@erikullestad tweeted the following: “Lots of people (on both “sides”) who think the sexuality vote DEFINES the #CWA09 and, by extension, the ELCA. I’d love to hear why..”  As such, I’ll give it a shot

To the same gender seminary grad praying to be allowed ordination, by all means, the vote defines #CWA09. Granted, they no doubt see the vote as one of many good things, but being it is so personal, absolutely, it is a defining moment. As far as extending to the ELCA, I’m less sure for a couple reasons.

First, sexuality issues do not define, nor really even extend to the body of believers as a whole. As potential pastors, their focus is on Christ and the Gospel, much less so their own identity. Secondly, this really is a tiny step in the big scheme of things, granted, its massive progress, but there still remain huge barriers. I think it puts a major dent in the “welcome, but…” exclusion of the least of these. Otoh, just as the old adam remains, until same gendered folks, single, married, committed, etc are welcomed the same as anyone else, the almost welcome thing will remain.

To the person who upholds views similar to Carl Braaten’s, or even more so, someone who ascribes to a different/more literal Bibliology, or even the remnants of congregations with a pietist leaning or even historical connection, it is a huge deal. To the few who would leave over the vote, by all means, it would define #CWA09, as at the bottom if they leave, the vote would also define the ELCA.

In a nutshell, I think the call as to its definition, or lack there of depends upon their level of personal connecton to the results of it.

For me, what defines #CWA09, as well as the ELCA, is what happened at CWA07. It was pretty cool, that despite the disagreements, how much Jesus was seen as truly the center of all that occurred, not just the sexuality, not just the diversity, not all the other uber cool resolutions, but that the light of Christ shown forth over all.

Filed under : ELCA

0 Comment »

I subscribe to a conservative Christian email list, and a most interesting post came across the wire. A fellow suggested that all taxes relating to medical care are morally wrong. Its something interesting to ponder what the effects might be if that were the case.

Most obviously, most of those over 65 would be out in the cold. The only reason private medicare part B insurance exists, is due to part A, govt controlled prices, govt research, and subsidies. Pull the part A, ie socialized medicine out of the mix, and insurance would only be available to the exceedingly wealthy, and likely only if they were healthy. In effect, its a balance between “theft” as he states, and the disgust of euthanaisa of the elderly.

I’m assuming he figures the church would step in and prevent that, but being the median church size in the US is 65 members, most of whom are older, there is no way even if they wanted to, they could do anything. Perhaps in a 10,000 person megachurch, with mostly younger members it might work.

Next, the NIH and other research entities would have to be shut down, thus ending substantial research in basic science, as well as clinical work. The resulting burden shifting to private industry would likely result in massive business failures in the short and long term. Short term, as they could not pick up the gap. Long term, as investment in basic science has a pay back period in some cases of decades… and its impractical for private industry to make such investments.

Then we have the issue of closing hospitals, being they would not be subsidized, either directly, or be favorable tax status. This would likely affect the average Joe and his family. Sure they would have a few extra percent extra in takehome, but likely not enough to travel, much less afford the huge increases in healthcare costs.

Of course this also has ripple effects, in a few short years, most companies would migrate off shore where they can get a better deal on healthier employees, as well as saving substantial costs. Ie, being able to deduct 8-30% of a persons benefits are a huge savings, but it is “theft” being weath is distributed to pay for that deduction. We would in effect become a third world country, albeit said “theft” would no longer be an issue.

Abortion and euthanasia by neglect would increase multifold. The 65 member church just doesnt have the resources, albeit a 10,000 member church might be able to make a dent.

To me, the above are pretty high costs to take the moral high ground in one narrow area, over the other moral areas of the system as a whole. It is an interesting paradox especially coming from a devout Christian.

More than likely he has not through the ramifications, or maybe he doesnt understand the huge impact and intrusion govt has in healthcare. There are huge reasons why short of third world countries who cant afford to, that govt is and must be entrenched in medicine.

I’m not a big fan of HR3200, as its a huge wealth redistribution from society to insurance company investors, but to remove govt funding from the health care arena in total would be a disaster of untold proportations. There are better solutions out there. The Texas Medical Association has a good policy page, as well as Mayo Clinic.

Filed under : Social Ministry

0 Comment »

In some cases, the truth of the Gospel may end up rocking a persons worldview. It might be that someone has built their faith upon sand, ie a theology of glory, or in non Lutheran terminology, a subtle or not so subtle form of works based theology.

Sadly, it seems that far too often, we run into Christians who held such beliefs, whose worldview is already crashing, or worse, it has already hit bottom and they’ve thrown out the baby with the bath water. Usually, this is due to them hitting a wall, where in their works fail them. In other cases, its due to their worldview being challenged, and they don’t have a support network. For purposes of this blog entry, I’m only looking at the later, ie the world view has yet to come crashing down. Its good that such cases are reasonably easy to recognize. Its also pretty clear a gentle approach is needed, and that follow up care is a must.

As such, when we step up, and challenge a worldview, there are two typical responses: A, to get out the cannons, and fire at random, as the worldview must be protected at all costs. B, sooner or later, to realize they were upholding a theology of glory, and in some cases, followed by heading rapidly towards despair, Ie they see their foundation slipping away very fast, and they have yet to see the rock, ie the theology of the cross.

Its pretty hard to be gentle, when it comes to A, as we hear the cannon firing, and we want to speak over it… Far too often, if we try to yell, all the person hears is a muddled clanging gong noise. Perhaps its one of those things thats just going to take time, and maybe its just a you know where i stand, and if you ever have questions, lets talk.

As part of that, a beer or a coffee is a ton easier to communicate over, than out in the field with the guns ablazing. In the mean time, building further understanding and friendship can be a cool thing. One must also consider that upending the worldview is not the primary goal. Ie, such changes are in Gods time, not ours, and it may not be God’s will that we are his agent for this specific person. Our primary focus must be sharing the love of Christ, understanding one another, and concurrently the love for one another in Christ.

By the same token, once a worldview is shaken, a support infrastructure should be in the staging area. This is not unlike our protestant brethren who practice revivals, mass evangelism, or even street minisry to those who do not know Christ. They know very well, that when a seed is planted, it is irresponsible to not have a game plan for it to be nutured, although granted, some seeds will sprout even without such. Ultimately, to say lets talk sometime, and then drop the ball, or to make ones friendship conditional in some way is not cool at all.

Now, some might say, whoa, whats up with a staging area??? They may already have a church, are you advocating sheep stealing? And no way no how is my answer. What I am saying, is that in far too many cases where a worldview up ending occurs, folks end up going it alone. They dont want to share it with another brother or sister in Christ in their church our of fear or embarrassment. Or perhaps maybe they dont even have anyone they are close enough to in order to feel comfortable to do so. Or maybe you happened to reinforce what their pastor already preaches, but it never made sense to them before. Either way, to upend their worldview, and leave is far beyond not cool. Thats preaching the truth and forgetting the love, sort of the gong thing all over again.

Filed under : Growth and Discipleship

0 Comment »

I’ve often wondered why so much of the music on Christian Radio has pretty bad theology, why in some cases, its seriously lacking in artistic content, and far too often its boring and repetitive. I came across this fascinating discussion on Shaun Groves blog, and I think it provides some potential answers. I’ve copied parts of the blog, and some pretty insightful comments below.

I believe putting a gaggle of white conservative Christian women around age forty in a room to register their immediate approval or disapproval of a minute long (or less) musical clip only leads radio program directors to choose music of tomorrow that sounds just like the music of yesterday: all that’s being tested is familiarity. Different loses. Same wins.

I’m saddened by the state of Christian radio today–so much so that I’m seriously considering leaving Christian radio period. At least the general market/secular stations are honest about what they do–trying to earn money and make a profit…. It’s deception. Are we in it for the money or are we in it for the opportunity to show Jesus to a dying world? I’m almost to the point of thinking that I can show Jesus better while working at a secular station than at a Christian station. My point in this is that Christian radio, unfortunately, is no different than secular radio in its procedures, methods, and ways of doing things. It’s all about the money.

I think those in Christian radio have a responsibility to their listeners to give them not only what they want, but also what they need.  I’m sorry if this sounds like a cliche, but I doubt that Jesus or His teachings would have tested well in our control groups (”eat my flesh… drink my blood” anyone?).  At what point are we just tickling the ears of our listeners and fattening them up on Christian junkfood that clogs their spiritual arteries.

The gospels end with a commission.  Yet we are notoriously reluctant to answer that commission ourselves or support those who would.  We only support what we benefit from, what we enjoy, what gratifies us.

Whats interesting, is this was written in 2006…. and now in 2009, the whole Christian Radio domain is undergoing massive shrinkage. The soccer mom audience support is decreasing, the whole industry is changing. The fellow the blog article initially was about is no longer with powerhouse Salem Communications. The GMA is even shrinking…. Its no longer business as usual.

Does this mean programming changes? Thats a toughie… as if the market shrinks enough, it will reach the point where its no longer sustainable. Of course, which demographic would come in to pick it up… And if no one does, perhaps the big conglomerates may start selling things off just to survive.

That might well open the door to a new type of radio ministry, or should I say, a return to the old style locally owned, labor of love of Jesus type ministry. Ie, the 2 guys with a love for Christ in an old RV or trailer, who barely can cover their electricity… but make darn sure the Gospel is preached, not just to 3%, but to as many as possible.

Filed under : Christian Media

1 Comment »

Remove the pastor to allow the church to continue? Economically, the congregation just can’t afford a pastor anymore… I’m hearing this a lot as of late. I remember James Glasse writing in “Put it together in the Parish” that even the tinyest of congregations should be able to hire a full time pastor to serve the community, ideally in any number of outreach/experimental ministries. Only later on, after the congregation had grown, should a building be considered. While James Glasse book was written 45 years ago, when 10 tithing families could make such happen, today it would take more, yet, such is still well within the purview of a small congregation.

The root cause in most cases is a failure to be missional. Ie. the congregation is likely looking at the building and grounds, and ministry to themselves, rather than to the community, as far as providing for the church to continue. Rather than removing the pastor, should it not make more sense to see off the church assets, keep the pastor, and focus on community and outreach? A building a church does not make.

Of course, the problem is, folks become attached to the building, and its history. Even more so, how many would be outraged, if the church that bought the building held vastly different doctrinal beliefs? Yet, where does Jesus stand in all this? Where do we pick up our cross in this?

Along the same thought process, one might be concerned about a pastor put in that situation… no doubt there will be many nights of second guessing. What could he have done differently? Were there other solutions? Why was the congregation so inreach focused? What about the huge personal investment with the congregation? Did he have no impact? The thing is, congregations can be pretty fickle, and weird… The big thing is, where God’s word is preached, it does not return void. He may never see the results, but for sure, he made an impact. Scriptural words yes, but it doesn’t help with the heartache and second guessing of now.

I read over at Heart of a Pastor last week where he talks about the shifts involved in becoming a Missional Congregation based on a book he is reading. It seems many of the issues in churches removing the pastor are very much in the maintenance domain.

FROM:                               TO:
Maintenance                  Mission
Membership                   Discipleship
Pastor-centered           Lay-empowered
Chaplaincy (Self)         Hospitality (Others)
Focus on ourselves     Focus on the world
Settled                              Sent

My guess is, such issues develop subtlely. Perhaps when a pastor is in one place for too long a period of time? Its the old Adam’s desire to shift more and more of the burden onto the pastor, especially over time. Its the old Adam that wants his own served first. Its the old Adam that wants comfort, familiarity, and safety.A devoted pastor will do just about anything for his congregation within the bounds of scripture. He is doing his best, but he may be doing them harm, albeit totally unaware. Left unchecked for too long, years of inreach eventually will take a toll, such that all resources end up going to maintenance and sustaining efforts, rather than mission…. And then a new pastor is sent in. In short order, he realizes to fix such is going to be an intense uphill battle, and its one he may not be able to win. He can pour his heart into the congregation, only to find out at some point, he is no longer affordable, and is shown the door.

So the solution??? Nip it in the bud… I really liked what Heart of a Pastor had to say.

Are we a missional congregation or are we satisfied with the status quo?  Are we inward focused or outward focused?  Or consider this question:  If this congregation ceased to exist, would the community miss us?

I think if congregations periodically reviewed such questions, they are well on the way towards predicting problems, and heading them off at the pass. As far as congregations that are already embedded in inreach, such should serve as a wakeup call.

Granted, especially in todays climate, there are going to be events well outside the churches domain which can upset the apple cart. Ie, a factory town, should it experience massive upheaval is going to be in trouble. They may well find they end up having to move from missional to maintenance  in no time at all, especially if the town becomes 70% ghost town in a short period of time. The key I think is to keep thinking missional, and be willing to make the hard decisions early, and go forward, rather than waiting until the decision becomes a forced one later on. The other key, is always be running scenarios… how can we remain missional, if something majorly bad happens, even during the times of great church growth.

Filed under : Ecclesiology

1 Comment »

Safety and Comfort (lyrics)

A church of believers it is…

Not one of servants, although there may be some.

Not one of teachers, no students come.

Not one of seekers, as they are barred from the door.

The verse of the lukewarm seems oh so relevant.

———— Chorus ——–

I had high hopes, yet things move so slowly.

I really thought this was the call.

Yet, I found no sacrifice, no service, no danger at all.

Escape and family tradition reign.

They put up barriers to Christ, and lock the door.

———— Chorus ——–

I honestly thought I could make a difference…

Instead, they demand it safe and comfortable

The cost of discipleship is too objectionable.

No leading required, they just need the pulpit full.

What signs did I miss, where is the door.

————  Chorus ——–

The sandles are shaken, a new call awaits

Lord Jesus, prepare the path, and heal my soul

The Gospel is preached, the bell tolls

Its not safe, its not comfortable, Jesus is here

He set me free, I am no longer captive.

—————–

 Chorus…

Safety and comfort are paramount.

Where is ministry, when ears only want tickling?

Can the Gospel still be heard, despite the bickering?

Shall I shake my sandals at the door?

Safety and comfort are paramount.

******************

Not exactly the type of tune one would use in worship, but sadly the tune often felt by recent seminary grads sent to dysfunctional congregations.

To some extent, such can be self fullfilling prophecy. Ie, if one views ones congregation as dysfunctional, it likely will be, and a look in the mirror is needed. Yet, to deny the fact that there are congregations from hell is a serious dis-service as well. There has to be an element of realism… and hopefully one will identify such, well before the newbie pastor ends up either so disillusioned and shredded, they quit ministry entirely, or worse.

Concepts for this came from a kazillion pastor’s I’ve know over the years, and as of late Pastor Joelle’s and Father A’s blogs.

Filed under : Christian Media

1 Comment »

Dwight, over at Center for Renewal had a cool entry on the coffeehouse phenomena, where he noted the activity, and wished for the same at Maundy Thursday services. It got me thinking quite a bit, and rather than hog his comments, here goes a few thoughts.

The allure of the coffee house.

What the coffee house provides beyond coffee and free wifi is the following:

• A calm, and reflective environment, ideal for creative work.

• A sense of social connectivity, in an ultra non-threatening environment. No interaction is assumed, but casual interaction may occur. This human desire for connectedness, but not interaction per se is fascinating.

• Overtime, relationships may or may not build. Being that’s not really a primary goal, coffeehouses foster a very organic relationship building process. Its vastly different than the traditional restaurant that has a coffee clique crowd so to speak. I don’t know whether this is intentional by design, but it might be. Ie, the tables for 2-4, the sofas, comfy chairs, free wifi, etc, encourage folks to linger and as such purchase more $5 coffees. A restaurant on the other hand, wants to get people in and out, and at $0.50 for coffee it makes sense. (not a coffee drinker so unsure on prices, but do cherish the coffee house environment for work and meetings)

• There is much collective wisdom. If one is bold enough to ask, many will step in to help, but its often facilitated more so by location tools like brightkite/twitter than 3d. Ie, I will jump in to help anyone on twitter, offer opinions, comments, etc. I might do so in 3d, but if not directly asked, I wont.

The church is sort of there, but not quite:

• The church has collective wisdom, but few will ask.

• The church has the capability of organic relationship building, but often its forced, or worse clique driven.

• The church has a problem with the threatening aspect. Ie how many of us would pull up to an unknown church and go and crash them? (when I traveled a lot, I did this, and its cool, but its a seemingly bold thing to do, and failure is common, ie doors locked, no one around). Imagine what would happen, if churches opened their doors, physically, as well as spiritually?

• The church often forces interaction, rather than a passive; ok if you do, fine if you dont, approach at the coffee house.

• Many sanctuaries are ideal for contemplation. Back in my CCM days, egads, the amount of writing, contemplation, and I must admit naps also  occurred in the upper balcony in churches all across the US. The thing is… it would sort of be odd, to grab a laptop and hang out in the upper balcony, even if it had free wifi, also the nature of a sanctuary doesnt align itself with collaboration either.  As a traveling musician, despite a janitor, or pastor being surprised to see one or more of us sleeping in a balcony pew, knowing our travel schedule, it was seemed to be acceptable to them, albeit likely a bit weird.

• Fellowship halls, are often seriously lacking in environment, ie they foster eating together, not so much socializing. In many cases they are pretty sterile, and the existence of sofas, reading chairs, or tables for 2 or 3 is exceedingly rare.

Filed under : Ecclesiology

2 Comments »

I was asked recently if labeling something anything other than Christian was misleading (if it has a Christian focus). I dont think it is, in part due to my study, but also, the head banging of being behind the scenes when www.christianforums.com changed to www.foru.ms. It was not a trivial, nor easy call, and although the name changed back when the site was sold, I still firmly believe the name change was the right one at the time. The Godtube folks likely also struggled with this, when they changed to their name to Tangle.

3 reasons why Christian may not be an appropriate title/label:

1. The title Christian creates expectations, ie orthodoxy, but usually as defined by individual members, and that does cause conflict, as very few folks agree. In another case, member expectations, ie how can a Christian message board not allow me to use scripture anyway I want, including to bash and flame others? How can anything other than sugar coated G family friendly topics be discussed? How can you allow crude or sometimes explicit language to be used? How can you allow folks to express anger at God? How can you allow a Jewish person or a Muslim to share their faith, and why they believe what they believe?

2. The title Christian for hurting individuals often carries negative connotations, ie bashing and hypocrisy are the most common, but in some cases, there is so much focus on politics, guns, flags, homosexuality and abortion, that Jesus and the Gospel gets missed almost entirely.There is also the issue of outreach. Ie In talking with folks who outreach to Muslim’s, if you say you are Christian, they often will ignore you and walk away, if you talk about following Jesus, there is a bridge to the Qur’an.

3. The title Christian can be a marketing hijack… Ie, folks come, because its Christian… not because it necessarily exhibits the fruits of the spirit, or even that the Gospel is present.  Sadly, the label far too often results in putting a lampshade over ones faith, and hiding away from the world, rather than engaging the world. In other ways, its preaching to the choir. (not that there isn’t room for that, nor that such is improper, it can be a good thing). One of the concepts of foru.ms was that google was indexing topics… you want to know of redemption, google would bring you to foru.ms. You are looking for a recovery group for those previously in the sex industry, google would bring you to foru,ms. And if you were looking for Christian, there would be so much of a Christ focus, that google would bring you to foru.ms. The intent in part was foru.ms would exhibit the fruits of the spirit, and rely on the love of its members to bring folks, not the title.

To counter this…
The use of a Christian title upholds us to higher standards. Ie, if its Bobs forum, and it goes south, its just Bobs reputation. If its named after or includes Jesus…. pretty much bad stuff tends to make Jesus not look so good. From a pragmatic pov… using the word Christian is not cool. From an idealistic pov… using the word Christian, and upholding Him in all things is pretty cool.

Filed under : Social Ministry

5 Comments »

If one searches the scriptures, are there any places where saying no to God ended with a favorable outcome? I have yet to find any, and I have tried. I have said no to God hundreds, if not thousands of times… the outcome, well as a general rule, I have yet to be eaten by a fish, but hindsight leads me to believe had I said yes, the individual outcomes would have been positive, or at a minimum neutral… and there are some lingering after effects… ranging from man was I stupid or what, to egads, I really blew that with God big time.

A distinction must be made, is it God, or is it man trying to get his own way?

Whenever I hear someone say, God told me that you should do X, the warning sirens come on. It almost always seems to be the desire of the person speaking, which does make me suspect. Otoh, when I hear someone state “God told me you should do X”, or “scripture says you should do X”, and the person speaking goes on to state they personally think doing X would be a bad idea, the light bulbs come on. God’s ways are often not mans it seems. Ultimately though, after a review of the scriptures, listening for the still small voice is key.

What if its the church who is asking?

“Churches will eat you alive, if you let them…” is what a friend told me some years back. I’ll go one further, the ministry needs of a church will expand to consume all available time, plus another 20%. Many secular folks say boundaries are the key to success. Boundary teaching is so prevalent, it is even preached in many churches and schools. Let me throw a wrench in the works…. What if one comes upon an injured church member alongside the road, and our family needs are in conflict? Should we pass by on the other side in our hurry to fullfill our families needs, and hope some dude from Samaria happens by? 

What about picking up ones cross?

A recurrent theme throughout the Bible is not to take the easy way out, but to pick up ones cross and follow Jesus. Man on the other hand, has a very very difficult time with this… what about the yard, what about the children, what about my day job, what about where I will sleep, what about what I will wear tomorrow…. but Jesus calls. The young ruler, the dude who wanted to go take care of his families burial…. Jesus had some hard to hear words about that.

Burnout is real, consequences are real

Burnout however is real, depression in ministry is real, even look at Elijah, the dude was fixing to sit under a tree and die, the work was just too great. When you have scripture telling us the burden will be easy… and one has been up for 72 hours straight, its not so easy…. its not so easy to stay awake in the garden, when Jesus is right there, its not so easy, when Jesus asked the disciples to remain awake and to watch, and they crashed and burned. Its not so easy, when you are a young kid hanging out in an upstairs window to hear Paul preach the Gospel, that you fall asleep, slide out the window, and crash to the ground to your death. Suicide exists, moral crash and burn failure exists, families get shredded, churches implode… there are real brick walls, these are real problems.

Thus, even if though the recurrent theme of scripture is to pick up ones cross, scripture also provides examples of situations where folks have run into brick walls. Society and history also show that brick walls can and do happen. 

Its not a total deal

The problem imho, is we are looking at this as a total deal… Individualistic theology has hosed over many a fine brother or sister in Christ, its wrong thinking. Obviously there are times, when we are called to act and no one else is around to help, but if one considers the big picture, short of 3AM, in the middle of nowhere and without any means of communication, those situations are exceedingly rare. Even the church organist who gets interrupted at late night practice has huge resources at hand, but more likely than not, is unaware of them. The primary difficulty of the individualistic approach, is one doesnt see all of the capabilities, gifts, skills, and help available. Even Paul traveled with a group… The second issue is a failure to make the call early on that problems exist, and that more help is needed. Acts 6, where a set of dudes were chosen to serve the widows is a prime example of this. It shows not only the problem of being spread too thin, but utilizing the resources at hand, and the power of a group… they didnt just dump the problem on one guy, and say here you go.

If God is asking us, who are we to say no? Who are we, to think we can do it all by ourselves?

Filed under : Growth and Discipleship

2 Comments »

During my blogging absence, I’ve been doing some reading, both online and off, as well as bugging folks. It seems the fear of meat is a huge thing, and imho a real disservice to the body of Christ. I don’t have the atonement deal wrapped up by any-means, but the backlog of writing ideas is expanding, so its time to roll. First some observations which lead to the fear of meat deal:

How do we keep Christianity safe?

A partner in ministry from a ways back asked me this, and its been bugging me to no end. Sure, no one wants to have heretical beliefs flying all over the place… but by putting safety on a pedestal, and not providing an outlet for “messy faith”, hard questions, or even anger at God, eek, talk about a disservice!!! The focus on leadership perfection, questions limited to only those with pre-ordained answers, and horrors that one would ever be angry at God ends up for some a major barrier. This is especially the case when folks run up against the unanswerable questions, where the milk wont cut it, and for some purposes, the meat may not either. Is the pursuit of “safe and isolated Christianity” really worth it? Is such just secular escapism with a Christian label? No doubt, there should be some times and places for safety, but in all due respect for my friend, I think he is asking the wrong questions. 

My cats like milk and the status quo

Mikey is 3 years old and is a massive, albeit neutered and laid-back Tomcat. He really likes milk, but his digestive system hates even the idea. As a kitten it was needed, as an adult, he needs meat to thrive. I think its an appropriate analogy for the Christian life. Milk may bring us back to an earlier time, a place of safety, happiness, and joy. Yet, just as Mikey will upchuck if he gets too much milk, a steady diet of milk for the growing Christian is also unhealthy.

I really liked what @tg24 on @jonestony’s blog had to say.

It seems to me that we underestimate our congregations’ faith. They can be stretched, they can be challenged, and if we continue to treat them as fragile infants whose understanding of Christianity can never change, as shepherds, (leaders, lay or vocational, or as worshippers who love the church), we are not guarding it, we are weakening it.

What about the children?

If I hear this one more time….

I’m no fan of separation in worship. Sure,children may not grasp everything, and some of it could be too intense… imho the fear is likely not so much for the children themselves, but for the parents having to answer the resultant questions. Read the whole of Matthew 19… divorce, the rich young man, the camel in the needle, leaving the children for His sake. In light of “what about the children” I can understand why the disciples rebuked those who brought the children… yet, Jesus had something else to say.

Seminary-Congregation disconnect

A common thread amongst many seminarians is “I thought I knew the Bible back then, now I realize how much I really dont know”. Why is this? Egads, since I’ve started hanging out with a facebook group of seminary guys, I haven’t been challenged like that in years. The thing is… why should I have to seek out seminarians to get challenged?

Even look at living together faithfully in the ELCA, or the opinions of 135 ELCA theologicans. There is often a major disconnect between academia and the pew, with vastly different lenses of interpretation. It doesn’t have to be this way. The meat does exist, why must we venture from the congregation to find it? Why does it take congregational change to even search it out?

Some leaders are afraid of meat (faith crisis and stumbling)

Granted, the concern about causing another to stumble is a serious matter, yet to lead another to stagnate and regress is also a form causing one to stumble. 

The relevance of meat to a wide audience

Way back when I asked my pastor, how on earth can one preach to 5000 members, as it seems guaranteed you would miss the mark for some. He had a very wise answer… how can you preach to 5? Its not just the sermon of the pastor, its the word of God and the Holy Spirit acting on folks hearts. Meat will always be relevant, and it may be someone new in their walk would be confused, but where the Gospel is preached, the Holy Spirit will take care of the rest.

Leadership uncertainty

Yep, I know this one… we did a major major rip up and redo some years back. We expected we might loose thousands of members. Yet, we knew scripture was clear, we had 99% peace with the decision… but, an underlying question kept coming back, what if we are wrong? When meat is involved, there is greater uncertainty. Yet, if scripture, prayer, and discussions amongst the leadership team and others indicate a go… to not proceed where God is calling, not cool at all.

Backing up the plumbing and its affect on the status quo

As one grow in Christ, it can’t just be a matter of head knowledge, or even heart knowledge, but further works must start to go forth, or things will start to back up often leading to congregational disfuction. A commitment to meat, also means a commitment to running with it… that is very scary to the status quo. Feral Pastor has an analogy called an L-pipe, there are many parallels.

Filed under : Growth and Discipleship

2 Comments »