Wild and Unsafe Again???

In his famous Chronicles of Narnia, C. S. Lewis' Christ-figure is Aslan, the kingly lion who oozes with mystery, adventure and ferocity as well as tenderness, strength, and love.  Who can forget that incredible quote in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, in which Mr. Beaver, speaking of Aslan, says, "Safe?  Of course He isn't safe!  But He's good!"  In Lewis' mind, there is an arresting quality about Christ that is far removed from the "gentle Jesus, meek and mild" of our overly sentimentalized evangelicalism.

Lewis' fellow Britishers seemed to share this view of Christ.  In his popular work Orthodoxy, G. K. Chesterton wrote, "People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy [that is, authentic Christian faith] as something heavy, humdrum, and safe.  But there was never anything so perilous and exciting as orthodoxy."

Likewise, Dorothy L. Sayers issues this scathing reminder about the One we Christians supposedly follow:  "Somehow or other, and with the best intentions, we have shown the world the typical Christian in the likeness of a crashing and rather ill-natured bore--and this in the Name of One who assuredly never bored a soul in those thirty-three years during which He passed through this world like a flame."

These are salutary reminders from Christian masters of the last century.  And yet sometimes I wonder: how exactly are we American Christians to communicate the stunning, stalwart features of Christ that so scandalized and confounded His contemporaries...not to mention the legions of believers in the centuries since?

The modern church has tried to "repackage" the faith by almost shamelessly exploiting mass media, technology, and contemporary art forms...and in the process watering down the message.  Mega-churches, and their less-mega imitators, seem to be more enamored by the latest leadership books out of Harvard Business School, the latest musical styles out of Nashville or Detroit, and the latest communication methods from Hollywood.

Some Christians feel the need to reassert the traditional "hard edges" of traditional Christian belief and morality, directly confronting the world in its error and rebellion.  Yet the very uniqueness of our current cultural moment is the tendency we all have to simply shut off any message that comes across as threatening or critical to our own individual sensibilities.

Other Christians seek to re-ignite the flame of faith with praxis -- proclaiming and living (almost to a fault) a radical type of compassion that they see reflected in the human life of Jesus.  But once again, I see our society as almost sick of compassion.  Our liberal elites, in my opinion, have taken the life out of genuine compassion by bureaucratizing and depersonalizing it.

Don't misunderstand me...I am not trying to be cynical here.  But I am trying to understand a genuine challenge that we Christians face as we try to communicate the Gospel with the kind of perilous excitement that Lewis, Chesterton and Sayers rightly request.  Obviously, any presentation of our faith must be saturated with prayer and informed exclusively by the Biblical witness.   And obviously only the Holy Spirit can provide the real passion.  But we Christians must make sure that, from our human perspective, we do not cling too tightly to any of the "methods" that I have outlined above. 

So what am I saying here?  Maybe nothing.  I don't think I'm offering an answer to anything.  I think I'm joining Lewis and his friends in asking a very pertinent question:  How can we American Christians once again present the wild and unsafe Jesus in a way that truly evokes wonder in the minds and hearts of people living in a seriously jaded world?

I'd love to hear your thoughts....

Reflections on "The Sing-Off"

This past week my wife and I became engrossed in NBC's new talent competition, "The Sing-Off." What an incredible display of vocal talent by very diverse groups of singers! You don't have to be a musician to appreciate how tough it is for a group to sing a cappella music well, and these groups have nailed it each night!

My two favorite groups are "Nota" (who have given a distinctively urban grit to a cappella music) and "The Beelzebubs" (who combine off-the-wall college-boy antics with superior vocal stylings, and they project the simple fact that music is just plain fun). Going with my gut, I'll predict that "The Beelzebubs" will take the grand prize, but I think "Nota" will give them a tough fight till the end.

Even though I am staying away from theology books until January 1, I've been reminded through my reading of secular books that anything can provoke theological reflection, for God has saturated every inch of His creation with clues to His character and truth. One only needs to seek, and he will find. (I think I read that somewhere...)

With that in mind, here is a nugget of theological wisdom that "The Sing-Off" has helped me to clarify:

The human voice is the only musical instrument that God made without any help from human beings, and it is without a doubt the most beautiful instrument of all. As my wife and I watched "The Sing-Off," we marveled at what those human voices were able to do musically, without any help from man-made pianos, guitars, or drums. And yet it is not so marvelous, when one considers that God specifically designed the human voice for the high and holy purpose of worshipping Him.

Our voices also have more power than any other instrument--for good or evil--to touch us on the deepest levels of our being. But therein lies a profound tragedy, for I believe that part of our rebellion against God is the misuse of our voices. In today's culture, so much of our speech and our singing is focused downward, towards the basest and most sinful elements of life. Ben Folds is one of the judges on "The Sing-Off," a very talented composer, pianist, and singer...and yet his songs are replete with gratuitous profanity, sexuality, and hedonism which make it difficult to respect the serious ideas that his lyrics (sometimes) contain.

Unfortunately, even Christians (including myself) have a way of misusing our voices: communicating anger rather than joy and peace, speaking words of judgment and hostility rather than words of grace and reconciliation. We raise our voices in these improper ways, and yet on Sunday mornings we do not raise our voices with the same level of intensity in our worship to God. That is, in my opinion, sinful, and it reveals the fallenness of the human voice and its need for redemption. If every Christian congregation sang with the same fervency and joy as "Nota" or "The Beelzebubs," I believe the world would be converted in no time.

Indeed, what Christian churches might learn from "Nota," "The Beelzebubs," and the other groups on "The Sing-Off" is how to incarnate an ensemble that resounds with the sonorous harmonies of the Gospel. For I believe if you asked any of those a cappella groups how they got to where they are, they would answer the following (in substance, if not exactly in form):

1 - Ensembles work only when each individual brings forth the best of who he or she is. Slackers, in the long run, will do more harm than good.

2 - Ensembles do not come into existence overnight. When you join a new ensemble, do not be too quick to judge if it does not perform exactly the way you think it should. Perhaps it is you who needs to alter your expectations.

3 - Becoming an ensemble is hard work: you must get to know and appreciate each others' voices, you must commit to learning your part of the score, and you must find a way to blend all the parts harmoniously, knowing when to hold back your own part and when to stand out.

4 - Becoming a good ensemble requires both task-oriented work (learning the music, perfecting the vocals, etc...) and relationship work (encouraging each other, learning to work together in a positive, affirming manner, etc...), and the leadership must be diligent in intuiting which type of work is called for.

5 - Coming together for rehearsal should never be seen as an end in itself. The purpose is always to go out and share the ensembles' gifts with others. If our music is only being heard by our own ensemble, why the heck are we bothering?

Inklings and Emergents

I have made no apology about my obsession with The Inklings, whose writings have shaped my thinking more than any others (except--hopefully--for the Bible). I also attempt to keep up on what is current in Christian thinking and practice, not because I'm particularly interested in being "relevant" or "with it" but because we must follow Christ's command to read the signs of the times. For that reason, I also am interested in listening to the leaders of the Emerging Church like Brian McClaren, Dan Kimball, Spencer Burke, and Tony Jones.

I recently brought these two stands of thought together and came up with a remarkable observation: the two groups of Christian thinkers have some interesting commonalities, as well as some telling divergences.

Here's what I think:

COMMONALITIES:

1 - Both groups regarded themselves as an "informal conversation" rather than a formal, structured church ministry. Their conversation generally occurred outside the framework of institutional religion - in fact, more often than not, it occurs in pubs with pints of beer in abundance.

2 - Both groups are "trans-denominational," drawing from all backgrounds and theological perspectives.

3 - Both groups were critical of modern rationalism which confines all truth to scientific categories and all religious belief into a shallow, respectable "churchianity."

4 - Likewise, both groups were critical of the modernist view of God (almost Deism) and sought to reclaim the free, wild, sovereign Christ who shatters all of our pretentions and dares us to follow Him.

5 - Both groups prefered to use the arts (rather than systematic treatises) to communicate the Christian faith, seeking to engage the "intuitive imagination" (rather than just reason) of their audiences.

6 - Both groups had severe criticism for the institutional churches of their age for being more interested in self-preservation than in communicating Christian truth to people in contemporary language and in practical ways.

7 - Interestingly (but perhaps superficially), both groups were composed of white males. This is not a criticism of either group. It does, however, point to an irony in the Emergent movement, a movement which claims to represent a more diverse Christianity than that of the modern church.

DIVERGENCES:

1 - While the Inklings were made up almost exclusively of laymen, most of the Emerging Christians are either pastors or have served in some official capacity in a local church.

2 - The Inklings may have been deeply critical of the open heresy and sin in various Christian communions, but they were entirely supportive of (and indeed, loved) The Church as an institutional reality. On the contrary, most Emerging Christians are (at the very least) critical of The Church as an institutional reality, some of them opting to leave the church entirely. They stress the relational aspect of the Gospel almost to the point that they believe that the Institution is more of a hindrance than a means of furthering the relationship.

3 - The Inklings believed that their role was to bring the Church back to its basic faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and to fight against a watered-down, relativistic gospel that seemed prevalent in many denominations. Emergents, on the other hand, seem to believe that their role is to bring the Church into a greater engagement with American Culture, even as they present a very watered-down, relativistic gospel...even to the point of denying the exclusivity of Jesus Christ or His substitutionary atonement on the Cross.

4 - The Inklings followed the wisdom of the ancient and medievals writers who believed that, while our knowledge may not be 100% perfect, our minds are capable of reasoning, making judgments, and knowing the difference between truth and falsehood, right and wrong. Conversely, Emergent Christians are deeply suspicious of any truth claims and seem offended by any inference that a person must choose either/or.

5 - The Inklings, by and large, held a high view of the Bible and of the historic confessions of the Church. For them, these are not "living documents" to be updated in different cultural realities, but truth statements that confront all cultures and challenge people to repent and believe. Obviously, the Emergents have a much more watered-down view of Scripture and the Creeds, believing that nothing in Scripture is above culture. Therefore, cultural realities become the standard by which to interpret Scripture and the Creeds (rather than the other way around).

Well, that's what I think. What do you think?

The Practical Significance of the Trinity

Tomorrow is Trinity Sunday, in which we acknowledge and celebrate one of the most distinctive theological tenets of the Christian faith.

Our confession that the Divine actually exists, and that we can know objectively true information about the Divine, distinguishes us from atheism and agnosticism. We distinguish ourselves from deism (as well as much of ancient pagan philosophy) by affirming that the Divine is a personal Being who continues to interact with the world He has created through revelation and miraculous acts.

However, we also classify ourselves differently from the pantheistic (or panentheistic) tendencies of Hinduism, Buddhism, and many current spiritual fads by affirming that the Divine is a transcendent Being who confronts all nature with His sovereign holiness. Finally, the Christian belief about God is at odds with Judaism and Islam in that, while we affirm God's unity, it is a unity that is expressed mysteriously in three distinct Persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

As a theological doctrine, the Trinity has been grappled with for centuries. Specifically, we owe a debt of gratitude to the great Cappadocian Fathers of the Eastern Church (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianus) and Saint Augustine of the Western Church for their masterful attempts of expressing the life of the Trinity. Today we are seeing a remarkable renewal of trinitarian thought among both Protestant and Catholic theologians.

However, in honor of Trinity Sunday, I would just like to share a few brief thoughts I've been thinking about this doctrine's practical significance in the everyday life of the individual believer, and in the life of the Church:

First of all, the Doctrine of the Trinity reminds us that Ultimate Reality is relational in nature. The highest Truth in existence is not a static, bare fact to be analyzed or reasoned about: Ultimate Truth is the creative, dynamic interaction—the perichoresis—among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who exist in intimate communion with one another.

Perhaps this should give us a clue as to how we should “package” the truths of our faith. While systematic theologies and rational apologetics serve an indispensable purpose as part of the package, Christians must understand that living out the truths of faith in intimate communion with others, and in a dynamic and creative way, is perhaps the best way to communicate truthfully the nature of the God we represent, worship, and serve.

Secondly, the Doctrine of the Trinity implies that unity and diversity need not be contradictory terms, but that they together give us a deep insight into the nature of truth and reality. The three Persons of the Trinity are clearly distinct; there is, therefore, diversity within the Godhead. At the same time, the Godhead is inseparably unified in essence and in purpose; thus, there is also unity.

This extraordinary fact of the Divine relationship may have something unique to say about human relationships as well, especially in the church. There are those Christian denominations that call for a unity that is almost “uniformity”—a situation that allows for no originality or creativity in communicating and living out our faith. At the other side of the spectrum are those who champion diversity at all costs, to the extent it is nearly impossible to acknowledge or articulate what truly unites us (the Gospel) without being labeled “offensive” or “doctrinaire.” Our Trinitarian God can be a model for us as we strive to acknowledge and celebrate the rich diversity that exists within the Christian community, while also unapologetically confessing a greater unity because of the reconciling work of Jesus Christ.

Finally, individual human beings (both male and female) are created in the Image of God (Genesis 1:27). As an individual I am a multi-faceted creature, and my identity cannot be reduced merely to my body, or my mind, or my emotions. All three constitute distinct parts of one being: me. As the Trinity is three distinct Persons in one God, I must strive to harmonize the distinct aspects of my personality into the single purpose of loving God and loving others (Mark 12:28-31).

Loving others, I must show respect for these different facets of personality in every person I meet. I can never view another human being as merely a body to be exploited, emotions to be manipulated, or a mind to be debated. I must view each human being as a whole person…as my neighbor…and as C. S. Lewis once aptly remarked, “Next to the blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holiest object presented to your senses” (C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory). May God daily grant me the ability to see His Trinitarian Image in my wife, my friends, my congregation members, and every person I meet, and may He give me the grace to love them as He loves them.

What is the Church and its Mission?

Here is a recent paper that I wrote as a part of my Covenant Ordination. It answers the question, "What is the nature and mission of the Church?" Obviously this is not a "compendium" on ecclesiology...just a handful of insights into my perspective on what Scripture says about the Church...

In attempting to articulate my understanding of the nature of the church, I find two images especially meaningful and helpful. The first is the New Testament (especially Pauline) image of the Body of Christ, and the second is the Evangelical Covenant Church’s affirmation of the church as a fellowship of believers.

The Body of Christ image is a vital reminder that the Christian church is not merely a free association of individuals, like a Kiwanis club or American Legion. It is an objective reality founded and built by Jesus Christ Himself (Matthew 16:18) and of which He is the head (Colossians 1:18). Since Christ is both its source and head, the Church can never be found to promote any human agenda (however good or noble), but it must humbly be the servant of His agenda: to reconcile the world to God through His atoning sacrifice on the Cross.

The Scriptural image of “body” also suggests that the church is not merely an institution, certainly not a modern corporation, but a dynamic and living organism graced with the power and presence of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit indwells each believing member and equips him or her with unique gifts and talents so that—like the distinct organs of the human body—each member might contribute uniquely to the body’s life, health, and growth (I Corinthians 12). I believe the church is at its best when each member’s spiritual gifts are acknowledged, encouraged, and utilized for the good of the whole body. The Spirit also calls individuals who—through the preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacraments—provide spiritual leadership for the church (Acts 6, I Timothy 3). This will be discussed in the paragraphs below.

While in the later Pauline epistles (Ephesians, Colossians) the Body of Christ refers to the universal church, it is clear that Paul applies this image to the local body in his earlier letters (Romans, Corinthians). Therefore it would seem that from a biblical perspective, in some sense the whole Body of Christ is present in each local manifestation of the church. Being careful to recognize the importance of the greater universal church, we must affirm that each congregation of believers is gifted by God with everything necessary to continue Christ’s ministry in its unique setting (Hans Küng, The Church, 292-312).

The Evangelical Covenant Church’s affirmation of the church as a fellowship of believers also finds significant biblical support. The Last Supper narrative in John’s Gospel reveals an intimacy between Jesus and His followers to the point that He refers to them as His “friends” and He commands them to love one another in the same way that He has loved them (John 15:9-15). The early chapters of Acts (see especially 2:42-47) reveal that this intimate friendship was continued by the early church, and Paul consistently reacted against churches in which intimate fellowship was disrupted by faction, false teaching, or sinful behavior. Clearly, the church is not merely an objective reality; it is also a deeply subjective experience of friendship and fellowship with God and with others (Course Reader, 153-154). Jean Lambert challenges us to avoid trivializing this concept through overtly emotional language or sentimentality, and that is why I think this image of church is best seen in creative tension with the more objective image of the Body of Christ (Course Reader, 155).

This sense of church as fellowship is distinct from the authoritarian, power-driven institutional model that has (unfortunately) often manifested itself as church. Christ’s lordship of the Church was secured to Him not through power but through submission and service (Philippians 2:1-11), and those who want to be great must also be willing to serve (Mark 10:42-45). The Greek term for fellowship (koinonia) means more than mere companionship; it is a partnership in which individuals come together and work for a vision that is greater than all of them (Course reader, 157-158; see also William Taylor, Partnership: Philippians. Christian Focus, 2007). Deep relationships are necessary byproducts of such a partnership, but they must not be allowed to distract from the purpose for which the partnership was formed. This is why I find the ECC’s term “mission friends” helpful: it affirms fellowship while placing it within the greater blueprint of the church’s mission in the world.

What is the church’s mission? I believe it is to continue the ministry of Jesus Christ in the world until His return. The practical aspects of this have been understood in many different ways. In my own life and ministry, it has been most helpful to understand the church’s mission in terms of Jesus’ three offices of Prophet, Priest, and King. (This approach is helpfully outlined in Mark Driscoll’s recent book, Vintage Church: Timeless Truths and Timely Methods. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).

In its prophetic ministry, the church is called to confess the sufficiency and authority of God’s Word over all human wisdom and authority. There are objective truths in Scripture that must be upheld by the church, and these truths do not merely involve right belief (orthodoxy) but also right living (orthopraxy). In upholding these truths, the church must contend against the world’s false teachings that contradict what God has spoken explicitly in His Word. The church must also expose sin (both individual and corporate) for what it is: willful rebellion against the Creator and against our own nature as beings meant to live in relationship with Him. At the root of both false teaching and willful rebellion is the basic sin of idolatry, and here the prophetic church must intentionally combat all idols that lure people’s hearts away from God and His will. This is especially important in contemporary American culture, where the two most destructive idols (sex and money) have caused significant damage inside as well as outside the church.

In my opinion, it is in the prophetic ministry where the issue of ordination is crucial. I believe that every Christian is called to ministry in general, as I will address in the paragraphs below. What distinguishes the ordained minister is only the kind of ministry to which he or she is called: a greater investment in spiritual formation, biblical study, theological inquiry, and practical training, so as to bring God’s Word to bear on the vision and ministry of the local congregation. This call must be recognized and affirmed both by the individual and the local congregation through a process of prayer and discernment. Through Word (preaching) and sign (sacraments), the ordained person proclaims the truths of Scripture to the people and exhorts them to join him or her in living out those truths in a transformational way.

The priestly ministry of the church is a ministry of reconciliation and healing, of experientially living out the grace and love of Jesus Christ in community. It is in this sense that we can speak of a priesthood of all believers, since all Christians must actively participate in such a ministry for it to be fruitful. In this context, all boundaries that would normally divide (economic, racial, gender) are eradicated as all believers stand in solidarity with one another and with Christ (Gal. 3:28-29). As believers encourage one another, exhort and rebuke according to Scripture, and provide care and mercy in times of need, they are truly functioning as priests.

This area of ministry is so important and yet so misunderstood, and the American church in particular has been remiss in faithfully putting it into practice. Our individualistic culture has created a milieu in which genuine community-building is almost impossible. Too many people go to church only to have their own needs met, and many pastors are at fault for caving in to this and becoming (as Bishop Willimon calls them) “quivering masses of availability.” Yet, I believe the priestly ministry of the whole church is more likely to convert people today than any prophetic sermonizing, and Jean Lambert’s thoughts in Amicus Dei would seem to substantiate this (Course Reader, 161-163; see also Matt. 5:14-16). It is high time the church reclaimed the “priesthood of all believers” and put ministry back into the hands of the people.

Finally, Scripture makes clear that in His resurrection and exaltation, Jesus now reigns as king over all creation, and His church is called to proclaim this gospel to every culture in the world (Acts 1:8). Indeed, every church is an “outpost of Christ’s coming kingdom” (Driscoll, 10). This ministry involves the planting of self-sustaining churches into every people-group on the planet (see Winter and Hawthorne, Perspectives on the World Christian Movement, 248); contextualizing the method of communicating the gospel so that all people may understand and respond in faith; prophetically denouncing worldly powers which—through their dehumanizing and destructive acts—exist in opposition to Christ’s rule; and working on behalf of the poor, oppressed, and children, to whom Jesus said His kingdom belongs.

This is the whole mission of the church. Every local body of believers must prayerfully discern how God is calling them to be invested in this mission at the local, national, and international levels, and they must invest both actively and financially. As Edmund Clowney wrote, “the congregation that ignores mission will atrophy and soon find itself shattered by internal dissension. It will inevitably begin to lose its own young people, disillusioned by hearing the gospel trumpet every Sunday to those who never march” (Clowney, The Church. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995).

In conclusion, I believe that all three of these functions (prophet, priest, and king) must be present in church ministry for it to be wholly biblical. When a church excels in only one function, to the exclusion of the other two, it will weaken the church’s witness to a world that desperately needs all three. The world needs the truth that only comes from Jesus Christ; it needs communities of love and reconciliation; and finally, it needs the transforming power of God’s Kingdom.

Let's Talk About Sex, Baby...

Below is another answer that I submitted in my ordination paper, regarding the church's position on human sexuality.

If you want to hear an incredible talk on the Christian teaching of sexuality, go to the following link-- http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/24_sex-in-heaven.htm -- and listen to the thoughts of masterful Christian apologist Peter Kreeft. It's worth the time!

Anyway, here's my own writing on the subject:

Articulate the Evangelical Covenant Church’s position on human sexuality. How does this inform your theology and practice of ministry?

In its stand on human sexuality, the ECC avoids two notions. The first is that the Bible calls for repression of the human sexual drive, that sex is (at worst) the product and proof of original sin or (at best) a necessary evil that is to be indulged only for reproductive purposes. The second notion posits no standards or limits on human sexuality, asserting that individuals alone must decide how to indulge their sexual appetites and that any Biblical injunctions on the subject are archaic, irrelevant, and inconsistent with human freedom.


In contrast to these false visions of sex, the ECC upholds the Biblical teaching that human sexuality is good—in fact, that sexuality is intimately tied to our identities as embodied persons—but that God has ordained a specific covenantal relationship to express human sexuality in a way that reflects His nature as an intimately loving, self-giving Being. That covenantal relationship exists when a specific man and specific woman come together as complementary partners and are united as “one flesh” under God. In this context alone, sex may be expressed in a godly fashion. Outside of that context, an individual must be willing to live a chaste life. Corrupted forms of sexuality are characterized either by the desire to dominate another (rape, molestation, pedophilia) or by a confused understanding of one’s own identity as a person (homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, incest). These perversions do not reflect God’s standards as laid out in both the Old and New Testaments.


Our culture’s current obsession with sex is, in my opinion, a cry of bitter and lonely people longing for intimacy. The way teens (and even adults) dress and treat their own bodies reveals their inability to respect themselves as individuals created in God’s Image. The church must expose these deeper issues and allow struggling individuals to express them in non-sexual ways, such as intimate worship experiences, healing prayer, spiritual direction, and even just authentic friendship. Spiritually mature individuals must model masculinity and femininity in a godly way for others. All Christian leaders must hold fast to God’s standards for sex, both in their teaching and in their personal lives, in order to maintain the integrity of the Church’s witness in the face of our culture’s rebellion and confusion.

"The Dundees" - ("The Office" as Ecclesiastical Allegory, take two)

Introductory note:

In my previous post, I attempted to take a humorous jab at the "corporate" situation of the Church by comparing it to the screwball antics of Steve Carell and his cohorts on The Office. Certainly recognizing that there is much good in the institutional church, my intent was to illustrate that all too often, "institution" (the lifeless corporation) becomes prioritized instead of "church" (the living, dynamic, relational, Spirit-led Body of believers).

The Church needs some level of institutional framework in which to function effectively. I acknowledge this. But here's my problem. The institutional framework should be flexible and secondary, and its purpose should be to serve the living, dynamic mission of the Gospel which is primary. (This is the reality that is illustrated in the New Testament, especially in Acts). In the current situation of many denominations we see exactly the opposite happening: The institutional framework is rigid and primary, and the living, dynamic mission of the Gospel is now seen as flexible and made subservient to the ends of the institution. This is not merely bad ecclesiology...it is contrary to God's will for His people and, therefore, sinful.

-------

Now, back to The Office: In one of Michael Scott's (Steve Carell's) many attempts to revitalize the spirit of his underlings, he hosts a yearly award party called "The Dundees." These are awards given to various office staff in dubious categories such as "the longest engagement," "the hottest guy in the office," etc... Here are some "Dundees" that I would give out to people in the Church:

The "Dwight K. Schrutte Award" - Also known as The Assistant (to the) Regional Manager Award - This award goes out to those folks in our congregations who are nice to the Senior Pastor only because of the power they think will come along with the relationship. I'm sure we all have a few people like this who try to snicker up to us, who are undyingly loyal to us and constant "yes-men" (or "yes-women"), but only for the purpose of having a sense of their own power in the church. They are the Jameses and the Johns, who want to sit at Jesus' right and left in committee meetings so they can be seen with the pastor, but who have no desire to truly serve others and meet others' needs in a meaningful way. Plus, they're annoying as hell.

The "Pam Beasley Award" - Pam, the self-effacing secretary at Dunder-Mifflin, who constantly puts on the back-burner her true desire to go into graphic design and art. She's a gem of a person whose artistic talent could probably help Dunder-Mifflin's advertising department immensely, but who is never encouraged to pursue those gifts. This award goes to all those like her in the church who have oodles of modesty, whose "insignificant" work probably goes unnoticed 99% of the time, but who have gifts and talents that are totally underutilized. Perhaps those gifts were never encouraged, because we pastors are too focused on having our own gifts affirmed and we don't stop to look deeper at the hidden gifts of others. So this award goes to all those folks in the congregation who would probably bring new life, creativity, and vitality to our churches, if only we would recognize them and give them a chance.

The "Angela Award" - The anal, judgmental, hypocritical accountant at Dunder-Mifflin. This award goes to all those "church people" whose sole aspiration in life is to feel absolutely morally superior to everyone else, to hide their own faults with ruthless intensity, and to constantly find something wrong with everyone and everything. I know every church has them. I praise God for them. I also think he needs to miraculously remove the sticks from their rear-ends.

The "Jim Halpert Award" - Of all the characters in The Office, I identify with Jim the most: he's sardonic, cynical, and he sees with crystal clarity the failings of Dunder-Mifflin, but he sticks with it because he sees something beautiful there (Pam) that he just can't let go of. Perhaps I'm being a bit prideful in assuming that I'm like Jim. Perhaps I'm more like Angela, Dwight, or even (God forbdid) Michael Scott. That's for God and other people to judge, not for me. I just identify with Jim. I'm sardonic, cynical, and I see with crystal clarity the many inconsistencies and failings of the Church (including my own inconsistencies and failings). But in that Church I see something beautiful that I just can't let go of. I see my wife who reminds me daily of God's unconditional love. I see people like the Inklings, whose Christ-formed minds have made me ever passionate for truth and dialogue. I see saints who have mentored me and guided me through many of my struggles and who were faithful even when I was not. I see the story of Scripture which resonates in my mind and heart with deep truth and wisdom. And more clearly than any of these, I see Jesus Christ, Whose nail-pierced hands beckon me to come and pick up my cross and follow Him.

I pray that you all will stick with this frail corporation we call "The Church," and that you will cling to one promise: that we who have faith in Christ will do even greater things than He did. That's what He said....

"The Office" as an Ecclesiastical Allegory

My wife and I have become addicted to the NBC hit show The Office. I admit, it took both of us a little while to figure out what everyone found so funny, but once we did we couldn't get enough of it. The new season just kicked off this past Thursday, and we can't wait to see the antics that unfold.

Like many in the Christian fold, I diligently try to be an able exegete of the cultural realities around us (although, I must admit humbly that I fall short when compared with Eric Park. http://www.chcumc.com/weblog/eric/ Read his post on Prince, especially the last hilarious paragraph. But I digress...)

Anyway, lately I've been noticing some pretty interesting parallels between the situation in The Office and the situation in much of the Christian Church today. I'm sure that some of what I write will come off as offensive, but I ask you to take my comments, not as an attempt to degrade the Church and those who work in it (since I'm one of them), but as a voice of deep love for it and a concern for its future. Here are some allegorized interpretations of some aspects of The Office:

DUNDER-MIFFLIN: A New York-based paper company whose best days are in the past. It has branch offices in Scranton and elsewhere, and does try diligently to add personal service in providing individuals and businesses with its product. However, it is dealing two new realities: First, most people are buying paper at mega-marts like Staples and OfficeMax because it is cheaper and because Staples and OfficeMax offer a smorgasbord of alternatives; second, paper is less in demand than it was in the past, because computers and other technology have rendered paper usage largely obsolete in areas where it was once a necessary commodity.

Does this sound a little bit like the American Church? Are we dealing with the reality that many people no longer want our product (our Message)? Or how about the reality that "successful" churches are those "mega-Churches" which are able to offer the Message at a "cheaper price" (i.e. less is demanded in terms of real discipleship)?

"CORPORATE": On the TV series, we rarely see the true executives of Dunder-Mifflin (known as "Corporate" by the characters), and their positions seem to have little effect on the day-to-day business of the Scranton branch. Their current vision for the company seems to be one of "status-quo maintenance" - keep marketing our product the way we always have, downsize and make cuts wherever we can, be the authority figures that we are. But nowhere do we see them attempting to think creatively about adapting to the new reality described above, no vision for new marketing strategies or even changing their product to meet new needs. Just holding onto the status quo and maintain the corporation...even as sales go down and less money comes in, even if we are no longer providing a meaningful service to the public.

How about many churches today? Do we see executive leadership engaged in a "maintenance mentality" when they should be challenging pastors and lay ministers to engage creatively in new types of ministry and in presenting the Gospel in different ways? Has the "corporation" of church become the highest value, even when declining numbers is evidence that its current structure may not be the most effective way to provide meaningful service to the world? When the Church in other parts of the world is growing, evangelizing, Spirit-driven and Christ-centered, has the American Church become so infected with a "corporate" mentality that it has little power to think outside the box and engage the new culture in a meaningful way?

"MICHAEL SCOTT" - The regional manager for the Scranton branch of Dunder-Mifflin (flawlessly portrayed by Steve Carrell). As a salesman, Michael was one of Dunder-Mifflin's best; he was truly gifted to connect with people and successfully market the product. But for reasons unknown, Corporate promoted him to his current administrative position for which he has no skills or passion. As an administrator he does not hold the employees accountable to high standards of productivity and performance; instead he throws parties to boost their spirits and create and atmosphere of "camaraderie" (which fail miserably most of the time). He hates making unpopular decisions or taking a stand on anything which might offend someone. In his administrative incompetence and failed attempts to be "popular" with his staff, however, he is unwittingly even more offensive.

When we're really honest, I think we can admit that at both the local and denominational levels, there are many people in administrative positions who should not be there. These men and women are surely gifted in many ways, as all believers are, but as individuals called upon to provide visionary leadership for the Body they are failing. They seem more interested in keeping everyone happy and creating an atmosphere of "camaraderie," when what might be called for is real prophetic provocation which (while offensive) might be just the thing to stir the ashes and create a fresh blaze. This is especially necessary in theological areas, where so many Church administrators are failing to take a stand on basic biblical issues for fear that they may offend someone. But it is also necessary in the area of church commitment and discipleship, in which we allow people to get away with the "bare mininum" in terms of their active participation, rather than making it clear that Christianity is not, so to speak, a "spectator sport."

Let me just reiterate what I wrote above: I make these observations not with the purpose of being offensive, but with a deep love and concern for where the Church of Jesus Christ is and where it is headed. When I look at this "ecclesiastical allegory" of The Office, it is a mirror in which I see myself as much as anyone else.

I think I will put the rest of my observations in a sequel post, because for right now, this thing has gotten long enough. (Don't say it, Michael...)

Let Freedom Ring! (Another Ordination Question)

One of the distinctives of the Evangelical Covenant Church is our commitment to "Freedom in Christ." What is your understanding of that freedom? What are its limits and responsibilities?

First and foremost, a Christian is free from the power of sin and death, by which the Devil holds this world in bondage. This freedom allows the believer to say "yes" to the power of obedience and life in Christ, which requires that the believer not hold up any of the world's values as his or her ultimate goal. Any worldly pursuit, however good or noble it may be in and of itself, must be submitted to the lordship of Jesus Christ.

The Christian is also free to acknowledge sin for what it is, in his or her own life and in the world. Because Christ has canceled the power of sin, His followers no longer need to ignore evil or cover it up with "fig leaves;" rather, we must expose it honestly in the hope that God might redeem it and ultimately use it for good.

Within the fellowship of the Church, Christ through His sacrifice gives us freedom from all the burdens of religious ritual and obligation. Instead of being held in bondage to any such institutional sacrifices, we are free to offer relational sacrifices: to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God (Micah 6:8). In other words, we are no longer in bondage to a self-serving religiosity, and we are free to serve God and others selflessly.

Finally, with receiving the gift of freedom comes the responsibility to extend freedom to others. This means that we must give individuals outside the Church the absolute freedom to disagree with us and to hold their own convictions, that we must never attempt to force our doctrines or moral precepts on unbelievers, even though we may respectfully disagree with them and challenge them in fair and open dialogue. Within the Fellowship of Believers, this means that in matters of secondary importance, we must humbly give others the right to disagree without breaking fellowship or causing unnecessary turmoil in the Body. We must follow St. Augustine's famous dictum: "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity."

CREDO - "I Believe"

Okay, so I'm finally back to blogging. I'll make no excuses for my lack of posts in the past month and a half. But I'm back.

As a part of my orientation to the Evangelical Covenant Church, I had to do an extensive "Statement of Faith" paper, responding to questions on issues of theology and practice of ministry. The questions are very direct and probing, and I only get a half-page (typed, single-spaced) in which to answer. Apparently they're looking to see if I can articulate my faith candidly and succinctly. I'll share a couple of my answers over the next few weeks. Here's one for you to chew on now:

While the Evangelical Covenant Church is "non-creedal," we have historically cherished the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds as worthy summaries of Christian faith. Using these as a guideline, articulate your personal theology for life and ministry.

I believe that God is the Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer of the entire universe, and that He has eternally existed as Three Persons in intimate communion - the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The purpose of all creation in general, and of humanity in particular, is to reflect the glory and goodness of God and ultimately to participate in intimate communion with Him. Throughout history, God's chosen people have anticipated and lived out this ultimate purpose through their worship, witness, sacraments, and stewardship.

I believe that in the Person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God came amongst His people, born of the Virgin Mary. His ministry on earth is a model for His followers, a ministry characterized by a bold and relevant communication of God's Word, empowered teamwork, a compassionate and holistic concern for persons of all walks of life, and a prophetic provocation against the status quo of institutional religion. His death on the cross reconciles a sinful humanity to God, and His bodily resurrection from the dead frees us from bondage to the evil powers of this world. His followers live in the reality of that reconciliation and freedom, witness to that reality for the benefit of others, and wait in joyful expectation for the day when He returns bringing God's justice.

I believe that the Holy Spirit continues God's presence throughout creation and that He is the prompter of every genuine desire for newness and hope. He is especially at work in the Church which is one yet diverse, holy yet imperfect, and universal yet present wherever saving faith in Jesus Christ is confessed. The Church is a place of intimate communion for all believers, where the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed and practiced. Although all people face the reality of death, the Church lives in the hope of life beyond the grave, and therefore it is eternal life and not death that ought to inform our values, choices, and attitudes in this life.

Still Here...

Just wanted to let all my loyal readers (all three of you!) know that I haven't forgotten about the wonderful world of blogland. This last month has been a whirlwind as I spent my last week of ministry in Bakerstown co-deaning the Work Mission Camp up at Wesley Woods, then immediately left to come out here, and started work bright and early Monday morning. I must give kudos to my lovely wife Cherith for taking care of a great deal of the logistics so that I could spend my last week of ministry with my youth, serving Christ at a wonderful Christian camp.

Now I am slowly getting settled into my new position of Pastor of Worship and Family Ministries. I hope to write a more substantial post next time, but for right now, this is just to let you know that I did make it out to Michigan alive!

Peace!

Thanks for the Memory...

This fall, Bakerstown United Methodist Church has been celebrating 175 years of ministry to our community! From our humble beginnings back in 1832, BUMC has had a constant vision and attitude of expanding God's Kingdom. Recently, our senior pastor Mark Stewart reminded us all of that vision and attitude, and we are moving forward with more exciting programs and ministries.

Last night, we celebrated our "Thanksgiving Eve" service as the final portion of our anniversary celebration, and it was absolutely incredible. Pastor Mark, our choir and new praise team led us in some incredible worship, DS Don Scandrol was in attendance, and Bishop Tom Bickerton gave a great sermon about the importance of constantly giving thanks. It was truly an incredible worship experience.

I'm a history buff, so I love learning about past events, whether they are the past events of a local congregation in Western Pennsylvania, or of the first European colonists in what has become the United States. Our past is riveting story. But especially as I have gotten older, I realize that studying and celebrating our past is mainly important for one reason: it can motivate us to look to the future. It can remind us of the faith, dedication, and ingenuity of our forebears, and it can challenge us to utilize those same qualities to be proactive in expanding God's kingdom today.

Think about the courage of those first pilgrims, who braved a rough Atlantic passing and set foot on a new continent, all so that they could worship God freely.

Think about the faithful men and women of the past who planted the seeds of faith that have germinated into the communities that you are now serving.

Then ask, how can WE make the same impact today?

Let us be thankful for our past... but let us also challenge ourselves to move towards a compelling future.

A Plug...

Hey brothers and sisters...

I'm making a plug on behalf of one of my good friends.

Matthias Media is an incredible Christian publisher, based in Australia, that puts out quality biblical resources for churches. I've read their stuff, which includes topical bible studies, great resources for evangelism and kingdom building, and pastoral resources on everything from sexuality and parenting to addressing the threat of Islam. All of these are from a solid biblical position, yet they're also hands-on, practical, and down-to-earth. You can check out their website at www.matthiasmedia.com.au/usa.

Just recently, they've begun to distribute their stuff in the States, and my good friend Marty Sweeney is one of the guys who's heading up that effort. He's based right up in New Castle, PA, and he's got a small warehouse full of their resources. If you're at all interested, e-mail him at marty@matthiasmedia.com.au. Mention my name so he knows what a loyal friend I am!

Seriously, check it out!

Cheers..............

Symphony of Triumph

The following is a piece I wrote a few years back, which my friend, colleague, and former roommate Jeff Vanderhoff always reminds me of, so I figured I'd post it here. It reflects my love for two things: Our Triune God, and classical music. Enjoy! We are all part of a great Symphony, which the Composer skillfully conceived at the beginning of time: Some of us are the Melody, our loud voices ringing out with the Message of the Music... Some are Countermelody, adding movement and variety, and enhancing the Melody with our bold originality... Some of us are the Bass Line, not outspoken or original but steadfast and supportive, without which the Melody would have no stability... All of us, playing our respective parts, make the Symphony a triumph. The Symphony is full of tension and struggle, but in the Composer's wisdom and design, the moments of tension always lead to a resolution of joy, while the most difficult sections are also those which challenge our abilities and make us better musicians. As we play our parts in the Symphony, there are three things we must always consider: We must strive to glorify the Composer by adhering faithfully to the Musical Score, and not glorify ourselves by adding prideful improvisation, for the less we deviate from the Score, the more the Audience will be convicted of its meaning... With the guidance of the Sound Man, we must strive to blend our parts harmoniously, that our performance may be a true reflection of the Composer's art... Finally, and most importantly, we must fix our eyes on the Conductor, who--with His nail-pierced hands--directs all of us to follow Him. The Symphony continues, and as we turn the pages to new and increasingly complex movements in the Score, we must be confident in this: One day, all the members of the Audience--whether they want to or not--will give the Composer a kneeling ovation. The Conductor will embrace each one of us warmly and say, "Well done!" And the Composer, sitting in the Balcony, will wipe the tears of joy away from His eyes as He declares once again that His Masterpiece is very good.

Inklings of Faith

Back in the 1930's and 1940's in Oxford, England, a group of scholars got together at a local pub (The Eagle and Child), and their expressed purpose was to discuss the implications of living out their Christian faith in the world. This group contained both Catholics and Protestants, but their shared concern was communicating the essence of the Christian faith to a materialistic world...and challenging the ineffectiveness of the Church in doing the same. This group referred to themselves as "The Inklings," and its membership included C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, Charles Williams, Owen Barfield, and Dorothy L. Sayers.

It is my conviction that what the American Church--especially its mainline denominations--needs today is a new group of Inklings willing to engage in theological conversation and find creative ways to transform the presentation of Christ's message, while maintaining its integrity and truthfulness. As it is, mainline leaders appear to be more interested in appeasing the various warring factions within their institutions. Regardless of what these leaders say about "our common bond as Christians," the various factions have NO shared epistemological foundations or like-minded vision of what the Church ought to be. In such a situation, those denominations have little chance of offering a united pastoral voice to a deeply troubled world.

So I'm opening this blog to post my thoughts on the future of Christianity, specifically on how we can communicate the message of Christ intelligently and compassionately, without selling out its substance, and without trying to limit the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit. If you share these concerns, please join me!