In the culture of today, there are ‘Buzz Words’ that become an a large part of our public conversation and this is never more true than during a presidential election cycle.  We have been exploring some of these words: Fair, Faith, Grace, Mercy, Orthodoxy, Liberal, Conservative. As we have discovered these words are often used with the assumption that we know what they mean and one the interesting parts of ‘Buzz Words’ is that opposing sides of an argument use the same words to reveal why they are right.

Today, we introduce one more word- Postmodern. 

Postmodernism is a term that is very much in vogue these days especially in political and academic circles.  Like any ‘buzz word’ and there is a considerable amount of influence wielded by this particular word on culture and Christianity.  The questions for us today are what exactly is the postmodern world and how should we live our faith in the midst of this postmodern world? 

If we are to understand the influence of postmodernism, we must first arrive at a reasonable definition. The difficulty is that there is considerable confusion as to just what postmodern is.  There are few terms as commonly used, and just as commonly misunderstood, as postmodernism. 

Author and theologian Tyron Inbody compares postmodernism to "intellectual Velcro dragged across culture" which "can be used to characterize almost anything one approves or disapproves." 

Umberto Eco, himself classified as a postmodern writer due in large part to his novel The Name of the Rose, has written of postmodernism stating: "I have the impression that it is applied today to anything the users of the term happen to like."

Postmodernism is the cultural worldview that penetrates and owns most our society. Postmodernism is characterized by the digital as we communicate globally and instantly with computers and smart phones via the internet; Cultural ideas are primarily transmitted via audio-visual means and not the printed word; the world is now characterized by that which is fast or slow.   

Allow me to further summarize the characteristics of Postmodernism:

1) There is no absolute truth.  One of the most prevalent characteristics of postmodernism is the idea that there is not any kind of absolute truth. Truth cannot be known in the context of postmodernist thinking, and those who claim to know truth are either lying or foolish.  Therefore, Biblical truth is irrelevant and it is okay to dismiss whatever doesn’t "feel" compatible with your personal ideology.

2) Facts and falsehoods are interchangeable because one of the characteristics of postmodernism is that there is no absolute truth, a natural outgrowth of this is that facts and falsehoods are interchangeable. What is accepted or claimed as truth today could easily be proven wrong tomorrow, and vice versa.

3) Frustration with modern thinking is dominant.  The modern generation's failure to accomplish their goals has caused postmoderns to harbor a great deal of distrust.  Postmoderns are frustrated with the modern generation's inability to deliver on their promises of peace, advancement, and knowledge.  As we conquered the globe, building and creating more and more, all in the name of progress, people have responded, "Progressing towards what?"  We have reached a point in history where are all indications are that are children – the next generation will not be better off.

4) Rationalization is the norm.  Because of the scientific method's shortcomings in resolving the problems of the world, distrust of what is presented as fact has led to embracing opinion as the driving force of thought.  One of the primary characteristics of postmodernism is therefore that if a person can rationalize their understanding or opinion, it is worthwhile and as true as is possible.  As a result, opinion now equals fact.

5) The Global community is more important than nationalism.
Rationalization, frustration, and the thinking that there is no truth beyond personal and corporate opinion has resulted in the postmodern tendency toward the belief that the global good is more important than national interests.

6) All religions deserve equal recognition. One of the most controversial characteristics of postmodernism is the idea that all religions are equally valid. If, as postmodern thinking dictates, there is no absolute truth, then no one religion offers a "right" way. If no religion is true, then all religions are equally false, or equally valid, depending on the person's point of view.  The new tolerance in religion means never questioning the propositions of another religious point of view.  There is one exception.  It is okay to censure any religion that is arrogant enough to claim that it knows the truth. They must be stopped before they gain the upper hand and begin persecuting other religions again. Therefore, the marginalized religions of non-western civilizations must be given a voice.

7) Morality is individualistic.  If there is no true religion, and if there is no absolute truth, then each person's ideas about morality are also equally false or valid. This characteristic is most clearly seen in the common statement, "it's right for me." Every person's morality belongs to them alone, and morality that is imposed by another, whether by religion, government, or another person, and anything that claims to be absolute truth is to be distrusted.

Postmodernism permeates everything we interact with as we study, work, watch current movies, and relate to friends.  This influence of the postmodern should not be considered surprising, for the postmodern is a way of recognizing that the world is in a period of transition.

All this could lead you to believe that as Christians, we should reject the idea of postmodern thought.  I would say you can’t do that anymore than you could jump in the ocean and not get wet!  But I believe while we jump in, we can prepare ourselves so that we do not drown.  Perhaps postmodernism is a life ring for us. Brian D. McLaren, pastor and author, has even proposed that postmodernism is the road to take in order to move on from the current stalemate between conservative evangelical and liberal Christians.

The postmodern cultural context in which we now live is very similar to that of the New Testament world the disciples lived in.  Jesus spoke to the disciples about the changing culture they were now a part of when he said:

And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined.  No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better.’  Luke 5:37-38 NIV

While we aren't familiar with the details of wineskins, Jesus' hearers were. He didn't have to explain fermentation and the aging of leather. The image of wineskins that Jesus uses in his parable is foreign to our culture and in many cases had been incorrectly taught. The leather wineskin we imagine is the tear-shaped leather container the Spaniards used to carry wine and squirt it into their mouth. That was not like the wineskin Jesus refers to.

Wine was made by treading barefoot on the grapes in a wine press. The juice flowed through a channel into a wine vat which functioned as a collecting and fermenting container for the grape juice. In the warm climate of the region, the juice would begin to ferment quickly. After the first stage of fermentation, the wine was poured into lined clay jars or animal wine skins for storage and continued fermentation. 

Wineskins were made of whole tanned goatskins where the legs and tail were cut off and sealed. The entire large skin would bulge nearly to the point of bursting as the carbon dioxide gas generated by the fermentation process stretches the skin to its limit. 

Fermentation in the wineskin might continue for another two to four months until the process slows down and stops.  By that time the skin has been stretched to its limit. The alcohol is probably about 12%, similar to today’s wine.  Jesus is making the obvious point that you can't join the new to the old or you'll ruin both.  

The disciples would be left in a new world.  The old way of thinking and doing things was changing.  That is not to say that Jesus' threw out the Old Covenant or the traditions.  Jesus made it very clear in the Sermon on the Mount that he came to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it (Matthew 5:17). 

Jesus also told his disciples, "Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old." (Matthew 13:52)

At the close of his parable Jesus adds this: "And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, 'The old is better'" (5:39).

It is easier to fall back to what is familiar and comfortable, and justify that, rather than launch out into something that is new. The disciples would be constantly facing that as they encounter those followers of Christ that still wanted to follow the laws of Judaism and the rules of the Pharisees.

We grapple with the same words spoken by Jesus. There is value in the old way of doing things, but times are a changing. Culture is changing. In today’s English Jesus says, “We need to get with the times!”

But how do we do that?

Following Christ is not something we accommodate into our lives in order to be comfortable.  WE must take the message of New Life in Christ and ‘pour’ it into the container of todays. While it is certainly true that our faith must be viewed in the context of culture, it is also true that faith and theology will stand in judgment over culture.  Theology, at least as we understand it in the Christian sense, does have its parameters - Orthodoxy.

Following Christ is a life changing activity.  It is counter-culture.  It was counter-culture in the lives of the Disciples, it was counter culture in the era of modernity and it will be counter-culture in the postmodern world.

The message for the disciples was to be uncompromising about their faith and the work of the Spirit in our lives. If that meant honored customs and habits, and the structures of our society must adjust to that, then so be it.

What are the structures and ideas of the past that we continue to hold on to that cannot coexist with the new wine of today’s culture?

What have we tried to ‘pour’ into Christianity that will cause it to burst and undermine Christianity itself?  In Jesus' day it was the legalism of the Pharisees. What is it in your own life? What is it in your work, your community, your school, your environment that you have been adding to the Orthodoxy of the faith taught by Christ and revealed in Scripture?

We cannot reject the Orthodoxy of our past nor can we simply try to place our Orthodoxy in the context of something else. We cannot take that which old – the concept and teachings of Christ – and blend them with today as a part of some other truth.  We have to find the balance between the absolute truth of the Gospel message and the emerging culture of the postmodern world.   

That leaves us – here and now living squarely between the times of modernity and that which is yet be truly defined – postmodernity-  and that is never easy.  In the interim what do we do?

We must continue to take a fresh look at the central core of the Christian message. This requires a direct return to the sources of revelation -- the Scriptures -- especially to the person of Jesus Christ as we see him in the gospels.  We must be able to define faith, grace, mercy and we must do it in a fair and honest way.  We must ask what must I do to live my faith in the here and now?

Postmodern thought is having a direct effect on education at all levels. To best reach the new postmodern culture, it is suggested that the best way is to teach through imitation or modeling.  This is revealed in project-based or hands-on learning models. In other words, the best way to teach a postmodern world culture is to learn to model what we expect from others.
We need to learn our lives of faith in such a way that we would want all Christians to live as we did.  The number one complaint of those who reject Christianity is that Christians are hypocrites. In other words, they do not live what they proclaim.  If we want to reach a new generation with the Gospel message, we need to learn to become better, more authenticate, modelers of the faith we claim. 

But, that’s not new, we have known that for decades.  Maybe this postmodern world isn’t that hard to figure out afterall?

In the postmodern world, we must learn to live our faith in manner that seeks to make a difference now!  Faith is not just about eternity or something saved for another day.  We must learn to model for the world what Christ looks like as we become more like Him learning to live life by faith … fairly … while modeling grace and mercy to all – liberal and conservative – in such a way that we can uphold the orthodoxy of our faith.

Buzz Words: Liberal or Conservative

Liberal or Conservative

James Carville noted political analyst has often quoted Winston Churchill stating that, “If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not Conservative by 40, you have no brain'.” 

We didn't start the fire 

But when we are gone 

Will it still burn on, and on, and on, and on...

How did we get to where we are today, where it seems everything and everyone is divided along the lines of liberal or conservative?   Billy Joel’s hit song from 1989 was an anthem for so many in that era and still rings true for a generation today.  I would like to point out, just as Billy Joel did, we, meaning this generation, did not start this fire?  We did not create this “war” of words.  When will the division and the blame end?  When will we move beyond putting labels on everyone and everything?

 

A Church Divided Over Leaders

I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 1 Corinthians 1:10-11 NIV 

It would seem that we have already blown this request from scripture: that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you.

Theologian, pastor, and author Brian D. McLaren was once introduced in this manner:

“How many of you would consider yourselves liberal?”  A smattering of applause and cheers were heard.“How many of you would consider yourselves conservative?” A bevy of louder claps and cheers were heard.“How many wish there was a third choice beyond the confining boxes of liberal or conservative?” The place erupted.  McLaren was then introduced as one who was searching for that third alternative.  As McLaren noted the introduction was far better than the speech (from Generous Orthodoxy p 145).

Earlier this summer, I was playing golf with my friend of 30+ years, Paul, who is an accountant by trade and a follower of Christ in life.  During our day together, the topic of conversation, as it usually does, turned to business and politics.  At one point in the conversation, Paul stopped the golf cart, looked directly at me and said, “When do you become a liberal?”  I had no response.  What I want to share with you is in effect the response I wish I had given.

For a moment, let us set aside the political definitions and look simply at the words:

Liberal  1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.  2. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.  3. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression.  Synonyms: progressive, broad-minded, unprejudiced, charitable

Conservative  1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.  2. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness.  Synonyms: conventional, orthodox, traditional, unchangeable

These words, liberal and conservative, have become charged with far more meaning than that which is contained in the dictionary.  They carry political meaning by those that use them and they carry theological meaning as well within the ranks of Christianity and religion as a whole.

There were a flurry of articles and blog posts in the wake of The United Methodist General Conference earlier this summer.  Many asserted that the United Methodist Church’s declining numbers, and those of other Mainline Protestant churches, are a direct result of their liberal theology and policies.  One of the more notable articles came from the New York Times and asked, “Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?” 

Ross Douthat, the author, wrote, “Instead of attracting a younger, more open-minded demographic with these changes … Practically every denomination — Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian — that has tried to adapt itself to contemporary liberal values has seen a plunge in church attendance" ( July 14, 2012 New York Times).

Diana Butler Bass, noted author and Christian historian, responded with an article entitled “Can Christianity be Saved?” in which she noted that conservative churches are also in decline.  She wrote, “In the last decade, as conservative denominations lost members … they refer to the declines as demographic "blips," waning evangelism, or the impact of secular culture “ (July 15, 2012 The Huff Post online)

I suspect that the liberal/conservative divide itself is a factor in the declining numbers for both sides.  And yet, liberals and conservatives continue to point at one another and yell, “It’s your fault!” Missing from the entire argument is any sense that we’re all in this together. 

Back to my conversation on a golf cart in which I had no substantive response.  I had no response because I felt totally caught in between.  I wanted a third alternative, but felt boxed in to an either/or!

I don’t "fit" in the conservative church:

I believe there is merit in the science of evolution.

I have voted for democrats.

I have doubts.

I enjoy interfaith dialog and cooperation.

I like liturgy, ritual, and high church.

I believe in gender equality in marriage and church leadership.

I want to become a better advocate for social justice.

I want my gay and lesbian friends to feel welcome and accepted in church.

I’m convinced that the Gospel is about more than “getting saved” from hell.

But I don’t "fit" in the liberal church either.

I love a good Bible study.

I have voted for republicans.

I believe that there are absolute truths.

I think doctrine and theology are important enough to teach and debate.

I think it’s vital that we talk about, and address, sin.

I believe in the sacrificial death and physical resurrection of Jesus.

I want to participate in interfaith dialog and cooperation while still maintaining a strong Christian identity.

I want to engage in passionate worship where the Holy Spirit is referred to “moving in this place.”

I’m convinced that the Gospel is about more than being a good person.

I know that these statements are all generalizations.  I know conservatives who embrace the science of evolution and I know liberals who are passionate about theology.  I want you to know that there are things I really love about the conservative evangelical movement and that there are things I really love about liberal Protestantism, but because these two groups tend to forge their identities in reaction to the generalizations about one another I feel caught in between. 

I believe the reason many people struggle to go to church on any given Sunday is because the churches of today have made people feel like they have to choose between two over-generalized sides: liberal or conservative.  As a result, Sunday morning becomes more about picking a side and less about worshipping God.  Church-goers are left sitting in the pews waiting to hear from a pastor who at some point in the service, either subtly or overtly, is compelled to talk about the “other side” as the enemy.  [I pray that is not your experience here at First Church]

So what do we do?

How about starting with being ourselves?  We all tend to become chameleons when it comes to church and faith. When we are part of a conservative Christian community, we tend to keep our more progressive views quiet, and when we are part of a more liberal Christian community, we tend to keep our more conservative views quiet. We do it because we don’t want to cause division. We do it because we often don’t understand our views well enough to defend them.  We don’t want to speak up in fear of being embarrassed or worse yet – ostracized.  We don’t need to make living our faith any more difficult than it already is.  So we essentially fake our way through and accept whatever “package” that is offered.  The result is we feel distant and removed as we go through the motions.  

 

What if we stopped faking it? What if you brought all of our selves— gifts, questions, doubts, opinions—to church? What if, instead of conforming to the mold, we refused to accept it?  What if we stopped using “us vs. them” language and began to realize that the characteristics we typically associate with “them” exist in some of “us.”

What if we worked to nurture diverse communities of faith.  We are not the same and we need to develop and invite the diversity that is our community - Music, worship, people, ideas. 

 

Let me add that when we disagree, let’s learn to argue better. I have no problem with Christians arguing with one another. After all, we’re brothers and sisters and that we know will lead to arguments.  We just need to learn to argue better.  

 

Perhaps if we were better able to adapt Wesley’s concept of Holy Conferencing we would discover more that brings us together than that which divides. [see link provided]  We must remember that holy conferencing is easier to catch than it is to teach.  Bishop Jung of Wisconsin has stated “we need to show examples of alternatives in this hostile world.  If we keep punching each other, what can we really do for the transformation of the world?”

 

The notion of a universal Church that looks exactly the same in doctrine and practice from congregation to congregation, culture to culture, community to community, is unrealistic and unhelpful.  Surely we can allow our differences to exist without questioning one another’s commitment to the faith.  Conservative, liberal, or in-between, we should continue to debate the doctrines and practices closest to our hearts.  Unity is not the same as uniformity and following a loving God does not mean we must always agree.  So when we debate, we should do it assuming the best about one another and honoring our shared commitment to Christ.  We don’t have to be on the same page on every issue in order to love one another and work together for peace and justice.

The early church survived and thrived amidst disagreement and persecution.  The early church included both Jews and Gentiles, zealots and tax collectors, slaves and slave owners, men and women, those in support of circumcision and those against it.  I believe Christianity today can survive and thrive when it includes democrats and republicans, biblical literalists and biblical non-literalists, liberals and conservatives.

Perhaps discovering an alternative to liberal/conservative is a good idea.  Maybe learning to be “in-betweeners” can put those who find themselves torn between conservative and liberal Christianity in a place to become peacemakers and bridge-builders.  Maybe discovering an alternative can enable each of us to break down the walls that divide us and provide living examples that you don’t have to choose one side or the other.

We can move beyond the liberal/conservative divide in Christianity when we learn to become more like Christ.

Prayer:

Let us remember Jesus:

Who, though He was rich, yet for our sakes became poor and dwelt among us.

Who was content to be subject to His parents, the child of a poor couple’s home.

Who lived for thirty years the common life, earning His living with His own hands and declining no humble tasks.

Whom the people heard gladly, for He understood their ways.

May this mind be in us which was in Christ Jesus.

Let us remember Jesus:

Who was mighty in deed, healing the sick and the disordered,

using for others the powers He would not invoke for Himself.

Who refused to force people’s allegiance.

Who was Master and Lord to His disciples, yet was among them as their companion and as one who served.

Whose desire was to do the will of God who sent Him.

May this mind be in us which was in Christ Jesus.

Let us remember Jesus:

Who loved people, yet retired from them to pray, rose a great while before day, watched through the night,

Stayed in the wilderness, went up a mountain, sought a garden.

Who, when He would help a tempted a disciple, prayed for him.

Who prayed for the forgiveness of those who rejected Him, and for the perfecting of those who received Him.

Who observed the traditions, but defied convention that did not serve the purposes of God.

Who hated the sins of pride and selfishness, of cruelty and impurity.

May this mind be in us which was in Christ Jesus.

Let us remember Jesus:

Who believed in people and never despaired of them.

Who through all disappointment never lost heart.

Who disregarded His own comfort and convenience, and thought first of other’s needs,

And though He suffered long, was always kind.

Who when He was reviled, uttered no harsh word in return,

And when He suffered, di not threaten retaliation.

Who humbled Himself and carried obedience to the point of death, even death on the cross,

Wherefore God has highly exalted Him.

May this mind be in us which was in Christ Jesus.

Let us unite in prayer that Christ may dwell in our hearts.

O Christ, our only Savior, so come to dwell in us that we may go forth with the light of your hope in our eyes,

And with Your faith and love in our hearts. Amen

                                                                - Book of Worship “For the Mind of Christ” Prayer #514

Buzz Words: Holy Conferencing

As followers of Christ, we are often described as brothers and sisters.  We choose to live in community and worship together as family.  The problematic result of being family together is that we don't always agree.  Let's face it, we tend to fight, well like brothers and sisters. 

What if it could be different?

The notion of 'holy conferencing' was included by John Wesley as a way for us to experience God's grace.  So that when we disagree (and we will), we can have the opportunity to take part in and experience God's grace in action!  Disagreements might be more agreeable in that context.

Bishop Sally Dyck recently published a white paper on behalf of the United Methodist Church entitled, "Eight Principles of Holy Conferencing: A Study Guide for Churches and Groups."  The principles are designed to be guidelines for handling disagreements in a way that honors God and allows us to find answers while experiencing grace.

Here is a breakdown of the eight principles:

1.  Every person is a child of God - I John 4:20-21
2.  Listen before you speak - Romans 14:1
3. Strive to understand the other point of view - Philemon 2:8
4. Strive to reflect accurately the views of others - Matthew 12:36-37
5. Disagree without being disagreeable - Ephesians 5:1-2a
6.  Speak about issues: do not defame people - Matthew 5:22
7. Pray, in silence or aloud, before decisions - Luke 6:28
8. Let prayer interrupt your busy-ness - I Thessalonians 5:17

These principles may not end all arguments.

These principles may not get you the outcome you wanted.

These principles are not a panacea for all that afflicts us.

BUT ....

If when we disagreed, we used them.  We just might discover more grace and less division.

And that might lead to more being done to build up the Kingdom of God instead of tearing it apart.

John Wesley on living your faith

Are  you tired of the name calling?

Are you tired of all the divisive conversations?

Tired of all the disagreeable people?

John Wesley believed being disagreeable isn't an effective way to change another person's mind.

John Wesley is largely remembered as being the founder of the Methodist movement, but his legacy includes a large body of work that the continues to teach us today how to be followers of Christ.


Be not displease if I entreat you not to bear me down in order to quicken my pace (in coming to your persuasion) ... not to give me hard names in order to bring me into the right way.  Suppose I was ever so much in the wrong, I doubt this would not set me right.  Rather, it would make me run so much farther from you and so get more and more out of the way ... for God's sake, if it be possible to avoid it, let us not provoke one another to wrath.  Let us not kindle in each other this fire of hell, much less blow it into flame ... if we die without love, what will knowledge avail?   - John Wesley

We need less divisive talk.  We need to learn to come together for the greater good of all people. Won't some one stop the name calling and do something?

In the midst of the discord and noise, we need some John Wesley's to rise up.  Better stated, we need some Christians to rise up in a 'John Wesley-like' manner.

Wesley's faith led him to do some radical things in England not limited to:

• contributing to the liberation of women and the beginnings of workers' rights and safety
• he attacked slavery before the reformer William Wilberforce was born
• fought for civil and religious freedom
• brought awareness of the evils of exploiting the poor
• opened a free school
• opened a shelter for widows help the destitute

What is your faith inspiring you to do?

On the Way to Sunday .... The Great Divide

Brian D. McLaren in his book "a Generous Orthodoxy" share this parable:  

Once there was a village along a river. A famine struck the village, and then a plague began to spread. The situation was desperate, and a group of brave men and women was chose to seek help from a sister city many days' travel upstream. They hiked upstream through the trackless gorges and pathless ravines that bordered the river, and finally, after great struggle, reached the city. The people of the city provided food and medicine along with canoes to carry the cargo back to the village. 

The band of brave travelers set off, determined and confident, yet under great pressure. If they failed in their journey or arrived too late, thousands in their village would die - their families, friends, and neighbors. One day as they paddled along, intent on their mission, they heard a frightening roar ahead of them. As they rounded a bend in the river, their hearts sank as they saw a stretch of raging rapids before them. "We can't make it," one said. "We need to portage around the rapids." "No," another said, "we can make it, but we'll need to throw all the nonessential baggage overboard. We will have to travel light. Besides, you know the terrain on land. It's impossible to carry all our gear and cargo over that terrain. And even if we could carry it all, we would have to make many, many trips, and our progress would be so slow. We would arrive too late to save our village." The debate continued: "But it's too dangerous! What if our canoes tip over? The we'll drown, and our friends and families will die too." 

A loud argument followed, some arguing for portaging and others for running the rapids. In the end, the party split in two. Those who were going to run the rapids left all the gear they felt they could spare on the shore and shoved off. As they moved through the rapids, the raging water grew even rougher and more dangerous than they anticipated. In fear they began jettisoning more what little remained of their cargo. Some canoes made it safely through the rapids. Some were swamped entirely, their vessels and cargo lost, and some of the travelers barely make it to shore, where they were rescued by their waiting companions. 

Meanwhile, those who had remained ashore upstream began the long and tedious process of repacking and carrying their gear and canoes over land, many miles downstream, to a place where the waters were smoother and they could launch their canoes. They were determined to carry not only all their own cargo, but also the provisions the other party had (foolishly, in their opinion) left behind. Nothing could be lost because the village was in desperate need. 

When those who rode the rapids make it below the dangerous stretch of the river, they made camp, exhausted by the thrill of running the rapids. But then a frightening realization began to hit them: they had survived the raging waters, but they now lacked sufficient provisions to complete their mission. So what if they made it to the needy village? Now they had next to nothing to offer and would only add mouths to feed. They had thrown so much overboard that now their whole mission was in danger of failure in spite of their heroic success through the rapids. They set up a temporary camp and discussed their options for hours on end. While their situation was not immediately dangerous since they some of their provisions left, their prospects for ultimate success were grim, and a felling of despair began to set in when they thought of the village. They were paralyzed, and days passed as they sat around their temporary camp, their progress stalled. 

Many miles upstream, their counterparts were having trouble of their own. The terrain was so difficult, and progress was so slow that this party on foot became frustrated. The air was filled with arguments. "Let's give up the journey and set up permanent camp here. We'll never make it. We should just stop here. We might as well save ourselves," some would say. Others would urge them to keep moving, giving rousing speeches about the need for courage and strength and perseverance. But there was no trail, the terrain was brutal, and their loads were heavy and awkward. Eventually, many travelers were so exhausted by carrying the heavy cargo that they simply couldn't take another step. Should the stronger ones leave these tired comrades behind, or should they stay and wait until they regained their strength? Eventually their progress slowed to a stop, and they set up a temporary camp, filled with uncertainty about their future - and their village's future as well. 

The next day they tried to go a little further, but soon they were stalled again, exhausted, arguing, aching, blistered, and afraid. After a few days, they were so sore, sick, and tired that they decided to make camp until they could think of a better way forward. At least they had plenty of provisions. But their sense of adventure was gone; they were just holding on. And a kind of despairing concern for their village was always on their minds.

As McLaren puts it, this parable describes they story of liberals and conservatives.  Both are stymied, but in different places and in different ways.

How do you imagine the story ending?

Is there a way to bring the two parties back together?

Is there a third alternative to polarization that exists between liberal and conservative?

Keep thinking .... and I'll see you on Sunday ...