Showing posts with label emerging church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label emerging church. Show all posts

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Conservative Christians

In the days following a most unique mission trip, I have been thinking a lot about how a person's faith might play out in a political arena.  As one who is not particularly interested in politics -- I become disillusioned pretty quickly -- the notion of "advocacy" is something I'm growing into.  As part of this journey, I've been reading the Religion section of various news sites and blogs.  (As an aside, it's nearly impossible to find something that doesn't address the Glenn Beck circus.)  One of the most thought-provoking pieces I've come across is Mike Lux's analysis of "How Do Christians Become Conservative".  Here's an excerpt:

The Jesus of the New Testament was of course extremely concerned with spiritual matters: there is no doubt whatsoever about his role or interest in the issues of the day, that the spiritual well-being of his followers was a major interest of his. How much he was involved with or interested in the political situation of the day is a matter of much debate and interpretation. Some say it was a lot and others that it was pretty limited or, as conservatives would say, not at all. However, much of a priority or focus it was, though, if you actually read the Gospels, it is clear that Jesus' main concern in terms of the people whose fates he cared about was for the poor, the oppressed, and the outcast. Comment after comment and story after story in the Gospels about Jesus relates to the treatment of the poor, generosity to those in need, mercy to the outcast, and scorn for the wealthy and powerful. And his philosophy is embedded with the central importance of taking care of others, loving others, treating others as you would want to be treated. There is no virtue of selfishness here, there is no "greed is good," there is no invisible hand of the market or looking out for Number One first. There is nothing about poor people being lazy, nothing about the undeserving poor being leeches on society, nothing about how I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps so everyone else should, too. There is nothing about how in nature, "the lions eat the weak," and therefore we shouldn't help the poor because it weakens them. There is nothing about charity or welfare corrupting a person's spirit.


He goes on from there to lift up the issues that appear to be important to Jesus, including a relatively comprehensive exegesis of portions of Matthew, Luke, Acts, and James.  It's worth a read.  I'm interested to know what you think of what Lux has to say.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Doug Pagitt - A Christianity Worth Believing


Doug Pagitt and Erik Johnson are spreading the Hope-filled, Open-armed, Alive and Well faith in the Viking Theater at Grand View University in Des Moines, IA on Friday, June 26 at 7:00 p.m. This "Live Occurrence" is part one-man show (though there are two of them), part revival, part book reading, part hootenanny, and part communal gathering. The 2-hour event include readings from the book, "A Christianity Worth Believing", music - original and covers, video, spoken-word poetry, impassioned invitations to be part of the common good. Live Occurrences are specially formulated for the Left-out, Left-behind and Let-down, and will be suitable for one and all regardless of background.

There no cost for this event. You will have an opportunity purchase the book. If you live in the Des Moines area, I encourage you to come to this Live Occurrence and bring a friend or two!

Monday, May 11, 2009

Weighing In



A few of the koinonia faithful asked me what I think about the recent drama over Adam Walker-Cleveland's ordination struggles (other than my re-posting of other people's opinions). Fair enough. Though I somewhat doubt that opinions have mass appeal, I will share what I posted in the midst of over 100 other comments that appeared on Adam's initial post and Tony's most recent response (which is worth reading).


Here is what I wrote on Adam's blog:

5 Thoughts for You:

1. You got screwed. I’d be pissed if I were you. I’m sorry to read that the process unfolded this way.

2. I pray you don’t see this setback as a referendum on your abilities as a pastor. You are a gifted individual who has been called by God for the purpose of ministry. That work will continue, regardless of when / how / if the ordination process continues.

3. The system you entered into is no more sinful than any other human work.

4. On the whole, denominations (like the PCUSA) that have existed for a long time have done so with the best interest of the whole church in mind. I know that some of your friends believe denominational structures only exist to provide barriers to ministry. It doesn’t mean they’re always right…but it also doesn’t mean they’re always wrong.

5. Denominations need articulate, intelligent, gifted people (like you) to work for positive change in the organizations — not jump ship. Your work at Presbymergent is a testament to that. I believe that your role in PCUSA is not accidental…and that your network of connections and blog exposure (1000+ subscribers !?!?!) can help to shine a light on some of the problems of the ordination process. If you leave, you’re likely to be perceived by the “good old boys” within the PCUSA as just another malcontent who couldn’t handle authority.

All of my opinions aside, my prayers will be for God’s will to be done…and for you to be at peace in the midst of these turbulent waters of doubt and frustration. All the best…



And here's what I wrote on Tony Jones' blog:


What if...

...denominations didn't exist to oppress and abuse, but rather support, challenge, and provide accountability?

...a denomination empowered local congregations to identify future pastors and prepare them for a life of ministry by providing them with opportunities for leadership, service, and learning?

...local congregations were asked to surround pastoral candidates with prayer, acts of kindness, and financial support throughout the seminary process?

...candidacy committees met regularly with ordination candidates to ask about their journey through seminary and how they were continuing to hear God's call to ordained ministry?

...larger church-bodies stayed out of way throughout this process, unless the people who have walked along side an ordination candidate expressed concerns about emotional, intellectual, theological, sexual, or other boundary issues?

...the Masters of Divinity requirement existed to equip would-be pastors with a communal network of support, encouragement, and a rock-solid set of ministry tools that prepare them for congregational life?


The above questions are not hypothetical, Pollyanna, utopian questions. They explain is how my particular denomination functions. There are exceptions where abuse / misuse of the system has occurred...more often on the part of the ordination CANDIDATE than on the DENOMINATION. There are ways that we need to adapt the ordination process to ensure that we are putting pre-ordained folks on the best track to empower them for ministry. The process has been shaped over hundreds of years to provide care for the pastors AND the congregations those people serve.

I offer this, not in the hopes of convincing you that denominations are awesome...but to offer an example of how denominations can function in a beautiful way to give life to the whole church.

If you can sift through some of the raw emotion being expressed on the various blogs, I think there are some really good reflections on the ordination process in mainline denominations. I hope that "the powers that be" in the various church bodies are paying attention.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Seminary Dilemma, Part Deux

Loyal readers of koinonia might recall something I wrote a few days ago about my Seminary Dilemma. The article was a personal reflection on my own "call journey" and also included a reference to Matt Cleaver's piece about the relevancy of seminary for church leaders.

It seems that seminary and ordination are hot topics this week.

Adam Walker-Cleveland is a leader in the Presbyterian / Emergent realm. He was recently told by the Presbytery of San Fransisco PC(USA) that, upon receipt of his Masters in Divinity from Princeton, he needs to complete several more courses prior to ordination. Read the rest of the story here.

Within minutes of this announcement, Tony Jones (former national coordinator of Emergent Village) posted a petition for the "body of Christ" to ordain Adam as a pastor. Thinking this was a creative way of supporting someone who appeared to have done everything by-the-book, I clicked on the link to Tony's blog. I even thought of signing the petition for this young man I've never met. Seemed like a very post-modern way to go about this.


Then I read a few things (posted by Tony) that frustrated and confused me.
Few things piss me off as much as the sinful bureaucratic systems of denominational Christianity. When rules and regulations trump common sense, then the shark has officially been jumped.

Hmmm...
But what gets to me even more is that bright, competent, and pastorally experienced persons like Adam continue to submit themselves to these sinful systems.

And comment he posted on Adam's blog:
What will it take for you to get the message that denominationalism and ordination are bruising, sinful institutions? What will it take for you to hear the message that God is sending you?

Then, the opening line of the petition:
Adam Walker-Cleaveland, having watched you be ritually abused by the ordination process in the Presbyterian Church (USA), we beseech you to forsake ordination in said bureaucracy.



This seemed a bit harsh, but not unexpected. I hearkened back to my short conversation with Tony in front of the drinking fountain at Jacob's Well in October after his provocative comments in his seminar I had just attended. He had some strong words about the "sinful, inefficient, and heretical" ways Christian denominations function. However, his comments regarding Adam's ordination process were even stronger.

I sent a few messages to my friends in emerging church circles (including Tony) asking them to help me understand this idea of ordination by petition. Perhaps they could enlighten me on Part of me really wanted to like this, but I wasn't quite sure what the petition accomplished. Sadly, none of these people deigned to respond to my questions. No worries. We're all busy.

I started trolling the comments of Adam's and Tony's blog, as well as checking to see who all was signing the ordination petition. There was a vibrant and (mostly) civil discourse by over 100 people in total. One comment in particular caught my attention:

Tony, I’m writing as a guy who loves you and admires your work, as a fellow seminary student from almost 20 years ago, and also as a PCUSA minister. Incidentally, given the context of your posting, I’m also the guy who preached at your own ordination service back in 1997.

It’s through all that history and affection that I need to tell you publicly that you’re wrong.

Not about the injustice surrounding your friend’s ordination. Allowing that you’ve communicated all the relevant facts, it doesn’t seem fair that he couldn’t invite a friend of faith to participate in his ordination service. You attended my ordination five years before yours, and you saw that I had the freedom to include a broad range of people who were significant in my development as a minister. You did the same in yours.

On the other hand, your friend may have erred in being unwilling to demonstrate that he could take direction and counsel from a governing body—something that I believe has a place in the context of the American religious free market. In the PCUSA, the process of becoming ordained is partly an exercise in learning healthy submission to peer authority (I can see the eyes rolling back in your head). Now setting aside the not-nearly-rare-enough instances where the submission required is unhealthy, it’s not a bad lesson to learn. More importantly, once candidates have completed (survived?) that process, we have enormous freedom to live and serve as our own calling leads us. It’s OK with me that we disagree on this point. That’s not the problem.

What gets me is that you have demonstrated a rash and bitter level of dismissiveness to those of us who choose this path. In your anger at the bureaucracy of large denominations and institutions, you’ve lashed out not only at them but also at the men and women of faith and calling who participate freely in the opportunities for ministry that they offer.

You sneer at it as simply being loyal to the tribe, and you rarely pass up a chance to mention the availability of health insurance or pensions. Shame on you for not being able—or worse, willing—to understand another person’s experience. You grew up in a very wealthy family and your financial security has never been a hindrance or worry to you—not through Dartmouth, Fuller, Princeton or beyond. What if there’s nothing wrong with trying to be a good steward of a family’s health, whether physical or financial? What if, for example, serving Christ in a denomination that provides a health plan isn’t a sin or a ‘sell-out’ at all, but rather a prudent way to be a good steward?

If I might paraphrase the sense of Jesus’ teaching about the splinter and the log, I suggest this: Swear off or return everything you’ve received from your family before saying another word about how the rest of us provide for ours.

But setting aside the pension issue, what keeps me, and possibly your friend Adam, in the PCUSA isn’t blind servitude or tribalism or even the paltry retirement plan it offers. What keeps me loyal—and I use that term as a virtue, not a punch line—has little to do with whether I think my tradition is best (I don’t). It’s simply that it was in a Presbyterian church that I met Jesus in a life-changing way. And when I felt Christ’s call to ministry in his church, it was that same congregation who helped train me, who prayed for me, and who gave me the chance to test my call in service. I love those people, and yes, I do feel loyal to them.

Tony, the biggest problem I see is that your hatred of denominations gets in the way of the truly important, truly inspired work that you do. It seems to me that rather than attack the weaknesses of denominations (which, frankly, is too easy a target for a man of your intellect), you should be proposing new agendas (as you do) and helping the rest of us reform existing structures from within. As a minister in a radically secular city with enormous ethnic and religious diversity, I don’t have time to re-invent many wheels. But I have learned from the things you’ve written and taught, once I get past the discordant attack on my choice of employer, and I’ve applied them in my teaching, preaching and leadership.

The truest thing I’ve said in this piece is in the first line. I love you and I honestly admire the work that you do within and among a new generation of Christian disciples. What I’m asking is this: get off my back and the backs of the rest of us who do it differently than you. The real problem in the world isn’t the church—it’s the sin and brokenness and injustice that clouds our chance to get a glimpse of Jesus. Help us—help me—to communicate that message in fresher, more authentic ways. Leave the ‘fixing’ of the denominations to those of us who care about them.

John D’Elia
Senior Minister of the American Church in London

I posted his comment in its entirety because it echos many of my own reflections on the issue (aside from John's personal experiences with Tony). The debate continues; both on the blogosphere and in my own mind. I encourage you to plow through the other blog comments if you're so inclined. I really appreciate how much I am learning through these "virtual" communities (though I would argue they are very real in many ways). It helps me wrestle with my ongoing consternation about seminary...and reminds me of the importance of healthy conversation throughout the entire church!

Which is why this site is called koinonia

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Death of Institutions

Chide me all you want for reading sports blogs, but I thought Will Leitch's reflection on the death of Harry Kalas was poignant:
There aren't many broadcasters like Buck and Kalas left...they are relics of a more permanent era, when people really did have one job for 50 years and couldn't be happier about it. (And back when people listened to the radio, the one station they could get, only if they happened to be on a hill.) That doesn't happen anymore, in any field. The people who have been doing this for so long, whether they're a broadcaster, or a newsman, or just the guy who does your taxes, are the last of their breed. We are a transient society, constantly moving, looking for the next thing, never sitting still for too long. There isn't much constancy. This makes for a more vibrant, exciting life. (Theoretically, anyway.) But it also casts darkness on all our institutions: When nothing lasts for too long, those things have lost value. We appreciate them more ... but we find ourselves mourning them less when they're gone. There's always something else.


I think Leitch is right. I see that in our congregation - dozens of households (usually young families) have come and gone in the past six years. Lots of new faces around the church; and many familiar ones are gone. Perhaps this is just the way of things for Xers and Millennials. If so, what does this mean for the church - one of the oldest "institutions" in history. Will it exist two generations from now? If so, what will it look like?

Monday, April 6, 2009

Orthopraxy

The great Mike Stavlund serves up an intriguing post about the "Orthodoxy of Orthopraxy". It's intellectually heavy for a Monday morning, but I gobbled it up nonetheless. Here's an excerpt:

My fear is that-- for me and my friends-- orthopraxy has become the new orthodoxy. That in our strong (and correct!) affirmation of the importance of doing stuff, we have become like the anti-fundamentalist fundamentalists that we smirk at so frequently. The dangerous thing about my elevation of orthopraxy is that the very act of doing so exempts me from needing to do anything about my orthopraxy. It is enough to affirm the theoretical value of orthopraxy, and to then find a comfortable spot in my cozy home where I can be right. Orthopraxy, then, is the new orthodoxy, which requires little from me other than my stalwart intellectual ascent toward the tennets of orthopraxy. Handy, huh?