LeBron, Loyalty, Life Paths

There was a time -- before Curt Flood -- when players stayed with their teams, and fans spoke of loyalty.  Fans today, look back to those times and think of them as the golden age of professional sports.  Of course, there was a reason why a player stayed with a team for their career -- they didn't have any control over their destiny.  Owners could trade them, but they had no ability to determine their fate.  Then Curt Flood came, challenging the rule, and that made it possible for LeBron, Dwayne, and Chris to determine their futures, much to the chagrin of Toronto and Cleveland, but to the joy of Miami.

 I'm not a Clevelander, so I don't have a personal stake in LeBron (I sort of hoped he would stay), but I understood that he wants to be numbered among the greats and that requires a championship ring.  Michael Jordan was a great player, but would we remember him as we do without the ring?  So, along with his friends, he was able to complete a triad of greats that in theory should lead to that elusive ring.

As we contemplate this big event (which became bigger because LeBron wanted to make a spectacle of it (again, it's not surprising since he's still a very young man who has grown up being fawned upon by adoring fans and enabling friends),  there is I think a lesson to be learned from all of this.

Are we not all like this?  Pastors move along, hoping for a bigger prize, a bigger church, a larger salary, more glory.  I'm reading Jason Byassee's The Gifts of the Small Church, which speaks to some of this tendency.  Where is the loyalty, we should ask?  (Oh, and I left a smaller church for a somewhat bigger one, and I have my reasons for doing so!)  And we leave smaller churches for larger ones, maybe because they have more programs or better music.  If you talk to older members of smaller churches, you will often discover that their children go to the mega churches -- but then I did that too (in a small town sort of way in HS).  I often hear people say the reason that they moved to a megachurch is that they weren't being fed in that smaller church.  I'm not totally sure what that means, especially in a culture that tends to overeat in the physical realm, do we not "overeat" spiritually?

So, where is the loyalty?   Where is the covenant?  In marriage ceremonies we pledge ourselves "for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer," and we mean it when we say it, but often life steps in the way. (As I write this, I can say that as of this day Cheryl and I have now been married 27 years!)  The same is true of our relationships as church.  We are, after all, in this nation a people that live under the premise that religion is a voluntary thing.  We get to choose who we worship (or not worship), when we worship, and within reason (zoning laws) where to worship. 

So what is the nature of the relationship.  The Disciples, the tradition that I have chosen to embrace (I was born Episcopalian, but ended up choosing to be a Disciple), speaks of covenant relationship.  Our relationship as congregations with entities outside the congregation, whether regional or "general" (essentially national, except that we have churches in Canada that are part of the denomination), and even ecumenical.  It is a mutual commitment to live together as the body of Christ.  Theologically, we understand that this covenant begins in God's decision to covenant with us, a covenant that God invites us to share in as communities of faith.  But, there is no contract, no legal stipulations that can be upheld.  You choose to join, and its pretty hard to get kicked out.  

So, what lesson might learn as church from the LeBron James affair? 

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.

Localized versus Centralized -- questions of practical church polity

Does progress take place in the church from the top down or the bottom up?  Is localism or centralism the hope of the future?  What is it that links us together?  These are some the ecclesiastical questions that come up regularly in our common discussions. 

I grew up Episcopalian, which in theory is a highly connectional tradition.  But, of course, the American church has strong democratic elements that aren't present in other parts of the church (see Diana Butler Bass's recent piece in the Huffington Post).  This can be good or bad, of course, depending on your perspective and on the issue at hand.

I happen to be part of a rather loose fellowship of churches joined together in covenant relationship -- we use the word covenant to define our relationship with entities beyond the local congregation.  We're congregationalists in many ways, and yet we seek to be more than mere congregationalists (at least some of us desire for this to be true).  Keith Watkins, who like me, is part of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), has written a piece that deserves some attention.  Keith, who is the father of the current General Minister and President of the Disciples -- Sharon Watkins, points us to an article that looks at the current crisis within the Anglican communion, especially as it relates to the ordination as bishop, Mary Glasspool, who is a Lesbian.  

Keith considers the question brought up by an article in the Anglican Theological Review, that asks:   "Have 'the Congregationalists Won?'"  Keith writes sympathetically about the concerns by many that the connectional systems are breaking down and churches are doing their own thing -- if they don't like what they see, they walk.  Keith notes that in many cases the Localists are not pushing for change, they want things to stay the same.   Keith, is of course, a Disciple and he prefers a bit looser polity than the Episcopal community allows, but he wonders:

The movement toward the local, however, is often inspired and empowered by people who are determined to preserve an existing church culture rather than open it to the new, as is seen in many of the parishes now leaving their dioceses. I am inclined to believe that Killen’s congregationalists—perhaps localists is a better word—have more often held back progress and that new ideas and incentives to try them have tended to come from the more connected parts of ecclesial networks.

For me, and for many other people in the churches, the apparent victory of the localists is therefore not a happy development. It means that the gospel and its implications for life in the world are more likely to be no larger than what we and the people immediately around us are able or willing to understand and accept.

Throughout the church’s history, one resolution to this problem has been expressed by the idea of covenant. We bind ourselves to one another with promises of respect and loyalty. Our mutual allegiance to a common center—faith in Christ, commitment to the Scriptures, shared history—is declared to be enough to keep us together despite the strains that come over time.

The problem is that covenantal understandings of our ecclesiastical relationships can be tenuous, subject to the degradations of our own perspectives. 

So, how do we wrestle with the issues of the day without falling prey to a coercive centralism or the tyranny of the local?    And, by the same token, how do we maintain the unity of the body of Christ in the midst of this conversation? 

I invite you to read the entire piece on Keith's blog and engage in a conversation both there and here.