Leslie Newbigin on church and mission

Image via Wikipedia

I enjoy the stuff over at NextReformation, especially getting deeper into the concept of mission and missions.  The church IS A MISSION.  We participate in the story of God for the world.  And yet, the church is involved IN MISSIONS.  We have a food bank and we do outreach in the community.  And it's interesting pondering what the whole point is of the church without some kind of dance between these two concepts...what the church is and what the church does.  The author of NextReformation is Len Hjalmarson in British Columbia, Canada.  He's making me think.

I've had the following couple of paragraphs from his blog on my radar for over a week now.

Newbigin distinguished between missions and mission. The church both “does mission” and “is a mission.” Missions are specific activities undertaken by a human decision to bring the gospel to places or situations where it is not heard. These efforts have quantifiable results. But while missions activities are a part of healthy churches, they do not adequately describe the fullness of God’s work in the world.

The concept of missio Dei, however, captures Newbigin’s wider intention. The mission of the church is less a “missionary mandate” than a participation in the ongoing work of redemption. The missio Dei is God’s mission – the grand story of creation, fall, and redemption. And it is a “story,” not a list of propositions. Propositions are helpful in particular times and places, but are enculturated by language and ethos. The story, however, rooted in time and place, transcends both. When we attempt to export a set of propositions from one time and place to another, we are usually operating in a colonial mode."

Now, the question I have, as I ponder this at 11:45 PM on a Thursday night is... "Can the church have an adequate understanding of the MISSION of the church without a grounding in MISSIONS?"  My hunch is that it is only when grounded in "mission work" can the church understand the mission of God.  I think this means that the church (and my church) has its work cut out for them (and us).

"Jumping on Trees" -- An Over-Eager Young Pastor

Image via Wikipedia

When I started out in ministry, I was very headstrong, very sure of myself, and convinced that I was entirely theologically correct. It was obnoxious, I'm sure, for those in Frankfort, Indiana to whom I was sent to serve. Here I was, 24 years-old, right out of a prestigious seminary at Duke, I had had all the correct classes with all of the correct professors, and had gotten all of the correct grades.  I was sort of the "older son" personified.

One can make the theological statement that I was, indeed, "God's gift to ministry in that time and place." The problem was that, more than I knew at the time, I was thinking in my head and acting out that "I was God's gift to ministry in that time and place." My own mother says I was annoying. My sister would have said I was annoying whether or not this was the case, but she was probably correct in this instance.

I had done ministry "in the laboratory" of a seminary eduction but not in the real world. Even though I had a couple of summer, real-life programs under my belt, I really hadn't been charged with a congregation -- one that was going to hear me preach each and every week and one that I was going to have to lead.  Working on a sermon every once in a while sure was different than having to pull one together every week.

One way my theological correctness came through was my desire to "be crucified over every issue." So many things within the life of the church became issues of great concern for me. Now, some would argue that the pastor SHOULD try to have the best worship service possible, should question the questionable theological points and should move the church towards faithfulness in its actions.   I get that.  I really do.  However, I was the "lone ranger." I was there to save the day. And, Super-Pastor that I was, I knew exactly how to save my folks -- you just had to ask me. This led to me looking for places to be crucified -- JUMPING ON TREES.

But, not every issue is worth dying over. One has to pick battles. Otherwise you'll lose the war because you're fighting too many skirmishes. Plus, some things are just not that big a deal. It's OK to have some give and take, some flexibility. It's like the phrase: "One has to learn to be like the bamboo tree...learning how to bend but not break." Not every theological or Scriptural problem is an issue we need to address.  I may have had some theological skills, but I needed work in the people skills department.  Some things I just had to let go.  What's that verse from Matthew 23:24:

You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

Part of those first three years of ministry were learning how to differentiate gnats from camels.  In dim lighting, they look a whole lot alike.

I think I could argue that the "tree" upon which I chose to be crucified -- that of welcoming the Hispanics into our congregation -- was the right tree.  It was, indeed, the "camel" that needed straining.

But I still have a lot to learn here. 

What are the trees you need to be crucified on?  What are the important issues worth fighting for?

Rembrandt--"Return of the Prodigal Son"

The parable was the theme of this week's sermon.

I love this painting.

And I love Henri Nouwen's book about it.

Social Justice and Moral Language (with Glenn Beck & Stanley Hauerwas)

(Just a note from me:  I confess that this post has a little more theological and philosophical depth than I'm used to and I might be in over my congested head.  After finishing it, I feel a great need to post a funny music video or something.)


I'm sure there are two persons out there who are less likely to appear together in a blog post...but I can't think of them right now.

On one side, we have Glenn Beck -- conservative news show host, a pundit, tea party fan, and Fox News poster boy.  On the other side we have Stanley Hauerwas -- potty-mouthed Christian ethicist known for some politically explosive commentary which doesn't really fit in with conservatives (or liberals for that matter).  I've watched Beck on TV and I've listened to Hauerwas in ethics class.  I can't see them sitting down for one of Obama's "beer summits."

Regardless, John Schmalzbauer, a sociologist of religion over at Missouri State University brings the two of them together in an article that caught my attention and I've been sitting on it for a while.  It appears in the Duke Divinity Call and Response blog on Faith and Leadership.  The article, itself, is full of links to his references and I encourage you to check it out. 

The article was written shortly after Glenn Beck famously told his radio show listeners to run from those churches who preach "social justice."  ABC News has a pretty good summary (you can find lots of summaries out there):

On his radio and television shows, Beck suggested any church promoting "social justice" or "economic justice" merely was using code words for Nazism and communism.

"I beg you look for the words social justice or economic justice on your church Web site," he said. "If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. ... Am I advising people to leave their church? Yes! If they're going to Jeremiah Wright's church, yes!

"If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish," he said. "Go alert your bishop and tell them, 'Excuse me, are you down with this whole social justice thing?' If it's my church, I'm alerting the church authorities: 'Excuse me, what's this social justice thing?' And if they say, 'Yeah, we're all in on this social justice thing,' I am in the wrong place."

Later, Beck held up a picture of a swastika and one of a hammer and sickle, declaring again that "social justice" has the same philosophy as the Nazis and communists and that the phrase is a code word for both.

Now, when this first came out, I, along with many other Mainline Protestants or Catholics were taken aback....because we're part of churches that preach "social justice."  We use that terminology.  In fact, as Girdwood Chapel strives to fulfill its mission of "Love God. Love Others. Change the World." we strive to act with justice.  And a lot of Scripture seems to come to our defense here....not least of all Micah 6:8: "He has showed you, O man, what is good.  And what does the LORD require of you?   To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."

However, Schmalzbauer claims that both of these figures, Beck and Hauerwas, can help us be more cautious about how we use the words "Social Justice" in our churches.  Years ago, in his book After Christendom, Hauerwas posits that the notion of justice, itself, is a bad idea because we've let the world define that word for us.  The church shouldn't be in the business of making the world more just.  The church should be in the business of being the church and keeping the world, well, the world.  In other words, the lines between church and world have gotten so muddy that we really need to focus on reclaiming who it is that we are.  Yet, in still OTHER words, when we talk of "justice" we need to be careful what it is that we're talking about because we may just be pushing the world's agenda, doing th world's work.

And, perhaps, Glenn Beck is really opposed to a particular understanding of justice...an understanding that presupposes a liberal church relying upon a government to do their charity work.  He's not opposed to helping people.   He's opposed to "social justice" if it means the government co-opting the church's role in society.

I'll let Schmalzbauer close us out here with what I think are his strongest points:

Concerning Hauerwas and his understanding of Justice:

Unlike Mr. Beck, Hauerwas thinks that “freedom” and “Christian America" are bad ideas. Like his interrogation of the J-word, his critique of these notions is rooted in the conviction that the Enlightenment assumptions of the modern state have corrupted Christian thinking. Like the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, he has challenged the provenance of such taken-for-granted concepts, questioning the influence of Kantian philosophy on contemporary ideas of justice. From this perspective, the key questions are, “Whose justice? Which rationality?” 

A little history on the use of the phrase across the political and social spectrum:

.

Since the nineteenth-century, social justice has meant different things to different people. Coined by the Italian Jesuit Luigi Taparelli d’Azeglio, it has been embraced by such diverse figures as Pope John  XIII, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, and Mother Teresa.  On occasion, it has been co-opted by bigots, including Father Charles E. Coughlin, a notorious anti-Semite. 

And a his final, final word:

As religious leaders rise to defend social justice, they should take care to explain what they mean.

Now I'm left to ponder what I mean when I use the phrase "social justice."  How can it all be a matter of the church just being the church, trying to follow in the example of Jesus?  One way to sneak around this, I think, is to truly focus energy on the local issues, that which the church can affect with their hands and feet.  In other words, making sure things such as the Health Bill famously passed this year is secondary to the work of the local church dealing with the plight of the poor and sick in their own neighborhoods.

Tip O'Neill, former Speaker of the House, said "All politics is local."  And while I wouldn't want to downplay the work of the church with struggling persons across the world, perhaps "All religion is local" as well.  Or, maybe just most of us.

Throwing Your Body Into It / Ministry

Over the past week or so, I've been working with one of my older daughters on her pitching. I am no pitcher. I never have been one. I was never very good at it. But I've watched a ton of baseball and I've now watched my fair share of little league games. I've seen a lot of pitchers.  One thing about my daughter...she's got a pretty good arm--not just "for a girl" but a pretty good arm in comparison to her teammates on the "boys" team. And so, for the last three years, she's spent some of her time on the pitchers mound.

Watching your own child pitch can mess with your nerves. You're ecstatic when they pitch well. You're furious at the ump when they don't call the "close" pitches. And you hate to watch their confidence get shaken and the bad pitches start to mount--particularly when you know "the game's on the line." A few weeks ago I was called on to be the "field ump" for a game and found it very difficult to cheer for my daughter while trying to be impartial on the plays. Fortunately someone relieved me after the first inning.

What I had noticed over a period of games was that my daughter kept missing in the same spot. She's a lefty and her misses all seemed to be high and outside to the righty batters, forcing the catcher to jump up to his right on lots of pitches. Another coach had noticed that one of our team's pitchers wasn't pointing at home plate on the step towards the batter. And I thought that might be what my daughter's problem was. So, for a morning, we worked on "throwing her body into it." I used phrases like, "I want all of your momentum going towards home plate" and "I want you to feel your whole body pulled towards the plate" and "I want you to have to take a couple of steps towards the batter because of your body leaning into home."

Over the 25 pitches we were practicing with, it seemed to work. She was accurate -- more accurate than previously. And she had some good velocity -- more speed than before. As I caught her, it was fun to feel the "pop" in my mitt on some of the faster ones.

I'm really not sure about all of the mechanics and physics involved here. I'm just a dad who wants to see his daughter pitch as well as she can. But I do know that, if she's going to be successful with this, she can't hold back. She does need to "throw her body into it."  She does need to push everything towards home plate.  She does need to focus her mind on the goal of getting that ball into the catcher's hands and not be distracted by the runner on first or the hit she just gave up or the fielding error behind her or the pitch before which should have clearly been called a strike.  She needs to direct all of her energy to getting the ball across the plate. She needs to be committed to that strike.

As stated Sunday morning, I have been reappointed here at Girdwood for another year. We've had a rough stretch over the last five years...not in a horribly bad way or anything...just that we've been focused on our building project.  It has, at times, consumed us.  It has, at times, taken our attention away from other things that really were more important at the time.  It has, at times needed all of our energy and focus and drive. And we have a lot to show for it.

Well, as we start another year, I really want to commit myself to the mission of this church..."Love God. Love others. Change the world." I want to throw my whole body into it. I want all of my momentum directed at this goal. I don't want to have my mind taken up by extraneous things. I want to run the race and persevere.

Do you see what this means—all these pioneers who blazed the way, all these veterans cheering us on? It means we'd better get on with it. Strip down, start running—and never quit! No extra spiritual fat, no parasitic sins. Keep your eyes on Jesus, who both began and finished this race we're in. Study how he did it. Because he never lost sight of where he was headed—that exhilarating finish in and with God—he could put up with anything along the way: Cross, shame, whatever. And now he's there, in the place of honor, right alongside God. When you find yourselves flagging in your faith, go over that story again, item by item, that long litany of hostility he plowed through. That will shoot adrenaline into your souls! (Hebrews 12:1-3, The Message)

Here are some of my thoughts as it pertains to my commitment to ministry:

• The building--how can we use it to meet this goal and how can we organize ourselves in such a way that by working towards its completion we can be building community? One of the things I'm aware of is the need to keep in touch with our supporting churches and the possibility of a couple of trips to the Lower-48 to foster those relationships. The building is not our ministry but will be used as a tool for ministry. We need to work hard to make sure building is not our "end" but one of the means to the end--the glorification of God.
  
  Howard Snyder notes that "Christians did not begin to build church buildings until about A.D. 200. This fact suggests that, whatever else church buildings are good for, they are not essential either for numerical growth or spiritual depth. The early church possessed both these qualities, and the church’s greatest period of vitality and growth until recent times was during the first two centuries A.D. In other words, the church grew fastest when it did not have the help or hindrance of church buildings" (The Problem of Wineskins, p.69).
  
  
• Community outreach--I'm a big believer that ministry is acted out socially, that we are required to be the hands and feet of Jesus in the world and that we live in a world...a community...that hungers to see Christians acting like Jesus in the world.  This is the "missional" focus of the church.  We are "called" to be "sent."
  
  
• Study--I'm already into a few more books this year and have a lot on my to-do list.  Personally, this blog has forced me to be faithful to some reading projects.  But I'd really like to see Disciple Bible Study take off and I'd love to see a "Financial Peace University" by Dave Ramsey take root here. I think both of these would address the spiritual as well as practical needs of persons in our community.
  
  Only be careful, and watch yourselves closely so that you do not forget the things your eyes have seen or let them slip from your heart as long as you live. Teach them to your children and to their children after them. (Deut. 4:9)
  
  
• Worship--Sermon Series is where it's at for me--at least in terms of thinking about planning. I like taking a concept and expanding it over several weeks. I need to prayerfully consider what it is that would be most helpful to the persons in our congregation...particularly as they interact with persons outside of the congregation.  We have some limitations on how we can use technology in worship, but we're working on it.
  
  
• Faith--For my own faith, I surely need to spend more time in God's Word and in God's presence. And for my congregation's faith, I surely need to recognize that the people I pastor will not be trained to live in a counter-cultural way unless they have been transformed by the Way of Jesus.
  
  
• My family--I need to do a better job balancing family life with work life. Last year I really felt like this was a struggle. My spouse worked more. I provided more childcare. And, for some reason, I think both areas may have suffered a little.
  
  "I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth." (3 John 4)
  
  
• Exercise--This is about my well-being. It's about me being available, long-term, for my family and it's about managing the stresses of ministry so that I can more fully commit to it.
  
  
• Blogging--Is this a distraction or is it a vital part of self-reflection? I'm going to pull for the latter at this point. I hope to keep this up and I hope this is both informed by my ministry and informs it

I'm sure there are other ways for me to throw my whole self into this year. I pray that others will come to me and I pray that God will give me the strength to follow through on these points.

A Shout Out To Denominations -- Missions

Ministry With The Poor In Nicaragua from Sushil Bhujbal on Vimeo.

Christianity Today has an article about how mission work may be the key to reviving Christian denominations. The article is written by Ed Stetzer. A little teaser:

Denominations appear to have fallen on difficult times. Theological controversies over core Christian beliefs have weakened some denominations. Others have succumbed to classic liberalism. A handful of denominations have reaffirmed their commitment to theological orthodoxy, but even many once-growing conservative denominations have experienced difficult days. All in all, membership in 23 of the 25 largest Christian denominations is declining (the exceptions being the Assemblies of God and the Church of God). ....

Given all that, call me a cautious believer in the idea that we can do more for the kingdom of God by doing it together with people of common conviction—which usually means in a denomination—than by doing it alone....

In my view, denominations are certainly not the answer to the world's ills, nor are they our last and only hope. But a denominational structure can be a valuable tool for the church to use in her mission.

When I hear about a pastor's revolutionary idea to partner a local congregation with congregations overseas to work together in mission, I say, "Great. Be sure to learn from the Wesleyan Church. They have been doing just that, very well, for a long time."

When I hear about a start-up church-planting network, I'm excited—but hope its leaders know what the Presbyterian Church in America's (PCA) Mission to North America is doing well, and will not try to independently discover what others already know. Many ministries that have gained national prominence in church planting, such as Redeemer (New York City) and Perimeter (Atlanta), have been more effective because of their partnership with the PCA.

Denominational ministry is often much quieter than similar efforts from independent start-ups. (No surprise there: Novelty gets attention, and entrepreneurial networks and churches need to make a splash in order to win people to their new effort.) But make no mistake: The vast majority of world missions, church planting, discipleship, and other forms of ministry are done through denominational partnerships.

One thing we do very well in the United Methodist Church is our Global Missions. And it's for many of the reasons found in this article

Bringing Lady Gaga to Church

No, this is not some attempt to get more "hits" to the blog.  While I confess to being tickled at the number of visitors to this site, I'm not really seeking a larger audience for my not-so-private thoughts on this blog. 

This is about Lady Gaga.  This is not about her music or any of her videos.  While I find her music catchy, I find her videos to be sinking to new lows of sexuality.  As someone who grew up listening to AC/DC and others, even I struggle with what this music means when I'm trying to raise four daughters in the world...not to mention a son as well.  But, I think there's something interesting here.

Lady Gaga was recently on Larry King Live on CNN and she expressed a viewpoint about the church which I think is exceptionally relevant to our church and each of our churches.  She said the following:

"I struggle with my feelings about the Church in particular....in terms of religion, I'm very religious. I was raised Catholic. I believe in Jesus. I believe in God. I'm very spiritual. I pray very much. But at the same time, there is no one religion that doesn't hate or speak against or be prejudiced against another racial group or religious group, or sexual group. For that, I think religion is also bogus. So I suppose you could say I'm a quite religious woman that is very confused about religion. And I dream and envision a future where we have a more peaceful religion or a more peaceful world, a more peaceful state of mind for the younger generation. And that's what I dream for."

There are a few points that I think are very appropriate as we reach out to younger generations for Jesus and as we "RETHINK CHURCH":


She claims to be religious -- I believe that many of the young people I am in contact with believe that they, too, are "religious."  They may not be in church, but they believe in God or Jesus or a "Higher Power."  They may see themselves as spiritual and, in our beautiful environment up in Alaska, that can often be tied to the natural world.   Regardless, they understand religion in such a way that it's not tied to a particular denomination or church.  This can be "bad news" to particular denominations and churches.

She claims to be confused -- There is some doubt in her.  She's unsure about religion's place in the world when the world is violent and prejudiced and it seems like religion is not taking a stand against that.  When she said that, I immediately thought of my own Christian faith and Kinnaman's book UnChristian and how the perceptions of Christianity being anti-homosexual and tied with, not just conservative social issues, but also conservative perspectives on war.  The perception, I believe, over the last thirty years has been that Christianity has been generally hawkish when it comes to issues of war and peace.


She claims that religion is bogus -- Why is it "bogus?"  It's bogus because it speaks hate and is prejudiced.  I think she's expressing a frustration in many young persons today.  They are tired of hearing people preach that "God is love" while acting in a profoundly different manner.  They are tired of hearing about saving people from "hell" and not saving them from the horrible conditions in this world.  For her to say that religion is bogus reminds me of James' words  in James 2:20:

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?  (KJV)

How foolish! Can’t you see that faith without good deeds is useless? (NLT)

Use your heads! Do you suppose for a minute that you can cut faith and works in two and not end up with a corpse on your hands? (The Message)

I have no idea how religious or confused Lady Gaga is.  I don't know what her religious background is or who it is that she's surrounding herself with.  I do know, however, that it it is the task of the church to bring Lady Gaga into church...or at least to bring in persons, young or old, who have a similar view of the church.

And, if that happens, and Lady Gaga does come...think of what it might do to our music...and our attire.  Perhaps....perhaps....her videos would need to be toned down some.

"Jesus and the Kingdom of God" -- Brian McClaren

Jesus is coming back for a bride, not a harem -- Shane Claiborne

This is a quote from The Irresistible Revolution.

There are congregations on nearly every corner. I’m not sure we need more churches. What we need is a church. I say one church is better than fifty. I have tried to remove the plural form churches from my vocabulary, training myself to think of the church as Christ did, and as the early Christians did. The metaphors for her are always singular – a body, a bride. I heard one gospel preacher say it like this, as he really wound up and broke a sweat: “We’ve got to unite ourselves as one body. Because Jesus is coming back, and he’s coming back for a bride not a harem.