The Church, Autism and a place of Welcome

When I was a kid , I spent several years on the junior usher board at church. Of course, back in the 70s, neither I nor my parents knew I was autistic, but they knew things were a bit off with me.

Anyway, being an usher in the African American church is an artform. You wear certain uniforms and there were certain hand signals that you would use to indicate a certain need. When the time came for prayer, you were supposed to cross your arms over your chest and bow your head. I can remember the feeling of cocooning myself into this little ball and it felt good. Once I was in that position, I would start twisting or rocking my torso, to the left and then to right. Back and forth, back and forth. It felt good to me, but it must have looked damn weird to the people in the pews. I can distinctly remember one day being in my happy place and rocking back and forth until a pair of hands touched my shoulders indicating that it was time to stop.

Looking back 30 years later, that was a vivid example of kid with autism in the church. I don't know if what the person did was correct or not, but I do wonder if people were disturbed at what I was doing.

Now that I am a pastor and someone with autism, I have started to wonder how those with autism are treated in the church. In talking with a good friend who has two children on the spectrum, I have found out that churches have a long way to go in welcoming people and families where one or more persons are on the spectrum.

I stumbled upon this blog post by a special-ed teacher in Georgia, who shares the struggles he and his wife have faced when it comes to the church accomodating his son who is autistic:

One would think that the safest place in the world for children with disabilities would be in houses of worship, among people dedicated to God, love, mercy, grace, compassion, faith, and forgiveness. But this is not true at all. The worship service itself, with constant demands for compliance and conformity, is hostile for those who are inherently different from everyone else. Anyone who is unable to conform to the structures of the service is not welcome and asked to leave. The larger the church, the more true this will be.

I may editorialize more on my feelings toward church and those with disabilities later, but I want to talk a bit about how churches attempt to deal with this unique and growing population. In this particular church spoken about above, they attempted to recruit helpers in order to help Thomas participate in the same activities as his peers. I think the intent of the program was excellent, and it started out well enough. But without diligence by a committed coordinator, it becomes just another chore to dread like ushering, parking lot duty, being a greeter or assorted other mundane tasks and ministries in the church. Yes, we are the boy’s parents and he is our responsibility which we take seriously. But no one was caring much about our own spiritual growth or struggles. Staying home is a more Holy, peaceful and rejuvenating experience for many families that have children with disabilities. Church is often a hostile, hellish experience where families are segregated or ostracized. I don’t think Jesus would approve.

Ouch.

The thing is, a lot of this rings true. There are many churches where the worship service is meant to be a time of silence and decorum. God help you if a kid gets cranky. But it's one thing if grown people are talking out of turn; it's another if a kid with autism is having a meltdown.

Churches have to be more aware and willing to find ways to welcome special needs persons. Of course, being a pastor I also know that isn't so easy to do, especially when it comes autism. There isn't a one-size-fits-all solution. But no one ever said being church was easy.

When it comes to this family, I wonder what would have happened had the pastor worked with family and other leaders to make church a more welcome place, not only for the kid, but for the parents. It is interesting that in all of this, it seems that the Senior Pastor was absent.

Raising a kid with autism can be challenging for parents. They love their kids and will do what it takes to make sure they are well-cared for. But it can also be draining for them as well and it seems like in this case, no one seemed to care about the spiritual and emotional health of Thomas' parents.

Maybe the problem here is that church is so formal. We treat it like we are watching the symphony. We want to hear the music and the choir, but we don't want to hear babies crying; that just ruins everything.

I'm not saying that church needs to be a rock concert, but what it we allowed a bit more informality?

I don't know what I can do to make church more welcoming to my fellow aspies, but I will try. I want church to be a place where freaks are welcomed.

The Church as Wikipedia

Landon Whisitt is the Vice-Moderator for the Presbyterian Church (USA). He's a 34-year-old pastor from Liberty, MO and in what is common among pastors under the age of say, 45 is totally connected into social media. In a recent blog post, he says that churches have to start being like Wikipedia:

Regardless of the words we’d use, what does that idea mean – “open source church”? Whenever I try to explain “open source church” to someone I find it helpful to compare it to Wikipedia – the most successful open source organization that you have probably heard about. What would “church” look like if it were “wiki-church”?

First, it would mean that we’re clear about what and who we are and what and who we’re not. Wikipedia is very clear that it’s an encyclopedia, nothing more. We have to ask what a “church” is and be that and nothing more.

Second, we welcome everyone. Wikipedia prides itself on its “neutral point of view” which often means you have to represent several points of view. An “open source church” is not a monolithic one, does not pretend to be, nor desires to be one.

Third, anyone can participate. Wikipedia is not an exclusive club. Anyone can edit the encyclopedia, and they should expect that someone else will edit their contributions as well. An “open source church” doesn’t have a lot of hurdles one must jump in order to participate. there are not a lot of “unwritten rules” in an open source church. How about yours?

Fourth, when you disagree, be nice. Wikipedia has an established set of guidelines for dealing with disputes and people are expected to be nice and play fair. If a church can’t behave itself in disagreement then we’re not really a church are we?

Fifth, remember that there are no firm rules. Wikipedians are encouraged to remember that nothing is permanent and should, therefore, not be treated as such. Wikipedia is good because Wikipedians are willing to take risks sometimes – they break rules if it is for the benefit of the overall mission. If a church would commit itself to breaking free from long held traditions imagine the things it could do and be.

Being an “open source church” is not so much about content but attitude.

Whisitt is talking about this from the context of the Presbyterian Church, but it applies to a lot of churches, especially in my own denomination.

Any thoughts?

Motivating change

I found this blog post by Anthony B. Robinson rather profound, since I am working with a congregation in the midst of transition. Thanks to Michael Kruse for sharing it.

Duke Divinity Call & Response Blog | Faith & Leadership | Anthony B. Robinson: Motivating change

Gay Marriage: Step by Step

For about ten days, I was immersed in everything Presbyterian.

Since I work on staff for the local presbytery, I spent the last week and a half working at the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which was held here in Minneapolis.  It was a good time, but I was worn out at the end of it all.

Of course,  number of the issues the commissioners were called to decide revolved around sexuality.  On Thursday afternoon the General Assembly voted to allow for the ordination of gay and lesbian persons. While that might sound like a great step forward, that was only part one of the process.  In Presbyterian polity, this change to the Book of Order has to be approved by a majority of presbyteries.  Related changes that allowed for gay, non-celibate clergy has passed before only to be defeated at the presbytery level.

The next issue that happened to be dealt with on the same day, was a change in the definition of marriage from "a man and a woman" to "two persons."  The result there was rather odd: the General Assembly decided to continue talking about the issue and decided to not debate the issue.  A number of people who supported the change were stunned by the results.  Maybe it was because the discussion took place so late in the day.  Maybe people could only handle one revolutionary change at a time.  Whatever happened, there was no vote to change the definition of marriage.

Many of those who support same sex marriage were quite upset at General Assembly and there was some justification.  Soulforce was present the next day, protesting the decision to not decide.

As someone who is gay and supports same sex marriage, I was disappointed.  And yet, I'm not willing to criticize the commissioners and could even at some level understand the hesitation.

I think for those of us who see being gay as a non-issue and same-sex marriage as no big deal, it's very easy to think that everyone should just get over their hangups concerning homosexuality.  We forget that for other people, this is still an issue that they are dealing with and trying to come to terms with. I think many of us who are pro-gay forget that changing the definition of marriage is a big deal for many people.  This is what I wrote over at my political blog, NeoMugwump late last year:

I think one thing that those of us who support same sex marriage have to admit is that asking that straight America get used to two people of the same sex getting married is a radical shift in how we think about marriage and love. Yeah, I know, getting married is not radical, it's as normal as two hetros getting married. But the fact is, that the thought of two people of the same sex getting married is still something that a lot of Americans can't get their heads around. It's not that they are all closet bigots. They can understand and accept gays in society. They can understand that gay people fall in love. But when we start talking about marriage, it starts to get confusing for them. Think about it for a moment. When the average Joe thinks about marriage, they think about bridal gowns and bachelor parties. But all of this is lost on most of us that support gay marriage.

It's easy to see those who voted to in effect, table the measure as nothing more than bigots, acting on their internalized (or not so internalized) homophobia. For supporters this was about justice. For a number on the floor, this was about trying to make the leap from one definition of marriage to another. As much as we might think the leap is inconsequential, for someone trying to come to wrap their minds around this issue, that leap is a mile wide.

The march towards inclusion of GLBT folks in the church is not something that is revolutionary as much as it is evolutionary. Most people are starting to accept gay people as every day folks because they encounter them everywhere these days. However, it is harder to accept a gay person in your pulpit (believe me, I know) or see them getting married to each other. Why? I don't know, but I tend to think that it's because they haven't seen that as much.

On the whole, American society has become more tolerant and accepting of gays and lesbians. Over time, Americans are become more willing to see gays serve openly in the military and are slowly accepting same sex marriage rights. The thing is, these things have come slowly, not rapidly.

In time, I think churches and churchgoers will come around on same sex marriage as they see more gay couples in their lives and get to hear the struggles they face. But all this takes time. Which is why I think it will be a while for the Presbyterians as well as other denominations to wholeheartedly embrace same sex marriage. It takes time for people to make the leap of logic.

Those of us who support same sex marriage should still press the case, but we have to remember that the average joe in the pews is still coming to terms with all of this. The best thing we can do is to keep working for inclusion and for those of us who are gay, to model what it means to be in a loving relationship with someone of the same sex.

And keep loving our sisters and brothers who who are trying to deal with all of this. They will get there- in time.

From the Vaults: The Old Man and the Queen

This post originally appeared in 2008. Since it's Pride Weekend in Minneapolis, I thought I would bring it out again.

As several denominations struggle with the issue of gay pastors, I am reminded of something that happened to me a few years ago.

I had just graduated from seminary and was doing my CPE at a local nursing home. I was still involved at the church where I was an intern and was asked to serve on the church board. It came to a vote and I was voted in nearly unanimously. I say nearly because one person voted against me. I knew who it was and so did many others. It was an elderly member of the church. He had some idea I was gay and many people assumed that was why he voted against me. After the meeting concluded, he asked me to come with him into another room. He explained that he prayed and studied the scripture on the issue of homosexuality, but his conscience was not swayed in favor. As he said this, he began to cry.

I was and still am touched by this guesture. He did have to speak to me to explain his actions, but he did. He might not approve of who I sleep with, but he did treat me with respect. This wasn't simply about being right for him, but about being loving.

Yeah, I know that his actions were hurtful. Yes, it would have been nice had he voted in favor. But I could respect his decsion even if it was wrong, because he valued me enough to respect me.

Why am I sharing this? I guess because sometimes those of us who fight for justice for GLBT folk tend to paint everyone and anyone who might disagree as evil and backward and not worth listening to. Many pro-gay people think saying anything that is against being gay is hurtful to gays and react strongly to anything that might be hurtful to gays.

But the thing is, there is a difference between words and people that do mean to harm and those that are just not there yet. There are people that truly hate gay people, but not everyone who might have an opinion opposing gay marriage or gay ordination is necessarily a bigot. And the fact is, I'm a big boy-I can handle an old guy.

I truly believe we must work for justice and inclusion in the church. But grace has to be part of the plan. The old man's opposition was tinged with grace and for that reason I could also respond in grace.

I still see the old man-he is now in his early 80s, but still going strong. We are friendly to each other and he still treats me with the utmost respect and even sees me as Biblical scholar (?). And I love his tenor voice-which is still strong after all these years. I have no idea how he feels about me being gay or having a husband. But I do know that he has taken the command of love very seriously and I will truly weep the day this man leaves the scene. He has taught me about grace; and for that I am ever thankful.

Great, now I'm tearing up...

From the Vaults: Trees and Forests

This post was written in April of 2009. A few things in my life made me look at it again, so I'm sharing it with you all.

One of the things that makes a bit different than most people is the fact that I see the trees instead of the forest. It's a common trait of those with autism: we tend to focus on parts of something rather than the whole.

In the day to day life that plays itself out in many ways. I and someone else might look at a certain situation and I will come away focused on one aspect of the encounter and think everything is okay, while someone else takes in everything and believes the situation is grave.

I sometimes wonder if this happens in my role as a minister. The church where I am the Associate is a church that I was a member of once, a decade ago. I had heard the stories of a church mired in its glorious past, but in the past six months, I've seen small signs of a church wanting to change. None of these are big moves, but baby steps that in some ways are farther than I expected this congregation to go.

But, then I wonder: Am I missing the big picture? Am I not seeing the whole story which might be worse than I can imagine?

I don't know. I think at times there are advantages to being able to only see parts instead of a whole, because some times we are so busy looking at the forest that we fail to see the small plant that is slowly but surely growing. And of course, there are advantages to seeing the whole picture and see that while I'm enjoying that new plant, there is a wolf nearby that sees me as lunch.

I think the congregation faces some challenges down the road, but I think there is some hope in there as well. I will use the odd gift that I have to see the hope springing forth, and I will be thankful for those who can also see the whole forest instead of just one tree. God knows we are both needed.

Can An Aspie Pastor Invite People to Church?

As I work the Senior Pastor in trying to find out how best to help transform a church, I've been thinking about how new people come to church. The answer has long been that new people come to church because they were invited by someone they know.

So, that usually means that pastors get to trying to get their members in declining churches to invite people to church.

Easy as pie, right? Wrong.

I can't remember where I read it, but an article once stated that in congregations that have older members, trying to get them to invite people to come to church isn't going to work. The reason being is that these older folks are already set in their ways and besides, most of their friends are already going to church.

This then means that for a declining a church, a lot of the work of inviting new members is going to fall on...you guessed it, the pastors.

Which then leads me to ask this question: how does a pastor like myself with Aspergers learn to invite people to church?

So much of being a pastor is relational. So much of it involves person-to-person contact. One of the things I try to do after service is try to talk to people after worship. It's one of the hardest and most tiring things that I do, but it is part of being a pastor. Some pastors can thrive on this.

It's interesting talking to new church pastors who basically have to go to places and meet people. If they have the skills, they can succeed.

There are things I would love to do that might be appealing to newer people: starting some kind of small group that meets someplace like a bar or coffeeshop for instance. Or maybe start some kind of ministry at the University of Minnesota campus. I can do the whole event thing. I can plan and do the worship service. I can even do a Bible Study pretty well. But trying to get people to come? It is a mystery I am still trying to unravel.

It's funny: I can do some of the more technical skills. I can perform weddings and funerals. I can preach. I can teach. I can lead mission activities. But that whole meet-n-greet aspect that is so essential to ministry is still a work in progress.

But God seems to have record of using folks that weren't perfect. Maybe, just maybe God can work through me.

Babies, Bathwater and the Modern Church

Being a pastor at a church that is in the midst of transition (and hopefully transformation) has had its challenges. For me, one the big ones is trying to help people see that they are church all the time. Since my focus is on missions, I've tried, in my own limited way, to show that church is more than choirs and organs, it is also about helping the less fortunate in Jesus name.

So I guess there is a part of me that likes Doug Sloan's post over at [D]mergent. And yet, I view it with a bit of hesitation.

His concept is revolutionary: it's to get rid of all the buildings and the trappings of the modern church and just be the people of God taking care of the poor and worshiping whenever and wherever:

What would happen if the church universal – every congregational property, every regional office, every national office, every seminary, every camp – was sold and the net proceeds were used to establish a trust fund endowment to support nutritional, medical, legal, and educational services for the poor, the lost, and the hurt?

When you want a new status quo – a status quo different than the current status quo – you are asking for revolution. When you desire radical transformation – you are asking for revolution. When you are tired of capital campaigns for more structural imagery; nauseated by controversy over who is fit to be a church member, deacon, or elder; repulsed by the aggregation and protection of authority that defines narrow rigid paths to ordination; grievously hurt by the abandonment and refusal to acknowledge congregations who dare to be excited by their proclaiming and living the Good News; or sick of choosing better organization over better outreach – you are asking for revolution.

“Doing” has to be the new definition of faith. A “new definition” will not be statements of purpose/mission/vision or political participation or public stances on issues or styles of worship. It will be specific activities; specific ways of living that are the new definition. Participating in CODA or LifeLine or Habitat for Humanity will not be an outreach activity; it will be what we do and definitive of who we are. Supporting a free clinic or a food pantry or a shelter for the homeless will not be the focus of an annual fund-raising event; it will be part of our continuously active and visible theological and spiritual DNA. Worship will not be every Sunday morning – it will be whenever and wherever 2 or 3 (not 200 or 300, not 2,000 or 3,000, not 20,000 or 30,000) are gathered to live, study, and contemplate the Good News. Indeed, “doing” will be about living and being the Good News, not scheduling it as a repetitive activity on our digital calendar on the same day at the same time that always occurs at the same location and always follows the same sequence. “Doing” our faith does not require capital campaigns; local, regional, or national governing boards; seminaries; or licensing/ordination policies.

“Doing” our faith has to be seen as a radical, counter-cultural, defiant way of living. By its very nature, our faith is not supposed to be institutionalized and not measured by largeness, cultural pervasiveness, or authoritarianism. Our faith is supposed to be personal and divinely humane. Our faithful doing is to be delivered person-to-person, face-to-face, one-to-one – not by an invisible faceless remote committee or collective. “Doing” our faith can be accomplished only with more personal involvement and not with more technology that is better, more pervasive, more invasive, and increasingly remote and detached.

Congregations should be small groups meeting for worship in the homes of different members. Just imagine: Church with no offerings, no church governing boards and no board meetings, no committees and no committee meetings, no rehearsals, no fund raisers, no capital campaigns, no finances, no buildings, no property, no maintenance or repairs or replacements, no employees, no membership drives. Just imagine: Church as only worship, only studying, only witnessing in word and service to each other and the world.

On one level it sounds wonderful, if not utopian. What if the church were not an institution, but just a bunch of people getting together and praising God and helping the poor?

And yet, I tend to think were this to happen on a massive scale, it would end up as one hot mess.

It's not that such communities can take place. In fact, they have. But I worry that this wonderful vision that Sloan creates can in reality end up doing some harm.

As someone who is gay, I can resonate with some of what I have deemed silly rules regarding ordination. But that said, I don't want to just junk ordination either. My guess is, those standards came into being because of some form of abuse that had taken place.

Or take the matter of preaching and teaching. I've heard people say they don't need pastors, but in this new paradigm, who will want to lead and teach? If there is a large movement of the Spirit to call forth people, I will be happy,but I tend to think a lot of people don't want to be bothered with that.

Then comes worship. If Sloan thinks the worship wars will go away just because there is no more institutional church, he has another thing coming.

I guess what I'm getting at is that there are sometimes good reasons why the institution of the church came into being. Some of it no longer serves a good purpose and need to be cast aside. For example, I don't think we need the large physical plants that we once needed. I also think that shrinking church budgets and the rising costs of education mean will we have to reimagine ordination and find ways for more lay-driven ministry.But I think that at times you need the framework of the institution in order to allow the church to thrive. The question is what to keep, what to change and what to throw away.

In politics, I tend to lean towards libertarianism. I want a small government that can do a few good things very well. But libertarianism is not anarchy. I still want a government.

I think in someways, we need a libertarian view of modern ecclesiology. We need to see what of the institutional church is needed and what might be thrown away. We need to think about what matters in a community of faith in 2010. Do we need committees, big buildings and ordained ministers? Or can we have a lighter structure, small or no building and a lay-driven ministry?

This is something the modern church has to discern. Sloan's vision is wonderful, but I fear it leads to anarchy. I'm more in favor of the church having a garage sale than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The Soul of Business

I've been reading a series of post by Mark Roberts, a Presbyterian Pastor from Texas. His posts have tried to answer the question: why do we not pray for business? He notes we pray for our leaders in government and other sectors of life, but when it comes to the business world, prayers are few and far between. His final answer to his original question is the most prescient: pastors have been trained to view the business world in a negative light.

I think Roberts is on to something there especially when it comes to mainline Protestant churches. I've been a mainline Protestant long enough to know that we are supposed to not like big business. I see it in the writings of major theologians and in the musings of local pastors. When business is talked about, it is viewed as something that is destructive to our communities and not as something that can be a social good.

The problem is, there are a lot of people sitting in our pews who work in major corporations. Minneapolis is home to a lot of major corporations and at least at the church where I pastor, there are a lot of people who have or at once did work for such major business titans as Target, 3M, Wells Fargo and Cargill. Is it fair to them to basically tell them that what they do for a living is evil?

Now, I'm not saying that we should praise business or be uncritical or its actions. I do see a role for the prophetic at times. The problem is that many mainline churches are reflexively prophetic, thinking that any business is automatically in the wrong. Pastors end up doing the people sitting in the pews a grave disservice, because we don't help them find a way to live a Christian life during their work-a-day world.

Roberts notes that evangelical churches tend to be a bit more business friendly, and I tend to agree. Sometimes that might lead to not being critical when the times call for it, but I think our evangelical sisters and brothers are a little more hip on what it means to be a disciple of Jesus in all of our lives, including the parts that take place between 9am-5pm, Monday through Friday.

I'm thinking that I will start including those who work for businesses in my prayers. Businesspeople need prayers too.

h/t: Michael Kruse

Social Networking, Aspergers and Commander Data

One of the things that I have done at church is upgrade the congregational website and set up a presence at Facebook and Twitter. I've been a big believer in social networking sites and I tend to believe that social networking can do a lot of good. I've blogged on LiveJournal for 8 years and have made a few friends on the site and I've reconnected with old friends from high school and college days on Facebook.

But when it comes to church, I wonder if sites like Facebook make a difference.

I've heard all the stories of how churches have found an online community via Facebook. I look at our Facebook page and wonder: does anyone care that we are on Facebook? Does it matter? I've seen a number of churches start Facebook fan pages, only to have them become dormant and useless.

I'm beginning to believe that if we are interested in trying to get the word out about our churches, then we need to have a social networking strategy. What do we want to share on Facebook or Twitter? What is it we want to make known? How do we encourage conversation?

Related to social networking is the other social networking: the one that involves talking to people. I've marveled and been a little jealous a number of new church planters, one in Lino Lakes and a clergy couple in Rochester. They have been able to meet new people and have been able to bring them into their young churches.

And then there's the Senior Pastor who has put together a Bible Study group made up of people who work out with him.

It is interesting how all these people seem to strike up conversations with ease. Me? I find it damn difficult.

One of the main issues with autism is that people like myself have difficulty in social settings. Making friends has always been hard for me, same goes for romantic relationships. So, unlike the Senior Pastor, I probably would not strike up a conversation with the people I work out with since I tend to keep to myself and don't want to talk to people.

It's not really that I don't want to talk to people as much as it hurts to chat with people. I don't know what to say or how to really get into small talk. Case in point: I was at Ikea with my partner the other day. He was trying to make a phone call and walked away, when this other person came up and started chatting with me. I chatted back with him, but I can tell you that the whole situation was uncomfortable for me, almost painful. It's not that I can't strike up conversations with totally strangers, it's just that it is not second nature to me. And no, this is not simply that I'm introverted. It is truly a chore to meet with people I don't know. I don't have the inate skills that neurotypicals have to converse with others. I know I've brought this up before, but I do feel like Data from Star Trek. I think more often than not, he confronted situations where he did all the "right things" but didn't get the expected result. Somewhere along the line another character, like Deanna Troi, tells him that life is more of a dance than paint-by-numbers.

More often than not, I do try to be social, but like Data, it doesn't go the way I intended. I tried planting a church and was not able to meet people and maintain the relationships needed in church planting. Others seem to do it with ease.

But I keep trying. One of things I want to do is start some kind of Bible Study outside of the walls of the church. I've wanted to find a coffee shop or gay bar to do something that is outreach to younger folks and/or to GLBT folk. But I don't know how to get the word out or guage others interest.

So, does anyone know how you do that? Or can someone help me?

At some point, I will get this whole social interaction down.

Change We Can Believe In

In my short time as an ordained minister, I am finding one the most challenging things to take on is congregational transformation. It's one thing to plant a church, quite another for a 133 year-old church to change some of the things its been doing.

In my 17 months at First Christian, I know that people approach change with fear and trepidation. It's scary. It's the unknown. It might lead to people leaving the church.

Change is scary because it wrenches us out of our well-worn ways of doing things. It takes us out of our safe routine. It's just damn uncomfortable.

Believe me, I know. I don't like change.

It's funny how this fear of change so relates to me, especially since my Aspergers diagnosis. One the traits of this form of autism, is that I tend to follow some well worn ways of doing things. I don't like surprises. I don't like things messing up my ordered life.

So, of course I end up with a life partner that lives life at the spur of the moment.

For someone who is autistic and likes his very ordered life which calms him to have someone in your life who loves to be spontaneous can seem like a nightmare.

But as hard as it has been to deal with all this change, I have to say it has its good points. Daniel's spontaniety has helped me see a world that I might not have ever seen if left to my own devices.

Case in point: two years ago on Memorial Day, Daniel and I came home after spending a weekend visiting his siblings in North Dakota. His brother John and John's wife, Julie were expecting the birth of their first child. That Tuesday morning, was supposed to be a regular day where we go back to work-except that it wasn't. Instead we got a call early that morning from John indicating that Julie was ready to have this baby. That meant that Daniel and I would head back to North Dakota to see the baby. I think the look on my face must have been one of fear. I know I felt that way. My neat little world, my plans were ruined. I know that bothered Daniel. But as I later learned, sometimes taking a step outside of our comfort zone can lead to a great adventure.

I went with Daniel. And I got to hold John Luke who had only been born a few hours earlier. It was truly a wonderful experience, even though it through me for a loop.

Over time, I've learned to try to be more accpeting of change. It still isn't easy. It never will be for me. But through those hard experiences, I get to experience new things that I never would have known. I can do this because I have someone who loves me and cares for me and is with me as I traverse this trying crossing.

I tend to think churches don't like to change for some of the same reasons. We are afraid of upsetting our apple carts that we have grown accustomed to. We are afraid that people might get mad and leave.

But I think that in not changing, we might miss what God wants to show us. We might miss what new mission God is calling us to. God tends to be a God that wants us to experience all these great things. I can see God acting like Daniel in this very extroverted way, wanting to show us all the great things that are in store for us.

For me, I had to trust Daniel. I had to believe that he had nothing but the best intentions for me. It was then and only then that I could take those steps in faith.

For a faith community, it is about trusting God and believing that God has nothing but the best intentions for us.

We can believe in God because God loves and and wants the best for us.

So then, maybe we should be willing to change knowing that God is there with us every step of the way, holding our hands and opening our eyes to a world we have been too scared to see. Maybe we can try to not be so scared of change because in the end, it's change we can believe in.

The End of the Big Blue Church

Walter Russell Mead is a writer that mainly focuses on politics.  However, in today's blog post, he focuses on the church or I should say specifically the mainline Protestant church.  His post, which is wonderously titled, "The Holy Crap Must Go," is basically saying that it is time for a spring cleaning in the church.

He notes that mainline churches are built for another time, being part of the "blue social model" that guided America from about 1945 to 1973.  But while America is changing, these institutions have not changed. This is how he describes the local church:

Without even questioning it, most churchgoers assume that a successful church has its own building and a full-time staff including one or more professionally trained leaders (ordained or not depending on the denomination).  Perhaps no more than half of all congregations across the country can afford this at all; most manage only by neglecting maintenance on their buildings or otherwise by cutting corners.  And even when they manage to make the payroll and keep the roof in repair, congregations spend most of their energy just keeping the show going from year to year.  The life of the community centers around the attempt to maintain a model of congregational life that doesn’t work, can’t work, won’t work no matter how hard they try.  People who don’t like futile tasks have a tendency to wander off and do other things and little by little the life and vitality (and the rising generations) drift away.

This sounds a like the church I am working at now. Luckily, we have sold the building, but we are still tied to that structure and tied to how we did church in 1955. And let me tell you, it's damn hard to change.

What is also interesting are how many churches feel that they have to have a full time pastor. If they can't afford that, then the church feels it has to close.

I've chosen to work part time and work full time at my other job (at a regional level, no less). The church could not afford me full time, and it allows me some freedom in my ministry. What has been interesting is when I tell people that I work part time as a pastor, they tend to look at me as if I came from Mars. If one is not working full time, then you aren't real it seems.

But some churches can't afford a pastor. Most pastors get about $40K or more, so very few churches can afford that.

Mead goes on to attack other parts of the mainline church including national offices and seminaries.

So, what is his idea of a church for the 21st century? Here it is:

What would we do instead? Scale down and build a mission-centered church. Perhaps instead of the large dioceses stretching over several counties or in some cases whole states, a ‘diocese’ should consist of a collection of house churches or other congregations in a single town or urban district. A bishop might oversee half a dozen house churches — and hold down a day job in the secular world. Paul did.

In this model, few or no priests would attend anything like the formal seminary programs that now exist. Education for ministry would be less formal, and more ‘hands-on’ — apprenticeships rather than graduate school. Candidates might work under the direct supervision of an ordained priest or bishop, take correspondence or internet courses to meet some basic requirements, and then be ordained — without any expectation that ordination would lead to a life’s work as a paid full time religious professional.

Freed from the crushing financial burdens of maintaining large physical plants, expensive and unproductive regional and national bureaucracies, a professional establishment and a network of professional schools, the Christian congregations of the United States might actually be able to accomplish something. Who knows? They could concentrate on nurturing the spiritual lives of their members, reaching out to the unchurched, and serving their communities and the world. They could operate charter schools, teach English to immigrants, develop cooperatives for day care, and reach out to the aged. The laypeople would no longer hire professionals to carry on the life of the church and to lead it. The gap between ‘leaders’ and ‘led’ would diminish; initiative would pass from structured positions of authority to the people at large.

On one level this kinda scares me: partially because I came through the seminary system and it hurts to think it might have been all for naught. I also worry about opening the door for anti-intellectualism in not having seminary trained pastors. However, I also have to think about my friend Tammy. Tammy is the pastor at another Disciples church in town and is not ordained. In the Disciples tradition, there are Licensed Ministers, people who don't have seminary training, but do go through a program like what Mead describes to prepare them for ministry. Tammy didn't get a Master's Degree but is also one of the most learned pastors I've met. The fact is, I know a lot of licensed pastors that are better prepared for ministry than most ordained pastors and to be honest, there are times I think it might have been better to be a licensed pastor instead of going all the way towards ordination.

But I also think that this having a clergy do all the "important stuff" has stopped the regular folk from doing anything. The current system has made them feel powerless and looking for some pastor to save them.

But in the history of the Disciples, the pastor didn't have all the power. In many cases, churches were started without settled clergy and might get a traveling pastor every so often. In the early beginnings of the Disciples, pastors were not needed for a church to be church.

So, maybe this future isn't so scary. I think parts of it are here now and we need to lift them up and strethen them. And maybe we need to let some parts of the old system just die.

This is all scary to me...but it's also so damn hopeful. I guess that's what faith is all about, huh?

The Aspie Pastor and Evangelism

One of the things I have learned since my diagnosis is that I really have a hard time connecting with people.  I don't mean to say that I'm friendless, but it's a lot harder for me to meet people than it is for others.

Our congregation is trying to encourage people to start sharing their faith in non-coercive ways.  I think it's a great idea and I've seen how the Senior Pastor has been able to talk and share his life with others. 

But I sit somewhat amazed at how he does it.  I mean, I've tried to invite people to church events, but I feel at times like Data from Star Trek: I might understand the mechanics of something, but not it's essence.

My aspie way of evangelism is sending someone a Facebook event invite.  Something tells me that while that's one way of inviting people to church, it is not the most effective way.

The fact of the matter is, I don't know how to invite someone to church because I am lost in inviting people, period.  I think that's why the church start that I was a part of failed so badly: I had no idea how to build those relationships that one needs.  Oh, I would ask people, but I don't think it had that same "magic" that it has when it comes from someone that isn't autistic.

It's funny- I feel God has called me to be at this place, to help this church grow spiritually and be able to share their faith lives with friends and neighbors and yet I have a big issue in how to actually share my life, something that I have a hard time doing. God really does work in mysterious ways.

I feel at times like a cat trying to make my way in a dog world.  Dogs are social animals and love to be with other dogs ( I guess that's what the butt-sniffing is all about).  But cats tend to be solitary and don't understand what's up with those crazy dogs.

I wish there was a cat way to be social, a feline way of evangelism. 

Let's see what God has to say.

Why Do Disciples in Minnesota Suck?-REPOSTED

I posted this back in October.  I'm re-posting this again to get people's reactions, especially those Disciples in Minnesota.  Do you agree with my sentiment?  If so, why? What are the solutions?

I look forward to your thoughts.

I've been trying to rein in my Aspie tendency to be incredibly blunt. So far, I've done a good job.

But I think I need to be blunt for just one moment.

I don't mean to be down on my own denomination, but I do think that here in Minnesota we Disciples just suck. I'm really starting to believe in a few years there will be no Disciple churches in Minnesota.

Why do I saw that Disciples suck? Because over the last few years, I've encountered frustrated pastors, lay people who leave Disciple congregations for other churches, a defeatist attitude, and a lack of willingness to be change agents. I keep wondering if Disciples here in the North Star state really care about the future of Discipledom. If we don't then we should just close up shop.

Take for example the fact that there are a fair number of Disciples that have left Disciple churches. Why is that? Do we ask those questions? What can we do to bring them back?

I don't mean to sound harsh, but I get frustrated in the lack of new ideas, of a willingness to think outside of the box. In many cases, I feel that we Disciples are stuck in doing church as it was in the 1950s. This was a time when the culture was nominally Christian and there was a certain way to do worship. But we don't live in that culture anymore and people under the age of 40 are looking for something different in a church, if they are looking at church at all.

I also get frustrated at the lack of diversity among Minnesota Disciples. We are still amazing white. I don't there is overt racism, but it would be nice if we had more people who looked like me in our churches. I would also love if we tried to find ways to plant more ethnic churches in the Twin Cities. We have a lot to learn from our Lutheran sisters and brothers that are busy planting Hispanic, Chinese, Hmong and countless other immigrant congregations in the area.

I also find myself frustrated at time of those who leave. Did they try to share their on complaints? Maybe they did, but it seems like they just took their toys and left. I wish they could put their anger into developing new ways of being a Disciple in the 21st century.

Now I love the church I am currently serving at, and I love the people there. I also love the many Disciples that are found in the other congregations, many that I know and have worshipped with. But I feel that there is a lack of the Spirit found among us. We seem to be without hope.

I would like to see a Pentecost experience happen among of the Disciples of Minnesota- an outpouring of the Spirit. I want to see the young having visions and the old dreaming dreams. I want to see a revival, a people who are not looking back at the good old days, but faithfully forward into the future. I want to see us dreaming of new ways to share the good news of Jesus.

I love my fellow Minnesota Disciples, but we need to wake up and stop sleeping. I pray that the Holy Spirit will awake our souls. Come, Holy Spirit, Come!

The Next DisciplesWorld

So, I said I was going offer some ideas for how the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) could create a new news source after the demise of DisciplesWorld.  Without further ado, here are my ideas.

• The Politico Route.  One of the few new media sites that is doing fairly well is the political magazine, Politico.  It's basically a blog with a lot of reporters.  Politico does publish a newspaper a few days a week in the Washington, DC area, but with that exception, they are all online.  From an email in late 2009 from Disciplesworld editor Verity Jones, I tend to think this was where Disciplesworld was headed before they closed.  There was talk of less physical issues and more content on the web.  I think they had the right idea, but it seems like they ran out of money before they could launch Disciplesworld in this new direction.  If there were some money found somewhere, I would say they should try this stillborn plan.
• Beef up Disciples News Service.  Disciples News Service has done an okay job over the last few years and has started to send out emails on stories taking place in Discipledom. They also should receive kudos for getting on the Twitter train.  I wonder what would happen if we took some of the now unemployed Disciplesworld staff and created a news and opinion organization that would find stories and writers.  As I've said before, Presbyterian News Service has done a good job of reporting and DNS might want to learn from our ecclesiastical cousins.
• Empower the laity.  Yeah, this is another idea from Presbyterians.  The Synod of the Sun started a venture called Presbyterian Neighbor News.  Started by Shane Whisler, the Communications staff person at the Synod it is meant to use content from Presbyterian News Service as well as content from staff persons in Synods and Presbyteries around the nation.  Most of the 16 Synods that make up the Presbyterian Church (USA) have kicked in some funding for the venture.  I could see a "Disciples Neighbor News" that used content from DNS as well as content from editors around the country.  It could be funded in part by each other regions and the general church.

These are just a few ideas.  I'm sure there are others.  I just hope people are thinking about what should be done after Disciplesworld.

The Case for a Denominational News Source

I've been thinking lately about the demise of Disciplesworld, my denomination's news source. For me, this is a big deal, but for others- while it is sad, it is not the end of the world and might just be a sign of the times.

When the predecessor to Disciplesworld shuttered in 2002, the line that I heard over and over was that denomination magazines were a thing of the past and that we could get our news on the web. A recent post by blogger and pastor Dan Mayes repeats this rhetoric:

I think the demise of DisciplesWorld also has something to do with larger issues facing the Church today, also. Being part of a denomination means less and less to people than it used to. People are more concerned with being a part of a particular local church where they fit than they are about that congregation's denominational affiliation. This means our editorial outlets have less of a captive audience than ever before. With a wane in denominational interest the publications are sure to suffer.

I have been a faithful subscriber to DisciplesWorld, so I must confess a bit of sadness. But I have to admit that in recent years my magazine subscription has served as little more than a novelty. I, personally, find sources of theological reflection and information through trusted bloggers more than anywhere else. And I'm venturing to guess that more and more people are doing the same.

Perhaps someone else will pick up where DisciplesWorld left off one day. Or perhaps no one will ever need to. This old world keeps on changing. So changing is what we're going to have to do.

There is a lot to unpack here but I think the nugget of Dan's thoughts is simply that the old ways of religious newsgathering are done and it's time for the new media to pick up the slack if they so desire. The point of the matter: religious journalism isn't important.

Maybe that's not what Dan was trying to say, but to someone trained in the "old media" it surely feels that way. Some argue that we don't need something like Disciplesworld since denominations aren't as powerful and people are more concerned with their local church.

I'd like to make the argument that we do need a denominational news source. Maybe the old magazine style subscription passe, but we still need people telling the story for the following reasons:

• To stregthen and uphold the bonds of "brotherhood" and be aware of God's mission in the world. The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is not like other denominations.  Unlike Lutherans or Presbyterians, we don't have creeds that bind us together.  Being non creedal means we have had to find other means of upholding the ties that bond us together.  A denominational news source that is telling the story of what is going on in the wider church, to talk about what ministries are taking place in California or Kentucky or Florida is keeping us bound together and helps congregations know they are not alone.  Maybe the best example of this is the work the Presbyterian Church (USA) is doing through Presbyterian News Service called "Growing God's Church Deep and Wide."  Over the last year, a number of stories have been written about mission taking place within local Presbyterian churches around the nation (including my hometown of Flint, MI).  Disciplesworld did a good job of telling those stories.  Who will tell them now?
• To Give Us a Wide Viewpoint.  Yeah, I know, we can read blogs to get a wide range of opinions.  But the thing is, I can decide to read only the sources I want to read and ignore the rest.  What was great about Disciplesworld is that it presented views and opinions that not every would agree with.  While I don't agree at times with folks like Jan Linn or Rita Nakashima Brock, I did appreciate reading a different opinion.  The loss of a news source leaves us without a forum where we can be intellectually and spiritually stretched.  Without a vital gathering place, we won't have a place where we can make reasoned arguments and be able to discern the vital issues of the day like gay ordination or war.

There are other reasons to have something in mind to replace Disciplesworld and I will get to them in later posts.  But I can say we need to have some sort of denominational news source.  I do have some ideas, which I will share in my next post.

Autism Reality

Alex Plank is the founder of a website called Wrong Planet, a gathering place for persons on the autistic spectrum. He has produced a short documentary about his living with Aspergers and he also talks to Temple Grandin, who also has autism and is also a leading researcher with animals. Maybe the ending for me is the best part as it shows a young Alex listening to a song and as it finishes, he walks away and starts flapping his hands only to walk back and listen to the song again. I remember flapping my hands as a kid, and I also remember having a bit of Obessive Compulsive Disorder well into my 30s when drugs were able to control it.

Watch the video and learn.

....It's For You

I'm not a big fan of phones. In fact, it would be safe to say, I have a phobia when it comes to phones.

At work, I can have a message on my phone that takes forever for me to check. I love my parents, but loathe having to make a phone call. In fact, I've tried to get my dear mother to use email to no avail.

If it comes down to talking to someone on the phone or by email, I would chose email all the time.

It's a wonder that I was a customer phone representative for four years. I wasn't a good one, but I was one.

For persons with Aspergers, dealing with what might seem to be a regular social interaction can seem like trying to climb Mount Everest. I know that it's quite common for aspies to have a fear of phones for the same reason some aspies hate being in crowds or going to parties: it means social interaction, something we are not good at.

Of course, I can't use autism as an excuse. Most people use the phone for communication and I have to learn to control my fear. For me, it might mean writing down what I want to say and even learning to only be on the phone for short bursts of time. But since I can't control the world, I have to learn to live with it as it is.

Just another one of my quirks...

Goodbye, DisciplesWorld

DisciplesWorld, which has been the denominational magazine for my denomination, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), announced today that it is ceasing publication. It was in operation for seven years, shortly after the denomination shut down The Disciple, the denomination's own in house magazine.

To say that I'm a little sad, would be an understatement. I think this is bad for the denomination and will hurt us all in the long run.

As I said, DisciplesWorld, which was an independent magazine, came into being because of the closure of The Disciple. Now the Disciple was not much a magazine. But what it did was keep us informed of what was going on throughout Discipledom.

I know that there are many of my fellow Disciples out there that look at the end of DisciplesWorld and will shrug. Magazines are so 20th century, they will say. We can get all our info from the web, others will say. All are valid reasons. But I also think all of them are a croc of...well, this is family blog.

Listen, when it comes to the web and social media, I am all over that. I've been blogging since 2002. I love Twitter and Facebook and I want to find ways to use them to foster better communication.

But despite all my love for modern communication, it will not replace what I think was worthwhile journalism. Maybe it's the old ink-stained wretch in me (I did get my bacheor's degree in jounralism), but the reason blogs exist is because of the traditional media that we so casually ignore. It's because there are people that make the work of reporting and writing their jobs, that we bloggers have anything to say. Now that DisciplesWorld is gone, does anyone really think that some blogger in Minneapolis is going to write about what some Disciples congregation is doing? Most bloggers don't have the staying power do the real live jounralism. We blog occasionally, but we have to tend to the rest of our lives.

Which is why I think the loss of DisciplesWorld is such a bad thing. We are losing a unifying voice, a place where we could come and learn from each other. We are losing a way to find out what is going on the wider church. We are losing a way to be challenged with thoughts and opinions that we may not agree with. We are losing some damn good reporting. I will forever be thankful for their stories on the Jonestown massacre, which helped a new generation understand what happened in the jungle in South America all those years ago.

One would hope this would be a case for Disciples News Service to kick it up a notch and come up with something new. It could be web-based. I don't care what it is, but something needs to happen to keep the tradition of Disciple publications going. From the times of the Millenial Harbinger to now, Disciples have used media to express thoughts and ideas.

I will miss DisciplesWorld. I am thankful for Verity Jones, Rebecca Woods and Sherri Emmons for all of their hard work, especially for Rebecca who interviewed me for an article earlier this year. You fought the good fight.

Thank you.

Grace, Judgement and Tiger Woods

I was checking out Rod Dreher's blog and he happened to have this to say about the recent transgressions of Tiger Woods:

He had the world -- fame, fortune, worldwide admiration, a wife and children -- and he blew it on extramarital affairs with floozies. I never could have imagined writing words like this about Tiger Woods (Tiger Woods!), but he is a contemptible human being. God help his poor wife and children. I thought he might still escape this morass with his endorsement deals intact, but that's looking increasingly unlikely. Good. Having betrayed his wife and children so grotesquely, he needs to suffer. He needs to hurt like the mother of his children is hurting. If that is possible.

That brought out some reaction from commenters who thought Dreher was being too rough on Tiger. Rod's response was rather blunt:

Nope -- not before he feels the full weight of what his sin meant to the lives of his wife and children. Anything else is false repentance. For me, the most moving scene of any film, ever, is in "The Mission," when Robert De Niro, the repentant slave trader, drags a heavy weight behind him as he climbs the jungle mountain to the mission where the Indians live. At the top, as he's covered with mud and filth, and exhausted, one of the Indians -- the same people he has persecuted -- severs the rope binding De Niro to his sins. He is free. He sobs in gratitude. If he hadn't felt the full weight of his sins, his repentance wouldn't have carried much weight.

I get so sick and tired of the cheap grace in our culture, especially attending celebrities. Tiger's publicists are no doubt already planning the Oprah interview to rehabilitate his image, and to repair his brand. How about let's remember that there are real people torn to bits by his infidelity? If I were ever to do that to my wife and kids, I hope none of you will let me off the hook so easily.

Dreher has always been an interesting blogger for me because he can get into this mode where he is calling this person or that "contemptible." His remarks have me wondering: what sort of punishments should Tiger go through? Does a Christian community have to be a place where we have people dragg heavy weights until they are "truly sorry?" And who decides that?

I don't have any easy answers, but I do worry that such a viewpoint would have us go back to the days of "shunning" and "scarlet letters" that might do more harm than good.

I dunno. I'd like to know what you all think. What are your thoughts?