Toward a Hopeful Future -- Review

TOWARD A HOPEFUL FUTURE: Why the Emergent Church is Good News for Mainline Congregations. By Phil Snider and Emily Bowen. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2010. X +290 pages.

Emergent, emerging, postmodern – these are all terms that are bandied about in certain circles, but they may not carry meaning for many people in Mainline Protestant circles. This is unfortunate because many of those who fit under these rather loose labels share much in common with Mainliners. A majority of emergent and emerging Christians are evangelicals or post-evangelicals who share with progressive Christians concerns for social justice and societal transformation. They’re concerned about poverty, the environment, and whether or not they believe in an inerrant bible, they’re more concerned about living out the faith than defending it.

It is true that there are many definitions of what it means to be emergent, emerging, post-evangelical, or postmodern. But what these definitions share in common is a growing dissatisfaction with the status quo. The Enlightenment has made its mark, but it has left many with a sense of great emptiness. Church growth, seeker services, mega-churches, conservative politics, have had an unsettling impact on many of these mostly younger Christians. They have much in common with Mainline Protestants, but they are also disenchanted with what they perceive to be a hidebound institutionalism and rationalism. And yet, with the right bridge builders, the two groups could come together, providing a natural home for Emergents and hope for the Mainline. At least, that is the belief shared by Phil Snider and Emily Bowen, two Disciples of Christ pastors who have embraced the Emergent movement and want to introduce skeptical and suspicious Mainliners to this movement.

The emergent church movement is rather diverse, though it is often linked to such people as Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Brian McLaren, and Rob Bell (with a nod to the much more conservative Mark Driscoll). Jones and Pagitt have, for their part, been key leaders in a movement that continually challenges the status quo in both evangelical and Mainline communities. McLaren has made a name for himself by trying to define what he calls a generous orthodoxy. All of these figures, with the exception of Driscoll, can be called post-evangelicals. I personally resonate with this group because I am myself a post-evangelical, though I began my journey outward from evangelicalism before I ever heard of any of these figures. Like them I found the evangelicalism of my earlier years to be too constrictive both theologically and socially. One of the reasons why this group needs an introduction to Mainliners is that many in the Mainline community are suspicious of evangelicals. I experienced this reality, being that I was a graduate of Fuller Seminary. Fortunately this has long since dissipated. Still, the bridge that Snider and Bowen seek to build between progressives and Emergents should prove beneficial to the Mainline Church.

The book begins by offering introductions and definitions. The authors point to several definitions, including that of Tony Jones, the former national coordinator of Emergent Village, who defines the Emergent movement as essentially a friendship or network of missional Christians. He notes that Scot McKnight, a friendly observer of things Emergent, suggests that emerging churches are prophetic, postmodern, praxis-oriented, post-evangelical, and political (that is, they are generally politically liberal evangelicals). Others would point to worship styles that seek to be both ancient and modern. There are in fact a wide variety of emergent types, which range from extremely conservative to relatively liberal. So, any definition is going to rely on adjectives. The version of the emergent church that Snider and Bowen link into is one that is open to progressive understandings. It’s one that seeks to listen for postmodern voices, is committed to social justice, is progressive in theology and expression. Snider and Bowen are attracted to the emergent perspective because it is organic and grass roots. It allows for freedom and nuance. Of course, being progressive Mainliners, the authors are very aware that most of the emergent voices are white and male. Of course, the charge of whiteness can be laid at the feet of most mainline Protestant churches.

The book is divided into three parts – Emergent Background, Emergent Ethos, and Emerging Worship. Through these three sections the authors introduce mainline progressives to the emergent movement and offer suggestions as to how this movement can enhance and empower and give hope to mainline churches. They do a good job of telling stories of people who have felt disenfranchised by both evangelicalism and Mainline Protestantism, suggesting that this movement can provide resources to transcend these difficulties. In part two the sections on justice and hospitality should prove especially helpful.

The final section deals with worship, which seems to be an ongoing point of dispute and discussion within mainline churches. Evangelicals may be conservative in their theology, but many of them have come to terms with the realities of style and technology much quicker than Mainliners. The “ancient-future” worship style that predominates among Emergents might offer some help in adapting to the needs and concerns of new generations of people who don’t connect with the traditional worship styles found in many Mainline Churches. That being said, the authors make it clear that they’re not simply adding one more voice to those that claim that simply adopting contemporary praise services will bring in hordes of young people. Snider and Bowen write:

Emerging forms of worship are much more concerned with grounding worship experiences that reflect specific contexts and theological convictions than they are with any specific style. (pp. 139-140).

That is, the question isn’t whether we should have old hymns or praise songs, organs or guitars, debates that have colored the so-called worship wars. But, the authors remind us that younger adults are more visual and kinesthetic in their orientation to worship. This is why many forms of emergent worship include candles and icons. In reaction to the seeker movement that removed Christian symbols from the worship space, Emergents have not only brought back the cross, but other visual forms – including icons that derive from the Eastern Church. Technology helps in all of this, but isn’t essential or normative.

In terms of worship, the authors make it clear that language, especially regarding gender, is important. They note the problem that exists in Mainline and Evangelical (including Emergent Churches) congregations is that the language is exclusive and patriarchal. For progressives there is the problem of hymns and songs that don’t fit their theology. This is especially true in relationship to references to the atonement and patriarchal references to God. Here is their set of guidelines relating to their choices in music at their emergent service:

[W]e hold fast to progressive approaches in general by making sure the music is grounded in nonviolence, justice, hospitality, and mutuality, and we try our best not to lose sight of the mystery and wonder of God. Like emergents in general, we focus on music that is neither highly individualistic nor concerned with pie in the sky. In short, we try to make sure that every element of the liturgy – especially our music – reflects the theology held dear by progressives and emergents so that they can joyfully sing their faith without sensing a bunch of disconnects in the process. More than anything else, it is the music that stays with the people, it is music that seeps into their bones and reimagines their world. (p. 172).

In two appendices, the authors offer more guidelines and examples of how one might construct an emergent worship experience. Being that they are Disciples of Christ, they place the celebration of the Lord’s Supper at the center of this worship, and they make a point of the fact that Disciples do not limit the celebration of the Eucharist to clergy.

Bowen and Snider have written an important introduction to emergent Christianity for progessive Mainliners. They create a bridge that will help the skeptical or suspicions deal with qualms and questions. The emergent movement isn’t a perfect vehicle, but it does offer hope to the mainline church with its deemphasis on institution and structure, while emphasizing tradition, justice, scripture, hospitality, and adaptability. The emergent movement isn’t the end all for mainline renewal; any more than was true of the seeker movement or the megachurch movement. The danger here is that a tradition that is experiencing both decline and an inability to reach younger generations will simply jump headfirst without truly understanding the ramifications. The reality is that even if the emergent movement offers a word of hope, each church will have to adapt itself in a way that is authentic to its own context and history. That being said, this book, and this movement, does offer a pointer toward a hopeful future.

Of One Mind and Purpose -- A Sermon

1 Corinthians 1:10-18

If you go to Beijing, you’ll find the body of Chairman Mao nicely entombed, and if you’re in Moscow, you’ll find Lenin’s body on display, although he’s not as popular as he once was. Back at home, there aren’t any Presidential corpses on display, but depending on your political affiliation, the names FDR and Ronald Reagan may stand out in your pantheon of Great American Heroes.

It would seem that many seemingly larger than life figures, both living and dead, get elevated to almost divine status. Today’s living pantheon includes sports heroes, politicians, super models, film stars, media celebrities, and even big time preachers! Although there are those who relish in tearing down society’s idols, often sharing the most intimate details of these “heroes’s” lives in the various tabloids, we seem to enjoy basking in the glow of knowing even just a little bit about these larger than life people. If we get the chance to meet them, we do so with a great deal of shyness. Our palms get sweaty, our voices stammer nervously. It’s almost as if they’ve reached divine status – at least in our minds.

Now, back in St. Paul’s day, the members of the Corinthian church knew all about this reality. You see, the Roman Emperors were experts at cultivating personality cults, and so to be a Christian often meant choosing sides. By declaring Jesus to be Lord, you were declaring that Caesar wasn’t lord. Paul might have told the Romans to obey the authorities, but he didn’t give the Roman church permission to worship the emperor. And in 1 Corinthians 1, Paul tells a badly divided church to not create personality cults and parties that celebrate their heroes. Instead, he tells them – be of one mind and purpose. But, what does this mean for us?

1. It’s not about Me

The reason why Paul takes up the issue of unity is that the Corinthian Church had gotten tangled up in factional fighting. It had gotten so bad that one group in the church – the people affiliated with Chloe – sent Paul a letter, telling him that factionalism was brewing. Apparently some in the church claimed Paul as their mentor, while others hailed the name of Apollos, and still others Cephas or Peter. And then there were the purists, who claimed only to follow Christ.

As I read this litany of names, my thoughts go in two directions. First, I’m reminded that this is the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. Disciples have made unity a hallmark of our identity, and so this is something worth lifting up in prayer. But even as we pray that the church might experience unity, I’m equally aware of the religious partisanship that has always challenged this call to unity of mind and purpose. Instead of Paul and Apollos and Cephas, I hear a different pantheon: “I’m for Aquinas; I’m for Calvin; I’m for Luther; I’m for Aimee Semple McPherson: I’m for Campbell or I’m for Stone! Who is your hero?

Isn’t it interesting that Paul also adds in Christ -- just in case someone wants to take the “high road” and claim that they we’re not part of any party, we’re just followers of Christ. Yes, we’re the purists. We don’t just go back to Calvin or Aquinas; we’re going all the way back to Jesus! As Disciples, we need to hear this word from Paul, for we have a tendency to see ourselves standing above the fray, representing no particular party, and we hold it over our brothers and sisters who take their names from famous founders. Yes, we’re not Lutherans, Calvinists, or even Baptists. Instead, while “We’re not the only Christians, we’re Christians only.”

The truth is, personalities can mess things up and get in the way of unity. It doesn’t have to be a famous theologian or founder; it could just be a clique that emerges in a congregation that seeks power over the life of the congregation. Sometimes this factional fighting starts off rather benignly – different people have different opinions and interests. Things go awry when we decide that our way is the only way.

Whatever you want to say about the dysfunctional nature of the Corinthian church, its strength was its diversity. Corinth was a bit like LA or New York. It was the crossroads of the Roman Empire. Ships from the east stopped there to transfer their loads to ships heading west to Rome, and the same was true of ships going in the opposite direction. And yet, despite the differences, they were sisters and brothers in Christ, but as we all know, sometimes siblings can fight with the best of them! As Kathleen Norris puts it:

The Corinthians remind me of my niece and nephew in their younger days when they fought ferociously over things both large and small. One afternoon as they raged over the question of who would sit in the front seat as Mom drove them home on the daily commute, I asked, “Is there anything you two won’t fight about?” The shouting stopped as both children looked at me. Beaming, they happily declared, “No!” and resumed their squabbling. Of course they love each other, and always have. (Christian Century, January 15, 2008, p. 23).

Norris thinks that Paul was hoping that this could be true of the Corinthians – that they would ultimately find unity in their common heritage of faith, in spite of their differences. Because ultimately, it’s not about me, but you O Lord.

2. Unity in Our Diversity

One way to achieve unity in the church is to make sure everyone thinks alike, talks alike, and looks alike. And you know what? It works! Not long ago church growth experts told us that birds of a feather flock together, and so the quickest way to build a church is to find your niche. And so we developed churches and worship services for the young and the old, for the wealthy, the middle class, and the poor, black churches, Hispanic churches, Korean churches, and of course white churches. They called it the homogeneous principle, but the problem is that ultimately this principle undermines the message of the gospel by keeping the people of God separate from each other. It may alleviate a lot of “problems,” but the question is: Is this what God really wants for the church? Does God want uniformity or does God want us to find unity within our diversity? In other words can the organ crowd live together with the guitar crowd? Just to give an example! I hope so, because we’ve already begun heading down that road.

But stylistic differences are one thing – what about ethnic and cultural differences? Last Sunday we hosted the Martin Luther King Service, which is sponsored by the Michigan Disciples Black Minister’s Caucus. We got asked to host this event, because the sponsors wanted to bridge the gap that separates our churches. It was a wonderful event, but it’s one thing to gather for a special event. It’s a very different thing to become a truly multi-ethnic congregation.

We often talk about becoming more diverse, but moving from talk to reality is, as they say, a long and winding road. The first step in taking this road is to recognize that being multi-ethnic involves more than adding a few people of color to a congregation. No, from what I’ve read a multi-ethnic congregation is one that has more than 20% of its membership that is different from the majority culture. And second, getting to that point is not easy.

You see there are cultural, social, political, and theological differences that have to be negotiated. Too often when we think about becoming more diverse, we just assume that the people who come to us will simply assimilate themselves without making any real changes in the way we live together as God’s people. But that’s not the way it happens. The good news is that we may have already begun to take some of the steps necessary to get to that point. For instance, there are the little things we’ve done to broaden the worship style to include both traditional and non-traditional forms. We’ve launched an alternative worship service that is planned and led by young adults, but which is not simply a “young adult” service. We’re reaching out and building partnerships with predominantly African-American congregations and we’ve joined in the work of rebirthing Detroit through our involvement with Motown Mission. We’ve become more involved with congregations outside the denomination and we’ve taken an increasingly larger role within the local interfaith movement. These are first steps that God is blessing.

3. Rooted in the Cross

The way forward will require us to embrace the unity that only the Spirit of God can bring to us. When we hear that voice within us saying: Why should I accommodate myself to the needs of the other? When we find ourselves saying: If they want to come here, then they need to learn to assimilate and be like me, then we need to hear the call to embrace the cross of Christ. And we do this because how we respond to this calling will affect the way the gospel is heard in our community.

The way relate to each other influences the way the message of Jesus gets heard. And that message is simply this: “Change your hearts and minds! Here comes the kingdom of heaven!” (Mt. 4:17).

And to give us a sense of urgency, I think it’s important that we hear what the pollsters are telling us. Even though most church people are happy with the way things are, the general public doesn’t hold the church in high regard. This is especially true among the young. Even though religious people are, by and large, more generous than non-religious people, and while they’re more likely to volunteer than non-religious people, religious folk are also perceived as being more intolerant of others. In fact, it appears that the more you go to the church, the more intolerant you tend to be. We say we seek to be an accepting or welcoming congregation, but what does that mean? And how do we change this perception that the world has of the church?

The key, according to Paul, is found in the cross. You see the cross is scandalous, because it’s a sign of humiliation and weakness. To die on a cross is to experience complete powerlessness, and Paul suggests that if we’re going to experience unity in the midst of our diversity, then we must be willing to let go of that drive to gain power over others. To be of one mind and purpose, as Paul suggests, requires that we take a position of humility that is exemplified by Jesus’ death on the cross. It’s not that there is no place for leadership, but it is a question of how we wield that leadership. Do we use power to benefit ourselves or to benefit others? This is the question that Paul poses to us as we pause to observe the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity!

Preached by:
Dr. Robert D. Cornwall
Pastor, Central Woodward Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Troy, Michigan
3rd Sunday after Epiphany
January 23, 2011

Martin Luther King -- An Extremist for Love

This weekend we pause to remember the birth of one of America's great prophets, a man who spoke truth to power and pushed the American conscience.  He spoke out against discrimination and segregation.  He spoke out against injustice and poverty.  He spoke out against a war that drained the finances and the spirit of the American people. I was only ten when Martin Luther King was assassinated.  I can't say that I had any real awareness of what was happening in the world at that time, living as I did in a fairly sheltered world of small town America.  But over time I can to understand the message that Dr. King and other activists brought to the American people, a message that we must still hear.  

Last night my congregation hosted for the Michigan Disciples Black Ministers Caucus their annual Martin Luther King service.  It really was a great event, with great preaching and great music.  But it was also an opportunity to build relationships across ethnic boundaries -- something we still need to address.

This morning as I pondered what to share I went looking for quotes from Dr. King and came across this excerpt from his Letter from the Birmingham Jail.  I think this might be a statement worth reflecting upon.  Is there a place for an extremism of love and justice?  And what does that mean?   Consider therefore this statement:

  

Was not Jesus an extremist for love -- "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice -- "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the gospel of Jesus Christ -- "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist -- "Here I stand; I can do none other so help me God." Was not John Bunyan an extremist -- "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist -- "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." So the question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist will we be. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice--or will we be extremists for the cause of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill, three men were crucified. We must not forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thusly fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment.

Identity in the Post-Modern World

I posted a piece yesterday asking the question:  Are you spiritual or are you religious?  In reality, a majority of people want to keep these two together.  But, it is important to acknowledge that the world of today is very different from the church's "golden age" in the 1950s.  We look at the world in very different ways.  In the forthcoming issue of Sharing the Practice, the journal that I edit for the Academy of Parish Clergy, Loren Mead, founder of Alban Institute writes a piece on the changing world of ministry.  He uses the metaphor of the tides to describe the difference between the world in which he entered ministry, in which the Academy of Parish Clergy was born, and the world of today.  Then the tide was coming in, now it's going out.  That makes doing ministry much more difficult.

Yesterday, in her closing presentation, Diana Butler Bass shared with the gathered Disciples clergy a matrix to understand the old and the new -- she made it clear that old isn't "bad" and new isn't "good," they are what they are.  She shared with us the three areas of inquiry that sociologists use in formulating polls and surveys.  They want to know about identity -- to what do you belong -- belief, and practice.  I'll be commenting on the latter two at a different point, but I want to focus now on questions of identity.  

As Diana laid it out the question that lies at the base of this inquiry is "Who Am I?"  Descartes answered that question for the modern age with the words:  Cogito ergo sum -- "I think, therefore, I am."  Identity is defined in terms of rationality.  What makes us different from other species is our rationality.  You can see how this would affect and influence the way the church exists and organizes itself.  It leads quickly the next point -- belief, which is defined in very rational terms, and practices, which are defined as techniques -- How do we do what we're supposed to do?    That is the old paradigm that defined the world in which the American church had its golden age.  It focused on the external and the institutional -- what so many describe today as "religion."  And it worked very well.

But, the world has changed, and the identity questions have changed.  Science is asking different questions about identity, and those questions have made it clear that things are rather complex.  We may be rational beings, but we're more than rationality.  In fact, identity is defined in a context of a complex web of experiences and possibilities.  Identity is wrapped in economics, politics, the environment, religion, science, and more.  So, in this new age, when we talk about identity we must add prepositions -- what Diana referred to as "Prepositional Identity."    Thus we must tweak the question.

It is no longer "Who am I?" or "Who are We?"  Instead, the question is:  "Who am I in . . ."  Or, Who am I with . . ."  And as people of faith, we must ask the question of what we're doing or why we're doing something in this way:  "Who am I in God?"

And that's the question I want to pose.  Who are you in God? 

Miracles and Progressive Christianity -- (Dwight Welch)

I have invited Dwight Welch, a Disciples of Christ seminary student and occasional blogger to offer his sense of the Christian faith from a liberal/progressive position.  In service to my own denominational tradition I have been making these pages available to people who, like me, are seeking opportunities to explore and share their faith with the broader public.  This should be the first of at least two pieces.  I invite you to engage Dwight in conversation.

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

A Progressive Christian

Take on Miracles

Over the last month or so there have been a number of articles on the question of miracles, the resurrection, and healing. This has spurred my own thought on these questions and I appreciate the opportunity Bob Cornwall has given me to try to put down some of these thoughts in the form of a post. My hope is to raise some questions, both for myself, and others in a way which can advance the discussion.

As a liberal protestant what does one do with supernatural interventions? Bruce Epperly and others have suggested that it is possible that we’re not dealing with the supernatural at all. That, instead, there may be features of our natural world, which can account for and open us up to these miraculous stories of the past as well as their present happenings. The indeterminacy of quantum mechanics, for instance, is lifted up to break down the old mechanistic accounts favored by the natural sciences. The energestic accounts make a universe far more personally responsive than the old atomistic ones.

But I still think some caution is needed in this front. Whatever happens at the quantum level is not so varied as to make the macro level operate under a new set of rules. And in the macro world, we still do not see things like physical resurrection occurring. There is nothing we know about biology nor do we have experiences that we can point to that indicates such occurrences today. That does not mean that the door is closed on such things. Epistemic humility requires as much.

But it does suggest that we may be facing the limits of what theology can talk about. In other words, given that God is far more than we can describe, we can presume our theologies will not exhaust God’s doings in the world. But there may be limits, given our knowledge of the world, which theology is in a position to say. In that the only response may be a holy silence when it surpasses that knowledge.

But if God is the God of this world then knowledge of the world should give us clues about God. When some Christians dismiss evolution, or other areas of consensus in the sciences, a distorted picture of the world and of God emerges. So getting it right or at least getting as close as one can get given the circumstances has theological implications. In that, I get nervous about some miracle stories or descriptions of resurrection which seem to be at odds with the consensus of the sciences or the kind of world they describe.

Even if we remove the category of the supernatural, the sense of the scriptures, is that miracles are extraordinary occasions. In the Second Testament, such stories are usually followed by the people being in “awe” after the miracle. But if we agree with Whitehead that God should exemplify the categories of our world, not be an exception to them, then maybe looking for God in the extraordinary should be suspect; or at least not necessary. In principle, one should likely find that how God operates in the ordinary or the extraordinary follows much the same lines.

Again that doesn’t close off the extraordinary. But it does suggest a kind of continuity in experience and in the character of God and God’s doings that can make any occasion a possible source of divine disclosure, even if some moments are more dramatic or profound in their impact on us then others. In that sense, we’re back to the old definition of miracles from Friedrich Schleiermacher. Any occasion which points to God and God’s doings, God’s purposes, God’s character in the world can be properly understood as a miracle. A smile or a calm sea both suggests much of the same thing. And it should if we’re on to something in our analysis.

In that case, the way that we might appropriate miracle stories today would be to discern the character of God as it its being told in the story of healings, for instance, to see if it has continuity with the kind of God we understand ourselves to serve. That may go outside of the question of did it happen or would it happen. But one can imagine how the character of God in such and such a story might be translated to our time. What brings healing today? What opens our eyes today? What acts in our lives so we can be included in the community as opposed to being cast out to the edges of town? When can new life happen even when some sought to kill it?

The hope is to engage those resources of scripture which can illuminate our experiences, of God, of one another, and so on. Some of the language of scripture does just that. But some do not. I had a high school student in my church liken faith in God to faith in Santa Claus. While only one has reindeer, both were equally fantastic in his mind, based on something that was wish fulfillment and not evidence based. I think as much inside the church as outside of it, we face a credibility crisis in the claims our faith tradition has made. To the degree that we can relate to the resources of our faith tradition and the world as we know it, we may be able to confront that problem. I think that has been the charge and the motivation for religious progressives in general and this discussion in particular.

Dwight Welch is finishing his final year at Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis as a MDiv student with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and serves as a student pastor at First Christian in Sheridan Indiana. Previously Dwight did graduate work in philosophy while serving as a campus minister at University Christian Ministries at Southern Illinois University.  Although not blogging as often as before, Dwight's blog is entitled the Religious Liberal.   

Liturgical Order and the nature of the church

I posted a rather long piece the other day from Keith Watkins' book Celebrate with Thanksgiving (Chalice, 1991) on becoming the body of Christ in the eucharist.  Continuing that discussion, I'd like to raise the question of whether the way we order worship, especially in regards to where we place the Word and the Table, says something about how we view the nature of the church.  In essence Keith asks fellow Disciples whether they are a "bible-centered church, colored by eucharistic piety?" or are we a "sacramental church, braced by the Word of God?"  How we structure worship speaks to which of these two options we have chosen.

He notes that two patterns have emerged among Disciples congregations, with each implying a "distinct understanding of worship and doctrine of the church."  Beginning with those congregations that place the communion early, prior to the reading of the Scriptures and the preaching of the sermon, with what he refers to as an "intensified communion interlude," Disciples churches expressed a view of worship that is "consistent with non-sacramental Protestantism,"  where the church is seen primarily as a "community shaped by revelation in the form of doctrine and ethics."

This word-centered revelation presents the gospel of salvation through Christ, and it leads to the transformation of life.  Nevertheless, the main focus is what Christians are to believe and what they are to do about that belief.  (p. 20).

This version of worship, is often rooted in revivalism -- we gather at the Table, because that's what Disciples do, but the most important thing is making the pitch so that people can get saved.  It is a popular style of worship among congregations heavily influenced by church growth teachings.

On the other hand there is the version that places the communion at the end of the service.  In this view, "worship is understood as the Lord's Supper interpreted by the Word of God" (p. 20).  Keith goes on to write:

This idea is consistent with the sacramental approach to worship that marks the catholic impulse in Christianity.  It emphasizes God's self-disclosure in nature and history, asserting that salvation comes from participation in a community that embodies the divine Spirit.  This participation is by means of sacramental eating and drinking with God.  (pp. 20-21). 

Perhaps it's a remnant of my Episcopalian background, but I find myself -- as is true for Keith -- on the side of a sacramental understanding of worship.  I believe that Word and Sacrament belong together.  Although you don't need a sermon, necessarily, you do need the Word, even if it is the text of Scripture read, to give substance to what happens at the Table.  Although Disciples aren't a creedal people and thus there is room for differing views of what happens at the Table and who Jesus is for us, the Word read and proclaimed provides the starting point for what happens in the encounter that we have with the Living Christ at the Table, an encounter that is embodied in the elements of bread and wine and the gathered community. 

In the churches that I have pastored, we have always placed communion at the end of the service.  Thus, if I must choose, I see us being a sacramental church not a bible church.  The Bible provides the interpretation and the guidance, but we come to church not to encounter the Bible, but to encounter Christ our Lord, who meets us at the Table and then sends forth to minister in the world in which we live.  I simply don't know how this happens if communion comes early on, and then the sermon and invitation. 

Becoming Christ's Body in the Eucharist

There are Christian traditions that believe that when consecrated the elements of bread and wine/juice become the body and blood of Christ.  There are other traditions that believe that the bread and wine are merely memorials of Christ's death and burial.  For those of us who are Disciples of Christ, there is a tendency to take a memorialistic perspective, one that emerged largely in reaction to the more literalist understandings of the real presence of Christ in the eucharistic elements.

There is another way of looking at the eucharist, one that holds on to the idea of presence without locating that presence in the elements themselves.  The idea here is that the presence of Christ is found in the body -- that is the congregation.  And the congregation isn't simply the institution of the church, but the gathering of the body of Christ around the Table. 

In a book published nearly 20 years ago, Keith Watkins explored in some detail the patterns of prayer at the Table.  He did this so as to challenge Disciples to examine their practice so that the meaning of the meal can be understood and lived out.  Too often our time at the table is sloppy and irreverent, but more importantly our practice often has little theological grounding. 

Among the implications that Keith notes in his connection of the eucharist to the doctrine of the church as body of Christ is that "in the celebration of the eucharist, the congregation becomes what it already is:  Christ's body."

He goes on to define what this means (I'm including a rather extended quotation from Keith's book Celebrate with Thanksgiving):

The way that the Sunday service is structured and the contents of its several parts are the means by which this realization takes place.  Congregants assemble from their separated lives in the world.  The order of worship focuses their attention upon God and upon God's love and justice.  Despite the distractions and sins that have accumulated during the week, worshipers are drawn once again into the orbit of God's redeeming love in Jesus Christ.  They listen to readings from scripture that tell the stories of God's work long ago.  They hear a sermon showing how God continues to work in these same ways in life today.  By now, the people have been welded together again into a strong and unified assembly.  They are now ready to bring their life in the world more directly into God's presence.  In the prayers of thanksgiving, confession, and intercession the people remember what has taken place as they have tried to live faithfully through the week.  All is offered God with the entreaty that God's will for creation and all it's creatures will be fulfilled.

The intentions of these prayers are also expressed in the the physical elements that now become the focus of the service.  Offerings of money and the bread and communion-wine for the eucharist are brought to the table.  Together these emblems depict the natural world of "blood, sweat, and tears," and of wheat and grapes, now converted into new forms.  The labors of natural life become the substance of purposeful life in families and communities.  The foods of the earth are converted into bread and wine, manufactured products that increase their nourishing properties and our joy in using them.  All of these meanings are compressed into the procession that brings these elements to their place upon the holy table.

At this point, the congregation and its leaders approach God in prayer.  They tell the story of God's creative and redeeming work, the story that reaches its climax in Jesus' death upon the cross and everlasting life wit God.  They express in words their sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving that the entire service seeks to present to God.  They ask that Christ's life in them be renewed and that they be strengthened to be the body of Christ in the world.  They they receive back the bread and communion-wine as sure signs that God has heard their prayer and will answer it.  At this point, the eucharist is complete and the church has once again become what it already is:  the body of Christ.  (Keith Watkins, Celebrate with Thanksgiving, Chalice Press, 1991, pp. 38-39). 

As you can see it's not just the prayers or the elements, but the way that the service itself is formed that helps provide the context for the congregation to become the body of Christ at the table.  As I read this, I realize that our practice at CWCC doesn't mirror everything that is present in Keith's discussion.  We don't have the procession of the elements nor do we have prayers of confession or of the people.  After the sermon I offer a Pastoral Prayer, something that has emerged over time and has largely replaced the other forms of prayer.  We have a prayer at the offering and we have a prayer for the elements.  But the basic order is present, as we move toward a climax at the Table, for it is there that community gathers to receive a sign that Christ is present in their midst.  I'd like to invite a conversation about ways in which we can strengthen our practice at the Table so that we might become more fully the body of Christ on earth.

Pride Goes before the Fall — Lectionary Reflection

2 Kings 5:1-14
Galatians 6:7-16
Luke 10:1-11, 16-20

Pride Goeth before a Fall

We stand at the edge of a major American celebration. It’s one of those holidays that many preachers, including this one, struggle with. There is this expectation that the church should become a national shrine, with the pastors serving as priests for the nation. But is that our calling, and do these expectations keep us from speaking prophetically? Few of us have the courage and wherewithal of a prophet like Elisha, who not only didn’t fear the people, he didn’t fear the king either. In fact, not only didn’t he fear his own king, but he didn’t fear the supreme commander of his nation’s rival kingdom’s army.

Reading the three lectionary texts together our reflections can go in a number of directions, but what caught my eye was the problem of ego or pride. Naaman is a general, the head of his nation’s army, and yet he also suffers from a skin disease that should make him an outcast. When he learns that there is a man in Israel who can cure him, he seeks the blessing of his own king before heading to Israel in search of this man in whose hands his future lies. When he finally encounters Elisha the Prophet – or should I say, Elisha’s assistants – he is put off first by the fact that Elisha doesn’t come to meet him and also by the demand that he wash himself seven times in the Jordan. Why should he do such a thing? It seemed silly and demeaning, after all, his own country had superior rivers. Finally, at the urging of his servants, he consents, and he’s cured.

In the Gospel of Luke, we read of the missionary journey of the Seventy Disciples. Each goes out into the world in pairs. They’re to preach the message of the kingdom of God and heal all who come their way. As Luke tells the story, they go off on this journey without any provisions at all, subject to the elements unless they can find a home to take them in. When they return to Jesus, they exult in their good fortune. Even the demons obey them. They are quite pleased with themselves, but Jesus reminds them that their celebrations should focus on their presence in the Book of Life.

Paul’s letter to the Galatians helps tie these lectionary texts together. Paul not only reminds us that we tend to reap what we sow, but if we boast in the flesh, we’re running in the wrong direction. Instead, our focus should be spiritual, that is, we should be sowing spiritual thoughts and actions, ones that lead to the appearance of the New Creation. Yes, it appears that boasting is a sign of the flesh not the Spirit. There is no spiritual value to be found in boosting our own egos and stroking our own pride.

Consider Naaman for instance. Although he was a leper, and would seem to be an outcast in his society (this is one reason why I always struggle with this passage – how did he keep his job and family considering his condition?), he continued to think very highly of himself. He sought a cure, but when he was asked to do a simple thing, such as washing himself in the Jordan, he balked. After all, he was an Aramean (Syrian), a citizen of a nation (at least in military terms) that far surpassed Israel. Not only that, he was a highly regarded general, a leader among his people. Why then, should he humiliate himself by taking a bath in this little river that flowed through Israel?

As for the seventy – they seem to have gotten caught up in their “ability” to cast out demons. Perhaps in their joy at their success – much like a football player who scores a touchdown and does a little dance despite the fact that the team is still a couple of TDs behind, they had forgotten the purpose of their mission. In Luke’s account, Jesus suggests that they be content that their names are written in the Book of Life.

If we are to sow and reap spiritual benefits, it would appear that we should look with modesty at our own achievements, so that we might be of use to the realm of God. Remember too that old adage – pride goeth before a fall! It’s a good one to remember at a time of national celebration!

Reposted from [D]mergent, a new Disciples blog, for which I write a weekly meditation.  I invite you to check out this new source of conversation within the Disciples of Christ community.

Editors Not Bishops -- then and now

The Stone-Campbell Movement, of which the Disciples of Christ (my home tradition) has a lot of great slogans, such as "We're Christians Only, Not the only Christians" and "No Book but the Bible, No Creed but Christ."   There is another slogan that goes like this:  "We don't have bishops, we have editors."  That adage emerged early on because we were in our origins a rather loosely knit group with no official structure.  We did, however, have influential leaders, who while not having official titles had journals that they edited.  Alexander Campbell had two such journals, the Christian Baptist and later the Millennial Harbinger.  Barton Stone edited the Christian Messenger and Walter Scott The Evangelist.   Later on other journals would emerge, some of which became official or semi-official organs of different parts of the movement.  These included J.H. Garrison's Christian-Evangelist, which was the precursor to the Disciple, the last official Disciples journal, and Isaac Errett's Christian Standard, which still exists and is a primary magazine of what is called the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ.  A number of journals emerged that were edited by more conservative elements in the movement, which gave birth to the Churches of Christ -- journals edited by Benjamin Franklin, Moses Lard, and others.

The Disciples of Christ today have equivalents to bishops -- a General Minister (Rev. Sharon Watkins) and Regional Ministers, but we no longer have an official magazine.  In fact, we've been without one for sometime, but Disciples World, a separately funded and run journal existed for several years but finally stopped publication.  That reality has led many of us in Disciples circles to wonder out loud about what should take its place.  There doesn't seem to be any money or support for reestablishing a print magazine, whether official or unofficial.  Most of the options available are electronic and all lack official sanction.  There is, for instance a number of blogs that are designed for Disciples.  These include [D]mergent, to which I've become a contributing writer.  There are blogs like mine or that belonging to Keith Watkins' that are written by Disciples, but which have a broader focus.  There are Facebook groups and fan pages, and there is The Intersection, which is part of the Ning Network.  That network was launched as an adjunct to Disciples World and is the sole remaining part of that effort.  It is, however, in an uncertain place, for there is concern for costs and oversight. 

So, maybe we are entering into a world of many editors, none of whom have official titles or support or recognition, but who speak from within (but never for) the movement.  The question is this -- how do we stay connected?  How do we communicate with a sense of common purpose?  We value unity and speak of ourselves as a "Movement of Wholeness in a Fragmented World" (more about this later).  But if we don't have an official "organ" and there is a multitude of voices, how do we speak to the world and each other?  

I'd like to open a conversation, and if you are a blogger and are part of the Disciples of Christ tradition, then give a description and leave your URL!  Let's see who our modern editors are! 

Split Ticket -- WTF book announcement

Will Young Adults, especially Christian young adults, engage the political system?  Will the political shenanigans that muddy the waters lead to skepticism and cynicism?  There is a growing sentiment that the system is broken and many are ready to jump ship.  But is that the right choice?

Split Ticket: Independent Faith in a Time of Partisan Politics is the second volume in Chalice Press's Where's The Faith series for young adults, which is edited by Brandon Gilvin and Christian Piatt, is due out over soon.  You will want to get a copy, especially if you read and enjoyed the first volume Oh God! Oh God! Oh God! (Chalice 2010).  I've not yet read the newest collection of essays, which is edited by Brandon, Christian, and Amy Gopp, but I know all three, regard them highly (all three are Disciples by the way), and know it will be worth your attention.

So, until the book is available, you can read my review of the first volume and check out this trailer from Chalice Press:

A Sermon Church?

Yesterday our worship at Central Woodward Christian Church included both Word and Sacrament.  There was music (the choir finished out the year with style and verve) and there was prayer, but standing at the center was Word and Sacrament -- a sharing in the reading of Scripture, a sermon, and the Lord's Supper.  The Disciples are a Table-Centered church.  But we are also a Word-Centered church.  Even if there isn't a sermon per se, there will be something that brings the Word to the community.  It might be simply the reading of Scripture with a few comments.  It might be a sharing of testimony, or the sharing of the word through song.  But in some way or form the Word is presented, for without the Word the Table loses context and meaning.  You see, we Disciples have a rationalist streak in us so we want to understand what we're doing.  We're okay with a bit of mystery, but within "reason."

I offer this up as a way of introducing a posting by my friend Keith Watkins.  Keith has been biking (human-powered version) his way up the East Coast, and shares observations that emerged from a conversation with a woman who is Presbyterian and experience at a Disciples Church where he worshiped while on his journey. 

Keith notes that while this woman's Presbyterian church is a sermon church, the same can be said for the Disciples tradition.  Note Keith's observation:

To my surprise, I heard the kind of sermon my cycling companion from the big city may have had in mind. It was grounded in an important text from the Sermon on the Mount–Matthew 5:21-43–and was imaginatively adapted to contemporary times. Instead of being an exhortation telling people that their church had to change, this sermon was in the indicative mood. It included a careful explanation of what it means for all of us to live in a post-modern, post-Christendom period of time.

It was refreshing to hear such a constructive set of important ideas in an ordinary sermon, on an ordinary Sunday, in an ordinary church. It was twenty-one minutes long, delivered with animation from a manuscript, a little rough around the edges, but for me, at least, a compelling message.

Especially interesting is the fact that this preacher was also a young woman who obviously believes that serious preaching about important ideas still has a place in churches that want to appeal to a post-modern generation living in a post-Christendom world.

Keith concludes by saying that while the congregation might not see itself as a "sermon church," that is what it was for him that day. 

With Keith's comments as context I'd like to raise the question of the role of the sermon in worship.  Should we be a "sermon church"?  Some would say that the monologue that is a sermon is a dying art form, and thus ought to be abandoned in favor of other forms.  Indeed, many "contemporary" churches have taken the lead of Letterman or the latest motivational speaker, and have abandoned the traditional sermon.  

As we consider the role of the sermon, who does it relate to worship and to the Sacrament of Communion?

An Anniversary Reflection on Ordination to Representative Ministry

June 9, 1985, Ordination participants

It was twenty-five years ago today that hands were laid upon me in a service of ordination at Temple City Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) [June 9, 1985]. Among those participating in that service were members of the Temple City church, it’s interim pastor, Tom Toler, the Regional Minister Charles Mallotte, a local Lutheran pastor, Margaret Duttera, and Ed Linberg, who offered the sermon. Ed had started out as supervisor of my internship, but was called part way through to another ministry. Tom finished out the year (though John Hull and I carried for a few months a lions share of the load – both of us serving as Assistant Pastors). This action of ordination took place a day after I received my M.Div. from Fuller Theological Seminary. It was an important event in my life, perhaps more important than I realized at the time. Twenty-five years ago I had in mind a ministry in the academic world – teaching church history – not serving as the pastor of a local congregation. Yet, for the past twelve years I have served as the pastor of three local congregations.

As I consider my ordination on this anniversary day, I thought I might reflect a bit upon what it means for me and for the church at large. For, if as I believe, we are all, as baptized Christians, all priests of God called to engage in the ministry of God, with Jesus as our high priest, then pastoral ministry might best be defined as representative ministry. The pastor could be seen as the bearer of the call to ministry that all Christians participate in. Standing in the pulpit or at the table, the pastor is not only a representative of God (as one who inspired by the Spirit speaks for God) but also as the representative of the people, sharing a message in word and sacrament that emerges from within the community itself.

By thinking of pastoral ministry as representative ministry, we start with the premise that all ministry is important. No Christian is by virtue of their office holier than any other. There maybe a difference in roles and even charism, but not importance to the health of the body. The calling of the pastoral leadership is not to do ministry for God’s people but to equip and encourage the congregation in its ministries (Eph. 4:11-13). The goal of pastoral ministry is to help God’s people reach maturity in Spirit, and that maturity leads to acts of service – the good works prepared for us by God.

Our ordination to ministry occurs in our baptisms, an act of grace that sets us apart for service to Jesus Christ. Ordination, on the other hand, orders the lives of some for specific areas of service. It is the public recognition that some from among the body are called to representative ministry of preaching, teaching, sacrament, and pastoral care. Although God calls people to this ministry, the church has the responsibility to affirm this call and publicly confer on this person the authority of this office.

In ordaining a candidate the church also promises to hold the ordinand accountable to this calling. Although there are no double standards in Christian ministry, the church should expect that the ones upon whom they confer this title of pastor will hold themselves to the highest standards of behavior, that they will seek to understand the faith in such a way that they may might teach and equip others (making it imperative that those called to ordained ministry pursue some form of education/training such as the traditional M.Div. programs). Having had hands laid upon them, ordained pastors (my preferred title) stand as representatives of the church they serve and lead By extending the hands of ordination on candidates, the church declares to the broader church and the community at large, that this woman or man has been found to have the requisite gifts and calling to serve the church at large as pastors and teachers.

Though many clergy claim to have felt God's leading, God's call on their lives, without the discerning affirmation of the church that sense of calling may be little more than a delusion. The church is charged with discerning both gifts and calling, and then supporting those called and gifted to fulfill this calling. I stand here today the product of a community of communities who saw in me gifts and encouraged their development and usage. Thanks be to God!

The People's New Testament Commentary -- Review

THE PEOPLE’S NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY. By M. Eugene Boring and Fred B. Craddock. Louisville: WJK Press, 2009. x + 827 pp. (Paperback)

Back in the late nineteenth century Disciples preacher B.W. Johnson published an annotated edition of the New Testament (with King James and Revised Versions in parallel columns) that carried the name The People’s New Testament with Notes. Being that Disciples believe(d) that each person has the right and responsibility to interpret the scriptures for themselves, it is not surprising that a Disciple pastor/scholar would create a resource intended for a lay audience. Now, early in the 21st century two spiritual descendants of B.W. Johnson have produced a commentary on the New Testament intended for use by lay people that carries on the spirit of the original. Originally published in hardback, it is now available in a paperback edition.

The authors of this commentary are distinguished scholars with a heart for the church. Fred B. Craddock is best known as a preacher, but he is also a very well regarded biblical scholar, having taught both preaching and New Testament at Candler Seminary as well as having authored numerous commentaries on New Testament books. Gene Boring may not be as well known as Craddock, but he too is a highly regarded New Testament scholar who taught for many years at Brite Divinity School.  His previous works include a commentary on Revelation in the Interpretation series, a commentary on Mark for the New Testament Library,  as well as an important historical study of biblical scholarship within the Stone-Campbell movement, Disciples and the Bible (Chalice Press, 1997). While both men are critical scholars, who bring to the discussion their years of engagement with critical biblical scholarship, they understand that the New Testament is also a sacred text that has great meaning for the church and for individual Christians. Because of their scholarly background and their spiritual sensitivity, both are highly qualified to lead the serious reader of the Scriptures deeper into the text.

Unlike the nineteenth century original, this book doesn’t include the biblical text, though it is based on the New Revised Standard Version. In addition to providing commentary on each of the New Testament books, the authors (without delineating who wrote which part) off a brief introduction to the “New Testament as the Church’s Book,” by which they mean that everyone within the church has access to the text and may read it for themselves. They note as well that by church they don’t mean a specific tradition or denomination, but the church at large, a church that wrote, selected, edited, transmitted, translated, and interpreted the text. In regards to the latter, they write that they “have called [their] volume the ‘People’s Commentary’ because we believe the ‘common’ people of the church – the laity, the people of God – are able and authorized to study the Bible on their own” (p. 5). Beyond this general introduction, they provide introductions to the gospels and to the Pauline Epistles, and a series of excursuses on topics they believe are germane to the reader. These excursuses are scattered throughout the volume and cover such issues and the interpretation of the resurrection, reflections on doctrines such as predestination and the practice of the Lord’s Supper.

Special attention might be given to one specific excursus that originally appeared in Boring’s Disciples and the Bible. It is entitled “The Biblical Story as a Drama in Five Acts.” Although Boring doesn’t mention it here, the idea of a five-act drama borrowed from an evangelistic tool used by one of the Disciples founders, Walter Scott. Scott used what he called the five-fingered exercise to teach his version of the way of salvation. Boring borrowed the exercise and laid out a brief and memorable summary of the biblical story – Creation (Genesis 1-11) Covenant (Genesis 12-Malachi 4), Christ (Matthew-John), Church (Acts-Jude) and Consummation (Revelation). Boring created this little mnemonic device as a way of breaking the spell of biblical illiteracy that infects our churches. Using this little device, people have a basic outline upon which to hang the biblical story. Attending to this excursus, which the author’s placed within their Ephesians commentary will pay great dividends.

This is a text that should be in every church library, on the desk of every pastor, and of course sitting nearby one’s Bible – at home. The Protestant Reformation delivered the Bible to the people in the vernacular. It was believed that the people had the right and responsibility to deal with the text of Scripture. History and experience demonstrate that while the individual has this right, we all need good instructors and guides to the text. I can name no better or more up-to-date text than this. And, because it’s now in paperback, it is quite affordable.

Revive Us Again! Passionately and Progressively?

Cane Ridge Revival 1801

Last week I posted an essay by Professor/Pastor Bruce Epperly entitled "A Passionate Progressive Christian Revival," and in that essay Bruce argued that progressives need to experience a passionate revival.  I was thinking about what such a thing would look like as I participated in a revival at a Black Disciples Church in Detroit last night.  

It was my first revival in a Black church, and I must say -- I came home moved, revived, and restored.  There was music and prayer and preaching.  The guest revivalist, Pastor George Davis, stirred us with his message out of 1 Chronicles 7:14 -- the first of three messages.  The choir and the praise team sang (and that was enjoyable).  And Pastor Rufus Lewis sang "I Won't Complain" in honor of a beloved church member who had died that day.  After the preaching, Pastor Rufus called up the pastors in the house, and several of my colleagues and I went up front, and we prayed with those wishing prayer.  It was a unique experience that was spiritually uplifting.  I must say, I was warmly received and greeted by all.  Indeed, that might have been the most moving part of all -- the warmth of the fellowship.    

So, what would a progressive revival look like?   Would it look like a bible lecture?  Would it stir the souls?  Would it call out from us a deep sense of need for the presence of God?  Would it exude love of neighbor?  Further, if, my congregation were to hold a three night revival with a guest preacher, would the people come out?  As a Disciple I know that our roots go back to the Second Great Awakening.  Barton Stone, one of our founders, was host to the famous Cane Ridge Revival - an event that was anything but a rationalist experience for participants.  So, my question goes forth.  How might the Spirit move in our midst in a way that when we go forth we have been revived and restored?