Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Additions
I've added two links to my Blogs that I Like (and hopefully like me) - Anglobaptist is a guy I met at the Biennial.... he is real hip and sacramentally astute, what more could you ask. Also, bowing to pressure, Darin, my good friend, has decided to create a whole new blog for his sermons. Check them both out!
Biennial Reflection - The Circus is in Town!
I have already given my bit about the bylaws change, but would like to think a little bit about the meeting at which these bylaws were presented and voted on. The leaders of the denomination did their due diligence, but only just that. They sent out a copy of the bylaws to every church on CD and he them posted on the web. It was up to the pastor to be sure that these changes were given to members of the church. A tutorial was not offered, learning sessions were not offered and this was a dense and complicated document. Many times those who were on the writing team could not answer questions about the bylaws that were asked. Many people just seemed to not know anything about the bylaws. The basic was done and not much more.
At the meeting the motion was presented and then all of the presidents of the various boards, including the president of the denomination said how much they liked and supported the changes. No one said why the changes were needed, no one said anything about struggles or difficulties that were in the proposed changes, just that they were awesome and everyone should just trust the leaders and embrace the change.
As a note, I think this was a at best out of line with Robert’s rules and at worse a cheap way to push an issue. There was to be a debate later on where each person would only get five minutes to speak. The overall time for the debate would be limited and each pro would be balanced with a con. Yet all the mucky-mucks were given ample time to speak in favor of the changes, from positions of authority showing a lack of respect for the process. Poor form!
After we were dazzled with the bulls**t, there was a time for questions of clarification. Did anyone have a copy of the bylaws here for reading? No, they were posted on the web (there was no internet access in the hall). Did anyone have a list of the delegates that were on the voting bloc and was that list available during the biennial? No. Wait, yes The general secretary had one list to pass around the hundreds of people. How will we know if International Ministries and National Ministries would maintain a connection with the denomination after they were made independent? You have to trust them. Do they have new bylaws emphasizing their relationship with the denomination? No, not yet. Can anyone explain in simple language the changes? No, maybe, well I can talk about the mission table.
This went on for some time until the president had to stop the questions so there would be time for debate – four against and one in favor. Over, the whole process was awful.
There are a lot of conclusions one could draw from such a debacle. Pure ineptitude and incompetence could be one. Attempts to push an issue with a happy and vague presentation could be another. Yet here is the larger message that I took away from the process – a lack of trust of the local church. The local church was not a part of the writing process. The local church was not given any opportunity for feedback in the process. We were given a document that could not accept any amendments and told to trust the leaders and just vote for it. The actual document was not even present at the meeting nor was a list of directors we were to vote for. The local church was not told about the dire financial position of the denomination, just told that the change is needed. It almost seemed that the heads of the denomination forgot that they are there to coordinate mission and to serve the local church, not to tell us (the local church) what to do. The denomination begins at the local church and ends at the local church, yet the local church was not in the picture at all.
If they are to do this again (God help us), I would hope that our leaders would learn something from this process and engage the local church from the beginning. The leaders need to trust the church, as risky and difficult as that may be.
At the meeting the motion was presented and then all of the presidents of the various boards, including the president of the denomination said how much they liked and supported the changes. No one said why the changes were needed, no one said anything about struggles or difficulties that were in the proposed changes, just that they were awesome and everyone should just trust the leaders and embrace the change.
As a note, I think this was a at best out of line with Robert’s rules and at worse a cheap way to push an issue. There was to be a debate later on where each person would only get five minutes to speak. The overall time for the debate would be limited and each pro would be balanced with a con. Yet all the mucky-mucks were given ample time to speak in favor of the changes, from positions of authority showing a lack of respect for the process. Poor form!
After we were dazzled with the bulls**t, there was a time for questions of clarification. Did anyone have a copy of the bylaws here for reading? No, they were posted on the web (there was no internet access in the hall). Did anyone have a list of the delegates that were on the voting bloc and was that list available during the biennial? No. Wait, yes The general secretary had one list to pass around the hundreds of people. How will we know if International Ministries and National Ministries would maintain a connection with the denomination after they were made independent? You have to trust them. Do they have new bylaws emphasizing their relationship with the denomination? No, not yet. Can anyone explain in simple language the changes? No, maybe, well I can talk about the mission table.
This went on for some time until the president had to stop the questions so there would be time for debate – four against and one in favor. Over, the whole process was awful.
There are a lot of conclusions one could draw from such a debacle. Pure ineptitude and incompetence could be one. Attempts to push an issue with a happy and vague presentation could be another. Yet here is the larger message that I took away from the process – a lack of trust of the local church. The local church was not a part of the writing process. The local church was not given any opportunity for feedback in the process. We were given a document that could not accept any amendments and told to trust the leaders and just vote for it. The actual document was not even present at the meeting nor was a list of directors we were to vote for. The local church was not told about the dire financial position of the denomination, just told that the change is needed. It almost seemed that the heads of the denomination forgot that they are there to coordinate mission and to serve the local church, not to tell us (the local church) what to do. The denomination begins at the local church and ends at the local church, yet the local church was not in the picture at all.
If they are to do this again (God help us), I would hope that our leaders would learn something from this process and engage the local church from the beginning. The leaders need to trust the church, as risky and difficult as that may be.
Biennial Reflection - Legacy
I had full intentions to post more often about the Biennial, but time got away from me; a common problem at meetings of that nature. Instead I hope to offer a number of reflections about the experience.
The big question at this gathering concerned an adoption of new bylaws for the ABC/USA. I’ll post a blog about the proceedings themselves – it was kind of a mismanaged circus. Due to a poor dissemination of information many were uninformed about the changes. Due to other reasons (which I may ruminate about) the changes did not reflect a sense of Baptist identity or any clinging to tradition. A top-heavy bureaucracy was proposed for the sake of streamlining and efficiency. This bureaucracy would decided who could be placed on boards, would write and usher in policy statements (Statements of public witness) and be the steering group for ABC/USA. The program boards, i.e. National Ministries and International Ministries would be “de-coupled” so that they could be independent for the sake of efficiency. From what was presented, the local church would be engaged on a financial level, and nominally through the region. The new structure would be very, very representational and have very, very little direct engagement from the local church.
Within the bylaw changes was a new thing called “the mission table.” In this process, through the higher up organizations an issue would be chosen and at national meetings all those who attend could engage, discuss and dialogue about the issue “on the table.” Then a small committee, again appointed by the national board, a committee without any local church representation, would be given the charge to follow through with actions that emerged from the Mission Table. During the proceedings one person asked why the bylaws needed to be changed for this to happen – i.e. what is keeping the denomination from doing something like this now? It sounded to me like the sugar to make the medicine go down.
The bylaws changes did not pass, and I think that is a good thing.
On Sunday I attended two worship services, one at the Baptist Peace Fellowship gathering, and one hosted by the Young Adult Caucus. At the Peace Fellowship, Nick Carter (president of Andover Newton Theological School – my alma mater) preached about the legacy of peace makers, and the way in which that legacy informs, motivates and inspires people currently struggling for peace. At the Young Adult dinner, Paul Rauschenbausch (great grandson of the theologian Walter Rauschenbusch) preached about the importance of a legacy in informing and guiding one’s faith. Legacy, history is important.
We were given new bylaws to consider, bylaws that were to take the denomination in a new and exciting direction, yet there was little that seemed to be connected to the past. The only legacy that was mentioned was the legacy of mission work – which is a good one. Yet never was the local church mentioned. Never was the commitment of individuals mentioned. We were to be moving forward, with little connection to the past – or at least that was how it was presented.
I understand that becoming so steeped in the past can be dangerous, it is a tension that I face with church work again and again. Yet I also understand the vital importance of maintaining a connection with one’s past and one’s legacy. In 1813 the Baptists formed the triennial convention for the sake of doing missions together. In 1907 the denomination was formed for the sake of doing mission together. What is the legacy of these moments as well as other moments from the Baptist story? It wasn’t reflected in the proposed change, and for tat reason as well as many others, I am glad they did not pass.
The big question at this gathering concerned an adoption of new bylaws for the ABC/USA. I’ll post a blog about the proceedings themselves – it was kind of a mismanaged circus. Due to a poor dissemination of information many were uninformed about the changes. Due to other reasons (which I may ruminate about) the changes did not reflect a sense of Baptist identity or any clinging to tradition. A top-heavy bureaucracy was proposed for the sake of streamlining and efficiency. This bureaucracy would decided who could be placed on boards, would write and usher in policy statements (Statements of public witness) and be the steering group for ABC/USA. The program boards, i.e. National Ministries and International Ministries would be “de-coupled” so that they could be independent for the sake of efficiency. From what was presented, the local church would be engaged on a financial level, and nominally through the region. The new structure would be very, very representational and have very, very little direct engagement from the local church.
Within the bylaw changes was a new thing called “the mission table.” In this process, through the higher up organizations an issue would be chosen and at national meetings all those who attend could engage, discuss and dialogue about the issue “on the table.” Then a small committee, again appointed by the national board, a committee without any local church representation, would be given the charge to follow through with actions that emerged from the Mission Table. During the proceedings one person asked why the bylaws needed to be changed for this to happen – i.e. what is keeping the denomination from doing something like this now? It sounded to me like the sugar to make the medicine go down.
The bylaws changes did not pass, and I think that is a good thing.
On Sunday I attended two worship services, one at the Baptist Peace Fellowship gathering, and one hosted by the Young Adult Caucus. At the Peace Fellowship, Nick Carter (president of Andover Newton Theological School – my alma mater) preached about the legacy of peace makers, and the way in which that legacy informs, motivates and inspires people currently struggling for peace. At the Young Adult dinner, Paul Rauschenbausch (great grandson of the theologian Walter Rauschenbusch) preached about the importance of a legacy in informing and guiding one’s faith. Legacy, history is important.
We were given new bylaws to consider, bylaws that were to take the denomination in a new and exciting direction, yet there was little that seemed to be connected to the past. The only legacy that was mentioned was the legacy of mission work – which is a good one. Yet never was the local church mentioned. Never was the commitment of individuals mentioned. We were to be moving forward, with little connection to the past – or at least that was how it was presented.
I understand that becoming so steeped in the past can be dangerous, it is a tension that I face with church work again and again. Yet I also understand the vital importance of maintaining a connection with one’s past and one’s legacy. In 1813 the Baptists formed the triennial convention for the sake of doing missions together. In 1907 the denomination was formed for the sake of doing mission together. What is the legacy of these moments as well as other moments from the Baptist story? It wasn’t reflected in the proposed change, and for tat reason as well as many others, I am glad they did not pass.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Biennial Day 1 - of images and youth
Day one of the ABC/USA Biennial. I attended a talk by Leonard Sweet and a Young Clergy meal. Leonard Sweet first:
Sweet is big on the popularization of what he is calling postmodernity. A challenge with popularizing something is that it becomes so watered down that it loses its meaning – I think Sweet has fallen into this trap. First he created a word vs. image polarity claiming that those born before 1973 (the year the cell phone was invented) are from a word world (not to be confused with the PBS show – very educational) to an image world. To try to connect, Sweet had what he called a “VJ” flying through Google during his talking, finding images that were connected with his points – that was mostly distracting and at times annoying.
So there is a dichotomy between words and images that Sweet is trying to create. A problem with this polarity is that Sweet never defined “image.” A number of people continued to not that the “image” generation (or the Google generation as Sweet called us) are heavily steeped in text. From texting to IM to Facebook to Twitter to Blogs there are a lot of words being used. So we found confusion.
Sweet did suggest that we should avoid a “versusits” approach to scripture and look to a wholestic view of scripture and everything else we encounter which is good.
Here are the folks I think Sweet should read so he can fine tune his talk and make better points – granted the list is not exhausted.
Clifford Geertz – Geertz takes Ryle’s “thick description” and focuses and deepens it. A think description looks deep into the context, the community, place, setting of an action, person and event. I think this is what Sweet is suggesting with his approach to scripture. Robert Alter would be a very good read as well.
Wittgenstein and Austin – Of course I would list these to, they are heavily on my mind. Yet Wittgenstein and Austin both have a very well articulated approach to language that understands how a speech act or proposition points towards something, shows something which may be meaningful in the community. The image that Sweet is suggesting is a speech act. Thus L8tr is a speech act that now has meaning in the “Google generation” because of the medium of cell phones.
Volf, Fiddes, Hiem, Barth, Hauerwas, and many many others to gain an appreciation for (1) the relationality of the church via the relationality of the trinity; the nature of the community of Christianity vs. the ethos of the world.
I’m supposed to hear Sweet again today and I have set the bar fairly low. He seems like a very sharp individual who is not taking the time he needs to be careful about his message and his points. Thus his points are dull and ineffective.
Ouch.
With all that said a brief word about the Young Clergy dinner. Apparently denominations are experiencing a dearth of young clergy (between 3% and 7% of most mainline clergy are under the age of 35…..I still fall in that category). David Wood, ABC pastor and Lilly Foundation guy made a good and candid presentation about the dire place of the denomination and churches and how much young clergy are needed. Here is the rub – we need to play, imagine and think beyond the institutional boxes if we are to have any hope of vibrancy. There is a tsunami of institutional memory against us. How can we push, guide and lead in a pastoral manner, attuned to the Holy Spirit so that the church can engage in the world in a powerful and authentic way? I know it is not by using a “VJ” (again, ouch).
This is a topic that really should have much more, but I have said enough already and it is only day one.
Sweet is big on the popularization of what he is calling postmodernity. A challenge with popularizing something is that it becomes so watered down that it loses its meaning – I think Sweet has fallen into this trap. First he created a word vs. image polarity claiming that those born before 1973 (the year the cell phone was invented) are from a word world (not to be confused with the PBS show – very educational) to an image world. To try to connect, Sweet had what he called a “VJ” flying through Google during his talking, finding images that were connected with his points – that was mostly distracting and at times annoying.
So there is a dichotomy between words and images that Sweet is trying to create. A problem with this polarity is that Sweet never defined “image.” A number of people continued to not that the “image” generation (or the Google generation as Sweet called us) are heavily steeped in text. From texting to IM to Facebook to Twitter to Blogs there are a lot of words being used. So we found confusion.
Sweet did suggest that we should avoid a “versusits” approach to scripture and look to a wholestic view of scripture and everything else we encounter which is good.
Here are the folks I think Sweet should read so he can fine tune his talk and make better points – granted the list is not exhausted.
Clifford Geertz – Geertz takes Ryle’s “thick description” and focuses and deepens it. A think description looks deep into the context, the community, place, setting of an action, person and event. I think this is what Sweet is suggesting with his approach to scripture. Robert Alter would be a very good read as well.
Wittgenstein and Austin – Of course I would list these to, they are heavily on my mind. Yet Wittgenstein and Austin both have a very well articulated approach to language that understands how a speech act or proposition points towards something, shows something which may be meaningful in the community. The image that Sweet is suggesting is a speech act. Thus L8tr is a speech act that now has meaning in the “Google generation” because of the medium of cell phones.
Volf, Fiddes, Hiem, Barth, Hauerwas, and many many others to gain an appreciation for (1) the relationality of the church via the relationality of the trinity; the nature of the community of Christianity vs. the ethos of the world.
I’m supposed to hear Sweet again today and I have set the bar fairly low. He seems like a very sharp individual who is not taking the time he needs to be careful about his message and his points. Thus his points are dull and ineffective.
Ouch.
With all that said a brief word about the Young Clergy dinner. Apparently denominations are experiencing a dearth of young clergy (between 3% and 7% of most mainline clergy are under the age of 35…..I still fall in that category). David Wood, ABC pastor and Lilly Foundation guy made a good and candid presentation about the dire place of the denomination and churches and how much young clergy are needed. Here is the rub – we need to play, imagine and think beyond the institutional boxes if we are to have any hope of vibrancy. There is a tsunami of institutional memory against us. How can we push, guide and lead in a pastoral manner, attuned to the Holy Spirit so that the church can engage in the world in a powerful and authentic way? I know it is not by using a “VJ” (again, ouch).
This is a topic that really should have much more, but I have said enough already and it is only day one.
Monday, June 22, 2009
A Pretty Good Prayer
Once again I avoid the shamless "sermon post" by offering you the link to the website. The sermon for this week was from Psalm 9:9-20 and involved St. John of the Cross, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and a story about a boy, his brother, orange spots and trust. Enjoy.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Baptist Truths
I’ve been reading articles and writing (actually rewriting) chapters for my dissertation. Doing so keeps me thinking about the problems that I have to overcome for the dissertation to be successful. One is the tension between pragmatists and realists that comes out of the use Lindbeck. I don’t want to get into the fine details about Lindbeck – to lazy. Basically the problem is that all truth is relative to the grammar of the community (pragmatists) yet in theological circles many would like to assume that there are some universal truths which transcend the particular communities – like the idea of the existence of God (realists)
With Baptists this is a very real tension. Because of our individualistic emphasis, i.e. our commonly wrong-headed misuse of the ideas of Soul Freedom and Church Autonomy many churches and individuals will scoff at any attempt to proscribe tenets of belief. “Don’t tell me that Christ is divine – you would be infringing on my soul freedom!”
“Don’t tell me that churches need to be concerned for the poor, - you would be infringing on our church autonomy”
Who would have thought that Baptists could be philosophical pragmatists?
Yet many have reacted against such a reliance upon the grammar of the local community for an understanding of faith (like that is what is happening. We all know that people are really lazy, proud and stubborn). The SBC (God bless them) has come out with statements of “Faith and Message” which basically claim truths for the Southern Baptist community. Others will stay things like, “this is the Baptist way,” or, “this is what Baptists believe,” suggesting that there are universal truths.
Here is the rub – are there universal truths which are spoken about but never directly addressed? Ideas like soul freedom and church autonomy are seldom directly spoken of but are often spoken about or referenced. So perhaps there are truths but they are not truths which can be directly spoken of through the grammar of the community. Instead the language and grammar point to the truths as they can be discerned. The realists are happy, the pragmatists are happy. Everyone is happy. Right?
With Baptists this is a very real tension. Because of our individualistic emphasis, i.e. our commonly wrong-headed misuse of the ideas of Soul Freedom and Church Autonomy many churches and individuals will scoff at any attempt to proscribe tenets of belief. “Don’t tell me that Christ is divine – you would be infringing on my soul freedom!”
“Don’t tell me that churches need to be concerned for the poor, - you would be infringing on our church autonomy”
Who would have thought that Baptists could be philosophical pragmatists?
Yet many have reacted against such a reliance upon the grammar of the local community for an understanding of faith (like that is what is happening. We all know that people are really lazy, proud and stubborn). The SBC (God bless them) has come out with statements of “Faith and Message” which basically claim truths for the Southern Baptist community. Others will stay things like, “this is the Baptist way,” or, “this is what Baptists believe,” suggesting that there are universal truths.
Here is the rub – are there universal truths which are spoken about but never directly addressed? Ideas like soul freedom and church autonomy are seldom directly spoken of but are often spoken about or referenced. So perhaps there are truths but they are not truths which can be directly spoken of through the grammar of the community. Instead the language and grammar point to the truths as they can be discerned. The realists are happy, the pragmatists are happy. Everyone is happy. Right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)