The bonehead decision by Bureau of Prisons officials to restrict all religious books and materials in prison libraries to a list of only 150 government-approved items has been shelved for the moment.  Here's the link to the update in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/washington/27prison.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1190897872-QX2sripEmO4lnwcTokXS9Q 

The issue is not resolved, however.  The bureau "has not given up on the idea of creating such lists."  The issue remains a concern.  I agree that inmates should not be given materials that encourage or incite violence, whether religious or otherwise.  I understand that radical Islamists, if that's the right term, have married violence with their gross caricature of religion.  But a couple of questions remain:

1.  How on earth could anyone take it upon himself or herself to imagine that the world of religious literature could be comfortably confined to only 150 texts? 

2.  Why would religious texts be singled out as particularly threatening?  I'll agree that there are a lot of preachers on TV whose ideas not only disturb me but incite me to anger at the very least.  Strangely, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some of these ideas made it onto the BOP's approved list. 

One good thing has come out of this.  According to the reporter, both "liberal Christians" and "evangelical talk shows" have criticized the BOP for creating the list in the first place.  It's interesting that the reporter would use such simple, dichotomous terms to capture the sources of the backlash.  I don't see myself in either description, though I'd be more comfortable with a liberal Christian than an evangelical talk show host.  But I'm glad to see that evangelicals may have ceased their unthinking support of everything that the administration chooses to do. 

One of the current projects that I'm excited about is the possible reorganization of committee life at my church.  The Focus on the Future committee has kicked around some ideas for about a year or so now.  One of the key ideas is a short list of key principles for various teams to follow.  Luke Purdy and I have taken the liberty of starting that list. 

This isn't as easy or as obvious as it may sound.  Church life takes on a solid 'givenness' after a time, and the older the church, the more the status quo seems both sacred and inviolable.  Unfortunately, every status quo ceases to be functional eventually.  So here is our shot at a short list of key principles that we think can augment our congregational life:

1.  Focus on the change you want to create, not the activity you'll use to create it.  Stephen Covey said it more simply: Start with the end in mind.  Churches are particularly bad about sanctifying activity instead of real change.  "That's the way (or that's not the way) we do things here."  Yet the gospel calls us to growth and formation. 

2.  Every member should be actively engaged in some aspect of the life of the church.  It's an ideal, to be sure; some members will surely be more or less inactive for whatever reasons.  But here's the point: the congregation should seek to help each member identify his or her gifts, and then help that person employ those gifts actively.  It's a part of formation for the individual, really.  We cheat others of their growth when we do things ourselves. 

3.  Lay leadership is to be nurtured and encouraged.  This is a corollary of principle #2 and a historic Baptist principle in its own right.  Leadership is a gift that every group needs in order to act effectively.  Many things need doing in our community and in our congregation, and we need as much leadership as we can get to make them happen. 

4.  If we haven't said no, then we've said yes.  This is a principle from John Carver's Policy Governance model.  It requires that the congregation be very thoughtful about articulating two groups of things: the mission to be pursued, and the boundaries set around that mission.  This principle, if practiced, prevents second-guessing and gossip.  If another person has accomplished his or her stated mission, and has not violated any of the boundaries set by the congregation (stayed in budget, acted in a loving fashion, followed internal controls for finances, etc), then we should celebrate his or her accomplishment!  If I simply don't like the WAY someone performed a job, I really have no substantial complaint.  If I think I have a 'better' idea, I can share it for next time, but I shouldn't criticize others based on unstated criteria.   

5.  Leadership is about action and growth.  It's about leading, coordinating, motivating, encouraging, praying, and sometimes objecting ~ not about giving or seeking permission.   

6.  Our understanding of these principles will grow.  They're written in pencil, as my friend Ron Stevens says, meaning that they can be revised as we learn and grow.  I came across a quote that I like: "Truth is eternal.  Knowledge changes.  Confusing the two is disastrous."