The Great Commission

I'm a huge fan of the new Lutheran Study Bible that Augsburg Fortress released in April. I heard of this concept about a year ago when I was asked to review a few manuscripts from the study notes. I was excited about the vision cast for this Bible, as well as the fact that it includes a stylish baby-blue book cover.

I've had several conversations with friends (both the local and on-line variety) about the study notes pertaining to the Great Commission. Some have been merely curious about the treatment of the text, others have been more animated in their disagreement. Here's the more "controversial" portion of what appears in the Great Commission notes:

Jesus now sends the disciples to make disciples of all nations. That does not mean make everyone disciples. Most people who are helped by Jesus and believe in him never become disciples. Jesus includes in salvation people who do not believe in him or even know about him. Disciples are students, called for the sake of the world to learn from Jesus and to bear witness to the kingdom.

Wanting to know more about this interpretation of the final words of Jesus, I decided to go to the source. Dr. Duane A. Priebe is the Knutson Professor of Systematic Theology and Senior Faculty Fellow at Wartburg Theological Seminary. His areas of expertise include systematic theology, Christology and atonement, creation and eschatology, Biblical theology, and Christian theology in a religiously plural world. Dr. Priebe contributed the study notes to the Gospel of Matthew portion of the Lutheran Study Bible.

Here was my note to Dr. Priebe:

Dr. Priebe,

I want to thank you for your excellent contributions to the Lutheran Study Bible. I have been doing some teaching on the gospel of Matthew these past few weeks, and have found the comments and notes you provided to be most insightful.

Last night our adult Bible Study engaged in a robust discussion regarding congregational implications of the Great Commission. One of our group members had concerns with two of the notes from the Lutheran Study Bible.

"Jesus now send the disciples to make disciples of all nations. That does not mean make everyone disciples."

"Jesus includes in salvation people who do not believe in him or ever know about him"

The questions asked by the group had to do with "Why aren't we called to make disciples of everyone?" and "Does everyone get into heaven, regardless of who they believe in?" Our conversation then went to discussing conversations of antinomianism, Universalism, and Lutheran hermeneutics...topics that are a bit above my pay grade. :-)

I told the group that I would take these questions directly to the source, in the hopes that we can all be enlightened. I'm wondering if, in the midst of your busy schedule, you'd be willing to expand a bit on the two statements from the Lutheran Study Bible on the topics of discipleship / evangelism / salvation. I know the members of our group would be most appreciative.

Here's Dr. Priebe's thorough response:

Thank you for your questions. They are important ones to think about. I will begin with the second.

There are two passages in Matthew that speak of salvation without saying anything about believing in Jesus or knowing him. The first is the Beatitudes in 5:3-10. Lutherans believe that God’s word creates what it declares. In the Beatitudes, Jesus includes into the salvation of God’s rule the spiritually poor, those mourning, the meek, those hungering and thirsting for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, peacemakers, and those persecuted for the sake of righteousness. Jesus creates salvation for these people – and his death and resurrection establish this as true. None of the Beatitudes restrict this to those who believe in Jesus, nor is it necessary for them to know that this is true for it to be true. God’s word creates truth. Only the final Beatitude that speaks of persecution for the sake of Jesus’ name is addressed (“you”) to the disciples.

The second is the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25:31-46. It speaks of the judgment of all the nations. Matthew uses language in a way that had become typical of Judaism, for whom the term “nations” referred to the nations who were not God’s people. In Matthew, the little ones who belong to Jesus are people who believe in him (see a similar point in Matt 10:40-41). This is why they are surprised – Christians would not be. This, of course, does not exclude the claim of this passage on us as Christians to see Christ present in those who are suffering in this world.

The notes in the study Bible do not speak of those who reject Christ. But that is a scary business for me. In the Sermon on the Mount, it is people who claim Jesus as Lord, who have preached and done powerful things in his name to whom he says, “I never knew you” (7:21-23). In the context of the Sermon on the Mount, those are people who claim the name of Jesus, but do not live in the reality created by the Beatitudes, they justify having enemies and try to ground it in God, they pursue a righteousness of their own that can be seen (the word translated “piety” in 6:1 is the Greek word for “righteousness”) rather than God’s righteousness (6:1-34 – where the either-or that runs through the chapter applies to this contrast) and encourage people to have a righteousness that can be seen, and they pass judgment on others and encourage people to do the same, all the while claiming to represent Christ. When I think about that, I can only begin with myself.

Saul, the Pharisee, of course, did reject Christ and was persecuting Christians out of zeal for God. Yet Jesus met him on the road to Damascus and made him an apostle. Paul speaks of God’s love for us while we were ungodly, sinners, and enemies in Christ’s death (Rom 5:6-11), and he speaks of Jesus’ death as creating justification and life for all, getting as many as Adam got (5:15-21; 1 Cor 15:22 – in Paul’s day, “many” was not used in contrast to “all,” it was used in contrast to “one,” as Paul does). In Paul’s discussion of the Jews in Rom 9-11, Paul ends by saying that God’s promise to Israel cannot be revoked (or God would not be faithful, and we also could not trust God), and while they are now enemies of God, “all Israel will be saved” Rom 11:25-32).

The most expansive picture of the scope of salvation in the NT is an early hymn about Christ in Colossians 1:15-20. There everything created through and for Christ, including the cosmic, demonic powers, the thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, which were defeated in his death on the cross (2:10) are reconciled to God through his blood on the cross.

So where does faith fit into all this? For Paul as well as for Luther, faith is not something I do now to get something different that is salvation. Faith is participation now in salvation. In John 5:24, the transition from unbelief to faith is the transition from death to eternal life. Faith, as life-orienting trust in God’s promise in Jesus Christ, is the goal in our lives of everything God has done for us. We are not saved apart from faith, for living in faith from the power of God’s grace, Gods love for sinners and the unworthy in Jesus Christ, is the communion with God for which we were created and is participation already in salvation. The deepest promise of salvation in the Old Testament is, “I will be your God and you will be my people.” In Luther’s explanation of the First Commandment in the Large Catechism, he asks, “What does it mean to have a God?” He answers that your god (small g) is whatever to turn to in every need and what you trust for meaning, life, and security is your god. Faith and God belong together. Sin is fundamentally idolatry, in which we seek life from created things rather than God. So people do not yet participate in salvation apart from faith. But for us who believe, we always have faith in constant struggle with unbelief and idolatry.

None of this has said anything about God’s wrath and judgment – which we cannot deny. As sinners, who seek life from created things, and thus live in fear and destructive ways to protect ourselves, we are all under God’s wrath and judgment. According to the NT, one of the ways we live under God’s judgment is when we pass judgment on others – which is always on people for whom Christ died. Whenever we do so, we make something in ourselves the basis of our salvation, and we assume, like Adam and Eve wanted – that we can be like God, defining the boundary between good and evil. In the Bible, that is the most fundamental form of idolatry.

Christians have never assumed that only those who know and believe in Jesus in this life will participate in salvation in the next. On the most obvious level, that would exclude everyone in the Old Testament. They went out into the world, not to expand the domain of God’s love, but with the message of God’s love for a lost and dy8ing world in Jesus Christ, which is already the truth of the world.

What do we really believe when we believe in Jesus Christ? We believe that Jesus alone is the ground and source of salvation – not anything else, including works, the church, our being Christian, faith. Jesus Christ is God’s love not just for some (as strict Calvinists think), but for the world. So those of us who believe in Jesus Christ are claimed to see and think of everyone in the world, and to relate to them, as people for whom Jesus died – which is the most important thing about them. Luther, in his 1535 commentary on Galatians 3:13, says that since Jesus has taken all our sins into himself, if we see anyone in terms of their sins, we deny the deity of God, for we think their sins are more powerful than God’s love in Christ. In his bookThe Cost of Discipleship, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, commenting on “judge not,” argues that the difference between a disciple and an unbeliever is that the disciple sees everyone, including the unbeliever, at the foot of the cross, which the unbeliever sees no one, including themselves there.

What God does with anyone, is, of course, God’s business, not mine. But if I believe in the power of God’s forgiving love in the cross of Jesus Christ, I cannot restrict it in any way or exclude anyone from that love on any kind of basis without condemning myself. That is what Jesus says.

Then, with regard to making disciples: A further question is what it means to make disciples of all nations (to follow the traditional translation). The term "disciple(s)" occurs 250 times in the NT, but only in the Gospels and Acts. That means that in the first century, "disciple" was not a term for what we would call a "Christian" or a person who believes in Jesus. It is used that way in certain layers of Acts, although even there, in Acts 16:1, Timothy is a disciple, while his mother is a believer.

In the Greek philosophical schools or later in Rabbinic Judaism beginning shortly before the time of Jesus, a "disciple" is a pupil of a teacher - the two terms go together. In Matthew, those who believe in Jesus and are benefited by him, experiencing the transforming power of the kingdom - or even the crowds that follow him - do not become disciples - even when they may want to do so. What is distinctive about being a disciple in the Gospels is that they do not decide to become disciples, Jesus calls them to be disciples - and in that sense "makes" them disciples, although that language is not used. Second, being a disciple entails not only a pupil-teacher relationship, as it does in the philosophical schools or in the Rabbinic tradition, but it also entails an attachment to the person Jesus Christ.

In this kind of framework, the commission to "make disciples of all nations" would not mean to make all the people of these nations "disciples," not the same as the Spirit bringing them to faith through the gospel, but that through them there would be people among all the nations whom Jesus calls to be disciples. That is, people who would also have a pupil-teacher relationship with Jesus, and the personal attachment to him that characterizes the disciples. In the philosophical and Rabbinic schools, pupils themselves become teachers with disciples. In this case the disciples do not become teachers with pupils - Jesus alone remains the teacher with disciples who both learn from him and bear witness to God's rule being established in and through Jesus' activity - especially his death and resurrection.

The imagery of disciples as a particular set of people - not all who have faith in Jesus or are benefited by him - is reflected in the imagery of being salt and light for the world (Matt 5:13-16) or a little leaven leavening the whole lump (13:33). It also corresponds on a wider level to the mission of the twelve in Matt 10. Jesus' command in Matt 28:19-20 also corresponds to the structure of the teacher-disciple relationship or the philosophical or rabbinic schools. They make disciples by baptizing them and teaching them to observe all of Jesus' commands - not their own commands or interpretations.

The disciples are not as such the ones who benefit from Jesus' activity - although they are not excluded from the promises - they do participate in all the rotten stuff in Matt 10. Their place in the Beatitudes in Matt 5:3-12 is that they are persecuted - although that is also coupled with the promise of reward. Jesus does not call disciples for their own benefit - he calls them for the sake of the world and its benefit as witnesses to Jesus Christ and as messengers of the salvation and rule of God, which God accomplishes through Jesus Christ, including incarnation, death, and resurrection. This is reflected in an interesting way in Matthew and the other Gospels. While others who turn to Jesus and are commended for their faith, the disciples always struggle to believe and to understand what Jesus is doing - even after his death and resurrection.

The idea that a small number of people who are called by Jesus and who bear witness to him fill the world with the light of the gospel and with his presence is reflected in a different way when Athanasius in the early 4th century speaks of the entire world being filled with the light of the Gospel and Jesus' transforming power. The Christian missionaries in China in the 7th and 8th century say the same thing about the light of the gospel filling the entire kingdom. In neither case are Christians anything but a small minority. But what they refer to is that there are Christians who bear witness to Jesus Christ scattered throughout the Empires, and through their witness all things are being transformed.

I hope this helps,

Yours in Christ,

Duane A. Priebe

Let the conversation continue!

The Life Span of a Christian

I had a conversation the other day with a friend from church. "Jeff" is in his late-40s and has been an active member of the church for a very long time. I could tell something was troubling Jeff, so I asked him to share.

"Where are all the young people?"

I asked him to say more.

"It makes me sad that there aren't more youth and young adults in worship. I look around and all I see are people my age or parents with small children. Where are the kids in their teens and 20's?"

As we continued to talk, my friend shared the story of his faith journey. It was not unlike most others I had heard. He was reluctantly taken to church as a child, drifted away after confirmation, worshiped on Christmas Eve as a young adult to make his mom happy, got married, had a kid, and got reconnected after his child's baptism. It was a that moment that the light bulb went off.

Jeff came to the astonishing conclusion that he was no different than the very people he was chastising for being MIA.

We continued talking about how important it is for the church to continue reaching out to youth and young adults. We covered the main buzz words like "creativity", "innovation", "renewal" and "emerging". We knew that, just because many young Lutherans drift away after confirmation and (hopefully) return in adulthood doesn't mean that's a good thing. We just didn't have any ideas of what that kind of ministry looks like.

* * *

Later that night, I couldn't sleep. I thought about my conversation with Jeff...contemplated my own journey...and considered the stories of two Biblical big shots.

Moses -- he lived the life of an Egyptian prince, fled to the desert, farmed for a while, got married, and eventually came back to lead God's people to freedom. Moses was well into adulthood when he claimed his identity as a child of God, after having nothing to do with Yahweh up until then.

Jesus -- we know a lot about his birth and a "Home Alone"-style fiasco in the temple when he was 12...and then...nothing until he's about 30-years old. He grew in "wisdom and understanding", but what does that mean? He made nice shelving units in his dad's carpentry shop? He did miracles and signs and wonders around the neighborhood? What happened in his formative years? When Jesus finally appeared on the scene as an adult, had 3 good years of ministry, and then died.


There are many other examples of faithful God-followers that started young and continued throughout their lives (Jeremiah, Samuel, David, etc.). However, in light of the inverse bell curve of Christian involvement in many churches, I began to wonder:

What is the life-span of a Christian?

Are we wired to be people that are constantly growing in faith until the day we die?

Is it acceptable to ride the waves of doubt and certainty throughout our lives?

Does everyone have their time in the desert, a la Moses?

Does a person who remains active in a church during their young adult years become disconnected in their 40s & 50s, when other people their age become reinvested in their faith community?

Are churches needlessly banging their heads against a wall while trying to figure out what to do with the 13 - 30 crowd?

Should we invest our denominational efforts in creating para-church entities that take the place of a congregational focus? (A.k.a. create a theologically-sound alternative to Young Life or Campus Crusade for Christ.)

* * *

My tendency is to say that the church, which is the body of Christ, must remain central in the ministry that it does with people of all ages and stages in the journey. I'd like to think that we can be all things to all people. I subscribe to the theory that most churches have become (for lack of a better word) LAZY when it comes to engaging youth and young adults in meaningful ways...and there are lots of people / organizations that will gladly fill the void.

The big question, of course, is "how do we do this?" How does an established, mainline, intergenerational congregation go about nurturing faith among those in their teens and 20s?

Please provide the correct answer below. Thanks...

You Go Girl!

Dwight mentioned this video in the comments section of the Confused post. I thought it was worth embedding here:




I have gotten to know Tammy through synod coordinator work for the 2006 & 2009 ELCA Youth Gatherings. We usually sit together in the back of the room at the "naughty table" during meetings. I love her passion, fire, and attitude about Youth & Family Ministry. Here's hoping that her address to the NC synod assembly inspires other leaders like her!

Confused

My name is Erik, and I'm a Church Nerd.


My addiction?

Finding out what happens at ELCA synod assemblies.

Facebook status updates, Twitter hashtags, and blogs only make it easier for me to troll around and find out what's going on around the denomination...which, of course, feeds the need for more official (and, more importantly, UNofficial) information of what's going on.

It seems that every assembly is having lengthy discussions about the sexuality resolutions that are being voted on at the 2009 Churchwide Assembly in August. Synods aren't just taking about the resolutions...they're discussing 50% + 1 vs. 2/3 majority...they're voting on whether or not to affirm the resolutions...they're going into "committee of the whole" discussions that lead to additional resolutions and more voting. Suffice it to say, thus far, synod assemblies have once again been defined by sexuality debates.

I just have one question: WHY?

To my knowledge, there is no authority in what the synods are voting on at this point. Even if all 65 synods voted in favor of or against the resolutions, it wouldn't really matter. At this stage of the game, the only votes of significance are those cast at the Churchwide Assembly. Synod delegates to the Assembly are not required to vote on behalf of their synodical constituancy...so what's the point of voting as a synod if the delegates are going to vote their conscience in August?

Synod assemblies are intended to be a celebration of the past year's ministry and a look ahead to the coming year. It's a time to worship, pray, discuss, and join in fellowship. It's a time to bring people together to talk about mutual ministry and share successes and failures within congregations. Therefore, why make another year of synodical work boil down to an argument about whether or not openly gay pastors can serve churches, or if the church should be allowed to bless the unions of same-sex couples? Haven't we been down this road a time or two?

Perhaps I'm just tired of so much time, money, energy, and PR being poured into this conversation. Maybe I just think we need to focus more resources on feeding hungry people, working for immigration reform, giving better support to rostered and non-rostered leaders, and figuring out why our church has been shrinking for most of my lifetime. Sexuality (and, by extension, the church's view thereof) is important...but shouldn't dominate.

And yet, for another year, the 65 synods of our beloved ELCA will be mired in a debate that cannot be won...about a topic that most people cannot understand...in a church body that has given the decision-making authority to a group of 1,000 people that won't gather for another 2 months.

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.

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

The Seminary Dilemma

So, when are you going to seminary?

Isn't it time you became a pastor?

When are you going to stop playing around in youth ministry and go to seminary?

You're 30 now...don't people your age usually phase out of youth ministry?

Don't you realize how much it helps to have letters behind your name?


Ever since the NBA playoffs started, I've been getting the full-court press about seminary. First of all, let me say that it's humbling to know that people think I could be a pastor. I don't take that affirmation lightly. But here's the deal...

I'm not going to seminary. At least not any time in the near future.

Why not?

Here's what Luther Seminary student Matt Cleaver came up with last week. The list is both thorough and provocative...not to mention very well-constructed. His insights reveal part of my hesitancy to take the seminary plunge.

On a more personal level, here's why seminary isn't a good fit for me:

I Don't Need It If you were to ask me what I would like to do as a pastor, I would give you the job description of a youth and family minister. Why enter into a lengthy process that wouldn't necessarily result in me being able to do what I want to do?

My Family The traditional seminary track requires no fewer than four moves in four years. Current town - seminary. Seminary - internship. Internship - seminary. Seminary - 1st call. What kid wouldn't hold that kind of inconsistancy against their parent? Even if I wanted to move that often (which I don't), how does that kind of constant movement help me honor my call to being a father and husband?

The Whole Church This is the kicker for me. The call to ordained ministry is a call to serve the entire church. It drives me nuts when seminary students use their senior year to rig the system to get a sexy first call. If a person takes seriously their call to serve the whole church, then they will go where the Spirit is leading and not serve their self-centered motives. The problem is...I would be one of those people. At this point in my life, I'm simply not willing to move to rural Wyoming or downtown Baltimore to serve the church. I just know I'd end up using my connections to find a plumb job at an established, suburban congregation. I'm not necessarily proud of this, but I am 99% certain this is what I would do. Call me selfish, but this is why I prefer free agency as a youth minister instead.

Respect I have an enormous respect for the vocation of pastor. Perhaps this is a byproduct of having a father, grandfather, uncle, aunt, and great-uncle who are all pastors. Maybe this is just because I know how much time and effort goes into the call of a pastor. I also know that my tendency is to over-function when expectations are high. This is a recipe for short-term success and long-term failure. I have to get better at boundaries before I'd take a gig that requires so much out of me.

Collar I wear a tie 3-4 days a year. Every time I do, I'm tugging at the collar. The top button is usually unfastened by mid-morning. I don't think I could rock the clerical collar without making a mockery of myself or the institution of the collar.


Now if I could just figure out a way for my church to pay for my housing without being ordained...

The "E" Word

The theme at C.H.A.O.S. (high school youth group) tonight was Evangelism. After prepping the activity and discussion questions, I decided to consult my Twitter / Facebook network for some last minute suggestions. Here is what came my way in the course 0f 45 minutes:

Justin Rimbo (@docrimbo)- Evangelism isn't our responsibility. It's the work of the Holy Spirit in us. SUCK ON THAT.

Dwight DuBois (@blondofthewoods) - I have lots! A whole series of articles. Search the SE Iowa website for 'bowen' and d/l the Evangelism Illuminations article. Best summary: Relationship! (don't be a flashed evangelist)

Beth Lewis (@bethalewis) - Invite a friend to a movie...awkward? no. Gallup research shows that most people new to church come thru an event invite. Ask.

Le Anne Clausen de Montes (via Facebook) - Don't call it 'evangelism.' Invitation, welcome, hospitality--these probably all get to the heart of real evangelism better than a word that's taken on so many negative connotations.

Michael Peuse (via Facebook) - Evangelism is NOT proselytizing.

Two things astonished me. #1 - I have really insightful friends. #2 - This is an example of social networking at its finest. I shared these short perspectives with the young people (in the midst of a highly distracted conversation at Mustard's)...and they resonated loud and strong. The conclusion we reached was that it's easier to talk about what evangelism isn't than to come up with what it is. We talked about ways to demonstrate Christ's love, very few of them involved spirit-healing, speaking in tongues, or distributing tracts on street corners. I was proud of how willing they were to talk about "God stuff" aloud in a public place...which was bit of evangelism in and of itself.

How do I know? The waitress, who overheard our conversation, told me this as we were leaving:

"Your work with kids inspires me. God bless you."

I assured her that it wasn't MY work, but she wasn't interested in theological minutiae. Seeing a group of people gathered for supper and conversation caused this woman to reflect on her own faith...and unexpected byproduct of just another night of senior high youth group.

Claiborne Recap

I enjoyed my maiden voyage to the campus of Gustavus Adolphus College late last week. I took a little heat for referring to the GAC campus as "simultaneously beautiful and bland" on Twitter...but I stand by my initial observation. The benchmark of our trip was to spend the day with Shane Claiborne.

(For those of you not familiar with Shane's work, take a moment to click here, here, and here.)

Shane preached at the daily chapel service and then spent some open Q&A time with a group of a couple dozen youth ministers. He is a person who has the gift to be fully present where he is. I never sensed anxiety or secondary agendas in the conversation. He is compelled by the Gospel to present his case for a radical new (or really old) kind of discipleship. Not once did he urge us to buy his book, visit his website, or donate financially to his cause. Instead, his focus was on honoring our questions and affirming this ragamuffin group of youth ministers for their work.

The group ate pizza in The Dive (an on-campus hangout) and a few of us traveled down to Mankato for relaxing and reflecting. It was a beautiful spring day. We ventured to the campus of Mankato State and soaked up the sun and college frivolity. I read a few chapters from the book of Acts in my Carolina-blue "Lutheran Study Bible"; others napped.


At night, Shane gave a more formal presentation to an auditorium filled with a predominately under-30 crowd. With my computer in the fix-it shop and my phone / voice recorder out of battery, I was forced to jot a few salient points on the back page of the aforementioned Lutheran Study Bible. Here were the money quotes:

On war:
Christians should be the hardest people to convince that violence is necessary; not the ones beating the war drums.

Referencing a sign on a church / homeless shelter in Philly:
How can you worship a homeless man on Sunday and ignore one on Monday?

On criticism:
The best critique of what's wrong is the practice of something better.

Quoting MLK:
We should lament deeply that the most segregated hour in our nation is 11:00 a.m. on Sunday.

Addressing accusations that he's a Socialist:
If we learn to love others as ourselves, Capitalism won't be possible and Marxism won't be necessary.

Much of what Claiborne presented aligned with my immersion experiences at the Centro Luterano in Mexico City. I am moved by this message and find myself inspired to make different choices in the way I live. Upon my return home, I re-read my New Year's resolution post about The Year Of Living Simply. Several friends misunderstood my intention for those resolutions. Out of genuine concern for my well-being, they thought I was trying to simplify my life so I would be less stressed and anxious. What I was really getting at, however, was trying to establish patterns that were more congruent with my faith. Embracing rituals, spending less money, and making smarter use of the Internet are a few ways that I can avoid the ruts that are associated with my residence in Suburbia. My road trip to see Shane Claiborne reminded me of the call to take up my cross and follow Jesus...and to joyfully live in response to God's grace.

(It also reminded me how much I like hanging around really smart people.)

Galatians Bible Study

Ellen Rothweiller is a friend, youth ministry colleague, and fellow T.O. (theologian's offspring). She wrote a cool Bible Study on Galatians for one of her religion classes. In the spirit of koinonia Ellen has allowed me to share it with y'all.

COVENANT
A Bible study on Galatians

Warm-up Question:
Why do you make promises? Why do you break promises?

Read Genesis 15 and 17(have students read in turns)

• What covenant did God make with Abram(Abraham)?
• How did God fulfill his covenant/promise?
• What became a sign of God’s promise to Abraham?
  (Be sure to make the connection between covenant and promise. This also may be a good time to discuss the symbolism and purpose of circumcision, as a physical sign of God’s covenant with Abraham and his descendents. Many youth may only know its purpose for today’s context.)

Opening Discussion:
What are some signs of a promise?
(jewelry, tattoo, etc…)

Activity:
Give each student a piece of paper. Ask them to fold it into fourths creating four squares. Write the following titles on the top of each square:

Promises I've Kept

Promises I've Broken

Promises Others have Kept to Me

Promises Others have Broken to Me

Give students time to fill this out and think about promises in their lives. After most students have finished, invite them to share one promise from each quadrant as they feel comfortable. On a whiteboard draw the same squares and fill them in with key words as the students share their promises. Leave these words on the board for the remainder of the study, both as a reference for conversation and to keep these ideas fresh in the students’ minds.

Read Galatians 3: 15-29

• What do you hear?
• What does Paul say about the promise? (conditional??)
• What does this mean for us?
  

Read Galatians 5: 6, 13-15

• Why does Paul say it is not necessary to be circumcised?
• What does Paul say about the law?
• Where do we get this freedom Paul says we have?
  (Again leave these questions open for discussion. Affirm all answers, and avoid interjecting with your own ideas until necessary. Be open to any and all conversations this discussion may lead to.)
  

Revisit the promise quadrants. Ask youth to reevaluate their promises in light of what Paul said in Galatians. After some discussion on this, point out that in the middle of the four squares there is a cross. This signifies Christ as the unbroken promise in our lives, and God’s promise to Abraham and to us, his descendents, fulfilled through Christ on the cross.

Closing Prayer:
Close in prayer with a “squeeze prayer”. Have each student think of a promise God has kept for them. Join hands in a circle and offer a general prayer to open and then squeeze the hand of the person on your right. This signals their turn to share their promise, or squeeze the next hand to pass. The prayer continues around the circle. When the squeeze comes back to the leader, offer final thoughts and end the prayer.

Ellen's Notes on Galatians Bible Study

I was intrigued with the book of Galatians and thought it held some valuable faith building passage for young people. In my ministry as the Youth Director at St. James Lutheran Church I wanted to find a way to present this book of the bible, and the Gospel in it, to youth in a way that was relevant and understandable.

I patterned my Bible Study after the ELCA format used in Faith Lens. They have a warm-up question that serves to get the kids on topic by using language that they understand. In this case when talking about a covenant we are really talking about a promise. I also used the activity to bring their personal experiences into the conversation, which helps to keep them engaged and relating to the topic.

I questioned how much to include about circumcision. I decided because it is such a prominent theme and the issue at hand in Galatians it would be necessary to address it. I am also sure that many youth wonder why it is discussed so much in the Bible since nowadays it is considered to be more of a private matter. Also, it served as the symbol of the covenant for Abraham, and so I brought symbols of promises into the conversation so the youth would have a frame of reference.

Don't Blow It

Jeff Jarvis (Huffington Post) has some sobering words for the newspaper industry:

You blew it.

You've had 20 years since the start of the web, 15 years since the creation of the commercial browser and craigslist, a decade since the birth of blogs and Google to understand the changes in the media economy and the new behaviors of the next generation of - as you call them, Mr. Murdoch - net natives. You've had all that time to reinvent your products, services, and organizations for this new world, to take advantage of new opportunities and efficiencies, to retrain not only your staff but your readers and advertisers, to use the power of your megaphones while you still had it to build what would come next. But you didn't.

You blew it.

I can't help but wonder if someone will be writing a similar letter to the church 10 years from now.

Have we misread (or turned a blind-eye from) the ways in which communication and culture shifts have impacted our mission field? Are we holding on to the right traditions? Do we fight the wrong fights and, in the process, ignore the fights worth fighting?

What would happen if our proud denomination of 4.8 million members removed the inactive or disinterested members from their roster? Would 2 million people remain? 1.5 million? How many members would be under the age of 40? How big / strong / vibrant is our church today? What things are in place to ensure that the church is still the church for the next generation?

Are mainline, protestant churches destined to suffer the same fate as newspapers?

It's certainly not out of the realm of possibility. We're at a pivotal moment right now. It doesn't have to end badly. We don't have to keep closing more churches than we grow. We don't have to keep shrinking in membership, worship attendance, and giving. These can be avoided if we stop complaining about the way the world is changing and embrace what's going on. We can find our voice in the midst of the Information Age. I believe we're poised to not only survive but thrive in a postmodern (and post-postmodern) universe, if we hold true to what is at the heart of our theology...and get our hands a little dirty in the process.

Here's hoping we can learn from the mistakes of some in the newspaper industry...for the sake of the church and the sake of the gospel.

(article ht: @paulyeager)

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?