Editor’s Note: This post is part of the Red Letter Book Club. It is an excerpt from Bruce Reyes-Chow’s latest book: But I Don’t See You as Asian: Curating Conversations About Race.

My middle daughter, Abby, is a soccer player. She has played since kindergarten. She is also the kid that we have to constantly ask to “stop kicking the ball in the house, ” as she is always dribbling some spherical item off of any and every surface she can—including off of unsuspecting sisters and parental units.

We love her passion and dedication, but seriously, after an hour of thunk, thunk, thunk against the wall, it gets old.

Abby is also really sensitive.

From an early age, she was always deeply intuitive and empathetic, to the point that we have never had to scold her or raise our voices when she was in trouble. One time we busted her standing on the counter—at the direction of her older sister, we later found out—poised to dig into the sugar jar. We just gave her a disappointed look, saying her name with a touch of disapproval, and she melted into a puddle of tears.

Oh, our sweet, sensitive Abby.

Recently, this girl came walking off the soccer field after the opposing team soundly crushed her middle school soccer team.

Abby was in tears.

We have never been the “you need to suck it up” kind of parents, but I will admit that there have been times when I pushed too hard to find out what was wrong just because I wanted to fix it. In such cases, I only made things worse. Shocking, I know.

But on that day, there I went again, and I began to talk to her about her ability take things in stride, especially as she was starting to play against older, more experienced players.

Without waiting for me to get too far into my lecture, Abby said, “Dad, I am not crying because I am sad. I’m crying because I’m angry.”

And then she added, “Lest anyone think I’m a sissy.”

While I would love to think my need to have her stop being so “sensitive” was purely based in a desire to toughen my baby up, I found it was actually based in obliviousness to what she was feeling and why. What I had perceived as weakness and a disproportionate reaction to disappointment was instead her response to a deeply felt emotion manifesting itself through tears.

I really didn’t need to do anything but let her be. Sure, she might have to deal with others reacting to her tears, but there was absolutely no need for me to fix her, to dismiss her reactions, or to try and make things better.

All I needed to do was listen.

In the same way, when discussing race, I know that when I am told—and I have been told—“Don’t be so sensitive, ” the speaker is generally not delivering these words with my well-being in mind. People usually issue this statement because they can’t handle your reaction or because your reaction has created uncomfortable tension in the room.

When we respond thus to a genuine reaction, whether that reaction be anger, fear, or sadness, we are essentially saying to that person, “Emotions bad. Emotions uncomfortable. Please stop.”

I can just about guarantee that responding to someone who is reacting negatively to a racial incident by saying, “Don’t be so sensitive, ” will not lessen the tension in the room. It is far more likely that this response will increase tension—and in the end, it does not “fix” anything. In fact, what this response does is communicate the idea that someone’s reaction is not valid and their concerns about the heart of the matter are probably not going not be heard. Yes, there may be a time to discuss and even challenge people’s assumptions, but to respond with “Don’t be so sensitive” in the moment will result in feelings of resentment, distrust, and further distance.

Sometimes, in the face of that which we feel is uncomfortable, all we need to do is listen.

Read reviews, an interview with Bruce, and find out more about But I Don’t See You as Asian: Curating Conversations About Race in the Red Letter Book Club

Oh but where to start?

I think I’ll start with race.

For as much as some would like to think that we are “over” race or that the whole reason we still have racism is because we keep talking about it,  occurrences like John Sununu’s comments about Colin Powell and last night’s demographic breakdown have once again pushed race to the forefront of American political and cultural conversations. Other demographics: class, age, gender, etc. also play a huge part in the discussion, but over and over again, the pundits from both parties kept coming back to race.

The topic that has been particularly compelling to me has been about the future of the Republican party. In light of what one commentator described when talking about the impact of demographic racial diversity on the election saying, “The future as arrived” I am intrigued by how this mostly older, White Republican party will respond and adapt in order to regain influence?

Hey wait a gosh darn minute . . . White and older?

And this is where historically White and aging denominations like my own, the Presbyterian Church (USA) might want to tune into future discussions and developments in the Republican Party. Many of the Republican commentators described what is to come as anything from a pending civil war to a time for regrouping and deep soul-searching, but regardless of the intensity levels, there is obviously going to be some serious talk about how Republicans will reach the increasingly diverse United States population.

Yeah, kinda like what we Presbyterians and others need to do as well.

Also by Bruce: Christian Hypocrisy in Examining the Word of God and the Words of Politicians

While I doubt that I will be invited into the strategy meetings of the Grand Old Party, I do know that I may have the ear of some of our Grand Old Denominations. With this in mind let me not-so-humbly offer a few words of unsolicited advice.

First, we must stop seeing these demographic changes as problems that must be leveraged in order to avoid death and instead see these changes as transformational realities that must be embraced in order to experience new life.

And second . . . well, let’s see if we can get a handle on the first one

On more than one occasion, it was said that the Republican party has a “Latino Problem” that must be addressed. While I understand what was intended by the statement, this framing of an ethnic group as a resource to be leveraged only goes to commoditize a people and does not invite new voices into the conversations as equal partners in shaping and forming the future of the body. This perspective only encourages resentment and disdain, because it forces those who hold power to give it up out of necessity and survival and not out of genuine openness to a new way of being . . . of being Presbyterian, of being Lutheran, of being Republican.

Some might say that this election and the current state of most historically White denominations makes it clear that it is simply a matter of time before our need to hold onto power,  privilege and status creates an institutional reality so narrow that, as Brian Williams said about Donald Trump, we may drive “well past the last exit to relevance and veer[ed] into something closer to irresponsible.” And while I am don’t believe that we Presbyterians will be as outrageous as Mr. Trump in the ways we express ourselves during this time, to allow our deep theological and ecclesiastic traditions to be retrained and confined by our unwillingness to express those things in new ways and through difference voices, we will not only move closer to irresponsibility, but we will move closer to being unfaithful.

So as discussions about race continue in politics,  and I hope in our churches, let us do so with pastoral hearts for the struggles that change invites, gracious voices that are committed to the conversation and liberating eyes toward who God may be intending for us to become.

This is an exciting and opportune time for us all and I look forward to the ongoing adventure that it is to be the body politic and the body of Christ.

May the peace of Christ be with you and may we see God’s blessings in us all.

—
Bruce Reyes-Chow is a native Northern Californian and third generation Chinese/Filipino who has been living in San Francisco since 1998.  Until May, 2011 he was the founding pastor of Mission Bay Community Church, a church of 20/30-somethings in San Francisco, CA and from 2008-2010 was Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). He is currently one of those “consultant” types who makes his way, writing, speaking, teaching and drinking coffee. His social networks of choice are Twitter,  Facebook and his Blog

This article originally appeared on Bruce’s blog at Patheos.com

With that disclaimer, out of the way, as part of Patheos’s 2012 election coverage and in response to this week’s questions, What’s wrong–and what’s right–with the role of faith in American politics today? I offer this min-rant.

Like many of you out there, I am both frustrated and fascinating by the election season. Truth be told, I love it: the strategizing, the sociological implications and the constant challenge to be community. I do my best not to add to the negativity and unhealthy interactions that are in front of us all the time, but sometimes, like so many of you, I just want to scream/tweet out, “You are mean,  lying poopy face . . . oh why do you hate America so?!?!?”

One of the instigators of my frequent potty mouth moments is seeing how supporters of both main presidential candidates* respond to one another and the claims that each campaign makes. It seems that supporters of both parties are pretty inconsistent when it comes to examining what the campaigns are putting out there about the economy, healthcare,  foreign policy, taxes,  poverty, etc. Generally speaking, when we like and support a candidate, we believe them and if we don’t support a candidate, we find every way to discount their every claim as an utter lie.

Seeing as many of the people who show up in my various news streams are of the Christian variety, I have noticed the same patterns when we approach Scripture. Now don’t worry, I am not trying to equate our political system and God’s movement in the world. I am only pointing out  how we tend to approach our beliefs in times of disagreement. These are the things that I have noticed:

When we read the Bible, The Word of God . . .

• We lean into and take at face value passages that reinforce our already held beliefs.

• We dig deeper into the history and context of the passages in order to discount any that call our beliefs into question

When we hear words from politicians . . .

• We lean into and take at face value the words that our preferred politicians says.

• We dig deeper into the words from politicians we don’t like in order to discount their version of the truth.

In both of these cases we are basically doing two things: one, finding all the support we can to affirm our already held beliefs and, two, finding anything we can to discount the beliefs that others might hold as true. In the end, we are more concerned with making sure that we are right, rather than being open to the possibility that our beliefs might need to change, shift or . . . heaven forbid,  be scrapped in totality.

Of course there are always exceptions to these two extremes and I would even go as far as saying that these approaches are not always “wrong, ” ways to approach politics and faith, for sometimes when we dig for one truth, we unexpectedly discover another. At the same time, I think it’s fair to say that, at some point,  each and every one of us falls into the trap of not thinking critically about our politics and our faith. Truth is, it’s exhausting to engage in the self-reflection and relationship building that might lead to a change of our hearts and minds. Despite what some might like to believe about themselves, NO ONE LIKES CHANGE. The only change any of us really champion is change . . . for other people.

Now I am not sure what we do about all of this other than try and be more consistent. I try to remain diligent in not always discounting everything that any candidates says, nor do I take, at face value, the truth that any candidate claims. I have found that following people on twitter with whom I disagree, while excruciating at times, has been helpful in maintaining perspective. I have also found that Politifacts,  especially on twitter, seems to be a very helpful truth-o-meter for campaign claims.

In the end, there are no easy answers and I find strength in the fact that we will always fall short of perfection. But if we can all acknowledge these realities of shared hypocrisy and extend a little grace towards our enemies in these times of battle, maybe we will all see the other side of this election season a little less bruised and battered from the fight.

A small hope for sure, my hope for us all nonetheless.

* I will save this topic for another post, but I am seriously considering a vote for the Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala Green Party Ticket.

—
Bruce Reyes-Chow is a native Northern Californian and third generation Chinese/Filipino who has been living in San Francisco since 1998.  Until May, 2011 he was the founding pastor of Mission Bay Community Church, a church of 20/30-somethings in San Francisco, CA and from 2008-2010 was Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). He is currently one of those “consultant” types who makes his way, writing, speaking, teaching and drinking coffee. His social networks of choice are  Twitter,  Facebook and his Blog

This article originally appeared on Bruce’s blog at Patheos.com

While the battles about worship and music are traditionally focused on the use of organs, guitars, hymns and drum sets, I have heard this same thing from those whom I would say have very creative music and worship expressions. So what it really comes down to is that many of us believe that the only true way to worship God is the way we do.

Now do not get me wrong, when I hear praise music that has a “Jesus is my boyfriend” vibe or organ music that seems better fit for a carnival, my skin crawls and my soul is not moved. And yet for some, that is where they meet God. Personally, I love a little bit of everything as I worship. Powerful organ music, deft guitarists, rocking bands, swaying choirs and the singing of Taize (And yes, Taize is basically the same seven words sung eleven times, *cough* *cough*) all can stir my soul. This musical buffet is not for everyone and not every community can pull it off, but this is how I meet God where I worship and I am grateful.

One of the reasons that people are so passionate about music is that this is where and how we often connect to the holy. To mess with or critique that choice is to mess with and critique the very nature of our relationship with God. Sometimes this may be needed and appropriate, but most often it only creates unwarranted conflict, cultural entrenchment and calcification of the Spirit. Whether it’s music or any other parts of our worship lives, the sooner that we embrace a reality that one music style is not more faithful than another, the sooner we will liberate our minds and hearts to experience God in new ways.

So when we so easily mock the ways in which others sing praise to God, we are buying into a culture of self-centered bullying, exclusion and judgement that have no place in the church. If anything, even in the face of theological differences, we should be finding ways to model to the world ways of dealing with difference that does not always lead to disembodiment of the faithful, but to the building up of the Body of Christ . . . and in achieving this, maybe we will truly be worshipping God.

Pass it on.

—
Bruce Reyes-Chow is a native Northern Californian and third generation Chinese/Filipino who has been living in San Francisco since 1998.  Until May, 2011 he was the founding pastor of Mission Bay Community Church, a church of 20/30-somethings in San Francisco, CA and from 2008-2010 was Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). He is currently one of those “consultant” types who makes his way, writing, speaking, teaching and drinking coffee. His social networks of choice are Twitter,  Facebook and his Blog

This article originally appeared on Bruce’s blog at Patheos.com

Anyhoo . . .

As Posey stepped up to the plate, my eyes were glued to the screen and I found myself hoping he would rip away. And then without thinking I said to my middle daughter,

Hey honey, Buster Posey is up. He’s on my fantasy baseball team, so I hope he gets a hit.

Without looking up from her plate, she responded,

Dad, please never again say that out loud in public.

Well played young one, well played.

Now I do not want to overstate the fantasy sports metaphor as there are many problems with it, but as I have jumped into fantasy sports this year for the first time, I found myself watching the game differently. For those who have no idea what fantasy sports is, each year fantasy teams are formed from all of the players in the league. Fantasy teams are not just made up of players from the same real life teams, but are an amalgamation of the best players from all of the teams. What this means is that no longer can I solely root for my own favorite team, but I must also hope that players on other teams also do well. What fantasy sports forces you to do, if you want to succeed, is to acknowledge that there are some positives aspects about all of the teams. It might only be one batter or one pitcher, but still, you need them to do well no matter what team they play for . . . yes, even if the team is the dastardly New York Yankees.

I wonder what would happen if we applied this same kind of lens to those things that we church folks so easily demonized every day. The ways we so easily and wholeheartedly dismiss certain types of churches, styles of worship and denominational traditions might my not be so easy to do if we could, not only acknowledge that there are parts of all of these things that meet someone’s need and someone’s spiritual growth, but also hope those aspects do well.  ”Success” in faith, which I believe is about being prophetic, pastoral,  priestly and poetic in the world, will only be achieved if we engage in these things together. We will never agree on all aspects of the faith, between or within church families, but are there not a few aspects of faith that we can find pockets of common ground and mutual encouragement?

I think so.

—-
Bruce is a native Northern Californian and third generation Chinese/Filipino who has been living in San Francisco since 1998.  Until May, 2011 he was the founding pastor of Mission Bay Community Church, a church of 20/30-somethings in San Francisco, CA and from 2008-2010 was Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). He is currently one of those “consultant” types who makes his way, writing, speaking, teaching and drinking coffee. His social networks of choice are  Twitter,  Facebook and his Blog

This article originally appeared on Bruce’s blog at Patheos.com

Short answer: there is none.

I recently stumbled upon a Les Miserables inspired video parody  in support of a Barack Obama’s second term. I have obvously shared my support of President Obama in the past, but a lesser-known thing about me is that I loves me some Broadway Musicals: In the Heights, Rent, The Book of Morman and Les Miserables being some of my favorites. President Obama AND Jean Valjean together,  yes sir, may I have some more. So not only did I click on over and watch it, but soon found out that I am one-degree of separation from one of the performers.

Anyhoo, here is a sample from One Term More, a video parody of One Day More from Les Miserables

One Term More!

With laws that let ‘em stand their ground,
Republicans are locked & loaded.

Contraception’s now a sin,
Screwing G.M. in the clutch.
Incivility’s a virtue,
Homophobic. Out of touch.
Filibusters. Budget scrums.
Ultrasounds & speculums.
To the Dark Side they’ve succumbed.

After I watched One Term More, even though I thought the lyrics were witty, the satire right on and I generally supported the politics behind the creation of it, I was left with more than a little discomfort. It was the same kind of discomfort that I get when friends of mine in the religious community post pictures, quotes and updates that – to those with whom we find agreement – may be powerful, prophetic and or giggle-inducing, do little to build up community across the chasms of theology,  ideology or politics.

Yeah, I know the smart-ass photo captions are funny and I’m a Debbie Downer.

Now before anyone accuses me of dismissing the power of satire on culture, I do not disagree. Thoughtful satire, witty snark and timely sarcasm can be powerful forces, but it seems that in today’s uber-connected and politically charged climate these tactics serve mostly to galvanizing communities already in agreement in order to be a force against the enemy and they do very little to help build bridges of reconciliation, relationships and commonality. I am willing to be pushed on this, but I simply do not believe bridges are built with snark, satire and sarcasm and I would bet that most satirist are not really interested in reconciliation with those whom they are satirizing.

But it feels so good and makes me happy . . . cue Sheryl Crow.

In no way am I above this, as I too have leaned on what I think is funny in order to take a swipe at someone with whom I disagree. It can be cathartic and, truthfully, when you hit a snark-homer, it feels awesome . . . and when friends retweet, share, comment, etc affirming said awesomeness, all the better. But here is where I experience the tension: as a person of faith, a pastor, one who is committed to the building up of community, I am held to a different standard than the rest of the world. I can be all up in the political battles, but I can choose to engage with a different posture and see the landscape through a different lens. Sure, I want to “win the day” but more importantly, I want human relationships, all human relationships, not just my ideological kindred, to be built up and not further torn apart.

I am not calling on a widespread boycott of all the ironic images with witty political quips ripping the politics of the other party, but I would say that if you choose to post them while also calling for people to reach over and beyond aisles of disagreement, that second part will be harder to believe. Some of you out there have no interest in building bridges and will have a legitimate case for calling me out on the privilege that I have to urge bridge-building, but I stand firm in by belief that those of us in the church can and must model a different way of  living in conflict and disagreement with one another.

This is not a call to weakness, but to graciousness. We can speak truth to power without tearing one another down, we can challenge the beliefs of another without resorting to violent rhetoric and we can stand for human dignity without stripping human dignity from those who may not stand along side of us. Jesus did it all the time, others have done it since then and I refuse to believe that we cannot do it still.

So . . . while I do get a chuckle out of some of what you all post and the serious creativity that politics can inspire, when it comes to choosing how to engage during this political season, I’m going to try my darnedest to muzzle my smart-ass awesomeness in exchange for words of hope-filled idealism.

If you’re up for it, you’re welcome to join me.

And for your viewing and listening pleasure, here is the real One Day More, the 10th Anniversary performance.

—-
Bruce is a native Northern Californian and third generation Chinese/Filipino who has been living in San Francisco since 1998.  Until May, 2011 he was the founding pastor of Mission Bay Community Church, a church of 20/30-somethings in San Francisco, CA and from 2008-2010 was Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). He is currently one of those “consultant” types who makes his way, writing, speaking, teaching and drinking coffee. His social networks of choice are  Twitter,  Facebook and his Blog

This article originally appeared on Bruce’s blog at Patheos.com

I believe that, today, the question of gun ownership and fighting gun violence is one of those times.

Trust me, I do not wade into the topic of guns lightly. After posting on this topic here and here, I am fully aware of the passion with which people approach this issue and the subsequent conversations about it. While some would say it would be wiser and even safer to avoid such engagement, I disagree. For if I, as a Christian, cannot find a way to engage in healthy and helpful conversations with those  who disagree with me, Christian or not,  then, I am abdicating my responsibility to live the kind of life that I believe God hopes for me to live in the world.

Still, I know that there will be some immediate reactions by many who might react to any opinion that seems anti-gun, so let me try to pre-empt some of the obvious pushback that is likely to be directed my way.  I have no delusions that commentors will, in fact, read this blog before commenting, but for those of you who do and are interested in fruitful conversation, know this . . .

• When I say that I will never own a gun because of my Christian faith, that does not mean that I am saying that you are not a Christian if you do.
• I do understand that there is a difference between owning a rifle for hunting and owning a handgun for self-defense. And while I would never own either, my Christian sensibilities are not as challenged by those who have grown up in a culture of hunting as by those who advocate widespread handgun availability.
• This is not about the 2nd Amendment or gun control, but rather a public expression of how my faith informs the way I chose to live in the world.  There is a time and place for conversations about civil engagement and faith, but in this post, my primary authority is not the US Constitution, but my faith in Jesus Christ and God’s unfolding reality as told through the Bible.

Gun ownership, gun violence and gun control are obviously not new debates in our nation. At the same time, I do think that the ideological,  philosophical and theological foundations that give structure to the arguments about guns in our culture are beginning to manifest themselves in ways that are tearing apart the social and cultural understandings that have brought this country together for a very long time. In the name of free speech, we are experiencing a rise of violent political rhetoric; in the defense of freedom,  personal interactions are increasingly tinged with violent posturing; and  recent shootings – mass or otherwise – are creating a fatigue that further normalizes gun violence in our culture.

As a Christian, a pastor, a father, a citizen of the United States and member of the larger global community, this is not an acceptable reality, nor does this align with the many ways in which I believe Christ calls us to live. There is much in the teachings of Christ that offer me pause, but in the case of guns, any way I look at the questions of owning a gun and the risks involved to the larger community, it is abundantly clear to me why I will never own a gun.

Also by Bruce: The Church’s Doomed Pursuit of the Elusive Young Adult

I first begin with my place in the greater community. I choose not to own a gun and provide an opportunity for the violence that so often accompanies guns because this is how I would hope others would be in the world. Yes, many will label me a fool and accuse me of creating an atmosphere of inviting gun violence into my life, but when it comes to faith, my actions, while defying logic to many in the world, is an expression of my deep commitment to God.

³⁶ “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

³⁷ Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ ³⁸ This is the first and greatest commandment. ³⁹ And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ⁴⁰ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

– Matthew 22:36-40

Secondly, nowhere in Scripture does Jesus give us permission to solve our problems, respond to aggression or even defend ourselves with violence. In word and in deed, we are often called to fight injustice and violence with words and actions that are distinctly NOT violent, even in self-defense. Turning the other cheek, defending with a sword,  stoning of the prostitute, etc, Jesus reminds us of other powerful ways to respond to those who would chose to goad us into violent conflict. Yes, we do those things out of self-survival and self-defense, and justified by society or not, viewed through a lens of the Christian faith violence of any kind cannot be justified.

¹⁷ Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. ¹⁸ If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. ¹⁹ Do not take revenge,  my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay, ” says the Lord. ²⁰ On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”

²¹ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

– Romans 12:17-21

People may call this approach to faith and life absurd, weak or out of touch, but this is where my Christian faith leads me to stand and I consider this posture of non-violence in word and deed, to be one of power,  transformation and graciousness. Again, because this is where my faith leads me, does not mean that I think any less of those who decide that gun ownership aligns with their faith, only that I have chosen differently.

I believe is that at some point, people of faith must stand side-by-side speaking together to let the world and one another know that there is a different way to live and respond to that which may threaten us . . . and it is one that does not involve guns, so if you would like to add your name to a “petition” is support of church leaders everywhere who are engaged in important work against gun violence, please sign sign and share This Petition:  Christians Standing Together Against Gun Violence.

—-
Bruce is a native Northern Californian and third generation Chinese/Filipino who has been living in San Francisco since 1998.  Until May, 2011 he was the founding pastor of Mission Bay Community Church, a church of 20/30-somethings in San Francisco, CA and from 2008-2010 was Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). He is currently one of those “consultant” types who makes his way, writing, speaking, teaching and drinking coffee. His social networks of choice are  Twitter,  Facebook and his Blog

This article originally appeared on Bruce’s blog at Patheos.com

As I reflect on my own stage of ministry, after 25 years of working in the church including 17 years of ordained ministry, I am keenly aware of my short-comings when it comes to reaching young adults. My Gen X worldview and ecclesiastic experience often cloud my judgement and my aversion to getting old can be a stumbling block to my own continued growth in ministry. I think the church as a living body is not much different in our current stage of life. Over the generations, what the church has done in the world has been amazing and powerful, but those resting on the laurels of those accomplishments often hampers our ability to see the church of the future; one that could have the same impact on the world. So before we journey too far down the path of our young adults expedition, I would offer three faulty assumptions that many of us make when thinking about young adults and the future of the church.

ASSUMPTION 1 –WE can build a ministry for Young Adults.

I find it interesting that most of the conversations about “reaching young adults” take place among people who are distinctly NOT young adults. I think it is a way that many of us try to prove that 40 really IS the new 20 and extend our youth for as long as we can. Sorry folks, but as we age, our roles and perspectives change. I for one do not regret this,  rather I embrace and welcome the roles that I will hold in the future. If we are to reach young adults with integrity, then young adults must to be at the table and part of the direction setting in significant ways. Much like we would never plant a Korean American church with a team that was 90% non-Korean, we must not try to create relevant young adults ministries by relying on the musings of even the best intentioned 40, 50 and 60 year-olds. For as hip of a 43-year-old as I fool myself into believing I am, I do not and will not experience the world through the eyes of a 20-year-old . . . and there is nothing I can do to change that. The best thing I can do is to acknowledge this reality and then find the best ways to empower, guide and support that 20-year-old as she/he discovers a place and role in the future of the church. This posture must be taken in all aspects of the journey: planning process, fiscal management, organizational development, etc. if we are to truly create and sustain ministry with and for young adults.

ASSUMPTION 2 -There is such a thing as A Young Adult.

One of the glaring generational differences that seems to take over young adult conversations is the idea that there is “A Young Adult” that can be defined and targeted. Sure, there are ways that we can glean some common young adult characteristics, but unlike previous generations, these definitions are far more DEscriptive than PREscriptive. I can hear it now, “We Boomers are not all the same, how dare you, you disrepectful Gen X’er!” Fair enough, but on this we will have to agree to disagree. I am not saying that previous generations are soulless robots programmed to all like the same things, but I think it is fair to say that in previous generational times more people liked the same things whereas in our today’s niche culture, more people like more things. This diversity within a demographic throws our tried and true methodological approach to ministry all into a tizzy because it means that we will have to deal with diverse expressions of faith. How do we measure and assess these things? How do we fund them? What kind of leadership is needed? All important questions that can only be effectively addressed by taking seriously Assumption 1.

ASSUMPTION 3 -Young Adults will help the church I love to live on!

If we are honest, the main reason most of us are hopping on the Young Adult Train is because we think we need them to survive and sustain the church that we have been part of.  To some extent that is true and noble if we are thinking about “the church” as a way of being and not a style, ideology or program. However, if reaching young adults is only, even mostly, about self-preservation, we have already chosen a path of death without hope for resurrection. On the other hand, if we are about seeing the end of the particular manifestation of the church as a natural life stage and rhythm of life, then we can move into our death strengthened by the promise of resurrection and new life. Yes, some aspects of the church past are destined to continue in some fashion, but if our primary reason for reaching young adults is to preserve what has always been, then we have already stopped being a church worth preserving at all.

I realize that some will now accuse me of dismissing the importance and presence of older adults in the church. I can’t help if that is your initial and only reaction other than to encourage you to think about your role in helping to define the future of the church as an evolving role and not an abdication of presence. One can be young in spirit and energy until death, but to deny the wisdom that age and experience can offer the future is to deny the work of Christ that has been cultivated in all of us over time. Our role in defining the future will depend on context, but if the only role that you or I can see for ourselves is to be upfront determining the direction of the church, we will fail. To me, this is not an acceptable choice, so I must now learn how to gauge the right time and way to lift and support up young adults who can better and more naturally see the future of, and God’s intentions for, the Body of Christ. This is my shifting roll that I will live and be with all of the youthfulness and vibrancy that this creaky body can muster . . . I can’t wait to see what happens.

—-
Bruce is a native Northern Californian and third generation Chinese/Filipino who has been living in San Francisco since 1998.  Until May, 2011 he was the founding pastor of Mission Bay Community Church, a church of 20/30-somethings in San Francisco, CA and from 2008-2010 was Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). He is currently one of those “consultant” types who makes his way, writing, speaking, teaching and drinking coffee. His social networks of choice are  Twitter,  Facebook and his Blog

This article originally appeared on Bruce’s blog at Patheos.com

Photo By davidz

Every time I blog about homosexuality and the church, I get at least one email or comment that says that I am either wasting my time or sowing dissent.  As a straight, married, Asian American Presbyterian, I agree . . . this is getting old. I dread the fact that issues of gender, race, economics and sexuality are still issues that the church must struggle with in order to fully be who I hope the church to be.  And I dread that some of us feel the calling to use whatever privilege we may have to keep fighting on behalf of those who are and have been excluded from community and call and subjected to violence in word and action.

I will also receive a comment or email that also says, if I – or the occasional ”you people” – would just stop talking about X, then it would go away. This I do not agree with, for silence in the face of oppression is sinful, and while we will all justify times of silence in defense of our own safety and comfort, most of us who enjoy the privileges that our heterosexuality avails, we really do not risk much by speaking up for our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.

Like many folks, I was appalled by the recent sermon preached by Pastor Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church calling for LGBTQ folks to be gathered in an electrified pen until they died off from lack of reproduction. I encourage you to watch the video if for no other reason than to hear the words from the source.

Of course, Pastor Worley has every right to preach whatever kind of hateful rhetoric that he feels called to preach. Likewise, he must deal with the consequences of those words. As a person of faith, not matter how much I may disdain his theology, he is discerning God’s movement in his life, and as a Reformed Christian who believes in the sovereignty of God, I have to trust that somehow, in some way, God is working in thru all of this.

That said, it would be easy to dismiss him as some radical, fringe person that should be given little attention or thought. After all, no reasonable and faithful person would ever think these things, let alone say them.  Some, like my friend, Eugene Cho in his excellent post chastising Worley and others says,

No matter where you stand on the issue of gay marriage, there are some boundaries of human decency that should never be crossed.

For the most part I agree, most people who think homosexuality is a sin, probably do not think that LGBTQ people should be rounded up until they die off. And then I think back to some meetings/debates among those whom I would consider “thoughtful and faithful” communities in my own denomination, the Presbyterian Church (USA). When it came to homosexuality, the slippery slope argument was always busted out, “homosexuality will lead to . . . [insert perceived sexual “deviance”].” After an awkward moment of “Whoa, did he just say what I think he said?” most of us would simply dismiss these folks as fringe, after all, the slippery slope argument is unwinnable . . . and what does it matter anyway?

And then you hear people like Worley and others who do in fact verbalize what we know already happens, people take anti-LGBTQ thought, theology and rhetoric and walk down that slippery slope to the point of killing people who are gay. I am generally not a slippery slope kind of person, but in this case, I will borrow a page from some of my brothers and sisters in Christ who believe  that the affirmation of of homosexuality, as choice or creation, will lead to the destruction of all that is good and holy and say this:

You can wrap your theological position in all the “speaking the truth in love” or “hate the sin, love the sinner” rhetoric you want, but if you hold the idea that affirming homosexuality will lead to the destruction of societal “norms” then you had better claim the other side: anti-homosexuality rhetoric will lead to the death of human beings because they are gay.

Again, for many of us, we have been able to stand outside of much of this without really risking anything. Sure, some us us get nasty notes and people berate us for being theologically  bankrupt, but that sacrifice pales in comparison to what my LGBTQ friends must deal with every day when simply making choices about how they act, what they say or who they love.

There is no comparison.

Likewise, those of you who continue to give life and validation to anti-homosexuality thinking must know that you have been given the privilege of being thought of as reasonable and faithful. This protection has given you a false security that your words, no matter how diametrically different they may sound from Worley’s, do not lead to violence.

They do.

And then you hear things like this, from the Pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Rev. Dr. Otis Moss III as he speaks about same-sex marriage.

Theology like this is the antidote to the Worley’s of the world: those who call for violence as well as to those who stand by and allow this rhetoric to go unchallenged. I for one don’t care how tired we all get talking about this “issue” because, as long as people are being killed because of their sexuality, those of us who have the privilege of thinking about LGBTQ bothers and sisters as “issues” in the first place, must choose to speak out against the violence or risk continuing being part of it.

If you care to be part of a public action in NC this weekend, please see Kimberly Knight’s post, Following Jesus to Maiden, NC.

—-
Bruce is a native Northern Californian and third generation Chinese/Filipino who has been living in San Francisco since 1998.  Until May, 2011 he was the founding pastor of Mission Bay Community Church, a church of 20/30-somethings in San Francisco, CA and from 2008-2010 was Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). He is currently one of those “consultant” types who makes his way, writing, speaking, teaching and drinking coffee. His social networks of choice are  Twitter,  Facebook and his Blog

This article originally appeared on Bruce’s blog at Patheos.com

My name is Bruce Reyes-Chow and I too am a Christian. I am also a Presbyterian minister, a husband, a father and a Democrat.  Identifiers claimed, I write to you today because I am frustrated with the singular version of Christianity that is dominating today’s public and political discourse.

Like many of you from across the theological and political spectrum, I am disturbed by the religious rhetoric that is defining Christianity in the United States today: one that employs inflammatory rhetoric over civil discourse, favors easy-answers over nuanced thought and seeks political victory over the common good. This is not the Christianity that I live. I believe that faithful Christians – from “liberal” to “conservative” – can vigorously disagree on significant social and political issues like abortion, marriage equality, health care, etc. without tearing down the dignity of the other, giving up the complexities of faith or inflicting pain upon another member of the Body of Christ.

³⁷ Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ ³⁸ This is the first and greatest commandment. ³⁹ And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ⁴⁰ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” – Matthew 22

The Christianity that I embrace compels me to follow God’s calling into the world, and to do so with vigor, discipline and love.

I am generally against unity based on a negative, but we are at a time when remaining silent is a luxury that we can no longer afford.  For if the current dominant version of the Christian faith continues to be cast as the one true version, the great diversity of our collective thought and theology will further cease building up the body as a whole. At some point our participation in the abdication of the Christian voice in the United States to the version of Christianity that politicians,  pundits and the media would like it to be can no longer be tolerated. Unless we want our Christian faith to continue to be defined for us, we must seize this time,  join our voices and reclaim the diversity of Christianity in the United States that we all know exists.

All together now . . . We are Christianity!

Because there is a broad expression of Christianity in the United States and lifting up a singular alternative would only perpetuate the idea of one “right” Christianity, taking a pledge or signing a contract would be silly.  Instead, if this letter resonates with you – Blue Dog Roman Catholic Democrat or a Log Cabin Episcopal Republican – you are invited to publicly claim your spot in the larger Christian family by adding your name to the “We are Christianity!” petition and/or liking and uploading a photo to the Facebook Page .

Other than that, I hope that you will take every opportunity to model graciousness, extend respect and shower dignity as you passionately,  publicly and faithfully live and express your Christian faith.

May the peace of Christ be with you.

Bruce Reyes-Chow, Christian

—-
Bruce is a native Northern Californian and third generation Chinese/Filipino who has been living in San Francisco since 1998.  Until May, 2011 he was the founding pastor of Mission Bay Community Church, a church of 20/30-somethings in San Francisco, CA and from 2008-2010 was Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). He is currently one of those “consultant” types who makes his way, writing, speaking, teaching and drinking coffee. His social networks of choice are  Twitter,  Facebook and his Blog