Preaching may not be proclaiming and proclaiming may not be preaching

There is that oft cited line in the Church, "Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words."  This little line gets at the heart of the matter that the act of speaking to a congregation is not the only way to "preach the Gospel."  This is a bit of a no brainer for those who have been taught that actions speak louder than words.  Just because you you are not preaching does not mean you are not proclaiming the Gospel.  


This quote, however, sometimes is not considered in the inverse - just because you are preaching does not mean you are proclaiming.  Regardless of the quality of the sermon or the celebrity of the preacher, not all sermons preached are proclaiming the Gospel.  


America seems to have a lot of preachers (Osteen, Oprah, Jakes, Bell, Moore, Piper, Copeland, Hinn, Meyer, Hagee, Crouch, Dollar, Bynum, White, Warren, Willimon, etc.).  Some preachers are just crazy, and some are just funny. 


I wonder how many "proclaimers"  of the Gospel are there? 

Called out of ministry

Much of the ordination process of the UMC is built on an idea that we feel called into ministry.  It took me ten years, from start to finish, to become ordained in the UMC.  There is a long and comprehensive process for identifying a call into ordained ministry.  

A mentor and friend whom I deeply respect and admire mentioned recently that we ought to consider the a process for those people who feel God calling them out of ordained ministry.  

As our lives change and we gain wisdom over and our sense of self change over time, so to would one's sense of call.  Are you the same person you were 10 years ago?  Will you be the same person 10 years from now?  

Of course not.  

What happens when a life of an ordained person in the UMC changes, and they no longer sensing a call in ordained ministry?  Do we allow them to continue to do ordained ministry and limp along?  Do we instead build into the system a process for transition out of ministry?  

What would a process of being called out of ministry look like?  Would that be something that would be an appreciated process for those ministers who can move out of ministry with dignity?  It has to be better than surrendering credentials with a sense of shame and/or disgrace.  It has to be better than "plugging along" until retirement.

Don't congregations deserve ministers we are called into ministry and not called out ministry?  

Romanticism of the past reveals shared values

Church leaders generally speak of the 1950's as the "golden age" of church in America.  Loads of churches were built, loads of people attended these houses of worship, and the church was at the center of the cultural square.  Church leaders have a tendency to romanticize the 1950's.

Many people I know romanticize their time in college.

Many others still romanticize the time they "were single".

There seems to be a large number of people in my tribe who romanticize a version of pre-industrial, agrarian America.

I wonder if the age in which we romanticize is an expression of our personal values?

Those of us who have fond thoughts of pre-industrial America seem to uphold a set of values which seem to be embodied in that age:

1. Shared economy
2. Emphasis on that which is 'local'
3. Tools that are not dirty to the environment
4. Smaller numbers of everything and simpler 

Of course, we also forget that that time also:

1. Highly segregated 
2. Malnutrition
3. Limited access to resources
4. Hard manual labor

Perhaps one of the ways we can build bridges between one another is to discover what age they romanticize and uncover the values that person is cherishing.  

If I know you are a minister who loves the1950's church, then I am willing to bet that you and I have different values.  This gives us a chance to build a relationship knowing right off the bat that we have different views of what Church is, but also we have a chance to build a relationship on shared values.   

This is also true for hot button issues.  Say a pro-lifer and a pro-choice person are meeting.  It is easy to quickly point to the difference in their views, but I am willing to be that they have a shared value - quality of life.  Build the relationship and conversation on the shared value and not the divergent views and see what happens.  

Jesus and the religious order had different views (how to live out Sabbath), but they had similar values (Sabbath is important).  

Republicans and Democrats have different views (the role of government) but shared values (safe and prosperous society).  

You and I have different views (theology), but I am willing to be we have shared values (Peace).

I may not care for the 1950's but I can appreciate that you too romanticize the past, because I do that as well.