It seems to me that no matter how thoroughly the DOD committee reviews the historical records, or how "balanced" it presents its results, or how pure its motives are towards some form of reconciliation, the exercise itself will inevitably be some form of historical revisionism.
As such it seems short-sighted to focus on the DOD. Perhaps it was fact that the papal bulls articulated some sort of rationalization for the obvious exercise of raw power in the subjugation of indigenous peoples in the new world. It gives us something to argue with, some words to declare true or false.
But we should not be under any illusion that the treatment of indigenous people in the Americas was any different than the treatment of any people who somehow stood in the path of a powerful conqueror. Neither should we be under any illusion that the historical record of such events would have ever been written to make the victors look bad. That's what it means to be the victor: you get to be in charge of the narrative of what happened.
That the version of the narrative written by the victors reads different from the version written by the victims goes without saying. That the experience of those who won felt different from the experience of those who lost goes without saying.
It so happens that the DOD makes for a convenient starting point. At this particular moment in history the stage was set for indigenous people in the Americas to fall victim to the all-powerful Europeans. But any historical revisionist worthy of the name would not stop there. Where did those "indigenous" people come from? And how many less fortunate tribes were slaughtered in their path as they migrated from Asia, via the Bering peninsula, and into their new world?
The bible itself tells many stories of how God's people were able to settle the land of Canaan after they returned from Egypt. But how would the story of Jericho read from the point of view of its former residents? (not to mention the point of view of the citizens of the city of Ai) Or the story of Samson, from the point of view of the Philistines?
Historical revisionism is a tricky task for those who believe in the sovereignty of God. On the one hand we want to believe that history is the story of God working out His plan to redeem the entire world, and we point to the Assyrians, the Egyptians and the Babylonians in biblical times to prove our point. On the other hand we want to sit in judgment of whatever more contemporary demographic realignments happened. The spread of Christianity using the roads of the Roman empire was good, even though many indigenous slaves died building those roads. The crusades were bad because it set the stage for our present Middle East conflict. But getting the Moors out of Spain was good for it opened the way for.....wait for it.......the Spanish inquisition, which was bad.
And therein lies another pitfall of historical revisionism: it is altogether too much like Monday Morning quarter backing. It has the feel of people who had no say in the game creating the illusion of power by declaring how the game should have been played.
It is also said that those who ignore history are more likely to repeat it. Perhaps we do well to learn of the consequences of our interventions in other people's lives, but only if we are prepared to adjust our present actions in the light of our findings. What does it mean to respect and affirm indigenous cultures today? What sorts of interventions are intrusive, and even hostile and destructive? What is being taught at Calvin Seminary today about cross-cultural ministry? How much does God want "them" to change, ....... and how much does God want "us" to change?
It is not likely that the departing pastor woke up one day, and said to himself: "I think I'll start a new church down the street". If we want to be proactive about this problem, perhaps we have to look into new ways to mentor pastors, or recapture the intent behind an old concept: classical church visitation. Creating safe spaces for people to talk together may help prevent the sort of divorces of which you speak.
....or the visitors could listen to the pain felt by all parties involved, and encourage dialogue and mutual understanding, which may, in the end, bear witness to the hope that is within us, that reconciliation is possible, and love wins...
There is so much joy and gratitude in your report, and I appreciate the spirit with which you wrote it.
It is therefore with great reluctance that I further inquire into what this means.
Another great international business consultant, John Vandonk, once said that we report what we want to see, and what we see is not necessarily what truly is.
Without testing, I would hypothesize that reported attendance figures for any daily Vacation Bible School are approximately 20% higher then the actual attendance. We want it to be true.
Could you offer a died in the wool cynic such as myself any reassurances that the numbers you cite are somewhat close to reality? Because if they are, this news deserves much greater publicity than a little blog tucked away on the CRCNA network website.
On the other hand, if the numbers you cite were generated by the same models that predict the rising and lowering of the oceans, there may not be enough consensus about your numbers to start the celebration.
I suspect that the same question could be raised in any assembly of our denomination, from consistories to synod. Consistories can become so staff focused so as to lose sight of the membership, and when synods contemplate how to solve global warming it is easy to lose sight of the needs of local congregations. Who we seek to serve is always a relevant question.
First a question: who is the introverted CPE student, Staci or Alissa? Since that was unclear, my personal response to a very personal post will need to be addressed:
To whom it may concern :)
I really appreciated your candid sharing of the challenge you felt when forced to be outside your comfort zone. My own CPE experience, now almost 40 years ago, was similar in that I, an extrovert, had been placed (deliberately, it turned out) in a wing of the psychiatric hospital occupied with mostly elderly, non-verbal, senile patients, where my excellent verbal skills were of little or no use. My best pastoral presence required quietly holding someone's hand, supporting someone walking down a hospital hallway, or helping to spoon feed someone no longer able to feed himself. You might have felt right at home there, but a full day of this left me "exhausted, anxious, and grouchy".
And therein lies the professional pastor's conundrum. Because it is a rare pastoral position where we always get to decide which type of pastoral interaction we need to be engaged in. In fact, it is a rare personal relationship where we are permitted to always operate within our comfort zone. For me, it will always be a challenge to "shut up and just listen". For you, it appears to be a challenge to verbally interact, face to face, with the people around you.
I appreciate that in your post you underscored that even in our conversations with God our personality style is revealed. Over time God has proven Himself quite patient, listening to my verbal meandering, but at times He has found it necessary to use drastic measures to get me to shut up and listen. I won't go into the details, but it wasn't pretty.
I also appreciate that God can get through to you in ways other than verbal. God is pretty cool that way! And I am sure that there are many people who would greatly appreciate your soothing, quiet presence at a time when in every other way they are surrounded by chaos and turmoil.
But what of the people who need you to say something, or even to have a Crucial Conversation with you, at the end of what for you already was a long day of people, people, and more people? You are already exhausted. You are already beginning to feel anxious. How do you keep from sounding grouchy?
Among those who believe that the earth is at risk due to excessive man-made green house gasses there is an undeniable consensus that the science backing their perspective is conclusive. Moreover, they are fully prepared to make financial and other sacrifices to attempt to reverse the damage. They are to be commended for their commitment.
There are others who are equally convinced that there is no credible scientific evidence that any economic sacrifice will in any way mitigate whatever climate changes may or may not be taking place in the foreseeable future, and would prefer to use their resources for other worthy causes, not the least among them using the best available technology to feed a growing world population, or using all available resources to raise the standard of living of the world's poorest people by stimulating economic growth wherever possible.
In the mandate of the Climate Witness Project there are several references to the hiring of staff, and/or a communications firm to convince both ourselves and our elected representatives of the truth of what the COP21 has not yet concluded, and may, in fact, not conclude at all, ever. But, as you say, hopefully they will.
I trust you realize that as you proceed to pay these witnesses you will be paying them with moneys contributed to the CRC coffers by what may well be an equal number of Global Warming believers, and those who are either not sure, or convinced that their money would be better spent in other God-glorifying ways.
Are you sure you want to use the money contributed by the latter group to convince them of something they patently do not agree with? Is that sustainable?
My guess is that when people realize that you are engaged in political lobbying AGAINST their deeply held convictions that global warming is at best questionable and at worst a hoax perpetrated on them by liars and thieves, your spigot will quickly dry up, and perhaps rightly so.
As a confessional church, our unity lies in a shared confession, and traditionally CRC'ers have gladly contributed to denomination-wide efforts that did not deviate from our shared confession. To have some of us use some of those resources to convince the rest of us of something that finds no expression in our shared confession seems contrary to the very notion of confessional unity, and as such may be ill-advised.
This is an intriguing post, as is the first response to it. It raises, again, some questions for me that I have wrestled with ever since I first took preaching classes at CTS in 1977.
The following verse serves as a background for my comments: “When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.” (Matt.7:28,29 NIV)
Were the crowds amazed because of the words themselves, or because the words were accompanied by signs and wonders?
Were the crowds amazed because Jesus spoke words that had immediate application to their lives, whereas the teachers of the law spoke in academic generalities?
Were the crowds amazed because Jesus addressed the urgent questions of their hearts and minds, whereas the teachers of the law had their own agendas?
Were the crowds amazed because Jesus structured his remarks in a manner consistent with the CTS syllabus on reformed preaching, whereas the teachers of the law seemed disrespectful of the rich traditions surrounding the preaching of the Word?
Were the crowds amazed because Jesus spoke the truth as he saw it, whereas the teachers of the law were careful to be politically correct?
Were the crowds amazed because Jesus spoke from the heart, whereas the teachers of the law had a paycheck to protect, or at least their reputation?
Were the crowds amazed because it was clear that Jesus loved them, whereas that wasn’t always self-evident with the teachers of the law?
Were the crowds amazed only at Jesus, or did they appreciate anyone who was somehow able to share the hope that was within him/her?
Were the crowds amazed because Jesus had a compelling message, whereas the teachers of the law seemed indifferent to the impact of their words?
Were the crowds amazed because Jesus was just more entertaining than everyone else, and the teachers of the law were more like “regular programming”?
Were the crowds amazed because Jesus was able to work them into a Hitleresque frenzy, whereas the teachers of the law turned boring after a few minutes?
Were the crowds amazed because somehow they sensed that the words Jesus spoke came from God, whereas the teachers of the law merely revealed which school they had attended?
And, finally, would Jesus be able to draw a crowd today?
A few more questions…
What, exactly, do we think we are doing when we teach students how to preach?
What are we inserting into them that wasn’t there before?
What enables a person to “be ready to share the hope that is within you?”
At what point does a person become a suitable conduit to be used by God to communicate with earthlings?
Who decides when a person is ready to be used by God in such a manner, and based on what criteria?
Who or what are we protecting when we limit access to our pulpits to those who have demonstrated that they conform to a certain standard?
Are earthlings better off when they are protected from people who humbly share the hope that is within them, all the while revealing deep love for the listeners.
Should we require those who stand up at AA meetings to talk about learning to live life with their higher power to have classical approval?
Is God somehow more pleased when men stand up in front of a crowd and “speak knowingly about God and God’s ways with earthlings”? (see Job 42)
Is preaching overrated?
Perhaps the time has come for the Church to hand the keys of the Kingdom back to God. Do we really know enough about the mystery of God and His unfathomable ways with earthlings in order to handle those keys with integrity?
I very much appreciate the tone and intent of this conversation. It seems like we are looking for ways to be inclusive, while at the same time wanting to draw a line between who's in and who's out. We want to know what it means to belong, and we want to be somewhat clear about some sort of communal identity.
Dan, you mentioned pharisaism. What came to my mind is the line: "Thank you, God, that you did not make me like so-and-so". There's that line again. In Jesus' story such line-thinking was juxtaposed with a posture held by all who realize their position vis-a-vis Creator-God: "Have mercy on me, a sinner. I am not worthy to be in your presence".
What if it is not so much about what we know, but about that we are known?
What if it is not so much about "we hold these truths", as it is about that we are held in the palm of the hand of a loving God.
What if it is more important to love than to be right?
What if God were very pleased that we worship Him for graciously providing for our every need, and invite others to worship Him with us, and not quite so pleased when we worship Him for making us "distinctly Reformed"?
When it comes to who's in versus who's out thinking I agree with Richard Rohr, who says that the church's preoccupation with membership may well have been its greatest failure.
What if all of us concentrated on informing the world that all are in: God loves all. God's grace is extended to all. Jesus died for all. God's providence holds all. Come, believe, participate, connect, grow, love, serve.
What if the only really significant line is the line between those whose eyes have been opened by the Spirit of God to the reality of God's love, and those who are still in the dark? And what if our only responsibility as a church is to live with our eyes wide open, loving, praising and worshiping God in everything we do, and let the Holy Spirit worry about opening more eyes?
What if we could appreciate any and all differences among denominations, worship styles, emphases, as simply different ways in which different communities respond to God with their newly opened eyes?
Richard Rohr, a franciscan contemplative author and speaker, put on a conference entitled: "Prophets then, prophets now". there are audio recordings of the lectures which you may find helpful. I tried to include a link in this post, but that didn't work. Just google richard rohr and prophet and it will show up
Whenever tensions arise between certain interest groups in our local church and the church’s leadership, the leaders are often quick to point out that the church is not a democracy, where leadership reflects the will of the people, but a theocracy where leaders lead on behalf of Christ, the head of the church.
Naturally, this presupposes that church leaders are particularly in tune with Christ’s will for His church. When there are indications that such is not the case (usually not that difficult to document, and often admitted to by church leaders from the outset), the usual fall-back position is that while church leaders are fallen, and even broken human beings, their authority still stands, presumably based on the authority of the ecclesiastical office (ex-officio).
In sharp contrast to that is the reality that God indwells individual people with His Spirit, and that this results in spiritual gifts, including gifts of discernment, teaching, leadership, and even prophecy (here defined as speaking on behalf of God).
Historical examples of this tension between spiritual discernment and God-ordained leadership should include Nathan speaking to King David about his affair with Bathsheba, Jesus speaking to the Pharisees about living according to the Law of Moses, and Luther speaking to the pope about creating a new path to heaven by way of purchasing indulgences.
It appears, then, that if ours is really Christ’s church, and Christ cares about what the church is and does, then the question of what kind of human leadership is needed, in order for Christ’s vision for the church to be realized here on earth, is still somewhat of an open question.
Even if we limit ourselves to examples from the Bible, does the preponderance of evidence point us towards the efficacy of divinely appointed offices (whether they be priests, kings, judges, etc)? Or to spiritual wisdom, as resulting from direct intervention by the Holy Spirit, at a particular moment in time in the life of a specific individual, leading that individual to speak truth to power, or to speak pastorally to God’s people in times of specific need?
And even if we resort to our usual strategy of equivocating, allowing for both/and to be operative in the church today, then how do they work in tandem? Do they work in their own unique realm? Divine office people doing divine office things, and spirit-led prophets speaking prophetically in their own little prophet world? And never the two shall meet?
Posted in: Ask for the Ancient Paths
I plan to walk the Camino de Santiago in September. Does that count?
https://m.facebook.com/BuenCamino2016/
Posted in: Why the Church Should Pay Attention to the DOD Task Force
It seems to me that no matter how thoroughly the DOD committee reviews the historical records, or how "balanced" it presents its results, or how pure its motives are towards some form of reconciliation, the exercise itself will inevitably be some form of historical revisionism.
As such it seems short-sighted to focus on the DOD. Perhaps it was fact that the papal bulls articulated some sort of rationalization for the obvious exercise of raw power in the subjugation of indigenous peoples in the new world. It gives us something to argue with, some words to declare true or false.
But we should not be under any illusion that the treatment of indigenous people in the Americas was any different than the treatment of any people who somehow stood in the path of a powerful conqueror. Neither should we be under any illusion that the historical record of such events would have ever been written to make the victors look bad. That's what it means to be the victor: you get to be in charge of the narrative of what happened.
That the version of the narrative written by the victors reads different from the version written by the victims goes without saying. That the experience of those who won felt different from the experience of those who lost goes without saying.
It so happens that the DOD makes for a convenient starting point. At this particular moment in history the stage was set for indigenous people in the Americas to fall victim to the all-powerful Europeans. But any historical revisionist worthy of the name would not stop there. Where did those "indigenous" people come from? And how many less fortunate tribes were slaughtered in their path as they migrated from Asia, via the Bering peninsula, and into their new world?
The bible itself tells many stories of how God's people were able to settle the land of Canaan after they returned from Egypt. But how would the story of Jericho read from the point of view of its former residents? (not to mention the point of view of the citizens of the city of Ai) Or the story of Samson, from the point of view of the Philistines?
Historical revisionism is a tricky task for those who believe in the sovereignty of God. On the one hand we want to believe that history is the story of God working out His plan to redeem the entire world, and we point to the Assyrians, the Egyptians and the Babylonians in biblical times to prove our point. On the other hand we want to sit in judgment of whatever more contemporary demographic realignments happened. The spread of Christianity using the roads of the Roman empire was good, even though many indigenous slaves died building those roads. The crusades were bad because it set the stage for our present Middle East conflict. But getting the Moors out of Spain was good for it opened the way for.....wait for it.......the Spanish inquisition, which was bad.
And therein lies another pitfall of historical revisionism: it is altogether too much like Monday Morning quarter backing. It has the feel of people who had no say in the game creating the illusion of power by declaring how the game should have been played.
It is also said that those who ignore history are more likely to repeat it. Perhaps we do well to learn of the consequences of our interventions in other people's lives, but only if we are prepared to adjust our present actions in the light of our findings. What does it mean to respect and affirm indigenous cultures today? What sorts of interventions are intrusive, and even hostile and destructive? What is being taught at Calvin Seminary today about cross-cultural ministry? How much does God want "them" to change, ....... and how much does God want "us" to change?
Just asking
John Vandonk
Posted in: Time for Non-Compete Clauses for Clergy?
It is not likely that the departing pastor woke up one day, and said to himself: "I think I'll start a new church down the street". If we want to be proactive about this problem, perhaps we have to look into new ways to mentor pastors, or recapture the intent behind an old concept: classical church visitation. Creating safe spaces for people to talk together may help prevent the sort of divorces of which you speak.
Posted in: Time for Non-Compete Clauses for Clergy?
....or the visitors could listen to the pain felt by all parties involved, and encourage dialogue and mutual understanding, which may, in the end, bear witness to the hope that is within us, that reconciliation is possible, and love wins...
Posted in: Pro-Life Series: I Was Proven Wrong
Peter,
There is so much joy and gratitude in your report, and I appreciate the spirit with which you wrote it.
It is therefore with great reluctance that I further inquire into what this means.
Another great international business consultant, John Vandonk, once said that we report what we want to see, and what we see is not necessarily what truly is.
Without testing, I would hypothesize that reported attendance figures for any daily Vacation Bible School are approximately 20% higher then the actual attendance. We want it to be true.
Could you offer a died in the wool cynic such as myself any reassurances that the numbers you cite are somewhat close to reality? Because if they are, this news deserves much greater publicity than a little blog tucked away on the CRCNA network website.
On the other hand, if the numbers you cite were generated by the same models that predict the rising and lowering of the oceans, there may not be enough consensus about your numbers to start the celebration.
Peter, I believe, help my unbelief.
Posted in: Who Does Classis Serve?
I suspect that the same question could be raised in any assembly of our denomination, from consistories to synod. Consistories can become so staff focused so as to lose sight of the membership, and when synods contemplate how to solve global warming it is easy to lose sight of the needs of local congregations. Who we seek to serve is always a relevant question.
Posted in: Beyond Words
First a question: who is the introverted CPE student, Staci or Alissa? Since that was unclear, my personal response to a very personal post will need to be addressed:
To whom it may concern :)
I really appreciated your candid sharing of the challenge you felt when forced to be outside your comfort zone. My own CPE experience, now almost 40 years ago, was similar in that I, an extrovert, had been placed (deliberately, it turned out) in a wing of the psychiatric hospital occupied with mostly elderly, non-verbal, senile patients, where my excellent verbal skills were of little or no use. My best pastoral presence required quietly holding someone's hand, supporting someone walking down a hospital hallway, or helping to spoon feed someone no longer able to feed himself. You might have felt right at home there, but a full day of this left me "exhausted, anxious, and grouchy".
And therein lies the professional pastor's conundrum. Because it is a rare pastoral position where we always get to decide which type of pastoral interaction we need to be engaged in. In fact, it is a rare personal relationship where we are permitted to always operate within our comfort zone. For me, it will always be a challenge to "shut up and just listen". For you, it appears to be a challenge to verbally interact, face to face, with the people around you.
I appreciate that in your post you underscored that even in our conversations with God our personality style is revealed. Over time God has proven Himself quite patient, listening to my verbal meandering, but at times He has found it necessary to use drastic measures to get me to shut up and listen. I won't go into the details, but it wasn't pretty.
I also appreciate that God can get through to you in ways other than verbal. God is pretty cool that way! And I am sure that there are many people who would greatly appreciate your soothing, quiet presence at a time when in every other way they are surrounded by chaos and turmoil.
But what of the people who need you to say something, or even to have a Crucial Conversation with you, at the end of what for you already was a long day of people, people, and more people? You are already exhausted. You are already beginning to feel anxious. How do you keep from sounding grouchy?
My wife wants to know.
Posted in: The Climate Witness Project - Christian Reformed Church in North America
Among those who believe that the earth is at risk due to excessive man-made green house gasses there is an undeniable consensus that the science backing their perspective is conclusive. Moreover, they are fully prepared to make financial and other sacrifices to attempt to reverse the damage. They are to be commended for their commitment.
There are others who are equally convinced that there is no credible scientific evidence that any economic sacrifice will in any way mitigate whatever climate changes may or may not be taking place in the foreseeable future, and would prefer to use their resources for other worthy causes, not the least among them using the best available technology to feed a growing world population, or using all available resources to raise the standard of living of the world's poorest people by stimulating economic growth wherever possible.
In the mandate of the Climate Witness Project there are several references to the hiring of staff, and/or a communications firm to convince both ourselves and our elected representatives of the truth of what the COP21 has not yet concluded, and may, in fact, not conclude at all, ever. But, as you say, hopefully they will.
I trust you realize that as you proceed to pay these witnesses you will be paying them with moneys contributed to the CRC coffers by what may well be an equal number of Global Warming believers, and those who are either not sure, or convinced that their money would be better spent in other God-glorifying ways.
Are you sure you want to use the money contributed by the latter group to convince them of something they patently do not agree with? Is that sustainable?
My guess is that when people realize that you are engaged in political lobbying AGAINST their deeply held convictions that global warming is at best questionable and at worst a hoax perpetrated on them by liars and thieves, your spigot will quickly dry up, and perhaps rightly so.
As a confessional church, our unity lies in a shared confession, and traditionally CRC'ers have gladly contributed to denomination-wide efforts that did not deviate from our shared confession. To have some of us use some of those resources to convince the rest of us of something that finds no expression in our shared confession seems contrary to the very notion of confessional unity, and as such may be ill-advised.
Posted in: Proclaiming with Humility
This is an intriguing post, as is the first response to it. It raises, again, some questions for me that I have wrestled with ever since I first took preaching classes at CTS in 1977.
The following verse serves as a background for my comments: “When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.” (Matt.7:28,29 NIV)
Were the crowds amazed because of the words themselves, or because the words were accompanied by signs and wonders?
Were the crowds amazed because Jesus spoke words that had immediate application to their lives, whereas the teachers of the law spoke in academic generalities?
Were the crowds amazed because Jesus addressed the urgent questions of their hearts and minds, whereas the teachers of the law had their own agendas?
Were the crowds amazed because Jesus structured his remarks in a manner consistent with the CTS syllabus on reformed preaching, whereas the teachers of the law seemed disrespectful of the rich traditions surrounding the preaching of the Word?
Were the crowds amazed because Jesus spoke the truth as he saw it, whereas the teachers of the law were careful to be politically correct?
Were the crowds amazed because Jesus spoke from the heart, whereas the teachers of the law had a paycheck to protect, or at least their reputation?
Were the crowds amazed because it was clear that Jesus loved them, whereas that wasn’t always self-evident with the teachers of the law?
Were the crowds amazed only at Jesus, or did they appreciate anyone who was somehow able to share the hope that was within him/her?
Were the crowds amazed because Jesus had a compelling message, whereas the teachers of the law seemed indifferent to the impact of their words?
Were the crowds amazed because Jesus was just more entertaining than everyone else, and the teachers of the law were more like “regular programming”?
Were the crowds amazed because Jesus was able to work them into a Hitleresque frenzy, whereas the teachers of the law turned boring after a few minutes?
Were the crowds amazed because somehow they sensed that the words Jesus spoke came from God, whereas the teachers of the law merely revealed which school they had attended?
And, finally, would Jesus be able to draw a crowd today?
A few more questions…
What, exactly, do we think we are doing when we teach students how to preach?
What are we inserting into them that wasn’t there before?
What enables a person to “be ready to share the hope that is within you?”
At what point does a person become a suitable conduit to be used by God to communicate with earthlings?
Who decides when a person is ready to be used by God in such a manner, and based on what criteria?
Who or what are we protecting when we limit access to our pulpits to those who have demonstrated that they conform to a certain standard?
Are earthlings better off when they are protected from people who humbly share the hope that is within them, all the while revealing deep love for the listeners.
Should we require those who stand up at AA meetings to talk about learning to live life with their higher power to have classical approval?
Is God somehow more pleased when men stand up in front of a crowd and “speak knowingly about God and God’s ways with earthlings”? (see Job 42)
Is preaching overrated?
Perhaps the time has come for the Church to hand the keys of the Kingdom back to God. Do we really know enough about the mystery of God and His unfathomable ways with earthlings in order to handle those keys with integrity?
Just askin’...
John Vandonk CTS ex 78 M.Div FTS 1980
Posted in: Embracing Purposefully Vague Theology & Doctrine
I very much appreciate the tone and intent of this conversation. It seems like we are looking for ways to be inclusive, while at the same time wanting to draw a line between who's in and who's out. We want to know what it means to belong, and we want to be somewhat clear about some sort of communal identity.
Dan, you mentioned pharisaism. What came to my mind is the line: "Thank you, God, that you did not make me like so-and-so". There's that line again. In Jesus' story such line-thinking was juxtaposed with a posture held by all who realize their position vis-a-vis Creator-God: "Have mercy on me, a sinner. I am not worthy to be in your presence".
What if it is not so much about what we know, but about that we are known?
What if it is not so much about "we hold these truths", as it is about that we are held in the palm of the hand of a loving God.
What if it is more important to love than to be right?
What if God were very pleased that we worship Him for graciously providing for our every need, and invite others to worship Him with us, and not quite so pleased when we worship Him for making us "distinctly Reformed"?
When it comes to who's in versus who's out thinking I agree with Richard Rohr, who says that the church's preoccupation with membership may well have been its greatest failure.
What if all of us concentrated on informing the world that all are in: God loves all. God's grace is extended to all. Jesus died for all. God's providence holds all. Come, believe, participate, connect, grow, love, serve.
What if the only really significant line is the line between those whose eyes have been opened by the Spirit of God to the reality of God's love, and those who are still in the dark? And what if our only responsibility as a church is to live with our eyes wide open, loving, praising and worshiping God in everything we do, and let the Holy Spirit worry about opening more eyes?
What if we could appreciate any and all differences among denominations, worship styles, emphases, as simply different ways in which different communities respond to God with their newly opened eyes?
What if................what if?
Posted in: So What Is "Prophetic"?
Richard Rohr, a franciscan contemplative author and speaker, put on a conference entitled: "Prophets then, prophets now". there are audio recordings of the lectures which you may find helpful. I tried to include a link in this post, but that didn't work. Just google richard rohr and prophet and it will show up
Posted in: So What Is "Prophetic"?
Whenever tensions arise between certain interest groups in our local church and the church’s leadership, the leaders are often quick to point out that the church is not a democracy, where leadership reflects the will of the people, but a theocracy where leaders lead on behalf of Christ, the head of the church.
Naturally, this presupposes that church leaders are particularly in tune with Christ’s will for His church. When there are indications that such is not the case (usually not that difficult to document, and often admitted to by church leaders from the outset), the usual fall-back position is that while church leaders are fallen, and even broken human beings, their authority still stands, presumably based on the authority of the ecclesiastical office (ex-officio).
In sharp contrast to that is the reality that God indwells individual people with His Spirit, and that this results in spiritual gifts, including gifts of discernment, teaching, leadership, and even prophecy (here defined as speaking on behalf of God).
Historical examples of this tension between spiritual discernment and God-ordained leadership should include Nathan speaking to King David about his affair with Bathsheba, Jesus speaking to the Pharisees about living according to the Law of Moses, and Luther speaking to the pope about creating a new path to heaven by way of purchasing indulgences.
It appears, then, that if ours is really Christ’s church, and Christ cares about what the church is and does, then the question of what kind of human leadership is needed, in order for Christ’s vision for the church to be realized here on earth, is still somewhat of an open question.
Even if we limit ourselves to examples from the Bible, does the preponderance of evidence point us towards the efficacy of divinely appointed offices (whether they be priests, kings, judges, etc)? Or to spiritual wisdom, as resulting from direct intervention by the Holy Spirit, at a particular moment in time in the life of a specific individual, leading that individual to speak truth to power, or to speak pastorally to God’s people in times of specific need?
And even if we resort to our usual strategy of equivocating, allowing for both/and to be operative in the church today, then how do they work in tandem? Do they work in their own unique realm? Divine office people doing divine office things, and spirit-led prophets speaking prophetically in their own little prophet world? And never the two shall meet?
Just asking….