Thursday, September 24, 2009

To Be or Not To Be the Church?

Over the next couple of weeks, some of the churches on our district are taking part in a "Faith in Action - Don't Go to Church, Be the Church" Sunday. In place of their normal schedule of worship services, these congregations will, as a church family, step outside the walls and serve their community in a variety of ways. Trash will be picked up, school yards cared for, homes repaired, nursing home residents ministered to - all in the name of Jesus, with no strings attached. The driving desire of these pastors and congregations is to connect with their community, demonstrating the love and grace of God through acts of kindness and service.

My family and I have participated in "Be the Church Sunday" with our own local church for the last two years, and we look forward to being a part of it once again this week. I have witnessed its impact on both those who serve and the ones being served. When done in the right spirit and with the right motivation, stepping outside of our normal activities for the day and pushing ourselves out beyond the walls of the church can be used by God as a powerful, formative experience of His grace. For those of us in the church, it reminds us that true worship is more than what we do inside the sanctuary and that we are called to be "doers" of the Word, not just "listeners." For those we serve in our community, we become a parable of Jesus, a concrete and visible illustration of His love and grace. It is a statement to the world around us that we are not here to serve ourselves and our own interests, or to be a private, exclusive club. Our call, our mission, and our desire is to be a reflection of the unfailing love and mercy of a God who longs to restore all that which is lost and broken.

The churches participating are not, as some have suggested, rejecting the value or need for preaching and worship services. They preach faithfully and consistently, they worship through music, rejoice in the testimonies of others, baptize believers, and share in communion. They do not see serving the community as a rejection of all these things, or the only thing that is needed; they are simply giving some intentional focus to an aspect of discipleship that is too often overlooked. Jesus not only proclaimed the kingdom of God verbally - He also demonstrated the power and grace of His kingdom through loving service to others. For the followers of Jesus, it is not a matter of one versus the other - it is all a part of a life that is offered up to God in worship.

Participating churches are not, as some claim, "forsaking the assembly." They meet together faithfully and consistently, in a variety of ways, and always with the purpose of experiencing the grace of God in the body of believers. On "Be the Church Sunday," they will come together - they come together to serve others in the Spirit of Christ. Their service becomes an act of worship, and as they offer it up, God is present, doing His work both in them and through them, shaping them more into the image of Jesus and revealing His love to a broken, hurting world.

These churches are not, as some have accused, trying to desecrate or disrespect the Sabbath. In Matthew 12, Jesus was challenged by those who defined the Sabbath by particular rituals and observances. In response, Jesus turned to the words found in Hosea 6:6, "I want you to show mercy, not offer sacrifices." His message to them was clear: the purpose and spirit of the law should take precedence over their rituals of the law. That message was reinforced by His words in verse 12, "Yes, the law permits a person to do good on the Sabbath." Rather than disrespecting the Sabbath, some of our churches are setting aside this day to honor it in a different way - by embodying Jesus in their community. Returning to Matthew 12, Jesus proclaimed Himself "Lord, even over the Sabbath." (vs. 8) So, if He is Lord of the Sabbath, and what these churches do this Sunday honors Jesus, then doesn't it honor the Sabbath as well?

Before anyone becomes defensive, let me make this clear: in no way am I saying that a church is wrong not to participate, that everyone must share the same opinion, or that every church should do it the same way. I understand that there are those who are personally uncomfortable with not having the usual worship service on Sunday. I fully understand that no one style or approach to ministry works in every context. And if your own convictions on the matter prevent you from participating in this event, then I fully respect that, want you to honor your convictions, and would object to any attempt to condemn you for your views. But with that said, let me ask this: shouldn't that same spirit of grace be extended to those who will take part?

In the church, we will always face non-essential matters that result in disagreement and differing opinions. Such differences are to be expected and are not wrong in themselves. When those differences, however, produce a spirit of judgment or condemnation toward our brothers and sisters in Christ or toward another church, we are no longer in line with what we are called to be. I hope we will take to heart Paul's direction in Romans 14:

"Who are you to condemn someone else's servants? They are responsible to the Lord, so let him judge whether they are right or wrong. And with the Lord's help, they will do what is right and will receive his approval. In the same way, some think one day is more holy than another day, while others think every day is alike. You should each be fully convinced that whichever day you choose is acceptable. . . So let's stop condemning each other. Decide instead to live in such a way that you will not cause another believer to stumble and fall."

I pray for the churches that will take part in "Don't Go to Church, Be the Church." I pray that God will do something wonderful in them and through them as they serve their communities in a spirit of love, offering up their lives as sacrifices of worship. I pray just as sincerely for the churches that will have their normal schedule of worship services. I ask God to be present and powerful in all that is done, and that all those attending will experience a genuine encounter with Him. Whatever we do, and however we go about doing it, may it all be for the glory of God and His kingdom. And may we all be glad for one another and the different ways the Spirit is working in the life of His Church.

Friday, September 18, 2009

Returning to Postmodern and Wesleyan?

Turning my thoughts once again to the book Postmodern and Wesleyan?, I must honestly admit that I find myself somewhat hesitant to discuss certain questions or issues the book raises. My concern flows from the perception that some topics seem to spark more misunderstanding, distortion, and misquotes than others. At the same time I realize that, for this very reason, these issues need to be put on the table and engaged with open, honest conversation. So, here we go with the often contentious question of the relationship of Christianity to other religions, and more specifically, the relationship of Christians with the people of other religions.

In the chapter titled Christianity and Other Religions, Dr. Albert Truesdale opens the dialogue on how we, in the Wesleyan tradition, should understand and approach this often difficult question. (Side note: Dr. Truesdale was one of my professors as a student at Nazarene Theological Seminary. Not that he would remember me - my academic record at NTS was far less than stellar!) None of us can deny the importance of the issue, as complex or contentious as it might be. In many ways, the world has come to our doorstep and we find ourselves surrounded by a culture of religious diversity. In sharp contrast to my own childhood experience, my children now attend school alongside a number of children from Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist homes. Whether or not we want to deal with the question, it is and will continue to be before us.

Let it be said up front that there can be no wavering in our affirmation of Jesus Christ as Lord and God. We are rooted and established in the firm conviction that "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ." (2 Cor. 5:19) What I appreciate about Dr. Truesdale's discussion, however, is not only his strong affirmation of who we believe Jesus to be, but also his challenging reminder of our Wesleyan understanding of God's prevenient grace and how it comes to bear on this issue. Recognizing both, he says:

"Wesleyans clearly recognize the importance of evangelical conversion resulting from a Spirit-inspired proclamation of the gospel. But we set no limits on how or when the Spirit will accomplish God's purposes. In various ways and measures, the Spirit can preveniently (i.e., with anticipation) employ religions - and any other device God chooses - in service to the gospel." (p. 81)

It seems to me that one of the critical issues that must come into play as we discuss our relationship to people of other religions is our understanding of prevenient grace. While we are unapologetic in our affirmation of who Jesus is, we also believe that God is at work prior to our conversion, speaking, awakening, and drawing us toward Him. Do we dare believe that the prevenient grace of God can be at work in the lives of those from other religions? Please understand me - that is not the same as affirming or accepting those religions themselves as being true or valid paths to God. To do so brings us into conflict with core Christian beliefs regarding the nature, person, and work of Jesus Christ. What it does affirm, however, is that God, in His sovereignty and grace, can use any variety of means, circumstances, and opportunities to begin to awaken a person's heart, stir their desire to know Him, and prepare the way for their necessary acceptance of Jesus as Lord and God.

We do believe, as Wesleyans, that God is at work before we arrive on the scene. We accept that the Spirit is moving in the lives of people, seeking them out and drawing them toward a relationship with Christ, even before we recognize it. So, if we believe that, then how should we understand our relationship with the Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist next door? Should we not seek to lovingly and graciously nurture what God might already be doing in their lives through his prevenient grace? Rather than cut them off or push them away, would it not be better to cooperate with that grace, allowing love and friendship to draw them toward an understanding of Jesus as Lord and helping them enter into a relationship with Him? I think Dr. Truesdale's summary at the end of this chapter says it well (certainly far better than I could):

"In summary, a Wesleyan answer regarding Christianity and other religions contains four elements.

First, we affirm the New Testament's witness to Jesus Christ as God incarnate.

Second, we affirm that the promised Spirit of God unfailingly and creatively acts in the world. The Spirit seeks to draw all people to eternal life in Christ and prepares the way for the gospel's proclamation. We must seek to discern and cultivate the Spirit's work.

Third, we affirm that religions can become vehicles the Holy Spirit uses to draw people to Christ. But religions are at best incomplete anticipations of the fullness of God manifest in Christ.

Finally, we Wesleyans abhor mean-spirited opposition to other religions. Instead, we seek to understand and dialogue with those from other religions. We dialogue because we want to serve, not obstruct, the Redeemer's prevenient work." (p. 82)

Let the conversation continue.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Some Good Stuff

Taking a little break from the Postmodern and Wesleyan? discussion, I thought I would share some good stuff I came across this week. I was able to catch a little bit of "The Nines," Leadership Network's online conference where a number of church leaders were each given nine minutes to share something they were passionate about. One that stood out to me was Skye Jethani, editor of Leadership Journal, who challenged the all too common perception that "large" is equivalent to "legitimate" in ministry. It was a genuine and much-needed reminder to pastors and leaders that ministry must be judged by more than the scorecard of size.

Another item that caught my attention this week was an editorial by David Felter in our denominational magazine, Holiness Today:

http://www.nph.com/nphweb/html/h2ol/articleDisplay.jsp?mediaId=2402180&nid=lcol

The editorial itself is not specific and could probably be applied to any discussion of change or transition in the church. However, the title - Are the Emerging Church Folks Stealing the Church? - leaves no room for doubt as to the issue being addressed here. Personally, I believe he rightly captures and defends the heart and motivation of those in our church who are trying to engage our rapidly changing world with the radical hope of God's redeeming love and grace. I applaud his assertion that "they are different does not mean they are aberrant" as a word that needed to be spoken; I affirm his conclusion that these folks "are not thieves among us," but are in reality "our brothers, our sisters, and our children."

I know there are some who will immediately point to the extreme elements of the so-called emerging/emergent church movement and issue a blanket statement of condemnation over anyone and everyone who identifies with it in any way. Yes, there are elements under the "emerging" umbrella that walk a fine line, and a few may cross that line and truly qualify as aberrant. Now, I'm not a historian by any stretch of the imagination, but I do know enough to realize that the same could be said of every movement in the history of the church. Movements tend to be reactionary and there are always those who go too far in their reaction. History also teaches us, though, that God can be at work in a movement even if elements of that movement need to be corrected, disciplined, or rejected.

Apart from the general debate, my specific concern at the moment is for those within the Church of the Nazarene who have been tagged with the generic labels of "emergent" or "postmodern" and, as a result, have been attacked, rejected, or dismissed. I've sat across the table from a number of bright, gifted, and passionate leaders in our church who have been labeled these things (and, at times, labeled things less flattering). What I have personally seen, heard, and experienced with them is this:
  • They have no desire to reject the authority of Scripture or the doctrinal foundations of the church. What they want is an understanding of Scripture and doctrine that truly means something for the way we live. For them, the Bible is not a mere textbook and doctrine must be more than propositional statements. These things should form us and inform our way of life.
  • They do not wish to undermine or destroy the idea of holiness. They are passionate about following the way of Jesus, embracing the idea of "love made perfect" in our hearts, and living out this Christlike love in genuine community.
  • They do not reject or resent traditions as historic expressions of genuine Christian faith. At the same time, they are frustrated by a traditionalism that sacrifices the mission of the church for the sake of the comfort of church people.
  • They do not want to be conformed to the world, but desperately want to make a difference in the world. Rather than live in irrelevant isolation, they long to embody the love, grace, and hope of God's kingdom in the midst of a world that is broken.

There is one thing I would add to this list: some of these bright and passionate followers of Jesus are openly wondering if there is going to be room for them in our church. That is why, if for no other reason, I find this Holiness Today editorial to be encouraging, helpful, and hopeful. It reminds us that the table is a big one, that there is in fact room for those who are truly seeking to change our world for the sake of God's kingdom. Although we may differ on many non-essential issues or in matters of philosophy and style, we are united by a common love and a shared mission. Despite our questions, differences, and disagreements, those of us in the Body of Christ can and must learn to trust one another's hearts.

May it be so on all sides of the table.

Friday, September 4, 2009

Again With the Postmodern and Wesleyan?

Personally, I'm enjoying the thoughts and conversations related to the book Postmodern and Wesleyan? If you've had enough already, feel free to stop here and read no further. In fact, you may want to stay away for a few weeks. It's okay if you do - I'll just assume that you're going to devote those extra minutes to Bible study.

This week I have been processing chapters 2 and 3. In the second chapter, T. Scott Daniels discusses the "big tent" of the the Wesleyan tradition. Our tradition is clearly one of "liberty in nonessentials," seeking to maintain a spirit of unity and fellowship while allowing for a difference of opinion in matters not deemed essential to the Christian faith. It's not that these matters of opinion are of no significance at all, but we realize that Christians can differ in these areas and still all be Christians. The third chapter is Thomas Oord's thoughts on the idea of truth and its place in the postmodern mindset. While some seem to believe that all postmoderns reject the whole concept of truth, Oord points out that a postmodernist does not need to reject the idea of truth. At the same time, acknowledging that our human perception and understanding is faulty and imperfect at best, our posture should be one of humility.

I'm not nearly intelligent enough to be a part of the conversation with these guys, but in my simple-minded way, I see a significant point of connection between these chapters. In what I have read and observed, in the real-life conversations I've had, this is what comes across to me:
  • Many postmoderns are not questioning the idea of truth as much as they are questioning our ability, as human beings, to perfectly understand and communicate truth. Given our obvious fallibility, our walk should be one of humility.
  • Many postmodern Christians are not rejecting the idea of absolute truth, but the spirit of absolutism they have seen and experienced within the church. They are reacting to those who want to believe that their understanding or interpretation of absolutely everything is absolutely correct.
  • Many postmodern Christians are not trying to diminish the value of doctrinal distinctives or various Biblical interpretations, but are rejecting the "small tent" mentality that too often reveals itself in judgmental stone-throwing between different Christian camps and traditions. They are reacting to those who seem to reduce Christianity to nothing more than a set of propositions and those who elevate their own distinctives and opinions to the point that they become the definition of a "true Christian."

It seems to me that the "convictions embraced in humility" attitude that Thomas Oord speaks of will naturally create in us the "big tent" perspective expressed by Scott Daniels. Conversely, the "big tent" concept of "liberty in nonessentials," which is an integral part of our Wesleyan tradition, seems to resonate deeply with the concerns and ideals of many postmoderns in their search for truth. Perhaps being postmodern and Wesleyan is not all that far-fetched?

With that said, are there potential dangers related to the postmodern mindset? Have some gone to extremes, rejecting all truth and drifting into absolute relativism? Is there the danger of allowing the essentials of the faith to become lost or labeled as nonessential? Absolutely. Remember, though, that every age and movement has those who go to unhealthy extremes and the Church has always faced the danger of losing its essential identity when interacting in and with our world. Words of caution are necessary, but not new; the warnings were just as needed in the modern era as they will be in the postmodern era.

For me personally, I have come to see that many postmodern Christians are, at least to a degree, calling us back to something that is not only a part of our Wesleyan heritage, but the Biblical command to reveal Jesus in the way that we love one another. Love compels us to find unity in those things that are essential and to maintain fellowship despite the differences of opinion in the nonessentials. Love calls us to walk in humility, with an open and teachable spirit. This attitude seems to echo that of John Wesley in his sermon Catholic Spirit:

"But although a difference in opinions or modes of worship may prevent an entire external union, yet need it prevent our union in affection? Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt, we may. . .

And it is certain, so long as we know but in part, that all men will not see all things alike. It is an unavoidable consequence of the present weakness and shortness of human understanding, that several men will be of several minds in religion as well as in common life. So it has been from the beginning of the world, and so it will be till the restitution of all things. . .

I ask not, therefore, of him with whom I would unite in love, Are you of my church, of my congregation? Do you receive the same form of church government, and allow the same church officers, with me? Do you join in the same form of prayer wherein I worship God? I inquire not, Do you receive the supper of the Lord in the same posture and manner that I do? nor whether, in the administration of baptism, you agree with me in admitting sureties for the baptized, in the manner of administering it; or the age of those to whom it should be administered. Nay, I ask not of you (as clear as I am in my own mind), whether you allow baptism and the Lord's Supper at all. Let all these things stand by: we will talk of them, if need be, at a more convenient season, my only question at present is this, 'Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?'"

Amen.