Last night I was privileged to sit in on a lecture at Alberta Bible College given by Dr. Irving Hexham, a scholar of world religions who teaches in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Calgary. Irving is a Christian, but his professional life centers not only on his own faith choice but on all religions. In the course of his work he regularly writes and lectures on the place of Christianity in our religiously pluralistic world. The lecture was very good. New info for me concerned the widespread impact on prominent theologians of Thomas Paine. I knew of Paine and have read some of Paine, but I certainly didn't know that he had impacted Feuerbach and Wellhausen. I don't know enough of the latter two to say if Hexham has this right, but if he does, I find it very interesting.
Hexham's main point was that Canada is experiencing the same kind of demise of Christianity that much of Europe has experienced, and he offered reflections on this and a challenge for churches to do something about it. What I appreciated most was his call for intellectual engagement on the part of evangelicals. Many times I have heard people talk about how so and so went to university and lost his or her faith, or about how so and so became too smart or too educated for Christianity. The latter comments I have always found very strange, and the comment about university students losing their faith I find very unfortunate. In both cases I find that the problem is not that students or others start to be challenged by thoughts that are too deep or that are irrefutably critical of religious faith. It is actually exactly the opposite. This is even the case for graduate students who go to seminary or who study religion or, specifically, Christianity in any academically rigorous environment. The problem is not that they look too deeply into things, but that they so quickly in their searches think that they have fournd irrefutable challenges to religious perspectives. I am often surprised when I read athiests or hyper-critical scholarship at how unsubstantiated their opinions about faith systems really are, but one may not see this upon a cursory glance or after taking a couple of university level courses in religion. That despisers of religion find something unproven in Christianity or some other faith does not mean that their perspectives are proven, or even that they are intellectually profound, but many of those with faith never allow their searches to take them to a place where this can be seen. Nor do faithful people allow room for the fact that while someone may successfully challenge some feature of Christianity or another faith system, this does not constitute a refutation of the entire faith system. Instead, faithful people are often like teenagers who hear from their peers something that contradicts the beliefs or values of their parents, and without even knowing how to check out the truth of the opinions of their peers, they accept them because we all tend to have a bit of a rebellious streak. So, when we hear something that contradicts the faith system in which we were raised, we immaturely accept the validity of the challenges, without really doing the intellectual investigation needed to be discerning.
No doubt part of our problem is the general lack of intellectual discernment and unwillingness to explore ideas in print (people don't read!) that so typifies our society. And, of course, it is getting worse. This accounts for so much laziness, sloppiness, and lack of concern on the parts of evangelicals when it comes to thinking seriously about faith. It is so easy to continue just to believe and trust either 1) the shallow, not very discerning stances that our faith has often taken, leaving us as believers unequipped to deal with challenges; 2) the insufficiently defensible positions that challenge our simplistic, not very discerning faith systems, leaving us unbelievers who unsuccessfully dealt with these challenges, when really there is so much more that should have been considered. Obvioulsy, neither of these options should be selected by anyone with the ability to do otherwise.
So, I would say Dr. Hexham has it right that the church must promote something different than the simple acceptance of belief claims coupled with ignorance regarding the challenges that will continue to face Canadian Christians. He may have overstated the problems we have in sending our children to Christian schools. These don't have to be intellectual ghettos that simply reiterate the same faith claims we have always made while closing our ears to our challengers. I think it is wise to have our children very well grounded before they face challenges on the world's terms; it is best to see them first in environments that will challenge them, where they can face new perspectives, but where they can reflect upon such challenges in a context that inculcates faith along with serious intellectual rigor. But when this has taken place, or when individual Christians have been well prepared at church or at home, there is simply no reason to fear intellectual challenges to our faith, or to be put in environments that will educate in challenging ways, because we must prepare people who can not only remain faithful but who can state their faithfulness in compelling ways before the world - a world into which they must enter in order to be the church in the world.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Friday, January 11, 2013
We Need So Much More Than Gun Control
While I think there are good reasons to think seriously about controlling the availability of some firearms, because they can so easily be obtained for misuse, I wish I could see far more wise attention paid to the factors that are responsible for the monstrous, escalating societal problems that are making inevitable at an increasing rate acts of violence (as a general trend, over the last several decades - even if in the immediate past there has been progress in this), gross selfishness, a lack of civility, economical irresponsibility, the denigration and suppression of basic morality, and bigotry towards all things religious. I grew up in a society that, while it had many problems, in general was, in my opinion, "better" in many key ways than what is now present. In many areas there has been positive progress, but these do not outweigh, to my mind, the ways in which we are worse off, and are worsening.
Some examples. 1) Society has taken many positive steps toward responding to homosexuality in less prejudicial, more loving ways, but at the same time it has rejected the Christian perception of homosexual acts as sin. You can have one (more love) without the other (relaxing the Christian perspective on what is sinful), but this is not the route we are following. We should not and cannot forcefully bind Christian moral principles on society, but society is unwise in departing from this standard where it has been freely and well applied. Allowing gay/lesbian marriage or the adoption of children by gay/lesbian couples is a choice society must be freely allowed to make, but these particular choices are at least as destructive as the prejudicial treatment of gays and lesbians. And of course I have not mentioned the moves made in society to prevent those who find homosexual practice immoral from freely exercising their faith in uninhibited ways. What I have written here in no way reflects a hatred of homosexuals, but no doubt someone would want to make such a claim, and for this they would find public support. That is, to my mind, a far more prejudicial perspective than what I actually hold toward homosexuality, but many fail to see this and continue to think in prejudicial ways toward those whose religious beliefs require of them that they think of homosexual acts as sin.
2) Society has created irresponsibility on the parts of many citizens who survive by taking advantage of social programs that are too easily abused, and we insist on blaming everyone and everything for this problem other than our refusal to hold people accountable. The other side of this, of course, is that it is a good thing on a large scale to offer social programs, to assist those with all kinds of needs, to give people every opportunity and advantage to succeed and to help provide for them when there is deprivation. I am grateful that there is so much awareness of the needs in our society and so many efforts made to address such needs. But as a society we are hugely economically irresponsible, with governmental spending being way too high and taxes being too low. I am afraid that if spending cuts do not take place, if austerity measures are not taken by governments, if taxes are not raised, we will all ultimately suffer the consequences, and there will be less money to help the poor. We will end up with far more poverty if governmental spending is not reduced. And it is certainly not just the rich who need to have their taxes raised. Increasing the taxes of only the most wealthy persons in our society will do very little to correct the huge debt problems of the United States. For many of us, the reason we do not want taxes raised is not because we will not be able to afford our basic needs, but because we will not be able to afford our luxuries. And this is as prevalent among my middle-class peers as it is among the wealthy. Raise taxes for all, cut back on the stupid, huge government waste, and meet the needs of those who need society's help. It will not be painless, but I don't see a way around these inevitable choices.
3) There is something horribly wrong and degraded about a society that allows free access to and promotes the aborting of unborn children. This cannot be justified, to my mind, on the grounds of women's rights, economic hardships, or the inconveniences of unwanted pregnancies. How do any of these attempted justifications adequately excuse the killing of children? This is not just a departure from the Christian perspective to which I personally hold, it is a departure from civility; it is degraded, narcissistic, barbaric destruction of life, chosen for the sake of convenience and so that we may relieve ourselves of responsibilities and hardships.
These are three examples in which society is making what I would consider to be poor choices, and they are signs of deepseated problems. I don't expect that in any of these areas we will make huge progress any time soon, but talking about these seems to me way more productive than focussing all our attention on the social evil represented by the ownership of firearms. Personally, I don't get at all the necessity some feel to have access to assault weapons. Surely they cannot think that their possession of such weapons is the key to preventing governmental tyranny. So, I would be happy to have them banned if it means less availability of such weapons to those who would abuse them. But it is a mistake to think that the banning of assault weapons or limiting our access to handguns is a core solution to the societal problems that lead to violence. This is the treating of a symptom, and not even one of our most detrimental symptoms of societal degradation. Actually making progress in preventing violent acts will come with the societal change represented by progress in the kinds of choices I have mentioned above.
Some examples. 1) Society has taken many positive steps toward responding to homosexuality in less prejudicial, more loving ways, but at the same time it has rejected the Christian perception of homosexual acts as sin. You can have one (more love) without the other (relaxing the Christian perspective on what is sinful), but this is not the route we are following. We should not and cannot forcefully bind Christian moral principles on society, but society is unwise in departing from this standard where it has been freely and well applied. Allowing gay/lesbian marriage or the adoption of children by gay/lesbian couples is a choice society must be freely allowed to make, but these particular choices are at least as destructive as the prejudicial treatment of gays and lesbians. And of course I have not mentioned the moves made in society to prevent those who find homosexual practice immoral from freely exercising their faith in uninhibited ways. What I have written here in no way reflects a hatred of homosexuals, but no doubt someone would want to make such a claim, and for this they would find public support. That is, to my mind, a far more prejudicial perspective than what I actually hold toward homosexuality, but many fail to see this and continue to think in prejudicial ways toward those whose religious beliefs require of them that they think of homosexual acts as sin.
2) Society has created irresponsibility on the parts of many citizens who survive by taking advantage of social programs that are too easily abused, and we insist on blaming everyone and everything for this problem other than our refusal to hold people accountable. The other side of this, of course, is that it is a good thing on a large scale to offer social programs, to assist those with all kinds of needs, to give people every opportunity and advantage to succeed and to help provide for them when there is deprivation. I am grateful that there is so much awareness of the needs in our society and so many efforts made to address such needs. But as a society we are hugely economically irresponsible, with governmental spending being way too high and taxes being too low. I am afraid that if spending cuts do not take place, if austerity measures are not taken by governments, if taxes are not raised, we will all ultimately suffer the consequences, and there will be less money to help the poor. We will end up with far more poverty if governmental spending is not reduced. And it is certainly not just the rich who need to have their taxes raised. Increasing the taxes of only the most wealthy persons in our society will do very little to correct the huge debt problems of the United States. For many of us, the reason we do not want taxes raised is not because we will not be able to afford our basic needs, but because we will not be able to afford our luxuries. And this is as prevalent among my middle-class peers as it is among the wealthy. Raise taxes for all, cut back on the stupid, huge government waste, and meet the needs of those who need society's help. It will not be painless, but I don't see a way around these inevitable choices.
3) There is something horribly wrong and degraded about a society that allows free access to and promotes the aborting of unborn children. This cannot be justified, to my mind, on the grounds of women's rights, economic hardships, or the inconveniences of unwanted pregnancies. How do any of these attempted justifications adequately excuse the killing of children? This is not just a departure from the Christian perspective to which I personally hold, it is a departure from civility; it is degraded, narcissistic, barbaric destruction of life, chosen for the sake of convenience and so that we may relieve ourselves of responsibilities and hardships.
These are three examples in which society is making what I would consider to be poor choices, and they are signs of deepseated problems. I don't expect that in any of these areas we will make huge progress any time soon, but talking about these seems to me way more productive than focussing all our attention on the social evil represented by the ownership of firearms. Personally, I don't get at all the necessity some feel to have access to assault weapons. Surely they cannot think that their possession of such weapons is the key to preventing governmental tyranny. So, I would be happy to have them banned if it means less availability of such weapons to those who would abuse them. But it is a mistake to think that the banning of assault weapons or limiting our access to handguns is a core solution to the societal problems that lead to violence. This is the treating of a symptom, and not even one of our most detrimental symptoms of societal degradation. Actually making progress in preventing violent acts will come with the societal change represented by progress in the kinds of choices I have mentioned above.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
I Am Just Being Honest
Honesty may be the best policy, but sometimes the ways in which we express our honesty are hurtful to others and calculated to be more self-serving than anything else. Being open and expressive of your opinions and feelings may gain for you the reputation of "telling it like it is," but at times the hurt you cause with your honesty is unnecessary and counterproductive. You may just elicit defensiveness on the part of the one(s) to whom you are speaking. Sometimes gaining a reputation for honesty is coupled with the perception that you are also a bully, or that you are rude, or that you care more about making your own point or even the virtue of being open and honest than you do about the feelings of those against whom the point is being made. I understand the value in openly expressing how we feel about the words or actions of another, particularly when what we are attempting to bring about is valuable change. What I don't care for is the need we all sometimes feel to express our disgust before or while or after we suggest change. So, instead of your hearer(s) being able to immediately react in positive ways to your blunt suggestions, he or she (they) first has to wade through the distraction of your rudeness or hurtfulness. It is, of course, possible to make suggested changes to others with such care and gentleness that the force of the suggestion is lost or is insufficient to motivate change; there are times when a solid blow struck immediately above the bridge of the nose, between the eyes, seems like the only thing that will gain the desired effect. But, I find that these cases are actually fairly rare. Most people react well to carefully chosen, carefully timed words calculated to bring about their best. It is when they cannot hear the love in your words, but only your negative evaluation of them, that the muscles in their jaws begin to contract. So, say what you mean, but say it with grace, with tactfulness, with respect and love, and it is likely that the first reaction on the parts of those to whom you are speaking will be that they will openly listen to what you suggest, rather than failing to hear your wisdom and honesty because your disgust filled attitude and rude speech put them off from the the very start.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
They Did Better Than We
I enjoy reading what early fathers of the Stone-Campbell Movement wrote in response to the religious climate of their day. Sometimes I disagree with their conclusions or manner, like when I consider Barton Stone's view of the Trinity (I think he is quite wrong when it comes to who Jesus is in His relationship with the Father), or when I think of the tendency toward post-millenialism that was present in Alexander Campbell and others, or when I think of the harshness and rigidity that the Alexander Campbell of the Christian Baptist showed toward those who disagreed with him, but I also greatly admire much of what they were about. One of the things I love about them was their level of commitment to genuine biblical scholarship. Now, read me correctly, I just wrote, "scholarship," not "academia." Scholarship doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the academy and degrees, it has to do with study and a concern for understanding in a way that includes knowing history, languages, and being able to work well with biblical texts. This can be done apart from the academy, and, in fact, the fact that it can be done apart from the academy is so much my point in appreciating our early Restoration fathers. Alexander Campbell had no degree. He did study at the University of Glasgow, but he took no degree. Barton Stone took no university degree (although he did study at an academy that offered what could be called post-secondary education). And those with whom these early Restorationists interacted typically possessed no advanced academic training. Advanced academic training and degrees were of little concern to them, nor were there abundant opportunities for advanced academic study available to many. But they were, nonetheless, amazingly - by our current standards - far more able to read and interpret well written texts than are the majority of Christians today. Scholarship for them did not equal time in the academy. It simply meant time learning; it meant being studied. What is more, not only did they often possess the scholarly skills (I mean by this only that they had the ability to study well; not that they had academic credentials) needed to interpret texts well, but the climate of the day meant that many held an intense interest in reading texts well, including the biblical text. It was simply part of who they were for them to do well in interpreting texts, and this was true of many people, apart from whatever advanced academic training they may have received. Now, this is not to say that there were not also many of their day who were essentially illiterate, but those who were afforded even just a grammar school level of education were often trained well in interpreting written materials, and they had an interest in being good at it. That was just who many of them were. So, for example, apart from his one year at the University of Glasgow, Alexander Campbell had already learned Greek and Latin from his father. Barton Stone knew Greek and Latin before he went on to post-secondary education. That is just what people did if any education was available to them. School boys learned Latin! These people knew languages and grammar and they knew what to do with texts and had the ability to reason well about them.
Things are not the same today. A certain level of being able to understand and interpret texts cannot be assumed to be the typical North American person's skill set. Nor can it be assumed today that a great interest in being able to understand written materials well is part of anyone's intellectual makeup or personality.
This poses a problem for the church today because, despite our current intellectual climate, the Bible will always be a written record. The Bible is a text constituted by texts. To not be able to interpret well the Bible, as a written text, or to not be concerned with interpreting it well as a written text, is to put ourselves in a highly vulnerable position; one that scares me. For instance, not being able to deal well with the biblical text leaves us unable to respond as well as we should to challenges regarding church doctrine. One person says they believe one thing, another says they believe another thing, but not as many, as should be able to, can discuss biblical doctrine by dealing well with the biblical text. Too often, we don't know the Bible well, don't know how to go about knowing it well, aren't all that interested in knowing it well, and, therefore, don't want to, or don't know how to, productively discuss biblical doctrine with others. (I suspect that the causes for this, in addition to the current intellectual climate being what it is, include a revulsion on the part of some stemming from the type of fighting and disunity that has been caused by Christians disagreeing and dividing about what they think the Bible teaches. And this I get. Unfortunately, we are often woeful at knowing how to disagree without allowing anger and frustration to rule our thoughts in debate, rather than letting logic and the results of sound understanding dominate our discussions. I love discussing biblical topics with those who disagree with me, but I don't know many Christians who can do this without getting angry, who can consistently focus on the issue at hand without bringing into the argument pre-judgments about the motivations of the one(s) with whom they disagree, or who give the thoughts of another a fair hearing. We don't actually listen very well to what our discussion partners are actually saying, and we far too often pre-judge what we think they have said or their motivations. This kills the opportunity for genuine learning to take place on the parts of those involved in such discussions.) For another instance, if we cannot do well with the biblical text, we cannot do well in discerning the kind of spirituality that its pages communicate. How can we love well God or our brothers and sisters if we cannot well discern what Jesus wants us to understand about such things? We must be able to read well what the Bible records of the teachings of Jesus.
So, we are in a bit of a pickle. That we live in the intellectual climate we do does not mean we can relax on our responsibility as Christians to know the text well. At the very least our preachers and teachers and Elders have this responsibility, but we all do! No matter the causes of the conversational dysfunctions that prevent us from disagreeing in productive ways, we are not absolved from doing well doctrinally or from dealing well with biblical texts that communicate Christian spirituality. Dealing well with texts is still so much the basis on which doctine must be decided; and it lies at the heart of productive Christian teaching and discipleship. The culture in which our spiritual forefathers was raised perhaps made this easier for them, but this does not mean that we have an excuse because it is not so easy for us. Christian, learn well to deal with the biblical text! Be as expert as you can! Academic degrees count for nothing, or at least very little, and being associated with the academy is about the same. But biblical scholarship is available to all, especially in our day when almost anything can be studied on line (but, oohh, please be careful with this). Be a Berean! Learn how to rightly divide the word of truth! Study to show yourself approved! And learn how to argue your positions about texts and to disagree with others about the meanings of texts in a climate of mutual respect and true intellectual openness! Learn how to discuss actual opinions about texts, rather than allowing your suspicions of the motives of those who hold opinions with which you disagree about the texts you are studying, to prevent you from keeping the meaning of the texts at the center of your discussions.
Things are not the same today. A certain level of being able to understand and interpret texts cannot be assumed to be the typical North American person's skill set. Nor can it be assumed today that a great interest in being able to understand written materials well is part of anyone's intellectual makeup or personality.
This poses a problem for the church today because, despite our current intellectual climate, the Bible will always be a written record. The Bible is a text constituted by texts. To not be able to interpret well the Bible, as a written text, or to not be concerned with interpreting it well as a written text, is to put ourselves in a highly vulnerable position; one that scares me. For instance, not being able to deal well with the biblical text leaves us unable to respond as well as we should to challenges regarding church doctrine. One person says they believe one thing, another says they believe another thing, but not as many, as should be able to, can discuss biblical doctrine by dealing well with the biblical text. Too often, we don't know the Bible well, don't know how to go about knowing it well, aren't all that interested in knowing it well, and, therefore, don't want to, or don't know how to, productively discuss biblical doctrine with others. (I suspect that the causes for this, in addition to the current intellectual climate being what it is, include a revulsion on the part of some stemming from the type of fighting and disunity that has been caused by Christians disagreeing and dividing about what they think the Bible teaches. And this I get. Unfortunately, we are often woeful at knowing how to disagree without allowing anger and frustration to rule our thoughts in debate, rather than letting logic and the results of sound understanding dominate our discussions. I love discussing biblical topics with those who disagree with me, but I don't know many Christians who can do this without getting angry, who can consistently focus on the issue at hand without bringing into the argument pre-judgments about the motivations of the one(s) with whom they disagree, or who give the thoughts of another a fair hearing. We don't actually listen very well to what our discussion partners are actually saying, and we far too often pre-judge what we think they have said or their motivations. This kills the opportunity for genuine learning to take place on the parts of those involved in such discussions.) For another instance, if we cannot do well with the biblical text, we cannot do well in discerning the kind of spirituality that its pages communicate. How can we love well God or our brothers and sisters if we cannot well discern what Jesus wants us to understand about such things? We must be able to read well what the Bible records of the teachings of Jesus.
So, we are in a bit of a pickle. That we live in the intellectual climate we do does not mean we can relax on our responsibility as Christians to know the text well. At the very least our preachers and teachers and Elders have this responsibility, but we all do! No matter the causes of the conversational dysfunctions that prevent us from disagreeing in productive ways, we are not absolved from doing well doctrinally or from dealing well with biblical texts that communicate Christian spirituality. Dealing well with texts is still so much the basis on which doctine must be decided; and it lies at the heart of productive Christian teaching and discipleship. The culture in which our spiritual forefathers was raised perhaps made this easier for them, but this does not mean that we have an excuse because it is not so easy for us. Christian, learn well to deal with the biblical text! Be as expert as you can! Academic degrees count for nothing, or at least very little, and being associated with the academy is about the same. But biblical scholarship is available to all, especially in our day when almost anything can be studied on line (but, oohh, please be careful with this). Be a Berean! Learn how to rightly divide the word of truth! Study to show yourself approved! And learn how to argue your positions about texts and to disagree with others about the meanings of texts in a climate of mutual respect and true intellectual openness! Learn how to discuss actual opinions about texts, rather than allowing your suspicions of the motives of those who hold opinions with which you disagree about the texts you are studying, to prevent you from keeping the meaning of the texts at the center of your discussions.
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.
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!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
