Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
– W. B. Yeats

"White Crucifixion" by Marc Chagall

“Depressing”.

I have been seeing and hearing that word more frequently in reference to our current social-cultural-political condition. The other day was driving back to the church office after attempting to visit a woman whose husband had fallen asleep in the Lord the day before. Thinking about what is going on in the world but especially in our nation. And seriously wondering “is this what the beginning of the end looks like?”

How many could imagine 10 years ago that this is where we would be now?

Previous posts have expressed concern about expressing political opinions on this website. There is nothing inherently wrong with Christian citizens expressing their views on social-cultural-political issues. There are some who do it very well. From January 2009:

I am supposed to be a pastor. I do not equate the Christian faith with political conservatism or the Republican party. What of the things of God that transcend our current historical and political circumstances?

Which is a dangerous and possibly a deeply flawed question. Perhaps better to ask, What does God call us to do and who does God call us to be in and during such circumstances? (link added)

Yes I am an American citizen. Who is deeply troubled by what is happening around us. I am concerned on behalf of my family – in what kind of America will my children live? – on behalf of my fellow citizens and even on behalf of the people of the other nations of the world.

One might legitimately ask “what does this have to do with the Christian life? and the mission of the Christian church?” Let me put it to you this way dear readers. How much more difficult will it become during the next few decades to proclaim the teachings of the Christian faith? to practice the Christian life? to engage in Christian mission?

Let me be more specific.

Start with money and budgets.

Severe economic recession means less people work or people work less and/or people have less on which to live. Which also means they are less able to contribute to the ministry and mission of the Christian church. I am concerned about how the moratorium on offshore drilling will affect Louisiana as a whole and University Baptist Church in particular.

I hesitate to attempt to list some of what I see happening to our nation:

• Our nation is becoming increasingly divided and polarized along several different lines.
• Racial relations are arguably the worst they have been in 20-30 years.
• We have trillion-plus dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.
• We have an increasingly unsustainable national debt that will weigh down our economy for decades.
• We have the highest unemployment levels in decades.
• We have a national government that has effectively taken over huge portions of the American economy.
• Let us be specific. (1) Healthcare (2) Finance and banking (3) Energy. There may be others.
• We have a national government that in attempting to address a genuine problem makes it far worse.
• We have a national government that is attempting to take primary control of secondary education.
• We have a national government that makes it increasingly difficult for small businesses to succeed.
• We have a national government that to a large extent chooses winners and losers in the economy.
• We have a national government that increasingly rewards failure and punishes success.
• We have a national government that increasingly transfers wealth from those who invest and produce to those who do not.
• We have a national government that does not follow its own rules and procedures.
• We have a national government that tells the American people one thing but practices another.
• We have an administration that increasingly exercises power outside the limits set by the Constitution.
• We have an administration that attempts to marginalize political dissent.
• We have a national government that does not demonstrate basic reverence. That right there might be the most serious problem that gives rise to most of the others.
• We have an administration that alienates our friends and allies and attempts to placate nations traditionally hostile to the United States.
• We have an administration that appears unwilling to understand and confront terrorism motivated by radical Islam.
• We have an administration that uses genuine crises as bargaining chips for making changes in domestic policy.
• We have an administration that is openly hostile toward states that are attempting to protect the well being of their own people.
• We have a president who consistently misrepresents principled disagreements with his policies.
• We have a president who attacks those who disagree with him precisely when they for reasons of propriety are unable to respond.
• We have a Mainstream Media that subordinates journalism to political activism.
• We have a Mainstream Media that keeps some news from the American people and distorts what news it does report.
• What have an entertainment industry that is openly hostile toward most Americans and the values they hold.
• We have a large percentage of the African-American community suffering the destructive effects of policies promulgated by the very people they support with their votes.

And so on and so on and so on. (Ed – I will work on providing links for many of the points listed above.)

But there are two thoughts that occur to me.

First – why do I have to be the person who keeps up with and writes about these issues? I should trust others to do this. And trust that what they write will not go unread. As a Christian pastor I may read about care about and have strong opinions about these issues. But they are not my primary responsibility. Do I have a “right” to write about social-cultural-political issues? Yes. But I need to trust that other people will do that.

With one qualification. I will keep the links and newsfeeds. Even expand them.  Precisely so that the important things other people write are more likely to be noticed read and cited.

Second – no matter how much “things fall apart” around us do we trust God? Do we trust that God will guide? protect? provide for us during such times? The vast majority of the people of God for the vast majority of human history have had to live in and through far worse. The argument can be made that it is during the worst times that the Christian church shines brightest.

So as difficult as it is – and I ask for your prayers and support and encouragement in this – I will attempt to shift the focus on this website back to what it was originally meant to be.

• Christian theology and practice. Which means many different kinds of things including sermons and Bible studies and reflections.
• Fun and personal stuff. Which means many different kinds of things including book and movie reviews as well as posts about music and literature which are areas of interest.

I was planning on neatly contradicting myself with a few “parting shots”. A few points I wanted to make before – by the grace of God – getting away from social-cultural-political commentary. About Journolist. About how “our” side is not allowed to make any mistakes at all while the “other” side never holds itself accountable for a plethora of failures. About Andrew Breitbart. About the whole Shirley Sherrod debacle. About who truly is primarily responsible for the sudden rapid disintegration of race relations. About President Obama as a Marxist-Leninist.

But I will trust God by trusting him to inspire others to address these points.

East Shanghai Church

Complicated. Changing. Encouraging.

Those three words encapsulate what Chinese Christians shared with me concerning religious freedom and the state of the Christian church in China.

The third of my three goals for the trip through China was to observe first hand just what is going on in China with religious freedom in general and the Christian movement in particular. For years I have not been able to get a clear and consistent picture. On the one hand I hear horror stories about Christians being persecuted. About the underground church. Secret missionaries. But on the other hand most Chinese people who participate in Church of the Nations never mention any of this. As if being a Christian is not a big deal. Unless one is a member of the Communist Party and/or works for the government or a university. And then one has to keep a low profile. There have been several Chinese people over the last eleven years who have said “I would like to become a Christian but I cannot because of my work and position back home”. A few have been baptized secretly – no non-Christian internationals told or invited.

So which is it? Is it difficult to be a Christian in China or not? And which narrative is more accurate? The “suffering persecuted church” narrative? Or the “people can be Christians and churches can minister openly” narrative?

Let’s start with the raw data. What did I see and do?

I visited three registered churches – Three Self Patriotic Movement churches that cooperate with the Chinese government. (1) Haidian Church in Beijing. (2) A registered church in Yangling. And (3) East Shanghai Church. Oh and I should add (4) a registered church in Nanning.

I also visited or talked at length with (people in) three family churches – churches which are not registered with the Chinese government. (1′) That meets in a large apartment in north Beijing. (2′) That meets in a small apartment in north Beijing. (3′) That meets in rented space at a television studio in Beijing.

1. Haidian Church in Beijing

Haidian Church meets in a huge extremely modern building – almost does not look like a “church” and yes that is a mild criticism. They have several worship services to accommodate 3000+ members. We arrived half way through a Chinese service and tried one of the overflow rooms (where people watch and participate by video feed from the main sanctuary). There was no room but my friend said “this is a pastor from America who has come to visit” and they found us a couple spots. Those who came represented a good cross section of Chinese society but especially young people and university students.

We stayed also for the English language service which is led partly by Chinese and partly by English speaking foreigners. My classmate Chen Yiyi who teaches at Peking University said this is quite unusual and suggests the pastor is both clever and careful. He is able to work with the Chinese government so effectively that Haidian Church is able to do things that normally the government would not permit.  About half the congregation was Chinese (especially young and university people) and the other half foreigners (mostly Americans). The style of worship was definitely “contemporary” and I do not mean emergent – about 10-20 years behind what one normally sees among evangelical churches in the United States. The sermon was given by a Chinese woman who speaks exceptional English. It was excellent and focused on obedience to the commandments of God.

There are several registered churches in Beijing. This sounds great. But do the math. You have several churches each of which includes maybe 3000-7000 people. In a city of 20 million. Clearly the vast majority of Beijing residents do not have ready access to a church that worships and ministers openly. What the Chinese government allows barely scratches the surface of what the Chinese people need.

Every registered church in China also functions as a bookstore. This is where Chinese people can purchase Bibles and other basic Christian literature.

I should note my Chinese friend (who is a professor at a university) did not entirely care for Haidian Church. Her concern is that the church is so large that people can come and go without ever truly being part of the life of this church family. Whereas Church of the Nations is small enough that visitors are always noticed and welcomed. Relationships and friendships form. There is community. But this is not really a comment on registered churches – her concerns would apply to any large church in the United States. I countered that Haidian Church does offer Bible study and discipleship groups – you can choose to become involved and connected.

(1′) House church in north Beijing.

That afternoon a good friend took me to visit a house church in north Beijing. It meets in a rented apartment – with a large living room that functions as a sanctuary and holds maybe 100 people. I met and talked for 2 hours with several members of this church. Two attend a seminary in Hong Kong. One a recent convert. Plus a few others. Some spoke English.

What they tell me is that even this unregistered church can worship and minister openly. Most of the time. For the most part. There are times and circumstances when the Chinese government will give them some difficulty. Such as during the Beijing 2008 Olympic games the government said “this church is too big – you need to divide and meet in smaller groups”. And the church cannot engage in activities that are too public – such as an evangelistic event in a public park.

They were mildly critical of registered churches. Their concerns are that because registered churches must cooperate with the government there are inevitable compromises. Also there is a lack of emphasis on obedience. And accountability is almost non-existent. When I told them about the sermon that morning by Cathy Zhang at Haidian Church they were surprised and somewhat encouraged.

They did express some specific concerns about religious freedom in China. First that the Chinese government appears to be choosing sides – supporting Buddhism and even Islam. But not Christianity even though there are many more Christians than there are Buddhists or Muslims. Second that there are some Chinese who argue that Buddhism should be declared the official religion in China. Why Buddhism? Because Christianity is perceived by some as Western even American. Whereas Buddhism is not. At the time I wondered if these Chinese Christian friends were exaggerating – but later (especially in Shanxi province) I could see what they were talking about.

I asked “what message can I bring back to American Christians for you? what can we do to help you?” they mentioned a few things. Number one was the need for more and better training. There is a lack of good theological and pastoral training in China. They would like to be able to attend strong seminaries in other countries such as the United States. But that takes money. If American Christians want to help Chinese Christians receive strong training we need to work harder at providing good scholarships and financial support. And of course they asked for prayer.

Now my good friend who attended Louisiana State University is not herself a member of this house church. That evening I had dinner with her and her family at their small two bedroom apartment. An American who teaches in China joined us. He has lived in China for several years and grew up in a missionary family that served primarily in Japan. He told me quite plainly “there is no underground church in China. It’s not underground. It’s completely open”. And that there is no need to smuggle Bibles into China. People can buy Bibles openly in China and there are plenty being published to meet the need. The only reason some American pastors talk about smuggling Bibles is because they want to “play at being James Bond”. He himself is fairly active in a Three Self church in Beijing. I have seen shows on television about American Christians visiting truly underground churches – traveling in vans with curtains drawn so no one can see the Westerners within and churches that meet in caves or basements outside of town with people standing guard outside. But this American argued that such shows do not reflect the current situation.

(2) Yangling Church

Very different from the big modern expensive building full of educated people in Beijing. Not far from Northwestern A and F University. But a more humble and simple church building. Wooden benches. The restrooms are basically concrete latrines. Mostly local people and farmers. Many do not have more than a middle school education. The female pastor speaks in a strong local dialect. And yet I enjoyed this worship gathering most of all. It seemed more honest somehow.

My friends in Yangling – a university town about one hour from Xi’an – tell me that the university administration strongly and actively discourages people from participating in this local church. Indeed they warn visiting scholars against having anything to do with Christian churches when they are in the United States. Although I do see some university students and faculty.

The order of worship is interesting. At all three Three Self churches I visit the first half hour is practicing songs. There is little singing during the worship service proper. Although they sing the Apostles’ Creed. They – and I saw this in house churches – read at least one Psalm responsively (men and women alternating). The choir at Yangling Church presented a beautiful and moving rendition of Psalm 23 in song. And apparently we were there on one of two testimony Sundays. No sermon – just people going forward and sharing testimonies. Several people took pictures of videotaped parts of the worship gathering. No one seemed to mind.

(3) East Shanghai Church

East Shanghai Church - exterior

East Shanghai Church is in many ways the closest to a modern-traditional American Protestant church. Beautiful old building in excellent condition. Very well organized with plenty of ushers to help you out. Lists of rules for how to behave during worship – such as no going to the bathroom during the sermon! Traditional wooden pews in good repair. They even provided me a Chinese-English hymnal which is uber cool because now I can sing along with everyone else.

The sermon is good but mind crushingly long. After about 45 minutes I suggest we get going. Apparently she was almost done because the service ends a few minutes after we leave. Super long sermons are quite normal in China.

The friend who took me is also a university professor. She does not normally attend church. She tells me she cannot partly because of her job but mostly because of her husband who is a police officer. He cannot even be seen with me a foreigner. Exactly what kind of police work? Her husband told her “it’s better if you don’t know”. The Shanghai Expo is keeping him extraordinarily busy – maybe three days off in the last few months. My guess is he is the Chinese equivalent of a domestic security agent. Again – it seems that being a Christian is not a problem for ordinary Chinese people. But it is a problem for people in certain positions.

(4) Chonghe Church in Nanning

Apparently one of my friends in Nanning got in touch with a local church – they wanted me to come by and visit. Chonghe Church was crammed into a multi-story building on a narrow street in downtown Nanning. In many ways like a modern Baptist church in America. The sanctuary is relatively small but has a baptistry (beneath the platform – so baptism by immersion), high end sound system, projector and screen, band instruments (such as guitars and drums), and equipment so that people in overflow rooms can watch the live video feed. Part of the building is for their ministry that provides housing for elderly widows who have no children of their own to care for them.

From my journal:

Several staff. Three services with around 2000 members. Li Ping shows us around. Now head to restaurant. There we meet with two friends(?) of X_ who work for the government. Plus three people from Chonghe Church. As well as Z_. Most people do not speak English so most of the conservation revolves around me in Chinese. The two groups of other people have never met each other so it is interesting to see how government workers interact with Chinese Christians. Does not seem to be a problem. Li Ping and Xile Joy are very open and share literature with Peng and Wang.

Toward the end of dinner I ask what the Chinese Christians would like me to pass on to brothers and sisters in America. Please pray. Pray for economic development in Guangxi – one of the less developed provinces in China. For the young people. For men – most Chinese Christians are women. For Christian married couples – that they can be an example to other Chinese. For people in the government.

(2′) Small house church in Beijing

During my last Sunday in China I visit the small house church that meets in my friend’s two bedroom apartment. By small I mean six people. X_ has been studying piano. There are three other people besides her family. We sing several songs. There is prayer and Scripture reading. Her husband L_ alternates preaching with W_ who picks me up and drives me to the apartment. The sermon is a theological exposition of the first sentence of the Apostles’ Creed: I believe in God the Father Almighty maker of heaven and earth. It is one and a half hours long. Ouch. Even if you take into account Chinese and English translation still it would have been nearly an hour. After we finish I am asked to lead in the celebration of Communion. Their one year old son David participates because he has been baptized. Many house churches are strongly interested in Reformed theology. X_ and L_ have been studying Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion in Chinese translation.

(3′) Large family church in Beijing

I have been put in touch with Shaowang Church via a professor at Louisiana State University who keeps in close touch with a young man active in this church. Two years ago they bought property for 10 million yuan. But the real estate company has not allowed them to take possession – even though this costs them a substantial daily fine. Apparently the Chinese government is involved and is blocking this large house church of 1000+ from having their own property because of the significant legal implications.

If you let an unregistered church buy property – you cross a mighty big legal line.

So while the property is on hold they rent space at a government television studio. Which is interesting. My friends X_ and L_ come along because they have always wanted to see Shaowang Church and meet some of its leaders.

From my journal:

There is a gentleman standing outside. Yes? Are we looking for a place to eat? No we are here for the church. Ah then – and he tells us where to go. Apparently if we are not looking for Shaowang church he would have been less helpful.

Shaowang Church meets in the bottom floor of a television studio – with a restaurant right next door in the same building. X_ H_ finds us and we head into the worship space. The space and the service in many ways are familiar. Except for the Chinese language the order and style of worship are similar to independent/evangelical traditional/contemporary. Half of the songs are traditional translated into Chinese. The other half are recognizable “contemporary” – the term is problematic – worship songs also translated into Chinese. There are prayers. The choir sings at least once. The people recite a Psalm together – women and men alternating each verse. Women lead the worship service. There is a central screen and a projector which shows words. There is a time of open/vocal prayer where everyone stands and prays out loud at the same time – have seen this before.

Then the pastor(? later confirmed to be the pastor) comes out. Soft spoken man who appears to speak simply. Apparently this is the sermon. I ask X_ H_ if this is a good time to step out and have a chance to talk. I cannot stay for another two hour service all in Chinese.

X_ H_ is an engaging and outstanding young(?) man who speaks impeccable English with an educated British accent. Turns out he learned primarily by listening to BBC Radio as a child. Whoa. Now a journalist who writes for a well known popular Chinese magazine. The conversation that follows is exceptional. Some of what he shares is revelatory. Some confirms impressions/observations so far about religion and Christianity in China.

Perhaps in a separate document will write up what I can about the conversation. In a nutshell the situation in China is (1) complex (2) changing rapidly – he knows 25 people in his former place of work have become Christians in just the past three months and (3) generally encouraging. The government seems to be saying “we are going to grant you more freedom – but you need to wait a little bit”. He tells me it would have been no problem for me to carry and give out my church business card. Now that is remarkable and not what American pastors in Baton Rouge were telling me. Again – do we exaggerate the situation? So far that has been the case. The church in China is not entirely free. But neither – at least according to what I see and hear – does the situation match some of the horror stories one hears in the United States. Am I missing something?

He says we focus too much on the issue of who is in power rather than specific details and situations.

What can we do? What help does the Chinese church need?

• Prayer

• Training – a shortage of spiritual/theological knowledge among pastors/leaders (he quickly emphasizes that by knowledge he means faithful Christian knowledge)

• Media – by which he means journalists and writers who will (a) produce materials (devotional/spiritual literature, how to live the Christian life, and so on) and (b) promote reading of those materials. This is when Xiaolan expresses her strong interest – she has written articles and her husband is a journalist. One could add publishing/promoting Chinese translations of Christian literature as well. One of the elders is working on Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin. Dude. But is there not already one?

Concluding thoughts

So is there religious freedom in China or not? In a nutshell what I found was a high amount of freedom for Christians – so long as they did not bump into what I call the “ceiling”. The government does become much more restrictive during certain sensitive times. Shaowang Church was meeting in a public park(!) – and streaming their worship services on the internet! – until President Obama came for a visit. Then the government said “you need to get out of here” – hence the television studio.

So what to make of the “horror stories”? What to make of a June 04 2010 article by Baptist Press?

Persecution of Christians in China is still a widespread problem and an ignored topic in the secular media, said Bob Fu, president of ChinaAid, in an interview with Baptist Press.

Fu knows about persecution firsthand. He suffered for his faith in his homeland before he and his wife Heidi fled to the United States in 1997. A leader of the student democracy movement that was squelched by the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, he became a Christian the same year. In 1996, secret police discovered the Bible school he and Heidi founded and imprisoned both of them. After their release and further persecution, they escaped through Hong Kong.

Fu started ChinaAid (www.chinaaid.org) in 2002 to bring international attention to China’s repression of unregistered churches and their members.

I am unwilling to question what Fu states. Perhaps the situation is different the farther one gets from the big cities. Or in certain less developed provinces. Perhaps what Fu describes is entirely accurate but somewhat out of date. It is difficult to match this article with what I saw and heard during my journey through China.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Scripture alone is not completely helpful in this regard. Even if one limits such a search to the New Testament, the authors there wrote from very different perspectives and with different, sometimes competing, agendas. One of the reasons for the great variation in modern definitions of Christianity is that, lacking an external locus of authority, people have picked and chosen what they liked from Scripture to define Christianity.An example here is the debate over predestination versus free will. There are biblical passages that support both positions, but adherents to each camp will insist that their position is the correct, Christian view. They do this by privileging the texts which support their view, and subordinating the texts which disagree with them. As a result, they claim that they are simply “taking the Bible at face value” and “letting Scripture alone define their beliefs.” What they are really doing, however, is imposing their beliefs on Scripture.

A couple of useful things come out of this realization. The first is that lots of things that might be helpful to have in a consensus definition of Christianity (like, for instance, settling the question of predestination) can’t be included. That’s because the biblical record is too mixed. This is even true on really major questions like the mechanism of justification/salvation, and on key social issues like slavery. If one approaches Scripture honestly, allowing its authors to speak with their individual voices, it becomes clear that the basic definition of Christianity, its essential heart, must allow for a diversity of views on many theological points.

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.

In addition to the necessity of history in establishing some consensus on interpreting Scripture, a study of Christian history is essential since that is the history of the Bible. Scripture was not created ex nihilo. The same process of prayer, study, debate, and encounter with the world which produced the creeds and early doctrines of the Church is the process which produced the Christian Scriptures. The Bible did not come to be in a vacuum, and trying to interpret it outside the context which produced it is nonsensical.

And so, in my personal journey to find a working, consensus definition of Christianity, I turned to Scripture and history. Fortunately, at that point my work was really done. Christians had already worked out two beautiful, consensus statements of what it means to identify oneself as Christians: the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed. Interestingly, neither statement makes any mention of social issues or addresses the kinds of minutiae that Christians use for division and dispute these days. There was already enough history of dispute over those kinds of things that the Church knew that any statement of faith which was based on them would exclude more Christians than would include them.

Instead, the creeds focus on the heart of Christianity: a specific understanding of metaphyscial reality. This includes the preeminence of God, the deity of Jesus, the reality of the Holy Spirit, the brokenness of humanity, the need for restoration to the divine reality of God, the importance of community, and the defeat of death through the suffering, execution, and physical resurrection of Jesus, God Incarnate.It is not in its practical morality that Christianity defines itself. Lots of groups produce moral views that are nearly identical to those held by most Christians. Nor is it in its explanation of the inexplicable that Christianity defines itself. The creeds are noticeably lacking in the kind of theological specificity that modern logic craves. The holy is, by definition, “other” and undefinable.

The uniqueness of Christianity is found in its metaphysical claims, its assertions about the nature of the human condition and the reality of a holy Creator seeking a relationship with us. It is for that reality – made explicit in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus – that the martyrs gave their lives. It is that reality that Paul proclaimed on Mars Hill. It is that reality which, no matter how it is encumbered by our own agendas and weaknesses, changes lives to this day. To deny any part of those metaphysical claims is to create new set of metaphysical beliefs, essentially a new religion. If someone wishes to do so, far be it from me to stop them. Nevertheless, a new religion needs a new name. It is not “Christianity.”

To finally answer Colin’s question, I define myself as “theologically conservative” because I define the gospel – the good news of Christianity – in a way that is consistent with how Christians have historically defined it. No matter how trendy or convenient, I will not take away anything from the heart of that confession. There is a God, incarnate in Jesus, who died of necessity to restore relationship with a broken humanity, and in his resurrection is victory over death.

Nor will I add to that definition, as fundamentalists do with (ironically) their own kind of liberalism – assuming somehow that their specific, modern understanding of morality and social issues is the unique and most accurate understanding of Christianity. In so doing, they ignore both the consensus of history and the diversity of Scripture, treating both dishonestly or, at best, disingenuously.

I am theologically conservative because I believe that, to be a “Christian” means to neither add to nor subtract from the common beliefs of those who died to give the word its meaning.

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.

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.