The commercials were created by a team including Tom Cochran, Brady Cackler, and Bryce Veazey.  The commercial advertises a link that will help visitors find a Community of Christ congregation near them.  The site goes live Christmas eve.

I celebrate these commercials.

As I think of these commercials airing across Kansas City, it’s interesting to consider the mixed views surrounding the current relationship of church and culture.  The idea of Community of Christ commercials certainly takes a step toward our world of media dominated communication, multimedia experience, and its emotional power over us.  The long discussion of the relationship between church and culture is a centuries old theological one.  Listen to the variety of perspectives on issues like sexuality and mega-churches or contemporary worship, you will hear the legacy of perspectives and their imprint on the church today.

Consider, for instance, the many views among church-goers on mega-churches and contemporary worship.   Especially among members of small churches, you don’t have to go far to find those who lament how worship has become more and more like entertainment.   It’s more than a few.  I’ve heard liberal and conservative, young and old, express how mega-churches cheapen church membership and entertainment doesn’t belong in church.    Listen to the heated opinions around sexuality and orientation and you’ll also hear members policing the borders of church and culture even more.   Both sides lay claim.  On one side, accepting homosexuality just dilutes faith with more worldly attitudes.  Culture has gone morally adrift.  While the other side is adamant that discriminating against same-sex love is less-than-prophetic at best, and reflects the spiritual failure of popular Christianity.  Again, where the church marks off its separation from the world and culture is deeply important.

With commercials, Community of Christ again joins the fray.

Now that I live in Lamoni,I live among the Amish.  The Amish are an example of Christian community whose identity is deeply embedded with a sense of separation from surrounding society.  On one end of the spectrum, the Amish police the boundaries of their community and its practices to preserve a way of life  that sets it apart and keeps sacred a visible sense of community and culture.  The Amish do not have televisions or internet, let alone commercials inviting others to join them.

On the other end, the seemingly most culturally accommodating Christians – American evangelicals – do the same.   Driving minivans and crossovers to the mall and talking on iPhones, evangelical Christians permeate ever strata of our society.  Yet, they mark themselves off  with a strong sense of belief and religious identity.   The success of evangelicalism, however, rests not in their separation from our culture but in the success evangelicalism has in baptizing almost anything.   From raves to retro, fashion to finances, and dating services, evangelicalism is distinct in how it accommodates and transforms any cultural medium with its message.   Christianity crossed with mass production.

It’s interesting to consider how the RLDS/Community of Christ fits in this sort of continuum.  On the one hand, the church has been too small to have a television presence like the Mormons.  However, the church’s media presence, however small,  is not new .  In the 1920′s, the RLDS church owned a radio station (KFIX, later KLDS and KMBZ), which broadcast from the Auditorium.   Rummage around an old congregation and you will still find the broadcast sermons of Arthur Oakman or Evan Fry, either in print or on tape.  The church also ran TV ads sporadically in the Kansas City area in the 1980′s and 90′s.

While the relationship of church and culture is interesting, to some degree it doesn’t matter.  There is something powerful in watching the faces of friends on the screen in this new commercial.  I’m moved as I see the church where Margo and I were married (Stone Church), and the images of people projected upon it in a way that transforms the building.  I have emotions as the commercial ends with the name of my church in the center of the screen.

If God would stoop so low to be born human, any church that bears Jesus’ name should consider any means necessary to extend God’s invitation.   “A community for you,” that’s what the commercial advertises.   It is professionally done, moving, and creative.   While I’m sure the commercial took tremendous time, effort, and money, I think the challenge will not be getting it aired.  It’ll be delivering on what it promises:  a community for whomever’s watching.

Great job, brothers Tom, Brady, and Bryce.  May our congregations live up to their name and embrace whomever walks through their doors.

Over 250,000 may be watching.

I was at Duarte Square, Lower Manhattan, this afternoon as retired Episcopal Bishop George Packard, and several other clergy were arrested supporting Occupy Wall Street’s attempt to start a new occupation on land owned by Trinity Church Wall Street. For a video of him talking with protestors in the back of an NYPD paddywagon, click here.

“I am still baffled that the Episcopal Church of which I have been a member all my life could not–through Trinity–find some way to embrace these thousands of young people in our very diminishing ranks,” said Bishop Packard, the former bishop for the armed services, on his blog, Occupied Bishop.

Packard is not the only high-ranking Episcopal leader who has supported the movement. In an open letter to Occupy Wall Street, anti-apartheid hero Desmond Tutu, Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town and former Deacon at Trinity Church, said:

“Injustice, unfairness, and the strangle hold of greed which has beset humanity in our times must be answered with a resounding, ‘No!’ You are that answer. I write this to you not many miles away from the houses of the poor in my country. It pains me despite all the progress we have made. You see, the heartbeat of what you are asking for–that those who have too much must wake up to the cries of their brothers and sisters who have so little–beats in me and all South Africans who believe in justice.”

To watch a video of interfaith leaders addressing the Occupiers at Duarte Square today, click here.

Do you think Community of Christ clergy should join the Occupy Movement? How should the church more generally interact with the Occupy Movement?

[Updated 19 December 2011]

During the last few months, we have been bombarded with images of fellow citizens camped out in public parks around the nation. Most of the attention has focused on a group in Manhattan which is called “Occupy Wall Street”. This group has taken their grievances to the people they feel are responsible for whatever ills society is suffering from today, Wall Street.

What I have noticed is that the message isn’t entirely clear. When the protests first started, I was listening to a broadcast from Dave Ramsey while driving back to my office from a rural courthouse. Mr. Ramsey was having audience members who identified with the Occupy movement call in and explain what and why they were protesting or considering themselves members of this group. There was absolutely no clear consensus among ANY of the callers why they were protesting, other than they were just “mad” about the way things were going for them. Almost none of them could explain the economic injustices they were protesting, or even what they were experiencing.

In America, for 99% of us, we are about two generations from having to struggle for survival every day. We have conquered the most dangerous communicable diseases in the world, have clean drinking water, relatively easy access to healthcare, although paying for that healthcare is an ongoing issue, and an abundance of opportunity to achieve more than what we’re born into. The problem is that we’ve grown into an entitlement society. We believe we are entitled to success and riches just because we’re born here, not because we have to work at it. We believe that it is someone else’s responsibility to make us happy and care for our every basic need. We believe that we are entitled to a job just because we earned a college degree, never mind the fact that we don’t have the talent or passion of our peers in the same position. We have grown dependent on our parents to provide food, shelter, and a phone call to the teacher, coach, or hiring manager to get those good grades, playing time, or that first job.
I have worked for corporations, and now I work as a public servant for a state agency. What disturbs me the most about the Occupy movement is the vilification of the corporation and the people who run those entities. Accusations of greed, robbery, and mistreatment abound at these rallies, and the constant drumbeat of “tax the rich” has grown louder and louder over the last few months. What I think the Occupy movement is missing is the fact that corporations are people too. Corporations are groups of shareholders, managers, and employees who work to maximize the value of that corporation to the shareholders. Most insurance, retirement, and employment income is derived from corporate profits. Most taxable income is derived from that income of employees, retirees, and other investment income. Community of Christ has significant holdings in many of these corporations that have been excoriated by the Occupy movement. Those investment pools help the church keep afloat during lean economic times when tithes are erratic, and they help members and church employees invest wisely for the future. Several thousand church members worldwide are employees of corporations, and they also provide funding for various church ministries, both locally and worldwide, with the fruits of their labor.

So do I think there is a need for an Occupy Community of Christ movement? Yes and no. I believe that we need to facilitate dialog in our community concerning the responsible use of resources, including natural and financial resources. We should also be concerned with the ethical use of corporate power and the consequences of concentrating power within groups that may not have the best interests of their shareholders, or the community as a whole in mind. However, I do believe that in this country and many others the church is organized within, we have been given the freedom and power to chart our own course. We should be equally concerned with personal responsibility for tithing and conservation. We should be concerned with being self-sufficient, debt-free, and willing to support those who need assistance to survive. Many of our members throughout the world are unable to worship or work according to their desires due to government or cultural intrusion. We should not punish success, but celebrate the blessings that can be shared with our community as a whole. We should be mindful of those groups that seek our involvement, and with due diligence lend our respect for the choice to protest an injustice. We should support those who struggle for conscience and understanding, but not those who lend themselves to sound bites and class warfare over dialog and consensus.

…it is incumbent upon the Saints … to be in the world but not of it, … using the things of this world in the manner designed of God, that the places where they occupy may shine as Zion, the redeemed of the Lord. Condensed from Community of Christ Doctrine and Covenants 128:8b, 8c.

And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. And He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’; but you are making it a robbers den.” Matthew 21:12-16.

“It’s time to invite the Occupy Movement to church!” says Jim Wallis of Sojourners, who this week called for the creation of a “church sanctuary for the Occupy Movement.“

The Sojourners blog God’s Politics also recently published a “Confession“, in which the author Sheri Ellwood says she has “noticed many individual Christians expressing support, but little public support for the movement from the Christian community as a whole.” This is certainly true within the Community of Christ — a quick search of the church website, the Facebook discussion group, the church’s young adult blog and the church’s official blog reveals … absolutely no discussion of the Occupy Movement at all!

Now, despite the church having “Abolish Poverty, End Suffering” as one of its five key “Mission Initiatives”, I hadn’t expected much from the church. But nothing? Not even a dismissive — “that’s not the way to go about effecting change”? Not even a critique of the language of ‘occupying’ as opposed to ‘decolonizing’ or ‘liberating‘? How can the church be so incredibly out of touch with the economic and political reality in country in which they are headquartered? Indeed, there has been no lack of discussions among Christians about the movement, even some of the Community of Christ’s cousins out in Utah have been more proactive about discussing what the Occupy Movement means. There is even an Occupy Missouri contingent.

Am I the only one who thinks the desire of the Occupy Movement to establish communal encampments, sharing things in common, using consensus decisionmaking and considering how to discern paths to a more just and equitable society has interesting resonances with the Community of Christ’s historical theology of building Zion — building ‘kingdom of heaven’ in the here and now?

I think it might be worth republishing here a few “fundamentals and principles” someone back in the Community of Christ’s earlier history claimed would “foster and promote” a new “religious social order:”

Remembering the welfare of fellow-men, especially the unfortunate and poor.

The distribution of surplus wealth according to the law of need.

The determination of just wants.

The fair exchange of commodities.

Each to have his inheritance (private possessions).

Every man to have opportunity to make the contribution in consonance with his talents.

The condemnation of the rich who gather for personal gain, the exaltation of the poor and humble who with contrition refrain from exploitation of others’ goods and who labor with their own hands.

The equality which comes from the operation of the law of needs.

I wrote up a summary of my sermon for my column in The Examiner (Independence, MO). Click here to read it.

This week I had a rushed visit to the Community of Christ archives for a couple hours and tried to get a little more hard data. It is necessarily inadequate because I didn’t have a lot of time. Nonetheless I think it tells an interesting story of the way “Voice” is changing in the denomination. There is a slow, but definite trend, of World Conference becoming a venue of increasingly diverse voices, while the USA and Canada remain dominant.

I went through all the Bulletins for every World Conference since 1958, when the church expressed its desire to become a “world church”, and counted how many World Conference Resolutions proposed by field jurisdictions were from each area of the world. I did not count the resolutions that came from the headquarters leadership. A less rushed scholar would have looked at how many of these resolutions had ‘policy success’ by actually being passed by the chamber and avoiding amendments — maybe one of you Saints Herald readers can take up that challenge! (See the asterix at the bottom for some methodological notes).

Proportion of Proposed Resolutions from Field Jurisdictions, by Region

Looking at the data, it seems to divide into six fairly distinct eras:

1958-1964: In this era, unless I read the Bulletins incorrectly, it appears that all proposed legislation came from the church leadership  – Voice was very centralized in a few powerful men.

1966-1978: In 1966, the Council of Twelve presented the watershed “Statement on Objectives” to the church, calling for greater decentralization of power. This seems to have resulted in many more resolutions coming from around the church. The vast majority (84 proposed resolutions) were from the USA and Canada (6), with one from Australia in 1968.

1980s: In the 1980s one sees increased voice from outside the USA — with around 25% of proposed resolutions coming from the rest of the world. Seven of the 65 total proposed resolutions came from Europe and three from Australia and New Zealand which seem to have ‘punched above their weight’ in terms of their proportion of world membership. The 1980s see the first proposed resolutions coming from the South Pacific and Africa.

1990s: For reasons that are not clear to me, the proportion of resolutions coming from outside the USA decreases in the 1990s, though there is the first resolution from Latin America in 1998 and another from Africa in 1994.

Early 2000s: I think the decision in 2000 to give proportional representation to jurisdictions that had difficulty sending their quota of delegates (for visa and cost issues) has made a significant impact. I probably should admit that though I critique the church heavily for its North American-centric attitude, things are improving. The 2010 conference was the first where a slim majority of proposed resolutions (19 out of 36) came from outside of the USA and Canada. Prior to 2000, many delegations that struggled to send sufficient delegates were filled with people from North America, giving North America disproportionate voice in the conference chamber. This can be illustrated with reference to the Haitian delegation:

Proportion of Haiti World Conference Delegation with Names that Appear to be Haitian

Surprising, however, in the entire period of 1958-2010, there have been no resolutions from several areas of the church where there are significant numbers of members, including Haiti and the entire continent of Asia. The following table shows the total number of proposed resolutions from each region from 1958-2010.

USA: 195

Canada: 16

Latin America and the Caribbean: 14

Australia & New Zealand: 10

Europe: 8

Africa: 5

South Pacific: 3

Asia: 0

To measure this a little more accurately, I compared the impact of each region compared to their proportion of church membership. Below I have calculated an ‘Influence Factor’ that looks at the proportion of proposed resolutions to the regions’ proportion of church membership.  One can see that there has been a significant increase in the influence of regions outside North America but Africa and Asia remain underrepresented, while Australia has disproportionate influence.

It would be interesting to hear from people what they think the impact will be of this slow, but important shift in ‘expressed voice’ from outside North America in church policymaking.

* Methodological Note: I did not include resolutions from  1970, which was missing from the shelf for the Archives. Detroit International Stake, which spanned both Canada and the USA, was counted as being in the USA, even though that was a somewhat arbitrary decision. For the Haiti delegate graph I counted names based on my judgement of whether they sounded Haitian to me. If it seemed difficult to tell, I counted it as Haitian.

The influence factor is calculated by dividing the number of proposed resolutions by the numbers of members in that region and then re-calibrating the scale so that the USA and Canada represent 1.0. USA and Canada were included together since there are so many mission centers that are cross-border. The cross-border USA/Mexico Mission Centers were included in Latin America.

I have posted my full dataset here if you wish to use the data, check my numbers, etc. Feel free to use is as you wish, but if you want to use it in publication, please cite me appropriately. Click here for the dataset.

In all this, the Community of Christ has been conspicuously absent from the discussion in the media. I am interested in what you all think. Is it better for the Community of Christ not to be associated with “The Mormon Moment” given their long attempt to distance themselves from their Utah cousins both doctrinally and in public perceptions? Is there a way for the Community of Christ to take advantage of the public interest in Mormonism to articulate the Community of Christ as a ‘liberal Mormon’ or ‘Protestant Latter Day Saints” alternative? Given that the American public’s perceptions are slowly becoming more tolerant of Mormons, does it make sense for the Community of Christ to continue to be sensitive about being mistaken for Mormons?

What do you all think?

Her website says Williams believes “environmental issues are social issues that ultimately become matters of justice” and asks the question, “what might a different kind of power look like, feel like, and can power be redistributed equitably even beyond our own species?”

Williams is currently Annie Clark Tanner Scholar in Environmental Humanities at the University of Utah.

On Wednesday, May 11, President Steve Veazey released a Letter of Counsel Regarding the Presiding Quorums in which Barbara L. Carter was called to be an apostle.

That priesthood call will not be considered until the April 2013 World Conference. However, the Letter of Counsel further noted that effective August 1, 2011, Barbara Carter will function within the Council of Twelve as an apostle designate. Because her ordination cannot take place until this call is approved, President Veazey took what is believed to be an extraordinary and unprecedented step by explaining that she “will be assigned by the First Presidency to provide leadership and supervision to an apostolic field. She will participate in Council of Twelve meetings and other World Church leadership gatherings according to the nature of her assignment and responsibilities.”

In a related move, Apostle Scott Murphy was named as Director of Field Ministry and Apostle Linda Booth, as C-12 secretary, will serve as acting president of the quorum until September when quorum members select officers. New field and ministry assignments for the Twelve are listed here.

* * * * * * * * * *

Earlier this week Community of Christ President Steve Veazey announced that Jim Slauter, president of the Council of Twelve Apostles and director of Field Ministries, has resigned from those positions and will be retiring from World Church appointment. The resignation and retirement will be effective August 1, 2011.

Brother Slauter requested this action so that he and his wife could give greater attention to the ongoing medical needs of their five-year-old grandson Matthew. Jim was set apart as president of the Council of Twelve at the Special World Conference in June 2005 (at that Conference Steve Veazey was called from his then-position as president of the Council of Twelve to assume the position of president of the church). Jim was called and ordained as an apostle at the 1996 World Conference. He first accepted World Church appointment 24 years ago.

The full text of the “Letter of Counsel Regarding the Presiding Quorums” is here.

Jim Slauter’s letter of request is here.

A letter of support from the remaining eleven members of the Council of Twelve is here.

Although no official announcement was made, it appears the vacancy in the Council of Twelve will not be filled until the next World Conference, scheduled for April 2013. The positions of council president and field-ministries director presumably will be filled by current members of the Twelve, at the direction of the First Presidency.