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.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
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.
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.
(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!
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
