(hannah and caroline and me)
((part thirty-eight))
torn.
it's what i've been for months.
torn.
torn between advocating on behalf of anonymous commenters and people that wish the pastor would send me to "christian delinquent" camp and members that wished djg had a magical influence over my hypocritical ass...torn between advocating on behalf of all the people that
this morning, limbo started finding it's way to the crux of our situation. for 27 weeks, we've been pounding the pavement of what our function within the walls of huffman united methodist church was. did we have any function at all? was this church that was so generous to allow us one of the empty-ass sunday school classrooms to meet in representative of a system/structure/organism that
our talking point was an article whose author believed that 60 (!!!) percent of this country's population was culturally and relevantly removed from the way churches went about their business. the author (allan hirsch) lobbied his readers to embrace a new paradigm, one that encourages members of the outdated churches to take the spirit (not the letter. out of context scripture vomited from your mouth scares people. get it?) of the gospel of jesus christ to the 60 percent on their own turf in their own culture. it was an interesting angle and take. who knows where the dude came up with his numbers, but, in turn, it begged me to ask limbo this question(s).
is the "church" and church you are familiar with worth saving? is all of it's symbols and tradition and romance something worth working out the kinks, or is it time to say, "you know what? this shit isn't working. let's try something new."
a disclaimer should be entered here. no matter what you or we think of "church", there is one thing about this morning's conversation that is INDISPUTABLE. if not for huffman united methodist church and the people and our shared history and the resources and freedoms or sometimes lack thereof, there would be no limbo. it's just that simple.
on one side of the argument, you've got anonymous commenters and the like that are so blindly in love (a good thing, mind you) and loyal to their church that if some dickhead-sounding whippersnapper questions the church's means and motivations, well, then you absolutely wouldn't want to take communion from that asshole.
another side of a different coin might be interested in the idea that "church" by definition is limiting, just another governing, hierarchical body constructed so that type a's may assume leadership positions and enforce their own agendas under the guise that "jesus is lord" but might actually be operating under the "joe. q.
before i closed our conversation this morning, i told the group that once hannah left for children's worship (didn't realize there would be none due to youth sunday), i'd yank out my phone and starting reading about football again.
reagan then asked the million dollar question that even anonymous commenters haven't asked.
"so, why even bother?"
it's a great question. a fair one. completely legitimate. and i answered him this way, the same answer that i hinted at in "the first post of september".
because i believe in the "idea" of "church". more specifically, i still believe in the "idea" of huffman united methodist church.
just because i am the definition of "hypocrisy" or a dickhead or a douchebag or an asshole doesn't give me the right as a parent to completely destroy the girls own experiences with church by poisoning them with mine.
do i see the limitations inherent in infrastructures that even call for positions such as "lay leader" (like i am qualified to lead anyone in a spiritual setting). well, of course i do. in my opinion, though, the same walls or boundaries or limits are part and parcel to any relationship. if you actively choose to marry something other than yourself, you are compromising part of yourself. if you actively choose to relate to any one thing, you say to yourself, "my experience tells me i am better off with you/it/etc. than without. let's do this shit." and when you relate to anything other than yourself, you give up on the idea that you will be solely responsible for the health of the relationship. it's not up to you anymore. it's up to y'all.
and so, as it relates to huffman united methodist church, i choose to be in relationship with the organism that is that community of faith. i choose to go every sunday even when i know people talk to the pastor behind my back. i choose to do so even when i am confident that the worship service will be, "second verse, same as the first."
i do so because i choose to. and here's the rub, anonymous commenter(s). i make all this noise because i genuinely believe in what i am doing. i believe, even if we absolutely refuse to change and make ourselves "better", that i am doing the right thing.
sucks for you, right? or not. just depends on what pisses you off and what doesn't.
i remain torn. i don't want to get in humc's way. there are days that i feel like i am more obstacle and less bulldozer.
i remain torn. i don't know if this system is what the god i love and spend time with had in mind for his work here.
while i am figuring it out, though, good thing there are several different stations for you to dunk your jesus bread in. while you're at it, maybe you can see those different stations and different options as a metaphor for our church experiences. different paths, different journeys, all finding our own way through the dark.
signed, the thorn in your side.
27 comments:
Kevin, just in case this doesn't show who's posting, it's Alma.
So, I have a question. I hear you all complain about the worship service. It's not "reaching" you, it has no "meaning", yada yada yada. But what I don't hear is what exactly you want done to "fix" it. Do we keep changing preachers till we get one who preaches the sermons you want/need to hear? Do we toss the whole set up as it stands now and reformat the entire worship service? I know we've talked some about this in some meetings, but I'm still not sure I understand exactly what it is that needs to be done to make the service meaningful to this supposed 60%. Do we add multi-media to the service? Do we turn into Clearbranch? Do we need to add a "contemporary"(for lack of a better word) service again?
I'm truly not asking these things facetiously(you gotta love spell-check), I would not be in the LRPC if I honestly didn't want the answers to these questions.
You know that I love traditional type services and I, personally, get a lot out of Harris' sermons but I'm willing to make whatever changes are necessary for HUMC to continue to be a part of the community of Huffman. I believe we are here for a reason and we would be gone by now, considering all we've been through in recent years, if we weren't supposed to be here. Maybe I'm too simplistic and too trusting, but I don't think so. I can't say that I haven't considered bailing at times over the past several years but something has kept me here and continues to make me think that we still have a mission at our corner in Huffman.
Alma,
Thanks for the feedback!
I wouldn't confuse "you all" with anyone other than me. I have offered several ideas in LRPC that might serve to make the service more interactive, but blowing up the whole thing and starting from scratch sounds great too! Let's do that!
I am not indicting Harris' sermons or any one element necessarily. It's that the sum never seems to add up to more than the respective parts. I know you've heard me say this before, but it's all about being intentional in whatever it is that we are trying to do. And by "intentional", I mean more than the preparing of the message and songs.
As for your 60 percent comment, the author that we discussed this morning wasn't talking about us even trying to "reach" that group as far as bringing them into our comfort zone/church. He was encouraging the paradigm to shift so that "we" might meet "them" where they are.
Kevin, just wanted to tell you, I evidently read something into your post that wasn't actually there. You are quite right, you didn't "indict Harris' sermon". I just inferred that.
I know that ideas have been brought up at LRPC and I guess I'm just a little frustrated because I thought we were going to move forward with the "Worship Team" thing and I've yet to hear anything more about it. If we need to make our services more fluid and not just a bunch of elements thrown together then it will take a dedicated group - worship team - to make that happen. I'm afraid that my type A personality doesn't tolerate thinking on things or waiting for results. Once an idea has been discussed I'm ready to see action on it.
On another subject, Hardy told me a little about the meeting this afternoon and he seems excited about the upcoming additional meeting. I'm glad to see that there will be upcoming changes on that front.
For starters, reading that, I sort of sounded like a dickhead by asking the question I did, but that was in no way my intention. I was simply watching your face and seeing what appeared to be a man with the wheels turning at high speeds hit a brick wall, and a class that had an awesome opportunity to see their leader in a great, human, "torn" light. The kind of light which really can lead to great things...so I took it. And, let me say, I respect you more today than I did yesterday by the candidness and honesty of your answer...thanks!
I'll just be interested to see the level of passion we would have next week, and the week after that was shown this morning. Ya' know? Are we just talkers or are we doers? How much like the Apostles and first disciples are we who were faced with a daunting task and a decision to make...do something or sit there and do nothing.
I loved this post and this morning's discussion...great job and thanks for sharing! Now, when are we gonna get that bible study off the ground! We have to be relevant to ourselves before we're relevant to others don't we?
Pennies and thoughts.. Since when is it up to a few within the church to decide if the church is "worth saving"? Is it, or should it be, up to such a group to destroy that which is older, more traditional, and accepted by the vast majority of the membership, many of whom may be older but not necessarily more - or less - wise. Something new can be created without destroying traditions. Is it not a part of the church's mission to minister to the church's elders, as well as the younger members, and non-members near and far? To keep the churched in church while bringing the un-churched to Christ? Many of the congregation may not have been enthralled by the pottery sermon (I wasn't), but most didn't turn on their electronic gadgets for amusement. Instead they sat attentively (or at least not snoring), just as they would if it were a children's moment that didn't particularly move them, or a youth-led service, or other similar situation. Perhaps out of respect for the pastor, the speaker(s), and those others in the congregation who were more interested in what was being said. And, last but not least, is all the childish potty-mouth really necessary? More thoughts for more pennies.
Kevin..this is Richard N..1st time I have posted here. I hope I have jumped throught the proper hoops to have my name listed..
To the anonymous writer. Thank you for a clear concise message. You speak truth.
Lots I would like to say but I will start with this. "Blowing it up and starting all over". Haven't you attempted this in another place?
Your blog is about you Kevin. That is the way it should be. Huffman United Methodist is not about you..no matter how much you attempt to make it so..and it never will be. It is about Someone Else.
Bomb throwers are fine..really.. and society occasionally needs them and yes churches occasionally need them...but not in positions of leadership. You are a good bomb thrower. Throw from the pews for a while.
Oh yeah..the F word and other crude speech. Most of us know these words and yes the first ammendment allows us to use them...Doesn't mean it is wise.
An yes I know that anyone in an argument with you will lose.
just some thoughts... as someone who was in limbo i think an important question to ask yourself is who are we to not question the establishment? yeah, i mean who wants a revolution, let's just sit back and pledge allegiance to the queen. to not ask hard questions such as "is church worth saving" and to go along with whatever has been seems to be going against the person that i have thought jesus to be. and from my vantage point "childish" seems to be a relative term....
@anonymous...hey! welcome back. i'll try and censor my potty mouth so that you'll hear me make my point. "Since when is it up to a few within the church to decide if the church is "worth saving"?
It most definitely is not and never has been, by definition, up to a "few". The Methodist church is quite liberal, actually, in letting people voice their side of the story. What tends to happen, though, is that people don't go to church to "do church". And for the last twenty years, HUMC has been bleeding away members and active participants because their definition of "doing church" was "to keep the churched in church". after a while, when you make the decision to have church served to you, you will come to realize that HUMC is not nearly as captivating as the church across the street and you leave. So, people have left. and left. and left. and left. And so, anonymous, relative to twenty years ago, even if EVERY SINGLE PERSON in worship last Sunday decided the church was worth saving, it would still seem a handful. Now obviously, that's not the point you are making. The point you are making is that you are still around or at least interested enough in reading blogs that piss you off written by people that are still around and you don't agree with the person that pisses you off being in a leadership position at the church. I get that. have gotten it. will continue to get it. I am worthless in your eyes. I can only imagine what your god thinks of me. So, call Harris, bro/sis. 833-7636. Let him know that you won't stand for this nonsense anymore. Ask him to remove me. Lord knows I didn't lobby for this position. Show some spirit. I'll support you and the church in whatever you guys decide. And by "you guys", I mean EVERY SINGLE PERSON that is still in love with a structure that is significantly smaller (to be kind) and less relevant that what your memory tells you it is or ever was.
And, dude, seriously...the phone thing has obviously bothered you way more than it needs to. Your idea of etiquette and manners may not be the same as mine. But, really, who cares? If I am not bothering or asking you to alter how you choose to worship, let's not fool ourselves into the delusional idea that our worship service is always worth standing at attention for. Those kind of thoughts are what got us into this ridiculous place where someone as lame as me was asked to pick up the pieces anyway...
@richard...you are right. anonymous does speak truth. "their" truth. just like you speak yours. just like i speak mine.
i have no idea what you are talking about blowing up somewhere else. you may be talking about my being in huntsville, and if you are, i'll let that comment head down the road to where other ignorant comments go to die. if it's something else, you'll have to humor me and connect the dots.
here's the deal though, richard. when i was approached at the end of 2008 about serving in this position of leadership, i told that group at that time that i would be honored to, truly honored, but i would not be cheerleading our past that was driving those too stubborn to jump off the wagon over a cliff.
and so, i have been asking our church and the groups i am a part of to honestly inventory if our direction for the last 15-20 years has been god driven or us driven. since we can all probably agree that god doesn't really do "fail", the statistics, the actual data, richard, not the memories of our time served, say that we've been busy screwing up a good thing for a long time.
i stare at blank faces. faces that are lost. faces that love their church and are happy they are still here, and that is fine, because most of those faces won't give a shit if hannah and caroline don't get to worship at humc because they'll be gone by the time my girls are my age. and that's fine too. you don't have to care about the future. as you've mentioned to me before, humc is very relevant to you right now. i think that's great! i really do. that's just not my main priority. not in these meetings. not on this blog.
don't try and play coy and mince my figurative language into my trying to be hostile. and don't tell me to sit in the pews that grow more and more empty every week because no one cares about this church living past the next five years.
here's the point that seems to be lost in all of this back and forth.
who is the one arguing? me? you granted me that i could speak my mind here, and yet you felt led to call me out anyway. again, that's great. i love the feedback. and i love the back and forth. so, do something about it.
like i told the clever anonymous commenter that would rather riff on my post titles rather than leave their name, call Harris. He gets back on Friday. 833-7636. Tell him you won't stand for my nonsense. Fire me. Cut my salary. Give me back my free time that this position that takes me away from my family. Do something about it rather than wasting your time on this stupid ass blog.
Finally, can we drop the self-righteous bullshit about the language? From what other antiquated system did you and ole anonymous draw that etiquette from anyway. It's just words, man. Just words. You celebrate a football team and coach whose staff attempts to destroy 18-22 year old men with words every day. Why do you care here? Because the subject concerns church? Is your god not big enough to handle a little tit with His humbling world's tat. I should think that He is. Good grief.
Thanks anyway for your time. You have most definitely added to the conversation. You and anononymous make my point for me. Over and over again.
HUMC is about "Someone Else". Right. If that's the case, maybe our God does fail.
Because this is a personal blog, it's going to be about the person who is writing it and their relationship to...whatever they're writing about. It's personal. Personal thoughts, personal feelings. Kevin tries to be as honest as possible here, and that takes a bit of courage. I don't even think he's asking anyone to DO anything about what he writes here. If this were about HUMC alone, he could easily post his opinions on the HUMC website. This is about Kevin and his personal relationship to the church that he loves. He'll work it out. If readers here want to take the time to navigate to this blog and take the time to read it, that's great. But don't make the mistake of thinking that Kevin is trying to speak for anyone but himself.
As far as his leadership role in the church goes- I think it's only fair to base your judgment of his effectiveness on what he does for the church. Is he an effective leader and does he make valuable contributions to the many meetings that he attends?
I shudder to think that my personal struggles and thoughts and misgivings and doubts would count for more than my behavior and my actions.
There are my thoughts- where are my pennies?
Have a good day everyone- let's remember that we're all family, in a sense, but that doesn't mean that we're all the same.
Well, I thought I might as well throw in my two cents since we are counting pennies now. I must say I am confused to when critical thinking about the establishment that is the church became akin to blasphemy. I don't believe ideas are restricted to the young. I think it is dangerous to discount anyone's ideas on that basis. Finally, while we are busy counting silly things like pennies and "inappropriate" language you might want to count the people that frequent humc because of limbo, church softball, basketball, etc...
Starting with something we can AGREE on..We both want HUMC to be an alive and thriving church when Hannah and Caroline are the age that you are now. You are right..that is 20+ years down the road and I and many others probably won't be here. But I do want this church to be here longer than the next five years...And I know others do also. We are not just waiting on our funerals.
I'll be honest..I do not have the solution..and I doubt there is just one and there may not be one at all. I have talked to folks who are much more creative and intelligent than I, and they don't seem to have the answers. I do think Harris may be PART of the beginning of the solution. And Kevin I know how to get in touch with Harris...and I and probably mr/ms anonymous know the Church phone # so no need to publish it again. I have had a few conversations with Harris..but sorry to disappoint you-you weren't the topic of any that I recall. I do not anticipate any conversations about you with Harris. But yes I do see Harris as a starting point. I think he gives us some stability and if he is left with us for a while we may get stronger. As Alma alluded to changing preachers every few years helps not at all. And sooner or later we will start getting preachers who are coasting until they retire and visiting the sick and doing the funerals and that is all. I know you have your opinions about fighting the establishment but in this case you really can't fight city hall. We do not get to just quit calling ourselves methodists and hire someone off the street. Quite honestly I do wonder if there is any minister out there who you will be pleased with.
I think you probably have the job of lay director as long as you wish and I have made my opinion about that obvious. And I really can't think of why anyone would want to do that for more than a couple of years. But Kevin Guess what!!! I may be wrong..I have been before..So you as lifetime lay director may be just what Huffman needs....
...As Alma said in a much more tactful and eloquent way than I..(Alma-- you done good girl !!)Go ahead and make the changes you want made. You want to try contemporary worship again? Fine. Recruit the people, find the resources (or a Sugar Daddy to finance it), find a place and do it. You want to make revisions in current worship? Go ahead. A lot of us think we neel something a little different. As I understand a committee was okayed by LRP..get it done.
A caution though (and you knew this was coming)..If you do away with ALL things old and traditional the decline in numbers may accelerate. (numbers meaning in the pews and and the collection plates). Funny thing about old people..Always getting in the way!! It was that way when I was young also!! But in our church the old people are mainly the ones who keep the lights on.
One final thought about worship. YES I do find it relevant to me. I almost always find something worthwhile in Sunday worship..but to me that is just a bonus..because worship is for us to show our love and adoration for HIM--I really do not expect to receive entertainment, or glibness or just something to occupy my time until lunch. Just my thoughts..but I suspect there may be others out there who share them.
A final comment about our anonymous friend and why he or she probably chooses to remain so..since you brought it up. Anyone posting here best be familiar with the long history of abusive comments (I know-- they are JUST WORDS) directed at ministers, staff members, church members and generally anyone who is so bold as to disagree with you. I suspect that is why people might choose to remain anonymous or why they just do not post at all here. Kevin your kitchen is a really hot place to be.
Yay!!! More comments. Kathy, you know I hate you and everything you stand for, so I will let your comment lie... ;)
Amy and Katie, what do you two know? Stupid young people. You aren't helping to keep the lights on, so your opinions carry no weight here.
psst...did know amy is a nurse and katie is a pharmacist??? they probably make a lot more money than you and most of our church
*crickets*
screw that. they are still stupid and younger than 50. idiots, them both!!! that goes double for you, reagan!
back to richard, you must be super-bored today, but I am glad you came back....
(cont'd)
Richard, I don't know how I've left the impression that I don't think Harris is our guy. As a matter of fact, I completely agree with you that he is good, no, great for our church! Just because I am bored or disinterested in worship on A given Sunday and/or he doesn't entertain me makes no difference to my bigger picture. he is good for our bigger picture. because we pay very little in the way of apportionments, there is a great chance we'll lose him, so that's as much time as I'll spend on him right now. if you want to blog-rip me a quote that you perceived as a dis against harris, i'll share with you the context from which your quote sprung. harris has very, very little to do with our current situation, and i am pleased with him. so, there! moving on. oh, and his phone number is 833-7636, just in case you missed it. BURN.
have i stated anywhere that a lifetime-dom of lay leadership is in my cards. that shit ain't happening. that one was easy...
...your comment about worship and telling me to make "my" changes and to "find resources" and "get it done" is telling in that I expect that is that attitude of most of our church. we may feel something is off or in need of a change. we just don't want to DO IT ourselves. it's the same sentiment we brought up at the last DC meeting about the Halloween carnival. We don't need to hear the church say it's a good idea. We need THE CHURCH to "get it done". This comment rings contrary to that and it speaks to something that old, middle and young alike in our church have fallen prey to. Someone else will do the hard work for us. And that's too bad.
I hate to think that your reports from LRP have suggested to you that anyone wants to destroy our traditional foundation in worship. All I want is for us to think about the service before the week of. It's not a novel idea. It's not mine. It's just something WE aren't doing.
Yes Kevin I know that Amy is a nurse and Katie is a pharmacist..And I am sure they contribute very generously to our church.. We both know the point I was making is that as you chase the old folks away a lot of the money goes with them. You are on finance..You know what the financial condition of the church is.... As far as denigrating young people or saying their opinions are not needed. Anyone who knows me knows that is not my opinion. As I have said..it takes all groups to make this work.
...you and anonymous can try and separate the church into us vs. them, but that's not the way i look at it.
when i say "we" need improvement, i look in the mirror and see myself. that's always been the case. i don't tell anyone else to go and get it done for me.
abusive??? that's silly. and relative. if we are paying one of our senior pastors as much as we pay our senior pastors and they are ripping away at the fabric of our church, they deserve to get called out. if DCD didn't like it, he shouldn't have started firestarting.
along those lines, obviously, no one has appointed me as our church watchdog or ombudsman, but when's the last time any of our staff were held accountable to some measure of success in what we are and were paying them to accomplish? sprc has tried to renew this evaluation process, but that's only been in the last six months. the inmates were running the asylum for a long, long time. and we let them. at least on this blog, that is not the case anymore. then again, this blog doesn't mean anything to anyone. so, whatareyougonnado?
finally? my kitchen? that's funny. but, i'll take it. if people are scared of me (gasp) disagreeing with them, they can be hidden here. whatever. it just gives me more to write about. and i love that, obviously.
thanks again for your time, richard. i respect your opinions.
Wow! So much interaction, and such good stuff. Of course the childish potty mouth doesn't bother me, I have been around much worse in my life. I just think some of the other readers (OK, I'm sexist - the women) - deserve better. Since we have included halloween in our discussion, I think some have lost sight of the fact that many people contributed time and money to that effort over the past several years, and some commenters seem to think that only a very few provided contribution to that effort. Of course only a few worked out the planning phases, but there were many assisting in the event. The numbers of children and adults from the community who came couldn't have been served by only a few. Many of those same people worked very hard in the past to try to help make the contemporary service a success - it just didn't work, for whatever reasons. Of course we could try it again - but if we do the same thing over again, in the same way, we are likely to get the same result. HUMC isn't the first church to go thru declining membership as the community changes. The membership isn't likely to increase unless there is something to appeal to the local community. Look around in the sanctuary. Not really representative of the immediate area. So what do we (we are the church) do about that?
I really don't think anyone has lost sight of the "time served" aspect of our church. Everyone that remains has been active in many great and wonderful ways. What I and some of "we" rail against is how that "time served" has now developed into a "I've paid my dues. Someone else can do it now." mentality. The sheer numbers, the actual facts of the matter, dictate that our church cannot afford for over half of our congregation to do nothing more than come to worship and SS. Not if we are going to impact our community in a meaningful way.
I will also say this. I've mentioned it before here, but HUMC's revisionist history continues to tell the false tale of how our contemporary services "didn't work". We have to go back a long way now, but Heartsong DID, in fact, work. Why? Because, for one full year, the church (SS classes) pledged their support to the effort. It was only after that year that the service faltered. I think there is an important lesson there, one that we choose to ignore. When's the last time that our church really got behind something together that didn't involve "raising our roof" or the Memorial Day weekends of BBQ/Carwashing/Yard Sale...
"So, what do we do about that?" It's a good question. For the time being, I'll look for anonymous' name on the sign up sheet for the Halloween carnival that Stephanie presented last night at dinner.
Okay, I'm going to leave a long comment when it's not 4am (you know me!) -- just a warning for what's to come.
However, I do have this to say:
I just think some of the other readers (OK, I'm sexist - the women) - deserve better.
WHAT? Is this implying that women can't read the "childish potty mouth" words or that we shouldn't have to? How very 1950's, and the very opposite of what feminism is. Then again, if you admitted to being sexist, then I guess you knew that already.
Nitpicking, perhaps, but I just couldn't let that go.
Since when is it up to a few within the church to decide if the church is "worth saving"?
Um, since when is it not up to people within the church to change something if they see a direction the church is going that they don’t like? Why can’t we “be involved,” even if such a comment is made patronizingly, as much as we wish, and even if there are only “a few” of us? What exactly keeps us from making a difference, from going into the church and doing something rather than just talking? To me, there seems to be a lot of talking about Kevin’s “potty mouth” and about how his cell phone-oriented behavior is morally wrong and blah blah blah -- but what else have you offered besides fodder for his cannon?
Is it, or should it be, up to such a group to destroy that which is older, more traditional, and accepted by the vast majority of the membership, many of whom may be older but not necessarily more - or less - wise. Something new can be created without destroying traditions.
Well, if you recall, Martin Luther -- a single individual -- “destroyed” the Catholic church in the sixteenth century, but instead of “destroying traditions,” he merely paved the way for the birth of dozens of various Protestant sects. Yet the Catholic church still exists with all its traditions and traditional ideas, for any who wish to attend. So, “destroying traditions” is a pretty subjective term and/or idea, and one against which I argue vehemently.
...(cont)
If you think HUMC’s traditions are wonderful, great for you! However, I don’t think just because there are ‘only’ “a few within the church” or “such a group” that our opinions should be discounted or tossed aside and talked about ‘anonymously’. It’s not as though we suggested burning down the church and starting over. I’m absolutely with Amy and Katie on this point -- since when did critically thinking about and discussing the direction the church is going, the current status of the church, and the establishment “destroying traditions”? I don’t follow AT ALL. This isn’t the Storming of the Bastille 1789, or the Storming of HUMC 2010, and we’re not going to cut off Harris’ head or anything…so, why get so worked up over it? If we’re only “a few,” then why are you so threatened? Are we that powerful? Cool!
…but most didn't turn on their electronic gadgets for amusement. Instead they sat attentively (or at least not snoring), just as they would if it were a children's moment that didn't particularly move them, or a youth-led service, or other similar situation.
Uh, well, are you sure about that? Have you walked around during a service, inspecting every pew to see if people were paying attention? Did you take note of any glazed-over eyes or -- as Sarah said in the latest post, writing the day’s to-do list or grocery list? I’m not sure your argument here is usable. Sweeping generalizations and all that.
...(cont. again)
So, Anonymous, thank you for proving that no matter how great HUMC sees itself, there are those who overreact to a guy admitting he turns on his “electronic gadget” and, as a result, become frightened of “a few within the church” “destroying traditions.”
Is that really what Jesus meant?
Post a Comment