The Fund for Theological Education is trying to coax young seminarians into becoming pastors of congregations when they graduate.  That may sound strange, but the situation is real.  Just a few more than half of them are interested in doing so, thinking they can apply their learning, degree, passions, and faith commitment in other ways.

One student from Yale Divinity School described the notion of being a pastor as “boring.”  Others are turned off by the low salaries, especially for beginning pastors, and by their perception that the church is fraught with so many problems.  The way some churches treat clergy also is a significant negative factor.

There has been a trend in recent times for older, second-career folks to attend seminary and take on leadership in the church, but there is a growing gap between congregations needing pastors and the number of qualified people to step in. In my own denomination, we are going to lose about 2/3 of our pastors to retirement in the next 15 years or less.  There is not a like-sized gaggle of replacements on the horizon.

I’m in that retiring group.  I also was part of another group. 

The Lily Endowment does a lot of work with churches and ministries, and several years ago produced a research study that indicated a large percentage of pastors leave the church within the first five years after graduating from seminary.  The transition from the academic world of seminary into the day-to-day realities of congregational life is huge and unsettling.  There is a lot of thought and discussion regarding how seminaries can better prepare their students for pastoral ministry.  It took me just slightly longer than five years to jump, but jump, I did – without knowing what was next.  That eventually led to my tenure at William Penn House, which lasted nine years before I gradually found my way back into the church.

Lily Endowment established a program called Transition Into Ministry(and commited mucho bucks) to minimize the jumps.  T.I.M. matches freshly-minted seminary graduates with established “big steeple” churches where they can gain practical experience and work under the supervision of experienced pastors for a couple of years before venturing out on their own.  My experience with the T.I.M. program, as part of a multiple staff church, was that a lot depends on the willingness and ability of the senior minister to be faithful to the program and its goals.  Those were sadly lacking in that church, unfortunately.

The Fund for Theological Education is hosting a conference to help the seminarians get a handle on what pastoral ministry has to offer, and provide encouragement for them to more seriously consider it as a vocational option.  Good luck.

A person named Kurt Fredrickson, from Fuller Theological Seminary said, “There’s 22- and 23-year-old students with a wonderful sense of idealism.  They’re gonna change the world, and they haven’t been hammered on yet.  But there’s also disillusionment with the institutional church.”

The late sage Rev. William Sloane Coffin used to say, “How can you become disillusioned unless you had illusions to begin with?”

It seems to me the Fund for Theological Education is walking a pretty thin line here, but I wish them well.

Richard D.N. Dickinson died recently.  When I first knew Dr. Dickinson he was the dean at my seminary, Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis.  He arrived there a number years earlier to teach Christian social ethics, which he continued to teach for 29 years, even during his tenure as dean, then later as president of the seminary.  He retired in 1997. 

Dr. Dickinson was a scholar and passionate advocate of social justice.  He also had a sly, subtle wit that I came to appreciate toward the end of my seminary days and beyond.  He was a member of the United Church of Christ, and gave a consistent and strong witness to ecumenical relationships and cooperation.  His professional experience included overseas work, as well as positions with the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches.  He set a high standard of excellence and achievement for the rest of us. 

According to his obituary, “Dick believed in the strong preparation of church pastors. He sought to broaden theological education to include global perspectives, interfaith dialogue, and the rich role of the arts in faith. He co-directed Project Understanding, working with local churches to address racism, and initiated the Chrysalis Program, bringing international students and scholars to CTS. Dick's investment in worldwide social justice issues was fostered during six years of living overseas and the friendships he formed there.”  

Dr. Dickinson wrote a number of books and was published widely in journals and periodicals.  My recollection is that he was a seminary classmate of Martin Luther King, Jr. at the Boston University School of Theology.   

It has been too many years since I last spoke with Dr. Dickinson, but he was a role model to me and countless others.  His was a life well lived, and I am confident that he now rests in peace in God’s eternal and loving embrace.

The leaders of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) are working to sort out whether the General Assembly of the church should continue the practice of voting on “Sense-of-the-Assembly resolutions.  Such resolutions typically have as their focus some social or political matter of great importance.  Some Disciples are concerned that with opinions being so varied and deeply held regarding these serious issues, a vote can be divisive.

The General Assembly meets in every odd-numbered year and brings together church folks from across the nation, many of whom are designated as voting delegates by their congregations.  General and regional church staff also attends to deliberate and vote.  Every minister with standing in the denomination is eligible to vote, and thus is not representing any interest other than his or her own.  As many as 8,000 folks attend a typical General Assembly (although my observation is the attendance has declined in recent years), with non-voters allowed to speak from the assembly floor.

While the General Assembly is billed as a “Disciples family reunion,” and there are wonderful elements of that at each gathering, it also has been the setting for rancor, hostility, and division when hot button issues are discussed and voted-upon.

Since Disciples congregations are completely autonomous, the assembly actions have no binding effect on them.  When assembly actions instruct general church staff or ministries in the execution of their duties, the actions are binding upon the relevant parties.

So, what difference does it make if the assembly votes on the appropriateness of the military policies of our country, or on a subject such as gay marriage?  Well, it makes a lot of difference, in a variety of ways.

Those who vote in the minority of an issue, whatever it may be, sometimes feel stigmatized by their views and opinions.  Some thoughtless delegates consider the votes a “win/lose” proposition.  There have been congregations that opted out of the fellowship following votes on some issues.

Folks in favor of keeping the Sense-of-the-Assembly resolutions find it important that “the church” is seen as taking a stand on matters important to our nation and the world.  A prophetic voice is desired by those who believe difficult issues should be discussed with action taken.  Others suggest that political leaders no longer take seriously pronouncements from mainline churches.

Personally, I feel it is necessary for the gathered church to talk about important issues.  I am afraid, though, that such discussion often occurs without much awareness of facts.  When it becomes a contentious “us vs. them” argument, constructive possibilities disappear.

Perhaps a helpful approach would be to limit to one or two such topics as would qualify for the typical Sense-of-the-Assembly resolution.  Then, knowledgeable people from the various sides of the issues could be solicited to provide written background statements prior to the assembly.  When folks arrived at the assembly site (next year it will be Indianapolis), workshops or seminars on the subject might be held to allow for focused conversation and clarification.  Later in the assembly, keynote speakers would address the issue, with talk-back time from the floor.  A period of prayer, Bible study, and communion would allow delegates an opportunity for spiritual reflection.  Suggestions on how individuals or congregation might get involved in the issue could be made available in an “information fair,” so that those who desired to take action could find an outlet.

In my experience and observation, there is less and less effective action taking place on Capitol Hill, as far as advocacy by people and groups who are not registered lobbyists and campaign contributors, and more possibilities for advocacy “back home” when the legislators return for district work periods.  So, perhaps providing information, inspiration, and networking connections are the ways for Disciples best to be prophetic in our personal and congregational ministries.

Often I observe that religious faith or practice is relegated only to a certain aspect of a person’s life.  For instance, some display a complete separation of their faith from their political convictions.  Or maybe the distinction occurs within a church when people gather for a budget meeting as opposed to gathering for worship.  God is allowed only into certain rooms of the church building, or is restricted to specific hours.

How about the application of faith to a person’s physical being?  Is the body so “earthly” that it somehow exists outside of spiritual connections?

A collection of online articles explores this theme:

Connection between faith and health.

Should the doctor pray with a patient?

A trend toward health and fitness ministries in churches.

The principal of an elementary school in Findlay, Ohio declares that the town is “a Christian community.  I’m not saying that everybody is, but that’s where Findlay is.”  So, not everyone there is a Christian, but it’s a Christian community, anyway.  What percentage of believers is necessary for a locale to be declared “Christian?”  And who makes the designation?

This revelation emerged from controversy in Findlay over the Gideons International organization handing out Bibles to school children.  According to one report, fifth graders are dismissed from class during instruction time, marched out to a sidewalk along school grounds, and given Bibles.  Of course, “students are told it is up to them whether they want a Bible.”  I’m sure the 10-year olds are making informed decisions.

The Bibles given to the children are pocket-sized, and contain only the New Testament, Proverbs, and Psalms.  It seems the Gideons decided the children in this Christian community can manage without the bulk of the Old Testament.

The American Civil Liberties Union is threatening legal action if the Bible distribution at schools during class time is not stopped.  The local school board is “reviewing its policies on the distribution of materials from community groups.”  The Gideons have been giving Bibles to students for a number of years.  Religious information can and should be appropriately, and legally, sought elsewhere, according to the ACLU.

Perhaps there are some churches in this “Christian community.”  Those might be places for the children and their families to go for Bibles, to learn how to pray, to develop spiritual disciplines, to grow in tolerance and acceptance of those who are different, and to gain an understanding of how the Christian faith and the dominant culture are not the same. 

Schools are not designed or intended for “one-stop shopping.”  Especially in Christian communities.

John Deem is wanting more and better from political candidates.  He states that when he votes, he feels he is “letting God down by pushing the button for any candidate.”  Deem laments that politics is about “stomping on the opponent.  It’s about War Room guerillas raiding opponents’ lives for enough radioactive material to produce a political dirty bomb.  It’s about twisting words, stretching truth, converting context.”  Deem suggests that we – the American citizens – simply let it all happen “because, after all, it is politics.”

He asks a question many probably have thought of, especially during big-time political campaigns:  “What if candidates were forced to prove they were best-qualified for the job, rather than just not as bad as their opponents?”  In the words of the Beach Boys, “Wouldn’t it be nice?”

Deem is a Baptist deacon, youth leader, and evangelism chair for his congregation in North Carolina, and wrote a book titled, Jesus Alive! Elvis Still Dead, and he points to research indicating that 80 million Christians (60 million of whom were church-goers) voted in the 2004 elections.  Maybe, maybe not – people often tell pollsters what they think they want to hear, and sometimes overestimate their spirituality.

In any case, Deem senses there is power resident in that group of folks that is strong enough to pressure misbehaving politicians by tying contributions and volunteer support to the conduct of candidates; boycotting politicians who attack their opponents; conveying to office-holders and seekers the expectations of Christians in face-to-face encounters at public forums.

Alas, Deem acknowledges that some people of faith play the same destructive games as candidates and their campaigns.

I admit an attraction to the idealism expressed by John Deem, and hear it really as a regretful sigh rather than a serious proposal.  Unfortunately, there are at least three realities that prohibit his desires. 

First, of course, is that politics is all about power and money, and the teachings of Jesus regarding these matters stand in stark contrast to the ways of the world, be it here in the U. S. or elsewhere.  Control is at issue in politics, and holding onto control is the name of the game.  The Apostle Paul makes some concessions to a need for social and political structures, and Jesus flipped some coins around saying, “Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar.”  But my sense is that both saw conflicts between human striving for power and the authority of God in all matters.

Secondly, the sad truth is that Christian unity is very elusive.  To say that people of faith should lay “Christian expectations” on politicians is to raise, in my mind, many more questions.  How are those expectations defined?  Who establishes the standards?  Why are there such differences in outlook among Christians?   Can Christians even come close to agreement regarding their expectations of leaders?

Thirdly, not every voter in the United States is a Christian.  There are Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, atheist, agnostic, and who-knows-what-else folks who participate in the electoral process.  Demanding, requesting, or expecting “Christian” values, outlooks, or perspectives (again, defined by whom?) of candidates sets the stage for serious division and potential discrimination, even persecution of those who differ.  I can’t see any of that as pleasing in the sight of God.

I appreciate John Deems’ frustration, and he comes up with the only viable approach when he proposes that Christians model “Christ in our own behavior, by revealing God through our daily encounters with others rather than fighting, for example, over whether scripture belongs displayed in schools or courthouses, where it gradually fades from the wall and our consciousness.”

John, my friend, we have to do the best we can, but the fulfilled and completed reign of God won’t be found in anything resembling current human society, and it won’t be created by human efforts.

According to a news report that appears in the current Christian Century, people who are not church-goers would rather attend a church that is more like a “medieval cathedral” than a “modern, utilitarian church facility,” like so many being built these days.  The ratio for this preference is nearly 2 to 1.  This is especially true among the 25-34 year old demographic, according to LifeWay Research.   “‘I don’t like modern churches, they seem cold,” said one survey respondent.  “I like the smell of candles burning, stained-glass windows (and) an intimacy that’s transcendent.’”

I’ve heard similar sentiments expressed about worship styles and music.  Many find nothing compelling about the so-called “contemporary” approach to worship.  It just feels too much like the rest of life to offer any meaningful interaction with God.  Seekers are looking for something that takes them beyond the ordinary, and it seems that a church that is little different from a trip to the mall doesn’t get that done.  Those interested only in “Spirituality Lite,” who can get in and get out with little harm done, likely would find it attractive. 

Being stuck in a traditional rut, though, is not the most edifying approach to worship, either.  While it is comforting for some to have the familiar unaltered routine as a source of security amid the dizzying changes in all other aspects of life, one has to wonder who is being served.  Is it God, or the person in the pew? 

My hope is that worship engages the whole person, mind and body, and that there is enough of the presence of the Holy Spirit that we all are kept on edge to the extent that we experience something new, refreshing, and energizing each time we gather.  It is my hope that churches can move past “what we find comfortable” in worship and see it as an opportunity to focus on God rather than ourselves, and celebrate the life God intends for us. 

Perhaps that is “an intimacy that’s transcendent.”

As I walked among a group of fellow Disciples through the hallway of a church during a regional gathering years ago, I overheard someone make a racist comment.  I was appalled, and subsequently held a grudge against that person.  He was not someone with whom I cared to associate.

A year or so later, at a men’s retreat in the same region, the program concluded with a communion service.  The person leading the worship had us stand in a circle around the room.   The idea is that two men, one from each side, would approach the table at the same time, then serve each other the bread and cup.

I looked and saw that my partner would be the man for whom I felt tremendous animosity.  It would have been tempting to switch places with someone, but instead, I met him at the table, offered him the sacrament, and received it from him.  There is a power in the act that overrules any and all human failures.

Today I read of the politicizing of communion that occurred at a Mass earlier this year when Douglas Kmeic was turned away from the table because of his support for presidential candidate Barak Obama.  The “reasoning” of the priest was that Kmeic’s public endorsement of pro-choice Obama implied his standing at odds with the church’s position on abortion. 

Kmeic is favoring Obama in spite of his pro-choice position because he feels the candidate’s views on “personal responsibility in sexual matters might change the nature of the nation’s argument on life issues.”  While Kmeic has varied his political loyalties over the years, having supported both Robert Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, he has been a long-standing vocal critic of the Roe v. Wade decision by the U. S. Supreme Court.

Again, most priests and bishops likely would not have excluded Kmeic from communion, but why should anyone?  The sacrament is not a “reward” for acceptable behavior.  It isn’t a spiritual pill.  It doesn’t make a person worthy to stand in the presence of God.  As Kmeic points out, there are dangers in “using communion as a weapon.”

When Jesus met with his disciples in the Upper Room just prior to his arrest and execution, he told them, “When you eat and drink together, remember me.”  Following the resurrection, there was something especially remarkable to remember about him.  God’s power was at work in Jesus showing that even in spite of the sinfulness of humanity, God makes all things new, including life.

None of us has the authority to prevent anyone from celebrating that great hope.  We all need to be there.

It’s always nice to hear about churches that express a commitment to the gospel in the ways they relate to their communities.  I have absolutely no doubt that it is the rule rather than the exception.

In my sermon yesterday I mentioned the folks in Marshall, Oklahoma who lost their church to a tornado that ripped through town about ten days ago.  The faithful gathered on Sunday for worship, pulling together some benches on the foundation where the church formerly stood.  Debris and wreckage surrounded them as they prayed and sang praises to God.  Their intention is to rebuild the church, which I see as a sign.

It is a sign that God is present in the community still, that God has not forgotten the people who lost so much.  It is a sign that good news still can be told, and that hope is alive, because faith has not been forsaken even in dire circumstances. 

God bless the folks in Marshall.

In Spencer, Iowa, the Disciples church discerned a call to a new ministry that now is helping people in their town and the surrounding area.  Concerned about rising food costs, and the fact that nearly half of the children in their school district required assistance for their lunches, First Christian Church became a local affiliate of Angel Food Ministries.

Angel Food Ministries buys quality food in great volume, at a significant discount, and makes it available across the continent for distribution to anyone who chooses to buy it.  An order of food sold at $30 would cost almost twice that amount if purchased at the grocery store.  Angel Food Ministries contributes a dollar to the benevolent funds of  partner churches for each unit of food sold by the church.  So, the blessings multiply.

The Spencer Disciples helped 143 families in their first month of Angel Food participation.  Others are doing the same and more.

Churches humbly sharing the love of Christ with others is a nice counter-balance to the misadventures of those “church leaders” who snake their way into the glare of the media to promote division and alienation.

Another day, another preacher “actin’ a fool.”  This time it was on Barack Obama’s side of the divide.  A guest speaker at Trinity United Church of Christ not only mocked and derided Hillary Clinton, but he infused it with racial depth charges.  “Rev.” Michael Pfleger, the white pastor of a mostly-black Roman Catholic church set out to prove to the world that he is acceptable to his congregants, and that, even though he’s white, he knows where they’re coming from.  Nice try.  It didn’t work.

So, the list grows.  By my count, the score is 2 – 2, and both sides are losing.  John McCain had John Hagee, with his anti-Catholic, anti-woman, and anti-everything-else-that-is-not-him neuroses (although Hitler, in his view, served a godly purpose); and he had Rod Parsley, who sees America’s task as eradicating the Islamic faith.  Obama had Jeremiah Wright who, in addition to other nonsense, blames the U.S. government for the spread of AIDS among African-Americans, and equates himself with the entire black church experience; and now, Pfleger.

McCain and Obama aren’t getting anywhere with pandering to the “faith” voters.  In fact, they’re spending more time untangling themselves from disaster than I’m sure either ever imagined.

It is distressing that Hagee, Parsley, Wright, and Pfleger have the microphone, and that they choose to separate, alienate, divide, and encourage estrangement.   I suspect the general perception of clergy, the church, and our faith has taken another significant hit in the esteem of many people.

The more appalling dirty little secret, though, is that people like them wouldn’t have the microphone unless there were too many others willing to give it to them because they like what they hear.