Tim Sisk

Live blogging from Annual Conference

2007-06-11T15:11:00.000-07:00

Just to see if I can.

Worth Reading "Stupid Evangelical Tricks"

2007-04-09T14:22:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure I agree with the title of his post (I don't like the "stupid" and "tricks"), but I certainly agree enough with the substance of his post, that I wanted to pass on the internetmonk's "Top Five Mistakes" evangelicals are making right now.

HT: Locust and honey

Blog Move

2005-09-12T21:45:00.000-07:00

I'm moving my blog over to a new website: TimSisk.com. I'm still building it, but my posting will be over there. Please update your bookmarks, come over and read, and continue the conversation with me.

Heh.

2005-09-12T07:02:00.000-07:00

Hat tip: Kaus

My apologies to Dean

2005-09-12T05:37:00.000-07:00

Dean responds to my Venice UMC-Sheehan Post Mortem 3 here. I think he's right. If you don't follow the links you won't get his full comment. Also, after reading my post through I've concluded I didn't properly mitigate the part of his comments that I respond to with the full post.

I think blogging etiquette prevents me from substantively editing the post, so I'll leave an update at the post and quote Dean's full comment to the Venice UMC-Sheehan Post Mortem 2 here.

He wrote:

About this partisan question: I am actually very cautious here. I was asked by the Washington Post about clergy endorsing candidates from their pulpits. The article is now archived by the Post and you have to pay to read it, but Maggie Gallagher quotes part of my remarks. I said that I cannot imagine endorsing a candidate myself, but I believe strongly in the freedom of the pulpit. If Scripture led a preacher to condemn a candidate --say someone preaching in Germany in the 1930s condemning Adolph Hitler when he was running for office -- we have to defend the freedom of the preacher to do that.

Then too I am thinking this way: once a candidate is elected, talking about him or her isn't partisan anymore. They are now everyone's president, everyone's Secretary of Defense, etc., whether you voted for this administration or not. Criticize away if your engagement with Scripture leads you to this word.

Why did no one call preaching about Clinton's sexual mistakes partisan? Aren't policies that result in people living or dying just as much a matter of morality?

Tim, where's the flaw in the way I am thinking here?
Dean

Venice UMC-Sheehan Discussion Post-Mortem, Part 3

2005-09-11T19:32:00.000-07:00

Here is my response to comments (here and here) by both Stephen Fife and Dean Snyder:

Dean and Stephen:

Dean writes here:

Why did no one call preaching about Clinton's sexual mistakes partisan? Aren't policies that result in people living or dying just as much a matter of morality?

A sentiment echoed by Stephen:

Thank you Dean for raising my point again. Why is it only bad when it involves Bush and not Clinton?

I’ve made it clear on my blog that I believe it wrong to mix partisan politics with religious activity regardless of the political party being supported or denounced. I'm not expecting you to know that, after all, my blog is only a month old. But let me state for the record, I’m no fan of the Moral Majority, Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family (when they are involved in politics), or any other politically active religious right group even if I share some political and theological values with them. Raising the issue of Clinton seems to me to be a diversion, as I haven’t suggested that it was okay to preach against him nor was my blog around at the time to comment upon it contemporaneously.

Stephen:

Stephen asks here about pastors who spoke against Bill Clinton and John Kerry:

So what am I supposed to do? Should I write to all these pastors and demand them to explain their actions?

My answer: If they are United Methodist and you are in covenant with them, then, yes, you should engage them. (Which incidentally I did when I contacted the Rev. Tom Zeigert, appealing to our order as the ordained, about the Venice UMC Event that sparked this discussion). Be respectful, but seek a conversation with them. Regarding clergy from other denominations, I don’t think we really have a covenant that can allow for such conversation to take place except with our own personal relationships with pastors from other denominations. And, I would add, ecumenism can be damaged if we regularly practice judgment with one another without that convenant.

Dean:

The fact that you raise the issue of Clinton pretty much confirms my point to begin with. Mixing religious and political activity leaves the preacher and the church open to charges of inconsistency and hypocrisy. It is almost impossible to be completely fair because of our own political predispositions. We tend to turn a blind eye to those whom we agree with politically while searching for ways to condemn those with whom we disagree. And surely you aren't suggesting that its okay to do anything just because the other side does it. (That is how conflict escalates into war, btw). I punish my kids equally for hitting one another, no matter who started hitting first.

Further, it is easy to recognize political problems that require a Christian response. *Solving* those political problems can be much more difficult. Prayerful, reflective responses may involve a variety of faithful but diametric approaches.

An example: poverty. Very few Christians will debate that one of our primary places of ministry should occur among the least and the lost. But how do we evaluate governmental social policy in light of these concerns? For example, many of the Christian left opposed the Welfare Reform Act during the Clinton administration. (I know the National Council of Churches opposed it. I’m pretty sure that the General Board of Church and Society did as well but the links were broken when I did a search at the United Methodist website.) They did so with a certainty that would take the breath away from the most die-hard fundamentalist (one of the glaring weaknesses of the fundamentalist is the perspective that sees things so simplistically that it is almost dualistic: black and white or right and wrong, there are no gray areas).

Was the Welfare Reform Act that sought to fix the problems of the Great Society programs immoral? Did the Bible say that the welfare programs of the Great Society were the right approach? I don't know. I don't know enough about economics, law, political theory, or the welfare program to be able to speak with that kind of certainty. I'm just preacher. But I have read widely enough to know that the issue is complex and that reasonable people will disagree. Here I want to point you to two secular writers. Read this post by Megan McArdle which deals with the complexity of social change. The book I would like for you to buy is this book by Mickey Kaus, The End of Equality. It is a bit utopic and pretty radical in its suggestions, but does a good job of explaining how damaging the pre-reform welfare programs were to the very people they intended to help.

The preacher and the church that takes sides with such specificity on political issues or candidates (or elected officials) stand in judgment, right or wrong. When the pastor and the church speak, they speak with authority, and with authority comes great responsibility for ones actions. And while judgment isn’t necessarily evil, the possibility of evil being committed when doing it should cause one to tread very, very lightly.

Here Dean writes:

Then too I am thinking this way: once a candidate is elected, talking about him or her isn't partisan anymore. They are now everyone's president, everyone's Secretary of Defense, etc., whether you voted for this administration or not. Criticize away if your engagement with Scripture leads you to this word.

Me: I have never written nor addressed a sermon to an individual person. Criticism, if required, should be a private concern, not a public one. I don’t believe my authority from the pulpit gives me the freedom to criticize by name anyone. The instances in scripture where this is done are very, very rare and were done by widely admitted “prophets”. I’m not a prophet, I’m a pastor. And only in extremely exceptional circumstances would I admit that I should.

So, if you think Bush is about to start a genocide that will kill 6 million people, well then, bang away.

UPDATE: After Dean left a comment I reread the post and feel like I wasn't entirely fair to Dean. Here's my apology and the full quote of his comment.

Venice UMC-Sheehan Discussion Post-Mortem, Part 2

2005-09-09T22:12:00.000-07:00

I had planned to make some final observations in response to the Rev. Tom Zeigert (pastor of Venice (CA) UMC). Tom graciously emailed (here and here) after I inquired about an event held at Venice UMC in April of this year. Before I was finished with that response, Dean Snyder (who has the coolest named Methoblog) has written and linked to these series of posts. I ended up combining my response to Tom Zeigert with a response to Dean Snyder. This had made for a VERY long post. I hope you’ll stick around and read the whole thing. (I just hope my English Comp teacher doesn’t find this blog, she’s liable to collapse in disgust and shame at having passed me in her class).

As I commented here on his blog, I agree with Dean for the most part but have a few points that I would like to quibble with him. Dean Snyder titles his post with the question: “Is Opposing War Partisan?” and opens with the statement: “Tim Sisk has raised the issue of whether opposing the War in Iraq is a partisan political activity.”

My first “quibble” is that I find the title and the first sentence to be (unintentionally) unfair to me and my series of posts. The title of the post comes pretty close to a “loaded question” in that it is a question with a disputed supposition. I didn’t make the claim that opposing war is a partisan activity, nor did I make the claim that opposing the War in Iraq is a partisan political activity. I did, however, over the course of these postings make essentially three points regarding the Venice UMC-Sheehan Event:

1. There should be a disconnect between partisan, political activity and the activity of the church.

2. The Venice UMC April 2005 event was a partisan, political activity (for specific reasons which I’ll reiterate below.)

3. There was no condemnation or pastoral response that recognized the absence of the language of love in Sheehan’s remarks (the only speech at the event that I have found posted online).

The reason this is bothersome for me is that I intentionally didn’t say what Dean suggests I said. I wrote to Tom Zeigert (posted here):

As I mentioned in my email to you and the post of my blog, my interest isn't to debate the issue of the Iraq war. Perhaps part of our struggles in becoming faithful disciples might involve in doing such a thing, but I'm choosing not to do that at this time or in this forum. I think we can agree, though, that war is always less than God's perfect will.

I did conclude that their event was partisan political activity:

I think one could defend a speaker list of people opposed to war in general. A speaker list that only includes those who are opposed to the Iraq war is troublesome. (What can be the harm in hearing from people who support the war?) A speaker list that includes people who not only oppose the war but who have very publicly expressed anti-Bush sentiment is absolutely indefensible and tendentious.

Admittedly my writing style is muddy (I’m more of an oral communicator) and working to improve my writing is one of the reasons I started blogging. My intention was to make a rhetorical point. A speaker list of people opposed to war in general would be defensible in that it is well within accepted and widely agreeable Christian thinking. A speaker list that only includes those opposed to a particular war would be troublesome (but not partisan and political) in that it limits a full and free expression of ideas, which is why I asked parenthetically, “What can be the harm in hearing from people who support the war”. I had in mind people who find the casus belli of that war to be just as well as the conduct of that war. (I’ll address Dean’s point that not all viewpoints are equal in the church below. ) It is the next sentence where I reveal the tipping point, “A speaker list of those who not only oppose the war but have very publicly expressed anti-Bush sentiment is absolutely indefensible and tendentious.” Here the language of “only” (i.e. exclusively), “those” (i.e. plural), and “publicly expressed anti-Bush sentiment” (anti-Bush) are particularly important to my point.

I can imagine a scenario where Sheehan is invited to speak at the church, say, next month. I might expect sharp language from her (hopefully not of the sort she used in the April 19 event). Even if she were strongly anti-Bush, I wouldn’t say that the church hosting her was guilty of partisan, political activity. This is, after all, one person’s speech. In the Venice UMC event, a panel of speakers were anti-Bush. The plurality of speakers anti-Bush is one of the tipping points that makes this for me a partisan, political speech.

I would add that Dean Snyder is welcome to come to my church at any time and speak against war in general and against the Iraq War, specifically. Why? There is no history of partisan, political activity in his speeches (unless you have some confessing you want to do Dean *wink*). Anyone that hears him speak or knows that he will be speaking, knows that Dean will be speaking from a faith informed by his understanding of the Bible, Church teachings, experience, and reason. He is not compromised as a partisan, political speaker. No mistaken assumption could be made that hosting him was tacitly or explicitly advocating a political view.

But a conference (or event) featuring the speaker list described above—well that’s a horse of a different color—partisan, political activity.

Second quibble: Snyder writes: “Note that both viewpoints—for and against a war—are not equal within the church… Our bias is against war and against every particular war, even when some may conclude that a particular war is a necessary evil.”. He does this appealing to the Social Principles. I don’t think the Social Principles are as unambiguous with respect to war as Snyder would assert, I think they allow for a just war theology (and I would add that something that is just can’t be evil). I really do think my characterization of war in my first letter to Zeigert captures our teaching a bit more accurately, that is, war is always less than God’s perfect will.

But even if I’m wrong and Dean is right, then I still think his point is problematic. Consider how Dean’s reasoning would work in the following hypothetical scenario:

What if I were a member of Foundry UMC and wanted to host a symposium against same-sex marriage. Would his church favor this event (even if most of his congregation was against it), particularly since this is the teaching of the UMC? [ed--But isn't it true that the Social Principles argue for equal rights under the law for homosexuals? Me: Yeah, but if its clergy can’t preside at a homosexual marriage services, then the only way to reconcile these two views is that the United Methodist Church doesn’t recognize that marriage would fall under the equal rights category for homosexuals.] Here, it would seem, the church has taken the position against civil recognition of marriage.

I can’t speak for Dean on this, but I can imagine his church inveighing about such a conference. I can’t imagine his church believing that it needn’t be balanced in favor of presenting just such a view. And I doubt Foundry's ministers or church board being comfortable with Foundry hosting and promoting such an event.

I certainly don’t need to remind Dean the arguments that many made when the homosexual prohibitions were entered originally into the Social Principles was that the Social Principles are not binding upon the church, but are guidelines to describe the general teaching of the church, a view upheld by the Judicial Council with the exception of the homosexual prohibitions.

In my reading of both Tom Zeigert and Dean Snyder, I’ve noticed two curious omissions. Neither Zeigert nor Snyder address the point I raised that Sheehan’s speech was personal and repugnant (read uncharitable or un-loving) and could prevent the church from effectively ministering to at least three people (all of whom where named in the speech and spoken about in a hateful manner). I’ll ask again:

Could this church ever feel like home for them after such an event was organized? And if it cannot, is it truly a church of open minds, open hearts, and open doors if it is closed to these…men?

Why no condemnation of their personal and repugnant remarks Sheehan made about Bush, Cheney, and Wolfowitz? Just read the excerpted paragraphs in my original post. Sheehan clearly moved beyond questioning political positions to language that was personal and hateful. The language of love was clearly absent in her speech. Had the remarks been made in private, particularly in a pastoral care situation, then I would say, fine, it is healthy to let her vent and grieve the death of her son. But in a public forum, sponsored and advertised in the community, and part of a ministry strategy of growing disciples are these comments allowed to stand?

The second curious omission is that neither Tom Zeigert nor Dean Snyder admit to agreeing with me that partisan, political activity in the church is wrong and immoral (and certainly a violation of a church’s tax exempt status in some situations). Either they agree with me or don’t. I think Dean believes that partisan, political activity in the church is wrong. I would like for him to say that it is. Because unless Tom, Dean, and I can agree that it is wrong, then our conversation is pretty much a waste of time. I particularly worry that Tom is unwilling to fully condemn partisan political activity in the church, because if he does then the April 19 event at Venice UMC must be judged.

Further, the omission is important to me in that it is what I was attempting to argue from the beginning. The closest I get to it is this statement from Tom Zeigert:

Your evaluation that the event was partisan is well founded. We had hoped for better.

If you are organizing an event and wish to engage those who might be politically/culturally different from you and you know that there might be some reservation on their part to speak, feeling that your church may not be home for them, the burden lies with you to do everything in your power to insure that those barriers are overcome. To give up when an invitation is declined and to go on with an event that is culturally and politically homogenous only confirms the visceral reservations of the oppositional speakers.

In the South, there is still a cultural/political divide between races. I serve as the president of the local Ministerial Association (predominately white, but does have active minority membership and leadership). You better believe when we plan our ecumenical events, particularly the Community Thanksgiving Service hosted at the largest church building in the city (First Baptist Church [Southern Baptist]) that we make the highest effort to ensure that these cultural differences are put aside. (Last year, our thanksgiving service was preached by an ordained African-American female. She may not have been the first woman or the first African American to preach there, but I’m pretty sure she was the first African-American woman to preach there. Had we not been successful in attracting that participation, I’m sure our response would have been more substantive that “we hoped for better” and I guarantee we would not put the failure to engage on those that didn’t participate (Tom calls it “contempt prior to investigation”). We would have known that it is our failure that they felt unwelcome.

PS: We’ll agree to disagree about Michelle Shocked. You like her because she sings about peace (and that she rocks). I’ll stand by my point that her participation in this particular event was inappropriate in that her recent career has been viciously anti-Bush.

Candidly, I'll confess a short-coming on my part. Even if she weren’t anti-Bush, it is still a little weird to me to have her performing in the church. I’m not saying listening to her is sinful or anything, God forbid. But it just seems to be jarring to me to blend church work with her music. It's not the first time I felt like this so I know its probably a growing point for me. When I was a student at Candler School of Theology, Emory University, I was appointed to student appointment. My Teaching Parish supervisor was a great guy and I learned a lot from him. However, one day in one of our meetings, he told us he had accepted an offer from his credit card company to purchase a bloc of tickets for the Rolling Stones concert coming to Atlanta, who were touring for the first time in years. He bought a bunch of tickets so he could take his youth group to the concert. I just wasn’t sophisticated enough to think it wasn’t just a little weird that this would become a “church event”. My limitation probably informs my perspective with Michelle Shocked performing in the church.

But to the guys of U2, you can perform at my church any time you want...

I have finally arrived...

2005-09-09T22:03:00.000-07:00

Got my first link from Dean Snyder at United Methodist, my first comment spam, and a brief mention at Instapundit, all within a seven day period.

No longer am I a mere mortal!

WordPress and Godaddy.com

2005-09-07T21:26:00.000-07:00

I've decided to go the next step and try to move this blog off of blogger and host my account. I don't know what I'm doing, at all. But I did some research and decided to chose WordPress. Let me me say again, I don't know what I'm doing, at all. Since I registered my domain names a while ago through Godaddy.com I decided to use them again. After having a number of problems with setting up Wordpress with the account I googled the problem and found Godaddy is lousy with Wordpress to set up.

Godaddy.com won't/can't help me (Wordpress wasn't developed by us). Right now, I'm trying to work through it, but I may just cancel the account and start somewhere else. I'll update later and let you know if I have any hair left. (At this point, I'm not unhappy with Godaddy. They have kinda tried to be helpful.)

Update: Okay, scrapped the Godaddy.com webhosting. No real complaints about the company yet (we'll see if they give back my full refund, seeing how I cancelled within 4 hours of purchasing a years worth of hosting). I'm just such a newbie at this stuff that without an auto-installer, I couldn't do it.

So, I'm hosting with Blue Hosting. Auto-install of WordPress went great (though it took me a few minutes to find out how to do it). I'm ready to begin customizing WordPress (which I'll do over the next week). In the hour I've been with Blue Hosting, I like them, but no 24 hour tech service like Godaddy.com had. So we'll see.

So new sitet in a few weeks will be at TimSisk.com. I'm supposed to be able to transfer my stuff from Blogger to WordPress with out much problem. (I'm told transferring the comments may be tough, but as my comment section isn't exactly overflowing, I'm sure that won't be a problem).

It's 1 am, I'll turn in now.

Update (2): Just got notified that Godaddy.com has given me a full refund. So I have absolutely no complaints about their service and am pleased with my interaction with them. (I hope they'll find a way to auto-install WordPress though like some other web hosting companies

Technorati Problems

2005-09-07T13:31:00.000-07:00

Is it just me or has anyone else had problems getting search results from Technorati lately? I'm getting this message constantly:

Sorry, we couldn't complete your search because we're experiencing a high volume of requests right now. Please try again in a minute

Anyone else having this problem?

Favorite Sayings

2005-09-07T12:24:00.000-07:00

I love "old sayings" and find they can add color to communication. Just came across a new oldie:

Old Irish Saying: "When everyone says your drunk, you better sit down." (From Hugh Hewitt)

I'm going to keep updating this post as I find more.

Yahoo Searches

2005-09-07T11:00:00.000-07:00

I keep getting referrals to this site from Yahoo search. I finally got curious enough to check what search people were using on Yahoo to get to this blog and this is what I found:

Hurricane Katrina Flood Pics

Curiously, this blog pops up as the third item on the search. Even more curiously, it is right behind two other websites that apparently show beheading videos. I don't know what to make of that.

Why would this blog rank so high on the Yahoo search list? Especially under those search terms. (The actual post Yahoo links to doesn't have my flood pics that I posted, but rather is the Hurricane Relief Bleg I participated in with Instapundit, N. Z. Bear, Hugh Hewitt, et. al started.)

Anyone have any ideas?

Venice UMC – Sheehan Discussion Post Mortem (Part 1)

2005-09-06T21:25:00.000-07:00

First of all, let me say, thanks to everyone who read my posts on this subject. In the short life of this blog, I recorded my highest visit total during this time period. During this time I was one of many who appeared on Instapundit’s Hurricane Relif blog-bleg, so I suspect some of the numbers where a micro-Instalanche.

To encourage discussion I tried a new tactic. I checked out every blog that showed up in Wesleyblog’s Methodist bloggers list and created a mailing list from the email addresses that showed up on their blog. I then invited everyone to come in and comment on the issue.

Several folks replied, including one guy who said he wasn't Methodist but had joined Wesley's mother church. But in the end, I got one comment (thanks, Rev. Fife!) and one l ink to my posts (thanks, John the Methodist (Locusts and Honey!). No link from the Methoblogdaddy, though. Hey Shane! Over here! Look at me! (Maybe if I cut my hair real short and trade my contacts for some metal rimmed glasses and post my picture on my blog so that I look like one of those “Emerging Church” guys, Shane will link to a post of mine, occasionally).

Seriously, though, I hoped this would generate a bigger discussion than this. True, its kind of a pet subject of mine. But I am growing increasingly worried by the mixture of religion and politics in churches today. As our country grows increasingly politically polarized, I’m worried that our pews will become increasingly divided. We just don’t need the extra challenge to unity for temporary political change. (A true revolution in our country, whatever your political persuasion, will come about as hearts and minds are changed, not by the election of political candidates or ratification of political ideas.) Emphatically let me say, United Methodists don’t need the extra challenge to unity. (Consider the bizarre controversy from a few years ago when the Boy Scouts Policy Ban on Homosexual Scout leaders was supported by our United Methodist Men, quite publicly, but opposed by the General Board of Church and Society, quite publicly).

Which is why I hoped for me discussion from the Methoblogosphere. True, many people’s time and attention have been involved in other things (Hurricane Katrina is a once every 50 years kind of storm). Then you have the Lake Junaluska controversy which I didn’t want to blog about. (Heretics in the church! You’re the sodomite ‘cause you like gay people! No, you’re the sodomite because you’re inhospitable!)

Yeah, I think it was provocative for Reconciling Ministries to schedule a meeting (or whatever Dean Snyder says we should call the “Hearts On Fire!” event) in the SEJ and at a United Methodist Conference Center. (After a General Conference where the business meeting was interrupted by a “peaceful protest”, broken chalice, etc., how can you be surprised at the provocation?) I appreciate Dean and read his blog nearly every day (you should too! He's a great guy!). Dean worries about language so let me point out this entry from the Reconciling Ministries Network Blog:

We are evangelical," Preston said, commenting on the hijacking of that word by conservative members of the denomination.

"Hijacking" is a much more inflammatory and pejorative word than the IRD's use of the words "rally" and "jamboree" wouldn't you agree?

I, for one, however, don’t want to open a new front in the war between progressives and conservatives by legislating who should get to use what facility. I said it here and I’ll say it again, for me, the issue isn’t homosexuality but how we can reconcile divergent views about the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in interpreting the Bible. Besides, the only way to really effect change is through changing hearts and minds, not through legislation.

But I digress.

As I reread this entry prior to posting, it sounds so negative, but I don’t mean it to be so. I’m typing most of this with a smile on my face (perhaps because the Tonight Show is on the tube behind me—I love Headlines!). But in my next post, I’ll post my last response to the Rev. Tom Ziegert email as well as a reply to the Rev. Fife’s comment.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist Dead...

2005-09-03T20:28:00.000-07:00

My prayers go out to his family, friends, and colleagues.

Update: Second Response from the Rev. Tom Zeigert

2005-09-02T11:49:00.000-07:00

I just received a gracious email from the Rev. Tom Zeigert about the April 2005 Event at Venice UMC. Tom responds to my email to him that I posted here. He clarifies some assumptions that I make about that event, so I wanted to make sure this gets posted as quickly as possible.

As I read his email, Tom makes the following points:

1. Invitations were sent out to speakers representing diverse viewpoints, not all invitations were accepted, probably because of Venice's reputation as a left wing community.
2. The event was partisan but the church had hoped for better.
3. The church plays an important role in being a voice of conscience to business and goverment while being independent of both.
4. Demographics and varying world views will lead to different strategies for leading the lost to Christ. His previous appointment was in a military community and he was successful there.
5. Tom is not a pacifist, but war is always evil. There is a place for a strong military. God isn't pleased by the evil we do but does forgive. Just war is bad theology and pastors who don't point that out are guilty of the bad theology of convenience.
6. Given the the overwhelming cynicism in the Venice community for professed Christianity, Tom's ministry requires him to affirm his community's passions and commitments and to affirm their place in the world.

I hope that I have summarized it accurately, but just in case, I include the email he sent in full below (Note: I was having trouble with the formatting when I cut and paste, so I retyped the letter so if I made a mistake I'll go back and fix it):

Dear Tim,
(And please call me Tom). Thank you for sharing with me your observations and concerns. All of them are reasonable and appropriate and well founded. No "buts."
Just to clear up a few assumptions:

(1) Gen. Tommy Franks was in LA during the event, was invited, but didn't respond. Local organizations, including those involved in the Apr 19 event have people from the White House Administration, including California Representatives and our 2 Senators, and our own US Rep. (our local US Rep is Jane Harman, a democrat who continues to voice support for the war in Iraq),
Venice has a reputation for having a large extremely left wing population, you might say. I'm sure it feels unfriendly to many who hold traditional world views--"contempt prior to investigation." Usually they tend to beg off when invited. Were any to accept, we would make sure the environment would be more balanced. We have tried to make sure those we invited could set guidelines to feel less threatened.

Your evaluation that the event was partisan is well founded. We had hoped for better. But just because one viewpoint refuses to show up doesn't mean the other should be quiet, particularly when the opposing viewpoint is getting its way. You know, the founding fathers worked to create a balance of power not only in government but in society itself. They worked to make it the case that the de facto power of Land holders and businessmen in combination wit the de jure power of government would be balanced by the institutional power of the church, whereby the church would never be influenced by government but influence it and business morally and ethically. Uncompassionate capitalism would be tempered by God: "In God We Trust" right on our money! The church in America was designed to critique policy and systemic oppression. What I love most about the UMC is that it has always been faithful to its role in American society.

(2) Just as you begin your ministry with your neighbors with where they are in their world view, so do I. In Starkville, my ministry would initially look much differently than it does here. But, in the end we both seek to lead the unchurched, agnostic, and pain-filled to Jesus Christ. You will agree with me, I'm sure that the demographics and world-view of Venice California is far different from those in Starkville Mississippi. It really wouldn't be fair for me to judge your ministry strategy against mine, or vice-a-versa. (In the end, maybe someone will count the saved.)

(3) You have suggested that I am a pacifist. That is not my evaluation of myself. You missed my point that while wars do not lead to peace, sometimes we must choose the lesser of two evils. ["At the same time, it is important for people to understand that sometimes a system corrupted by the powers and principalities...leave us no good choice but only the lesser of two evils."]
A strong military is appropriate and wars will be fought. But, I do not pretend that any war is "just," "good," or "right," only better than the alternatives sometimes. God must weep when we kill one another. God is never pleased with the evil we do. But God forgives because God understands, and Jesus Christ is the proof. But war is not good and no good comes from it, maybe only less evil (and I'm not sure about that). {FYI: My last appointment was in Tentynine Palms where the largest Air-Ground Marine Base is. Many of my congregants were Marines and Veterans. My ministry was considered successful as we experienced a 600% increase in church attendance while I was there.}

I am not a fan of Augustine nor am I impressed that the Roman Catholic Church wants to draw some fine lines on "just" and "unjust" wars. The United Methodist Church, in our Social Principles par. 165 B & C calls it rightly, in my mind: All nations have a right to determine their own destinies but war is evil--though sometimes necessary. I think any church that allows those who come to it for guidance in faith to believe that some killing is just misses the entire New Testament's point: Killing is never just or right, merely forgivable. [I will be very clear too: Just because a professed Christian believes that there can be a just war does not make it so. They have been misled. And the pastor that lets them get away with it has a bad theology of convience. How much more powerful it is to know, that in world that sometimes leaves us no good choice, God understands, loves, and forgives when men and women will not.

(4) One last point about strategy for Christian growth: 90% of Venice is unchurched. Some of the reasons include that the church is in bed with governent, irrelevant, without compassion, supporting views repugnant to them, too many laws not enough human dignity, too judgmental not compassionate, I'm sure you could expand this list even from your distance removed. I meet people where they are. I affirm their passions and understand their commitments. I remind them that God is with them and loves them. Jesus died for them. Then teach them to live rightly with God and look to Him for guidance. One thing I learned in the barrios of LA: Before you can bring people to Jesus, you need to bring "bread" to them. Its no small thing to affirm a person's place in the world. And its and even greater thing when someone who felt abandoned by God can affirm God's place in the world again. You might be surprised to learn what man people who come to this church, cynical and repelled by what appears as professed Christianity, wind up confessing to me and asking me about and professing to me. But, that's my ministry.

Hopefully, this is not a debate. I do not deny your respectable position. I just live somewhere else and have something else in mind. You may have noticed that I do have a motivating understanding of the gospel that guides me and restricts me. It is how God chose to impress me so that I would do what he would have me do. I am also sure that God guides you as well. I am thankful for your ministry and that God has helped us connect. I praise God for the passions that drive you and your faithful actions. All of us here at Venice UMC are praying in word and deed for the deliverance of those who are effected by the hurricane and its devastation.

Blessings and peace, Tom.

My reponse to the Rev. Ziegert (Very Long Post, sorry!)

2005-09-01T22:06:00.000-07:00

Below is my response to the Rev. Ziegert. My original post on the April 2005 Event at Venice (CA) UMC can be found here. The pastor of Venice UMC, the Rev. Ziegert, responds to my email requesting information about the event and his thoughts on politcal activity in church can be found here. My lengthy response back to him is below:

From: William Timothy Sisk [mailto:tim at timsisk dot org]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 10:49 PM
To: veniceumc *at* aol *dot* com
Subject: RE: Cindy Sheehan speech at Venice UMC

Dear Rev. Ziegert,

Please feel free to address me as Tim. Thank you for taking time out of your schedule to respond to my email. Let me also express appreciation for your ministry. I hope you had a refreshing and enjoyable vacation. Sometimes pastors forget to reserve some "Sabbath" time away church and ministerial duties to the detriment of their person, family, and ministry.

While I suspect that there are many issues we will disagree about, in times like these, when so many in my state and neighboring Louisiana are suffering, it is important to focus on that which can unite us. I am appreciative of the connectional system and the strength of our response when we face difficult crises. I am particularly grateful for the work of UMCOR, a ministry of our connection, and urge support of their relief efforts.

As I mentioned in my email to you and the post of my blog, my interest isn't to debate the issue of the Iraq war. Perhaps part of our struggles in becoming faithful disciples might involve in doing such a thing, but I'm choosing not to do that at this time or in this forum. I think we can agree, though, that war is always less than God's perfect will.

As I expressed in my post, I am troubled by UM churches being involved in political activity. As politics are a part of life, I agree with you when you write that “politics [are] unavoidable when we live in community”. (But I believe we should tread very, very lightly). I don’t, however, believe churches of any stripe, theological persuasion, or political leaning should be involved in partisan, political activity. Based on the media reports that I have read about your April 19 event, I believe that your church did just that.

I come to this conclusion for a couple of reasons. First, I'm concerned about the speaker roster. I think one could defend a speaker list of people opposed to war in general. A speaker list that only includes those who are opposed to the Iraq war is troublesome. (What can be the harm in hearing from people who support the war?) A speaker list that includes people who not only oppose the war but who have very publicly expressed anti-Bush sentiment is absolutely indefensible and tendentious. Given that this event was publicized before and after by various "left-wing" (I don't mean that pejoratively) media outlets suggests to me that I'm not the only one who sees the predominate (in fact only ) perspective of the event. (Consider this, this, this, and this.)

Secondly, it is hard for me to imagine how this event could be part of any church strategy for Christian growth. Perhaps the inclusion of Michelle Shocked [website here, warning nudity and language] is what tips me over in this. Although I’ve never been a fan of hers, I’m not opposed to secular music. I listen to secular music and even use it sometimes in a positive way in my Bible studies (The Rolling Stones “Sympathy for the Devil” is a favorite that I used before.) But as each church has different approaches to living and preaching the gospel, I’ll concede that perhaps this is something that I just don’t get. But put this together with the first reason expressed above, I do feel pretty strongly this was a partisan event.

Even if we can’t agree that the event was a partisan, political activity and should be discouraged, I am troubled that the event could comprise your church’s ministry.

Some quotes from the event:

Is there anyone in America who cannot yet see that Donald Rumsfeld is a liar...that he, as with Hitler and Stalin....will say anything so long as he thinks it will help shape the world to his own liking? Is there even one, sane adult among us who cannot see that Donald Rumsfeld is a threat to our nation’s security and to peace on our beloved earth?

{snip}

As soft-spoken and sincere-sounding as Paul Wolfowitz is, is there yet any sane adult in this country whose skin does not crawl when this murderous liar opens his mouth and speaks? Am I the only person in this room who clearly sees that Paul Wolfowitz is a threat to our nation’s security...and to peace on our beloved earth?

Can we not agree that however one feels about Rumsfeld’s policies, linking him to Hitler and Stalin (two men who history says are directly responsible for deaths of 12 million people) is unsuitable in any setting but certainly out of place in church. I can’t imagine a Christian response that could defend the personal invective expressed in just these two paragraphs. Consider what Christ said:

⁴³ "You have heard that it was said, “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” ⁴⁴ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ⁴⁵ that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. ⁴⁶ If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? ⁴⁷ And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? ⁴⁸ Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:43-48 TNIV).

Surely the above Sheehan quotes regarding Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz qualifies as hateful speech. It is certainly ugly and insulting to these two men. And regarding the ugly, insulting language directing toward these two men, consider the words of James:

⁹ With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God's likeness. ¹⁰ Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. ¹¹ Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? ¹² My brothers and sisters, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water. (James 3:9-12 TNIV).

One might say, it is unfair for the church to be responsible for the content of the remarks of these speakers. To which I respond, surely it wasn’t a surprise what the speakers were going to say. And it certainly was clear from the speaker roster what position the church was taking in that only speakers who were stridently opposed to the Iraq war and who had voiced strong positions against the Bush administration spoke. I’m not suggesting that the church was able to view their speeches before hand, but many of the invited speakers have a famously partisan reputation. (I am unaware of media reports regarding Cindy Sheehan prior to this event, therefore she may have been an exception at the time, though I suspect not, because she was, after all, invited to this event).

Further, I would suggest part of your duty as the pastor of this church is to point out when that the language of love is absent in these remarks. Perhaps you did, or have, or you intend to do it. Silly as it may sound, do you think your church could minister to either Cheney or Wolfowitz if they came to Venice United Methodist Church after Sheehan’s personal, repugnant remarks went un-condemned by the pastor? Could this church ever feel like home for them after such an event was organized? And if it cannot, is it truly a church of open minds, open hearts, and open doors if it is closed to these two men? Could our fellow United Methodist George Bush feel like this church is a place he could worship in after this church was bathed in the music of Michelle Shocked, who has made her recent musical career mocking and demeaning him? Is there no room at the table of your church for serious, reflective Christians who have come to the conclusion that this war might be just? Can they not at least be heard from? Will they ever have the confidence in knowing that they will be fairly and respectfully listened to (heard) after your church hosted this event?

And if you take the view that all wars are unjust have you not made a judgment that faithful Christians high (Augustine) and low who believe in a Just War theology (even if it is debatable whether the Iraq War would fall under that doctrine) are sinful and wrong? I’m considering your response below when you write, “Whenever I can, I speak against war and how war never has brought a lasting peace but is a preamble to more violence. I consider that an extension of New Testament gospel.” I consider pacifism to be a very defensible response to war. But I think it is important to point out that there are many serious and devout Christians that believe that there can be just war even if it is less than God’s perfect will. While I don’t preach pacifism, I have made sure that when I lead studies on the morality of war that I’ve made it clear that I thought pacifism was a strongly defensible theology even as I argued that I personally believe in a doctrine of Just War. (And here, I recognize that our Social Principles articulates neither pacifism nor Just War.

I apologize for the length of this email. As I promised in my blog post, I would post your response should I receive it. I will also be posting this email. I welcome any further comments from you on this issue and will post them accordingly. I want to be fair to you and if you feel I haven’t or that you have been misrepresented in anyway, please, please let me know and I’ll rectify it quickly and publicly. I’m interested in the conversation, not in condemning you or your church. I have a great deal of respect for you and your ministry (feeling yoked with you by our ordination as elders in the United Methodist Church). Our connectional system makes us strong as does our diverse life experiences.

Grateful for your ministry,

Tim

The Rev. Tim Sisk
Pastor
Aldersgate United Methodist Church

Update on Cindy Sheehan speech at Venice UMC

2005-09-01T20:49:00.000-07:00

In April 2005, Venice (CA) United Methodist Church hosted an event that I felt crossed the line of acceptable political activity by a United Methodist Church. I blogged about it here. In my original post I wrote:

I have emailed the Rev. Ziergert for more information about the event and asked for his thoughts about political activity and the church. I'll post his response when it is received. I want to make clear, it is not my intention to criticize any one for the content of their remarks. Rather, my point is that I think such an event might be problematic for ministry.

The Rev. Ziegert was on vacation and so wasn't able to respond until now. I appreciate the time he spend responding as well as his courtesy. As promised, here is his response:

From: veniceumc@aol.com [mailto:veniceumc@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 12:54 PM
To: tim@timsisk.org
Subject: Cindy Sheehan speech at Venice UMC

Hello Rev. Sisk and greetings in the name of our lord Jesus Christ,

I've returned today from my August vacation. I pray that you are well and didn't feel neglected by the lack of response to your e-mail. For church purposes the April 19 event was meant to provide dialogue, access, and interpersonal connection with some people who have personal investment in their views of the war in Iraq. Petty Officer Pablo Paredes who was facing a court martial for refusing to return to Iraq based on his belief that the war is immoral and illegal also spoke, as did ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern, the father of a soldier killed in action spoke, and also a veteran of Iraq. Whenever I can, I speak against war and how war never has brought a lasting peace but is a preamble to more violence. I consider that an extension of New Testament gospel.

Teaching the language of peace and understanding is one of the requirements of donning the stole of ordination. Understanding the toll violence takes on humans and seeing the faces of its victims is important no matter how one feels about war. Politics is unavoidable when we live in community--who has power over whom, how that power is shared, and how we apply our faith in engaging one another is important. Paul of Tarsus dedicated much time to just that subject
matter.

I am comfortable speaking against violence in all its forms as I deliver the good news to my congregation. At the same time, it is important for people to understand that sometimes a system corrupted by the powers and principalities of which Paul spoke can leave us no"good" choice but only the lesser of two evils. What does a faithful Christian do then?

A church must provide spiritual and moral guidance to our society else it is irrelevant. Our society is in the shape it is because we have too long neglected our responsibility to guide. Here at Venice, a neighborhood of Los Angeles that is extremely active politically, the church must help these people to discern and act faithfully, understanding the power of prayer and fasting in the process that leads to action.

So we open our hearts, minds and doors six days a week for our neighbors to gather and work out their passions and fears, hopes and faith. On Sunday we preach the gospel and praise God for never abandoning us but calling us ever into His embrace.

This church does not take an official position for or against the war, I do not condemn or condone people's political convictions, party affiliation, or action. What I do is insist that they understand the role of their faith and their relationship with God in those convictions and actions. My role is to neither tell others how to think or support those who do but to insist that people do think through their relaitonship with God and what God calls them to do.

I think that if we tried less to judge who is right and who is wrong, less to be conservative or progressive, less to align ourselves with someone else's doctrine, but rather realize that scripture, experience, reason and tradition inform us all and God invites us all into relationship with Him and one another we might discover that none of us is totally right or totally wrong. We might just come to the truth because we cared enough to work it out together.

The blessings and peace of God be yours,

Tom Ziegert, Pastor, VUMC

My response to the Rev. Ziegert will come in the next post.

Katrina Flood Aid: Bleg Burst

2005-09-01T07:00:00.000-07:00

Hugh Hewitt suggested a coordinated blog burst to raise money for victims of Hurricane Katrina. Instapundit seconded, suggested Thursday, September 1, and is keeping up with the list of bloggers here. N. Z. Bear is aggregating.

Because I am familiar with their work (and because I'm a United Methodist pastor) I highly recommend the work of the United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR). You can donate here. All money (100%) donated hits the ground at the site of the relief effort stipulated by the donor. UMCOR's administrative costs come from sources other than donations. They also have a list of physical supplies they need - on the Katrina page. UMCOR's main distribution center is about 50 miles from NOLA, and while it was affected, it's operational.

If you are a member of a United Methodist Church, be sure on your donation form to type their name into the form and your donation will be linked to your church (all money goes to UMCOR but your church gets "credit" for your donation.) If you don't have a church and give through this website, then I ask that you type in Aldersgate UMC, Starkville, MS.

On my sidebar, you can click to go to the Red Cross donation site. They, of course, always do good work. There are a number of other charitable organizations well worth your donation, just visit Instapundit for a good list.

Update: Amazon.com who became a donation point for Red Cross during the Tsunami Relief last year initially declined to do so for this disaster. They have changed their mind and are now collecting for Hurrican Katrina Relief. Donate to the Red Cross through Amazon here. (Amazon receives no money for this service, 100% goes to Red Cross.)

Technorati tags:flood aid, hurricane katrina

Leadership during Catastrophe

2005-08-31T08:00:00.000-07:00

Catastrophe often reveals great leadership in people who keep their heads and provide a calm, cool presence that can be reassuring to others (what Rabbi Edwin Friedman calls a “non-anxious presence” in his book Generation to Generation.), e.g. Mayor Rudy Giuliani, during the 9/11 aftermath. Others respond somewhat less greatly. Consider New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin who waited until SUNDAY to issue a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans, despite warnings that Hurricane Katrina would be catastrophic for the city as early as Saturday. N. Z. Bear thinks he should be prosecuted for negligent homicide.

I was prepared not to second-guess Mayor Nagin. After all, anyone can arm-chair quarterback. But then he fumed at failed attempts to repair the breached levees. From CNN:

"There is way too many fricking ... cooks in the kitchen," Nagin said in a phone interview with WAPT-TV in Jackson, Mississippi, fuming over what he said were scuttled plans to plug a 200-yard breach near the 17th Street Canal, allowing Lake Pontchartrain to spill into the central business district. An earlier breach occurred along the Industrial Canal in the city's Lower 9th War.

{snip}

But Nagin said a repair attempt was supposed to have been made Tuesday.

According to the mayor, Black Hawk helicopters were scheduled to pick up and drop massive 3,000-pound sandbags in the 17th Street Canal breach, but were diverted on rescue missions. Nagin said neglecting to fix the problem has set the city behind by at least a month.

"I had laid out like an eight-week to ten-week timeline where we could get the city back in semblance of order. It's probably been pushed back another four weeks as a result of this," Nagin said.

(Hat tip: Neal Boortz).

Brady Westwater (LA Cowboy) is not impressed with Mayor Nagin’s decision making skills:

Person at Tulane hospital gave an interview to WDSU describing a fishing boat filled with looters armed with guns patroling the streets and then she describing how looters were breaking into the doctor's cars in the hospital parking garage while they are trying to save lives.

But, Mayor Nagin still needs another night before he decides if it is appropriate to call for martial law citywide rather than in just some areas.

(Hat tip: Mickey Kaus)

Louisiana Governor Blanco understands that relief efforts are a “logistical nightmare”. But her constant repetition of it makes for a cliched response. However, it is clear she is genuinely moved by the plight of the victims. In times of catastrophe, calm (non-frustrated), empathic leadership that points toward a hopeful future will do more than frustrated, overly-critical leadership that pensively makes decisions.

Update: A reader of The Corner emails JPod:

The mayor of NOLA is in complete denial (he spoke last night of the refugees in the Superdome "waiting it out") except when he's angry (publicly blaming others for the levee break not being fixed) ; the governor of LA is emotionally broken. She keeps speaking of "trying to figure out" how to evacuate people; "trying to figure out" how to put refugees somewhere else, etc. As you noted, she can't even say that looting is wrong; the most outrage she can muster is "where are they taking the loot to, anyway?" She can't even see that her brokenness demonstrates that no one is in charge, and the more that people see that, the more utter chaos and lawlessness are spread. Honestly, I think it is clear that the state and local authorities *cannot* do this. The federal govt needs to come in Right Now. FEMA waiting on the outside isn't the issue. Getting command authority into the hands of people who can make decisions and take action is the point. It's time for us to demand the feds to take control before this nightmare of anarchy swallows all of Louisiana.

Update: After reading John's comments, I want to make clear that I don't endorse N. Z. Bear's suggestion to arrest NO's mayor. I'm not sure even N. Z. Bear is seriously advocating it. But I'm hoping the Lousisiana leadership will step up better than they seem to thus far.

Chronicles of Narnia Teaser Out

2005-08-30T22:28:00.000-07:00

A few months ago, I was at the movies and caught the teaser to the movie adaptation of C. S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia: the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. I don't know if the movie will be any good or not, but if the teaser represents the movie, well, it will be absolutely gorgeous. The teaser can be found here.

I read the Chronicles of Narnia as a child. My best friend liked the series so much he stole the books from the school library (which I always found kind of ironic). I enjoyed them, but preferred J. R. R. Tolkien to Lewis. It wasn't until I was an adult that I discovered C. S. Lewis' non-fiction work. The Narnia books are a great read. My only reservation is my shared disdain of allegory with Tolkien who wrote:

I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence.

But the books are good reads for children and adults. Here's hoping the movie does justice to them.

Hogwarts Sorting Hat

2005-08-30T21:13:00.000-07:00

I've got a book review coming up on the Harry Potter series, but I couldn't resist taking this test and posting my results.

You scored as Ravenclaw. You have been sorted into Ravenclaw- you value intelligence, and love the chance to use your cleverness (and maybe even show it off- just a little). You're keen and incisive, and you just love a challenging problem to solve.

Ravenclaw

85%

Gryffindor

60%

Hufflepuff

50%

Slytherin

30%

The Hogwarts Sorting Hat!
created with QuizFarm.com

Methodist Podcasting

2005-08-30T20:52:00.000-07:00

Just got through listening to Jay Voorhees' Methocast (#13) podcast. I really enjoyed the show and I appreciate the good work that Jay is doing. Jay is looking for ideas and comment, so jump on over to his site and give him some feed back. Christian Dissent has also been doing some podcasting; I've subscribed to their feed, but haven't had a chance to listen to their show yet. If you are new to podcasting and are interested in United Methodist subjects, then you need to check out these two:

Methocast: published by Jay Voorhees.
Christian Dissent: published by Cole Wakefield with cohosts Josh Tinley and Joey Hood.

More pics after the storm

2005-08-30T13:28:00.000-07:00

These pics are from across the street at the MSU-Wesley Foundation parsonage. The Rev. Hugh Griffith and family are clearing the debris from the yard and putting it on the street.

Aldersgate Post-Katrina Pics

2005-08-30T13:12:00.000-07:00

Here are some pics from Aldersgate after the hurricane. Our damage seems to be limited to some of our trees on the property.

Hurricane Katrina Update

2005-08-30T07:47:00.000-07:00

The AP now reports that the death toll in Mississippi could be as high as 80. Please pray for the victims and relief workers.

Pastors, Politics, and Religion

2005-08-30T07:30:00.000-07:00

I've stayed out of the debate about Pat Robertson for a couple of reasons. 1) I'm not a fan of Pat Robertson, 2) He's not a pastor, although he is identified as that (he may be ordained, but my view of ordination is more restrictive than my Baptist brothers. In the UMC, to be ordained as a pastor means you actually have to pastor) and 3) I knew he was getting slammed pretty good by everyone else.

But this Cal Thomas article is a must-read for pastors inclined to politics. Thomas speaks from experience, as I believe he used to be an advisor for the Christian Coalition. Some years ago he dropped out of that for pretty much the reasons he mentions in this article. Why do some pastors want to get so invested into politics? Those of a liberation theological bent have an excuse that I understand (though disagree with) but why do evangelicals want political influence?

Thomas writes:

Too many Christians think if they shout loud enough and gain political strength the world will be improved. That is a false doctrine. I have never seen anyone "converted" to a Christian's point of view (and those views are not uniform) through political power. I have frequently seen someone's views changed after they have experienced true conversion and then live by different standards and live for goals beyond which political party controls the government.

As the Blogfather would put it: "Indeed."

Hat tip: The Corner

Hurricane Katrina Report from Starkville

2005-08-29T22:10:00.000-07:00

We were largely unaffected by Hurricane Katrina, although the eye of the storm passed over Starkville earlier this evening. My parents were without cable. We kept power with the occasional flicker here and there and had satellite most of the evening (which we usually lose anytime it rains hard). My in-laws who live about 30 miles to the west of Starkville are without power but other than that everyone in the family is doing fine. I know we lost a few large limbs, but I think our trees are intact. Area schools are closed tomorrow. We (my family) haven't suffered at all.

That isn't true for a lot of other people, especially in South Mississippi. According to Governor Haley Barber, Mississippi seems to have been hit pretty hard. Media reports say that there are 55+ dead on the Mississippi Gulf Coast (At least 50 in Harrison County).

I keep reading in the media that luckily the hurricane swerved at the last minute and didn't hit New Orleans directly. Tell that to the folks in Gulfport. I realize there is a huge disparity in population between New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast, but lives are lives after all. Most of the news outlets were out of place, a lot of coverage of New Orleans and Mobile for instance. Apparently there were very few crews in Gulfport and Biloxi. Later in the day more reports surfaced from Gulfport as it became clear that Gulport/Biloxi had taken the biggest hit. Relief workers can't even get into the area yet, so Governor Barber is asking for patience from those who are suffering.

UMCOR will be on the scene, naturally, so donate here if you can. Red Cross will be as well, so donate here if you prefer their work.

Sorry for the light posting

2005-08-29T21:58:00.000-07:00

I don't have many people check into to my blog (okay, like 5) but I do apologize for not having anything up the last few days. First Noah got sick, then Lorie, and then Miriam. Everyone seems to be better today.

Sick kid

2005-08-25T18:47:00.000-07:00

How can a kid run a fever one night so that you stay home with him the next day and he feels fine all day, then as you lay with him in your bed and snuggle he throws up all over you and your bed? (It's always your bed too). Needless to say, sick kid so posting will be light for a few days as I am growing behind at work. Please remember Noah and his worried mom in your prayers.

Hatin' John Wesley

2005-08-24T05:44:00.000-07:00

James Spring has a great post "10 Things You'd Hate About John Wesley" and "10 Things John Wesley Would Hate About You."

Hat Tip: Locusts and Honey

Book Shelf: Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin Series

2005-08-22T20:35:00.000-07:00

One of the things that I’ve wanted to do on this blog is to share about some of the books that I’m reading. My reading tastes are somewhat varied. At any given time I read two books at a time: one for pleasure (usually fiction) and one book for professional growth. Generally I read the pleasure book at a faster pace (in part because I’m enjoying them more) but also because professional growth books require a different kind of reading. I’ll post comments about the books that I'm reading under the name "Book Shelf". The “fun” books will probably have shorter reviews (except this first one), but I’ll try to post longer comments of the professional reading.

First up: The Aubrey-Maturin Series by Patrick O’Brian. These books will be familiar to most readers through the movie Master and Commander: the Far Side of the World starring Russell Crowe. I had heard great things about these books prior to the movie’s release but as naval warfare and the Napoleonic Era are two subjects that haven’t interested me before, I didn’t pick them up until the movie’s release. I picked up the first novel (Master and Commander) from the library and read it. The naval jargon was difficult. Usually my fun reads are in the realm of brain candy—not much thinking required. I had to work a little bit with this book, particularly as O’Brian’s style of writing (particularly the dialogue) is very cinematic. If you can’t understand the terminology, it is hard to visualize the action or know when a scene has changed. I enjoyed the book but took a break and didn’t pick up the next novel for several months. At some point I picked up the second novel of the series, Post Captain, and got hooked. I read the complete series, all twenty books, took a week off, and started all over again. In other words, I read the complete twenty novels twice, back to back.

I got hooked to these books for a several reasons. First, once you can work past the naval jargon (I picked up a companion dictionary) and don’t worry that you won’t always understand every term, you will find that O’Brian is a wonderful author. The heart of this book lies in the friendship of Jack Aubrey and Stephen Maturin, two very different but very strong friendships. The bond of friendship is as strong as it is in J. R. R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy (between Frodo and Samwise). Secondly, the history drew me in. The Napoleonic Era was always to me that confusing time in history when war raged across the European continent when various countries allied for and against Napoleon. (Spain against France or for France? Yes. It depends on when…) I didn’t know a lot about the war that raged across the seas. Christopher Hitchens calls this time the “true and real ‘First World War’ because it extended itself to every ocean and almost every nation, not exempting this one.”

But as a UM pastor I was struck by similarity in the British Naval Captain and the United Methodist Pastor. Aubrey is constantly concerned with having a “happy ship” knowing that his effectiveness as captain and his effectiveness depended on how the people viewed him and how happy they were with his leadership. The Naval Orders (curious mix of ability, patronage, navigation, and survival) are reminiscent of the Appointment system. The Captain serves as the king representative, with the Admiralty providing oversight (Bishop, District Superintendents, Board of Ordained Ministry). Pastors just don’t have the kind of authority that Captains did (who could flog their crew for indiscretions.

The best of the series was the first, but all twenty really should be seen as one complete novel. Start with Master and Commander, pick up a naval dictionary if you must, and enjoy these books. I was sad that Aubrey’s voyages had to end.

This is kind of cool...

2005-08-22T12:35:00.000-07:00

Found this via a google ad on another blog (deleted it before I found out which one it was). It's just creepy looking. I won't be buying it. I wouldn't even let my kids play with a kid who had one. But it is kind of a cool toy...

I should be writing something theological but I just can't stop looking at that thing, it just keeps looking back at me....

Reminds me of when the Goldfish cracker folks began putting smiles on their "goldfish" crackers. They didn't put a smile on every one because they said there's something creepy about someone who smiles all the time.

Confession/Profession Good for the Soul?

2005-08-19T11:52:00.000-07:00

This Sunday, I’ll be preaching the Gospel lesson of the lectionary, Matthew 16:13-20. This is the second of a series of sermons that I am preaching right now called, “Listening to the Good Shepherd” based on John 10. The homiletical thread of this series is that by listening to the Good Shepherd (Jesus) we can have life “more abundantly”. With this in mind, my study this week has been focusing on the importance of Peter’s confession and how confession is important for us as well. Not in the sense of “confession is good for the soul” but confession in the sense of professing: what we believe about Christ, professing our theology (my usage of the word theology doesn’t relate to dogmatics, which can be important, but theology as “what we know or have come to believe about God”). In this sense confession becomes for me sacramental, because one’s confession of the Christ who lives and reigns within is essentially an outward (verbal) manifestation of an inward, spiritual truth.

Paul’s words in Romans 10:9 (TNIV) are interesting:

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

He goes on to write in verse 10: “For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. (Romans 10:10 TNIV).

For this discussion I’m pretty much using confession and profession interchangeably.

So why would confession help us to have abundant life and how can we become a “confessing people”?

The first reason that comes to mind is the salvific component noted in Romans 10:9-10. Anything dealing with salvation is, of course, important.
Philippians 2:9-11(TNIV) suggests that eventually, all will do it anyway:
Testifying: an under-emphasized part of our worship services. When I was a kid, I remember attending a friends church one time for a “Testifying (or Testimonial) Service”. The practice of testifying and testimonies if was ever part of some church’s traditions has almost certainly died away. There is something efficacious about sharing in a public way what God has done in and for you and what you believe. Many churches will include in their worship service a professed creed, such as the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed, but these often become unfortunate casualties when worship services are updated and made contemporary. The act of testifying/professing/confessing publicly worships God and can encourage others. It has been a long time since someone said to me, “Can I share my testimony?” “Can I tell you what I believe?” “Can I tell you what I’ve come to know to be true about Jesus Christ?” It is the best way to evangelize non-believers and encourage fellow believers.

These three points bring me back to my earlier statement: confession (profession) is a sacramental act in that it is an outward (verbal) manifestation to an inward, spiritual truth. Confession/Profession of the living Christ saves our souls, places us as part of a heavenly/earthly order that confesses to God, and can be evangelistic or encouraging to others.

A lot of these ideas will be unexpressed in my sermon, but as they were buzzing around my head, I thought I would post them here. Comments are welcome.

Curious Deletion

2005-08-16T18:07:00.000-07:00

Josh Tinley notices a curious deletion from the 2000 Book of Discipline in the 2004 Book of Discipline namely, (¶161D) which deals with divorce and asks two very good questions:

1) Why was this material removed?
2) Why was there no coverage of this vote?

Any General Conference delegates have the answers?

And Josh, every blog needs at least two Sisks in their blogroll (*hint, hint*)

Hat tip: Locusts and Honey

Update: Thanks Josh for adding me to your blogroll!

Update (2): Dean Synder figured it out. It was an accident! And not the only one!

Political Activism in UM Churches

2005-08-15T12:15:00.000-07:00

This is the sort of political activism I hate to see in UM churches:

Earlier in April, at a speech before the United Methodist church in Venice, Calif., Sheehan likened Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to "Hitler and Stalin" and was particularly lurid in describing her hatred of Rumsfeld's then-deputy:
As soft-spoken and sincere-sounding as Paul Wolfowitz is, is there yet any sane adult in this country whose skin does not crawl when this murderous liar opens his mouth and speaks?

According to this, other people appearing were Tim Goodrich, co-founder of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Rev. Thomas Ziergert, Pastor of Venice United Methodist Church, with special music by Michelle Shocked. (I won't link to Shocked's website, it being NSFW, but Shocked appears to be stridently anti-Bush). I'm not familar with the other people so I don't know if they represented "counter" viewpoints to Sheehan, and et al. The above Sheehan comments exerpted above (and follow the link please for the full context of her speech) seem to me to be particularly dangerous from a church committed to doing kingdom work.

I have emailed the Rev. Ziegert for more information about the event and asked for his thoughts about political activity and the church. I'll post his response when it is received. I want to make clear, it is not my intention to criticize any one for the content of their remarks. Rather, my point is that I think such an event might be problematic for ministry.

Updates to my U2 post below

2005-08-14T22:12:00.000-07:00

Scroll down to see the updates or click here. I'm working on more stuff to be posted later so be sure to check back in.

Helpful Illustration of a Theodicy

2005-08-11T22:15:00.000-07:00

Fellow Emory alum David Camphouse gives us an apocryphal but nevertheless helpful illustration of a theodicy.

Papering Over Differences

2005-08-10T18:56:00.000-07:00

Dean Snyder at Untied Methodist reports on the resignation of Cynthia Astle as the editor of the United Methodist Reporter due to "philosophical differences with management at the Reporter."

Dean writes:

Astle says she has also heard from several conference newspaper editors who say they are under pressure from bishops and council directors to remove letters to the editor and reader response columns from their papers in order to downplay dissent within the denomination.

I'm not an active reader of the United Methodist Reporter so I can't speak to how fair the paper treats controversial issues or even if the management is moving in the right direction with the paper. If it is an emerging trend to suppress debate or to ignore when there are real differences for the sake of unity or influencing public perception of our denomination, well then, the United Methodist Church will be diminished not strengthened.

There is a tension that must be held, however. How can we, on one hand, have vigorous, open debate on big issues but not focus on that which divides us? I don’t know, but I don’t think the answer is to paper over our differences. I think it may be one of the biggest problems that we in fact face in our denomination.

It seems to me that the as the UMC has struggled with controversial issues such as homosexuality that we have become exceedingly divided for two fundamental reasons. The first is willful ignorance of the varying hermeneutics present in our denomination. Homosexuality really isn't the issue; the issue is how we approach the issue of homosexuality. By failing to recognize that there are differing approaches as to how we read and interpret the Bible (specifically, how the Holy Spirit speaks to us today), we set ourselves up for failure, particularly since we do theology by democracy at General Conference. I suspect we remain willfully agnostic because of the second problem, which is an inordinate fear of schism. Fear of schism has prevented us from addressing the problem of differing hermeneutics. We suspect (and fear) that we may find that our hermeneutics cannot be reconciled. There will be winners or losers. But that is what we do when we do theology by democracy anyway. We create winners and losers. But I don't know that if we can't reconcile our varying hermeneutics that schism is the necessary result. We may have to fundamentally change how we relate to one another within our denomination. I don't know the answer. But ignoring and avoiding the problem won’t produce the unity we all crave, anyway. It only creates fault lines and caucuses.

One caveat. Don't read the above as endorsing separation. Read it as a plea to change the subject of our debate of late.

One of the reasons I really like U2

2005-08-10T13:35:00.000-07:00

I have been playing U2 a lot lately on my ipod and have been rediscovering the wonderful Christian themes that are a part of their music. I became a U2 fan because of their music, but as I grow older I have become to appreciate the things that they are saying in their songs. At 34, I listen to their album Boy in way that I couldn't appreciate when I was 17. (Which was U2's first album if memory serves). Some of their more explicitly Christian songs are "Gloria" and the recent "Yahweh".

Which makes this article by Gene Edward Veith so rewarding to read. It appears to me at one point in the interview Bono is quoting from Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. Bono can be kind of frustrating at times, but it seems like he has a good handle on the Christian understanding of grace and an ability to articulate it to a secular audience. I think the grace of God is undercommunicated in our evangelism efforts, when it should be the center.

Hat tip: Locusts & Honey

UPDATE: Andy Bryan at EnterTheRainbow likes U2 too. And umm...apparently looks exactly like Luke Skywalker.

ANOTHER UPDATE: In the comments section of Andy Bryan's blog, reader Michah points to some great U2 links along the the same theme:

Dude, you don't even mention (though, perhaps you have seen) this interview with Bono on Christianity Today's website. Also, no preaching Bono fan should be without Get Up Off Your Knees: Preaching the U2 Catalog, a collection of sermons based on U2 songs, edited by some of my colleagues in the Episcopal ministry. And don't forget to keep up with their blog U2Sermons.blogspot.com.

LAST UPDATE OR I'LL HAVE TO START A NEW THREAD: rev-ed relates his thoughts to the article as well:

The author points out that many people question Bono's faith. Yet in a private interview, Bono sounds a little like C. S. Lewis using the Lord or Lunatic argument with his interviewer. At one point, the journalist says simply, "The Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. I wish I could believe in that." It's really an eye-opener for those of us who doubt the sincerity of the singer's Christianity. I wish every member of my church could witness like Bono did.

Pool of Siloam reportedly found

2005-08-09T04:55:00.000-07:00

I look forward to reading more about this. Hat tip: Drudge.

Wiki Project for Bible Translation

2005-08-08T12:13:00.000-07:00

My experience in Biblical translation experience is limited to the six semesters of New Testament Greek (4 semesters at Mississippi College and 2 semesters at Candler School of Theology) and no Hebrew (wasn't required). Given that, I can't imagine what I could contribute. But what was a throw away question at the close of this post seems like a good idea.

Wayne Leman from Better Bibles Blog agrees:

Tim, I think a wiki project for Bible translation would be great. The more information that can become accessible to people about Bible translation the better.

Peter Kirby from Christian Origins Blog has been thinking about this a bit longer:

There are many different uses of wiki software, as well as many different wiki software packages. It would be a good idea to create software that is specifically tailored to "open access"/"open scholarship" collaborative and participatory translation efforts than, say, MediaWiki. That is precisely what I plan to do (see my recent blog entries and comments on Wayne's blog), and I'm glad to see more support for the idea.

One disadvantage that I see is that a lot of contentiousness could result on this. If a wikipedia entry about Glenn Reynolds can be controversial (see the whole puppy blender joke thread in the history) imagine for example, what a discussion of the shorter ending for Mark would be like with people who are invested in the Textus Recepticus and are involved in the wiki project. Of course there would be further disagreements produced in terms of English style.

But I see some real advantages to this as well. First, would be the copyrights or lack of. This would would truly be the people's version in a way that William Tyndale never could have imagined. Secondly, collaboration is almost always a good thing (at least I can't think of a good thing). Translators operate with an assumption as to what will communicate to the widest number of people. As more people are involved in the translation, a consensus as to what communicates well would naturally come together. Thirdly, I see translational bias mitigated by the sheer number of people involved in the translation. Throw in the Holy Spirit and it could make for a very interesting and rewarding project.

Peter Jennings dead...

2005-08-07T21:28:00.000-07:00

My prayers go out to his family, friends, and colleagues.

Well I said I would reveal my deep ignorance...

2005-08-07T11:36:00.000-07:00

It seems I've sparked an interesting post over at Better Bibles Blog about the meaning of the word "wirping". Thanks Wayne for your nice comment and I look forward to the answer of my question! Check out his site, especially if you have an interest in Bible translation. There's some great ideas sproutin' over there. Oh and Wayne, what do you think of a wiki project for Bible translation?

Tacit Messages Intentionally Delivered or Not

2005-08-07T11:27:00.000-07:00

We celebrate Holy Communion at Aldersgate on the first Sunday a month (in addition to special services throughout the year.) Last month, I did something I always feared I would do, but in nearly 12 years of ministry never had, I spilled the grape juice. The way I also assumed it would happen is by dropping the serving tray that hold the individual servings of grape juice, either by tripping or dropping it. That isn’t the way that it happened, however. Instead as I was righting the table after Communion, I was re-draping the linen back onto the elements when the linen caught the ceremonial chalice. (This is the chalice that is filled with grape juice that I lift up and present to the congregation with words, “The blood of the New Covenant.”) Over turned chalice, loud crash, grape juice everywhere, and nice service we were closing was completely invaded of any peace. I glanced around and said meekly, “Good thing our carpet is burgundy colored.”

This morning, during communion, I was uncovering the elements and looked down into the chalice (I was alert as to where it was) and I just had to smile. Instead of full chalice, there was maybe a quarter inch of grape juice in the glass. The communion stewards say it wasn’t intentional, that they ran out of juice. “It isn’t because you’re a clumsy pastor.” I’ll take their word for it but if the chalice becomes a sippy cup next month, I’ll savvy the message.

Speaking of the big chalice, sometimes I will partake of the elements using the presentation items (big chalice, big wafer that is broken). The congregation receives communion in the individual cup and small wafers. (I had a friend who called them Jesus shooters). I’ve been through the theology of the common cup and have intinction, etc., this method of communion covers the most areas that this congregation is sensitive to in terms of theology, practicality, and sanitary concerns. But I haven’t decided if my utilizing the chalice and presentation wafer as my communion elements is a good thing, because I’m not really using the common elements that the congregation uses. But if they aren’t used, then they are meaningless and probably shouldn’t be on the table. So I haven’t made up my mind about that.

Ummm....food......

2005-08-06T12:33:00.000-07:00

I've always wanted to do something like this. I wish the article included recipes. Speaking of food, I'm considering having a Bible Study at Aldersgate using the Group Publications Bible Study called: "Friendship First ." Has anyone else used this study before?

2005-08-05T19:31:00.000-07:00

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Sink or swim I'm diving in...

2005-08-05T15:27:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite songs is called "Dive" by Stephen Curtis Chapman. In it he sings:

I'm diving in I'm going deep in over my head I want to be
Caught in the rush lost in the flow in over my head I want to go
The river's deep the river's wide the river's water is alive
So sink or swim I'm diving in.

Although Chapman is singing about diving into a life of faith, these lines capture my mood as I move into the blogworld.

I've been reading blogs now for several years. I can't really remember how I discovered the blogworld. I think I came to it by reading the online edition of The Washington Post. One of my favorite columnists for WaPo is Howard Kurtz. Through Kurtz, I became acquainted with Glenn Reynolds (The Blogfather) and Andrew Sullivan (Blog Pioneer). These two guys in particular (and a host of others) led me into the wonderful world of blogs.

Aside from a few comments posted on a few blogs and a few emails here and there to folks I was reading, I never felt a need or a desire to blog myself. Although I'm a bit of a political junkie, I haven't felt the need to contribute to the political debate for two reasons. First, as a pastor, however strongly I feel about political issues, I believe I should abstain as much as possible from political debate. I am very uncomfortable with the mixture of church and politics. This is an area I may blog about later, but needless to say, I doubt I will have much to say about politics. Secondly, in terms of politics, I'm more of a consumer than an advocate. I'm not an expert at anything. Therefore, even if I weren't a pastor, I'm not sure what I can contribute to political debate. I think political debate has become needlessly divisive anyway, so keeping my mouth shut seems to be a smart thing. So while political blogs drew me into the world of blogging, I'm not interested in this becoming a blog about politics.

It was, however, the discovery of two blogs that has encouraged me to enter into the blog world. I discovered them at about the same time: Shane Raynor from Wesleyblog.com and Mark D. Roberts (markdroberts.com). First of all, I want to complement them on their blogs. Shane's site is packed with a lot of information, lots of links, and yet somehow retains a clean, uncluttered look. Mark's site just represents his great mind...it is a virtual commentary/sermon site. It was in the midst of his excellent series on the TNIV translation that I began to follow him and discovered his sharp, reasonable mind.

The thing I like about Wesleyblog.com is not only Shane's postings but the conversation that occurs in the comments section. Shane has a similar perspective as mine on a lot of things so there's that, but I enjoy the spirit and the way that engages different perspectives. I would like for my blog to be kind of like that. Re: Mark Roberts: I want to be him when I grow up, a United Methodist Mark Roberts.

I've been thinking about doing this for several months now but have had reservations. Blogging comes with risks. I'm fiercely protective of my ministry so I must be careful that I tread lightly. Let me say for the record: my views here are my own and do not represent anyone else: not my church, not the United Methodist Church, or anyone else. I had to be sure that this isn't about ego or trying to make a name for myself. Instead I hope that the discipline of blogging will help my writing. I don't write well. Certainly not as well as I would like. I'm hoping the discipline of writing will encourage me to a better job communicating, particular when I contribute some it should be defensible and coherent. To this end I say: constructive criticism will be welcomed though rarely enjoyed (heck, who likes criticism). One other concern I've had is losing anonymity. When you blog, anyone can read it and is free to make judgments about you, informed or no. Its one thing to share your opinion or open your mind in the real world. You know to whom you speak. You can get a read as to whether people understand you, whether they agree of disagree with you. Not so in the cyber world.

But I get the sense that blogging will help my writing and thinking skills. It will open me up to conversation with other people which will help me to grow as a person and pastor. It will be a forum to bounce ideas and help me develop skills I do not now have. And I hope that somehow this will be a means of grace for me. So I'm risking that the Holy Spirit can work within this work.

So casting aside reservations about losing internet anonymity, risking scorn and criticism, revealing my deep ignorance, I'm diving in.