Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christian Ministry

  • Revival, Faith Healing, and Healing Prayer

    Update (5/27/08): Before you conclude that I’m a deist and that I don’t believe in any miracles at all, please read the discussion in the comments, where, to put it briefly I affirm both healing miracles and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. These are things I accept by faith, however, whilst doubting one’s ability to prove them. Now on to the post as originally written . . .

    The whole discussion about Todd Bentley and the Lakeland Revival has led me to think back a great deal about the Brownsville Revival. There were and are a number of concerns while at the same time I don’t want to be a blanket critic. But I have personally seen people seriously hurt by the excesses that tend to accompany a mass revival movement.

    Activity involves risk, so when I give cautions about risks one should not assume that I am saying to avoid the whole movement and everyone in it because there are risks. But there are more and less risky ways of going about spiritual business.

    Let me outline my starting point first. I will likely say more about these things later. I have been called a liberal charismatic, initially by an enemy. Though I personally prefer “passionate moderate” the label does have some truth. In fact, when I presented it to my wife and a number of our friends as part of the subtitle to my book (Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Confessions of a Liberal Charismatic), they thought it fit me perfectly. So if your friends (and your wife) think the label bestowed by an enemy fits, perhaps there’s something to it. I am charismatic in the sense that I believe any gift of the Holy Spirit can be present at any time. I do not hold that God spoke more in the time of the Hebrew prophets or the apostles than he does today. I don’t believe God was more willing to heal back in those times than he is now.

    I have personally experienced some of the “manifestations” that accompany revivals–speaking in tongues (or more accurately some form of prayer language), being slain in the spirit, and so forth. I have found occasions of each experience to be very spiritually helpful. Nonetheless I started using the term “side effects” rather than “manifestations” for these things, because I think the manifestation of the Spirit is focused on ministry that is characterized by the fruit of the Spirit. Those who teach that the side effects demonstrate that the Spirit is present can lead to a great deal of hurt. I encountered people who attended Brownsville and were not slain in the Spirit who felt that they must be spiritually inferior for that reason. Many charismatic and Pentecostal churches hold that a prayer language or speaking in tongues is a necessary demonstration of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and some that it is necessary evidence for salvation.

    I may blog about some of those experiences in a later post. Right now I want to say some words on faith healing. I blogged recently about a healing service, and then yesterday healing prayer was included in a regular service of worship. Both of these services were a blessing to me just being present. That experience is detached from any physical healing that may have taken place.

    You see, I have no experience that will say that prayer, apart from the application of medical science will heal. I have seen people prayed for who went on to get better. I have observed this happen outside the predicted parameters. My own father’s recovery in 1971 was contrary to the predictions of the doctor, but in any scientific sense one must take into account the possibility that the doctor’s predictions were simply wrong.

    Further, I don’t expect to get such evidence, unless it’s accidental and comes from someone else. Why? I will never test healing prayer, laying on of hands, or any similar activity in that way. I have strong theological reason to suggest that prayer is not a substitute for medical science. One could always have a test group prayed over by faith healers, and another group offered the best medical science has to offer. My suspicion is that the first group will do much worse than the second. But I would regard it as unethical to try.

    My concern with faith healing is that the expressed expectation of the healer is going to lead the person who receives prayer to believe they are healed, or to believe that their healing will come apart from medical care. I have every reason to believe that they will probably be wrong about that. I previously related the case in which a pastor, who should have known better, told my 12 year old son who was in chemotherapy that God had told him that everyone he laid hands on and prayed for would be healed from cancer. For a 12 year old that logically meant he no longer needed to continue chemotherapy–but he did need to continue.

    I can testify that there are many things about having a child sick, for example, that go well beyond the obvious. In our case, my wife was forced to go to half-time on family medical leave. Despite having good health insurance, we piled up medical bills with the copays and deductibles. Our time was strained. Our mental energy was strained. Then someone would come along and say, “If you will just go to _____, they will pray for your son and I believe he will be healed.” If we made the decision not to go the obvious question was why we would neglect to do something that might possibly save our son’s life.

    The problem was that we had dozens of such suggestions, some from regular medicine though different from the course of treatment we had chosen with our oncologist’s advice, some from alternative medicine, and many from a spiritual perspective. We had suggestions on how to decorate his room, how to handle the water in our house, and how to organize his diet. At some point, you simply wear out from suggestions. You simply cannot do all of it, even if you want to.

    A major problem is desperation, which leads you to do anything that might help, without any concern about whether it is very likely to do so. Friends are desperate as well, and they want to help. Under these circumstances the faith healer looks pretty good. Just go get anointed with oil and hands laid on you and it’s taken care of. Well, the bottom line for many people is that it isn’t, and after that the recriminations start. I know of a family, for example, who were told by a Methodist minister that if they had had enough faith, their loved one would have been healed. If your business is spiritual, can you admit simply that God doesn’t always heal, or even do so all that frequently, or do you have to find a reason why the activity failed?

    Revival, American style, shares characteristics with American fast food. We want it to be exciting and fast. We would prefer to go to the faith healer, be declared healed, and go on our way. It certainly beats months of chemotherapy.

    But I don’t think healing prayer is primarily about that, which is why I would not test it in that way. Healing prayer is primarily about spiritual, and by extension emotional, health. The healing services I attended fed into that spiritual health by combining the prayer with worship, explicitly discussing the expectations, and doing this all in the context of a supportive praying community, the church congregation. This can be done in a mass revival service, but it is easy to miss it. Further, in the revival service there is most commonly no follow-up to help a person with their expectations. If the revival preacher or faith healer lays hands on you and you remain ill, who is going to help you deal with your expectations? I recall one young man in trouble with the Brownsville revival who talked to me about his situation. He was happy that I would listen, he said, but what he really wanted was a half hour with his own pastor, something he was unlikely to get.

    I believe that any time we put our primary focus on the physical–material wealth, physical healing, visible effects of the Spirit’s presence–we will produce many negative results. Pastors in the area of a revival need to be aware of this and be prepared to support their members. One key issue here which might need more comment: Being a blanket critic of the revival is likely to turn away the very people you could help. If you affirm a person’s desire for a touch from God, and then help them work through their expectations, you will have opportunities to provide balance for them that they are unlikely to get at a revival service. Implying that they were stupid for seeking prayer is unlikely to be helpful.

    I would describe this as the primary failing of churches in the Pensacola area during the Brownsville revival. People showed up in churches after they had accepted Christ at the revival, or church members returned to their home church after the revival service, only to hear condemnation. Discerning comment on weaknesses is necessary. Affirmation of people’s needs and of the blessings that many receive helps establish the ground. Then you can fill in the blanks and balance the imbalances where they occur.

    I have been rambling a bit, but I hope these thoughts will be of help to people in relating to revival. I’m in no way telling people not to go and experience whatever they believe God has called them to do. But the more people there are and the more excitement, the more discernment is necessary.

  • Lakeland Revival Notes

    A number of my friends have commented to me on the revival in Lakeland, Florida at Ignited Church, some positively, some with questions, and some critically. Some have seen opposition that is already represented on the web, such as you find here.

    I have not attended or watched the revival in Lakeland, and I don’t expect I will be visiting soon, though watching is more of an option. I have a pretty strong schedule of local involvement right now, and I believe that’s what I’m called to do. But for those who would like a first hand report, I asked a friend who attended meetings at Lakeland to comment.

    Rev. Perry Dalton was the pastor of Pine Forest United Methodist Church at the time I returned to faith and church back in 1994. He was pastor of Pine Forest during the time of the Brownsville Revival, and has endured a great deal of criticism at the time. (You can see my own experience relating to the Brownsville Revival in this article on my personal testimony.) He is a friend and co-author with me of the book I Want to Pray!. He has attended services at Lakeland. I asked him to provide me with some comments which he did and graciously gave me permission to quote. I will quote his comments in full.

    Please note that while comments on this post will be open, I’m neither going to defend the revival there nor will I join in any attack simply because I am not equipped to do so. The exception would be something that is based on an inappropriate theological starting point. I’m providing this comment for the benefit of my friends and other readers.

    From Perry Dalton:

    Thanks for your note. I’ll try to give you some things about my experience at Lakeland. I am getting ready to leave for NYC/UN to celebrate Israel’s 60th birthday. So it will be brief.

    My experience at Lakeland was awesome. It is nothing like Brownsville. Everything about this move of God will drive everyone’s religious spirits crazy. Nothing fits the normal church theology. God just shows up and melts people. I was sitting there enjoying the worship and heard the Holy Spirit say “You are no longer retired”. The presence of God was so powerful I could hardly stand it.

    Brownsville had more than its share of critics, but this is way beyond that. So far beyond it that the critics will not have to look for things to criticize. Todd Bentley does not preach. It just calls out healings. He will give an invitation. But the invitation is so simple and so short that it will seem inadequate and yet people make decisions every night. The invitation is simple, sweet and easy to understand.

    If you have not seen Todd, he is tattooed all over. He dresses in jeans and motorcycle shirts. His interns as he calls them are people that appear to be right off the street with no training (maybe like the disciples). But, they demonstrate that they love the Lord. Since, I have been home I have continued to tune into God TV that is broadcasting this all over the world and moved their regular programing so that they can broadcast it. I have not heard any thing come from Todd’s mouth that is not biblical. It is different but still true to the Word.
    Todd gives God all the glory.

    It is almost as powerful on TV as being there in person, at least for me.

    I recommend that everyone who wants to make a commitment of more of themselves to the Lord, to go! If you go as a spectator you will come away only with disappointment and criticisms, which only hurts the critic. The healings are awesome. Are some fake? Probably. Are some real? Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was impressed with the number of really small children being healed and really old people 90 year olds being healed.

    As long as God gets the glory, I believe this will continue to grow around the world. It is already broadcast into 214 nations with close to a 1/2 billion viewers.

    You are welcome to use any or all of this. Just keep it in context. I am in no way a critic of this move. God is free to do whatever he chooses.

    Many people are quite shocked to find out that I have anything positive to say about Brownsville because my theology is somewhat different from theirs. I’m not called either a “liberal charismatic” or “passionate moderate” for nothing! But part of my view of Christian moderation is the acceptance of God’s working in a great variety of ways. In my view all activities of the Holy Spirit will show both human and divine elements. I will not go through a list of doctrines, check off the ones with which I disagree, and then condemn the ministry or movement. I prefer discussing particular teachings or actions rather than people or whole ministries, and the fact that I disagree with a particular teaching doesn’t mean I condemn the person holding it or the ministry in which he or she is engaged.

    Despite theological disagreements, my experience with Brownsville was positive, and my recommendation to anyone questioning at the time was to go check it out. I’d say the same thing about this one, sight unseen.

    Let me provide a couple of links here.

    • Revival: Benefits and Dangers
      This is a cautionary article I wrote during the Brownsville Revival. Oddly enough I got favorable comments about it from both supporters and critics of the revival.
    • Ten Things I Believe about the Holy Spirit
      While I don’t like criticizing whole movements and ministries, it is rare that I find something I can endorse without qualification. This list from Dave Warnock, a Methodist minister in England, is on the mark. I agree with it 100%.
    • A Foundation for Thinking
      First of a two part series I wrote for my wife’s devotional list dealing with Genesis 1:1-2. You may miss what I’m saying about the Holy Spirit until you read the second part.
    • Wind of God – Chaos to Order

  • Church and Healthcare: Fear

    Let me remind everyone that I’m really thinking on my blog, rather than providing answers that I have really thought out in discussing health care issues and the church. I have lots of pieces, but I don’t feel that I have anything like an assembled puzzle. My comments will also necessarily derive from personal experience. And as always, I tend to ramble a bit!

    One direction from which we can come at this issue is from the question of need. What is it that a person needs from their church community when facing either illness or death? Since Mark brought up especially end of life issues, I’m focusing on this, including life-threatening illnesses.

    Several times when we’ve gone into the children’s wing of the hospital where our son received chemotherapy, my wife has commented that the real enemy is not cancer, but fear. I confess that the first time she said that, my reaction was a bit bewildered. Yes, I know that we have to fight fear, but we’re putting all of these chemicals into a child’s body for the purpose of killing the cancer, hopefully before they kill him. That’s surely fighting the cancer!

    But she has a point. The real difficult thing about illness and eventually facing death is the number of decisions that have to be made. Now my wife and I obviously were not facing our own deaths, but rather the death of a child. At first I was less involved. I was the step-father, but then James had to face the death of a loved one during his own struggle–his father died of a heart attack. After this I got a new perspective, because I was the one to go with him to doctor’s consultations. I remember his response vividly. He had only known about his father’s death for perhaps 15 minutes when he walked up to me and said, “Well, I guess it’s all up to you now.” Thought it wasn’t “all up to me,” he had a point.

    The thought of death does something to us, even as Christians, that I think makes us irrational. I say (and confess) “us” even though I believe our family managed to step back. The first thing is to realize that death isn’t your worst enemy. I say that not merely as a Christian who believes that there is more for us after this life. Leaving that aside, the process of medical care can be much more terrifying than the thought of dying.

    To be honest, I don’t know how most people do it. I grew up in a medically oriented family. We discussed health issues around the dinner table. We talked about dying as a pretty ordinary topic. We talked about the choices in medicine constantly. My wife is an R. N. and has 12 years experience as a hospice educator. With all that background available, we would get into a doctor’s office for a consultation and become hopelessly confused.

    I remember one consultation after the first recurrence of the cancer. The oncologist was outlining treatment options. I could look at James and see him tuning out. I told the doctor that I had the role of being the idiot and started asking him detailed questions, making him explain the treatment options, their impact both in terms of effectiveness and side effects. By being the complete idiot and making him go into ABC mode, I got the information. I’m wondering how many people would push that hard, or know when to push. He was a good doctor, with an excellent reputation, and we liked him. We ended up taking “none of the above” and going with a plan cooked up by a surgeon at another hospital.

    Now our church family was a bit of a mixed bag throughout all of this. Because I’m going to point out some real failures of support, I want to note that I believe everyone sincerely wanted to be “the body of Christ” for us. Most of them also did reasonably well. But there were people who were not at all helpful. In most cases, I think this was because of fear, either their own, or their assumption that we would be running scared. (Please don’t imagine us as some kind of fearless heroes. We just tried to remain rational under pressure!)

    Let me just list some things:

    1. You don’t have to be down all the time just because you or a family member is ill. A number of people took me aside because they felt they needed to let me know that Jody (my wife) was in denial, and didn’t understand the seriousness of the situation. She was much too cheerful. All things considered, I suspect the hospice educator was adequately informed. I was happy that there were times when she could be cheerful.
    2. Repeat that point for James. I don’t know how many times I was told he didn’t understand his condition and the fact that he could die. When he first went into treatment he wasn’t all that clear, but by the time it was all over he could educate most adults on cancer, death, and dying. Again, any time he could be cheerful was good. Before his father died, he and I had an agreement that we would just have fun, so I never brought up the illness when we were together unless absolutely necessary. Of course later that had to change. Church members (or any friends and relatives) need to be aware that you don’t need someone to be miserable with you. Often it’s nice just to have someone be normal and do normal things.
    3. It is impossible to follow every diet, special remedy, or treatment plan found on the internet. We were frequently presented with complete solutions discovered via the internet, ranging from eating lots of brussels sprouts to buying a several thousand dollar water filtration system. It was OK for people to suggest, but when they followed up to see if we were following their suggestions it was a bit much.
    4. Similarly, you can’t go to every faith healer, preacher, prayer team, special revival, or healing service that is offered. We had people who were desperate because they thought if we didn’t go to a particular place, James would not be healed, but if we did, healing was certain.
    5. People don’t necessarily hear what you teach and preach. Since both Jody and I teach and offer seminars, including on the topic of prayer, it was often expected that we should be able to pray for our son’s healing and that would be it. Apparently very few people had ever listened and realized that we had very explicitly said that there was no such guarantee or expectation. (Cue the folks who say that it was because we didn’t believe enough or in the correct faction that there was no healing.)

    One Sunday near the time that James went home we all skipped church and met in the living room. Some of our family members had been hurt by things they had heard. I pointed out that the people who did the hurting were not intending to, but that they were very likely operating from fear. If you can find a reason why someone else is suffering, then you can feel that you won’t be targeted. On the other hand if they could be convinced that the right prayer would result in certain healing, they could feel confident that if that nasty diagnosis came in, they could handle it.

    The idea of losing a child to cancer is so horrifying that we’d like to find a reason, and specifically a reason that doesn’t apply to you. Good luck! I wish anyone who does this the best in making yourself feel confident. But bad things do happen to generally good people, and whatever comes up as your lot, whether you look at is as God’s plan, or just the way things work in this world, you’re going to have to deal with it.

    So what does a church do as a community about this fear? I found that there is one key, and that is staying together and sharing. James had friends who drew closer, and he had friends who couldn’t handle being with him in the fire of affliction. We have been so amazed and thankful for those friends who stuck with him. The majority of those were a few years older than he was, and that difference got more marked as time went on. He simply no longer talked about the things that the boys his own age were interested in. But there were a number of close friends his own age who walked the walk with him. There are others I know who have regretted it.

    Simply staying friends, remaining part of the community, and allowing the portions of life that can go on normally to do so is extremely important. There’s such a thing as dying while you’re still alive. James made an early decision not to do that. His final summer he started out in marching band for his high school. He made a difficult decision to step out because he realized he wasn’t going to be strong enough to march that season and indeed would probably not live through it, but he continued to join them on the field, and help with those things he was physically capable of doing.

    He made a conscious decision that death wasn’t going to stop him. The rest of us had to go along with that! And it was the right decision. The fear can destroy you long before the disease does, and make your remaining days a living death.

    There is a value here in education, but that needs to be supplemented by active support. “Support” as I’ve said, isn’t a matter of having the right thing to say all the time. It’s a matter of simply continuing to be connected even when you don’t know what to say. I already knew all the words. The problem wasn’t to know what I ought to think. The problem was to get the encouragement and strength that comes from community. The ones who showed up and felt foolish, or so they tell me, didn’t hurt us in any way. Generally we had no idea they were as clueless as they claimed. We were just glad they were there. The folks who melted away–those hurt.

    Most churches need to really reorient their thinking to truly be a community. The response to every problem is to have a program, and designate people. And of course we do need designated leaders and programs can help. But it’s not the designated people who showed up that helped. It was the close friends who remained and got closer.

  • Healthcare and the Church: But What is the Church?

    [Since I have readers from a variety of viewpoints, let me note that the following is written from within the Christian tradition and to those in that tradition. It’s OK to read, of course, but it’s unlikely to be of great interest to non-Christians.]

    Mark at Pseudo-Polymath has started a discussion on health care and the church and I have become involved. His latest post is here, which responds to some of my personal reflections as I begin posting. I have some further personal reflections, based on the five year battle with our son’s cancer. But those personal reflections are intended to lead to some thinking about the broader role of the church. My posts on this subject are in no way intended to be thoughts of an expert. I am far from an expert on this topic. But they are reflections from the consumer’s point of view on the health care system, and from the church perspective from one deeply involved in church activity.

    I want to post just a few thoughts and questions here. My problem in thinking about this discussion has been that it is very easy to shift the discussion from the role of the government to the role of the church without changing the actual content. In other words, I can make this a debate over how much is the role of the government, and how much the role of the church. I can prepare a list of programs, and ask whether the church or the government (or some other private group) should carry them out.

    That might result in a list of church programs: Education on death and dying, end of life care, support for individuals undergoing treatment and for their families, prayer, economic assistance (I know very well how demanding illness can be on one’s pocketbook even with good insurance), good lifestyle and health education and training, and so forth. I intentionally left out most of the spiritual things from that list (except prayer) because we often simply tack those on.

    It seems to me that the church has become more of an adjunct to our secular lives, a club to which we belong, rather than our spiritual center. I’ve been reading Acts 2 as part of my lectionary readings lately, and it strikes me that the church that was breaking bread together and worshiping together constantly, sharing all their good, and so forth, was much more than an adjunct to the lives of those early disciples. I think they believed they were living at least a part of the kingdom of God. That fellowship was the central part of their lives.

    Any health care related program of the church may be helpful, but it cannot be most helpful unless the church feels and acts like a body, the body of Christ in service to the world. Only in that case do we really have the ability to respond full to those within and without. In general, when a family in the church has a problem, it’s their problem with which we (the rest of the church members) may help them. It’s not our problem.

    Should healing be an adjunct to our other activities, something we do as a program, or should it perhaps be an essential part of living as the body of Jesus Christ in the world? This is the question that’s been hitting me as I have been thinking about this. My father’s church, the Seventh-day Adventists, established health care facilities all over the world as a means of evangelism. Perhaps there is another step here, where the church in general establishes (or becomes) such facilities in order to be Jesus in the world. We’d then operate them in such a way as to look as much like Jesus in action as possible.

    I don’t know precisely what this would look like, but I think it would look much different than what we have. The problem with resolving end of life care issues is not so much in knowledge, though knowledge is necessary, but in support.

    Let me illustrate. The hardest moment in my son’s illness was not the day he died, but several months earlier. My wife was on a mission trip in eastern Europe. I had no means to contact her by e-mail. I was here alone with James. I had to call the doctor and get the results of a scan. Those results said that the cancer had returned in four places. Now theres knowledge, and then there’s the ability to apply the knowledge, to take the steps one has to take.

    My knowledge was not adequate. I needed the support of my family and my church in order to work through the situation and take care of it. It seems to me that this is the most important consideration. No amount of training is going to help if we’re not there at the time of need. Being the church in some sense means that we are there at the right time.

  • The Need for Church Politics

    No, I’m not talking about the church getting involved in politics in general, nor about politicians speaking in church. I’m talking about the politics that goes into actually running the church. There’s a great deal of politics involved in the way churches are governed. But I’m not going to call for less–I’m going to call for more.

    You see, I believe that politics can range from the greatest curse to the greatest blessing in a church. One thing is impossible, however–to make the church free of politics. When people get together and make decisions in a group, politics happens. It’s not a bad thing; it’s the way we work together.

    What can be a very bad thing is when politics is left to go its own way and simply develop naturally. Then church Machiavellis, sometimes known as spiritual leaders, get to take over just because nobody else is involved. Now don’t intend either to put down real spiritual leaders or spiritual leadership qualities. The problem is when we don’t pay attention to how people get into leadership and how people lead after thay are in leadership, we often get people who think they are great spiritual leaders into positions where we need actual spiritual leaders.

    I have spent some time with folks involved in the charismatic movement within the United Methodist Church. I’m a bit of a charismatic myself, and have been dubbed a “liberal charismatic.” Now folks who are charismatic are much more interested in the work of the Spirit, in spontaneity, and following the guidance of the Spirit than they are in church rules, policies, and procedures.

    I noticed two things, and I think they both result from this attitude. First, committees in the church tended not to favor the charismatic position. Some of the charismatic folks would refuse to serve, some would miss meetings, and some simply couldn’t stand all the debate over details. It all has so little to do with being spiritual! Second, charismatic activities would nonetheless take on a certain order. The “spontaneous” worship services very often had quite a precise order, and someone who came from another charismatic church could get caught by that. This order came from the folks who gravitated into leadership in the charismatic group. Thus politics happened whether people wanted it to happen or not, and whether they thought it was happening or not. The actual difference came in who made the decisions and how.

    Complaining in a church can also, like politics, be anything from a great curse to a great blessing. It’s the church politics that often makes the difference as to which it is. If the various boards, committees, work teams, or whatever you call them are doing their job, church members are complaining to the right people, and those people listen, then it can be a blessing. If people are just complaining to one another, then it’s just gossip, and it will tear the church down. If people complain when things are bad and pass out praise and compliments when things are going well, that is also a blessing. Some people only come out of the woodwork when they are really unhappy.

    My basic point is that church politics will exist. The one thing we can do is try to make it happen in such a way as to build up rather than tear down. In order to make it build up we need to all get involved in some way, we need to graciously call people to account as necessarily, but also provide positive feedback as necessary. We need to take up positions as we are called by God, and try not to miss God’s call because we really don’t want to be in the position.

    Above all we shouldn’t be afraid of an intense, but constructive discussion. Too often we regard a vigorous debate as contrary to church unity. Normally, the failure to carefully examine something simply protects vested interests in the church. Yes, people build little empires in church organization too. Of course, I must add a caveat here too–vigorous debate means constructive vigorous debate in which all are looking for solutions.

    Politics is. Get involved. Make it a blessing.

  • Abuse of Authority or Church Discipline?

    Someone on the Compuserve Religion Forum has posted a reference to an article about churches starting to try to discipline their congregations.

    I’m not going to try to summarize the article. Suffice it to say that the most extreme example involves a pastor calling the police to arrest a woman for trespassing. Her crime? She was attending church after having been expelled from the fellowship. In her case, the reason was for complaining about, and taking action against the church leadership.

    I have multiple reactions to this. First, while a certain amount of church discipline is suggested in order to maintain some sort of integrity, the place where we have most needed it is precisely where it’s not happening–in the leadership. In fact, some of these cases occur where members are holding the leadership accountable. In fact, I think that there is much too little involvement of the membership in general in actions of the church. I have known of a number of actions by church committees of churches where I’ve been a member that should have been made more public, and members should have complained loudly!

    I once even preached a sermon on the “ministry of complaining,” calling on members to call up the appropriate committee chairs and other leadership and let them know what they thought needed to be done. Such a ministry of complaining, of course, needs to be constructive or else it isn’t a ministry; it’s just complaining.

    But on the other hand there’s a simple point that seems to be missed by many people in these discussions. Church is a voluntary organization. Here in the United States nobody is actually forced to be a church member. There is always a simple solution to the problem of a church that is obnoxious–find another one. I’m certain I could find dozens of churches even in our relatively conservative community that would take in the shunned adulterers and never notice the difference. The complainers might be harder to place! Nonetheless, I would imagine that there is a pastor somewhere within a 20 mile radius who shares their disgust with their own pastor and would be happy to have them.

    The problem with my happy solution is that there are many spiritually vulnerable people, and there are pastors and church leaders who will exploit them. One of the great dangers to individual faith is getting a glimpse of the church organization in action, or more often inaction. An hour or so of church committee can make me want to attend bedside Baptist on a weekly basis. In churches that have been around for a few years there will be members who are entrenched in their positions and who know how to manipulate the system. They are just waiting for a new pastor or a new member who has some innovative ideas so that they can shut them down.

    At the same time (making another hairpin turn in thought) there are numerous churches where people are friendly and non-judgmental. The problem is that many times people have attended a particular church for a very long time and it has changed around them. Finally they find themselves strangers in a church they have attended all their lives. That is an extremely difficult situation, and I sympathize.

    But there is no way to guarantee reasonable and rational behavior on the part of any church organization, and it only gets worse when people feel that they have God’s authority behind them. I don’t see any way to guarantee someone’s safety or comfort in this situation. A private organization, whether religious or not, has a certain right to set its own policies. The only right of the individual member, other than as provided for in the bylaws, is to take their body and their tithe elsewhere.

    I would recommend that when you have a pastor who places a great deal of emphasis on how he cannot be questioned, and the leaders cannot be challenged, you should look for another church. There is a theology around that treats the pastor as “God’s anointed” and makes him above question. That is a dangerous theology and a dangerous practice. A pastor should be held accountable by the membership in all cases, and by the denominational structure in a church that is part of one. Such accountability should be essential.

    While I have many complaints about denominations in general and mine (United Methodist) in particular, there are also many positive things that can be said about the organizational structure. For all the complaints we may have about candidacy and assignments, we generally have less of a problem with pastors decided they are God in their individual churches. We have better trained pastors generally, and when something truly goes wrong, there is someone to go to above your pastor.

  • A Liberating Theology

    Liberation theology gets improperly defined and beaten up on a regular basis. Some complain that it ignores the spiritual element, ignores Jesus as savior, and tries to ignore sin. It’s fairly easy to make this case out of the Bible. There is, after all, Romans 13, in which Paul tells Christians to submit to the authorities, or the experience of Peter as he is told to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s (Matthew 22:21). Generally interpreters miss the irony in that one.

    They also miss the pure politics of Romans 13. In this case Christians are hoping for the protection of Rome. The Roman authorities are the ones who are more favorable to Christians. We tend to think of them strictly as persecutors, but at the time the letter to the Romans was written, Rome was the best hope of Christians for protection.

    On the other side, it would be easy to point out the many cases in the Bible in which people refuse to obey the authorities. Slavery, for example, was clearly Egyptian law when the Israelites left under Moses. The Israelites than entered Canaan as illegal immigrants and began a crime spree, or so I imagine the Canaanite perspective might be. But the higher powers all over were very annoyed by what God’s people did.

    While David respected the person of Saul as God’s anointed, he wasn’t at all opposed to violated all kinds of laws and customs, and was even prepared to fight for his Philistine masters. Prophet after prophet stood up to power and some of them died for it. The apostles, when told not to preach, were not subject to the higher powers. Instead, they told the authorities that they should obey God rather than man.

    Law and custom has repeatedly been used in opposition to liberation. One could point out in the early 19th century that slavery was according to the law, but liberators chose not to obey the law–they obeyed God rather than human beings. During the civil rights movements there were many laws and customs that were discriminatory and just plain wrong. The folks who brought liberty were not the ones who said, “It’s the law.” They were the ones who said, “The law is wrong.” They proceeded to break those immoral laws.

    When Jesus spoke in Nazareth and quoted Isaiah 61:1-2 “liberty to the captives” (Luke 4:16-21). Generally, established governments don’t like it much when you liberate their captives. They think their captives are captive for a reason. Those who preach liberty and mean it are often not popular with the powers that be, because they are preaching liberty to people that government thinks should be captive.

    Liberation theology was sometimes abused. It is easy to become a liberator with no theology, to free men’s bodies and forget about their souls. If the church becomes that kind of liberator, then we’re merely another social organization, except that we carry a lot more baggage. We can also become stupid in the way in which we liberate. Many would-be liberators either become oppressors themselves or enable actual oppressors through their lack of good sense. A number of left-wing liberators have fallen into that trap.

    But Christianity has a much greater tendency, I believe, to fall into the trap of becoming an arm of the government. We like the status quo, and we produce theology that helps keep it established. And unless the laws we support are so absolutely just that they deserve the backing of a divine mandate, tragedy often results. In the same way when a truly moral crusade receives the backing of state force, it will often go astray.

    In America I think we have tied both the gospel and its liberating power far too much to a particular political process. We should comment on politics, we should be a prophetic conscience for our politicians, but we should not allow ourselves, as a church body (in the broadest sense) to become identified with particular parties and institutions. Our consciences cannot be in the pay of established power.

    A liberating theology, in my view, provides a divine mandate to hold everyone’s feet to the fire and demand that they live a life worthy of the gospel. When torture happens, we should be like the ten plagues on Egypt, until people are let go, are treated with dignity and respect. When we see oppression, we should be there to proclaim liberty. Our theology should continually challenge our society to be better than it is.

    I think that is what Martin Luther King did to us in the 50s and 60s, and it is what the church needs to do today. No person, no society is so right and so good that it does not need the annoyance of a sensitive conscience, speaking to it prophetically.

  • Apes, Lies, and Chick Tracts

    There’s a propaganda piece that has been showing up in Florida, possibly as part of the fight against evolution in new proposed educational standards. It comes from a site with which I’m fairly well acquainted–Chick Publications. One sickening piece of propaganda from that organization is titled Apes, Lies, and Ms. Henn.

    It is obvious that the intention of the publishers is that we see evolution, and particularly the idea that, as the tract says, people “come from monkeys,” but the real lie is in the tract itself. And as we will see, this is not the only such publication produced by this same organization.

    Dirty politicians could learn lessons from this material, though they would probably endanger their own careers if they used too many of these techniques. There’s a line beyond which politicians are seen as negative, and I’m afraid these would qualify.

    Look at these elements:

    We start with a substitute teacher. Did you notice that “Mrs. Tucker is replaced by “Ms. Henn.” In this way one sweeps various elements of modern life, such as women’s liberation, along with the teaching. Of course, Ms. Henn looks like everyone’s notion of a witch–demonic even–which is clearly not accidental. We’re supposed to see her as the embodiment of evil.

    There is no actual teaching of evolutionary theory portrayed, and all questioning is shut down. This is, of course, what a control freak like Ms. Henn would want to do, and is, of course connected to evolution. The tie-in is quite intentional, of course. Propaganda against the theory of evolution frequently suggests not merely that there is insufficient evidence, but rather that there is no evidence. In their view, the only reason people accept the theory of evolution is that they are desperate to find a way to avoid God. Scientists like Dr. Kenneth Miller or Dr. Francis Collins don’t fit into their universe. A Bible teacher who accepts the theory of evolution, such as myself, would certainly be beyond their grasp.

    There’s the standard misuse of the word “prove/proof” when Ms. Henn claims that “scientists have proven it.” She shouts this, of course. Now there’s little point in vetting this whole propaganda piece for facts–there really are none there. It’s not intended to convince anybody of such mundane things as facts; rather, its purpose is to smear those who teach evolution at the same time as one tries to scare people with the fires of hell.

    Yes, as you continue to read, this gets worse. As a Christian Bible teacher, I am appalled to see this go forward into what apparently is intended as a gospel message. Lie first, then threaten, then pretend to be preaching good news. Nobody with the slightest knowledge of the facts will actually be impacted by this kind of thing, except, perhaps, for some nausea. But people who are uncertain of what they believe will be threatened by the fires of hell, because, you see, people who believe in evolution are definitely going to hell. In fact, Susy informs her little classmate that “most people are going to hell.” You have to close your eyes and your mind, or you’re headed for the hot place.

    Frankly, I must tell you that the first part of this was standard. I grew up with jokes and smears about “evolutionists” who ignore God, ignore all facts and evidence, because they are just so determined to believe evolution. As I studied actual data, I found that this picture was completely false, so blatantly false that I have a hard time believing that people teach it honestly.
    But to tack onto that a supposed teaching of the Christian gospel message made it even worse. The intent is to impact young and impressionable minds with the idea that the vast majority of scientists, and even most Christians are part of an evil conspiracy, are lying to themselves and everyone else, and are therefore going to hell. Which is, of course, precisely what these people believe. It almost makes me wish I took hell a bit more literally myself. There would surely be a special level of hell for liars of this caliber.

    But let’s go forward. The folks at Chick are not satisfied merely to tell us that all those who accept the theory of evolution are going to hell. They’re careful to make sure that folks read just the right Bible. Notice at the end that you are advised to “read your Bible (KJV) every day.” They have a number of pages filled with misinformation in support of their position on the KJV. In fact, if you read this, you might get the idea that all those who use any other Bible version are preaching “another gospel.” Probably they’re all headed straight for hell too. (For more information on Bible versions, see the tract What’s in a Version? and my Bible Version Selection Tool.)

    Then we can try this tract in which a Catholic dies and finds out he’s in hell, because he wasn’t a real Christian, at least as defined by the folks at Chick publications. He’s part of “most people” who go to hell. Unfortunately for him, he believe his priest, and you know that won’t do. In fact, he is even depicted tearing up a Chick Tract. (One could almost suspect that’s the unpardonable sin!)

    We find out here that the American Bible Society is also corrupted because they produce the CEV, which, in the twisted logic that applies in the very special world of Chick Tracts, turns out to be much more favorable to the Catholic Church. So an organization of dedicated people who have spread the Bible far and wide are, in fact, not serving God at all, but that other guy.

    There are very few Christian ministries that I will attack outright as I have done here. I try simply to go for statements and not the group as a whole. Doubtless, even at Chick publications, there are people who sincerely believe they are defending the faith. But this type of publication is not a blessing to the church, it is not the right way to reach people for Jesus, and it is not sound doctrine. It needs to be exposed as precisely what it is.

    I do not permit the use of Chick tracts, even the less offensive ones, at any ministry event in which I am involved, and that will continue to be my policy. There is simply too much danger that someone will go further, and be turned aside in their spiritual journey by hate-filled propaganda. That would be a tragedy.

  • Once we faced Lions . . .

    Now we’re afraid our neighbors might think we’re weird. A Christian ministry founder says he believes American Christians are not ready for persecution. I wonder what was his first clue? [HT: Dispatches]

  • Can a Liberal Learn from Mark Driscoll?

    I’m using the dreaded “L” word for myself again, because if I was put up against [tag]Mark Driscoll[/tag] I would certainly come out as liberal, no matter how moderate I think I am. Regular readers of this blog know that I disagree with him on a substantial range of issues.

    There’s a profile of Driscoll available on the Christianity Today web site (HT: Adrian Warnock). There’s some interesting things here, including most of the stuff on which I differ. Occasionally I stir people up through what I write on this blog, but in real life, I put much of my effort into reconciliation. I try to be a peacemaker in church. I’m not a [tag]Calvinist[/tag] by any stretch. Even good [tag]Arminian[/tag]s suspect me of heresy in the pelagian direction. I’m [tag]egalitarian[/tag], not [tag]complementarian[/tag], and if the bad guy is threatening the playground, I’m going to call 911 before mixing it up with them myself.

    Yet there are a number of things one can learn here. Driscoll really believes what he is teaching, and I think the evidence is good that he cares about his church and the people of his community. He’s willing to meet them culturally, something that other church people ranging from right to left are not willing to do. To many of us church is our culture, and others have to leave the “world’s culture” and become part of the “church’s culture.” But we have no particular reason to assume that the church’s culture as we practice it is actually better than the world’s culture. Driscoll seems to have caught on to the fact that from the point of view of the church, especially the mainline church, reaching the person down the street is just as much cross-cultural ministry in many cases as is going overseas.

    Nonetheless, I deplore Driscoll’s position on women in leadership and in ministry. I believe it would be quite possible for the church to articulate and practice a strong theology of family and of leadership without wedding itself to the single model of the dominant male. At the same time, egalitarians sometimes behave as though men don’t need to learn any leadership and even foster the “let women take care of spiritual things” attitude. We need to learn to respond to those attitudes.

    Too often what we practice is not the empowerment of all people to use the gifts God has given them and to follow God’s call on their lives, but it is rather a “let those who will do it go ahead.” We’re afraid to challenge men in spiritual leadership because we might sound too much like Driscoll. I am willing to confess to weakness when it’s there, but in this case, I’m not myself confessing to this practice. I have regularly preached that men need to be ready to get up on Sunday morning and lead their families to church. They need to be actively involved in both church life and in the moral life of their family and community.

    A family can only be properly led when both father and mother take up their appropriate gifts. But this does not allow looking down on supposedly “feminized” men either. That male leadership can involve the man cleaning the house, doing the dishes, changing diapers and helping get the children dressed. It might involve a husband getting the children to Wednesday night activities because the wife is working or out of town on a business trip.

    In other words this is another part of modern culture that we could meet with the gospel, rather than try to change into a first century image that exists largely in our own minds.

    I would suggest reading the Christianity Today article asking yourself this: “How can I make my spiritual life connect more with the age? What are the essentials of my spiritual and ethical beliefs, and what are just my church culture?” All of us could do with such a checkup.