A Pastoral Letter on Bullying -- Sharon Watkins

I decided to share this important word to the Disciples of Christ community on the subject of bullying.  It comes in the form of a Pastoral Letter from the General Minister and President of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Rev. Dr. Sharon Watkins.  I believe it is a word we need to hear, whether we're Disciples or not.

*********************************

“How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help? Little children, let us love, not in word or speech, but in truth and action.”   - I John 3:17-18

Dear Disciples,

The wave of publicity has passed regarding bullying and suicide, but the problem has not gone away. In this New Year, families and friends of those who died are feeling the loss deeply.

In my own community, two young people died last year by suicide as a result of bullying at school. These are two we know about – there may be others. Bullying involves a repeated pattern of aggressive, unwanted, negative actions and an imbalance of power. It can take place wherever people gather…. at school, church, or in the workplace.

Many whose deaths brought this issue to public attention were gay; bullied because of their sexual orientation until they thought life wasn’t worth living. Other young people are bullied because they don’t speak English well, they are from a minority or because they are smart. Sometimes it’s adults that get involved in their children’s issues and bully, anonymously via social media. Sometimes bullying is part of hazing.

Bullying is always wrong and followers of Christ should say so.

Christians who call ourselves Disciples of Christ are called to speak ‘love in truth and action” by standing up for all God’s children – especially those who attract the attention of bullies, whether they are gay or immigrants or just unpopular. Let’s be sure these children of God know they are not alone – that life is worth living.

US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and US Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan say the most promising anti-bullying approaches are those that “get entire communities involved. When principals, teachers, school nurses, pediatricians, social workers, faith leaders, law enforcement agents, and parents all have the information they need to recognize bullying and respond to it, bullies get a clear message that their behavior is unacceptable.”1 Disciples pastor, Glenn Wilkerson adds, “Most bullies ‘play the crowd,’ and if the crowd has the courage and compassion to say, ‘Stop that!’ ‘That’s not funny!’ ‘That’s cruel!’ we’ll put an end to the bulk of it.”2

Unfortunately, according to a Public Religion Research Institute poll, two thirds of Americans believe that messages coming from churches contribute to the suicide of gay teens.3 We need to convey a different message. We are Disciples of Christ, of Jesus Christ. He welcomed children, ate with tax collectors and chatted with women – shocking in his time. But Jesus came to show that God loved the world (John 3:16) – the whole world.

We are Disciples of Christ, a movement for wholeness. Our mission is to be and to share the Good News of Jesus Christ. We extend God’s wholeness by reaching out in word and deed to the bully and the bullied alike, showing God’s love.

As Christian people, let’s be clear that bullying is not ok. In your community, let’s be sure people know that Disciples of Christ “love in truth and action.” Let’s not have families mourning the loss of promising young people to tragic death. Instead, let’s help all God’s children know they are loved and valued!

Sharon E. Watkins

General Minister and President, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

__________________
 
1.  Kathleen Sebelius and Arne Duncan. Houston Chronicle / San Diego Union Tribune / St. Paul Pioneer Press, October 9, 2010 http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/7239697.html


2. The Reverend Glenn Wilkerson, founder and President of ARK (Adults Relating to Kids) October edition of the online ARK Newsletter.

3.  http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/21/churches-contribute-to-gay-suicides-most-americans-believe/

A Historic Sermon and the Quest for Christian Unity

Barton Stone, a founder of the tradition I call home, spoke of Christian Unity as our "polar star."  Thomas Campbell wrote that division among Christians was a "horrid evil."  To Campbell the "Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and of none else; as none else can be truly and properly called Christians."  Despite this heritage, even this tradition has been fraught with division. 

The church has always existed between a concern for unity and the reality of division.  A gentler way of putting it would be to say that pluralism has been our common experience.  But, unfortunately, this pluralistic experience hasn't always been gentle.  Christians have been known to turn on each other with exceeding violence.  At the same time, there have been, on a regular basis, voices of reason calling for unity.  One of those voices was Eugene Carson Blake, Stated Clerk of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States [predecessor to the Presbyterian Church (USA)], who was invited to deliver a sermon in Grace Cathedral in 1960.  In that famous sermon Blake called Presbyterians (at least the Northern Branch), Methodists, Episcopalians, and the United Church of Christ, to come together as one church.  From that sermon a movement/organization came into existence -- the Council on Church Union (COCU).  Later on other church bodies would join with those named by Blake, including the Disciples and the three African American Methodist bodies.

Keith Watkins, who is writing the history of COCU, has made excerpts of this sermon available at his blog.  I would like to invite you to check out this offering, to see what was being espoused.   It is interesting to note that Blake sought to bring together Reformed and Catholic impulses together.  He recognized the value of a common liturgy, but knew that such a thing could not be imposed.  He also recognized that if a united church was to emerge it would have to allow for theological diversity.  What he thought could be the foundation would be common recognition of ministry, suggesting that the churches embrace the principle of apostolic succession. 

What is interesting is that fifty years later we still haven't figured out how to handle apostolic succession.  My tradition, which now has a General Minister and Regional Ministers, who function in ways as bishops, struggles with the idea that these leaders have an episcopal role, and would likely find the principle of apostolic succession foreign.

COCU finally gave way to another movement, Churches Uniting in Christ (CUiC) about a decade ago.  It never fulfilled its promise, and yet it did raise the standard of unity.  Perhaps in our post-modern era, such a thing as a united church isn't necessary.  But, maybe we would benefit from heeding the call of those who came before us and raised the standard of unity.  

Keith has yet to find a copy that can be produced in full, but the excerpts are a useful introduction.  (http://keithwatkinshistorian.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/a-sermon-to-transform-the-american-church/)

Split Ticket -- A Review

SPLIT TICKET: Independent Faith in a Time of Partisan Politics. Edited by Amy Gopp, Christian Piatt, and Brandon Gilvin. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2010. viii + 184 pp.

If the reports are to be believed, young adults are leaving the church, either because it has become too politicized or because institutional religion has become corrupt and moribund. They are, for instance, turned off by their perception that churches tend to be anti-homosexual. And if truth be told, they’re probably correct in this perception, for at most, a majority of churches have followed the lead of the military and have instituted a policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” In other words, stay in the closet.

Of course, not all young adults are leaving the church. Neither are all young adults rejecting what some would call political agendas (definitions are important here, because many consider social justice advocacy/action to be political, while others see it as a proper extension of the gospel). As is true of people of every generation, today’s young adults are not of one mind when it comes to the question of politics and religion. Things are complex!

Split Ticket, the book that is under review here, is the second book in Chalice Press’s WTF (Where’s the Faith?) Series, a series that is edited by, authored by, and intended for young adults. The first book in the series, provocatively titled O God! O God! O God!, (reviewed here) looked at the issue of sex, and this book will be just as provocative as the first. Focusing here on the relationship between faith and politics, we are presented with a series of nineteen essays that range from anarchist to prophetic to politically engaged. The theology evidenced by the writers runs from evangelical to liberationist. Authors are gay and straight, male and female, clergy and laity, and from most every ethnic community. As is true in the first volume in this series, the essays are extremely personal. These volumes are designed to start a conversation, which is why each chapter ends with three discussion questions.

This volume is divided into three sections – “From Awakenings to Activism”; “God in the Voting Booth”; and “We’ve Got Issues.” To give a flavor of the essays comprising each section, consider that the first section includes essays about connecting faith to activism, including an essay by David Ball entitled “Thy Revolution Come: An Invitation to Radical Discipleship.” Ball frames his essay with the Lord’s Prayer, and suggests that radical discipleship is best expressed through “Christian Anarchism.” Christian anarchism, as the phrase suggests, calls for radical, even revolutionary action, even against one’s own government. Amy Gopp, one of the three co-editors, on the other hand reflects back to her time spent in Bosnia, and speaks of building bridges between groups and peoples in the pursuit of peace.

In the second section the essays range from the provocative essay by John Edgerton and Vince Amlin that charges that voting itself is an act of violence and coercion, and thus as Christians they have decided not to vote. They suggest that a better way of making decisions is one of consensus-building. As one who has long believed that voting is a national responsibility, this essay was disturbing to say the least, and yet it is a view that many are considering in our day. On the other hand, others see the value of one’s faith in influencing not just voting, but political action. If there is a consensus here is that, as Gabriel Saguero writes, “the Gospel challenges all political ideologies and denounces any obedience to any Lord but Christ” (p. 113).

In the final section, the essayists reflect on the leading issues of our time, from abortion to health care reform, and the way that we deal with them from a perspective of faith. What is clear from the essays is that this isn’t a clear-cut process. There is gray area to be considered, and the role of the church needs to be weighed carefully. Christian Piatt writes an intriguing and extremely personal essay about his own struggle with the pro-life/pro-choice debate in the context of the births of his own two children. Being strongly pro-choice, he found himself equally pro-life, as he fell in love with the “it” that was the fetus being carried by his wife. Christian reminds us that personal experience is a powerful contributor to the way we look at issues. Things become much less cut and dry, once one is personally engaged. As Christian puts it:

I’m not ready to jump the pro-choice ship, but the experiences of parenthood have had a permanent change on my understanding of life, the human soul, and our responsibility as joint stewards of those lives. . . . I may wrestle with this subject until the end of my days, but one thing is for sure: I love my kids, both of them. Even if one of them had never been able to join us in the world, and had never had the opportunity of loving and being loved, I would still love “It” all the same (p. 134).

So, are young adults calling for the church to be apolitical? No, however, they want the church to deal honestly with issues such as homosexuality, abortion, justice, the environment. They decry hypocrisy and want issues to be dealt with in light of faith and not just politics as usual being baptized into the church. They are passionate, but they also seem to want to keep the bridges standing (unless you’re an anarchist and the bridges lead to injustice). Perhaps Earle Fisher states it best:

Political truths may be something we’re willing to fight for, campaign for, or give money to. But a personal, spiritual truth, truly embraced as a foundational tenet of our identity as God-created beings, is something to which we’re willing to give our entire lives to, and perhaps die for (p. 148).

In other words, for these young adults, faith is the foundation, the guide, for their political engagement, even if that means deciding not to participate in the political process, because to do so would be to participate in a coercive, and therefore violent, system.

I heartily recommend this book to anyone wishing to understand the relationship of faith and politics. These essays may be written by and for young adults, but the issues they raise, and the solutions they suggest, are as pertinent to those who are well into their retirement years as those who are just entering the adult world.

While my recommendation of this book would not be any different, I should note that the editors, all members of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) are people whom I know and have worked with in the past (and in the present). I have high regards for all of them as individuals and for the work that they do in the church and outside it. Two of them, Amy Gopp and Brandon Gilvin, are Disciples clergy, while the third, Christian Piatt, is married to one. They are all committed to the church and to social justice (Gopp and Gilvin are in leadership at Week of Compassion, the relief and development arm of the Disciples).

As for the authors, many of the contributors are unknown to me, and while I agree with some and not with others, each of them offered insightful and challenging words that demand my attention, and the attention of any reader. If we’re to accept the premise that young adults are tired of politicized churches, then we must first understand what they mean by their critique, and this is a good place to start!

 

Elders and the Table -- the uniqueness of Disciple experience

I asked the question -- who may preside at the Table --and noted the Disciple experience.  Unlike most other traditions, the Disciples have been known for having lay elders pray at the table and that these prayers are normally of their own composition.  Disciples have worship aids, but no official book of worship.  Due to a shortage of clergy in other traditions, questions are being asked there about how to provide the Eucharist in congregations without regular clergy -- and some of them are trying things that look a lot like what Disciples are doing.   So who are these Elders that share leadership a the Table?  They are not, as in the Presbyterian Church, a board of oversight with no place at the table nor are they clergy like the Methodists.  No they are quite different. 

As a way of helping us understand this situation I'm offering a quotation from Keith Watkins' book Celebrate with Thanksgiving (Chalice Press, 1991).

The typical patter of leadership in Disciples congregations today resembles this ancient system.   Ordinarily congregations are led by one or more ministers, who are theologically educated. occupationally full-time and salaried by the church.  Serving with the minister or ministers are the elders of the congregation, who are men and women from the congregation.  The elders serve on a volunteer basis, giving limited amounts of time, and ordinarily do not have special theological training for their work.  Disciples came to this pattern in three stages.  The early ecclesiology of Alexander Campbell called for the election of ministers from the membership of the congregation.  He used biblical terms -- elder or bishop.  One of these persons would be elected president of the eldership on the basis of superior gifts for the work.  This person would serve full time and be compensated while the other elders would serve part-time without compensation.  (p. 45).

In the next generation, congregations began to call upon young college graduates, presumably from outside the church, to serve with these congregational elders, and in the midst of this questions began to arise about the nature of this ministry -- was "he" an elder or an employee of the church under the supervision of the elders.  Over time, it became established that congregations would be served by pastors who were employed by the church and a board of elders.  The role of these elders was generally limited to praying at the table and gathering to discuss the congregation's spiritual well being.  Early on elders were ordained, for they were considered the ministers of the church, but by the mid-20th century the practice had generally disappeared.  Keith writes:  "Since elders were no longer regarded as ministers, there seemed to be little reason for them to be ordained" (p. 46).

Keith offers an alternative understanding, one that reaches back to the early days of the Disciples movement, but with revisions, that may make better sense as elders take their place at the table.  He writes:

Pastors and elders together are them ministry of the congregation.  The pastor and assistant pastors work to see that the gospel is proclaimed and the people equipped to do the work of Jesus Christ.  The justification for a praying eldership is that these men and women are united with the pastors to be the corporate spiritual leadership of the congregation.  A well-ordered congregation has one ministry -- elders and pastors acting as one body with varied responsibilities assigned to the several members.  (p. 46).

We need to break this down more, but such an understanding makes sense ecumenically, but it would assume that elders ought to be ordained and that they take very seriously their calling. 

Theology and Liberty; or, How do you think theologically but not dogmatically?

Icon of Gregory of Nyssa
4th cent. theologian

I am a Disciple of Christ.  In making that claim, the confession is two fold.  First of all, I am a follower of Jesus Christ, as are all Christians.  I confess him to be the Christ and Son of God (Matthew 16:16) and name him  Lord and savior.  I am also a Disciple of Christ by denominational affiliation.  The Disciples emerged on the 19th century frontier as a reform movement concerned about the unity of the body of Christ.  The founders were disturbed by the fragmentation that was experienced on the frontier.  Being influenced by a number of factors, including the emergent democratic feelings after the founding of the American nation along with the Enlightenment ideas of John Locke and others, they embraced the idea of a simple biblical Christianity, a faith founded on a commitment to New Testament Christianity.  This led to a rejection of creeds and official faith statements.  Unfortunately, over time, many in this tradition confused this commitment to non-creedal Christianity rooted in a commitment to recovering the New Testament understandings of faith with being non-theological.  That is, many in the Disciples concluded that since we're non-creedal it doesn't matter what you believe.  You're free to do what you want, without any touchstone at all -- in other words, something akin to what you'll find in many Unitarian Universalist churches.   But that is not how the earliest members of this tradition understood their task.

Although not as well known today as he was in earlier years, British Disciple theologian William Robinson, was one of the most thoughtful of Disciple theologians.  He was influenced by Karl Barth, but sought to go beyond Barth to the biblical text itself.  He understood that we are non-creedal, but he pushed Disciples to think theologically.  In a book written in the 1940s entitled What Churches of Christ Stand For, Robinson gave a definition of what this work might look like (Churches of Christ here is the British equivalent of the Disciples and not to be confused with the more conservative American portion of the Stone-Campbell Movement).

Whilst Churches of Christ have, like Catholic Christianity in general, always placed great emphasis on the Church as a Divine Society, on Church unity, and on the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper as real channels of grace; yet they have differed significantly from Catholic Christianity in rejecting creeds and confessions and have regarded them as divisive in their influence.  In this their attitude has been nearer to that of Quakers.  It must not, however, be understood that they have been unconcerned about belief itself, regarding it as a matter of indifference what was believed.  No! they have contended earnestly for the "faith once for all delivered to the saints," but they have ever been opposed to the summing up of that faith in a creed or confession, regarding the New Testament itself as a sufficient basis of union for all Christians.  Moreover they have always been suspicious of metaphysical explanations of the facts of Christianity, and have refused to make them binding upon men's consciences.  Thus they have never regarded theories  of inspiration, of the entrance of sin into the world, of predestination, or the Atonement, of the Incarnation, and of the Trinity, as of the Faith.  . . . They declared that they themselves were neither Arminian nor Calvinistic, neither Unitarian nor Trinitarian but simply Christian; and they saw clearly enough that such confessions were divisive in their effects.  Their attention seems not to have been directed at all to such a simple statement of facts as the Apostle' Creed.  There is no doubt that they would have accepted every clause of it, but only because they could have found these clauses within the New Testament itself, and because the expressed the facts  of the Faith and not abstract theological dogmas.   (William Robinson, What Churches of Christ Stand For, (Balsall, Heath, UK:  Berean Press, 1946, pp. 63-64)

Although the use of the word "facts" might be off putting for some, the point here is that there is freedom to wrestle with the biblical text and from that make theological affirmations.  Disciples have, for the most part, shied away from what he refers to at "metaphysical explanations," speculative statements that are more rooted in Greek philosophy than biblical understandings.  Thus, he might affirm the "facts" of the Trinity without choosing to embrace any particular theory of the the Trinity.  

What we learned over the years, as Disciples committed to unity among Christians, is that it is difficult to abandon abstract summations.  It's difficult to throw off traditions long passed on.  If you throw off some, you have a tendency to adopt others, perhaps new ones.  So, how do we think about our faith (which is what theology involves) without becoming "dogmatic"?  

Living in Covenant Relationship

Throughout the Bible we read about covenants. God makes a covenant with Noah, with Abraham and Sarah, with Israel through Moses. Jeremiah speaks of a new covenant, one that will be written on the heart rather than stone (Jeremiah 31). Jesus describes a covenant that was made in his blood – the Eucharist (Luke 22:20). We use the word covenant in wedding ceremonies. It is also the word that was chosen to describe the relationship of the local, the regional, and the general manifestations of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).

In the Preamble to The Design, the document that defines the nature of our tradition, we make this confession:

We rejoice in God, maker of heaven and earth, and in the covenant of love which binds us to God and one another.

Ronald Osborn writes of this concept that defines so many aspects of human life in this way:

In religion, in marriage, and in the life of a nation, a covenant is a sacred bond sealed with an oath or vow of allegiance. In the community of Christians that pledge is called a sacrament. A Christian swears faithfulness to God. God promises faithfulness to the church. This two–way pledge is seen most clearly in the Christian covenant-sacraments of baptism and communion. [The Faith We Affirm: Basic Beliefs of Disciples of Christ, (Chalice Press, 1979), 59].

As Disciples we talk of this covenant relationship, but what do we mean by it? What does it require of us – this sacred pledge made to and with God?

Disciples’ leaders in the 1960s chose this term very purposely as the church began to restructure itself, because to that point we had seen ourselves as an autonomous fellowship of churches and mission agencies. Unfortunately, the legacy of that prerestructure view still pervades our churches. At our regional clergy retreat, for instance, one of my colleagues spoke of our congregational autonomy. Even though the word wasn’t used, I heard it in the conversations at the last two regional board meetings, as representatives (mostly pastors) asked the question: Why should our church give to the denomination or support the region? What’s in it for us?  [Giving to the Disciples Mission Fund, which in large part sustains the ministry of the region has been going down, and a minority of the churches in the region contribute to DMF]

This is where the word covenant comes in. We have committed ourselves to God and to each other to live in covenant relationship. General, regional, local congregations are all, by definition church. Each manifestation is equal to the other. That is part of the equation. The other part of the equation is this – we need each other. Our covenant relationship, however, extends well beyond even our denomination. As Osborn points out:

Bound to God and to all God’s people in sacred covenant, we can never think of the Christian community as limited to our own particular denomination. By our baptism we are united with the one body; at the table of the Lord we reaffirm our oneness with all who own the Lordship of Christ. [p. 66]

We recently revised our congregation's constitution, and one of the changes we made (at my request) was to change our language of relationship to the other manifestations of church from affiliation to that of covenant. In a legal sense, there may not be much of a difference, but theologically it makes a very different statement. Affiliation – at least to me – speaks of a convenient relationship that lasts as long as the other party serves my needs. Taken theologically, a covenant is not something easily broken. It is a two-way commitment to the welfare of the other. Thus, as members of a local congregation, we stand in covenant relationship with God who then binds us together with one another, both inside the congregation and outside (John 17:20-26).  As a Disciple, I understand that I live within a covenant relationship that involves congregation, region, General Church, and the broader ecumenical community.  For, are we not all one in Christ (Galatians 3:28). 

So the question stands:   Should we consider ourselves to be autonomous, whether as individual Christians or as churches?  Or, should we stand together, working together, understanding that we need each other?  The answer, as I understand it, is this:   We stand in a covenant relationship with one another that is a gift of the God who has covenanted with us, so that together the world might be blessed through us.

This essay is based upon my column originally published in the May issue of our congregational newsletter.

Way of Sin, Way of Grace -- Meditation

With the lectionary we are able to work our way through the Scriptures, hearing the voice of Scripture in its various forms.  I began today writing a weekly devotional meditation for the newly relaunched Disciples of Christ blog [D]mergent.  With the demise of the journal Disciples World, Disciples are being creative in finding ways to communicate.  I invite you to check out the posts on this new blog.
**************************************************

1 Kings 21:1-21a

Galatians 2:15-21
Luke 7:36-8:3

The Way of Sin and the Way of Grace

There is a way of life that leads to destruction. It’s one that is marked by qualities such as cruelty, deceit, and greed, qualities embodied by the characters of Ahab and Jezebel. In the story found in 1 Kings 21, Ahab wants something that’s not his, and when he can’t have it he pouts. His wife, however, who seems much more clever than Ahab, and having a keen understanding of power, achieves Ahab’s desire through deceit and craft. In the end, an innocent man is executed on the basis of false but scandalous accusations, allowing the king to seize the desired property. Enter the prophet Elijah, who declares to Ahab that a life such as his will lead eventually to destruction.

In the Gospel of Luke, we read the story of a woman who was known to be a sinner – the nature of the sin isn’t recorded so it’s left to our imaginations, and you know where that leads. According to the Gospel, the unnamed woman enters the home of a religious leader, a pious fellow, who was hosting a lunch that featured Jesus as special guest. The host of the party, a Pharisee named Simon, is scandalized when she began to wash the feet of Jesus with her tears and with her hair – and Jesus didn’t object. Indeed, the real scandal in this case wasn’t the action of the woman, but those of Jesus, who didn’t reject her actions. The pious ones in the crowd, were scandalized that a holy man such as Jesus would allow himself to be defiled by the touch of a sinner.

In two stories, one from the Old Testament and one from the Gospels, we see expressions of sin. In the first story there is deceit and greed, in the second – self-righteousness. The woman is declared a sinner, but we don’t know the nature of her sin. By her faith, her trust in God’s grace, she is declared forgiven. But are Ahab and Simon ready to receive forgiveness?  (to continue reading, click here)

Resurrection and the Nature of Salvation

We have been thinking about the resurrection of late -- both that of Jesus and more generally.  Resurrection fits in with other related issues, including judgment and salvation.  I'll leave off the discussion of judgment for the moment, except to say that in one form or another judgment does take place.  But more to the point of salvation.  

In today's study groups, we'll be looking at N.T. Wright's consideration of the "Hope of Salvation."  In that context we must ask what salvation entails?  Does it mean, being pulled off the earth to live in some "heavenly estate," most likely disembodied - a sort of Caspar the Friendly Ghost?  For our discussion, I'd like to throw out a statement from Wright's book Surprised By Hope.

As long as we see salvation in terms of going to heaven when we die, the main work of the church is bound to be seen in terms of saving souls for that future.  But when we see salvation, as the New Testament sees it, in terms of God's promised new heavens and new earth and of our promised resurrection to share in that new and gloriously embodied reality -- what I have called life after life after death -- then the main work of the church here and now demands to be rethought in consequence.  (Surprised by Hope, p. 197)

So, the question is -- how does our view of salvation impact our view of life before death?

Wright notes that the New Testament understanding of salvation starts with life here and now.  We enjoy it partially, but it is there for us to experience and live out.  As Wright ruminates about salvation, I'm reminded of the Disciples of Christ identity statement:  "A Movement of Wholeness in a Fragmented World."  What we do and say, the invitation we give, is a means to bring wholeness/healing/salvation to a world that is broken and fragmented.  We do not bring this in its fullness, but we work toward it.  

Wright offers:  

For the first Christians, the ultimate salvation was all about God's new world, and the point of what Jesus and the apostles were doing when they were healing people or being rescued from shipwreck or whatever was that this was a proper anticipation of that ultimate salvation, that healing transformation of space, time, and matter.  The future rescue that God had planned and promised was starting to come true in the present.  We are saved not as souls but as wholes.  (pp. 198-199).   

 Wholeness for a fragmented world -- salvation!

Futuring the Mainline Church

Today I'll be participating in the Regional Assembly of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) of Michigan.  This region is smaller than the one I came from and thus the Assembly will be a much smaller affair.  We will, however, be installing two people to serve as Co-Regional Ministers for a two year transitional period.  The Disciple footprint in Michigan is small and so regional ministries struggle.  Camps do fine, but beyond that we're scattered across the state.

One of the things we'll be looking at is regional restructure to deal with the realities, including the financial realities of the region.  What is interesting is that a few years ago there was a conference with an outside coach (a former General Minister of our denomination), and at this conference plans were laid out to guide the regional church.  We're being asked to revisit those efforts, which in my mind have been made obsolete by the events on the ground.  There are new leaders in the region (myself included), we're still not ready to call a Regional Minister, and we're not sure what to do.  My sense of things is that we essentially start fresh, recognizing the new realities.  We need to see ourselves as explorers and map-makers, and thus we have to write the maps as we go along (See Roxburgh, Missional Mapmaking).  Five year plans simply aren't workable.

My sense is that our situation is not unique, so I'd like to start a conversation about what the church should look like, especially as it exists beyond congregations.