I Took A Vow

In July 1991, I took a vow.

I stood before God at the altar of the local church in Johnstown, PA which had first nurtured my faith and I vowed to God and to a breathtakingly beautiful young woman that I would live with her in holy marriage. I took a vow that I would love her, comfort her, honor and keep her, in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others be faithful to her as long as we both shall live.

The striking lady who miraculously became my wife that day and the presiding pastor both graciously affirmed my vow and permitted me to enter into a new covenant.

At various points in the 1990s & 2000s, I took a vow.

I stood before God, my wife, and gathered disciples of Jesus Christ at the altars of three different United Methodist churches and I vowed to nurture the children with which God has blessed me in Christ's holy Church, raise them in the Christian faith, teach them the Holy Scriptures and give reverent attendance upon the private and public worship of God, that they might be guided to accept God's saving grace for themselves, to profess their faith openly and to lead Christian lives.

My wife and the various presiding pastors all graciously affirmed my vow and permitted me to enter into a new covenant

In June 2003, I took a vow.

I stood before God and the clergy of the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church and I vowed that I would preach, support and maintain the doctrines, teachings and polity of The United Methodist Church.

The presiding Bishop, Hae Jong Kim, and the gathered clergy members of the Conference all graciously affirmed my vow and permitted me to enter into a new covenant.

A few days later, I took a vow.

I stood before God, my wife and children and extended family, clergy colleagues, and members of various United Methodist congregations as Bishop Kim charged me "to serve rather than to be served, to proclaim the faith of the Church and no other, to look after the concerns of God above all." I confessed, among other things, that "the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments contain all things necessary for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and are the unique and authoritative standard for the church’s faith and life."

I vowed "to lead the people of God to faith in Jesus Christ, to participate in the life and work of the community, and to seek peace, justice, and freedom for all people," - not as I define those terms, but as the Church defines those terms. I went on to vow "to be loyal to The United Methodist Church, accepting its order, liturgy, doctrine, and discipline, defending it against all doctrines contrary to God’s Holy Word," and committed to be accountable with those serving with me, and to the bishop and those appointed to supervise our ministry.

Bishop Kim along with the gathered clergy and laity members of the Conference all graciously affirmed my vow and permitted me to enter into a new covenant.

A vow is, "a solemn promise, pledge, or personal commitment made to a deity, person or group of people committing oneself to an act, service, or condition." It is a reflection of a person's character. One's keeping of vows demonstrates how trustworthy one is.

If I deliberately, unrepentantly break one of the sacred vows I have willingly made, all of my vows may be called into question, as my word would become utterly worthless. My wife and children would have every right to distrust me and to be filled with shame that I am their husband and father. I would be completely without honor as a man and as a human being.

There is no reason to believe that if one breaks their marriage vows, they will be faithful to their ordination vows.

There is no reason to believe that if one breaks their ordination vows, they will be faithful to their wedding vows.

There is a crisis of vow-keeping in the world today as persons freely break vows which they made before God at their wedding.

There is a crisis of vow-keeping in the United States today as persons freely break vows which they made before God at the baptism of their children.

There is a crisis of vow-keeping in The United Methodist Church today as clergy at every level of ecclesial life freely break vows which they made before God at their ordination and/or consecration.

This is the case whether one is teaching that homosexual behavior is acceptable (in clear violation of Church teaching), presiding at a wedding between two persons of the same gender (in clear violation of Church teaching), denying the efficacy of infant baptism (in clear violation of Church teaching) or rebaptizing a person who is already baptized (in clear violation of Church teaching).

The paramount issue is not whether homosexual behavior, gay marriage, infant baptism or rebaptism are theologically acceptable; the issue is whether one will be true to the vows they have made before God, even when they may struggle with those vows. This isn't just a question of inadequate or at times even non-Christian theology; this is a question of a person's character.

May God grant me grace to keep the vows I have made, that my wife and children might know I am a man of my word, and that Jesus will be proud of me. May God grant me grace to stand strong in the vows I have made, to hold accountable in love those who struggle with their own vows, and to maintain a heart of mercy and reconciliation when working with sisters and brothers who have broken their vows.

The Bounds of Christianity

"A community with no boundaries can neither have a center
nor be a community." Thomas Oden

"Boundaries aren't all bad.
That's why there are walls around mental institutions." Peggy Noonan

Orthodoxy: of, pertaining to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc.; of, pertaining to, or conforming to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved.

The loudest debate in the American arm of The United Methodist Church over the past several decades has been over the issue(s) related to chosen sexual behavior. Specifically, many United Methodists have disagreed with the Church about whether or not active homosexual relationships are valid within the framework of Christian discipleship in a United Methodist context.

The Church maintains in Article IV of our Constitution that, "...all persons are of sacred worth." That is vital to understanding United Methodist exegesis of Scripture through the lens of Wesleyan theology.

The Church also maintains in paragraph 304.3 of our Book of Discipline, "The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching." This is equally important to understanding United Methodist exegesis & is in line with the rest of the Church Universal and her teachings on sexual ethics and behavior. The United Methodist position is hardly unique or groundbreaking.

The "conversation" has been marred at times by various acts of ecclesial disobedience from pastors & bishops which has forced the Church to strengthen its prohibitions against homosexual choices rather than have any meaningful dialogue. Many faithful United Methodists hope & pray that these acts will cease in order to facilitate a real conversation.

And there IS a conversation that is not only worth having but necessary for the Church as we engage 21st century American culture. It may not be the conversation many want to have, but it is nonetheless vital if we are to speak to one another in any meaningful ways.

The question which must be asked - in as loving & as gracious a way as possible - is this:

Is affirmation of homosexual behavioral choices still within the bounds of historic Christian orthodoxy or is it essentially a new Christianity-like religion, such as the Mormons, Unitarian-Universalists or the Jehovah's Witnesses?

Certainly, historic orthodox Christianity, of which the United Methodist tradition is a part, has not affirmed sexual behavior outside the covenant of a marriage between a man & a woman. There is biblical precedent for this teaching as well as theological support throughout the 2000 year history of the Church; there's no need for me to
re-present that here. This is simply the default teaching of Christianity, and is founded on faithful biblical exegesis by many intelligent, well-meaning saints over many years.

Breaking with the Christian faith on this issue - which progressives admit is vitally important - may be quite dangerous for The United Methodist Church.

Other faith movements have broken with orthodox Christianity in the past. The history of the Mormons, Unitarian-Universalists, Jehovah's Witnesses and other groups are filled with well-meaning persons who were and are very sincere about their faith and who wholeheartedly believe that they stand in divine favor. They should be respected as persons of integrity and conscience...but that does not make them orthodox Christians.

Mormonism, for example, has been dealt with by the General Conference of The United Methodist Church which in 2008 stated that, "...the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints presents itself as a faith tradition outside the parameters of historic, apostolic Christianity," and that Mormons seeking to become United Methodist must first receive the sacrament of Christian baptism as their LDS membership is not considered within the bounds of orthodoxy (see Resolution #3149 in our 2008 Book of Resolutions & the related teaching document Sacramental Faithfulness: Guidelines for Receiving People from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints).

There is also precedent for considering social issues & behavioral choices to be outside orthodoxy. Few would consider Westboro Baptist Church's extreme hate speech as perfectly orthodox, in spite of their faithful adherence to Dordt Calvinism. Likewise, most people on both sides of the political aisle would agree that pederasty is unorthodox behavior.

The wisdom of the Church, then, teaches us that allowing theology or practices deemed outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity to be accepted or normative within the Church is a threat to our identity as the covenant Body of Christ. At the point of acceptance of non-orthodox theology or practice, that branch of the Church ceases to be the Church & becomes a new religious movement, perhaps utilizing Christian language & concepts but distinctly non-Christian.

The question is thus a crucial one for us to discuss. Is affirmation of homosexual behavioral choices still within the bounds of historic Christian orthodoxy or is it essentially a new Christianity-like religion, such as the Mormons, Unitarian-Universalists or the Jehovah's Witnesses?

Surely, the Safe Sanctuaries policies of the Church have reminded us that boundaries matter; not every behavior is acceptable in every context. The Church has the responsibility to determine what is appropriately Christian behavior and what is not.

The imperative debate, then, is not about whether the Church should bless weddings of persons who have chosen homosexual behaviors or partners, nor is it about whether the Church should ordain to the pastorate those who are actively engaged in homosexual behaviors. The debate concerns the very nature of the choice of those behaviors & whether they can be deemed at all to be within the bounds of Christianity...ever.

I take very seriously my ordination vows & the doctrinal standards which I swore to teach & uphold. Not only must I as a United Methodist pastor teach the Church's position on the appropriateness of homosexual behavioral choices, but I also personally agree with the Church's position which, as I've stated, is based on 2000 years of Spirit-led, Spirit-driven quality Biblical exegesis by faithful saints & should not be dismissed lightly.

Nevertheless, I am happy to engage in this critical discussion with friends who disagree with the Church. I am willing to listen & consider. Granted, the witnesses of Tradition, Reason, Experience & (especially) Scripture make it very, very difficult for those who disagree with the Church to change my mind (and the minds of other United Methodists who are much smarter than I am & are equally committed to orthodox Christianity), but I am willing to engage.

But let us not debate the wrong questions. Let us consider instead whether or not it is even possible for the Church to approve of chosen homosexual behaviors while still remaining faithfully a part of the covenant Body of Christ. That is a conversation worth having.

Ministry Reading List for 2015

Seeing Black & White in a Gray World:
The Need for Theological Reasoning in the Church's Debate over Sexuality
by Bill Arnold

CAMPUS gODS:
Exposing the Idols that Can Derail the Present & Destroy the Future
by Guy Chmieleski

Shaping Their Future:
Mentoring Students Through Their Formative College Years
by Guy Chmieleski

Images of Salvation in the New Testament
by Brenda B. Colijn

Jesus Have I Loved, but Paul?:
A Narrative Approach to
the Problem of Pauline Christianity
by JR Daniel Kirk

Pastoral Practices: A Wesleyan Paradigm
by Diane Leclerc & Mark A. Maddix

Kingdom Conspiracy:
Returning to the Radical Mission of the Local Church
by Scot McKnight

Sermon on the Mount (The Story of God Bible Commentary)
by Scot McKnight

A Change of Heart:
A Personal & Theological Memoir
by Thomas C. Oden

Insourcing:
Bringing Discipleship Back to the Local Church
by Randy Pope

Thinking, Listening, Being:
A Wesleyan Pastoral Theology
by Jeren Rowell

Sent & Gathered:
A Worship Manual for the Missional Church
by Clayton J. Schmit

The Radical Wesley:
The Patterns & Practices of a Movement Maker
by Howard Snyder

The New Parish:
How Neighborhood Churches Are Transforming Mission,
Discipleship & Community
by Paul Sparks

A Thicker Jesus:
Incarnational Discipleship in a Secular Age
by Glen Harold Stassen

Giving Blood:
A Fresh Paradigm for Preaching
by Leonard Sweet

Called:
Following a Future Filled with the Possible
by JD Walt

The Class Meeting:
Reclaiming a Forgotten (and Essential) Small Group Experience
by Kevin Watson

The Crown & the Fire:
Meditations on the Cross & the Life of the Spirit
by NT Wright

Simply Good News:
Why the Gospel Is News & What Makes It Good
by NT Wright

This list is subject to change, be added to, edited, etc as ministry & culture make necessary. It also doesn't include planned fiction & devotional books.

Leading Jesus' Church

I have heard a refrain from members of the United Methodist Council of Bishops over the last several years. It is heard whenever discussions ensue regarding the issue of sex & people's chosen behaviors. I have heard it or read it multiple times over the last several months, as the actions of a few unfaithful pastors & bishops have driven the denomination to the brink of schism.

The refrain is heard when leaders refuse to take a side in the debate & goes something like this:

"I am called to lead ALL of God's people, the entire Church, both sides of the issue of sexual behavior."

It sounds like a fair, mediative statement. The issue of a person's chosen sexual behavior is, after all, a very heated one in today's Church. Bishops & pastors alike desire to lead the Church through these times of trial into whatever future the Spirit leads us.

But the more I hear it or read it, the more I find it problematic. When you analyze what the statement is really saying, it isn't a statement of leadership; it's an example of "anti-leadership", an abdication of leadership, a blatant refusal to lead.

To lead, after all, means (according to Merriam-Webster), "...to guide on a way especially by going in advance...to direct on a course or in a direction...to serve as a channel for...to direct the operations, activity, or performance of...to bring to some conclusion or condition."

Leadership, then, means seeing a chosen destination in the future & saying, "Follow me." Imagine great leaders of the past. Had they said, "I will not take a side or choose a path. I am called to lead EVERYONE," how might history be different?

Imagine if Churchill had said, "I'm called to lead ALL of the British people; I won't take a side in the issue of German aggressiveness."

Imagine if Reagan had said, "I'm called to lead ALL of the American people; I won't take a side in the issue of Soviet moral integrity."

Imagine if Jesus had said, "I'm called to lead ALL people to salvation; I won't take a side in the issue of sin & death."

In The United Methodist Church, our clergy leaders - especially our bishops - are called to live into our covenant. Our covenant is determined by our exegesis of Scripture through the lens of Church tradition, reason, and our experience of the doctrine of assurance of salvation, all of which is detailed in our Book of Discipline.

Our covenant teaches that while, "We affirm that all persons are individuals of sacred worth, created in the image of God", "the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching."

Lots of persons disagree with the Church on lots of issues, but this is our covenant. It's relatively clear. Leaders will live into this & lead others into it as well. It is a position informed by centuries of exegesis, compassion & grace. It is our position because we love all persons & desire to see them know the liberating mercy of a great God, not because we are mean or desire harm. Persons who understand our theology will understand this. It is unworthy of the clergy office to ignore or apologize for Church teaching which is founded on centuries of faithful exegesis & theological development. It is also arrogant.

If a United Methodist pastor or bishop cannot with integrity live into our covenant or lead others to do so, there is no shame in simply separating from the Church. That can happen in a gracious manner. But live into it we must, or our integrity & character must be called into question.

If United Methodist bishops cannot live into, teach & lead persons into our covenant, why are they bishops? Surely the Church deserves better than leaders who refuse to lead. Unity begins with faithfulness to our covenant. If our bishops truly desire unity, they will live into it.

Conversely, if a bishop cannot with integrity live into our covenant without violating his or her conscience, there is no shame in stepping away from the episcopacy. The role of bishop is reserved for those who are called by the Spirit to lead persons into our covenant, not for well-meaning folks who simply lack the courage or the desire to lead.

I'm reminded of a brief speech in the 1995 movie Braveheart, in which William Wallace says to Robert the Bruce, "Tell me, what does it mean to be noble? Your title gives you claim to the throne of our country, but men don't follow titles; they follow courage. Now, our people know you, noble and common they respect you. And if you would just lead them to freedom, they'd follow you. And so would I."

Something to ponder in light of the Call to Action...

"In the end, the church cannot endure without a body of systematic and coherent doctrine. This was not the problem Wesley faced two centuries ago. His challenge was to take the doctrine the church already possessed in her canonical traditions and make it accessible to the masses of his day. Hence, he did not make doctrine a high priority in his efforts to renew the church of his day.

"Two hundred years later, the situation is radically reversed. We have become so doctrinally indifferent and illiterate that the church is starved of intellectual content. Indeed in many quarters the church has become internally secularized. It has no shared public discourse of its own, other than that borrowed from the secular world, to think through its pastoral care, its mission in the world, its evangelism, and its internal administration. Hence pastoral care is reduced to therapy, mission to sociopolitical action, evangelism to church growth, academic theology to amateur philosophical inquiry, and church administration to total quality management.

"To be sure, only a fool would claim that we cannot learn from the best secular inquiries of our day. Yet it is patently obvious that the Christian tradition has its own special way of thinking about its healing care, its mission, its evangelism, its internal structures, and the like. That special way of thinking is inescapably doctrinal. The recovery of doctrinal identity is not then some abstract exercise in constitutional archaeology; it is integral to the deep renewal of the life and work of the church in the current generation."

William J. Abraham in
Waking from Doctrinal Amnesia:
The Healing of Doctrine in the United Methodist Church,
pp. 104-105

Willimon words

"The pastor is [often] reduced to the level of the soother of anxieties brought on by the dilemmas of affluence, rather than the caller of persons to salvation. My colleague Stanley Hauerwas has accused the contemporary pastor of being little more than 'a quivering mass of availability [emphasis mine].' Practicing what I call 'promiscuous ministry' - ministry with no internal, critical judgment about what care is worth giving - we become victims of a culture of insatiable need. We live in a capitalist, consumptive culture where there is no purpose to our society other than 'meeting our needs'. The culture gives us the maximum amount of room and encouragement to 'meet our needs' without appearing to pass judgment on which needs are worth meeting… In this vast supermarket of desire, we pastors must do more than simply 'meet people’s needs.' The church is also about giving people the critical means of assessing which needs give our lives meaning, about giving us needs we would not have had if we had not met Jesus."

- from Pastor: The Theology and Practice of

Ordained Ministry (2002)

by William Willimon

Broadening & Focusing the "Bullying" Conversation

There has been a good deal of discussion on the social networks and in the media recently about bullying. The conversation, while appearing sporadically in the last few years after various incidents, really took off after the tragic suicide of a young man at Rutgers University, whose homosexual behavior was revealed by his roommate via an inappropriate video of the victim engaging in the behavior.

Wikipedia defines "bullying" as:

"...a form of abuse. It comprises repeated acts over time that involves a real or perceived imbalance of power with the more powerful individual or group abusing those who are less powerful. The power imbalance may be social power and/or physical power."

Without question, bullying is a terrible "form of abuse", and can scar people for life. People are bullied for all sorts of things, at many times in life. It's never good, and it hurts.

As a child and well into my teenage years, I was a victim of bullying. I was generally much smaller than most of my classmates, and was, in many ways, very, very different from most of them; I wasn't athletic in any way and preferred music and reading to physical competition. I was shy and extremely introverted; I was socially awkward and uncomfortable around strangers, and had a real problem with self-esteem. As a result, I was often a target of both physical and verbal abuse, and it hurt deeply. I often felt isolated and alone. My sixth grade year was particularly painful. In so many ways, I still see myself as that bullied young boy who doesn't quite "fit in" (feel free to psychoanalyze now!).

Bullying is real, and though it likely has been around as long as humanity itself, it continues to be a real issue for people of all ages.

It is a real tragedy that the bullying of the Rutgers student resulted in his suicide. We should not take this death lightly, and if this event can be used to jumpstart real conversation, then perhaps this young man's life will be honored in some way.

But I have serious concerns about how the conversation has been going.

First, the primary tragedy is not that a closeted homosexual was cruelly "outed"; it is that a young man is dead. Reducing any person to their sexual choices or opinions masks the worth of each human life. This young man was of infinite value in the Kingdom of God, and his untimely death is a catastrophe for all of us, for many, many reasons. My fear is that we incorrectly see this as a "gay issue" and not as a "human issue", which is far broader and even more painful. My friend Joe Miller boldly discusses this issue on his own blog; it's worth a look.

Second, I have been somewhat taken aback by the way many United Methodist Christians have approached this conversation. Too many United Methodists seem to have embraced this death as a "gay issue" (I mean no disrespect by the use of this phrase; it just seems the most concise rendering). This bodes badly for us all. Aside from the fact that it looks as if many of us may have missed the dehumanization of the victim in reducing this to a "gay issue", we may also be failing many people who still suffer from bullying, and others who are engaged in sexual behaviors which the Church does not condone.

The United Methodist Church, for good or ill, has a position on human sexuality. While it may not be a perfect statement, it nevertheless communicates to the world who we are and how we as a Church view these issues. While the entire statement from our Book of Discipline can be viewed here, pertinent pieces for this post include:

"We deplore all forms of the commercialization and exploitation of sex, with their consequent cheapening and degradation of human personality...We insist that all persons, regardless of age, gender, marital status, or sexual orientation, are entitled to have their human and civil rights ensured. We recognize the continuing need for full, positive, age-appropriate and factual sex education opportunities for children, young people, and adults. The Church offers a unique opportunity to give quality guidance and education in this area.

"Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God's grace is available to all, and we will seek to live together in Christian community. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons."

An additional statement (which can be read in full here) makes clear that United Methodists are to stand against practices of fear or prejudice toward those engaged in homosexual behavior.

United Methodists (particularly clergy) need to live into these statements as best they can. This means, in my view, standing against the bullying of persons engaged in homosexual behaviors. These are persons to be loved, not feared or harmed.

Additionally, however, we are to help folks engaged in all kinds of behaviors - sexual and otherwise - to recognize that they can know redemption and deliverance in Jesus Christ. I'm reminded of something shared by Bishop William Willimon during a visit to Pittsburgh Theological Seminary in 2007, in which he shared with those present some words we will never hear from God: "I love you just the way you are; promise me you'll never change." While we are to unequivocally stand against the bullying of persons who are targeted because of their sexual choices, this does not mean we should simply affirm their choices or behaviors. We should show them through love that Jesus has a better way for us. To do otherwise is to not only fail to live into our United Methodist covenant, but more importantly to miss an opportunity to share the unbounded grace of a merciful God who desires the best for each of us.

It is my sincere prayer that as the conversation in social media and the media continues regarding this subject, that we who are blessed to call ourselves United Methodist Christians will do our best to fully communicate the tragedy and hope surrounding the sad death of the Rutgers student and the blight that is bullying.

Ambition & Success

"I am convinced that personal pastoral ambition, and a pastoral ethic centered around productivity and success is brutal to our souls and destructive to the souls of the people we lead. I believe there is a better way. But it requires us to walk right into the messiness of our own ambitious hearts, ready to die to those ambitions. We must become skilled at detecting the odor of personal ambition, then flee from it as if the church's future depends on it. For I believe it does."

- Kent Carlson

God loves you...

William Abraham on the Importance of Doctrine

"In the end, the church cannot endure without a body of systematic and coherent doctrine. This was not the problem Wesley faced two centuries ago. His challenge was to take the doctrine the church already possessed in her canonical traditions and make it accessible to the masses of his day. Hence, he did not make doctrine a high priority in his efforts to renew the church of his day.

"Two hundred years later, the situation is radically reversed. We have become so doctrinally indifferent and illiterate that the church is starved of intellectual content. Indeed in many quarters the church has become internally secularized. It has no shared public discourse of its own, other than that borrowed from the secular world, to think through its pastoral care, its mission in the world, its evangelism, and its internal administration. Hence pastoral care is reduced to therapy, mission to sociopolitical action, evangelism to church growth, academic theology to amateur philosophical inquiry, and church administration to total quality management.

"To be sure, only a fool would claim that we cannot learn from the best secular inquiries of our day...Yet it is patently obvious that the Christian tradition has its own special way of thinking about its healing care, its mission, its evangelism, its internal structures, and the like. That special way of thinking is inescapably doctrinal...

"The recovery of doctrinal identity is not then some abstract exercise in constitutional archaeology; it is integral to the deep renewal of the life and work of the church in the current generation."

(William Abraham in Waking from Doctrinal Amnesia: The Healing
of Doctrine in the United Methodist Church, pp. 104-105)

thx to Jonathan Marlowe

Thomas Oden on Inclusivity & Christian Tradition

"That word ('inclusive') remains the key shibboleth of my hyper-liberated generation. We sought to be inclusive but managed to be so only within the strict limits of modern ideologies trapped in secular premises. In this captivity we systematically excluded most premodern wisdom. Now I experience a gracious sense of multigenerational inclusion in the communion of saints. Those saints precede and transcend modern life and will survive its death. The faithful belong to a much more inclusive communion than is even conceivable within the limits of modern ideologies...

"Now I revel in the very premises I once carefully learned to set aside: the triune mystery, the preexistent Logos, the radical depth of sin passing through the generations, the risen Lord, the grace of baptism...

"Rather than interpreting the texts, I found the text interpreting me...

"It is the winter season for rigorous Christian teaching. Modernity is a winter season for classical Christianity. Spring will come, but only to those who have survived the winter."

(quotes taken from various places in The Rebirth of Orthodoxy
and Agenda for Theology, both by Thomas C. Oden)

thx to Jonathan Marlowe

The Missional Church...simple

This is a good brief summary of 21st century missional reality.

Most United Methodists & United Methodist congregations are (in my humble opinion) "trapped" in the model that begins around 0:07.

Annual Conference & denominational leadership tend to be (in my humble opinion) somewhere around 0:40.

Those models have both been effective, but both are dated (they're SO 20th century).

21st century "missional ministry", which actually refers back to an earlier time, begins around 1:15.

Definitely worth some prayerful reflection...

A Lenten parable

"Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death —
even death on a cross."

- Philippians 2:5-8 (NRSV)

One Sunday in worship, a congregation received a rather large family as visitors.

After the service, the family spoke with the pastor, explaining that they had been members of another neighborhood congregation but were looking for a new church home that would serve their needs. They proceeded to begin asking the pastor various questions about the ministry and life of her congregation.

The pastor interrupted them by asking questions about their family and their activities, both in and out of church. “I’m not sure that our congregation is the place for you,“ the pastor told them, “for when it comes to joining our fellowship, we are far more interested in those who are willing to serve than those who are willing to be served.”

Great post from Jay Voorhees

Over at Only Wonder Understands, the blog of Jay Voorhees (a UM pastor in Tennessee), we find a wonderful post entitled The Myth of Relevancy.

Jay mentions the seeming obsession in contemporary Church circles with the desire to be "relevant" and illustrates his concerns simply, briefly, and quite well. I recommend this post as some great food for thought.

Our Changing Times...

Ron Luce on Leadership

“Those who speak up shape culture.”

- Ron Luce, BattleCry

Problems with "Contemporary worship"

I have often complained about "contemporary-style" worship, by which I refer to worship styles which generally utilize a "praise band" and newer "choruses" with words projected on a screen or wall, as opposed to organs, choirs, and traditional hymnody (I'm obviously painting with broad strokes).

Some complaints:

1) "Contemporary worship" is not contemporary. It is better termed "Baby Boomer-style" worship, since the Baby Boomer generation (those born in roughly 1945-1967) is the generation which created it. Post-Baby Boomers are creating and recapturing other styles; in fact, "contemporary" worship is really just worship that was contemporary 30 years ago, as opposed to 500+ years ago (as with "traditional" worship). It's no more contemporary than Gregorian chant, and we ought to stop referring to it as such.

2) Baby Boomer worship is largely devoid of Christian symbols. By getting rid of stained glass windows (which tell the story of Jesus and his Church), robes and stoles (which help root the Church in a theological tradition), the liturgical year (which helps root us in Scripture and the salvific story of Jesus), and traditional hymnody (which connect us through music to those saints who have gone before as well as to others who share this hymnody in the Church Universal), as well as other symbols, we sanitize worship of some of its most Christian elements. We thus miss opportunities to teach who Jesus is and who we are in him. One of the most shocking aspects of seeing Joel Osteen on television (other than inadequate theology) is that the cross has been replaced with a rotating globe. Very telling.

3) Baby Boomer worship is extremely exclusive. If I don't know the latest praise band "hit", I simply can't sing it. No music is offered for my education; I simply see the words projected on a screen. I am therefore invited to stand and listen as others sing, while I cannot. That's more concert than worship. If I am not already immersed in the Baby Boomer worship subculture, I am excluded.

4) Many incorrectly believe Baby Boomer worship to be the answer to the decline of the mainline Church. I attended a meeting a few weeks ago at which a United Methodist bishop (gently) chastised those gathered for continuing to sing older songs, such as "How Great Thou Art" (odd, considering that particular song is relatively "contemporary" when compared to the works of, say, Isaac Watts, Charles Wesley, or Fanny Crosby). His point was that these songs, produced by earlier generations, simply did not speak to a 21st century population. He failed to show what was so dated about lyrics such as:

"O For A Thousand Tongues to sing my great Redeemer's praise, the glories of my God and King, the triumphs of his grace!"

"Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine! O what a foretaste of glory divine! Heir of salvation, purchase of God, born of his Spirit, washed in his blood."

"Amazing grace! How sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me! I once was long but now I'm found; was blind, but now I see!"

"Christ the Lord is risen today, Alleluia! Earth and heaven in chorus say, Alleluia! Raise your joys and triumphs high, Alleluia! Sing, ye heavens, and earth reply, Alleluia!"

"O make me thine forever; and should I fainting be, Lord, let me never, never outlive my love for thee."

"When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died; my richest gain I count but loss, and pour contempt on all my pride."

"O Love divine, what has thou done! The immortal God hath died for me! The Father's coeternal Son bore all my sins upon the tree. Th' immortal God for me hath died: My Lord, my Love, is crucified!"

"Rescue the perishing, care for the dying, snatch them in pity from sin and the grave; weep o'er the erring one, lift up the fallen, tell them of Jesus, the mighty to save. Rescue the perishing, care for the dying; Jesus is merciful, Jesus will save."

"Be thou my wisdom, and thou my true word; I ever with thee and thou with me, Lord; thou and thou only, first in my heart, great God of heaven, my treasure thou art."

It is not mainline music which has resulted in decline; it is theological uncertainty, missional lethargy, evangelistic malaise, and institutional compromise which is killing us. We need leadership in these areas, not in the remaking of our hymnody.

If we teach the gospel faithfully, as we pledged to do in our ordination vows, these songs can and will come alive for Christians of any century. Poor teaching is no excuse for replacing quality texts with choruses containing less challenging lyrics.

5) The quality of Baby Boomer worship songs is generally poor. I freely admit to being a music snob. I regularly listen to the songs of the greatest songwriters of the past hundred years - John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, Brian Wilson, Carole King, George Harrison, and others. The latest Baby Boomer worship hit pales by comparison. Let's be honest: much of what passes for "contemporary Christian music" doesn't stand up to these great writers. Every now and then, there's a good song. But, by and large, it's awfully bad.

This is to say nothing about the poor quality of most praise bands. Again, I plead snobbery. I have heard few (if any) praise bands which can compare to the instrumental mastery of the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, or the Who. If you're going to rock it up, do it well - or, please, don't do it.

Here is a link to a post by John Stackhouse entitled "Chris Tomlin’s Worship Songs: We Have Got to Do Better".
_____________________

I am an advocate of "indigenous worship". Use the gifts and graces of the folks who are part of your congregational fellowship. But don't necessarily reject the practices of traditional worship, which have much to teach. Too often we confuse "traditional" with "traditionalism", two terms which are not synonomous; slavish devotion to things past is not the same as embracing the best of what has gone before. Surely we can be "current" while still recognizing the timeless power in a worship style and in music which has praised God powerfully and inspired the Church through the ages to be her best.

Worship done well that remains Biblical, Spirit-led and Christocentric is always, by definition, relevant. May we strive to do and be our best.

Excerpts from Church Conference report

Church Conference for JUMC
held at First Bethel UMC, 7 PM,
11/4/08

“…holiness befits your house, O LORD, forevermore.”
– Psalm 93:5

It is a joy to be a part of the family of Jefferson United Methodist Church as we celebrate our 165th year of ministry. The congregation has a wonderful legacy of love and mission, and I feel blessed to be a part of her story. Our area is growing, and our circle of influence grows with it.

Some exciting things have been happening in our congregational family:

* While numbers are rarely a primary indicator of missional faithfulness, our average participation in Sunday worship has increased significantly in the past 2 ½ years; our baptisms and our new members are vastly outpacing funerals and transfers, which is a positive “turnaround trend”;
* We continue to get more visitors each week, and are retaining most of them;
* We have completed a bold building plan to improve and modernize our physical facilities, connecting our worship center with our education building and making some much needed repairs;
* Our new folks have been getting very active in the life of our congregation, in study groups, leadership opportunities and mission;
* We utilize our technological capabilities more efficiently, making use of power point and video in worship and in study;
* In the community, I have been meeting with area clergy in the hopes of gaining greater cooperation in ministry, and our West Jefferson Hills Ministerium continues to do wonderful things, from worship gatherings to collaborative missional efforts.

It has been a busy and positive year! And yet, there are even greater things in our future...

2009 will be my third full year in ministry at Jefferson church, unless our Bishop and his Cabinet determine that a change is in order (which is always a possibility in our connectional system). As I prepare for my third year, the number “3” has been running through my mind. With my love of music and respect for the great hymnody of the Church, the hymn “Holy, Holy, Holy!” has been a frequent refrain. This beautiful classic, with an 1826 text by Reginald Heber, extols the glory of the Triune God:

Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty!
Early in the morning our song shall rise to thee.
Holy, holy, holy! Merciful and mighty,
God in three persons, blessed Trinity!

Holy, holy, holy! All the saints adore thee,
casting down their golden crowns around the glassy sea;
cherubim and seraphim falling down before thee,
which wert, and art, and evermore shalt be.

Holy, holy, holy! Though the darkness hide thee,
though the eye of sinful man thy glory may not see,
only thou art holy; there is none beside thee,
perfect in power, in love and purity.

Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty!
All thy works shall praise thy name, in earth and sky and sea.
Holy, holy, holy! Merciful and mighty,
God in three persons, blessed Trinity.

I have been reflecting on this hymn for the past several months, praying it several times a week as part of my devotional life. I believe we are being challenged by the Spirit to focus in 2009 on “holiness”…the holiness of God and our own calling to be holy for Jesus’ sake in the midst of a broken world. Holiness, after all, was a crucial aspect of John Wesley’s ministry and the early Methodist message, and is an important part of our faith heritage.

Holiness is more than just living simple, healthy lives (though that’s important); it is being fully devoted to Jesus. The Kingdom of God is described as ‘the Way of Holiness’…

“…a highway shall be there,
and it shall be called the Way of Holiness.”
– Isaiah 35:8

How might we be more holy? Spend more time in prayer with our Heavenly Father? Read and study Scripture more effectively? Be more intent about our marriage and family commitments? Serve the poor, the lonely, and the lost with greater passion? Be more obedient regarding our attendance and participation in congregational worship? Stand against societal sins such as racism and sexism with more vigor? Love one another and our neighbors with less compromise?

Rather than listing goals for the next ministry year, I will be urging us to reflect on the theme of holiness in 2009 - what it means to serve a holy God and what it means to be a holy people. My expectation is that as we reflect upon this theme, the Spirit will open to us new possibilities for growth and effective disciple-making. We serve a God who honors faithful, honest reflection!

My only goal, then, for 2009, as a pastor and a leader of this wonderful congregation, is that we “take time to be holy”, and seek Jesus’ holy character in our own lives. I believe that we will be transformed in significant ways, as will our community.

May God continue to bless the people of Jefferson United Methodist Church and all that we do to build Christ’s Kingdom.

Pastor Keith H. McIlwain
November 4, 2008

For whom should we vote?

Today, the Iowa Caucuses officially launch the 2008 U.S. Presidential campaigns. Of course, some of the candidates have been actively campaigning for a year or more; some have really been campaigning for years.

I'm really not looking forward to the 2008 campaign. These things tend to be so bitter and so divisive that it's next to impossible for the victor to establish any mandate or build any unity. Four years ago, even the sacrament of Holy Communion was actually tossed around as a potential weapon when it was suggested that John Kerry be barred from communing because of his support for legal abortion; I still find that suggestion absolutely appalling. I actually posted briefly about it last year.

How do we as Christians make a choice between candidates? This can be especially difficult if no candidate shares 100% of our views. There are lots of important issues; are some more important than others? Should we weigh some more than others? It's tough.

Years ago, I came to the realization that the likelihood of finding a viable candidate with whom I agreed on all of the important issues was next to impossible. I often seem to be a liberal among conservatives and a conservative among liberals. That's hard to find on the national scene, at least in terms of viable candidates for the presidency.

I am politically liberal enough to oppose capital punishment and war (anytime, anywhere), to support radical gun control and the fight against poverty and HIV/AIDS (not that we as a people have done well in these areas), and to believe that education is a key issue in this world. I am politically conservative enough to oppose abortion, racial quotas (which is, to me , simply racism that we feel good about), and to believe that lowering taxes is a good thing which ultimately helps the economy as well as the poor (at least in theory). Neither side seems to me to be particularly strong on human rights, which should embarrass this nation to no end. Both sides tend to demonize their opposition, most recently the sinful, sub-Christian hate we see directed daily at President Bush from the Left; the Right hasn't been much kinder regarding, say, the Clintons.

How do we then wade through all the crap to determine which candidates are worthy of our support?

While we need to take many issues seriously, in my view there is one issue which trumps the rest. That issue is character. Politico Peggy Noonan said it well:

"In a president, character is everything. A president doesn't have to be brilliant...He doesn't have to be clever; you can hire clever...You can hire pragmatic, and you can buy and bring in policy wonks. But you can't buy courage and decency, you can't rent a strong moral sense. A president must bring those things with him...He needs to have, in that much maligned word, but a good one nonetheless, a 'vision' of the future he wishes to create.. But a vision is worth little if a president doesn't have the character - the courage and heart - to see it through."

Too true. Booker T. Washington once said, "Character is power." Richard Nixon once spoke words which came back to haunt him, saying, "Character is the most important qualification the President of the United States can have." One of my all-time favorite quotes comes from Martin Luther King: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Incidentally, isn't all that true of Church leadership as well?

A key method of determining someone's personal character, in my view, has to do with the marriage covenant. I believe this to be the most important promise we make this side of heaven. Conservative writer Marvin Olasky said it well in his book The American Leadership Tradition (p. 270):

"Reverence toward God does not confer the ability to have a successful presidency; look at Jimmy Carter. Faithfulness to a wife is no guarantee of faithfulness to the country; look at...Richard Nixon. Faithlessness in both areas, however, is a leading indicator of trouble. Small betrayals in marriage generally lead to larger betrayals, and leaders who break a large vow to one person find it easy to break relatively small vows to millions."

Personal character is, for me, the #1 issue in any campaign. I tend to vote for the candidate whom I feel wins the "character battle". I especially enjoyed the 2006 Senate race in Pennsylvania, when we had two candidates of excellent character running for office - Roman Catholic warrior hero Rick Santorum and the quieter but equally faithful Bob Casey. It seemed to me that whomever won that race, Pennsylvanians won.

There are several worthwhile candidates running this year, in both major parties. Several seem to be of exemplary character. They are worth a look.

I urge all Christians to make character a key issue in 2008. It is even more important than war, poverty, taxes, the environment, or immigration.

Additionally, we need to be in prayer for the process as it unfolds, that God will raise up and anoint the right person for this job which has such drastic implications. We need to be in prayer for President Bush as well as for the two candidates who will ultimately be vying to succeed him. Regardless of our politics, we should faithfully lift up these people and ask that the Spirit will bless them and, through them, this broken world.

Willimon words

"The pastor is [often] reduced to the level of the soother of anxieties brought on by the dilemmas of affluence, rather than the caller of persons to salvation. My colleague Stanley Hauerwas has accused the contemporary pastor of being little more than 'a quivering mass of availability [emphasis mine].' Practicing what I call 'promiscuous ministry' - ministry with no internal, critical judgment about what care is worth giving - we become victims of a culture of insatiable need. We live in a capitalist, consumptive culture where there is no purpose to our society other than 'meeting our needs'. The culture gives us the maximum amount of room and encouragement to 'meet our needs' without appearing to pass judgment on which needs are worth meeting… In this vast supermarket of desire, we pastors must do more than simply 'meet people’s needs.' The church is also about giving people the critical means of assessing which needs give our lives meaning, about giving us needs we would not have had if we had not met Jesus."

- from Pastor: The Theology and Practice of

Ordained Ministry (2002)

by William Willimon

Thanks to Indiana John and Oklahoma Matt.