de veritate

This blog is no longer active

2009-11-08T10:42:00.001-05:00

Goodbye blogging world. I may pop up somewhere else in the blogosphere - I may not! You can still access the archives if you like using the drop-down menu to the right. It's been fun!

A.T.

A Questionaire by Wendell Berry

2009-11-01T10:27:00.000-05:00

1. How much poison are you willing
to eat for the success of the free
market and global trade? Please
name your preferred poisons.

2. For the sake of goodness, how much
evil are you willing to do?
Fill in the following blanks
with the names of your favorite
evils and acts of hatred.

3. What sacrifices are you prepared
to make for culture and civilization?
Please list the monuments, shrines,
and works of art you would
most willingly destroy.

4. In the name of patriotism and
the flag, how much of our beloved
land are you willing to desecrate?
List in the following spaces
the mountains, rivers, towns, farms
you could most readily do without.

5. State briefly the ideas, ideals, or hopes,
the energy sources, the kinds of security,
for which you would kill a child.
Name, please, the children whom
you would be willing to kill.

(H/T - Thomas and Pastor Kes).

Quote of the day

2009-10-18T19:59:00.004-04:00

Via the Website of Unknowing:

"The way of the cross is often misunderstood as masochistic, especially in an age so desperately in search of pleasure. But the suffering of which Jesus spoke is not the suffering that unwell people create for themselves. Instead, it is the suffering already present in the world, which we can either identify with or ignore. If pain were not real, if it were not the lot of so many, the way of the cross would be pathological. But in our world — with its millions of hungry, homeless, and hopeless people — it is pathological to live as if pain did not exist. The way of the cross means allowing that pain to carve one’s life into a channel through which the healing stream of the spirit can flow to a world in need."

— Parker J. Palmer, The Promise of Paradox

Are you guys here for the convention, too?

2009-10-14T22:16:00.007-04:00

The view from my front porch

2009-10-13T14:53:00.010-04:00

I'm vacationing at my parents' home in Waynesville, NC this week. This is the view that met me when I walked onto their front porch.

Paul Griffiths: "Two Theses" on Christianity and Education

2009-10-07T15:07:00.000-04:00

Paul Griffiths proposes two theses:

Being a member of Christ's body and being educated have nothing to do with one another. Witness the fact that the vast majority of Christians have been illiterate and without any of the other particular skills valued and taught by our schools, colleges, and universities. They were, and are, in the Lord's eyes, none the worse for these lacks; many among them are saints.
The church, broadly construed, has a deep and abiding interest in the intellectual life, and in the formation of some among its members as scholars and thinkers. Witness the fact that it honors its intellectual exemplars as doctores ecclesiae, and that those teachers are among the most accomplished and subtle thinkers and writers to grace the human race.

He then goes on to note that "Among the important tasks in thinking about Christianity and education is to hold these two theses together, for they are both true."

Baptist Sacramentalism?

2009-10-07T13:39:00.011-04:00

In other posts on "Bapto-catholicism", I outlined what I believe to be the basic trajectory of this conversation which seeks a retrieval of the broadly "catholic" Christian tradition for Baptist life and thought. In my own ministry as a Baptist Christian working primarily (thus far) among Episcopalians, Lutherans and Methodists, I have had lots of time to consider the more sacramental understandings (or lack thereof) of church life present among these traditions.

Among other Baptists (conservatives, moderates and liberals alike), I think my views on Baptists and the sacraments may be fairly unique. Many of the earliest Baptist confessions of faith speak of baptism and the Eucharist as sacraments and in Towards Baptist Catholicity, Steven Harmon claimed that Bapto-catholic Christians (or catholic Baptists) were advocates of a broadly sacramental theology.

A sacramental understanding of church life for Harmon would certainly mean a fuller appreciation of Christ's presence in our celebration of the Lord's supper. Such an understanding would, of course, be quite a shift from the "traditional" Baptist understanding of the Supper (which is more akin to the Zwinglian tradition). For Harmon, the appreciation for Christ's presence in the Eucharist (for example) has its root in "a theology that understands the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist as paradigmatic of the relation of God to the material order that is disclosed in the Incarnation" (TBC, 13).

Call me naive, but - given the historical basis of sacramental language in the earliest baptist confessions - I find it ironic that a "sacramental" understanding of baptism and the Eucharist would most likely represent shift from what many (if not most) Baptists in North America believe about baptism and the Eucharist. One has to wonder what the earliest Baptists meant when the wrote about the "ordinances" as sacraments given that to use such language today in most any "traditional" Baptist church would certainly invite scorn (at least) and possibly bar one from ministering in a Baptist context at all.

Though I am not an expert in Catholic theology, I am the happy beneficiary of a long "love affair" with Catholicism. Translation: I read the Catechism for fun. Although I'm sure the earliest Baptists didn't read the Catechism for fun, I wonder if the present antipathy toward sacramentality has something to to with voluntarism and the efficaciousness of the sacraments in Catholic understanding.

"Christ now acts through the sacraments he instituted to communicate grace. The sacraments are perceptible signs (words and actions) accessible to our human nation. By the action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present efficaciously the grace that they signify" (¶ 1084).

Moreover, in ¶ 1127, the Catechism states that

"Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies."

Again, I am no expert in Catholic teaching but I would imagine that the use of the word "efficaciously" would give pause to many Baptists. In fact, I think one would be hard-pressed to find within any of the historic Baptist confessions language of the sacraments which even hints at the idea that the sacraments (or ordinances) "do anything" to the person receiving them.

In the earliest Baptist confessions, the sacraments (or ordinances) are - almost uniformly - presented as something which we do either to memorialize Christ's sacrifice and resurrection or to symbolize our covenanting with the community of faith to live as obedient disciples of Christ. It would appear that Baptists are a people who hold great antipathy toward the idea of being acted upon. Thus some would say that, from a Baptist perspective, the sacraments are our response to something that we have believed of our own volition as opposed to an experience in which we receive what God is doing in, for an to us. I think this discussion of the nature of the sacraments points to a couple more important questions regarding the retrieval of sacramental language among some Baptists in North America:

First, what (both practically and theoretically) would a Baptist understanding of baptism and Eucharist as sacraments look like. Is it enough to simply point to the mystery of Christ's presence and God's grace at work in the sacraments? Moreover, if Baptists are to retrieve a sacramental understanding of church life, by what authority would such a retrieval take place? Is simple appeal to the broadly "catholic" tradition enough? The question of authority is especially daunting given the importance of congregational polity in the Baptist tradition.

Given all of this (and more to come), the big question is "Is there really a place for a more sacramental understanding of church among Baptists in North America?" I am inclined to hope that this is the case but I am uncertain how such a retrieval might take place with integrity and consistency. Any ideas?

Steven Harmon on Evangelicals and the Magisterium

2009-10-01T15:39:00.004-04:00

My old theology professor, Dr. Steven Harmon of Beeson Divinity School, has recently participated in a forum on "Evangelicals and the Nicene Faith." As one of the panel members, he presented an address entitled "The Nicene Faith and the Catholicity of the Church: Evangelical Retrieval and the Problem of Magisterium" Because his address is going to be published in a forthcoming volume via Baker Academic Press he hasn't posted the full-text but he did provide an intriguing summary:

"Recent attempts by Baptists and others who might be broadly described as "evangelicals" to retrieve aspects of the ancient, lower-case "c" catholic faith raise the question of how this might be done without such a project being yet another example of American "consumer" Christianity based on personal preference. What beyond personal preference authorizes such retrieval? After describing and reviewing what I perceive to be the strengths and weaknesses of Roman Catholic and Magisterial Protestant approaches to teaching authority in the church, I suggested that there is a another distinctive pattern of teaching authority in the Baptist and broader Free Church tradition that might be summarized with the slightly clumsy English coinage "the magisterium-hood of all believers."

As indicated by my previous two posts on a group I'm calling the "Bapto-Catholics", this is a live problem for me as I seek - as a Baptist - to work for the retrieval of a more "catholic" vision of faith in my own life and among those of my own tradition. The question of authority for such "catholic" evangelical, then, is one which simply must receive fuller consideration if any substantive move toward authentic engagement with the breadth and depth of "the Great Tradition." I am certainly looking forward to Harmon's upcoming chapter and to the whole volume in which it will be published!

Allan's TNIV in Goatskin & My "Premium Bible" Guilty Pleasure

2009-09-30T13:55:00.007-04:00

So I'm a nerd and one of the few indulgences I allow myself is the use of "premium" writing supplies (i.e. Rhodia, Moleskine and Filofax notebooks and Montblanc and Montegrappa pens - for example) - go ahead and laugh all you want. I just love the feeling of a nice fountain pen moving over a premium acid free paper. It's the little things, you know?

Another of my indulgences is "premium" Bibles. I only have one such Bible - a Cambridge NIV "Pitt Minion" in Goatskin Leather - and I purchased it because I wanted to have a Bible that would last for years to come with much heavy reading (I know that some folks might be a bit upset about the idea of "premium" Bibles - read this blog post by J. Mark Bertrand before you get too upset). Anyway, I thought I would only purchase one "premium" Bible that would last a while and that would be the end of it.

Well that was until "they" announced the demise of the TNIV (probably my favorite Bible translation) and I wandered over to Allan's Bibles and discovered that their hardback leather bound TNIV was on sale for £35.00 (which is about $55.00 US Dollars). This was a fairly significant discount from the previous price of £55.00 so I went ahead and snatched one up (and I think I got one of the only "Cardinal Red" versions remaining).

Photo credit: J. Mark Bertrand @ the Bible Design and Binding Blog.

The newest member of the tatum household

2009-09-29T18:38:00.001-04:00

Her name is Reggie (as in Salve Regina). She's reading J. Kameron Carter's, Race: A Theological Account.

Who are the Bapto-Catholics?

2009-09-26T13:27:00.004-04:00

In thinking about Bapto-Catholic understandings of Baptism, I decided it might be pertinent to give some examples of other thinkers who are (or at least appear to be) actually doing the work of charting the course for the retrieval of a more fully catholic (ecumenical, universally Christian) understanding of church in Baptist communities.

The thinkers listed below are those who - in my estimation - are actively working in this direction. They may or may not think of themselves as moving in this direction but that, I suppose, is the beauty of interpretation.

Note: * denotes original signatory of a document entitled "Re-Envisioning Baptist Identity: A Manifesto for Baptist Communities in North America" it has become somewhat widely known by both proponents and detractors as the "Baptist Manifesto." This document represents for many a paradigmatic step towards a Bapto-Catholic vision of the church.

Paul S. Fiddes is one of the more well-known folks who, by his ecclesiastical and theological work, is doing the work of concrete engagement with the breadth of the Christian tradition. He is a professor of systematic theology at Oxford University and the Director of Research at Regent's Park College (Oxon). He chairs the Commission on Doctrine and Interchurch Cooperation of the Baptist World Alliance and has done much in the way of ecumenical dialogue between Baptists, Catholics, Orthodox as well as other protestant bodies. His most well-known publication is probably The Creative Suffering of God which was published in 1988. The book that most clearly showcases his involvement in this conversation is Tracks and Traces: Baptist Identity in Church and Theology.
Steve Harmon is a professor @ Beeson Divinity School at Samford University. He was my theology professor during my first year at Campbell University and is a patristics scholar. In addition to his work in the academy, he has served the church in pastoral ministry and he currently serves as the vice-chair of the Commission on Doctrine and Interchurch Cooperation of the Baptist World Alliance. Relevant publications include: Towards Baptist Catholicity: Essays on Tradition and the Baptist Vision and Every Knee Should Bow: Biblical Rationales for Universal Salvation in Early Christian Thought.
Barry Harvey* is professor of theology in the Honors College at Baylor University. He also teaches and supervises graduate work in the graduate program in Religious Studies. His relevant publications include Can These Bones Live: A Catholic Baptist Engagement with Ecclesiology, Hermeneutics, and Social Theory and Another City: An Ecclesiological Primer for a Post-Christian World.
James Wm. McClendon, Jr.* was, at the time of his death, professor of theology at Fuller Theological Seminary. He's one of the more "famous" theologians associated with the Bapto-Catholic "movement." He is credited by some to be one of the catalysts for both the narrative and non-foundationalist theological movements. His most important publications include his three-volume Systematic Theology - Ethics, Doctrine and Witness and Biography as Theology.
Michael Broadway* is professor of theology at Shaw University Divinity School. He blogs here, here, here and here.
Curtis Freeman* is research professor of theology and the director of the Baptist House of Studies at Duke Divinity School. An article about Dr. Freeman's journey as an 'other' Baptist can be found here. Along with James Wm. McClendon and C. Rossalee Velloso Da Silva he is the editor of Baptist Roots: A Reader in the Theology of a Christian People.
Elizabeth Newman* is professor of theology and Ethics at the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond. She writes for the Associated Baptist Press and is on the board of directors for the Ekklesia Project. She is the author of Untamed Hospitality: Welcoming God and Other Strangers.
Philip Thompson* is professor of Theology and Christian Heritage at Sioux Falls Seminary. He is co-editor of Recycling the Past or Researching History: Studies in Baptist Historiography and Myths and Baptist Sacramentalism in the Studies in Baptist History and Thought series published by Paternoster Press.
Mark Medley is associate professor of Christian Theology at the Baptist Seminary of Kentucky. He is the author of Imago Trinitatis: Toward a Relational Understanding of Human Becoming.
Cameron Jorgenson is associate professor of Theology and Ethics at Campbell University Divinity School. His research focuses on finding ways that Baptists can engage theologically with other Christian traditions - especially Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
Adam C. English is assistant professor of Theology at Campbell University. He is the author of A Pocket History of Theology and The Possibility of Christian Philosophy: Maurice Blondel at the Intersection of Theology and Philosophy (part of the Routledge Press "Radical Orthodoxy" series).

Please note: not everyone on this list would identify themselves as Bapto-Catholic, Catholic Baptist, etc. Nevertheless, each person listed above is someone I have encountered either through personal conversation or through gracious reading who I believe to be an important voice in the Baptist retrieval of the wider Christian tradition for theology and church life. If you know of other theologians or pastors currently involved in this work that I've missed, please let me know and I'll be glad to add to this list (which, I hope will grow over time).

In the next post, I'll be discussing Baptism and Bapto-Catholicism.

What is Bapto-Catholicism?

2009-09-25T21:28:00.009-04:00

As a graduate of Campbell University and a student at Campbell Divinity School, I have had the privilege of studying with a number of young theologians who are on the leading edge of a theological conversation among Baptist theologians known variously as ‘Bapto-Catholic’ theology or ‘Baptist Catholicity.” The folks associated with this movement with whom I have had the privilege to study are Adam English & Cameron Jorgenson (both of Campbell University) and Steven Harmon (formerly of Campbell and now at Beeson Divinity School). Steven Harmon’s book Towards Baptist Catholicity provides for me the clearest statement about what these “Bapto-Catholics” are up to when it explains that it represents

“an attempt to chart a course towards Baptist ‘catholicity’ – i.e., towards a reclaimed consciousness that Baptists belong to what the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed confesses is the ‘one, holy, catholic…and apostolic church’ and that they must strive after the realization of these marks of the church along with all other denominations. The horizon of the ‘Great Tradition’, the catholic Christian tradition that belongs to Baptists and to all other Christians serves as a primary navigational reference point for this voyage.”

Unless I have missed something, apart from Steve Harmon, there aren’t a whole lot of people in the theological blogosphere who are dealing explicitly with this particular trajectory of Baptist life. This may be due to its seeming obscurity or to the relative unpopularity of such a retrieval of tradition among many Baptist pastors, theologians and laypeople – tradition, for Baptists, often being a dirty word (unless it means the tradition of one, particular local Baptist church). At any rate, I’m not aware of many other bloggers who are interested in this trajectory and I think it is an important one of which more Baptists and other Christians need to be aware.

As I am coming closer and closer to finishing up my time at Campbell Divinity, this Baptist conversation with and retrieval of a broadly ‘catholic’ Christian tradition has become increasingly important to me. So, in an effort to better understand this trajectory, I hope to explore some of my questions and concerns re: 'Bapto-Catholicism' on this blog over the next few weeks and months. I was born into a Baptist family, baptized in the United Methodist church, and rebaptized as a Southern Baptist (so does that make me an Anabaptist?). I’m still a member of First Baptist Church in Shelby, NC but I have served in ministry in Baptist, Anglican, Lutheran and now United Methodist Churches. I do not know yet how many posts this will occupy but, given my eclectic and ‘catholic’ Christian background I do know that this will be an important journey for me. In the next post, I’ll explore Baptism – that Christian practice that represents for many Baptists, Protestants and Catholics the beginning of the journey that is the Christian life. I'll then move to discuss Eucharist and Ministry in subsequent posts. I look forward to your comments!

Is Technology Changing Who We Are?

2009-09-25T16:15:00.013-04:00

With the advent of telecommunications and so many new forms of electronic communication and information sharing so many of us are potentially able to talk to people from all over the world with the push of a button. Lots of people have talked about how this is changing the ways that we think, how we relate to one another (or not), and how churches are doing the "business" of communicating and living the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the world. But today I'm pondering a different sort of question. I'm asking, "What significance do these changes have for the kind of people we are - and are becoming?"

I am, of course, assuming that electronic media are not wholly value neutral. There are "value statements" and even "faith statements" implicit in the creation of technologies - like Twitter and Facebook, for example. Regardless of whether the creators / facilitators of these new forms of technology explicitly stated it, the existence and sustained success of tools like Facebook and Twitter either assume or imply that quick electronic communication is a "good" or even "necessary" aspect of what it means to be human. I'm not sure if this implication comes from the creators, the technology itself or - and this is why I'm writing this post - from those people who use and enjoy these tools and subsequently discover that they cannot function long without them.

The same, it seems, is true of Christians who become accustomed to particular ways of organizing their day-to-day lives of faith. For example, as a Christian who is used to praying using "fixed-hour prayer" at least twice a day, to go without such prayer for a day feels odd. Or take the example of Christians who are accustomed to worshiping using "praise bands" and video projectors. To attend the small, traditional Episcopal congregation in which I began my vocational ministry would be quite a shock for someone who'd never known church that wasn't entertaining and visually (over)stimulating.

The reason I'm thinking about these things is that, as a youth minister, I must say that I am quite deeply troubled when I look around a room filled with twenty or so young people with their faces glued to their cell phone screens sending text messages to people sitting right next to them. Or how about the night I told them that youth group would consist of a time of quiet reflection and prayer? Five kids' parents literally said that they were too afraid to leave their kids (at church) without their cell phones so they took them home rather than allow them to experience prayer, silence, stillness and listening for God's voice. My wife, who is a youth minister at another church, once told me that the first time she told one of her students that he couldn't use his cell phone at a church camp, he had a panic attack that took about 20 minutes to subside. Is this troubling to anyone else?

Electronic communication is changing, I think, not only the way that we communicate with other people but also what we're afraid of. More people today, it seems, are afraid of being alone, being quiet and being still. What's more, we are far more willing to shell out hundreds of dollars a month on cell phones, home internet, and television, upwards of $500.00 on the latest technologically advanced cell phones, and thousands more on the most up-to-date computers and software packages yet so few of us are willing to spend an additional $45.00 a month to help feed, clothe and educate a child in need. I'm not sure if all these advances in the ways that we communicate have changed our ontology but I do believe that we have become far too dependent on them and that - far too often - these things take up space in our lives better suited for silence, prayer, and real conversations and communion with others and with God.

Of course, there is a bit of duplicity involved in writing a blog post about these things (a post about which I'll soon post a twitter message that will also update my Facebook profile). I guess what concerns me most is that our communication has changed to the point that what we do daily revolves so much around ourselves and not around what's happening in the world outside of our own isolation. It's about the right use (and, more importantly, pausing from the use) of technology and how overuse and addiction can affect who we are - and maybe what we're capable of becoming. Does anybody else feel this way?

Wind and Weather

2009-09-18T23:03:00.010-04:00

I rarely win anything. But recently I was a fifth-place winner in the Englewood Review of Books' "back to school" contest. I won two books by the agrarian horticulturalist, botanist, & poet, Liberty Hyde Bailey. Victory, indeed, is sweet!

If you haven't paid the folks at the ERB a visit, I suggest you do so as soon as possible. Check out their website here.

And now enjoy the poem (which is also the title of one of the books I won) Wind and Weather:

Passengers on the cosmic sea

We know not whence or whither,

'Tis happiness enough to be

Complete with wind and weather.

~ Liberty Hyde Bailey

Our Conflicting Allegiances: Christian Faithfulness in American Politics

2009-09-17T15:22:00.005-04:00

C. Wes Daniels at Gathering in Light has posted some great thoughts on Christian political engagement in the seemingly dire political milieu in which we find ourselves. Christians, he says, often divide along party lines but to be a Christian is to distinct from any of the two "reigning" parties. We are - by our baptism, confession and our lives - members of the Kingdom of God and it is to this party that we owe all our allegiance. Here's what Wes has to say: "I gladly do not identify with either the left or right because for me to be a Christian is to pledge allegiance to only one political party, Christ’s kingdom."

Christians who identify with what Wes and others are saying are bound to find themselves out of step with the dominant political "discourse" (if we can really call it such). I, like Wes, often find it hard to hope that our political climate in American can ever become anything other than the power-grubbing circus that it has become. I'm reminded here of what Rod Dreher wrote in his article Zombie Conservatism:

A leading Republican congressman recently chirped that things are looking up for the GOP because of people's fear. Another Republican lawmaker indicated distaste for school-speech demagogy but explained that one must understand that Washington is in the middle of a nasty health care fight.

Which means what, exactly? That winning is the only thing, and to hell with the good of the country, civil society and the possibility of intelligent debate about serious matters? Watching the school-speech insanity blow up on the right, a friend who has been deeply involved for decades at the top of Republican politics, e-mailed to say that she was done. The conservative movement is hurtling off a cliff – and she was bailing out.

Despite what Sam Tanenhaus says, conservatism is not dead. Rather, it's undead. The conservative movement is herking and jerking like a zombie, dedicated to little more than frenetic gestures execrating Obama, and to regaining power. To what end? Given that they're birthing a conservative party whose instincts are dictated by loudmouths, reactionaries and crackpots, and overseen by cynics, it's dispiriting to contemplate.

Of course this is not just a problem that conservatives are having. Democrats, too, are all too eager to give up their scruples, moral bearing and integrity to win power and influence people to support their narrow political agenda. Anyone who's been around for any time at all shouldn't be surprised that politicians are going to lie, cheat and constantly fail to live up to the lofty promises they make when trying to win elections.

What concerns me the most about our current political morass is the way in which Christians on "both sides" of the aisle and evangelicals in particular still have not learned that Christianity does not equal allegiance to one of the two party options our political system offers. Christianity is, itself, a politic and we are called to submit to Christ and to a cruciform way of life. Christianity does involve a particular allegiance but Christian leaders are often so thoroughly beholden to dominant political ideologies that they forget the world-transforming, counter-cultural mission of Jesus.

The church is itself a politic that answers to God, to Jesus’ ethics, rather than the king’s. We are to embody love of enemy, we are to do good to those who abuse us, we are to welcome the “alien” among us, and we are to give daily bread to those praying for it. Therefore, whether or not we live in a country that votes, has soldiers “protecting those freedoms!” or has leaders who believe the proper religious dogmas (often at the expense of actually living those dogmas) is all beside the point. Yes, I (typically) vote and help where I can within the established political system. I live in a country that (still) allows for disagreement and participation (though those on the fringes of the Right seem to favor less difference of opinion, maybe even difference of conviction, with growing fervor even in a free country such as ours), and the outcomes are still (for the most part) not predetermined. But I am not required to do this as a Christian, it is not our duty to transform the world by the means of the world. My duty is to love without measure and pray with my life that God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven, even if (or when) it costs me everything. As Christians, or people seeking to practice daily the Sermon on the Mount, I cannot see how this would ever be done with violence, lies, greed, exploitation and other under-the-table charades.

If Christianity has such a character as Wes has offered (and I believe strongly that it does), what does it mean for Christians to practice politics with integrity? What is involved in faithful (and public) witness if we are to be people who are clear and honest about our true allegiance to the Kingdom? Paraphrasing the words of Isaiah, what does it mean for Christians to seek the peace and prosperity of the city - to participate in the political world in which we live - while still being obedient to the reign of God? Certainly, as Wes has pointed out, it will involve a commitment to nonviolence, to truth-telling, to generosity and to overwhelming love.

But a nagging question remains: Given the shear loudness and incivility of these conflicting ideologies how can faithful Christians speak through the cacophony of competing allegiances to recover our true allegiance to the cruciform life of God's Kingdom?

On Integrity

2009-09-11T21:57:00.011-04:00

In divinity school, students are constantly reminded that we must work to develop and maintain our "ministerial integrity." As is the case with many pieces of advice given in divinity school, nobody really ever explains what is meant by the word "integrity" - much less do they explain how one in ministry might "develop and maintain" such a thing.

Because I think about such things in more detail than may be necessary, I have recently been "hung up" on this phrase, "ministerial integrity" and have wondered how in the world it might benefit me as I continue to serve God through my work in the church and in the academy. Given my recent "hang ups" about integrity it is fortuitous that I happened across an essay by Rowan Williams entitled "Theological Integrity." The essay appears in his collection of essays entitled On Christian Theology published by Blackwell back in 2000.

In this essay, I have found Rowan Williams to be not only the most erudite theologian I have encountered to date but also the one who writes most beautifully - a quality which is desperately needed in theology today. Moreover, he has distinguished himself as one of the finest theologians in the world - not to mention his gracious and creative work as Archbishop of Canterbury. All that is to say that I believe that Williams is uniquely postured to provide a theological account of the meaning of integrity as it applies to those in vocational ministry. Williams has this to say about integrity:

Having integrity...is being able to speak in a way which allows of answers. Honest discourse permits response and continuation; it involves collaboration by showing that it does not claim to be, in and of itself, final. It does not seek to prescribe the tone, the direction, or even the vocabulary of a response. And it does all this by showing in its own working a critical self-perception, displaying the axioms to which it believes itself accountable; that is to say, it makes clear that it accepts, even within its own terms of reference, that there are ways in which it may be questioned and criticized. It is a skill that must be learned rather than a system to be accepted. It sets out a possible framework for talk and perception, a field for debate, and so a field for its own future transmutations. When it resists debate and transmutation, claiming that it may prescribe exactly what the learning of its skills should lead to, it is open to the suspicion that its working are no longer answerable to what they claim to answer to: the further determinant has been added of the need to safeguard the power that licenses this kind of talk; and thus integrity disappears" (Williams, "Theological Integrity" in On Christian Theology, p. 5).

Put plainly, integrity is action or speech which does not conceal its agenda. A popular example of this disappearance of integrity to which Williams refers can be readily observed in much of the recent debate surrounding "healthcare" reform. Many of those who argue so stridently against any sort of reform do not openly reveal to the public that they are either financially beholden or linked for purposes of power to parties that stand to suffer financial loss if reform is passed. Such people make arguments about "socialized medicine" or a "government takeover of healthcare" when what they are really concerned about is either money or clout. Such arguments lack integrity and, thus, do not create - as Williams put it - an open "field for debate." Such arguments seek to "shut down" all response and charitable speech by claiming to have the only logical perspective. In such an atmosphere one is either "right" or "wrong" (depending on your perspective) and is, therefore, either an asset or a pariah.

In a ministerial sense, integrity might mean that a pastor with integrity would not couch appeals for giving money to the church in a sense of "duty" or "giving to the Kingdom." When preachers give sermons on tithing, they often lack integrity because they do not reveal that a major concern surrounding a church's giving is the continuance of the pastoral salary.

I recall here a tense moment in a rural church in which I served as an intern. In this particular church, regional church officers (referred to as "district superintendents") visit churches to give "pastoral encouragement" to both the local pastor and to the whole congregation. On one particular pastoral errand, a district superintendent's "sermon" about the importance of "Giving to the work of the Lord" was cut short when an elderly woman who grew up in this church stood and interrupted the district superintendant. The woman stood and said, "You keep telling us about the importance of giving to the kingdom. Why don't you quit pussyfooting around and tell us what you really want to say! You're lecturing us about giving to God's kingdom when what you're really concerned about is keeping that Lexus in your driveway and that Rolex on your wrist!" It turns out that this particular "church official" never visited the church for any other reason than to remind them to "pay their apportionments."

It seems that as much as ministers (myself included) have become masters of concealing our agendas and motives from others, the real problem is that we have become even better at concealing them from ourselves. If we who are ministers were to be truthful with ourselves about our motives in preaching, in teaching, in counseling, and so on, I'm certain we would find ourselves questioning whether what we emphasize in our words and actions is either faithful or fruitful (much less lacking or having theological integrity).

This is not merely true of pastors and financial issues in churches. Another related problem which stems from lack of integrity is the issue of power and control in the public sphere. Denominational leaders and other ministers who speak - either officially or unofficially - for large groups of people lack integrity when they present their ideas as showcasing "the way the world works" or "the way God sees things."

One example of ways of reasoning and persuading that lack this kind of integrity in the public sphere might be the contemporary debate over the inclusion of openly gay Christians in church membership and pastoral leadership. There are many in today's world who claim - either directly or indirectly - to speak from God's point of view or to explain "the way the world works" with regard to human sexuality.

Such people lack integrity because they refuse to admit that they are arguing a particular perspective rather than presenting in its totality the way God intended the world in general - and human sexuality in particular - to function. Williams, again, has much to say about such ways of reasoning. Note: he is not here addressing the particular arguments regarding homosexuality but, rather, the general lack of integrity of all arguments and modes of discourse which seek this sort of unwarranted totalitarian control over the lives of other people. He writes,

Religious talk is in an odd position here. On the one hand, it is making claims about the context of the whole universe, claims of crucial concern for the right leading of human life; it is thus not likely, prima facie, to be content with provisional statements. On the other hand, if it really purports to be about the context of the moral universe, it declares itself to be uniquely 'under judgement', and to be dealing with what supremely resists the urge to finish and close up what is being said. How is the context of the moral universe to appear in our speech without distortion? If it is represented as something whose operations have been securely or finally charted and whose authority can be straightforwardly invoked by this or that group of speakers, what is in fact happing is that such discourse is claiming to define 'the moral universe' itself. Yet all speakers speak from a perspective, social and historical, and their words are part of the universe they claim to see as a whole" (Williams, 5).

When ministers and others who claim to represent Christianity in the public sphere make absolute claims regarding any moral subject - be it health care reform, sexuality, war, anything really - they lack integrity in an extreme and wholly dangerous way because such discourse denies the possibility of rebuttal and shuts down all avenues for true discussion. In a very real sense, then, Christians need to lead the way in recovering integrity in public discourse. But what would such a recovery look like? How might Christians lead the way in developing and maintaining true integrity in our daily lives such that we might faithfully and fruitfully participate in the public discourse? What practices - both personal and communal - are necessary to help develop real integrity that has the potential to both reveal who we are and to transform us into who we are becoming in Christ? Any thoughts?

Sex Offenders and the Church: Does a New N.C. Law Infringe on Religious Freedom

2009-08-22T09:40:00.003-04:00

The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, NC) has reported on the case of James Nichols, a sex-offender who served six years in prison and who also recently arrested for - you guessed it - going to church. It's a good article so go and read it there. Nichols, in addition so serving six years, proactively informed the church regarding his crimes before worshiping with them. But because the church has a childcare facility on its premises, a new state law gives law enforcement the right to arrest and detain Nichols for exercising his religious freedom.

Senator David Hoyle (whom I've met personally) said, "As far as I'm concerned, they've lost all their rights — to go to church ... to go to McDonald's to get a cheeseburger if they've got the slides,” said state Sen. David Hoyle, the Gastonia Democrat who sponsored the law. “They have made that choice. They have imposed that on themselves. I didn't.”

Hoyle apparently has no faith whatsoever in the prison system to either punish or effectively rehabilitate criminals. He - along with others - is concerned about repeat offenses, and rightly so. Children are involved. I am a father and I want my son to be safe from these sorts of crimes and from the people who commit them. Hoyle sponsored the new law and said that if convicted sex-offenders attend churches that have nurseries on the grounds, “It's a recipe for them to find victims.”

As far as I'm aware there are no such laws to prohibit other criminals who've served their time and gone through rigorous counseling and mental evaluation before being released from being near the people they've offended. This includes child murders, violent batterers of children and women, and other violent criminals.

Of course there are fears or repeat offenses - fears which cannot be statistically justified just yet (see this Wall Street Journal article from August, 2009). But repeat offense is not the issue here. What is at stake is a fundamental freedom which all people should have - especially sex offenders. Nichols' attorney argues that “Churches are often the last hope for many sex offenders who need the stability and guidance a church pastor and church family can provide."

The new law as it now stands does not distinguish between "child predators, violent offenders and remorseful adults who committed rape as much younger men or teenagers." Personally, I believe that such distinctions matter when it comes to the free exercise of one of the few remaining freedoms that sex-offenders have once they have served their time.

Hoyle and others who support the new law obviously care for the safety of North Carolina citizens. However, I believe this law unfairly throws a wide blanket over all those who've been convicted, served their time and have been released to wider society. Rather than attempting to successfully rehabilitate and re-incorporate sex-offenders into responsible society, this law takes the short-cut solution. Hoyle's dogged support of this law shows 1) that he has absolutely no faith in the prison system to rehabilitate criminals of any kind and 2) that he has no interest in making sure that people are truly safe from any sort of crime. If he - and other supporters of this law - really cared about these things they would have drafted a much more comprehensive and careful law that takes into account actual rates of repeat offense as well as the disposition and contrition of the offender.

What Hoyle and others do not take into account is that there are clear and effective tools such as the Safe Sanctuaries training that can help churches minister to sex-offenders safely.

Bishop Larry Goodpaster, of the United Methodist's Western Conference in Charlotte, said strict rules and training for children's volunteers can allow sex offenders to attend church while also protecting the congregation.

For what its worth, I think sex-offenders should be allowed to participate in the full life of a congregation within the following conditions:

The clergy and lay leadership of the church should be notified immediately and children and youth ministry leaders should be briefed especially. The entire congregation, ideally, should be made aware as well and instructed regarding how to graciously - and cautiously - incorporate the offender into the life of the church.
The offender should be banned from any participation in either youth or children's ministry of any kind and the congregation and leadership should take an active role in loving and holding the offender accountable.

I agree with Dr. Jim West that "while we want to and must protect our children, we must also reject state interference in the practice of religion. Supervision and observation are the keys to allowing repentant criminals in churches."

What do you think? Are there ways that churches with children's ministries can extend God's grace and mercy to repentant criminals - especially sex offenders? Or have their crimes (for which they've served their time and reaped the consequences) forever barred them from faithful participation in whatever religious community they choose?

Youth Ministry and the Limits of Knowing: Carl McColman on Language and the Divine

2009-06-10T11:08:00.001-04:00

Recently I have been lucky enough to discover or re-discover a number of blogs that I haven't read in a while. One of my new favorites is that of Carl McColman, The Website of Unknowing. Mike Morrell led me to Carl's website and I'm glad he did! If anyone were looking for a great listing of Mystical literature and theology, I'd tell them to start at this page on the Website of Unknowing.

In addition to being a wonderful blogger, Carl is also an author of numerous books on mysticism and spirituality. I've been slowly reading his book entitled Spirituality: Where Body and Soul Encounter the Sacred, which was re-published in 2008 with the title, Spirituality: A Postmodern and Interfaith Approach to Cultivating a Relationship with God. As far as I know the two editions are pretty much the same with different covers and subtitles.

At any rate, I've been reading the section on prayer since that's something I've always struggled with in my own spiritual journey. And I ran across a fascinating section on silence and the limitations of human knowing, particularly with regard to human language.

For all the talk among emerging/emergent folks about "epistemological humility," I think Carl McColman's thoughts on silence and prayer have done more for me in terms of allowing me to understand my limitations than any emerging/emergent writers have done.
That's not to say I haven't been helped in this regard by many in the "conversation" but I think Cal put it best when he wrote the following:

Ultimately, language fails before the Great Mystery. As language fails, so also do all our concepts, ideas, notions, and depictions of "God," "the Sacred," "the Divine." We may say that God is eternal and omnipresent and perfectly good, but words like "eternal" and "omnipresent" and "good" and "perfect" all signify something that we humans understand in terms of our own experience. Since the nature of God transcends all human experience (and indeed transcends the universe of space and time itself), our language cannot adequately describe God, since the qualities of God exist beyond the limits of a word's possible usage. If words cannot adequately describe even the attributes of God, how can words ever describe God's essence?

Recognizing the inability of language to fully represent God, we are left only with silence. This applies not just to literal silence (both internal and external), but to metaphorical "silences" as well. Just as silence is defined as the absense of sound, metaphorical silence may involve the absense of language, the absense of light, the absense of certainty or meaning. Silence and darkness, in fact, are siblings in the realm of spirituality. God is light, but sometimes the light is so dazzling that we all can percieve is a "darkness" - like turning on a light in a dark room and being blinded until our eyes adjust.

More and more these days, I'm finding myself in need of silence. Especially when I think about my work with the youth @ Centenary UMC, the desire to help them cultivate habits of listening and stillness seem to permeate my thoughts. Which, of course, is difficult when churches expect "results." By "results," of course, they mean an exciting youth "program." But in my five or so years of doing youth ministry, I've never really been "in to" doing "program-oriented" youth ministry. In spite of my efforts toward a "presence-centered youth ministry" I think I have often fallen prey to the temptation to work for tangible results like higher attendance and the praise of coleagues, parents and church members.

This, of course, has led me to desire - even crave - more times of silence and to cultivate (imperfectly, of course) my ability to listen before I speak. I know Carl wasn't writing especially for youth workers but I do believe we who work with youth in the church ought to think through the implications of what it would mean for us to give up some of our certainty about God, theology and even (or especially) the way we work with our youth. Of course, we can agree that there are some "best pactices" for youth ministry but we need to be more aware of the way(s) that our use of language and space as well as our cultivation of relationships can potentially be manipulative, disingenuous and even maybe harmful to the young people with whom we work. What might it mean to help young people to cultivate habits of listening and silence? What might it mean for youth ministers to do the same?

What if the iMonk is Right - Finding Hope in the Coming Evangelical Collapse

2009-06-09T22:24:00.001-04:00

“I sit in church every Sunday morning…for a full hour…and I feel nothing. I get nothing. I experience nothing. You say you wonder why some parents don’t bring their children to youth group, don’t make them come to Sunday school and seem not to care that their children aren’t involved with church. I say you should just look around. Nobody really cares about this stuff. Most people come because it looks good...People are leaving because God’s Spirit is leading them to the one place where they’re sure to hear God speak – private devotion, friendship and family. I’ve taught Sunday School for ten years and I’ve never seen things this bad…this empty.” (From a recent conversation with an anonymous Sunday School teacher)

A few months ago, Michael Spencer, A.K.A. the internet Monk, wrote an important and heavily blogged about piece about the impending collapse of evangelicalism in the West (particularly America). The full-text can be found here. The iMonk chronicles six main reasons why he thinks evangelicalism is on a quick descent into possible non-existence:

Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism
Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people the evangelical Christian faith in an orthodox form that can take root and survive the secular onslaught
Evangelical churches have now passed into a three part chapter: 1) mega-churches that are consumer driven, 2) churches that are dying and 3) new churches that whose future is dependent on a large number of factors.
Despite some very successful developments in the last 25 years, Christian education has not produced a product that can hold the line in the rising tide of secularism.
The deterioration and collapse of the evangelical core will eventually weaken the missional-compassionate work of the evangelical movement
Much of this collapse will come in areas of the country where evangelicals imagine themselves strong...At the core of this collapse will be the inability to pass on, to our children, a vital evangelical confidence in the Bible and the importance of the faith.

I’ve had plenty of time to think about the iMonk’s assertions and so, although I’m incredibly late to the game, I’ve got a few thoughts of my own derived – in part – from my experience over the past six years in youth ministry in “mainline churches.” Granted, six years isn’t an eternity in ministry but I do think it’s long enough to notice some important cultural shifts.

In my experience, mainline churches - even in the South - don't conceive of themselves as "evangelicals." Despite this phraseological discrepancy, I think the Mainline churches must be included in the iMonk's assessment. Among the most prominent factors is the growing dissatisfaction with the top-down hierarchical nature of most of the mainline denominations. I think people - baby boomers and their children - are beginning to figure out the institutional church's big secret: that the clergy class is just as clueless as the rest of us.

For all our theological education, our "leadership skills" and our cultural engagement, pastors and other ministry workers are increasingly unable to provide compelling reasons why others should live engaged lives of Christian faith.

Case in point - a local church in my area is planning a revival. The publically stated purpose: to bring the "un-churched" back into the church." Ministry leaders are increasingly out of touch with the reality that, by and large, Western culture stepped outside the doors of the church about 30 years ago and most of them simply aren't looking back. Language of “churched” and “unchurched” either sounds foreign, silly or creepy to most folks to whom it refers.

The reality is this: I work in a "traditional" mainline church and I love what I do. I pray that God will continue to work in all of the forms of church as we continue to move into the future and work for the coming of the Kingdom of God. In spite of my work and my hope, however, I have the distinct feeling that I'm riding a big wave on a sinking ship. I believe that there's a future for intentional and communal Christian formation in the 21st century and beyond. I am highly skeptical, however, of the ability of any institutional form of Christianity to truly "be" that sort of community.

In the past, I have been critical of folks like Frank Viola for criticizing and speaking out against practices of institutional churches which have no basis in scripture. The main reason I think I've been critical, however, is that the logical conclusions of such assertions leave me without a job.

I wonder how many others are in similar situations: seeing so much that's wrong with the church but failing to speak out in order to survive. How long can ministers continue to reap the benefits of "working for the Lord" while at the same time stubbornly hardening our hearts to what God can do perfectly well without our help?
What options are there for a class of people - the "minister" class - whose major skill sets are "preaching and visiting?" I'm reminded of a lecture that Wendell Berry delivered during my year at Duke Divinity School in which he more or less said that most pastors today are useless outside the safe walls of what we so arrogantly call "Church." Pastors, he said, ought to learn a trade so that they can actually make a meaningful contribution to their communities.

I think he's right. At the very least, those who minister in today's institutional churches ought to start looking outside the church for sources of income. The current situation of the church is unsustainable. I, of course, am writing this as one who benefits from this unsustainable system. And, of course, I am more than willing to admit that I don’t have all the answers. What I’ve got is a wife and a son that I love more than my own life so I’m willing to make some compromises so that we can pay our bills. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely love working in youth ministry at my current church. But I’m becoming increasingly uncomfortable with deriving all of my livelihood from money that could just as easily go to start a community garden or provide food for the homeless or any number of other forms of community development.

I find hope in the emerging / emergent conversation at the same time that some (including, sometimes, myself) are also disappointed with its (lack of) direction. I don't have a lot of answers but I believe there's hope for the church. I just pray that people will begin to see the potential beauty in this mess we call church.

You Will All Be My Witnesses - or, what do you do when "something happens" to you @ the Eucharist?

2009-06-09T21:46:00.000-04:00

So I've begun my work at Centenary United Methodist Church in Smithfield, NC and my primary work will be among youth, young adults and (partly) children. HOWEVER, as a condition of my being hired, I asked that I be allowed to assist in leading some of the various regular worship gatherings - primarily Sunday mornings and Wednesday nights.

Without fail, my first Sunday and Wednesday I was one of the "celebrants" in the Eucharistic gatherings held on those days. On Wednesday night, I was called upon (without notice) to assist with the Eucharist. While our pastor, David, was reading from the Methodist hymnbook...

"The Lord be with you..." "And also with you..."

...it was my job to prepare the bread and the wine for the Eucharistic meal. So, on cue, when David said the appropriate words...

"On the night in which he gave himself up for us, he took bread, gave thanks to you, broke the bread, gave it to his disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

...I held the bread before the small group gathered together and I broke it. Before anything else was said. Before the eucharistic meal was finished. Before anything else happened, I felt inwardly transformed. Something happened to me while I was breaking the body of Christ for the benefit of those gathered there that night.

And the question remains for me, "What do you do when 'something happens' to you in the Eucharist." How do you explain such a transformation? It wasn't as though I had a mystical experience or some sort of epiphany. I simply knew that somethingi was different. Call it real presence, call it a "spiritual experience," call it whatever you like - I prefer to call it a gift.

Often, I approach the Eucharistic meal with a sort of reverence and awe (feigned when I'm tired or when the day hasn't gone as I'd have liked). Indeed, I approach the table as though I'm approaching the very body and blood of Christ - and for most of my life (even my time among the Southern Baptists) I've managed to believe that the bread and wine actually are the body and blood of Christ. I've always believed this but never in my life have I felt or believed that my life - my mind, my heart, my sense of who I am as a person, a minister, a husband and a father - was fundamentally changed during the Euchairst.

That is, until now. It probably sounds crazy - especially to some of my Baptist friends out there - but I believe that, in that moment when I broke the bread and presented to cup to those Christians gathered before me, God issued a calling clearer than I've ever felt before. I'm called - just as all people are called - to be lifted to God. I'm called to experience the life of the Triune Mystery in an imperfect community of people with whom I may not otherwise associate. I'm called to live - as all people are - with the needs of my brothers and sisters in mind. I'm called to point others to the communion of the Three-In-One God and to live my life - a life of peace, gentleness, humility and failure - in service to all those "Others" for whom such communion is not yet possible. I am called to be a minister. And because it could have just as easily been you serving me at the Holy Banquet, You are called to be a minister.

Leonardo Boff - "God the Family"

2009-06-05T10:35:00.000-04:00

"The ultimate principle of the world and of history is not a solitary being...but God the Family - God-Communion. From all eternity, Yahweh is a bond of loving relations, an unfathomable Mystery - the unoriginated Origin of all - called "Father." This Mother and Father emerges from the depths of divine mystery in an act of self-communication and self-revelation within the Godhead itself, and this emergence is the second person of God: "God the Son." Now Parent and Child - "Father and Son" - join in an embrace of love and in so doing express and give origin to the Holy Spirit, who is the Oneness of the first and second persons. This Trinity has not remained enclosed but has communicated itself, making human life its temple. The Trinity dwells in our history, divinizing each of us" (Quoted in Stanley Grenz, Rediscovering the Triune God, p. 120).

Bonaventure on The Trinity and Creation + the rest of my review of The Becoming of G-d by Ian Mobsby

2009-06-04T00:41:00.000-04:00

So I've got a thing for the Trinity these days - which is appropriate given that I'm giving the pastoral reflection on Trinity Sunday @ the church where I serve as a youth minister. I ran across this wonderful little tidbit from Bonaventure in Denys Turner's book, The Darkness of God:

...the creation of the world is a kind of book in which the Trinity, the world's maker, shines forth, is represented and read in three modes of expression, namely the modes of vestige, image and likeness: thus the meaning of vestige is found in all creatures, of image in intellectual or rational spirits only, of likeness in those alone who are godlike; and from these human understanding is destined to ascend step by step to the highest Principle, God, as if up a kind of ladder.

In my little "love affair" with Trinitarian theology, I've been drawn also to apophatic or negative theology, process / panentheistic thought (in Philip Clayton and Paul Fiddes), and mysticism. I'm beginning to think that Western Christianity needs a good dose of each of these (although I'm still not always sure what to make of the more heady "Whiteheadean" process stuff).

That being said, expect a clearer focus in the coming days on each of these subjects - especially in my next post where I will continue my reflections / thoughts on Ian Mobsby's book, The Becoming of G-d.

Grace & peace,

A.T.

Paul Fiddes on Living the Trinity

2009-05-25T10:35:00.000-04:00

Given my recent interest in the Trinitarian shape of the church - as provoked by Ian Mobsby's book, The Becoming of G-d, I was thrilled to run across these passages by Paul Fiddes on participating in the life of God:

We dwell and dance in triune spaces. The room that God makes for us within God’s own self is not a widening of the gap between individual subjects, but the opening up of intervals within the interweaving movements of giving and receiving...

...The comprehensiveness of Christ as incarnate wisdom consists therefore in his relationship as Son to Father. This relationship in which Christ participates within the communion of God’s life comprehends the infinite aspects of all relations of giving and receiving in God. The filial relationship of this particular human son [Christ] to God exactly corresponds to the movement of relationship within God which is like that between a son and a father; thus, in Christ, human sonship is the same as divine sonship not only in function but in being, since relations in God are more being-full than anything else. This means that the pattern of son-to-father relationship made visible in the life, death and resurrection of Christ becomes the key to our own participation in God. It is this flow of relationship upon which we are dependent and must engage in the complex and inexhaustible communion of God’s life...

Enough by Will Samson - an Ooze Viral Bloggers Review

2009-05-18T11:33:00.000-04:00

So adjusting to life with a new baby has been amazing but - as you might imagine - a little hectic as well. Thus my blogging has been sporadic over the past three months (heck, even longer than that). Into the frenzy of work, school and family, Will Samson's book, Enough has brought me a new perspective on the faith that grounds everything I do.

Samson was brought up in "Bible church" culture, attended Liberty University and eventually began working on politics - citing Francis Schaeffer and William F. Buckley as heroes and guiding forces in his political engagement. He left politics when the conservatives launched their "contract with America" in 1994, believing that "we had won" (25). At the time he thought that "morality" had come home to reign over America for good.

Any student of history knows that things were - and continue to be - quite a bit messier in the political realm. Political life in the United States was and is by no means monilithically "moral." What's more, over time Samson's perspective on faith, Scripture, politics and culture has - in the intervening years - undergone a radical shift. Enough is the fruit of those years of hard thought about the reality of greed, consumerism, morality and culture in "the West" in general and America in particular.

I simply loved this book! In Enough Samson adeptly engages and challenges the notions of individualism and consumerism that have turned biblical Christianity into a parody of the life that God has called us to. The Trinitarian life of God is a life of community, of love, of sufficiency and abundance - a life of love. But if one were to look into the lives of Christians in America, however (not to mention America in general), what would that person observe? It seems fairly obvious these days - with the economy going crazy and people worrying about it constantly - that life in America is mostly a life of stuff. We worry about how to get it, how to pay for it, what to do with it when we have it, how to get more of it and how to get rid of it when it has served its purpose. We are a people, in short, who are consumed with stuff.

In 2003 nearly 50 percent of American household expenditures were for "nonnecessity" items. Compare this to the 21 percent of nonnecessity spending in 1901 and 35 percent of nonnecessity spending in 1960. We are spending more than ever as a nation on items we don't need, but we sure do want. In 2004, American consumers spend $2.2 trillion on entertainment, and $782 billion of that on televisions, radios and sound equipment. In 2005 we spent $86 billion on sporting goods, including $852 million on snowmobiles and $338 million on archery equipment. (Archery equipment? Really? Who saw that coming?) Every year we spend more and more on products and services created by our "growing" economy.

Of course the rebuttal might be made, "But we're making more money these days." Samson addresses that by noting that the same repot "even when we increase our income, we still spend more than we have. This is not just a problem that can be solved by tweaking our systems. Something deep within our souls longs for more stuff" (34).

Samson goes on later to note that part of our problem is that we've got a messed up understanding of of freedom. "We now have a historic level of choice over what to buy, what to believe, and how to act. But has this made us more moral or more whole" (38)? People in America often concieve of freedom as the simple liberty to choose what we buy, believe and do. The upiquity of "choice" has led us to be a people incapable of making up our minds. This is a problem of a fully embodied Christianity because, as Samson puts it so well (referencing Charles Finney),

"The end result of this multitude of choices is that we tend to pick the simplest one. This is what [Charles] Finney realized...rather than call people to live in eucharistic community, a call that would require a great deal of sacrifice, Finney invited [people] to walk down the aisle and 'ask Jesus into their hearts.' All that was required was a simple accedence to the most basic part of the gospel.

This has significant implications for our theology here in America. I fear that Jesus has been transformed from the God who radically and incarnationally engages with the world, to the God who was around long enough to perform the divine transaction of our salvation. 'God became flesh and dwelt among us,' and yet most of us have given no thought to the lessons we might learn from the life of Christ, including those lessons that relate to our questions of sufficiency and contentment" (59).

The issues of sufficiency of contentment, for Samson, is the hinge on which a large part of this book rests. We in America no longer believe that God is sufficient for our needs so we stockpile all this stuff - in the end, all this junk - because we no longer have faith that God can sustain us. So many of our practices - from the way we dispose of our trash to the way we get around from place to place each day - are lived in such a way that shows that we believe we are the only ones who matter.

Samson believes that life in the way of Christ not only requires but makes possible new perspectives and practices regarding consumption, waste, sufficiency, goodness, morality - all of it! The point, however, is that this new life - this way of God - is not possible for the individual. The final few chapters of Enough point to practices of community that enable us to both see and experience this way of life that sees God as the provider and sustainer of life, that moves us away from mindless and seemingly endless consumption and that helps us to recognize the need for sustainable practices that enable us to see that a new way of being human is possible when we live "eucharistically."

To live "eucharistically" means to live into the story that is different (and better) thant he story of constant consumption. "Our communities should tell a story of Christ in the Eucharist, a story that there is no longer Jew nor Greek, homeless nor homeowner, addicted nor clean, broken nor whole. Rather we are all broken, blessed, and offered to a world in need" (97). Eucharistic living is a life of abundance, wholeness, true fulfillment and true sacrifice in which we are constantly offering ourselves to our friends and our enemies in order to draw others into the transforming presence of Christ. Practices that Samson mentions that help us engage and enter such a life are those of meal sharing, supporting local and alternative economies, reducing our reliance on motor vehicles and others that point prophetically to the new life available in Christ - a life which is often talked about but rarely tried. Enough is a wonderful and charitable book. I hope many Christians will read it and use Samsons suggestions to begin living into the life to which Christ calls us.

Grace & peace,

A.T.

Healed But Not Abandoned: Ordination, Ministry and a New Christianity

2009-05-16T18:30:00.000-04:00

In previous blogs, I've published my thoughts on ordination and Chrisitan ministry - particularly the apparent divide between so-called "clergy" and "laity" in more mainline Christian traditions. Tony Jones recently published a series of posts in which he blasts the traditional conception of ordination as it is conceived within (mostly) mainline Christianity. You can see each of these posts here: parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Today, Mike Morrell - a well-known emerging house churcher and a good friend of mine - posted his thoughts on Tony's series of posts. Mike and I met at an Ash Wednesday gathering at Emmaus Way, an emerging faith community in Durham, NC (my favorite city of the Triangle) which was, incidentially, where I first met and had good a conversation with Tony. Mike was instrumental in introducing me to the work of Frank Viola - particularly his earlier writings such as Rethinking the Wineskin and Who is Your Covering.

When I posted my original thoughts on ordination - reflecting upon the spiritual beating I received from Frank's writings - I was a student at Duke Divinity School, a fairly traditional seminary of the United Methodist Church. While at Duke, I was able to see firsthand the damage that denominational politics has the potential to do to the lives of paid ministers ("elders" in the UMC) and seminarians.

After reading Frank Viola's stuff, I bought into the idea that denominational systems were inherently sinful and that real Christianity only exists outside of sinful church hierarchies. I believed, at that time, that God's Spirit couldn't possible work (or even be heard or experienced) in a church where some were called to be "pastors" and others were called to be "laity."

I won't rehearse the entire history of my thoughts on ordination but I will say that - because of my work in the "institutional" or "traditional" church, my views have changed. I do not agree with Tony that, as Mike summarized, "our contemporary denominational ordination systems are sinful and obstruct the flow of the Spirit’s activity in our time." I do not think that the systems themselves are inherently sinful or that they automatically obstruct the flow of the Spirit's work. In fact these days I find more and more that I share affinity with the traditional Catholic understanding of the "ministerial priesthood" as put forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, "each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ." While being "ordered one to another," they differ essentially. In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit--, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church.

Although I do have issues with the Catholic understanding of the priesthood as both celebate and male, I do affirm the general difference between the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood in the sense that the ministerial priesthood (or, in protestantism, the ministry of the ordained) ought to be exercised as an vocation of service of the priesthood of every person. That is, I believe that the ordained exist to serve the "laity" by empowering them to live a life of empowered service to Christ's church.

I affirm ordination as "a means" that God uses to order the work of the church through the empowering work of the Holy Spirit. The denominational system of ordination has functioned in various ways that have oppressed and excluded gifted persons from ordination to the ministry of the ordained. But again, as the Catechism notes,

This presence of Christ in the minister is not to be understood as if the latter were preserved from all human weaknesses, the spirit of domination, error, even sin. The power of the Holy Spirit does not guarantee all acts of ministers in the same way. While this guarantee extends to the sacraments, so that even the minister's sin cannot impede the fruit of grace, in many other acts the minister leaves human traces that are not always signs of fidelity to the Gospel and consequently can harm the apostolic fruitfulness of the Church.

Simply because a system can be abused and exercised in a sinful manner does not necessitate that such a system be understood as inherently sinful. I, like Tony and Mike, believe that the ways we have concieved of Christianity must change. Each new era will need a "new Christianity."

Moreover, I agree that the abuses of the various denominational systems must cease if the church is truly to be the church in our time. I can even affirm the need for a rethinking of ordination - the process of ordination, the privileges provided to clergy (i.e. ministerial compensation), and the beurocratic structures which have a tendency to control and oppress others. But I do not believe that such systems ought to be abandoned altogether.

Moreover, I find a lot of hope in Mike's suggestions for such a rethinking when he writes (in a comment on one of Tony's posts):

My both/and happens to be what you all practice at Solomon’s Porch. I first encountered the idea from a friend of mine (I’ll protect his identity) who’s a progressive catholic type who’s flirted with the idea of being ordained as a priest in the Celtic Catholic Church, an independent Catholic church in the ‘ol apostolic succession. If he pursued this path, he told me, he’d pursue becoming a bishop. Once a bishop, he’d have the official authority to ordain anyone he wished – thus, he’d ordain any baptized Christian who understood the glory and duty of being a priest on earth.

I like this approach. I think that one way mainline churches can infuse new life into them would be take this subversive and experimental approach – perhaps with a few test dioceses at first, since I’m sure it would be scary. But take the Episcopalians for instance, who wish to be the best of Catholics meet Protestants. Why not take the pomp & circumstance (what Bono called the ‘glam rock of the church’) of formal priesthood and make it available even to the plebs? I know institutions rarely undertake prophetic acts, but it seems like a Jesus thing to do. And way sexier than what we dour-faced house churchers do, poo-poohing the whole ordination ‘thang.’

This need not be overly disruptive to the highest ideals of ordination. It could draw from the best of the 2nd-5th century cathecumen process, where becoming baptized happened after much study, prayer, and service, carrying with it great weight and dignity. Make the ordinations gift-specific if need be, and certainly be clear that ordination doesn’t mean you’ll be making a full-time living or drawing a full-time paycheck from this vocation. For an era, I imagine there will still be full-time priests in this setting, but perhaps their role could evolve to being coordinators of church full of priests. After awhile, inspiration or necessity might give birth to an all-volunteer driven church, volunteers who nonetheless are completely serious about their great & glorious vocation.

As one who finds himself perenially attracted to the Catholic church but also called to the ministry, the Episcopal and Methodist traditions have their appeal. The fact that both of these traditions ordain both married persons and women only increase their draw. However, I struggle with my calling precisely because I have witnessed first hand the abuses of various denominational systems toward persons in the ordination process and those who've made it through. Nevertheless, I believe these systems can - and should - be healed but not abandoned. It isn't as though I think that house churches and churches with more open ordination process ought not exist, I just think that it is also possible for God to work through existing structures to bring them into further conformity with the guidance of the Spirit.