Simply Worship: Evangelical, Sacramental, and Accessible

Worship must maintain its integrity as worship, though it can and does have aspects that are evangelistic and formational.  A potential issue for churches seeking to reach unchurched people in its modern day context is cultural accomodation. What truly is worship? We often rush to what will help us get more unchurched people in the pews, but is that the primary goal of worship? Are we really caught in the proposition that if we don’t make worship “relevant” then we won’t have anyone in the pews to worship?  God taught his people how to worship Him, and that if we refused, then He would raise up rocks to sing his praise.  It’s time we reflect on what this means for us in our own context.

There’s been a bit of a change in our pattern of worship as of late within our church. There are several reasons for the changes that include biblical/theological understandings, as well as our context in ministry. First, I will respond to our context.

Our church is located in close proximity to several other United Methodist churches, in Kansas City yet on the border of Gladstone. We are among other churches that bear the name “Gashland” from other denominations. One of my first considerations upon arriving here was our identity and purpose in the community.

Most churches  in our area have a “traditional” and some form of “contemporary” worship service. We did too. Though we were not doing the former  in a very traditional way, nor was latter done in a full sense. We had an informal service with varying liturgy and organ music at our early service and called it “traditional” and we had a informal service with varying liturgy but with a guitar at our second service and called it  “contemporary.”  There is nothing particularly wrong with this, though it was something of a misnomer on both counts. They were both rather informal, as if we were entertaining guests in our living room.  The assumption is that this makes it more accessible for outsiders to participate. I’m going to directly challenge that assumption.

“Contemporary” worship services apeal primarily to a generation of baby boomers raised on polished media productions. This is not generally the case of younger generations who seek authentic spirituality, resound with a sense of mystery, rituals and symbols.  For example, there is a resurgence among young people attending Catholic Mass.  Even some evangelical traditions that are typically considered “low church” have started to appreciate and incorporate ancient acts of worship and find that this resonants with younger people.  People should still be comfortable to dress in anyway they want; “come as they are.” Yet does that mean that our approach to the throne of God should be done so casually? Informal and contemporary does not necessarily mean accessible. (Of note, in our second worship service where we have a praise band playing modern Christian worship songs, we also offer the Eucharist meal weekly. This has not detracted from it’s attendance growth, nor have my robes, or the ancient liturgical order and practices. We will have a number of young people joining our church on Pentecost Sunday, of which most come from our second worship service. If this is coincidence, only time will tell.)

“Traditional” services that are not sacramental are often not much different than “contemporary” worship services in that they tend to engage at an intellectual  level, while remaining mostly passive except for hymn singing (important, yet only one aspect of worship). In this way, they are often less accessible to outsiders as they are mostly geared toward the proclivities of the extant congregation; what is comfortable to who is already there without considering the context of unchurched visitors. Informal and traditional does necessarily mean accessible.

What we’ve done is to move away from the distinctions of “traditional” and “contemporary,” something I feel very passionately about as worship is central to the life of the church. Battle lines are drawn around this distinction, but I’m not convinced that it’s God’s plumb line or what it really means to worship in Spirit and Truth, as much as it’s a cultural distinction. That we have moved from this distinction is not necessarily unique, yet it is something of a re-traditioning within our denomination. The primary difference between our worship services now other than the time of day or location is the song selection and instruments for music used. Liturgically and structurally all of our worship services are consistently the same regardless of personal taste in music. I don’t know of any other churches in our area that is approaching worship in this way; most maintain a distinction between “traditional” and “contemporary” or in an attempt to appease, move to what is “blended.” However, we are not primarily defining worship by music style, but in term of Word and Table; Evangelical, Sacramental and Accessible.   This moves deeper than differences of style, and has more to do with how people are incorporated and led into Worship, their expectations, and has much to do with how we define worship and the church.

For Wesley, the church is where the Word was preached and the Sacraments properly administered; Evangelical, Sacramental and Accessible.

Our worship services have all the same elements of worship that you would find within the United Methodist hymnals (Word and Table) or the United Methodist Book of Worship, so it is grounded well within our tradition. As opposed to being “high church” or “low church,” “traditional” or “contemporary” I’m much more concerned with being Evangelical, Sacramental and Accessible. In the Methodist tradition, our pulpits are open to anyone called and gifted to preach (though we appreciate some training as well). However, only an Ordained Elder or Local Lisenced Pastor (and that with restrictions) may administer the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Yet we relegate this sacrament to once a month (or less often) memorial status, either intentionally or by practice even though  it’s the vocation of the Ordained Elder to lead in Word, Sacrament, Order and Service. My intention is to restore the Eucharist to its sacramental place (Sacrament understood as Life transforming real presence of Christ) along side the ministry of the Word, in the life of the worshipping congregation; Evangelical, Sacramental, and Accessible.

The Word is preached, prayers of praise, confession and intercession offered, in ways true to our Methodist heritage and identity. Celebrating the Eucharist does not require that we become inaccessible or overly formal to the unchurched in our community, it does mean that we celebrate the life transforming real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper through the Holy Spirit, on a regular basis. John Wesley considered the Lord’s Supper as a “converting ordinance” where in experiencing the body and blood of Christ, through the Holy Spirit people may experience Justifying grace and be “converted” to Christ. This is substantially evangelistic yet also sacramental, calling  ”sinners” to the altar to repent and give their lives to Christ. The Eucharist meal is a means by which people are not only converted to Christ, but also grow in love of God and neighbor (sanctification).

The liturgy that is performed (liturgy means literally “work of the people”) involves the congregation so they participate in worship through the Word and Table, rather than be tempted to remain bystanders, spectators, or even worse, an audience. If anyone is the ”audience” for our worship, it is God.   The liturgy itself is not merely symbolic but is steeped in the tradition of the church and is grounded thoroughly in scripture. For those who want their worship grounded in scripture, and in ways that have survived thousands of years, then it is hard not to appreciate the depth and beauty of the ancient liturgy that invites us into His fellowship and as such into the “sweep of salvation history” from Creation, Incarnation, Crucifiction and Resurrection, through this current age and unto the Eschaton (End of the age bringing fulfillment of all God’s promises of His full Reign).

Wesley himself was an Anglican priest who prayed from the Book of Common prayer three times daily (Daily Office), and strongly encouraged the people of the Methodist movement to continue Sunday worship within the Anglican church, to receive the Lord’s Supper weekly, and participate in the ancient worship liturgy of the church. We are inheritors of that worship tradition. Wesley only saw it as formalism where the Holy Spirit was not active. That has less to do with the “forms” as the condition of the participant and can happen regardless of the frequency of the practice or the “form.” We tend to confuse forms and rituals with formalism. Wesley did not, but held in tension the sponteniety of the Holy Spirit (“the wind will blow where it wills) with the ancient worship practices. For Wesley, the ancient prayers fed his spontaneous prayers while the opposite was also true. Our modern culture is quick to divide what Wesley was able to hold together for the edification of the church.

Worship is central to the life of the church and is not something that we do in passing or with a casual air of over familiarity. Worship is bringing us to the Throne of God in community with the saints, and all the heavenly hosts. If we are not experiencing that in worship, perhaps we need to return to the basics of Word and Table. Worship has integrity of it’s own; Evangelical, Sacramental and Accessible.

Holy Goals

General conference for our United Methodist denomination is quickly approaching. With it comes much controversy and often dread as a diversity of delegates including laity and pastors from across the globe converge to set the direction for the denomination moving forward. Important decisions that impact the life of the local church are considered and voted upon. Each year, controversial issues haunt the convention floor with the specter of division. We need a clear path ahead that will unify and strengthen us, yet it seems that with each opportunity we are given, we fall upon ourselves and are swept up into the currents of our culture or other influences instead of embracing our theological heritage and identity.

As a pastor in the Missouri Annual conference we receive significant training regarding our culture and exploring a diversity of resources, yet rarely plumb the depths of our theological heritage in terms of actual leadership and church renewal. Many evangelicals turn toward resources that will help offer tools to move from “maintenance mode” toward growth and vitality as a church; reaching others for Jesus Christ. What I see as one issue is that we hardly recognize that there is an implicit theology at work in many of the more popular leadership books being consumed. Often in these books, theological distinctiveness remain unstated, even deemed irrelevant because the processes proscribed “works” in all kinds of churches.

For those of us concerned with church renewal, the result in this direction is to create a sense that as long as we can get people engaging the “means” then we can somehow assume we will achieve the hoped for “ends.” Part of the issue is that we define the “end” in terms of “practices;” as long as more people are engaged in praying, worshiping, giving, serving, and witness then we are “healthy” and “vital.” Even our church membership vows point us this direction. However, health and vitality is biblically expressed not in terms of the means as much as in terms of the end: communion with God.

 

My understanding is that the traditional Wesleyan spiritual disciplines and the “means of grace” lead us to that much deeper end. John Wesley identifies this as Christian Perfection, Entire Sanctification and Holiness of Heart and Life, in which we grow in the knowledge and love of God and love for our neighbor. This is what he understood to constitute salvation. Other traditions throughout church history have understood this in terms of Theosis, Divinization and Restoration of the Imago Dei. They are different ways of describing what I believe the bible witnesses to as the ultimate goal of Christianity. Interestingly, it seems some pastors tend to cringe because to speak of this is “theology,” which they understand to be distinct from the practices of ministry. This is a very curious position to take for a Methodist/Wesleyan church as Wesley didn’t make that distinction.  It wasn’t until the 20th century did our tradition begin to more fully accommodate to this dualism between theology and practice, coinciding with its decline in membership and influence.

 

For Wesley theology was “practical divinity.” Many Wesleyan scholars today suggest that for Wesley the purpose of theology is the sanctification of Christians and the faithfulness of the church in mission. Do business practices and theology share similar goals and assumptions? Much can be learned from business models and practices. However, they must be governed and shaped by theology in order for them to enable us to reach the ends desired by God.

 

I too want people to learn how to worship, pray, serve, give, and witness, and I spend a lot of time and energy teaching and preaching on the centrality of these practices in the Christian life. Yet should we see these primarily as the ends in themselves or as a means that leads us into full communion with God?

I don’t assume that this happens just because people are engaged in the appropriate means, even though those particular means are essential. I believe people need to be led in that direction with intentionality towards this ultimate goal. If our primary goal is to lead towards the “means,” we may well see “success” in terms of growth in numbers and participation, and can still fall short of what God intends and desires for us.

 

This is a theological distinctive and heritage that I cherish and refuse to be ashamed of. However, it is also one that is not necessarily shared with other protestant traditions, or even within our own. Many (of whom author rather popular church leadership books) assume that salvation is primarily “justification by faith” and grace is irresistible. In these church models growth in faith has less to do with salvation (including sanctification..moving on toward Christian Perfection) and more to do with being a “healthy” church that reaches out to others so they may be “justified by faith” starting the cycle over again. It’s good for business, but what kind of disciples are made? In adopting these models are we trying to pour Reformed wine into Wesleyan wine skins?

 

In visiting a Greek Orthodox church, they stated their vision and mission in terms of being “perfected in love.” As a Wesleyan, I almost wept. That congregation may not be the model of church growth, but they understand what they are about that has a theological identity and depth. Others outside the tradition may disagree, but at least they know who they are, what they believe and why. The goal includes distinctive Christian practices yet there is no confusion on what the goal truly is, it’s not up for debate and the means are not confused with the end.

 

Wesley indicated that Methodists were raised up to spread Scriptural Holiness across the land….being perfected (made whole/complete) in God’s love. The means of grace are central and vital to the process yet Scriptural Holiness is ultimately the goal/vision and what a Christian disciple is to look like.

 

In my mind, what it means “to be saved” is at stake.

 

 

Holy Week

Holy week may be one of the most important week’s of the year.  And no, I’m not talking about the Holy Week that consists of the Division 1 Men’s NCAA basketball tournament championship game and The Master’s golf tournament, though I’ve enjoyed watching them as much as anyone  That is a different “altar” to worship upon than the one I have in view. The holy week of which I speak has to do more with nails and crosses, than hoops and “holes in one.”

Even beyond the major sports events of this time of year, this week is typically seen as the last week of preparation for Easter festivities.  Even when I started taking my Christian faith seriously as a young man, Holy Week was more about buying Easter baskets and chocolate bunnies than betrayal, condemnation, and crucifixion.  It’s not that I didn’t care about Jesus’ passion, it’s just that other things took priority. I went to church on Sunday and that seemed good enough. Yet the interesting thing is that I often went from celebrating Jesus triumphant entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday straight to celebrating Jesus triumph over death in resurrection on Easter Sunday. Something of profound significance happens in between these two events, but if we’re not careful we’ll miss it.

Christians often lament how the church has accommodated too much to the consumerism of our culture, especially around our sacred holidays.  As well intended Christian people, we rightly talk about “putting Christ back into Christmas.” Yet, as Christians we then go about spending as much money on Christmas gifts as any secular person would.   We do something similiar when our lips speak of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross but our time is spent during holy week on bonnets and bunnies.

There’s certainly nothing  wrong with preparing for Easter egg hunts or family dinners, I’ll do my share of that as well. However, it does beg the question from those of us who take Jesus’ crucifixion (and resurrection) seriously; what does it mean for disciples of Jesus Christ to celebrate Holy Week? For what are we really preparing ourselves for this week? If we believe Jesus’ death on the cross is important, then what practices would make the most sense for Christians to participate in during Holy Week?

It is so easy to want to move from the “parade” at Palms Sunday to the Easter celebrations the following week.  We want to move from the introspection and seriousness of Lent so we can get to the festive celebrations of Easter. Yet, without the cross, there would be no empty tomb.  Without the Passion of Christ, there would be no need to plan Easter egg hunts. Without pausing under the shadow of the cross, how can we truly appreciate the resurrection and the victory over sin and death won as a result?

This Holy Week our church is pausing to linger at the cross. Starting today and every day this very holy week, the sanctuary will be open for prayer and Holy Communion. As we move through the week, the activities will draw our attention closer upon the cross that Jesus bore, and offer us an opportunity to be drawn into Jesus’ passion. We invite all in our congregation and community to join us on this journey this week.

In my personal journey, I’ve found this time of Holy Week to have a profound impact on my celebration of Easter. May we take the time this week to pause and consider the Passion of Jesus. It is because Jesus took that cross upon himself, that as his disciples, we don’t have to experience the eternal anguish of it for ourselves.

Holy Communion

I’m excited about our 2nd worship service moving to celebrate Holy Communion every week. John Wesley exhorted the Methodists to participate in the Lord’s Supper as often as they could.  Wesley understood the signficance of the Lord’s Supper in ways that may be somewhat lost today. Let’s see if we can recover something of a sense of that without going too deep into the theological language.

Let’s talk about it in terms of salvation. We are clearly not saved because of celebrating Holy Communion. However,  it is instrumental to what Wesley understood salvation to be about…Holy Communion. Allow me to explain. Many American Protestant Christians today entertain something of a truncated view of salvation, where we seek God’s forgiveness for our sins, then because of what Jesus did on the cross our sins are forgiven and we get to go to heaven some day to be with our loved ones who went before us. In otherwords, salvation is about getting to heaven, and if that means we have to seek God’s forgiveness because of the cross, then that’s what we’ll do!

There is a heaven, and forgiveness of sin is critical, and Jesus did die on the cross on our behalf as a “sacrifice” for our sins, this is not negotiable. However, the bible also teaches signficantly more about salvation and it has something to do with “holy communion.”

“Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48).”  Throughout the history of Christianity, Christians have understood that salvation meant a conversion not only away from something, and avoidance of another, but a newness toward something or better yet, some One.  John Wesley understood this in terms of “holiness of heart and life” or “Christian Perfection.”  Early church fathers understood this same thing in terms of “theosis” or “divinization.” Wesleyan Scholar and churh history professer, Dr. Steve Rankin wrote beautifully on this topic in terms of Christian maturity in Aiming At Maturity (Wipf and Stock, 2012). While each understanding comes with some nuances and different focus or concerns each are speaking to a sense of transformation and growth toward a specific and common goal: the image of God. Because of the “fall of Adam” and “original sin” the image of God within us has been corrupted as to be irrecognizable and we are helpless on our own, in slavery to this fallen and corrupt nature of sin.  We need a savior, and Jesus is that Savior, but our salvation is to restore what was lost, and that requires more than forgiveness, it requires real transformation.

For the image of God to be restored is to be in “communion” with God; one could say, “Holy Communion” with God. That communion is one of love; an abiding love of God and neighbor as described by Jesus as “the Greatest Commandment.”  If your starting to make a connection, then that’s a good thing. The Lord’s Supper, or “Holy Communion” sacrament shapes and transforms us, as well as enacts within us the loving sacrfice of Jesus Christ to restore us in loving relationship with Christ.  Communion with God is our salvation; restoring the image of God, and that image is love in community.  The Holy Spirit of God, through celebrating this sacrament, works to restore that “holy communion.”  Perhaps that’s why they call it “Holy Communion.”

There is nothing Roman Catholic about celebrating Holy Communion every Sunday. Several protestant traditions do so as well, and it stands within our tradition as Methodists. As a matter of historical fact, many of the first Methodist in America clamored for more ordained clergy so they might have the sacrament of Holy Communion made available to them regularly as Methodists without having to go to a different church.

This might be speculation, but I think it’s safe to say that Wesley himself would wonder why we wouldn’t participate weekly, if not more, if we had the opportunity to do so. So, the question then becomes, why wouldn’t we want to celebrate that every chance we get?

The responses I get vary, but they come with an implicitely different understandings of what the Lord’s Supper is about within our tradition. For many, celebrating the Lord’s Supper is a reverent event where we “remember” Christ’s sacrfice.  In this view, remembrance is an intellectual and and almost sentimental event that recalls what Jesus has done for us. Therefore, the signficance of the event seems more reverent when done less often. It’s kind of like what happens when we watch a home movie of a loved one’s wedding too often; we know what’s going to happen next and it loses it’s special quality as a result.  We enjoy it more when watching it less frequently. There is a temptation to view the sacrement of the Lord’s Supper with the same sentimentality.  However, this understanding puts the focus more on us than Christ, and it has mostly lost it’s power of a sacrament to transform through the power of hte Holy Spirit. We “feel” good about ourselves for participating, but our hearts and lives are largely unchanged.

Rather, Dr. Robert Webber helps to see that “remembrance” has more to do with “enacting” the event in our time and space. The sacrifice is made real for us here and now through eating the “body and blood of Christ.” In the Holy Communion liturgy we pray, “Pour out your Holy spirit on these gifts of bread and wine. Make them be for us the body and blood of Christ, so that we may be the body and blood of Christ for the world.” This is to invoke the power of the Holy Spirit so that we might be transformed into the image of God through the communion elements into Jesus Christ himself!

Again, this is not a Roman Catholic view of Holy Communion, it’s a Wesleyan Methodist view.  Unlike the Roman Catholics or other Protestant traditions, Wesley was not engaged in the debates about how Jesus Christ is present in the ”bread and wine”.  He let the Roman Catholics debate with the Lutherans and Calvinists about “consubstantiation” (Jesus is with or “con” the elements) and “transubstatiation” (The elements are transformed into the real flesh and blood of Christ). He was much more concerned with lives being transformed to look like Christ by participating in the Lord’s Supper.

Perhaps another question one could ask is, “why would I want to pass up any opportunity to experience the grace of God in a life transforming way that leads me on the way of salvation?”

Christian reading resources

I’m working on creating a recommended reading list for our church small groups ministry. This would serve as a reference and guide for small groups as well as interested individuals wanting to read books or engage in study using Christian books that fall within our faith tradition, are thoughtful and balanced within a spectrum of disciplines ranging from novels to church doctrine. I’m finding the task to be more challenging than anticipated.

It seems there’s a fairly significant gap between books written by and for the scholarly academy and books for a more thoughtful wider Christian population. Not that there aren’t many books I would characterize as “Pop Christianity” as embodied by pastors such as Max Lucado, Rick Warren, and other famous and much published Christian authors.  The list of Christian books written for laity is long. That’s not the issue.

The issue is finding a range of books, especially from more contemporary authors, that fall within a Methodist/Wesleyan tradition. One does not need to be a scholar to detect the strong Calvinistic or fundamentalist themes running the authors such as Lucado and Warren (not to pick on these fine Christian authors, but to see them as examples of a type). Or you can just as easily find books that espouse a narrow theological perspective and then present them as “THE” definitive Christian perspective as in the now famous Left Behind novels. This is fine, if you are a modern day Calvinist or fundamentalist. But if you are not, and have a more robust  understanding of salvation that would include Sanctification along with Justification by Faith,  then finding attainable Christian authors is more of a struggle.  There are some good ones, including Michael Slaughter, pastor of Ginghamsburgh UMC in Tipp City, OH. But even he is writing largely to pastors and church leaders.

And before I’m charged with elitism, I’d like to say, that for many Christians, these popular author’s views become accepted as the only “orthodox” view to take, even defining the boundaries of Evangelicalism. There’s an implicit line drawn by some Evangelicals to self-identify what is Evangelical using Calvinism, especially 5 -point modern day Calvinism, as the lines by which boundaries are drawn.

As a side note, even church leadership books are hard to find within our tradition. Most church leadership books today embraced by our own UM church are dripping with a theology that looks more Calvinistic and largely embraces an ecclesiology (understanding of the church) that is grounded more in corporate American than the bible. Church leadership, in it’s desperation for renewal, today seems quite content to marginalize theology as long as we get growth, as if one could separate one from the other; that alone is a decidedly un-Wesleyan move and one that Wesley would protest himself. But that digression is for a future blog. For now, the focus is on the dearth of books for a wider UM audience.

This is no small thing. In my last blog I spoke about how the tools for our communication shape us in important ways. Well, the content matters too. I think my biggest concern is that these mainstream, “pop Christian” authors are not particularly honest about their theological assumptions and commitments. There’s a sense that they are writing what is universally true for all Christians, when in fact, they write from a distinctive theological tradition. In the case of some authors, the faith tradition is not even as old as Calvin, but more along the lines of 1950′s/60′s neo-conservatism.

The danger is that their teaching becomes “gospel truth,” in churches where doctrine and theology is not really seen as important. In the absence of sound doctrine by your local church, people will gravitate to what others profess with confidence and universally, especially if it’s close to what one already believes. I know, I’ve been there. Before going to seminary I drank deeply of the wells of fundamentalism and pop-Christianity because I felt that it was feeding me in ways I was not being fed at the local church. What I didn’t realize is that these authors didn’t speak for the entirety of the church, much less Evangelicalism, just because they were widely published and popularly read. Even as a life-long United Methodist, I had to go to Saint Paul School of Theology to be introduced to John Wesley and Methodism; to learn about Christian Perfection, sanctification and what “holiness of heart and life” is really about.  This just shouldn’t be the case in our day and age. Part was my own fault, but partly our own church had little to say about it.

One book that will definitely make this reading list is Aiming for Maturity (Wipf and Stock press) written by a friend, Steve Rankin, who is a well-respected church historian as well as chaplain at Southern Methodist University. He writes as a scholar yet to a general audience. He is the self-proclaimed “blue-collar scholar” and gives wonderful insight to the nature of doctrine and the Christian life. There are other resources that will also make this list including studies published by the General Board of Discipleship that have taken John and Charles Wesleys sermons and theology on Christian Perfection and made them accessible to a wide audience (titles to be included later). Also to be included are books written by my friend and mentor Dr. Henry Knight, the chair of Wesley Studies at Saint Paul School of Theology.  Hal can write and talk with the best of scholars, and like Dr. Rankin, he also has a heart for the church and has written several good books for laity (Transforming Evangelism, Eight Life-Enriching Practices of United Methodists to just name a couple). There is also the promising work of a young theologian and acquaintance who has published work regarding the Wesleyan class system for our own day.

Though my search has just started, my hope is to unearth a treasure of resources that are grounded not only biblically but within our faith tradition as Methodists.  The ones I’ve spoken to are the ones I’m familiar with, that in no way means there’s not a rich selection to find. Also, there will be resources listed that aren’t particularly United Methodist or Wesleyan.  However, those will be chosen carefully and with purpose, and largely by authors who have a sense of clarity about the tradition from which they stand or at the very least speak to an issue or topic in a careful, engaging and thoughtful way without driving readers into a theological ghetto of narrow traditions that aim to speak for the whole.

An example…

An example for how the method may impact the way we think about things is in an issue currently bubbling up in our local church. In the move to facebook as a primary tool for e-communication, some people are being felt alienated as they can not or do not wish to use Facebook. For them, email is something they know how to use and is seen primarily as a neutral tool. And if it’s effective, then why not use it, especially if it gets more people praying!! For some people, the method is merely a tool, a function to disseminate information and nothing more or nothing less. This is not uncommon. Yet the book, “The Shallows” and the research identified suggests different.

 First, the email system employed is a “top-down” approach that implicitly enables people to see the church office as managing people’s prayer life.  Facebook requires lay to be involved more proactively by posting their concerns, and by God’s grace, response-enabled to pray for and with another, to reach out in caring ways, even in a virtual environment.  How is this system enabling a way of thinking about church where our piety is managed from the church office?

One person indicated that if corporations think highly enough of email as a way to keep them posted then it’s good enough for the church. That got me thinking about how people may perceive these church emails as “spam.” I auto-delete anything thing from an organization that I didn’t ask for specifically.  I’m shaped to see these as spam and they get “trashed.” What do people do with these emailed concerns after they have read them and ostensibly pray for the situations and people reported? Do they get taken to the virtual trash? How does that impact how we think about intercessory prayer? Do we pray and pitch? Is that really intercessory prayer, or is there more to caring ministry of prayer? This is especially how we may be training people outside of our church to think about prayer when they receive these requests unsolicited, like so much spam. This is currently how the system works, where many people receive these emails, requested or not. Is that spiritually healthy? Is God pleased by this kind of intercession?

Furthermore,  emailed prayer concerns communicates something of a more cavalier approach to intercessory prayer,  but this can be just as true of facebook or other e-communication. Outside of a present community in which the prayer is shared, it communicates a detached reporting of concerns. Church gossip isn’t even relegated to this kind of relational detachment. Most people enjoy sharing juicy tidbits in person where they can get a personal response and conversation.  Something email lacks in astounding ways, where tone is often misinterpreted. Another significant difference is the ability to create community (“where 2 or more are gathered…”) through prayer, even if it’s a “virtual community” (there is critique of this as well, but that’s for another blog).  Email largely lacks this as there is little sense of a conversation as much as there is a reporting. Here social media has more of a community vibe just by it’s nature.

With all that said,  prayer concerns in the context of worship and small group ministry is the heart beat of our intercessory and caring ministry where authentic community and ministry can occur. In this context we can “pray with” as much as “pray for” people. Both are biblical, yet I wonder if the biblical calling to get as many people to possible to pray for something then “trash” it in our computer dumpster or e-file it away?  The bible describes something different: James 5:14 Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. There’s something more relational and communal about this kind of praying with. Certainly, when distance or circumstances interfere, we are called to pray for people for all kinds of reasons, and email can seen as an efficient tool to communicate concerns to a large number of people at once.  Yet, do we stop and think about how these tools, electronic or otherwise, shape how we think about what it means to pray and to care in positive or unhealthy ways?

The means matters, and in terms of our how we communicate our joys and concerns, they have a way of shaping how we think about prayer, community, and care. No one way is perfect, but some are more relational.

The method matters

I’m reading a book called “The Shallows.” I’m not finished yet and the premise is not particularly new, however the implications and applications for today are pretty profound. I’m excited to get back to reading it.

One of the points that the book is making is that the way in which we communicate is not a value neutral tool that just helps us accomplish a particlar end, task or purpose. In fact, how we communicate may shape us as much, if not more, than the information being communicated.  That means that whether you are reading a newspaper on ink and paper, or getting a rss feed from your smart phone does make a difference, even if the subject is basically the same.

For the church, the implications are just as profound. Moving to more electronic media to communicate information says something about the church as much as the content. In someways this is self-evident. Churches who are intentionally trying to reach a younger generation know that they will need to use social media to do so. But even then, social media through the internet is still seen mostly as merely just another tool among other tools. What is missed is that the way we think as we are using these tools is being shaped as well.

I’m not sure this is necessarily a bad thing, nor need it be.  For example. At our church we’ve moved from publishing a paper newsletter and now communicate the same information through our internet website  and weekly printed worship bulletin. We’ve also moved to a facebook page to communicate prayer concerns, event updates, and more up-to-date information. The website  would contain more static information about the church while the Facebook page would communicate ever changing information. Then I would blog, tweet, and Facebook post in order to reach the community and congregation in ways outside of Sunday morning worship services. This is nothing particularly new or innovative, even amongst churches. However, what is not being said is that in this process what we are doing is communicating something about our church and shaping those who are invited into this web of e-ministry. Understanding this is important.

The enlightenment was wrong about something that many churches have implicitly and uncritically bought into: the myth that there is an perfect content of “the gospel” that you can wrap into different packages or forms to communicate it without saying something about the gospel. Anytime we proclaim the gospel, the method by which we do so says something about the gospel itself.  When we think we can just change the “form” of the gospel message without it impacting the “content” or if we think that current/previous methods are more “pure,” we have slipped into a false distinction between form and content. The question is whether or not we understand that how we proclaim the gospel  is saying something about the gospel message. The gospel is embodied, the Word became flesh..embodied, and it mattered a great deal or it should. God chose a particular method to communcate His good news; His Son Jesus, and that was intentional. How the church embodies the gospel matters. Perhaps the Apostle Paul was really onto something more significant than we imagined when he called the church “the Body of Christ.”

For example, a praise service with a “band” says something about the gospel even as it proclaims the gospel differently, not just in “form/content” but in the simple way in which that service proclaims the gospel of Jesus Christ. The question is, do we know what we are saying about the gospel when it’s proclaimed in this way or in a more “high church” method? I don’t believe one is more faithful than the other, but they do communicate something different about the gospel even when they are saying much the same thing.

How we communicate as a church matters. It says something about us as God’s people as much as what we communicate. How we communicate the gospel matters as a church.

 

 

 

Calling audibles

The Super Bowl has just ended, and with it the football season.  A key part of any football game is making on the spot decisions. More and more, quarterbacks are empowered to change the play call based on what the defense is doing. They know what they are up against and make necessary adjustments in order to give themselves the best chance to succeed. Successful quarterbacks are the ones who recognize what the opposition is doing and call an audible to respond appropriately. We need to do the same in our own lives, especially in our Spiritual lives.

I think having an established prayer time is the best way to practice the spiritual disciplines. They are called disciplines for a reason However, life can happen fast and our schedules can shift quickly.  The opposition is working to keep us from prayer.Like a good quarterback, we need to be able to make adjustments as needed.

Most days I have a scheduled time for my quiet time with God. I get up pretty early in the morning and after taking my oldest son to school I spend about an hour with God in prayer and searching scriptures. Sometimes, that time is impossible if my wife gets a call to substitute teach. She can be out of the house pretty early. Rather than the quiet time with God I planned and count on, I’m in charge of getting kids up, ready for school and out the door.  If I’m going to get that time with God that I desparately need, I need to call an audible.

The temptation is to punt. To just say that life is too busy and today’s schedule won’t accomodate that prayer time…even pastors are tempted in this way! Instead of re-ordering the day around prayer, we can get pretty pre-occupied with being “productive” and making sure we get things done; important things no doubt, but I wonder if they are really that much more important than our prayer time?

What in your life causes you to make audibles in your Spiritual life? What adjustments can you make to keep your sacred time with God, sacred? How can we re-order our lives so that our prayer life remains an appropriate priority among shifting priorities and responsiblities? What is really the most productive thing we can do each day?

Redirecting!

So far, my blogs have been addressing the nature of the church, vision, mission and it’s ministries. This is fun stuff indeed and still remains very close to my heart! However in the time that has elapsed since my last blog, our church in particular, has turned some corners and so I find it beneficial to redirect the nature of my blogs toward a broader conversation of fatth matters. I’d like to start with prayer.

My current sermon series is a walk through the Lord’s Prayer. Much has been said, but of course not everything. One of the things that drives me to preach, teach and further write about prayer is due to the nature of its centrality to our life in Christ. Yet, though we as modern Christians recognize this intellectually, and may even consider ourselves and others as “prayer warriors,” it seems that we’ve in some ways have narrowed this vital means of grace. For some our prayer’s have devolved into a ten to fifteen “devotional time” whever we might spend a few minutes to give God our “to do” list of things we want done. I’m not certain but I do believe this is more of a protestant piety than catholic or othodox as we have a general disdain, if not skepticism, for formal, written prayers in our personal piety and rely upon the spontaneous prayer as being more “spiritual.”

The longer I have been a pastor, and the more I have grown in my prayer life specifically and faith life generally, the more I’ve relied upon the discipline and the spiritual breadth and depth of the prayers of the saints. I do not pray the “Daily Office,” however I have been influenced by time spent in a monastary and the Contemplative prayer movement in general. I began with a prayer book provided by the wonderful Catholic nuns at the monastary who witness to us the power of a life of prayer.  However benificial this was, my protestant formation craved something more. John Wesley himself prayed from the book of Common Prayer and I needed such a resource from my own faith heritage.  What I found had been under my nose for sometime, a prayer book that I had bought while at the Wesley Theological Society meeting, a scholarly meeting of theologians who have forever shaped my understand of the true purpose of theology in shaping hearts and lives for Christ. “This Day: A Wesleyan Way of Prayer” has greatly enhanced my prayer life, that I’ve shared with others who’ve found great benefit as well.

This prayer book is more like a personal prayer mentor that guides one through a diversity of prayer. More than that, it allows me to deepen my relationship with Christ, energy my life and ministry and give me real food for the journey as it intentionally gives time to listen to God and speak to God; to be in coversation. In the process, I’ve learned how to glorify God and speak his praises, offer confession and contrition, search the scriptures prayerfully, and yes, even time for seeking intercession.

I don’t suggest a “one size fit all” piety. However, when it comes to our prayer life there is a signficant treasure from our heritage available to serve as our guides. There is signficant power in spontaneous, spirit filled prayer. But even John Wesley confessed that his own spontaneous prayers were fed and empowered by his time praying the written prayers of the saints.

 

From concept to concrete

It’s one thing to talk; to share concepts and discuss how things need to change. It is completely another to make those changes in concrete ways. We are starting a process in our church by which the ministries will be aligned with our vision in real ways. In my last blog I spoke about the vision and the need to move our church this direction. Now we are taking the steps necessary to do so. It starts with seeing how ministries fit within the vision.

Are ministries serving as a way to connect with the church? If so, how? What role do small groups play in the vision? Where do our mission projects fit in? Each ministry will now have criteria by which they will set goals that will help us determine how they fit within this vision as either “Connecting”, “Grow”, “Send”, “Go.” In otherwords, we want to be able to see how our ministries, both ongoing or any new ideas, help us move toward our vision of forming committed Christians transformed through Christ.

The point is to have all the ministries of the church moving the same direction, to see how they depend on each other. Community bridge building events feed into our Small groups ministry, that then in turn help develop leaders that are sent back out into the world to serve in our Good Samartian ministries and witness in Community bridge building ministries. Our ministries are not only aligned with our vision, but are each dependent upon the other in order to fulfill this calling.

The goals that are set then determine the church investment in terms of  budget, material, space, and people. Then ministries can look to see how they met their goals and celebrate that with the congregation or evaluate what needs to be done in order to reach the goals if they fall short. Goals are not a pass/fail measurement, but a way of moving us in a direction, help us wisely use our resources, and determine how we are effective in what we are called to do.

This is a significant change for how we may have thought about church in the past. There is an emphasis on intentionality, purpose, and focus. The hope is that this will free us to be in minstry God has called us to in effective ways that empower, energize and equip our church while reaching out and serving and witnessing in our congregation. It means that we will focus our resources in ways that will help us do this effectively by creating new ministries, re-tooling existing ones, or perhaps celebrating the retirement of once powerful ministries that may no longer fit within our vision. It will mean calling and empowering leaders who are sold out on this vision of the church, and a congregation that is eager for renewal and willing to change in order to fulfill it’s calling.

We are moving from the “big picture” to a concrete changes that will have an impact upon how we are in ministry, their fruitfulness in moving us toward our vision. This is not a particularly easy transition for everyone to make, and that is understandable. Yet, there is an urgency that we fulfill our purpose in a community that needs to know God’s love through our church.

Jesus Christ and the opportunity to be transformed into His likeness is the greatest gift we as a church have to give to our community.  “We have nothing to do but save souls” said John Wesley.  I’m excited to talk about what is going on in our church and how God is using our congregation to change lives for Christ and transform our world.  I can’t think of a greater purpose, a higher calling or a more compelling vision!

The next blog I’ll discuss the interplay between our ministry areas, their dependence upon each other, and how they all need to function effectively in order for our vision to be realized…a healthy body of Christ!