Archive for the ‘Christian Practice’ Category

« Older Entries

Is this what it takes to attract young Baptists?

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

From one of the coordinators for the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship in Louisiana I received by email a link to a recent opinion piece published through the Associated Baptist Press: “Why 20- and 30-year-olds are leaving the Baptist church” by Carra Hughes Greer who is minister to families with youth at a Baptist church in Georgia.

You can read the whole thing at Associated Baptist Press.

(Let me begin with a couple disclaimers[?]. First – I assume Carra Hughes Greer is an outstanding Christian minister and is a better Christian and minister than I am. Second – I do not disagree with everything she writes.)

Why do we see fewer young Baptists in our churches? (The editor erred when s/he assigned the title “Baptist church”. There is no Baptist church. There are Baptist churches. Which may cooperate to form associations denominations networks and so on.) Not just because they had enough of the Southern Baptist Convention controversies of the 1970’s and 1980’s. But because they are tired of both “harsh” churches and “watered-down” churches.

Her definitions of each are interesting. “Harsh” churches loudly rail against problems in our culture. Greer outlines what one might identify as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell style Baptist Christianity.

“Watered-down” churches care more about maintaining the institution than about engaging the various burning issues of the day. Which issues? Greer offers a sample list:

[H]omosexuality, social justice issues, women in ministry, poverty, environmental concerns, human rights issues, health-care issues, the AIDS epidemic in Africa, orphans in China, monks in Burma, etc. They are eager to have open, honest, almost jaw-dropping, conversations balancing current issues with their faith.

I understand and do not dispute that young Baptists want to discuss such issues in light of their Christian faith.

What troubles me is the apparent dichotomy. If your church takes “conservative” positions on certain theological social and cultural issues then it is harsh. (And note how the article lumps together more extreme with more reasonable “conservative” Christian concerns.) But if your church does not openly discuss certain – pay attention now – other theological social and cultural issues then it is “watered-down”.

Do you see the subtle dichotomy? Discussing education health-care marriage and female pastors is harsh. Discussing social justice women in ministry poverty and the environment is not. Perhaps I misunderstand and the article merely distinguishes between “railing against” and “openly discussing”.

Dichotomies real or imagined aside – so if we do not discuss openly this second list of issues then we are not being missional?

I am trying to imagine what would happen if the congregations I serve – Church of the Nations and University Baptist Church – started talking about abortion homosexuality social justice women in (ordained? vocational?) ministry poverty environmentalism health-care.

I know we have congregants who are much more conservative on theological social cultural political issues. I know we have congregants who are much more liberal. And of course we have congregants who are a mixture of both. Whatever one means by “conservative” and “liberal” in this context.

I know from experience that social cultural and political issues can be far more divisive than theological issues. The Baptistlife.com forum in which I used to participate is hard cold proof of this.

There is some irony here. My views on sexuality are generally “conservative”. Sexual relations between a man and woman who are married to each other is the biblical theological and Christian ideal. And yet in something like sixteen years of ordained ministry not once have I preached against “homosexuality”.

I prefer to focus more on theology. Who is God? Who is Jesus? Who are we? What about our relationship to the creator? What about our relationship to the rest of creation? What about our relationship to other creatures including human beings? What about sin? What about salvation? What about worship? What about prayer?

And yet to be fair in my teaching and preaching sometimes I have touched on social cultural political issues. But I tend to focus on the biblical and theological framework and allow congregants to decide how that plays out in terms of policies and positions.

And perhaps Greer is right. Perhaps we should be “talking about these issues in our Sunday school classes, Bible studies and sermons”. Perhaps I am being a coward for not doing so more. And one might respond “well of course we talk about God and theology and so on – but people will naturally want to balance their faith with these other issues”.

(I remember what happened once when we had a discussion about abortion during Sunday school. Got to the point where one couple said to another couple “you are the kind of people we protect our children from”. I am not making that up. It was not pretty.)

Is the underlying assumption that the purpose of Christian faith is to address these issues? (By the way that right there is a critical question and may be the question we need to ask concerning Greer’s article.) That there is no Christian consensus on how to address these issues? Or that there is a Christian consensus?

Please note these are questions that I have rather than criticisms.

Do we in fact see young Baptists flocking to churches that practice what Greer recommends? How are liberal and moderate Baptist churches doing? Perhaps we should ask how are Episcopal churches doing? Because boy do they ever talk about social cultural political issues.

How are more traditional churches doing? Orthodox Christianity is growing quite nicely in the United States. And although yes they do engage these issues – sometimes taking a “conservative” and sometimes taking a “liberal” stand – they tend to focus much more on worship prayer and theology.

If we focus on God (and our relationship with him and with each other) then do these other issues take care of themselves? Perhaps that is naive and simplistic.

Let me wrap up by addressing a few other points.

She makes fine points about what 20- and 30-year-olds are like. “Not all of them expect loud, Christian rock music, want to wear torn jeans and a T-shirt to church, seek a coffee bar in the worship space or the biggest and brightest LCD screens”. Word.

And this paragraph was especially powerful:

Instead of church politics, they want churches to become missional. They understand the institutional church but desire the simplicity of the early church. They grow weary of time and money spent maintaining the large church grounds, renovating empty Sunday school rooms, installing the latest technology and managing growing numbers of committees. When the church becomes too distracted to be a church on mission, young Christ-followers focus on serving through a para-church or nonprofit organization that is directly meeting the needs of others.

Although again I must ask what do these people think the purpose (mission) of the church is exactly?

I had some difficulty understanding her recommendation that:

[O]ur churches must begin to reflect our changing communities. The ministerial staff must diversify to include people of all ages, races and genders as leaders.

Well sure I suppose if you have a large enough ministerial staff. And how many staff would one need in order to include people of all ages races and genders?

(How many ages?) x (How many races?) x (How many genders?) = (How many staff?)

My last comment is not directed so much to Greer’s article as to Protestantism in general:

For younger generations, what’s at stake is our ability to find ways to relate, engage and work side-by-side with older generations finding common ground on issues of social justice, faith development, worship experiences, etc.

What kind of Christian tradition has to struggle with this at all? In what kind of Christianity do different generations even have to find “common ground” on these issues?

Do you see the problem?

But Greer does raise some legitimate questions and make fine points about 20- and 30-year-old Christians and how we may better relate to and include them in the life and work of the Christian church.

Addendum: Asked my wife what she thought about the article. She thinks I am reading it far too critically.

Posted in Baptists, Christian Practice, Ecclesiology, Ministry, Society and Culture | No Comments »

Society for Biblical Literature meeting – day 3

Monday, November 23rd, 2009

From hotel toward river in New Orleans

Been strange but good this year. Enjoyed the time with my friend Chris Brady and chance to meet some of his friends and colleagues and fellow bibliobloggers. Lunch at Bacco’s was excellent and only $15. Dinner at Ralph and Kacoo’s pricey and not so good and service was weak. Had to drive back to Baton Rouge on Sunday morning for Sunday morning Bible study and worship. Dinner by myself in hotel restaurant was my first Kobe beef hamburger very good and cooked perfectly. Had to drive back to Baton Rouge again today for memorial service for Lois Draayer. Lunch at Middle East restaurant in French Quarter was decent. Right now waiting to meet Eric Mason for dinner.

I have not been to many sessions and papers largely because of the back-and-forth and how tired this has left me. Been focusing on sessions on Psalms – did not have enough energy for session on Sabbath this evening. Creation imagery and theology in the Psalms. And more insight into the formation of the Psalter. Caught end of a talk last evening by Shalom Paul on Late Biblical Hebrew in Isaiah 40-66 – was disappointed he made no reference at all to my work which does briefly touch on the issue and points toward a future article.

I have noticed that some biblical scholars use cliches and buzz phrases without(?) quite realizing what they are saying. In the Psalms sessions several references to “global warming” – I care very much about the environment but believe there is legitimate cause for questioning Anthropogenic Global Warming dogma. Many references to how Katrina “exposed injustice and inequalities in our community” along with some gratuitous and ill-informed Bush-bashing – but do people who throw that around really know what they are talking about? Plenty of middle and upper class New Orleans residents suffered and lost everything. It was in the recovery process that one sees more of the disparity. And although the Federal government responded poorly one should not overlook the colossal ineptitude of Louisiana authorities.

If some scholars engage in casual Bush-bashing and Global Warming kvetching during their talks – why do other scholars not engage in casual Obama-bashing and in digs against Anthropogenic Global Warming?

For years we have noted the abundance of facial hair. And how much biblical scholars dress in black. Biblical scholars male and female are a surprisingly good looking bunch.

Appreciate Andrew Das saying hi when I was waiting for valet to bring down my car.

I do feel a little out of place largely because I have fallen behind and not been involved much in my field. Wonder what it would take for me to get “back in academic shape” so as to produce new research and writing that would stand up and receive respect at this gathering. But I can no longer beat myself up so harshly for not ever having secured a position at a college or seminary. The competition in biblical studies is astonishing. About ten (10) open positions this year. For just one position at Judson College (my friend Eric is in charge of the search) they have sixty (60) people who are interested.

In other words you can be smart and good – and never get a teaching position.

The exhibitors’ hall is overwhelming. Booth after booth full of books and publications – which are worth buying? which are worth reading? And I wonder if all of them are necessary. To what extent do people write books because they need to in order to get a position or get tenure? That is a risky thing to say and perhaps I do not understand. Often congregants comment that my Bible studies are very “academic” rather than “practical” – to which I try to explain that good application will grow out of good academic(?) analysis. How many people thought Einstein’s theories were too academic? And yet they yield results that are deadly practical.

I do wonder sometimes why I spent so many dang years working on that PhD and that dissertation given what I do now. But I trust that God led me in that direction for a reason. That is what I have been struggling with. Given my gifts and education – what exactly am I supposed to be doing right now?

(On my wish list - recommended by Michael Legaspi)

Update (11/24/09): Had excellent time with Eric Mason last evening. We hiked over to the Gumbo Shop and each of us got the 4-course “Creole dinner” special. Best meal I have had here so far. Main entree was Chicken St Peters which was outstanding. I have always liked Eric but was especially impressed to realize just how strong and productive he is in his field – focusing particularly on Hebrews and 2nd temple/Qumran. He is well involved in scholarly circles and produces an amazing number of articles papers and books each year. Toward the end of dinner a few large groups started to come in and Ralph Klein of Lutheran Theological Seminary in Chicago famous for his work on Chronicles (and Ezra-Nehemiah) came over to say hi. (Wonder if I should try to snag some Hermeneia volumes before leaving.) Grateful to God that I know Eric – he demonstrates you can be an excellent scholar and a great guy at the same time.

Posted in Bible, Fun and Geek Stuff, Personal, Sabbath, Travel | No Comments »

What makes worship?

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009

At the “Service of Reconciliation” the evening after the senior pastor resigned rather abruptly several spoke positively of the second worship service. Many along the lines of “as long as people are worshiping the Lord who cares what instruments they use?”

A little background. A couple years ago University Baptist Church went from one Sunday worship gathering (blended – traditional or contemporary style varying week to week) to two Sunday worship gatherings. The first “traditional”. The second “emerging” – as in “reach the emerging generation with more multisensory fluid participatory worship”. The senior pastor burned a lot of chips to pull this off and continued to take some heat over the move. There are some who think he resigned because of ongoing dissatisfaction with the second “emerging” worship gathering – both the style and the fact it occupied the more desired 11:15 a.m. time slot. I do not think that was the main point of conflict – but in such situations perception matters as much as reality.

(For the record I supported and still support this change.)

Anyways – so people at this “Service of Reconciliation” talk about how wonderful and important and necessary the second worship service is. More to the point they talk about worship. We should be glad that youth and young adults are here to worship God.

This prompted me to wonder “is every activity ‘worship’ just because we feel it is and call it such?” Just because a group of younger people play guitars and drums and lift their hands and say “we are worshiping God” does that make it worship? And while we are at it just because a group of older people sing from the hymnal to beautiful organ music and never lift their hands yet say “now this is worshiping God” does that make it worship?

What is worship?

What must worship include in order to be (authentic Christian) worship?

(Is an activity “worship” just because we say it is?)

This question has been on my mind a great deal since seminary. Partly because I was fortunate enough to take Introduction to the Old Testament with Samuel Balentine. Partly because of my interest in biblical studies in general the issue of ritual in particular – a topic which has gained interest among biblical scholars in recent years.

In his book The Torah’s Vision of Worship – and much of what Balentine taught in that Old Testament class came from his book as he was researching and writing it – Balentine notes that the subject of worship in the Old Testament has faded since the 1960’s and the work of H.-J. Kraus, R. de Vaux, H. H. Rowley, and W. Harrelson. Indeed there is no entry on “worship” in the massive and scholarly 6-volume Anchor Bible Dictionary.

Last Sunday I decided to discuss the issue of “worship” for the “evensong” service Sunday evening. (With the senior pastor gone the minister with college students and I will share responsibility for that gathering.) Developing two sermons is a bit more than I can handle in a week so typically what I share at evensong is a “conversation in outline” – some questions quotes and points on a topic such as “what is repentance?” Decided to talk about “what is worship? and what must worship include?”

And why should we even care?

My intent was not to critique this or that worship gathering (traditional or “emerging”). But it troubled me that when people in this church talk about “worship” it is unclear they have any conceptual or theological framework for doing so.

Do we even know what we are talking about?

So let me share from last Sunday evensong.

Balentine notes:

In 1969 Harrelson observed that a re-examination of Israel’s worship could help with the problems confronting the community of faith in an ‘ecumenical and post-Christian age’. Given the perceived secularism of that time Harrelson argued that a study of Israel’s worship could contribute toward restoring the quality of relationship between God and humankind and toward restoring and reappropriating God’s design for the world (Torah’s Vision of Worship, 4)

Those are two important issues not only for ancient Israel but for the Christian church today:

  • how to restore the quality of relationship between God and us (humankind in general or the Christian church specifically)
  • how to restore and reappropriate God’s purposes for the world which he created and is creating still.

Worship is important.

Okay but what is it exactly?

We could approach “what is worship” etymologically.

English “worship” from Old English weorthscipe or “worth + ship”. Ascribing worth to God.

In German Gottestdienst “divine service” or Verehrung = “worship (in the sense of veneration)” or Anbetung = “worship (in  the sense of adoration)”.

In Hebrew *h-l-l = “worship” (perhaps from a root which means sing or shout) or *h.-w-h as in hishtah.awe(h) = “bow (oneself) down” or `aboda(h) = “service” (similar to Gottesdienst) or *y-d-h as in ho(w)de(h) = “praise/thank” (perhaps from a root which means to throw or cast).

In Greek proskuneo = “bow down” (probably the most common term in the New Testament) or doxazo = “glorify/praise” or latreo = “worship (in the sense of ritual worship)”.

But etymologies only take us so far because ultimately words do not have meanings so much as they have uses. How are these terms used? Nor do they entirely answer the questions “what is worship? and what must worship include (to be authentic Christian worship)?”

I suggested five things.

First. And this is an assumption/assertion – the book of Psalms is our primary textbook for the language of prayer and praise. Therefore the language of the Psalms – not to mention the use of the psalter – needs to be present in our worship.

Second. Christian worship must be Trinitarian. One would think this is obvious but it is not. At the ACMI conference last summer (Association of Christians Ministering with Internationals) I noticed how so many of the prayers and songs and how much of the presentations was about Jesus. Follow Christ. Believe in Christ. Worship Christ. But what about the Father and the Holy Spirit? I have the same mild critique of emerging worship by Dan Kimball. He says emerging worship focuses on Jesus. I say Christian worship is not just about Jesus – it is about God fully revealed as Father Son and Holy Spirit. Authentic Christian worship needs to be Trinitarian – not just “Jesus-centered”.

Third. Worship needs to be consistent with Christian tradition. This is going to be a bit controversial. And the intent is not to make us slaves to the past. But can we at least be familiar with the past? With how Christians have worshiped through the centuries? We might want to pause and reflect before we do something that breaks radically and dramatically with centuries of Christian teaching and practice.

Fourth. Biblical examples. When people in the Bible are “worshiping” – what exactly are they doing? What do they do? What do they say?

Fifth. In his book Doxology and Idolatry Walter Brueggeman directs us to the Psalms scholar Sigmund Mowinckel who argued that “worship makes a world”. This may sound strange and can be difficult to understand. But when we worship we are either (a) describing the way the world is or (b) describing the way the world can be. A simple example is to say “Jesus is Lord” during the persecutions under the Roman  Empire. Not only is that the way the world is – it is also a “counter-world” that challenges the “reality” of the Roman emperor. So when we worship we need to pause at times to consider what kind of a world do we make with our worship?

Similarly in the recent study of ritual scholars note that rituals have at least three primary functions:

  • rituals make reality (something new)
  • rituals maintain reality (continue something)
  • rituals repair reality (fix something that has become broken)

Think about worship and rituals of worship in Scripture. We ordain someone to the ministry. Each month we celebrate Holy Communion. We pray for those who mourn. Perhaps not the best examples but you get the idea.

Let me close with another quote from Balentine:

My thesis is that the Torah conveys a ‘vision’ of worship. It portrays worship as a principal means by which a community of faith (or a community seeking faith) attains clarity about God, God’s design for the world, and the role of humankind in implementing and sustaining the world of that design. (4) [emphasis added]

Granted Balentine addresses specifically the vision of worship in the Torah (first five books of the Old Testament) but I would suggest this may apply to our understanding and practice of worship in general.

Posted in Christian Practice, Hebrew Bible, Worship and Liturgy | No Comments »

Has "women in ministry" become central dogma?

Thursday, September 3rd, 2009

I could get in serious trouble for this.

Let me begin by reminding people that:

  • I married my campus minister (and she hates that I keep saying that – sounds like she was some sort of stalker or predator who seduced one of her students when in fact I chased her okay?)
  • Who received her seminary degree years before I did
  • Who has preached for me on numerous occasions
  • I attended a seminary affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
  • Where some of my teachers were women
  • About half of my classmates were women
  • I received one of those “Leadership Scholarships” – so must have been at least somewhat acceptable ideologically to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
  • I serve at a church that contributes to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
  • I serve with women ministers

But I am increasingly uncomfortable with how fellow moderate Baptist Christians articulate and practice their convictions concerning “women in ministry”. In a nutshell when did “women in ministry” become a central dogma of the Christian faith?

One must immediately and carefully distinguish “women in ministry” from “ordination of women” from “women as pastors-or-priests”. Of course it is precisely such distinctions which fellow moderate Baptist Christians do not appear to accept. Fair enough. But I will so distinguish nonetheless.

One can speak of “women in ministry” without necessarily agreeing with “ordination of women” or “women as pastors-or-priests”. “Ministry” simply means service (here in the context of the life and work of the Christian church). My wife was a campus minister - but is not ordained and has never served as a pastor (or priest – if we were part of a different Christian tradition). She ministered to college students. She has also served as a minister with children and youth. She is functionally one of the ministers with children for Church of the Nations. “Women in ministry” can take a nearly endless variety of forms. Teaching. Preaching. Visiting. Counseling. Organizing. And so on. It is true that some Christians will argue that not every form of “service within the church” is appropriate for women (typically preaching because of its association with the pastoral office?).

One can even speak of “ordination of women” without necessarily agreeing with “women as pastors-or-priests”. This is where both critics and supporters of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 statement (from the Southern Baptist Convention) have gotten off track. Critics failed to appreciate the careful and limited statement against women as senior pastors. So theoretically one can have women in ministry along with ordained women along even with women as associate pastors and so on. Just not as (senior or sole) pastor of a congregation.

However this has been lost even on supporters of the statement. Since the ratification (adoption?) of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 statement several churches have been kicked out of associations simply because they had women who were ordained (sometimes on ministerial staff and sometimes not even that). And the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention stopped endorsing or supporting women chaplains. It was intellectual laziness and/or disingenuity for defenders of the statement to argue “we are not against women in ministry – just women as senior pastors” and then on the other hand to target Baptist congregations that had women who were not senior pastors.

My own private beef with “ordination of women” is that it is unclear to me exactly what “ordination” means in the Baptist tradition. We are so ardently anti-sacramentalist in our theology. Everything is a symbol or a memorial. None of our rituals actually does anything in terms of changing reality – right? As far as I can tell ordination in the Baptist tradition means almost nothing more than a change in your tax status. So it is difficult to argue for or against “ordination of women” until we are clear about just what ordination is and what it does theologically and ontologically.

But in the meantime theoretically one can ordain women in the Baptist church without those women serving as (senior or sole) pastors.

Now – back to “women in ministry” as central dogma.

Several years ago David Currie came to speak at University Baptist Church. I remember well when he said the reason many Texas Baptists were unhappy with the direction of the Southern Baptist Convention was “look – we might be fundamentalist but only if we want to” (something along those lines) and “Texas Baptist churches might not have a woman as pastor – but we can if we want to”. The issue then was freedom. A congregation that supported the Cooperated Baptist Fellowship might not have a woman pastor. Might not want a woman pastor. But will not try to stop other Baptist congregations from ordaining women or calling a woman as pastor.

There was a point – when exactly? – when that changed. When the issue was no longer “you can be against women as pastors so long as you do not try to tell others what they cannot do”. But “you must be actively in favor of women as pastors or you are not welcome in this organization”. What once was optional became mandatory.

Some will argue that this is a mistaken impression of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. It may well be. But can we at least agree that while this impression might be technically mistaken it functionally is correct? And so the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship goes out of its way to hold up women in ministry and women as preachers and women as pastors. Please note I am not saying this is wrong.

One sees this explicitly in my own setting.

Let me share an anecdote. A church planter with the North American Mission Board needed some office space. For some bizarre reason he came to us. There were the usual normal and reasonable concerns from the deacons. But I remember one deacon in particular arguing strongly against this. Because this guy represents the Southern Baptist Convention. Which does not support “women in ministry”. Which is against our values and beliefs. And if we let him have some office space we are guilty by association (my words not hers – but that was the gist of her argument).

What struck me is that the issue of women in ministry was her number one and central argument. It was the hill on which this deacon was prepared to die. If these people do not agree with us on women in ministry then we cannot associate with them or give them any material help whatsoever. That is a pretty strong line to take. We can associate with Jewish people and Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and Unitarians and work with them on joint projects and have them come and speak to our congregation. But Southern Baptists who do not agree with us on women in ministry – that is going too far.

And now the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Louisiana is pushing the “women in ministry” vector pretty hard. Speakers. Scholarships. The themes of our gatherings. It is all about being missional (where “missional” means what we do is vastly more important than what we profess or teach theologically) and “women in ministry”. These have become the twin poles or central dogmas of moderate Baptists.

Recently former president Jimmy Carter penned a rather strong statement about the role and status of women in the Christian church. It was published as an editorial in the British newspaper The Guardian. The former president does make some good points but they are difficult to extract from the shadow of this singularly weak paragraph:

This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. It is widespread. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths.

This is the central error in a nutshell. If women are prevented from playing a “full and equal role” then it must be because they are viewed as “somehow inferior”. Many people accept that. Many people I know and respect and with whom I serve accept that.

(I note in passing this paragraph as well:

At the same time, I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn’t until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted holy scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.

I wonder what an informed and competent scholar of church history would make of that. The second sentence is problematic because while historical evidence supports some of his examples it does not support all. Jimmy Carter is another moderate Baptist who fails to make appropriate distinctions. And can his third sentence – that the current state is the result of some misogynistic conspiracy – truly stand up to examination?)

Let me get myself in trouble with fellow moderate Baptists by stating for the record that I do not accept the argument that “if women are equal in status they must have the same roles as men in the life of the Christian church”. I do not dispute that many may believe women should have a different role because they are “somehow inferior” (however one defines that). But I assert and argue that some may believe women have a different role in the Christian church for reasons that have nothing to do with misogyny. Disagree with them if you like. No problem. But at least understand where they are coming from.

(Also problematic is the way Jimmy Carter seems to equate various forms of “subjugation” and “discrimination”. As if Southern Baptist opposition to women as senior pastors is somehow equivalent to genital mutilation and domestic abuse. Offensive nonsense.)

Robert Parham also chimed in with “Blaming Men is Not Good Theology”. It is not a bad article – merely weak. What struck me as peculiar is “women are partly at fault because they support these religious institutions with their money and energy”:

Imagine what would happen if rank-and-file Baptist women launched a religious disobedience movement in the local church. If they said no more offerings and no more volunteer hours, the preachers with power would have a lightning-strike revelation about the full equality of women.

Again – not bad so much as weak. This is a subtle form of solipsism masquerading as reasoned argument. It all comes down to experience. “Preachers with power” would suddenly change their minds not because we make a strong case for the “full equality of women” on historical biblical and theological grounds. So far as I can tell Parham simply assumes from the outset that he is correct – everything then becomes a matter of compelling others to conform.

It is possible to believe that men and women have differing roles in the Christian church – and not because one is somehow inferior to the other?

Yes.

But to make this argument I might have to depart just a tad from typical Baptist theology.

The exceptional Anglican theologian Eric Mascall in his book Corpus Christi begins with an argument concerning the nature of apostolic ministry. Forgive me for quoting in extensio:

I can only reply that this objection seems to be based upon a totally false notion of the kind of superiority that a bishop has to a priest, or a priest to a layman. … Any respect in which there is in fact superiority is surely totally unobjectionable; it is like the superiority which St. Paul ascribes to the eye over the ear and to the hand over the foot, a superiority which is entirely compatible with mutual need and mutual love. And presumably when we are made perfect in heaven, neither will the clergy pride themselves on their ’superiority’, nor will the laity envy them for it; so what harm will it do? The blessed are able, in Dr. C. S. Lewis’s phrase, ‘to play great parts without pride and little ones without dejection’. [27]

In short – “superiority” of role does not imply superiority of status or value in the eyes of God. Would the truly humble care if their role in the universe is “inferior”? Which leaves one wondering how much such issues are about pride and envy and false notions of worth.

But Baptists do not believe in a “superiority” of clergy over laity – so why should we care about this argument from Mascall?

Then what about the Trinity?

The Church is not only ecclesia de Christo; she is also ecclesia de Trinitate. Her life and unity are the life and unity of the Holy Trinity. The pattern of her life is the pattern of the life of God, into which she is taken up. And the life of God is not an undifferentiated but a a trinitarian life, in which Father, Son and Spirit, though united, are distinct, and in which sonship, with its two aspects of apostleship and priesthood, is not common to all three Persons but is proper to the Son alone. [33]

The persons of the Holy Trinity are “equal”. But they are persons – and each person has a distinct identity and role within the life of the Trinity.

My wife thinks that is a dangerous argument and she may be right. It implies that just as God the Son is submissive to God the Father so women should be submissive to men within the life of the Christian church. I think that is a weak objection. I think a stronger objection might be “wait a second – so are men analogous to the Son or to the Father? you cannot be the ‘Father’ and the ‘Son’ at the same time can you?”

Correlating sex (male or female) with persons of the Trinity may be a colossal mistake. Perhaps the more relevant consideration is that equality of status does not therefore dictate equality of role. The divine Persons are distinct and with differing roles. So human beings can be equal in value – but as persons be distinct and with differing roles. Did Jesus mind being the Son?

Can all men be ordained pastors or priests? And if we answer “well no – of course not” then are we thereby suggesting some men are somehow inferior to others? This point is frequently lost on the dominant leadership of the Episcopal Church.

One last point – expanding on the Church as the image of the Holy Trinity.

Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America touched on this during his address to the Anglican Church in North America 2009 gathering. He notes (starting around 31:20) that the “blurring of gender may create a larger core of workers” (a common argument for why women should have fully equal roles in the Christian church – and is one I have used the most) “but it destroys authentic personhood, it destroys authentic masculinity, it destroys authentic womanhood”. Here he is not addressing specifically the issue of “women in ministry”.

Later he does (starting around 49:00). He asserts that the new Anglican province must resolve the issue of “the ordination of women”.

I believe in women’s ministry. I believe that women have a critical role to play in the life of the Church. But I do not believe it’s in the presbyterate or the episcopate [as priests or as bishops]. Forgive me if this offends you. But this is the universal experience and vision and opinion and position of the Greek Orthodox World the Roman Catholic world and the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox churches.

This is a very important issue. And the issue is not so much about ordination – that’s the negative side of it.  The positive side – how can we come together to creatively find the right context for women’s ministry in the Church which is so critical?

Please do not think that there is any misogyny here. Not a bit.

So what am I saying? That I have changed my mind? That I am against women in ministry? or ordaining women? or women as pastors (or priests)?

No.

What I am saying is it appears some moderate Baptists are making “women in ministry” as one of their central dogmas. That it is an understandable but serious mistake to equate “women do not have the same role as some men” with “they are somehow inferior”. That they fail to understand adequately and fairly why some traditions distinguish the role of women from that of some men in the Christian church – even if still they disagree!

Posted in Baptists, Christian Practice, Christianity, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, Orthodoxy, Personal, Southern Baptist Convention, Women | No Comments »

Is repentance turning away or turning toward?

Monday, July 27th, 2009

The senior pastor and about half the ministerial staff are at Kid’s Camp so I was asked to speak to Evensong last Sunday night. The senior pastor let me know that the theme for the last few weeks has been repentance. I find it helpful to “fit” into whatever the congregation has been hearing/listening/discussing.

These are my “notes”.

********

Mark 1:14-15.

We have met Jesus – baptism and temptation / but has not spoken yet. After his formative(?) experience of baptism and temptation (time in the wilderness – 40 days) these are his first words.

Similar to John the baptizer – baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins yet also different.

Is this his thesis? That everything after this represents / works out / interprets / embodies it is the right time… kingdom of God has come near… *repent and believe* the good news. Jesus does not begin with repent (and believe) but it is the verb imperative verb. Here is the situation. This is the response.

Repent = (Greek) metanoéo literally change-of-mind (or to be more precise change-of-nous). (Because nous might not mean “mind” the way we normally think. Early teachers of the Christian church did not understand it that way. The nous is closer to what we call the heart. What we call the mind is not the nous but is broken. Lives in a perpetual state of fear and desire – so Meletios Webber.)

I pay attention to other Christian traditions. And I wanted to share some thoughts from other Christian traditions on repentance for us to consider – grist for our theological meal.

The early Christian teacher Evagrius said “the beginning of repentance is to condemn oneself”. Sounds harsh. Perhaps a way to understand/interpret this? An elegant paragraph from a book by Kallistos Ware who now is the Metropolitan of London. Immediately after he quotes Evagrius he writes:

Repentance marks the starting-point of our journey. Correctly understood repentance is not negative but positive. It means not self-pity or remorse but conversion [we will come back to that] the re-centering of our whole life upon the Trinity. It is not to look backward with regret but forward with hope. Not downwards at our shortcomings but upwards at God’s love. It is to see not what we have failed to be but what by divine grace we can now become.

Let us pause there for a moment. Repentance as positive – hope looking up what by the grace of God we can become.

Sometimes repent is translated as “turn away from your sins” – such as in the Good News Bible. Perhaps not best translation. Perhaps “turn toward God and his transforming work in your life”.

Anglican Church in North America met for the first time. (Explain briefly.) Head of Orthodox Church in America Metropolitan Jonah came and spoke – Orthodox Church wants to encourage and have a relationship with new group.

During his talk – “this is not about using the same prayer book or having neat rituals” – that is not what Anglicanism or Orthodoxy are about. But “our surrender is that spiritual quest – is to be transformed by the Spirit. It is a quest of repentance. And of renewal of our mind [RW - and a renewal of our mind? what he said is unclear here]. When you read the preaching of Jesus and Paul and the apostles. Repent.

Adds that “repentance does not mean feel guilty and beat yourself up. Repentance means by transformed in the renewal of your mind. [transform(ed)]. What we are called to is a radical spiritual transformation by the grace of the Holy Spirit.”

Positive. Transformation (by the grace of the Holy Spirit). One more thing.

Isaias of Sketis said: “God requires us to go on repenting until our last breath”. Traditional Baptist understanding of repent as “sorry for my sins thank you Jesus now I am done – I am converted”? Properly understood – lifelong process even the greatest saints in Christian history had to repent (be always repenting).

Kallistos Ware:

Repentance is not just a single act, an initial step, but a continuing state, an attitude of heart and will that needs to be ceaselessly renewed up to the end of life.

Repentance as positive. As transformation. And as ongoing process.

********

We had some time for reflection and conversation. Most was positive and appreciative. One wonderful member of the congregation (who last week found out she has cancer) pushed back a little bit and said “but we do ‘turn away (from our sins)’ when we repent. Just as an alcoholic turns away from alcohol”.

I understand the point which is not a bad one but I would suggest that human beings cannot effectively turn away from sin and addiction. (Except by the grace of God through the work of the Spirit.) I enjoy my sins and addictions. I have no desire or intention to turn away from them.

But – when we turn towards God… we also happen to turn away from <fill in the blank>. Does the alcoholic ever truly become free of the addiction? or does the addict develop a taste for – perhaps we can say the addict turns toward – sobriety? I am much more drawn to holiness than I am repulsed by my own sins and addictions. Repentance is more “that is how I want to be – God grant me the grace to turn that way” than “I am sick of these sins – I must turn from them”. I am not sure our prayer is so much “God give me the strength to stop sinning” as “Lord have mercy”.

When I turn on a road to head towards New Orleans I am not “turning away” from Lafayette. It is true that I am heading away from Lafayette – but that is a consequence and a result.

I could be wrong. But I appreciated the “push back” and the discussion. (And yes there are plenty of places in Holy Scripture where the imperative phrase is “stop sinning”.)

Lord have mercy.

Posted in Christian Practice, Mark, Theology | No Comments »

"Being Theologically Conservative"

Monday, April 13th, 2009

My friend Joshua (whom I get to visit when in Atlanta for Catalyst Conference) is a self-described “Socially Liberal, Theologically Conservative, Protestant” whose political views are “Very Liberal”. My intent here is not to debate or quibble with the “socially/politically liberal” part but rather to celebrate one of the most brilliant and concise descriptions of “theologically conservative” Christian faith.

He is also a great guy with an excellent family (he is a better parent than I by far) and his collection of science-fiction and fantasy books will make you cry.

(And yes he gave me permission to quote him.)

A key paragraph might be:

Also, the value of history becomes clear. “Christian” isn’t just defined by Scripture. It is defined by the people who died for the gospel in the first few centuries of the Church’s development. It is defined by the people who, 350 years after the time of Christ, selected, compiled, and edited the Scriptures that would become the Bible. It is defined, in short, by the historical identity of the Church.

Other might use the term “tradition” (or more precisely Tradition) in place of “historical identity”.

“Being Theologically Conservative” by Joshua Villines

The first point that I should probably clear up is that being theologically conservative is not the same thing as being socially conservative. Despite what Focus on the Family and other fringe groups on the axis of intolerance want you to think, Christian views on social issues have changed from generation to generation – and they’ve changed dramatically from era to era. If Christianity is defined by a particular social agenda, then there have been almost no Christians since the third century.Likewise, trying to use some form of convoluted logic to make the words of the Christian scriptures “inerrant” is not being a theological conservative. Clearly the people who wrote, compiled, and edited the Jewish and Christian scriptures didn’t think they were creating an inerrant collection of documents. They would have made them more homogeneous if they had. People who talk about biblical “inerrancy” are really just using a code word for their desire to subordinate Scripture to their social agenda; and they typically do so with people who don’t have the scholarly background to appreciate how ludicrous their claims really are (or to realize that the “inerrantists” aren’t conserving anything, they’re creating a new doctrine).

The reason that I began with the negatives, defining what “theologically conservative” is not, is that – for me – paring Christian identity down to the essentials was part of the process of defining my own role as a pastor. Through ordination, the Church entrusts to its clergy the custodianship of the Chruch’s identity; and so understanding what is “Christian” and what is not is part of a pastor’s role. Consequently, when I was ordained I realized it was important to try have a working definition of the word “Christian” if I was going to be able to do my job well.
If one takes this exercise seriously, it’s harder than it seems. On one side, there are the shrill voices of the fundamentalists. In order to place their counter-cultural assertions beyond critique, fundamentalists insist that even the most minute component of their doctrine, no matter how scant the biblical or historical support for it might be, is an essential part of being “Christian.”

On the other side are the real liberals. They claim the label Christian, while ignoring, denying, or contradicting nearly everything that Christians have historically believed – be it the deity of Christ or even the authority of God.Both extremes have kept the label “Christian” because they have positive associations with it or because it gives greater credibility to their belief systems; but in neither case is the label helpful. “Being a ‘Christian’ means understanding the world exactly the way I do, even if I don’t realize that the way I understand the world is very different from how Christians have historically understood it!” is not a useful definition. Nor is, “Being a ‘Christian’ can really mean anything as long as you include the word ‘Jesus’ in there somewhere.”

But with so many groups offering so many different, and contradictory, understandings of what it means to be a Christian, where can one turn? For me, the logical answer was (and is): Scripture and History.

(more…)

Posted in Christianity, Education, Personal, Sabbath, Theology | No Comments »

SERMON – "(Not just eat but) Chew your Bible" (Psalm 1)

Monday, November 10th, 2008

Richard M. Wright
“(Not just eat but) Chew your Bible”
Psalm 1
Church of the Nations
October 26, 2008
30th Sunday Ordinary Time (A)

Well – we are out of food. So what will we eat now?

The first days after Hurricane Gustav when we have no electricity. For the first two days not a problem. We cook what we have in the refrigerator and the freezer. Hot dogs and hamburgers and eggs and pancakes.

And then we begin to run out of food. And out of ice. And we cannot get any more from the grocery store because they do not have electricity either. No power – no food.

So what will we eat now?

Two people in our church family who live at Tiger Towers tell me how for two days that eat – are you ready for this? – they eat their Bible.

Oh really? You mean cook it on the grill? Chop it up with vegetables and use it to make dumplings? What spices do they use? How does it taste?

Let me explain.

Our Bible reading for this morning is chapter one of the book of Psalms. The translation that we read together is my translation.

Blessed is – or more literally the blessings of – the person who does not walk in the advice of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of those who make fun (of God). But instead his delight is in the teaching of the Lord and on his teaching he meditates? recites? chews day and night.

That verse – but instead his delight is in the teaching of the Lord and on his teaching he meditates, recited, chews day and night – is where I want us to focus our attention. We will come back to this.

It is the first chapter and therefore introduces the book of Psalms which is one of the most important books of the Bible. Most of the Bible is God speaks to the world to his people to us or the story of what God speaks to the world to his people to us. “This is what God says to you. This is what God said to them.”

Most of the Bible is what God says to human beings. But the book of Psalms is what human beings say to God. People in Church of the Nations often ask me how do I pray? What words do I use? And here we are in Sunday morning worship. We can also ask how do we worship? What words do we use?

Usually when we learn a new language we use a textbook. I have many language textbook in my office for French German Hebrew Greek Arabic and so on. Is there a textbook to help us learn how to speak to God? For how to worship? For how to pray?

The book of Psalms is our primary textbook for the language of prayer and praise. Let me say that again and I ask you to write this down and remember it. The book of Psalms is our primary textbook for the language of prayer and praise.

And our Bible reading for this morning the book of Psalms chapter one is the opening chapter the chapter that introduces us into the book of Psalms. And what does it say?

The blessed person – the one who is just – his delight is in the teaching of the Lord and on his teaching he meditates / recites / chews day and night.

Two words are especially important. In Hebrew the word torah and the verb haga(h). His delight is in the Torah of the Lord. This word torah can have many meanings. English Bibles usually translate torah as law but a better translation is teaching. It can mean just the first five books of the Bible – Genesis through Deuteronomy. It can mean the Bible as a whole. And since the book of Psalms is divided into five different sections – just like the Torah the first five books of the Bible – there is a sense in which Psalm one invites us to see the book of Psalms as a kind of Torah.

Blessed is the person whose delight is in the teaching of the Lord in the Torah of the Lord in the Bible of the Lord in the book of Psalms of the Lord.

And on his teaching he haga(h) day and night. This verb haga(h) also has many meanings. It can mean to meditate. It can mean to recite – to speak the words to say them over and over. And there are a few places in the Old Testament where haga(h) means the noise that an animal makes when it enjoys its food. That sort of growl moan hrum hrum we make when we chew taste eat something so delicious that we cannot be quiet we make noises of delight like when we enjoy our favorite food in the whole world.

Blessed is the person who enjoys the teaching Torah Bible Psalms so much he speaks the words she spends time thinking about she chews and tastes and eats the words of God day and night.

Eugene Peterson is a Christian pastor and a writer who wrote a book called Eat This Book: A Conversation in the Art of Spiritual Reading. He invites us not only to read the Bible – like you read a novel or read an article for your research for information. He invites us not only to study the Bible – like you study a textbook for a class you are taking. But to eat – no not just eat but to chew – the Bible. Taste it. Let it enter you so that just like we are what we eat the words of the Bible the teachings of God the language of prayer and praise becomes part of who we are the chemistry not just of our bodies but the chemistry of our souls the chemistry of our lives we become like walking Bibles the teachings of God come to life that people can see hear touch experience.

This is why I cannot imagine prayer without a psalm. Why I cannot imagine a worship gathering without a psalm. Why I can imagine that two Chinese men in a hot dark apartment without electricity because of a hurricane can spend two days eating their Bible.

Posted in Hebrew Bible, Lectio divina (holy reading), Sermons | 2 Comments »

Cal Thomas – conservative Christians just might try to imitate Jesus instead

Friday, November 7th, 2008

That is my not Cal’s title for the column.

There has been much handwringing (what a great word) and debate the last few days concerning the Republican party and why it lost so badly this week (not just the presidential election but many others) and gee maybe it needs to get rid of the social issues elements of its platform. There has been a particularly thorough and dynamic discussion of this at Baptistlife.com.

Cal Thomas is pretty darn conservative theologically and politically – but he is remarkably consistent in telling conservative Christians not to see political power as a means to advancing(?) the kingdom of God(?):

Thirty years of trying to use government to stop abortion, preserve opposite-sex marriage, improve television and movie content and transform culture into the conservative Evangelical image has failed. The question now becomes: should conservative Christians redouble their efforts, contributing more millions to radio and TV preachers and activists, or would they be wise to try something else?

I opt for trying something else.

Too many conservative Evangelicals have put too much faith in the power of government to transform culture. The futility inherent in such misplaced faith can be demonstrated by asking these activists a simple question: Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards? Of course they do not. Why, then, would conservative Evangelicals expect people who do not share their worldview and view of God to accept their beliefs when they control government?

Read the whole thing here. You do not have to register.

I would quibble slightly with his question about the secular left – surely the secular left does as a matter of fact try to use political power to change attitudes as well as behavior. The Episcopal Church illustrates this well. What they ask for as optional quickly becomes mandatory.

But the point is still well made and taken. Thomas does not say conservative (a terrible word in this context – what do we mean by conservative?) evangelical Christians should not care about marriage or unborn human beings or the like:

[D]o conservative Evangelicals want to feel good, or do they want to adopt a strategy that actually produces results? Clearly partisan politics have not achieved their objectives. Do they think they can succeed by committing themselves to 30 more years of the same?

If results are what conservative Evangelicals want, they already have a model. It is contained in the life and commands of Jesus of Nazareth.

One can I believe overstate the distinction between “moral issue” and “governance issue”. Surely there is always some moral dimension to governing. But still – is it all about who controls Washington? Or is it about following Jesus Christ the son of God who strangely enough did not want people to make him king.

Posted in Christian Practice, Media, Politics, Society and Culture | No Comments »

BabyBlueCafe – "How Blended Worship Builds Community"

Tuesday, September 16th, 2008

BabyBlueCafe is a thoughtful blog by an Anglican who lives in northern Virginia(?). She is on my short list when it comes to intelligent commentary on religious happenings particularly within Anglicanism.

From BabyBlue’s fine and thoughtful post:

So instead of catering worship services toward a particular style (and their enthusiasts), at Truro we aimed at excellence in worship that drew from all the styles – from the magnificent organ compositions of Bach, to the transcendent hymns of Charles Wesley, to the mission-minded songs by the Newsboys or Casting Crowns – it went on and on.

The first key was finding the finest scripturally-based compositions and offer them in worship with excellence, not as a performance, but as worship.

The second key was to discern how to blend it all together in one service. That took discernment and wisdom and the ability to risk.

Read the whole thing here. You do not need to register.

University Baptist Church used to have two worship “services” (even the term is problematic). Contemporary and traditional. Also known as the first and second service.

Several years ago compelling arguments were made (which I supported completely) that the first service (which had low attendance) be suspended and that the only worship service on Sunday morning become blended. Some contemporary. Some traditional. And in amounts that varied from week to week. Groovy.

About one(?) year ago – again for very good reasons things do change you know – University Baptist Church changed its approach to worship on Sunday morning again. A first traditional worship gathering. (Notice the terminology.) And a second emerging worship gathering. Not contemporary partly because what we call “contemporary worship” is already dated.

I support(ed) this change strongly even though it has made it more difficult for Church of the Nations to join with University Baptist Church. For practical and emotional reasons I miss the single worship gathering (when everyone in University Baptist Church got to see who Church of the Nations is and what we do – and vice versa).

Posted in Anglicanism, Christian Practice, Religion, Worship and Liturgy | 3 Comments »

Cracks in the Plating – Isaiah 56

Sunday, August 17th, 2008

There has been an exchange of unusual quality over at TitusOneNine concerning the issue of same-sex relations and the classic “shellfish” argument. By this I mean those who take the more “liberal” view (same-sex relations are not inherently sinful and those who engage in such – especially in “committed” relationships – should not be disqualified from ordained leadership in the church) have done a better-than-usual job of explaining and defending their view. Ross and D. C. (their monikers) have made some cogent points.

The bottom line is still this:

#67 Rick in Louisiana makes a very thoughtful reply, including among other things:

(Do those who say such also concede that the Bible never ever teaches that same-sex relations are fine? I hope so. I hope they have the honesty and intellectual rigor to say “the Bible does not support us on the matter of homosexual behavior – we just think the Bible is wrong on this point”. And to their credit some do say this.)

Yes, I’ll concede that.  When the Bible speaks explicitly about homosexuality, it always speaks against it.  You can quibble a little about definitions and cultural practices and so on, but when all is said and done, the Bible condemns homosexuality. [emphasis added]

That is not entirely correct. (And this is quibbling but the point must be made.) The Bible does not condemn “homosexual-ity” but more precisely same-sex relations. (The Bible does not condemn heterosexual-ity but does have some things to say about adultery.)

I occasionally discern in Scripture… I am not sure quite what to call them… little hints? vectors? that perhaps somehow – exactly how we might debate – those who (a) experience same-sex attraction or more precisely (and less clearly) (b) engage in same-sex relations just might somehow be welcome in the covenant community.

Cracks in the plating. The metal plating of my conviction(s).

To whit check out Isaiah 56:4-5:

For this is what the LORD says: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant– 5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off.

The passage as a whole is about how those who have been excluded from the covenant community (or people of God) will no longer be excluded. This includes (a) foreigners and (b) eunuchs. Focus on eunuchs for a moment. Men who (looking back at the Torah) have had testicles and/or penis removed. Sexually… damaged? Such that among other things they cannot produce children.

We might legitimately (and perhaps correctly) note that eunuchs are not the same thing as homosexuals (again to be more precise those who experience and act upon same-sex attraction). Eunuchs do not engage in same-sex relations. They do not normally engage in any kind of sexual relations. But I could not help but think of gay-lesbian-bisexual persons when I read this text. And more importantly note the vector of the prophecy. That those who have been excluded will one day be included.

This is not the only time or place I have noticed a verse or two that just might subvert the larger sexual ethic. I do not deny or reject the sexual ethic. But honesty requires me to note those places where at least I pause and wonder.

Posted in Bible, Christian Practice, Hebrew Bible, Sexuality | No Comments »

« Older Entries