More on Southern-Style Religion

First Baptist Church of Charleston, South Carolina

South Carolina is home to a surprising number of religious organizations. Though you and I may have never heard of them, some have ambitious names with words like "Global," "World," "Harvest," and "International" in them.

Many of the churches also have really religious-sounding names we might snicker about back home in the post-Christian Northwest. You can still find Christian ministries and churches with more inclusive, inoffensive names that would be "acceptable" in the Northwest, but they seem to be the minority. Me, though, I'm pretty sure I would have a hard time inviting an agnostic friend or neighbor to "Right Direction Christian Center," "Temple of Deliverance," or "Chosen 2 Conquer."

The church we're part of has a strong substance-abuse recovery program, but they make no efforts at subtlety in describing their goal and approach: it's "U-turn for Christ." I cringe a bit every time I hear it, but then I remind myself, it's not wrong, it's just different! Subtlety just isn't a value here, not when it comes to religion; people are more open about these things.
 
There are also many churches representing denominations we've heard of but don't really know much about. Hubs works with a couple of guys from AME Zion churches, which are predominantly African American, and there are a lot of those. And everywhere, everywhere, there are Baptists, especially Southern Baptists. So many that the non-Baptists have a lot of opinions about them, including some strong anti-Baptist (not Anabaptist!) prejudices that catch me by surprise.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The Southern Baptist Convention's website reveals that within the city limits of Columbia, SC, are more than twice as many SBC churches (50+) as can be found in the entire state of Oregon. One city! The entire state!

I've had more contact with Southern Baptists than your average Northerner, but that's primarily due to their strong representation and influence in world missions (where they've made huge contributions!) I have not darkened the doors of many SBC churches, though, and I'm curious. Spoke at one a few weeks ago. Their mission pastor had just returned from the Pacific Northwest where he helped an SBC church in the Bellevue, WA area celebrate its second anniversary. He also told me about some folks from around here preparing to plant a church in Issaquah, WA, not far from some of my old stomping grounds. I thought about putting Oregon on their radar, but maybe that tip would be better given to these new Washington churches.

Wonder how much they contextualize their approach when they plant churches outside the South? Maybe quite a bit; maybe not. On the spot, I couldn't think of a good way to ask.

See also reflections on South Carolina religion in South Carolina Through the Storm.

Are Women a People Group?

Social Stratification

One of the things I teach people when they go into a new culture is how to discover the community's social stratification: the "kinds" of people who live there. In whatever way local people slice it. Well, I guess your casual visitor or even a newcomer into a community will not usually have a deliberate strategy for pursuing the question - though maybe they ought to.

An anthropologist, though, or anyone who is hoping to set up an NGO or business or planting a church in a new place will usually recognize that they need to explore stratification. After all, you have to know who you are describing/reaching - or could. If certain people won't come, say, to your event, because =those= people are there, it helps to know; you'll adjust your goals, or change your approach.

You may need different strategies to find, connect with, or describe people depending on what group they belong to. Different history, behavior, values, and motivations keep people from pulling in the same direction, and we make a lot of extra trouble for ourselves if we fail to take the resulting obstacles seriously.

Bringing It Home

So, when we designed our online ethnography training course a year or so ago, I had to come up with some questions to help people get a handle on all that. After providing some teaching on the topic, I asked them to describe the most meaningful subgroups in their hometown, or maybe (since I'm teaching Christians) their church. When it's hometown, they often fall back on socio-economic factors, or maybe race/language. But what about with a smaller group, like a church? How does social stratification play out there?

Most everybody can tell me who the "people groups" (relatively speaking) in their high school were, but people can't always put their finger on what they might be in the church context.

All but the smallest churches have some kind of structured social stratification, usually by age, gender, marital status. We may have kids, and youth, and young marrieds, and young singles, and families, and old folks.

Some of the groupings are less formal, but recognized: the serious and the nominal. The tithers and the slackers (just kidding). We may have the people who like hymns and the people who want to sing the newer stuff, and the people who don't want to sing at all.

Last week I was talking to a missions pastor who, like me, is on sabbatical, and wondering how to develop integrating strategies to reach two big types of people she sees in her church: you might call them the activists and the contemplatives; the ones focused on reaching out in Jesus' name and the ones focused on walking with Jesus. (Why are those two separate? How long can we keep them separate and prosper?)

Sometimes the formal structures create "people groups," and sometimes they reflect them, but I wonder how often they do neither.

Women's Ministry

One of the most common approaches I see churches using in order to care for and develop the people in their congregations is to set up "women's groups" and "men's groups." Or at least women's groups. (Many churches have fewer numbers of men, at any rate men who are willing to be involved in their churches very much.)

It's not hard to figure out where the official boundaries of belonging are for a women's ministry. If you're a woman, it's for you; if you're not, it ain't. Yet... what fascinates me is how these things work out in practice. Some of the women who come to the women's group consider it a lifeline, exactly what they needed. Perhaps they are open enough that anything would work, but maybe these groups work for them because being a Christian woman - or a certain kind of Christian woman - is pretty central to their sense of who they are.

But for those who come, or who like these groups, there are just as many who don't. Huge numbers of the female people in the church look at the women's group and say, "That's not for me."

My theory, what I think happens, is that churches and Christian leaders try to find a common denominator for what it mean to be a Christian woman and come up with something that most of the actual women in a church look at and can't identify with. It's not what they need. I don't think we could just wipe the slate clean and find a new common denominator; I think for most women, there simply isn't one; there's no level of sameness there. There's a level of identification - as a man in a novel I read recently said, in all seriousness, 'All women is brothers.' But no level of sameness. So a women's group built around a culturally acceptable stereotype is as close as we can get.

Don't get me wrong, a lot of the stuff designed for Christian women works for a lot of Christian women. Just not most, and certainly not all. Most Christian women don't find the most meaningful parts of who they are reflected in and addressed by those ministries: "Christian women" is not a meaningful group to them.

By the way, I do think women may function as "a people group" in other societies, particular those that are more conservative and traditional. And certain women see themselves as a people group in any society. But many do not.

Adjustments?

Is there anything we can do to respond to this in order to better serve the needs of the individuals/cultures the Christian women's stuff fails to recognize?

Adding another step of specificity may help. A single/married stratification often exists. Mothers are a tribe unto themselves, in many cases. Many is the woman whose "young moms/mums" group did, in fact, prove to be a lifeline. Our church is just launching a local expression of a national ministry called YoungLives, a spin-off from the youth ministry Young Life but just serving teenaged moms. I think it's a great idea. When Meg and I were young our mother joined a group called "mothers of multiples" (twins/triplets) that tapped into the homogeneous unit principle. (Oops, sorry to through a missiological term at you, but it fits, yes?)

I'd love to sit down and talk to some of the women in leadership of the "women's ministry" at my church. But I hesitate. After all, they are probably doing the best that they can and have a vested interest in the status quo; I'm afraid I might end up saying something hurtful or offensive. (And of course that's one of those things good Christian women are not supposed to do if I read that unwritten rulebook correctly!) On the other hand, these women have a good bit of cultural savvy too, and I think they wrestle with these same issues.

At any rate, we've got a women's brunch scheduled for this Saturday. The leaders are really hoping to attract and reach out to a more diverse crowd. Here's a good sign: 90 women (from our church of 300 or so people) have signed up. That's about twice as many as attend the two midweek women's groups at church. I've agreed to bring a fruit salad (yummy, but not the kind of thing that makes an appearance at the men's breakfast, perhaps!). I'll also be a "table hostess" to facilitate interaction. Am curious to see how it will all unfold.

Sameness v. Diversity

In the end, I'm not sure I want to be an active part of the solution. While I can cross the invisible barriers pretty easily - getting young moms, grandmothers, and others to talk to me as someone who "gets" them - I don't want to just hang out with women. I would miss men too much; I do better in a diverse group than one that seems (to me) to have a false unity.

What about you? Do you find your gender defining enough to require gender-specific grouping helpful or necessary? And if so, does what you find "work"? Why or why not?

With Us, Not Just Supporting

Fruit with Seeds

Mission committee met last night. One of our missionaries came in to give us an update. She reported:

"Something about this city is different... it's a better environment for getting volunteers. In [previous city] it was so hard. People would commit for the year and disappear after a few months. Our kind of work, you may not have something to show. It takes longer to make a difference.

"But now we've got people who are really with us. With us, not just supporting. I mean, support is great. But to have people really with you - we're so encouraged. One couple is coming down from [another city]. They told us there is a trailer park near them there and it's just full of kids. They really have a heart for those kids. They want to start a ministry like ours at that trailer park. So they are working with us to learn how to do it.

"This is fruit with seeds!"

* * *

Another couple, D. & J., have been part of our church for a long time. D. is a computer guy. He enjoys helping people fix their computers and solve their technical problems. He helps a lot of people in our church. Whenever a missionary comes through who mentions a problem with their machine someone will point them to D. and he steps in. He has them over to his house, listens to their stories, and fixes their computers. He loves to put those skills to use.

M. noticed. He's connected to our church and serves as a recruiter for a medium-sized missionary sending agency. They started sending all their new recruits to D. when they come to Colorado to go through language and culture acquisition courses. D. helps them make sure they are all set up to take sensitive materials overseas; he encrypts their hard drives, helps them make smart email choices, and make sure they are safe from viruses and spyware.

Now this agency is having a week-long staff conference in a major city that's central to the region where they work. M. asked D. if he could come and work on computers. D. is so excited. You should see him. It's the perfect opportunity for him to serve. Looks like he and his wife, J., will both go. She's been the director of children's ministries for many years. Any chance the staff conference needs a kids' program? Even if there is already something in the works I'm sure they will put her to work, too. Besides, someone needs to be there to make sure D. eats and sleeps instead of trying to work on computers 24/7.

Both D. and J. want to make serving this agency a team effort. It will cost about $4,000 to get them to the conference and pay their expenses. They are eager to involve other people in the church who have profited from D.'s computer skills and J.'s work with their children. Can they pray, and help with the expenses, not only ministering to D. and J. but also to the hundreds of missionaries serving with M.'s agency? I anticipate a very positive response. And who knows how many might follow D. and J.'s example and look for creative ways to put their own skills to work?

The mission committee couldn't be more pleased. This seems like fruit with seeds in it, too.

Still Life with Trumpet / The Question of a Thousand Tongues

Coming home to an empty house at a reasonable hour of the day, I decided to get out the horn and make some music (or something like it. It's been a while.)

I was looking for some good Easter music. I found a lot of it. I had fun with the al - - le - lu - ias! So by the time I got to this one I was having trouble with the high notes. Like I said, it's been a while since I played.

But I realize I also have some trouble with the lyrics. You know, I think I've been getting it wrong all these years. I always thought Wesley was saying, he wished he had a thousand tongues (in his mouth - or, a thousand mouths, each with their own tongue?) with which to sing praises to God, because God is worthy. And he would love to give God that much more praise. But devout as that may sound, it's a bit silly, isn't it? Is that how you read the song? (Could be correct. Some sources suggest it.)

Slightly less ridiculous is the idea that maybe Wesley wishes he could praise God in a thousand languages. Still a bit beside the point, but not as strange.

Finally, I realized the meaning could be something different all together. Maybe Wesley does not want to do all the praising on his own. Maybe he wants to join in with a thousand singers, or the singers of a thousand languages. Maybe he longs for the day when people from thousands of language groups will join to the chorus. There. That's better. Wycliffe says there are 6,912 separate languages spoken in the world today. So, maybe we could even sing, "Oh, for six thousand tongues to sing / to spread through all the earth abroad the honors of thy name."

That's it. You knew it all along. Why did I get it wrong in 25 years of being part of this Christianity thing, and a Presbyterian no less?

It's such a modern/western thing to close our eyes, block out everyone else, and think of worship as "me and my God" instead of "the Creator and the whole community."

But wait, he does say "assist me to proclaim," which suggests my first interpretation - that it's all about wanting to be the one who gives God a bigger, better gift. Wesley is part of that same pietistic tradition that has shaped us and our attitudes toward worship, so maybe he was wishing (in vain) for extra body parts with which to glorify God. He did not get them. Sorry, Charlie.

Of course, his ministry touched thousands of people, and perhaps in time members of a thousand language groups. So in that sense his wish has come true.

And the six thousand tongues to sing our great Redeemer's praise, in the sense of people from six thousand languages? It's going to happen, too. Easter... and Pentecost... were just the beginning.

Speaking at the Ladies' Tea !

You pray? Lift me up on Tuesday, if you would. I'm supposed to "share about my ministry" for 15-20 minutes for two women's ministry groups at my church. One group meets in the morning (9:30-11:30) and a second in the evening (6:30 to 8:30).

I know some of these women pretty well, and here's a good opportunity to do some more relationship building. I love public speaking, and this is a pretty safe environment; even if I don't feel understood, I definitely feel accepted. So why am I uncomfortable?

What will be most helpful to talk about, things that will bless and not intimidate, build bridges and not confuse? Do I pull out some of my old standard, never-fail material, or talk about things that are new and exciting to me? Or maybe some combination of the two? How will I tie it all together?

Pray I could prepare well and appropriately, and by the time I get up to speak at 9:30 or so, be comfortable enough with myself to relax, to enjoy and serve the people who are there.

Between these two gatherings, my team at work is having an all-afternoon meeting to launch our planning process for the Oct08-Sept09 fiscal year. Would love to hear from God in that process as well.

Home Group Model

(In response to a discussion, about what we like in a church, which Lu and I have been having, on her blog, here.)

The small group that I’m part of, through my church, is a highlight of my life these days. Maybe it’s just some magic or chemistry coming from the people who are involved, or maybe it’s a special blessing from God, but I think a lot of the appeal comes from some simple aspects of the way the whole thing is set up.

I’ve been in groups where I learned more or was challenged more or was known more. Many people prefer groups that ask more of the participants, or that are limited by age group, marital status, gender, etc. So I don’t want to say this is the ultimate model. But it’s a good one, and I wish more churches had small groups that ran this way. They would be a lot more fun.

Here are some “distinctives” of the approach:

1. GOOD TIME TO MEET: We don’t meet on a “school night,” but get together, instead, a couple of Fridays a month. With the work week over and the weekend stretching out ahead our time together feels unbounded. We always have some kind of wrap up at 9:30 so people who are busy or tired know they are free to go, but we can (and often do) stay and hang out late.
   
   The frequency is right, too: We used to meet the first three Fridays of the month (taking off the fourth, and fifth if there is one). Now it’s just the first and third Fridays of the month – not quite enough for me, but I’m the only one without a family.
   
   
2. GOOD PLACE TO MEET: We meet in the home of the host couple. It’s a comfortable, conveniently located place that’s just the right mix of architectural openness and separateness to facilitate mingling. There’s a big dining room, nice kitchen, comfy living room, and a basement where the kids can hang out.
   
   
3. FOOD AND FELLOWSHIP: Our time together starts with hanging out in the kitchen finishing dinner prep, chatting, and waiting for people to arrive. Often we have chips and salsa. Then we sit down to a meal together. The casual environment of the meal is great for facilitating catch-up and conversation. Taking turns helping with the meal also provides a way for everyone to participate fairly often, without burdening anyone.
   
   
4. CONTACT THROUGHOUT THE WEEK: Organizing the meal requires email communication in the couple of days before we meet. It's a small way of keeping up with what’s going on with each, sharing words of encouragement, and letting us know who is going to make it or not.
   
   
5. WELCOMING AND INCLUSIVE: The group is open to new people or visitors at any time. If anyone new has come, as we transition from the dining room to the living room we pass out copies of the sheet the leaders wrote up describing what our group is about and how it works, and we all walk through it together. This helps people know what to expect and sets them at ease.
   
   
6. WORSHIP AND PRAYER: Next, someone passes out song sheets and hits play on the stereo, and we sing and worship along with a CD. This is much simpler than many other approaches, but just as effective.
   
   After a couple of songs we go straight into corporate prayer. This group loves to pray and is comfortable praying together, so we skip “sharing requests” or making plans for who will pray for what. We don't have to talk about it, we just do it. Dinner and email conversation gave us enough insight into how everyone is. We can always pray again if someone has something they want to share and explain to the whole group.
   
   
7. STUDY AND DISCUSSION: It was unanimous, we wanted this to be a group with no homework. What we usually do is read something together and discuss it. The couple that leads the group – both teachers, which probably helps – have a large collection of pencils, pens, and highlighters, and they will have photocopied a section from whatever book we’re studying (or a section from the scriptures) as well as preparing sort of an agenda for the evening so everyone can see where we’re going with it.
   
   One introduces the topic and leads us in discussing a related question, while the other makes and brings out the coffee. Then, individually, we read some or all of the chapter, and discuss what we’ve read. The first book from which we studied excerpts was 21 Most Effective Prayers of the Bible. We didn't have to agree with everything in the book or with each other, but it gave us a good focus.
   
   Making the copies and coming up with discussion questions involves some work for the leaders, but it’s nice for those who come to be relieved of the small burdens of buying the book and bringing it each week as well as reading ahead and organizing their thoughts. We just all do it together.

Privacy and Self-Consciousness, Making Friends

So, blogging freely and being rather open in my newsletters, public speaking, etc. has had an unintended consequence. When I run into people who listen to me give talks or read what I write, they seem to expect me to be just as transparent and vulnerable in casual conversation. That's not something that comes so easily. Oh, hang out with me for a while and I might spill everything. But when put on the spot I'm just as apt to turn shy - or defensive.

Showing up at my home church last Sunday - kind of tired and overwhelmed after the holidays, not much sleep, and a couple hours' drive to get to a 9:00 service - I think I disappointed some people. I wonder if they expected me to be more eloquent, engaging, or expressive "in person."

Sometimes I'm quite the charmer - other times, not so much! Circumstances make a big difference. First thing in the morning, I'm not so good, and I've warned my coworkers that I'm more likely to turn negative or lose my temper at a 2:00 meeting than any other time of day. No, it's not fair, but there you have it.

'Mingling' can be an uncomfortable thing for me, especially in situations where my role or identity is unclear. When I'm, say, the guest speaker, I can be as bold as brass, talk to everyone. Less formal events are tougher. A recent example: Our Christmas eve family event. These gatherings have always been a bit intimidating for me as they involve distant relatives I see very seldom and we don't have much common ground. I don't know how to bridge that distance. As a kid I always wanted to go, but sometimes felt like the wallflower at the junior high dance. (Or what I think that would be like. Actually go to a dance? Are you nuts?)

Well, I no longer feel that wallflower thing very often; I'm a grown-up now. I know who I am, and I can cope. I still want to go to these things. But Christmas Eve was harder, this time, than I expected. Here's the dilemma. I didn't know who half the people in the room were, but on the other hand I didn't know if they were bona fide strangers whom I could happily chat up, or the spouses of second cousins whom I should remember and ask about their children. Shy and confused, I fell silent.

You know the feeling: Is it OK to ask this person their name, or am I supposed to know it? If I were truly an introvert, like some members of my family, I would just passively endure until it was time to go home. I'm not and I can't stand to do that: I want more! Nobody seemed to realize my discomfort and bail me out. Until... "You don't know who I am, do you?" asked Delores, kindly; she's my late grandmother's sister's son's wife. I've only seen her once in the last decade, so now, I didn't recognize her. Oh, Cousin Delores! I was so glad she did was willing to take my embarrassment away, let the light shine in on my confusion. Emboldened, I soon admitted to (first cousin) Liz, "I don't recognize half these people!" "They are friends and neighbors," she explained. "I think some of them have often come to these things but they aren't our relatives." Relieved, I talked to more people, and had an OK time, but still felt too shy to exchange names.

(I guess there are a lot of things in life like that - I vastly prefer being a stranger or beginner than an ignorant or incompetent veteran!)

All of this might serve as a reminder of the importance of cultivating the kind of self-knowledge that sets us free to focus on other people. I don't need to be scared of people seeing me as weak or silly, for example, if I know and accept that I'm a foolish and beloved person, depending on Christ. I can be free from concern about how well I'm performing in different situations, if I know I'm loved and accepted on the basis of things much more stable than mere performance. I need not feel guilty or ashamed about mistakes for the same reason.

By God's grace, I don't have to deal with this kind of stuff every day. Even after the trauma and relational diaspora of the last year I still have the pleasure and privilege of spending a lot of my time in 'safe' situations and mostly with people I enjoy and understand, people who get me (more or less).

That gives me courage to face the ambiguous situations, and to do what I can to =turn= them into places that are safe and comfortable for people - often by behaving like Cousin Delores: taking the initiative to reach out and set people at ease.

Update on EPC & New Wineskins

The EPC voted overwhelmingly to create the structures needed to receive the congregations expected to pursue joining the denomination in the next few years. See quite a few articles on events and discussions from the General Assembly at http://layman.org. I'm not sure how long it will take before churches start declaring their intentions to leave the PC(USA) and join the EPC or what repercussions they will face in doing so.

I wasn't there, but a friend who was shared about a conversation he had around the table with a number of colleagues who were concerned about how to take care of the somewhat battle-scarred pastors and churches that will be coming into the denomination. The PC(USA) has been something of a war zone for years now, I'm sorry to say. I'm sure it will be a relief for many who make the move to become part of a group as relatively peaceful and united as the EPC. But some may be very excited and energized by the coming changes, while others may be defensive, slow to trust, feel conflicting loyalties, and be low on energy and hope for moving ahead.

And yeah, all this sounds strangely familiar. My friends and I have faced similar challenges in the last year or two with our ministry's significant change of direction, merger, new mission, decline, crisis, failure, rescue, and rebirth. Perhaps the EPC leaders building relationships with incoming congregations will feel what I suspect Pioneers leaders felt taking on former Caleb Project and ACMC staff, as they saw what they were getting: man, these guys have a lot to offer, but for now, they are kind of a mess!

So. I guess I know how to pray, eh?

Here's the official statement from New Wineskins. (http://www.newwineconvo.com)

EPC Creates NW Presbytery
June 22, 2007

We offer our heartfelt and profound thanks to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church for creating a New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery. It has been quite a week in Denver. We were overwhelmed with the gospel hospitality we felt in their midst. The encouragement and affirmation, the sense of kinship in Christ were all like cool winds on our souls. We witnessed at this Assembly a wonderful graciousness of discourse, a Christ-centered passion in worship, and a courageous openness to God's future.

We are humbled that the EPC has opened its arms to the vision we share. We agree profoundly that God is calling us to an expression of his church based on shared essentials of the faith, clear ethical imperatives, and a mission-serving polity.

We know that many of the New Wineskins churches are called to remain in the PCUSA, living out this vision right where they are. We also know that many of our churches are being called out, and we express our deepest gratitude for the open arms into which they will be received.

We pray that such a spirit of graciousness as we have felt will blow through our denomination as well.

In Christ,
Dean Weaver and Gerrit Dawson

Workshop / General Assembly

Through Her Eyes Workshop

Yesterday, at the EPC General Assembly, I did my workshop on what life is like for missionary women in the Muslim world. It was very well attended even better received. Everyone seemed to 'connect.'

I tried to really keep things moving along - introduced myself, got everyone to laugh, then gave my overview of what I'd learned about the issues most missionary women face. I told them that it makes no sense to treat women in missions as an interesting minority; they make up 60-70% of the mission force, and get less press, training, or support than their husbands and teammates do. I read a chapter from Through Her Eyes about raising kids overseas. Then I led the group in praying for women in missions (using this - http://www.calebproject.org/userfiles/PMW.pdf) .

Instead of telling more stories at that point I brought up a panel of three experienced missionary women attached to the denomination's mission agency. Wendy (who works in the country where my Aussie mate Tom now lives) was the first to speak.
"I have never heard a better presentation on this topic," was the first thing she said, "I've never heard anyone do such a good job explaining what my life is like!"

I'd like to get together with Wendy and hear more of her story. (Just so happens her family's home-base on furlough is right here in our area, so I should be able to do this.) That's actually one of the things I really like about my life, how many opportunities it provides to say to different kinds of people, "Hey, I hear you. And I'm fascinated. Your life, your story, your soul - they matter."

Each of the women on the panel shared the issues she's faced with things like learning language, raising kids, and adjusting her expectations for herself in the various seasons of life. For example, Wendy used to get her sense of identity and gratification from her language ability, but as kids came along she had to accept that she might fall behind for a long, long time, and to let that be OK. (Although she's now conversant in three languages besides English). One thing they all brought up was how hard it was to get the help they needed to educate their kids, and how precious the (chronically understaffed) MK schools and nanny/home-school teacher positions are for helping families stay on the field. It's so tragic that our churches and Christian colleges have so many young women who love kids and teaching and are eager to be used by God, and all these families who want their help; they rarely connect.

Here's the best part. After the workshop a young mother who works in the Arabian Peninsula came up to me and said, "Until I heard what you had to say, I didn't realize how much I longed to be understood." Later, between 20 and 30 of the women who attended the workshop sought me out throughout the day to say how much they appreciated the workshop.

[Of course, that's one of the perks about speaking to groups made up entirely of Christian women: being on the receiving end of the affirmation and encouragement they are socialized to give other people... It doesn't mean I =really= did a better job than I would have in another context, just that I'm more likely to hear about it!]

I really wish I knew where to go to find other people who would be interested in having a workshop like this, though. I did it once at my church, when we were celebrating the book being published. I also did a workshop at a gathering of churches and individuals focused on the people group where I did the biggest chunk of my research. There are maybe 20 networks like that which get together annually, so maybe I could offer to do the workshop at some of those, though I'd probably have to pay my own way. And I did something like this workshop for the women's ministry of a large church, during the church's mission conference, which was focused on responding to the Muslim world. That one didn't go so well for a variety of reasons, but one may be that it was that the audience was made of mostly of people who see missions as something that doesn't touch their lives. Well, I'll pray about it, and keep my eyes open for opportunities to teach on this topic again.

No idea how book sales went. The church has a bookstore and they wanted to be the distributor for this. I will check in with them after the meetings are over and see if the book sold.

New Wineskins?

I really didn't know what was on the agenda for the General Assembly, but was wondering if there were any big issues facing the denomination which might be discussed or voted on during this week's meetings. Surely they would not be dealing with the wrenching issues that threaten to destroy the larger Presbyterian denomination the PC(USA) to which my home church, Wabash Presbyterian (and I) belong?

In a (somewhat) indirect way, they are. The EPC was originally formed mostly of churches that left the PCUSA and continues to receive churches following that path. Official reports I was handed on registration show that of the nine churches that have been added to the denomination's rolls in the last year, three were new church plants, one was previously independent, and five came from the PCUSA.

Now, as I understand it, New Wineskins (a network on more-evangelical churches in the PCUSA) has approached the EPC to ask if there was a way to receive a larger number of their constituent churches into the EPC denomination en masse. Perhaps 40 in the next year, and maybe as much as 200 in the years to come. That would double the size of the EPC! So this year a committee has been exploring the constitutional issues that would allow or prevent the creation of a new temporary (five year) 'Presbytery' structure that would stretch across the nation and facilitate the addition of interested churches even before they are able to develop relationships with the existing, geographically defined Presbyteries. Looks like this will go through. There's a vote on it tomorrow. (I won't be present but will check in with those who are).

Even if the structures are approved, there might still be some big hurdles - economic, legal, cultural, and theological issues to deal with. There could be some great reasons for PCUSA churches to say no to this option, as well as great reasons to say yes. I'll be interested to see how this unfolds. (dm, I'm of course interested to hear from you on this!)

I was surprised to see the EPC less conservative on the issue of women in leadership than I had supposed. The church hosting this gathering has several ordained women on its staff. One of the women who spoke during the day I was there was introduced as a long-time 'ruling elder,' and leads the high-profile 'Women in Ministry' commission for the denomination. Congregations have the freedom to ordain women as teaching elders (pastors) and ruling elders or to choose not to. Rather than this being decided at the denominational level they have 'agreed to disagree.' So there are probably very few women ordained and serving as pastors and not many as elders, but it is not ruled out and clearly there are some.

My own church in Denver, which is independent, is led by an EPC-ordained pastor and is often listed in the phone book and elsewhere with EPC churches because its name is 'South Evangelical Presbyterian Church.' 'South Fellowship' as it is usually known came out of the PCUSA, like many of the EPC churches. I've often thought it was too bad we didn't join the EPC denomination. But the feeling at the time was (or so I hear) 'we've had =enough= of denominations!' ... and I'm pretty sure that many of the old-timers at South still feel strongly that it is flat-out wrong for women to be pastors and elders. Women can teach adult Sunday school classes (as I have) and the like, and there are women leading some of the ministries, but there would be trouble if we had a woman 'preaching from the stage on Sunday morning!' Our pastor, who as I mentioned, is a member of the EPC, submits to the elders on this issue - though I believe his personal views on the matter are less conservative.

Well, we'll see. Maybe someday South - and/or Wabash - will end up with this little denomination... Tomorrow's vote may make it feasible sooner rather than later.