The afternoon session I attended yesterday was great. It was titled Disciple-Making in a Fresh Context and I think I took more notes than I did in all of the second semester of Systematic Theology in seminary! In a nutshell, the speaker urged us to get out of the mindset that "disciples" are somehow super-Christians and to stop using the idea so sparingly to describe the "saints" of the church and begin to use it for what it really is; a descriptor of all who honestly and earnestly (and imperfectly) follow Jesus.
I was with him the whole time. Theologically and pastorally I was amen-ing right along with the rest of the group. Except for one thing. I wonder if we need a new word?
I have no particular objection to the word itself. "Disciple" is not somehow a bad word in my context and it is not objectionable on its face. But it is one of those words that carries vernacular baggage that can get heavy and even burdensome. It got me wondering if we stick to the vocabulary sometimes at the expense of the thing itself. I wonder if we sometimes lose something by sticking with the words when they have been hijacked by the culture for meanings that might not be quite so helpful.
Just think of how we hear that word "disciple" used in the world today. A few random news items:
"Larry Summers, disciple of the Phillips-curve...
"Paul is often criticized for his disciple-like adherence to the writings of Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand"
"A disciple of market economics..."
"Jonah Hill plays Peter Brand, a computer whiz and disciple of Bill James..."
To be a "disciple" in our modern vernacular means simply to adhere to or subscribe to a philosophy. It is so rooted in a modernist-individualist understanding of voluntarily opting to follow one leader or idea over another that discipleship has come to mean little more than joining the parade of a person or idea. But that sort of discipleship is easily set aside. Alan Greenspan used to sit at the feet of Ayn Rand and now he has walked away.
In our modern sense, disciples come and go pretty easily. It is easy to be called a disciple of "A" one day and "B" the next.
That is not what the presentation was about yesterday. At all. We were talking (and the church needs to be talking) about discipleship in a truly biblical way; a way of living that cannot easily be set aside; that defines the very core of who we are.
If being a disciple of Jesus means something radically different than what being a disciple in the eyes of the world means, is rehab-ing the old worth it? The same could be asked about much of our vocabulary in the church. How much do we cling to the words of the faith a the expense of the faith?
We are not about to throw out the Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, but maybe we need to think about whether or not the words are standing in the way of the message.
Personally I don't care if you call me a disciple, a danish or a Dallas Cowboy fan as long as it means "defined by following Christ."
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
ECG Dispatch 3: Knowing Jesus a Little too Well
Yesterday afternoon's break-out session focused on helping your ministry write and articulate a vision. It was a good workshop with a great leader, Erica Liu from Pres House at UW-Madison. They are very lucky to have her!
As part of the workshop, she led us through a mini-visioning process to introduce some of the steps. One person at the table described their context and a ministry priority and that was the focus for the group. The observation was made that it is hard to vision when you only know a very little about the context and community and their priorities. Erica pointed out that although they is certainly true, it can be good to have new ears in the conversation because we know so much about our own contexts we often make lots of assumptions on what everybody knows.
I wonder, how much of our "church growth and evangelism" challenge is actually a challenge of our own creation? A challenge built not out of resistance to the gospel from outside the church but assumptions about the gospel from inside?
Consider young adults. Survey after survey shows that the current young adult generation are both deeply committed to community and open to spirituality. If ever there was a ripe harvest for the church since the implosion of Christendom in the 1950's, this should be it. So why do we have such a hard time with the YA generation?
More and more, I think the problem is less about YA (or anyone's for that matter) resistance to "tradition" than about our assumptions about the vision of the gospel. We assume that the point of the gospel is providing a foundation for the church. That's pretty orthodox modern view Augustine/Calvin stuff. Most YA I know see the church as providing a foundation for teaching and living the gospel rather than the gospel providing an excuse to have a church. More and more we see that for YA it is the gospel that is the point.
Why then do we think that "if we don't get more young people the congregation will die" is not a persuasive vision for the future? Isn't the whole point of the work of the gospel (reaching out to the world) ensuring that the church will survive for another generation? In too many churches that assumption is the uncritical basis for a vision for the future.
Assuming that the gospel is propelling us into the world to love and serve the people of God so we might realize the vision of not seeing the thing we love die is an assumption we cannot afford to keep making. Not just with young adults but the whole of our communities.
So, what to do. If I had that answer I would charge to read this blog. One thing I am going to try is to make sure that when my congregations start to vision for the future, there will be someone in the room who doesn't know Jesus in exactly the same way we do and might just press back on some of the assumptions bred by outer familiarity.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
As part of the workshop, she led us through a mini-visioning process to introduce some of the steps. One person at the table described their context and a ministry priority and that was the focus for the group. The observation was made that it is hard to vision when you only know a very little about the context and community and their priorities. Erica pointed out that although they is certainly true, it can be good to have new ears in the conversation because we know so much about our own contexts we often make lots of assumptions on what everybody knows.
I wonder, how much of our "church growth and evangelism" challenge is actually a challenge of our own creation? A challenge built not out of resistance to the gospel from outside the church but assumptions about the gospel from inside?
Consider young adults. Survey after survey shows that the current young adult generation are both deeply committed to community and open to spirituality. If ever there was a ripe harvest for the church since the implosion of Christendom in the 1950's, this should be it. So why do we have such a hard time with the YA generation?
More and more, I think the problem is less about YA (or anyone's for that matter) resistance to "tradition" than about our assumptions about the vision of the gospel. We assume that the point of the gospel is providing a foundation for the church. That's pretty orthodox modern view Augustine/Calvin stuff. Most YA I know see the church as providing a foundation for teaching and living the gospel rather than the gospel providing an excuse to have a church. More and more we see that for YA it is the gospel that is the point.
Why then do we think that "if we don't get more young people the congregation will die" is not a persuasive vision for the future? Isn't the whole point of the work of the gospel (reaching out to the world) ensuring that the church will survive for another generation? In too many churches that assumption is the uncritical basis for a vision for the future.
Assuming that the gospel is propelling us into the world to love and serve the people of God so we might realize the vision of not seeing the thing we love die is an assumption we cannot afford to keep making. Not just with young adults but the whole of our communities.
So, what to do. If I had that answer I would charge to read this blog. One thing I am going to try is to make sure that when my congregations start to vision for the future, there will be someone in the room who doesn't know Jesus in exactly the same way we do and might just press back on some of the assumptions bred by outer familiarity.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Location:PC(USA) ECG Conference
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
ECG Dispatch 2: On the Other Hand, Please Do Stand so Close to Me
This morning's plenary focused on living out (rather than merely describing) the life of Christ in the world through the church. The thesis was pretty straight forward and did not break a lot of new ground for most listeners, but some things need to be repeated until we finally get it! The idea of living into living a Christlike life was summed up in six words:
- Presence: We need to physically move to the places we hope to evangelize.
- Proximity: We need to reach out and touch and share with people who are not always just like us.
- Prevenient: We need to remember that God's grace has been at work in the life of another long before we get there.
- Powerlessness: We need to remember that God id not coerce the world into loving God but took on the mantle of powerlessness.
- Passion: We need to remember that Jesus suffered for his message.
- Proclamation: We need to let our lives as well as our words proclaim the glory and grace of God.
On the whole, I was with her. I do get a little concerned when we get to far afield in the "Passion"bit and too closely relate our suffering to Christ's suffering. What I heard this morning though was a little closer to Moltmann's idea of the Crucified God which is a beautiful theological model. (Well worth the read.)
What struck me in particular today was something that may not have been an intended theme and may even be counter to what the speaker was trying to communicate. So if this is wierdly off the wall, it is not her fault!
In describing what it means to take on the powerlessness of Christ, she spoke of Philippians 2 and the idea of kenosis or emptying oneself. That was the basis of the fourth "P"in the list above. Just as Christ emptied himself and took on powerlessness so must we. I agree. I also think that there is something to be said for the kenotic nature of the second "P" however.
To really draw near to another person- to diminish the distance between us physically- requires a sort of interpersonal and spiritual kenosis; a giving up of personal space and personal security. We tend to think of being Christlike in almost exclusively spiritual terms, however there is something Christlike about holding a hand or standing shoulder to shoulder or walking toward rather than away from another person.
Perhaps the most important question for us to ask when thinking about reaching out beyond the walls of the church is not "who"are we trying to reach but "where"they are. If we are going to live the witness of Jesus Christ, we need to be ready to unload the baggage that keeps us physically as well as spiritually at arms length from others. We need to close the gap between the body of Christ in the world and the world we seek to serve the way God, in Christ, closed the gap between heaven and earth.
ECG Dispatch 1: When Hymns Tell a Half-Truth
Posting anything about conference worship is a dodgy thing. It is important to be honest, but at the same time it is wise to remember that the people who lead are doing so sincerely and faithfully. So let me begin by saying thanks to the group who gave their time and talent to lead worship last night and today. Turning a critical eye to our shared worship life is good, but not personal.
I came to this conference trying to approach worship as a visitor. It is my first time to this particular gathering so I dod not know what to expect but I had some preconceived ideas about worship. They were quickly set aside.
My assumption was that worship would serve as a "teaching moment" for conferees. It was never said that this was the case, but it is often the way at gatherings like this. If that was indeed the case, I learned four things:
1. Presbyterian worship consists of a prayer, 25 minutes of praise band singing and a sermon. (a VERY good sermon at that mind you. Say what you will but we Presbyterians can flat out preach.)
2. If you do not already know the songs you are on your own.
3. There is no evidence at all that the PC(USA) has literally just published a new worship book/hymnal.
4. The PC(USA) has two theological priorities (based on the songs) and they are a) substitutionary atonement for salvation and b) an uncritical happiness about Jesus.
There was no confession of sin, no opportunity to pray beyond praise for how awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome Jesus is and how happy happy happy happy happy we are for that.
There is nothing wrong with the music we were singing. It is not my favorite but that is taste not content. The trouble is that we sang SO MANY songs that had only a very narrow theological message. Worshipers only got a glimpse into the breadth of theology in the church. If I had walked in from the street, I would not know it was a Presbyterian worship experience.
Both opening worship and morning "praise" were disappointments. After 15 years of parish ministry I felt like I was worshiping from the outside.
If there was a teaching moment there for me it is this, we cannot overestimate the strangeness of worship to someone unfamiliar with our worshiping communities. Part of being hospitable is helping the uninitiated become part of our traditions.
It makes me think about Thanksgiving and my mother's table. It is not uncommon for there to be someone there for the first time. Whether it is extended family or a friend who was unable to travel to see family at year, we like having someone extra at the table.
Part of our Thanksgiving ritual is saying grace and two traditions are part of that. First, we are hand holders. Second, my sister giggles. Part of welcoming new people to the table is telling them the first and explaining the second. We hold hands just because we like to. My sister giggles because she thought my prayers got a little long and ponderous and though they are shorter now, she still laughs. Part of being hospitable to our guest is helping translate our table.
When a stranger/visitor/seeker experiences our worship, do we have tools in place to help translate the movement, words, assumptions, theology of worship or are we leaving them to their own devices? More importantly, are we telling them the whole truth? Is life in Christ always and only awesome awesome awesome and full of happy happy happy days?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
I came to this conference trying to approach worship as a visitor. It is my first time to this particular gathering so I dod not know what to expect but I had some preconceived ideas about worship. They were quickly set aside.
My assumption was that worship would serve as a "teaching moment" for conferees. It was never said that this was the case, but it is often the way at gatherings like this. If that was indeed the case, I learned four things:
1. Presbyterian worship consists of a prayer, 25 minutes of praise band singing and a sermon. (a VERY good sermon at that mind you. Say what you will but we Presbyterians can flat out preach.)
2. If you do not already know the songs you are on your own.
3. There is no evidence at all that the PC(USA) has literally just published a new worship book/hymnal.
4. The PC(USA) has two theological priorities (based on the songs) and they are a) substitutionary atonement for salvation and b) an uncritical happiness about Jesus.
There was no confession of sin, no opportunity to pray beyond praise for how awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome Jesus is and how happy happy happy happy happy we are for that.
There is nothing wrong with the music we were singing. It is not my favorite but that is taste not content. The trouble is that we sang SO MANY songs that had only a very narrow theological message. Worshipers only got a glimpse into the breadth of theology in the church. If I had walked in from the street, I would not know it was a Presbyterian worship experience.
Both opening worship and morning "praise" were disappointments. After 15 years of parish ministry I felt like I was worshiping from the outside.
If there was a teaching moment there for me it is this, we cannot overestimate the strangeness of worship to someone unfamiliar with our worshiping communities. Part of being hospitable is helping the uninitiated become part of our traditions.
It makes me think about Thanksgiving and my mother's table. It is not uncommon for there to be someone there for the first time. Whether it is extended family or a friend who was unable to travel to see family at year, we like having someone extra at the table.
Part of our Thanksgiving ritual is saying grace and two traditions are part of that. First, we are hand holders. Second, my sister giggles. Part of welcoming new people to the table is telling them the first and explaining the second. We hold hands just because we like to. My sister giggles because she thought my prayers got a little long and ponderous and though they are shorter now, she still laughs. Part of being hospitable to our guest is helping translate our table.
When a stranger/visitor/seeker experiences our worship, do we have tools in place to help translate the movement, words, assumptions, theology of worship or are we leaving them to their own devices? More importantly, are we telling them the whole truth? Is life in Christ always and only awesome awesome awesome and full of happy happy happy days?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)