At first glance, there doesn’t seem to be a lot to talk about in our lesson from the book of Romans this morning. I mean, essentially all you have Paul doing is sending greetings. Greet such and such. Greet so and so. Greet this person who is beloved. Greet that person who is a member of that house. Over and over again–27 people worth of greetings. I mean, if that is the sum and substance of Paul’s paragraph here, what more is to be said than simply getting up here and saying, “Greet one another. Amen.?” Short. Sweet. To the point. Done. Let’s call it a day.
But let’s take a moment to dig a little deeper. Let’s go beyond the superficial and look at some of the details and see what is revealed about what it means to live a life that is convicted by the Gospel.
The first thing that stands out to me is how many people Paul actually knew in the church that he had never visited. Think about this with me for just a moment. Remember, Paul has admitted that he has never been to the church in Rome. He has yet to travel there, even though he has desperately wanted to. If that is the case, how is it that Paul knows the names of so many people? How is it that he somehow can ask for greetings for over 20 folks whom he has yet to see face to face?
This gives us some insight into the early Christian church. It tells us that in the early Church, folks knew of fellow Christians throughout the Roman Empire. They were not isolated in their little enclaves, thinking only about themselves, and connected to their small circle of friends and relatives in their communities. No. They had a much larger perspective of what the church was. They had a much larger perspective of where the Gospel was supposed to go. They knew that the church was struggling to gain a foothold in the Roman Empire. It faced trials and tribulations. It faced some persecution. It faced shortage of resources. So, people stayed in contact with each other. People prayed for one another. People in Achaia and Macedonia cared for the people in Jerusalem. People in Jerusalem prayed for the people in Rome. The early Christians knew that the church was much, much larger than their local congregations, and they made it a point to reach across the distances to get to know folks in other places.
I must confess that this is an area of growth for me. I tend to be rather short-sighted. I tend to focus right here on this community and neglect others throughout the world. I tend to forget that the church is much, much larger than Saint John Lutheran Church of Cat Spring. I tend to focus my prayers right here and forget about the rest of the world. I do not know many people outside of this congregation and the congregations I served previously. It is a challenge for me to think on a grander scale...to think about the larger church. Perhaps this is also a challenge for our congregation.
The second thing that stands out for me is the diversity of people that Paul greets. There are men and women. There are Jews and Gentiles. There are people who own houses, and there are slaves. These early house churches cut across racial, gender, and socio-economic status. When you walked into those churches, you did not see row after row of people who looked the same, had the same background, and had the same status in society. The Gospel had broken down these boundaries and replaced them with a new set of boundaries.
For you see, the Gospel proclaimed that each and every person was in Christ Jesus. Each and every person had been clothed with Christ Jesus. Each and every person had a new identity that went above and beyond any other identity conferred upon them in society. People did not cease having a Jewish or Gentile background. They did not cease being rich or poor. They did not cease being slave or free. They did not cease being male or female, but those identities were nothing compared to their identity in Christ. Therefore, there was only one status that was important in the church: that you were a child of God.
That’s it.
Nothing else.
You were not given special privilege because you were wealthy. You were not given special privilege because you were male. You were not given special privilege because you were Jewish. All of these things, which at one time did bestow privilege, were gone. You were a new creation being made into the image and likeness of Jesus.
This too has implications for the church today. For it is awfully easy to flip back into the distinctions of status and privilege. It is awfully easy to believe that our job or our title or our bank accounts or our possessions or any other distinguishing mark gives us a special privilege. This is something we must resist. When the church begins allowing these distinctions, we fall away from the promises we have inherited in our baptisms. We fail to remember how Jesus has claimed us and clothed us. We fail to remember what Christ has done for us and instead focus on, well, us. And we are not the focus of the church. Jesus has been, is, and always will be. When a church fails to focus on Jesus, distinctions get made, and we are another step further removed from the becoming the body of Christ.
Finally, in this passage, we see a deep, deep sense of love and respect between church members. Paul’s initial words about the deaconess Phoebe are a recommendation to end all recommendations. They are very, very flattering and are intended to paint her in the best possible light as she, in all likelihood, brings Paul’s letter to the church in Rome. We then see just how far members in the church are willing to care for one another in the next statement. “Greet Prisca and Aquila, who work with me in Christ Jesus, 4and who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.”
I must confess to you that I don’t think I had ever paid that much attention to this sentence the previous times when I had read through the book of Romans. Prisca and Aquila literally “risked their necks” on behalf of Paul. Whatever they did, it put them in great risk for their fellow brother in Christ. Whatever they did, it could have cost them their lives. In the early church, folks were willing to risk their lives for one another!!! Chew on that for just a minute.
Being a part of the early church literally could put your life in danger. Much like being a part of the church in Iran today, or in the areas still controlled by ISIS. Much like being a part of the church in China. Christians in these parts of the world are apt to suffer greatly at the hands of the ruling authorities, and being a part of the church there could literally jeopardize your life.
And yet, the church is actually growing rapidly in these parts of the world just as it grew rapidly in the Roman empire. There was something so deeply moving about the Christian faith that it led people to do things that were almost unthinkable. It led people to take unbelievable risks for one another–risks that were not done out of any sort of self-interest or personal gain, but risks that were taken out of great love for fellow believers.
And why wouldn’t they take such risks? They knew what Jesus had done for them. They knew what Jesus had endured for their sakes. They knew that Jesus had come into this world as God-incarnate. They knew that Jesus had lived the life that God desired of mankind. They knew that Jesus was spotless and blameless before God. They knew that Jesus offered Himself as the sacrifice for their sins. They knew that they didn’t measure up to God’s standards. They knew that they fell woefully short. They knew they deserved eternal punishment for their shortcomings before the Almighty Creator of the universe. But instead of that punishment falling on their heads, Jesus took that punishment for them. Jesus interceded on their behalf and faced hell for them. Jesus faced rejection for them. Jesus faced divine wrath for them. And then He became the first fruits of a new creation as he was raised from the dead. He became the first sign of God’s new kingdom breaking into the world and reversing all evil and hatred. He became the unleashing of God’s rule in the world where death and the devil would be defeated. These early Christians were grasped by this marvelous act of Jesus. They were grasped by this undeserved love. They were grasped by the wonder of God dying for them when they least deserved it, and their hearts were moved to love God and love one another so that they would lay down their lives for each other. They would take great risks for one another. They would sacrifice their time, their talent, and their treasure for one another. The Gospel changed them deeply from within!
And O how desperately do we need this Gospel today!! How desperately do we need to have Christ’s love poured into our hearts so that we are willing to have our lives changed again!! How desperately does the church need an infusion of God’s love reawakened within it! How desperately does the church need to rediscover its roots so that it has the energy, drive, and hope of the early church! For as the rest of the world saw how different the church was; as the rest of the world saw the changed hearts and self-sacrifice of the church; the rest of the world noticed that this change was not brought about by self-will and determination. The rest of the world saw that God had indeed touched the hearts and minds of the church. The rest of the world saw that God was real and had come to earth as Jesus the Christ. The rest of the world saw that God’s kingdom was breaking into the world, and they wanted to be a part of that kingdom as well. The rest of the world’s hearts became changed because the Gospel captured them through the love, preaching, teaching, and risk taking of the church.
Oh, my brothers and sisters, this text has so much more within it than simply greeting one another. It helps us see what the church can be when it loves God and then loves one another. May God’s love find us so that we may be the Church!! Amen.
Showing posts with label The Church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Church. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Only the Cross
I find myself in a bit of a pickle as I think long and hard about my relationship with the larger church (ELCA). I love my church. There is no doubt about this. I want her to grow and thrive. I want the God-awful state of decline she has been in to reverse itself and for people to fill her pews on a given Sunday morning. I long for the day when all of our congregation's pews: Lutheran, Baptist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Pentecostal, and the like are filled to overflowing as people come from far and wide to worship.
I do not wish for any church body to decline and die.
And yet, many are. Some slowly. Some spiraling out of control.
Now, this is not some sort of "the Church must change or die" sort of post. God knows, I've heard so many of those lectures and read so many of those blogs that I have started tuning them out.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to become more moralistic.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to focus more on justice.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to change our doctrines.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to stop being so liberal.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to stop being so conservative.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to implement more programs.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to implement less programs.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to have more "contemporary"/modern worship.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to have more "traditional" worship.
In each and every one of these things, we are focusing on ourselves. We are trying to figure out what the surrounding culture wants and give it to them. It's as if we believe the Church is here to satisfy the needs and desires of the culture, and if we want our pews to be full, then we need to be giving the culture what it wants.
I can see the early Church trying to take such action.
"Well, you see those Jews over there. They expect a Messiah who will come and establish power and peace by military force. The Messiah will overthrow the Romans and free the nation of Israel. Let's shun the cross and what Jesus did and talk about such power and might. Let's give them what they want."
"Well, you see those Gentiles over there. They want comfort and security. They want a god who is omniscient and omnipotent who can favor them. Let's get rid of the cross where God dies and give them a god who allows them joy and pleasure in their lives."
"For the cross is a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles." --1 Corinthians 1:23.
Indeed, the cross still is foolishness. It must be. That's the only reason I can think of that it didn't make an appearance at the Synod Assembly I attended last week. Can you imagine a Synod Assembly whose focus was intended to be evangelism that didn't mention the cross? That didn't mention the acts of God on that cross? Can you imagine a Lutheran Synod Assembly whose focus was supposedly evangelism--whose founder espoused and coined the phrase the theology of the cross--who didn't spend a single minute asking the question, "How do we convey the message of the cross in this day and age? How do we talk about God's reconciling the world unto Himself in this postmodern age?"
So, what was the Synod Assembly focused on?
Essentially, it was one giant pep-rally trying to get us to do good things. Yep, that was it. Work hard at being especially nice. Work hard at listening to your neighbors. Work hard at loving everyone. That is evangelism. Your works are evangelism. What you do is evangelism.
So, you might ask, what is the problem with that? I'd like you to read the following quote from a young man who served on a panel of young adults at the Synod Assembly. He leans atheist/agnostic, and he offered this scathing criticism of the church:
What response can one give to such a scathing criticism IF the church's job is "doing good things?"
There is no response. The criticism stands, and the Church is convicted. (Although to be fair, in the omitted examples this gentleman listed in his screed where he asked "Where is the Church?", in all reality, the Church was already in all of those places. One can easily ask the question: why can't you see it there?)
In fact, as I was debriefing with one of my members, I was brutally honest. I said, "I don't want this guy in my church. He reminds me of myself not too long ago. Arrogant. Self-righteous. He'd be a troublemaker. But it doesn't matter if I want him in church or not. There is One who does want Him. There is One who wants His heart and soul."
Indeed, there is one part of the young man's criticism that is Truth: the Church should never try and make itself the center of everyone's world. Never. Ever! At the center of everyone's world should be a cross with a suffering God who is stretching His arms out to suffer and die to make sure the world is reconciled to their Heavenly Father. At the center of everyone's world should be Jesus.
If anyone in the Christian Church disputes this, then I simply think you cannot call yourself a Christian. (Read my extended quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer from a few days ago.) If at the center of your world is anything less than Jesus, then you are committing idolatry. You have a false god.
And so, the answer to the young man's question is Jesus. The Church doesn't want you, sir. Jesus does. The Church will go on without you too, but there is One who doesn't want to go on without you. There is one who was willing to die for you. I know you probably don't see that or get that. You are completely and totally focused on your actions and the actions of the world and the Church. You want to make a difference. I understand that. I really do. I wanted to change the world myself.
But I found out something. It was a hard lesson. A very hard one. I couldn't make that difference. I couldn't change people. I couldn't change the world. I might be able to feed a person for a day. I might be able to lobby government officials. I might even be able to lead a movement to change laws, but I can never, ever change someone's heart. I can't make people love each other. I can't make people get along and see each other a fully human. I can't convince people to stop looking out for their own interests and look out for the interests of another.
I know you are a studious sort of person. It came across very strongly in your presentation. Read Nietzsche? You understand, don't you, that if there is no transcendence, no God, then everything we do are simply power plays, right? You do understand that essentially we are all working out our own wills to power even if we say we are looking out for another? You could argue that you aren't looking out for yourself, but Nietzsche would scoff at you and say, "Yeah right. The only reason you are trying to help others is because you get some benefit.
You see, there is One who indeed came and lived for no benefit to Himself. Jesus didn't need anything from us. He was totally satisfied, loved, and glorified in His relationship with His Father and the Spirit. He needed and needs nothing from us. Yet, He came to us for a reason--to change our hearts that we might experience the same kind of love He knows living with the Father and the Spirit. He came that we might be able to love one another without any sort of contempt or anger towards those who are different than we are. And He showed that not with power and might but with a cross.
It's all about Jesus and the cross. If you can't get someone to the foot of the cross, then...well, you might be doing some good things, but you are not doing evangelism. And if the Church exists solely for doing good things, then we have no need of worship. We have no need for buildings and Bible Study. All we essentially need is to have someone urge us, remind us, sometimes whip us into submission to "Love our neighbors as we love ourselves."
But Christianity isn't about that. Evangelism isn't about that. It's all about Jesus. It's focal point is the cross.
Somehow, this has been pushed to the periphery. No longer is it at the center.
To our detriment.
What will it take to reclaim our cross-centeredness?
I frankly don't know, but I know what I will do from henceforth:
When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. 2For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. -- 1 Corinthians 2:1-2.
If that message changed hearts then, it will still change hearts now. Here I stand...
I do not wish for any church body to decline and die.
And yet, many are. Some slowly. Some spiraling out of control.
Now, this is not some sort of "the Church must change or die" sort of post. God knows, I've heard so many of those lectures and read so many of those blogs that I have started tuning them out.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to become more moralistic.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to focus more on justice.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to change our doctrines.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to stop being so liberal.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to stop being so conservative.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to implement more programs.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to implement less programs.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to have more "contemporary"/modern worship.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to have more "traditional" worship.
In each and every one of these things, we are focusing on ourselves. We are trying to figure out what the surrounding culture wants and give it to them. It's as if we believe the Church is here to satisfy the needs and desires of the culture, and if we want our pews to be full, then we need to be giving the culture what it wants.
I can see the early Church trying to take such action.
"Well, you see those Jews over there. They expect a Messiah who will come and establish power and peace by military force. The Messiah will overthrow the Romans and free the nation of Israel. Let's shun the cross and what Jesus did and talk about such power and might. Let's give them what they want."
"Well, you see those Gentiles over there. They want comfort and security. They want a god who is omniscient and omnipotent who can favor them. Let's get rid of the cross where God dies and give them a god who allows them joy and pleasure in their lives."
"For the cross is a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles." --1 Corinthians 1:23.
Indeed, the cross still is foolishness. It must be. That's the only reason I can think of that it didn't make an appearance at the Synod Assembly I attended last week. Can you imagine a Synod Assembly whose focus was intended to be evangelism that didn't mention the cross? That didn't mention the acts of God on that cross? Can you imagine a Lutheran Synod Assembly whose focus was supposedly evangelism--whose founder espoused and coined the phrase the theology of the cross--who didn't spend a single minute asking the question, "How do we convey the message of the cross in this day and age? How do we talk about God's reconciling the world unto Himself in this postmodern age?"
So, what was the Synod Assembly focused on?
Essentially, it was one giant pep-rally trying to get us to do good things. Yep, that was it. Work hard at being especially nice. Work hard at listening to your neighbors. Work hard at loving everyone. That is evangelism. Your works are evangelism. What you do is evangelism.
So, you might ask, what is the problem with that? I'd like you to read the following quote from a young man who served on a panel of young adults at the Synod Assembly. He leans atheist/agnostic, and he offered this scathing criticism of the church:
But the part of me that lives on the edges has to stop and ask this...why? Why is the christian church trying to recruit "youths ages 18-35 who make up the blah blah blah??? What does having more people in church do?
The people I asked to help me with this do amazing things, why doesn't the church stop trying to pull them into their crowd and instead go out and be with them? ...The question I want answered is, when will the church stop trying to make itself the center of everyone's world and go out and do something like so many 18-35 year olds are doing, because I have to tell you, we are just waiting for the day the church joins us.
What response can one give to such a scathing criticism IF the church's job is "doing good things?"
There is no response. The criticism stands, and the Church is convicted. (Although to be fair, in the omitted examples this gentleman listed in his screed where he asked "Where is the Church?", in all reality, the Church was already in all of those places. One can easily ask the question: why can't you see it there?)
In fact, as I was debriefing with one of my members, I was brutally honest. I said, "I don't want this guy in my church. He reminds me of myself not too long ago. Arrogant. Self-righteous. He'd be a troublemaker. But it doesn't matter if I want him in church or not. There is One who does want Him. There is One who wants His heart and soul."
Indeed, there is one part of the young man's criticism that is Truth: the Church should never try and make itself the center of everyone's world. Never. Ever! At the center of everyone's world should be a cross with a suffering God who is stretching His arms out to suffer and die to make sure the world is reconciled to their Heavenly Father. At the center of everyone's world should be Jesus.
If anyone in the Christian Church disputes this, then I simply think you cannot call yourself a Christian. (Read my extended quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer from a few days ago.) If at the center of your world is anything less than Jesus, then you are committing idolatry. You have a false god.
And so, the answer to the young man's question is Jesus. The Church doesn't want you, sir. Jesus does. The Church will go on without you too, but there is One who doesn't want to go on without you. There is one who was willing to die for you. I know you probably don't see that or get that. You are completely and totally focused on your actions and the actions of the world and the Church. You want to make a difference. I understand that. I really do. I wanted to change the world myself.
But I found out something. It was a hard lesson. A very hard one. I couldn't make that difference. I couldn't change people. I couldn't change the world. I might be able to feed a person for a day. I might be able to lobby government officials. I might even be able to lead a movement to change laws, but I can never, ever change someone's heart. I can't make people love each other. I can't make people get along and see each other a fully human. I can't convince people to stop looking out for their own interests and look out for the interests of another.
I know you are a studious sort of person. It came across very strongly in your presentation. Read Nietzsche? You understand, don't you, that if there is no transcendence, no God, then everything we do are simply power plays, right? You do understand that essentially we are all working out our own wills to power even if we say we are looking out for another? You could argue that you aren't looking out for yourself, but Nietzsche would scoff at you and say, "Yeah right. The only reason you are trying to help others is because you get some benefit.
You see, there is One who indeed came and lived for no benefit to Himself. Jesus didn't need anything from us. He was totally satisfied, loved, and glorified in His relationship with His Father and the Spirit. He needed and needs nothing from us. Yet, He came to us for a reason--to change our hearts that we might experience the same kind of love He knows living with the Father and the Spirit. He came that we might be able to love one another without any sort of contempt or anger towards those who are different than we are. And He showed that not with power and might but with a cross.
It's all about Jesus and the cross. If you can't get someone to the foot of the cross, then...well, you might be doing some good things, but you are not doing evangelism. And if the Church exists solely for doing good things, then we have no need of worship. We have no need for buildings and Bible Study. All we essentially need is to have someone urge us, remind us, sometimes whip us into submission to "Love our neighbors as we love ourselves."
But Christianity isn't about that. Evangelism isn't about that. It's all about Jesus. It's focal point is the cross.
Somehow, this has been pushed to the periphery. No longer is it at the center.
To our detriment.
What will it take to reclaim our cross-centeredness?
I frankly don't know, but I know what I will do from henceforth:
When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. 2For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. -- 1 Corinthians 2:1-2.
If that message changed hearts then, it will still change hearts now. Here I stand...
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Setting Up a Date with Jesus
I remember a Synod Assembly I attended several years ago. The presiding bishop of the ELCA was in attendance, and he was there to keynote as well as preside over the election of a new bishop. Well I remember his address to the gathered.
In the midst of his address, he asked us to turn to our neighbor and answer the question, "Why should I come to your congregation?"
The lady next to me said, "We are a warm and welcoming congregation who will accept you and treat you with kindness."
I responded, "Our congregation truly cares about our community. We have been actively involved in ministering to our neighbors by building a house for a needy family, paying electric bills and groceries, and making a difference in people's lives."
When the bishop took the stage again, he said, "Statistics show that 90% of you answered, 'You should come to our church because we are warm and welcoming and friendly.' Very few of you will talk about anything your church is actually doing to help your community."
Deep within I had a wellspring of pride. Yeah, our congregation is different. We are doing it right!
What an ass I was.
Not that being warm and welcoming and friendly isn't important--it is.
Not that doing good things in your community and making a difference isn't important--it is.
But these are not what our congregations should be about. These are not the things which should set us apart. Neither is saying, "We are welcoming of all people." or "We have a great music/youth/Senior Citizen/or what have you program." or "We get along well with each other." or "We work for peace and justice throughout the world."
These are all fine and dandy, but they are all, and I mean all, focused on trying to get people to like us; to be a part of us; to bolster our congregation's attendance; to make people fall in love with our congregation or our denomination.
As such, they fall far, far short of the reality of the Christian faith. For a congregation should not try to get people to fall in love with the church. A pastor should not try to get people to fall in love with him/her. We should and must work to get people to fall in love with Jesus.
At a recent theological conference, I looked around the room at my colleagues. I noted how very different we are. I noted how vastly different our theologies were. In talking to a higher up in synodical structures, I asked, "If you asked the people in there, 'what is the Gospel?' how many different definitions do you think you would get?" Her answer, "At least 200." And we would fight about whose definition is right.
"Look at us!" I said. "What person in his right mind would fall in love with us?!" We who are broken, divided, burned out, tired, floundering along without an identity or a shared understanding of the Gospel. We who have been caught up in the anxiety of a changing world in which we no longer have a privileged position. We who wring our hands as worship attendance drops, offerings disappear, and congregations close. We who are focused on survival; who set goals yet never meet them; who talk about having peace in our hearts yet show forth worry and anxiety.
We cannot try to get people to like or fall in love with us. It won't work. Look at us.
Which is why we must get people to look at Jesus. We must get people to hear the news of what He has done in reconciling the world unto God. We must get people to understand the radical nature of the Gospel (more on defining this later)--that God/Jesus died for us while we were still sinners; living the life we were supposed to live and dying the death we deserved.
What we do takes a back seat to what God has already done through Jesus! (Oh, all those other things begin happening, but only after what God has done becomes the primary focus and proclamation of the Church!)
All of our worship. All of our activities. All of our spending. All of our programming should be an attempt to get people introduced to Jesus. Until we make this our primary focus, we will continue to see decline and decay. For churches do not change people. Jesus does.
When is the last time you tried to set someone up on a date with Jesus?
If you'd like to know more about Him, just contact me. I will be more than happy to introduce you.
In the midst of his address, he asked us to turn to our neighbor and answer the question, "Why should I come to your congregation?"
The lady next to me said, "We are a warm and welcoming congregation who will accept you and treat you with kindness."
I responded, "Our congregation truly cares about our community. We have been actively involved in ministering to our neighbors by building a house for a needy family, paying electric bills and groceries, and making a difference in people's lives."
When the bishop took the stage again, he said, "Statistics show that 90% of you answered, 'You should come to our church because we are warm and welcoming and friendly.' Very few of you will talk about anything your church is actually doing to help your community."
Deep within I had a wellspring of pride. Yeah, our congregation is different. We are doing it right!
What an ass I was.
Not that being warm and welcoming and friendly isn't important--it is.
Not that doing good things in your community and making a difference isn't important--it is.
But these are not what our congregations should be about. These are not the things which should set us apart. Neither is saying, "We are welcoming of all people." or "We have a great music/youth/Senior Citizen/or what have you program." or "We get along well with each other." or "We work for peace and justice throughout the world."
These are all fine and dandy, but they are all, and I mean all, focused on trying to get people to like us; to be a part of us; to bolster our congregation's attendance; to make people fall in love with our congregation or our denomination.
As such, they fall far, far short of the reality of the Christian faith. For a congregation should not try to get people to fall in love with the church. A pastor should not try to get people to fall in love with him/her. We should and must work to get people to fall in love with Jesus.
At a recent theological conference, I looked around the room at my colleagues. I noted how very different we are. I noted how vastly different our theologies were. In talking to a higher up in synodical structures, I asked, "If you asked the people in there, 'what is the Gospel?' how many different definitions do you think you would get?" Her answer, "At least 200." And we would fight about whose definition is right.
"Look at us!" I said. "What person in his right mind would fall in love with us?!" We who are broken, divided, burned out, tired, floundering along without an identity or a shared understanding of the Gospel. We who have been caught up in the anxiety of a changing world in which we no longer have a privileged position. We who wring our hands as worship attendance drops, offerings disappear, and congregations close. We who are focused on survival; who set goals yet never meet them; who talk about having peace in our hearts yet show forth worry and anxiety.
We cannot try to get people to like or fall in love with us. It won't work. Look at us.
Which is why we must get people to look at Jesus. We must get people to hear the news of what He has done in reconciling the world unto God. We must get people to understand the radical nature of the Gospel (more on defining this later)--that God/Jesus died for us while we were still sinners; living the life we were supposed to live and dying the death we deserved.
What we do takes a back seat to what God has already done through Jesus! (Oh, all those other things begin happening, but only after what God has done becomes the primary focus and proclamation of the Church!)
All of our worship. All of our activities. All of our spending. All of our programming should be an attempt to get people introduced to Jesus. Until we make this our primary focus, we will continue to see decline and decay. For churches do not change people. Jesus does.
When is the last time you tried to set someone up on a date with Jesus?
If you'd like to know more about Him, just contact me. I will be more than happy to introduce you.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Cliques in Church
A respected member of my congregation approached me a week or so ago. "Pastor," he said, "You need to say something or do a sermon about cliques."
I waited for further explanation.
"I've spoke to two people recently about coming to church. Both of them said the same thing. They both said they won't come to church because of the cliques in the church. Something needs to be done about that."
Perhaps so, but I am now a veteran when it comes to handling church dynamics. I've seen how more often than not, when you try to address something, the exact opposite happens. Harp on people for not coming to church, and church attendance drops. Harp on people for not giving enough or telling them to tithe 10% of their income, and offerings drop. Tell them they need to come to Sunday School, and they don't. Reverse psychology should be the order of the day, but if you go with the intent of trying to change things by doing the opposite, might you get figured out by doing that too? Isn't that a bit manipulative? Probably.
And that rightly leads to stagnation and a fear of even trying to address the issue. That's not good either.
So, the question is: how does one address the issue of cliques without trying to offer a mandate or tell everyone how they should act knowing they are liable to do the exact opposite?
Perhaps what follows is a feeble attempt:
I believe cliques are a part of the way the world and nature works. I think they are inescapable. I mean it. Kids form cliques in pre-school and school without any sort of guidance or compulsion. They just do it. In the animal kingdom, cliques are formed in most species. Fish swim in schools. Cattle gather in herds. Lions in prides, etc. etc. Each has its own hierarchy and social structure. Most become closed and only open up on special occasions.
These groups form for various reasons: protection, cooperation, feeding, and even socialization. In my estimation, this means cliques are neither good or bad, they just are.
Even in the church, we have our cliques. I think we'd like to pretend they don't exist, but they are there regardless. You have the women's group. The quilters. Men in mission. Youth group. Choir. Adult Bible study, and so on. These groups are organized based upon some commonality shared by all group members--gender, age, interest, ability. It's how we organize ourselves. Again, neither good or bad; cliques just are.
As I see it, the problem is not with cliques in and of themselves. It is when cliques become self-important, refuse to cooperate with others, and become closed that they become a problem.
St. Paul's analogy in 1 Corinthians 12 is instrumental in my opinion:
12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. 14 Indeed, the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15If the foot were to say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body’, that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16And if the ear were to say, ‘Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body’, that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many members, yet one body. 21The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you’, nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’ 22On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and those members of the body that we think less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our less respectable members are treated with greater respect; 24whereas our more respectable members do not need this. But God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member, 25that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another. 26If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it.
Paul does not encourage everyone to be alike. Far from it. In fact, Paul encourages the Church to honor it's differences, but with a very important caveat:
We are all one body.
Let that sink in for a moment. We are all one body. If various body parts begin warring against one another, really bad things happen. We actually know what that is called: cancer. With cancer, a group of cells thinks they are more important than the rest. They quit doing their job. They go rogue. They begin monopolizing resources. They begin feeding off the rest of the body. Eventually, if left unchecked, they kill the body.
In the Church, there is an antidote for such things--remembering who the head of the Church is and what He has called us to do. Remember, Paul is explicit in who he says the head of the Church is:
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. 17He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. --Colossians 1:15-18
To give this a very, local spin: St. John Lutheran Church of Cat Spring is actually ruled and governed by our head: Jesus Christ. We believe He has given us a vision and a mission: To Live God's Word Daily specifically by Actively reaching out as a strong Christian influence in our community by showing God's love through kindness, caring, and involvement with others inside and outside our community of faith.
All of our various parts theoretically should revolve around the Head and His instructions to us. Theoretically, everything we do should keep these things in mind. All of our various ministries and parts revolved around this vision and mission. If we should lose sight of this, then we face a war between the cliques. We face cliques vying for power and influence. Each clique's ministry becomes more important than the overall mission.
If you need evidence of this, look at our current political situation. Most representatives of our nation are there not to work for the good of their country, but for the good of their constituents. They are trying to get a piece of the pie for their district, their state, their area of representation instead of looking out for the good of the entire country. This leads to division and strife, something we are all too familiar with by reading our news papers and news feeds.
Should the Church reflect society or Christ? Should the Church represent what is going on in society, or should it represent what is going on in heaven where all are focused on God and His reign? The answer to me seems pretty obvious.
I personally do not believe cliques are necessarily a problem in any congregation, church, or community. It's how we organize, but it is my sincere hope that any clique that is within the congregation of St. John or any other congregation or denomination recognizes its vision and mission and works for the betterment of our congregation, denomination, and its fulfillment of the Christian mission in society.
I waited for further explanation.
"I've spoke to two people recently about coming to church. Both of them said the same thing. They both said they won't come to church because of the cliques in the church. Something needs to be done about that."
Perhaps so, but I am now a veteran when it comes to handling church dynamics. I've seen how more often than not, when you try to address something, the exact opposite happens. Harp on people for not coming to church, and church attendance drops. Harp on people for not giving enough or telling them to tithe 10% of their income, and offerings drop. Tell them they need to come to Sunday School, and they don't. Reverse psychology should be the order of the day, but if you go with the intent of trying to change things by doing the opposite, might you get figured out by doing that too? Isn't that a bit manipulative? Probably.
And that rightly leads to stagnation and a fear of even trying to address the issue. That's not good either.
So, the question is: how does one address the issue of cliques without trying to offer a mandate or tell everyone how they should act knowing they are liable to do the exact opposite?
Perhaps what follows is a feeble attempt:
I believe cliques are a part of the way the world and nature works. I think they are inescapable. I mean it. Kids form cliques in pre-school and school without any sort of guidance or compulsion. They just do it. In the animal kingdom, cliques are formed in most species. Fish swim in schools. Cattle gather in herds. Lions in prides, etc. etc. Each has its own hierarchy and social structure. Most become closed and only open up on special occasions.
These groups form for various reasons: protection, cooperation, feeding, and even socialization. In my estimation, this means cliques are neither good or bad, they just are.
Even in the church, we have our cliques. I think we'd like to pretend they don't exist, but they are there regardless. You have the women's group. The quilters. Men in mission. Youth group. Choir. Adult Bible study, and so on. These groups are organized based upon some commonality shared by all group members--gender, age, interest, ability. It's how we organize ourselves. Again, neither good or bad; cliques just are.
As I see it, the problem is not with cliques in and of themselves. It is when cliques become self-important, refuse to cooperate with others, and become closed that they become a problem.
St. Paul's analogy in 1 Corinthians 12 is instrumental in my opinion:
12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. 14 Indeed, the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15If the foot were to say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body’, that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16And if the ear were to say, ‘Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body’, that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many members, yet one body. 21The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you’, nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’ 22On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and those members of the body that we think less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our less respectable members are treated with greater respect; 24whereas our more respectable members do not need this. But God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member, 25that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another. 26If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it.
Paul does not encourage everyone to be alike. Far from it. In fact, Paul encourages the Church to honor it's differences, but with a very important caveat:
We are all one body.
Let that sink in for a moment. We are all one body. If various body parts begin warring against one another, really bad things happen. We actually know what that is called: cancer. With cancer, a group of cells thinks they are more important than the rest. They quit doing their job. They go rogue. They begin monopolizing resources. They begin feeding off the rest of the body. Eventually, if left unchecked, they kill the body.
In the Church, there is an antidote for such things--remembering who the head of the Church is and what He has called us to do. Remember, Paul is explicit in who he says the head of the Church is:
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. 17He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. --Colossians 1:15-18
To give this a very, local spin: St. John Lutheran Church of Cat Spring is actually ruled and governed by our head: Jesus Christ. We believe He has given us a vision and a mission: To Live God's Word Daily specifically by Actively reaching out as a strong Christian influence in our community by showing God's love through kindness, caring, and involvement with others inside and outside our community of faith.
All of our various parts theoretically should revolve around the Head and His instructions to us. Theoretically, everything we do should keep these things in mind. All of our various ministries and parts revolved around this vision and mission. If we should lose sight of this, then we face a war between the cliques. We face cliques vying for power and influence. Each clique's ministry becomes more important than the overall mission.
If you need evidence of this, look at our current political situation. Most representatives of our nation are there not to work for the good of their country, but for the good of their constituents. They are trying to get a piece of the pie for their district, their state, their area of representation instead of looking out for the good of the entire country. This leads to division and strife, something we are all too familiar with by reading our news papers and news feeds.
Should the Church reflect society or Christ? Should the Church represent what is going on in society, or should it represent what is going on in heaven where all are focused on God and His reign? The answer to me seems pretty obvious.
I personally do not believe cliques are necessarily a problem in any congregation, church, or community. It's how we organize, but it is my sincere hope that any clique that is within the congregation of St. John or any other congregation or denomination recognizes its vision and mission and works for the betterment of our congregation, denomination, and its fulfillment of the Christian mission in society.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Why Should Anyone Listen to the Church? (Part 1)
The question stems from something my bishop, Michael Rinehart, said at the end of a lengthy Facebook post:
Some days I feel the church has abdicated its role as a clear moral voice ik (sic) society, and as a community of reconciliation.
My question: Why should anyone listen to the church in the first place?
Let's consider an important assumption to begin with: the church has a clear moral voice in society. Does it?
Well, first, we must define "The Church." I am a Christian of the Lutheran persuasion, and I have come to see the wisdom of the Augsburg Confession's definition of the Church:
1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.
2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6.
In my estimation, this definition of The Church allows a very big tent. Most Lutherans accept a liberal view that our brothers and sisters in Christ include those of the vast majority of Christians found throughout other denominations. I personally do as well. I believe Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists, Baptists, et.al. all constitute "The Church."
Yet, there is quite a problem with this definition--this Church is hardly unified in beliefs, practices, understandings, and implementation of doctrine. We are NOT of one accord. We do NOT speak with one voice.
In fact, there are many voices presenting many views and interpretations of what it means to be Christian in one's private and in one's public life. There are many voices presenting many views about what it means to be a moral person and one of upright character. There are many voices presenting many views about what constitutes a sin and which parts of the Scriptures should and should not be followed.
In short, the American Church has no clear, moral voice. It is more like a giant cacophony of voices all crying and decrying together. In the smorgasbord that is American Christianity, one may choose a denomination or congregation based upon what that particular denomination or congregation teaches as it's particular flavor of Christianity. If the flavor isn't suitable to that person's taste, he or she may leave and seek out another.
This leads me to say, "How can the church abdicate a clear moral voice when it does not have one and hasn't had one for some time?"
This is quite problematic for the Church. For it leads to a very substantial question: Why should anyone listen to the Church anymore? Why grant it any authority, moral or otherwise in this day and age?
Unfortunately, I am going to leave it right there for the time being. The question is actually pretty new and raw for me just coming into focus yesterday afternoon. It is one thing to defend the Truth of the Christian message. It is another thing to argue why anyone should listen to it when the Church itself cannot speak with one accord on important moral issues. This is something I must ponder.
Some days I feel the church has abdicated its role as a clear moral voice ik (sic) society, and as a community of reconciliation.
My question: Why should anyone listen to the church in the first place?
Let's consider an important assumption to begin with: the church has a clear moral voice in society. Does it?
Well, first, we must define "The Church." I am a Christian of the Lutheran persuasion, and I have come to see the wisdom of the Augsburg Confession's definition of the Church:
1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.
2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6.
In my estimation, this definition of The Church allows a very big tent. Most Lutherans accept a liberal view that our brothers and sisters in Christ include those of the vast majority of Christians found throughout other denominations. I personally do as well. I believe Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists, Baptists, et.al. all constitute "The Church."
Yet, there is quite a problem with this definition--this Church is hardly unified in beliefs, practices, understandings, and implementation of doctrine. We are NOT of one accord. We do NOT speak with one voice.
In fact, there are many voices presenting many views and interpretations of what it means to be Christian in one's private and in one's public life. There are many voices presenting many views about what it means to be a moral person and one of upright character. There are many voices presenting many views about what constitutes a sin and which parts of the Scriptures should and should not be followed.
In short, the American Church has no clear, moral voice. It is more like a giant cacophony of voices all crying and decrying together. In the smorgasbord that is American Christianity, one may choose a denomination or congregation based upon what that particular denomination or congregation teaches as it's particular flavor of Christianity. If the flavor isn't suitable to that person's taste, he or she may leave and seek out another.
This leads me to say, "How can the church abdicate a clear moral voice when it does not have one and hasn't had one for some time?"
This is quite problematic for the Church. For it leads to a very substantial question: Why should anyone listen to the Church anymore? Why grant it any authority, moral or otherwise in this day and age?
Unfortunately, I am going to leave it right there for the time being. The question is actually pretty new and raw for me just coming into focus yesterday afternoon. It is one thing to defend the Truth of the Christian message. It is another thing to argue why anyone should listen to it when the Church itself cannot speak with one accord on important moral issues. This is something I must ponder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)