Churches: Too Big to Fail

Orlando has been abuzz this week with a church leadership scandal. There are charges and denials of whiskey, women, and weapons. This is the kind of stuff that the media loves to feast on. My prayers go out to the pastor, the church, and particularly the pastor’s father. I know a number of people who have been touched by this sadness and they are hurting.

I trust you can take this blog post not as a salacious, opportunistic attempt to get traction over the pain of others. I think this is a “teachable moment” for the church and I hope you can see my intention is to be positive. I apologize in advance if I miss that mark.

We see these sort of church scandals all the time. My question is simple: Does it have to be this this way?

The model of church that has become ever-so-popular in the last few years asks too much of the leader/pastor. In these churches there is one central figure who does the preaching, teaching, and simulcasting. It sets him up for failure by creating unrealistic expectations. Can anybody be inspirational 7 times on the weekend, every week, all year, year-in-and-year-out? Who can resist the temptation of adulation that awaits him after he delivers the jaw dropping message that only he can bring? As his influence grows, nobody has the guts to say, “You are being an idiot,” when he is being an idiot (let’s face it – we all need to have somebody give us a check on pride at times).

Gone are the days when a pastor was happy to shepherd, along with others, a small flock in ever deepening relationships of love and accountability. In its place are pastors who lead. This is a substantially different concept than shepherding. The role of the mega-church pastor is to manage a multi-departmental staff. They oversee a multi-million dollar budget. They must produce (and I use that word in the Hollywood-sense) inspirational, teaching-focused mini-concerts on the weekend. All of this is done while pursuing a never ending quest to expand the congregation’s footprint.

Is it any wonder why these leaders fail? Of course not! Yet, when it happens, nobody seems to take a step back and ask, “What are we doing here?” No, they will instead replace the out-of-sorts leader with a new one and soldier on. These churches have become too big to fail.

We have a leadership crisis in the North American church and it is one that sets the stage for failure. I am not blaming “the man.” It’s us who follow that I wonder about the most.

Perhaps, Christian, you should consider starting or joining a small house church. There will be no staff to manage. There will likely be no budget. The teaching won’t be polished. When you sit across the living room from somebody, though, you (or they) might catch a whiff of whiskey and ask about it. You might find that your wife is praying in the kitchen with other women about a marriage in trouble. Accountability and community will take precedence over teaching. Worship won’t be polished but participatory. Shepherds will shepherd.

Should the church fail it probably won’t make the local news.

And that’s a good thing.

Shame and the Welfare Ethic

From our many friends at Wikipedia:

The Protestant work ethic (or the Puritan work ethic) is a concept in theology, sociology, economics and history which emphasizes hard work, frugality and prosperity as a display of a person’s salvation in the Christian faith. The phrase was initially coined in 1904 by Max Weber in his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

It is argued that Protestants, beginning with Martin Luther, had reconceptualised worldly work as a duty which benefits both the individual and society as a whole.

Religious worldviews have consequences. I agree with Max Weber’s definition of the Protestant Work Ethic: I personally believe that one of the reasons the United States has enjoyed financial growth is an embrace of the Protestant worldview, influenced by Calvin, and reinforced by a morality that suggests that work is redemptive.

The Protestant Work Ethic and the Welfare Ethic are two opposing views (with religious underpinnings) that are along the fault line of American society’s current national debate. For those who hold to a worldview ensconced in the Protestant Work Ethic, welfare is only to be seen as necessary evil, a stopgap measure to help those who have been overwhelmed by circumstance. Protestantism, of course, was a protest against a state-run church. The individualism of Protestant theology has been a bulwark against statism and the state is seen as a force for evil which must be contained. Nobody summed this distinction up better than Reagan when he said, “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

The Welfare Ethic is a completely different view in which welfare, provided by a benevolent state, is for the common good. In this view, helping the poor is not the responsibility of the individual but of the state. Paying taxes is a moral act of charity and creates fairness in society (I believe that some have called paying taxes, “patriotic”). European Evangelicals have long ago held to the Welfare Ethic in understanding and interpreting Christianity. Catholicism, which itself was the government for many years, has a positive view of the state and teaches that government is a force for good. President Obama has been consistently growing the size and scope of the welfare state and, in contrast to Reagan, sees government as the solution.

Between November 5th and November 7th last week, our country did not change. The election does provide, however, a snapshot of what has been long changing in our society. A significant part of the change is religious. Protestantism as a backdrop for the moral choices of our nation is receding and it is being replaced with a statist worldview that embraces the Welfare Ethic.

At one time most Americans would have seen a young, able-bodied man on food stamps (or other welfare assistance) as shameful. I personally know three of them, in their mid-twenties, with the ability to at least work a part-time job. “No,” one of them told me, “for $10 an hour it’s not worth it and it might mess with my eligibility.”

This is the Welfare Ethic in the new America. There is no shame in welfare.

Should there be?

Never the Same

Next week Pioneers will premier a short, fifteen minute film titled, “Never the Same.” It’s a continuation of the “Peace Child” story told by Don Richardson. Fifty years ago, Don took his wife and small son into the jungles of New Guinea to work among a tribe of cannibalistic headhunters. That small son is my boss, Steve Richardson, and this past summer Steve returned to the tribe with his Dad and brothers to see how they were doing. It’s a remarkable story and you can watch it now:

Never the Same from Pioneers-USA on Vimeo.

Faith-Based Organizations and the Obama Administration

I have been avoiding politics on the blog, though I am avid political junkie. I have decided that, because it’s an area in which I have some expertise and experience, I would provide you with my thoughts on this topic.

Often we lose sight of the importance that faith-based nonprofits have played in our nation’s history. From churches to soup kitchens these institutions have shepherded us, fed us, healed us, and have educated us. Currently, with the destruction of Sandy on the eastern seaboard, groups such as Samaritan Purse are providing on-the-ground support for families (you can donate here).

A healthy non-profit sector opens the door to less government and greater civil life. It’s my view that as a society we should be encouraging non-profit activities and do so with economic incentives. These should be applied fairly, regardless of religious affiliation but not by discriminating against religion or faith-based organizations. This is what I see happening with the present Obama administration.

My question for today is: How does the Obama administration regard faith-based non-profits?

The first thing that stands out to me is the Obama administration’s handling of the HHS policy on employer mandated contraceptive benefits. I am not opposed to contraception. However, our government is making religious institutions, particularly Catholic organizations, participate in the delivery of contraception against their will. I think there will be a significant number of Catholic voters who take this into account on Election Day. Evangelicals should also pay attention to this issue. While Evangelicals typically do not forbid contraception like Catholics, the idea that the government is forcing Catholics to include this in insurance coverage is chilling.

Another change that the Obama team was wrought on the non-profit world is what I call “onerous bureaucracy” in the form of required paperwork for non-profit activity. Mostly private sector abuses produced a rise in government-mandated oversight in what is called the “Sarbanes-Oxley.” I fault nobody’s intention here: people want our businesses and non-profits to operate with transparency and effective management. That’s a good thing. This set of regulations, however, increases legal and audit costs unreasonably. Keep in mind that many non-profits are “kitchen table” organizations: they are small and have limited funds. While Sarbanes-Oxley does have a “sliding scale” regarding the amount of oversight (larger organizations are required to have more oversight than smaller ones) the impact is wasted time and money. Do these new regulations help? I don’t think they help much. Frankly, I don’t see this changing much under a Romney administration. To be fair, this sort of regulation precedes the Obama administration. Yet, it provides an open door to government intrusion and my trust level for the current administration to restrain themselves from interference is nil.

Federal policy mandating anti-discrimination policy is another issue facing non-profits, particularly religious non-profits. For example, USAID, the official humanitarian and development branch of the US government, has been directed by the Obama administration to strongly encourage all contractors to develop anti-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation. In other words, if you are a non-profit delivering services through a grant or program of USAID you must adopt a pro-gay-rights view of civil rights. This is the strategy that homosexual rights advocates are using to stop Christian teaching on the immorality of homosexuality. Since many religiously affiliated organizations provide the sorts of aid services USAID might want to see delivered, this policy discriminates against religious organizations (see this link for more info on this).

In 2010 (and subsequent years), the Obama administration proposed limiting charitable donations made by wealthy donors (see this link and this one). This is a direct attack by the administration on charities’ ability to raise funds. I am amazed it hasn’t gotten more press than it has and, fortunately, it hasn’t been able to pass muster with congress.

Some might argue that President Obama does care about faith-based partnerships because he created the “White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships” (see this link).  I personally am not aware of any ways it has helped the religious non-profit sector. I would be very interested to learn how it has helped so please let me know your thoughts on this.

The election process has produced a stark contrast between President Obama’s giving to charity versus Governor Romney’s giving. The lack of personal giving on the part of our president is one of my greatest concerns about President Obama. For somebody who has been a “community activist” I would think that there would be a serious appreciation for the role of charities in society. The organizations with which he has been affiliated are, of course, supported by donations and grants. In spite of this, the current administration has whittled away at the rights and privileges that faith-based organizations have enjoyed for many years.

Numerous studies contrasting giving by liberals and conservatives reveal a huge discrepancy. Klein shows that liberals give to secular causes while conservatives give to faith-based initiatives (this is the article here). Klein is wrong about one thing: liberals and conservatives do not give at the same rate. Conservatives give far more to charitable causes, particularly faith-based causes, than liberals do (here is an article about it, and here is another one – there are lots – there is even a cool interactive tool you can use). Before you flame me with comments about how unfair I am to make this statement, check the data! An interesting note is that Utah – the Mormon bee hive – is the most generous state and I bet most of that is going to support the Mormon machine.

From my perspective, liberals tend to see government as the answer and therefore they subconsciously (and often consciously) consider taxes as a part of what they “give.” Liberals have made the contention that paying taxes is patriotic. That is a redefinition of “I gave at the office,” which makes me cringe. It’s also one of the reasons why I will not be pulling the handle for President Obama in this election cycle.

If you work for a faith-based non-profit or believe in giving to them I would suggest you do a little research on this before casting a ballot for President Obama. He has not been friendly toward us and it’s a bit scary to think what will happen in the next four years. Since this is (in his own words) “his last election.” We might be in for some pretty big surprises.

Happy Reformation Day

The 95 Theses

On this day in 1517 a relatively unknown German monk pounded a proclamation of sorts onto a church door in Wittenburg, Germany. In the empty spiritual bucket created by a corrupt Catholic Church hierarchy and alongside a godless Renaissance, Luther’s 95 Theses represented renewal. They were a call back to personal and corporate holiness that resounded well past the door frames of the church.

There are six attributes common to all movements and we can easily see them in Luther’s Reformation. For those of us bent on seeing movements of transformation the lessons are worth reviewing.

Affinity group recruitment: Luther’s translation of the Bible into the vernacular language of the common man made it possible for the message to be passed from person to person. The printing press fueled the writings of Luther and the message quickly spread from town to village to city. Originally, Luther has posted his 95 Theses in Latin. Others translated and printed them into pamphlets and they were passed hand to hand across the European continent.

Common acts of commitment: The Catholic Church, in the early 1550s, demanded not only spiritual obedience but was a mark of citizenship. The act of separating oneself from the Church was an act of disloyalty to the European order. It was a radical act but one that cemented the newly forming “Protesting Church” into what sociologist call a “densely packed social network.” Benjamin Franklin captured what these types of “no return” acts do for a movement at the signing of the American Declaration of Independence: “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

Opposition (real or perceived): Luther did not intend to abolish the Catholic Church but to reform it. his wine, however, was too new for the old wineskins and the Church turned on its monk, seeking to imprison him and stop his criticisms. This gave way to the sort of persecution that feeds the flames of rapidly growing movements.

Retro-revolutionary ideology: Luther’s message was a reformer’s message. Rarely do movements take hold and flourish when their ideology completely replaces a group’s foundational understandings. Jesus was thoroughly Jewish (retro) yet his message demolished the status quo (revolutionary). Luther similarly embraced the truths of the Bible while challenging the Church’s grip on power.

Network structures: The Reformation would eventually coalesce into a number of strategic and important “centers” of activity. Calvin’s Zurich is perhaps the most important one. However, the message of opposition to the centralized Catholic Church produced a host of leaders who each battled for their perspective of the church. This inevitably gave way to a healthy fragmentation and the sharing of leadership among a wide array of movement leaders.

Set of favorable circumstances: There are few eras that have been as ripe for change as the 1500s. Luther walked into a century that would give us Da Vinci, Galileo, the first globe, incredible intercontinental adventures, flush toilets, and bottled beer. The list goes on and on! The religious culture of Western Europe had become a fusion of folk mysticism blended with Catholicism. People were searching for more substantial answers to the problems of life and Luther’s Bible translation was ready to fill that void.

One could argue that the Reformation has affected global Christianity more than any other historical event since the New Testament era. I find it telling that today we celebrate Halloween, a part of that mystical folk religion of Europe, on this day rather than Luther’s unknowing act of bravery. Instead of teaching our children to say “trick or treat” perhaps they should learn to say, “Happy Reformation Day.”

Perhaps the time is ripe for a new movement.

Why your Home Group is not a House Church

If you have been a part of a house church for any length of time I pretty much guarantee that somebody from a “brick church” (my term for a traditional, pastor-led church) has said the following to you upon hearing about your house church:

“We have home groups for that.”

They might say community groups, small groups, etc., but they are all talking about essentially the same thing. This betrays an essential misunderstanding about house churches. These people don’t understand one of the most foundational concepts in the house church movement; namely, the priesthood of the believer.

For most Christians, particularly Protestant Christians whose churches have a Reformation history, the doctrine of the “Priesthood of the Believer” is limited to soteriology (the theology of salvation). It does not extend into their ecclesiology (church theology).

In a typical brick church the home group is an extension of the pastor’s ministry. A friend who is a leader in a house church network in New York City has recounted a conversation that he had with somebody attending a brick church.

“Oh, I see what you do in house church,” he said to my friend, “we have home groups for that.”

“That’s great!” replied my friend, “and what does your group do when you gather?”

“Well, we watch a video of the pastor together and then we talk about it,” he replied.

That’s it in a nutshell! The typical brick church is organized around the teaching ministry of the pastor (the priest) whereas a house church is based on the service of all the “priests” – all members of the group – to one another and those outside the group.

In a brick church, professional clergy becomes the de facto “ministers” and the congregants are “ministered to” by this group of leaders. The house church paradigm sets this dynamic on its head, with each follower of Jesus taking on the responsibility of being a priest. Rather than sitting back and letting the pro’s do it, in a house church setting, you are the pro.

This is why most home groups cannot provide the same sort of environment that a house church can. It’s not about what the participants “do” but what they “are.” Can this happen when a home group is the extension of a larger church? Perhaps, but I have rarely, if ever, seen it or experienced it myself. I have, on the other hand, experienced the long arm of the pastor in making sure that home groups reinforce his ministry.

So, I don’t think your home group is the same as my house church.

Feel free to disagree with me!

Missions and the Missional Church

                    Ralph Winter & Lesslie Newbigin

Kind of a weird title, I know.

If I were tracing the genesis of the “missional church” I would point to Lesslie Newbigen. Newbigin was a Presbyterian missionary affiliated with the Church of Scotland (you can check out his biography here). Newbigin returned to Europe after ministering in India with the view that Europe had become a “mission field” in the years that he was away. Instead of being the source of sending missionaries, Newbigin encouraged Christians in the West to see themselves as missionaries. The Western church, he urged, needed to think and act like missionaries do.

European Christianity had fallen into a “Christendom” model in which the state, the culture, and the church conspired together. However, during the 1960′s and 1970′s, Europe began to rapidly secularize. The result was the state and culture began to conspire against the church. The antidote, according to Newbigin, is the missional church. A church which did not assume that the culture was in agreement with Christian ideas. A church which sought to minister from a position of weakness rather than strength. A church whose task was to be “missional.”

During the same time that Newbigin was encouraging the adoption of missional church ideas, missiologists in the USA were  pointing out the need for the sending of missionaries. This is what we typically refer to as “missions” in churches. Ralph Winter popularized the idea of the unreached. These were not simply people who were not Christians; they were people who lived in cultures where there was little to no Christian witness at all. Unless somebody went to live among them, they would not have a meaningful and culturally appropriate explanation of Christianity. Whereas Newbigin’s England had declining numbers of Christians, Winter’s “unreached people groups” had none at all.

Further, Winter emphasized a distinction between “sodalities and modalities.”A sodality is a “go structure” with a highly defined mission to achieve a goal. A modality is a “nurture structure.” It is predominately designed to care for, educate, develop, and spiritually grow its own members. Winter observed that throughout history, churches (and their denominations) often stagnated the growth and development of the church. When this happened, sodalities would spring up and unleash innovation on the church forcing both change and growth. Winter pointed to the rise of Catholic Orders, volunteer missionary societies, and parachurch organizations as evidence of sodalities.

Newbigin’s argument is that the church should itself be a sodality. The church should be a “go structure.” Winter suggested that this was not likely to happen. It hadn’t happened historically and the remaining task was proof in itself that churches tend to be insular.

“Missional” has entered the mainstream in American churches. When this terminology first began to be used in the US it often referred to “emerging churches.” These were churches that were using (and seeking to reach) a postmodern worldview. Many of these emerging churches were frowned upon by the more conservative evangelical churches because of their willingness to discuss (and some would say compromise) on long held orthodox interpretations of the scriptures. Particularly in Europe, emerging churches were setting the pace for church growth and outreach. As often happens in a movement, the more radical concepts behind the emerging church appear to have been tamed. What pracitical differences now lie between “missional” ideas and those from the “Church Growth school.”

I am concerned that “missional” thinking, while a step in the right direction, does not step for enough. Newbigin argued that the church should look past its own walls and into its context (for example, its neighborhood) in order to redeem the culture in which it finds itself. That is great. The Great Commission, however, is a global commission to teach, disciple, and baptize. It is not merely a charge to reach your own culture. Could it be that the “taming process” is producing a form of “missional” which is parochial and provincial? This plays into Winter’s charge that the church is really a nurturing modality, concerned with its own welfare.

Is your church struggling to be both missional and missions-minded?

You aren’t alone.

Day 27 and Onward – Postscript to the Ride

After riding about 1,400 miles this summer, I returned home to my wife and, a week later, we took a ride on our tandem. While riding in a peloton, we crashed and my wife broke her pelvis, just 3 miles from our house. Ironic. That was a month ago. She is healing and eager to get back on the saddle, literally, and start riding again. Me too! I miss the long tandem routes on Sunday mornings.

After the New Orleans to Minneapolis ride I was burned out on posting to the website. Being on sabbatical meant that I was supposed to be taking a break from work and it felt like work to write, so I stopped. I have a handful of emails about the promised “summary” article on the route and whatnot, so here it is! I actually wrote the following for “CrazyGuyOnABike.com” and am posting it here, in two parts, with a review of the trail and a review of our decision to use old mountain bikes for touring.

I am writing a newsletter to those who follow our ministry – look for it soon. If you signed up to get updates on the bike tour, now would probably be a good time to unsubscribe. If you don’t, you will get my blog posts, which are often about the global Christian movement.

Part 1 - A Review of the MRT: A Review of the MRT

First, a few caveats. I am not a long time bicycle touring expert. I toured many years ago and only recently did the MRT. My sons and I rode the MRT in part because we didn’t have the time to pedal the TransAmerica (that’s one advantage the MRT does have over other cross-America routes – it’s shorter). So, as you read this review, keep in mind that it is not the review of a pro. Also, we didn’t stick to the MRT the entire ride. We cut corners here and there and made the tour “our own” instead of just taking the route when it didn’t suit us (more on that later).

My view is that the MRT is an unevenly supported bike route. In the south it leaves a lot to be desired. In the north, it is awesome. In defense of the MRT, it is self-described as a developing route. That’s a pretty fair assessment. Also keep in mind that the MRT has different routes. For example, you have to choose between biking through Missouri or Illinois (or switch back and forth like we did a few times). Nobody really biked the whole of the MRT without really working at it.

We biked the MRT in the summer of 2012. This ended up being the hottest summer on record and we were in the middle of it. This can’t be held against the MRT as it was an unusual weather pattern but be forewarned that midsummer will be hot.

We also biked from south to north. We had gotten advice that the winds tend to blow out of the south and we would have easier “sailing.” This was, I believe in retrospect, an assumption born from our lack of touring experience. When you ride 1,400 miles you are going to get winds from all directions. As it turned out, most of the days that we rode gave us headwinds. So, I don’t think I would base my route choice or direction so much on the wind in the future.

We used the “Mississippi River Trail Guidebook,” by Bob Robinson. If you are used to the Adventure Cycling maps the guidebook will disappoint. It’s not really meant to be the same sort of guide. As we started out, we were sticking to the guidebook verbatim and it wasn’t until about 10 days in that we realized we needed to think broader. We took a “WarmShowers.org” host in Memphis and he turned out to be a former Adventure Cycling tour leader and contributor to some of their guides. As we discussed this with him, we decided to purchase a regular map and supplement the guidebook which turned out to be a much better approach. Robinson’s guide is the best (and only) guidebook out there so don’t skip it – you will need it. However, understand that it is a “guide” only and you might want other resources.

The beginning of the MRT (south to north) is interesting, flat, and fun. As you wind through New Orleans you are struck with how cool it is to be riding in a bike lane through this historic city. Once you leave the urban sector you will find yourself riding on top of the river levee and it’s pretty spectacular. As you move further north is where some of the consternation sets in. The services become few and far between. We rode a couple of days for more distance than we wanted to since the next camping site or hotel was just that far off. There were three of us and we were hesitant to stealth camp. Water was usually available (as well as food) but the lodging options were sparse and they got sparser.

The philosophy behind the MRT is to keep you as close to the river as possible. This makes for some route choices that are rather indirect since the river winds around quite a bit. By forging our own trail on some days we avoided a bit of the winding. Keep in mind that once you get off the top of the levee you will not be able to see much of the river. If I had to guess, I would estimate that you only see the river about 20 percent of the ride and most of that is in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

As we moved past Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi we began to have better luck with places to stay. The roads in these lower states that make up the MRT are actually very acceptable for cycling. There aren’t too many “rumble strips” and the terrain is generally flat. We began to hit some hills in Tennessee, but even there this is not a mountain climber’s route. The issue for us is that the camping options are few and far between until you get further north.

The Natchez Trail is a part of the MRT in Tennessee and it is an awesome ride – I highly recommend it. When heading from the south to the north, you will begin to encounter a few small climbs at this point. Nothing major, but this is a change from the previous, mostly flat, trail up to this point.

As we moved through Kentucky we decided to go with the Illinois side of the MRT, at least until St. Louis. We were warned by quite a few people to avoid Cairo, IL, because of crime. We decided to stop early on a Saturday so that we could go through Cairo early Sunday morning, when most criminals are nursing hangovers. The bridge into Cairo was pretty lousy, but we spread out and took the whole lane much to the chagrin of a large truck. Cairo was sleepy and quiet.

The Illinois MRT is a bit hillier. We wanted to stay overnight in Chester. We found that, leading up to this little city that is on both the MRT and the TransAmerica, the traffic conditions are terrible for bikers. There were more trucks per minutes than you can imagine. We happened to pass through when a coal barge was unloading south of town. The large trucks, heavy with coal and not wanting to slow down at all, barreled past us at high speed, just inches away on a road with a minimal shoulder. I heard that Chester is a favorite spot for cyclists. It’s not for me. I consider this stretch of road the worst we encountered.

North of Chester the MRT follows the river and we had one of the sweetest rides of the trip. As you bike you pass by large underground caverns and the cool air comes out to refresh you. We also were riding in the morning and the levee and bluffs provided nice shade. This was incredible biking.

We camped a night in East St. Louis. We were told to avoid it, but after seeing how tame Cairo was wanted to test the waters. No problems for us. We stayed at a little RV park that had a pool and the water was refreshing. The next day we pedaled across the river in St. Louis and met up with some friends. From there we headed north on the Missouri side until we could cross back into Illinois. The Missouri side has its share of rumble strips and about 6-10 inch shoulders. We also heard that the Illinois side was flatter and, since we had learned to avoid climbing, we scurried back into Illinois. I understand that we missed out on some beautiful trails around St. Louis. Oh well – you can’t do it all!

Iowa was also nice. At this point we made a decision to leave the MRT and shoot straight north toward the Wisconsin border to rejoin the trail there. The terrain was now rolling hills with long descents and long climbs. We achieved our highest point on the trip in Iowa of all places – 1,280 feet. On that day we probably gained and lost 400 – 600 feet in elevation about a half dozen times. It was a tough day but a good day. The campground that night (it was 105 degrees that day) had a river! It was very refreshing to lay in the river and let the water wash away the road weariness.

We took the Cassville Ferry into Wisconsin. The last descent into the river valley went on forever. It was exhilarating! We had planned on two other ferry crossings but had the misfortune of seeing both of them closed on the days we intended to cross so it was fun to finally experience the crossing from a seated position.

Wisconsin’s MRT route is gorgeous. You really see a lot of the river and the terrain is varied (some hills, but not bad at all). The camping sites are plentiful and we availed ourselves of a community pool once that we happened to see as we pedaled through town. The eating options abound and we had not difficulty in route planning from this point forward.

We crossed into Minnesota at La Crescent. Once again the road conditions were excellent. There was one little strip of dedicated “bicycle trail” which was closed due to flooding so we took the road. There was another strip of dedicated trail a bit later in the day that could have used some maintenance. Other than that, the Minnesota roads were the best we encountered.

One night we camped in a dedicated bicycle campground. You rode in, registered yourself (the fee was $12), and had water and an outhouse. The sites were nestled in the trees (although they were pretty close to the highway so a bit noisy at night). I hope this idea catches on elsewhere – it seems like a pretty inexpensive way for these sorts of services to be offered.

The most beautiful part of the ride for us was around Lake Pepin. The water is blue and the surrounding hills were covered in lush green trees. There are lots of services along the way and you have plenty of space to ride on the shoulder. We ended in Minneapolis. The trails here are known across the country so I won’t go into the details but suffice it to say that they are top notch. We had lunch around the University of Minnesota and were in the northern suburbs (where my parents live and where we were finishing up) an hour later. I have heard that going north is even better so I hope to come back and finish that off with my wife sometime on our tandem.

Employees from the Minnesota Department of Transportation had been following our trip blog and they emailed me with tips and requested feedback. The bar has been set pretty high by the state of Minnesota when it come to being bicycle-friendly. Good luck to you other states on matching it!

Before we went on this tour somebody said that they were glad that the MRT was “not their first tour.” I tend to agree with this. The maps and support that you can get from Adventure Cycling routes are better. There were days when we road further than we wanted to because there was no lodging. Other days we had to shorten things up a bit. As this route grows and develops I hope that it can became a premier route. I would challenge Adventure Cycling to consider taking it on as a challenge to map it well and encourage its use.

Part 2 – Old Mountain Bikes as Touring Bikes

Bikes. Incredible machines, capable of turning an ordinary person into an overland animal of awesome distance and speed. Most touring bicyclists spare no expense in purchasing and outfitting their trusty steed. On a recent tour from New Orleans to Minneapolis, roughly following the Mississippi River Trail, my two boys and I took a road less traveled: we used old Huffy bikes that were 25 years old. Good idea? Let me tell you about our experience.

First, we decided to go with cheap bikes because there were three of us and they are college boys. I wasn’t able to spring for all of us to get new bikes and decided that where one goes, all go. So I began scouring the Internet and found a site which talks about “cheap touring bikes.” Old Huffy bikes were made of steel. Heavy, yes, but also a good material for a touring bike.

I paid $40, $50, and $70 dollars for the three bikes. There was a local guy that bought and sold bikes and he listed his info on Craigslist. They were in pretty good shape but needed some work. I stripped them, painted them all black, and rebuilt them. I upgraded 1 of the front derailleurs, and 2 of the rear ones. All of the bikes got new (cheap) SRAM indexed shifters, and cables all around. We went with the original brakes and seats. I put on butterfly handlebars. For racks I purchased cheapos off ebay. One set didn’t arrive until a few days before the tour and it wasn’t as sturdy as the other two (more on that later). For panniers we used Nashbar’s waterproof bags and we all got inexpensive handlebar “boxes” as well. All bikes got Kenda K838 Slick Wire Bead Bicycle Tires and a set of “Stop Flats.”

The total spent on all three bikes was just under $1,200. I mean “TOTAL” – including some tents, a wet bag, sleeping bag insert, blow up mattress (I actually used my Thermarest which I already had), and other assorted items.

So, off we went, down the road on the first day. Twenty minutes in we had our first mechanical breakdown. My son, Josh, had attached the rear pannier in the wrong place and somehow the clip had grabbed a hold of the retaining washer that held the rear stack of gears in place. It unscrewed and all of the gears were loose! Ok, so that’s not so much a problem related to the bike, but keep in mind that these bikes were not intended to carry panniers and Josh had the aforementioned rack, which had no good spot for clipping on the bags. Well, that was an easy fix and off we went.

Despite having gone on a couple of shake down rides, Josh’s shifter was easily finding gears on the rear hub. Upon further examination I realized that the 7 speed indexed shifters were not working with the six gears in back too well! Whoa… how did I install a 7-speed shifter on this bike? I don’t know, but I did. I ordered the shifters together with the set on another bike, but they were different and I never checked them. We had this problem for about three days until we found a bike shop that gave us (as in “here, no charge”) a different hub.

A little more than a week into the ride that same bike, Josh’s, lost the “tang” on the one-piece crank set. An old, single-piece crank has a small arm (the “tang”) between the gear set and the arm of the crank on the right hand side. The tang is what pushes the gear around in circles. If you ever see one you will be amazed that it could break – it’s a large weld point of between two ½ inch pieces of steel. Never, in my wildest dream, did I think that this part would fail. I had a pipe clamp in my trusty bag of spare parts. That got us by for about ten miles until we got to a bike shop and another new “used” part.

As we biked on, the derailleur hanger on Joshua’s bike began to become problematic. It seems funny to describe it this way, but it was like it was getting “soft” as we biked on. I was very careful to monitor this as we rode.

Another problem with this particular bike was that it kept popping spokes. By the time we finished it had broken seven spokes in total. My bike broke one spoke. Fortunately, I had all the tools along necessary to change these out.

Remember that cheap rear rack I mentioned? About halfway through the month-long tour it started to “cavitate” with the pedal cadence. This made the bike feel mushy while riding. On long down hills I could see it vibrating a bit adding to my consternation about the already too-high speed we were enjoying. That same bike also had a number of flat tires. One might conclude that the wheel was somehow messing up the tires, but I inspected the wheels and would testify that they were not the cause. All the punctures were on the face of the tire! I can only rack it up to either the bicyclist or a mystical cloud of doom. Now, at this point, you should be asking yourself about the other two bikes. They performed very well. The only thing that broke on the other two bikes (actually, all three) was that the chains broke. That’s right: all three bikes experienced broken chains. I am not sure why, except that these bikes were heavy. In every case we were hill climbing when the breaks happened. Fortunately, I had a spare chain with me and we purchased a replacement ahead of the next breakdown.

The major lessons for me were:

1. One must replace ALL of the old components (derailleurs, chains, shifters, everything) on an old bike. This makes the price of a Nova Safari start to look pretty good.
2. Long tours require better bikes. We spent a fair amount of time and energy fixing things and keeping them up and running.
3. One can look like a bike god by carrying lots of extra components. My kids couldn’t believe it when I pulled out the pipe clamp, for example. When I changed out the chains they were equally impressed.
4. Contrary to Internet advice, components for these older bikes are not readily available anymore. We could not count on the average local bike store’s inventory as these are essentially antiques.
5. Two of the bikes worked pretty well but the third bike didn’t. If I had to repeat this endeavor, I would check out each bike very carefully. I think the “mass production” of working on three bikes simultaneously worked against me.
6. The route we took is a relatively flat one. I hate to think what would have happened to us had we gone up against a few serious mountain passes. It would be particularly dangerous on the descents where speeds climb and brakes get hot.

SO…. Would I do it again? Hmmm, that’s a tough question to answer. I think I would do it on a tour of 7-10 days. If an expensive bike is an obstacle to going (which it was in our case) then plan local tours until you can upgrade. We biked just over 1,400 miles and these bikes, while the did it, were not really up to the job.

There is a good reason that touring bikes have the components and features that they have. I would recommend getting something designed for the task as it will bring greater enjoyment to your tour “over the long haul.”

2.8 miles from our final destination at the end of the tour, Josh’s rear hub locked up. We stopped and I took it apart to find the bearings virtually smashed together. I stripped out the bearing on both sides and put the hub back together. Josh finished the ride on a scraping axle – a fitting end to the tour considering what we had experienced with this bike over the previous 27 days.

Day 26 – The Finish Line

This morning we got up early in Hastings, MN. We set out on the local trail system and got lost! We found ourselves on Highway 55, pedaling alongside the very fast moving rush hour traffic of the Twin Cities. The plus side of this venture was that we “cut” the corner of our proposed ride and saved a few miles in transit.

When we finally got to a real bike trail, we were down close to the river and crossed over on the bridge close to the airport. The view was spectacular – I know this photo will look strange on the website, but here it is…

It’s hard to tell in the little photo, but you can see downtown St. Paul on the right, and Minneapolis on the left, with the mighty Mississippi below.

The trails along the river were very nice. We biked along Fort Snelling and in and out of the woods for a while.

From there we shot up toward the University of Minnesota. We met up with Mark, the boys’ cousin, who works at the school he attends in the lab. Jimmy Johns had $1 subs, so we spent the big bucks and had a great lunch together.

After lunch we started for our final destination. My parents live in Spring Lake Park, which is about 7-8 miles north of Minneapolis. We pedaled along East River Road and reminisced about various sights along the way. About 3 miles out… Joshua’s axle locks up!

A bearing went out and it totally froze.

We took it apart, cleaned out the various pieces, and put things back together. He was making a pretty good scraping sound, but we decided that the bearing-less axle might go three miles, so on we went.

At 1:05 PM CST, we drove up and into the driveway of my parents home. The AC was on, the drinks were cool, and it’s great to be done!! I am proud of these two young men.

Stay tuned for a wrap-up in the next few days…

Day 25 – Beautiful Lake Pepin

This morning as we got underway Joshua got another flat. It would be the first of three on that bike. It’s really strange – all three have the same tires, the same puncture protector, and the same tubes. At the end of the tire change he mounted up and took off only to crunch the rear derailure in the spokes, breaking a spoke and mangling the derailure. When I first saw it I thought, “We’re done riding.” Forty five minutes later, though, we were back on the road.

Today’s ride was spectacular. We switched from roads to bike trails and the shoulders were always generous and the trails well groomed. This ride took us alongside Lake Pepin.

If you live in Minnesota and haven’t spent time here, you are doing yourself a disservice. It’s beautiful. In Minnesota lore, Lake Pepin is the birthplace of water skiing.

We stopped in Red Wing for lunch at a McDonalds and soon after veered off to find a bike trail. We were met with signs declaring that the trail was closed due to flooding and that being on it “would be considered trespassing.” They got my attention at “flooding” and the sign seemed a little heavy handed. In any case, we jumped back on 61 and headed north, meeting up with the Mississippi River Trail a bit later.

There was a big hill going back out toward the river and we climbed (ok, I admit it, we walked a bit) back up to some pretty good altitude.

So, tonight we are in Hastings. Tomorrow we conquer the city and will hopefully end up at my parent’s home in the northeast suburbs. That is IF Joshua’s bike can take another fifty miles.

By the way, I have been emailed by folks from MnDOT about the trail and our observations. The care that they show about the MRT is impressive and can be seen as you bike. The fact that they want more information even much more so. Go Minnesota!

Distance Today: 52 Miles
Total Distance: 1,322 (approximate)