Christianity: May 2010 Archives
Julie Holm has an excellent article on how going to seminary is ministry.
It was after being recommended for in care that I was asked to be on the leadership group (of 3) that supported 40 ministry teams. I was the only nominee for the vacant position. I was already serving on a number of our church's ~90 ministry teams. Churches have few people willing to take leadership roles (the 80/20 or 90/10 rule: 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people). Those few who will are expected to, because the alternative is empty leadership positions.
Financial support of seminarians is an interesting issue. The two congregations I've been with both struggle to pay their staff - one pays a full time pastor plus part time staff positions: youth minister, music minister, accompanist, facilities manager, church secretary, and cleaning staff. The other pays only a pastor (full time) and part time accompanist. There's no money left to try to help someone through seminary (despite what the MoM may say).
And why should they? It's not like they'll be the beneficiaries of the education. The seminarian will likely go pastor some other church or do some other ministry. Why give money to help someone else's ministry, especially when our own ministries are struggling?
Perhaps the fundamental problem is that, for many, the church has been relegated to an hour on Sunday morning. For some, this is clarified to "on days when none of the kids has an activity like skating or baseball Sunday morning and when we weren't out too late Saturday night" (I know a paid minister who has to skip even some large celebrations - read Christmas - due to conflicts with primary job, secondary job, and kids).
It should be no surprise that paid ministers, seminarians, and lay leaders are burning out. While 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people, the other 80% of the people are expecting more.
I don't have an answer to this problem.
It was after being recommended for in care that I was asked to be on the leadership group (of 3) that supported 40 ministry teams. I was the only nominee for the vacant position. I was already serving on a number of our church's ~90 ministry teams. Churches have few people willing to take leadership roles (the 80/20 or 90/10 rule: 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people). Those few who will are expected to, because the alternative is empty leadership positions.
Financial support of seminarians is an interesting issue. The two congregations I've been with both struggle to pay their staff - one pays a full time pastor plus part time staff positions: youth minister, music minister, accompanist, facilities manager, church secretary, and cleaning staff. The other pays only a pastor (full time) and part time accompanist. There's no money left to try to help someone through seminary (despite what the MoM may say).
And why should they? It's not like they'll be the beneficiaries of the education. The seminarian will likely go pastor some other church or do some other ministry. Why give money to help someone else's ministry, especially when our own ministries are struggling?
Perhaps the fundamental problem is that, for many, the church has been relegated to an hour on Sunday morning. For some, this is clarified to "on days when none of the kids has an activity like skating or baseball Sunday morning and when we weren't out too late Saturday night" (I know a paid minister who has to skip even some large celebrations - read Christmas - due to conflicts with primary job, secondary job, and kids).
It should be no surprise that paid ministers, seminarians, and lay leaders are burning out. While 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people, the other 80% of the people are expecting more.
I don't have an answer to this problem.
I'm not objecting to theological study, but I'm wondering about our various creeds and catechisms. Christianity seems to do a lot of arguing over who is right, and some of it gets pretty specific, down to what the bread is and what should be in the cup.
Churches split over theological disagreements. Sometimes believers will tell other believers "you are not Christian" over some of these matters.
I wonder how much doctrine is actually required.
For the Ethiopian eunuch, it could be explained during a chariot ride:
There are many question about who God is, how and why the universe was created, and at what time and in what sort of space should we worship, and these are good and interesting questions on which we can disagree as we search for answers.
But I suspect the essentials of what it mean to be Christian are fairly simple. Perhaps something we can share in a car ride.27282930313233343536383940
Churches split over theological disagreements. Sometimes believers will tell other believers "you are not Christian" over some of these matters.
I wonder how much doctrine is actually required.
For the Ethiopian eunuch, it could be explained during a chariot ride:
Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning home; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.How much information could have been exchanged? It's hard to know for certain, but I don't think it was a complicated theology.
Then the Spirit said to Philip, "Go over to this chariot and join it." So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" He replied, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him.
Now the passage of the scripture that he was reading was this: "Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and like a lamb silent before its shearer, so he does not open his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth." The eunuch asked Philip, "About whom, may I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?"
Then Philip began to speak, and starting with this scripture, he proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus. As they were going along the road, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?" He commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.
- Acts 8:28-39, NRSV
There are many question about who God is, how and why the universe was created, and at what time and in what sort of space should we worship, and these are good and interesting questions on which we can disagree as we search for answers.
But I suspect the essentials of what it mean to be Christian are fairly simple. Perhaps something we can share in a car ride.27282930313233343536383940
Are you an ambassador for heaven?
OK, my readers are all over the place theologically. Some people don't believe in an afterlife, much less heaven. Many don't know for sure whether they're going to heaven (though I'm sure a few are certain). I don't think any of my readers are descended from heaven, but who knows?
For those who believe in an afterlife in paradise, and especially those who tell others about heaven:
Are you the kind of person with whom someone would like to spend eternity?
I have a tendency to be sullen, and maybe I'm not a great ambassador for heaven. It's something I'm working on. I'm not saying this is easy.
There are other types of behaviors that can be troublesome as well. Spending eternity with millions or billions of intimidating people doesn't sound much like heaven. People who point out every mistake aren't a vision of Paradise. Same for selfish people, and uncaring people, and lots of others.
So while we're here, if we believe in a hereafter, maybe we can start working on being the kind of people with whom spending time would be heavenly. Then, when we all get to heaven, what a day of rejoicing that will be.
And maybe we'll help create a little heaven on earth.
OK, my readers are all over the place theologically. Some people don't believe in an afterlife, much less heaven. Many don't know for sure whether they're going to heaven (though I'm sure a few are certain). I don't think any of my readers are descended from heaven, but who knows?
For those who believe in an afterlife in paradise, and especially those who tell others about heaven:
Are you the kind of person with whom someone would like to spend eternity?
I have a tendency to be sullen, and maybe I'm not a great ambassador for heaven. It's something I'm working on. I'm not saying this is easy.
There are other types of behaviors that can be troublesome as well. Spending eternity with millions or billions of intimidating people doesn't sound much like heaven. People who point out every mistake aren't a vision of Paradise. Same for selfish people, and uncaring people, and lots of others.
So while we're here, if we believe in a hereafter, maybe we can start working on being the kind of people with whom spending time would be heavenly. Then, when we all get to heaven, what a day of rejoicing that will be.
And maybe we'll help create a little heaven on earth.
I've read the phrase "I'm not saying this; God is" a bunch in the past few years. For a person who is affiliated with a church, association, conference, seminary, and national settings who call claim that "God Is Still Speaking", I suppose I should be open to hearing God's still-speaking voice in those around me.
Yet the phrase "I'm not saying this; God is" seems to always follow some sort of judgment:
"You can't be both gay and Christian. I'm not saying this; God is."
"A woman cannot be a pastor. I'm not saying this; God is."
"If you do not believe the Bible is 100% true, your faith is failing. I'm not saying this; God is."
I'm coming to believe that what's really being said is "I'm not taking responsibility for this interpretation" or "don't be upset with me, be upset with God".
I have a couple of problems with this idea.
First, I wish people who had the courage to call out other on their sins would have the courage to own their interpretation of scripture.
And before anyone interjects "but I don't interpret!", yes, you do. Do you believe elders and deacons must be married (husband of one wife: I Tim 3:2, I Tim 3:12, Titus 1:6)? Do you eschew pork, shrimp, lobster, oysters, and catfish (Lev 11, Deut 14)? If you say "it really means" or "that doesn't apply to me because", you are interpreting. Interpreting isn't inherently bad. Interpreting is inevitable. I can't even say "I like that person" without your interpreting whether I mean "I'm sexually attracted to that person", "I find that person friendly", or "I agree with that person's beliefs".
I respect the right to speak ones mind, but please admit the mind is involved. Even when just repeating what was read or what someone said is in the Bible, there is a choice to accept that understanding and to repeat it. Have the courage to say this is a choice. We are not God's puppets.
Second, and more disturbing to me, is the making of God into the unseen punisher. By using this phrase to criticize in God's name, we make God an entirely unlikable being: "I personally don't care if you do that, but God is going to punish you for that." And we wonder why atheists and agnostics are not flocking to our churches to worship God.
We all have different beliefs about who God is, how we came to be, God's relationship to us, and what our relationship to each others should be. I may strongly believe a thing, but you may just as strongly believe something different. If we're going to argue, let's not take God's name in vain while doing so.
I'm not saying this; God is.
Yet the phrase "I'm not saying this; God is" seems to always follow some sort of judgment:
"You can't be both gay and Christian. I'm not saying this; God is."
"A woman cannot be a pastor. I'm not saying this; God is."
"If you do not believe the Bible is 100% true, your faith is failing. I'm not saying this; God is."
I'm coming to believe that what's really being said is "I'm not taking responsibility for this interpretation" or "don't be upset with me, be upset with God".
I have a couple of problems with this idea.
First, I wish people who had the courage to call out other on their sins would have the courage to own their interpretation of scripture.
And before anyone interjects "but I don't interpret!", yes, you do. Do you believe elders and deacons must be married (husband of one wife: I Tim 3:2, I Tim 3:12, Titus 1:6)? Do you eschew pork, shrimp, lobster, oysters, and catfish (Lev 11, Deut 14)? If you say "it really means" or "that doesn't apply to me because", you are interpreting. Interpreting isn't inherently bad. Interpreting is inevitable. I can't even say "I like that person" without your interpreting whether I mean "I'm sexually attracted to that person", "I find that person friendly", or "I agree with that person's beliefs".
I respect the right to speak ones mind, but please admit the mind is involved. Even when just repeating what was read or what someone said is in the Bible, there is a choice to accept that understanding and to repeat it. Have the courage to say this is a choice. We are not God's puppets.
Second, and more disturbing to me, is the making of God into the unseen punisher. By using this phrase to criticize in God's name, we make God an entirely unlikable being: "I personally don't care if you do that, but God is going to punish you for that." And we wonder why atheists and agnostics are not flocking to our churches to worship God.
We all have different beliefs about who God is, how we came to be, God's relationship to us, and what our relationship to each others should be. I may strongly believe a thing, but you may just as strongly believe something different. If we're going to argue, let's not take God's name in vain while doing so.
I'm not saying this; God is.
I know that, historically, the threat of Hell has been a powerful tool in bringing people to the church. But I suspect it doesn't work so well anymore.
For those who do not believe in the supernatural at all, the threat of Hell probably sounds something like this:
For those who believe there is more to existence than what they see, is the threat of Hell working? If an evangelist is a messenger of the Gospel, or good news, then how is "you're a sinner and are going to Hell" either good (who wants to be told they're going to be punished forever) or news (when this is preached via television, radio, film, book, and billboard)? Yes, I know the good news follows - you can be saved - but if you have to deliver the bad news of damnation to preach the good news of salvation, a lot of people are going to opt for not listening at all.
More importantly to me, however, is how the early church attracted people. People seemed to be attracted to how Christians cared for each other and community. I don't see a lot of Helfire preached in Acts.
I'm wondering whether that's what we ought to be doing: preaching the good news of capital L Love. And in preaching, I mean first living the Love between us: our family members, our congregational members and friends, across congregations, associations, conferences, diocese, synods, and denominations. If we can first practice that Love and concern between each other, and then expand that circle so it becomes so large that everyone is within its perimeter, people will come to see us as a loving people. Then we can talk about a god whose Love is even greater than ours, and maybe we're starting the work Jesus called us to.
I don't recall the citation for the Bible verse that said "Go ye into all the world and tell people they're damned". If there is such a verse, let me know. Until then, I will take up the version of the Great Commission that says I am to preach the Gospel, the Good Word, that everyone is loved.
For those who do not believe in the supernatural at all, the threat of Hell probably sounds something like this:
There is a place of eternal torment (I can't prove this scientifically). That's where you're going after you die (I can't prove this scientifically). But there's another pace you can go where everything is wonderful (I can't prove this scientifically). You will go there if (you believe in Jesus/give your life to Jesus/are baptized/stop drinking/stop being gay/stop believing in evolution/go to my church/tithe/etc.)I don't think the threat of Hell is very powerful for those who don't believe in an afterlife.
For those who believe there is more to existence than what they see, is the threat of Hell working? If an evangelist is a messenger of the Gospel, or good news, then how is "you're a sinner and are going to Hell" either good (who wants to be told they're going to be punished forever) or news (when this is preached via television, radio, film, book, and billboard)? Yes, I know the good news follows - you can be saved - but if you have to deliver the bad news of damnation to preach the good news of salvation, a lot of people are going to opt for not listening at all.
More importantly to me, however, is how the early church attracted people. People seemed to be attracted to how Christians cared for each other and community. I don't see a lot of Helfire preached in Acts.
I'm wondering whether that's what we ought to be doing: preaching the good news of capital L Love. And in preaching, I mean first living the Love between us: our family members, our congregational members and friends, across congregations, associations, conferences, diocese, synods, and denominations. If we can first practice that Love and concern between each other, and then expand that circle so it becomes so large that everyone is within its perimeter, people will come to see us as a loving people. Then we can talk about a god whose Love is even greater than ours, and maybe we're starting the work Jesus called us to.
I don't recall the citation for the Bible verse that said "Go ye into all the world and tell people they're damned". If there is such a verse, let me know. Until then, I will take up the version of the Great Commission that says I am to preach the Gospel, the Good Word, that everyone is loved.
