February 28, 2008

The Glory and the Grief

In his second report from the National Pastors Convention, David Swanson describes how two Anglican bishops helped him recognize Christ's presence among all the convention glitz and kitsch.

May I confess something? I've experienced a bit of cynicism at this conference over the past few days. Everywhere I look, I see another Christian item for sale. I'm writing this post in front of a TV showing the latest installment of a hip teaching series. Off to my left is a display for the new Narnia movie, and to my right is a recruiting station for Army chaplains.

My cynicism is probably not helpful. But I have nevertheless found myself wondering, "Where is Jesus in all this stuff?" One answer to that question has come in the form of addresses from two Anglican bishops.

The main session on Tuesday evening featured Anglican Bishop John Rucyahana. "Bishop John" became took leadership of a diocese in northwest Rwanda in the aftermath of the genocide. A Rwandan refugee who spent most of his life in Uganda, Bishop John was "accepted by Jesus" when he was 21. His journey as a leader in the Anglican Church began shortly thereafter.

Bishop John spoke to us of our calling into God's glory and excellence from 2 Peter 1. I would imagine that most of us in the grand ballroom that evening have had very different experiences in our ministries. Surely few, if any, of us have preached to a congregation filled with those who have known both sides of genocide.

In his sermon, Bishop John repeatedly assured us that he does not follow a distant Jesus, a Jesus who is trapped in history. Rather, he pursues the Jesus who is present now: "I now preach to those who have lost their families and to those who are guilty of killing the families of others. And Jesus is there!"

I couldn't help but wonder if those of us whose lives and ministries have been easier, in so many ways, could say the same thing with the same conviction. Certainly Jesus is present in our lives and churches, as He is for Bishop John. But do we experience that presence with the same clear-eyed conviction as our brother from Rwanda?

This morning I attended the early bible study with N. T. Wright, Bishop of Durham, England. Bishop Wright is widely known for his historical Biblical scholarship, including the "new perspective" on Paul. This morning he led the two hundred or so of us in the room through the book of Acts. Like Bishop John, Bishop Wright continually pointed us to Jesus. Encouraging us to come to Acts with first-century eyes and 21st-century questions, he showed how the story in Acts is all about the risen Jesus establishing the Kingdom of God through the power of the Holy Spirit.

While Bishop John has experienced first hand the collision of the Kingdom of God with our world, Bishop Wright claims that the Western church is moving into a "strange and dangerous world" where we, too, will experience this collision. And while Bishop John has answered the costly call of discipleship to our Lord Jesus, Bishop Wright asked us this morning, "When was the last time someone accused you of proclaiming another president, namely Jesus?"

Jesus is undoubtedly very present at this conference, despite the marketing overload and my own cynicism. But I'm grateful to the English and African bishops for reminding me of this. And I'm grateful that the conference organizers invited these men to address us American church leaders who probably cannot be reminded enough of both the glory and the cost of proclaiming the risen Jesus.

- David Swanson

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 28, 2008 | Comments (7)

February 27, 2008

A Big Can of Worms

David Swanson agreed to leave frozen Chicagoland to labor in sunny San Diego at this year's National Pastors Convention. He'll be sending us updates throughout the week of the goings on there. This is his first post.

I arrived at the National Pastors Convention in California a day early to catch one of the pre-conference seminars: Emerging Critical Issues Facing the Church. (For this Midwesterner, the sunny blue skies of San Diego were another reason to come early.) The seminar featured four panelists - Scot McKnight, Phyllis Tickle, Andy Crouch, and Tony Jones - addressing four critical issues: the role of Scripture, the church and politics, homosexuality, and religious pluralism.

These issues are as controversial as they are critical. This was clear from the spirited conversation between the panelists, the passionate questions and comments from the audience, and our moderator's repeated requests for civil interaction. Allow me to summarize two of these conversations.

Scot McKnight introduced the section on the role of Scripture. "Since high school, I've been perplexed about how we [Christians] read the Bible," he began. Specifically, Scot was puzzled by how we decide what parts of the Bible were for "then" and what is for "now." He went on to define four ways Christians make these decisions. The "return to restore" method believes we can return to a New Testament form of Christianity in order to restore the Biblical texts to their original meanings. A less idealistic version of this is the "return and retrieve" method, through which the reader approaches the text in order to decide what can be retrieved for our lives today. The panelists agreed that every Bible reader does this to some degree. The question, of course, is how we decide what to retrieve and what to leave behind. Still others approach the Scriptures through his or her "sacred tradition," allowing their particular tradition to shape their understanding of the text. Finally, Scot described the "primacy of Scripture" method of biblical interpretation. Rather than reading through the lens of tradition, this method reads with tradition. Scot believes this is the most helpful way of reading the Bible, for it allows the church to be constantly reforming.

If Scot is right that we read the Bible in these different ways, and if he's correct that reading with tradition is the ideal, then how do we preachers and teachers help our church members read this way? Is it enough to allow our preaching and teaching to be formed by the primacy of Scripture, or must we be more blatant in explaining our methodology?

Reading from an article he wrote in 2003, Andy Crouch introduced the third critical issue facing the church: homosexuality. According to Andy, "Humankind is not divided into homosexual or heterosexual categories. We are all sexual beings who tend towards self-satisfaction." Additionally, many churches rally around these categories, "which leads to a double standard: chastity for those who are gay and a don't-ask-don't-tell policy regarding sexuality for the rest of us."

While the panelists disagreed on whether or not homosexual practice is sinful, they were clear that the church must do a better job of pastoring those who are gay. Phyllis counseled the pastors in the room to "remember the human side - these are people, not theories, we are talking about." Scot added, "The challenges for those pastors who are more traditional is how to create a safe environment for those who are gay to worship." The evangelical church, he said, "has mostly failed in this area."

Tony stated that the critical question for most churches is not whether to care for those who are gay. The question many in church leadership are wrestling with is, "Can a gay person can serve in leadership? And at what level?"

Can churches that understand homosexual practice to be a sin actually provide a safe space for gay worshipers? And regarding Tony's question, should gay members of your congregation be allowed some opportunity of leadership? At what level?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 27, 2008 | Comments (25)

February 25, 2008

Pop Quiz

If you've already taken the quiz and gotten your score, post your comments below. How well did the quiz describe you?

If you haven't already taken the quiz, now it's your turn. You can find "The Hermeneutics Quiz" here.

Then come back to this page and comment. Let us know what you learned.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 25, 2008 | Comments (53)

February 21, 2008

Canadian Sermon Types, eh?

And now for something completely different...

Neil Young, who pastors Erindale United Church in Mississauga, Ontario, sent us this inventory of sermon styles in the Great White North.

The Maple Syrup: Boils source material down to about 1/50th its starting volume.

The Mountie: When it's most dressed-up, it doesn't arrest anybody.

The Igloo: Goes 'round and 'round until a final capstone is dropped in.

The Curling: Kind of incomprehensible, but everybody seems to have a good time.

The Lacrosse: Fast, hard-hitting, and it's hard to see the points as they're made.

The Hockey Fight: Staggers unsteadily, swinging wildly, but lands a punch or two.

The Canadian: Overly apologetic.

The Snowmobile: Loud and a bit obnoxious, but takes you places you otherwise wouldn't go.

The Beaver: Dams everything in sight.

The Maple Leaf: Has 11 points; always ends up falling to the ground.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 21, 2008 | Comments (8)

February 19, 2008

Pagan Christianity (Part 2)

Many of you have requested a more formal review of Pagan Christianity, and I feel obliged to provide one. It should be said, however, that Out of Ur is not usually a place for reviews. We offer snippets and opinions and let you guys do the talking. However, this is an important topic, and it deserves a response (in the absence of a true review).

My concern with this book is that it is not what it claims to be. Viola argues that he has presented a careful and thorough exploration of Scripture and Church history. He simply hasn't.

In the chapter "The Pastor," Viola's entire biblical argument against the modern pastorate is based on the fact that the word "pastor" appears only once in the New Testament. He does reference (in parentheses) several other passages, as some of you have noted. But he does not interpret them and allow them to challenge his conclusion. Consider the following (Look these up; I can only list them):

o James 3:1
o 1 Timothy 3:1; 5:18
o 1 Peter 5:2
o 1 Corinthians 9:9

Taken together, these passages don't mean that the pastorate ought to look like it does today. But they do make the issue more complicated than Viola acknowledges.

Regarding church history, Viola says there was no official leadership in the church until the second century. However, Clement of Rome, in the late first century, spoke of the office of bishop (and its "dignity") as if it were established fact (see his Epistle to the Corinthians). Viola also fails to acknowledge that the need for official leadership arose, in part, as a safeguard against heresy - serious heresy, like denial of the deity of Christ.

Viola glosses over the tremendous complexities of historical shifts, as the one from Roman persecution to Constantinian support of Christianity. The clarity of hindsight tells us that Constantinianism did untold damage to the church. But the church fathers must have imagined the shift as the fulfillment of God's kingdom on earth. It is little wonder, then, that they took full advantage of their liberty and built churches where they could gather in peace.

By failing to deal seriously with the messiness of history, Viola is woefully ungracious to the historical figures themselves. Men like Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa and others in those early years of priesthood felt the full weight of their responsibility as shepherds of men's and women's souls. They made mistakes, to be sure, but they are brothers and sisters in Christ and, as such, deserve to be read sympathetically.

Viola's use of sources is also a bit irresponsible. He relies too heavily on secondary sources. Other times he cites authors who do not support the whole of his position. Karl Barth (p.122), for example, disapproved of the clergy-laity distinction, but he worked firmly within the established church. After all, his magnum opus was entitled Church Dogmatics.

While failing to reference key Scriptures and glossing over historical complexity, Viola pronounces his interpretation as if every other is heresy and abomination. I could ignore the cavalier tone if it did not claim to be "immovable, historical truth."

There is a deep need in America for revival in the way we understand the church. I wrestled with many of the issues Viola addresses during my master's program in Church history. And while I'm as fearful as the next guy of the veneration of systems and institutions, I also fear that this book obscures the true issue: true disciples can emerge from any and every church model. We are not called to "do" church a certain way; we are called to imitate Christ.

Allow me an argument from experience. I have been a member of several different churches. In one the pastor was a tyrant, and the church was unhealthy as a result. I served as pastor in another of the same denomination. The little church all but venerated the pastor's position (which scared me to death), but never have I met a more faithful group of believers. I was also a pastor on a team in which there was no senior pastor. That church became unhealthy and devolved into a tiny, self-seeking cell. I'm now a member of a liturgical, historical denomination. Our church has its problems, but even though there is an official hierarchy, functionally the church operates as a family. What I mean to say is this. I've participated in leadership in several forms of church. Each has is problems. The issue is not forms.

This book and its apparent success distress me because I dearly love the church. I love the church because the New Testament makes it clear that the Church is God's body on earth, the head of which is Christ. And I fear that books like this one threaten to hack that body into bits.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 19, 2008 | Comments (48)

February 14, 2008

Is the Pastorate Pagan?

I appreciate it when a writer shows all his cards at the beginning of a book so I don't have to guess at his presuppositions. Frank Viola does just that in the opening line of his newly re-released Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices (Barna, 2008). He starts like this: "Not long after I left the institutional church to begin gathering with Christians in New Testament fashion?" You can imagine the tone of the pages that follow.

Viola argues in his preface that the "practices of the first-century church were the natural and spontaneous expression" of believers indwelt by the Holy Spirit that were "solidly grounded in timeless principles and teachings of the New Testament." Regrettably, he maintains, most practices of contemporary churches - including everything from having a professional pastor to meeting in a church building - are at odds with New Testament teachings. Worse yet, those extra-biblical practices were adopted from pagan culture. This is unsettling, Viola sympathizes; but it is also "unmovable, historical fact." The remainder of the volume is an argument from Scripture and church history to support this thesis: "the church in its contemporary, institutional form has neither a biblical nor a historical right to function as it does."

In the interest of full disclosure, I should confess that I'm a member of a historic denomination that worships with the liturgy. Not only that, it was only after dutifully searching the Scriptures and Church history that I moved toward - not away from - a more hierarchical tradition. So, I'm incurably biased. You judge the following for yourselves:

One of the contemporary church practices Viola denounces is "The Pastor" (chapter five). Although "by and large, those who serve in the office of pastor are wonderful people," Viola argues, nevertheless, "it is the role they fill that both Scripture and church history are opposed to." He makes the following argument from Scripture: 1) The word "pastor" appears only once in the New Testament, in Ephesians 4:11. 2) The word for pastor in Ephesians 4 is plural, which suggests there were more than one pastor at each church. 3) The word means "shepherd," and does not, therefore, refer to a formal office, but simply a function of the church. 4) Finally, the passage "offers absolutely no definition or description of who pastors are."

Wait; it gets better.

After a dubious journey through church history documenting the development from New Testament shepherds to contemporary pastor, Viola concludes that the "unscriptural clergy/laity distinction has done untold harm to the body of Christ" (136). Allow me to list his grievances. The contemporary pastor-role has:

? "divided the believing community into first and second-class citizens"
? "stolen your right to function as a full member of Christ's body"
? "overthrown the main thrust of the letter to the Hebrews - the ending of the old priesthood"
? "rivals the functional headship of Christ in His church"

In short, "nothing so hinders the fulfillment of God's eternal purpose as does the present-day pastoral role."

Originally released in 2002, Pagan Christianity has been revised and updated with the help of George Barna. In my opinion, it's Barna's endorsement alone that makes the volume worth talking about. As angry and disillusioned as I was about institutional church six years ago, I would have enthusiastically digested Pagan Christianity in 2002 had it made waves big enough to reach me in Arkansas. With Barna's help, the splash it makes in 2008 may be considerably larger. Add to the new endorsement the growing unease with institutions in general, and Pagan Christianity, with its angst and pseudo-academic format, may just find a market this time around. I'm no longer sure that's a good thing.

Brandon O'Brien, Leadership assistant editor

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 14, 2008 | Comments (84)

February 11, 2008

John Ortberg on Hope Management

Ronald Reagan once gave this nugget of advice, "Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority, and don't interfere." Recently, John Ortberg read the biography of another president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and through FDR's story he came to the realization that there is one aspect of leadership we should never delegate - hope.

I don't have a problem with delegation. I love to delegate. I am either lazy enough, or busy enough, or trusting enough, or congenial enough, that the notion leaving tasks in someone else's lap doesn't just sound wise to me, it sounds attractive. But I am coming to the conclusion that the one task a leader can never delegate, especially in the church, is hope.

I have been reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's wonderful biography of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, No Ordinary Time (Simon & Schuster, 2004). She notes that Franklin was not the most intelligent president of all time (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously called him a "second-rate intellect but a first rate-temperament.") He was surrounded by leaders who were more educated, more accomplished, more gifted, and more knowledgeable. But he had one gift that mattered more. "No factor was more important to Roosevelt's leadership than his confidence in himself and in the American people," she wrote.

The White House Counsel, Sam Rosenman, observed that FDR had a capacity to transmit this confidence to others; to allow "those who hear it to begin to feel it and take part in it, to rejoice in it - and to return it tenfold by their own confidence." Labor Secretary Francis Perkins noted that, like everyone else, she "came away from an interview with the President feeling better, not because he had solved any problems?but because he had made me feel more cheerful, stronger, more determined."

In the middle of a Great Depression, or World War II, or a capital campaign, or a staff crisis, people inevitably wonder: "Can we get through this? Is it worth all the effort and confusion? Can we really overcome this challenge?" They inevitably look to the person at the core; the man or woman leading the charge, the one who sees the big picture. When people see a leader with this kind of vital optimism, who radiates a sense that together we can do what needs to be done, then people tend to decide not to waste their energy wondering about "if" but focus their energy going after "how."

On the other hand, when Eeyore is at the helm the whole ship is in trouble. Eeyore may be the most intelligent, gifted, attractive, educated, credentialed person in the room. But if he or she is easily deflated, sensitive to defeat and criticism, and de-motivated by setbacks, the whole community begins the long slow spiral downward.

The church is in the hope business. We of all people ought to be known most for our hope; because our hope is founded on something deeper than human ability or wishful thinking. Martin Luther King was fond of citing Reinhold Niebuhr's distinction between hope and optimism. Optimism believes in progress; that circumstances will get better. Hope, however, is is built on the conviction that another reality, another Kingdom, already exists. And so hope endures when hype fades.

And yet, even ministry can be hope-draining. Churches can become places of cynicism, resistance, and pessimism. Spiritual resistance, my own sinfulness, and the sheer gravitational pull of the status quo can drain away the power to dream. Both hope and pessimism are deeply contagious. And no one is more infectious than a leader.

For this reason I've realized that I must learn the art of hope management. I must learn about the activities and practices and people who build hope, as well as the activities and practices and people who drain hope.

When I looked back at my old journals it came as a surprise to me how often they were simply chronicles of failure. I would write down how I felt inadequate as a pastor, incompetent as a dad, and not-all-that-great as a Christian in general. These weren't so much confessions with absolution and forgiveness; they were vague general expressions of discouragement that left me more discouraged. They were the opposite of what David did when he "encouraged himself in the Lord." I was "discouraging myself in the Lord."

So now I try to steward my hope; not by avoiding thinking about my sin, but trying to confess it, learn from it, and live in the reality of newness and grace. I have identified people in my life who breathe energy and hope into me, and I try to get large doses of time with them - especially on Mondays.

Psychologist Martin Seligman, though not religious himself, notes that not only does faith produce hopeful people, but more robust faith produces more robust hope. For all the great hopers are mystics. And long before FDR said we have nothing to fear but fear itself, a great hoper known as Julian of Norwich sang her song from the depths of the Black Plague-infested fourteenth century:

But all shall be well,
And all shall be well,
And all manner of things shall be well?
He did not say, "You shall know no storms, no travails, no disease,"
He said, "You shall not be overcome."

You can't delegate hope.

John Ortberg is editor at large of Leadership journal and the pastor of Menlo Park Presbyterian Church in Menlo Park, California.

LISTEN to John Ortberg's sermon about hope at PreachingToday.com.

LEARN to lead with hope by downloading the case study, "Hope for the Dry Times," at BuildingChurchLeaders.com.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 11, 2008 | Comments (8) | TrackBack

February 7, 2008

The Next Caption Contest

What are your captions for this cartoon by Dennis Fletcher?

Winning entries will be published in the Spring 2008 edition of Leadership. Please include your name, your church’s name, city, and state.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 7, 2008 | Comments (32)

February 5, 2008

Al Mohler is Too Cool for School

Al Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, has a reputation for diving fearlessly into controversial issues. A visit to his Wikipedia page reveals his history of treading into cultural minefields and not leaving until every bomb has detonated. His penchant for pyrotechnics continues with his latest book, Culture Shift: Engaging Current Issues with Timeless Truth (Multnomah, 2008). Mohler addresses issues like faith and politics, morality and law, war and terror, homosexuality, and abortion - that's a lot of mines to detonate in 160 very small pages.

In a chapter entitled "Needed: An Exit Strategy from Public Schools," Mohler argues that "public schools are prime battlegrounds for cultural conflict." In Massachusetts, for example, children as young as seven years old have been assigned a book called King & King, in which a homosexual prince falls in love with another prince and, one assumes, lives happily ever after. Because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, educators insist that a homosexual lifestyle be presented in public schools as normal and, as a result, they affirm the districts' decision to require the book. Many Christians object to this sort of curriculum, but what can be done?

Mohler suggests the following:

I am convinced that the time has come for Christians to develop an exit strategy from the public schools. Some parents made this decision long ago. The Christian school and home school movements are among the most significant cultural developments of the last thirty years. Other parents are not there yet. In any event, an exit strategy should be in place.

This suggestion elicits questions about Christian mission and presence in the world. Will the darkness become even more pervasive if we stage a mass exodus from public school systems? On the other hand, do we risk the souls of our children for the sake of outreach?

But Mohler's solution also has implications for church leadership. He continues:

This strategy would affirm the basic and ultimate responsibility of Christian parents to take charge of the education of their own children. The strategy would also affirm the responsibility of churches to equip parents, support families, and offer alternatives.

I'd like to hear what all of you Ur-banites think. Do churches have a responsibility to offer alternatives to public education? Is it appropriate for church leaders to decide for their congregations whether their children ought to remain in public schools or move to a private or home school environment?

Mohler is certainly right about one thing; it is only a matter of time before Christians in every region of the country face challenges like the one described above. He is also right that churches are responsible for equipping parents to respond to their children's difficult questions. But how? How can church leaders equip believers - including their very youngest members - to follow Jesus and be salt and light? And what does that mean for our relationship to public schools?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 5, 2008 | Comments (82)

February 1, 2008

McChurch: I'm Lovin' It

"Church plants," "sister churches," and "satellite congregations" may be a thing of the past. In 2008, the language of missiology is changing, so look for "church franchises" in your town.

Eddie Johnson, the lead pastor of Cumberland Church, espouses the franchising concept when it comes to the relationship between his church in Nashville, Tennessee, and North Point Community Church in metro Atlanta. On his blog, he states, "Just like a Chick-fil-A, my church is a 'franchise,' and I proudly serve as the local owner/operator."

According to Johnson, his job is to "establish a local, autonomous church that has the same beliefs, values, mission, and strategy as North Point." He completed a three-month internship at North Point and continues to receive training and support. He claims to rarely deviate from the "training manual."

"Just like that Chick-fil-A owner/operator," he says, "I'm here in Nashville to open up our franchise and run it right. I believe in my company and what they are trying to 'sell.'"

The pastor says people who are already familiar with the North Point "brand" will find a local congregation with the same fit. For those who have relocated from Atlanta, they'll get a taste of home and know what to expect in their new church.

According to Johnson's website, the "Strategic Partnership Churches" exist in such diverse locations as Florida, Pennsylvania, and Colorado. And by 2010, North Point plans to plant 60 new churches.

Is this the future of the Western church- franchised congregations of megabrands in every city with pastors serving as the local owner/operator? Many of us have seen this coming, but it's rather shocking to see the model and language of the franchised church so enthusiastically embraced as it is by Eddie Johnson.

What do you think? Are Cumberland Church and other franchised congregations the wave of the future? Are Chick-fil-A and McDonalds the right model for the church to be emulating? Are franchised mega-churches going to be the denominations of the 21st century? Or, is this consumer Christianity taken to its logical and disturbing extreme?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 1, 2008 | Comments (79)