be the change you wish to see in the world - gandhi

Remove or reclaim shepherd metaphor?

2009-11-11T17:18:00.005-06:00

In a book the bishop asked several people (including my wife) to read for the realignment committee there is an argument which states the church needs to remove from its language and mind the idea that pastors are shepherds. The author states the metaphor of pastor as shepherd "is ultimately destructive to effectiveness in ministry".

The author makes a good argument to remove the metaphor in our churches. One point which I thought particularly interesting is "Shepherds were entrepreneurs who raised sheep for their livelihood, for food and clothing. Good shepherds lead their sheep into green pastures and by still waters in order to obtain three results." Shepherds used the sheep for personal gain; for cloth, food and/or reproduction. Pastors should not been seen as shepherds because we do not own people and we do not use people for personal gain (or at least we should not!!).

I know every metaphor breaks at some point, and this book is saying we have a broken metaphor of pastor as shepherd because we have a romantic idea of what shepherds do.

I am curious to know if it is really a good thing to remove the metaphor from our theological imagination or if it would be better if we reclaim it?

There are many metaphors which are destructive and we continue to use them (such as God is only a male). And like I said, all metaphors break at some point (such as atonement metaphors). So should we purge all metaphors which are either destructive or those which have been stretched beyond their limits, as though we are metaphor iconoclasts?

I wonder if instead of taking such a black/white stance on this metaphor if there could be a third way. The way of reclaiming?

What if pastors across the UMC lived out the metaphor of shepherd only in those ways which the metaphor was intended?

For that matter, what if Christians across the world lived out all the metaphors of God in only the ways in which those metaphors were intended?

What would it mean if we only took the metaphor of God as male to the proper limits?

What would it mean if we only took Jesus as lamb to the proper limits?

What would it mean if we only took God is good to the proper limits?

What would it mean if we only took God is love to the proper limits?

Everyone is clueless - Seth Godin

2009-11-08T13:00:00.001-06:00

Seth Godin is an odd mix of motivational speaker, cultural anthropologist and bald head advocate. He recently wrote the following about how "everyone is clueless". I read stuff like this and wonder if this there is anything the Church can glean from this?

Video from Jacob Marshall's blog

2009-11-06T21:54:00.001-06:00

I don't know what it is, but it really centers me. What do you think?

Ólafur Arnalds - Ljósið (Official Music Video) from Erased Tapes on Vimeo.

Power of One

2009-11-03T13:00:00.000-06:00

Power of One - It is because of the creativity and ingenuity of people like Rebecca Onie that give me hope for a better future (especially in terms of health care).

The Flip Side of Placebos: The Nocebo Effect

2009-11-02T13:00:00.000-06:00

The Flip Side of Placebos: The Nocebo Effect - found this interesting to consider the power of our minds and how they can be used to help and to hurt us.

Mustache Wars: Charities Raise Funds Via Facial Hair

2009-10-31T01:00:00.002-05:00

Mustache Wars: Charities Raise Funds Via Facial Hair

In case you have not hear of Movember...

I want you to join me growing a moustache this Movember, do your bit to fight prostate and testicular cancer. Join my Movember team at: http://us.movember.com/register/44531

Symbolic and Diabolic

2009-10-30T13:19:00.000-05:00

It was shared with me the other day by a wonderful professor I had in Seminary, Dr. Charles Bellinger something he encountered in a book. (I am sorry I cannot recall the book).

The word Symbolic is a combination of two Greek words:

Sym - Together

Bol - That which is thrown

So symbols are things which we throw things together and make meaning out of them. The American flag is a symbol because we throw together ideals of America and the material cloth of the flag. Therefore it is a powerful statement to burn a flag - you are not just burning the cloth but also that which is thrown together with it - American ideals.

Contrary the word Diabolic is a combination of two Greek words:

Dia - through, thoroughly; across; entirely, utterly

Bol - That which is thrown

So to act diabolically is to throw something through or across things. The diabolic act it that act which drives things apart, puts a wedge between things or people. Some circles might think of triangulation as a diabolic action in that it attempts to throw another person in the middle of the conflict to create an "us" verses "them" dichotomy.

While there are 1,000s of was this can go and many ways in which this idea feeds into my understanding and experience with Rene Girard, let me just end with a question:

Are you/we acting/moving symbolically or diabolically?

Influence 1/2 of the world every day

2009-10-29T13:18:00.000-05:00

Currently I am reading Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives. And while I am only 1/2 of the way though it, I am fascinated with the power of the social networks we are each located in. Especially in regards to the power we each possess in the networks we are in.

So here is something to consider from the findings in the book...

You and I are influenced by people who are three degrees away from us. So I have a friend (that is one degree) and they have a friend (that is two degrees) and they have a friend (that is three degrees). My friend's friend friend has an impact on my life, as much as I do not think about it or as little control I have over that - this is the truth we each live with each day.

So we are influenced by people three degrees away from us, and therefore we have an influence on people who are three degrees away from us. But here is the kicker we are each separated from anyone else in the world by only 6 degrees. You have heard of "6 degrees of separation"?

Therefore, theoretically, you and I have the power to influence 1/2 of the world each day.

I just blew my own mind.

"Who do you say that I am? " - Jesus

2009-10-28T13:00:00.003-05:00

Recently ran across this artist - Dave Chapelle. His surreal art is interesting to say the least. This slideshow comes out of the "Jesus is my homeboy" series.

What do you think about this image of Jesus?

Perhaps the shock I felt the first time I saw Jesus with the prostitute washing his feet is what the disciples and Synagogue leaders felt?

For bigger pictures, click here.

Jesus Saves, I spend

2009-10-27T13:00:00.000-05:00

I ran across this song today:

What do you think? I posted the lyrics below. I am not sure I understand the song. Anyone able to help?

While Jesus is saving I'm spending all my days
in backgrounds and landscapes with the languages of saints
While people are spinning like toys on Christmas day
I'm inside a still life with the other absentee

While Jesus is saving, I'm spending all my days
in the garden-grey pallor of lines across your face
While people will cheer on the spectacle we've made
I'm sitting and sculpting menageries of saints

Oh, my man my absentee
I'd do anything to please you
Come my love the stage is waiting
Be the one to save my saving grace

While Jesus is saving I'm spending all my grace
on rosy-red pallor of lights on center stage
While people have cheered on the awful mess we've made
through storms of red roses we've exited the stage

Worship as soccer

2009-10-26T13:00:00.000-05:00

Last week I began to express a metaphor for worship as football. While there may very well be wonderful things about the football approach and understanding of worship, I find it to be too 'control' focused and highly protective. Rather, I wonder what would it be if worship were approached not as football but as soccer?

Soccer seems like the ultimate game of trust. Each team knows what they are doing even though they do not come together as a total unit throughout the game to check in with each other. As the plays develop each person must be keenly aware of what they are doing as individuals but must make sure their actions are connected to the overall plan of the team. There is a lot of deviation that happens throughout the course of the game, but that deviation must instantly be figured into the scheme of the game. For instance, if one player in the 'back' position decided it would best serve the team to move to a forward position, then communication happens on the fly (verbal or not) and the other team members must cover the actions taken by the former 'back'.

There are not a lot of pads in soccer, just thin shin guards. So if you want to tackle someone, you have to physically touch them. This is dangerous for both players, not just the one being hit. There is one coach, but they do not have control over the plays as they develop. There is no play to "call", only persuasion.

If you see a soccer game in Europe, the crowd is very involved with the game - and not just when there is momentum. People are singing and dancing, with a feeling that what you are doing as a crowd actually effects the game. In fact, if you are not singing and dancing in the crowd, you stand out.

The spontaneous play of the game could very well contribute as to why soccer is known as the "beautiful game".

Can you connect going up stairs with worship

2009-10-23T13:00:00.002-05:00

I found this video, and while it is not profound it does seem to visually articulate something about human nature.

See more funny videos and Technology Videos at Today's Big Thing.

My question is, in light of this experiment, what do you think could change in worship to have 66% more people using the path of worship than another path?

Or, if that is too specific or outside your normal thinking, what about these questions:

What can you do to change a mundane behavior into something people want to participate in?

What if music cam with every footstep?

How can you and I nudge people to partake in activities/actions which are better for their health?

Would you have stopped in your day to 'play' a bit on the stairs?

How is Marge Simpson any different from the others?

2009-10-22T13:00:00.002-05:00

While I do not read Playboy magazine, there has been a bit of buzz about the recent cover of this months issue featuring Marge Simpson.

If you have been under a rock for the past several decades, Marge Simpson is a cartoon character from the long running "Simpsons".

I have no idea why Marge Simpson was chosen for the cover of the magazine. I probably should do some research, but I have reservations of looking up playboy information on the church computer. Therefore, I may be uninformed and my take on this might be a common thread of thought in this conversation, however I wonder something about this?

How is Marge Simpson any different from the other cover girls?

Some would say this difference is obvious, Marge Simpson is a drawing of a woman. She is not real. And I would agree. But I would also submit the women who usually dawn the cover of Playboy also are so highly airbrushed that they are also 'drawn'. I would also submit the usual cover girl is not real.

So, while I do think it is weird that a fictional character is on the cover of Playboy, I am not surprised.

It happens every month.

Worship as football

2009-10-21T13:00:00.000-05:00

It is becoming clearer to me the more I consider worship the more I realize my metaphor for worship is conflicting to the dominate metaphor at the setting I find myself located. It seems we tend to approach worship as one might approach a the game of football. These are just some thoughts I have so far on this metaphor.

*(To be honest I have never played football and am more than willing to admit my observations of the game are limited. I also know metaphors break down if stretched too far and so I mindful of too much stretching. But here we go.)

Football seems like the ultimate game of control. Each team knows when they are on offense and when they are on defense. Whatever side of the ball you are on, every 40 or so seconds there is another play. Each play, is drawn up and each person has a specific task they must do in order for the play to work. There is little deviation from the play. Even the quarterback is given options of routes which are in a priority dependent upon the factors of the game. Pads are used in football to protect the players from crashing into one another. Although it is dangerous, it is as controlled danger as we might get. In football, there are so many players and back ups for the backups. There are several coaches who specialize in their area from defensive line coach to special teams coach. When a play 'breaks down' it is considered wasted or it is the opportunity for creativity (I am sure you all have seen the plays where there is are 15 laterals done in order to get to win the game. Those are amazingly memorable and fun to watch). Football audiences are involved with the game only if there is momentum (and if you are a fanatic and use body paint, you are considered extreme and a bit odd.)

Perhaps the issue of worship is not only we dominantly view it as the "start" to the detriment of the "culmination" of our week, but also that we approach worship as a football game.

Tomorrow I will put some thoughts down to the question, "What if we approached worship like a soccer game?"

Until then, what do you think thus far?

Could the problem with Sunday worship be that it begins our week?

2009-10-20T13:00:00.000-05:00

I have been taught throughout my life that there is no better way to begin your week than to begin it with worship.

Getting your priorities in perspective

Focus on God

Take time to quite your minds

Give your first fruits to God

All of these, and others, have been used to describe why worship on Sunday is a wonderful way to begin our week and it should be that way.

However I wonder if this mentality has also contributed to the decline of Sunday worship.

If this is the way we need to start our week, then it is easy to see how worship is for the individual. That is, worship is a way to enhance the life of the individual because it sets the week off in a certain way for the individual. We are told that when we preach we should preach so that we are excited about life and energized to go out into the world and make it better. All of this lends itself to view Sunday worship as an internal and individual practice.

But what if Sunday worship was not see exclusively as the beginning of our week, but the culmination of our week. That is what if Sunday worship was framed as a place where we come together and share where we saw God in the previous weeks workings on the Kingdom of God? What if we could not wait to get to Sunday worship and share with others where we saw God the previous week? What if we could not wait to get to Sunday worship and discover where others saw God moving in the previous week?

What if Sunday worship was a culmination of our week?

The story says God created the world in 6 days and then on the last day, the day when work was done, the day the work culminated, God observed Sabbath.

If Sabbath for God is practiced at the end of the week and celebrated as the culmination of the work done, why wouldn't we?

What if Sunday worship was the culmination of our week?

God's 'acountabili-buddy'

2009-10-19T13:00:00.000-05:00

Recently I was in a group and the question was asked, "Why does God want a chosen people? Why does God want a people to be set apart and chosen in the Biblical narrative?"

I do not know the answer to that, however I wonder if God does not want a people, but, God needs a people.

When the flood in the story of Noah happened God put a bow in the clouds and said that each time that bow appears God will be reminded of the covenant God made with Noah. The bow becomes a reminder to God. The rainbow becomes an accountability partner to God, reminding God of the promise God made.

I wonder if God needs a people in order to help keep God accountable to the promises God makes? I know we do not like to think God needs anything, but even that is a human idea about God and falls short of the reality of God.

Perhaps God needs a people to hold God accountable to the promises God made to creation. When God looks at you and I, God is reminded of the love God bestowed upon creation. We hold God accountable to God's promises.

Just like God holds us accountable to our promises to God. When we look toward God we are reminded of our parts of the covenant and promises. We are reminded that we are to love the other and seek reconciliation. When we look at God we are kept accountable to the promises we have made.

It is stated that the only hands God has is ours. The only eyes God has is ours. The only feet God has is ours. If God needs us to do the work of God, then why would not God need an accountabili-buddy?

Waiting in line = a spiritual discipline

2009-10-16T14:00:00.000-05:00

Some time ago Raul, a fellow minister at Arlington heights UMC, shared with me a bit from a sermon he heard in which the preacher was sharing the story of Jesus being baptized.

Most of the sermons and thoughts on this story I have heard focus on the act of baptism, or justify their church's position on the way to baptize (dunking, sprinkling, or pouring). This preacher had a different take, one that will stick with me for the rest of my life. It is my hope my articulation of his thesis is respectable, because I am hearing it second hand.

Jesus stood in line in order to be baptized. He joined all the others that day and waited his turn to be baptized by John in the River Jordan. Jesus could have used his family influence, John being his cousin, and moved to the front. Jesus could have said, "excuse me, I am Jesus and I would like to have a special service for my baptism." No, he stood in line.

Poor people stand in lines.

Those with resources can and do our very best to circumvent as many lines as possible. From the DMV where we can renew our drivers license online to pagers at theme parks which upon buzzing send allow us to walk by scores of people and take our choice seat on popular roller coasters.

If you want to know how rich you are, count how many lines you stand in. The fewer the richer.

Perhaps the next time you have the option of calling a reservation in or waiting for the next available table, we might choose to take some time and stand in line.

For when we stand in line, we stand with all people who stand in line for food, water and visitation rights.

Who knows, the next time we stand in line we might be standing next to Jesus.

Is the Kingdom of God a cone...

2009-10-15T13:00:00.001-05:00

Circles of containment were and continue to be a remarkable way to live in the world. Violence is contained and localized and therefore seems just, right and normal. The problem is, circles never are able to remove the problem or advance a culture. Because circles are ever ending and repeat, so do cultural circles of containment.

This is where Jesus comes into play. Jesus was not in favor of spirals of violence and he addressed the fallacy of circles of containment - Jesus offers a more excellent way. A third way... Spirals of reduction.

Spirals are a shape which has a starting point and then moves downward to an end point until there is no longer a shape at all. This makes cones unique to spirals (which extend forever) and circles (which never end). Cones come to an end.

The life of Jesus Christ was much like prophets before him in which Jesus attempted to expose spirals and circles. However, as a Christian, I believe Jesus was the first to offer an alternative, a third way. He called it the Kingdom of God. I visually depict this idea as a spiral of reduction.

As an easy example and one common to many even non-Christian people - Jesus' encounter with the woman caught in adultery.

Notice that Jesus had a couple of options to him. He could move toward a spiral of violence and stone the woman as well as go out and find the man and stone him as well. He could move toward a circle of containment and stoned the woman - as the law commands. These were the only perceived options to Jesus at the time, perhaps this is why he squats down and draws in the dirt. So he could buy time to think about another way to respond to this situation.

"Those without sin can cast the first stone."

Jesus calls the people to a spiral of reduction. By pointing people to look at their own lives and get away from blaming the other, each person walks away - beginning with the eldest.

The eldest were the ones who lived with spirals and circles the longest. They were the first to understand there is way culture and thrive or advance with only spirals or circles. The recognize they need another way. They, we, need cones of reduction.

While this has only been a very basic sketch of spirals of violence, circles of containment, and cones of reduction. It is my hope to develop these images to help empower people to read the Bible with tools to understand and apply to their lives and culture.

It is my hope to develop the spiral, circle and cone image not only in terms of violence but also altruism.

*A little hint, in altruistic terms we want spirals and not cones.

Yes, there is another way to live...

2009-10-14T13:00:00.003-05:00

While spirals may be instinctual they are by no means the only way to resolve conflict. In fact, one can easily see how spirals of violence are in no way sustainable. The longer the spiral of violence is allowed to persist, the wider the spiral will become, affecting more and more people, pulling them into the violence. Think of it like a fight in a bar. Two people resort to violence over a conflict and in their actions one pushes the other into a bystander who then pushes back only to be then pulled into the fight. Spirals of violence unchecked lead to the entire bar involved in a large act of violence and chaos.

Fortunately humanity began to realize out of fear for their own lives or concern for their village, spirals of violence may not be good. From Moses to Hammurabi, law givers addressed these spirals of violence and introduced the circle.

Circles are a much better solution to the chaos of a violence spiral. Circles keep the violence contained. We encounter circles phrased in ways such as:

An eye for an eye
A tooth for a tooth
The punishment must fit the crime

Circles encourage humanity to not cut off the hand of a person (a permanent consequence) for stealing bread (a temporal object). Rather, we inflict fines or jail time which are both seen as more fitting and more 'humane'.

Over time circles have become the dominate way in which human society deals with conflict. "You hit me, I will hit you back." "You fly a plane into towers, and we will bomb you." "You kill someone in Texas, you might be on the receiving end of a lethal needle."

This is considered by many as 'justice'. Justice is served when the punishment fits the crime.

Madoff destroyed so many lives that in some people's eyes he deserved the sentence. In other people's eyes he should have suffered something far too troubling for this blog post. Regardless where you stand on that, I would be willing to bet your opinion is based upon how you see the punishment fitting the crime. We live in circles, because, we believe, circles are fair and just.

While moving from spirals of violence to circles of containment is a massive jump for the betterment of humanity, circles fail to advance society into reconciliation. Yes, the punishment fits the crime, but what about the violation of trust which must be restored to a victim of rape?Circles can punish the rapist, but they are limited in restoration and reconciliation. Circles are not focused on the victims, and this is their limitation.

Additionally and more importantly, circles need violence in order to continue to exist. For instance, there is a sticker which reads, "why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?" This is exactly what circles need us to do. Circles of containment use violence to say that violence is wrong. Circles of containment place a great deal of emphasis on the "ends" and not the "means" by which we achieve the desired "end".

Circles are also wonderful at keeping the status quo. Many of us would affirm that the punishment fitting the crime is not only just, but down right correct. We then become so blinded by the circles that we do not even entertain the idea that 'justice' might actually have other definitions and expressions. If you are wondering what those other definitions might be, then you can begin to sense the power circles have in the world.

Within many stories throughout time, blindness is a metaphor used to denote the demonic and evil. If you and I are 'blind' to other definitions and other realities to what justice could look like, then perhaps the source of our blindness (circles of containment) are not all they are cracked up to be. In fact Girard argues these cycles/circles of violence are in fact "Satan".

So, if everything we know about what justice is and how to resolve tension causes us to be blind and has been identified as "Satan", there must be another way to live which resolves tension and does not allow for more violence in order to resolve the original violence.

Spirals of violence

2009-10-13T13:00:00.001-05:00

It has been brought to my attention that people often come into tension with one another. This is not good or bad, it just is a result of different people encountering one another in a situation. Tension happens, but how we respond to that tension is what defines our character.

There is a story as old as the South about the Hatfields and McCoys. Honestly, I have never heard a specific story about these families, but I do know why they are a part of the Southern lore. They hated one another and had knockdown massive feuds with one another - often resulting in violence. As it has been told to me the dispute over who owned a pig was the seed by which members of one family was killed by members of the other family in retaliation.

All of which began over was the rightful owner of a pig.

Folklore or not, we can see these actions happen all around us; especially with children.

Child 'a' will be sitting too close for child 'b's liking. Child 'b' pushes child 'a' away and yells he is too close. Child 'a' hits child 'b' as a reaction for the pushing. Child 'b' cries and both call for the mother. Both explain that the other started the whole episode and they are innocent.

While this is a fictional account, it is not an untrue situation in many families.

These examples of the Southern families and children arguing over who "started it", are both embodiments of what I identify as a 'spiral' of violence. The action begins and then quickly spirals out of control until the parties involved do not even recall what the initial conflict was about.

Spirals are all around us. In fact I bet you could name a couple in your own life experience. Perhaps you were involved in a spiral yourself, even unintentionally.

Spirals are one way in which humanity deals with the tension or conflict we encounter. But it is not the only way...

Spirals, Circles, and Cones

2009-10-12T10:07:00.001-05:00

Over the past year or so I have been working on and with a metaphor for how I read the Bible, understand the message of Jesus, and embody out my spirituality.

This metaphor may well be established somewhere already and I would greatly appreciate any one to point me in that direction. This metaphor is built off of my understanding of the work of Rene Girard as well as Charles Bellinger and James Alison; all three of which had some of the greatest impact on my seminary experience.

The following posts are going to outline, briefly, this metaphor in hopes that I might begin to receive feedback. It is my hope (dream) one day to have this put into a format for others to share or add to.

Without getting into the entire Girardian lens, I will say perhaps the dominate issue I struggle with in spirituality is dealing with violence. How do we resolve violence in the world? Is violence good? Is violence bad? What does Jesus or the Bible reveal to us about the human condition and the role of violence within that condition?

Basically, I desire to share with others something that has changed my life over the next several posts.

Why not see the market the way many see the homeless?

2009-10-09T13:00:00.000-05:00

I agree giving money to a homeless person may not be the best way to help that person because that person now has cash, but no accountability to this new capital. Accountability is something America is founded upon, just look to the way the government is set up. Three branches each trying to hold one another accountable to the others. Congress makes laws, Presidents enforce laws, Courts interpret laws. No one branch can do it all.

And yet, when it comes to commerce in America we seem totally against any sort of accountability to the Market. It is as though the only thing holding the Market accountable is individuals. But this is only possible if individuals are rational.

People are not, I am not, always rational.

I appreciate the Libertarian movement, but I wonder who is holding the Market accountable?

This report from New York Times is a series of videos talking about the way Private Equity Deal makers take advantage of the market for gains for the investors but many times at the great expense of the long term health of the company and the employees.

How Private Equity Deal makers Can Win While Their Companies Lose

More covenants, less contracts

2009-10-08T13:00:00.000-05:00

I am curious to know the difference in a covenant and a contract.

In the short time I have thought about this, I wonder if this is a fair assessment of the difference between them.

A contract means that my participation is dependant upon your participation. If you do not participate or uphold your end of the contract, then I am able to also break my end of the deal and the contract no longer exists. It is legal language for a legal situation.

A covenant might mean that I will keep my end of the covenant even if you do not keep your end of the covenant. If you or I break our part of the covenant, the covenant still exists. It is spiritual language for a spiritual situation.

It seems to me that some of the reason it is so much more painful when a covenant is violated is because there is a direct violation of a trust and faith in the other person. It is easy for one person to take advantage of the other person in a covenant because the other party will continue to uphold their end of the covenant even if you fail.

A contract is easily enforced and relies on a third party to mend the broken contract. There is no third party in a covenant. If it is broken, then it is on the participants of the covenant to reconcile themselves.

Perhaps this is why we feel much better with a contract than a covenant. Someone will save us (or side with us) if a contract is broken. A luxury we do not have in a covenant.

I am not sure about any of this and I feel this is difficult to talk about because there are so many victims of covenant violations and have hurt (marriage for example). I am just trying to understand the difference.

Perhaps that is what people of faith are called to to which is different from culture. We are called to be in covenant with others, which is much harder than to establish contracts.

In a covenant I must be vulnerable.

The Secret Advantage Of Being Short

2009-10-07T12:11:00.001-05:00

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104183551

If this is true then we are all living in the past.

Give me a big piece!

2009-10-05T02:00:00.000-05:00

There is a guy at our church who, every Sunday when communion is celebrated, he comes to the front and kneels like everyone else. The difference is this guy, Jimmy, is never satisfied with the usual ration of bread. He always says, "Big piece. Give me a big piece."

And no matter how much you give Jimmy, he seems disappointed that the portion you gave him did not meet his "big piece" requirement. He always seems to want a bigger piece.

I shared this with a group of friends I meet with each Friday and the two people who heard me both smiled and affirmed in me what I think is awesome.

Jimmy, although he is on about a 3rd grade level, understands communion. At least he understands communion in a way that I have do not (or maybe ever will).

Joy Roberson suggested one communion Sunday to celebrate by giving people giant portions of bread. "Jimmy sized" pieces, if you will. This action then be used to talk about the banquet of God in which all have in abundance and no one is hungry.

That might not be a bad idea. What do you think?