Category: Faith

It is official: I am too old.

About six weeks ago, my advisor at seminary approached me to see if she could submit my name to someone at the National Council of Churches who was trying to put together a team of young adults to work on eccumenical issues. My advisor thought I’d be right for the part. However, I had to inform her that I was about to turn 30 and that I might no longer fit into the “young adult” range even if the NCC puts anyone under 40 in the “work with young people” boat. However, I kept my hopes up because I’d love to start working with bigger organizations and get my name out there. Alas, I was told yesterday that they were looking for folks in their mid-twenties. Now, I will just take it as a complement that my advisor thought I was in my mid-twenties but it might be time to face it: I’m never going to be young again. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. I don’t believe it. They can take my pop music, my Chucks, my punk rock, my tshirts, and my skinny jeans from my COLD DEAD HANDS. TAKE THAT WORLD! YEE-HAW!

Actually, I’m fine with it. It was just a lost opportunity that I think would have been a lot of fun to be apart of. And it is a first, actually. It might possibly be the first time I’ve been rejected from a church activity because of my age. For a mainline denomination that is just getting grayer, that doesn’t happen to me too often.

Career Disapproval

Over on Carolyn Hax’s Live Chat from last Friday, this question was posted:

Dear Carolyn, I am a female and am on the path to ordained ministry in a mainline Protestant denomination. I am secure in my call to ministry and to becoming a pastor. But I was recently at an event where I met an older gentleman who is from a more traditional and conservative branch of Christianity. Throughout our conversation, he said 3-4 times at least (always trying to pass it off as a joke) that I shouldn’t be a pastor because I am a woman, that I should rethink my career… I can respect his beliefs even though I think he is fundamentally wrong. But how can I extricate myself politely from this situation? I know that I will encounter this attitude again, and I want to be better prepared to handle it.

Carolyn suggests saying “Obviously I disagree. Shall we talk/joke about something else?” while two others throw in with “You are absolutely correct, but I wanted to be certain of my calling before scheduling the sex change surgery” and “My call to ministry is between God and me, and my church has recognized and encouraged it.” I’m not sure exactly what to add to this really. What I think the questioner is asking for is a firm statement to show that she’s serious about her call towards ministry and her church supports her. I don’t know if there is such a statement, really, except for the fact that more than half of the students attending our seminaries are women and that (hopefully) by the time I retire, the amount of women clergy in the ELCA will match the percentage of women in the US (or at least be close). And if we could get a nice number of bishops in there too, I’d appreciate it. I don’t think, for the time being, that this question will go away any time soon. Even with the rise of some women leadership among the younger set in the “evangelicals,” I doubt that the total number of Americans attending churches where female leadership is the norm will happen anytime soon. So, since the ELCA is a minority in this regular, I think the ELCA should approach this issue with guns ablazing. I’d like to see more women considered for positions of leadership within Synods – say, at the dean level. I’d like to see them included in the planning process. And, for us here in Metro-New York, I’d also like to see lay women to have leadership roles and positions in the new Strategic Planning committees that are being developed. And by lay women, I don’t mean deacons. To keep advancing to make women’s leadership a normal thing, supporting well qualified women who are within the church but not with traditional access to leadership areas, should be pushed. And it wouldn’t be hard – I think. Just based on numbers, the Metro-New York Synod already has quite a bit of women leaders that could be harnessed to find more. And they should. Or else we run the risk of spending time on a Strategic Plan that’s just filled with group think and everything will remain the same.

Living the Single Life

Scott McKnight asked if churches are adjusting to the rise of the number of single people in our society? According to the most recent census data, only 48% of households are husband-wife households. There appears to be a demographic shift in how households are defined in the United States with some places, such as Manhattan and San Francisco having over 40% of its population located in one-person households. The world is changing! And how are there people in Manhattan who can afford to live alone? That’s the burning answer that I want to know.

Actually, the statistics are fascinating and as the Metropolitan New York Synod begins to analyze where it currently lives, this statistic should be taken into consideration. But who are these single people? I think, in many ways, that’s a tricky question. Although I think it would be possible to assume that these people are mostly young individuals – I think that the more likely answer is that these people are middle aged and over. As the population increases, the divorce rate stays high, and widows keep being created, many single households are gray. Now, if that is true, then it is possible that churches like the ELCA (which are graying anyways) are naturally evolving themselves to reach out to that demographic. But maybe not. In fact, the bigger issue at stake maybe that the church will need to change on how it assume community is created and sustained. The assumed default social networks for individuals, marriage and roommates, no longer exist like they used to. We’re probably living in a world where the default opportunities for connections and networks no longer grip people like they use to. And as part of the transient generation/class in Manhattan, as I discover that I am the one who stayed while everyone seems to leave, I’m realizing that social networks are not as easy to form as they use to. And if that is true, then the church – an organization that is, above all, defined by relationships – much acknowledge this and change accordingly.

This is a fascinating thing to think about on Trinity Sunday when pastors across the country struggle to share what the Trinity means to parishioners. I have yet to preach on Trinity Sunday and I’m sure I’ll struggle with it once I do, but the image of the relationship between Father-Son-Holy Spirit as a cornerstone of our faith seems to align nicely with our recent demographic data. The assumptions about where relationships are created no longer applies. Churches, in many ways, have to work harder to be places where relationships between people, as well as between individuals and Christ, can be harnessed and focused. I think, in many ways, that is part of the underlying component behind what it means to be “welcoming.” Welcoming doesn’t mean smiling at newcomers who enter the door but, rather, being willing to be in relationship with these new people. It means being incarnational with our neighbors. And that is a wonderful butt-kicking thing for me to hear because as I sit in the pews during these summer months, when I’m on my summer “break,” I find myself not wanting to engage with people who show up to worship at my church for the first time. I want to worship as a participant and to let the service, that I adore, wash over me. But that’s a trap in many ways. The reality is that it is through forming relationships that I live out my baptismal calling. Being washed over is fine and dandy but it is only part of the story. There is a world where connections don’t exist like they use to and, as a church, we’re being called to be the body of Christ in the world. We cannot assume that people are able to form their own networks or assume that traditional social networks, such as marriage, are the primary norm through how the church should engage with people. This means that the church can’t be a meat market to create couples, thus allowing the church off the hook when it comes to working hard to maintain social networks. The church needs to engage the singles, the married, the young, the old, the just-graduated, the newly-widowed, in an engaged and loving commitment. We need to invite them into our own Trinity and walk with them for as long as they are on this earth.

Narrow Door Church: Stock Photos Gone Bad

As the doors to the subway elevator opened, I looked up to discover a large gang of youths handing out flyers. Several shouted out “God loves you!” as they shoved the cards into our hands as we pushed our way by. Me, being curious, took one from a young teenage girl. The small flyers said, in big, 1990s grunge inspired letters, “come as you are.” Surrounding that phrase were stock images from a variety of websites showing pictures of hispanics of various skin tones (mostly pale), men with tattoos, a young family, a guy with a piercing, and a young punk rocker with a spiked collar. It is not everyday that you see a punk rocker on a church flyer anymore and it made me a little nostalgic. I mean, he is obviously not a real punk because he looks too clean – that jacket didn’t look slept in at all. And it is obvious that this church actually doesn’t truly accept people “as they are.” What they really mean is “come and we’ll change you.” How do I know that? First, they quote James 4:8 (not sure the translation) that says “Draw near to God and He will draw near to you.” Secondly, the name of the church is “Narrow Door Church.” The advertising does two things – it tries to pretend that they are a welcoming, inclusive community while, at the same time, imply that there is something wrong with you that they can provide. It’s very subtle but it is there. The idea is not that God finds you important now but, rather, by attending their church, God will find you even more important later. You’re important in your potential rather than in your current identity. And even how the people are displayed on the card – the “hardcore” on the left with the clean-cut on the “right,” buy into the argument that, if you attend, God will open you up, change you, and make you “better.” It is brilliant marketing and totally silly at the same time because, if you visit their website, you do not see any ‘hardcore’ people in their chairs. They subtitle the ad with “whoever you are and however you feel, you are important to God” and I agree with them – but not in the way they mean it. It brings to mind a saying that I picked up from a website I read that said “the more hip a church tries to appear to be, the more fundamentalist they really are.” Any church that has their youth traveling in herds to accost people on the subway is, from first impressions, exactly that.

The name of the church comes for Luke 13:24 where Jesus, in answering the question “Lord, will only a few be saved?” says “Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able.” Now, when I look at this passage, the first thing I want to ask is who is Jesus talking to. Luke defines the asker as “someone” (Luke 13:23) implying that this “someone” could be anyone in a crowd. The question, then, seems directed towards the general audience and with a wide scope. However, Jesus’s answer doesn’t seem to match up with that idea entirely. As Jesus continues, the someone evolves into a person who ate, drank, and listened to Jesus (or God) as he taught in the streets. They will, on their face, appear to be disciples who came too late to the open door and that door has been shut on them. They will be left on the outside while the followers of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and then the Gentiles, will enter the kingdom of God (Luke 13:28-29). Jesus then ends with his wonderful saying that “some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last” (Luke 13:30). Now, the question seems to be is when will the door be shut. Is that a reference to the apocalypse or is it a reference to Jesus’ ministry? Is Jesus accusing the “someone” to not be Jewish and a follower of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the prophets of God? Or are only those named people living in the kingdom of God? I see a lot of questions here and some ambiguity but I also think this passage throws a wrench in the Narrow Door Church’s marketing campaign. They are trying to claim that they are the Narrow Door to the Kingdom of God but Luke 13:30 is an indictment not only on “the someone” who asked the question but also on anyone who claims to have access to that Narrow Door. Those who claim to be the door keepers aren’t. In fact, it is God who opens the door and closes it. The text, as I read it, is an indictment against those who claim to have a privileged position in the Kingdom of God. They do not get to make the claim on whether they open the door. Rather, it is God who opens and closes it. The church’s flyer is making an apocalyptic claim of judgement on the people in the stock photos and those who receive the flyers. They are, in many ways, claiming to be the door keepers because if you were on the right side of the door, you’d be handing out flyers, not receiving them! Now, if that is true, does the statement on the flyer make any sense? Of course not. Worth, then, is added if you enter the door – a door that the church is claiming to have access too. The claim is fine but the judgement that I feel is reserved for God is not part of the Lucan passage. “Come as you are” is a fake marketing phrase that I think people no longer believe when they see it. It has lost it’s flavor because it is an overused phrase for a dishonest form of ministry. And that’s a problem for us Lutherans who truly try to be an inclusive church. We end up using the same language and phrases that others have used and we seem a tad shocked that no one enters our doors or believes anything we say. We’ll even claim that we’re not using “church” language not realizing that church language is bigger than just Trinity, Grace, Salvation, etc. We’ve already lost a lot of our language! Our drive to be relevant has missed its mark because others have already used it and taken it in directions that we don’t agree with. Our words, in many ways, have become meaningless – and that is dangerous for the Lutheran tradition that takes the Word (scripture and preaching) to be a sacrament! Our “words” matter. So what do we do when they no longer have meaning even when we try to be “relevant” and incarnational? I don’t know but we need to change what we say…somehow. But how? I’m not sure yet.

Psalm 17:1 Hear a just cause, O Lord; attend to my tweet

The New York Times has a good article this morning dealing with religion on Twitter. The article focuses on the use of twitter among “evangelicals” and the megachurch set. The primary message from the article, I think, is that existing networks can leverage themselves through the use of social media to reach out to new audience. And there is a subversive element with social media as well, like a mild form of the Arab Spring. For women, Twitter can be useful in developing influence and networks outside the traditional male hierarchy of the church. And it seems that Twitter can also be an effective way for new churches (and, as an aside, is it becoming a thing for young women/couples forming house churches in the evangelical world?) to reach out to new audiences. Sure, in many ways, this can be primarily a tool to reach audiences that are already like yourselves (i.e. they have to use twitter, be able to afford the devices to use twitter, and care about social media) but twitter, and social media in general, can be effective at developing and maintaing relationship networks.

I love that twitter is sending out an executive to reach out to religious leaders (though, of course, us mainliners are left in the dust). I dig that they used analytics to see how often religious tweets are re-tweeted. I dislike, immensely, the implication that KJV verses are, on average, less than a tweet in length but, well, taking bible verses out of context is a thing that we’ve been doing for thousands of years and my campaign against that won’t stop it from happening. But I’m drawn to the theory that inspirational messages have a draw on the internets. Now, I know this is true and I’m sure you do too. In fact, if you’re a child of the internet who came of age in the late 90s, you have been in many grueling battles against the “inspirational” emails that your extended relatives sent to you and 3000 other people. Animated gifts, giant letters in pink and italics – we have seen it all. In fact, we have seen so much, we are no longer feel anything when we see them. We just quietly notice that they have spread to facebook and, with little fanfare, we hide those posts from our newsfeed. The war continues even though the battlefields have changed.

Now, as a proponent of social media, what am I to do with these inspirational messages? Do I join the bagwagon? Do I reshare every bible verse that the ELCA facebook page puts out? I’m not really sure yet. From my experience, bible verses, photos of people, and interactive type posts get the most responses. But there’s a danger lurking in this use of social media, I think. The danger is, of course, in promoting the gospel at the expense of the law. There’s a danger is being Joel Osteen rather than Melanchthon. There’s a danger in devolving Christ into 140 character soundbytes that make us feel good rather then letting the gospel exegete who we are and where we are. Even the proverb quoted in the article by Bishop Jakes “Your words will tell others what you think. Your actions will tell them what you believe” is problematic mostly because I don’t see the challenge in those words. I think it is meant to be a challenge to people but I don’t see it. Now, this could just be my fault – I might be too jaded, bitter, or too much of a hipster/gen-xer to truly believe that such 140 character tweets can challenge anyone. It’s a statement sent to a self-selecting group of people who push a button to receive those kinds of messages from Bishop Jakes. It is a statement to people who already, to some degree, buy into it. It, to me, lacks teeth. But should social media have teeth? Should tweets be mini-sermons where the truth about the world is told and the gospel spoken? Or should it be used in different ways? The executive in the article mentions that she tries to get preachers to be personal on twitter. If true, then there might be a different thing going on here. What people are looking for is a kind of connection to spiritual leaders that feels personal and more real; a single serving feeling of connection to the people who can be seen as representing God on earth. And if that’s true, then I think churches should embrace its use, not because it replaces pastoral care but because it furthers connections in a different kind of environment (and possibly a world that is more alienating than the past). And as much as we try to restrict religion to the private sphere, religion is social. Connections and community matter. And anything that can further that (hey, where two or three are gathered…), then we should do it.

Flash, pizzaz, bang, wow! You do watch “What Not To Wear,” don’t you?

This week was the first episode of the tenth season of What Not To Wear. For the uninitiated, the show brings in the fashion clueless, trashes their wardrobe, teaches them some new tricks, and gives them $5000 for a whole new look. Even though they stopped having guys as the fashion victims after the second season, I still adore the show. I use to work in the building right next to where they filmed the show and, I have to tell you, that Clinton Kelly is tall (and awesome). I find Stacey London and Clinton Kelly to be the bee’s knees and you should too.

Anyways, a few seasons ago, an Episcopal priest was brought onto the show. The show was great not only because it brought to light the dangerous fact that the majority of clergy are poor dressers but also because, I thought, it helped acknowledge that there are young clergy women in the world and that they need our support. In honor of the season premier (which I didn’t particularly care for), Emily the Priest was brought back to update us on her life (scroll down and click on her image – she’s wearing the collar). I felt that she was nervous on screen (who can blame her?) but I was glad to see her back. However, I was not the only one to notice that she was wearing a sequined top with her collar! The comments take her to task (and I noticed that one of my professors from LTSP – who has fantastic style – reads the same blogs I do) though I think they’re harsher than they should be. I know what Emily is trying to do, adding some sparkle to the all-black-uniform. Personally, I think she should have focused on the jacket (a well fitted jacket in a dark patterned gray is fantastic – the few clergywomen I know who have these always look great). Throw on a few quick accessories, a killer shoe, and BAM, she’d be well on her way. But even without all that, I still applaud her for taking the risk that she did.

And the reason why I applaud her is because, well, I have a problem with the all-black-uniform. My problem isn’t with the collar but how clergy assume that if they wear all black, they get away with what they’re wearing. But that’s not true! If the cut is wrong, the jacket boring, the shirt poorly fitted, and the material ghastly, that clergy person is going to look terrible. TERRIBLE. And we, for some reason, seem to give clergy a pass when they do that. As a New Yorker, I am firmly aware of the power of black. But I’m also aware that relying on black to make your clothing decisions is ridiculous because nothing looks worse than a poorly fitted all-black outfit. The all-black look can be a very boring and a very easy look that can seem, on first glance, effortless. But, let me worn you, that it is not. Cut, material, pattern, accessories, fit – that is where style lives and where a person’s identity can echo forth. To not notice those details is, sadly, to let sloppiness rule and that is an identity trait that only a few can truly pull off. Style isn’t a fad nor is it only built around expensive articles of clothing. Style is a personal dash of identity that bleeds into your clothing. It says who you are, what you’re about, and encourages other people to be in community with you. Style says everything when it comes to first impressions. Style says that you know who you are and that you have contextualized who you are in the world. And I find that powerful because if style can say that, then when I meet a clergy person for the first time, my guards drop because I feel that since they know who they are, they are willing to know who I am too. That isn’t necessarily always true but it is a start to opening doors, building relationships, and forming community. Style matters! And I hope, maybe just maybe, that while seminaries redevelop their curriculum for the current world, that they seriously think about hiring Stacey and Clinton for one-off workshops for their senior classes. It would do some good.