Thursday, December 8, 2011

An Open Letter to Anyone Interested

Dear Friends,

When I was 23 years old I was getting ready to leave from ACU and head to my first ministry position in California, and I knew I was going to be moving from the rarefied air of the academy into the life of full-time service in the church. As I prepared for this, there was one concern that loomed large for me.

This concern began to build through my experiences of learning the Bible at ACU. When I had left to go to ACU at 19 I knew only what I had been taught in the church in which I was converted, and although I had some questions about what I had been taught in comparison with the what the Bible seemed to be saying to me, I had no informed reason to doubt what I had been taught because I knew so little. In fact, that was the major reason I went off to school--so that I could better learn the Bible. Some people go to school so that they can train to enter the workforce. At that point in my life, I just wanted to better know the Bible. I thought it possible that I may end up in ministry, but my main concern was that I wanted to know the Bible better. I had questions about faith, truth, and Scripture, and I wanted to have my questions answered by the best people the Churches of Christ had who could answer my questions. My years at ACU perfectly answered my needs. At ACU I read mountains of material about the Bible. I learned biblical languages, biblical history, all about interpretive methods--and we read the Bible in an intense, focussed way. We read it in abundance, wrote papers about it, discussed it. I took classes covering most of the Bible. I started building a library so that I would have reference works ready at hand while I was in ministry.

The big concern I had as I prepared to go to California after my years at ACU was that I saw clear differences about what I thought the Bible taught on certain matters and what I had heard in the church in which I was converted in Oregon. It was clear to me that the professors at ACU, after the life-times of study they had done, after all their academic training and writing, and after all their years of serving in the church, knew more about biblical doctrine than anyone else with which I had experience. And what they showed me, and what I studied on my own after studying under them, was at places different than what I learned at the Hill Street Church of Christ. So, I was faced with a problem. On the one hand, I wanted to serve in Churches of Christ, knew only Churches of Christ, loved Churches of Christ, and thought that the Churches of Christ had soooo much right about themselves. Churches of Christ meant everything to me because they were now, especially after the deaths of my parents, the only close family I had (with me having so little relationship with my sisters--this has now changed some). On the other hand, I could see a clear difference between what I thought the Bible taught on certain things and what I was expecting the churches I served to teach. I knew there were going to be occasions when I was going to want to say to my brothers and sisters, “I think we have gotten this point of doctrine wrong and we need to restudy our Bibles on this issue.” And I didn’t know how this would be received. I honestly felt that there were things that my brothers and sisters needed to learn about the Bible and about certain doctrines in order for them to be more in line with God’s will for the church, but I was afraid they would not receive well what I thought they needed to be taught. This was my biggest concern. So I went to my most beloved professor and I told him my big concern. I asked him, “How can I take the things that I have learned about the Bible into the church in a way that will allow them to hear and understand?” I was convinced that my new understandings were more biblical than what I was taught, but I was afraid that the church would not listen well to the message that there were new things to be learned. The advice he gave to me was sound. He said, “Kelly, you have to keep going back to the biblical text. You have to show people that what you are teaching comes from the Bible.”

This is all I have ever wanted to do. I want to learn the Bible the best I can and teach people the Bible. That is why I constantly read about the history of biblical times. That is why I read my Greek NT on a regular basis (right now I am doing my own translation of the gospel of Luke). That is why I have three degrees and am still trying to finish my Ph.D. I just want to know the Bible the best I can and to teach other Christians all the things that I have learned about the Bible. When I think about it, that is what I learned from those good people who first taught me the Bible in the church where I was converted. They had learned the Bible to the best of their abilities, and this is what they taught me, and they taught me that I had to study the Bible for myself and teach the truth I found there. It didn’t matter what I had learned as a Catholic growing up or what anyone else thought. I needed to study and learn the Bible for myself, and what I learned that the Bible taught is what I had to teach others. My professor at ACU was saying the same thing. Read the Bible. Teach the biblical text. Help everyone to learn what you think the Bible says. If you cannot show that what you believe is found in Scripture, you have nothing to teach.

It has been 30 years since I left ACU. In the meantime I have continued to learn and teach the Bible. I try to study it every day. I try to pray every day about my understanding of Scripture. I pray all the time that the things I teach the church will be right and true. I do not always live and speak purely, but I have tried to be as pure hearted about this as I can possibly be. I don’t see how I can do anything else. May God help me to never to do anything different from this.

Despite what anyone else may say or think, my only agenda regarding the matter of instrumental accompaniment of our singing is to teach the Bible and for the church to follow its truth, wherever that may lead. As it turns out, this currently means that my view is different from others who see things differently. I may think the church needs to head in a direction different from where we have been because I am convinced that the Bible is leading us to a new understanding. But I have no other recourse than to teach in the church of Christ what I think the Bible says. Anything else would be a violation of my understanding, my conscience, and God’s will for my life. There may come a time when I cannot convince people that my understanding of Scriptural things is accurate. There may come a time when a church thinks, “What he believes and teaches about the Bible is not true, we need to get someone else to do the preaching and teaching here.” If and when that happens, that will be fine. That will be their right as Bible following people who have to follow what they believe to be the truth about Scriptural doctrine. But if and when that happens, I pray it happens because the people who think I am wrong are as willing to take the time and effort to study the Bible for themselves, and to be the best Bible students as they can be, as what God would want them to be. As Christians we have an obligation to learn the Bible the best that we can. That means taking it far more seriously than most Christians do. I want people who tell me I am wrong about my interpretation of biblical doctrine to do so because they know the Bible better than me; because they have a more studied, learned understanding of Scripture than I do. When I am convinced this is the case, may God help me to follow what I come to see as biblical truth.

Recently, I heard the concern voiced that we at the Calgary Church of Christ not make a decision that forces people who could not sing with instrumental accompaniment--because of their beliefs about what they think the Bible teaches on this subject--to be put in a position where they either had to sing with instruments or not be part of the body. I said that I would not promote the church doing anything that would put people in that position. I don’t believe that we have or that we will put them in this position if we introduce another service that includes instruments. Instead, people in our church who want to praise God with instrumental accompaniment of their singing will not be prevented from doing so by people who think the Bible teaches that to do so is wrong, and people who want to praise God with a capella singing will not be prevented from doing so by people who think the Bible teaches that singing with instruments is allowable. Under the current plan, both groups of people, who view biblical doctrine on this issue so differently, will get to practice their faith and worship as they see fit. They will both get to practice what they think the Bible allows with respect to the issue of singing with instrumental accompaniment. To me this seems like a very good compromise. Both groups of Christians will get to practice what they think the Bible teaches and what our leaders have decided is biblically appropriate. Neither group will be forced to practice something other than what they think the Bible allows in worship. Neither group will be hindering the other from doing what they think is biblically right. It seems to me that in such a context, Christian love and unity can be preserved quite easily; Christian love and respect for others will actually win out in this situation.

For my part, I want to teach people what I think the Bible says on the matter of singing with instrumental accompaniment. I believe I have that responsibility. I think my job description requires that of me. I don’t think the church would want anything different from me, even if they ultimately decide that I am wrong. Of course, the church has the option of disagreeing with me. The Elders, as those responsible for doctrinal teaching in our church, have the obligation to ask me to stop teaching in our church what they think is wrong, and if I cannot do so in good conscience I should leave my position. But if our Elders as a group agree with me, they have the same obligation I do to teach what they think the Bible says. Then, if the church disagrees with the leadership of our Elders and me in this area, the church has the right and the obligation to remove us from leadership. In such a case, the Elders and myself should no longer consider ourselves leaders in the church.

I am not the only one who is advocating that we have an instrumental service. There are many that think that we should do this. I can only assume that that is because they have reached the same conclusion that I have about what is biblically allowable with respect to our singing with instruments. Our Elders (as a group, not necessarily as individuals) have also reached the conclusion that to have an instrumental service is not a violation of biblical teaching. But they have chosen to not put their brothers and sisters who think differently in the position of having to violate their consciences and to practice something they think is unbiblical. This seems to me a loving choice. I am praying that everyone can come to see it this way. You may decide after studying the issue intensely that you actually don’t have a problem with Christians singing with instruments in one of our services, or you may decide that you do. But I hope that you can respect our Elders and leaders for making a choice that they think is biblically sound and lovingly gracious, even in light of the fact that there are those who disagree with them.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Giving Honour Where It is Due

This morning our congregation will experience the resignations of three of our seven Elders.  David Bailey has been serving as an Elder among us for about 15 years.  Bud Ashby has been serving among us for over 10 years, and David Lidbury, after having served as an Elder in other places, has been serving as an Elder among us for about 5 years.  I will miss the contribution each has made to our church and, more specifically, our leadership team.

The role of "Elder" in a church is, I think, too often taken for granted. These men do not stand up each Sunday and list for the church the things they have done for them in the previous seven days.  And, in a culture that tends to enjoy challenging leadership and negatively criticizing it, there is not enough admiration, respect, and dignity held in the minds of sheep toward their shepherds, as is warranted.  This is even more so the case when you have Elders like Bud, David, and David who serve with such distinction.  We as a church have been richly blessed by God with the Elders He has appointed among us.  Their collective wisdom, vision, commitment to the Kingdom, godly character, devotion to Scripture, cooperative spirit, willingness to work hard, willingness to make sacrifices, willingness to put their own interests aside for the greater good, desire to see the lost come to Christ, care for people, prayerful attitudes, and many other virtues make them worthy of the church's appreciation and admiration. We have been served well. Bud, David, and David, thank you.

If you can hear me the way that I mean this, the resignations of these three come at a good time, a healthy time, with a positive outcome for our church likely to be the result. I think each of these men would say that their resignations come at a time when the church is able to handle Elder resignations. There is currently a high level of alignment within our leadership, a solid direction in which we are heading, a positive feeling that God has been blessing us, and a sense that healthy transitions within our leadership team can include the passing on of responsibilities from some current leaders to both incumbent leaders and to some new leaders who will make their own valuable contributions to leadership within our church. Transitions in leadership can be healthy, and in this case the healthy benefits extend both to the future of the life of our church and to the personal futures of those who are resigning. No doubt, the levels of service we enjoy in the cases of these three will be reduced in some ways, but largely it will simply be altered, so that their "official" responsibilities will now change, without any reduction in their devotion to the ministry of our church, to their support of its ministry, to the church's vision, and to the leaders they will in one sense now be following. In fact, because true Shepherds shepherd, whether they are officially serving in the role of Elder within a church, or not, we will continue to see Bud, David, and David "Eldering" within our body.

So, despite a certain sadness I feel in seeing such wonderful Shepherds move aside, I look forward to the ways in which God will use this occasion to bless our church. Leadership change can bring about opportunities and renewal; leadership change can propel forward a church's ministry in ways not previously experienced. Think of what the church would have been like if Paul had not become an apostle, supplementing the ministry of those who had been with Jesus when He ministered on earth! Among us, whom will God raise up to do wonderful things as new Shepherds, who would not have taken on a new role had our experienced Elders never transitioned from their roles? In what new ways will our church's ministry be enhanced because the dynamic among our leaders has been altered, guided by God's Spirit just as the Spirit was guiding us when those resigning this morning served as designated Elders?

This all looks good to me. Bud, David, and David have served well and deserve to make a transition. They have helped to put us in a position where God can build on what they have done to create a blessed future for our church. I greatly look forward to the days ahead!

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Deposing Anti-Intellectualism

In a recent blog entitled "Beyond Cynicism 4," Scot McKnight continues his discussion of Andrew Byers' book Faith Without Illusions.  I then mentioned in an email to our church that I especially liked this fourth entry in McKnight's series.  Rhandi Tyssen, one of our members, wrote back and asked why I liked this one best.  Here is my response:

Because it speaks against anti-intellectualism, which has certainly been a problem in the C of C.  I have heard come out of the mouths of our people some of the exact quotes Byers/McKnight mentions as prevalent among anti-intellectuals.  On the other hand, I virtually never hear academics and intellectuals speak badly of the average person in the pew, because they know that their education or erudition does not justify such attitudes; but anti-intellectuals often accuse the educated of thinking that they are better than the uneducated.   So, you end up with the uneducated being more often prejudiced against the educated than the other way around, all because the uneducated feel like the educated are slighting them!  Anti-intellectualism ends up hurting the church more than helping, just like hypercriticism against leaders or teachers does more harm than good.  Ultimately, I think all this comes down to self-esteem.  The uneducated feel deprived, or intimidated, or jealous, or denigrated by the educated, and so a diminished self-esteem causes them to respond negatively to intellectuals, when the poor intellectual was just trying to learn more and then to help others discover the things they had learned!  True intellectuals don’t look down on the uneducated and ignorant, because they know how ignorant they themselves are about so many things.

Saturday, August 6, 2011

Wanting to Understand Islam Well, With Fairness

There is much being written about Islam and how we as Christians are to understand it.  For example, just how separated in our minds should Islamic fundamentalist terrorism be from the core of the Islamic faith?  Is Christianity just as guilty or reprehensible in places as the parts of Islam that are reprehensible?  In a blog sponsored by Ben Witherington III from August 3,

(http://www.patheos.com/community/bibleandculture/2011/08/03/the-norway-killings-what%e2%80%99s-the-truth-about-islam-christianity-and-violence/)

Witherington makes comments about the recent massacre in Norway and moves from there to discuss Christian attitudes toward Islam.  In response I have commented several times.  If you are interested you will want to go to Witherington's blog and see the thread, but, I thought I would include here my comments in reponse #44:

Aside from Ben’s description of Koranic literature as proverbial, aphoristic, sapiential (which it seems to me inadequately addresses the content of texts like the ninth Sura and their place in Islam), I still have not seen one comment that denies the significant difference between Islamic origins and Christian origins with respect to elements of violence being inherently part of the life of the founder and of the foundational literature. This seems to me important. There seems to be clear evidence that Koran and Hadith advocated violence against infidels and that Muhammad and some of his immediate successors carried out violent acts against infidels. Is this true and accurate or not? Juxtaposed, there seems to be nothing in the New Testament, and nothing in the life of Jesus, that advocates, examples, or even passively permits violence. Christian origins move entirely in the opposite direction of violence, despite whatever the followers of Christ have done in living out their faith. Is this true and accurate or not? This does not let Christianity off the hook for its history. This does not deny the gains made by contemporary Muslims or by Muslims throughout history. This does not allow for Christian smugness or self-righteousness or judgmentalism. This does not allow for the Americanization of Christianity, nor does it defend the legitimacy of manifest destiny, both of which are truly aberrations from Christianity. This doesn’t defend the horrors of the recent acts in Norway or serve as a means of separating modern Christian perspectives in some circles from violence. But, IMO, origins count for something and help to explain. Ken and others have argued effectively, I think, that this is the case, and it seems to me that these arguments (which don’t at all appear to be assumptions or misinterpretations of evidence available to all, nor are they jingoistic in character) require answers that are different than: accusations hurled at the mistakes of Christians, or mention of the truth that the vast majority of Muslims are non-violent and abhor terrorism, or assertions that the Koran may permissably be intepreted differently by Muslims today, or claims that argue that it is a mere caricature of Islam to assert that there was from the beginning violence within Islam. Such argumentation does not count for nothing, but original, paradigmatic texts and the lives of the founders of religions must be given their due, it seems to me, in considering what our opinions should be of those religions.

The long and short of this for me is that it is simplistic and inaccurate to make similar claims about the origins of Christianity and its link to violence or non-violence and the origins of Islam and its link to violence or non-violence.  Further, the differences between these two faith systems on this score, seem to me to be very important in formulating opinions about the fundamental character of these two faiths.

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Every Christian experiences spiritual ebbs and flows or periods when there is less fervor; less hunger.  I may be coming out of a time like this.  I could feel the sense of dissatisfaction in my soul as I woke up this morning; dissatisfaction with where my spiritual life has been of late.  I awakened praying, as if I had already started reaching out to Him in my dreams.  I so wanted to read Scripture.  So, wanted to turn a corner and start again. Remaining in bed was no option.  I want to go through a period of re-energizing, like I have done a thousand times before.  Christianity is not for most a constant rise upwards, but a series of undulations, like the typical charts I see that track the growth of blue-chip stocks.  What one must see is the big picture of growth over the years, without being either elated or deflated by the daily vagaries that come with immediate successes or failures or momentary victories or disappointmens. So, I will die to self, again, like Paul dying daily, only to find that the One who gives life to all has been faithful, waiting to revivify me.  Perhaps this time the fervor, the hungering, will last longer.  Perhaps it will be a bit more heightened, more intense.  Perhaps the ebb, when it comes, will be of less duration.  We will see, but in this moment, with apologies to Dick Vitale, it's stock up!

In the last couple of weeks we have enjoyed the blessings of three baptisms through the ministry of our church, with the converted coming from the world, not from one of our families, and conversions like these are always especially encouraging.  Some intentional nurturing is in order!

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

A Healthy Approach to Asking Questions and Finding Answers

Searching questions by faithful people can be very valuable, and God knows the numbers of times when I have asked questions about Christianity, addressing such questions both to myself and in dialogue with others. I definitely appreciate the God-created part of us that seeks after truth, with no sincere, reasonable question being out of bounds. This is one of the best things that God did in creating us. My own response to such questions in my life has been to do tons of reading, both of solid believers and of those who are not, in order to hear the best of both arguments. So I have read ancient critics like Celsus, ancient gnostic heretics, ancient philosophers, and lots of church history, whether doctrinal history or just church history. I have also tried to read modern secular philosophy, especially those who directly challenge the Christian faith (like a David Hume or Feuerbach or Nietzsche). I have also read much in the area of NT criticism and critical theology, including FC Baur, DF Strauss, Bultmann (lots of Bultmann), Dibelius, Schweitzer, Norman Perrin, Schubert Ogden, and the Jesus Seminar guys and their friends (Spong, Borg, Crossan, Funk). I have also read those who critique the challengers of Christianity, like Ben Witherington, NT Wright, Scot McKnight, and a number of others who have written alongside or who have preceded these three (FF Bruce, Ralph Martin, Ward Gasque, TW Manson, Charles Moule, and many others). My point is not to give my reading resume, it is to say that some of those whom I read or with whom I have personal discussions are motivated for whatever reason to ask/answer tough questions without being willing to turn over every rock for clues, and I think this greatly hampers their searches. I personally know several former Christians who lost their faith because they read a few critical voices and stopped there, convinced that the faith side of things had little or nothing to say in response. They were/are wrong. Read Borg, but read NT Wright (and not just the popular stuff he writes). Read Crossan, but read Ben Witherington. Writers like Wright and Witherington are of substantial ability, trained by some of the best, and they make defensible arguments that give credence to Christianity. Read William Lane Craig, Anthony Thiselton, and Kevin Vanhoozer. All of these faith-filled writers are acutely aware of all the critical issues, and they still believe in the Resurrection! The idea that the critics are the ones who have a corner on honest seeking, sound logic, and historical exactitude is inaccurate and a distortion.


I write such things because we are all called to be ready to give an answer for the hope that lies within us. I also want for the some or many who have questions to understand that discerning, challenging questions can be asked and answered in a context of absolute faithfulness. The truths of Christianity and the integrity of the Bible can be rationally and spiritually upheld in the context of vigorous intellectual discussion and rigor, and we as traditional, orthodox Christians have nothing to fear from the critics, the philosophers, the academics, the intellectuals, the scientists, or whomever you wish to read--unless we refuse to give as much place to the defenders of the faith as we do to the critics. Just as bad as a closeminded Christian is a closeminded critic or heretic who rules out the thoughts of defenders of the faith as if there is not a chance that the faithful could be correct or as if the faithful are the only ones unwilling or incapable of thinking and researching well without bias. I have given abundant room to the critics in my own personal search; searchers, seekers, and critics need to extend the same effort in giving room to qualified, respected defenders of Christ.

Sunday, April 24, 2011

From Oscillation to Consistent Progress

While the general tenor of my perspective on the church is positive (how could it not be in light of Jesus, especially on Resurrection Day?!), a number of realities cause me to daily oscillate in my feelings about how things are going.  I look at the health and progress of a capella Churches of Christ in western Canada and I think, "Whoa, we're in big trouble, we have virtually no impact in our communities!"  Then I electronically dialogue with Blair Roberts, or have a phone conversation with Kevin Vance, or hear about something that Zambia Mission Fund--Canada has done, or talk to Colin Hattrick or Jordan Clark, or have a meeting with Darcy and Hope, or see the positive things happening with our young adult ministry at Calgary C of C and I think, "We have every reason to be hopeful."  Then I think about how apparently unimportant Sunday morning worship is to some Christians when I don't see them for weeks, and I say to myself, "The desires of the world are largely controlling our choices and priorities."  Then I watch Larry and Joann Luck come on a Saturday and fill our pantry so that we can feed the needy, and I am so pleased with the church's ministry to those around us.  Then I talk to someone about their habits with respect to spiritual disciplines, and I think, "I don't know if any of our people are consistently spending time in Scripture."  Then I get a devotionally oriented book for a relatively new Christian like Andrea Milner, and she gobbles it up and tells me about how she and Kaitlyn read the Bible together.

I do think that Churches of Christ in western Canada and the church I serve have a long way to go in order to be what Christ wants us to be.  In many ways we are essentially irrelevant, in fact, we are statistically almost non-existent in our cities, in that, we impact such a relatively small part of our populations.  But as long as there continue to be Resurrection days, there will continue to be life in our churches, with opportunities to move forward from here and to have the kind of impact in our world that God wants His Kingdom to have.  This will require that our young take the ministry of the church seriously and that they play a significant role in the body of Christ.  This will require that the our choices and priorities regarding our time be primarily governed by the gospel and the Kingdom.  This will require that we increase the level of our service to the needy of our communities.  It will require that we possess biblical attitudes toward our Elders and their leadership, rather than the immature questioning of them that I hear too often (there is a mature way to question leaders, but most of what I hear is not this).  It will require that we, at my own church, take seriously the plan for discipleship that our Elders have adopted, so that we work the plan.  It will require a love for the lost that supersedes our love of self, permitting us to outwardly focus.  It will require that families make financial sacrifices for the good of the Kingdom.  It will require that a new generation becomes significantly interested in the spiritual disciplines of prayer, study, giving, service, and worship.  And with these things, and many more, as possibilities, it seems we have a chance to consistently move forward.  Because God is always there ready to bless, the oscillations present in my own perspective can be replaced by not just consistent hopefulness, but by consistent joy as we see the progressing of the Kingdom that God wishes to work among us.

Saturday, April 9, 2011

New Canadian C of C Survey

Geoff Ellis, a long time leader in Churches of Christ in Ontario and closely connected with Great Lakes Christian College, has sent out survey info requests for a capella Churches of Christ in Canada.  I appreciate Geoff very much in doing so, and his efforts caused me to think about where our Movement is in Canada (the Stone-Campbell or Restoration Movement, that is), especially in western Canada, which is, of course, where I have spent the majority of my adult life and ministry.  One question I have is about the churches to which Geoff sent the survey and how he decided those to whom he would send it?  I need to ask him, of course, but did he send it to the Shelbourne St. C of C in Victoria, which has for several years now used instruments in worship?  Did he send it to the Glen Elm C of C in Regina, which now uses instruments on Sunday mornings about half the time?  Another question I have concerns the number of churches which have disbanded.  If there is a C of C family or two left in a city or town, but no formal meeting of the church with several families typically meeting at some central location, is this still a church that will be surveyed?  I wonder if he will be aware of whatever church plants may have taken place and be able to contact them for their info?  Mostly, I am, of course, interested in the results of the survey.  My impression is that the still purely a capella churches are for the most part really struggling in western Canada, with there having been no a capella churches in western Canada experiencing notable growth during the last five years, and very few new a capella churches started (I know only of the newer one in Edmonton, and I don't know how they are doing.  I know Tim J. is moving to Barrie).  If you are a reader of this, I would love to hear if you know of something different.  IF my description is accurate, and we are for the most part struggling, I would think that those of us who are leaders in our churches need to seriously consider (or re-consider) what we have been doing.  What kind of revival may be in order?  What shifts in thinking or method need to take place ?  I would think it unlikely that any of us would want to just continue down the same path, which appears to be heading in the direction of a long slow death, with the gates of hell clearly prevailing against the church.  Thoughts?

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Avoiding False Dichotomies in Faith and Ministry

If Jesus is our model, authentically living out faith means understanding that relating to, ministering to, and instructing/leading needy people must be what we do much of the time; this must be a priority not just for faith, but for life.  At the same time, I don’t think this day by day, moment by moment focus on blessing others makes coporate worship less significant, but enhances its importance because here we not only participate directly in worship, but we also minister to the faith and very significant spiritual needs of others, along with ministering to their needs for community (yes, I think true community can happen in Sunday worship; it happens for me all the time!).  Further, I don’t think that making ministering to others a priority means that time spent gaining personal intellectual understanding and knowledge of God or Scripture, or even focus on doctrinal fidelity, somehow become less important, because these parts of faith are crucial not only in our personal relationships with God, but in what they enable with respect to our ministering to others.  My point is that holding up ministry and downplaying worship is a false dichotomy for faithful people.  We do not—cannot—choose ministry or justice over worship in order to get Christianity right.  In fact, to do so de-legitimizes our efforts at ministry as much as choosing worship over ministry or justice de-legitimizes worship.  Further, holding up ministry or social justice and downplaying personal intellectual understanding of God or Scripture is an unbalanced approach to prioritizing.  We do not—cannot—choose ministry or justice over personal intellectual understanding and knowledge of God or Scripture to get Christianity right.  Granted, the history of my faith tradition in Churches of Christ has at times made it look like Sunday mornings and/or knowledge of the Bible or doctrine are higher priorities than day by day, moment by moment faith-fostered focus on blessing others.  So, it is a good thing that we would challenge ourselves to not let Sunday worship or personal intellectual
understanding of God (our scholarship) dominate our spiritual lives to the point that these priorities relegate ministry and justice to places of less significance than what our true faith should require.  But, when we have been at our best, this has not been a problem.  When we have truly worshipped, including our Sunday corporate worship, and when we have experienced true theological understanding, even in its most ivory tower, esoteric forms, ministry and justice have also been priorities, because all of these elements are part of what it means to authentically live out our faith.

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Being Quiet When it is Best to Be

Sometimes it's hard to be quiet. My biggest struggle comes when someone who has either all, or almost all, the answers expresses an opinion or attitude that I am convinced isn't right, but he or she accepts contrary opinions like a rattlesnake accepts being poked at with a stick. Often, when the stakes are not high, it seems best to me to just be quiet, to offer a few agreeable sounding noises, and to let it go. Our culture typically sees such a strategy as weakness and spinelessness. But the kind of reaction I am talking about is certainly not that. In fact, the easy thing to do, the weaker thing to do, I think, is to insist on making sure that the one to whom you are speaking gets it right. Set him or her straight. Assert yourself. Don't let them walk all over you. But that is more what I would call spinelessness; anyone in the world can be defensive in this manner. And in the process you may step right away from the more difficult route of being what Jesus calls us to be. Don't get me wrong. Does Jesus want us to be weak, spineless, "yes-Persons," on whom others are always stepping? No. That is not what he modelled. But answering others gently, taking the route of the peacemaker, choosing meekness and humility, sometimes choosing to bite your tongue--these seem to me to be wiser courses of action than what we are naturally prone to choose. Quite simply, the natural way, society's way, is not the way of Jesus. And I get a bit weary of some I know who effort at making me think it is. They should know better. I am not suggesting that one should just avoid conflict; Jesus certainly did not. But there are people I know with whom it is absolutely profitless to argue. They glory so much in trumping your point and trumpeting their own that they often don't even hear your point and what it is they are trumping. They are so convinced of their perspectives that clouding the issue with contrary views instantly creates defensiveness rather than a hearing. In such cases, I think it wise to say very little. Yes, they will probably think that they have won the day. I have watched others turn away from me with smugness because they were convinced that their arguments absolutely silenced me. Instead, I would like to think that it was the Holy Spirit that silenced me. I would like to think that I can be enough open to the Holy Spirit that my pride can be Spiritually quelled into respectful, wisdom-filled silence. Am I perfect at letting this happen? Far from it. Those I love most may read this and wonder who I am trying to kid; or they may wonder about the ghost writer who has usurped my blog. But my weaknesses shouldn't be taken as weakening the position I've stated; what the coach is saying is usually correct, even if his physical limitations never allowed him to implement his own instructions near as well as the talented players he is coaching. He's not wrong, and in this case I don't think I am; I just wish I could do it better.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

So, It All Begins; Let's Get to It

Today I will begin to blog, but I am not going to begin with a lengthy explanation about why I blog. I am blogging because it can be a format for discussion. Facebook recently has been fun, and the sharing there has been insightful. I have had some exchanges there about the Bible and Theology, but the format is limited; so this is likely to be better. This week I will be preaching on "Will Our Children Have Faith?" That theme has been on my mind much recently as I reflect on the church and the unnerving statistics about the numbers of our young people that abandon their faith as young adults. It is equally unnerving to hear of young people who are quite committed to Christ, and who in some cases are even in Christian ministry, but who want little or nothing to do with the formalized church, thinking that it is now passe'. My thought process at this point is not so much asking the question, "what must we do about this?" as, "what do they wish to get away from?" "How have we so poorly exemplified Christianity that they are so easily drawn away?" However, I am not much interested in what I consider to be the not-so-discerning answers I often hear about the modifications we need to make in our worship style or the songs we sing, or in the kinds of things we preach or teach--in our theologies. These things play a role, and modifications need to be made, but for me they are not the heart of the matter. Today, I am more interested in praxis and priorities. Perhaps the songs we sing need to be changed, but more important is the spirit with which we worship. Preaching needs to impact more the heart, but the question of whether or not our hearts belong to God, leading to life transformation, is more important than whether or not we are emotionally stirred by a thought-provoking story told on a Sunday morning. How we speak to each other at the supper table, or in an Operations' meeting is more important than what the lesson was in Bible class last week. Time spent laughing at the supper table is more important than time spent at the Board Room table. We need to continue to make strides in Churches of Christ in restoring authentic Christian faith and practice, overcoming the unbiblical sectarianism of the past (and we have made great strides!), but consistently living out some simple Christian truths is even more important. Again, don't get me wrong, modifications in how we do church are in order. But I tend to think that authentically lived Christianity is in every generation more important for our effectiveness in passing on our faith than the somewhat cosmetic changes that reflect generational preferences. Forty years from now claims will be made that our young people are leaving the church for reasons quite similar to the claims made now (antequated worship styles, stale preaching and teaching, irrelevant theology), and these claims will be made about church as it will be conducted by those who are now young (if they hang in there). Retention of the young then will depend on what I see as the most important factor for their retention now-the praxis by the not so young of authentically living before them the priorities of biblical Christianity.