Barry Dundas

Jurisdiction Day Two

The morning began with words of welcome, call to order and the first episcopal ballot. The exciting news for the Kansas Area is that Rev. Cheryl Bell had the third highest number of votes. Since we are electing three Bishops, she is in the running.  However in subsequent voting, she has dropped a spot is on the bubble. The question all of us were wondering is if she was a legitimate candidate outside of Kansas. The answer is an obvious yes. On the third ballot, Rev. Earl Bledsoe from the Texas Conference was elected. This was not unexpected, but it was a surprisingly holy moment when it happened. His wife was was sitting just in front of me and to be helped to her feet she was so overcome with emotion. As the standing ovation ended, the conference began to sing the Doxology. It was one of those moments where the Holy Spirit broke into the politics of the church.

Following the first vote we heard a State of the Church address and a Laity address. While neither was overly inspiring, I have to be honest that the Laity address was an embarrassment. It began with a "dumb blond" joke (seriously, you read that correctly) and was followed by an address that was so memorable that I could not tell you what was said. One theme that stood out in both addresses was that things are not going well in the UMC so we need to change and do better. Unfortunately that has been a constant message for 40 years. I get tired of hearing the same thing over and over. Maybe it is time to change how we talk about the church. Instead of lamenting how often we fall short, why not celebrate all the things we do right. There are churches that are thriving, lives being changed, ministries that are effective. We can do better.

The other issue of the day was the Bush Library and Institute at SMU. A motion was made to accept the library but to reject the Institute. Many speeches were made for and against, some very entertaining. However after the debate threw is hours behind schedule, the Jurisdiction voted to do nothing and the Bush Library and Institute can breathe easy.

In the evening we returned for more reports and ballots. There was a motion supported by a number of women's groups (and others) to remember that we need to be aware of our call to Holy Conferencing. The tasteless "blond" joke was mentioned as well as some poor behavior by delegates and one Conference who was already negotiating for their new Bishop. Rumor has it that they were making it clear that they did not want a female Bishop. I can not confirm or deny, but they were called out even if not by name. There are more ballots left this evening that I will report on if a new Bishop is elected.

Jurisdiction Day One

The South Central Jurisdictional Conference is being held at the Hilton Anatole in Dallas, Texas. The first thing I realized is that this is the nothing included hotel. Everything is pay as you go including your internet connection (about $11.00 per day). It is not an experience of radical hospitality by the facility but rather a reminder of the mindset that you only get what you pay for. What an opportunity the church has in this world to offer an alternative message of grace and hospitality to a world that expects to only get what you believe you have earned. I did find some free wi-fi in the conference room so I don't have to pay for it in my hotel room.

The conference began with worship on Wednesday night at First United Methodist Church in downtown Dallas. It is a beautiful traditional sanctuary with great decorative woodwork, wonderful stained glass and a powerful organ in the center of the chancel area. First church has an identity around the phrase "I am." The pastor welcomed the conference by explaining the phrase, "Here at First United Methodist we say I am inclusive, I am relevant, I am traditional." What a great way to claim their identity. The architecture of the room was so traditional that it would be difficult to modernize. There was no place to put screens, the organ dominated the center of the chancel. Any other set up would seem out of place in the room. First church claimed their identity as traditional, but traditional does not mean irrelevant or exclusive. At least in their vision through the "I am" slogans they want the world to know that they are inclusive and relevant.

I appreciate what First Church Dallas is trying to do (even if my experience is limited to one evening), but let me say that I also felt a little out of place in the opening worship. It was traditional worship done well with many elements, liturgical dancers, organ and brass, a combined choir, Holy Communion with the Great Thanksgiving and Bishop Alfred L. Norris preaching. In that sacred space, there was no other way to do worship well, but I had trouble connecting (I need to be clear that this says more about me than those who created and led worship). Maybe I am used to the pace that Gayle and Jane McMillen play the hymns at Trinity, but all the music felt slow and deliberate. The flow of the service often appeared pieced together. Anytime something more contemporary was introduced in worship, it just seemed out of place. There were powerful moments, the liturgical dance was meaningful, the service of remembrance for our Bishops who had died was powerful as their croziers were brought forward, and communion is always a sacred moment, but I realized how disconnected I have become to high church worship.

Thursday morning begins the balloting process for our new Bishops. It will be interesting to see the results of the first ballot. It may become clear quickly who are the top candidates to the three openings or it may show that nothing is clear. We are also scheduled to discuss the George W. Bush Presidential Library at SMU. Southern Methodist University (a Jurisdictional University) has entered into agreement to lease space for the Bush library and “think tank” (insert your own joke here). Some in the jurisdiction are questioning the wisdom and the process of this decision. My guess is that the jurisdiction will not act because contracts have already been signed. Even though the process was followed with questionable integrity, backing out at this point could bring legal complications that the Jurisdiction will be unwilling to tackle. I am expecting some passionate speeches but little or no action.

South Central Jurisdictional Conference

The South Central Jurisdictional Conference of the United Methodist Church meets July 16-19 in Dallas, Texas and I am attending as an alternate delegate from my Conference. I joked when I was elected that I was Mr. Irrelevant (a title given to the last player selected in the NFL draft) because I was the last alternate. After a year of meetings preparing for General and Jurisdictional Conference, I realize that I am not as irrelevant as I suspected. The alternates should have plenty of time on floor (sometimes called inside the bar but don't take that too seriously, we are United Methodists) which means I will be voting on our next Bishops. When I stop and think about it, that is an awesome task. I understand that the process can be a bit political, but so far it has been nothing like our national elections. Each endorsed candidate submitted written paperwork answering a series of questions and then were interviewed by each delegation. It was a bit surreal to sit in a small circle and ask direct questions to these folks who could someday be my Bishop. In the process it became clear to me who I would vote for (and a few I would have trouble voting for) so it will be interesting if the other conferences agree.  There are only three openings and nine endorsed candidates. This is where the politics may start to show their ugly little heads. Will we vote for the best candidates regardless of conference orientation or will party (oops, I mean conference) loyalty be more of a factor?  That is a question to be addressed by a future post.

No Drive Throughs

I can't remember where I saw or read this story, but I can't get it out of my mind. It was about the problem with drive through windows. In a time when we face sky-rocketing gasoline prices and the prospect of global warming which are impacted by burning fossil fuels, how much do drive through windows contribute to the problem? Can we afford to allow cars to sit idle at these windows all day long (especially at $4.00 a gallon)? I know, each car only sits for a few minutes but I can't even begin to do the math when you add up all the drive through windows in this country times the number of cars that go through them each day. I have to believe it is a substantial amount a fuel that is burned every day that is unnecessarily wasted.

So one solution is to make drive through windows illegal. Businesses would not be allowed to do business through these windows any longer. Does anybody believe that will ever happen? As Americans we are addicted to convenience. I am afraid that we would rather destroy our world than sacrifice getting out of our cars to walk into the fast food restaurant and buy our food. It would be a shame to counter the effects of these nutritious meals by actually getting a small amount of exercise.

If there is absolutely no chance of banning drive through windows than I have an alternate solution. I am ready to make a pledge now to stop using drive through windows. I am willing to make this small sacrifice if it can make a difference, but the only way it can make a difference is if I am not the only one. I know I am a dreamer, but what if we started a movement of people who said no to drive throughs? We would need some snappy slogan like "change we can believe in" (I think that one is taken), but I haven't got that far. We are not going to reduce our gas consumption over night, but we can't just keep doing the same old thing and expect different results. It is time to "just say no" to drive throughs (is that one taken as well). Will you join me?

New Ramblings

I have been so out of the habit of blogging that I almost forgot I had a blog. Part of my problem is that I think I need something to say before I put it out for the world to see. That is probably a bit presumptuous in that I think I have something to say or that anybody is really reading. This summer I have decided that it is time to start writing again regardless if I have anything to say. Instead I am just going to share what I am thinking even if it is just rambling.

Today I am thinking about George Carlin. I first heard George on an audio cassette when I was about 14 or 15. It wasn't my tape, but after a few minutes of listening I asked if I could borrow it. It was there that I learned (and memorized to impress my friends) the seven words you can't say on television. I also found his commentary on the Catholic Church rather funny, mainly because I wasn't Catholic. Now I understand that he could easily have said similar things about my denomination of choice.

In the past I have received an e-mail called "The Paradox of Our Time" supposedly written by George Carlin. It is a sappy little piece about what makes life worth living, but it was not written by George. He vehemently denies it on his own website using many of the words that cannot be said on TV. It doesn't even sound like George, but for some reason if it comes in an e-mail we think it must be true. I mention this because it leads to my thoughts for today. The e-mail implies that although George could be a loud critic of religion that he was a spiritual person. I don't know what George believed, but he did not have many good things to say about the church (some which probably needed to be said). I think he was pretty sure that God did not exist. Now that he is dead, I wonder what kind of conversation he is having with God. I think the ultimate joke for a comedian like George would be for God to say, "Georgie, I know you didn't believe in me all these years and even said some pretty hurtful things about my people so now you are going to have to pay the price. You are going to have to spend the rest of your life with me here in heaven." Now that is funny!

Good Scriptures Going Bad

The past month my energy has been focused on one of the most challenging sermon series I have preached. Sometimes what seems like a good idea months in advance becomes incredibly stressful when it is time to live it out. The idea started when I came across a book by Bishop Spong called "The Sins of Scripture." If the purpose of a title is to get you to open the book, then it worked. The book became the catalyst for my January sermon series, "When Good Scriptures Go Bad: Facing the Texts We Use to Destroy, Control, and Distort God's World." Honestly, I am not inclined to stick my neck out on issues that I know will stir controversy. I would rather play it safe so that people will like me. This series has not allowed me to play it safe. I am fortunate to serve a church not only allows me to proclaim where I stand but is not afraid to stand with me. To see or hear the sermons you can find them on our church website at http://www.triumc.org/current_sermon_series.html. Each week an MP3 recording is posted after worship and streaming video by 10 PM.

True Riches

A few weeks ago I preached a sermon with the title "True Riches"  It was based on the parable of the dishonest manager found in Luke 16:1-13.  I had to come up with the title early and by the time Sunday came around it was not about true riches at all.  Honestly, I think the parable doesn't have much to say about true riches, but Luke did.  He has Jesus make the statement near the end of the passage, "If then you have not been faithful with the dishonest wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches?"  I don't know if it was my research on this parable or the fact that we are in a season that is often centered on greed instead of "true riches," but I have been pondering our definition of wealth.  I read something interesting the other day by Elaine Bernard, director of the Trade Union Program at Harvard.  She writes:

One of the things I find very interesting in our current debates is this concept of who creates wealth. Wealth is only created when it's owned privately. What would you call clean water, fresh air, a safe environment? Are they not a form of wealth? And why does it only become wealth when some entity puts a fence around it and declares it private property? Well, you know, that's not wealth creation, that's wealth usurpation.

We often define our worth by what we claim as private property, how big is my house, how new is my car, how current are my clothes (my answers, not big, not new and never current).  A common question this time of year is what do you want for Christmas.  We then recite a list of things that are probably more wants than needs.  We need more things if we are going to believe that we are individuals of great wealth.  What would happen if we redefined wealth as that which is best for the world instead of what is best for me?  What if instead of asking for things we said what I want for Christmas is to make a difference, to stop contributing to global warming or to do something that leads to greater understanding in the world instead of more conflict?  What if we really believed that true riches are not something that we could ever buy or own, but only something we can give away?

Junk DNA

In Brian McLaren's latest book "Everything Must Change," he has a chapter called No Junk DNA.  He begins with a story of meeting a DNA expert on a plane and striking up a conversation.  The man was passionate about studying human DNA and explained that a common misconception is that much of the material contained in a gene is junk DNA.  His belief is that what many scientists call junk is just stuff we don't understand.  Their assumption is that the part which we don't understand must not have a use and is junk, but he believes there is no junk DNA.  After the conversation, Brian reflected how the scientist's comments were relevant to how we read the Bible.

The Bible's purpose, we assume, is to explain how to go to heaven, to legitimize certain religious institutions, to define in detail universal timeless truths, to provide a detailed timeline for the end of the world, and so on. But based on that assumption, there appears to be a lot of junk revelation in there, a lot of extraneous material about history, agriculture, economics, art, ethics, and other "earthly" things, extra stuff that doesn't really matter in relation to getting souls to heaven. So what might we discover if we become willing to question that assumption? Then we could test an alternative hypothesis: that the Bible instead is the story of the partnership between God and humanity to save and transform all of human society and avert global self destruction. Perhaps if we read the Bible afresh from this perspective, a lot of the supposed filler will suddenly come alive with new importance and meaning.

It is easy for me to agree with Brian because I connect with his theology and I agree with his hypothesis, but I also found his statement challenging.  Because of my theological bent, I find areas of scripture to be junk DNA.  It is not that I ignore them, but I cannot understand how they connect with my understanding of God.  Scriptures that describe a God who calls for genocide, that support slavery, that place women in secondary roles or describe a God who ends the world in a bloody battle don't make sense.  I just drop them into my junk drawer and focus on the scriptures I like.  Maybe I need to re-examine the sections of the Bible that give me the most trouble, not because I believe God supports genocide or injustice, but because their is a benefit from wrestling with that which is difficult. These scriptures were saved because they said something important to the people trying to understand the same God I worship.  They are part of the church's DNA that has shaped my life. If I choose to ignore them and label them junk than I my understanding of God is incomplete.

Hearing Voices

In a devotion I read today written by Rev. Kate Moorehead taken from her book "Organic God," she briefly tells the story of John Nash, the brilliant mathematician who was the subject of the movie "A Beautiful Mind."  Here is what she wrote:

Nobel prize winner John Nash struggled with schizophrenia. When first diagnosed, he was treated with shock therapy and medication. But he found that this form of treatment destroyed his genius, clouding his mind. In trying to erase the voices in his head, he also destroyed all creative thought. It was only when he learned to live with these voices, not to silence them, that he was able to continue to work and thrive as a great mathematician.

Although I have seen the movie, which I thought was incredible, my initial impression was how different I am from John Nash.  I cannot imagine what he struggles with everyday.  After reading the devotion I realized how similar we all are.  We all struggle with voices every single day, voices saying things like, "you're not good enough," "you're not smart enough," you have failed," "you don't fit in."  These voices attempt to destroy who we are, but sometimes in our attempts to shut them out, we do more damage to ourselves or those around us.  In some mysterious way, this idea of living with the voices was freeing.  Maybe the secret to life is not trying to silence the voices of the world, but living among the voices, discovering the voices that are creative and life sustaining.  I am not denying that some of the voices are incredibly destructive, but I suspect that we can never silence them completely.  They just wait in the dark until an opportune time.  But when we acknowledge the voices and learn to live among them, they seem to lose some of their power and like John Nash, we are then able to hear a greater voice that becomes our true identity in life.

Biblical Interpretation

It came clear to me again this week how two people can read a Biblical story and hear two very different messages.  I showed Ryan Jones documentary "Fall From Grace" at my church.  It is an inside look at Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church.  Fred's claim to fame is showing up at funerals and other places with outrageous signs of God's hate for the world.  What I found interesting is the logic behind the picketing.  His family understands themselves as modern day Jonah's and the United States is Nineveh.  Jonah's message was repent or Nineveh will be destroyed in 40 days.  It is not a message of grace but one of God's judgment and wrath.  One of Fred's sons described their goal.  They intend to put this nation's lips to the cup of God's fury and make it drink.  Fred himself believes he is a modern day prophet but assumes that it is too late for this country.  What I find fascinating is that I don't read Jonah as a story about Nineveh's sin.  It is not about how bad Nineveh is or about their repentance because of Jonah's message.  It is a story about a reluctant prophet who couldn't care less about Nineveh.  Jonah doesn't want Nineveh to repent because he wants them to get what's coming to them, what he thinks they deserve.  In that way he was not so different from Fred.  Fred doesn't really want the United States to change, he wants it to be destroyed.  When I read Jonah's story, I don't hear a message about Nineveh but about Jonah's failure as a prophet.  God's disappointment with Jonah is because of his self-centeredness and lack of compassion.  He is so focused on his hatred for Nineveh that he cannot see God's bigger picture.  I guess I do agree with Fred, he is more like Jonah than he might ever imagine.