Smuggling Grace

“I can do that right now. . . Straight from the vine.”

This thought suddenly emerged in my mind. So with a skip in my step, I just went and did it.

Without a second thought, I stepped out my back door, walked right up next to the plant, and received a new tomato. Straight off the vine. I held it in my hands, tenderly touching the texture of its skin – smooth with a thin layer of dirt. I breathed in its scent, smelling the perfect blend of summer and soil.

I stepped back inside, washed it, and then. . .

I tasted it.

I. tasted. it. 

And it was glorious. The vibrancy of its flavor. The immediacy of its availability. The connection to the earth. The recognition of life.

And that’s honestly how I felt in a tiny, summer gesture: Alive.

This made me wonder. . . how many other moments of life might be cultivated today? Straight off the vine?

Laughter with a friend . . .
straight to the source of connection.

Tears shed for others . . .
straight to the source of solidarity.

The emergence of a new question. . .
straight to the source of calling.

The refusal to be a bystander. . .
straight to the source of communal action.

The determination to choose aliveness. . .
straight to the Source of Life,
The Ground of Being.

All of these. . . and more.

What else? What might we cultivate on this day?

– Renee Roederer

 

On Friday, Saturday, and Sunday night, I ended up taking walks in downtown Ann Arbor. It was a small thing, but it transformed my whole weekend.

As Friday evening arrived, I realized it was time for me to step away from the smartphone for a while. Perhaps you were following along. . . The news was wild last week. Every single day, there seemed to be some sort of bombshell; some outrageously inappropriate, dangerous speech; or some person voted off of a White House island. I shouldn’t even say or. I should say and. Each day had multiple iterations of these.

After following all of that, I put the news away for a while. I decided to take a walk downtown and on the University of Michigan campus. That truly transformed my weekend.

People were walking along the sidewalks and eating in outdoor cafés. Folks were laughing. All ages were present. People were talking to each other, including complete strangers. That first night, I ended up having four conversations with people I had never met. The energy was alive. It really filled me.

And my town is no paragon of perfection. People struggle here too. In fact, half of the conversations I had Friday night were precisely about that. The occasion of being present downtown and on campus allowed us to talk openly about this. These realities need to be shared and shifted.

Present among it all, recognizing its gifts and its challenges, I realized how deeply I feel called to Ann Arbor as a place. I feel so alive when I am in the presence of the people who live in this place.

It is a gift when place calls us. 

How often do we let ourselves feel this — deep, rich connection to a place? How often do we seek it out?

Perhaps too often, place can become a dull backdrop to the rat race we run. Gotta be here. . . Gotta be there. . . I have this deadline. . . And that deadline. At times, it fades as we get stuck in our own heads, ruminating about the news, anxious about our inner conflicts — unaware of our bodies, unaware of nature, unaware of each other.

But when we are awake to it,
A place can call us to gratitude.
A place can call us to collective action.
A place can summon us toward one another.

And there are times when we need it to transform us.

– Renee Roederer

 

Have you heard of the Fresh Start Effect? It’s the idea that smaller markers of time can serve as openings to ask new questions, initiate new practices, or work toward new goals. Many people set aims like these when they make New Year’s Resolutions, but these can often be even more life-giving on smaller scales – days, weeks, and months.

Today is a new month.

Would you like to sit with a new question, try a practice for 31 days, or perhaps name August as the template for completing a step toward a larger goal? We have such an opening today.

This month, I am going to ask myself these three questions quite often:

1) What do I need to release to be grounded in this moment? 

In the midst of national chaos, we can easily lose awareness of our connection to what’s larger. If I set purposeful intention to recognize connections to the bigger picture — God, often called the Ground of Being. . . Community. . . Calling. . . Purpose. . . Vision. . . I feel less limited by the chaos and more equipped to respond to it.

We may need moments of silence to come into grounding, a practice to recognize these larger connections. We certainly need moments where we can step away from our cerebral rumination of anxieties. When we step away, we initiate different ways of thinking which allow us to gain intuition. Intuition is a gift that strengthens us and our larger communities.

2) What do I need to release to enjoy this moment?

I also want to be present to the moment. The same types of chaos can pull us away from the enjoyment of everyday activities and the presence of people right in front of us. These moments are gifts, and they can connect us to the sense of what’s larger too.

The release question is also a good one. . .  If we ask this, we may discover that we can’t feel enjoyment right now, and that’s okay. There are moments when we naturally feel sadness, anger, confusion, and more. When we release these, we choose to feel our emotions and express them. We may invite moments and people to share in them as well. And this opens up space to feel joy again.

3) What do I need to release in order to be alive toward others in this moment?

Aware of the larger connections, how do I then act from this grounding? I want to be more alive toward others. The life we receive can inform the life we give.

In a time of chaos, we want to choose action over inaction. But what kind of action? To quote Richard Rohr, I find that I am best empowered to act when my actions are aligned with contemplation — that is, when I am engaging intentional processes to tap into connections with the larger picture. I need to release all the things that act as barriers to this.

After all, I best act alongside my neighbors when I am aware of my deeper connection to my neighbors  — when I prioritize the recognition of who they are along with the intrinsic value and worth they have as people.

These are my questions for the month. Do you have guiding questions?

Here is a hymn text I love quite a bit. The words are written by Shirley Erena Murray, and here’s a recording. Perhaps these words are a good guide.

Come and Find the Quiet Center

Come and find the quiet center
in the crowded life we lead,
find the room for hope to enter,
find the frame where we are freed:
Clear the chaos and the clutter,
clear our eyes that we can see
all the things that really matter,
be at peace, and simply be.

Silence is a friend who claims us,
cools the heat and slows the pace,
God it is who speaks and names us,
knows our being, touches base,
making space within our thinking,
lifting shades to show the sun,
raising courage when we’re shrinking,
finding scope for faith begun.

In the Spirit let us travel,
open to each other’s pain,
let our loves and fears unravel,
celebrate the space we gain:
There’s a place for deepest dreaming,
there’s a time for heart to care,
in the Spirit’s lively scheming
there is always room to spare.

– Renee Roederer

You are valuable.

It’s that simple.
It’s that profound.

It is Truer than True.
You have worth that cannot be diminished.

No matter
any of the words that have stung in the past,

No matter
any of the dismissals people have thrown your way,

No matter
any of the failings that keep you up at night,

No matter
any of the items left unchecked on your to-do list,

No matter
any of the unkind comments said to your own reflection,

No matter
any of the the stigma people associate with the diagnosis,

No matter
any of the “gaps” on your resume,

No matter
any of the things pundits have said about you,

No matter
any of the fears you carry inside your living cells.

No matter
anything
anything
anything.

You are valuable.
Full stop.

With a love that can’t be lost.
With a life that can be lived.

– Renee Roederer

Today, we conclude a series that has explored the central findings of the book Church Refugees: Sociologists Reveal Why People are DONE with Church But Not Their Faith by Joshua Packard and Ashleigh Hope. This book gave us the term “the Dones” as a descriptor for an increasing number of Christians who left have traditional, institutional churches yet continue to practice their faith.

Packard and Hope, both sociologists, conducted interviews with Christians to learn more about their departures from organized churches.

Interviewees revealed that,

They wanted community. . . and got judgment.

They wanted to affect the life of the church. . . and got bureaucracy.

They wanted conversation. . . and got doctrine.

They wanted meaningful engagement with the world. . . and got moral prescription. 

In other posts this week (see below), we explored the first three themes. Today, let’s look at the last one.

Meaningful Ministry and Moral Prescription

As I mentioned earlier this week, Packard and Hope write that their interviewees are “doers.” They want to engage faith in an active way. They care about their neighbors, and they want the ministries of the church to have meaningful impacts in their larger contexts.

But so often, the interviewees reported that their congregations made very little impact beyond their own membership. These churches did not address crucial needs beyond their own sanctuary walls, even as they made all kinds of moral pronouncements. Interviewees believed that church leaders and members should teach about morality and ethics, but they wanted teachings to be paired with communal action. The Church Refugees interviewees perceived their congregations to be “hypocritical and unconcerned with the world” and “increasingly incongruent” with lives “outside of the church walls.”

And this cannot be overstated: Church pronouncements and debates around sexuality and gender — particularly, same-sex marriage and gender identity — added deep pain to the lives of interviewees. Christians from the Church Refugees study held a variety of theological and social perspectives in the midst of these debates, but many carried deep pain on behalf of LGBTQ+ loved ones. Church pronouncements often functioned to shame, judge, and scapegoat LGBTQ+ people. Interviewees believed such teachings were emphasized frequently and harshly.

Finally, Christians from the Church Refugees study voiced a correlation: The more their congregations discussed morality without action, the more likely it became that church offerings would stay within the confines of their own membership. Interviewees were frustrated by this.

For all of these reasons and for the reasons mentioned earlier in the week, these Christians stepped away from institutional church communities.

It makes me wonder,

How do we confess and apologize for the ways we’ve harmed transgender, bisexual, lesbian, gay, and queer people, including fellow Christians?

How do we broaden the ways we talk about morality, and how do we prioritize that with action?

How do we listen to the witness of those who have left our congregations?

How might we hear their convictions and follow their lead?

– Renee Roederer

This post is a part of a series. Feel free to check out the other posts from this week as well:

Christianity: Is It Good. . .?
Themes of Church Departure: 1) Community and Judgment
Themes of Church Departure: 2) Activity and Bureaucracy
Themes of Church Departure: 3) Conversation and Doctrine

This week, we’re exploring important themes from the book Church Refugees: Sociologists Reveal Why People are DONE with Church But Not Their Faith. This book by Joshua Packard and Ashleigh Hope is one that I highly recommend, particularly for Christian churches.

Packard and Hope conducted in-depth interviews with Christians who left organized, institutional churches yet continued to maintain their faith identity. Packard and Hope use the term Church Refugees to describe the experiences of their interviewees — not so much a comparison to the plight of actual refugees, but as a spiritual analogy. The people they interviewed still practice Christianity, but many feel that they do not have a larger, spiritual home in the way they once did.

Packard and Hope held interviews to discover why these Christians had departed from organized churches. As they did so, four primary themes emerged quite frequently.

Interviewees revealed that,

They wanted community. . . and got judgment.

They wanted to affect the life of the church. . . and got bureaucracy.

They wanted conversation. . . and got doctrine.

They wanted meaningful engagement with the world. . . and got moral prescription. 

Earlier this week, we explored the first and second themes. Now, let’s turn to the third.

Conversation and Doctrine

The interviewees from the Church Refugees study uplifted the values of conversation and shared dialogue in relationships. In their interviews, many said that they learned, grew, and experienced God most readily in the context of community. In fact, they view conversation as a theological value itself. They expressed that they often deepened their faith and spirituality in shared conversation.

But so often in their churches, these Christians experienced tension when they wanted to think theologically in dialogue. This was particularly true if they wanted to raise challenging questions.

They didn’t expect all people in the church to agree theologically on all matters, nor were they looking for people to endorse all of their own viewpoints. They simply wanted to engage in conversation, expecting that all would grow in the process of learning from one another.

In many cases, however, dialogue was simply not tolerated in the cultures of their church communities. Most frequently, they received doctrinal lectures from clergy and church members, and ‘conversations’ moved in only one direction. In such contexts, these Christians encountered churches that could not accept any ambiguity. If they raised questions or were honest about doubts, they were treated with suspicion, judgment, or were even scapegoated.

Some of the Church Refugees interviewees were additionally disheartened to watch their communities build relationships primarily as a ‘technique’ for other goals — most frequently, to introduce or convert people to Christian faith. They viewed these forms of relationship-building as remarkably inauthentic and disingenuous, and they wondered if such processes were doing harm to others. Meanwhile, they held relationships as an intrinsic good, not as a means to some other end.

All of this makes me wonder,

How can church communities create greater opportunities for shared dialogue?

How might that impact the formats for teaching or preaching?

How can we honor the hurt and reasonable suspicion of our neighbors, who expect lectures or ulterior motives from us?

How can we come to embrace ambiguity and trust that our acceptance is rooted in something much greater than ‘certainty’?

– Renee Roederer

This post is part of a series. Feel free to check out the other posts from this week as well:

Christianity: Is It Good. . . ?
Themes of Church Departure: 1) Community and Judgment
Themes of Church Departure: 2) Activity and Bureaucracy
Themes of Church Departure: 4) Meaningful Ministry and Moral Prescription

Yesterday, I initiated a blog series to discuss some of the primary themes from the book Church Refugees: Sociologists Reveal Why People are DONE with Church But Not Their Faith by Joshua Packard and Ashleigh Hope. I highly recommend reading this book.

Packard and Hope are sociologists who conducted a qualitative research study from January 2013 – July 2014. They held in-depth interviews with Christians who left traditional, institutional churches yet maintained their faith identity. After spending time with interviewees and hearing their personal stories and perspectives, Packard and Hope lifted up four themes they encountered most frequently in narratives.

Interviewees revealed that,

They wanted community. . . and got judgment.

They wanted to affect the life of the church. . . and got bureaucracy.

They wanted conversation. . . and got doctrine.

They wanted meaningful engagement with the world. . . and got moral prescription. 

Yesterday, we explored the first theme of community and judgment. Today, let’s talk about the second.

Activity and Bureaucracy

As Packard and Hope interviewed Christians who left congregational communities, they discovered that these interviewees are “doers.” Perhaps surprising to some, most of the interviewees never existed on the fringe of church involvement. Instead, many were leaders who participated right at center of the church’s community life for years. As leaders, they longed for their congregations to be active in their wider communities. They desired to build friendships with their neighbors and work together to address social needs in their local neighborhoods.

Holding mission and justice as high theological values, these Christians prioritized the necessity of action in partnership and service. In fact, they viewed such priorities to be central to the ministry of Jesus.

But these interviewees became deeply discouraged and frustrated as they watched their congregations grow increasingly insular. At the very moment they wanted connect in vital partnerships, their churches were most interested in securing their own institutional survival. Their churches constantly discussed how to increase the numbers of people in the pews, in large part, to ensure higher offering numbers for building expenses and staff salaries. The interviewees from the Church Refugees study felt that these concerns were disproportionally prioritized, often at the expense of faithful action. Some expressed that they “felt they were basically working as entry-level employees for a large organization.” [page 59]

Additionally, interviewees expressed frustration that their ideas were consistently impeded from coming to fruition. When they expressed a new opportunity for vision or collective action, their ideas often entered processes that required approval from multiple layers of committee structures. Interviewees were realistic that institutions need processes for discernment and accountability, but they felt that these processes were too slow and worked ultimately to protect the church from necessary change.

Most of the interviewees from the Church Refugees study worked for a long time to try to affect the vision of their churches, but eventually, they became frustrated. In addition, some became convicted: They came to a personal conclusion that they could follow the vision and ministry of Jesus more actively beyond the congregational life their churches.

And there is deep loss in that conclusion.

Interviewees left churches where they would have preferred to stay. And of course, there are deep losses to Christian congregations as well. In such situations, Packard and Hope write that congregations lose leaders who have institutional knowledge and training, energy and talents, and many community and social connections that extend beyond the walls of the church. Congregations lose vital bridge-builders to their wider communities.

All of this makes me wonder,

How can we build cultures that are willing to take more risks toward life-giving action?

How do we empower the gifts and visions of ‘doers’?

How might we grieve the people and possibilities lost in these church departures?

How do we become reconciling churches – with neighbors and our fellow Christians?

– Renee Roederer 

This post is part of a larger series. Feel free to read the other posts from this week as well:

Christianity: Is It Good. . . ?
Themes of Church Departure: 1) Community and Judgment
Themes of Church Departure: 3) Conversation and Doctrine
Themes of Church Departure: 4) Meaningful Ministry and Moral Prescription

 

A couple summers ago, I read a book that continues to shape a great deal of my thinking. It’s entitled, Church Refugees: Sociologists Reveal Why People are DONE with Church but Not Their Faith. It is authored by Joshua Packard and Ashleigh Hope, two sociologists who conducted a research study from January 2013-July 2014. Through in-depth, personal interviews, they sought to discover why some Christians have maintained their faith identity but left organized, institutional churches behind. In most cases, these Christians have left for good.

As you may intuit from the title, this is the book that gave us the term “the Dones.” A bit of a buzzword now, this term has begun to float around quite a bit, particularly in church circles. In response, some Christians have chosen to take on this precise title to describe themselves and their experiences. Others, however, use different frameworks entirely or reject this one.

For that reason, beyond a mere word or a label, it’s important to open ourselves to fuller stories – that is, self-reported, self-described narratives of experience. That is also what Packard and Hope lift up in their book.

From their interviews, Packard and Hope uncovered four themes that participants named quite frequently as they discussed their departure from Christian congregations. I know many of us have probably seen a plethora of internet article titles like, “[Number] Reasons People are Leaving Church!” ad nauseum (insert rolled eyes). But that being said, I think this list is an important one.

Interviewees revealed that,

They wanted community. . . and got judgment.

They wanted to affect the life of the church. . . and got bureaucracy.

They wanted conversation. . . and got doctrine.

They wanted meaningful engagement with the world. . . and got moral prescription. 

For the rest of the week, I’d like to look at these themes one by one.

Community and Judgment

I’m going to venture to guess that this theme is not much of a shocker to anyone.

Whether one identifies as a Christian or not, it’s not much of a surprise to hear that many people perceive Christian churches to be remarkably judgmental. . . Deeply painful, this perception is rooted in a great deal of experience.

The participants in Packard and Hope’s interviews articulated community as a high value. In fact, for many, it may be their highest value. Inside their congregations, they appreciated support, friendship, and belonging. And as leaders, they sought to cultivate these experiences for others too. Alongside the connections of support, interviewees also named community as an important theological value in their lives. They shared that they experience God and a sense of the sacred most readily through relationships.

These interviewees wanted church community ties to be strong, and from that foundation, they wanted to experience spiritual connection and meaning in relationships with others. But inside their congregations, they were especially pained to see judgment, shame, stigmatization, and scapegoating taking hold in their communities. In some instances, they were targeted for such judgment themselves, and they bore that trauma personally. At other times, they watched in deep pain as church members and leaders tore into others with labeling and shaming. They could not stand for it.

They also struggled to reconcile their view of God and the ministry of Jesus with these patterns of harsh judgment. After trying to shift the direction of the church, many of these Christians concluded that they needed to leave the community. First and foremost, they could not support these dynamics. But also, they concluded that they needed to leave in order to preserve their spiritual lives.

And so, they did. They practiced their Christian faith by leaving. It came with a lot of pain and grief. Yet remarkably, many have chosen to continue in their faith, even if they now do so outside of traditional, church buildings.

It makes me wonder,

How many people have had such experiences?

How do we identify the patterns that make such dynamics possible?

How do we listen and express our remorse?

How do we practice, model, and embody a different way?

– Renee Roederer

This post is part of a series. Feel free to read the other posts from this week as well:
Christianity: Is It Good. . .?
Themes of Church Departure: 2) Activity and Bureaucracy
Themes of Church Departure: 3) Conversation and Doctrine
Themes of Church Departure: 4) Meaningful Ministry and Moral Prescription

Years ago, I heard a podcast where someone lifted up some questions.

He was making a claim that as Americans come into adulthood, they ask different questions of Christianity, depending on the generation of which they are a part. He borrowed this idea without mentioning the source, so unfortunately, I don’t know where these thoughts originate. But these questions resonate with my experience, and I’d like to share them with you.

He says that Baby Boomers have asked this primary question:
Is it true?

Does Christianity make sense? Is it logical? Is this something I can reasonably put my trust in? These are also questions of Modernism.

He says that people from Generation X have asked this primary question:
Is it real?

Can Christianity make a real difference in our real lives? Is it concerned with things that matter? Can it be present to our real, authentic struggles?

And right now, he says that Millennials are asking this primary question:
Is it good?

Is Christianity a force for good in the world, or is it mainly causing harm? Will I harm myself or my neighbors by engaging Christianity?

Certainly, none of these questions are limited internally to any one generation. Lots of people are asking them. Maybe you, the reader of this post, are asking them too.

And this last perspective — Is it even good? — is one that we Christians must ponder internally and confessionally without defensiveness. What has happened that so many people have experienced tangible harm in the wake of Christian communities?

How will we listen to that harm?
How will make amends for it?
How will we reconcile ourselves to these realities and then, if possible, to our neighbors?

I’m reminded that in its origin, Christianity is about the proclamation and the enactment of good news. Perhaps we can proclaim some of that good news with a listening posture, honoring the worth of people who have ample reason to ask such a question. And perhaps we can enact some of that good news by practicing a different way.

– Renee Roederer

This post is part of a series. Feel free to read the other posts from this week as well:
Themes of Church Departure: 1) Community and Judgment
Themes of Church Departure: 2) Activity and Bureaucracy
Themes of Church Departure: 3) Conversation and Doctrine
Themes of Church Departure: 4) Meaningful Ministry and Moral Prescription

As you know, it’s hardly a news flash to say that patterns of religious affiliation and expressions of religious experience have changed quite a bit over the last 40-50 years. More and more in the news and on social media, we’re hearing about a variety of studies examining these shifts. But beyond the formal studies and news reports, many of us have witnessed these changes over time. Likely, some of us have experienced such shifts internally in our own religious expression as well.

As some of these changes are explored, I think it’s intriguing to ponder these two patterns together:

Since the 1980s, the percentage of religiously unaffiliated Americans has risen from approximately 16.1% of the population to approximately 22.8% of the population. (Keep in mind that the U.S. population has grown by approximately 100 million people since 1980, so that higher percentage is quite significant).

And at the very same time, an increasing number of people have reported experiencing mystical encounters with the Divine. Undoubtedly, people would define God or the Divine in an array of ways. People would also describe their mystical encounters in a variety of ways too. But reports of mystical experiences appear to be increasing. Or, at the very least, people are talking about them more.

Here are some thoughts from Diana Butler Bass in her book Christianity After Religion: The End of Church and the Birth of a New Spiritual Awakening:

“In 1962. . . pollsters found that 22 percent of Americans claimed to have had a ‘mystical experience’ of God. In 1976. . . that number had risen to 31 percent of the population. Back in those days, we thought we were in the middle of a revival. Apparently, however, it did not end. In 2009, 48 percent of Americans confessed that they had a mystical encounter with the divine. This was not merely some sort of short-lived emotional outburst of renewed faith. Instead the numbers indicate that, during the past thirty years, American faith has undergone a profound and extensive reorientation away from externalized religion toward internalized spiritual experience.” (pages 3-4)

– And –

“The 48 percent is, if nothing else, a theological motley crew, diverse and pluralistic in their spirituality, as ineffable as the divine itself. But whatever the differences between these people, it appears that a good many of them are traveling new paths of meaning, exploring new ways to live their lives, experiencing a new sense of authenticity and wonder, and practicing new forms of community that address global concerns of human flourishing.” (4)

More of that, please.

I wonder how this will continue to shape us collectively.

– Renee Roederer