Reflections: The questions we face in our Presbytery

 Our Questions:

There are many beautiful, exciting, vibrant things happening in our Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) today. This is my first thought and this must be my first sentence as I begin this essay. This is the centered joy and a deep conviction of my heart. I say again, there are many beautiful, exciting, and vibrant things happening in our Presbyterian Church today. I could write a long essay about the joys, the relationships, the conversations, the ministry experiences I had just this week which blessed me and in which I found joy in Christ. I love our Presbyterian Church. I am proud, honored, blessed and encouraged to serve in ministry in our Presbyterian Church today. I find great and deep satisfaction in the life of our Church. I must start with this essential truth because it is the strong foundation for the topic which I consider here. I want here to reflect on what is broken. But this reflection on brokenness is motivated from my deeper conviction that our Presbyterian Church today is good, beautiful and vibrant in Christ. 

With that said, what is clearly broken is our funding system. I am pushing a deep and wide examination of the funding system in our Presbytery in order to accomplish two things: one, to redirect the presbytery to better support our congregations; two, to create a presbytery system that is viable and sustainable into the future. But first we all must understand our questions. Thus I am pleading with our Pastors and Ruling Elders throughout our Presbytery to please join me in engaging this conversation:  

Toward a theology of partnership:

I am personally the embodiment of the massive transformation in our theological convictions today. I have shifted from a theology of legacy to a theology of partnership; I believe this is a shift we all must make. I am the child and grandchild of Presbyterians. I was baptized as an infant and confirmed as a young adult in a Presbyterian Church. My formative high school years included a lot of time involved in a Presbyterian Church with Presbyterian friends and a Presbyterian youth leader who was also a Presbyterian seminary student. During my formative high school years, my dad served as our congregation’s Clerk of Session. Immediately after graduating from college, I attended a Presbyterian Seminary. Next year, 2015, will mark thirty years of my professional service in the Presbyterian Church. My identity in Christ is formed by what I may call a theology of legacy. I am committed to the Presbyterian Church and I give to the Presbyterian Church because this is my long and deep spiritual legacy. I live and give out of a theology of legacy. This theology is powerful. I support and I give to the Presbyterian Church because I have always supported and given to the Presbyterian Church, as have my ancestors.

The crucial truth is that such a theology of legacy is almost gone today. There are many Presbyterians like me, typically over fifty years old, and many Presbyterian congregations and presbyteries that are rooted in a theology of legacy. Please understand that this is a powerful, proper, meaningful and true theological conviction. It is also an obsolete theological system. Are you and your congregation, like me, motivated by a theology of legacy? If so, I believe you must join me in letting it go. A challenge we face today is that the people and congregations most invested in a theology of legacy must also be ones who help us find the way into our new future. 

We need a new theological foundation. It is a theology of partnership. Our deepest convictions, our ministry and our giving must be motivated by passionate, personal relationships. We will believe in, connect with, support and give to the people and institutions – including our congregation and our presbytery – with whom we have a passionate and personal partnership. A theology of partnership begins, of course, with a passionate and personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Moreover, all our people and the people we are trying to reach will join the church and support the church when they have created a passionate and personal partnership with the church.

What is exciting and inspiring to me personally is that my own theology has shifted. For me, this is fresh, fun and invigorating. I am still exploring the implications of this in my own heart. Thus I am only beginning to explore the implications of my new perspectives for my leadership in our Presbytery. How do we shift from a theology of legacy to a theology of partnership?

Beyond Per Capita:

            There may not be any aspect of the Presbyterian Church more obsolete than Per Capita giving. Per Capita giving is the most excellent example of financial support motivated by a theology of legacy. But we are deeply committed to this source of funds. Nothing indicates the challenge before us more than our dependence on Per Capita giving. Please understand that we are fully dependent on this funding; please contribute your Per Capita assessment. This is the most difficult challenge because there is no future in Per Capita giving. Show me the person or congregation who has a passionate and personal commitment to a concept like Per Capita! This is not the way people believe or give today. This should not be the way we ask people to give today. In no way does Per Capita express a passionate obedience to the calling of Jesus Christ in our lives. There is no grace in Per Capita giving. There is no generosity in Per Capita giving. But I must say, loud and clear, please contribute your Per Capita assessment. The only basis from which I can make that sincere request is from my old theology of legacy.

            The challenge and the curse of Per Capita are exemplified by the recent ruling of the Synod of the Trinity’s Permanent Judicial Commission. Some background: Pittsburgh Presbytery, in an action wrestling with the same questions I am pondering here, approved as a standing rule of their presbytery to only contribute the Per Capita assessment to the Synod and to the General Assembly which is actually received from their congregations. Pittsburgh Presbytery was trying to openly, honestly and transparently do what is secretly and unofficially the actual practice of many presbyteries across the church. There was an official complaint against the Presbytery’s decision under our Rules of Discipline. The Synod’s PJC ruled against Pittsburgh Presbytery and insisted that presbyteries must contribute all of their Per Capita assessment to the Synod and the General Assembly even if it is not received from the congregations. I believe the ruling of the Synod PJC is profoundly wrong. Of course, by the letter of church law and in the carefully crafted language of church lawyers the PJC’s decision is unassailable. This PJC decision is the full and powerful expression of theology of legacy. It is obsolete. 

We must understand the quandary we face! Our continuing dependence on Per Capita giving is undermining the church and holding back our reformation. I intended to explore in our presbytery the same action which Pittsburgh Presbytery approved. We should trust our congregations to make the contributions to the Presbytery, Synod and General Assembly as they decide. We should honor the decisions of our sessions. This action, and an important way forward in the reformation of the church, is now muted by the short sighted ruling of the Synod PJC. While the whole church is being transformed, we are required to hold onto a broken and obsolete system of Per Capita giving. Thus this year our Presbytery is required to forward more than $25,000 in Per Capita funds to the Synod and the General Assembly to make up the shortfall from our congregations. 

Moreover, the Per Capita system of funding is broken because it means different things depending on your stance. The Per Capita system is vital to the General Assembly because it is the funding source of the Office of the General Assembly. Thus at the General Assembly the distinction between Per Capita which funds the Office of the General Assembly and Shared Mission Giving which funds the General Assembly Mission Agency is clear and distinct. But in our Presbytery we long ago moved beyond this artificial and at times silly distinction between Per Capita and Mission. Our Presbytery uses a unified financial system which mixes Per Capita and Shared Mission contributions into one funding stream for all of our expenses. 

I see no way forward in the Per Capita funding system. By action of the Synod PJC we are required to participate in a broken system for which there is no passion, no growth and increasing derision across our congregations. The best I hope to do, at this point, is help us understand these confusing issues.

Beyond Shared Mission Giving:

In addition to Per Capita, the other major stream of funding in our Presbytery is Shared Mission Giving. The Presbytery of Carlisle has a strong history and heritage of Shared Mission Giving. But less than half of our congregations actually participate in this system. The Shared Mission system has been declining rapidly as our congregations move to a theology of partnership and fund mission work with which they are passionately and personally related. For a generation, Shared Mission Giving has been the funding source for the General Assembly Mission Agency. But with the rapid decline of this system in recent years, the Mission Agency has itself changed. With the use of professional fundraisers working across the church, the General Assembly Mission Agency is building a base of generous and direct support from individual Presbyterians. This fundraising does not support presbyteries. It is direct, individual support for the General Assembly Mission Agency. For example, late in 2013 two, different million dollar contributions to the Mission Agency from individual Presbyterians were loudly applauded in Presbyterian News Service. I appreciate this effort; it is an expression of bold leadership at the General Assembly Mission Agency living into a new theology of partnership. But there are profound implications to this change. This indicates a clear abandonment of the system of Shared Mission Giving. This also breaks the connection between presbyteries and the General Assembly Mission Agency.

It is here that may we consider revisions in our presbytery’s funding system. Unlike Per Capita, there is no obsolete, disciplinary requirement to participate in Presbyterian mission giving. The congregations that participate in Shared Mission Giving do so with some sense of grace and generosity. Although I will argue that an older theology of legacy is still motivating a lot of this giving. How do we transition to a theology of partnership as the motivation for our mission and giving? How do we create passionate and personal relationships between our congregations and between our congregations and our presbytery and our General Assembly? These are the questions before us as a Presbytery.

39 Versions of the Bible in English!

A Theology of Holy Scripture

 On my Kindle I use an app called “Holy Bible” for my daily devotions. I like this app because it was free and it works very well. It navigates easily between books of the Bible, and the chapters and verses flow and navigate very well. As an electronic app it is excellent. There are in the Holy Bible app. 39 versions of the Bible in the English language. 39 versions! As a very highly educated, church professional I am embarrassed to say that I have never heard of, and certainly never studied, some of the versions that are available in Holy Bible app. It is disappointing that “my” Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, is not available in this app. Thus I use the American Standard Version for my daily Bible reading. I do not believe there is any kind of theological motivation behind the exclusion of the NRSV and the RSV from this app. I know that the National Council of Churches owns the copyright on these versions, and probably is unwilling to share them without compensation.

My question is to ponder the implications of having all these different versions of the Bible before us. For people younger than me, this may be the world they grew up with. Is this a good thing? How does this change or affect one’s view and understanding of the Bible. How does having 39 versions of the Bible instantly in front of me at any moment on my Kindle influence my theology of “the authority of the Scripture.” I am now old and rather settled, and I think this particular aspect of the my theology – my understanding of Holy Scripture – was formed and defined long before the Kindle and Bible apps were invented. What does that say about me? Is there something new here that I need to learn? I must say clearly that having 39 versions of the Bible before me does not in any way bother me, threaten me or alter my reverence for the Holy Scripture.

I wonder if that is true for everyone. There is a wing of American Protestantism that emphasizes, extremely in my view, the authority of the Bible. What is the relationship between the growth and power of this strong Bible-centric theology and the fact that anyone may have 39 versions of the English Bible in front on them at any moment? It is a complicated question.

For me, I do not believe this technology has influenced my theology. But I need to think about that. I do know that I love the convenience of my Kindle. Easily, early most every morning, I can navigate from the Bible, to my morning devotional book to the New York Times at the touch of my finger. How sweet it that!

Thank You Presbytey of Carlisle!

My sabbatical leave 2013:

In this new year of the Lord 2014, I write with an overwhelming sense of gratitude to the Presbytery of Carlisle for the gift of a sabbatical leave which I have enjoyed. From September 15 to December 31, 2013 I was on sabbatical. I am especially grateful to Larry for his service as our Executive Presbyter during my leave.

What did I do on my sabbatical? There were three different dimensions to my sabbatical. Most important, I made a daily and rigorous commitment to physical fitness. Before my sabbatical started I joined CrossfitHershey. (Check out their website). Participating in Crossfit was my daily discipline. I went to Crossfit every week day for their 9:00 a.m. workout. This became an important spiritual discipline for me. Although fitness has always been an important part of my life; working with Crossfit with a daily commitment for 16 weeks has blessed me. I encourage everyone to build some commitment to physical fitness into your daily life.

The second aspect of my sabbatical leave was writing. I wrote and wrote and wrote. By the end of November I had sitting on the corner of my desk at home a new book, printed out and neatly stacked sheets of paper. This work had started many months earlier; and I had a large body of research and a clear direction and outline complete before my sabbatical. I had never had the kind of extended, uninterrupted time to devote to such a research and writing task. For weeks, I spent hours each day writing. It is hard to explain how meaningful, satisfying and spiritual this time was for me. I am interested in the history of foreign mission work and global Christianity. Using the online archives of Princeton Theological Seminary’s library I journeyed back to the starting days of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. I explored and wrote about our earliest commitment to mission. I spend many hours along side devout Presbyterians from previous eras like Francis Makemie, Ashbel Green, the John Lowrie family, Betsey Stockton and Robert Speer. I know that few people are interested in this history today. Although I am pleased that my “book” is neatly printed and sitting on the corner of my desk; it may never move beyond there. Our Westminster John Knox Press already rejected my project; I am not surprised. Nonetheless I am convinced that our history will guide our future. Because we are increasingly ignorant about our history, we are increasingly unprepared for the future. But at the end of the day my project is very important to me; I am grateful for the extended time I had to simply read and write.  

The third aspect of my sabbatical leave was some time to develop a hobby some more. I, like many, many people, am very interested in woodworking. I do not have the time, the tools or the space in our home to fully develop this hobby. It remains a future, maybe a retirement, hobby. But I did spend some time making wooden pictures frames during my sabbatical. Working for many hours in my tiny, basement shop, and with my newly acquired photo mat cutter, I made wood (oak and maple) picture frames for some of the amazing photographs I have taken over the years. These framed pictures now hang in my little study here at home where I read, write, pray and work every day. Everyone needs a hobby!

My sabbatical leave was more than enough. During the week of Christmas, the last week of my sabbatical, I was eager to get back to work. Now I am settled in again, my careful list of things to do is again before me; there is a lot of work to do, as usual, within our Presbytery. And deep in my memory now there abides a sincere gratitude and appreciation for the weeks of sabbatical leave I enjoyed in 2013. Thank You Presbytery of Carlisle! Happy New Year 2014!  

Hope and History

In memory of Seamus Heaney: Hope and History

I am an avid reader of the New York Times. I have a subscription on my Kindle and I read the Times most every day. Part of my attraction to the New York Times, frankly, is their technology. On the Kindle, the Times arrives electronically everyday before 5:00 a.m. and it is very easy to read, easy to navigate, it is beautifully organized, and there are no ads. Maybe more important, I like the New York Times because of the writing. The writing of the New York Times is outstanding. I aspire to be a writer; and I deeply admire good writing. I have this fantasy that maybe if I read good writing I will be able to write good writing.

            On August 31, last Saturday, there was an obituary on the Front Page of the Times for Seamus Heaney. I had never heard of Seamus Heaney. Obviously, Mr. Heaney was Irish. He was awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize for literature. Mr. Heaney was a poet. In Ireland, Mr. Heaney, this article reported, achieved almost rock star like celebrity because of his poetry which named the Irish predicament. Mr. Heaney has been quoted in speechs by President Clinton and recently by Vice-President Biden when he spoke after the Boston Marathon bombings.

            Vice President Biden used these verses from Mr. Heaney’s poem titled The Cure of Troy:

History says, Don’t hope

On this side of the grave.

But then, once in a lifetime

The longed-for tidal wave

Of justice can rise up,

And hope and history rhyme.

            Those words jumped off the page, or I should say out of my Kindle, at me. Those words sent me scurrying to my computer to google on Mr. Heaney and read more of his poetry, and find out more about his life.

            Hope and History.

            I have thought a lot about hope and history. In our Presbytery, we are really good at history. Our Great Conewago Church was a civil war hospital, and this old sanctuary carries us back in history. I rejoice at the depth of historical passion that I feel every time I come here. Our Gettysburg Church has that famous historical name “Gettysburg” front and center in its identity. History lives in our Gettysburg Church as if Presidents Lincoln and Johnson were there last week, instead of generations ago. Our Big Spring Church in Newville is one of the oldest churches with one of the oldest cemeteries in Cumberland County. The pastor there is repeatedly almost weekly called by people from all over the world asking for help with their genealogical research. Our Silver Spring and Paxton Churches have authentically maintained their colonial meetinghouses. I walk into those holy spaces and I am blessed by the power of Presbyterian heritage; but, my goodness, those old straight back, wooden pews are terribly uncomfortable. Our Derry Church, one of the oldest churches in Pennsylvania, has kept an authentic structure of an old Session house, protected under glass, and now in their parking lot. This old structure is original and dates from the 1730s. During the summer, it is visited almost daily by the tourists that are in town to visit Chocolate World and Hershey Park. Our Presbyterian Church is on the tourist circuit. In our Presbytery, we are good at history.

            But what about the other end of Mr. Heaney’s verse; what about hope. Hope, at times, seems to be a challenge for us. What are we going to do about hope? What are we going to do about the future? I imagine sadly that no new members will enthusiastically get excited about joining the Gettysburg Church because Lincoln sat there for an hour 150 years ago. I imagine sadly that no new members will enthusiastically get excited about the Great Conewago church because of the many civil war soldiers that were cared for in this space. What are we going to do about hope? What are we going to do about the future?

            It was reported that Mr. Heaney’s poetry, over his life time, helped heal the nation of Ireland. Really? Wow! How can poetry heal a nation? Is it possible for us, in these old churches, to find a new hope? Is it possible for us in these old churches, to claim our history in such a way that a glorious, bright new hope springs forth? Is it possible for hope and history to rhyme.

            Once again, Seamus Heaney:

History says, Don’t hope

On this side of the grave.

But then, once in a lifetime

The longed-for tidal wave

Of justice can rise up,

And hope and history rhyme.    

The General Assembly of 1838

What have we learned?

Reflections on the history of division in the Presbyterian Church:

The Old School and New School Schism of 1837

In 1837, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church voted to “exscind” the Synods of Western Reserve, Utica, Genesee and Geneva (28 presbyteries, 509 ministers, and about 60,000 members). There were many issues which contributed to this split including the cultural and polity differences between Presbyterian and Congregational traditions. A plethora of other issues were intertwined including participation in voluntary societies which the New School promoted versus the Old School’s preference for uniquely Presbyterian church boards, the use of revival techniques in worship which were promoted by the New School, views about slavery as the New School began to give voice to an abolitionist vision, and, of course, a list of theological issues particularly around the understanding of the work of Christ and original sin. The great Old School and New School debate was mostly a northern debate roughly corresponding to disagreements between Princeton theology and New Haven theology. But because all of the churches in the southern states aligned themselves with the northern Old School, a majority bloc was formed at the 1837 General Assembly which attained enough votes to excind all the New School synods.

A year later, in 1838, when the General Assembly convened both the Old School and New School had rallied their supporters and showed up in strength expecting to control the meeting. We may reach back to the history written about this great schism by New School leader Dr. Ezra Gillett and published in 1864[1]. As Dr. Gillett tells the story a nasty pettiness and ugly tone fully erupted at the 1838 General Assembly which sealed the complete split of the New School and the Old School. This terrible split was not healed until 1870 after the Civil War.

The question which the Assembly first faced when it gathered in 1838 was whether the exscinded New School commissioners were to be seated. Because the Old School controlled the office of moderator and the offices of the clerks there was a determined effort not to seat the exscinded New School commissioners. We quote here Dr. Gillett’s telling of the ugly story of the 1838 General Assembly in italics:

“The Assembly of 1838 met in the Seventh Presbyterian Church in the city of Philadelphia, on the 17^th of May. The first question before it was the manner in which it should be constituted. Were the exscinding acts of the previous year, which denied the right of representation to nearly thirty Presbyteries, to be considered constitutional and valid?”

The Old School majority was determined not to recognize the New School Commissioners. But the New School leaders were prepared for this and repeatedly requested to be seated.

“The moderator . . . called upon the permanent clerk to report the roll. Rev. Dr. William Patton, of the Third Presbytery of New York, rose and asked leave to offer certain resolutions which he held in his hand. The moderator declared the request as out of order at this time, and Dr. Patton appealed from the decision. The appeal was declared out of order. . . The permanent clerk . . . reported the roll. It was made out in accordance with the exscinding acts of the last Assembly. . . Dr. Erskine Mason, of the Third Presbytery of New York, rose to offer a resolution ‘to complete the roll’. Dr. Mason replied that they were from Presbyteries belonging to the Synods of Utica, Geneva, Genesee and the Western Reserve. The moderator stated the motion to be out of order at this time. Dr. Mason respectfully appealed from the decision, and the moderator declared the appeal out of order . . .”

Finally, with brutal finality the Old School moderator rebukes the New School with the resounding insult, “We do not know you.”

The Rev. Miles P. Squier, a member of the Presbytery of Geneva, then rose, and stated that he had a commission from the Presbytery of Geneva which had been presented to the clerks, who refused to receive it, and that he now offered it to the Assembly and claimed his right to his seat. The moderator inquired if the Presbytery of Geneva was within the bounds of the Synod of Geneva. Mr. Squier answered that it was. “Then we do not know you, sir,” replied the moderator, and declared the application out of order.”

This insult completed the full schism of the Old School and the New School. The New School commissioners, in a show of unity and strength, left the meeting and convened their own General Assembly across town.

“Upon this Mr. John P. Cleaveland of the Presbytery of Detroit, rose, and, amid much interruption and many calls to order, proceeded to read a paper which he held in his hand. The contents of it were, substantially, that whereas the rights of certain commissioners have been violated in their being refused their seats as members of the General Assembly, and the moderator has refused to do his duty, it therefore becomes necessary to organize this General Assembly at this time and this place . . . The members of the body then withdrew from the house. It was announced in a loud voice at the doors and in the body of the house that the Assembly had adjourned to the First Presbyterian Church.”

The story of the 1838 General Assembly is so bizarre as to be almost amusing today. What have we learned from this history? Given the stress and strain in our church today, I sadly wonder if this ugly tone publically spoken at the 1838 General Assembly, “We do not know you” continues to echo in our hearts today in response to brothers and sisters with whom we passionately disagree. I sadly wonder if our propensity for withdrawing into groups of like-minded colleagues and building high walls of separation is a repeating refrain in Presbyterianism. Can we do better than this?

---

[1] Ezra E. H. Gillett, D.D. History of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Volume II. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1864, p. 529. Digital Presentation in the Theological Commons, Princeton Theological Seminary Library, http://commons.ptsem.edu/

The Yale - Edinburgh Group

Continuing Education with Lamin Sanneh

Last week I participated in an academic conference with the Yale – Edinburgh Group on the History of the Missionary Movement and World Christianity. This is an annual conference sponsored by Professor Lamin Sanneh of Yale Divinity School, Professors Andrew Walls and Brian Stanley of the Centre for the study of World Christianity at Edinburgh University, Scotland. The conference was a fascinating and eclectic mix of world renowned scholars in the area of world Christianity, graduate students, and church leaders from around the world. It was a privilege to have the opportunity to get outside the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) conversations, and connect with the growth, vitality and energy of Christianity all around the world.

It was a particular delight for me to have the opportunity to listen to and have some conversation with Professor Lamin Sanneh. I have been reading his academic work in the area of world Christianity for some time. Most recently, his amazing autobiography, Summoned from the Margin: Homecoming of an African tells his remarkable life story from his upbringing in a scholarly, aristocratic Moslem home in impoverished Gambia, West Africa to his journey into the Christian faith and now his status as one the leading scholars in World Christianity. His professional career has included teaching positions in Nigeria, Aberdeen, Harvard, and now Yale.

For sure, one of the most influential books for me in the past decade is Lamin Sanneh’s Translating the Message. This is one of the unique, powerful and truly transformative books that has the power to change one’s whole perspective which it did for me. This book changed my understanding of world Christianity and, most of all, helped me appreciate the amazing contribution which the classic missionary movement, including our Presbyterian contributions, made to the vitality of the Christianity in the world today. At the Yale Divinity School website, Sanneh’s biography describes the thesis of Translating the Message this way: “One influential book, Translating the Message: The Missionary Impact on Culture, argues that Christianity’s success and proliferation, ancient or modern, have hinged on the faith’s ability to translate the gospel from culture to culture, adopting and adapting in local languages and idioms, refusing to enshrine any particular civilization as the exclusive or normative expression of the faith.”

The Yale- Edinburgh group is essentially a collection of scholars and students who seek to follow in the important theological trail blazed by Lamin Sanneh and Andrew Walls in understanding and celebrating world Christianity. Listening to the many papers presented, the discussions, and, maybe most of all, chatting informally with Christians from around the world convinced me again that we must, in our little expression of the church where we are, make an intentional effort to live in a larger, global Church and connect ourselves with the remarkable vitality of Christian faith in our world today.

Report to the Presbytery May 28, 2013

A Theology of Hospitality

Is it possible for all the congregations of our Presbytery to agree on a common goal and objective? I believe there is a common focus we all may share. I believe we all need to reorient and refocus towards membership growth.  There are many, complex reasons why many of our churches do not have any growth in membership. There are cultural and demographic issues involved, there are leadership issues involved, there theological issues involved and there are questions of priority and purpose within our congregations. If you look at the statistics that I included in our packet, you will see that 2012 was a terrible year for our membership statistics.

I would like to say that we should all, every one of our churches, make a commitment to membership growth. This is a worthy goal. I would like to say that, at least, every one of our congregations should make a commitment to stop the membership decline. This is a worthy goal. But given the culture and context where many of our congregations are located, many are not going to grow. I propose something more modest. There is something every one of our congregations can do. We can create a spirit of hospitality. We can, as a starting point, create a spiritual attitude that every person who walks through the door on Sunday morning to worship with us is a blessing and a gift. We can, as a starting point, be more intentional about helping every person who walks through our doors to know they are a beloved, blessed and welcome child of God.

Our congregations like to think of themselves as friendly and welcoming. I am sorry to report that most of time this is simply not true. I am typically in a different church every week. Of course, the few people that know me speak to me. Except for the official greeter who says “Good morning” but never asks me my name, it is very common when I come in to a church that no one comes up to me and no one speaks to me. It simply does not happen. Very few of our people, usually no one, will get up out of the pew where they are sitting to initiate a conversation with someone they have never met before. But this is exactly a skill which we must cultivate and learn.

Today people in our culture do not know how to do hospitality. In our culture, we do not welcome and talk with people we do not know; we avoid strangers. Avoiding strangers is the way children are raised today. We must teach our people about hospitality and cultivate a spiritual attitude of welcoming the stranger.

I propose a simple hospitality program which, if we had the leadership and desire, could easily be implemented in all of our churches. The pastors must lead the way. Let’s call the fifteen minutes prior to the start of worship a time of hospitality and welcome:

1) Pastor, what are you doing in the fifteen minutes before worship? I propose that the pastor should be out in the congregation, greeting, welcoming, and talking, individually and personally, with everyone who arrives for worship. Pastors, as a test, I suggest you should know the name of every person who worships with you. If someone is there who you do not know, you have an opportunity before worship to greet them. At the start of worship I like the image of the pastor, not showing up through some hidden door, but actually coming up out of the congregation.

2) I am going to engage the worship wars with this proposal. I suggest that we should encourage conversation and active fellowship in the sanctuary before worship. We should encourage our people to meet and greet one another during this time. This should not be a time for silence. We do not know what to do with silence. If we want a period of silence we should include it intentionally after the service begins and give clear instructions of what to do in the midst of the silence. Before worship our people should be encouraged to talk and to greet everyone by name. We teach this by example.

3) The ‘friendship pads’ which most of our churches use are not working. No one understands these as an expression of hospitality and welcome. They are simply a chore, a sign-in sheet which many people skip. I suggest we intentionally train teams of people to join the pastor out in the midst of the congregation for 15 minutes before worship. These people could intentionally pass those friendship pads among the people, study the names, and introduce themselves to everyone they do not know on the spot.

4) We all know that attending worship is optional for our people today. We know that the worship attendance of even our most active members is dropping in frequency. We must create organizational systems so that we know who is in worship with us. We should regularly, personally thank them for participating so that they know that we know. Most of all we must become aggressive about reaching out to the many, many people who are slipping out the back door of our churches unnoticed and unnamed.

We can create an attitude of hospitality in the name of Jesus. We can make sure that every person who walks in the door is blessed, cared for and known by name. We can teach ourselves and our people to care for one another which, of course, begins with knowing one another. That to me sounds like church.