Inclusion

Yesterday's study group centred on the idea that "God is here for everyone." We began by watching an advertising campaign that was initiated by the United Church of Christ (in the U. S.) a couple of years ago. Apparently, the major networks, other than ABC, would not run the ads. They thought they were too controversial. They seem somewhat tame to me.

The first one they produced was one entitled "Steeple." They showed it awhile and then did some research on its. It apparently did not do much for anyone other than those who were already church goers. They then produced one they refer to as "Bouncer." This one appealed to a small group outside of "church goers," but not significantly so. They finally produced the one they refer to as "ejector." This one apparently widened the reception and made an impact on most viewers. It is amazing to me that one has to be so blatant to get a message across. A lesson in communication. (You can see all three by clicking on the title of this posting.)

I have been struggling with trying to find music that will appeal to youths. I have written about this previously. When I find good music that has meaningful lyrics, I try to match it directly to the message of the sermon and the readings of the day. Unfortunately, there are some members who find the music "uncomfortable." They want to keep that warm glow - somewhat soporific in nature - until the end of the service. This music tends to interrupt that feeling. They want me to stop.

I plan on stopping for advent. However, I need to find a way to communicate how our services, as they run now, do NOT include children and youth. We have modified how we leave and introduced re-entry into the congregation at the end of the service.

What used to happen in the service was quite different. We would begin the service with call to order, hymns, and the readings. Then the minister would get up and do "Children's Time." Then the children would leave - never to return until the next week. I loved the stories. I loved that "Children's" time. For me, it was an intro to what the sermon would be like. The stories were cute, poignant, and often gave us an glimpse of the ministers' childhood and sense of humour. It appealed to ma as an adult. It wasn't doing much for the kids. It also bothered me that the kids never re-appeared. I felt we were giving them the message: "We can tolerate you for a little time, but that's about it. We don't have much of a place for you here, so go along and we'll see you next week."

I don't, for a moment, believe that the congregation meant to communicate this message. I just felt strongly that it was being communicated. So one of the first things I asked to modify was when we left.

We try to leave as soon as possible during the service. We usually leave during the first hymn. If there is a baptism, we leave after the baptism - the children need to be there. (The children help bless the new members, they are reminded of their own baptism and what that means, and they present candles to the parents and generally welcome the new members into the church community.) If there is a special presentation (as there was on Remembrance Day), we stay for the presentation and then leave. Once we are gathered in our place within the church (a room adjacent to the sanctuary), I summarize or paraphrase the readings for the day and lead a discussion about what it might mean to the kids. It is interesting to do, as my group ranges from age 4 - 16. Sometimes the discussion is heated, sometimes contradictory, sometimes amazingly spiritual, and always interesting. There has never been a day when the discussion went flat.

I usually ask the participants to think of a way to respond to the readings and the discussion. They each have a journal into which they can draw, write, colour, or whatever. I am surprised at how many of the older children choose to draw.

All the while, I am listening for the section of the service when we go back into the congregation. It is towards the end, after the "prayers of the people," and before the "community news." This is when I usually play the music selection for the week. We walk back into the sanctuary and we share what we (I use "we" to represent both myself and the children) have discussed. Sometimes this is a sharing of the drawings, a short skit, a dance, or me talking. The participants help me decide what form the sharing will be. We finish the community news occurs.

I hope that this symbolically represents to the rest of the congregation that we are also important members of the community. That we understand what is being discussed as well as they do - perhaps on a different level, but we understand. There are times when I think the children understand better than we adults do. For them it comes so quickly.

The music I play never runs over a complete minute. Most of the time it is 30 seconds of music. One time, I played the entire piece because it was more "folky" and there were no electric guitars or heavy metal sounds. All the same, there were complaints. Unfortunately, never to me directly. If they came directly, I could at least enter into discussion about the music. With the messages always being relayed, I never get the opportunity.

I guess the other aspect that bothers me about this is the idea of "comfort." If we truly mean that everyone is welcome, we are going to be welcoming people that might make us "uncomfortable." If I am successful in getting youths to come here to learn, I am hoping that they may also decide to check us out on Sundays and see if our services say anything to them. They will make people "uncomfortable." They will not come in pristine dresses and suits. They will not likely be neatly groomed and smelling of good cologne. They may have tattoos, piercings, leather garments, dirty faces, etc. How will they be received? I don't want to expose these individuals to further alienation. They get enough of it.

We have come to welcome all sexual orientations. We do not act in ageist ways that negate the value of the elder members of the community. We try increasingly more diligently to honour all sexes, socio-economic groups, all marital or coupling statuses, and all cultural groups. Will we be able to accept youth as they are?

Post Election Blues

The day after the election and we discover that a little more than a third of the potential voters bothered to show up and vote. So much for my "responsibility" angle.

It is no wonder that modern depictions of Christ show him as someone who battled with disappointment and rejection. (I'm thinking particularly of Jesus Christ Superstar) If, as is my effort in this "Water to Wine" project, I actually get to where I feel like we have some sure fire strategies for feeling truly filled with the spirit, will I get as frustrated with people even try to do so? If we find ways that really nurture who we are as spiritual beings, share these with others, and they won't even try, will I feel rejected? Will the kids feel that way as well? Am I setting them up for feeling powerless? I sure hope not.

I guess that's where the "faith" angle comes in. Faith is what keeps us going in the face of adversity, rejection, disappointment, and powerless feelings. Perhaps that is my problem...my faith is weak.

I think that is what I felt when one of the kids, this past Sunday, talked about knowing that she wanted to be the best she can be, but that it was hard to be her best in the face of all the influences surrounding her. There's the peer pressure to conform. There are the images of beauty that are presented in various media. There are the acceptable behaviours being advocated in popular dramas and comedies. None of them truly advocate honesty, caring, generosity, non-violence, or nurture. None of them advocate acceptance of ourselves as we are. None seem to say, "Be you!" When honesty is advocated, it seems that it is the cruel honesty that identifies weakness in others rather than the gifts that shine through them. This cold, hard, honesty seems to be used to get others to conform to an image that may be foreign to the person who is getting the "honesty." It reminds me of the song "You gotta be..."

You gotta be bad, you gotta be bold
You gotta be wiser, you gotta be hard
You gotta be tough, you gotta be stronger
You gotta be cool, you gotta be calm
You gotta stay together

Ok, so it ends with "Love will save the day." All the same, why do we have to be hard, tough, stronger, cool, etc. in order to have love "save the day?" It seems like an oxymoron. Whilst being tough, hard, bold, cool, and stronger; am I also not building walls so thick that love can't possible enter to "save the day?"

I get a different message from my experiences. It is when I make myself vulnerable, when I open myself up to the ambiguous, when I try to see the infinite possibilities and uncertainty that I find truth, love, connection, and peace. Now there's an oxymoron: peaceful uncertainty.

Today must be one of those tired days. My faith is not strong. I'm not feeling very "bad."