Back in 2009 I had a post that explored the idea that while Jesus learned the trade of carpentry, he did not use many carpentry metaphors when talking about the kingdom of God.  

After further reflection on this idea more thoughts have been stewing in my brain.  

Not only did Jesus not use much carpentry language he also did not use much fishing language to talk about the kingdom of God.  It is interesting to me that Jesus did not use much insider language with his parables.  

Jesus used a lot of farming metaphors, wedding metaphors and even the occasional sheep metaphor.  These are the images that the followers of Jesus, the crowd that surrounded Jesus, could understand because it was their world - their images.  

I can understand how the disciples never seemed to "get it" even though they were with Jesus all the time.  

He was using language that was rooted in the life experience of the non-believer and the crowd.  He did not spend much time trying to appease or create insider language with just himself and the twelve.  

Is this not a way to consider the mission of the church?  

Too often we gather on Sunday morning expecting the same things that we who attend, understand and "get". We use insider language and even are fearful to change things because we might "upset" the most faithful members.  So we continue to do what we do in order that those who are in the church can be comforted and those who are not in the church can continue to feel like church is, at best, weird.  

What would it look like to take a model that we might find in the way of Jesus?  What if we created a church that was so concerned about connecting with those outside the church that those in the church would even be willing to "not get it" like the twelve disciples.  

Do you get or understand Jesus, or are you like the disciples and continually scratch your head wondering what the heck this Jesus guy is teaching and saying?  

What a Quaker, Jersey Shore, and Lord of the Rings have in common

The other day I heard a quote from a Quaker, last name Trueblood, that was shared in a sermon by Bishop Lowey on June 7th.  I cannot recall the quote directly but it went something like this:

The nature of the Church is fellowship, that we can agree upon.  It is the nature of that fellowship that is vital and up for discussion.

This is a great way to talk about what I have been talking about in my local setting for years now.  It is not that I am not against having church so that we can have a "church family" for whom will bring us meals when we are sick or have social time with on the weekends.  I am not against that sort of fellowship at all, I just wonder if that is the fellowship of the Church that we ought to be working toward?

I hear many people talk about their church fellowship like one might think of the Brady Bunch, the Odd Couple or even the Jersey Shore.  That is a group of people from different backgrounds coming together to try to live together.  They have their disagreements and their good times, but ultimately they are just trying to survive and navigate life's ups and downs.

Frankly, I am not that interested in a Brady/Odd/Jersey fellowship.  From my perspective, these fellowships serve a function that is very inwardly focused.  That is these fellowships are interested in what makes them feel good and what makes them happy.  I am not knocking this fellowship type at all, I just am not interested in it. I have areas in my life where I am self centered and seek to fulfill my own happiness as well, but I do not think the Church should be that place.

The Brady/Odd/Jersey fellowship seems to stand in contrast to the fellowship that I feel the Church is called to do and be.  One might think of this form of fellowship of The Lord of the Ring.  This "fellowship" had a mission and a greater purpose they all worked toward.  Some were not so great at it.  They were diverse (an elf AND a dwarf!) and they got along as best as they could.  There are some relationships there were tighter than others (Sam and Frodo seemed close but not as close as Pip and Merry).  Some died.  Some lived.  Some did not see each other for long stretches of time.  There was happy times and not happy times, but they all moved in one accord.  They had purpose and meaning greater than themselves.

And while I do not agree that the myth of redemptive violence that is found in the LotR is in line with the nature of the Church, I do believe that LotR better understands the fellowship of the Church that Trueblood was talking about.

What is our mole

My wife and I have radically different tastes in movies.  Most of the time we end up watching a period piece about the Tutor family in England, because that is what she likes, and I do not really care.  Every now and again, Estee will select a couple of movies she thinks that I will like and then she allows me to pick one.  It really is a great gesture and I am thankful.  The other day we use this process to "decide" to watch Robin Hood: Men in Tights.  Well, we both watch half of it and then remember how much funnier it was when we were younger.

Here is one of the scenes in the movie which I just love, and while the quality is bad, you get the point.




If you do not know, the king's mole moves around his face each scene.  It is classic.

It got me thinking about what is the mole on the church that is obvious to everyone else, but we do not have a clue about?

From a clergy position, I can give answers which I think are spot on, but I am sure that I am not even close to correct answers.  I say things like - poor theology or ineffective leaders.  But I just am not sure that is what others see as the mole in our churches.

So I ask, what is the mole of the UMC?  What do others see about the church that we do not know about?