Revelation 1:1-8
-
The unveiling of Jesus the Messiah affirms the sovereignty of God,
announces the reign of the Messiah over the kings of the earth, and
confirms the dignity...
3 days ago
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Hope for Churches of Christ in Ohio
I want to continue in my postings about my Christian tradition. I spent some time in my previous post reflecting upon my upbringing in the small, backwards Defiance Church of Christ. I began my current ministry position five and a half years ago at a Church of Christ in northern Columbus, OH. Our church is on the very outer-fringes of the Columbus suburbs. It's about two and a half hours from Defiance. In the years I've been in Columbus, the atmosphere of the Churches of Christ I've experienced has been incredibly disappointing and frustrating. I suppose the phone book (and Mac Lynn) probably find evidence of about 25 - 30 "congregations" in the Columbus area. There are a few large enough to be multi-staffed (Fishinger and Kinney Rds., Spring Rd., Northland, Reynoldsburg, Genessee Ave. - Gennessee Ave. is a predominantly black congregation, and while it defies everything I believe to treat them differently, the fact of the matter is, in this conversation, they are a bit different), and Marysville. Also could be included is Heath and Lancaster, but they are a bit futher away. In any case, there are a few.
Columbus, OH is the 15th largest city in the United States. Perhaps you are surprised. I am. For a city that size, our particular denomination is very under-represented. What is more disappointing, is that the few churches that are here don't have much to do with each other. I mean, I know that churches are kind of known for not getting along, but seriously, the churches in Columbus, OH don't care too much for each other. I hardly ever talk to any of the other ministers. I am good friends with one of them, but the others I probably talk to less than once or twice a year. Perhaps that is because I am not making the effort . . . but neither do they. To show that it is not all on me, when I first came to town I tried to begin a regular lunch meeting with the youth ministers - there were about five or six of us at the time . . . we met a few times, then it flopped. Some of the ministers have been here for a long time, most of us have been here from between 5 - 10 years. From my best judgement, this is a deep-seeded disunity that goes back many decades - and there looks to be no progress in sight.
I have met a few ministers from a little further away - Jeff Slater in Ashland, Russell Howard and Matt Dahm in Marion. I could list a few others - but only a few. I went out of my way to attend a meeting in Marion that I didn't find too beneficial simply because I felt it was a good offering of fellowship on my behalf. I have attended events and brought teens and children to local events simply to be supportive. Seldom has that support been reciprocated. I'm not trying to sound high and mighty here either - I repeat, I have failed in this manner as well. I believe this group of churches is in some trouble.
The more conservative churches in the area (Fishinger and Kenney, Alkire Rd., Pataskala, and some others) do a much better job of communicating and associating with one another. They are united by some of their simliar antiquated events such as Bible bowls and such. (Alkire Rd. actually has a school where they offer Bible classes). I commend them for much of their efforts, while choosing to disagree with a great deal of their theology. I see some positive organizational points for them, though I think they may be dying under their oppressive and judgmental theology.
There are a few other chruches that lean more towards the center of "mainline churches of Christ" but are a little on the outs with the more conservative groups mentioned above. That leaves three or four of us others. These other churches (and ours probably leads the way) find ourselves in a theological quandry. We know we we are not "them." About half of our membership consists of people "born and raised" among churches of Christ. Several, however, have been burned by previous churches due to situations of divorce or other tragedies. Many find themselves here because they don't really know where else to go. We don't lose many members to other Churches of Christ . . . instead we tend to be the last church on their way out of the movement altogether.
Our church is different. Two of our elders are in their second marriage (all these situations are complicated, but people in most traditional churches of Christ would probably not be too excited about the details of either of these cases). We have claimed to be a grace-oriented church before it was cool. We don't know much of what's going on in our "brotherhood." We use instrumentally-accompanied tracks on occassions - though we usually don't sing with them. We have used women in an expanded use on occassion - though not regularly. More than anything, we aren't afraid to talk about anything. With all that said . . . we still don't have much of a sense of who we are.
Probably half of our church has been with Churches of Christ for quite some time, but we have a sizeable minority who have no clue about these things. We regularly have visitors, some who stick around even though we are a cappella, who don't know much about us. Our four elders all are "born and raised" church of christers. Both ministers are too. And none of us have any idea what to do.
Some of our members fit nicely in the Church of Christ mold, and would like it if we stand there. They seem really hell-bent on insisting that. We have another sizeable number who fit more in-line with an evangelical mold. They enjoy reading and listening to authors, pastors, from evangelical churches and attend concerts and events that are mainly evangelical. Then, there's a small minority who probalby empathize more with a mainline denominational structure (we have two Catholics who attend regularly for one example - though, of course, they are not considered "main-line").
In addition to these problems, our small membership (100 or so) live in a radius that comes close to surpassing 50 miles. We live in five or six different counties. All in all, it's a mess. And honestly and truly, I have no idea what to do. It'd be a lot easier, as I've stated before, to start a new church. Little of the emergent and missional ideas I read about and empathize with are prepared for any mileage here. Our baggage is immense. And, all the same, I figure we have it a whole lot better than many in our movement.
To make a long post longer, I think Churches of Christ in Ohio are in trouble - especially, and ironically, the progressive ones - or open ones - or whatever you call us. (Maybe confused ones). We have, probably more than anything, lost our mission. We've been so caught up in the newfound freedom in worship that we found two decades ago, that we've never moved beyond that. Now, so much of our time (and especially my time) is caught up in a two-hour event on Sunday mornings. We are currently a church culture more obsessed with the "correct way to conduct an hour-long worship service" than bringing hope, justice, and love to a dying and decaying world. That is a problem . . . and a big one . . .and I sure hope we can take a few very small steps in overcoming that in the coming months . . . perhaps God will allow us through our repentance to participate alongside him - and stand back and watch.
Columbus, OH is the 15th largest city in the United States. Perhaps you are surprised. I am. For a city that size, our particular denomination is very under-represented. What is more disappointing, is that the few churches that are here don't have much to do with each other. I mean, I know that churches are kind of known for not getting along, but seriously, the churches in Columbus, OH don't care too much for each other. I hardly ever talk to any of the other ministers. I am good friends with one of them, but the others I probably talk to less than once or twice a year. Perhaps that is because I am not making the effort . . . but neither do they. To show that it is not all on me, when I first came to town I tried to begin a regular lunch meeting with the youth ministers - there were about five or six of us at the time . . . we met a few times, then it flopped. Some of the ministers have been here for a long time, most of us have been here from between 5 - 10 years. From my best judgement, this is a deep-seeded disunity that goes back many decades - and there looks to be no progress in sight.
I have met a few ministers from a little further away - Jeff Slater in Ashland, Russell Howard and Matt Dahm in Marion. I could list a few others - but only a few. I went out of my way to attend a meeting in Marion that I didn't find too beneficial simply because I felt it was a good offering of fellowship on my behalf. I have attended events and brought teens and children to local events simply to be supportive. Seldom has that support been reciprocated. I'm not trying to sound high and mighty here either - I repeat, I have failed in this manner as well. I believe this group of churches is in some trouble.
The more conservative churches in the area (Fishinger and Kenney, Alkire Rd., Pataskala, and some others) do a much better job of communicating and associating with one another. They are united by some of their simliar antiquated events such as Bible bowls and such. (Alkire Rd. actually has a school where they offer Bible classes). I commend them for much of their efforts, while choosing to disagree with a great deal of their theology. I see some positive organizational points for them, though I think they may be dying under their oppressive and judgmental theology.
There are a few other chruches that lean more towards the center of "mainline churches of Christ" but are a little on the outs with the more conservative groups mentioned above. That leaves three or four of us others. These other churches (and ours probably leads the way) find ourselves in a theological quandry. We know we we are not "them." About half of our membership consists of people "born and raised" among churches of Christ. Several, however, have been burned by previous churches due to situations of divorce or other tragedies. Many find themselves here because they don't really know where else to go. We don't lose many members to other Churches of Christ . . . instead we tend to be the last church on their way out of the movement altogether.
Our church is different. Two of our elders are in their second marriage (all these situations are complicated, but people in most traditional churches of Christ would probably not be too excited about the details of either of these cases). We have claimed to be a grace-oriented church before it was cool. We don't know much of what's going on in our "brotherhood." We use instrumentally-accompanied tracks on occassions - though we usually don't sing with them. We have used women in an expanded use on occassion - though not regularly. More than anything, we aren't afraid to talk about anything. With all that said . . . we still don't have much of a sense of who we are.
Probably half of our church has been with Churches of Christ for quite some time, but we have a sizeable minority who have no clue about these things. We regularly have visitors, some who stick around even though we are a cappella, who don't know much about us. Our four elders all are "born and raised" church of christers. Both ministers are too. And none of us have any idea what to do.
Some of our members fit nicely in the Church of Christ mold, and would like it if we stand there. They seem really hell-bent on insisting that. We have another sizeable number who fit more in-line with an evangelical mold. They enjoy reading and listening to authors, pastors, from evangelical churches and attend concerts and events that are mainly evangelical. Then, there's a small minority who probalby empathize more with a mainline denominational structure (we have two Catholics who attend regularly for one example - though, of course, they are not considered "main-line").
In addition to these problems, our small membership (100 or so) live in a radius that comes close to surpassing 50 miles. We live in five or six different counties. All in all, it's a mess. And honestly and truly, I have no idea what to do. It'd be a lot easier, as I've stated before, to start a new church. Little of the emergent and missional ideas I read about and empathize with are prepared for any mileage here. Our baggage is immense. And, all the same, I figure we have it a whole lot better than many in our movement.
To make a long post longer, I think Churches of Christ in Ohio are in trouble - especially, and ironically, the progressive ones - or open ones - or whatever you call us. (Maybe confused ones). We have, probably more than anything, lost our mission. We've been so caught up in the newfound freedom in worship that we found two decades ago, that we've never moved beyond that. Now, so much of our time (and especially my time) is caught up in a two-hour event on Sunday mornings. We are currently a church culture more obsessed with the "correct way to conduct an hour-long worship service" than bringing hope, justice, and love to a dying and decaying world. That is a problem . . . and a big one . . .and I sure hope we can take a few very small steps in overcoming that in the coming months . . . perhaps God will allow us through our repentance to participate alongside him - and stand back and watch.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Me and Churches of Christ
There is this peculiar group of churches of which I am a part. It is one of the few American Protestant creations, and it is one that I am proud to be a part - most of the time. I want to spend the next few posts discussing my history in the churches known as Churches of Christ, highlighting what I think are some of our most endearing qualities, apologizing for what I think have been some of our most unfortunate qualities, exploring the hope of the future of our movement, paying special attention to my specific setting: Churches of Christ in Ohio - there ain't many, and they ain't healthy.
In this post I will lay out my personal heritage in Churches of Christ. My lineage in Churches of Christ is linked to my mother's side of the family. My mom's mom died when my mom was only 17, so I never knew her. I know that her (my grandmother) as well as her sisters and brothers were the Church of Christers. We had a prominent place in the small church I first grew up in. Due to many reasons, all of which I am still not aware, my mom did not take us to church regularly until I was about 10. We had attended vbs and things like that on occasion, but not often. There are two churches which underly my upbringing in faith: The Defiance Church of Christ and the Paulding Church of Christ. Both churches are still in existence, but, all signs point to a rapid decline - at least in Defiance.
I have a strong sense of personal calling and it began almost immediately from our regular attendance at the Defiance Church of Christ. It was a church that never had more than 80 and most usally had less than 60 - and now has less than 30. It is comprised of mostly families with West Virgian ancestory (almost exclusively - we were just about the only thorough-bred Ohio family in the church). The Paulding Church of Christ (it is older than the one in Defiance and is a kind of step-father to the Defiance Church) was a little further from my house, so Defiance became our home church. Mom would regularly drag me and my brother and sister there every time the doors were open, as they say.
As I look back, I have a special place in my heart for all the people. They do love God and worship him the best they know how, but I feel strongly that they are the product of several decades of a narrow-minded group-think that starves out any kind of new thinking. Looking back, it was an oppressive environment that I have spent more than ten years overcoming. Financially, they gave me several thousand dollars (like, several, several thousand dollars) to get my degree in ministry, and for that I will always be thankful. As I said, I hold the people there very dear. However, the irony is, that going away to school and getting out of their group think mentality put me, for many of their folks, at odds with their doctrine - which, by the way, we have never talked about since I left.
To make a long story at least a little shorter (remember, this is 20 years of history!) I found the family of faith that I needed to nurture me at church camp. I attended camp at Camp Indogan (where my mom and her sisters had gone) in Angola, IN. That place, too, holds a special place in my heart. Facebook has helped reconnect with several of those friends again. It was there that I feel like my faith was most closely nurtured. From my earliest teenage years I had an insatiable hunger and thirst for the Bible. I actually read through the whole thing because I loved it so much - I didn't learn all the stories when I was a little kid like everyone else. This was all new to me. This is probably the single most endearing quality of our tradition - we love the Bible. We know it better than folks in most denominations - at least we used to, but I'm not so sure about that any more.
Anyhow, my camp environment was much the same as my church. I remember one of my friends from camp coming back from a year at some Preacher School in Florida and the disconnect began even from that early age. Some of my closest friends ended up at Freed Hardeman University, and one visit there during my college years helped me realize how far I was from their teachings - even though they were very consistent with my upbringing.
I grew up in a small town and looked forward to college in a big city - that was probably the biggest driving force to my attending Lipscomb University. I spent six years there for both undergraduate and graduate work. In those six years my understanding of church and specifically Churches of Christ broadened immensely. Many of the thoughts I had early on that I couldn't articulate were given language and a life of their own at Lipscomb. I never had intended graduate school, and looking back I still can't explain what led me there, but it turned out to be the very beginning of a major shift in my thinking. Lipscomb was a nice conservative, but safe place for me to explore and meet me where I was in order to get where I am today.
I now know that I grew up in one of an area of the country where there are fewer churches of Christ per population than just about anywhere else in the country. I now work in Columbus, central Ohio, and there are extremely few churches of Christ north of where I am. There are quite a few in Columbus, but they couldn't be more divided and further a part (and have the same name).
I worked for about four years for the West End Church of Christ in Nashville exposing me to the realities of minstering in Churches of Christ in their stronghold and realized I would probalby never be able to authentically minister there again. I now work for the Alum Creek Church in northern Columbus. I've been here for five and a half years. We have much baggage from our Church of Christ heritage, but the more I interact with people in other Churches of Christ around the country, I realize that we hardly resemble one any more . . . and I have even a more difficult time fitting in.
Probably 75% of our members are here because they have some affiliation or tradition with Churches of Christ, but don't want an old stodgy Church of Christ. We explore and do different things . . . but or leadership and vision continues to be bogged down in exclusively Church-of-Christ thinking. That doesn't have to be a negative, but, more often than not, it's not critically considered, it's just the way that it is.
So . . . I find myself in a precarious position. I love this church, dearly. Great folks here. I love God more, and I constantly ask myself what he has in store for me and my family. How can we best serve him. Often times, I feel the best thing to do is to leave the established church. We seem to be in the same mess the Pharisees were in when Jesus lived, and have the same inability to recognize it. It is incredibly frustrating. And at the same time, I find myself not even thirty. To claim to have many answers seems pretty arrogant and presumptuous. And then I think about David, and Josiah and Timothy . . . and even Jesus himself (I'm just about the point he was at when he "took it public") and I find myself in a push and pull with my emotions and direction. I think our faith is infected with a pretty serious disease. I don't claim to be immune, but I do think I've considered a lot of things critically, when most folks take them for what they are. And, I'm pretty sure that they're better off more times than I would ever want to believe.
In the end, I think there is a lot of hope for our group. There's a sizeable segment that, for all intents and purposes, has broken off. They are represented by about half of the churches in Columbus that have nothing to do with us (and vice versa if I'm being honest). However, there is also a great redeemable segment that is asking difficult questions, that are looking again at our earliest roots and considering whether we've gone astray even from their dream only 200 years removed. I think our group has much hope . . . and much work ahead, and I hope to address both in the weeks ahead.
In this post I will lay out my personal heritage in Churches of Christ. My lineage in Churches of Christ is linked to my mother's side of the family. My mom's mom died when my mom was only 17, so I never knew her. I know that her (my grandmother) as well as her sisters and brothers were the Church of Christers. We had a prominent place in the small church I first grew up in. Due to many reasons, all of which I am still not aware, my mom did not take us to church regularly until I was about 10. We had attended vbs and things like that on occasion, but not often. There are two churches which underly my upbringing in faith: The Defiance Church of Christ and the Paulding Church of Christ. Both churches are still in existence, but, all signs point to a rapid decline - at least in Defiance.
I have a strong sense of personal calling and it began almost immediately from our regular attendance at the Defiance Church of Christ. It was a church that never had more than 80 and most usally had less than 60 - and now has less than 30. It is comprised of mostly families with West Virgian ancestory (almost exclusively - we were just about the only thorough-bred Ohio family in the church). The Paulding Church of Christ (it is older than the one in Defiance and is a kind of step-father to the Defiance Church) was a little further from my house, so Defiance became our home church. Mom would regularly drag me and my brother and sister there every time the doors were open, as they say.
As I look back, I have a special place in my heart for all the people. They do love God and worship him the best they know how, but I feel strongly that they are the product of several decades of a narrow-minded group-think that starves out any kind of new thinking. Looking back, it was an oppressive environment that I have spent more than ten years overcoming. Financially, they gave me several thousand dollars (like, several, several thousand dollars) to get my degree in ministry, and for that I will always be thankful. As I said, I hold the people there very dear. However, the irony is, that going away to school and getting out of their group think mentality put me, for many of their folks, at odds with their doctrine - which, by the way, we have never talked about since I left.
To make a long story at least a little shorter (remember, this is 20 years of history!) I found the family of faith that I needed to nurture me at church camp. I attended camp at Camp Indogan (where my mom and her sisters had gone) in Angola, IN. That place, too, holds a special place in my heart. Facebook has helped reconnect with several of those friends again. It was there that I feel like my faith was most closely nurtured. From my earliest teenage years I had an insatiable hunger and thirst for the Bible. I actually read through the whole thing because I loved it so much - I didn't learn all the stories when I was a little kid like everyone else. This was all new to me. This is probably the single most endearing quality of our tradition - we love the Bible. We know it better than folks in most denominations - at least we used to, but I'm not so sure about that any more.
Anyhow, my camp environment was much the same as my church. I remember one of my friends from camp coming back from a year at some Preacher School in Florida and the disconnect began even from that early age. Some of my closest friends ended up at Freed Hardeman University, and one visit there during my college years helped me realize how far I was from their teachings - even though they were very consistent with my upbringing.
I grew up in a small town and looked forward to college in a big city - that was probably the biggest driving force to my attending Lipscomb University. I spent six years there for both undergraduate and graduate work. In those six years my understanding of church and specifically Churches of Christ broadened immensely. Many of the thoughts I had early on that I couldn't articulate were given language and a life of their own at Lipscomb. I never had intended graduate school, and looking back I still can't explain what led me there, but it turned out to be the very beginning of a major shift in my thinking. Lipscomb was a nice conservative, but safe place for me to explore and meet me where I was in order to get where I am today.
I now know that I grew up in one of an area of the country where there are fewer churches of Christ per population than just about anywhere else in the country. I now work in Columbus, central Ohio, and there are extremely few churches of Christ north of where I am. There are quite a few in Columbus, but they couldn't be more divided and further a part (and have the same name).
I worked for about four years for the West End Church of Christ in Nashville exposing me to the realities of minstering in Churches of Christ in their stronghold and realized I would probalby never be able to authentically minister there again. I now work for the Alum Creek Church in northern Columbus. I've been here for five and a half years. We have much baggage from our Church of Christ heritage, but the more I interact with people in other Churches of Christ around the country, I realize that we hardly resemble one any more . . . and I have even a more difficult time fitting in.
Probably 75% of our members are here because they have some affiliation or tradition with Churches of Christ, but don't want an old stodgy Church of Christ. We explore and do different things . . . but or leadership and vision continues to be bogged down in exclusively Church-of-Christ thinking. That doesn't have to be a negative, but, more often than not, it's not critically considered, it's just the way that it is.
So . . . I find myself in a precarious position. I love this church, dearly. Great folks here. I love God more, and I constantly ask myself what he has in store for me and my family. How can we best serve him. Often times, I feel the best thing to do is to leave the established church. We seem to be in the same mess the Pharisees were in when Jesus lived, and have the same inability to recognize it. It is incredibly frustrating. And at the same time, I find myself not even thirty. To claim to have many answers seems pretty arrogant and presumptuous. And then I think about David, and Josiah and Timothy . . . and even Jesus himself (I'm just about the point he was at when he "took it public") and I find myself in a push and pull with my emotions and direction. I think our faith is infected with a pretty serious disease. I don't claim to be immune, but I do think I've considered a lot of things critically, when most folks take them for what they are. And, I'm pretty sure that they're better off more times than I would ever want to believe.
In the end, I think there is a lot of hope for our group. There's a sizeable segment that, for all intents and purposes, has broken off. They are represented by about half of the churches in Columbus that have nothing to do with us (and vice versa if I'm being honest). However, there is also a great redeemable segment that is asking difficult questions, that are looking again at our earliest roots and considering whether we've gone astray even from their dream only 200 years removed. I think our group has much hope . . . and much work ahead, and I hope to address both in the weeks ahead.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Women
Brian made a comment in my previous post that I wanted to address more fully here. This article is interesting along these lines. The discussion of women in ministry and leadership positions within churches needs to be freed from the context of the Sunday morning "worship" setting. So much of the discussion in churches like mine focus on what women can and can't do in the worship setting. I don't claim to walk moral high ground here - most of my discussions revolve around the same issue. Here's the deal - this issue scares people to death! We are afraid to talk about it, we are afraid to study it, we are just afraid.
Here's a little perspective of where I'm coming from. I grew up in a traditional, old-fashioned 1960's era Church of Christ in the northwest part of Ohio where there are approximately one church per county. We had 50 folks on a good Sunday. The church had no elders, but made decisions in "men's business meetings." My dad has never really gone to church thereby giving my mom no voice into the decisions of the church - a church that she was one of the most active people. However, once I was baptized, I got a vote! So . . . at 15 years old, I had a voice on the decisions of the church . . . but my 40 year old, life-long Christian mother did not. Even before I had thought much about anything, something seemed screwed up about this.
I moved on to Lipscomb University where all of my Bible classes were taught by men (white men, at that, but that is another story). I worked for a church for four years where I met my first minister who was a woman - our children's minister was a part-time minister, and our preschool director was a woman. These two women were the first women I had ever seen stand up in front of a church and talk - they made periodic announcements. Even this became a talking point among the elders and ministers there at times. The ministers saw no problem with it, but the elders "had to be sensitive to those in the congregation who could have issues with it." The inclusion of women elsewhere in the service was limited to women singing with microphones in the praise team, and occassionally running the sound board. Oh yeah, and our janitor was a woman. When it came to decision-making, the gender barrier was most prevalent. Most/all decisions were made on Sunday afternoons in a board room with the (all-male) elders.
In my first full-time ministry setting (in which I still serve) I have found a bit more inclusion, but only minimal. It seems to me what drives the issue as much as anything is practicality. If there are fewer numbers and more "able-bodied women," there are more opportunities afforded. Our particpation on Sunday mornings has mainly been through the public reading of Scripture. We had one of our teens (with her brother and dad) read through a Scripture in a traditional sense (up front, behind the pulpit) only once. One person got up and left. There were others a bit offended. We have done it more frequently without the person being in front. To answer Brian's question from the previous post, we've gone about it this way:
Frankly, I have pushed this issue. Those reading this blog from my church are aware of that, but I feel especially passionate that we have not afforded women the role in our churches that they deserve. I have publicly made that statement. I believe that the church has proliferated a world-wide culture of oppression, and are slowly awakening to it. I have tried to be soft and subtle. The elders have attempted to teach on this issue: when we set out to do a study of the issue a few years ago, one family left simply because we set out on the study, and few people cared to attend. My interpretation of this is that everyone already has their mind made up, they just want to be told what direction the church is going to go. Following the class, (and this gets at the shortcoming that the article decries), nothing really changed. I have set out the following "roles" of our service I believe we can most easily and most quickly include women: our formal announcements (this is a no-brainer for me), serving communion, leading public prayers, reading Scripture. Except for reading, we have not yet expanded in the other directions. There is plenty of work to be done through these issues, but it doesn't even get at the more difficult issues of "presiding" over the Lord's Supper, sharing testimonies (which we have done on several occassions, and what my church in Nashville would do), and the two biggies that I don't see as realistic in this setting: preaching and eldership.
I have completely changed my mind in this area. I was open, but always traditionally conservative right up through graduate school. John Mark Hicks challenged me on the issue, he does not believe women are called to serve as lead pastors or elders, and I wrote a paper reaffirming this. Perhaps it was giving in for a good grade, but I like to think I wrote what I believed. However, I have come to see Scripture differently, more organically and alive. It seems to me as though people who want to limit women's participation are failing to recognize a great working of God in our world today.
Our elders have recently retaken this issue up for study. In some ways it highlights the challenge of our leadership structure as our four elders have different perspectives on the matter. In the end, I think we can talk all we want about including women in these positions and that may or may not change things (though, of course, I hope it does), however, this process, is itself foiled. Four men, talking among themselves, deciding where they stand in this area that affects half of our population? This does nothing but further the problem. The real issue, as I've come to recognize it (mostly thanks to my wonderful wife) is that women are never consulted, appreciated, heard in these discussions. Our traditional structures of leadership have no place for women's voices. This is the issue that we should focus on. Most women in our churches are the product of an environment where their voices have not been heard or respected, and that makes the initation process all the more challenging. Just because she's a woman, she may or may not believe her role should be expanded - but surely she believes her voice can be heard more seriously.
This is a very challenging topic of discussion for any church. It brings into play so many prejudices and traditions. It is difficult to have an open and positive discussion without falling into negativity. However, it is a conversation that must take place. Now, having two daughters, I am more committed than ever to helping people overcome their bias and their misinterpretion of this critical area of faith. Oh to be a part of a church that no longer dwells on such issues, but has moved on to the meatier areas of faith.
Here's a little perspective of where I'm coming from. I grew up in a traditional, old-fashioned 1960's era Church of Christ in the northwest part of Ohio where there are approximately one church per county. We had 50 folks on a good Sunday. The church had no elders, but made decisions in "men's business meetings." My dad has never really gone to church thereby giving my mom no voice into the decisions of the church - a church that she was one of the most active people. However, once I was baptized, I got a vote! So . . . at 15 years old, I had a voice on the decisions of the church . . . but my 40 year old, life-long Christian mother did not. Even before I had thought much about anything, something seemed screwed up about this.
I moved on to Lipscomb University where all of my Bible classes were taught by men (white men, at that, but that is another story). I worked for a church for four years where I met my first minister who was a woman - our children's minister was a part-time minister, and our preschool director was a woman. These two women were the first women I had ever seen stand up in front of a church and talk - they made periodic announcements. Even this became a talking point among the elders and ministers there at times. The ministers saw no problem with it, but the elders "had to be sensitive to those in the congregation who could have issues with it." The inclusion of women elsewhere in the service was limited to women singing with microphones in the praise team, and occassionally running the sound board. Oh yeah, and our janitor was a woman. When it came to decision-making, the gender barrier was most prevalent. Most/all decisions were made on Sunday afternoons in a board room with the (all-male) elders.
In my first full-time ministry setting (in which I still serve) I have found a bit more inclusion, but only minimal. It seems to me what drives the issue as much as anything is practicality. If there are fewer numbers and more "able-bodied women," there are more opportunities afforded. Our particpation on Sunday mornings has mainly been through the public reading of Scripture. We had one of our teens (with her brother and dad) read through a Scripture in a traditional sense (up front, behind the pulpit) only once. One person got up and left. There were others a bit offended. We have done it more frequently without the person being in front. To answer Brian's question from the previous post, we've gone about it this way:
Frankly, I have pushed this issue. Those reading this blog from my church are aware of that, but I feel especially passionate that we have not afforded women the role in our churches that they deserve. I have publicly made that statement. I believe that the church has proliferated a world-wide culture of oppression, and are slowly awakening to it. I have tried to be soft and subtle. The elders have attempted to teach on this issue: when we set out to do a study of the issue a few years ago, one family left simply because we set out on the study, and few people cared to attend. My interpretation of this is that everyone already has their mind made up, they just want to be told what direction the church is going to go. Following the class, (and this gets at the shortcoming that the article decries), nothing really changed. I have set out the following "roles" of our service I believe we can most easily and most quickly include women: our formal announcements (this is a no-brainer for me), serving communion, leading public prayers, reading Scripture. Except for reading, we have not yet expanded in the other directions. There is plenty of work to be done through these issues, but it doesn't even get at the more difficult issues of "presiding" over the Lord's Supper, sharing testimonies (which we have done on several occassions, and what my church in Nashville would do), and the two biggies that I don't see as realistic in this setting: preaching and eldership.
I have completely changed my mind in this area. I was open, but always traditionally conservative right up through graduate school. John Mark Hicks challenged me on the issue, he does not believe women are called to serve as lead pastors or elders, and I wrote a paper reaffirming this. Perhaps it was giving in for a good grade, but I like to think I wrote what I believed. However, I have come to see Scripture differently, more organically and alive. It seems to me as though people who want to limit women's participation are failing to recognize a great working of God in our world today.
Our elders have recently retaken this issue up for study. In some ways it highlights the challenge of our leadership structure as our four elders have different perspectives on the matter. In the end, I think we can talk all we want about including women in these positions and that may or may not change things (though, of course, I hope it does), however, this process, is itself foiled. Four men, talking among themselves, deciding where they stand in this area that affects half of our population? This does nothing but further the problem. The real issue, as I've come to recognize it (mostly thanks to my wonderful wife) is that women are never consulted, appreciated, heard in these discussions. Our traditional structures of leadership have no place for women's voices. This is the issue that we should focus on. Most women in our churches are the product of an environment where their voices have not been heard or respected, and that makes the initation process all the more challenging. Just because she's a woman, she may or may not believe her role should be expanded - but surely she believes her voice can be heard more seriously.
This is a very challenging topic of discussion for any church. It brings into play so many prejudices and traditions. It is difficult to have an open and positive discussion without falling into negativity. However, it is a conversation that must take place. Now, having two daughters, I am more committed than ever to helping people overcome their bias and their misinterpretion of this critical area of faith. Oh to be a part of a church that no longer dwells on such issues, but has moved on to the meatier areas of faith.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
The Challenge of Working in an Established Church
Through my years in seminary and in ministry, I have often met people who have had their hearts set on planting a church or entering foreign (or domestic) mission work. I can quickly say that I've never shared that desire. I guess when I was a freshman in college I did declare "Missions" as a major, but I don't remember ever taking that seriously as a consideration for my profession. And while I've entertained church-planting on a lot of Mondays, I've never really considered it seriously. I've always been committed to working in an established church. And I often think I am a moron for doing so.
My first reaction to someone working in church planting is, "Man, that must be tough!" I can't even imagine where to begin. However, when I really begin to consider the differences of going at it alone like that and trying to navigate the incredibly complex waters in an already-established church, I think I'll take it back. I actually think it would be easier.
I do have my reasons for choosing an already-established church. If I'm being honest, there has to at least be some element of security in there. A church that has already been around for 50 years is more likely to be around for another 50 than a church that is just starting out. I have seen statistics that show, in the life of a church, the first ten years are the most likely years a church experiences growth. In addition to that, too many church plants end up being demographically uniform with little diversity - at least in age and life experience. Granted, working with a group of people who are mostly my age and in my life stage is incredibly appealing. However, it also seems anemic. The homogeneous church does not seem to be a biblical church. Paul's letters to the Corinthians sure wouldn't make much sense in these kinds of churches.
In the end, as the saying goes, be careful what you ask for because you just might get it. I'm about 5 and a half years into my ministry at Alum Creek. It is a rather unique already-established church. It is unique, because it is established in that it has been around for 50 years, but it also has a freshness because they relocated about 10 years ago to a location a good 10 miles away from the previous spot. I've managed to shrink us down to nearly half of what we were when I got here (ok, maybe 30 percent), but I haven't been asked to any church growth consultations lately. And I find in ourselves, an incredibly difficult flock to lead.
We're going about 100 strong and can probably be pretty well broken up into three groups: our kids & their parents, empty-nesters (Boomers), and older Boomers and seniors. We have folks that drive all over from about a 40 mile radius around us. Our facade places in what could be considers progressive mainstream among Churches of Christ (we have a praise team that a few folks don't like, we use videos with instruments that a couple people don't like, we have a very minimal use of women in our services - a Scripture read here and there, but never in front - which I don't like), but for the most part, I label us as a postmodern congregation with no imagination for anything but a modern way of doing things. We shake up the facade, but don't seem ready to address the "weightier matters."
Much of this has to do with being in an established church. There's a long history of the way we do things. We've changed that up alot in the ten years since we've moved, but the deeper issue is that we've not really changed the way we think about many things. Trying to work through that in the established church is incredibly difficult. We are small and pround . . . but we are also very tempermental - a wrong move here or there and you feel like the whole thing might blow up.
And maybe . . . just maybe . . . that's what needs to happen. Doesn't seem like much changes by sitting around and talking about things - that's what established churches are good at. Until we DO something radical, we'll be content to talk. In the midst of our talking - folks aren't connecting. Young people, especially, aren't connecting. We are associated with the Churches of Christ, which, in Ohio, have done much of the same things for years and years, and have seldom made an impression on the community. The easy thing seems to be to leave and plant a church somewhere . . . but that seems to be the easy things so things get done my way. And that's just scary. It's a matter of committing to a family and seeing where God will lead. It's not easy. It's definitely not quick! Some people will not make it through, for any number of reasons. That's OK, as long as they leave with their faith intact - and if it done in the right way - their faith should be even stronger.
I love the people I have been called to minister beside. I would never trade my intergenerational relationships for success or brighter pastures. However, to say that it's always easy would be a huge misstatement - it's incredibly difficult. So I have gotten what i've asked for . . . now I need to continue to ask for more wisdom and guidance as to where to from here - because I am incredibly frustrated. This post is more for me than you . . . but I hope you can empathize where I am coming from. What would ministry be if it wasn't frustrating? Jesus certainly had his share of frustration.
My first reaction to someone working in church planting is, "Man, that must be tough!" I can't even imagine where to begin. However, when I really begin to consider the differences of going at it alone like that and trying to navigate the incredibly complex waters in an already-established church, I think I'll take it back. I actually think it would be easier.
I do have my reasons for choosing an already-established church. If I'm being honest, there has to at least be some element of security in there. A church that has already been around for 50 years is more likely to be around for another 50 than a church that is just starting out. I have seen statistics that show, in the life of a church, the first ten years are the most likely years a church experiences growth. In addition to that, too many church plants end up being demographically uniform with little diversity - at least in age and life experience. Granted, working with a group of people who are mostly my age and in my life stage is incredibly appealing. However, it also seems anemic. The homogeneous church does not seem to be a biblical church. Paul's letters to the Corinthians sure wouldn't make much sense in these kinds of churches.
In the end, as the saying goes, be careful what you ask for because you just might get it. I'm about 5 and a half years into my ministry at Alum Creek. It is a rather unique already-established church. It is unique, because it is established in that it has been around for 50 years, but it also has a freshness because they relocated about 10 years ago to a location a good 10 miles away from the previous spot. I've managed to shrink us down to nearly half of what we were when I got here (ok, maybe 30 percent), but I haven't been asked to any church growth consultations lately. And I find in ourselves, an incredibly difficult flock to lead.
We're going about 100 strong and can probably be pretty well broken up into three groups: our kids & their parents, empty-nesters (Boomers), and older Boomers and seniors. We have folks that drive all over from about a 40 mile radius around us. Our facade places in what could be considers progressive mainstream among Churches of Christ (we have a praise team that a few folks don't like, we use videos with instruments that a couple people don't like, we have a very minimal use of women in our services - a Scripture read here and there, but never in front - which I don't like), but for the most part, I label us as a postmodern congregation with no imagination for anything but a modern way of doing things. We shake up the facade, but don't seem ready to address the "weightier matters."
Much of this has to do with being in an established church. There's a long history of the way we do things. We've changed that up alot in the ten years since we've moved, but the deeper issue is that we've not really changed the way we think about many things. Trying to work through that in the established church is incredibly difficult. We are small and pround . . . but we are also very tempermental - a wrong move here or there and you feel like the whole thing might blow up.
And maybe . . . just maybe . . . that's what needs to happen. Doesn't seem like much changes by sitting around and talking about things - that's what established churches are good at. Until we DO something radical, we'll be content to talk. In the midst of our talking - folks aren't connecting. Young people, especially, aren't connecting. We are associated with the Churches of Christ, which, in Ohio, have done much of the same things for years and years, and have seldom made an impression on the community. The easy thing seems to be to leave and plant a church somewhere . . . but that seems to be the easy things so things get done my way. And that's just scary. It's a matter of committing to a family and seeing where God will lead. It's not easy. It's definitely not quick! Some people will not make it through, for any number of reasons. That's OK, as long as they leave with their faith intact - and if it done in the right way - their faith should be even stronger.
I love the people I have been called to minister beside. I would never trade my intergenerational relationships for success or brighter pastures. However, to say that it's always easy would be a huge misstatement - it's incredibly difficult. So I have gotten what i've asked for . . . now I need to continue to ask for more wisdom and guidance as to where to from here - because I am incredibly frustrated. This post is more for me than you . . . but I hope you can empathize where I am coming from. What would ministry be if it wasn't frustrating? Jesus certainly had his share of frustration.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Ash Wednesday
For just about every other year of my life, the fact that today is Ash Wednesday made no impact on me, I paid no attention, gave it little care. For most of my life, I really had no idea what Ash Wednesday was other than Catholics did it, so it was probably bad. I cringe realizing this as yet another layer of my being needing repentance.
This year, marks a new page for me. I intend to honor Ash Wednesday today as best I can, and continue on in the honoring of Lent beginning today. I have three children, one a new born, and I desire that we as a family honor the ethos of Ash Wednesday and Lent. That we take place in the repentance it requires, that we suffer the introspection it begs, and that we deepen our spirituality therein. If you know nothing of this sacred day of the church, I would encourage you to spend a few moments today seeking out the significance and place. I would encourage you to take a moment from your busy schedule and reflect on the many shortcomings in your life - your tangible moral failure as well as the more nebulous sinful structures and systems in which you contribute to the proliferation of evil in this world. Ignore the misuses of this holiday in the history of the church, and seek out the good that it can be for ourselves. Surely we would be moved to tears if we would but stop to consider our sins. Perhaps that, more than anything, keeps us from taking today seriously. As a way of aiding my own spirituality, and perhaps your own, I offer the below prayers and services of the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer for Ash Wednesday.
"Almighty and everlasting God, you hate nothing you have made and forgive the sins of all who are penitent: Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we, worthily lamenting our sins and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of you, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen."
"Dear People of God: The first Christians observed with great devotion the days of our Lord's passion and resurrection and it became the custom of the Church to prepare for them by a season of penitence and fasting. The season of Lent provided a time in which converts to the faith were prepared for Holy Baptism. It was also a time when those who, because of notorious sins, had been separated from the body of the faithful were reconciled by penitence and forgiveness, and restored to the fellowship of the Church. Thereby, the whole congregation was put in mind of the message of pardon and absolution set forth in the Gospel of our Savior, and of the need whihc all Christians continually have to renew their repentance and faith.
I invite you, therefore, in the name of the Church, to the observance of a holy Lent, by self-examination and repentance; by prayer, fasting, and self-denial; and by reading and meditating on God's holy Word. And, to make a right beginning of repentance, and as a mark of our moral nature, let us now kneel before the Lord, our maker and redeemer."
"Almighty God, you have created us out of the dust of the earth: Grant that these ashes may be to us a sign of our morality and penitence, that we may remember that it is only by your gracious gift that we are given everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Savior. Amen. Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return."
[This is an incredible prayer!]
Most holy and merciful Father:
We confess to you and to one another,
and to the whole communion of saints
in heaven and on earth,
that we have sinned by our own fault
in thought, word, and deed;
by what we have done, and by what we have left undone.
We have not loved you with our whole heart, and mind, and strength. We have not loved our neighbors as ourselves. We have not forgiven others, as we have been forgiven.
Have mercy on us, Lord.
We have been deaf to your call to serve, as Christ served us. We have not been true to the mind of Christ. We have grieved your Holy Spirit.
Have mercy on us, Lord.
We confess to you, Lord, all our past unfaithfulness: the pride, hypocrisy, and impatience of our lives,
We confess to you, Lord.
Our self-indulgent appetites and ways, and our exploitation of other people,
We confess to you, Lord.
Our anger at our own frustration, and our envy of those more fortunate than ourselves,
We confess to you, Lord.
Our intemperate love of worldly goods and comforts, and our dishonesty in daily life and work,
We confess to you, Lord.
Our negligence in prayer and worship, and our failure to commend the faith that is in us,
We confess to you, Lord.
Accept our repentance, Lord, for the wrongs we have done: for our blindness to human need and suffering, and our indifference to injustice and cruelty,
Accept our repentance, Lord.
For all false judgments, for uncharitable thoughts toward our neighbors, and for our prejudice and contempt toward those who differ from us,
Accept our repentance, Lord.
For our waste and pollution of your creation, and our lac of concern for those who come after us,
Accept our repentance, Lord.
Restore us, good Lord, and let your anger depart from us;
Favorably hear us, for your mercy is great.
Accomplish in us the work of your salvation,
That we may show forth your glory in the world.
By the cross and passion of your Son our Lord,
Bring us with all your saints to the joy of his resurrection.
This year, marks a new page for me. I intend to honor Ash Wednesday today as best I can, and continue on in the honoring of Lent beginning today. I have three children, one a new born, and I desire that we as a family honor the ethos of Ash Wednesday and Lent. That we take place in the repentance it requires, that we suffer the introspection it begs, and that we deepen our spirituality therein. If you know nothing of this sacred day of the church, I would encourage you to spend a few moments today seeking out the significance and place. I would encourage you to take a moment from your busy schedule and reflect on the many shortcomings in your life - your tangible moral failure as well as the more nebulous sinful structures and systems in which you contribute to the proliferation of evil in this world. Ignore the misuses of this holiday in the history of the church, and seek out the good that it can be for ourselves. Surely we would be moved to tears if we would but stop to consider our sins. Perhaps that, more than anything, keeps us from taking today seriously. As a way of aiding my own spirituality, and perhaps your own, I offer the below prayers and services of the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer for Ash Wednesday.
"Almighty and everlasting God, you hate nothing you have made and forgive the sins of all who are penitent: Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we, worthily lamenting our sins and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of you, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen."
"Dear People of God: The first Christians observed with great devotion the days of our Lord's passion and resurrection and it became the custom of the Church to prepare for them by a season of penitence and fasting. The season of Lent provided a time in which converts to the faith were prepared for Holy Baptism. It was also a time when those who, because of notorious sins, had been separated from the body of the faithful were reconciled by penitence and forgiveness, and restored to the fellowship of the Church. Thereby, the whole congregation was put in mind of the message of pardon and absolution set forth in the Gospel of our Savior, and of the need whihc all Christians continually have to renew their repentance and faith.
I invite you, therefore, in the name of the Church, to the observance of a holy Lent, by self-examination and repentance; by prayer, fasting, and self-denial; and by reading and meditating on God's holy Word. And, to make a right beginning of repentance, and as a mark of our moral nature, let us now kneel before the Lord, our maker and redeemer."
"Almighty God, you have created us out of the dust of the earth: Grant that these ashes may be to us a sign of our morality and penitence, that we may remember that it is only by your gracious gift that we are given everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Savior. Amen. Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return."
[This is an incredible prayer!]
Most holy and merciful Father:
We confess to you and to one another,
and to the whole communion of saints
in heaven and on earth,
that we have sinned by our own fault
in thought, word, and deed;
by what we have done, and by what we have left undone.
We have not loved you with our whole heart, and mind, and strength. We have not loved our neighbors as ourselves. We have not forgiven others, as we have been forgiven.
Have mercy on us, Lord.
We have been deaf to your call to serve, as Christ served us. We have not been true to the mind of Christ. We have grieved your Holy Spirit.
Have mercy on us, Lord.
We confess to you, Lord, all our past unfaithfulness: the pride, hypocrisy, and impatience of our lives,
We confess to you, Lord.
Our self-indulgent appetites and ways, and our exploitation of other people,
We confess to you, Lord.
Our anger at our own frustration, and our envy of those more fortunate than ourselves,
We confess to you, Lord.
Our intemperate love of worldly goods and comforts, and our dishonesty in daily life and work,
We confess to you, Lord.
Our negligence in prayer and worship, and our failure to commend the faith that is in us,
We confess to you, Lord.
Accept our repentance, Lord, for the wrongs we have done: for our blindness to human need and suffering, and our indifference to injustice and cruelty,
Accept our repentance, Lord.
For all false judgments, for uncharitable thoughts toward our neighbors, and for our prejudice and contempt toward those who differ from us,
Accept our repentance, Lord.
For our waste and pollution of your creation, and our lac of concern for those who come after us,
Accept our repentance, Lord.
Restore us, good Lord, and let your anger depart from us;
Favorably hear us, for your mercy is great.
Accomplish in us the work of your salvation,
That we may show forth your glory in the world.
By the cross and passion of your Son our Lord,
Bring us with all your saints to the joy of his resurrection.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
All Religion is Unbelief
The concept of all religion as unbelief is from Karl Barth, and it is a concept I have recently begun to struggle with. Lately, I've been under the influence of Barth (only second-hand as I remain intimidated by his Dogmatics), Peter Rollins, and taking in steady doses of postmodern philosophy as steadily as my mind will allow. I find it unfortunate that I have been left so inadequately prepared to undertake conversations in philosophy, but have decided it's never too late to begin. So . . . the philosophical realm of theology is quickly knocking down walls and expanding my mind daily. Perhaps many of you have thought through these things on your own before, but it is new to me, and I can hadly get enough. More than anything, I see my understanding of God growing every day - and since I can never comprehend His immensity, I suppose anything that will broaden that understanding is a good thing.
I picked up a book just before Cecilia was born by Michal Frost and Alan Hirsch called ReJesus: A Wild Messiah for a Missional Church. It is their follow-up work to the much praised The Shaping of Things to Come. While the jury is still out a bit, I am just about ready to declare this as one of the most important books I've read in the last five years. I have not read their previous work, so I am a litle cautious to utter too much praise before comparing to the other, but their work at "Rejesusing" the church is a powerful one.
The reason I feel that this book is so important for me, and for current discussions in theology in the Western church, is that it hits at a deeper level. It seems to me that much of the discussion in our churches is misplaced. Much of the discussion taking place in the American chruch revolves around the church. Our conversations have been consumed by discussions of ecclesiology. I'm all for ecclesiology. We've got major holes there. My church is as guilty as any. I have spent much time in recent months and years focusing classes, sermons, and leading discussions on church. Frost and Hirsch (and Barth, Rollins, and others) are challenging me on this. I am asking myself, now, how much of our discussions is God really interested in at all? It seems as though our human nature leads us to anything that will take our focus away from God - and so we have gone astray. We focus on church, worship, assemblies, hermeneutics, theology itself, whatever and we have left God out of the picture.
What I really appreciate about ReJesus is that it recognizes that anything we do needs to begin with reintroducing ourselves to the Messiah. I am eager to disagree with someone about matters of church or theology if I can be rest assured their first and foremost attention is to God. Seldom do I feel that. Often their focus is admirable - the text, their tradition, their experience, their spirit-led "feeling" but what of God?
It is no wonder that Karl Barth beleived that all religion is unbelief. Religion is simply where we throw our hands in the air and say, "I can't live with the mystery and uncertainty of a God I cannot explain," and so we methodologize and strategize. We write dissertations and go on ad nauseam in regards to the distant matters of faith. And slowly . . . after years and decades and centuries . . . often with little knowledge of it ourselves . . . there is but a slight visage and shadow of an unknowable object. It is time to shed ourselves of theology and religion as it keeps us from God.
Obviously, as soon as we say that, we realize the need and our utter dependence upon religion. Without it, what is our compass, our orientation. Surely the traditions, creeds, and rituals have a place? Therein is the paradox. Some of the things that can be most important to us maintaining our faith can just as quickly be our biggest barriers to overcome. The barriers in the Western Church have become mountains to overcome. There can be little doubt that our God is too small and, for many people, their religion has killed their God.
I picked up a book just before Cecilia was born by Michal Frost and Alan Hirsch called ReJesus: A Wild Messiah for a Missional Church. It is their follow-up work to the much praised The Shaping of Things to Come. While the jury is still out a bit, I am just about ready to declare this as one of the most important books I've read in the last five years. I have not read their previous work, so I am a litle cautious to utter too much praise before comparing to the other, but their work at "Rejesusing" the church is a powerful one.
The reason I feel that this book is so important for me, and for current discussions in theology in the Western church, is that it hits at a deeper level. It seems to me that much of the discussion in our churches is misplaced. Much of the discussion taking place in the American chruch revolves around the church. Our conversations have been consumed by discussions of ecclesiology. I'm all for ecclesiology. We've got major holes there. My church is as guilty as any. I have spent much time in recent months and years focusing classes, sermons, and leading discussions on church. Frost and Hirsch (and Barth, Rollins, and others) are challenging me on this. I am asking myself, now, how much of our discussions is God really interested in at all? It seems as though our human nature leads us to anything that will take our focus away from God - and so we have gone astray. We focus on church, worship, assemblies, hermeneutics, theology itself, whatever and we have left God out of the picture.
What I really appreciate about ReJesus is that it recognizes that anything we do needs to begin with reintroducing ourselves to the Messiah. I am eager to disagree with someone about matters of church or theology if I can be rest assured their first and foremost attention is to God. Seldom do I feel that. Often their focus is admirable - the text, their tradition, their experience, their spirit-led "feeling" but what of God?
It is no wonder that Karl Barth beleived that all religion is unbelief. Religion is simply where we throw our hands in the air and say, "I can't live with the mystery and uncertainty of a God I cannot explain," and so we methodologize and strategize. We write dissertations and go on ad nauseam in regards to the distant matters of faith. And slowly . . . after years and decades and centuries . . . often with little knowledge of it ourselves . . . there is but a slight visage and shadow of an unknowable object. It is time to shed ourselves of theology and religion as it keeps us from God.
Obviously, as soon as we say that, we realize the need and our utter dependence upon religion. Without it, what is our compass, our orientation. Surely the traditions, creeds, and rituals have a place? Therein is the paradox. Some of the things that can be most important to us maintaining our faith can just as quickly be our biggest barriers to overcome. The barriers in the Western Church have become mountains to overcome. There can be little doubt that our God is too small and, for many people, their religion has killed their God.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Fatherhood . . . Again
Friday morning at about 3:00 am my wife got out of bed and informed me that she believed that her water had broken. An early morning wake up call to her doctor confirmed it. We headed to the hospital and later that morning at 9:40, Cecilia Elizabeth Metz was born at Riverside Methodist Hospital. She arrived in the world weighing a solid 7 pounds 4 ounces and was 20 inches long. She is incredibly healthy and beautiful. Her umbilical cord was huge highlighting a very healthy pregnancy. We will be leaving the hospital in an hour or two.
This most recent (and intended to be final) addition to the Metz family tilts the familial scales heavily in favor of the estrogen hormone. I have offered for Clark and me to take over the basement and have given the girls the reign over the rest of the house - we'll see how that proposal fleshes out.
In all seriousness, this day gives me pause for an incredible blessing from God. I have no words to thank God enough for the way he has blessed Mary Beth and I. In our pursuit of a family, we have never had any trouble concieving, we've never lost a baby through miscarriage, we've never had even a simple compication in now three child births, with the past two we've just spent one night in the hospital, our families have always been there to support us and help us out, our church family has always surrounded us and our children with love and support, our neighbors came over at three in the morning this go round to watch our kids - all incredle blessings from God.
Being in ministry, I see plenty of people who have had heartache after heartache in their pursuit of children and it serves to reinforce the goodness of God in my family's life. We don't deserve it. We are no better than any other family - far short of some to be sure. But we graciously accept it for what it is and give God all thanksgiving and gratitude. The road will not always be as clear and hazard-free as it has been to this point, but at the moment we thank God for all that he has done for us to this point. I feel the pull for the many families who have had the trials we have managed to avoid.
No matter how many times you go through the process of childbirth (Mom or Dad) the miracle of life never ceases to amaze. Yesterday I sat and looked at this little baby who was just a few minute ago in my wife stomach, and a few months ago nothing more than a sperm and an egg (in case you didn't know that - ha ha). Amazing. Life has never seemed more precious or fragile than it does for me right now. Abortion has never seemed more tragic. Child abuse has never seemed more inhumane. And love never more powerful.
And . . . just in case anyone was wondering, we failed on our boy name for the second time and are ready to release it for public knowledge - maybe someone needs a boy name:
Caedmon Adam Metz . . . wasn't meant to be :-) But, check out the story of Caedmon - awesome.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Reflections on Peter Rollins Lecture & Newt Gingrich's Book
Peter Rollins
I found out a few weeks ago that Peter Rollins was going to be in Columbus yesterday, so I worked things out to be able and go listen to him. He offered a three hour lecture. The whole experience was a little surreal as I joined a crowd of 80 in a dimly lit old theater listen to a post-modern Christian philosopher from Ireland with beer on-tap. I haven't had a lot of exposure to Rollins, but my interest was piqued by some video clips I ran across online a few weeks back. Trained as a philosopher, Rollins has brought to light one area I feel especially inadequate in study. A few years ago I remember being challenged by John Caputo at a conference about the place of philosophy in our faith. To say that it was lacking in my training would be a huge understatement.
I'm not sure I could adequately reflect on Rollins' lectures here, but would strongly encourage anyone who gets the chance to hear him to do so. His group works on the fringes of Christianity and will stretch any Christian in our country with his thoughts. He suggests that his work (with the quasi-faith community called Ikon) has a prophetic voice on the fringes of orthodox Christianity. No doubt many would question his place within orthodoxy altogether, I do believe that he is providing necessary critique for the current state of the modern church. I am very excited to read his forthcoming The Orthodox Heretic (April) as it is a collection of parables created by Rollins to help communicate. Highly entertaining to listen to, Rollins is well schooled in parables from philosophy, rabbinic traditions, and other places - it will be well worth anyone's time to read from his forthcoming collection.
Essentially, Rollins argued in the first section of his lecture that the modern project of reason succeeded in objectifying God . . . the pinnacle coming with Nietzche's "killing of God." Nietzche, in fact, simply proceeded through the modern project. Rollins made use of a helpful image of God always pushing back at theology resisting the temptation to be objectified. I loved his image of God being so close, and so transcendent that we can't figure him out (as opposed to so far away we can see him, what, I'm sure many of his opponents argue). There's more to be said here, but I'm still processing.
Rediscovering God in America
Secondly I wanted to spend a few minutes dissecting a book given to me by one of our elders (thanks, Curt :-) ). The book, Rediscovering God in America, is a tour through the monuments and important structures in the United States which Newt Gingrich has compiled to "rediscover the historic source of American liberty and to rediscover the founding generation's understanding of what is required to sustain liberty in a free society." p. 131. I appreciate Curt giving me this book and offering it as a challenge to the pacifist perspective I argue.
I ackowledge that this book has forced me to reevaluate my considerations for the relationship between the Christian faith and participation in this nation. I believe that I often over-state the ills of our government in order to make the case that a Christian is not called to participate in government. The United States is a rather enigmatic case for Christians to consider when considering the government. I believe what Gingrich is trying to do is to combat the radical left that wants to rewrite history books taking "God out of the founding of our nation" - I would imagine he would say something like that.
Gingrich states that he does not intend for his book to be theological in nature, but for the theologian, everything is theological. To allow a book like to address state concerns or sociological concerns and NOT theology is to create and/or expand an incredibly harmful compartmentalization that deeply affects the American church. Gingrich's observations should be troubling for Christians on multiple accounts. First of all, the unspoken logic of the book is that because Scripture permeates the national landmarks we were indeed birthed as a religious (Christian) nation. It's amazing to me how many evangeicals rush to the frontlines of our nation's beginnings and uphold the founding fathers as born again Christians. It is well documented that many, if not most, of these forefathers were Deists at best.
With our Scriptures stamped all over the landmarks of this nation, I am disappointed more Christians are not disheartened by the early ways these forefathers did not act like Christians, devistating the Native peoples from their lands (in many ways, I believe the horrors inflicted on the Native Americans are every bit as horrendous as what Hitler did to the Jews - by the grace of God, the Jewish race survived the atrocities, but many Native civilizations were destroyed by this "Christian" nation - but becaue it is closer to home, it is not talked about). We are too quick to separate their behavior from their actions. We are too close to the situation. We want to have the Christian underpinnings of society, but to do so, we have some seedy baggage to deal with. Christ has called us to faithfulness to him, period. Not knowledge of Scriptures. Not claiming a land for him. Not policing the world in his name. We are called to love him and love others. By participating in the state, I am not sure we can do that. I see it in the people I care the most for. They cast a blind eye at blatantly un-Christian practices at the state level excusing it as if Jesus holds the state to a different standard.
This brings me to a second important point. I believe the most mis-guided aspect of our discussions about the state in America centers on the concept of freedom. It is vital that we ackowledge that the Bible is no guaranteer of freedom. The United States has propagandized the nation over recent decades, focusing especially on Christians, stamping our fight for freedom in all international conflict under the guise of godly oversight and protection. The Bible does not teach to fight for freedom. NOWHERE! If this offends you, stop reading right now and do a study. There is no guarantee of freedom. I know it's easy for me to say that. I wouldn't trade it for anything. But God has called me to faithfulness, obedience, and love, not the right of freedom. Slaves were told to obey their masters, not fight them or run away. This concept calls into question the very root of our nation - fighting (read killing) for our freedom. Is this what Jesus taught on the sermon on the mount? How dare we give a free pass to those in the military because they do so in combat? Jesus never makes that distinction, how can we? This places the onus on those who wish to argue for military participation, not me.
This is not an easy discussion to be had. I don't know if many are ready to fully open themselves up for the implications of what this means. I believe that Gingrich is narrow-mindly American in his book and potentially sows the seed for a future holy war. Perhaps he will follow it up with a second volume noting all the landmarks of Iran that are covered in verses from the Koran and how their nation is built around a good-peaceful religion gone bad and now must be destroyed. It becomes nothing more than a modern-day crusuade. The cycle of this thought continues. We must spend more money so our military is the biggest so that no one threatens us . . . haven't we misplaced our hope as soon as we do that? And so many of us do that without even thinking about it. My hope is in God. Period.
The idea of kingdom is political. It was the political jargon of the day. What purpose would Jesus have had in using that language unless he meant his kingdom to be an alternative politcal reality? We can praise the outcome of the wars of the state (freeing blacks, defeating Hitler, etc.) but Christians must always do so with a partly disappointed heart knowing that this is not the way of the kingdom. The means must be consistent with the end . . . the end cannot be used to justify whatever means possible. This is not an easy teaching to accept. But, something that Gingrich fails to ackowledge, is that every ruler, every war, is started and maintained by people who believe that God is on their side (is the swastika not a broken cross?) Just becuase we think God is on our side does not make us right . . . or good.
I found out a few weeks ago that Peter Rollins was going to be in Columbus yesterday, so I worked things out to be able and go listen to him. He offered a three hour lecture. The whole experience was a little surreal as I joined a crowd of 80 in a dimly lit old theater listen to a post-modern Christian philosopher from Ireland with beer on-tap. I haven't had a lot of exposure to Rollins, but my interest was piqued by some video clips I ran across online a few weeks back. Trained as a philosopher, Rollins has brought to light one area I feel especially inadequate in study. A few years ago I remember being challenged by John Caputo at a conference about the place of philosophy in our faith. To say that it was lacking in my training would be a huge understatement.
I'm not sure I could adequately reflect on Rollins' lectures here, but would strongly encourage anyone who gets the chance to hear him to do so. His group works on the fringes of Christianity and will stretch any Christian in our country with his thoughts. He suggests that his work (with the quasi-faith community called Ikon) has a prophetic voice on the fringes of orthodox Christianity. No doubt many would question his place within orthodoxy altogether, I do believe that he is providing necessary critique for the current state of the modern church. I am very excited to read his forthcoming The Orthodox Heretic (April) as it is a collection of parables created by Rollins to help communicate. Highly entertaining to listen to, Rollins is well schooled in parables from philosophy, rabbinic traditions, and other places - it will be well worth anyone's time to read from his forthcoming collection.
Essentially, Rollins argued in the first section of his lecture that the modern project of reason succeeded in objectifying God . . . the pinnacle coming with Nietzche's "killing of God." Nietzche, in fact, simply proceeded through the modern project. Rollins made use of a helpful image of God always pushing back at theology resisting the temptation to be objectified. I loved his image of God being so close, and so transcendent that we can't figure him out (as opposed to so far away we can see him, what, I'm sure many of his opponents argue). There's more to be said here, but I'm still processing.
Rediscovering God in America
Secondly I wanted to spend a few minutes dissecting a book given to me by one of our elders (thanks, Curt :-) ). The book, Rediscovering God in America, is a tour through the monuments and important structures in the United States which Newt Gingrich has compiled to "rediscover the historic source of American liberty and to rediscover the founding generation's understanding of what is required to sustain liberty in a free society." p. 131. I appreciate Curt giving me this book and offering it as a challenge to the pacifist perspective I argue.
I ackowledge that this book has forced me to reevaluate my considerations for the relationship between the Christian faith and participation in this nation. I believe that I often over-state the ills of our government in order to make the case that a Christian is not called to participate in government. The United States is a rather enigmatic case for Christians to consider when considering the government. I believe what Gingrich is trying to do is to combat the radical left that wants to rewrite history books taking "God out of the founding of our nation" - I would imagine he would say something like that.
Gingrich states that he does not intend for his book to be theological in nature, but for the theologian, everything is theological. To allow a book like to address state concerns or sociological concerns and NOT theology is to create and/or expand an incredibly harmful compartmentalization that deeply affects the American church. Gingrich's observations should be troubling for Christians on multiple accounts. First of all, the unspoken logic of the book is that because Scripture permeates the national landmarks we were indeed birthed as a religious (Christian) nation. It's amazing to me how many evangeicals rush to the frontlines of our nation's beginnings and uphold the founding fathers as born again Christians. It is well documented that many, if not most, of these forefathers were Deists at best.
With our Scriptures stamped all over the landmarks of this nation, I am disappointed more Christians are not disheartened by the early ways these forefathers did not act like Christians, devistating the Native peoples from their lands (in many ways, I believe the horrors inflicted on the Native Americans are every bit as horrendous as what Hitler did to the Jews - by the grace of God, the Jewish race survived the atrocities, but many Native civilizations were destroyed by this "Christian" nation - but becaue it is closer to home, it is not talked about). We are too quick to separate their behavior from their actions. We are too close to the situation. We want to have the Christian underpinnings of society, but to do so, we have some seedy baggage to deal with. Christ has called us to faithfulness to him, period. Not knowledge of Scriptures. Not claiming a land for him. Not policing the world in his name. We are called to love him and love others. By participating in the state, I am not sure we can do that. I see it in the people I care the most for. They cast a blind eye at blatantly un-Christian practices at the state level excusing it as if Jesus holds the state to a different standard.
This brings me to a second important point. I believe the most mis-guided aspect of our discussions about the state in America centers on the concept of freedom. It is vital that we ackowledge that the Bible is no guaranteer of freedom. The United States has propagandized the nation over recent decades, focusing especially on Christians, stamping our fight for freedom in all international conflict under the guise of godly oversight and protection. The Bible does not teach to fight for freedom. NOWHERE! If this offends you, stop reading right now and do a study. There is no guarantee of freedom. I know it's easy for me to say that. I wouldn't trade it for anything. But God has called me to faithfulness, obedience, and love, not the right of freedom. Slaves were told to obey their masters, not fight them or run away. This concept calls into question the very root of our nation - fighting (read killing) for our freedom. Is this what Jesus taught on the sermon on the mount? How dare we give a free pass to those in the military because they do so in combat? Jesus never makes that distinction, how can we? This places the onus on those who wish to argue for military participation, not me.
This is not an easy discussion to be had. I don't know if many are ready to fully open themselves up for the implications of what this means. I believe that Gingrich is narrow-mindly American in his book and potentially sows the seed for a future holy war. Perhaps he will follow it up with a second volume noting all the landmarks of Iran that are covered in verses from the Koran and how their nation is built around a good-peaceful religion gone bad and now must be destroyed. It becomes nothing more than a modern-day crusuade. The cycle of this thought continues. We must spend more money so our military is the biggest so that no one threatens us . . . haven't we misplaced our hope as soon as we do that? And so many of us do that without even thinking about it. My hope is in God. Period.
The idea of kingdom is political. It was the political jargon of the day. What purpose would Jesus have had in using that language unless he meant his kingdom to be an alternative politcal reality? We can praise the outcome of the wars of the state (freeing blacks, defeating Hitler, etc.) but Christians must always do so with a partly disappointed heart knowing that this is not the way of the kingdom. The means must be consistent with the end . . . the end cannot be used to justify whatever means possible. This is not an easy teaching to accept. But, something that Gingrich fails to ackowledge, is that every ruler, every war, is started and maintained by people who believe that God is on their side (is the swastika not a broken cross?) Just becuase we think God is on our side does not make us right . . . or good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
