10 Reasons Why I am a Political Junkie

Someone asked me the other day why I am so interested in politics.  They wondered why I watch CNN and C-SPAN, read political news and blogs, and pay close attention to the debates and public discourse of our political leaders and system.  Their reason … and they admitted it … is that they find it all too distasteful and polemical to watch anymore.  So here are my reasons for being part of the process by being a political junkie:

1.  I want to be part of the solution by being an informed voter.  So I pay attention to what candidates are saying during the election cycles – knowing they will likely not get everything done they promise during the campaign but it is important to note what they value and fight for once in office.

2.   Even national politics are local.  The decisions made in Washington affect my life in real ways – my taxes, the roads I drive on, the health care I have access to, the rights my family is afforded (or not), and the ways my son’s education is administered – just to name a few.

3.   I want to participate in creating dialogue between opposing sides of political debates.  This is hard to do but occasionally it can be an amazing process from which to learn and grow. (It can also be extremely difficult and painful – but I believe it is still worth the effort and risk.)

4.  I want to know where my tax dollars are being spent.  Sometimes I agree and sometimes I don’t but it is a good thing to know.  And if I disagree – I contact my representatives and let them know what I think about their decisions.

5.  Every once and a while you see our leaders come together to do something good.  This is rarer than I would want it to be, but it does happen.  Examples – and you may disagree – are increasing the number of kids receiving health care and keeping insurance companies from excluding people based on pre-existing conditions, caring for our planet, taking care of those less fortunate, and providing income help to those who have lost jobs.

6.   Being a participant and voting in every election since I turned 18 years of age allows me to complain with full confidence and integrity.  (LOL!)   I also know folks who never vote but whine all the time about elected officials.  This drives me crazy.

7.  C-SPAN can actually be fun to watch.  It shows us the “sausage making procedure” that is our political process.  It is often ugly and the ingredients are gross but the end result can be enlightening.

8.  I want my son to be part of the election and political process so we watch TV together and discuss the issues.  He is a very informed 13 year old.  He is concerned with the state of our political system and how it will affect his future so he wants to know what is happening.  That makes me proud.  (He also wants to be part of a political protest march someday.  We have marched against gun violence locally but he wants to march for/against something in Washington DC.)

9.  I can impact my community by advocating for new laws that protect the rights of the marginalized, disenfranchised, and powerless.  I can work to limit access to guns by person’s ineligible for purchasing them.  I can work to expand the rights of families who need protection.  I can convey to my elected officials what I value as they debate legislation.  This is the power of one vote – one voice combined with others.

10.  There are moments when I am proud of the system.  Like this week’s celebration of Rep. Gabby Giffords’ service to the House of Representatives.  The touching moment at the State of the Union and the next day's tribute were amazingly uplifting – from both sides of the aisle.  It reminded me of how we can be as a people.

These are just some of the reasons I am an active participant in the political process.  And obviously it is such a tough topic to discuss that I am sure some of you will disagree with my politics - but maybe we at least can agree on why we care.

being spiritual but not religious

I have read several blogs, articles, and research data lately about the numbers of younger adults who claim the label "spiritual but not religious." Some believe the number of persons claiming this status could be as high as 1 in 5 overall and as high as 72% of Millennials (18-29 year olds).  That is a significant number of younger adults claiming that status.

The first time I saw this data I was stunned by the honesty and audacity of naming who you are in these studies.  While it is also distressing to some degree as a minister of a mainline denominational church, I find the truth telling important.  Owning that you are not sold on how faith is expressed in the institutional church is becoming more and more common.  And denominational studies show us that the number of folks in the church is in decline.  So we need to pay attention to this information.

The truth is that sometimes I want to claim no connection to the church as well.  There are times when the church makes me feel so badly about Christianity that I want to flee.  There are too many people who feel hurt by the church to ignore that fact.  And there are too many people who see the current expression on the church as irrelevant to brush that off.

So what do we need to do?  Some say we should become more orthodox so that people know what we stand for (and by extension what and who we are against for way too many) explicitly.  Others say we should be more flexible in who we proclaim we are so that we attract many different groups.  Still others want to bring in all of the elements of modern culture to be more in tune with the very generation we are missing in our churches.  All of these ideas are short-sighted and cannot alone reverse the process of decline or the leaving of church by many younger people.

Part of the problem many churches have is that they are unsure who they are.  They are unsure who they are serving. And they are totally disconnected from the community around them. Many of our churches do not even know who the people are who live in their vicinity.  How can a church appear relevant if they sit in isolation with no clue what is happening in the homes and businesses next door and around the block?

Another problem is that many churches continue to live in the past.  They long for days gone by when they had more members or more money and they mourn that loss. Others know that “golden age” is no longer their reality but they worship, plan and live as if that was who they still were.  This kind of disconnect is dangerous and misleading to all.

A third problem is that the most public event we have as communities of faith - our worship and preaching - is too often listless, not awe inspiring and lacks passion.  Too many gather as social clubs to "do" worship without energy or enthusiasm about what we have gathered to proclaim.  Too many are going through the motions of doing church - not truly BEing the church in the world.

I have some ideas … maybe they will spark some thoughts and discussions for you as well.

So how do we begin to turn the tide?

First, we have to leave the comfort of our pews to live and work in our communities.  We have to build relationships with the people who live near our communities of faith.  We have to BE the church in communities by meeting people's needs where they live.  We have to be connected to the people around us in as many ways as possible.

Second, we have to create worship that feeds people from the feast that is our faith.  We often come to the feast starving but the food served is not something these "spiritual but not religious" folks are interested in eating.  Many are using 16th century liturgies, with 17th century building styles, and 18 or 19th century music in a 21st century world.  There is nothing wrong with tradition and for many still in the church these are important things to hand on to.  But we also need to create worship that enriches newer generations – that is relational, participatory, awe-inspiring, image driven, experiential, connective, and missional.

Third, we have to live out our faith in compassion and justice ministries.  We have to be active in making the world a better place.  Working to feed the poor by sending canned goods to a shelter without engaging those in need is good but it is also problematic.  Sending in a check for world mission is noble but it does not get our churches engaged in the world.  We have to do the work of living out our theology in public – calling for the end of injustice and working to make that happen.  It is time we live and work missionally IN the world.

Finally, we have to be open to listening to the needs of those who see the church as irrelevant and see what it is they are looking for.  That does not mean we have to give up everything to do what they want – but without the conversation we lack the option to be in that conversation. 

I do not claim to have all of the answers – but maybe what I have here are some options for a conversation that is sorely needed.

Agreeing to Disagree in the Church

In every church and/or denomination there are disagreements.  Sometimes the disagreements are about seemingly “small” things – the color of the new carpet for the sanctuary, whether to move the worship time earlier in the summer since the church does not have air conditioning, whether or not to place a memorial plague on the new baptism font, or what time the youth group should meet for pizza.  Obviously these small disagreements can also be seen as HUGE issues depending on the nature of the deciders and the emotions behind the decision needing to be made.  I have seen churches make quick work of these decisions and I have seen them become acrimonious and last for months on end.

Then there are the other more difficult decisions churches have to make.  Sometimes they are about finances – whether or not to build or to close or to add staff.  Sometimes they are about outreach – whether or not to provide a food pantry for the community or to do some other hands on ministry.  Sometimes it is about advocacy – whether or not to speak out against an injustice for those who have no voice.  Sometimes it is about pastoral ministry – whether or not to call or ordain a particular pastor or not.  Sometimes it is about theology – what we believe to be the core theological issue related to baptism or Eucharist or how we think of God.  Sometimes it is about scriptural interpretation – whether or not a particular text means one thing or another or several things at once.

In many churches today disagreements are happening on a regular basis.  Some of them are about seemingly small issues that have become big ones.  Some of them are about BIG issues that are sometimes being thought about in small ways.  Some of them are about big issues and deserve a big table to discuss them around.  No matter what the issues are they all have an impact on those involved – either directly or indirectly.

I am part of a UM Clergy group on Facebook that was created to discuss ministry issues and be a network of support for each other.  Unfortunately, it has devolved into a debating group about the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage on too many threads of conversation.  The issue deserves serious and continued discussion, but that is best done in one-on-one and in small group dialogues where people establish relationships and a level of trust so that they can hear and be heard by others in the group.  This kind of anonymous posting on a Facebook wall and then debating by belittling and demeaning others’ points of view has become tiresome and overwhelming.  There seems to be little room for disagreement without denigrating the person who holds a different perspective.  There are times when even asking a question about a post prompts a tirade.   And on occasion I have posted as well – though I think I have tried never to get personal.

There have been significant changes in how we interpret biblical passages regarding slavery, women in ministry and other passages throughout history.  I believe passages related to homosexuality should be given the same kind of intense scrutiny and interpretative perspective. 

In my tradition we hold Scripture as being primary, however we also are called on to use our own reason, experience and the tradition of the church to determine how we come to theological conclusions and often how we interpret texts.  It is called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral and it is formative to how we as Wesleyans view the reading of biblical texts and the living of our faith lives.  Wesley did not create it – Albert Outler did in his edited work on Wesley in 1964. Outler regrets the term today because it seems to make Wesleyans, and others, think of these four sources as being equal.  And for Wesley they never were.  Scripture was always primary.  But the other sources are vitally important considerations in our theological endeavors. 


The very nature of this quadrilateral means we as Wesleyans have ample opportunity to disagree.  We all read the same Scriptures but the rest of our quadrilateral informs that reading and helps us determine how we come to theological understandings.  Our tradition is varied depending on where we come from, our congregational traditions, and interpretations of our denominational tradition.  We all think differently and reason using differing levels of education, understanding and interest.  Our experiences are as varied as we are - all living unique lives of varying opportunities and possibilities.  All of this means we are bound to come to different theological positions - that allows for the full richness of our denomination.  The fact that we do not all agree is part of who we are.  I never want to lose that.  However, it has become dangerous in some circles.

For many the use of Scripture has become a stick with which to beat others on the head in an attempt to force them to agree with another’s perspective.  For many the use of Scripture has become a way to force others to live out their lives guided by someone else’s archaic understandings of biblical interpretation.  For others it is a grace-filled word of love and grace that opens us up to amazing possibilities.  For still others it is the guide for all things good and noble.  For many it is the Word of God – laid out for us in the Old and New Testaments.

I do not believe we can solve difficult issues by arguing past each other and by pressing our points of view at the expense of relationships.  I do not believe that by belittling others we win points in theological discussions.  I do not believe that the scriptures are weapons.  I do not believe that we make headway by being mean to each other.

I get frustrated with the slow nature of change.  I get tired of trying to get people to listen to other possibilities.  I get annoyed by the reality of exclusion in our churches and in my church in particular.  I disagree with the way many of these texts are used today.  I believe God calls all kinds of people and the church should be open to their gifts for ministry – all of them.  It is God's role to call folks - not mine.  It is my job to affirm those gifts and help nurture and support them.  It is my job to engage those gifts in seminary and prepare those persons for transformative ministry in the world.

You may not agree with me – but I welcome the discussion.  I welcome an open and honest discussion that uses all of our sources as interpretative tools – not just one person’s view of only way to read a text or point of view.  We can talk about carpet color or about the nature of the church or about what we believe the church is calling us to do and be.

So … let’s talk and listen to each other.