Theology vs. Mission

I really enjoy the youth Bible Study that has been meeting this year on Wednesday nights. Recently we have gathered at Smokey Row, a locally owned coffee shop and soda fountain near downtown Des Moines. There is a church building across the street with beautiful stained glass windows that was abandoned in 2004. Recently, a religious group purchased the decaying building to fix it up and "do church" there. For the first time last night, we noticed lights on inside the church and people walking in and out. After about five minutes of speculating, we decided to go over and see what was happening.



The people at the church were very friendly. We were invited inside for a tour. The church folk had just concluded a worship service which had involved over 50 kids from the neighborhood (mostly Sudanese refugees). One of the people, Erin, spoke about the church's passion for missions, indicating that "If money weren't an issue, all of us would be overseas doing mission work." The old sanctuary space is now used as a warehouse for donations that are being sent to Haiti. Erin said they had sent 40 pallets of water, clothing, and computer equipment last month and are preparing for a similar shipment next week.

After a tour of the church and a delightful conversation with several of the people there, it was time to go. Our young people were very excited by this church's passion for local and global outreach. They also soon became aware that this church's theology was very different from ours. As we departed, I asked the young people to spend time thinking about this question:

Would you rather be at a church that is theologically rancid but does amazing mission work...or, would you prefer to be at a church that is theologically solid but apathetic about missions?

I pose this question to the people of koinonia as well. What do you think and why?

Things That Make You Go "Hmmmm"

The best part of doing a blog is the conversation that takes place in the "comments" section. I follow a few dozen church-related sites and occasionally participate in the back-and-forth that occurs between other readers. I hope that koinonia readers have a similar experience.

I was disappointed to discover that a popular Lutheran blog might not have the same philosophy.

Yesterday I read an article on Pretty Good Lutherans, a site run by Susan Hogan. The topic was the Augsburg Fortress pension circumstance. (More info here) After some fact-sharing and editorializing about the termination of the defined benefit compensation retirement plan, Hogan offered a sample resolution for people to make at synod assemblies, a memo from ELCA Secretary David Swartling, and a response from ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson.

Both the tone of Hogan's article and the accusations made within the reader comments didn't sit right with me...so I decided to offer a comment of my own:

Pastors and other church leaders calling for Beth Lewis to be fired. Rostered leaders bashing David Swartling for being a lawyer. Baiting readers into an emotional frenzy with leading questions and accusatory statements.

This doesn’t sound like a group of “Pretty Good Lutherans”.

What happened with the AFP pensions is regrettable, but why the need to slander Lewis and Swartling as an expression of outrage?

Not a single person who has commented on this blog post knows the whole story, and yet many are passing judgment on individuals as though they are fully informed. Furthermore, even if you do know the whole story, why the personal attacks? I’d like to think that pastors and other church leaders are above such tactics.

I’m sure pastors would be upset if church members publicly called them out while using incomplete information and speculation. Why the double standard?

Certainly there’s a better way of showing support to the former AFP employees than slinging accusations and assuming the worst out of Lewis, Swartling, et al.

You won't see this comment on Pretty Good Lutherans because it didn't get approved. I inquired (via Twitter and the PGL website) about why my comment wasn't added to the conversation.

No reply.

Therefore I'm left to speculate as to why I wasn't added to the growing list of comments. Did I violate a code-of-conduct with my remarks? Is Hogan concerned that I serve on a Churchwide task force with Swartling...or that I write for Augsburg Fortress...or that my dad is on the Augsburg board of trustees? Is there no room for dissenting opinions to be shared on Pretty Good Lutherans? I wish I had been given the courtesy of a response, even if it was simply to say "I don't approve of your comment."


Why am I making such a big deal out of this? Two reasons:

• When writers, church leaders, and blog readers claim to love Lutherans, but use their network of influence to mistreat fellow Lutherans with whom they disagree, the church is weakened. It may feel good to use the Internet as a place to publicly vent about frustrations with certain people, but it weakens the body of Christ and our public witness when we do this.

• I dislike blog censorship as it pertains to civil discourse. If a person doesn't use inappropriate language, make threats of violence or verbal attacks...why remove their comment? If a person says something foolish, let them stand on the merits of their words and allow other readers to question their insights. As a website that is widely read and highly regarded in the Lutheran community, Pretty Good Lutherans has an obligation to be forthcoming and transparent in its initial reporting and with reader feedback. I hope that I'm the only one who has been given the silent treatment, but if I'm not, and there are others who are being omitted from the conversation, that's a shame.
  

I'm sure Susan Hogan is a fine person. We had a very pleasant meeting a few months ago. She has graciously linked to several things I've written, and she does a wonderful job of highlighting some unique ministries within the ELCA. I mean her no ill-will. If Susan would like to respond to my original comment about the pension situation or the content of what I have written here, she is more than welcome to do so on koinonia...even if I disagree with what she has to say.

Two Things That Made Me Think

Thing #1
Bishop N.T. Wright, from a presentation entitled "The Future of the People of God", has some thoughts on ecclesiology:

People have tended in the church to think that the first question is: "How can we get our act together within the church?" and if we have any time and energy left over, "How can we be God's people for the world?"

I've been convinced for many years that that's putting the cart before the horse and that...the question is, "Who are we supposed to be for the world; what is our mission and how do we do it?" and then to ask, "What sort of structures do we need in order to do that?"

Thing #2
Doug Pagitt has some thoughts on the National Day of Prayer.

LIFT Comment

One of the best comments made on the LIFT / Ecology of the ELCA website:

I suggest that, for the 25th anniversary of the ELCA, we correct an original oversight and name four expressions: Home, Congregation, Synod, Churchwide.

Home is where faith is caught; where the “people in the pew” live and love and make decisions. It is at least as important to our self-understanding and self-definition as all the rest (I believe MORE important).

It’s high time for a small change.

Amen, Paul Hanson! I love this idea...

Pray Day

"Socialist / Muslim / President Obama has canceled the National Day of Prayer!"

This is according to the rumor-mongers on blogs and social networking sites.

On April 15 (ironically as uber-conservatives were Tea Partying) this falsehood was being "reported" every five seconds on Facebook.

Some will take this as an opportunity to lambaste the un-vetted, unfiltered, anything-goes world of Facebook. I'm tired of that topic...

Instead, here's my question: "Why all the fuss about Nation Day of Prayer?"

Even if we did away with the National Day, religious folks would still be able to pray to their deity of choice with the same freedom that they can any other day. Furthermore, I believe religious organizations should be the ones to encourage daily prayer; not the government. We are a nation founded on religious freedoms, including the freedom to not espouse any particular religion. Which begs another question:

"Why do we have the National Day of Prayer?"

It seems a Wisconsin federal judge, when faced with a similar question, declared the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional. This is sure to incite outrage among some in the Christian community.

For many people of faith, myself included, this is much ado about nothing. We will continue our normal prayer rituals on May 6...and we will pray with the confidence that God hears our prayers no matter what day it is.

Sunday Ride

Our family has enjoyed several bike rides together already this spring. Today's route was 6.5 miles and took us about 2 hours, which included stops at a couple of city parks. I really enjoy using MapMyRun to figure out how far we traveled. It's also fun to share various routes with other people.

Social Media Stats

This video is almost one year old - so some of the data might be out-of-date - but it contains fascinating information about social networking and social media.



I'm planning to use this at church when talking to adults about Facebook, social networking, and Web 2.0. What other video resources would you recommend?