Lowell Hennigs's profileStill WanderingPhotosBlogListsMore  |  Tools Help |
|
|
July 30 Going to "L""For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh."
As we read through Romans this summer at Our Saviour's, we come now to chapters nine through eleven. The Apostle Paul agonizes over the lack of commitment to Jesus Christ demonstrated by his own people, the Jews. Early in chapter nine he declares that he would gladly have himself accursed and separated from Christ if that would make any difference in bringing the Jews to faith.
His words portray an incredible passion for his people--perhaps his own family members--as his heart breaks for them. For whom would I be willing to go hell if that would bring about forgiveness, life and salvation for that person?
Perhaps that sounds like an academic puzzle at first--another variation of asking how angels can dance on the head of a pin. But I don't think so. I am thinking, for example, about a person in my life with whom I cannot reconcile. I have tried in many ways and on many occasions. But the pain and anger of that relationship are simply too much. If it is my vocation to be a "little Christ" for that person (a la Martin Luther's phrase), then if I continue to seek reconciliation, I will indeed be going to hell for that person--and not merely metaphorically. So Paul's struggle is very specific and concrete for me--perhaps for you as well.
It seems to me that Paul never advocates a sort of violent overthrow of another faith perspective. He doesn't say something like, "Let's attack the Jewish people and overwhelm them. Then they'll have to believe." Christians have tried to do that in a variety of ways historically. Nor does Paul advocate some sort of abandonment. This would be the "it's their loss" school of witnessing. Nor does he seek to punish someone who believes differently than he does. That approach has resulted in the Holocaust school of Jewish studies.
Instead, Paul stays in touch with his own passion and pain. He doesn't regard conquest, convincing or numerical success as the measure of faithfulness. He regards faithfulness as the measure of faithfulness. He is willing to die for others if that's what it takes. Of course, he is then simply following Christ to the cross.
It's always our loss when we forget the literary context of the argument in Romans. We must not forget that Paul preceeds this discussion with his great outburst of grace--nothing in all of creation can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. If that is true, then non-separation must be our missionary strategy as well. Paul applies that immediately to his concern for the Jews.
So that means going to "L" for Christ--to the least, the lost and the lonely. And it certainly doesn't mean waiting for them to come in. July 29 Show Me the MoneyIn concrete terms, what would it mean to be a church for others?
I wonder what it would mean, for example, to make a commitment in terms of dollars for others. Assume that in such a church the community commits to spend one dollar beyond the congregation for every dollar spent on the ministry of the congregation. Now, I'm thinking that these dollars would be beyond any gifts to a larger organization like a denomination or association (for the most part). After all, those dollars "come back" in a sense through services to the local congregation or issues of interest to the congregation through the larger church.
When we look at a congregational budget in a traditional church, it is usually the case that seventy to eighty percent of the budget is spent on the congregation and its members--buildings, staff, programs, etc. I'm not suggesting that this is a bad thing. But in many congregations, this is a symptom of the complete inward turn of the congregation (especially in those places where the percentage approaches one hundred percent). Now, can a congregation be faithful and also starve its own efforts at worship, ministry development, education, etc.? Well, that's the question, isn't it?
I wonder what it would mean, for example, if a congregation required itself to spend one dollar on local affordable housing for every dollar the congregation spent on church buildings. What would it mean for a congregation to spend one dollar on local music and arts in the community for every dollar spent on worship and music in the congregation? If we want to step away from money, we can think about time. Imagine a congregation that commits one hour of volunteer service to the larger community for every hour of volunteer work that benefits the congregation. Every hour spent by greeters, ushers, choir members, etc., is matched by an hour in a soup kitchen, on a Habitat house, etc.
I understand that these are in many ways false dichotomies. Many things we do as a local congregation have immediate payoffs in the larger community. That is, however, not true in lots of Christian congregations. And the question still remains. What does a congregation for others look like in concrete, physical, organizational and administrative terms?
At another time I'd like to explore the importance of faith community for all of this ministry. True or false--It takes a community for me to know myself. July 28 Spirituality of PlayGreat discussion of play at speakingoffaith.org. "Stuart Brown, a physician and director of the National Institute for Play, says that pleasurable, purposeless activity prevents violence and promotes trust, empathy, and adaptability to life's complication. He promotes cutting-edge science on human play, and draws on a rich universe of study of intelligent social animals." I wonder what this has to do with our discussions of worship in the coming decades. Getting OutA copy of my weekend message, called "Let Me Be a Potato" is now available in my public files below.
Last evening, our Emerging Ministry group met. We asked one another, what would the church look like outside our walls and for the sake of others. We discussed a roving "comfort booth" or "compassion kiosk" that could be offered in public and business places in our community. While we didn't make any specific, concrete plans, it does present a kind of thought or imagination experiment. And who knows, you may see a compassion kiosk on a corner near you in the future!
This experiment could take a variety of possible forms. Where would people love to find a listening ear?
Perhaps we could create a "warm line." This might be a telephone service offered to callers who simply need someone to listen to them for fifteen minutes at a time. Listeners would need to be trained for the task. This would not be a crisis help line (but referrals could be made). This would not be about solutions but about caring, processing and offering time while asking nothing in return.
We could put together a portable compassion kiosk. It might be that we would set up a little trailer in outdoor public places. A listening ear could be available for anyone who needed it. This would present all sorts of logistical complications, but then--that's true of every ministry worth doing.
Where do people go to talk in our times? They go to coffee shops, bars, sandwich shops and restaurants. How about a coffee shop or coffee house that specializes in listening? Maybe a small used book store could be part of the operation. Perhaps we could combine the above ideas and have a traveling coffee stand where we listen as well.
Out of the building, out of the box, out of our comfort zones, out of our power places, out of control--is this what it will take to reach those who could never imagine themselves setting a foot in our worship spaces?
I look forward to your thoughts. July 26 My Mistake!In fact, my weekly messages seem to be at the bottom of this page in the "Public Folders" section. Sorry for the confusion (especially on my part). July 22 CenteringFrambach makes the historical argument that the Christian church in North America and Western Europe has been "de-centered." That is, institutional Christianity once held a fair bit of cultural, moral, political and economic power in these societies. But in the last generation or two, the Christian church has lost or been deprived of this power, at least in the public sphere. The point Frambach makes has become sort of received doctrine among many in mainline Protestantism, but that makes the point no less valid.
He notes that one outcome of this de-centering is that Christianity has moved from the public world to the private sphere: "the church practiced some ecclessiastical free agency and swapped its central place in public life for a prominent place in the private domain of life" (page 18). Faith has become now purely a matter of personal opinion and/or preference rather than a matter of truth (with either a small "t" or a capital "T").
Certainly one of the responses to this shift has been the rise of evangelical Christianity as a political force. This is a strategy to "re-center" at least one part of the Christian spectrum as the dominant cultural power in the United States. It may be that this effort hit its high water mark in the 2004 presidential campaign. Recent events have caused the current presidential candidates to detach and distance from Christian leaders who appear to be more trouble than they are worth. It may be that this effort at re-centering is beginning to fade.
I would suggest that early Christianity was a phenomenon that was public in its impact without requiring that it be central in the structures of cultural power. The only advertising the early church did was in the form of neighbor love. Ancient pagan writers sneered at the early Christians: "See how they love one another." I would take that criticism any day of the week. Early Christianity was marginalized in ancient Roman culture and thus could love people on the margins of that culture--the powerless, the poor and the preyed upon. That is the church at its best.
Of course, the ancient church was more than a mutual aid society for the dispossessed. All this was done because God is our God, Jesus is our Lord, and the Holy Spirit is our one source of power. A division between an interior Christianity (for example, spiritual disciplines) and an exterior Christianity (loving service to the neighbor) was unknown and would not be tolerated. As Tom Wright loves to say, we have been saved as wholes, not merely as souls. So our faith claims our whole existence, not just one dimension or another. This move toward wholeness in the midst of fragmentation is always one of the marks of the Trinity.
So easily said--so difficult to live. I'm a doer by nature. So I find that I can be emptied somewhat quickly from the doing. Others are pray-ers by nature and may struggle to put those prayers in action. The centering of our life in Christ brings both together and puts both to work.
What are the forces, experiences, pressures and demands that "de-center" you? That "de-center" our church? July 21 Emerging conversationWe launched our conversation of "Emerging Ministry" last evening. I was reminded of a scene in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." The Richard Dreyfus character finally meets the lead scientist in the project to contact the ET's. Dreyfus has doggedly pursued this project for answers to questions and feelings and compulsions he cannot explain. The scientist looks at him and says, "Sir, what do you want?" I think that is in some ways the most interesting question leading into this emerging conversation. What do we want?
The answers to that question, spoken and implicit, had some consistency. I think we are a group that is unsatisfied with church as is. We feel led to desire and work for more. The content of the "more" is not what the church has offered up in the last two decades. The church growth and megachurch moments have been about more "for me"--in terms of music, worship format, informality, etc. My sense was that we gathered as folks who long for more "from us." By that I mean that we feel led to Christian life that is spiritually deeper, personally more authentic, and institutionally less self-absorbed and self-protective than the church we have known. (Alissa, I think we'd like to hear more about 'mindful eating,' for example).
Frambach talked about church as encountering another "in a deeply mutual and relational way..." In that encounter "the Spirit works mutual transformation" (page 16). I think that is a telling phrase. The encounter is thus inherently two-way. That may seem like a trival observation, but it is not how we have done church in the recent past. One party cannot, for example, be the spectator or the audience while someone else performs church for us. In some ways, that is the megachurch or church growth model. One party cannot, for example, be the authority with all the answers while the other party is the passive and agreeable recipient. That is the traditional church model. In each case, one party has power over the other. There is nothing mutually transforming about doing church in this way.
I hear the need for something different, something very "first century." This is the need, the longing, the passionate desire (on our part and on the part of the Holy Spirit) for us to serve and witness and worship out of our vulnerability rather than out of our power. Being a follower of Jesus will change me even as I am used to change another. Even when I am most active in my faith life, I am more properly and powerfully being acted upon. Perhaps this is what Luther means when he talks about returning to our baptism on a daily basis.
We meet at Our Saviour's next Sunday at 7 p.m.--somewhere in the building. Directions will be given when you arrive. Julie Petersen has agreed to set our meeting environment in a way different from our first gathering. Newcomers are welcome, invited, desired.
Please use this electronic space for feedback and discussion as we talk together. "Emerging" is a community concept and reality. July 05 Please, Sir, May I Have Some More? As I read Nate Frambach's book, I am struck by the frequency of the word "authentic." We seek authentic experiences of God in the faith community. We long for authentic worship, authentic community, authentic stories, authentic service. For those attracted to emerging ministry, the church as it is seems to be insufficient. Let me say at the outset that I agree.I'm reminded of the scene from Oliver Twist (especially in the musical version). Oliver asks the master of the orphanage for a bit more food: "Please, sir, may I have some more?" The master comes unglued. He predicts that Oliver will go to prison and then to hell--all because he wants "more." I suspect that this is the reaction of some Christians to the desire for emerging ministry.
For some folks, church as weekly pageant is enough. They even find it meaningful and spiritually nurturing. So we continue that mode of being church. But some of us want ever so much more than a regular calendar of playing church. Please, sir, may we have some more?
What, however, is the content of that "more"? I remember words from Dr. Patrick Kiefert back in the 1980's. One of the advantages of getting old in ministry is having an ongoing context for new information. By the way, I hate the fashionable word "seasoned." I'd prefer to be old rather than seeing myself as sprinkled with salt and pepper and ready to be grilled. Kiefert described the then-new attempts at contemporary worship as "pickles and sauce for bored baby boomers."
He was right. If what we're up to is simply a new way to stimulate self-absorbed and over-stimulated consumers, then we are wasting our time. That is an unworthy activity for followers of Jesus.
On the other hand, if the "more" is about deeper spiritual life, greater service, larger generosity, and broader community, that seems to be worth the bother. That also seems to be what Frambach and others describe. This is the harder road, the narrow way, the cost of discipleship.
This emerging ministry thing seems like something that could be interesting, not just entertaining. July 02 What Time is It?I keep looking at books and web sites on this whole emerging church thing. It's not news to people who have been paying attention since the mid-80's--at least if one has been able to read Loren Mead's work on the Once and Future Church. But what is going on here--something new? No, something deeper. There are so many people who now say to themselves, "I should have been a pastor, minister, worked in the church, etc."
Well, now's the time. The state doesn't offer a limited number of annual licenses to study biblical Hebrew and New Testament Greek. We can do this together. Team worship planning, one of the emerging ministry hallmarks, can happen right now. What do you want to do in the "worship service of your dreams"? You can get excellent theology at B&N. NT Wright, Tony Campolo, and a host of others don't mind selling books to you. And then let's talk.
What is this "emerging church"? Not something new, I think. Something deeper, more real, AND FAR MORE DEMANDING. This is church where following Jesus is a vocation, not a hobby; where Jesus-talk is the primary language, not a secret code, where the world is our parish (John Wesley) and we are all priests (Martin Luther). This is the church as town hall meeting rather than a spot in the Tonight Show audience.
If this is all true, then what an awesome time to be the church! Emerging ConversationWe're going to read and discuss Nate Frambach's book, Emerging Ministry, at Our Saviour's. Early in his book, he identifies a number of changes to which the Church (at least in North America) is called to respond.
I'm wondering if you see the same kinds of changes and shifts. How do you experience the church in our culture(s) now? Where is God leading us in this mission journey? |
|
|
