not a New Testament principle for giving. Some of us may never be able to give 10% of what we have, while others can afford to give a much higher percentage of what we have. There is "fairness" in giving when all givers agree to give this way. Figure out what percentage of your income your customary offering actually is, and then set your "growth giving goals" based on that starting point.

Third, we give WILLINGLY. We do not give just to pay bills, and we certainly should not give because we feel guilty or afraid of some unspecified consequences. We give willingly in that we give out of our faith, hope, and love, not out of coercion. And when we begin to forget why we are giving, the decision to give becomes an act of the will and keeps us doing the right thing because we have chosen to do so willingly.

Finally, we give CHEERFULLY. The verse "Go loves a cheerful giver" comes from this same letter. We should feel good about giving to advance God's mission in the world. Our giving helps change people's lives and strengthens people's faith. Sometimes it feeds the hungry and provides shelter for the homeless. When we give our gives cheerfully, it affects others around us and encourages them to give generously as well. Cheerful giving is a product of a grace-filled heart.

In addition to spelling out these principles, I made some important comments about the funds we will be receiving soon from the sale of the property of St. Mark's Church in Ridge. I expressed two cautions. First, we must not use these funds to carry out projects we would normally take full responsibility for ourselves. Doing that would be, in effect, taking that money and giving it to ourselves. My second caution is to remember where the money actually comes from. It is not like winning the New York State lottery. It is a gift from the people of St. Mark's who gave up their life as a congregation after fifty years of worship, witness, and service in Ridge. They paid off their mortgage, and we are recipients of the legacy of their sacrificial giving over five decades. We should not say, "Now I can cut my pledge because the church has a new source of money," like some Christians do. On the contrary, we should honor their sacrifice by INCREASING our own personal giving in a spirit of matching sacrifice. By doing that the legacy will grow, and many more will share in the blessing.

So there it is. I broke the rule. But it never was a good rule, was it?

OUR “FATHER-MOTHER” IN HEAVEN?

Last Week we started using the new 40 Day Lenten Journey devotional books as part of our congregation's Lenten discipline. I really like this resource, and I'm excited about being able to work through it during the season of Lent this year.

Having said that, however, I must admit that I was a bit dismayed when I got to the reflection for Day 3 where the author asks the question: "Can we call God 'Mother?'"

What bothered me was not the question he asked, but the tired old argument that he gives for making God neuter. It never made sense before, and it surely makes sense now, especially in our contemporary egalitarian American society.

I'm not simply an old-fashioned male chauvinist, and the issue here is much more than just semantics. I raise an issue with the author simply because the words "Father" and "Mother" mean different things, and they cannot be used interchangeably. Fathers have a certain role in human families, and mothers have a different role. Even the process of conceiving a child bears witness to this fact.

I realize that there are many wounded souls who suffer continually from having had abusive or absent fathers. There are both males and females who have this past. But it is also true that there are many others who have suffered abuse from overbearing or neglectful mothers as well.

In either case, the negative examples should never make the positive use of the word inappropriate. On the contrary, one might argue that when we pray "Our Father . . ." we are addressing the very One who is the True and Loving Source and Sustainer of all human beings, the incomparable Father who should be the model for all human fathers everywhere.

To suggest that we re-write the Lord's Prayer to make it more politically correct for contemporary Christians is outright silly. Where does the revising of the "Lord's" Prayer stop? Should we change the word "heaven" into something else? How about the word "kingdom?" That's a rather male-oriented term also, isn't it? And do we really want "God's" will to be done? Shouldn't we also have a say in what God's goals might be?

I've been on a diet for almost a month now, and I have excluded bread from the menu. I suppose I could leave out that part of the prayer or perhaps I should substitute "low carbs" when I say the prayer each day. And, while I'm at it, I think the forgive part could be whited out, without comment.

And I while know that temptations are not a good thing and should be avoided, my sinful self wonders what I might be missing out on.

I understand the concern the author raises. I wish that he could also understand mine.