Hospice, DNR order, or CPR and aggressive treatment?

I preached this past Sunday at a church of less than 40 that met in a building that could hold a congregation of nearly 400. The average age of the membership was at least 65, and only that low because of one young lady in her 20’s who came with her family. There were about four couples and the rest were widows and widowers, or else had a spouse sick at home. Somewhat surprising to me considering the town and this part of the country, there were four or five African-Americans, and one of them led the singing.

I found it quite challenging to come up with a good sermon for a congregation that I had no experience with. I knew that they were the “conservative” church in town. I found it difficult to come up with something relevant that wasn’t TOO relevant. I wanted to teach from scripture, but I felt an obligation to choose a text that offered little challenge to the congregation, that didn’t push them very hard. At the same time, I can’t imagine preaching a sermon that doesn’t say anything or call for any change on the part of the hearer. I settled on Paul’s prayers in Ephesians, using chapter one for class and chapter three for the sermon. I emphasized God’s power in the first lesson, and his ability to answer prayer by means of that power in the second. I built the whole thing toward a call to pray for more than just a list of earthly concerns, but to include things like Paul says, particularly in 3:14-20, such as “that Christ may dwell in [our] hearts” and “that [we] may know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge,” because God is a god of power who answers prayers.

After the service we stayed for their monthly potluck. After class, service, and a meal, my overall impression was that these are sincere, faithful people. They didn’t seem to be legalistic, ornery, or anti-everything. At the same time, their church by all accounts is dying, with no hope of turning around. This is difficult for me to reconcile. Is it ever ok for a group of sincere Christians to let their congregation dwindle into nothingness? What should the minister’s role be in a situation like this? Is it more analogous to hospice care or CPR? Should the minister challenge them to come back to life, or help them to die gracefully?

I also felt a bit guilty because they paid me too much, but I didn't ask, and I need it.

Another Direction

My last few posts have been talking about theoretical church stuff... This one's back down to earth.

We had to take Jared to the ER last night. Turns out that he has RSV, but not bad enough to admit him to the hospital. It can be pretty serious, and may still get that way. It's fairly contagious, but not nearly as harmful to older people. I don't know for sure if Jonathan's in the danger zone or not, but he has similar symptoms. Pray for the little guys.

I've worked 40 hours the past three weeks, and have had class on my days "off," so I'm getting kind of frazzled. I would love it right now if I could manage to get B's this semester. I'm intensely jealous of the people who a) have a "normal" life b) get to do one or two things at a time and c) get to go fishing . I see fishing lures 20 times a day coming through my line at Academy, which doesn't help.

Speaking of jealousy, my cousin Jesse just won 1900 dollars in a bass fishing tournament. Click here for the article. Good job, Jess.

Churches "of Christ"

I borrowed this idea third hand from Brian Mashburn's lecture today...

What if we had a church sign that just said "CHURCH OF" and God could fill in the rest? I've been to the Church of Rules, the Church of Tradition, the Church of Self-Righteousness, and the Church of inconsistency. What would the sign say if God filled it in?

For us to put "of Christ" is presumptive, arrogant, bold. Are we Christ's church in the sense that we represent him? Are we Christ to the world so that God would put "of Christ" on our sign?

Think about how we treat the poor. Think about the racial mix in our churches. Think about our views of the third world. Think about it too hard and you'll be scared about what God might write. I am.

I don't mind being the Church of Christ. In fact, I think we are called to it. Let's not take the signs down or change the name. Let's live up to it.

Institutionalize me!

I can't get away from wanting to work for churches. I have friends who think that churches as we know them, with buildings and so forth, are a thing of the past. They all want to start house church movements, coffee house churches, African churches, Chinese churches, and stuff like that. Nobody argues that those who attend institutional churches aren't saved, but much of the rhetoric among grad students and faculty is anti-institutional. And yet, I can't escape. George Barna this, missional that, fine. Somebody still has to serve the churches that already exist, whether they're on their way out or not. I feel called to be one of the institutional guys. Every church that I've been to has in some way or another hurt me, and so I feel like Moses at the end of the burning bush scene: "Please, Lord, send somebody else." Moses didn't get off that easy, and, I suspect, neither will I.

What is Worship?

Let's spin off of the previous post and ask the REAL question.

What is worship? I see several options, some with more merit than others.

1. Worship is what the church does when it gets together. It's that Sunday and Wednesday stuff. Under this definition comes the "five acts" of worship. I'm not big on that paradigm, but I think I remember that those five are singing, prayer, giving, the Lord's Supper, and reading/hearing/preaching the word. If this is all there is, there can be no worship outside of community.

2. Worship is what I do toward God. If I pray, or I sing, then I worship. Under this definition come individual acts away from the congregation. If this is all there is, then there is no need for community.

3. Worship is not about doing, but about attitude. Did you notice the language of doing in the two previous definitions? If I think good thoughts about God, then I worship. If I see the sun rise and give thanks to God, then that's worship whether I sing or "pray" or not.

I'm sure there are more accurate definitions, but these are at least a starting point for discussion. Hopefully this question isn't too broad for blogdom.

Thinking theologically about praise teams

Shana and I sang on the praise team again this past Sunday. I want to talk and think about that for a minute...

Some people think you go to hell if you have one.

Others have had one so long that they think you can't worship without one.

Some see them as a great aid to personal worship for the people in the pew.

Others see them as a great hindrance to personal worship for the people in the pew.

The first question is, "Why?" Why do I like it? Why do others hate it? What's the big deal?

The second question is like it: What does a praise team have to do with theology? What biblical principles can be applied to praise teams?

I'm not out to convert anyone or bash anyone by this post... if there are some readers who feel strongly against praise teams, please comment. I assure you that I will treat your response respectfully if it is well thought out and actually addresses the issue. If you condemn me to hell up front, well, you started it.

Ripped from the headlines...

I shamelessly steal a Law and Order advertising slogan for my title, so that I can talk about what I saw on Law and Order last night while I was supposed to be reading Brueggemann.

(I long ago decided that this blog should be about more than what I did today, etc. Recent health difficulties have prompted many of my posts recently, and this post is an attempt to get back to inspirational/philosophical/theological/reflective/challenging posts.)

The case involved the involuntary sterilization of a child abusing teenage crack addict (who happened to be African American) by a public health clinic nurse (who happened to be white). The girl died as a result of the sterilization drugs, and the nurse was brought up on murder charges.

"Eugenics" is the term for the kind of policy that the nurse was promoting. The premise, based on simplistic understandings of genetics, is that if certain undesirable types can be sterilized, society will benefit. Put another way, if it can be proven that people with certain undesirable physical, mental, or behavioral properties are more likely to produce offspring with those same tendencies, that it is for the greater good of the society to prevent such offspring from being born.

What do you think? Should there be a program to reduce undesirable traits and behaviors in society by the involuntary sterilization of people with those traits? I'm sure that some of my readers don't care or won't voice an opinion, but I assume that some of you will chime in on this one.

I'll post a comment later on about what I think about the issue.
Jason