So I've been living with my grief over the work of this week's called General Conference in St. Louis and attempting to work through that grief. Thinking clearly is difficult in the midst of grief as the thinking is governed by the emotions. But here are a few of my random thoughts - just statements, not necessarily clearly developed theses.
*I am grieving because the General Conference took a stance which I believe is out of step with the spirit of Jesus. The UMC (by a small majority - only 53%) declared "homosexuality is incompatible with biblical teaching" but forgot that a critical, judgmental spirit is incompatible with the teachings of Jesus.
*That truth about a critical, judgmental spirit flows both ways. I can grieve, but if I am to be faithful to the teachings of Jesus, I dare not engage a critical, judgmental spirit toward those represented by the 53%.
*The stance taken by this General Conference regarding LGBTQ+ issues is not new. The incompatible statement was first made in The Book of Discipline in 1972. The hard, punitive line about disobedience is new as is the expressed sentiment "if you don't agree, leave. If you won't conform, get out! We don't want you!"
*Conservationism and/or fundamentalism by nature is divisive. That mindset cannot tolerate disagreement. It thrives on certainty - black and white, either-or thinking. Agreement and conformity are the basis of belonging. BTW - fundamentalism is a spirit. It exists on either end of the theological spectrum - conservative and progressive/liberal.
*This General Conference does not reflect The UMC I know and love. The UMC I love emphasizes grace, not judgment and condemnation. "Grace is central in The UMC."
*The positions taken by this General Conference are the result of careful planning and manipulating by longtime conservative elements in The UMC: the Good News movement, the Wesley Covenant Association. As a colleague in the North Texas Conference observed, we progressives want to believe the best about people so we rely on conversation (Christian conferencing) and negotiation that allows all to sit at the table. We trust the power of biblical truth to offset human nature. We trust a positive spirit will help us make progress. The conservatives chose to turn to strategies, planning, organizations, legal maneuvers, etc. out of a desire to win. They had a "battle plan" that worked.
*The conservative element in the denomination intentionally courted the African delegates and other delegates from outside the US - some 40% of the delegates. In all likelihood, based on their role in this General Conference, the African delegates will continue to grow in their power and control in the denomination.
*A mistake in the One Church Plan strategy was changing the definition of marriage to being between two adults. African delegates again and again emphasized that the Bible spoke of marriage as between a man and a woman, using Jesus' words about divorce in Matthew 19:3-9 to support this position. That change of definition of marriage offended many in the US as well as those outside the US. The One Church Plan was seeking a home run in relation to LGBTQ+ issues rather than just getting on base with a base hit. (I am aware this statement will be like sour grapes in the mouth of many progressives. The reality is progress is made in baby steps, not giant steps. Instead of progress - a home run - we struck out.)
*This General Conference does not reflect or predict the death of The UMC. It does reflect a denomination under the control of conservatives, but 47% of the delegates representing that percentage of us and more were in vocal opposition to the actions taken. I heard that 70% of the US delegates supported the One Church Plan. They represent a majority of United Methodists in the US. In 25-30 years, these stances will be reversed ... if we don't loose the young clergy and young adults and if the African constituency does not gain more power and representation. (Please do not hear my words as placing blame on the African delegates. They represent a constituency of The UMC that is significantly different in culture and theological perspective - differences with which we must come to terms.)
*I struggle with the question: do I want to be a part of a denomination that intentionally condemns and excludes a specific group in society? I have not found peace with an answer, so for now, I choose to be faithful to God's call on my life. I choose to live as a follower of Jesus, proclaiming God's grace and forgiveness, in The UMC. I choose to help The UMC be something different that what this General Conference defined us as being. I choose to love who Jesus loved, the way Jesus loved.
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
Tuesday, February 26, 2019
You Can't Choose Just One
I am grieving today. The called General Conference meeting in St. Louis, in a deeply divided vote (53% to 46%), officially affirmed its position against homosexuality, declaring it incompatible with biblical teaching and strengthening the consequences for those clergy who violate the Book of Discipline by performing same-sex marriages. The One Church Plan (that removed the language in the Book of Discipline about homosexuality) was voted down on Monday. The Traditional Plan was adopted today by the same margin. In addition to maintaining the current language and restrictions in The Discipline, the Traditional Plan strengthens the punishment for clergy and/or congregations that violate the Discipline by performing same-sex marriages. This plan also encourages individuals and churches who cannot agree with the position to leave the denomination.
In these decisions, The UMC has selected a specific sin to condemn and a specific group to exclude. My question: what is the next sin to be targeted for condemnation? What is the next group to be excluded? You see, you can't choose just one sin to condemn.
(Interestingly, an amendment was offered that, along with homosexuality, would add "divorce, polygamy, and remarriage" to the list of sins that were not compatible with biblical teaching. The amendment was made in an effort to underscore the hypocrisy of selecting one sin to condemn. The amendment was defeat.)
I know the argument: "But the Bible condemns homosexuality!" That argument was made at the Conference and used to celebrate the affirmation of the Traditional Plan. Yes, there are five texts in the Bible that specifically forbid the practice of homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:8-10). But homosexuality is not the only sin mentioned in the Bible or in those texts. (Did you know that the book of Leviticus forbids the oppression of the alien? We are commanded to love the alien as ourselves just as we are to love our neighbor as ourselves! And that command is in the same chapter that prohibits homosexuality! Check it out: Leviticus 20:33-34. But I digress.) So why target this specific sin to condemn? Why ignore the others? And did you notice that we have no record of Jesus ever addressing, much less condemning, homosexuality?
If we are going to choose sins to condemn, why not target the sins Jesus specifically addressed? Jesus talked about judging and condemning (Luke 6:37), about the log in our own eye (Luke 6:41-42), about the lack of justice and mercy (Matthew 23:23), about greed and amassing material wealth (Luke 12:13-21), about worry over material things (Luke 12: 22-34), about self-indulgence that blinds us to and makes us indifferent to the poor at our doorstep (Luke 16:19-31), about caring more about the law and traditions than about meeting the needs of people (Luke 6:6-11; 13:10-17; 14:1-6), about caring for the poor and powerless (Matthew 25:31-46). Why not choose one of these sins to target? Why not choose to exclude those who are guilty of these sins?
Do we really want to go down this road? Do we really want to start singling out sins to condemn, people to exclude? Where will such a road lead us? As I see it, this road leads us to live out of a spirit of judging and condemning, to bartering acceptance in exchange for conformity, to a self-righteous, arrogant spirit that feels better than "those people," to a lack of self-awareness that is blind to the condition of our own heart. It leads us to focus on morality rather than spiritual maturity, on purity rather than spiritual progress, on behavior rather than the heart, on the external rather than the internal, on law rather than love, on judgment rather than grace. It leads us to the very things that Jesus challenged in the religious culture of his day!
Jesus' teaching is clear: "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). Love, not the condemnation of a particular sin, is the distinguishing mark of the followers of Jesus. It seems to me that, in choosing to condemn homosexuality as a sin, The UMC has chosen to be known by what it condemns rather than by whom it loves. It has chosen to be a moral policeman rather than a bearer of the good news of God's grace. The Apostle Paul proclaimed the good news this way: "there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1). The UMC has placed an * by that great text: * that is, unless you are a homosexual.
I wonder, how many more *'s will The UMC place beside the good news? What will be the next sin that is targeted for condemnation, the next group that will be excluded? Because, you see, you cannot choose just one.
It seems to me that we (The UMC) were arguing over the wrong issue. The real issue was about how to deal with sin ... homosexuality or any of those others that the Bible mentions. We can deal with sin with judgment and condemnation OR with grace and forgiveness, but not both. My understanding is that God deals with our sin with grace and forgiveness. It seems to me that's what Jesus lived and taught. But it appears that The UMC has chosen to use judgment and condemnation to deal with sin. And so I grieve.
Which brings me back to my original question: which sin will be targeted next, which group excluded? Because, you see, you can't choose just one sin to condemn.
In these decisions, The UMC has selected a specific sin to condemn and a specific group to exclude. My question: what is the next sin to be targeted for condemnation? What is the next group to be excluded? You see, you can't choose just one sin to condemn.
(Interestingly, an amendment was offered that, along with homosexuality, would add "divorce, polygamy, and remarriage" to the list of sins that were not compatible with biblical teaching. The amendment was made in an effort to underscore the hypocrisy of selecting one sin to condemn. The amendment was defeat.)
I know the argument: "But the Bible condemns homosexuality!" That argument was made at the Conference and used to celebrate the affirmation of the Traditional Plan. Yes, there are five texts in the Bible that specifically forbid the practice of homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:8-10). But homosexuality is not the only sin mentioned in the Bible or in those texts. (Did you know that the book of Leviticus forbids the oppression of the alien? We are commanded to love the alien as ourselves just as we are to love our neighbor as ourselves! And that command is in the same chapter that prohibits homosexuality! Check it out: Leviticus 20:33-34. But I digress.) So why target this specific sin to condemn? Why ignore the others? And did you notice that we have no record of Jesus ever addressing, much less condemning, homosexuality?
If we are going to choose sins to condemn, why not target the sins Jesus specifically addressed? Jesus talked about judging and condemning (Luke 6:37), about the log in our own eye (Luke 6:41-42), about the lack of justice and mercy (Matthew 23:23), about greed and amassing material wealth (Luke 12:13-21), about worry over material things (Luke 12: 22-34), about self-indulgence that blinds us to and makes us indifferent to the poor at our doorstep (Luke 16:19-31), about caring more about the law and traditions than about meeting the needs of people (Luke 6:6-11; 13:10-17; 14:1-6), about caring for the poor and powerless (Matthew 25:31-46). Why not choose one of these sins to target? Why not choose to exclude those who are guilty of these sins?
Do we really want to go down this road? Do we really want to start singling out sins to condemn, people to exclude? Where will such a road lead us? As I see it, this road leads us to live out of a spirit of judging and condemning, to bartering acceptance in exchange for conformity, to a self-righteous, arrogant spirit that feels better than "those people," to a lack of self-awareness that is blind to the condition of our own heart. It leads us to focus on morality rather than spiritual maturity, on purity rather than spiritual progress, on behavior rather than the heart, on the external rather than the internal, on law rather than love, on judgment rather than grace. It leads us to the very things that Jesus challenged in the religious culture of his day!
Jesus' teaching is clear: "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). Love, not the condemnation of a particular sin, is the distinguishing mark of the followers of Jesus. It seems to me that, in choosing to condemn homosexuality as a sin, The UMC has chosen to be known by what it condemns rather than by whom it loves. It has chosen to be a moral policeman rather than a bearer of the good news of God's grace. The Apostle Paul proclaimed the good news this way: "there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1). The UMC has placed an * by that great text: * that is, unless you are a homosexual.
I wonder, how many more *'s will The UMC place beside the good news? What will be the next sin that is targeted for condemnation, the next group that will be excluded? Because, you see, you cannot choose just one.
It seems to me that we (The UMC) were arguing over the wrong issue. The real issue was about how to deal with sin ... homosexuality or any of those others that the Bible mentions. We can deal with sin with judgment and condemnation OR with grace and forgiveness, but not both. My understanding is that God deals with our sin with grace and forgiveness. It seems to me that's what Jesus lived and taught. But it appears that The UMC has chosen to use judgment and condemnation to deal with sin. And so I grieve.
Which brings me back to my original question: which sin will be targeted next, which group excluded? Because, you see, you can't choose just one sin to condemn.
Sunday, February 24, 2019
I Don't Know About You, But ...
As I write this blog, the called 2019 General Conference of The UMC is meeting in St. Louis. Almost 900 delegates from around the world have gathered for this Conference along with countless other UM from across the US who have come to observe and pray. (These observers have no voice or vote in the Conference.) The purpose of this called Conference is to seek a way forward in the midst of the polarization around LBGTQ+ issues. Specifically, the Conference will decide if The UMC will maintain language in The Book of Discipline that condemns homosexuality as a sin, prohibits UM clergy from performing same sex marriages, prohibits the use of UM property for same sex marriages, and prohibits the ordination of self-avowed, practicing homosexuals. Those who identify as traditionalists want the language maintained or strengthened. Those who identify themselves as progressives want the language and prohibitions removed.
This decision is about more than a position on LGBTQ+ issues. The deeper decision is about the identity of The UMC. The decision will determine the heart and character of The UMC going forward. It will determine who United Methodists will be and for what they will be known in the coming generations.
I came into The UMC as an adult after serving as a pastor for twenty years in another denomination. I chose to be United Methodist. My choice was largely influenced by one sentence out of the 1988 Book of Discipline: grace is central in The United Methodist Church. I chose to be United Methodist because I wanted to be a part of a Church that proclaimed and lived out of the grace of God. I wanted to be a part of a Church that did not deal in judgment and condemnation. I wanted to be a part of a Church that did not use the Bible as a weapon against others. I wanted to be a part of a Church that did not use rules and laws to control what people believed or how they lived. I wanted to be a part of a Church that nurtured spiritual growth that led to Christlike maturity. I wanted to be a part of a Church where hurting, broken people like me could find acceptance and healing. I wanted to be a part of a Church that did not fight over who was right and who was wrong about a particular issue but, rather, engaged in difficult conversations with humility and mutual respect. And I found all of that and more in The UMC. When I come into The UMC, I came home. The choice to live out my ministry in The UMC was one of the best decisions of my life.
So, I (like each one of you) have a dog in this hunt although I have no voice (other than this blog) or vote in the Conference. In other words, someone else - people who may or may not vote the way I would vote if I had a vote - will make a decision that will impact me and my professional life. I am powerless - other than prayer - to influence the outcome of this Conference.
But I am not completely powerless. I still have the only power any of us ever have: the power over myself. I - not a gathering of delegates from around the world - will choose who I will be and how I will live as a follower of Jesus.
So, I don't know about you, but after this Conference is over, regardless of the decision that is made, I will still choose to live as a faithful follower of Jesus. I will still live out of God's call on my life. I will still use the gifts the Spirit has given me in ministry in the name of Jesus, for the spiritual well-being of others. I will still proclaim the ways of the Kingdom that Jesus taught. I will still seek to embrace all - and all means all - as beloved children of God. I will still proclaim and seek to live out of grace and forgiveness. I will still seek to live out of a servant spirit. And I will still need God's grace and the Spirit's power in order to do so.
Some have openly stated that they will leave The UMC if the called Conference adopts any plan other than the Traditional Plan that maintains and strengthens the prohibitive language of the Discipline. Members of FUMC, Arlington, have indicated they will leave FUMCA and The UMC if the Conference changes The UMC stance about homosexuality.
I don't know about you, but I refuse to give anyone that kind of power over who I am or what I will do. I choose to live out of who I am as God's beloved child and a follower of Jesus. Because, you see, I need God's grace as much today as I did back in 1991 when I chose to become a United Methodist.
This decision is about more than a position on LGBTQ+ issues. The deeper decision is about the identity of The UMC. The decision will determine the heart and character of The UMC going forward. It will determine who United Methodists will be and for what they will be known in the coming generations.
I came into The UMC as an adult after serving as a pastor for twenty years in another denomination. I chose to be United Methodist. My choice was largely influenced by one sentence out of the 1988 Book of Discipline: grace is central in The United Methodist Church. I chose to be United Methodist because I wanted to be a part of a Church that proclaimed and lived out of the grace of God. I wanted to be a part of a Church that did not deal in judgment and condemnation. I wanted to be a part of a Church that did not use the Bible as a weapon against others. I wanted to be a part of a Church that did not use rules and laws to control what people believed or how they lived. I wanted to be a part of a Church that nurtured spiritual growth that led to Christlike maturity. I wanted to be a part of a Church where hurting, broken people like me could find acceptance and healing. I wanted to be a part of a Church that did not fight over who was right and who was wrong about a particular issue but, rather, engaged in difficult conversations with humility and mutual respect. And I found all of that and more in The UMC. When I come into The UMC, I came home. The choice to live out my ministry in The UMC was one of the best decisions of my life.
So, I (like each one of you) have a dog in this hunt although I have no voice (other than this blog) or vote in the Conference. In other words, someone else - people who may or may not vote the way I would vote if I had a vote - will make a decision that will impact me and my professional life. I am powerless - other than prayer - to influence the outcome of this Conference.
But I am not completely powerless. I still have the only power any of us ever have: the power over myself. I - not a gathering of delegates from around the world - will choose who I will be and how I will live as a follower of Jesus.
So, I don't know about you, but after this Conference is over, regardless of the decision that is made, I will still choose to live as a faithful follower of Jesus. I will still live out of God's call on my life. I will still use the gifts the Spirit has given me in ministry in the name of Jesus, for the spiritual well-being of others. I will still proclaim the ways of the Kingdom that Jesus taught. I will still seek to embrace all - and all means all - as beloved children of God. I will still proclaim and seek to live out of grace and forgiveness. I will still seek to live out of a servant spirit. And I will still need God's grace and the Spirit's power in order to do so.
Some have openly stated that they will leave The UMC if the called Conference adopts any plan other than the Traditional Plan that maintains and strengthens the prohibitive language of the Discipline. Members of FUMC, Arlington, have indicated they will leave FUMCA and The UMC if the Conference changes The UMC stance about homosexuality.
I don't know about you, but I refuse to give anyone that kind of power over who I am or what I will do. I choose to live out of who I am as God's beloved child and a follower of Jesus. Because, you see, I need God's grace as much today as I did back in 1991 when I chose to become a United Methodist.
But, then, I don't know about you.
Wednesday, February 20, 2019
Beyond Who I Was
The heart of the spiritual journey and Christian discipleship is the transformation of heart and mind. The theological term for this transformation is sanctification. The more common term is spiritual growth. This transformation is the work of the Spirit of God in our lives (see 2 Corinthians 3:18). The Spirit is working to grow us into the likeness of Jesus (see Ephesians 4:13-15).
The New Testament writers identified two dimensions of this transformation of heart and mind. Using the imagery of changing clothes, the writer of Ephesians spoke of putting off the old self and putting on a new self "created according to the likeness of God" (see Ephesians 4:22-24).
The old self is who the world shaped me to be. (The world includes the family in which I grew up, the community in which I grew up, the church in which I grew up, the schools I attended, the friends with whom I hung out, the organizations of which I was a member, the country in which I grew up.) The old self embodies the thinking and values, practices and traditions of those multiple shaping influences. Of course, we are totally unaware of these shaping experiences. They are simply life as we have experienced it. The apostle Paul spoke of moving beyond this shaping process in Romans 12:2, "do not be conformed to this world." I like J.B. Phillips translation of this phrase: "don't let the world around you squeeze you into its own mold." The original language carries the idea of "stop!" The world has already shaped us - what we think, our attitudes, our positions of issues. "Stop letting those influences shape who you are." The transformation of heart and mind involves moving beyond who I was. It is moving beyond who the world shaped me to be. It is allowing the teachings of Jesus to become the primary shaping influence of my life.
The second part of this transformation of heart and mind is allowing my thinking, my attitudes, my relationships to be shaped by who Jesus revealed God to be and the ways of the Kingdom that he taught. J.B. Phillips expressed the idea this way: "let God re-make you so that your whole attitude of mind is changed" (Romans 12:2). This dimension of the transformation involves the renewing of the mind (Romans 12:2; Ephesians 4:23), that is, learning to think from the perspective of the Kingdom rather than the perspective of the world. It involves putting on the mind of Christ (Philippians 2:5-11). The evidence of this change in thinking is the growing ability to live out of grace and forgiveness. The evidence is the growing ability to live out of a servant spirit that gives freely and generously for the good of another. It is loving as Jesus loved. It is loving who Jesus loved.
During the era of Christendom, the transformation of heart and mind was displaced from being the heart of the spiritual journey. Accepting Jesus so we could go to heaven became the central thrust of evangelical Christianity. That transaction was based on believing that Jesus died on the cross so God would forgive our sins. (That's a topic for another blog.) Belief, church membership, and morals (being a good person who does good things) became the evidence that one had "accepted Jesus as Savior." Bible study and biblical knowledge displaced spiritual growth. The transformation of heart and mind was relegated to being an addendum (if not forgotten).
When the transformation of heart and mind is no longer the thrust of one's spiritual journey, we default to living the way we have always lived - out of who the world shaped us to be. Our lives, relationships, and lifestyle look more like the world around us than the ways of the Kingdom that Jesus taught. We use scripture to defend what we already think and believe, validating that we are "right." (Remember: it was not that long ago that preachers and church people used scripture to support slavery and deny women a voice or leadership role in the life of the church.) What we already think and believe (have always thought and believed?) becomes the core of our religious life, rather than the teachings of Jesus. In this expression of Christianity, we unconsciously default to self-reliance rather than glad dependency upon God. We "do the best we can" and "try harder to do better," but we seldom move far beyond who the world shaped us to be.
Spiritual growth - this transformation of the heart and mind - is a process. It is a journey from who I once was to who God is making me to be. Which makes me wonder: could it be time to take another step on that journey?
"But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," 2 Peter 3:18.
The New Testament writers identified two dimensions of this transformation of heart and mind. Using the imagery of changing clothes, the writer of Ephesians spoke of putting off the old self and putting on a new self "created according to the likeness of God" (see Ephesians 4:22-24).
The old self is who the world shaped me to be. (The world includes the family in which I grew up, the community in which I grew up, the church in which I grew up, the schools I attended, the friends with whom I hung out, the organizations of which I was a member, the country in which I grew up.) The old self embodies the thinking and values, practices and traditions of those multiple shaping influences. Of course, we are totally unaware of these shaping experiences. They are simply life as we have experienced it. The apostle Paul spoke of moving beyond this shaping process in Romans 12:2, "do not be conformed to this world." I like J.B. Phillips translation of this phrase: "don't let the world around you squeeze you into its own mold." The original language carries the idea of "stop!" The world has already shaped us - what we think, our attitudes, our positions of issues. "Stop letting those influences shape who you are." The transformation of heart and mind involves moving beyond who I was. It is moving beyond who the world shaped me to be. It is allowing the teachings of Jesus to become the primary shaping influence of my life.
The second part of this transformation of heart and mind is allowing my thinking, my attitudes, my relationships to be shaped by who Jesus revealed God to be and the ways of the Kingdom that he taught. J.B. Phillips expressed the idea this way: "let God re-make you so that your whole attitude of mind is changed" (Romans 12:2). This dimension of the transformation involves the renewing of the mind (Romans 12:2; Ephesians 4:23), that is, learning to think from the perspective of the Kingdom rather than the perspective of the world. It involves putting on the mind of Christ (Philippians 2:5-11). The evidence of this change in thinking is the growing ability to live out of grace and forgiveness. The evidence is the growing ability to live out of a servant spirit that gives freely and generously for the good of another. It is loving as Jesus loved. It is loving who Jesus loved.
During the era of Christendom, the transformation of heart and mind was displaced from being the heart of the spiritual journey. Accepting Jesus so we could go to heaven became the central thrust of evangelical Christianity. That transaction was based on believing that Jesus died on the cross so God would forgive our sins. (That's a topic for another blog.) Belief, church membership, and morals (being a good person who does good things) became the evidence that one had "accepted Jesus as Savior." Bible study and biblical knowledge displaced spiritual growth. The transformation of heart and mind was relegated to being an addendum (if not forgotten).
When the transformation of heart and mind is no longer the thrust of one's spiritual journey, we default to living the way we have always lived - out of who the world shaped us to be. Our lives, relationships, and lifestyle look more like the world around us than the ways of the Kingdom that Jesus taught. We use scripture to defend what we already think and believe, validating that we are "right." (Remember: it was not that long ago that preachers and church people used scripture to support slavery and deny women a voice or leadership role in the life of the church.) What we already think and believe (have always thought and believed?) becomes the core of our religious life, rather than the teachings of Jesus. In this expression of Christianity, we unconsciously default to self-reliance rather than glad dependency upon God. We "do the best we can" and "try harder to do better," but we seldom move far beyond who the world shaped us to be.
Spiritual growth - this transformation of the heart and mind - is a process. It is a journey from who I once was to who God is making me to be. Which makes me wonder: could it be time to take another step on that journey?
"But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," 2 Peter 3:18.
Monday, February 11, 2019
More than Fellowship
Fellowship - living in relationship with others - is a vital part of church life. We cannot escape the social dimension of church involvement.
Nor should we attempt to escape it. Those who call themselves Christian, yet cut themselves off from spiritual community, do not understand how spiritual growth and spiritual vitality are inseparably linked to spiritual friends. They become like a glowing ember removed from the fire. Without the heat from the fire and the other embers, the isolated ember gradually loses its flame and dies out. Our spiritual health is inseparably linked to our involvement in Christian community. But, then, attempting to go-it-alone is nothing new. The writer of the book of Hebrews exhorted his readers, "Let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good deeds, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some," 10:24-25. The New Testament bears no record of a Lone Ranger Christian.
But what kind of fellowship nurtures spiritual growth, vitality, and health?
Back in the dark ages when I was growing up, church was the center of our social life as teens. Oh, we dated and went to the movies (at a drive-in theater, no less!), but our fellowship with a larger group was with our church group, generally in church-related or church-sponsored activities. (I was blessed to be a part of a strong, vibrant youth group.)
Our experience was not that uncommon. Before the advent of the automobile, Sunday was a day of community fellowship built around morning worship at 11, a covered dish meal, and an afternoon service that ended in time to get back home to do the chores before dark. (Starting morning worship at 11 allowed the chores to get done while a covered dish dinner was prepared.) As more people drove cars, that schedule shifted to morning and evening worship, but still the social dimension was key.
The social dimension of church life is evident today in adult Sunday School classes. Some attend Sunday School and skip worship because (I would guess) of the social dimension of the class (and/or their dislike of the preacher!). Classes have seasonal parties and covered dish dinners and game days. Many (most?) Christian people have few non-Christian friends because their social circle is through their church involvement.
While this pattern was true during the era of Christendom, it is not as true today. More options exist today for social relationships that don't involve a Sunday or meeting in a church building. One of the primary options today is our kids' activities and sporting events. These events bring us together on a regular basis with the same people and a common interest. These social relationships become our circle of friends.
The social dimension of church life that I have described in these four paragraphs is not the kind of fellowship that fosters spiritual growth, vitality, and health. It allows us to build friendships and social networks, but it does not automatically translate into spiritual development.
The New Testament word that is commonly translated as fellowship carried the idea of sharing - sharing life, sharing the spiritual journey, sharing one's struggles and victories, sharing one's failures and successes. Acts 2:42, 44-47 describe a spiritual community intentionally built (devoted themselves) around learning the ways of God that Jesus taught (the apostles' teachings), seeking to live out those teachings in Christian community (fellowship - compare Acts 2:44-47), sharing everyday life together (breaking of bread), and praying with/for one another (the prayers). This fellowship went beyond social relationships to spiritual friendships. These early believers supported one another in their efforts to be faithful to the teachings of Jesus. (See Acts 4:23-31 for an example of the kind of sharing and praying together that the early church experienced.) The kind of fellowship these early Christ-followers experienced fosters spiritual growth, spiritual vitality, and spiritual health.
In last week's blog (More Than Sunday School, February 4, 2019), I spoke of moving beyond religious education to a focus on spiritual formation. Spiritual formation that results in the transformation of heart and mind is the result of seeking to put into practice what we are learning. Study that does not include an intentional effort to live into the truths we are learning does not produce spiritual growth, vitality, or health. More study, information, content, and input is not what is needed. Growing as a disciple requires us to put into practice what Jesus taught. (See Acts 10:1 - 11:18 for a case study of spiritual growth, based on the experience of Peter.) The kind of fellowship described in Acts 2 and 4 provides a vital resource to such growth. Sharing our spiritual journey with a small group of trusted spiritual friends who pray with and for us is the kind of fellowship that leads to spiritual growth, spiritual vitality, and spiritual health.
Which makes me wonder: can our institutional, religious education based approach to church life actually be a barrier to such fellowship and the spiritual growth it fosters?
It seems to me the emerging church is rediscovering the rich fellowship of home-based groups of spiritual friends focused on learning and living the ways of God that Jesus taught.
Nor should we attempt to escape it. Those who call themselves Christian, yet cut themselves off from spiritual community, do not understand how spiritual growth and spiritual vitality are inseparably linked to spiritual friends. They become like a glowing ember removed from the fire. Without the heat from the fire and the other embers, the isolated ember gradually loses its flame and dies out. Our spiritual health is inseparably linked to our involvement in Christian community. But, then, attempting to go-it-alone is nothing new. The writer of the book of Hebrews exhorted his readers, "Let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good deeds, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some," 10:24-25. The New Testament bears no record of a Lone Ranger Christian.
But what kind of fellowship nurtures spiritual growth, vitality, and health?
Back in the dark ages when I was growing up, church was the center of our social life as teens. Oh, we dated and went to the movies (at a drive-in theater, no less!), but our fellowship with a larger group was with our church group, generally in church-related or church-sponsored activities. (I was blessed to be a part of a strong, vibrant youth group.)
Our experience was not that uncommon. Before the advent of the automobile, Sunday was a day of community fellowship built around morning worship at 11, a covered dish meal, and an afternoon service that ended in time to get back home to do the chores before dark. (Starting morning worship at 11 allowed the chores to get done while a covered dish dinner was prepared.) As more people drove cars, that schedule shifted to morning and evening worship, but still the social dimension was key.
The social dimension of church life is evident today in adult Sunday School classes. Some attend Sunday School and skip worship because (I would guess) of the social dimension of the class (and/or their dislike of the preacher!). Classes have seasonal parties and covered dish dinners and game days. Many (most?) Christian people have few non-Christian friends because their social circle is through their church involvement.
While this pattern was true during the era of Christendom, it is not as true today. More options exist today for social relationships that don't involve a Sunday or meeting in a church building. One of the primary options today is our kids' activities and sporting events. These events bring us together on a regular basis with the same people and a common interest. These social relationships become our circle of friends.
The social dimension of church life that I have described in these four paragraphs is not the kind of fellowship that fosters spiritual growth, vitality, and health. It allows us to build friendships and social networks, but it does not automatically translate into spiritual development.
The New Testament word that is commonly translated as fellowship carried the idea of sharing - sharing life, sharing the spiritual journey, sharing one's struggles and victories, sharing one's failures and successes. Acts 2:42, 44-47 describe a spiritual community intentionally built (devoted themselves) around learning the ways of God that Jesus taught (the apostles' teachings), seeking to live out those teachings in Christian community (fellowship - compare Acts 2:44-47), sharing everyday life together (breaking of bread), and praying with/for one another (the prayers). This fellowship went beyond social relationships to spiritual friendships. These early believers supported one another in their efforts to be faithful to the teachings of Jesus. (See Acts 4:23-31 for an example of the kind of sharing and praying together that the early church experienced.) The kind of fellowship these early Christ-followers experienced fosters spiritual growth, spiritual vitality, and spiritual health.
In last week's blog (More Than Sunday School, February 4, 2019), I spoke of moving beyond religious education to a focus on spiritual formation. Spiritual formation that results in the transformation of heart and mind is the result of seeking to put into practice what we are learning. Study that does not include an intentional effort to live into the truths we are learning does not produce spiritual growth, vitality, or health. More study, information, content, and input is not what is needed. Growing as a disciple requires us to put into practice what Jesus taught. (See Acts 10:1 - 11:18 for a case study of spiritual growth, based on the experience of Peter.) The kind of fellowship described in Acts 2 and 4 provides a vital resource to such growth. Sharing our spiritual journey with a small group of trusted spiritual friends who pray with and for us is the kind of fellowship that leads to spiritual growth, spiritual vitality, and spiritual health.
Which makes me wonder: can our institutional, religious education based approach to church life actually be a barrier to such fellowship and the spiritual growth it fosters?
It seems to me the emerging church is rediscovering the rich fellowship of home-based groups of spiritual friends focused on learning and living the ways of God that Jesus taught.
Monday, February 4, 2019
More Than Sunday School
Sunday School, i.e., religious education, was a priority in the three-legged-stool understanding of being a Christian with which I grew up. (See More than Behavior, 1/28/19 blog.)
In the era of Christendom in which I grew up, religious education, particularly Sunday School, was a primary activity of church life with the Bible as the primary focus of study. Moral issues sometimes came into focus, but always from the perspective of what the Bible had to say about the issue. What the Bible said was always the final word. Biblical knowledge, including the ability to cite specific passages along with the correct chapter and verse, was taken as a sign of ... of what? I am hesitant to use the word maturity. The knowledge of the Bible was a indicator of one's involvement in church, maybe the degree of one's commitment as a Christian. It was certainly a measure of one's orthodoxy, i.e., being right.
This kind of religious education was about study with the assumption that learning would take place. It was about gaining knowledge of Biblical facts with the assumption that such knowledge would result in the understanding of spiritual truth. Those underlying assumptions did not prove to be true.
This focus on study is prominent even today. Every Sunday School class has a curriculum the group studies. Small groups of every stripe meet throughout the week around some study focus: the Bible, a book, a video series.
The current controversy in The UMC over LGBTQ+ issues reflects the bankruptcy of this emphasis on religious education (dare I say, Bible study?!). The countless years and hours of study and the vast amount of Biblical knowledge have not translated into Christlike attitudes, thinking, or ways of relating. It is common today for the accumulated biblical knowledge to be used to support attitudes, thinking, and ways of relating that are clearly out of step with the spirit of Jesus.
A conscious shift of focus is needed: from education to spiritual transformation; from study to discipleship. We do not need more input, more content to learn. Yes, study is vital. It cannot be ignored. But knowledge is not the intended outcome of study for a follower of Jesus; spiritual transformation is. The desired outcome is spiritual growth that leads to the transformation of heart and mind. The desired outcome is a growing disciple whose attitudes, thinking, and ways of relating begin to more and more reflect the attitudes, thinking, and ways of relating of Jesus. The desired outcome is a Spirit-shaped life that reflects the grace-filled ways of the Kingdom. The desired outcome is that we are transformed by the renewing of the mind (Romans 12:2). The desired outcome is that we put on the mind of Christ (Philippians 2:5-11). The desired outcome is that we love as Jesus loved.
The desired outcome determines the course of study.
Among other things, we must learn how to read and study the Bible as an ancient, Near Eastern collection of books. The way we read it (through our Western, Enlightenment-shaped thinking, and scientific orientation) allows us to use the Bible to reinforce our current thinking (think "proof texting") rather than to allow the truth of God to shape how we think and live. The result is we wrap our human thinking in religious garb and call it "Christian." We must learn that the Bible is a collection of books with different perspectives and purposes. The books are not "created equal." We must learn to let the Bible be what it is rather than the idol we have made it. We must learn to discover the message the original author sought to communicate about God and the ways of God. We must learn to read the Bible in order to encounter and know God rather than to learn facts about God.
Which leads to a second focus of study. We must gain a clear understanding of the nature and character of God as revealed to Moses (Exodus 34:6-7) and in Jesus, the Christ. What we identify as biblical truth must align with and be an expression of that character.
Knowing the nature and character of God leads us to know the ways of God that Jesus taught: the Kingdom of God. In my book A God-Shaped World (Westbow), I use the Gospel of Luke to identify four central characteristics of the Kingdom: each person is viewed and treated as a beloved child of God, relationships are based upon grace and forgiveness (not merit), power is used to serve, and material wealth, as a form of power, is used to do the work of the Kingdom.
The ways of the Kingdom call us to learn how to live in an intimate, personal relationship with God, opening our hearts and minds to the transforming power of the Spirit. They call us to live in glad dependency upon God. We need to learn how to pray, how to use our struggles as an opportunity for spiritual insight and growth, how to access the power of the Spirit in our daily lives, how to live out of the peace of Christ and the joy of the Lord, how to rest in God's grace.
This personal relationship leads us into greater self-awareness and self-management. It leads us to recognize and know our gifts and passions. It leads us to live out of our gifts and passions for the sake of the Kingdom and the good of others.
Living as a beloved child of God and as a follower of Jesus ultimately leads us to love as Jesus loved - freely, generously, out of what is in our hearts rather than in reaction to what the others does. It leads us to love our enemy as well as our neighbor.
If our Bible study does not lead to the transformation of our hearts and minds, if it does not lead to spiritual growth, if it does not produce the mind of Christ in us, if it does not lead us to love as Jesus loved, what value does it have?
In the era of Christendom in which I grew up, religious education, particularly Sunday School, was a primary activity of church life with the Bible as the primary focus of study. Moral issues sometimes came into focus, but always from the perspective of what the Bible had to say about the issue. What the Bible said was always the final word. Biblical knowledge, including the ability to cite specific passages along with the correct chapter and verse, was taken as a sign of ... of what? I am hesitant to use the word maturity. The knowledge of the Bible was a indicator of one's involvement in church, maybe the degree of one's commitment as a Christian. It was certainly a measure of one's orthodoxy, i.e., being right.
This kind of religious education was about study with the assumption that learning would take place. It was about gaining knowledge of Biblical facts with the assumption that such knowledge would result in the understanding of spiritual truth. Those underlying assumptions did not prove to be true.
This focus on study is prominent even today. Every Sunday School class has a curriculum the group studies. Small groups of every stripe meet throughout the week around some study focus: the Bible, a book, a video series.
The current controversy in The UMC over LGBTQ+ issues reflects the bankruptcy of this emphasis on religious education (dare I say, Bible study?!). The countless years and hours of study and the vast amount of Biblical knowledge have not translated into Christlike attitudes, thinking, or ways of relating. It is common today for the accumulated biblical knowledge to be used to support attitudes, thinking, and ways of relating that are clearly out of step with the spirit of Jesus.
A conscious shift of focus is needed: from education to spiritual transformation; from study to discipleship. We do not need more input, more content to learn. Yes, study is vital. It cannot be ignored. But knowledge is not the intended outcome of study for a follower of Jesus; spiritual transformation is. The desired outcome is spiritual growth that leads to the transformation of heart and mind. The desired outcome is a growing disciple whose attitudes, thinking, and ways of relating begin to more and more reflect the attitudes, thinking, and ways of relating of Jesus. The desired outcome is a Spirit-shaped life that reflects the grace-filled ways of the Kingdom. The desired outcome is that we are transformed by the renewing of the mind (Romans 12:2). The desired outcome is that we put on the mind of Christ (Philippians 2:5-11). The desired outcome is that we love as Jesus loved.
The desired outcome determines the course of study.
Among other things, we must learn how to read and study the Bible as an ancient, Near Eastern collection of books. The way we read it (through our Western, Enlightenment-shaped thinking, and scientific orientation) allows us to use the Bible to reinforce our current thinking (think "proof texting") rather than to allow the truth of God to shape how we think and live. The result is we wrap our human thinking in religious garb and call it "Christian." We must learn that the Bible is a collection of books with different perspectives and purposes. The books are not "created equal." We must learn to let the Bible be what it is rather than the idol we have made it. We must learn to discover the message the original author sought to communicate about God and the ways of God. We must learn to read the Bible in order to encounter and know God rather than to learn facts about God.
Which leads to a second focus of study. We must gain a clear understanding of the nature and character of God as revealed to Moses (Exodus 34:6-7) and in Jesus, the Christ. What we identify as biblical truth must align with and be an expression of that character.
Knowing the nature and character of God leads us to know the ways of God that Jesus taught: the Kingdom of God. In my book A God-Shaped World (Westbow), I use the Gospel of Luke to identify four central characteristics of the Kingdom: each person is viewed and treated as a beloved child of God, relationships are based upon grace and forgiveness (not merit), power is used to serve, and material wealth, as a form of power, is used to do the work of the Kingdom.
The ways of the Kingdom call us to learn how to live in an intimate, personal relationship with God, opening our hearts and minds to the transforming power of the Spirit. They call us to live in glad dependency upon God. We need to learn how to pray, how to use our struggles as an opportunity for spiritual insight and growth, how to access the power of the Spirit in our daily lives, how to live out of the peace of Christ and the joy of the Lord, how to rest in God's grace.
This personal relationship leads us into greater self-awareness and self-management. It leads us to recognize and know our gifts and passions. It leads us to live out of our gifts and passions for the sake of the Kingdom and the good of others.
Living as a beloved child of God and as a follower of Jesus ultimately leads us to love as Jesus loved - freely, generously, out of what is in our hearts rather than in reaction to what the others does. It leads us to love our enemy as well as our neighbor.
If our Bible study does not lead to the transformation of our hearts and minds, if it does not lead to spiritual growth, if it does not produce the mind of Christ in us, if it does not lead us to love as Jesus loved, what value does it have?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)