It is Jr. High All Over Again!

This one is for all the Baptists out there! It doesn’t mean others couldn’t or shouldn’t read this, you still might learn something.

I have been doing some work and some thinking about the role of the association/region in Baptist life (the denomination for you non-Baptists folks). Specifically, I have been thinking about the way churches relate to each other via the association/region. Baptists tend to give a good deal of lip service to the idea that we are interdependent and that we have to rely on each other in order to do ministry, but our associations/regions are loosing resources, staff, and credibility quickly. Maybe churches don’t care about each other and thus don't care about our association/region?

I really don’t believe that is the case, we still care about our connections with other churches, be we have to relearn how to care. For one thing associations/regions are dying because churches are struggling with their own resources and would rather give higher priority to the pastor’s salary and heating the building over the association/region. <> There are, no doubt, other reasons for the decline of the association/region that I just don’t want to take the time or energy to get into. For me right now, it isn’t the why but the what that I am interested in.

In the past 50 years or so the association/region has been fairly strong and acted as a central hub for the relationships of churches. Churches related with other churches through the association/region. Now, with the association/region weakening churches are finding themselves more and more on their own, not sure what to do when faced with the idea of working directly with another church. Because of this a direct encounter between churches is similar to the awkwardness of a Jr. High dance:

Church 1 – uh, do you, uh, wanna, maybe, I mean if you want to, do some ministry together?

Church 2 – um, sure, I mean if you want to, I guess, um… looks away awkwardly

Church 1 – ok, great!

both stand there, looking at the floor, not sure what to do next

Church 2 – ok, by!

Church 1 – um, ok. By.

Painful, isn’t it. Here is my thought – through the presence of the association/region we (churches) have been taught and conditioned into a certain approach and nature of relationality. Think of Foucault’s analysis of institutions and relationality (specifically his work on the Asylum and the doctor-patient relationship). The institution of the association/region has shaped the relationships of churches.

Or think of Peter Berger’s The Sacred Canopy (which I just started reading). Religion (in this case the association/region) serves to legitimate as certain social structure. As religion crumbles the social structure crumbles (or the other way around?). The legitimacy for that method of relating is lost and churches now have to redefine themselves and their society.

Pretty down stuff, huh? For the non-Baptists out there, consider the overall decline of the presence of religion on the American landscape. Society is changing, can churches change with society in a way that will allow them to thrive and still maintain their integrity?

The last thing we want is a church to wake up in the morning and regret what it did the night before in order to be seen as popular.

The Pulpit is Not Free

Last Sunday (10/7/12) was for many folks, “Pulpit FreedomSunday.” The purpose of this concocted day was to argue that a pastor should be able to endorse a political candidate from the pulpit despite tax laws stating otherwise. There are so many things I could say about this but I have not the time or space. I’ll try to keep my ramblings somewhat focused.

First, stop whining. A pastor can say whatever he or she wants from the pulpit as long as he or she is clear that there are going to be repercussions. If you say the walls need to be painted purple during your sermon, you will face some pushback. If you endorse a candidate from the pulpit you may also face pushback. One might be from a more powerful group than the other but you will face pushback (can you guess which group would be more powerful?). So say whatever you want. Curse, make farting noises, and do bad impressions of Marlon Brando as the Godfather, just realize that there are consequences to everything you do.

That is a pragmatic response. Here is a theological response.

As a pastor you are not free to say anything you want. It is not because of the laws of the State but because of your calling. When one is claiming to be called to preach there is an assumption that God is a part of that calling. God is calling you to fulfill a specific role within the community. When the community endorses that role the community is giving the pastor a certain amount of power and responsibility to speak from the pulpit.

Loosely stated, the act of preaching (speaking from the pulpit) is an act of connecting the experience of the people with the presence of God via scripture. A sermon may be considered to be a sacramental act (calm down Baptists, I didn’t say it is a sacrament). Ideally something happens via preaching where God is encountered. If you aren’t sure about this go and preach a really crappy sermon and then notice that people still find an encounter with God. It wasn’t you, it was God. This doesn’t give you license to preach crap, but hopefully helps us realize that something is happening when we preach.

What this means is that when you are ordained you are not free to say whatever you want from the pulpit. You are accepting the call, the relational place within the community, to do your best to connect people with God. The pulpit is a place where we connect with God, not a place where we endorse mundane things such as political candidates.

Away from the pulpit say what you want (understanding that you still have a responsibility to the people of your congregation via your relationality with the people). In the pulpit accept the reality that you are not free but instead called to preach. It takes a heaping lot of humble pie to accept that responsibility and that call, and those pastors who feel it is so very important to endorse a political candidate from the pulpit seem to have passed on any size slice of that pie.

If you really need to endorse a political candidate because you get off on manipulating and controlling the thoughts and ideas of people who have placed their trust in you, or you are on some kind of power trip, or you like playing the victim to big bad government then I humbly suggest that you reconsider your call to ministry.

I must be serious because for a blog titled “theosnob” two uses of the word “humble” is no small thing.

By The Power Of...Words?

One of the fun things about church life is that we have our own language. I don’t mean a completely different language, but there are words and phrases that hold a certain amount of power and influence in a religious context. For example if I were to say, “the Spirit is moving me to pray” in a McDonalds in order to get a little more time before ordering I would not be understood. Yet if I said it in a church context, a meeting, small group, or worship service, then people would most likely understand what I am saying.

            

This being the case, there are certain phrases that hold power that I think people knowingly use to claim that power. Here is a situation. You are in a church meeting trying to decide to buy new hymnals. You have been involved in the conversation for 45 minutes and are nearing a decision. It is almost time to take a vote and move on when someone who does not like where the conversation is headed stands up and says:

I really feel that the Holy Spirit is calling us to stop everything and pray.

What can you do in response to such a statement? The only statement that could counter such a claim would be, “I really feel that the Holy Spirit is calling us to take a vote.” Then people have to figure out which Holy Spirit is the true Holy Spirit and which is just trying to derail the meeting process (or the Holy Spirit is just messing with the church and enjoying the chaos of the moment).

            It reminds me of a couple of wizards throwing spells back and forth, one trying to counter the other. How do we know who is speaking from a place of truth?

                                                        "No, I'm moved by the Holy Spirit!"

                         

            Another phrase that holds power is around the idea of the “call.” In this instance someone could volunteer to be a Sunday School teacher claiming that God had “called” him to teach. The problem is this person has no relational skills with anyone let alone children, has personal hygiene that would make Oscar the Grouch blush (at any given moment there are at least four flea circuses concurrently performing), he believes that only the books in the Bible that start with the letters J, R, and Z are relevant, and that Jesus Christ talks to him through his fish who have been dead for at least five months. This may not be a bad person, but probably not someone who you want teaching your children. Yet what do you say when he says that he is “called”? Do you say that the Holy Spirit told you that he is not called? How do you know when he is speaking from a place of truth?

                                                   Don't you trust me with your children?

            I am sure that there are other religious phrases aside from invoking the Holy Spirit or claiming that one is called that hold power and sway in a religious community. Phrases will vary depending on the religious community. In a Catholic context one could say that the Pope said it is so and leave it at that. In a Lutheran context you could point to Martin, and in a Quaker community you can say you need to discern for a while. Each community has its own phrases of religious power and the struggle to discern a sense of truth.

            What usually ends up happening is deference is given to the individual because we all want to be nice; power is given to the individual over the community. In many Baptist traditions a call was confirmed by the community, yet today if someone were to claim that he or she was called to the ministry most likely the church would affirm the individual with an emphatic “ok” because we want to be nice and because we don’t really know how to discern a spiritual truth as a community.

I wonder if we know what it really means to be called or to be moved by the Holy Spirit. Or perhaps better stated, we may not know what it looks like when someone is called or moved by the Holy Spirit. We may look for clues or indications, but when it comes down to it we aren’t sure how to discern and critique claims of religious power.

           

            There is a balance of power that needs to be struck between the community and the individual, but that balance seems to have fallen to the individual.

            I don’t have an answer (yet) but becoming aware of religious language of power and the way it is often misused to control and gain one’s desires is a start. To be honest, everything would be better if everyone just realized that I am always right and that the Holy Spirit is always speaking directly to me.

Super-Freak Christians!

I have been struggling with my identity as a Christian. Not so much if I am a Christian (I think I am, I think I am, I think I am…), but more what kind of Christian I am. Here are some options that are before me:

Progressive Christian

Liberal Christian

Conservative Christian

Fundamentalist Christian

Bible Believing Christian

Evangelical Christian

Progressive Evangelical Christian

Emerging Progressive Evangelical Christian

Orthodox Christians

Neo-Orthodox Christians

Annoying Christians

Shouting, Annoying Christians

Etc…

As you can see there are a lot of options before me. The struggle is that I don’t feel like fully I identify with any of these labels. I come out of a progressive background but I have eschewed much of that tradition (but not all so don’t freak out). I am part of a traditionally evangelical movement, but I’m not welcome in many of those circles unless I do not mention certain things (guess what those things might be). The emergent folks make me feel squeamish, self-conscious, and a little to gimmicky. Plus I never like a worship service where you might be asked to take off your shoes and worship in your socks or barefoot .

Fellow theologian (although he is a professional!) and friend Scott Paeth posted this comment on the Facebook recently

So my question is: If I no longer feel at home among "normal" mainline Christians, and I can't take self-identified evangelicals, where's the church for the freaks?

For me Scott hit the nail on the head – where is the church for the freaks?

I have recently been listening to some HomebrewedChristianity podcasts which are ok and which also have piqued my thoughts and struggles on the topic of identity. They offer a podcast that claims to be for progressive Christians but overall something seems to be amiss. It may be the flagrant use (and misuse) of culture. For example, I heard that there will be a show about how pirates can offer us a good example of discipleship because they were working class folks rising up against the rich. Maybe, but they were also robbers, murderers, and overall troublemakers. This is an example of letting culture guide one’s theology to one’s determent. Or it is because there is such an effort to shock people with ideas that really aren’t very shocking, or to critique tried and true tropes of mainline Christianity which seem to be tired. Honestly I can’t say just what it is, but something jars me.

It feels like sloppy theology.

I think this is what bothers me; sloppy theology. I guess that is why I have taken the name “theosnob” for this blog. My experience of progressive Christians is that the theology is based primarily on experience, on making sure no one’s feelings are hurt, and thus the theology is sloppy. On the other hand, I can’t find a place to belong with the conservative’s theology – it may not be sloppy, it is just wrong (can I say that? Sure, it is my blog after all). So I’m with Dr. Scott looking for the freaks – the people who believe the gospel is for everyone, who believe that God’s love is for everyone, and at the same time want to be sure to have a well thought out, consistent theology that does not sacrifice core understandings of Christianity for the sake of inclusivity (for example holding to the ideas that means all roads do not lead to the same God, that all religions are not basically the same, and that the Trinity is an important, basic part of Christian faith and doctrine).

Something like this may emerge in different ways – these are our freak flags. Many like to embrace the high-church traditions and rituals. I don’t think we have to become a church that gets all prettied up with liturgical garb unless that is your freak flag. Mine is an evangelical language with a broader, non-atonement focused theology than one might normally find in an evangelical church. That is my freak flag so far. I am calling all other freak Christians to speak out, to say who they are without apology and to be articulate and clear without holding back.

Its time to let our freak flags fly!

With Those Prices He Must Be Insane!

I'm contemplating a different kind of evangelism than what I am doing now. Let me explain my brilliant, aggressive evangelism that I am currently involved with. I sit and work at coffee shops, I don't tell people that I am a pastor unless they ask, and then I don't push any ideas or extend any kind of invitation. If someone actually wants to ask me a question I answer but don't engage for further conversation. This is good, solid New England evangelism that produces maybe 1 person a year to the church (with a margin of error of 3). 

I have been contemplating a different kind of evangelism because I don't think what I am doing is working. Sure, a lot of people know who I am, but I don't know if folks feel comfortable approaching me with "religious stuff."

I saw an article on Facebook a couple of weeks ago about some Episcopalians who stand in front of their church and offer to pray with people on the street. Sorry, I don't have the link, so take my word for it.

Here is what I am thinking. Putting up a sign that says:

Free Prayers - Written or Spoken

My hope is folks will be interested in such a sign and might ask a question or engage in some way or another. On the other hand, I may end up in a conversation with a crazy, conservative, fundamentalist nut. Or, people may see me as a crazy, conservative, fundamentalist nut. This would not be good.

Christianity is supposed to have a presence in the world; in part that is why the buildings look different than the rest of "normal" architecture. This does not mean I should go around with my arms over my head pretending to be a steeple. Instead, there is something about engaging the world and at the same time holding onto your identity as odd as that may look.

I am very much in the world, but I don't know if I am interjecting into the world in a way that lets people know who I am. Plus, who wouldn't want a free prayer?

So those of you in Rhode Island, keep an eye out for someone who might be offering free prayers - I wonder if this would reduce worship attendance if people did not have to attend church to receive prayers?

I Like Everybody (As Long as They are Just Like Me)

This morning I woke up with a strong sense of determination to write a post for my blog. Yet I did not know what to write. Everything I'm reading is a little too esoteric (meaning I can't understand what I am reading), and I haven't seen enough to grab my attention. Luckily I came across the following article on the NPR website:

Fears About Shariah Law Take Hold in Tennessee

Wow! It is like an answer to my prayers, if I ever really found myself praying to God for a blog post inspiration  There are so many things to say about this story.

First, the dentist and anti-Shariah law activist Lee Douglas points to a Muslim woman being hired by the governor as evidence of an "infiltration" of Islam into the Tennessee government. Douglas claims that Islam is directly opposed to his faith (which I am assuming is Christian). Here is the kicker quote from Douglas:

"I don't want anybody to persecute any religion including Islam, but we have a duty as Americans to understand that they intend to take us over and compel us to become Islamic."

Douglas claims that, "government is showing a deference and is accommodating one single religion - Islam, Shariah." According to the NPR article, Douglas continued to say that deference should be shown to the religion of the country's Founding Fathers.

Wow. And again I say, Wow. There are so many things to say about just this one person's thoughts and ideas. First, I would never want him to be my dentist. Not because he is Christian or conservative, but mostly because he is an idiot.

Let's start with the constitution and the idea of deference. Just in case you weren't aware the First Amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" (for the full text see the following link)

I may be missing something, but I don't see anything in there about showing "deference" to any religion. The point of the clause is that the government will not favor one religion over another. Thus the government should not be showing deference to the "religion of the country's Founding Fathers." For this post I'm not going to get into the question of the what the Founding Fathers faith might be considering the diversity of the religious backgrounds of the Founding Fathers (Quaker, Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, Diest, Methodist, etc., along with a strong backing of a Jewish congregation). 

Second, allowing someone to build a place of worship is not showing deference to that group.

Third is the gem of the quote that Douglass made, "I don't want anybody to persecute any religions…" and at the same time criticize the governor just because he hired a Muslim woman. So Douglass is ok with Muslims as long as they do not have a place to worship and they are not allowed to hold any government jobs. Seems rational, right?

Douglas also believe that Islam is "diametrically opposed to his faith." Islam, a Monotheistic faith finding its roots in the Hebrew scriptures, specifically Abraham is diametrically opposed to Christianity, a monotheistic faith finding its roots in the Hebrew scriptures, including Abraham.

Maybe Douglas doesn't understanding the meaning of words like "diametrically opposed," and "persecution."

One other reflection from the article. Further on in the article we read how Rep. Diane Black was pressured to show her toughness against Shariah law. She states:

"I understand the devastation that Shariah law could mean here in our country, and I'm a sponsor of a bill that will once again say that the United States Constitution is our law and that it is the supreme law." It is that phrase, "supreme law," that bothers me.

If you are not a religious person, then such a phrase should not cause any problems, but if you are a believer of some kind and practice with some kind of tradition then you should be a worried about such a statement. The phrase "supreme law" suggests that it is above any and all other laws. This means it is above any religious laws including scripture. If you are really a Christian, and I wonder if these people who make such claims really are, then you would want at least the two great commandments to be the "supreme law"

Love the Lord you God with all your heart, mind, and soul

Love your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:29-31)

Secular, constitutional law is good to have as a law of the land but not the "supreme law." Constitutional law is a law that people of various faith traditions can find agreement, but it is not the "supreme law."

I think I might push for a law that states that all people who push a law against Shariah law be forced to take lessons in grammar, world religions, and vocabulary.

 And they can't be dentists.