I thought I saw something similar already on the streets in Indiana when I made a fast visit there last October, but the “I Believe” automobile license plates supposedly would be the first in the United States if South Carolina’s plans come to fruition.  A similar idea failed to pass in Florida.

But, there is the inevitable threat of legal action by church and state separation watchdogs.

According to the Speaker of the House of the South Carolina legislature, Republican Bobby Harrell, state residents asked for a way by which to express their faith, and lawmakers were only too happy to comply.  I’m not sure why it was necessary for citizens to petition the state government for such a means of expression.  I would think that time spent with other Christians in Bible study and prayer might inspire faith expression by believers through some form of ministry in their local community.  It would never occur to me to appeal to elected officials for ideas.

Anyway, South Carolina law provides for the creation of specialty, or as they are known in some circles, “vanity,” license plates by private groups “for any cause.”  All that is required is either 400 prepaid orders or $4,000 cash.  Apparently, this condition was overlooked, and some are concerned that the measure to create the “I Believe” plates is pandering to certain constituencies during an election year.  The DMV stands ready to start cranking out the plates, and Lt. Governor Andre Bauer volunteered to front the four grand.

I see no spiritual value in “I Believe” license plates, and don’t find it too much of a stretch to imagine they might be seen by non-Christians as hostile and “in your face.”  Perhaps, even bellicose.   I am willing to wager that there will be no faith conversions as a result of someone following a vehicle adorned with such a license plate.

Not all Christians in South Carolina are in favor of the plates, I might add.  In fact, self-described evangelical Rev. Robert Knight of Charleston had me saying, “Amen” to his comment.  Rev. Knight observed, “I don’t think civil religion enhances the Christian religion.  It compromises it.  That’s the fundamental irony.  It’s very shallow from a Christian standpoint.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself. 

If you ever saw any of the countless design programs on HGTV where a room or other portion of someone’s house is redecorated you know that when the homeowner is ushered back in to see the fabulous results he or she invariably says, “Oh my God.”  Sometimes as they eyeball the various aspects or features of their “new” space they repeat the phrase.  Over and over and over again.  “Oh my God!  Oh my God!”  I don’t know whether this is a learned behavior of the design program aficionados, whether it is scripted, or whether this is a natural reaction.

I do know that it’s a good thing these programs aren’t taped in Yemen.

In that country un-elected, un-appointed, un-paid “morals police” roam the highways and by-ways looking for people who violate religious rules and practices.  Imagine if they overheard someone taking God’s name in vain.

Apparently, these guys – yes, they are men, of course – all wear beards, and they are ready, willing, and extremely anxious to swoop down on violators.  One publicized case involved a group of university students, male and female, that walked out of class together into the light of day.  A bearded “street committee” broke up this immoral gang of miscreants shouting, “Is this a lover’s lane?”  When by-standers reacted against the beard boys, they were met with, “Do you want us to wait until they start having sex in the street?”

Some “religious leaders” are trying to get the Yemen government to appoint a sanctioned virtue and vice force that would, at the very least, have the power to arrest those who don’t toe the line of official religious interpretation.

Saudi Arabia already has this in place.

Sometimes one has the impression there are folks in our country who might like to see the same approach taken.  And, while they may not all wear beards, there are plenty of would-be self-appointed “virtue and vice” enforcers.  In some places and times they wore bed sheets and burned crosses.  Some hold forth on talk radio.  Some advocate for constitutional amendments.  Some are named Fred Phelps.

Their hatred and how they justify it on a “Christian” or “faith” or “family values” basis mystifies me.

But, I suppose, in a free society where people can wear bathing suits that look like the national flag, and in which bumper stickers containing insults, crudity, and profanity are displayed, and pick-up trucks have testicle-shaped ornaments dangling underneath, they have a right.

Just don’t do something un-Christian, or there will be hell to pay.

The sudden death of Tim Russert, NBC News Washington Bureau Chief, and host of Meet The Press sent shockwaves all across the nation.  He died much too young, and left a gaping hole in the lives of his immediate family members and friends, and in the reasoned and intelligent political discourse of our country.  Tributes poured in from every direction, articles were written about him, and his world of television devoted numerous hours to portraying the story of his life and work.

Consistent in the testimonies from those who knew him, worked with him, and were interviewed by him was the notion that Russert reflected values important to him that he learned and embraced from his childhood in Buffalo, New York.  Always mentioned, in addition to the emphasis on love of family, and hard work, was faith.  Tim Russert was Catholic, and it meant a lot to him.

Timothy Shriver shares his personal reflections on Russert, and tells of a recent conversation the two had regarding Shriver’s uncle, Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), recently diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor.  Russert told Shriver he was praying for his uncle, using his wood bead rosary.

Shriver took comfort in this support from Russert, and wrote, “Many things will be written about the greatness of this brilliant journalist in the days ahead, and many people knew him far better than I.  But I hope amid all the political and journalistic wisdom, people will remember that Tim Russert was a man raised and steeped in faith – a faith that focused on service, a faith that is confident in God’s plan, and a faith dedicated to the love of peace and the work of justice.”

Tim Russert didn’t make a lot of noise about his religious convictions, but his faith colored his behavior and relationships.  It was evident to those who knew him. 

Clearly, this is the most effective witness.

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.”