Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christianity

  • 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.

  • An Evangelist for Evolution

    The Rev. Michael Dowd is preaching a surprising message: Evolution is real and science points to the existence of God. (Source: .)

    Rev. Dowd also joins the growing group who acknowledge that accepting evolution does impact one’s theology in some ways. I find his specific take interesting.

    One theme that seems to get someone entry into Christian venues is the idea that science can help support faith. Those who say, “Evolution is true, live with it” don’t get so much of a hearing. Unfortunately, while I believe that scientific evidence can be seen as consistent with the existence of God, I see nothing that forces or drives the conclusion that there truly is a God. Often the evidence makes one drop some definition of God that one had held before.

    In a comment to a previous post Larry B. writes:

    In the same (but different) way, I honestly feel that evolution for a lot of people has unmoored more than a few christians from their foundations.

    (I don’t want to copy the whole comment here, but it is worthwhile reading the entire context.)

    I agree with this statement, but would ask what is the proper response? If people have faith that God will heal everyone for whom prayer is offered, they will very possibly be “unmoored” from that faith when reality doesn’t accord with their expectations. In the case of evolution, I suggest that there is more education needed amongst Christians about the implications and possibilities, so that people can make intelligent decisions.

    I do think it is important to note the real challenges to theology, and to welcome, rather than fear questions. Christianity is ultimately doomed if it cannot find a more friendly way to co-exist with challenges. There’s the “fall over and play dead” option and the “circle the wagons option.” We need more folks in the “let’s have fun with this” camp!

    Or at least that’s my take on it.

  • Christian Carnival #209 Posted

    . . . at Everyday Liturgy.

  • CT Interviews Barack Obama

    He’s a Christian and has been for 20 years. This quote struck me:

    I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. . . .

    Amen!

    Read the whole article on Christianity Today.

  • Silent Witness?

    Laura at Pursuing Holiness is concerned with the idea of a “silent witness,” as accomplished by wearing cheesy buttons. No, she’s not talking about the need to shout, but rather the need to be clear and Biblical in the way in which one witnesses. Her particular target is the AFA’s program of Easter buttons which look much more like a fundraising gambit than a good witnessing idea.

    Christians you encounter might smile and nod approvingly, perhaps wishing they were so bold as to wear a button with an Easter message on it, but non-Christians – unless they are the type of person who’s just looking to pick a fight – will avoid you when you wear this button. Look at it from their perspective. They already (wrongly) think they’re going to have to give up all kinds of fun and freedom in order to be a Christian. Now they’re going to have to wear a cheesy button, too. That’s enticing, all right. They’re afraid that if they become Christians they’ll have to wear a “Look out! I’m a Godbag!” button.

    Just so.

    And in case someone’s out there thinking I just say this because I’m a liberal and don’t believe in witnessing, let me say that I believe very much in witnessing. I believe in good witnessing that reflects well on the Person to whom we bear witness. It seems to me that some people think that witnessing is a convention of Rude and Obnoxious People for Jesus.

    When you take on the name “Christian” or “follower of Jesus” or however you want to say it, you don’t merely have the option of witness. You are a witness. I remember vividly the moment this was engraved in my brain. Some years ago I was under substantial pressure over something at work (I was not working as a Bible teacher at the time!). In the break area I started to cuss the person responsible with every word I had heard. After the incident, a coworker walked up to me and said, “I thought you were a Christian.” He might as well have thrown me up against the wall, and it couldn’t have shocked me any more. Such a shock is very good for the system!

    You are a witness. What type?

  • Witherington: What Have They Done with Jesus?

    I have two books on my “to be read” shelf that I also intend to blog through. Since I just completed Random Designer, by Dr. Richard Colling, and I have Francis Collins, The Language of God which also deals with evolution, I decided to take Ben Witherington III, What Have They Done with Jesus? next. I’ll get to Collins’ book next.

    In addition to giving me a change of subject, its topic is also closer to areas in which I have some expertise. The word “some” should be noted here–I’m not a New Testament scholar. I’m largely a popularizer, and my academic training emphasized Hebrew scriptures. But working in a church, rather than an academic environment, I have been forced to spend a great deal of time on the New Testament just because that’s what most church members want to study.

    My procedure for blogging through a book is to read a chapter or block of chapters and then write my reaction on the blog immediately, rather than read the whole book and then write a more comprehensive review. This can result in some need to correct my impressions later, and in the case of Random Designer, that did happen. It is perhaps a slightly post-modern way to read a book, but I don’t think I’m very post-modern, so maybe I do it just for fun.

    (more…)

  • 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.

  • Are you Reading the White Space?

    I’m frequently struck by how often we deal with trivia in our Bible study. In some cases we might not call it “trivia” but we certainly are dealing with something other than the main message of the text–the stuff that is in black and white. We imagine what the characters might have said, we fill in the blanks from our own imagination, and sometimes we even become convinced that what we have imagined is actually the text itself.

    Now I’m not against any of these procedures. I even recommend imagining the viewpoint of lesser characters when interpreting stories, for example. I’m also not opposed to studying the details very carefully. I’ve been doing so with 2 Corinthians 5:21, for example. The problem comes when we focus exclusively, or almost exclusively on those elements of the text that are obscure, or things that are not actually specified.

    This hurts us in our spiritual walk in two ways. First, we become obsessed with minor matters. If the Bible writers had regarded these points as of utmost importance, it is likely they would have expressed them more clearly. Often when we are unable to produce an interpretation about which we feel confident, the problem is that we are dealing with something the original writer didn’t consider a key point. Second, however, we can become convinced that all of God’s revelation is obscure and difficult to understand, when in fact the majority of it is not all that mysterious and difficult.

    How do we avoid getting stuck in the white space?

    1. Study larger passages. Rather than taking a single verse, take several. Rather than taking several verses, take a few chapters, or even an entire book.
    2. Include rapid, survey reading in your study. Many people come to the Bible with this special “holy” approach that suggests one can’t skim or speed read. But sometimes skimming is good for an overview before you dig in.
    3. Take breaks from the obscure stuff and study something more straightforward.
    4. Always be aware of tentative conclusions. It’s easy to become quite enamored of your own interpretation when studying on your own.
    5. Lastly, be accountable. Make sure that you have some way to hear objections to your own views and criticism of your approaches. This may mean attending a study group, publishing a blog, sharing in Sunday School, or even hearing a congregation criticize your sermon if you preach.

    There is plenty of obscure stuff to keep you busy, but there is also plenty of clear stuff to keep you steady. Approach them in balance.

  • Evolution of a Moral Sense

    One of the interesting things I’ve noticed over the years is that scientists who are also believers often tend to resolve theological issues in ways that make the theologians uncomfortable. I can’t call myself a professional theologian, because contrary to what most church members seem to think, theology and Biblical studies are different fields, and indeed are each subdivided into a number of fields themselves.

    On the Panda’s Thumb today we have a post on the evolution of altruistic behavior in robots. This is a remarkably interesting post, referencing recent research, and adds to the mounting evidence that many things we might regard as purely spiritual do, in fact, have material causes. In this case we’re dealing with altruism, but the issue goes deeper into the question of right and wrong as opposed to simply beneficial or not for one’s personal survival. That Humanist provided some additional valuable references and pointers.

    In the comments, there’s a brief exchange over Dr. Francis Collins’ view that morality is something provided by God, which does not result from evolution. Now I’m not going to engage Dr. Collins’ viewpoint in detail. In fact, his book The Language of God is sitting on my “read real soon” shelf, and I plan to blog my way through that reading, so I will respond then. (Out of the references provided in those various blog entires, I recommend this one from TalkReason.

    But the notion that human morality strictly separates us from the animals and that the common elements of human morality point to a God who proclaims morals is one I have encountered before. When I returned to faith after some years away from the church, one of the arguments for the existence of God that impressed me and stuck with me was this argument from universal morals as presented by C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. Don’t get me wrong here. I did not think this proved that God exists, but rather that it pointed in that direction on balance.

    (more…)

  • 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.